THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS …digilib.unila.ac.id/57957/3/A THESIS WITHOUT RISULT...she...
80
THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS-PREDICT-SHARE STRATEGY ON EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY (A Thesis) By Helidatasa Utami MASTER IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING STUDY PROGRAM LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY BANDAR LAMPUNG 2019
Transcript of THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS …digilib.unila.ac.id/57957/3/A THESIS WITHOUT RISULT...she...
THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS-PREDICT-SHARE
STRATEGY ON EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT
STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY
(A Thesis)
By
Helidatasa Utami
MASTER IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2019
ABSTRACT
THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS-PREDICT SHARE
STRATEGY ON EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT
STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY
by
Helidatasa Utami
Writing is a complex process involving the ability to construct a text in order to
express one’s ideas effectively. Sometimes, it is hard for the students to produce
their ideas into words, sentences, paragraphs, and composition in written form.
Therefore, the researcher should find systematic ways that can motivate the
students to write well.
This study was aimed at finding out whether there was a different increase of
students’ writing ability between students taught by using Think-Pair-Share (TPS)
and those taught by using Discuss-Predict-Share (DPS). In addition, it was aimed
at finding out whether there is different increase of students’ writing ability
between extrovert and introvert students after being taught through TPS and DPS,
and the interaction between those two strategies and personality. The population
of this research was the first grade students of SMAN 13 Bandar Lampung in the
academic year 2019/2020. The research was conducted to 31 students in
experimental class and 31 students in control class. To collect the data, the
researcher administered personality trait questionnaire and writing tests. Then, the
data were analyzed quantitatively.
The results showed that there was a different increase on students’ writing ability
between students taught by using Think-Pair-Share and those taught by using
Discuss-Predict-Share. The result revealed that t-value was higher than t-table
(4.489 > 2.045) with the significance level of less than 0.05 (0.000 < 0.005).
Referring to the criteria, Ha1 was accepted. Furthermore, it was found that there
was no different increase of students’ writing ability between extrovert and
introvert students after being taught through Think-Pair-Share and Discuss-
Predict-Share. The result showed that the significance level of greater than 0.05
(0.636 < 0.005). Last, there was no interaction between those two strategies and
personality. The result showed that Fobserved is lower than Ftable (0.368< 3.15). In
accordance with those findings, it can be said that Discuss-Predict-Share is more
effective to increase the students’ writing ability and both extrovert and introvert
are successful in increasing their writing ability after learning with TPS and DPS.
Keywords: Think-Pair-Share (TPS), Discuss-Predict-Share (DPS), personality
traits, writing ability
i
THINK-PAIR-SHARE MODIFIED INTO DISCUSS-PREDICT-SHARE
STRATEGY ON EXTROVERT AND INTROVERT
STUDENTS’ WRITING ABILITY
By
Helidatasa Utami
A Thesis
Submitted in a partial fulfillment of
The requirements for S-2 Degree
MASTER IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING STUDY PROGRAM
LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY
LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2019
CURRICULUM VITAE
The researcher’s name is Helidatasa Utami. She was born on September 18, 1995
in Bandar Lampung. She is the first daughter of a wonderful couple, Damiri Tabri
and Helaliah, S.E.
She started her study at TK Kartika II-27 Bandar Lampung in 2000. She
continued her study in SD Al Kautsar and graduated in 2007. In the same year,
she was accepted in SMP Negeri 19 Bandar Lampung and graduated in 2010.
Then, in 2010, she studied in SMA Negeri 13 Bandar Lampung and graduated in
2013.
In 2013, she was admitted as S-1 student of English Education Study Program at
Teacher Training and Education Faculty of Lampung University and obtained her
bachelor’s degree in 2017. In the same year, she was admitted as a student of
Master’ Degree Program in English Language Teaching at Lampung University.
ii
DEDICATION
This script is entirely dedicated to:
My beloved parents
Damiri Tabri and Helaliah, S.E.
