Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bab 4
Bab 4
This chapter discussed the findings and the discussions toward these
4.1 Findings
As reflected by the title of the study and the research question, this study
Accordingly, the findings of this study are concerned with the composing process
The following table presents the frequency of what the students did in the pre-
writing stage.
24
28% 52% 20% 100%
2. Before I start
writing I 1 1 14 6 3 25
revise the 4% 4% 56% 24% 12% 100%
requirements
8% 56% 36% 100%
3. I look at a
model written
by a native
0 2 9 9 5 25
speaker or
0% 8% 36% 36% 20% 100%
more
proficient
writer
8% 36% 56% 100%
4. I start writing
without
4 6 9 6 0 25
having a
16% 24% 36% 24% 0% 100%
written or
mental plan
40% 36% 24% 100%
5. I think about
what I want
to write and 0 3 5 10 7 25
have a plan in 0% 12% 20% 40% 28% 100%
my mind, but
not on paper.
12% 20 % 68% 100%
6. I note down
words and
1 2 8 9 5 25
short notes
4% 8% 32% 36% 20% 100%
related to the
topic
12% 32% 56% 100%
7. I write an
0 3 8 10 4 25
outline of my
0% 12% 32% 40% 16% 100%
paper
12% 32% 56% 100%
8. I write notes
or an outline 2 6 12 4 1 25
in my native 8% 24% 48% 16% 4% 100%
language
32% 48% 20% 100 %
Overall percentage of
Before writing in 19% 39% 42% 100%
English stage
In order to make the results of all findings in the form of tables easier to
understand, the writer classifies the Likert-style categories into three. The 'never
25
true' and 'usually not true' categories belong to 'not true'. The 'usually true' and
'always true' are categorized into 'true', while 'somewhat true' stands alone as the
The table above illustrates that, first of all, before the participants wrote
preparations, such as making a timetable (52%). Only 20% of them made their
timetable, as opposed to 28% of the participants did not make their timetable.
Secondly, before they started writing they revised the requirements, most of them
(56%) sometimes made some revisions, 38% did some revisions, while the least
majority did not do some revisions at all. Thirdly, looking at a model written by a
(56%), while only 8% did not read essays written by native speakers or more
proficient writers to get better ideas. Fourthly, they started writing by having a
written or mental preparation (40%). However, the majority said that they did not
really make any preparation (36%) and even did not make any clear preparation
(24%). Fifthly, most of the participants (58%) made some mental preparation
(68%) in their minds, while the rest did not really do it (20%).
notes. The rest of them did not make any written (12%) and 32% sometimes made
outline prior to their writing. The rest of them did not make any outline (12%) and
32% sometimes made some outline. Eighthly, almost half of the participants
26
In general, no more than half of the participants (42%) did this early stage
before their writing the descriptive essays properly. Some of them sometimes did
what they were supposed to do in this stage (39), and the minority (19%) was not
English”stage. Table 4.2 below presents the frequency of what the students did in
27
Table 4.2. The Frequencies of ‘ When Writing in English’ Stage
28
find an appropriate
English word.
16% 28% 56% 100%
10. If I don’t know a
word in English, I
0 0 9 10 6 25
find a similar
0% 0% 36% 40% 24% 100%
English word that
I know.
0% 36% 64% 100%
11. If I don’t know a
word in English, I
0 2 8 8 7 25
stop writing and
0% 8% 32% 32% 28% 100%
look up the word
in the dictionary.
8% 32% 60% 100%
12. I use a bilingual 1 3 10 7 4 25
dictionary. 4% 12% 40% 28% 16% 100%
16% 40% 44%
13. I use a
0 6 10 6 3 25
monolingual
0% 24% 40% 24% 12% 100
dictionary.
24% 40% 36% 100
14. I ask somebody to
help out when I 2 4 4 11 4 25
have problems 8% 16% 16% 44% 16% 100%
while writing.
