






































Sebuah Kajian Pustaka:


English Language Teaching Educational Journal (ELTEJ) 
Vol. 3, No. 1, 2020, pp. 26-40 
E-ISSN: 2621-6485  

  

Interweaving Conceptual and Substantial Problems of Writing 

Instruction: Socio Reflective on Exploring Hortatory and 

Analytical Exposition 

 
 

1Wiwiek Afifah, 2Anida Sarudin 
1Graduate School of Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia 

2Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia 

 wiwiekafifah.2018@student.uny.ac.id  

 
Abstract 

This paper explores interweaving conceptual and substantial problems of teaching writing skills for 

analytical and hortatory exposition texts. Under the narrative inquiry, five English teachers’ personal life 

experiences were analyzed. Having been analyzed, the findings reveal: (1) students were still weak in 

understanding the concept of the two texts (social function, generic structure, and lexicogrammatical 

features of the text). (2) Students’ confusion to distinguish the two genres is supported by the condition 

that they do not learn the genres in their primary language. (3) The students are not accustomed to 

expressing their arguments whereas in analytical and hortatory texts the main points are presenting 

sequences of arguments in the body of the text. (4) Students have low motivation to read therefore it is 

hard for them to propose the suggestion and make reiteration in the end of hortatory and analytical 

exposition texts, and (5) lexicogrammatical features or the grammar that are commonly used in those 

texts are complex for the students in that level. 

 

Keywords: analytical, hortatory exposition, writing, instruction 

 

How to Cite: Afifah, W., & Sarudin, A. (2020). Interweaving conceptual and substantial problems of 

writing instruction: Socio reflective on exploring hortatory and analytical exposition. English Language 

Teaching Educational Journal, 3(1), 26-40.  

  

 

INTRODUCTION  

The The issues of writing instruction reported by two international giant companies: 

Taylor and Francis online and SAGE journal reach more than 530.796 articles. These 

obvious facts show that writing has attracted many researchers to investigate. It is then 

assumed that writing provides not only problems but also interesting challenges. However, 

in a local context such as in Indonesia, the issue of writing mainly for English as a foreign 

language exposes not only conceptual but also substantial problems. This skill is offering a 

total confusion that automatically attracts a number of scholars to endeavor and cleave the 

hindrances.  

 The uncovering problems faced by teachers are assumed to be the primary factors 

supporting the failure of writing instruction. Additionally, those facts become worse when 

the mindset that writing is difficult when compared with another. Relating to that case, 

Richards & Renandya (2003) state that writing covers a highly complex skill. Furthermore, 

they express that target language authors have to pay attention to higher level skills 

encompassing planning and organizing as well as the level of skills for spelling, 

punctuation, word choice, and so forth. Furthermore, Rahmatunisa (2015) found that there 

are some points supporting the problems in teaching and learning of English writing as a 

foreign language in Indonesia: linguistics, cognitive, and psychological problems. A piece 

of information has also been found by the researchers during the observation in March 

2018. Through participatory observation in the preliminary research, three problems were 

found: (1) principal learning experience, (2) instructional materials, and (3) students’ self-

mailto:wiwiekafifah.2018@student.uny.ac.id


ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

27 

concept in writing. The principal learning experience mostly applied in the classroom did 

not match to the learners’ today condition. In addition, the analytical and hortatory 

exposition texts also created problems. 

 As a matter of fact, it is true that learning writing is not always easy although 

students have learnt English for many years on their previous level. Adding to the 

argument, Kroll (1990) states that teaching EFL is complex and needs an ongoing process 

to become a good author. Writing a text in target language needs appropriate strategy. 

Teachers are not only conceptually ready with the writing but also be able to encounter all 

the practical problems faced by the learners. Relating to analytical and hortatory exposition, 

those genres are recommended to learn by the students in Senior High School. However, 

they still find it difficult to master. Teaching and learning how to write those genres are not 

trivial. Analytical exposition texts are characterized by thesis, arguments, and reiteration 

while hortatory exposition texts are started by thesis, arguments, and closed by 

recommendation. Since their differences are not obvious, many students complain of their 

confusion when learning them. Dealing with the problems, the researchers observed that 

students were still weak in comprehending those texts' concepts. They got trouble 

distinguishing their differences such as their social functions, the generic structures, and the 

language features which are commonly used in these texts. Therefore, the interweaving 

between the concept of hortatory and analytical text make the learners feel confused. 