My younger brothers
Andra Riantasa Wijaya and Andre Riantasa Wijaya
My fabulous friends of the 5th
batch of Mater in English Language Teaching
and study program
My lovely almamater, Lampung University
iii
MOTTO
“So verily, with every difficulty, there is relief.
Verily, with every difficulty, there is relief.”
(QS. Al-Insyirah: 5-6)
“A happy soul creates you to be solid and strong”
(Helidatasa Utami)
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamiin. Praise is merely to the Mightiest Allah SWT for the
gracious mercy and tremendous blessing that enables me to accomplish this thesis
entitled “Think-Pair-Share Modified into Discuss-Predict-Share Strategy on
Extrovert and Introvert Students’ Writing Ability.” Shalawat and Salaam is for
Prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his followers, and all Moslems. This thesis
is submitted as a compulsory partial fulfillment of the requirements for S-2 degree
of Language and Arts Education Department at Teacher Training and Education
Faculty, Lampung University.
Since it is important to be known that this thesis would never have come into
existence without any support, encouragement, and assistance by several gorgeous
people, the writer would like to address her gratitude and respect to:
1. Dr. Ari Nurweni, M.A. as the writer’s first advisor, for her kindness,
invaluable evaluations, comments, and suggestions in guiding the writer
finishing the thesis.
2. Dr. Flora, M.Pd. as the writer’s second advisor as well as the Chairperson
of Master in English Language Teaching and Study Program , for her
kindness, willingness to give assistance, ideas, and encouragement within
her time during the thesis writing process.
3. Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarsyah, M.A. as the writer’s first examiner, for his
kindness, encouragments, contributions, and suggestions within the
process of accomplishing the thesis.
4. Prof. Dr. Patuan Raja M.Pd. as the writer’s second examiner as well as the
Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, for his kindness,
knowledge, encouragments, and suggestions within the process of
accomplishing the thesis.
5. Prof. Drs. Mustofa, M.A., Ph.D. as the Director of Postgraduate Program.
6. Dr. Nurlaksono Eko Rusminto, M.Pd. as the Chairperson of Language and
Arts Education Department.
7. Wiwin Susilowati, S.Pd. as the English Teacher of SMA N 13
Bandarlampung, for the guidance and support during the research and the
students of SMA N 13, especially class X MIPA 5, X MIPA 6, and X
MIPA 2 for the participation.
8. My beloved parents, Damiri Tabri and Helaliah, S.E. Thank you for your
love, support, and pray. May Allah give you His never ending blessings.
9. My beloved siblings, Andra Riantasa Wijaya and Andre Riantasa Wijaya,
who have supported me all the time.
v
10. Beasiswa Unggulan from Indoesia Ministry of Education and Culture
2018.
11. My lecturers for sharing knowledge, experience, and spirit.
12. My beloved Eka Pratiwi Yunianti S.Pd., Yohana Folinza, S.Hub.Int, Haifa
Puti Arlin, S.Pd., Riris Harwiyati, S.Pd., Ulfatul Haq, A.md. and Dewi
Pramu Shinta, A.md. for accompanying, sharing, helping, and challenging
time to pass each day with.
13. My lovely mates in S-2, especially for Aisyatul Vidyah Qori’ah, S.Pd.,
Windy Besthia, M.Pd., Devinia Jeniar, S.Pd., Nurina Ulfa, S.Pd., Rifka
Arina R, S.Pd., and Isnaini Maulyana, S.Pd. for always accompanying and
helping me.
14. My lovely mates in S-1, 13 Angels, especially for Risa Priyanti, S.Pd,
Hatika Nesia, S.Pd., Adys Anggun Wulandari, S,Pd. for motivating and
helping me .
15. My dearest mates since High School, especially for Yusi Zulianti, S.Pd.,
Nikadek Yulia Ningsih, S.Pd., Amalia Silvani, S.Pd., Fince Grasella
Simamora, S.Pd., and Ns Sefty Rani, S.Kep. for always supporting me.
