APPLYING SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO ENHANCE INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance APPLYING SCIENTIFIC APPROACH TO ENHANCE INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS’ DESCRIPTIVE WRITING PERFORMANCE Fahrus Zaman Fadhly Department of English Education, University of Kuningan, Indonesia Email: wahidah_fzf@yahoo.com Nurendah Department of English Education, University of Kuningan, Indonesia Email: zukhruffa22@gmail.com APA Citation: Fadhly, F. Z. , & Nurendah. (2014). Scientific approach to enhance Indonesian EFL learners’ descriptive writing skill. English Review: Journal of English Education 3(1), 114-124 Received: 05-09-2014 Accepted: 23-09-2014 Published: 01-12-2014 Abstract : This study investigated the use of scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptive writing skill of seventh grade students in one of junior high schools in Kuningan, Indonesia. The use of scientific approach was examined based on Cuff and Payne (1979), Educational staff development center of ministry of education and culture (2013), and Syahmadi (2014) while students’ attitude was examined using a theory of Wenden (1991), and Gardner (1985). The writer used mix method study. Two instruments were used to get the data needed: test of descriptive text and questionnaire. The result showed that the Ha was accepted and the Ho was rejected as the t observed was higher than t table. Students’ descriptive writing skill in the experimental class enhanced since they were treated throughout scientific approach. It could be seen from the result of post- test (7.89) which increased significantly from pre-test result (3.697). This study also revealed that students’ attitude toward the approach was positive during the treatment. Moreover, this study proved that scientific approach enhanced students’ descriptive writing skill in one of junior high schools in Kuningan, Indonesia and gave positive impact to the students. Keywords: scientific approach, descriptive text, attitude INTRODUCTION Everyonecanwrite, but not all people canproducea great text. As Lenneberg (1967) inBrown (2000: 334) noted that humanbeingsuniversally learn towalkand to talk, but that swimmingandwritingare culturally specific, learnedbehaviors. As far, Brown(2000: 339) stated that in school, writing is awayof life. It is caused writing is subject that shouldbe masteredby students. So, the teachers want students towrite and train it. Students alsoneed toknowhowto express their idea, feeling, opinion, critical thinking inwritten text. Without someabilities to express themselves in writing, theydon’t pass the course (Brown, 2000: 339). Writing is alsouseful tokeepourknowledge. Students often find it useful towrite sentencesusing new language shortly after theyhave studied it (Harmer, 2001: 79). It relates to learning styleof students whoare pickedup language throughwriting. Writing is alsobasic language skill as ENGLISHREVIEW: Journal ofEnglishEducation ISSN2301-7554 Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2014 http://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE important as speaking, listening, and reading. Sincewriting is an important aspect for students tobemastered, teachers should choosean appropriate approach in teachingwriting.Tomake students interesting inwriting, teachers need to presentmaterial in an interestingway. So, in this study, thewriter chooses scientific approach to teachwriting. Scientific approach is implemented in curriculum2013 (Nuh, 2013). In this approach, the learningprocess covers threedomains, namely: attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Alawiyah, 2013). Theoutcomesof learning, productive, creative, and innovative students throughstrengtheningof affective attitudes, skills, and integrated knowledge. In theotherhand, Syahmadi (2014:37) assumedscientific approach covers attitude, cognitiveaspect, and English skills. This approach is thebasis in choosinganddeciding steps in learningactivity. It is started from observing, questioning, experimenting, associating, andcommunicating. Scientific approach is anapproach in teaching-learningprocess inwhich learners aregiven the chance to construct theirunderstandingbasedon the stepsof observing, questioning, experimenting, associatingand communicating (Kemdikbud, 2013). Genreofdescribing is oneof the fundamental functions of any language system(Knapp&Watkins, 2005: 97). According toDjuharie (2009: 153) descriptive text is a text which functioned todescribeperson, thing, and