proceedings - rp2u.unsyiah.ac.id

i

PROCEEDINGS

ICECED 2018

International Conference on Early Childhood Education

“The Roles of Parents in Shaping Children’s Characters”

Banda Aceh, Aceh, Indonesia December 3 - 4, 2018

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONFERENCE COMMITTEES

viii

EDITORIAL BOARD

x

RECTOR OF SYIAH KUALA UNIVERSITY

xi

DEPUTY CHAIRWOMAN OF ACEH FAMILY WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT

xii

1 INTRODUCING STEM AND DIGITAL SKILLS IN ARCHITECTURES IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Dyah Erti Idawati & Fitriani Insanuri Qismullah

1-6

2 DIGITAL CULTURE AND DIGITAGOGY: A LIFE OF A DIGITAL CULTURALIST AND A DIGITAGOGIST Qismullah Yusuf & Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf

7-13

3 DEVELOPING COOPERATIVE CHARACTER TO CHILDREN THROUGH PROJECT APPROACH (PA) Khusnidar, Norazilawati Abdullah & Mazlina Che Mustafa

14-19

4 THE STRENGTHENING OF CHARACTER EDUCATION AT THE LEVEL OF EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Rosmiati

20-26

5 EXPLORING THE TEACHERS’ CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTING CHARACTER BUILDING AT SCHOOLS Fidyati, Rahmi Fhonna & Suryani

27-32

6 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ATTACHMENT AND SELF CHARACTER VALUES IN CHILDREN WITH WORKING MOTHERS Anizar Ahmad, Dina Amalia & Rossy Hadilpa

33-38

7 ONLINE PARENTING: SOLUTION FOR THE “BUSY-BEE” PARENTS Dewi Fitriani

39-44

8 STRENGTHENING THE HONESTY CHARACTER OF YOUNG CHILDREN AT THE ISLAMIC INTEGRATED PRESCHOOL OF MON KUTA BANDA ACEH Haira & Yuhasriati

45-50

iii

9 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THERAPY THROUGH SAMAN ACEHNESE DANCE IN IMPROVING ADHD CHILDREN'S LEARNING CONCENTRATION Hanna Amalia, Maria Ulfah & Barmawi

51-63

10 THE USE OF TAHFIDZ GO GAME TO IMPROVE THE INTELLIGENCE OF CHILDREN Hijriati

64-70

11 TEACHERS AS A PART OF METACOGNITIVE ROLE MODELS TO IMPROVE CHILDREN’S READING AND WRITING MOTIVATIONS Silvi Listia Dewi & Fauziatul Halim

71-76

12 TELL US STORIES, PLEASE! STORYTELLING FOR YOUNG LEARNERS OF ENGLISH Chairina Nasir & Nurul Inayah

77-81

13 KNOWLEDGE AND ROLE OF MOTHERS IN DEVELOPING EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE OF 4-6 YEARS OLD CHILDREN Dewi Yunisari & Md Nasir Masran

82-87

14 A CHILD ENGLISH L2 DEVELOPMENT OF PLURALITY Burhansyah

88-91

15 ABUSE-FOCUSED COGNITIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY (AF-CBT) FOR PHYSICAL ABUSE CHILD Siti Rahmah

92-101

16 “WOW! ICE CREAM…!” ACQUIRING ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE USING IMITATION AND REPETITION STRATEGIES Dian Fajrina

102-106

17 ARE PUPILS SCARED OF MATHEMATICS? A DISCUSSION ON THREE STRATEGIES USED IN PRIMARY MATHEMATICS TEACHING Zikra Hayati & Khairatul Ulya

107-114

18 “SI BAK OR SI YUE ON PISANG?” EXAMINING ACEHNESE YOUTH’S KNOWLEDGE ON THE USE OF CORRECT CONTEXTUAL COUNTING SYSTEM IN ACEHNESE Dini Hanifa & Dian Fajrina

115-121

19 SHAPING STUDENTS’ CHARACTER THROUGH MARKET PLACE ACTIVITIES (MPA) AT A SECONDARY BOARDING SCHOOL Eridafithri

122-129

iv

20 CHARACTER VALUE OF RESPONSIBILITY IN DODA IDI LYRICS OF ACEH JAYA Rica Andriani, Mohd. Harun & Siti Sarah Fitriani

130-136

21 HOW DO SOFT SKILLS MARK UP FOR SCHOOL DROPOUTS? Nyak Mutia Ismail & Moriyanti

137-146

22 IMPACTS OF DIGITAL MEDIA USE ON CHILDREN CHARACTERS Hardiati Mustika & Rosmiati

147-152

23 STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: REVIEW OF THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN FATIH BILINGUAL SCHOOL ACEH Rahmad Syah Putra, Dian Ayuningtyas, Irfani Wafira & Ridho Fahlevi Akbar

153-163

24 THE APPLICATION OF THE SOCIAL APPROACH IN CHILDREN’S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT AT SCHOOL AND IN COMMUNITIES Hasbi Ali

164-171

25 TEACHING PRACTICES OF NON EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION TEACHER IN PRESCHOOLS IN BANDA ACEH Maulida Shanti Yusuf, Abdul Halim bin Masnan & Qismullah Yusuf

172-181

26 A PROFILE OF FATHER INVOLVEMENT AS PERCEIVED BY THE CHILD Addina Kamila, Kartika Sari, Marty Mawarpury & Afriani

182-189

27 EFFECTS OF CARTOON FILMS ON COGNITIVE AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT IN EARLY CHILDHOOD Wahyuni, Fadhillah Wiandari, Siti Habsari Pratiwi & Chery Julida Panjaitan