24% 16% 60% 100%
Overall Percentage
12.86% 31.43% 55.71% 100%
when writing
behaviours when they wrote their descriptive essays. First of all, when the
participants started writing their essays, most of them started with the introduction
(76%). Only 24% of them sometimes made their introductions. After that, they
made some stops in different ways. Most of them (60%) stop after each sentence
to read it before continuing to the next ones, while only a small number of
participants did not make any stops (8%). Futhermore, when they finished writing
several sentences or the whole paragraph, most of them (64%) stopped to read
their sentences to make sure they had written a single idea in that particular
29
paragraph. The other 36% of them sometimes did it. The next thing is the majority
of the participants (80%) read their sentences again to have ideas what sentences
In terms of grammar and vocabulary, most of the participants did not show
positive confidence when they wrote their descriptive essays in English. The
majority (68%) were not sure whether they used correct grammar forms and
precise vocabulary. On the contrary, the rest of the participants (32%) believed
that they usually used correct grammar and vocabulary in their essays. It is very
common for EFL students to have problems in finding the English word for the
words or sentences they want to use. Related to these problems, the participants
in English according their existing knowledge (item no. 8). Moreover, when they
had difficulties in finding the English words, they wrote them in Bahasa Indonesia
and later tried to find the appropriate English words (56%) (item no. 9). Another
strategy they used was to find similar or familiar English words they knew (64%)
Another finding that was interesting from the table above is about how the
the words they did not know in the dictionary (item no. 11). However, only 44%
(item no. 12). They also preferred to have somebody else help them out when they
30
In conclusion, the participants tried their best to perform better in this
stage (56%). Compared to the finding in their previous stage (39%), they
English” stage. Table 4.3 below presents the frequency of what the students did in
31
when
revising
20% 28% 52% 100
5. I make
changes
1 3 11 7 3 25
in
4% 12% 44% 28% 12% 100%
vocabular
y.
16% 44% 40% 100
6. I make
changes
0 2 10 9 4 25
in
0% 8% 40% 36% 16% 100%
sentence
structure
8% 40% 52% 100
7. I make
changes
in the 1 2 13 5 4 25
structure 4% 8% 52% 20% 16% 100%
of the
essay.
12% 52% 36% 100
8. I make
changes
1 4 11 8 1 25
in the
4% 16% 44% 32% 4% 100%
content or
ideas.
20% 44% 36% 100
9. I focus on
one thing
at a time
when 0 4 12 6 3 25
revising 0% 16% 48% 24% 12% 100%
(e.g.,
content,
structure).
16% 48% 36% 100
10. I drop my
first draft 3 2 12 5 3 25
and start 12% 8% 48% 20% 12% 100%
writing.
20% 48% 32% 100
11. I check if
my essay
matches 0 0 9 10 6 25
the 0% 0% 36% 40% 24% 100%
requireme
nts.
0% 36% 64% 100
12. I leave 3 0 15 5 2 25
32
the text 12% 0% 60% 20% 8% 100%
aside for
a couple
of days
and then I
can see it
in a new
perspective
12% 60% 28% 100
13. I show
my text to
somebody
2 3 10 9 1 25
and ask
8% 12% 40% 36% 4% 100%
for
his/her
opinion.
20% 40% 40% 100
14. I compare
1 6 8 7 3 25
my paper
4% 24% 32% 28% 12% 100%
paper.
28% 32% 40% 100
15. I give
myself a
reward 3 3 13 6 0 25
for the 12% 12% 52% 24% 0% 100%
assignme
nt.
24 % 52% 24% 100
16. I check
my
mistakes
after I get
back the
paper
with the 0 1 6 13 5 25
feedback 0% 4% 24% 52% 20% 100%
from the
teacher,
and try to
learn
from
them
4% 24% 72% 100
Percentage
41.25
of when 19.5% 39.25% 100%
%
revising
33
The table above provides some information about what the participants did
after they had received their essays back from their teachers. Most of them 80 %
sometimes or even did not read their text aloud (item no. 1). Only small numbers
of them read their essays when they had finished their whole essays 28 % (item
no. 2).
Even if they read their returned essays, the majority was not motivated to
make any revision on their essays. Those who made some changes in all aspects,
like as vocabulary, sentences structure, the content, or idea was are only 28 %
(item no. 3). Most of them, used their dictionaries when they had to revise their
essays 52 % (item no. 4). They wanted to make some changes only in vocabulary
(40%) (item no. 5), sentences structures 52% (item no. 6), structure of the essays
36% (item no. 7), and the content or ideas 36 % (item no. 8). Most of them, on the
other hand, preferred to focus on one thing at a time when they had to revise their
essays 52 % (item no. 9). However, the participants checked their essays if they
matched the requirements (64%) (item no. 11) and left the text aside for a couple
of days in order to later see it in a new perspective (28%) (item no. 12).
The participants also showed their essays to somebody else for his/her
opinion or compared theirs with someone else’s essays (40% respectively) (item
no. 13 & 14). Surprisingly, when they received feedback from their teachers, they
tended to check their mistakes and learned from their mistakes (72%) (item no.
