the effectiveness of peer-assessment...

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PEER-ASSESSMENT THROUGH

FACEBOOK TOWARDS STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL IN

NARRATIVE TEXT

(A Quasi-experimental Study at Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma

Bangsa School of Global Education)

A Skripsi

By:

Aziz Awaludin

1110014000067

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TARBIYAH AND TEACHERS’ TRAINING

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

JAKARTA

2015

I

ABSTRACT

Aziz Awaludin (1110014000067). The Effectiveness of Peer-assessment

through Facebook towards Students’ Writing Narrative Text (A Quasi-

experimental Study at the Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma Bangsa School of

Global Education, South Tangerang). Skripsi of Department of English Education

at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of State Islamic Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta University, 2015.

Advisor I : Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D.

Advisor II: Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL.

The objective of this research is to examine the effectiveness of using “peer-

assessment” method through “Facebook” media in improving students’ skill in

writing narrative text. Method of the study which is used in this research is a

quantitative method, i.e. a quasi-experimental study. Samples of this research are

the tenth grade students of Kharisma Bangsa in South Tangerang. They are class

10 E (standard level) as the controlled class and class 10 CD (standard level) as

the experimental class. Each class consists of 20 students. For sampling

technique, the researcher uses convenience sampling as a part of nonprobability

sampling. Instrument of this research is a written test. To attain the reliability of

the test instrument, the researcher used rubric for scoring, namely an analytic

scoring to score the students’ writing on the pre-test and the post-test. Result of

this research is that the students’ pre-test mean score (x ) of the experimental class

is 44 and the students’ post-test mean score (x ) is 71.25. On the other hand, the

students’ pre-test mean score (x ) of the controlled class is 49.25 and the post-test

mean score (x ) is 79.75. Implementation of peer-assessment through Facebook is

not an effective way for improving the students’ writing narrative text because the

experimental students’ scores are not better than that of the controlled one.

Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is rejected. Finding of statistical hypothesis

test shows that sig. (2-tailed) value of the prost-test score is bigger than α value,

0.92 > 0.05, so, the H0 (null hypothesis) of the study is accepted.

Keywords: Peer-assessment, Facebook, Writing, Narrative Text.

II

ABSTRAK

Aziz Awaludin (1110014000067). The Effectiveness of Peer-assessment

through Facebook towards Students’ Writing Narrative Text (A Quasi-

experimental Study at the Tenth Grade Students of Kharisma Bangsa School of

Global Education, South Tangerang). Skripsi Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Ilmu Keguruan Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif

Hidayatullah Jakarta, 2015.

Pembimbing I : Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D.

Pembimbing II: Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL.

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji efektivitas penggunaan metode “peer-

assessment” melalui media “Facebook” dalam meningkatkan keterampilan

menulis siswa unutk writing teks naratif. Metode penelitian yang digunakan

adalah riset quantitatif, yaitu studi eksperimen semu. Sampel dari penelitian ini

adalah siswa kelas sepuluh sekolah Kharisma Bangsa di Tangerang Selatan.

Mereka adalah kelas 10 E (standard level) sebagai kelas control dan kelas 10 CD

(standard level) sebagai kelas eksperimen. Setiap kelas terdiri dari 20 siswa.

Untuk teknik penentuan sampel, Peneliti menggunakan “convenience sampling”

sebagai bagian dari “nonprobability sampling”. Instrumen penelitiannya adalah

tes tertulis. Untuk mendapatkan reliabilitas instrumen, Peneliti menggunakan

rubrik untuk penilaian, yaitu penilaian analitis yang dipakai untuk menilai tulisan

siswa baik dari pre-test maupun post-test. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan

bahwa nilai rata-rata (x ) siswa kelas eksperimen dari pre-test adalah 44,

sedangkan nilai rata-rata (x ) dari post-test adalah 71,25. Di sisi lain, nilai rata-

rata (x ) siswa kelas kontrol dari pre-test adalah 49,25, sedangkan nilai rata-rata

(x ) dari post-test adalah 79,75. Penerapan peer-assessment melalui Facebook

bukanlah cara yang efektif untuk meningkatkan skor tulisan siswa dalam menulis

teks naratif. Maka dari itu hipotesis alternatif ditolak. Penemuan dari uji

hipotesis secara statistik menunjukkan nilai sig. (2-tailed) nilai prost-test lebih

besar dari nilai α, 0,92 > 0,05, jadi, H0 (hipotesis nihil) dari penelitian ini

diterima.

Kata kunci: Peer-assessment, Facebook, Writing, Narrative Text.

VI

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

All praise be to Allah, the Lord of the worlds and the King of all kings,

who has given all creatures blessings and mercies and beautified this pleasant life

with knowledge humans search for. Salawat and salam may be addressed to the

Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who brought conception from God to

enlighten this world.

It is really a happiness and pride that the researcher is able to complete this

final assignment, skripsi, under the title “The Effectiveness of Implementing Peer-

assessment through Facebook in Teaching Writing Narrative Text”. The

researcher presents this work for Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers Training and,

therefore, he gets bachelor of art degree in English education.

However, this skripsi is nothing without the help of some other people.

Therefore, here the researcher is very thankful to the following figures who

contributed very much in finishing this work:

1. H. Sukra and Setiawati, parents of the researcher who fully supports him

all this time.

2. All lectures of department of English education who taught the researcher

with plenty of precious knowledge and experience.

3. Siti Nurul Azkiyah, Ph.D. and Atik Yuliyani, MA TESOL, the two

advisors who patiently guided the researcher in completion of skripsi from

the beginning to the end.

4. Dr. Fahriany, M.Pd. and Dadan Nugraha, M.Pd., the examineers who

correct this work to make it better.

5. Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., the researcher’s academic advisor who always

gives advises and motivation along his undergraduate program.

VII

6. Sutirto, S.Si., M.T., a headmaster of SMA Kharisma Bangsa School of

Global Education who warmly welcomed the researcher to conduct the

study in the school.

7. Isti Subandini, S.Pd., an English teacher of tenth grade students at SMA

Kharisma Bangsa who had given suggestions and criticisms for the study

and the instructions.

8. All students of class 10 CD and 10 E of Kharisma Bangsa who voluntarily

participated in this study.

9. Drs. Syauki, M.Pd., a chief of department of English education.

10. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, MA., a head of Faculty of Tarbiyah and

Teachers’ Training.

11. Dian Rahmawati, a partner in every business, who is loyally be there—

whenever the researcher is in need.

12. All friends of PBI B 2010. Especially, Lia, Arof, Wahyu, Ari, Abdul, Dea,

Windy, and Indri who motivate and contribute their ideas and experience

in enriching this research.

13. All family members of the researcher. In special, Aditya Setiawan and

Faiz Riyadi, younger brothers of him who always give much inspiration.

14. All members of Dershane Ciputat with whom the researcher stay. More

specially, Fery Küçük, Takdir, Tarekh, Ikhwan, Ade, and Fery Büyük who

always support and motivate him.

15. Everyone who directly and indirectly had contributed to the study.

Finally, the researcher realizes that this study is far from a word “perfect”.

Therefore, he is open for suggestion and criticism for the better of this study in the

future.

Jakarta, March 16th

, 2015

The Researcher

VIII

TABLE OF CONTENT

ABSTRACT…..................................................................................................

ABSTRAK…....................................................................................................

LETTER OF APPROVAL.............................................................................

ENDORSEMENT SHEET.............................................................................

LETTER OF AUTHENTICITY...................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGMENT.................................................................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS….............................................................................

LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES…....................................................................................

LIST OF APPENDICES.................................................................................

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION...................................................................

A. Background of the Study..................................................................

B. Identification of the Problem...........................................................

C. Limitation of the Problem................................................................

D. Formulation of the Problem.............................................................

E. Objective of the Research................................................................

F. Significance of the Research...........................................................

CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.......................................

A. Peer-assessment...............................................................................

1. Understanding of Peer-assessment.............................................

2. Advantages of Peer-assessment……..........................................

3. Disadvantages of Peer-assessment…….....................................

B. Writing.............................................................................................

C. Narrative Text..................................................................................

1. Understanding of Narrative Text...............................................

2. Generic structure of Narrative text.............................................

3. Linguistic Features of Narrative Text........................................

D. Facebook..........................................................................................

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VIII

XI

XII

XIII

1

1

4

4

5

5

5

7

7

6

8

8

9

10

10

11

12

12

IX

E. Previous Studies...............................................................................

CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY........................................

A. Research Design..............................................................................

B. Time and Location of the Research.................................................

C. Population and Sample.....................................................................

D. Instrument of the Research…..........................................................

Test of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument………………..

E. Technique of Data Collection..........................................................

F. Content of the Intervention.............................................................

G. Technique of Data Analysis.............................................................

1. Normality Test………………………………….……………..

2. Homogeneity Test……………………………….…………….

3. Hypothesis Test………………………………….…………….

H. Statistical Hypothesis……………………………….……………..

CHAPTER IV: FINDING AND DISCUSSION............................................

A. Description of Data........................................................................

1. Experimental Class...................................................................

2. Controlled Class..………….....................................................

B. Test of the Hypothesis.....................................................................

1. Preliminary Analysis.................................................................

a. Normality............................................................................

b. Homogeneity......................................................................

2. Result of T-test.........................................................................

a. T-test of Pre-test Scores.......................................................

b. T-test of Post-test Scores.....................................................

c. Gained scores of Experimental and Controlled Class…….

d. T-test of the Gained Scores..................................................

C. Discussion…………….……...........................................................

13

16

16

17

17

18

18

22

22

24

24

25

25

26

28

28

29

30

31

31

31

32

32

33

34

36

37

38

X

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION.....................................

A. Conclusion……..............................................................................

B. Suggestion………………………....................................................

REFERENCES...............................................................................................

42

42

43

45

XI

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. : Scoring Rubric for Narrative Writing……..…………………….. 20

Table 4.1. : Score of Pre- and Post-test of Experimental and Controlled Class 27

Table 4.2. : The Result of Normality Test of the Pre-test……………………. 30

Table 4.3. : Test of Homogeneity of Variance………………………………. 31

Table 4.4. : Result of T-test of Pre-Test………………………………............ 32

Table 4.5. : Result of T-test of Post-Test…..…………………….……............ 33

Table 4.6. : Gained Scores………………………............................................. 35

Table 4.7. : T-test of the Gained Scores…..…………………...………............ 36

XII

LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 3.1. : Nonequivalent Design……..………………...………….. 16

XIII

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 : Instrument of the Research; Pre- & Post-test………… 47

APPENDIX 2 : Eliciting a Valid Sample of Writing Ability…………. 48

APPENDIX 3 : Student’s Rubric..……………………………………. 49

APPENDIX 4 : Pre- & Post-test Scores of the Experimental Class…..: 50

APPENDIX 5 : Pre- & Post-test Scores of the Controlled Class…….. 51

APPENDIX 6 : Gained Scores of the Experimental Class……………. 52

APPENDIX 7 : Gained Scores of the Controlled Class………………. 53

APPENDIX 8 : Lesson Plan 1 (Control)………………………............ 54

APPENDIX 9 : Lesson Plan 1 (Experiment)…..………………............ 60





APPENDIX 14 : Overview of Facebook Group………..………............ 91

APPENDIX 15 : Pre-treatment Observation Sheet……..………............ 92

APPENDIX 16 : Post-treatment Observation Sheet…....………............ 93

APPENDIX 17 : Sample of Student’s Work in Pre-test (Experiment)..... 94

APPENDIX 18 : Sample of Student’s Work Pre-test (Control)…........... 95

APPENDIX 19 : Sample of Student’s Work in Post-test (Experiment)... 96

APPENDIX 20 : Sample of Student’s Work Post-test (Control)….......... 97

APPENDIX 21 : Surat Keterangan Penelitian…..………………............ 98

APPENDIX 22 : The Researcher’s Biography....………………............ 99

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Discussing about teaching writing skill, many questions may appear.

For example: what the effective way to teach writing is, whether students

could master writing with limited time provided, whether writing is as

important as other skills due to it is not tested in the National Examination.

Those questions can emerge and may be quite hard to answer. Writing as the

last productive skill is considered as the most difficult skill to be mastered by

EFL students. Their difficulties are not only because they must generate and

organize ideas, but also they have to turn the ideas into the target language.

Richards said that the students are considered to acquire some complicated

skills in which they have to concern to higher level skills of planning and

organizing. Also they must pay attention to lower level skills of spelling,

punctuation, word choice, and so forth.1 In this part, the writer attempts to

point out some possible causes that explain students‟ problems.

First, concerning teaching method, most of EFL teachers still

implement teachers‟ performance (teachers-centered situation) which is

contradictive with what is demanded by the curriculum. For this Carolyn

Kessler stated that “the role of teacher in traditional classroom is basically

that of instructor and knowledge transmitter. Thus, the teaching approach in

class is mainly lecture-based with teacher-centered transmissive models”.2

Because of this, classroom activities give fewer opportunities for student in

participating and ignore the learners‟ potentials and resources. It becomes a

problem because it is contradictive with the process of learning in Kurrikulum

2013 (character-based curriculum). On the other hand, the process of learning

1 Jack C. Richards, Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current

Practice, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 3. 2 Carolyn Kessler (Ed), Cooperative Language Learning: A Teacher’s Resource Book,

(New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1992), p. 5.