  Realizing that phenomenon, this study aims to systematically explore the problems 

of teaching hortatory and analytical exposition texts based on a socio-reflective. The socio-

reflective refers to the belief that the process of learning construction is built by a social 

process (Yancey, 2015). In this study, reflective refers to the thinking process based on the 

student’s account, perception, inquiry and also judgment through the sequences of 

interaction (between teachers and students) to support the process of making meaning 

through writing activities. Under the narrative inquiry, the stories of five teachers (teaching 

in public and private of senior high schools) are used as the primary information.  

 

General concept of writing 

 Writing can be understood as the attempt to communicate, plan, think, imagine, 

remember, collect and access information, or store ideas in memory (Moore-Hart, 2010). 

By doing writing, an author will represent and reclaim their experiences through their 

writing for the readers. The writing activity will be easier and naturally when students start 

to write by drawing and writing. Even, writing will emerge more easily when the students 

will write their experiences. Additionally, students will become more interested in the 

writing when they are facilitated to write centered around themselves. Here is the 

visualization of the circle of ideas in writing activities. 

 

 
Figure 1. The Circle of Ideas 

 



 

 

 

28    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

Richards & Renandya (2003) highlight that generating and organizing ideas refers to 

translating them into a readable text. Those are the most obvious factors supporting writing 

to become a difficult skill for target language learners. Moreover, the skills involved in 

writing is very complex. Regarding the complexity of writing skill, Harris (1969) reminds 

that at least there are five components in the writing process: 1) content: refers to the 

substance of the writing or it can be the idea expressed, 2) form: refers to the organization 

of the content, 3) grammar: roles as the guidance to control the development of grammar 

form and pattern. 4) Style: refers to the choice of the structure and lexical items to give a 

particular tone or flavor to the writing itself. 5) Mechanics: refers to the use of graphic 

conventions of the language. The five components proposed by Harris at least should be 

taken into account when writing. Then for teachers, they should take a role in translating the 

writing principles into practice. The practice to produce optimal learning benefits, they 

should constantly record, consider, and analyze what they have done in the classroom then 

use their reflective experiences as a basis for improving their instructional practice 

(Richards & Renandya, 2003).  

Based on the theories recommended by some scholars, it is obvious that in teaching 

writing, teachers should pay attention to those conceptual aspects. Dealing with the issue, 

Oshima and Hogue (1991) state that writing is a process. Raimes (2003) also explains that 

the process is proven by the effort and a commitment to think about writing content, 

fluency, personal voice, and revising. When referring to the view of process approach, that 

proposes and emphasizes on how a piece of writing is constructed. This notion refuses that 

it is not necessary to give a great attention only to the writing as a product. The principles of 

conceptual process approach always pay attention to the product but at an appropriate stage 

in the process.  

Regarding writing activities, Raimes (2003) proposes some steps in planning the 

course: 1) ascertaining goals and institutional constraints, 2) deciding on theoretical 

principles, 3) planning content, 4) weighing the elements, 5) drawing up syllabus, 6) 

selecting materials, 7) preparing activities and roles, 8) choosing types and methods 

feedback, 9) evaluating the course, and 10) reflecting the teacher’s experiences. Those ten 

steps should be pondered by teachers when they teach writing skills. Then when they are 

able to reflect these principles in their writing class, the concept of writing as a product as 

well as a process will appear in balance. 

Along with Raime’s postulate, Oshima & Hogue (1991) explain that writing is a 

process, not a product. It can be understood that writing as a composition is always possible 

to review and revise, then review again. Another postulate is proposed by Moore-Hart 

(2010) that writing involves thinking, feeling, and communicating as well as including 

prewriting, drafting, revision, and editing. Here are the sequence activities encompassed in 

those stages.  

 
Figure 2. The Sequences of Writing Activities 

 

In line with the notion that writing is a process, Seow (2003) explains that writing is 

broadly seen as comprising four main stages: planning, drafting, revising, and ending. The 

process of writing incorporates the four basic stages and the three other stages externally 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

29 

that are teachers, sharing, and evaluating as the post-writing. Meanwhile Brown (2007) 

convinces that the process relates to the activities such as association, storing a meaning and 

memorizing, transferring, generalization, and interference. If the word process refers to 

those terms, as explained by Brown, so all human life when involving language learning 

will have experienced the process stage. Process is human’s characteristic. 

 

Genre-based approach  

 Analytical and hortatory texts are part of genre-based (Wang, 2009). Learning and 

understanding those kinds of texts, students should understand the text characteristics such 

as its social function, generic structure, and its linguistics feature (Hyland, 2004). 