190-195

28 PLAY: HOW TO BUILD CHILDREN’S RESILIENCE Marty Mawarpury

196-201

29 THE ROLE OF PARENTS IN USING DHIKRULLAH TO STIMULATE CHILDREN’S MUTHMAINNAH CHARACTER Iskandar Ibrahim

202-207

30 TEACHER'S STRATEGY IN STRENGTHENING SOCIAL CARE CHARACTER AT MINA INTEGRATED ISLAMIC EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Nursanti & Rosmiati

208-216

31 PARENTING STYLE IN DEVELOPING PRE-SCHOOL CHILDREN LANGUAGE SKILLS IN CENTRAL ACEH Khoiriyah & Ridzuan Jaafar

217-223

v

32 DEVELOPING THE “QUIET BOOK” BASED ON THE ACEHNESE

CULTURE TO CULTIVATE CHARACTER OF YOUNG CHILDREN: PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Saptiani, Anizar Ahmad & Suhaila

224-230

33 ATTACHMENT STYLE IN FAMILIES: A META-ANALYSIS Yunita Sari & Marty Mawarpury

231-240

34 THE ROLES OF NON-NATIVE PARENTS AND FIRST LANGUAGE (L1) IN THE ACQUISITION OF ENGLISH AS A SECOND LANGUAGE (L2) Masrizal

241-247

35 THE ROLE OF TEACHERS IN DEVELOPING CHARACTER THROUGH ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS BEHAVIOR FOR EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION Siti Naila Fauzia, Indani & Faisal

248-250

36 USING POSTERS TO PROVIDE SEX EDUCATION FOR CHILDREN Maya Khairani

251-257

37 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENTING STYLES AND CHILDREN’S SOCIAL SKILLS Sitti Muliya Rizka & Juppri Bin Bacotang

258-262

38 BUILDING CHILDREN’S CHARACTER BY TELLING HABA PUTROE KAOY Rizka Mulya Phonna & Bukhari Daud

263-269

39 EXPLORING THE POSSIBLE DANGER OF INTERNET Risana Rachmatan

270-274

40 PMTOH: A MODEL OF ACEHNESE STORYTELLING TO DEVELOP CHILDREN’S CHARACTER Usfur Ridha

275-281

41 STRENGTHENING THE RELIGIOUS CHARACTERS OF YOUNG LEARNERS AT ISLAMIC INTEGRATED PRESCHOOL OF MON KUTA BANDA ACEH Siti Raihana & Rosmiati

282-286

42 DEVELOPING THE NATIONALISM CHARACTER OF YOUNG LEARNERS BY USING SONGS AND TRADITIONAL DANCES OF INDONESIA Syinta Herliyana & Rosmiati

287-292

vi

43 TEACHER MODELING AND TEACHING GOOD CHARACTER IN SHAPING THE CHARACTERS OF CHILDREN Yusra Mayawati & Qismullah Yusuf

293-300

44 SOCIAL CHARACTER BUILDING OF YOUNG LEARNERS THROUGH SPORTS ACTIVITIES AT AN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION INSTITUTION OF TAMAN FIRDAUS BANDA ACEH Wan Nanda Shafira, Fitri Yani & Rosmiati

301-306

45 HOW ENVIRONMENT SHAPE CHILDREN’S SELF CONTROL Wida Yulia Viridanda

307-312

46 THE IMPACTS OF GADGET AND INTERNET ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CHARACTER EDUCATION ON EARLY CHILDHOOD Meta Keumala, Marisa Yoestara & Zaiyana Putri

313-325

47 A REVIEW ABOUT EMOTIONAL ABUSE ON CHILDREN Raudhatul Jannah & Lely Safrina

326-331

48 ADVERSITY QUOTIENT OF LATE ADOLESCENCE: A LESSON TO BUILD SURVIVAL SKILL FROM EARLY LIFE Eka Dian Aprilia

332-343

49 THE USE OF THINK PAIR SHARE TECHNIQUE TO IMPROVE STUDENTS’ CRITICAL THINKING IN READING SKILL Diana Fauzia Sari, Endang Komariah & Rahma Aprilia Isa

344-350

50 PARENTAL RELIGIOSITY IN SHAPING ADOLESCENT’S SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY Afriani, Rozumah Baharudin, Siti Nor Yaacob & Nurdeng Deuraseh

351-359

51 PICTURE THIS! TEACHING WRITING BY USING PICTURES TO JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Diana Achmad, Arifin Syamaun, Mauliza Fadhila & Syamsul Bahri YS

360-366

52 BUILDING THE CARE ENVIRONMENT CHARACTER OF YOUNG CHILDREN IN PLAYGROUP CLASSES Kholida Munasti & Rosmiati

367-373

53 YOUNG CHILDREN’S WORD AWARENESS DEVELOPMENT AT PRESCHOOL Sarrah Verida Clarissa, Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf & Teuku Zulfikar

374-384

54 STRENGTHENING CHARACTER EDUCATION VALUES IN PREVENTING BULLYING BEHAVIOR OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN Wina Puspita Sari, Marisa Puspita Sary & Dini Safitri

385-392

vii

55 PROJECT CITIZEN LEARNING MODEL IN DEVELOPING CIVIC DISPOSITION OF HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS THROUGH THE SUBJECT OF PANCASILA EDUCATION CITIZENSHIP Iwan Fajri, Rusli Yusuf & Ruslan