place, animal specifically. Social function ofdescriptive text is todescribe particularperson,placeor thing (Gerot &Wignell, 1994: 208). It describes the features of someone, something, or a certainplace. According toGardner (1985) attitude is thus linked toaperson’s values andbeliefs andpromotes or discourages the choices made inall realmsof activity,whether academic or informal.Healso affirmed the learners’ attitudes towards learninganother languageplayakey role in enhancing andmotivating themto learn that language. This effects on their performance too. Wenden (1991) classifiedattitude into three components namely cognitive, behavioral, and emotional. METHOD This researchusedmixedmethod. As saidbyKuhn (1961) inOyarzo et al. (2008), thequantitative researchwas used todevelopandemploy mathematical models. Thewriteruseda quasi-experimentaldesign, inwhicha quasi experimentwas theexperimental design inwhichall the elements of the true experiment (itmust achieve its results throughcomparisonof at least twogroups, itmust assignpeopleor subjects togroups randomly, and itmust be constructed to the researcherhas control over, or is able to evaluate, the timingof theexperimental treatment) arepresent except for the random assignmentsof people togroups (Gray, et al, 2007: 275).Creswell (2009) stateda designdefinedas quasi experiment when individuals arenot randomly assigned.Thewriter alsoused qualitative research. Itwasused to analyzeand identified students’ attitude. Thepopulationof studywasall the studentsof the seventhgradeofoneof juniorhighschools inKuningan, academic year2013-2014. Total number of seventh grade students is 387 students, from11classes. The sample takenwas 76 students fromtwoclasses andeach class consistedof 38 students. FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance Thewriterused test ofdescriptive text as instrument. Test ofdescriptive textwas carriedout as oneof the instrumentsused to findout the enhancementof students’ descriptive writing skill. Pre-test was conductedat thebeginningof the lesson,whilepost- test held in theendof the lesson. Inboth of test studentswere asked towrite descriptive text. Thewriter instructed the students tomake simpledescriptive writing skill basedon students’ interest inpre test,whereas inpost test they were initiated towritedescriptive text whichdescribes thewriter. Thewriter alsousedquestionnaire in collecting the data toknowstudents’ attitudeof experimental classwhohadbeengiven treatment. It wasused to identify students’ attitude towards theuseof scientific approach toenhance students’ descriptivewriting skill. The questionnaire consistingof ten items of open-closedquestions used five level Likert scale from completely disagree to completely agree andscore fromone to five (Fraenkel &Wallen, 2009:124). Thewriter started it from composing the lessonplan fromthe beginninguntil the endof the study. It wasused togive the instructional process in enhancing students’ descriptivewriting skill. At the first meeting, thewritergavepre-test to control class andexperiment class. In pre-test, thewriter askedstudents to makea simpledescriptive text basedon their interest. Thepre-test givenwas to measure students’ prior knowledgeand abilityofwritingdescriptive. After givingpre-test, thewritergave treatment to experimental class inwhich thewriterused scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill,while the control classwasnot. The learningactivitieswithin scientific approach started fromobserving, questioning, experimenting, associating, andcommunicating.After giving the treatment, thewritergavepost-test to control andexperimental class to measure their enhancement.The items of pre-test andpost-test were same forms; the students were asked tomake descriptivewriting text. Post testwas used tomeasurewhether therewere differencesbetween control and experimental class ornot. Itwas also used to see the improvement of experimental class. Thewriter alsoused questionnaire in collecting thedata to knowstudents’ attitudeof experimental classwhohadbeengiven treatment. Thedata collectedwereprocessed statisticallybyusingcertain formulations (t test formula) tomeasure theenhancement of students’ descriptive writing skill throughscientific approach, analyzeddata taken fromthe result of pre-test andpost-test of control and experimental class. Thewriter also foundout test ofnormality, and homogeneity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Havingdata collected, thewriter analyzed, identifiedandclassified the data frompre-test