16. My super-silly-but-awesome friends in UKM Radio Kampus Unila,
especially for Mila Nur Sarita, A.md., and Muhammad Suprani S.Hub.Int.
for sharing and inspiring.
17. My inspiring friends in JANIS (Jalan Inovasi Sosial).
18. My helpful senior in Master of English Language Teaching and Study
Program, Lia Annisa Mahdalena, M.Pd., Ketrin Viollita, M.Pd., and
Khairun Nisa, M.Pd.
19. My fabulous friends of the 5th
batch of Master in English Language
Teaching and Study Program. Thank you for assistance, support, and
suggestions.
Hopefully, this thesis would give a positive contribution for educational
development and for those who want to carry out further research.
Bandar Lampung, July 2019
The writer,
Helidatasa Utami
vi
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... i
CURRICULUM VITAE ............................................................................... ii
DEDICATION ............................................................................................... iii
MOTTO ......................................................................................................... iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .......................................................................... v
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................ ix
LIST OF APPENDICES................................................................................xi
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Problem ................................................................ 1
1.2. Research Questions ............................................................................. 11
1.3. Objectives ............................................................................................ 12
1.4. Uses ..................................................................................................... 12
1.5. Scope ................................................................................................... 13
1.6. Definition of Terms ............................................................................. 14
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Writing ................................................................................................ 16
2.1.1. Aspects of Writing .................................................................... 17
2.2. Teaching Writing ................................................................................ 19
2.3. Recount Text ....................................................................................... 20
2.4. Think-Pair-Share Strategy ................................................................... 24
2.5. Prediction Strategy ............................................................................. 27
2.6. Teaching Writing through Discuss-Predict-Share Strategy ............... 28
2.7. Procedures of Teaching Writing through Discuss-Predict-Share
Strategy ............................................................................................... 30
2.8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Discuss-Predict-Share .................. 33
2.9. Personality Traits ............................................................................... 34
2.10. Theoretical Assumptions ................................................................ 36
2.11. Hypotheses ....................................................................................... 39
vii
III. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research Design .................................................................................. 40
3.2. Population and Sample ........................................................................ 41
3.3. Research Instrument ........................................................................... 42
3.4. Criteria of Evaluating Students’ writing ............................................. 43
3.5. Validity and Reliability ...................................................................... 44
3.5.1. Validity ...................................................................................... 44
3.5.2. Reliability .................................................................................. 47
3.6. Data Collecting Technique ................................................................. 49
3.7. Research Procedures ........................................................................... 51
3.9. Data Analysis ...................................................................................... 53
3.10.Hypothesis Testing..............................................................................54
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1. The Report of the Implementation of the research ............................56
4.2. Result of the Research ........................................................................61
4.2.1. Students’ Writing Ability taught by DPS and TPS ...................61
4.2.2. Writing Ability of Extrovert and Introvert Students .................71
4.2.3. Interaction between the Strategies and Personality Trait ..........82
4.3. Discussion ..........................................................................................83
4.3.1. Students’ Writing Ability taught by DPS and TPS ...................83
4.3.2. Writing Ability of Extrovert and Introvert Students .................90
4.3.3. Interaction between the Strategies and Personality Trait ......... 92
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion ......................................................................................... 95
5.2. Suggestions ........................................................................................ 97
REFERENCES ..............................................................................................99
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................103
viii
TABLES
Tables Page
2.1.The Differences between Extroversion and Introversion .................... 35
3.1. Research Design ................................................................................. 41
3.2. Specification of Personality Trait Questionnaire ................................ 46
3.3. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest and Posttest Score in
Experimental Class ............................................................................ 48
3.4. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest and Posttest Score in
Control Class ..................................................................................... 49
4.1. The Mean of the Students’ Writing Ability Pretest ............................ 62
4.2. The Distribution Frequency of the Experimental Students’
Pretest ................................................................................................ 63
4.3. The Distribution Frequency of the Control Students’ Pre-test ...... 63
4.4. The Mean of the Students’ Writing Ability Posttest .......................... 65
4.5. The Distribution Frequency of the Experimental Students’