393-403

56 PRENATAL STRESS AND CHILD NEURO-DEVELOPMENT Lely Safrina

404-412

57 THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS BY EFL STUDENTS IN ESSAY WRITING Novi Yanti, Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf & Usman Kasim

413-422

58 PARENTS’ PARTICIPATION IN CHILDREN’S ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT Rahmi Fhonna, Fidyati & Suryani

423-428

59 THE IMPORTANCE OF CHARACTER EDUCATION: THE ENGLISH TEACHER’S EFFORTS AND CHALLENGES IN STUDENTS’ CHARACTER BUILDING Hendra Heriansyah

429-434

60 PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT TO INCREASE CHILDREN’S READING INTEREST FOR PRESCHOOL CHILDREN’S CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT Rahmi

435-444

61 IMPLEMENTING CHARACTER VALUES AT AN ISLAMIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN ACEH BESAR Tengku Maya Silviyanti & Fadhil Zakaria

445-449

62 THE CONCEPTS OF PRAYER AND RESPECT AS CHARACTER EDUCATION OF ACEHNESE CHILDREN Herman RN, Mukhlis, Saiful & Sanusi

450-456

63 THE EFFECT OF INTERNET ON YOUTH: WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT WE DO NOT KNOW AND WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW Khatijatusshalihah & Rahma Syahira

457-464

viii

CONFERENCE COMMITTEES Patronage Ir. H. Nova Iriansyah, M.T (Acting Governor of Aceh Province) Prof. Dr. Ir. Samsul Rizal, M. Eng. (Rector of Syiah Kuala University) Advisory Board Dr. Ir. Dyah Erti Idawati, M.T. Prof. Madya Dr. Qismullah Yusuf, M.Ed. Dr. Hizir Sofyan Dr. Bahrun, M.Pd. Mirza, Psi. M.Si. Organizing Committee Chairman : Syariamah T. Banta Alamsyah Deputy Chairman : Dra. Cut Nilawati Razali Secretary : Maitanur, S.Pd., M.M. Deputy Secretary : Febri Nurrahmi, S.Sos., M.MP. Treasurer : Yusliana Deputy Treasurer : Nova Secretariat Division Coordinator : Retnowati Members : Rosmariati : Rini Muchtar : Safriani, M.Ed. Event Division Coordinator : Sarwati Members : Ruwaida, M.Ed. : Ferdian, S.Pd, M.Ed. : Yusra Mayawati, M.Ed. : Saptiani, S.Pd.I., M.Pd.I. : Dr. Marty Mawarpury, M.Psi. : Dr. Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, M.Ling. Publication Division Coordinator : Tati Ariana Member : Dr. Harbiyah, S.T., M.Pd. Proceedings Division Coordinator : Dr. Kismullah, M.App.Ling. Member : Muhammad Chandra Gunawan Transportation and Accommodation Division Coordinator : Handayani Kurniasih, ST, M.Ed. Member : Ida Nusraini, M.Ed. : Khoiriyah, M.Ed.

ix

Equipment and Venue Division Coordinator : Rasyidah Member : Raizatul Aizah Catering Division Coordinator : Dra. Fakhrah Thahir Members : Eranida Yusnaniar : Saudah

x

EDITORIAL BOARD Chief Editor : Febri Nurrahmi, S.Sos., M.MP. Vice Chief Editor : Dr. Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, M.Ling. Editors : Dr. Marty Mawarpury, M.Psi. : Dr. Kismullah, M.App.Ling. : Yusra Mayawati, M.Ed. Reviewers: 1. Dr. Kismullah, S.Pd., M.App.Ling., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 2. Dr. Marty Mawarpury, M.Psi.,Psikolog, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 3. Dr. Masrizal, S.Pd.I., M.Ed., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 4. Dr. Nidya Dudija, S.Psi., M.A., Telkom University, Bandung, Indonesia 5. Dr. Siti Sarah Fitriani, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 6. Dr. Siti Suriani Othman, Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia, Nilai, Malaysia 7. Dr. Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, S.Pd., M.Ling., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda

Aceh, Indonesia 8. Dr. Zulfadli A. Azis, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 9. Burhansyah, S.Pd. M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 10. Chairina, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 11. Dewi Fitriani, M.Ed., Ar-Raniry State Islamic University, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 12. Dian Fajrina, S.Pd., M.Ed., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia &

University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand 13. Diana, S.Pd., M.Ed., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 14. Diana Fauzia Sari, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 15. Febri Nurrahmi, S.Sos., M.MP., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 16. Hendra Heriansyah, S.Pd., M.Pd., M.TESOL, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh,

Indonesia 17. Ika Apriani Fata, S.Pd., M. Hum., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 18. Lismalinda, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Iskandarmuda, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 19. Nira Erdiana, S.Pd., M.Pd., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 20. Nurul Inayah, S.Pd., M. TESOL, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 21. Syarifah Faradina, M.Psi., Psikolog, Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh,

Indonesia 22. Tanzir Masykar, S.Pd. M.A., Akademi Komunitas Nasional, Meulaboh, Indonesia 23. Tengku Maya Silviyanti, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh,