2

that is centered on the students is activities encouraging student enthusiasm

and desire.

Kurrikulum 2013 is aimed to encourage students-centered situation in

which they are able to learn independently. Holec defines learner autonomy

as “the ability to take charge of one‟s own learning”. In addition, in KD

(standard competency) 4.1 of English subject it is also said that, “Menyusun

teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan, menanyakan, dan

merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan fungsi sosial, struktur teks,

dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan sesuai dengan konteks”3 which

means students are considered to be able to create a simple text both orally or

writtenly to expalin, question, and respond narrative story, considering social

function, text structure, and language feature correctly and based on context.

Furthermore, concerning teaching time, teachers have very limited

time to cover their very large materials with huge number of students in a

class. Based on observation conducted by the writer at several schools around

Tangerang Selatan, there are only two meetings in a week and they have only

90 minutes (per meeting) for an English class. It is not enough to cover the

four skills of English which have so many materials to teach. Besides, writing

is a process that takes time. To create a good writing work is not an easy way.

Before completing a final draft, a writer should pass some procedures, such

as: pre-writing, outlining, developing outline, proofreading, revising, and

final drafting (writing process).4 It can be imagined, how hard teachers‟ task

in designing a good lesson plan is. They must have a trick to make teaching

and learning activities run well.

Based on the statements above, the writer believes that an appropriate

method may help teacher in teaching writing and improves student

achievement in writing. There are many strategies that can be used in

teaching and learning writing. One of those methods is peer-assessment in

which students are actively involved in the process of teaching and learning

3 Kurikulum Berbasis Karakter, (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Budaya Republik

Indonesia, 2013). 4 Purdue Owl, The Writing Process, 2015, (https://owl.english.purdue.edu).

3

to assess each other. Peer-assessment is an assessment of students that is done

by their friends, and it can be used for both formative reviews to facilitate

feedback and cumulative scoring.5 Peer-assessment as a method of writing

can enhance autonomous learning. Even though Kroll argues that teaching

writing skill with implementing written comment—like a process of peer-

assessment—is commonly not effective6, peer-assessment, according to

Falchikov, becomes a center of attention in recent years due to the rising

focus on learner autonomy in learning and assessment.7 Thus, teachers at

schools begin to use peer-assessment as one activity done by students.

Furthermore, peer-assessment used in this study is not a method that is

traditionally implemented at classrooms. As what is stated above, writing has

several processes that consume much time to do, so the writer used another

way of using peer-assessment. The writer used Facebook as a medium of

teaching that facilitates the method. This idea inspired by a study, The Effect

of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business Communication Course

Instruction, conducted by Ru-Chu Shih.8 The use of this virtual media can

make teaching writing more effective, because teachers do not need to use his

teaching time for conducting peer-assessment. Through Facebook students

can simply assess their friends‟ works outside classrooms so that teachers are

able to use their teaching time for other things. Then, after the assessment the

students know errors of their writings, so they can revise them—as one of the

writing procedures.

In addition, there is no doubt that Facebook is one of the most popular

social media used by millions of people. There are more than 500 million

5 Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in Practical

Group Work, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2010, p.

776. 6 Kroll Barbara, Second Language Writing, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1990), pp. 60-61. 7 Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their

Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing, Research Papers in Language Teaching and Learning,

Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012, p. 241. 8 Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business

Communication Course Instruction, TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational

Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1.

4

people all around the world and more than 50 million Indonesian people

actively use Facebook to communicate, interact, and socialize with others

directly and indirectly9. Thus, the writer sees that the campaign of “positive

Internet” to school ages is crucial. Therefore, through this study the writer

hopes that students realize to use Facebook, and other social media as well,

effectively and efficiently in wise way, not only to „play‟ and get amusement,

but also to get knowledge and other useful information for their studies.

Therefore, the model of instruction in which face to face and virtual

teaching were conducted in this study is called blended learning. Blended

learning is kind of learning that combines face-to-face learning and electronic

learning. The writer expects implementing peer-assessment through Facebook

as one type of blended learning can complete the limited teaching time owned

by teachers and encourage students‟ autonomous learning. Hopefully, this

instruction model can be a trend for education practitioners in encouraging

students‟ independent learning to improve their achievements in writing.

B. Identification of the Problem

The writer views that the factors which cause problems in writing

narrative text lie on three things: teaching method, media of instruction, and

limited time of instruction. Based on the background explained, here are the

problems listed:

1. Students‟ low achievement in writing narrative text.

2. Traditional teaching method which focuses only on teacher‟s

performance is not effective to encourage students‟ autonomous

learning demanded by the curriculum.

3. Time for teaching is limited and is considered not enough to

effectively cover all procedures of good writing.

4. Students are not really interested and feel bored in writing because

it needs long process, imagination, ideas, skill, and hard work.

9 Ibid., p. 33.

5

C. Limitation of the Problem

The focus of this study is on the implementation of method in

teaching, i.e. peer-assessment. The media Facebook is used only to facilitate

the implementation of pee-assessment. In addition, this study is also limited

to the result or achievement of students‟ writing, not on the process of

teaching or writing. Therefore, the success of the study is viewed based on

students‟ marks of their writing.

D. Formulation of the Problem

The problem is formulated based on a question: “Is peer-assessment

through Facebook effective towards students‟ writing skill in narrative text?”

E. Objective of the Research

This study is aimed to examine whether the implementation of peer-

assessment through Facebook is effective to improve students‟ achievements

in writing narrative text to students. The writer wants to analyze cause and

effect between independent variable, peer-assessment through Facebook, and

dependent variable, students’ writing skill in narrative text.

F. Significance of the Research

This study presents practical method of peer-assessment through

blended learning to be useful for education practitioners and as a contribution

to the literature about autonomous learning. In addition, the writer expects

that the study is specifically advantageous for:

1. the writer as a student-teacher/future teacher, in the way that the study

completes all requirements in getting bachelor degree in English

education,

2. other future teachers (students of English education department), in

helping them to conduct the similar study,

3. English teachers, in helping them determine what method they use, and

6

4. students of high school level, in helping them how to conduct peer-

assessment through Facebook.

7

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Peer-assessment

1. Understanding of Peer-assessment

Peer-assessment is an assessment of students‟ works given by other

students. The assessment is used for both formative evaluations to provide

feedback and summative grading.1 Students‟ attention is therefore focused

on those course goals which appear to be assessed over others which are

not. In other words, in doing this kind of assessment the students are able

to take benefit from the given feedback, so they can correct or improve

their work. According to McDowell, peer-assessment is one method of

novelty which aims to improve the quality of learning and empower

students in contrast to more traditional methods which can make students

feeling disconnected from the complete assessment practice.2 Brindley and

Scoffield argue that peer-assessment also encourages independent

learning, thoughtful learning and less dependence on the teacher as the

only resource at classroom.3 It helps students to become more autonomous

learners, better able to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of their

own work; it enables assessment to become part of the learning process

rather than an adjunct to it; Involving students in the assessment process.

Donaldson and Topping state that peer-assessment: (a) boosts

students to take responsibility for their own learning and development, (b)

gives assessment as part of learning so that mistakes are seen as

opportunities rather than failures, and (c) practices the exchangeable

abilities needed for life‐long learning mainly correlated to assessment

1 Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in Practical

Group Work, Journal of Language Teaching and Research, Vol. 1, No. 6, November 2010, p.

776. 2 Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their


Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012, p. 241. 3 Wenjie Qu & Shuyi Yang, loc. cit., p. 777.

8

skills.4 A major reason for using peer-assessment is for its role in student

skill development, in improving learning and in helping students to

improve their performance on assessed work. Additionally, it has a place

as a means of summative assessment.

2. Advantages of Peer-assessment

There are some advantages that can be gained in doing peer-

assessment for writing. According to Rosario Hernandez, peer-assessment

has the following benefits for students as follow: (1) encouraging transfer

of learning and reflection, (2) enhancing the students learning experience,

(3) permiting students to internalize, and comprehend better the

assessment criteria, (4) removing the mystery that often portrays the

assessment process, (5) helping better learning from seeing other students‟

successes and weaknesses, and increases student responsibility, and (6)

rising student autonomy/independence.5 With the benefits mentioned peer-

assessment is considered an appropriate method to be implemented by

teachers in encouraging autonomous learning at classroom or outside of it.

3. Disadvantages of Peer-assessment

Besides its usefulness, PA also has weakness or destructive factors for

students. There are several disadvantages of peer-assessment: (1) peer

pressure and friendship can affect the consistency of grades given by

students, (2) students may have a tendency to give everyone the same

mark (for example, there may be conspiracy in return for good grades), (3)

students are not experienced in assessing each other, (4) students may

cheat in teamwork for group tasks, and (5) objectivity may not be

maintained because extroverted students can be usually be marked higher

4 Elena Meletiadou, loc. cit.

5 Rosario Hernandez, Benefits and Challenges of Using Self and Peer-assessment,

(Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning), p. 2.

9

and quieter students got marked down.6 However, these advantages can be

avoided if teachers implement it in the right way and can manage class, so

that students understand what they should do.

B. Writing

Writing allows humans to trace and deliver information and stories

outside the immediate moment in which allowing to link at a distant place and

time.7 There are several opinions about the understanding of writing. Writing

can be defined as the use of vivid mark to represent particular linguistic word

in that it makes a sound visible.8 Jack C. Richards said, “Writing is used either

as indication of positive learning or as a means of learning.” Richards

considers writing leads to a product that can be observed and reviewed

directly, it offers response to the teacher and learner on what has been

comprehended.9 According to the several definitions of writing above, the

writer assumes that writing is a physical act process in expressing ideas and

feeling of thinking by arranging it into correct sentences to share experience.

In addition, Hedge argues that effective writing needs some stuffs, such

as: a high level of organization in the development of thoughts and

information; a high level of precision so that there is no vagueness of

meaning; the use of complex grammatical procedures for focus and

emphasize; and cheerful choice of vocabulary, grammar forms, and sentence

organization.10

With all criteria mentioned then good and effective writings

can be produced.

The writer also concludes that writing involves a highly creative use of

composing processes. Because of that explanation, writing can be seen as a

6 Center of Enhancement for Teaching and Learning, Peer-assessment, 2015

(ar.cetl.hku.hk). 7 Henry Roger, Writing System: A Linguistic Approach, (Sydney: Blackwell Publishing,

2005), p. 1. 8 Ibid, p. 2.

9 Jack C. Richard, The Language Teaching Matrix, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 1990), p. 100. 10

Tricia Hedge, Writing, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), p.5.

10

powerful means of communication. In fact, writing is more complicated rather

than speaking because it requires some steps from composing until revising.

That is why writing can be used as an evidence of what students learned in the

teaching and learning process.

C. Narrative text

1. Understanding of Narrative Text

Narrative, or it is also called narration, is a text that tells a story. 11

It

is a short story that is artificial or even taken from the real event, like a

personal experience or experience of another person.12

Events and actions

that happen in time are things which make narrative dynamic. This kind of

text requires characters who act out events in a sequence of events

orderly.13

The organization of the events may take chronological order.

However, it may also be in another order like flash back order. A story

told in narration can be a fiction or even a real event as long as it contains

generic structures of a narrative text. Some types that are commonly told

narratively are: history, biography, autobiography and news stories.

Purpose of writing narrative text is to tell, amuse or entertain readers about

stories as well as to grab its audience to participate in the story.14

In

addition, the readers also are able to learn moral value or lesson from

stories they read.15

The main characteristic of a narrative story is that the

story contains conflict, crisis, or problem faced by its character. Then, at

the end of the story the character could solve the problem—that part is

named resolution.

11

Thomas E. Kakonis & John Scally, Writing in an Age of Technology, (London: Collier

Macmillan Publisher, 1978), p. 105. 12

J.B. Alter, Writing & Understanding for Certificate Students, (Hong Kong: Times

Educational Co. Ltd., 1980), p. 213. 13

Thomas E. Kakonis & John Scally, loc. cit. 14

Vincent Ryan Ruggiero, The Art of Writing, (California: Alfred Publishing Co. Inc.,

1981), p. 32. 15

Pardiyono, Teaching Genre-based Writing, (Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi, 2007), p. 93.

11

It can be concluded that as one of some kinds of texts, narrative text

tells stories in which the readers are able to get enjoyment, moral value, or

eagerness. This is very important for the students to be open-minded

knowing other perspective of the world through problematic-experience of

stories.16

Therefore, teachers can involve their students to recall their past

experience to tell at classroom. The stories will be very interesting and

really amusing in that the students are not bored.

2. Generic structure of narrative text

There are steps for constructing a narrative text, such as:

a. Orientation

In this paragraph the narrator tells the audience who is in the

story, when it is happening, where it is happening and what is

going on.

b. Complication

This is the part of the story where the narrator tells about

something that will begin in a chain of events. These events will

affect one or more of the characters. The complication is the

trigger.

c. Sequence of event

This is where the narrator tells how the characters react to the

complication. It includes their feelings and what they do. The

events can be told in chronological order (the order in which they

happen) or with flashback. The audience is given the narrator‟s

point of view.

d. Resolution

In this part of the narrative the complication is sorted out or

problem is solved.

e. Coda

16

Ibid, p. 94.