andpost test of experimental andcontrol class usingLiz Hamp-Lyons formative feedbackprofile (Lyons &Heasley, 2006:211).After checking students’ workandclassified it basedoncriteria in formative feedback, scoreof each student’sworks scoredby dividedscoregottenandmaximum score, timed ten.Then, the result of data gainedwouldbecounted throughout t- test formula. This studyhas counted the normality andhomogeneity test of the sample taken. Thewriter took the sample fromthepopulation through purposive sampling inwhicheveryunit was included in the sample. Twoclasses ENGLISHREVIEW: Journal ofEnglishEducation ISSN2301-7554 Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2014 http://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE of seventhgrade students inoneof juniorhigh schools inKuninganhad beenchosenby thewriter as a sampleof this study. Each class consistedof 38 students, so thenumberof the sample was76 students.Although thewriter usedpurposive sampling, thewriter counted thenormalityandhomogeneity of the sample. Fromthedatagainedof thepre-test, the countof control andexperimental class≤ table.The control class’ was 5.21908 and theexperimental class’ was 1.82234 while tablewithdb= k-3, andα =0.05was 7.81472.Normality test of post test also showed that lower than table.Thevalueof in the control class was3.1935while experimental classwas 0.6606. Thedatagatheredwas lower than table inwhich thevaluewas 7.81472.Both of the tests explained that samplewas fromnormaldistribution. Thewriter alsodetermined homogeneity test which wasused to detectwhether the sampleusedby the writerhomogenyor not (Sugiyono, 2011: 275). Thewriter calculated the test of homogeneity to seekhomogeneityof the sampleused in this study. TheFvalue gained, and thencomparedwith theF tablewith level of significance 5%. From thevariants gotby thewriter, variant of pre test in control classwas1.044 and experimental class was0.702, thewriter thendivided thehighest variant to lowest variant, and the result was1,487. ThevalueofF tablewith the level of significance5%was1.6928.The result of homogeneity test showed that the samplewashomogeny. Because theF counts (1.487)was lower thanF table (1.6928), so the samplewashomogeny. The result of homogeneity inpost test showed that the samplewasalso homogeny.TheF countedwas1.435, while theF tablewas1.6928. It explained that theF counted< F table, so the samplewashomogeny. Fromthedata collected, result of pre-test, it was established, therewasno significant differencebetweencontrol andexperimental class. Itmeantbothof control andexperimental class had the samebackgroundknowledgeandability inwriting.Tomake it clear, see the table 1. Table 1. Control and Experimental Class’ Pre-test Result No. Criteria ofFormative Feedback ControlClass ExperimentalClass 1. Communicative quality 82 89 2. Ideas andorganization 73 78 3. Grammarandvocabulary 54 57 4. Surface features 64 56 Total 273 280 The table 1 explainedassessment criteriagainedbycontrol and experimental class. Basedon the table it canbe summedup, experimental class got thehigher score in communicative quality thancontrol class, 89 and82. It meant experimental class’works more communicative thancontrol class. The control class’works conveyed the messagewithdifficulty. Itwas showed fromthepointwhichwasmostly appeared in communicativequalitywas two. In theotherhand, although the most appearedscore in communicative qualityof experimental class was two, but therewasnoonepoint appeared in experimental class scorewhereas in the control class, theonepoint appeared seven times. Next standardassessmentwas ideas andorganization. It discussed organizational structureof students’ FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance worksandhowtheyorganized their ideas intoparagraph. Fromthe table 4.1 it discussed theexperimental class got thehigher score thancontrol class. The resultwas73 and78. Itmeant that experimental class’ worksmore organized thancontrol class’ works. Meanscoreof students’ workof control classwas two, means their ideas was inadequateand/orpoorlyorganized. Theexperimental classwas alsobetter thancontrol class ingrammarand vocabulary criteria. Theygained 57 score, while the control classgot 54 score.But bothof themwere stillweak in grammatical structures and theywere limitedandnot mastered rangeof vocabularies. For themeantime, the control class got thehigher score in surface features standard. It explained fromthe table 4.1 the control classgot collected64 score and the experimental classwas56. It intended the