Indonesia 24. Yuliana, S.Pd., M.A., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 25. Yusra Mayawati, S.Pd, M.Ed., Yayasan Bayyinah, Banda Aceh, Indonesia 26. Zaujatul Amna, S.Psi. M.Sc., Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

xi

SYIAH KUALA UNIVERSITY

Dear all participants. Welcome to Aceh, and enjoy your visit and stay in Banda Aceh, the capital city of Aceh, Indonesia. We also welcome you to Syiah Kuala University, a university that started its missions as the center for spreading Islam to the Nusantara in the early 1600s when it was under the Al-Jami’atul Baitur Rahman (Al-Jami’atul means a university) with its 17 faculties and 68 departments. This university with its library was located at the present Pasar Aceh (Downtown of Banda Aceh) and had published thousands of books on Shahadah, Tauhid, Ibadah, Sciences, and others, and sent them to other parts of the countries in the Nusantara. This university continued to be the center of sciences until it was burned down, together with its library, when the Dutch army stormed Banda Aceh on April 10th, 1873. It was later rebuilt in 1961, and now, with its student population of 32,000, it continues to flourish its teaching, research and community development for the welfares of the Acehnese and Indonesians. This conference, themed the Roles of Parents in Shaping the Children’s Characters, is conducted jointly between Syiah Kuala University and the Aceh Family Welfare and Empowerment (PKK Aceh), aiming at developing awareness among families and other stakeholders of education in Aceh on how important the character is for building our nation. This is the third activity where Syiah Kuala University collaborates with PKK Aceh. The first one was on Developing Innovative Pedagogy for Special Education followed by providing services to children with learning disabilities, and the second was on Developing Strategic Pedagogies in Teaching STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) for teachers of primary and secondary school teachers of Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar. We have conducted three main events for 2018 alone. We will continue working together with PKK Aceh in empowering women in Aceh. We do hope that the participants enjoy the presentations from the conference keynote speakers: the Rector of the Kolej-Universiti Perguruan Ugama Seri Begawan (KUPU-SB), Brunei Darussalam, the Deputy Rector of International Relations of Fatoni University in Pattani, Thailand, the Fellow Researcher at the Center for Guidance and Counseling of the Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia, a well-known motivator for early childhood education of Indonesia, the Deputy Chairwoman of PKK Aceh, and one of the academicians from Syiah Kuala University. Family, as the Prophet Rasulullah SAW said, is the foundation of a nation and the role of PKK Aceh is laying down and developing a strong foundation of our nation. The university would also like to thank to all members of PKK Aceh, the staff of Syiah Kuala University, the alumni of the Sultan Idris Education University, and to all committee members who have been specifically assigned for this conference. May Allah bless us all. Banda Aceh, November 27, 2018 Prof. Dr. Ir. Samsul Rizal, M. Eng. Rector of Syiah Kuala University

xii

ACEH FAMILY WELFARE AND EMPOWERMENT

The Aceh Family Empowerment and Welfare (PKK Aceh) is working closely with Syiah Kuala University in empowering and in developing the welfare of women in Aceh by expanding its programs beyond its regular ones, focusing on developing awareness among its members on theories and foundations of education for the purposes of laying down characters as guided by the Presidential Decree No. 87, 2017, issued on September 6, 2017. The Deputy Rector of Syiah Kuala University for International Affairs and his special staff is assigned by the Rector of Syiah Kuala University to work closely with us in developing education-related programs. Among the programs that we have been working together this year are: (1) Innovative Pedagogies for Teaching Students with Special Needs followed by providing services to the parents and pupils with special needs, 2) Strategies for Teaching STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) for teachers of primary and junior high schools of Banda Aceh and Aceh Besar, and (3) this conference on the Roles of Parents in Shaping Children’s Characters. The participants for this conference are mostly the members of PKK Aceh, followed by the teachers and lecturers of state and private universities in Aceh, the educators and all stakeholders of education in this province, and international participants from countries in South-East Asian nations. The main purposes of conducting this conference are to expand the horizons of the members of PKK Aceh beyond its regular programs and develop links with other teacher training institutions in Indonesia and abroad. There is also a special program designed for members of PKK Aceh from all districts in Aceh on how to develop guidance and counseling strategies for children using the Prodigy approach, provided by a specialist in Prodigy from the Sultan Idris Education University, Perak, Malaysia on the second day (full day) of the conference. PKK Aceh extends its thanks and appreciations to Syiah Kuala University. PKK Aceh would also like to thank to its member who has been working closely with Syiah Kuala University, to the special staff of Syiah Kuala University, to the alumni of the Sultan Idris Education University, and others who have been working hard to make this conference a successful forum for our members in expanding their links with national and international education institutions. We would also like to express our appreciations to Prof. Dr. Haji Adanan bin Haji Basar Rais, the Rector of the Kolej-Universiti Perguruan Ugama Seri Begawan (KUPU-SB), Brunei Darussalam; to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Shukree Langputeh, the Deputy Rector of International Relations of Fatoni University in Pattani, Thailand; to Encik Aziz Mohd Yatim, the Fellow Researcher at the Center for Guidance and Counseling of the Sultan Idris Education University, Malaysia; Mr. Petro Alexy, to our national motivator for early childhood education of Indonesia, and to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Qismullah Yusuf as one of the academicians from Syiah Kuala University who have made themselves available to give keynote speeches at this conference. Banda Aceh, 27 November 2018 Dr. Ir. Dyah Erti Idawati, M.Eng. Deputy Chairwoman of Aceh Family Welfare and Empowerment

Proceedings of the International Conference on the Roles of Parents in Shaping Children’s Characters (ICECED), December 3-4, 2018, Anjong Mon Mata, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

413

THE USE OF DISCOURSE MARKERS BY EFL STUDENTS IN ESSAY

WRITING

Novi Yanti, *Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf, Usman Kasim Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education,