Additionally, teachers should help learners in building the knowledge thus they can 

understand the concept of the text (Alyousef, 2006).  

 One of the principles to master these texts is the ability to choose the issue. Thus, 

the learners will be able to arrange their argument in a good order (Ali, 2016). In addition, 

they should have the ability to think critically and to propose the best solution for the issue 

taken by them (Stapleton, 2001). Organizing their thoughts and ideas as the generic 

structure of the text as well arrange them in a logical sense then followed by evaluating the 

writing product is an important step to consider in writing activities. 

     Before teaching how to write an analytical and hortatory exposition, students 

should be taught the concept of those texts (Alfatia and Al-Hafizh, 2013) because their 

social functions are slightly different. When teaching these texts, teachers should explain 

their differences and give some examples related to the texts. Furthermore, the generic 

structure of the text for analytical encompasses: thesis, arguments, reiteration/summing up, 

then for hortatory n encompasses:  thesis, arguments and recommendation. Their 

differences are small (Indrowaty et al., 2018). The linguistics features used in those texts 

focus on generic human and non-human participants, use of modality and modulation, few 

temporal conjunctive relations, reasoning expressed as verbs and nouns, use of material, 

relation and mental process, and the use of simple present tense (Henry and Roseberry 

1996). 

  

Relevant of previous research 

 In fact, the problems of teaching writing skills for analytical and hortatory 

exposition do not only happen in Indonesia. It is not merely for Indonesian students who 

face this problem but some overseas students also get the same difficulties. As Bilal et al. 

(2013) reported in their research that the problems of writing skill in Sargodha students 

commonly cover the influence of L1 on L2 Learning, effects of multicultural, multilingual 

and psychological factors, and effects of grammar teaching on English writing skills. Since 

a different language gives a different language concept, teaching of English writing as a 

foreign language is also influenced by those factors. Then multicultural and multilingual 

background also give great effects toward the learning process. Consequently, the raised 

problems transpire in writing processes need serious attention. Dealing with this issue, 

Hyland (2004) states that the entire teaching process must be compatible with social set up 

and cultural background, which they termed as ‘situated cognition. In addition, Al.gomoul 

(2011) also stated that there are two activities needed to be considered in teaching writing 

dealing with relating to the social aspect building the context to establish a balance of 

fluency and accuracy and integrating the knowledge of the language skills.  

 Having conceptually and practically exploring the issue of writing of analytical and 

hortatory exposition, the researchers present the frame of thought. It is aimed to give a 

visualization of the discussion. This framework is also expected to control the description of 

the notion of this study. 



 

 

 

30    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

  

 
Figure 3. The Frame of Thought 

 

RESEARCH METHOD  

Narrative inquiry has been implemented in this study to explore these identified 

problems. With the enquiry model of narrative, it has been embraced to understand the 

participants’ experiences in facing the problem of teaching hortatory and analytical 

exposition. As the study investigated the teachers in making interaction and relationships 

with their students, narrative inquiry was assumed to be the appropriate use as a research 

method to apply. It is because with narrative inquiry, the researcher will explore and expose 

how teachers handle the entire problems in their writing classroom (Clandinin and 

Connelly, 1995, 2000). With narrative inquiry, teachers can make a reflection of the 

complexity of life and experience through interaction from their personal and social 

situation, as well as persist their past, present and future condition they have experienced. 

With the meaning of conscious reflection, then teachers can improve their practical 

knowledge. Additionally, narrative inquiry can help teachers not only explore the meaning 

of all of them but also structuring the power in their teaching experiences (Bruner, 2000).  

 Since this research is positioned within a narrative understanding, thus participants 

involved in this research were teachers having experiences in teaching exposition and 

hortatory exposition writing. In addition, those who were willing to share their experiences 

in handling the problems. As it is assumed that different teachers have different stories to 

tell, therefore, this research only focused on how they traced the problems in teaching 

writing and how proposed the recommendation in their teaching practices. Data collection 

needed in this study were interviews, observations and gathering the students’ writing.   

 Having collected the data needed, then the researcher compared patterns/themes of 

the problems during teaching analytical exposition and hortatory writing. The next step then 

interpreting them to make meaning from the pattern/themes based on the socio reflective 

approach. The data analysis is not a step by step procedure, but it was a simultaneous 

activity done during the initial analysis begun during the first interview or observation.  

 

 

 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

31 

FINDINGS  

Having read the stories from the participants; the findings are presented in the 

following parts. They are divided into two groups: conceptual and practical problems. The 

former deals with problems related to the text such as its social function, its generic 

structure, its linguistic features of the text, and the learning principles in teaching genre-

based. The latter deals with substantial problems happening during the teaching process. 