12

The narrator includes a coda if there is a moral or message to be

learned from the story.17

3. Grammatical features of narrative text

Narrative usually includes the following grammatical features:

a. Nouns that identify the specific characters and places in the story.

b. Adjectives that provides accurate description of the characters and

setting.

c. Verbs that show the actions that occur in the story.

d. Time words that connect events, telling when they occurred.

D. Facebook

Facebook is an online social media which was first launced in Februari

2004. Mark Zuckerberg, a student of Harvard University, with his roommates,

Eduardo Saverin, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz dan Chris Hughes, is

the founder of the media. Its name comes from a colloquialism for the

directory given to American university students.18

There are more than 500

million people all around the world and more than 50 million Indonesian

people actively use Facebook to communicate, interact, and socialize with

others directly and indirectly19

. Facebook users must register before using the

site, after which they may create a personal profile, add other users as friends,

exchange messages, and receive automatic notifications when they update

their profile. Additionally, users may join common-interest user groups,

organized by workplace, school or college, or other characteristics, and

categorize their friends into lists such as “People from Work” or “Close

Friends”. As of September 2012, Facebook has over one billion active users,

17

Ibid, p. 95. 18

Wikipedia, Facebook, 2015 (en.wikipedia.org). 19

Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business


Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1., p. 33.

13

of which 8.7% are fake.20

It means that Facebook as a social online media

plays very important role for people‟s social interaction in this modern era.

In Indonesia Facebook is very popular. There are 65 million Indonesian

people who have Facebook accounts (90% of them are active users) and

Indonesia is considered the 2nd

largest country which uses Facebook21

. In

addition, almost, if not all of, senior high students actively use Facebook in

their daily lives. Mostly they use it only for amusement. However, this online

media is not only used for amusement, but also it is used for more useful

activities, like sharing information, ideas, or even experience. Therefore, in

this study Facebook is used to facilitate peer-assessment, so that students are

able to implement independent learning in their own home.

E. Previous Studies

Previous study which is related to this study is a skripsi by Zain

Zarkasih, a student of Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta,

under title The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative

Writing Achievement (A Quasi-Experimental Study at the Second Grade

Students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan).22

The objective of the study is to

find out whether Peer Assessment effective in teaching narrative writing at

second grade of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan. The sample of this study is 64

students taken from class two of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan. The method

used is a quantitative method and the design used in this study is quasi-

experimental design. In collecting the data, the researcher conducted pre-test

and post-test by instruction test. In analyzing the data, the writer used t-test.

The result of statistical calculation shows that t-test (to) > t-table (tt) (7.158 >

2.388). The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is accepted and null hypothesis (H0) is

rejected. Therefore, the students who were taught narrative writing using peer-

20

Wikipedia, op. cit. 21

Amelia Chen, Indonesia Is a Huge Social Media Nation, Tech in Asia, January 14,

2011 (https://www.techinasia.com/indonesia-social-media-nation/). 22

Zein Zarkasih, The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative Writing

Achievement, (Jakarta: Islamic State University Syarif Hidayatullah, 2014).

14

assessment got higher scores than those who were not. Thus, it is concluded

that implementing peer-assessment is effective in teaching narrative writing at

the second grade students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan.

Another relevant study is Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English

for Business Communication Course Instruction by Vincent Ru-Chu Shih23

,

an associate professor at National Pingtung University of Science and

Technology, Taiwan. This study aimed to investigate the effect of

incorporating Facebook with blended learning approach for improving the

quality of learning and teaching for college students in Taiwan. The research

participants were 111 college students enrolled in an ESP course. In this case,

she conducted blended learning approach. To collect the data, the researcher

used some instruments in the study. Finally, the findings statistically showed

very significant and positive results. The improvement of achievement

between pre-test and post-test were very significant. In addition, the

qualitative results from analyzing content of the students‟ comments,

interview, and survey questionnaire also approved that most of the students

liked this type of research.

The last related study is an article entitled The Impact of Training

Adolescent EFL Learners on Their Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing

by Elena Meletiadou,24

a researcher from University of Cyprus. This article

examines that peer-assessment has been increasingly used as an alternative

method of engaging learners in the development of their own learning. This

paper describes part of a research project conducted in a Cypriot State EFL

Institute. Forty adolescent „English as a Foreign Language (EFL)‟ students

were involved in peer-assessment of writing in an attempt to improve their

writing performance and attitudes towards the assessment of writing. Learners

received training since they had no peer-assessment experience prior to the

23

Ru-Chu Shih, The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business


Technology, January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1. 24

Elena Meletiadou, The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their


Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012.

15

study. The students‟ attitudes were canvassed both prior to the peer-

assessment training and at the end of it by means of a peer-assessment

questionnaire. The findings showed that students‟ response to peer-assessment

was: (a) negative before the training, and b) positive after the training. This

study concludes that peer-assessment is an innovative method and students

have to be given time, training and support to adapt to it, in order to perform

to the best of their ability and exploit its full potential.

From the three previous studies above, the study that was conducted by

the writer is different. It is seemed that the writing is going to combine the

three different researches above into one study. In experimenting effectiveness

of implementing peer-assessment through Facebook for teaching writing

narrative text, the writer adopt and adapt the method from the study done by

Zarkasih and Meletiadou, and the teaching media from Shih‟s study.

However, this study becomes completely different from the related previous

studies in terms of its method, media, and design of the methodology used.

Therefore, framework of the study is that peer-assessment method is

not traditionally implemented inside classroom, but it is done outside in which

virtual class, i.e. Facebook group, is used. However, a face to face meeting is

also needed in that teachers are able to do simulation with the students. This is

to make students ready to implement peer-assessment using Facebook. This

kind of peer-assessment is in a form of comment addressed by students for

their peers. Then, the feedback can be useful information to correct and

improve their future writings. This model is to help teachers make their

teaching time more efficient and useful—or in the other word, it is also called

blended learning. Previous related studies above are all combined and adapted

in this study, so a new model done.

16

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

The writer uses a quasi-experimental research design. This is the

development design from the true experiment which is quite hard to conduct.

This quasi-experimental research does not require random assignment, so the

researcher decided to select groups that are considered representatives, of the

population, and have same characteristics. For this, the researcher discussed

with the English teacher and considered their writing scores report.

The type of the design is nonequivalent controlled group design with

pre-test and post-test. This type has been described as one of the most

common type used for quasi-experimental designs.1 This is often the case

since students are naturally organized in groups as classes within schools and

are considered to share similar characteristics.

The nonequivalent controlled group design with pre-test and post-test

is represented as:2

Figure 3.1. Nonequivalent Design

In this design both the controlled and experimental class complete a

pre-test and post-test, the experimental class students as the only group that

received the research treatment. On the other hand, the controlled class

1 John W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research, 4th

edition, (Boston: Pearson Education, Inc, 2008), pp.

309-310. 2 Ibid., p. 310.

Experiment

Control

Pre-test

Treatment

-

Post-test

17

students were not given any special treatment, but they were only taught with

usual/traditional input, or instruction.

B. Time and Location of the Research

The researcher conducted the study from January 18th

to 30th

, 2015. The

location is at Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education in Pondok Cabe,

Tangerang Selatan City.

C. Population and Sample

The writer did the research at Kharisma Bangsa School of Global

Education. The population of the research is students of tenth grade. They are

divided into 3 classes: 10 AB (higher level), 10 CD (standard level), and 10 E

(standard level). All of the students are from science program and the total

number of students or population is 60 students—there are 20 students each

class. This population was selected considering the material “narrative text” of

this study is addressed for them.

Sampling technique used in this quantitative research is convenience

sampling as a part of nonprobability sampling. This kind of technique was

used because in convenience sampling the researcher was allowed to select

individuals because they were available, convenient; moreover, they represent

characteristics the investigation.3 In addition, the researcher chose this

sampling because it allows him to select participants as sample because of the

students’ availability to be studied at the school. The availability came when

the researcher got permission from the school principle.

Furthermore, the principle gave the two available classes to participate

in this study as sample and it is also with the permission of the English

teacher. Therefore, the researcher decided to select students from class 10 CD

and class 10 E of standard level who have the same level in English subject.

The controlled class and the experimental class were decided after having pre-

3Ibid., pp. 145-146.

18

test. Then, the students of 10 E who got lower mean score of pre-test (44

points) than that of class CD (49.25 points) became an experimental group,

while the students of 10 CD became the controlled one. It is because the

researcher considers that the lower achievement class needs more helps and

treatments to get better marks.

D. Instrument of the Research

To get the data, the writer used pre-test and post-test as the main

instrument to measure students’ writing skill in narrative text. Pre-test was

given in both classes to make sure that they have the same level of background

knowledge and to determine controlled and experimental class in the

beginning of the session (before the treatments). Then, post-test was given in

the end of the session (after the treatments) to know whether implementation

of peer-assessment using Facebook effective in teaching of narrative text or

not. Then, students’ writings were analyzed using rubric of narrative text

proposed by PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and

Careers)4 with scale score from 0 to 4 points per criterion. In addition, as a

supplement, observation sheet was also used here to analyze attitudes of the

students.

Test of Validity and Reliability of the Instrument

Validity test of the instrument was done to know whether it measures

what is intended to measure to gain correct decision in designing the

instrument.5 The tests used for this instrument are face validity and content

validity. Face validity is validity which shows if appearance or form of an

instrument measures what it is meant to measure. This kind of validity is

focusing on the form or the appearance of the instrument. The instrument

4 PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers), Expanded

Scoring Rubric for Analytic and Narrative Writing (Grade 5-11), 2015,

(http://www.parcconline.org). 5 Peter W. Airasian, Classroom Assessment: Concept and Application, (New York:

McGrawn-Hill, 2003), pp. 16-17.

19

of this study is to measure the students’ ability in writing narrative text, so

the form or the appearance of it is open ended question (not multiple

question) in which the students are asked to write narratives.

In addition, the instrument is also validated its content through

content validity. Content validity is related to ability of an instrument in

measuring content or concept of what is desired to measure in the way that

the instrument is representative.6 An instrument which contains content

validity for sure contains face validity. Based on standard competency

(KD) 4.1 of class 10, it is mentioned that students are able to write a

simple text with its basic structures, language features, and appropriate

context. The intended content of the instrument is described in the KD and

the instrument answers it by including itself with operations mentioned in

it. The detail of eliciting validity is shown in appendix.

In addition, to obtain reliability of the instrument the researcher uses

analytic scoring by John Harris, so scoring of the test is consistent.

Reliability is a consistency of a set of measurements and an instrument.7 It

is also said that scoring using analytic scoring is the most reliable scoring

both for speaking and writing task. The researcher assessed the students’

writings using rubric in which 5 criteria of the scoring are detailed. The

rubric is from a credible source for assessment: PARCC (Partnership for

Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers). Therefore, both validity

and reliability the instrument are tested.

6 James Dean Brown, Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment, (New

York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003), pp. 220-221. 7 Peter W. Airasian, loc. cit., pp. 17-20

20

Table 3.1.

Scoring Rubric for Narrative Writing

Construct

Measured Score Point

4 Score Point

3 Score Point

2 Score Point

1 Score Point

0

Written

Expression

Development

of Ideas

The student

response

addresses the

prompt and

provides

effective and

comprehensive

development

of the claim,

topic and/or

narrative

elements by

using clear and

convincing

reasoning,

details, text-

based

evidence,

and/or

description;

the

development is

consistently

appropriate to

the task,

purpose, and

audience.

The student

response

addresses the

prompt and

provides

effective

development

of the claim,

topic and/or

narrative

elements by

using clear

reasoning,

details, text-

based

evidence,

and/or

description;

the

development

is largely

appropriate to

the task,

purpose, and

audience.

The student

response

addresses the

prompt and

provides some

development

of the claim,

topic and/or

narrative

elements by

using some

reasoning,

details, text-

based

evidence,

and/or

description;

the

development is

somewhat

appropriate to

the task,

purpose, and

audience.

The student

response

addresses the

prompt and

develops the

claim, topic

and/or

narrative

elements

minimally by

using limited

reasoning,

details, text-

based evidence

and/or

description; the

development is

limited in its

appropriateness

to the task,

purpose, and/or

audience.

The student

response is

underdeveloped

and therefore

inappropriate to

the task,

purpose, and/or

audience.

Written

Expression

Organization

The student

response

demonstrates

purposeful

coherence,

clarity, and

cohesion and

includes a

strong

introduction,

conclusion,

and a logical,

well-executed

progression of

The student

response

demonstrates

a great deal of

coherence,

clarity, and

cohension,

and includes

an

introduction,

conclusion,

and a logical

progression of

ideas, making

The student

response

demonstrates

some

coherence,

clarity, and/or

cohension, and

includes an

introduction,

conclusion,

and logically

grouped ideas,

making the

writer’s

The student

response

demonstrates

limited

coherence,

clarity, and/or

cohension,

making the

writer’s

progression of

ideas

somewhat

unclear.