Universitas Syiah Kuala, Banda Aceh, Indonesia, Indonesia *Email: [email protected]

Abstract The objectives of this research were to identify the English discourse markers (hence, DMs) commonly used by university students in learning English as a foreign language and to find out their misuse in their essay writing. The subjects of this research were the fourth semester students of the English Language Education Department at a university in Banda Aceh. The data collected were 86 essays in two forms: argumentative and descriptive. The results of the document analysis showed that the students did make use of contrastive markers, elaborative markers, and inferential markers in their essays. The markers but, and and so were found to be the most used DMs by the students. Furthermore, abundance of inappropriate uses of the DMs in their sentences were also found; these include overuse or redundancy, misinterpreted relation, and mistranslation (L1-L2). Considering the importance of DMs in discourse, writing and comprehension, EFL students should be taught about English DMs from their early introduction to English at school to help them develop better understanding of DMs and their appropriate uses in English writing. Keywords: Discourse Markers, English, Writing, EFL Students

INTRODUCTION Many students and especially those learning English as a foreign language face difficulty in writing and this include developing relevant topic and having well-organized ideas, sentences, and paragraph (Wishon, 2004). It takes abundant practice and exercise in developing writing skills. Among the skills that become the focus of writing are on how to generate ideas, to organize the text coherently, to use discourse markers and rhetorical conventions appropriately and cohesively into the text, to revise the text in order to get explicit meaning, to edit for appropriate grammar and to produce a final product (Brown, 2001). That is why Hogue (1996) states that writing is not a one-step action, but it is a process of several steps. Among the writing skills mentioned above are the use of discourse markers (hereafter, DMs). DMs are the lexical expressions or markers that function in constructing the flow of discourse to connect ideas between sentences (Fakuade & Sharudama, 2012). They are beneficial to provide explicit clues to determine the interrelated ideas of a text. Martinez (2004) also states that DMs are linguistic items such as so, and, but, because, etc., which are a set of clues that create cohesiveness, coherence and meaning in a discourse. DMs contribute to the coherence of the text by establishing coherence relationships between units of talk (Schiffrin (1987). Moreover, Belicová (2011) has mentioned some functions of DMs, and they are to organize discourse segments as contextual coordinates of talk and to rule out the unintended interpretations of an utterance. Thus, the main function of DMs is to tie the discourse segments together that contributes to the overall coherence of the discourse.

Novi Yanti, Yunisrina Qismullah Yusuf & Usman Kasim

414

In our preliminary observations on the students majoring in English at one of the universities in Banda Aceh, we found that most of them are still facing difficulty in arranging and connecting their ideas to produce a good essay. Nevertheless, based on the literature, using DMs in writing is one of the ways to facilitate students to produce a good essay. Since published research on DMs in written discourse have not been studied much on EFL students in Aceh, therefore this research intends to fill in the gap. Specifically, we are interested to conduct a research on how DMs are used by EFL (English as a Foreign Language) students in their writing. It hinges on Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy to represent the DMs because Jalilifar (2008, p. 115) says that Fraser's taxonomy “conforms to written discourse and it seems to be the most comprehensive classification in written discourse”. The research questions posed are: 1. What discourse markers do the EFL university students commonly use in essay

writing? 2. What discourse markers do the EFL university students incorrectly use in essay

writing?

This research results are expected to offer enhancement to the teaching and learning of writing to EFL students and increase students’ awareness on the use of DMs to improve their writing skills. In relation to early childhood education, Choi (2007, p. 41)

mentions, “children’s early use of discourse markers may enable them to detect the

communicative need to develop a full understanding of the meaning of them”.

Therefore, introducing its appropriate use during early age play an important role in

developing their ability to mark relationships between units of discourse. LITERATURE REVIEW In the earlier years, Redeker (1991) recognizes DMs as discourse operators, whilst Blakemore (2002) mentions them as discourse connectives. Nevertheless, these expressions refer to DMs as commonly referred to today. DMs are not merely expressions but they are also a group of linguistic items that function within the cognitive, social, expressive, and textual domains (Schiffrin, 2001). Fraser (1999) previously divides DMs into two main classes: messages relating markers and topic relating markers. After the development of DMs theoretical research over years, Fraser (2009) then categorizes the discourse markers into three functional class: elaborative markers, contrastive markers, and inferential markers. Furthermore, Fraser (2009, p. 301) states that the first marker in each class (but, and, and so as shown in Table 1) is the primary marker of each class and has the broadest meaning of all the DMs in a class. Table 1 shows the DMs based on Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy:

Table 1. Discourse markers based on Fraser’s (2009) Taxonomy

No Class Expressions

1. Contrastive Discourse Markers (CDMs)

but, although, contrariwise, contrary to expectations, conversely, despite (this/that), even so, however, in spite of (this/that), in comparison (with this/that), in contrast (to this/that), instead (of this/that), nevertheless, nonetheless, (this/that point), notwithstanding, on the other hand, on the contrary, rather (than this/that), regardless (of this/that), still, though, whereas, yet.

2. Elaborative Discourse Markers (EDMs)

and, above all, also, alternatively, analogously, besides, by the same token, correspondingly, equally, for example, for


415

instance, further(more), in addition, in other words, in particular, likewise, more accurately, more importantly, more precisely, more to the point, moreover, on that basis, on top of it all, or, otherwise, rather, similarly, that is (to say).

3. Inferential Discourse Markers (IDMs)

so, after all, all things considered, as a conclusion, as a consequence (of this/that), as a result (of this/that), because (of this/that), consequently, for this/that reason, hence, it follows that, accordingly, in this/that/any case, on this/that condition, on these/those grounds, then, therefore, thus.