control classbetter in handwriting,punctuationandspelling. Fromtheexplanationabove, it can besummeduptheexperimental class well again incommunicativequality, ideasandorganization,andgrammar andvocabularystandard,while the control classwasbetter insurface featurescriteria.Even though experimentalwasgoodin threecriteria but theresult ofdatacomputationpre testofbothexperimental classand control class showed, therewasno significantdifferencesbetweencontrol andexperimental class (seeappendix5). Thedatacomputationofpre test result explainedbothofexperimental classand control classhad thesamebackground knowledge. Itdiscussed fromtheresult of t observedandt table,where the t observedofpre test experimentaland control class’ result lower than t table. Thevalueof t observedwas0.245while the t tablewith thedegreeof freedom74 was2.000withcriticalvalue0.05. So, it canbe terminated, theexperimentaland control classhad thesamebackground knowledge. Fromthepost-test found that the enhancementof experimental group since itwas treated through scientific approachandsignificancebetween control andexperimental class. This treatment meant to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill. Inpost test, studentswereasked todescribe the writer. The result of post testwouldbe countedusing t test formula. The result ofpost-test of control and experimentalwouldbediscussedat the table 2. Table 2.Control and experimental class’ post-test result No. Criteria ofFormative Feedback Control Class ExperimentalClass 1. Communicative quality 126 162 2. Ideas andorganization 110 152 3. Grammarandvocabulary 91 139 4. Surface features 99 147 Total 213 300 The table 2 is the result ofpost test gainedbycontrol andexperimental class. Fromthedataachieved, the experimental classbetter in all assessment criteria. For communicative quality theexperimental classgot 162, while control class 126. From thepre test conductedbefore theexperimental class alsowell again in this standard. The result ofpost test showed thegreat improvement in communicativequality. Most of students at experimental class createda communicative text, andonly causes a fewdifficulties. Somestudents ENGLISHREVIEW: Journal ofEnglishEducation ISSN2301-7554 Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2014 http://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE alsoproduced text whichpleasure tobe read. Thenext standardassessment was ideasandorganization. In this field, the experimental class improved.They madedescriptive text withgood organizational structure, some arguments alsowell presentedand relevant, but therewere fewstudents whocreated the text clear but limited organizational structure, andsome argumentsunsupported. But, overall the students couldorganize the text and support their ideas in theparagraph. The result ofpost test explained, sample in experimental classwell enhanced ingrammarandvocabulary, and surface features standard. They usedanadequate rangeofvocabulary andgrammatical structures. It was better thanpre test results inwhich theywere notmasteredgrammatical structures and limited rangeof vocabulary.The students in experimental groupalso just didoccasional faults inhandwriting, punctuation, andspelling.They could write thewordcorrectly, andused appropriatepunctuation. Theexperimental class improved theirdescriptivewriting skill frommean of pre testwas3.697andmeanof post test was7.89. Theexperimental class showed the significant improvement after they treated throughscientific approach. Fromthe result of post test andexplanationabove, it canbe concluded theexperimental classwell improved indescriptivewriting skill wherein sumofpre test result of experimental class was140.5 increased to 300.The improvement couldbe seen at the chart below. Table 3. Pre test and post test improvement of control and experimental class For the statistical computation, it used thenull hypothesis (Ho)which readsas follows: Scientific approach doesnot enhance students’ descriptive writing skill of the seventhgrade students at oneof juniorhigh schools in Kuningan, academicyear 2013-2014.The alternatehypothesis (Ha)of this study is as follows: Scientific approachenhanced students’ descriptivewriting skill of the seventhgrade students at oneof junior highschools inKuningan, academic year 2013-2014. Thewriterprovedhypothesis by computed the result ofpre test andpost test of experimental class. First, the writer foundout meanofpre test and post test of experimental group. Then, thewriter countedstandarddeviation of each test.Next step, thewriter