The student

response

demonstrates a

lack of

coherence,

clarity and

cohesion.

21

ideas, making

it easy to

follow the

writer’s

progression of

ideas.

it fairly easy

to follow the

writer’s

progression of

ideas.

progression of

ideas usually

discernible but

not obvious.

Written

Expression

Clarity of

Language

The student

response

establishes and

maintains an

effective style,

while

attending to

the norms and

conventions of

the discipline.

The response

uses precise

language

consistently,

including

descriptive

words and

phrases,

sensory

details, linking

and

transitional

words, words

to indicate

tone, and/or

domainspecific

vocabulary.

The student

response

establishes

and maintains

an effective

style, while

attending to

the norms and

conventions

of the

discipline.

The response

uses mostly

precise

language,

including

descriptive

words and

phrases,

sensory

details,

linking and

transitional

words, words

to indicate

tone, and/or

domain-

specific

vocabulary.

The student

response

establishes and

maintains a

mostly

effective style,

while

attending to

the norms and

conventions of

the discipline.

The response

uses some

precise

language,

including

descriptive

words and

phrases,

sensory

details, linking

and

transitional

words, words

to indicate

tone3 and/or

domainspecific

vocabulary.

The student

response has a

style that has

limited

effectiveness,

with limited

awareness of

the norms of

the discipline.

The response

includes

limited

descriptions,

sensory details,

linking or

transitional

words, words

to indicate

tone, or

domain-

specific

vocabulary.

The student

response has an

inappropriate

style. The

student writing

shows little to

no awareness

of the norms of

the discipline.

The response

includes little

to no precise

language.

Knowledge

The student

response

demonstrates

command of

the

conventions of

standard

English

consistent with

effectively

edited writing.

The student

response

demonstrates

command of

the

conventions

of standard

English

consistent

with edited

writing. There

The student

response

demonstrates

inconsistent

command of

the

conventions of

standard

English. There

are a few

patterns of

The student

response

demonstrates

limited

command of

the

conventions of

standard

English. There

are multiple

errors in

The student

response

demonstrates

little to no

command of

the conventions

of standard

English. There

are frequent

and varied

errors in

22

of

Language

and

Conventions

Though there

may be a few

minor errors in

grammar and

usage,

meaning is

clear

throughout the

response.

may be a few

distracting

errors in

grammar and

usage, but

meaning is

clear.

errors in

grammar and

usage that may

occasionally

impede

understanding.

grammar and

usage

demonstrating

minimal

control over

language.

There are

multiple

distracting

errors in

grammar and

usage that

sometimes

impede

understanding.

grammar and

usage,

demonstrating

little or no

control over

language.

There are

frequent

distracting

errors in

grammar and

usage that often

impede

understanding.

E. Technique of Data Collection

To get the data that is related to the study, the writer used pre-test and

post-test. The two-kind test was given for getting the data of students’

achievement in writing narrative text. Form of the test is task-based writing

narrative text. The students were asked to write at least 150 words for one

narrative text. Then, their works were analyzed using rubric of narrative text

from PARCC. In order to case the computation, the researcher uses analytic

scoring by John Harris8 and convertes each score point criterion of the rubric

to the scale of which maximum point of 100 is obtained when calculated.

F. Content of the Intervention/Experiment

The research was conducted in two weeks. In the first meeting on

January 16th

, 2015, the researcher did observation in both classes. This is to

know the classes’ environment and to introduce the students to the research. In

the next meeting, the research conducted pre-test to both classes. The pre-test

was scheduled on September 17h, 2015 for 10 CD and on September 19

h, 2015

for 10 E. The pre-test scores of those classes become the first raw data of this

research by which experimental and controlled class are determined. Then, the

8 Arthur, Hughes, Testing for Language Teachers, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2003), pp. 83-102.

23

data determines class 10 E as the experimental class and class 10 CD as the

controlled one.

After giving the pre-test, the researcher began the intervention. The

intervention was done in 6 meetings whose each period is 40 minutes.

However, two meetings are counted as one session, so there are only 3 syllabi

for each class in this study. The first treatment was given in the experimental

class on January 21st, 2015. In that time, the researcher told to the students

about the concept of drama. Then, the researcher explained objective of the

study and then explained about the nature of writing narrative text. The

activities were to know, analyze, and practice writing narrative text. Then,

students also learnt about peer-assessment and how to conduct it. At the end of

the meeting, the students were assigned to write a narrative text and submit it

in the following meeting.

In the next meeting, on January 22nd

and 23rd

, 2015, they collected their

writings to the teacher. Then, they were instructed to do simulation of peer-

assessment at classroom. This was to prepare them before conducting it on

Facebook. After that, the students were asked to add the researcher’s

Facebook account, so that he could invite them to the class group made. Then,

they had to write a story at the classroom and the following meeting their

writings were posted in the Facebook group. After that, they were asked to

implement peer-assessment on their friends’ works, so that they knew what

their mistakes were. Furthermore, in the last meeting, the teacher continued

explaining how to create a good narrative story. It was happened on January

26h, 2015. The researcher gave the treatment three times for the experimental

class, so on that day the study was completed. The teacher then showed their

writings on the group through LCD screen.

On the other hand, method used for the controlled class was a traditional

one. It was drill method in which the students wrote writing tasks at

classroom. Finally, on January 28h, 2015, the researcher conducted post-test to

the experimental class and controlled class. The post-test was similar with the

pre-test. The researcher gave writing narrative text to the students. Duration of

24

the test was 30 minutes. After the post-test was done, the researcher then did

scoring their writings using rubric.

G. Technique of Data Analysis

Technique used to analyze the data in this study is “T-test” through

SPSS (Special Package for the Social Sciences) version 18 software. This test

was used because it analyzes the t-statistic, t-distribution and degrees of

freedom to determine a p value (probability) that can be used to determine

whether the population means differ. The t-test is one of a number of

hypothesis tests. The content of the students’ works were analyzed and

assessed using rubric for narrative text. However, before T-test calculation,

the researcher did normality and homogeneity of the test. Here are steps done

to analyze the collected data:

1. Normality Test

The normality test is performed using Kolmogorov Smirnnov and

Shapiro-Wilk. The test is for the two groups, both post-test and pretest

group, to determine if the distribution of the data from the sample is

normal. Thus, the researcher used SPSS version 18 software. Trihendrari

said that if the normality Asymp. sig. is more than the level of significance

α (0.05), scores will be normally distributed. The steps are the following

bellows:

a. Open SPPS program

b. Go to variable view and fill in the columns as follows:

a) Name: write “class” in the first row. This is to indicate and

differentiate between experimental and controlled class. Write

score in second row.

b) Type column is numeric.

c) Width column is filled with “8”.

d) Decimal is changed from “2” to “0”.

e) Label column is left blank.

25

f) Value column is none.

g) Missing column is none.

h) Columns is filled with “8”.

i) Align column is “right”.

j) Measure column is “unknown”.

k) Role column is filled with “input”.

c. Click data view, in score column, compute “1” as representing

experimental class and “2” representing controlled class.

d. In score column, compute score of each class.

e. Click Analyze >> Descriptive Statistics>> Explore

f. Fill in the Dependents List with score with pre-test and then fill in

the Factor List with class.

g. Click Plots >> checklist Normality Plots with Tests, Histograms,

Power Estimation >> Continue >> Ok

2. Homogeneity Test

Homogeneity test is used to test whether the data from the two

groups have the same variant in order that the hypotheses can be tested by

T-test. Like normality test, this kind of test also uses SPSS version 18

software. The steps are the same like those of normality test.

Furthermore, after testing its normality and homogeneity the researcher

began to test the hypothesis.

3. Hypothesis Test

The writer seeks the significant differences result from the post-test

data. The writer also used SPSS 20 to calculate the t-test. In calculating t-

test, steps done are as follows:

a. Open SPPS program

b. Go to variable view and fill in the columns as follows:

26

a) Name: write “class” in the first row. This is to indicate and

differentiate between experimental and controlled class. Write

score in second row.

b) Type column is numeric.

c) Width column is filled with “8”.

d) Decimal is changed from “2” to “0”.

e) Label column is left blank.

f) Value column is none.

g) Missing column is none.

h) Columns is filled with “8”.

i) Align column is “right”.

j) Measure column is “unknown”.

k) Role column is filled with “input”.

c. Click data view, in score column, compute “1” as representing

experimental class and “2” representing controlled class.

d. Click Analyze >> Compare Means >> Independent Samples T-Test

e. Fill in Test Variables with score of pretest and post-test. Then fill in the

Grouping Variables with class and fill Define Groups with 1 and 2

f. Click Options >> fill Confidence Interval Percentage with 95%

g. Click Continue >> Ok

H. Statistical Hypothesis

The statistical hypothesis states:

a. Null hypothesis (H0) = x 1 x 2 (if mean score of the post-test of the

experimental class is smaller than that of the controlled class post-test)

or p > α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is no a significant

difference between students who are treated with peer-assessment

through Facebook and those who are not treated with.

b. Alternative hypothesis (Ha) = x 1 > x 2 (if mean score of the post-test of

the experimental class is greater than that of the controlled class post-

test) or p < α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is a significant

27



28

CHAPTER IV

FINDING AND DISCUSSION

A. Data Description

In this research, the experimental class was the students of class 10 CD

(standard level) and the controlled class was the students of class 10 E (standard

level). There are 20 students each class. Then, the total sample is 40 students.

The pre-test and the post-test score of the students from both classes is described

in table 4.1 below:

Table 4.1.

Score of Pre- and Post-test of Experimental and Controlled Class

f = Frequency

Based on descripting table of the pre-test given to the experimental class,

there are 4 students (20% of them) getting score <30. This means that their

writing English at first was extremely poor. The most frequent scores appeared

on the table are the scores between 41-50 with frequency number 6 or 30% of

the students. On the other hand there was no student who got score >81. After

the students were given the treatment of implementing peer-assessment through

Score

Band

Experimental Class Controlled Class

Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post Test

F % F % F % f %

< 30 4 20 % 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

31 – 40 4 20 % 0 0 % 3 15 % 1 5 %

41 – 50 6 30 % 3 15 % 11 55 % 0 0 %

51 – 60 5 25 % 2 10 % 5 25 % 1 5 %

61 – 70 1 5 % 5 25 % 1 5 % 5 25 %

71 – 80 0 0 % 8 40 % 0 0 % 3 15 %

> 80 0 0 % 2 10 % 0 0 % 11 55 %

Total 20 100 % 20 100 % 20 100 % 20 100 %

29

Facebook, there is an improvement of the scores. Shown in the post-test data,

there is no student getting the scores below 30 points or even the scores between

31 and 40 points. The most frequency appearance on the table is the scores

between 71 and 80 points consisting of 8 students (40% of them) and students

who got the score above 80 points are 2 students.

From the table data of controlled class in pre-test it shows that there are 3

students who got the scores 31-40 and 55% of the them (11 students) got the

scores between 41 and 50. Furthermore, only 1 student got score between 61-70

points and there was no student who got the score above 81. From the post-test

result, it can be seen that the most appearance frequency is the scores above 80

points which consist of 11 students (55% of them) and there are 15% of them

got the scores 71-80. Then, there are 5 students who got the scores 61-70 points.

The detail of the scores can be seen on appendix.

1. Experimental Class

The pre-test given to students of experimental class is written test. It

was given to know their writing ability of narrative text before they were

given the treatment. The pre-test used is to measure a starting point of the

amount of pre-existing knowledge on the course topic (narrative text) and

also to compare with point of the post-test. Based on the test, the pre-test

mean score (x ) achieved by the students is 44 points. In addition, the lowest

score achieved in the pre-test is 20 and the highest one is only 65 points.

Therefore, this shows that there is no score reaching KKM (minimum score

criterion), 70 points.

Next, after doing pre-test, the researcher implemented peer-assessment

method through Facebook in class 10 E. Then, when the treatment finished,

the post-test was done in that class. The mean score of the post-test of the

experimental class increasingly achieves 71.25 points. The finding points

that the mean score of the post-test is higher than the mean score of the pre-

test which is only 44 points. The range between the mean score of pre-test

score and the mean score of the post-test score gains 27.25 points. The

30

student’s lowest score of the post-test achieved is 50 and the highest one was

90. This shows that there is quite significant improvement gained by the

experimental class. However, though the scores of post-test are improved

compared to the pre-test, the mean score of the experimental class is still

lower than the controlled one—the controlled class’ post-test data is

explained below. Therefore, it shows that the treatment given in the class is

not really effective compared to the traditional one.

2. Controlled Class

Based on the table data, it is shown that the students’ mean score x

achieved in the pre-test is 49.25. The lowest score of this class is 30 and the

higher score is 75. There is only 1 student who got score above KKM (75

points) and the other 19 students did not pass the minimum score (below 70

points). Therefore, this means that the students had not high ability in

writing narrative text.

After teaching was completed, students of the controlled class did the

post-test. Eventually, the students’ mean score x of the post-test achieved

in this class is 79.75 which is higher than the experimental class. It can be

seen that the difference (range) between the mean score of the post-test and

the pre-test of this class is significant. It is 30.5. The student’s lowest score

of the post-test achieved is 35 points and the highest one is 95 points.