Related studies on DMs have been conducted by several researchers in various countries (Modhish, 2012; Martinez, 2004), in different academic essay genre (Rahimi, 2011), and at different levels of English language proficiency (Ali & Mahadin, 2016; Jalilifar, 2008) such as advanced and intermediate EFL learners. Jalilifar (2008) investigated DMs in descriptive compositions of Iranian students by using Fraser's (1999) taxonomy. The findings showed that elaborative markers were the most frequently used, followed by inferential, contrastive, causative, and topic relating markers. The direct and positive relationship between the quality of the compositions and the number of well-functioned discourse markers were also noted in the study. The results moreover showed significant differences between the use of discourse markers and composition quality in the groups of students. Another study by Ali and Mahadin (2016), who investigated the use of DMs in expository essays written by Jordanian EFL learners of advanced and intermediate students, also used Fraser’s (2009) taxonomy to represent the targeted DMs. The analysis indicated that the students employed comparable rates of DMs in their essays. Intermediate students were found to use more restricted sets of DMs than advanced students did. Similar to Jalilifar (2008), the research by Ali and Mahadin (2016) also found elaborative markers to be the most frequently employed by the students, and followed by inferential markers. It may be because expository essays mostly require elaboration of ideas that are signaled by the use of DMs in the elaborative class. Their study concluded that the use of DMs was affected by the proficiency levels of the EFL learners. METHOD This study used the qualitative research design to find out the DMs that are used commonly by EFL university students in essay writing and those that are used incorrectly by the students in their essay writing. The subjects of this research were the fourth semester students at the English Language Education Department, Ar-Raniry State Islamic University, Banda Aceh, who were taking the course of Writing III. Meanwhile, the primary instrument used to collect data were the students’ English essay writing. We analyzed 86 texts of students’ writing of two forms of essays: argumentative and descriptive. The argumentative essay consisted two topics, they were “Dependent on smartphones” and “Why do we need music?” whilst the descriptive essay topic was “The process of being a bachelor degree”.


416

To answer the research questions, the DMs recognized in the students’ essays were categorized into Fraser’s (2009) three functional classes: elaborative markers, contrastive markers, and inferential markers. The data were basically analyzed following the steps of data condensation, data display, and verifying conclusion (Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2013). In addition, after the researcher categorized the varieties of discourse markers based on its classification, the researcher also calculated the data to find out the frequency of discourse markers used by the students in their essay writing. Interviews with the students were also conducted to gain more data on the use of DMs in their essay writing. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on data analysis, the students made use of all three types of DMs (i.e. contrastive markers (CDMs), elaborative markers (EDMs), and inferential markers (IDMs)) in their essay writings. The students in both essay types (i.e. 417 DMs in the argumentative essays and 388 DMs in the descriptive essays) used approximately 755 discourse markers. The data also showed that elaborative markers were the most used markers in students’ descriptive and argumentative essays, where 142 occurred in the descriptive essays and 176 occurred in the argumentative essays. Figure 1 shows the frequency of the DMs occurrences in the students’ essay writing.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

CDMs EDMs IDMs

Descriptive Text Argumentative text

Figure 1. DMs used in EFL university students’ essay writing.

From Figure 1, the frequency of EDMs as the most used DMs in the students’ essay writing was perhaps due to the need of idea elaborations by using those markers to signal relationships between segments. In particular, three DMs mainly used by the students in EDMs are but, and, and so. The following sections explain the DMs of each class used by the students in their essay writing. The symbols E and S are to refer to the examples (E) and the subjects (S) of this research where E.1 means Example 1, E.2 means Example 2, etc., and S.1 means Subject 1, S.2 means Subject 2, and so forth. The Discourse Markers Commonly Used by the Students The first class of analysis is the use of contrastive markers or CDMs in the students’ essay writing. The CDMs commonly used were but (159 occurrences), however (24 occurrences), although (14 occurrences), whereas (3 occurrences), on the other hand (3


417

occurrences), nevertheless (2 occurrences), even so (2 occurrences), and on the contrary (2 occurrences). These markers were used to signal that the message given in the sentence is introducing contrasts directly or indirectly to the previous sentence(s). The detail frequency of each occurrence is shown in Table 2.

Table 2. The use of contrastive markers

No Contrastive Markers Number of Occurrences

Descriptive Argumentative

1 but 82 77 2 although 7 7 3 However 17 7 4 on the contrary 1 1 5 on the other hand 1 2 6 even so 2 - 7 whereas 1 - 8 nevertheless - 1

The following data shows the use of CDMs in the students’ essay writing (EW). The DMs under study are underlined in the samples. EW.1 refers to the first data sample, EW.2 refers to the second data sample, and so forth. Meanwhile, S refers to Student and the number(s) that precedes it refers to the student’s code for this research. EW.1 This predicate was intended as an award given by the school to the “santriwan and

santriwati” who actively follow the organization, the competition, and considered to have exemplary characters. Of course, I was very happy to get this award, but this was not something that I should be proud of. On the contrary, this was a new responsibility for me because I must be a good example, so my all activities will be the spotlight in the boarding community. (S.85)

EW.1 displays one of the students’ descriptive text who begins her writing by establishing the explanation of the topic to develop the paragraph. She also extends the discussion by using CDMs in her writing, but and on the contrary, to indicate the contrast relationship between the previous and the preceded sentences. The marker but is used in medial position and the grammatical status of this marker is as conjunction which connects the two independent clauses of the text. While, on the contrary is used in the initial position of the second sentence and it is included as one of prepositional phrases based on Fraser (2009). By using those markers in the essay writing, it eases the readers to understand more easily of the texts. This is, as proposed, that the use of discourse markers is to integrate meaning of the text (Fakuade & Sharudama, 2012). The second functional class is the elaborative markers or EDMs used by the students in their essay writing. After analyzing the data, the EDMs used by the students are and (222 occurrences), also (46 occurrences), for example (22 occurrences), in addition (13 occurrences), moreover (5 occurrences), otherwise (5 occurrences), besides (5 occurrences), furthermore (5 occurrences), in other words (4), likewise (2 occurrences), and or (1 occurrences). They are as displayed in Table 3.