computed the standarddeviation combinedand foundout thevalueof t observed. After the t observedgot, thewriter FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance determined thedegreeof freedomto knowthevalueof t table. The last step was thewriter compared tobservedand t table. If the t observedhigher than t table, sonull hypothesis of the research was rejected andHa was accepted.But if the t tablehigher than t observed, the nullhypothesiswasacceptedandHa was rejected. Fromthedata computation, it explainedmeanof pre test in experimental classwas3.697,while meanof post testwas7.89. Standard deviationofpre test andpost test of experimental classwas0.874and0.067. Bothof standarddeviationvalueswould becalculated throughdeviation standardcombined. The result of deviation standardcombinedof experimental classwas0.847.This result wasused toget thevalueof t observed. The t observedgainedbyusing t test formulawas22.58, and it wouldbe comparedwith thevalueof t table throughdegreeof freedom, inwhich the degreeof freedomwas74 and it is closer to line 60 with the t tablevalue 2.000. After the t observedand t table gathered, thewriter analyzed, the t observedwashigher than t table. It meantnull hypothesis; scientific approachdoes not enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill of the seventh grade students at oneof juniorhigh schools inKuningan, academicyear 2013-2014was rejected. And the alternatehypothesis; scientific approach enhancedstudents’ descriptivewriting skill of the seventhgrade students at one of juniorhigh school inKuningan, academic year2013-2014 wasaccepted. Fromthe explanationand calculationdoneby thewriter it canbe summedup, the scientific approach enhancedstudents’ descriptivewriting skill of seventhgrade students at oneof juniorhighschools inKuningan. Thedataof questionnaireswere gathered fromthe students’ attitude in experimental class. Fromthe questionnaires’ result, thewriterhas calculatedeachof attitudes below: Students’ BehavioralAttitudes toward theuseof scientific approach toenhance students’ descriptivewriting skill. The statementswhichpresent the students’ behavioral attitudes toward theuseof scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill are innumber 2, 3, 7, and8. That result is shown in the table 4: Table 4. Students’ behavioral attitudes toward the use of scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptive writing skill No Statements Opinions % Criteria SA A D SD 2. I alwaysdoEnglish tasksgiven. 16 21 1 0 68.42% Most of 3. If I havedifficulty in comprehendingEnglish lesson, I will ask to the teacher directly. 22 13 3 0 88.42% Generally 7. I needcertain approach to writedescriptive text easier. 9 26 3 0 81.57% Generally 8. Oneof approach used to write descriptive text easily is Scientific approach. 15 21 1 1 85.26% Generally Mean 80.91% Generally Students’ cognitive attitudes Thestatementswhichpresent the students’ cognitiveattitudes toward the useof scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill are in number6, 9, and10.Thepercentageof each statement is shown in the table below: ENGLISHREVIEW: Journal ofEnglishEducation ISSN2301-7554 Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2014 http://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE Table 5. Students’ cognitive attitudes toward the use of scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptive writing skill No Statements Opinions % Criteria SA A D SD 6. I havedifficulty to express ideas inEnglish written text. 10 17 11 0 73.68 % Most of 9. I ameasier to elaborate ideas andwrite descriptive textusing scientific approach. 15 19 4 0 83.68% Generally 10. Scientific approach is goodapproach to enhance students’ descriptive writing skill andother learning. 21 16 1 0 90% Generally Mean 82.45% Generally Students’ emotional attitudes Statements whichpresent the students’ emotional attitudes toward the useof scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill are in number1, 4, and5. The result is shown in the tablebelow: Table 6. Students’ emotional attitudes toward the use of scientific approach to enhance students’ descriptive writing skill No Statements Opinions % Criteria SA A D SD 1. I like learningEnglish. 