From the explanation above, it can be concluded that the students’ mean

score of pre-test in the controlled class is higher than that of the

experimental one. Therefore, the class whose mean score is lower (Class 10

E) becomes the experimental class that was given the treatment of

implementing peer-assessment through Facebook to improve their writing

ability. On the other hand, another class whose mean score is higher (Class

10 CD) is the controlled one in which the traditional treatment was done.

Furthermore, from the data of the score of post-test in experimental

class and controlled class shown, it can be analyzed that the mean score of

the post-test in controlled class is higher than that of the controlled class.

31

Therefore, the special treatment which was given in the experimental class

is not effective than the traditional treatment given in the controlled class.

B. Test of the Hypothesis

1. Preliminary Analysis

The test done in this research was test of normality and test of

homogeneity. Normality test was conducted to determine whether the data

set is well-modeled by a normal distribution or not. Then, homogeneity test

was done to measure the differences or similarities in population of the

research. In this research, the researcher applied normality and homogeneity

test only in the pre-test data of experimental and controlled class.

a. Normality

Table below shows how the data analyzed and interpreted to test the

normality of the data.

Table 4.2.

The Result of Normality Test of the Pre-test

Tests of Normality

Class Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic Df Sig.

Pretest experiment .132 20 .200* .960 20 .543

control .170 20 .133 .911 20 .068

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.

From table 4.2, it is shown Shapiro and Kolmogorov.Smirnov test. In

Kolmogorov.Smirnov it is shows that sig. value of the pre-test of the

experimental class is .200. However, sig. value of the pre-test of the

controlled class is .133. Meanwhile, minimum alpha (α) value is 0.05. for

32

each sig. value of the pre-tests. Therefore, sig. value of the pre-test of the

experimental class is bigger than α 0.200 > 0.05) and sig. value of the pre-

test of the controlled class is also bigger than α 0.133 > 0.05). It means that

the samples of both classes are from normal distributed population.

Based on Shapiro.Wilk test, it also shows that sig. > α. Form the

experimental class 0.543 > 0.05 and from the controlled class 0.068 > 0.05.

Therefore, the classes are normal.

b. Homogeneity

Table 4.3.

Test of Homogeneity of Variance

Levene Statistic df1 df2 Sig.

Pretest Based on Mean 2.325 1 38 .136

Based on Median 2.018 1 38 .164

Based on Median and with

adjusted df

2.018 1 36.514 .164

Based on trimmed mean 2.222 1 38 .144

The table shows the test of homogeneity using Lavene’s test. The

Lavene’s test shows that the rows based on sig. value based on mean is .136

which is above α 0.136 > 0.05). This means that both classes are

homogent.

2. Result of T-test

The statistical hypothesis states:

Null hypothesis (H0) = x 1 x 2 (if mean score of the post-test of the

experimental class is smaller than that of the controlled class post-

test) or p > α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is no a

33

significant difference between students who are treated with peer-

assessment through Facebook and those who are not treated with.

Alternative hypothesis (Ha) = x 1 > x 2 (if mean score of the post-test of

the experimental class is greater than that of the controlled class post-

test) or p < α (if sig. 2 tailed is greater that alpha) there is a significant



a. T-test of Pre-test Scores

The researcher uses SPSS 18 software to analyze the pre-test

scores. Table below shows how the data is analyzed:

Table 4.4.

Result of T-test of Pre-Test

Group Statistics

class N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Pretest experiment 20 44.00 12.524 2.800

control 20 49.25 9.072 2.029

Independent Samples Test

Levene's Test for Equality

of Variances

t-test for Equality of

Means

F Sig. t df

Pretest Equal variances assumed 2.325 .136 -1.518 38

Equal variances not assumed -1.518 34.635

34

t-test for Equality of Means

95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

pretest Equal variances assumed -12.250 1.750


It is described that the significant level (sig.) of pre-test between

experimental class and controlled class got similar level at 0.136 and

mean of score experimental class is 44.00 and of the controlled class is

49.25. Then, the score of equal variances assumed is not similar with

the not assumed one. Also, the table shows that difference between the

lower and upper of confidence interval of the difference is only 0.003

point. It shows the pre-test score of both classes does not have

significant difference and have the same characteristic.

b. T-test of Post-test Scores

Using SPSS 18 software in analyzing the post-test scores the

researcher finds result as below:

Table 4.5.

Result of T-test of Post-Test

Group Statistics


Posttest experiment 20 71.25 13.560 3.032

control 20 79.50 16.456 3.680

35


Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances


Means

F Sig. T df

Posttest Equal variances assumed .115 .736 -1.730 38




Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Difference

Std. Error

Difference

posttest Equal variances assumed .092 -8.250 4.768

Equal variances not assumed .092 -8.250 4.768



95% Confidence Interval of the

Difference

Lower Upper

posttest Equal variances assumed -17.902 1.402


The mean score of the post-test for the experimental class is 71.25

while for the controlled class is 79.50. Result of T-test in table 4.5

shows that there is significant difference between controlled and

experiment class. Sig. (2-tailed) value of the prost-test score is bigger

36

than α, 0.92 > 0.05. It proves that the mean score of the experimental

class is lower than that of the controlled class. Furthermore, this also

means implementing peer-assessment through Facebook in teaching

writing narrative text has not better results compared to the traditional

teaching method (drilling method).

c. Gained Scores of the Experimental and Control Class

Because there is significant improvement between experimental

and controlled class, the researcher here adds information how the two

classes compare each other in gaining scores (form pre- and post-test).

The detailed table can be found in appendix.

Table 4.6.

Gained Scores

Student’s

Code

Experimental Controlled

Gained score Gained score

1 25 15

2 50 5

3 30 40

4 35 45

5 20 50

6 15 20

7 35 45

8 30 55

9 15 20

10 10 40

11 25 35

12 15 45

13 10 45

14 15 15

15 35 25

16 40 40

17 40 20

18 15 25

19 40 15

20 45 10

Average 27.25 30.5

37

The table above presents that average gained by the two classes is

high in that the experimental class gains 27.25 points and the

controlled one gains 30.5 points. This shows that actually the two

methods (peer-assessment through FB and the traditional drilling) can

improve students’ achievement. However, the controlled class’ method

is leading with range point: 3.25.

d. T-test of the Gained Scores

The researcher also implements t-test for the gained score to

examine the difference between the two groups. This seems critical to

strengthen the previous analysis. Using SPSS 18 is software used to

analyze, then the researcher finds result as below:

Table 4.7.

T-test of the Gained Scores

Group Statistics


gained experiment 20 27.2500 12.40490 2.77382

control 20 30.5000 15.03505 3.36194


Levene's Test for

Equality of Variances


Means

F Sig. t df

gained Equal variances assumed 2.276 .140 -.746 38

Equal variances not assumed -.746 36.677

38


Sig. (2-

tailed) Mean Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Lower

gained Equal variances assumed .460 -3.25000 4.35852 -12.07337

Equal variances not assumed .461 -3.25000 4.35852 -12.08383

Because the data is homogenous (F=2.275; p>0.05), so it is

directed to see column equal variances assumed. It shows that the

difference is below 1% degree (t=-7.46; p<0.01). This means that the

experimental class has no significant difference compared to the

controlled class. Therefore, the special treatment in it is not better than

that of the controlled class. Therefore, the researcher jumps into a

conclusion that the null hypothesis (H0) of the study is accepted.

C. Discussion

Though the students of the experimental class which was treated with peer-

assessment through Facebook implementation method improved their writing

skill, but the hypothesis is rejected because their scores are not better than that

of the controlled class. The analysis above has already shown that the mean

score of the experimental class in the pre-test is 44, while the post-test score is

71.25. In addition, it is shown that sig. (2-tailed) value of the post-test is bigger

than α, 0.92 > 0.05. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and

null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. This means that implementing peer-assessment

through Facebook is not effective.

While, if it is compared to the previous study done by Ru-Chu Shih, the

method is effective for university students. Moreover, a theory presented by

Brindley and Scoffield in the second chapter also supports that can effectively

39

enhance students’ autonomous learning. In fact, when it is done in school ages,

it is not as good as that of the traditional drilling method. In other word, peer-

assessment through Facebook is not effective. There may be factors why this

method is not effective, so the researcher here provides the causes observed.

First, even though the experimental group students were given rubric for

assessing, almost all of them students did peer-assessment only around

grammatical area, whereas grammatical mistakes are not the main concern in

writing. However, the students did not address more fatal mistakes around

structure of texts and writing organization. Consequently, this influenced their

post-test’s writings in which there were some of them still had misconception in

differentiating recount text and narrative text, and organizing their ideas.

Second, as mentioned before, studies on independent learning (more

especially the use of peer-assessment method through Facebook) are done for

adult learners, like a study done Shih on implementing peer-assessment through

Facebook towards university students of Pingtun University. The students

independently did their assignments from lecturers without any pressure. It is

very contrast in the case of younger learners. Secondary students do not really

care of homework. In addition, the researcher at class is a new comer whose

authority on the students is not as high as the real English teacher. Therefore,

controlling the students outside classroom is really hard. This is because of their

psychological factor or, in other word, their maturity as humans. This is proved

by numbers of comments on the group (see appendix)

Third, the students’ ability in assessing their friends’ works is quite limited.

This is shown in some comments made by them, for example a student just

commented a word ―correct‖ and others commented a wrong sentence, like: ―the

sentences ‘the women that getting relax’ is not exactly correct, it should be ‘the

women that was getting relax’‖. Those comments did not give any useful

information for its audience to correct his writing. If he does, he still commits

mistake.

Four, the experimental students seem that they do not learn from mistakes

they made in the previous writings. For instance, there are some texts posted on

40

Facebook group having mistakes around grammatical area, such as: ―there is a

man who waited‖ then it is corrected this way, ―the was a man who waited‖.

Unfortunately, they do not learn from that mistake. They still did the same

mistake in the post-test. However, compared to writings of the pre-test, their last

works are far better.

Five, the students seem not really familiar with peer-assessment method and

few of them even do not just made Facebook account at the time the researcher

asked. Even though the researcher had already did simulation at the classroom

about how to implement peer-assessment through Facebook. This lack of

knowledge also may cause quality of their comments or assessments on their

friends/ writings.

Last, a factor why students of the controlled class improve better their

writing skill even without special treatment is because while studying they

really paid great attention to the lectures. While the students of the experimental

class seemed neglected the lessons and were not really serious when studying.

For instance, in the middle of explaining lesson, the experimental students were

so noisy and doing other activities except studying, like walking around the

classroom, etc. On the other side, the controlled students paid their great

attention to the lesson being delivered. Therefore, they understand the lesson

well far more that the experimental students. The researcher sees that this

behavioral factor also plays important role that results in their lower

achievements.

To sum up, applying peer-assessment through Facebook to encourage

independent learning is considered effective enough to improve the student

scores, but the improvement is less than the traditional drilling method does —

unless the factors are handled, the improvement will be more. The six factors

above may explain why the alternative hypothesis is rejected. In addition, this

study is to examine a theory about independent learning and the study

successfully proves that the method is not appropriate. However, this is not

generalized for all senior high school students. This can only be implemented

for the scope of Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education for a reason that

41

because this study does not use random sampling, so that the sample selected

cannot be generalized.

42

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

From the data analysis using SPSS software, it is shown that implementing

peer-assessment through Facebook in writing narrative text is not better than

the traditional method. In this research, the post-test of students’ mean score (x )

in the experimental class which was treated by implementing peer-assessment

is lower than the post-test of students’ mean score (x ) in the controlled class

which was treated by traditional method. It is 71.25 > 79.5. Furthermore, it is

proven that sig.2-tailed (p) > α 0.092 < 0.05 with negative mean differences,

-8.250. This means that alternative hypothesis (Ha) is rejected and null

hypothesis (H0) is accepted. Therefore, implementation of peer-assessment

through Facebook is not effective towards students’ writing narrative text.

However, the researcher finds several observable factors. Firstly, the

experimental students were only focused on grammatical area in assessing their

friends’ writings. Next, psychologically, independent learning is rather more

suitable for adult learners than that for younger learners. Last, student

comments on Facebook are so limited that those cannot give useful information

for improving their writings. The factors above seemed to have caused the

effectiveness of this study.

B. Suggestion

Here are suggestions the researcher delivers for future studies. Hopefully,

the suggestions are useful for readers in general, and researchers and other

people involved in education specially. The suggestions are as follow:

1. For teachers:

43

a) Teachers should give clear instruction about what students are going

to do in teaching writing narrative text using peer-assessment,

especially in explaining assessment rubric, in order that they are not

confused about what to do or to assess. Simulation on peer-

assessment can be done. In addition, teachers must also consider

and be concerned about the six observable factors.

b) Teachers should use various techniques in writing narrative text, for

example playing music loudly while students are writing the text, so

that they are not bored.

2. For students:

a) Because there is similarity found between narrative and recount

text, students must really be concerned about their different generic

structures.

b) While doing peer-assessment, students are free to comment their

friends’ works. There is no hurt feeling in correcting their writings

because that is for the sake of goodness.