418

Table 3. The use of elaborative markers

No Elaborative Markers Number of Occurrences


1 and 115 107 2 also 8 38 3 in addition 9 4 4 moreover 3 2 5 besides 3 2 6 otherwise 1 1 7 furthermore 2 3 8 or 1 - 9 in other words 2 2 10 for example 5 17

The following data shows the use of EDMs in the students’ essay writing. The DMs under study are underlined in the samples. EW.2 Music colors our life. Everyone has his or her own taste in music. They enjoy their

favorite music any time they like. As we know, music has some benefits to our life. They are relaxing, expressive, and entertaining. For people who have hard work and need time to rest, music can help them to relax their mind and get them to sleep. Some people use music to express themselves. For example, they listen to their favorite song and they try to sing that song, too. For people who are stress, they often sing louder to release their stress. Music also entertain people who have a lot of spare time. As we know, there are two important types of music. They are traditional and international music. (S.58)

EW.2 is the introduction paragraph of the students’ argumentative essay. It shows the use of elaborative markers in the text. These markers are used by the student in various positions in the sentence. As the condition of DMs, it may be in the initial segment, medial segment, and final segment (Fraser, 2009). In EW.2, for example and and are used in the initial sentence by the student whereas also is used in the medial position of the sentence to draw additional information of the previous ideas by giving more description of its examples. These markers provide explicit clues of interrelated ideas of the text to ease the readers’ comprehension. The inferential discourse markers or IDMs is the last classification used in this research. The students used different forms of IDMs in their essay writing. The inferential markers commonly used were so (98 occurrences), because (71 occurrences), then (30 occurrences), followed by in conclusion (13 occurrences), therefore (9 occurrences), as a result (4 occurrences), hence (2 occurrences), after all (2 occurrences), and thus (2 occurrences). These markers were used to signal the sentences based on the reference of previous sentences. The frequency of IDMs used by the students in their essay writing are presented in Table 4.


419

Table 4. The use of inferential markers

No Inferential Markers Number of Occurrences


1 so 40 58 2 then 21 9 3 therefore 8 1 4 because 8 63 5 after all 2 - 6 as a result 2 2 7 thus 2 - 8 hence 1 - 9 in conclusion 1 12

EW.3 shows the following data sample of essay writings produced by the student that used the inferential markers. EW.3 The post-primary education level is the junior high school. Junior high school only lasts

for 3 years. The subject matter learned by the student is the continuation of the material he/she has acquired in primary school. If the elementary school students study science in its general form, then in junior high school students will learn it in terms that are more specific. Science lessons are divided into several subjects, such as physics, biology and chemistry. Likewise, with the lessons of social science, they are divided into lessons of history, geography, and economics. Thus, the material learned by the students will be more in-depth and detailed. At this age, students begin to seek their identity. They begin to have a great curiosity. (S.84)

In EW.3, then and thus represent the IDMs used by the student in descriptive essay. Those markers show that the information provided was based on the reason of the previous sentence, also as the result inferred from previous ideas. In EW.3, then is used in the medial position of the sentence and it includes as an adverbial marker. While, thus is used in the initial position of the second sentence that signaled an inferential relationship of the previous sentence. This shows that the student could use inferential markers to refer sentences of the topic being discussed. The Discourse Markers Incorrectly Used by the Students The data in this research also found some discourse markers that are used inappropriately by the students in their essay writing. The DMs used did not show correct or appropriate relationship between the sentences of the students’ essay writing. As a result, the DMs used were not effective. Accordingly, we found three issues in the use of DMs by the students in their essay writing. They are overuse (i.e. redundant use of DMs), mistranslation (L1-L2) (i.e. the DMs used were derived from word-by-word translation of Indonesian-English or the students’ first language interference), and misinterpreted relation (i.e. the connection represented by the DMs did not show to the relationship that existed between sentences). Data samples of these incorrect uses of DMs are shown in the following extracts. EW.4 From here, I began to learn recognizing myself and1 to not always depend on my

parents. And2 I also got a lot of new friends and3 experiences that are profitable to me, learned how to respect each other, learned to be disciplined, learned how to spend my


420

time, and4 learned how to make money, and5 since I lived in a boarding school, from me who can’t swim until now in the end I can swim because I was taught by my friend. And6 just in 2013, I turned 16 years old and7 I have finished junior high school and received a second certificate. (S.79)