13 24 1 0 85.78% Generally 4. I likeEnglishbecause it isuseful formy real life andcanbe applied indaily life. 16 21 1 0 87.36% Generally 5 I preferwrite English text than read it. 10 15 12 1 71.57% Most of Mean 81.57% Generally Thedata gathered fromstudents’ questionnaire sheet explained behavioral, cognitiveandemotional attitudeof students’ during treated through scientific approach.Generally students likeEnglish, and87.36%of students agreedEnglish isuseful for their life and canbeapplied indaily life. Mostof students (71.07%) said theyprefer writing than readingEnglish text. Inbehavioral aspect of attitude, mostof students alwaysdoEnglish task given. It looked fromthepercentage counted thatwas 68.42%students in experimental classdid taskgiven. They alsowoulddirectly ask to teacherwhen they faceddifficulty in learning descriptive text. Thepercentage showed 88.42%students will askdirectlywhen faceddifficulty. In theexperimental class, 81.57%students told theyneededcertain approach tomake themeasier inwriting descriptive text.As 85.26%of respondent in experimental class stated oneof approachused towrite descriptive text easilywas scientific approach. Fromthequestionnaire administered to students’ at experimental class, thewriter gotdata that 73.68%of students felt difficulty in expressing their ideas inEnglishwritten text. When thewriter applied scientific approachat experimental class 83.68% students explained theywereeasier in writingdescriptive text when thewriter used that approach.Theyalso stated scientific approachwasgoodapproach FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance to enhance students’ descriptivewriting skill andother learning. Itwas looked frompercentagewhichwas showed90% students agreed scientific approachwas goodapproach toapply in learning descriptive text andother learning. Fromthedataanalysis of questionnaire, it canbe summedup students at theexperimental class gave positive attitude towards theapproach usedby thewriter. Their aspects of attitude showed thepositive response andconfirmed that scientific approach gavepositive impact for them. Fromthe result above, theuseof scientific approachgives some implications for enhancing student’s descriptivewriting skill, theyare: (1) Scientific approachappropriates in teachingwritingdescriptive text; (2) Using scientific approach helps student in learning,understandingandwriting descriptive text; (3) Scientific approach makes teacher easily to create the interesting teaching-learningprocess of writingdescriptive text; (4)Theuseof Scientific approachmakes students construct theirunderstandingabout descriptive text actively; (5) It also motivates students towrite andexpress their ideas, imagination, thus their writing skill enhanced; (6) Scientific approachmakes studentsmore interested tomaterial taught and they givepositiveattitudes toward the approachused. It canalsobeaccomplished scientific approachgave somepositive impacts in teaching-learningdescriptive text at school. It canbeusedas an approach in learninggenreof text or other learning. Scientific approachalso gavepositive influence to students. Through this approach studentswere easier in composingdescriptive text and expressing their ideas inEnglishwritten text. This approachalsomade teaching learningprocess more interestingand createpositiveatmosphere in the classroom. Studentswouldshare their own ideasactively andused all their senses in learningprocesses. CONCLUSIONS Afterhavingdone the study, the writer alsoproved thehypothesis of this research. After collecting, calculating, analyzingand identifying thedata gathered, thewriter concluded the alternatehypothesisproposed was accepted,while thenull hypothesiswas rejected. Thealternatehypothesis was readas follows, “Scientific approach enhancedstudents’ descriptivewriting skill of seventhgrade students inoneof juniorhighschools inKuningan”. So, it canbe summedup that scientific approachmayenhance students’ descriptivewriting skill. Fromthe study completed, the writerknewstudents faceddifficulties in sharing their ideas andopinion in Englishwritten text. Theyactually neededanapproachwhichmade them comfort, enjoy in expressingandsharing their ideas freely.This scientific approachwas fit for students’ needs. This approachhelped students at the experimental class in enhancing their descriptivewriting skill andmake them easier in composingandelaborating ideas through this approach. REFERENCES Abidin, M. J.Z., Mohamadi, M. P.,Alzwari, H. (2012). EFL students' attitude towards learning English language: The case of Libyan secondary school students. Asian Social Science 8 (2), 119- 134. Alawiyah, F. (2013,October 1).Dampak implementasi kurikulum 2013 terhadap ENGLISHREVIEW: Journal ofEnglishEducation ISSN2301-7554 Vol. 3, Issue 1, December 2014 http://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE guru. Info Singkat