3. For education experts, researchers and academicians:

a) Studies on teaching and learning English for foreign language

learners like in Indonesia are crucial, and must be improved and

updated continuously to get better and relevant technique, method,

or even teaching model.

b) Theories on EFL instruction must be massively tested in the real life

and in various contexts.

44

REFERENCES

Airasian, Peter W. Classroom Assessment: Concept and Application. New York:

McGrawn-Hill, 2003.

Alter, J.B. Writing & Understanding for Certificate Students. Hong Kong: Times

Educational Co. Ltd., 1980.

Brown, James Dean. Comprehensive Guide to English Language Assessment.

New York: McGrawn-Hill, 2003.

Creswell, John W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Third edition. Boston: Pearson

Education, Inc., 2008.

Expanded Scoring Rubric for Analytic and Narrative Writing (Grade 5-11).

PARCC: Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of College and Careers,

(n.d.) [retrieved January 1, 2015]. Provided in:

www.bernardsboe.com/.../Preparing_for_PARCC_Partnership_for_Assessm

ent_of_Readiness_of_College_and_Careers.

Facebook. Wikipedia, February 27, 2015 [retrieved on September 10, 2014].

Provided in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook.

Hedge, Tricia. Writing. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Hernandez, Rosario. Benefits and Challenges of Using Self and Peer-assessment.

Dublin: UCD Teaching and Learning.

Hughes, Arthur. Testing for Language Teachers. Second edition. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Chen, Amelia. Indonesia Is a Huge Social Media Nation, Tech in Asia, Tech in

Asia, January 14, 2011 [retrieved March, 23, 2015]. Provided in

https://www.techinasia.com/indonesia-social-media-nation.

Kakonis, Thomas E. & Scally, John. Writing in an Age of Technology. London:

Collier Macmillan Publisher, 1978.

Meletiadou, Elena. The Impact of Training Adolescent EFL Learners on Their

Perceptions of Peer-assessment of Writing. Research Papers in Language

Teaching and Learning. Vol. 3, No. 1, February 2012.

45

Pardiyono. Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-based Writing. Yogyakarta: Penerbit

Andi, 2007.

Qu, Wenjie & Yang, Shuyi. A Peer and Self-assessment Project Implemented in

Practical Group Work. Journal of Language Teaching and Research. Vol.

1, No. 6, November 2010.

Richards, Jack C. Methodology in Language Teaching: An Anthology of Current

Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

_______________. The Language Teaching Matrix. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990.

Roger, Henry. Writing System: A Linguistic Approach. Sydney: Blackwell

Publishing, 2005.

Self- and Peer-assessment. CETL: Center of Enhancement for Teaching and

Learning, (n.d.) [retrieved on November 3, 2014]. Provided in:

http://celt.ust.hk/learner-centered-course-design/learning-assessment/self-

and-peer-assessment.

Shih, Ru-Chu. The Effect of Using Facebook to Assist English for Business

Communication Course Instruction. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of

Educational Technology. January 2013, volume 12 Issue 1.

Sugiyono. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kualitatif, Kuantitatif, dan

R&D). Bandung: Penerbit Alfabeta, 2013.

The Writing Process. Purdue Owl, (n.d.) [retrieved January 9, 2015]. Provided at:

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/1/1/.

Trihendradi, T. 7 Langkah Mudah Melakukan Analisis Statistik Menggunakan

SPSS 17. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Andi, 2009.

Widhiarso, Wahyu. Mengaplikasikan Uji-t untuk Membandingkan Gain Score

antar Kelompok dalam Eksperimen. Yogyakarta: Fakultas Psikologi, UGM,

2011.

Weigle, Sara Cushing. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2002.

Ruggiero, Vincent Ryan. The Art of Writing. California: Alfred Publishing Co.

Inc., 1981.

46

Zarkasih, Zein. The Effectiveness of Peer Assessment on Students’ Narrative

Writing Achievement (A Quasi-Experimental Study at the Second Grade

Students of SMAN 11 Tangerang Selatan). Jakarta: Islamic State University

Syarif Hidayatullah, 2014.

47

APPENDIX 1

INSTRUMENT OF THE RESEARCH: PRE- & POST-TEST

WRITING TEST

Narrative Text

Choose one of the following options:

1. Write a story about your unforgettable experience.

2. Write about one of famous legends you know.

3. Narrate the plot of your favorite book/film (remember it is not an opinion

essay, it must be a narrative text).

4. Write a story with the title: “The Time We First Met”.

Tips for writing narratives:

Use all generic structures of narrative text (orientation, complication,

sequence of event, resolution, coda).

Use different verbal tenses (past simple, past continuous, past perfect).

Use time expressions (while, until, by the time, as soon as, etc.).

Use adverbs and adjectives (amazingly, sadly, luckily, happy, surprised,

curious, etc.).

Describe atmosphere and feelings as well as what happened (thrilled,

sympathetic, etc.).

Write at least 150 words.

Happy writing!

48

APPENDIX 2

ELICITING A VALID SAMPLE OF WRITING ABILITY

WRITING TEST

Narrative Text (2) type of text

(4) topics

Choose one of the following options:

5. Write a story about your unforgettable experience.

6. Write about one of famous legends you know.

7. Narrate the plot of your favorite book/film (remember it is not an opinion

essay, it must be a narrative text).

8. Write a story with the title: “The Time We First Met”.

in language testing it is not normally interesting in knowing whether students are

creative, imaginative, or even intelligent, have wide general knowledge, or have

good reasons for the opinions they happen to hold1, therefore, the researcher here

gives some themes to not to limit students’ ideas or not to benefit only some of

them

Tips for writing narratives:

Use all generic structures of narrative text (orientation, complication,

sequence of event, resolution, coda).

Use different verbal tenses (past simple, past continuous, past perfect).

Use time expressions (while, until, by the time, as soon as, etc.).

Use adverbs and adjectives (amazingly, sadly, luckily, happy, surprised,

curious, etc.).

Describe atmosphere and feelings as well as what happened (thrilled,

sympathetic, etc.).

Write at least 150 words.

the task must be representative in which five elements are included: operations,

types of text, addressees of texts, topics, dialect and lenghth of texts2

(1) operations

(5) dialect and length of texts

(6) addressees of texts: the addressee here is for the teacher or the researcher of

the course

1 Arthur Huges, Testing for Language Teachers (2

nd Ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

(2008), p. 90. 2 Ibid, pp. 84-85.

49

APPENDIX 3

STUDENT’S RUBRIC

Criteria 4

Advanced

3

Proficient

2

Basic

1

Not There Yet

Main Idea &

Focus

Skillfully

combines story

elements

around main

idea

Focus on topic

is profoundly

clear

Combines

story

elements

around main

idea

Focus on

topic is clear

Story elements

do not reveal a

main idea

Focus on topic

is somewhat

clear

There is no clear

main idea

Focus on topic is

not clear

Plot &

Narrative

Devices

Characters,

plot and setting

are developed

strongly

Sensory details

and narratives

are skillfully

evident

Characters,

plot and

setting are

developed

Sensory

details and

narratives are

evident

Characters,

plot and setting

are minimally

developed

Attempts to use

narratives and

sensory details

Lacks development

on characters, plot

and setting

Fails to use sensory

details and

narratives

Organization

Strong and

engaging

description

Sequencing of

details are

effective and

logical

Engaging

description

Adequate

sequencing of

details

Description

needs some

work

Sequencing is

limited

Description and

sequencing needs

major revision

Voice Voice is

expressive and

confident

Voice is

authentic

Voice is

undefined

Writer's voice is

not evident

Sentence

Fluency

Sentence

structure

enhances

meaning

Purposeful

use of

sentence

structure

Sentence

structure is

limited

No sense of

sentence structure

Conventions

A strong sense

of writing

conventions is

apparent

Standard

writing

conventions

is apparent

Grade level

appropriate

conventions

Limited use of

appropriate

conventions

50

APPENDIX 4

PRE- & POST-TEST SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL

CLASS

Pre-test

Student

code

Criteria Total

I II III IV

1 15 20 15 15 65

2 5 5 5 5 30

3 5 5 5 5 20

4 10 15 10 10 45

5 15 20 15 10 60

6 15 15 15 15 50

7 10 15 15 15 55

8 15 15 15 10 55

9 5 15 15 15 50

10 5 10 10 15 40

11 5 10 10 15 40

12 5 10 10 10 35

13 15 10 15 10 50

14 5 10 15 10 40

15 5 15 10 15 45

16 5 15 10 15 45

17 10 10 10 15 45

18 15 15 15 15 60

19 5 5 5 5 30

20 5 5 5 5 20

Average 44

Post-test

Student

code

Criteria Total

I II III IV

1 25 25 20 20 90

2 25 20 15 20 80

3 10 10 15 15 50

4 20 20 20 20 80

5 20 20 20 20 80

6 10 15 20 20 65

7 25 25 20 20 90

8 25 20 20 20 85

9 5 20 20 20 65

10 5 15 15 15 50

11 5 20 20 20 65

12 5 15 15 15 50

13 5 15 20 20 60

14 5 15 15 20 55

15 20 20 20 20 80

16 25 20 20 20 85

17 20 20 20 25 85

18 20 15 20 20 75

19 20 15 20 15 70

20 10 15 20 20 65

Average 71.25

51

APPENDIX 5

PRE- & POST-TEST SCORES OF THE CONTROLLED CLASS

Pre-test

Student

code

Criteria Total

I II III IV

1 5 10 15 15 45

2 5 5 10 10 30

3 5 15 15 15 50

4 10 15 10 15 50

5 5 10 15 10 40

6 15 15 15 15 60

7 5 10 15 15 45

8 10 10 10 10 40

9 5 15 10 15 45

10 5 15 10 15 45

11 5 15 15 15 50

12 5 15 10 15 45

13 5 15 10 15 45

14 5 15 15 15 50

15 10 15 10 15 50

16 15 15 10 15 55

17 20 20 20 15 75

18 15 15 10 15 55

19 15 15 10 15 55

20 15 15 10 15 55

Average 49.25

Post-test

Student

code

Criteria Total

I II III IV

1 5 15 20 20 60

2 5 10 10 10 30

3 25 20 25 20 90

4 25 25 25 20 95

5 25 25 20 20 90

6 20 20 20 20 80

7 25 25 20 20 90

8 25 25 20 25 95

9 5 20 20 20 65

10 25 20 20 20 85

11 20 20 25 20 85

12 25 25 20 20 90

13 25 25 20 20 90

14 5 20 20 20 65

15 20 20 20 15 75

16 25 25 25 20 95

17 25 25 25 20 95

18 20 20 20 20 80

19 20 15 15 20 70

20 5 20 20 20 65

Average 79.5

52

APPENDIX 6

GAINED SCORES OF THE EXPERIMENTAL CLASS

Student’s code PRETEST POSTTEST GAINED

1 65 90 25

2 30 80 50

3 20 50 30

4 45 80 35

5 60 80 20

6 50 65 15

7 55 90 35

8 55 85 30

9 50 65 15

10 40 50 10

11 40 65 25

12 35 50 15

13 50 60 10

14 40 55 15

15 45 80 35

16 45 85 40

17 45 85 40

18 60 75 15

19 30 70 40

20 20 65 45

Average 44 71.25 27.25

53

APPENDIX 7

GAINED SCORES OF THE CONTROLLED CLASS

Student’s code PRETEST POSTTEST GAINED

1 45 60 15

2 30 35 5

3 50 90 40

4 50 95 45

5 40 90 50

6 60 80 20

7 45 90 45

8 40 95 55

9 45 65 20

10 45 85 40

11 50 85 35

12 45 90 45

13 45 90 45

14 50 65 15

15 50 75 25

16 55 95 40

17 75 95 20

18 55 80 25

19 55 70 15

20 55 65 10

Average 49.25 79.75 30.5

54

APPENDIX 8

LESSON PLAN 1: CONTROLLED CLASS

Sekolah : Kharisma Bangsa School of Global Education

Mata Pelajaran : Bahasa Inggris

Kelas/Semester : X / 2

Topik : Narrative Text

Keterampilan : Writing

Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Senin-Rabu, 19-21 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti

KI 1: Menghayati dan mengamalkan ajaran agama yang dianutnya.

KI 2: Menghayati dan mengamalkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, tanggungjawab,

peduli (gotong royong, kerjasama, toleran, damai), santun, responsif dan

pro-aktif dan menunjukkan sikap sebagai bagian dari solusi atas berbagai

permasalahan dalam berinteraksi secara efektif dengan lingkungan sosial

dan alam serta dalam menempatkan diri sebagai cerminan bangsa dalam

pergaulan dunia.

KI 4: Mengolah, menalar, dan menyaji dalam ranah konkret dan ranah abstrak

terkait dengan pengembangan dari yang dipelajarinya di sekolah secara

mandiri, dan mampu menggunakan metoda sesuai kaidah keilmuan.

B. Kompetensi Dasar dan Indikator

KD 1.1: Mensyukuri kesempatan dapat mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai

bahasa pengantar Komunikasi internasional yang diwujudkan dalam

semangat belajar.

KD 2.1: Menunjukkan perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan

Komunikasi interpersonal dengan guru dan teman.