Posttest .............................................................................................. 66
4.6. The Distribution Frequency of the Control Students’ Posttest ..... 66
4.7. The increase of the students’ Recount Text Writing Ability Score in
General ............................................................................................... 67
4.8. The Increase of the Students’ Writing Ability Score on Each
Aspect of Writing Assessment in the Experimental Class ............... 68
4.9. The Increase of the Students’ Writing Ability Score on Each
Aspect of Writing Assessment in the Control Class ...................... 69
4.10. The Hyphothesis Test of the Students’ Writing Recount Text
Writing Ability in General ............................................................ 70
4.11. Number of Students of Each Personality in Experimental Class ...... 72
4.12. Number of Students of Each Personality in Control Class ............... 72
4.13. The Mean of the Introvert Students’ Recount Text Writing
Outcome in Experimental Class .................................................... 73
4.14. The Distribution Frequency of Introvert Students’ Recount Text
Writing Outcome in Experimental Class ...................................... 73
ix
4.15. The Mean of the Introvert Students’ Recount Text Writing
Outcome in Control Class .............................................................. 74
4.16. The Distribution Frequency of Introvert Students’ Recount Text
Writing Outcome in Control Class ................................................ 74
4.17. The Mean of the Extrovert Students’ Recount Text Writing
Outcome in Experimental Class ................................................... 75
4.18. The Distribution Frequency of Extrovert Students’ Recount Text
Writing Outcome in Experimental Class ..................................... 75
4.19. The Mean of the Extrovert Students’ Recount Text Writing
Outcome in Control Class .............................................................. 76
4.20. The Distribution Frequency of Extrovert Students’ Recount Text
Writing Outcome in Control Class ................................................ 77
4.21. Data Description of Students’ Writing Ability between the
Personality traits ............................................................................... 78
4.22. Summary of Result of Each Group ................................................... 78
4.23. Estimates and Pairwase Comparisons ............................................... 81
4.24. Tests of Between-Subjects Effects .................................................... 82
x
APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1. Research Schedule ............................................................................... 103
2. Personality Trait Questionnaire ........................................................... 104
3. Distribution of Personality Questionnaire ........................................... 106
4. The Reliability of Personality Questionnaire ....................................... 107
5. Analysis of Students’ Personality Questionnaire in Experimental
Class ..................................................................................................... 108
6. Analysis of Students’ Personality Questionnaire in Control
Class ..................................................................................................... 110
7. Expert Judgment ................................................................................... 112
8. Pretest ................................................................................................... 114
9. Scoring Rubric of Writing ................................................................... 115
10. Students’ Pretest in Experimental Class .............................................. 116
11. Students’ Pretest in Control Class ……………………….……………117
12. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest Score in Experimental
Class .................................................................................................... 118
13. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest Score in Control
Class .................................................................................................... 120
14. Lesson Plan of Experimental Class ...................................................... 122
15. Lesson Plan of Control Class ............................................................... 128
16. Feedback Sheet .................................................................................... 134
17. Posttest ................................................................................................. 135
18. Students’ Posttest in Experimental Class ............................................. 136
19. Students’ Posttest in Control Class ...................................................... 137
20. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Posttest Score in Experimental
Class .................................................................................................... 138
21. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Posttest Score in Control
Class .................................................................................................... 140
22. The Increase of the Students’ Recount Text Writing Ability ............. 142
23. The Increase of the Students’ Writing Ability Score on Each Aspect
In Experimental Class .......................................................................... 143
24. The Increase of the Students’ Writing Ability Score on Each Aspect
In Control Class .................................................................................... 144
25. The Analysis of Hypothesis (DPS and TPS Writing Ability) .............. 145
xi
26. The Analysis of Hypothesis (The Different Increase of Extrovert and
Introvert Students’ Writing Ability Outcomes) ................................ 148
27. The Analysis of the Hyphothesis (Tests of Between-Subjects
Effects) ................................................................................................. 149
28. Test of Normality ................................................................................. 150
29. Test of Homogeneity ............................................................................ 151
30. Sample of Students’ Pretest in Experimental Class ............................. 152
31. Sample of Students’ Pretest in Control Class....................................... 156
32. Sample of Students’ Posttest in Experimental Class ............................ 160
33. Sample of Students’ Posttest in Control Class …….……….…….… . 164
34. Surat Izin Penelitian ............................................................................. 168
35. Surat Keterangan Telah Mengadakan Penelitian ................................. 169
xii
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter is concerned with the background of the problem, research questions,
objectives, uses, scope, and definition of terms.