In EW.4 it is obvious that and was used excessively by the student. This is one of the examples that the student overused the DMs in the text and in one paragraph. It can be seen from the frequency occurrences of this marker that are redundant in a close position of the paragraph, and even combined two markers in a sentence. From the text, “And2”, “and5”, “And6” and “and7” should be deleted. A full stop should be placed after “…money” and a comma should be placed after “…16 years old”. Since this already at the university level, it is expected that the student is aware of the existence of other elaborative markers but avoided or too ignorant to use them. Furthermore, EW.5 is another part of an essay written by S.51 in which the DMs were used inappropriately in the text. EW.5 In extracurricular we will do activities that we like and which we choose such as

various types of sports, painting or musical instruments. All of that will be taught by the school teachers or private teachers who are financed by the school. Not only that, on Saturdays also we are required to speak English for the bilingual class. (S.70)

EW.5 shows the misuse of translation (L1-L2). In this case, the student elaborated the explanation by using the words as transition signals that are formed from the interference of their first language. An obvious direct translation is such as “…on Saturdays also we are required to…” translated directly from “…di hari Sabtu juga kami harus…” Meanwhile, in English it should be translated as “…on Saturdays, we are also required to…”. Furthermore, instead of using “Not only that”, an appropriate discourse marker suggested would be to use “In addition” or “Moreover” to indicate elaboration of the previous sentences to better integrate them in the paragraph. EW.6 They regard international music as cool. In addition, using the international language,

it makes people to understand the international language, even the beginners in speaking English. But when they hear international music, they feel increase significant in learning the foreign language. (S.51)

The DMs used in EW.6 shows inappropriate relations between sentences. This is a part of the misinterpreted relation produced by the students. The idea of this sentence is not to present contrastive ideas, thus the student use “But” at the end of the paragraph and this does not connect this sentence to the previous ones. Since this sentence shows the relation of an elaborative idea, it would be better to substitute “But” into “Moreover”, “Furthermore”, “Likewise” or “What’s more” as the appropriate elaborative markers. Finally, based on the research findings, the students have made use of contrastive markers, elaborative markers, and inferential markers in their essay writing. Elaborative markers are found to be the most used markers in both essay types (i.e. argumentative and descriptive). It is (42%) equally used by the students in descriptive and argumentative essays. Accordingly, this finding is similar to Jalilifar (2008) and Rahimi (2011) who found that elaborative markers were also the most frequently used


421

in the Iranian EFL students’ essay writing. Jalilifar (2008) claimed that there was a direct and positive relationship between the quality of the essays and the number of well-functioned discourse markers that are used in the writing as well. Rahimi (2011) explains that this may be due to the writing in general that requires explanation of ideas, which depends largely on the use of elaborative markers to establish parallel relationships between different sections of the written discourse. CONCLUSIONS To conclude, this study found that but, and and so are the DMs mainly used by the students in their essay writing. Furthermore, the most frequently used DMs are elaborative markers (42%) and they are equally found in both descriptive and argumentative essays. Meanwhile, in descriptive essay, the second frequently used discourse markers are contrastive markers (32.8%), followed by inferential markers (25.2%). In the meantime, in argumentative essay, the second frequently used discourse markers are inferential markers (35%) and contrastive markers (23%). In the case of inappropriate use of DMs, they are mostly found to be the in over using the DMs, misinterpreting relation, and conducting mistranslation (L1-L2). The reasons may be caused by the students’ lack of practice in the use of DMs in their writing. Therefore, students should be appropriately introduced to DMs in writing practices and teachers should provide continuous exercises in this skill to eventually develop

and improve their writing ability. It is also suggested that these DMs are introduced to

children at the early years of schooling when English is taught to them. Children’s pragmatic competence continues to progress as they grow, and the ability to mark relationships between units of discourse is important because it facilitates their communicative need to develop a full understanding of meaning in any discourse they are in. REFERENCES Ali, E. A. & Mahadin, R. S. (2016). The use of discourse markers in written discourse by

students of English at the University of Jordan. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 6(3), 23-35.

Belicová, J. (2011). Japanese discourse markers: An analysis of native and non-native Japanese discourse. (Unpublished thesis). Palacký University Olomouc, Ceko.

Blakemore, D. (2002). Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle: An interactive approach to language pedagogy (2nd Edition). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Choi, I. (2007). How and when do children acquire the use of discourse markers? Proceedings of the Fifth University of Cambridge Postgraduate Conference in Language Research (pp. 40-47). Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Language Research.

Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931-953. Fraser, B. (2009). An account of discourse markers. International Review of Pragmatics, 1,

1–28. Fakuade, G., & Sharudama, E. C. (2012). A comparative analysis of variations in

cohesive devices in professional and popularized legal texts. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 4(2), 300-318.

Jalilifar, A. (2008). Discourse markers in composition writings: The case of Iranian learners of English as a foreign language. English Language Teaching, 1(2), 114-127.


422

Martinez, A. (2004). Discourse markers in the expository writing of Spanish university students. IBÉRICA, 8, 63-80.

Miles, M. B, Huberman, A. M, & Saldana, J. M. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. London: Sage Publications, Inc.

Modhish, A. S. (2012). Use of discourse markers in the composition writings of Arab EFL learners. English Language Teaching, 5(5), 56-61

Hogue, A. (1996). First steps in academic writing. Boston: Addison Wesley Publishing. Rahimi, M. (2011). Discourse markers in argumentative and expository writing of

Iranian EFL learners. World Journal of English Language, 1(2), 68-78. Redeker, G. (1991). Linguistic markers of discourse structure. Linguistics, 29, 1139–1172. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, D. (2001). Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In D. Schiffrin,

D. Tannen & H. Hamilton, Handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 56-75). Malden: Blackwell Publishers.

Wishon, G. E. (2004). Let’s write English. New York: Litton Educational Publishing International.

proceedings - rp2u.unsyiah.ac.id

Documents