KD 2.2: Menunjukkan perilaku jujur, disiplin, percaya diri, dan bertanggung

jawab dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi transaksional dengan guru dan

teman.

KD 2.3: Menunjukkkan perilaku tanggung jawab, peduli, kerjasama, dan cinta

damai, dalam melaksanakan Komunikasi fungsional

KD 3.1: Menganalisis fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan dari

teks pemaparan jati diri, sesuai dengan konteks penggunaannya.

55

Indikator:

Memahami pengertian teks naratif

Menganalisis struktur teks naratif yang baik dan benar

Menyimpulkan pengertian teks naratif yang telah dipelajari

Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks recount

Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya

C. Tujuan Pembelajaran

Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode ceramah

dan presentasi siswa mampu:

1. Memahami apa itu teks naratif berikut struktur dasar dan unsur

kebahasaanya

2. Menganalisis suatu teks naratif dengan memerhatikan prinsip-prinsipnya

3. Mampu membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain

D. Materi Pembelajaran

Materi fakta : Cerita (yg terkait dengan kehidupan sehari-hari)

Materi konsep : Pengertian teks naratif (teori)

Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi sebuah cerita

Materi prosedur : Orientation, Complication, Resolution, Coda (generic

structures)

(Bahan ajar terlampir)

E. Metode Pembelajaran

Strategi pembelajaran : Task-based Learning

Pendekatan : Scientific

Metode : Ceramah

F. Media, Alat dan Sumber Pembelajaran

Media : -

Alat/ Bahan : Infocus, Laptop

Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Aim High: Oxford”, Internet

G. Materi Pokok:

Definition

A narrative is a text that tells a story to entertain the audience.

Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts. Written

narratives often take the form of novels. The story is usually told by a

narrator.

56

Generic Structures

Orientation

Complication

Sequence of events

Resolution

Coda

Example

Snow White

Once upon a time there lived a little girl named Snow White. She lived

with her Aunt and Uncle because her parents were dead.

One day she heard her Uncle and Aunt talking about leaving Snow

White in the castle because they both wanted to go to America and

they didn’t have enough money to take Snow White.

Snow White did not want her Uncle and Aunt to do this so she decided

it would be best if she ran away. The next morning she ran away from

home when her Aunt and Uncle were having breakfast. She ran away

into the woods.

Then she saw this little cottage. She knocked but no one answered so

she went inside and fell asleep. Meanwhile, the seven dwarfs were

coming home from work. They went inside. There they found Snow

White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The

dwarfs said, “what is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is

Snow White.”

Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.”

Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the

dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived

happily ever after.

57

H. Langkah-langkah Kegiatan Pembelajaran:

Pertemuan I: 2x40 Menit

No Kegiatan Deskripsi Alokasi waktu

1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran dan penelitian

Menyampaikan metode dan

kegiatan belajar

15 menit

2 Kegiatan Inti Mengamati

Guru menjelaskan definisi teks

naratif: struktur dasarnya,

karakteristik kebahasaannya.

Dan memberikan contoh salah

satu legenda naratif: “Snow

White.”

Guru mengarahkan siswa

untuk membuka buku “Aim

High” (hal. 17) dan

membacakan cerita tentang

“Niki Lauda”. Siswa

mendengarkan mengamati

dengan seksama sembari

memperhatikan fungsi sosial,

struktur teks, unsur

kebahasaan, maupun format

penulisannya.

Menanya

Dengan bimbingan dan arahan

guru, siswa mempertanyakan

antara lain: tujuan sebuah

cerita dan perbedaan antara

teks naratif dan teks recount,

dan atau fungsi keduanya.

25 menit

58

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diarahkan untuk

menganalisa penulisan teks

naratif yang baik di buku “Aim

High” dan juga dari cerita-

cerita rakyat yang mereka

ketahui.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa menghubungkan

pengetahuan tentang

cerita/legenda yang telah

dimiliki dengan pelajaran,

terutama coda dari cerita yang

disampaikan.

Siswa memperoleh umpan

balikan (feedback) dari guru

dan teman tentang struktur dan

unsur kebahasaan teks.

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa berlatih

mengidentifikasi teks naratif

dengan memperhatikan

struktur dasarnya, dan unsur

kebahasaan yang benar di

bahan bacaan yang ada.

20 menit

3 Penutup Membuat kesimpulan

Evaluasi

Penugasan: menulis sebuah

teks naratif dengan tema

bebas

10 menit

I. Penilaian

Penilaian sikap : Siswa memperhatikan dengan seksama pemaparan

guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan guru dan

atau teman sejawat.

59

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu memaparkan teks naratif berikut

struktur dasarnya, tata bahasa, kosa kata, dan ejaan

dengan benar.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa mampu menulis teks naratif yang sederhana.

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,

Sutirto, S.Si., M.T.

Pondok Cabe, 19 Januari 2015

Guru Peneliti Bahasa Inggris,

Aziz Awaludin

60

APPENDIX 9

LESSON PLAN 1: EXPERIMENTAL CLASS






Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Rabu, 21 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti







pergaulan dunia.







semangat belajar.

KD 2.1: Menunjukkan perilaku santun dan peduli dalam melaksanakan

Komunikasi interpersonal dengan guru dan teman.



teman.





61

Indikator:

Memahami pengertian teks naratif

Menganalisis struktur teks naratif yang baik dan benar

Menyimpulkan pengertian teks naratif yang telah dipelajari


Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur dasarnya




4. Memahami apa itu teks naratif berikut struktur dasar dan unsur

kebahasaanya

5. Menganalisis suatu teks naratif dengan memerhatikan prinsip-prinsipnya

6. Membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain


Materi fakta : Cerita (yg terkait dengan kehidupan sehari-hari)

Materi konsep : Pengertian teks naratif (teori)

Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi sebuah cerita

Materi prosedur : Orientation, Complication, Resolution, Coda (generic

structures)





Metode : Ceramah


Media : -


Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Aim High: Oxford”, Internet

G. Materi Pokok

Definition


Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts. Written

narratives often take the form of novels. The story is usually told by a

narrator.

62

Generic Structures

Orientation

Complication

Sequence of events

Resolution

Coda

Example

Snow White









into the woods.



coming home from work. They went inside. There they found Snow

White sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The

dwarfs said, “what is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is

Snow White.”


Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the

dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived

happily ever after.

63


Pertemuan 1: 2x40 Menit

No. Kegiatan Deskripsi Alokasi waktu

1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran dan penelitian


kegiatan belajar

15 menit


Guru menjelaskan definisi teks

naratif: struktur dasarnya,

karakteristik kebahasaannya.

Dan memberikan contoh salah

satu legenda naratif: “Snow

White.”




membacakan cerita tentang

“Niki Lauda”. Siswa

mendengarkan mengamati

dengan seksama sembari

memperhatikan fungsi sosial,

struktur teks, unsur

kebahasaan, maupun format

penulisannya.

Menanya

Dengan bimbingan dan arahan

guru, siswa mempertanyakan

antara lain: tujuan sebuah

cerita dan perbedaan antara

teks naratif dan teks recount,

dan atau fungsi keduanya.

25 menit

64

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diarahkan untuk

menganalisa penulisan teks

naratif yang baik di buku “Aim

High” dan juga dari cerita-

cerita rakyat yang mereka

ketahui.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa menghubungkan

pengetahuan tentang

cerita/legenda yang telah

dimiliki dengan pelajaran,

terutama coda dari cerita yang

disampaikan.


balikan (feedback) dari guru

dan teman tentang struktur dan

unsur kebahasaan teks.

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa berlatih

mengidentifikasi teks naratif

dengan memperhatikan

struktur dasarnya, dan unsur

kebahasaan yang benar di

bahan bacaan yang ada di buku

untuk kemudian bias

bermanfaat ketika melakukan

peer-assessment.

20 menit


Evaluasi


teks naratif dengan tema

bebas

10 menit

I. Penilaian


guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan guru dan

atau teman sejawat.

65

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu memaparkan teks naratif berikut

struktur dasarnya, tata bahasa, kosa kata, dan ejaan

dengan benar.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa mampu menulis teks naratif yang sederhana.

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,




Aziz Awaludin

66

APPENDIX 10







Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Rabu-Jumat, 21-23 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti







pergaulan dunia.







semangat belajar.



teman.





Indikator:

Memahami hakikat teks naratif yang benar sehingga mampu

membuatnya dalam bentuk tulisan

67

KD 4.1: Menyusun teks lisan dan tulis sederhana, untuk memaparkan,

menanyakan, dan merespon cerita naratif, dengan memperhatikan

fungsi sosial, struktur teks, dan unsur kebahasaan, secara benar dan

sesuai dengan konteks.

Indikator:

Mampu membedakan teks naratif dengan teks-teks lain, khususnya

recount

Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur

dasarnya, terutama orientation dan complication

Bisa menulis sebuah cerita naratif yang baik dan benar


Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode peer-

assessment dan presentasi siswa mampu:

7. Memahami 2 struktur utama teks naratif: orientation dan complication

8. Mampu memproduksi tulisan berupa teks naratif yang baik dan benar


Materi fakta : Kisah rakyat yang melegenda dan kisah yang pernah

dialami siswa

Materi konsep : Pengertian orientation dan complication dari teks naratif

(teori)

Materi prinsip : Latihan menulis orientation dan complication untuk

sebuah cerita

Materi prosedur : Memahami pengertian dasar teks naratif dan

menuliskannya





Metode : Drilling


Media : -


Sumber Belajar : Buku Bahasa Inggris “Oxford: Aim High”, Internet

68

G. Materi Pokok

What is narrative?


Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts.

The story is usually told by a narrator.

If the narrator is one of the characters in the story is said to be told in

the first person.

If a person outside the story is the narrator, then the story is being told

in the third person.

First step

Start with delivering “orientation” or introduction of the text

In this part the narrator tells the audience who is in the story,

when it is happening, where it is happening and what is going

on.

Second step

Thrill your reader with emotional “complication”


something that will begin in a chain of events. These events

will affect one or more of the characters. The complication is

the trigger or problem.

The difference between narrative and recount text

“Snow White”

(Orientation)



(Complication & Sequence of Event)






69


into the woods.

(Resolution)



coming home from work. They went inside. They found Snow White

sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs

said, “What is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow

White.”


Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told

the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs

lived happily ever after.

“Visiting Semirang”

On Sunday, I and my best friend, Sari, visited Semirang Waterfall in

Ungaran. It was the first time for me to visit the waterfall.

When we arrived at the hill, I felt so fresh and I could enjoy the scene.

The air was so pure and all I could see only green and green.

In Ungaran, we took a little bit trekking to find Semirang Waterfall. It

was too bad for me because the distance to see the waterfall was too

far.

After taking so far distance, we found Semirang Waterfall. What a

beautiful waterfall. We enjoyed the nice water in the rain forest

surrounding the waterfall.

Hearing the sound of falling water made me peace and relax. It was

also excellent drowning out background sound. Playing with the water

made me feel so happy.

Finally, the time was over. It was time for us to go home. It was an

unforgettable moment. I really enjoyed it.

70


Pertemuan II: 2x40 Menit

No Kegiatan Deskripsi Alokasi

waktu

1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran

Menyampaikan metode

dan kegiatan belajar

15 menit


Guru menjelaskan dan

menekankan 2 struktur

dasar teks naratif: 1)

orientation dan

complication. Kemudian

guru memberikan dari

kedua struktur di cerita

“Snow White” untuk

diamati.


untuk membuka buku

“Aim High” (hal. 18) dan

memerhatikan cerita “Jesse

Owen”. Siswa membaca

dan mengamati dengan

seksama sembari

memperhatikan orientation

dan complication dari

cerita tersebut.

Menanya

Guru kemudian

menstimulus siswa

menanyakan hal berkaitan

2 struktur dasar tersebut

dengan teks yang telah

25 menit

71

dibaca.

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diminta untuk

menyebutkan legenda

rakyat yang mereka

ketahui dan kemudian

mengeksplorasinya dengan

memaparkan orientation


cerita itu.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa mengasosiasikan

pemahaman yang telah

didapat dengan

memaparkan orientation


cerita yang ada di buku.

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa mengomunikasikan

dengan guru akan tulisan-

tulisan yang telah mereka

buat.

20 menit


Evaluasi

Penugasan: menulis

sebuah teks naratif

dengan tema “The Man

Who Can’t be Moved”

10 menit

I. Penilaian


guru.

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu menjelaskan orientation dan

complication dari teks naratif.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa mampu mengoreksi dan memberikan

masukan terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya.

72

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,




Aziz Awaludin

73

APPENDIX 11







Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Kamis-Jumat, 22-23 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti







pergaulan dunia.







semangat belajar.



teman.