Those findings are presented and completed by direct quotations.  

 

Conceptual problems in teaching hortatory and analytical exposition texts 

The fist finding is about the conceptual problem derived from the texts. The students 

still get confusion and difficulties in identifying the purpose of these two texts. Since the 

texts have different generic structures and linguistics features, students get difficulties to 

identify. This finding can be traced from the following teacher’s story quotations. 

 

  
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 

Substantial problems in teaching hortatory and analytical exposition texts 

The second finding deals with vocabulary, grammar of the target language and 

expressing as well as ordering the argument. Not being accustomed in expressing their 

arguments, students got difficulties in arranging their argument in analytical and hortatory 



 

 

 

32    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

texts. Furthermore, since students have limited general knowledge, it makes hard to propose 

the suggestion and reiteration in the end of hortatory and analytical exposition texts. Since 

teaching and learning English have a close connection to the social context, then the 

students’ perception about seeing the text also influences their success in mastering these 

texts.  

 Here is the empirical evidence gained from the teachers’ narrative inquiry from 

Yogyakarta public and private Senior High Schools teaching in social classes. The teachers 

also admitted that most of the students spend only limited time in reading. Even, they 

recognized that even their students were poor in writing a paragraph. This can be traced 

from the following stories.  

  

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

As students have a low level of reading habit, they find learning the two texts is 

difficult. As consequently, the expression of the ideas and arguments are also awkward. It is 

a fact that writing both for analytical and hortatory texts needs not only ideas but also 

students’ knowledge. Without having a good habit of reading, it will be difficult to express 

their argument as these texts demand them to explore and compare their reasons. Another 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

33 

fact is the cultural gap between Bahasa Indonesia and English. It is strange for Indonesian 

students to learn hortatory and analytical exposition since they only learn exposition text in 

Bahasa Indonesia. This difference brings other problems for students to put their ideas into 

a good order. Moreover, before they are able to write both for analytical and hortatory 

exposition, they should master the concept of the text such as the purpose of the text, the 

generic structure, and the grammar that must be used when writing the text.  

 

    
 

Teaching hortatory and analytical exposition texts are complicated for Indonesian 

students. The students are still reluctant to convey their opinion. They are not sure of their 

own argument. The low level of confidence also supports the problem. It creates the process 

of practice analytical and hortatory become blocked. Since the main point of teaching 

writing is helping the students express their idea, thus when they do not have ideas, the 

writing will never happen. In analytical and hortatory exposition, the main focus is how the 

students arrange their argument in the text and how they can propose the suggestion to the 

readers. The most prominent point in writing these text types, the students must strive 

themselves to read as much as possible to build their understanding and enrich their 

knowledge.          

The cultural factor also contributes to the difficulties of writing analytical and 

hortatory exposition. Since the students have known that there is no separation in exposition 

when they learn Bahasa Indonesia, they need a longer time to understand those texts. The 

students must build their adaptation in comprehending the two different texts and it is not a 

simple thing for them. Fortunately, based on the teacher’s story, there are some critical 

students who are curious to know much about the differences between the concept of 

exposition in Bahasa Indonesia and English. In this context, the teacher must be able to 

explain the content of the materials based on the students’ level of understanding.  

 

  
 

 It is strange for Indonesian students to learn hortatory and analytical exposition 

texts. It is due to the fact that students only learn exposition text in their primary language, 

Bahasa Indonesia. This difference brings other problems for students to put their ideas into 

a good order. Moreover, before they are able to write both for analytical and hortatory 

exposition, they must understand the purpose of the text, the generic structure, and the 

grammar that must be used when writing the text.  

 For Indonesian teachers, teaching hortatory and analytical exposition for writing 

skills is complicated. It is because the students are reluctant to convey their opinion. It 

seems that they are not sure of their own argument and feel that they do not have something 

to say about the issues provided by the teachers in the classroom. On the other hand, some 



 

 

 

34    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

teachers also recognized that the issues taken for the materials relate to the learners’ life. 

Here is the quotation from the interview 

 

DISCUSSION 

Adjusting conceptual problems based on the social context  

  In general, base and the socio-perspective, the problems of learning and teaching 

hortatory and analytical text are caused by a content and a context of the culture. Socio-

perspective in this discussion refers to the belief that problems found through the teachers’ 

inquiry are related to the social context. This idea is supported by Stern (1991) that 

essentially, the process of teaching language and society cannot be separated as language 

and society are closely linked. The emerging problems are also assumed to be influenced by 

the social factors such as the aspects of the teacher and students’ social life background, the 

role of language in the society, and how students use the language in their life. In addition, 

content in the perspective of socio-perspective refers to the language or the text learnt by 

the students. 

