REFLECTING THE PERCENTAGE OF SENTENCE TYPES IN EFL STUDENTS’ PARAGRAPH WRITING ASSIGNMENTS: A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON PEDAGOGICAL OUTCOMES OF LEARNING ENGLISH WRITING

Syayid Sandi Sukandi

Abstract


This research quantitatively presents and reflects findings on the percentage of Indonesian EFL students’ sentences in their writing assignments that were submitted online in Writing 1 course. Each type of sentences is coded differently: Simple Sentence (Code: S.S.), Compound Sentence (Code: C.S.1), Complex Sentence (Code: C.S.2), and Compound-Complex Sentence (Code: C.C.S). Each of these types of sentences is measured along with their occurrences in students’ paragraph writing on five genres. Percentage on type of sentences is analysed through quantitative measurement. Samples of this research are 10% from all population, which is specifically seen through the number of students’ writings submitted online. The result of this research shows five obvious occurrences. For S.S. type, students used it mostly in descriptive genre with 32.58% from total sentences written in the descriptive genre. For C.S.1 type, students used it mostly in descriptive genre with 39.44% from total sentences written in the descriptive genre. For C.S.2 type, students mostly used it in argumentative genre with 34.42% from total sentences written in the argumentative genre. For C.C.S type, students mostly used it in comparison-contrast genre with 30.26% from total sentences written in the comparison-contrast genre. This finding reveals that pedagogically, awareness on students’ writing product in learning English writing should be less important than looking at students’ writing process in the same type of learning.    


Keywords


Assignment, EFL, Pedagogy, Sentence, Writing

Full Text:

PDF

References


Badger, R., & White, G. (2000). A Process Genre Approach to Teaching Writing . ELT Journal, 153.

Beach, R. (1992). Experimental and Descriptive Research Methods in Composition. In G. Kirsch, & P. A. Sullivan (Eds.), Methods and Methodology in Composition Research (pp. 217-242). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.

Blakeslee, A., & Fleischer, C. (2007). Becoming a Writing Researcher. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Brown, D. (2004). Language Assessment: Principle and Classroom Practices. San Fransisco: Pearson Education, Inc. .

Dietsch, B. M. (1998). Reasoning and Writing Well: A Rhetoric, Reader, and Handbook. London: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Facella, M. A., Rampino, K. M., & Shea, E. K. (2005). Effective Teaching Strategies for English Language Learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 210.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2008). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Gunawan, I. (2016). Metode Penelitian Kualitatif: Teori & Praktik. Jakarta: PT Bumi Aksara.

Gurney, P. (2007). Five Factors for Effective Teaching. New Zealand Journal of Teachers' Work, 4(2), 89-98.

Harmer, J. (2003). How to Teach English. England: Pearson Education Limited.

Hart-Davidson, W. (1991). Inquiry, Writing, & Technology. In J. M. Lauer, & et al (Eds.), Four Worlds of Writing: Inquiry and Action in Context (p. 550). Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

Hindman, J. E. (2002). Contexts and Criteria for Evaluating Student Writing. In R. Duane, V. Pantoja, L. Yena, S. K. Miller, & E. Waggoner , Strategies for Teaching First-Year Composition (pp. 405-417). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Hyland, K. (2009). Teaching and Researching Writing. New York: Longman.

Lauder, A. (2008). The Status and Function of English in Indonesia: A Review of Key Factors. Makara, Sosial Humaniora, 12(1), 9-17.

Leo, S. (2007). English for Academic Purpose: Essay Writing. Yogyakarta: C.V. Andi Offset.

Lunsford, A. A. (2011). Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer. In V. Villanueva, & K. L. Arola, Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader (p. 283). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Miller, M. D., Robert, L. L., & Norman, E. G. (2009). Measurement and Assessment in Teaching (10 ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education Ltd.

Murray, D. M. (2011). Teach Writing as a Process not Product. In V. Villanueva, & K. L. Arola, Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader (pp. 4-6). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2009). Writing Academic English. New York: Longman.

Pardiyono. (2007). Pasti Bisa! Teaching Genre-Based Writing. Yogyakarta: C.V ANDI Offset.

Penrod, D. (2005). Composition in Convergence: The Impact of New Media on Writing Assessment. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Perl, S. (2011). The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. In V. Villanueva, & K. L. Arola, Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader (p. 34). Illinois: National Council of Teachers of English.

Reid, J. M. (1988). The Process of Composition. London: Prentice-Hall International (UK) Limited.

Rowe, B. M., & Levine, D. P. (2009). A Concise Introduction to Linguistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Subana, M., & Sudrajat. (2001). Dasar-Dasar Penelitian Ilmiah (1 ed.). Bandung: Pustaka Setia.

Tawachai, C. (2010). Implementing a Genre Pedagogy to the Teaching of Writing in a University Context in Thailand. Language Education in Asia, 181.

Wyse, D., & Jones, R. (2005). Teaching English, Language and Literacy. London: Routledge Falmer.

Yusuf, A. M. (2007). Metodologi Penelitian: Dasar-Dasar Penyelidikan Ilmiah. Padang: Universitas Negeri Padang Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2017 Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This Proceedings is Currently indexed by:

Google Scholar.