1.1. Background
Writing is a complex process involving the ability to construct a text in order to
express one‟s ideas effectively. Students need to produce their ideas into words,
sentences, paragraphs, and composition in written form. Therefore, writing skills
are complex and sometimes difficult to teach, requiring mastery not only of
grammatical and rhetorical devise but also of conceptual and judgmental elements
(Heaton, 1991). Moreover, Bryne (1993) divided the problems that make writing
difficult into three categories. The first is phychological problems, writing is
essentially a solitary activity and the fact that the writers are required to write on
their own, without the possibility of interaction or the benefit of feedback, in itself
makes the act of writing difficult. The second is linguistics problems, the writers
have to keep the channel of communication open through the efforts and to
ensure, both through the choices of sentence structure and by the way of sentences
are linked together and sequenced, that the text they produce can be interpreted on
its own. The third is cognitive difficulty, writing is learned through a process of
instruction: the writers have to master the written form of the language and to
learn certain structures which are less used in speech, or perhaps not used at all,
2
but which are important for effective communication in writing. The writers also
have to learn how to organize the ideas in such a way that they can be understood
by the reader. These conditions may cause students to stop writing and be
anxious. While, Richards and Renandya (2002: 303) state that the difficulty of
writing lies not only in generating and organizing ideas, but also in translating
these ideas into readable text. They argue the skills involved in writing are highly
complex and L2 writers have to pay attention to higher level skills of planning and
organizing as well as lower level skills of spelling, punctuation, word choice, and
so on.
Moreover, writing is productive activities in which this skill does not come
automatically and it needs an idea. To get the idea, it can be from written input
that is read by the writer as the clue to construct the idea. In this way, prediction
strategy can be used as one way to grasp the idea. Predicting is usually used in
reading comprehension. In addition, Escribano (1999) states that reading puts the
learner in touch with other minds so that he can experience the ways in which
writers have organized information, selected words and structured arguments.
Therefore, the students can use readings as a model for their writing, or they can
write about reading. Moreover, Prediction strategy involves making inferences,
using information in the text and prior knowledge to anticipate what will happen
next (Roit, 2008). So, it will improve the students‟ comprehension of the text.
Furthermore, by encouraging the students to make a prediction and revision of
their guesses, it also will increase their curiosity and will challenge the students to
read the text more and more (Aziz, 2016). In other words, students become better
readers, writers and thinkers when they learn reading and writing together.
3
Additionally, prediction makes the students become a critical thinker because they
need to read the text, get the clues for the next event, and then connect them to be
logical sequence. It means that prediction gives students exposure to vocabulary,
sentence structure, and rhetorical structures of English writing.
In relation to prediction strategy, making predictions encourages students to use
critical thinking and problem solving skills. It facilitates the students to actively
think ahead and ask questions. In addition, to make students become active and
sharpen their critical thinking, the teacher also should choose another appropriate
strategy that can be integrated with this strategy in order to help students compose
paragraph more easily by experiencing how the written language works. The
students are able to acquire new knowledge which is beyond their current
competence as a result of interaction. Within pairs, students are given writing
tasks present problems that can only be addressed with resource to the text. Thus,
reading is done with a purpose and also with the knowledge that particular section
that learner has been working on will contribute to the pair‟s overall objective of
producing a specific written task. To provide the interaction, a promising
alternative instruction is used, that is, Think-Pair-Share (TPS) strategy.