 Hortatory and analytical texts are the product of genre pedagogies which represent 

their culture. According to genre-based approach, every text naturally encompasses its 

social function, generic structure, and lexico grammatical features. The assumption that 

writing will be more acceptable if students are aware of what the target culture’s mean are 

acceptable according to the belief. However, unfortunately many teachers teach those texts 

without contextualizing them to the cultural context. In connection to the theoretical-based, 

the empirical findings having a connection and influence each other are also influenced by 

the context where teachers and students build the context. The process of learning writing 

for analytical and hortatory exposition seems complicated because of the following reasons. 

First, it is because the students are not accustomed to expressing their arguments. This 

reflects the students’ habit and the context that has brought them. Second, since the students 

have a low motivation to read any books they will never have sufficient information to 

share in their writing. This reason belongs to the students’ mindset that is also greatly 

influenced by the context where they live. This is obvious that teaching writing skill of 

analytical and hortatory exposition is difficult as the context where the teaching and 

learning happen does not support.  

 From the social perspective, teaching writing should be initiated by building a 

context. With this effort, the teachers will be naturally involved and easily give a model to 

the students. Being involved in the context, they can encourage the students to have a good 

constructive habit such as reading some information independently in order to feel curious 

to get new knowledge. The teachers must motivate the students to read then write what they 

have understood about the topic. Teachers can help the students to write both for analytical 

and hortatory exposition texts by doing that strategy. It means that teachers will not only 

help the students in developing their linguistic competence but also communicative 

competence. Add to this, teachers can motivate them to have writing habit, adopting 

positive values from culture provided by the text learned by them and finally to think 

critically. Since teaching writing is aimed to help the students to produce a good text so 

students must be supported to write again and again as well as reading as much as possible. 

In line with this argument, Bilal et al. (2013) also state that developing writing skills is a 

slow and gradual process with the way how they think.  

 Either conceptual or substantial problems which have emerged are caused by the 

cultural bias. The fact that most of students get a bit confused to distinguish the two genres 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

35 

is supported by the condition that they do not learn the genres in their native language. In 

addition, the students are not accustomed to express their arguments. In spite of the fact that 

in analytical and hortatory texts, the main points are presenting sequences of arguments in 

the body of the text. A complex cultural bias happens in this case as two different cultures 

collide. The culture represented by the text and the culture owed by the students. Dealing 

with this phenomenon, Moore (2003) called it as a culture-based difference. To sum up, the 

culture-based difference is the heart which creates that problem.  

 The fact that students have low motivation on reading and on the other hand, the 

texts are the representation of the higher level of cultural society having a higher literature 

with a critical thinking has brought another problem. Therefore, if the student finds it hard 

to propose the suggestion and make reiteration in the end of hortatory and analytical 

exposition texts, that is normal. It is due to the condition that students never have been 

trained in their real life with the context they find in the target texts. Therefore, in teaching 

these two texts, teachers should touch the cultural aspect from the students’ sides. After this 

point can be handled then another problem such as lexicogrammatical features and 

vocabularies that are commonly used in those texts can be handled. The failures of teaching 

hortatory and analytical texts might happen, if the teachers do not touch the culture either 

derived from students or from the text. Teachers should bring the two cultures in teaching 

and learning processes as the culture itself is represented in the text. From the perspective, 

Stern (1991) as inspired by Malinowski, explained that in language learning, context should 

be contextualized in student’s life where they lived. Theoretically speaking, when culture is 

inserted into the learning process, it will be related to how the students use the language in 

their life, how they use the language in the interaction with their environment, and how 

students build their existence to the society with the text they have learned.  

 Based on the field note of the teachers’ story, writing hortatory and analytical 

exposition are regarded as the troublesome skill for some teachers and students. Some 

existing researches which attempt to reveal wide range strategies in overcoming their 

obstacles in teaching writing have shown that writing skill demands a high effort both from 

teachers and students when they will do writing. This fact is also supported by Williams, 

Stathis, and Gotsch’s (2008) finding that people are programmed to talk before they learn to 

read and write, and this holds true in second language teaching. The case is also supported 

by the real condition in our daily life that people spend much more time interacting orally 

with language rather than using language in its written form. Brown (2004) also highlights 

that every aspect of everyday life for ‘common’ people was carried out orally.  