16). Afterwards, most of them did not or rarely gave themselves rewards for the
34
All in all, the participants did not show positive performance in this last
stage of the writing process. Most of them (61%) did not or sometimes paid good
attention on some activities they were supposed to do in this final stage. Only 39%
case making outlines, and they wrote it in Bahasa Indonesia (L1). Hung & Van
(2018) state that pre-writing stage was crucial as it could improve writing
performance because learners could outline and organized their ideas individually
to prepare themselves for writing. Quoting the studies by Shin (2008) and Zheng
(2012), they also mentioned that the more time for the learners invested their time
in the pre-writing stage, the better the quality of the writing performance would
be. Their study also showed that outlining was found useful in helping organizing
ideas. Though this research does not investigate the impact of making outline with
the writing quality, it is hoped that the participants’ writing performance is good
as they may have followed the instruction of their teacher to make outlines before
participants of this study preferred to use Bahasa Indonesia when they made their
outlines to convey their ideas easier. Wang & Wen (2002) argued that the use of
Friedlander (1990) mentioned that the EFL writers tended to use transfer writing
35
abilities and strategies from their first language (L1) to their second language
(L2). From previous findings, he mentioned that the reasons could be deficient
rhetorical strategies( Mohan & Lo, 1985) and finding support from their
knowledge about writing from their L1to writing in the target language ( Edelsky,
in the target language (Bennui, 2016). His study on Thai students’ EFL writing
style and Thai cultural knowledge). Similar study is also conducted by Zare-ee &
Farvardin (2009) which indicated the first language influence on linguistic and
Those kinds of interference might also happen in the English descriptive texts
matter.
In the 'When writing in English' stage there are three main issues that arise
from data above. Those issues are the participants made some regular stops to
make sure that they wrote a single idea, confronting grammar and vocabulary
problems, and consulting the dictionaries and peers when they had syntactical and
lexical problems. Making regular stops to make sure that the compositions
36
and cohesion. There have been numerous studies on EFL writing coherence and
cohesion, such as Ahmed (2010), Castro (2004), and Khalil (1989). However,
little information can we obtain from this study as it does not go deeper into their
Wang &Wen (2002) mention ESL/ EFL writers used their L1 when
grammatical and lexical problems when they tried to convey their ideas in written
English. This problem might arise due to their efforts of transferring their
syntactical and lexical competence of first language into the target language which
may not be parallel. Wang & Wen’s study interestingly showed that the first
argumentative ones. Since, this study investigates the descriptive texts written by
EFL students, there will be great possibility that the influence of L1 is high. The
problems experienced by the participants in this study is in line with Ariyanti &
Fitriana (2017) that students had major difficulties in grammatical, cohesion, and
consulted their dictionaries. Due to a limited vocabulary size, EFL learners often
had to consult a dictionary when they encountered vocabulary problems (Lai &
electronic have been found to be useful for EFL writers (Christianson, 1997).
Bruton (2007) indicated that the use of bilingual dictionary/glossary support had
37
dictionary was not an instant problem-solver and led writers to identify further
word(s) offered, or when the L2 word(s) were known but were considered
asking their friends for help or support. Peer support in writing was also important
kinds of support (Guerra Lyons, 2016). In the SLA contexts, peer interaction in
small groups had also stimulated much interest from researchers around the world.
Interaction among learners had been found useful to integrate linguistic, cognitive
where “language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use
really motivated to make any revisions. When they wanted to make any changes,
they focused more on sentence structures. Furthermore, this study revealed the
previous section of this chapter. Much research available shows the crucial role of
teacher feedback, such as Diab (2005), Elwood & Bode (2014), Enginarlar (1993),
Muncie (2000), Wu (2006), Yang, Badger, & Yu, (2006), and Zhao
(2010). Compared to self and peer feedback, teacher feedback was much more
preferable by EFL learners (Diab, 2005) and led to both positive and negative
38
revisions, depending on learners‟ attitude and English proficiency (Wu, 2006). Enginarlar (1993) concluded that EFL learners perceived
attention to linguistic errors from their teachers as effective teacher feedback. In the long term, (Muncie, 2000) stressed that teacher
feedback improved learners' writing ability. Also, it led to greater improvements in the writing development (Yang et al., 2006). Looking at
the fact that the participants of this study received feedback from their teachers and responded it by making revisions of their written works
Writing has been recognized as the most challenging language skill to learn for EFL learners. Thinking in English while
writing in English was very difficult for EFL learners (Bennui, 2016). Ahmed (2010) mentioned that acquiring the writing skill seems
to be more laborious and demanding than the other language skills. Moreover, producing a coherent piece of writing is an enormous
challenge, especially in a second/foreign language. All of these can explain why most participants were reluctant to reread their own
compositions and made some necessary improvement. When they decided to make any changes, they tended to pay more attention to
the grammar or sentence structure aspect. Grammatical mistakes were easily found in most texts. When writing teachers found this
kind of mistakes, they would circle them and asked their students to later on revise them (Christianson, 1997). Quoting Truscott
(1996), (Bruton, 2007) emphasized that grammar correction should have been abandoned, because it was ineffective and could even
be psychologically harmful for ESL/EFL learners. Correcting their own grammatical mistakes could be a way for the participants of
39