Furthermore, Kagan (2009) states that Frank Lyman created a powerful frame for
sequencing three structures, called Think-Pair-Share. Since there are many ways
to think, to pair up, and to share with the class, TPS is a structure sequence
generator. TPS benefits students in the area of peer acceptance, peer support,
academic achievement and self-esteem. According to Sharma (2018), TPS
strategy provides an opportunity for all students to share their thinking with at
4
least one other student which, in turn, increases their sense of involvement in
classroom learning and critical thinking. TPS can also be used as an information
assessment tool; as students discuss their ideas, the teacher can circulate and listen
to the conversations taking place and respond accordingly. It also can be used to
gauge conceptual understanding, filter information, draw conclusion, and
encourage peer learning among students. Therefore, Think-Pair-Share strategy
helps the students to consider their mistakes and failure easily.
In accordance to Think-Pair-Share strategy, there are several previous studies. The
first study was conducted by Sumarsih (2013). She conducted a study to seek the
effect of Think-pair-share strategy for teaching writing descriptive text. The
researcher used three qualitative tools to collect data. The three tools were
observation sheet, interview sheet and questionnaire. The findings showed that the
students‟ achievement is improved when they are taught by TPS. This study also
suggested that there should be the exploration of knowledge and the
understanding about how to improve students‟ achievement in writing.
The other related study was done by Ariansyah (2014) who investigated the
implementation of Think-Pair-Share in improving students‟ writing ability in
writing recount text. The data were collected through written test, observation
sheet, and field note. He found that this strategy is successfully improved the
writing ability of the students. Then, there were also increased of students‟
activity and motivation in writing. It could be seen in the observation sheet for
students that showed the percentage students activeness in each meeting. It can be
said that the activities of TPS make students more enjoyable in learning writing.
5
Based on the data that has been found in this research, the researcher suggested
that it would be better if the further researchers can fill attractive media or
technique for teaching writing and then the teacher need to know and recognize
what the students need and interesting for learning English to make the learning
process to be better and easier and the teacher needs to more concern to keep the
good atmosphere in classroom for make a students feel comfortable and enjoyable
in studying English.
The other research was conducted by Raba (2017) who investigated the influence
of TPS on students‟ oral communication skill. To achieve this goal, the researcher
used two qualitative tools to collect data. The two tools were semi-structured
interviews for EFL teachers who taught “English for Workplace” at the ELC An-
Najah National University and classroom observations of “English for
Workplace” classes at ELC at An-Najah National University. As the result of this
study, think-pair-share strategy plays a positive role in improving students‟ oral
communicative skills, creating a cooperative learning environment and enhancing
students‟ motivation to learn better. Furthermore, students enrolled in the faculties
of applied sciences responded better than students enrolled the faculties of human
sciences; similar responses were shown from students of higher academic level.
Thus, the researcher suggested that other related studies should be conducted to
develop more effective strategies for improving speaking skill. In addition, the
researcher also suggested that curriculum designers need to increase the activities
that use the think- pair-share technique since it helps to develop the critical
thinking skills.
6
Furthermore, Think-Pair-Share is effective to be implemented in solving their
difficulties in learning the language through the interaction of the pair. Those
previous researches also prove that this strategy has many benefits in improving
students‟ productive skills. In relation to the previous researches, after the
students create their products, they have to share it with their friend. Yet, it still
needs other activities to support the students‟ critical thinking to explore the
knowledge and understanding during the process of learning before they produce
the output.