 Brown (2004) states that it is also fully understandable the difficulty of learning to 

write in any language, even in the native language. Thus for teachers teaching writing 

should help the student to write. Then when dealing with writing at least there are two 

things to be involved: linguistics aspects and communicative competence (Bilal, et. all, 

2013) and considering the cultural aspects. Teaching of writing skill as a foreign language 

even bestows a great burden for the language learners. It is obvious that writing in the first 

language will be very different from the target language. It is in line with Silva’s argument 

(1993) as cited by Bilal, et. all, (2013) that learning a second language is usually different 

from the first language strategically, rhetorically and linguistically. Add to this, she points 

out that a written assignment created by the second language learners was syntactically and 

semantically loose. Regarding the previous arguments, some researchers such as Hyland 

(2003), Anees & Raaxia (2007) in Bilal, et. all, (2013) state that the differences between L1 

and L2 also affect the learners' thinking ability supported by social and psychological 

factors. For social factors, it encompasses social status, family background whereas 

psychological factor covers motivational level and age.  

  



 

 

 

36    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

Investigating the substantial problems from the socio-reflective  

Language is the essential factor in human to support their social life (Stern, 1991). 

When learning the text, the linguistic features are automatically included in that text. 

However, students still find some problems in using grammar in that target language. To 

respond this problem, teachers should adopt the sociolinguistics perspective and 

psycholinguistic as suggested by some scholars such as from Malinovsky and Schumann as 

cited by Stern (1991). By Applying that theories, at least teachers will be able to adjust the 

context from the two cultures, conceptualizing the learning materials and principle learning 

during the teaching process. Moreover, teachers will consider how the process of their 

students in acquiring and learning the new texts for them.  

By considering the cultural differences, teachers can design the language learning 

based on the classroom condition including the cultural background of the students. Stern 

(1991) in this issue suggested to bring learning as a training rather than as a real 

communication or as an introduction of the real new foreign culture. In line to this, Clark 

(2003) in Bilal et al. (2013) who points out that learner must be taught a writing process can 

be adjusted as the process of building and forming and developing mental association with 

acquiring new culture through the existence of the text. From this point, it can be 

understood that in order to have and get new knowledge of the text and having a good 

writing ability including exploring and proposing the ideas as well as linguistic 

competences, students must invest a great time to learn and to immerse in the target culture 

without ignoring their culture. With this strategy, practicing the grammar and arranging 

their ideas in a good order can be easily done. Naturally, learners will be able to select the 

appropriate words then put them in their appropriate position in the sentence. It is because 

their metal has been set based on the target culture.  

 

Socio reflective in term of teachers’ teaching strategies  

 In teaching hortatory and analytical exposition, teachers should implement a genre-

based approach: building knowledge of the field, modelling of text, joint construction of 

text, and independent construction of text. However, teacher can integrate and considering 

the two social aspects such as culture represented from the text and students’ culture. 

Teachers can take some issues relate to the students and school environment. Additionally, 

in the first phase, teachers can stimulate some social aspects. For instance, like what 

Bowkett’s (2009) suggestion, there are some activities that can support the habit of doing 

writing taken from some famous authors. Bringing some public figures from the two culture 

such as the figure of Ernest Hemingway-sharpened pencils to get him in the mood to write, 

Marcel Proust-kept ripe apples on his desk. Then the sweet smell of the apples triggered the 

creativity flow, Anchors can be kinesthetic, olfactory (linked to smell), visual, auditory-or a 

blended these. Those kinds of activities can be used by the teachers to motivate the students 

in order they will love learning to write. Then for further learning and teaching activities in 

the classroom context, teachers can start the activities by doing prewriting to elicit the 

students’ idea in the phase of join construction of text. It is a must for teachers to build a 

friendly cultural atmosphere in the teaching process since writing activities deal with 

organizing ideas into readable text and a complex requirement of linguistic inputs. In 

addition, designing an interest based on the students’ social context is also necessary to do. 

By doing so, the listed problems in English writing classrooms will be successfully handled.    