Kesejahteraan Sosial, 5(19). Allport, G. W. (1954). The historical background of modern social psychology. Handboook of Social Psychology, Cambridge, Mass. Alwasilah, A.C. (2000). Pokoknya kualitatif: Dasar-dasar merancang melakukan penelitian kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya. Banyte,J., Joksaite, E.,Virvilaite, R. (2007). Relationships of consumer attitude and brand: Emotional aspect. Engineering Economics, 2(52), 65-77. Bogdan, R. C., Biklen, K. S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. London: Allyn and Bacon. Brown,H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy 2nd Edition. California: Longman Brown, J. D. (1991).Do English faculties rate writing samples differently? TESOL Quarterly 32, 653-675. Cohen, L.,Manion, L.,Marrison, K. (2005). Research method in education 5th edition. New York: The Taylor &Francis e- library. Corps, P. (1989). TEFL/TESL: Teaching English as a foreign or second language. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Cuff, E.G., &Payne, G. C. F. (eds) (1979). Perspectives in sociology. London: George Allen &Unwin. Djuharie, O. S. (2009). Essay writing. Bandung: Yrama Widya. Educational StaffDevelopment Center of Ministry ofEducation and Culture. (2013).Curriculum-2013-Scientific- Approach. (2013,October 10).Retrieved Februari 18, 2014, from www.smkn4jkt.sch.id Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Erkan,D. Y., &Saban, A. I. (2011).Writing performance relative to writing apprehension, self-efficacy in writing, and attitudes towards writing: A correlational study in Turkish tertiary- level EFL. Asian EFL Journal, 13(1), 164- 192. Faisal, & Wulandari, Y. (2013). Improving students’ competence in writing descriptive texts through fresh technique. English Review: Journal of English Education, 2(1), 59-68. Feng, R & Chen, H. (2009).An analysis on the importance of motivation and stragtegy in postgraduates English acquisition. English Language Teaching, 2, 93-97. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in education seventh edition. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gardner, R. (1985). Social psychology and language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gerot, L. &Wignell, P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Sydney: Antipodean Ecucational Enterprises. Goetz, J. P., & Lecompte, M.D. (1984). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research. Orlondo: Academic Press, Inc. Gray, P. S.,Williamson, J. B., Karp, D. A., Dalphin, J. R. (2007). The research imagination an introduction to qualitative and quantitative methods. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harmer, J. (2001). How to teach English 3rd edition. London: Longman. Intrapanich, C. (2013). Teaching methods, approaches and strategies found in EFL classrooms: Acase study in Lao PDR. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Science 88, 306-311. Kara, A. (2009). The effectiveness of a 'learning theories' unit on students' attitude towards learning. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 34(3), 100- 113. Knapp, Peter,& Watkins, Megan. (2005). Genre, text, grammar: Technologies for teaching and assessing writing. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press Ltd. Koentjaraningrat. (1990). Metode-metode penelitian masyarakat. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya. http://www.smkn4jkt.sch.id/ FAHRUS ZAMAN FADHLY & NURENDAH Applying Scientific Approach to Enhance Indonesian RFL Learners’ Descriptive Writing Performance Kuhn, T. (1961). The function of measuremnet in modern physical sciences. Isis 52, 161-193. Lenneberg, E. H. 1967. The biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Lyons, Liz Hamp. &Heasley, B. (2006). Study writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Marczyk, G., DeMatteo, D., Festinger, D. (2005). Essentials of research design and methodology. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Munawaroh,M. (2014). Analisis literasi kuantitatif siswa SMA dalam konsep pertumbuhan dan perkembangan tumbuhan (Skripsi, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, 2014).Retrieved June 24, 2014 from repository.upi.edu. Montano, D E.& Kasprzyk, D. (2008). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behaviour, and the integrated behavioralmodel. Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice , 67-97. Nuh, M. (2012). Wawancara dengan Mendikbud terkait kurikulum 2013. (Sidiknas, Interviewer). Retrieved February 18, 2014 from www.kemdikbud.go.id. REFERENCES