Indikator:

Mampu bekerja sama dengan teman sebaya untuk melakukan peer-

assessment

74

Memahami hakikat teks naratif yang benar sehingga mampu

mengomentari karya temannya

Bisa memberika masukan yang berguna dan konstruktif terhadapt

tulisan teman





Indikator:


Memahami hakikat teks naratif dengan menyebutkan struktur

dasarnya, terutama 2 fokus struktur: orientation dan complication

Mampu menulis sebuah cerita naratif yang baik dan benar


Selama dan setelah mengikuti kegiatan pembelajaran melalui metode peer-

assessment dan presentasi siswa mampu:

9. Mampu menulis teks naratif yang baik dan benar

10. Dapat memahami dengan baik rubrik siswa khusus teks naratif

11. Bisa melakukan peer-assessment terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya


Materi fakta : Kisah rakyat yang melegenda, baik cerita lokal maupun

internasional

Materi konsep : Pengertian orientation dan complication dari teks naratif

(teori) dan pengertian peer-assessment

Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi tulisan teman sejawat

menggunakan rubrik

Materi prosedur : Menulis teks naratif kemudian menukarnya dengan teman





Metode : Peer-assessment


Media : -


75


G. Materi Pokok

What is narrative?


Narrative can be presented as written or spoken texts.

The story is usually told by a narrator.

If the narrator is one of the characters in the story is said to be told in

the first person.

If a person outside the story is the narrator, then the story is being told

in the third person.

First step

Start with delivering “orientation” or introduction of the text

In this part the narrator tells the audience who is in the story,

when it is happening, where it is happening and what is going

on.

Second step

Thrill your reader with emotional “complication”


something that will begin in a chain of events. These events

will affect one or more of the characters. The complication is

the trigger or problem.

The difference between narrative and recount text

“Snow White”

(Orientation)



(Complication & Sequence of Event)





76



into the woods.

(Resolution)



coming home from work. They went inside. They found Snow White

sleeping. Then Snow White woke up. She saw the dwarfs. The dwarfs

said, “What is your name?” Snow White said, “My name is Snow

White.”


Snow White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told

the dwarfs the whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs

lived happily ever after.

“Visiting Semirang”

On Sunday, I and my best friend, Sari, visited Semirang Waterfall in

Ungaran. It was the first time for me to visit the waterfall.

When we arrived at the hill, I felt so fresh and I could enjoy the scene.

The air was so pure and all I could see only green and green.

In Ungaran, we took a little bit trekking to find Semirang Waterfall. It

was too bad for me because the distance to see the waterfall was too

far.

After taking so far distance, we found Semirang Waterfall. What a

beautiful waterfall. We enjoyed the nice water in the rain forest

surrounding the waterfall.

Hearing the sound of falling water made me peace and relax. It was

also excellent drowning out background sound. Playing with the water

made me feel so happy.

Finally, the time was over. It was time for us to go home. It was an

unforgettable moment. I really enjoyed it.

77


Pertemuan II: 2x40 Menit


1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran


kegiatan belajar

15 menit


Guru menjelaskan dan

menekankan 2 struktur dasar

teks naratif: 1) orientation dan

complication. Kemudian guru

memberikan dari kedua di

cerita “Snow White” untuk

diamati.




memerhatikan cerita “Jesse

Owen”. Siswa membaca dan

mengamati dengan seksama

sembari memperhatikan

orientation dan complication

dari cerita tersebut.

Siswa dikenalkan dengan peer-

assessment: pengertian,

kegunaan, dan prosedur

pelaksanaannya.

Menanya

Guru kemudian menstimulus

siswa menanyakan hal

berkaitan 2 struktur dasar

tersebut dengan teks yang telah

dibaca.

25 menit

78

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diminta untuk

menyebutkan legenda rakyat

yang mereka ketahui dan

kemudian mengeksplorasinya

dengan memaparkan


dari cerita itu.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa mengasosiasikan

pemahaman yang telah didapat

dengan memaparkan


dari teks yang dibuat teman

sejawatnya (bagian dari peer-

assessment).


balikan (feedback) teman

teman sejawat tentang


untuk tulisan mereka.

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa mempelajari masukan-

masukan yang diberika

temannya dan kemudian

mengomunikasikan dengan

guru.

Siswa kemudian dikenalkan

dengan peer-assessment

melalui Facebook dan cara

praktis pelaksanaannya.

20 menit


Evaluasi


teks naratif dengan tema “The

Man Who Can’t be Moved”

dan unggah ke grup Facebook

yang tersedia

10 menit

79

I. Penilaian


guru dan mampu bekerja sama dengan teman

sejawat dalam melakukan peer-assessment.

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu menjelaskan orientation dan

complication dari teks naratif.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa mampu mengoreksi dan memberikan

masukan terhadap tulisan teman sejawatnya.

Instrument penilaian : Rubrik khusus teks naratif dari PARCC

(Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of

College and Careers) untuk guru dan juga siswa.

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,




Aziz Awaludin

80

APPENDIX 12







Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Senin, 26 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti







pergaulan dunia.







semangat belajar.



teman.





81





Indikator:

Memahami resolution dan coda untuk sebuah teks naratif

Menunjukkan resolution dan coda dari cerita yang ada di buku

pelajaran

Menulis sebuah cerita yang memuat minimal 2 struktur: resolution dan

coda




12. Dapat menunjukkan resolution dan coda dari cerita-cerita yang terdapat di

buku dan legenda yang diketahui

13. Mampu memproduksi tulisan yang berisi resolution dan coda


Materi fakta : Cerita-cerita yang diambil dari kisah hidup seseorang

Materi konsep : Pengertian resulotion dan coda dari teks naratif (teori)

Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi resulotion dan coda dari buku

Materi prosedur : menerapkan resulotion dan coda pada tulisan pribadi





Metode : Drilling


Media : -



G. Materi Pokok

Third step

Try to create unpredictable ending, “resolution”

82


problem is solved.

Example

‘Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow

White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the

whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.’

Forth step

Coda


learned from the story.

Exercise

Identify resolution of Buck story about

“The Call of the Wild” in AIM HIGH: OXFORD book

(page 20)


Pertemuan III: 2x40 Menit

No Kegiatan Deskripsi Alokasi waktu

1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran


kegiatan belajar

15 menit


Guru menerangkan dan

memfokuskan 2 struktur dasar

teks naratif: 1) resolution dan

25 menit

83

coda. Kemudian guru



diamati.

Guru menyuruh siswa untuk

membuka buku “Oxford: Aim


memerhatikan cerita “The Call

of the Wild”. Siswa membaca


seksama sembari

memperhatikan resolution dan

coda dari cerita itu.

Menanya

Guru kemudian merangsang




dibaca.

Siswa diminta menanyakan

hal-hal belum mereka

mengerti.

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diminta untuk

menceritakan kisah film/buku


kemudian menggalinya dengan

memaparkan resolution dan

coda dari cerita tersebut.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa menghubungkan


dipunya dengan

menghubungkan pengertian

resolution dan coda dengan

cerita yang ada di buku

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa mengomunikasikan

tulisan yang telah mereka buat

dengan guru.

20 menit

84


Evaluasi

Mengingatkan untuk bersiap

menghadapi post-test di

pertemuan selanjutnya

10 menit

I. Penilaian



sejawat.

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu menjelaskan resolution dan coda

dari teks naratif temannya.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa mampu menulis resolution dan coda untuk

sebuah cerita.

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,




Aziz Awaludin

85

APPENDIX 13







Durasi : 2x40 menit

Hari/Tanggal : Senin, 26 Januari 2015

A. Kompetensi Inti







pergaulan dunia.







semangat belajar.



teman.





86





Indikator:

Memahami 2 fokus struktur teks naratif: resolution dan coda

Memproduksi cerita yang memuat minimal 2 unsur dasar narasi:

resolution dan coda

Mengimplementasikan peer-assessment pada tulisan teman sejawat

Mengambil manfaat (berupa koreksian) dari komentar teman-

temannya di Facebook




14. Bisa menulis cerita yang memuat resolution dan coda

15. Mampu menulis dan memposting teks naratif di beranda grup Facebook

16. Dapat memberikan komentar terhadap hasil tulisan teman sebagai

feedback yang kemudian digunakan untuk memperbaiki tulisannya


Materi fakta : Cerita-cerita yang diambil dari kisah hidup seseorang

Materi konsep : Pengertian resulotion dan coda dari teks naratif (teori)

Materi prinsip : Latihan mengidentifikasi resulotion dan coda dari tulisan

teman sejawat dan buku

Materi prosedur : Memahami feedback dari teman dan kemudian

menjadikannya perbaikan untuk tulisan pribadi





Metode : Peer-assessment


Media : -



87

G. Materi Pokok

Third step

Try to create unpredictable ending, “resolution”


problem is solved.

Example

‘Doc, one of the dwarfs, said, “If you wish, you may live here with us.” Snow

White said, “Oh could I? Thank you.” Then Snow White told the dwarfs the

whole story and finally Snow White and the 7 dwarfs lived happily ever after.’

Forth step

Coda


learned from the story.

Exercise

Identify resolution of Buck story about

“The Call of the Wild” in AIM HIGH: OXFORD book

(page 20)


Pertemuan III: 2x40 Menit


1 Pendahuluan Doa

Mengecek kehadiran

Menyampaikan tujuan

pembelajaran


kegiatan belajar

15 menit

88


Guru menerangkan dan

memfokuskan 2 struktur dasar

teks naratif: 1) resolution dan

coda. Kemudian guru



diamati.

Guru menyuruh siswa untuk

membuka buku “Oxford: Aim


memerhatikan cerita “The Call

of the Wild”. Siswa membaca


seksama sembari

memperhatikan resolution dan

coda dari cerita itu.

Siswa diperlihatkan dengan

hasil peer-assessment yang

telah mereka lakukan di

Facebook.

Menanya

Guru kemudian mernagsang




dibaca.

Siswa diminta menanyakan

hal-hal belum mereka

mengerti.

25 menit

Mengeksplorasi

Siswa diminta untuk

menceritakan kisah film/buku


kemudian menggalinya dengan

memaparkan resolution dan

coda dari cerita tersebut.

Mengasosiasi

Siswa menghubungkan


dipunya dengan menunjukkan

20 menit

89

resolution dan coda dari teks

yang dibuat teman sejawatnya

yang telah mereka nilai.

Siswa diminta menjadikan

umpan balikan (feedback)

teman untuk memperbaiki

tulisannya di masa yang akan

datang.

Mengomunikasikan

Siswa mempelajari masukan-

masukan yang diberika

temannya dan kemudian

mengomunikasikan dengan

guru.


Evaluasi

Mengingatkan untuk bersiap

menghadapi post-test di

pertemuan selanjutnya

10 menit

I. Penilaian



sejawat dalam melakukan peer-assessment.

Penilaian pengetahuan : Siswa mampu menjelaskan resolution dan coda

dari teks naratif temannya.

Penilaian keterampilan : Siswa menganalisa masukan yang diberikan teman

sejawatnya.

Instrument penilaian : Rubrik khusus teks naratif dari PARCC

(Partnership for Assessment of Readiness of

College and Careers) untuk guru dan juga siswa.

90

Mengetahui,

Kepala Sekolah,




Aziz Awaludin

91

APPENDIX 14

OVERVIEW OF FACEBOOK GROUP

Visit the group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1592353290978382/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1592353290978382/

92

APPENDIX 15

PRE-TREATMENT OBSERVATION SHEET

Date:___________________

Class identification:

Facilitation at classroom:

Student attitudes:

Teacher attitudes:

Class environment:

93

APPENDIX 15

POST-TREATMENT OBSERVATION SHEET

Date:___________________

Class identification:

Students’ attitudes when the treatment is given:

Students’ attitudes to the tasks assigned:

Number and content of comments on students’ writings:

Students’ responses to the feedbacks:

THE RESEARCHER’S BIOGRAPHY

Aziz Awaludin was born on Monday, October 2nd

,

1989 in Bogor. He began his formal education at

SD Negeri 3 Pingku in Parung Panjang and

continued his study at Pondok Modern Ummul

Quro Al-Islami in Bogor. After graduated from the

boarding school he did not directly pursue his

bachelor degree, but he was assigned by the school

to devote himself for one year at Al-Ansor Islamic

Boarding School in Padangsidimpuan City, North

Sumatera. However, he realized that education is very important and that it can

change his life to be better. Thus, after striving very hard, in 2010 he became a

university student of English Education Department in Syarif Hidayatullah

Islamic State University Jakarta.

Other than studying English education at the university, he was actively involved

in leadership organization HMI (Himpunan Mahasiswa Islam), writing forum FLP

(Forum Lingkar Pena), board of student organization of the department, and other

social organizations. Also, he enriched himself with knowledge of research and

language in Research and Language Development Program held by the university

for three months. Along his undergraduate program he grabbed several

achievements, such as: 1) nominated as an outstanding student 2014 in Faculty of

Tarbiyah and Teacher’s Training by dean of the faculty, 2) achieving Student

Achievement Award 2014 for his work Kamus Santri (a three-language dictionary

in Bahasa Indonesia, English and Arabic) by rector of the university, 3)

participating Summer Camp 2011 in Turkey for a month, and 4) awarded as the

best graduate of English Education Department in the 96th

graduation ceremony

2015.

He believes the best person in the world is a person who is beneficial for others,

“khairunnaas(i) „anfauhum linnaas(i).”

The researcher can be reached by:

Email : [email protected]

Twitter : @Aziz_Awe

mailto:[email protected]

the effectiveness of peer-assessment...

Documents