 It cannot be denied that teaching language means teaching how to shape the context 

of the lesson (Kramsch, 1993). A student as an individual will be directly involved in the 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

37 

context and take an active participation. During the teaching process, the goal of the 

learning will be a fetus which controls the norm of interaction, learning activities, 

modalities and learning contents used as the primary resources. Considering Kramsch’s 

idea, dealing with the English writing skill, teachers will never be the single player roles 

and judge as well as the critical evaluator of the student's finished product. The students’ 

work will never be returned to students with some mistakes indicated or corrected. The 

legendary red pen which has always been a tool of the teacher’s trade as McDonough & 

Shaw (2003) will never happen. Yet, writing will be the holistic teaching and learning 

process where teachers and students are learning together to adjust the target culture. The 

process of evaluating the students’ works will become the long and dynamic process to 

know each student's level of achieving the learning targets.  

The notion that writing will never happen when students have never been aware of 

the target culture and their own culture give strong impact in this teaching process. In order 

to help the learners to understand the culture and get ease to find the idea to develop, 

teachers can implement the principle of teaching offered by some approaches from the 

sociolinguistic perspective. Teachers can relate the issues based on the student’s social 

background. In addition, teachers can pay attention to the class characteristics, the culture in 

the classroom. Teachers can stimulate students’ ideas by relating the issues with the 

currents phenomena in their students’ life. Hortatory and analytical exposition texts can be 

integrated by exploring the issues happening in the local context. However, it is not easy to 

find those texts used as modelling in the teaching process. In this case, teachers are required 

to create their own text to be used as the modelling text to their students.  

Regarding the previous explanation, thus teaching hortatory and analytical exposition 

texts based on the genre-based is tricky. The students are trained to understand not only the 

typical text type and its characteristics but also the historical reason behind that fact. 

However, the texts are not easy to be found in their real life. On the other hand, students are 

demanded to understand and  to do next level - joint construction of text and do the 

independent construction of the text. 

Therefore, students need a longer time to know and to understand the text. In 

addition, when they have finished writing their texts, peer writing or collaborative writing 

should also be conducted because those activities will stimulate the students to learn more 

and work together. Furthermore, they can get a self-reflection. This idea is anchored to the 

fact that writing is a valuable skill, and by doing this, it will reinforce the other language 

skills. Even it can help students to think critically. In line to the idea, Hess (2001) explains 

that through writing, students will learn and improve other skills such as grammatical and 

vocabulary. Through writing, teachers can help learners to internalize the cultural values 

they have learned from the texts and stimulate the learners’ way of thinking.  

By integrating the socio perspective, teaching writing of hortatory and analytical texts 

can enlarge the writing target. In addition, this can support the shifting from the preceding 

fidgetiness such as Gilstrap (1991) who reported that more than 84% of the writing done in 

the secondary schools was extremely narrow. It is limited in audience to the audience, to the 

teacher as examiner, with the purpose to inform or report. In essence, most writing was for 

tests and reports or as transactional. He further explains that based on the research 

conducted, it is proven that in teaching writing, it is necessary for a teacher to make sure 

who the audiences of the writing are for. 

Among the problems told by the teachers’ stories, an assessment was not touched by 

them in their field notes. On the other hand, it brings a crucial role in supporting teaching 

writing. Theoretically speaking, the assessment should be taken into consideration. Gilstrap 

(1991) proposed some points to be involved in the writing assessment such as the final 

product orientation and emphasizing on what and who is writing for. In line to that 



 

 

 

38    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

postulate, actually writing assessment covers complex aspects such as things related to 

psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics. Those factors must be taken into 

account for the assessment. Then to cover those things, in teaching hortatory and analytical 

exposition, teachers must support the awareness of doing writing activities, actively giving 

feedback, designing a meaningful writing assignment, building a student’s social context, as 

well as providing input or ideas before students start writing. 

 

CONCLUSION  

 Having systematically explored the problem of teaching hortatory and analytical 

exposition texts based on a socio-reflective, the problems are grouped into two. A problem 

that relates to the text and to the substantial aspect of teaching and learning. Having 

explored the finding based on the social phenomenon, content, and context cannot be 

discarded from the classroom environment. Context refers to the things outside the text and 

content refers to the things inside the text. From the five stories gained from the five 

teachers, it can be understood that either teachers and students face the same problems. 

Teaching and learning hortatory and analytical exposition texts is not easy.  From the text 

itself, students get some difficulties in understanding the concept of the two texts (social 

function, generic structure, and lexicogrammatical features of the text). Students’ confusion 

to distinguish the two genres is supported by the condition that they do not learn the genres 

in their primary language. Therefore, it is about a cultural clash. In addition, another 

cultural clash is students are not accustomed to expressing their arguments. On the other 

hand, in analytical and hortatory texts, the main points are presenting sequences of 

arguments in the body of the text. The condition becomes worse when students have low 

motivation to read. Consequently, it is hard for them to propose the suggestion and make 

the reiteration in the end of the texts. The last problem which is very common is dealing 

with lexicogrammatical features used in the text. Realizing the interweaving conceptual and 

substantial problems faced by students, teachers are required to teach writing culturally and 

systematically. It can be started by presenting some cases related to the students’ social life 

then ask them to list some issues relating to the texts. When the students have known the 

purpose of the text, they will imagine and choose a topic that is appropriate to the function 

of the text. For the early steps, teachers might present some topics such as the issues that 

close to the students’ life.  

 

 

REFERENCES  

Alfatia, V., & Al-Hafizh, M. (2013). Teaching writing a hortatory exposition text to senior 

high school students by using an advertisement. Journal of English Language 

Teaching, 1(2), 128-134. 

Bowkett, S. (2009). Countdown to creative writing. Oxon: Routledge. 

Bilal, H. A., Tariq, A. R., Din, N. u., Latif, H., & Anjum, M. N. (2013). Investigating the 

problems faced by the teachers in developing English writing skills. Asian Journal 

of Social Sciences & Humanities, 238-244. 

Brown, H. D. (2007). Prinsip pembelajaran dan pengajaran bahasa. (Noor Cholish and 

Yusi Avianto Pareanom, Translator). Jakarta: The US Embassy. 

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. New York: 

Pearson Education, Inc. 

Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 



ELTEJ  ISSN: 2621-6485 ◼ 

 

Afifah and Sarudin  

39 

Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: 

Teacher stories – stories of teachers, school stories – stories of school. Educational 
Researcher, 25(5), 2–14. 

Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in 

qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York: McGraw-Hill Book 

Company. 

Gilstrap, R. L. (1991). Writing for social studies. In J. P. Shaver, Handbook of research on 

social studies teaching and learning. A project of the National Council for the 

social studies (pp. 578-587). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. 

Hess, N. (2001). Teaching large multilevel classes. Cambridge: Cambridge University 

Press. 

Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1996). A corpus-based investigation of the language and 

linguistic patterns of one genre and the implications for language teaching. 

Research in the Teaching of English, 472-489. 

Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press. 

Indrowaty, S. A., Djatmika, D., Purnanto, D., & Hariri, T. (2018, August). Analyzing the 

structure and the texture of Japanese advertisement (A systemic functional 

linguistics approach). In Fourth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics 

(Prasasti 2018). Atlantis Press. 

Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in languaeg teaching. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

Kroll, B. (1994). Second language writing. Research insight for the classroom. Sydnes: 

Cambridge University Press. 

McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT. Malden, USA: 

Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. 

Moore, A. (2003). Teaching and learning: Pedagogy, curriculum, and culture. London: 

Routledge Fallmer. 

Moore-Hart, M. A. (2010). Teaching writing in diverse classrooms, k-8: Enhancing writing 
through literature, real-life experiences, and technology. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon. 

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1991). Writing academic English. California: Addison-Wesley 

Publishing Company. 

Rahmatunisa, W. (2015). Problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners in writing 

argumentative essays. English Review: Journal of English Education, 3(1), 41-49. 

Raimes, A. (2003). Ten Steps in Planning a writing course and training teachers of writing. 

In J. C. Richard, Methodology in language teaching (pp. 306-314). Cambridge: 

Cambridge University Press. 

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2003). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge, 

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Richards, J. C., & Schmitd, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching & applied 

linguistics. Kuala Lumpur: Longman Publisher. 

Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university 

students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written 

communication, 18(4), 506-548. 

Stern, H. (1991). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press. 

Seow, A. (2003). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. 

Renandya, Methodology in language teaching. An anthology of current practice 

(pp. 315-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 



 

 

 

40    ◼ E-ISSN: 2621-6485   

 

 

Wang, S. (2009). Text types and dynamism of genres. Discourse of course: An overview of 

research in discourse studies.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company 

Wang, W. (2004). A contrastive analysis of letters to the editor in Chinese and English. 

Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 72-88. 

Williams, C., Stathis, R., & Gotsch, P. (2008). Speaking of writing: The significance of oral 

language in English learners’ literacy development. Retrieved September Monday, 

10, 2014, from Teacher Writing Center: www.teacherwritingcenter.org. 

Yancey K. (2015) The social life of reflection: Notes toward an eportfolio-based model of 

reflection. In: Ryan M. (eds) Teaching reflective learning in higher education. 

Springer, Cham 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.teacherwritingcenter.org/