In relation to prediction strategy, there are also some previous researches. A study
was conducted by Perangin-angin (2013) who investigated the effect of prediction
strategy in improving students‟ reading comprehension in descriptive text. The
research was conducted in two cycles and every cycle consisted of three
meetings. Reading test, diary notes, observation sheet and interview sheet were
administered as the instruments. Based on reading test scores, students‟ score
kept improving in every test. Based on diary notes, observation sheet and
interview sheet, it was found that teaching learning process run well. Students
were active, enthusiastic, and interested in reading. This research suggested that
the further researchers should explore the knowledge to enlarge their
understanding about how to improve descriptive text and search another
references.
Similar research was also conducted by Dhillon and Hutauruk (2016) which
focused on the effect of predicting strategy for listening comprehension in EFL
classroom on the third year students at English Department, HKBP Nommensen
7
Pematangsiantar University. The result showed that Prediction strategy gave
significant effect to the students‟ listening comprehension. Teaching listening by
using Prediction Strategy makes the students become active listeners and give
them a better chance of general comprehension.
Those previous studies above showed that prediction strategy is applicable to
improve students‟ comprehension in learning the language. Further, it is also
effective to enhance their productive skill since the students gain many input
during the process of prediction. However, to achieve the goals of producing a
good output, it would be better to let the students discuss their knowledge in
interaction to make them more active in teaching and learning process.
In short, those previous studies show that TPS is effective in improving students‟
writing ability for university level and students‟ oral communication skill. It also
showed that prediction strategy is applicable to improve students‟ reading and
listening comprehension. Based on the result of studies, it can be seen that all
researches prove that Think-Pair-Share and prediction strategy are good to be
implemented for students‟ linguistics development.
However, viewed from previous studies, the process of how students improve
their critical thinking during the learning process has not been well explored.
Most of the implementation of TPS especially in writing does not give more
attention on students comprehensible input. It is because after they write the
text; the students just share what they have written to their friends without any
specific strategy that can make the writing process more effectively. Then, in the
process of feedback given, the students are not given detail instructions or
8
guidelines in checking their friends‟ work. Furthermore, to improve their
comprehensible input, the process of reading can be applied in learning process
in which the students can use reading as a model for their writing. It can be done
through the implementation of prediction strategy in which the researcher
provides unfinished written input and asks the students to predict the
continuation of it and this idea will bring them to reconstruct and produce other
versions of that writing product. Then, the learners can enhance both their
cognitive process as well as their productive skill through interaction. She also
adds the feedback sheet as the guideline in revising step. Thus, in this present
study, the researcher modified Think-Pair-Share strategy. The procedure of
teaching writing is arranged based on two strategies; those are Think-Pair-Share
and prediction strategy. Moreover, the researcher named the strategy Discuss-
Predict-Share.
Furthermore, among the factors which have much influence in language learning
are cognitive and affective factors. It is not surprising that student who poses high
quality of cognitive factor, such as intelligence, will do well in language learning.
However, if we take only this single factor into consideration, the most
fundamental side of human behavior will be omitted (Herdawan, 2012).
Therefore, related to writing text, there also should be partnerships between
language teachers and psychologists of education to figure out the „what‟ and
„how‟ of critical thinking practices that ELT classes can provide (Azizollah et. al,
2013). Dealing with psychological factor, personality is the first facet of the
intrinsic side. It is within a person that contributes in some way to one‟s success in
language learning.
9
In this category, personality is the identification to identify individual differences.
It can be classified into two types, they are extroversion and introversion. Jung in
Samand (2019) states that extrovert is type of people whose attention is directed
outside himself. Whereas introvert type belongs to people whose attention are
focused on themselves that is toward his ego.
Furthermore, there are several previous researches related to the personality types
in learning process. Boroujeni (2015) Introverts outperformed their extrovert
counterparts in most of writing subsets, such as content, language, mechanics, and
vocabulary. Recognizing extroverts‟ difficulty in generating ideas in isolation,
writing teachers should attempt to provide opportunities for them to discuss the
topic before beginning to write. In addition, Sutrisno (2018) investigated the
effect of cooperative language learning and personality types towards essay
writing. The results showed that essay writing skill of students who have introvert
personality type was higher than students who have extrovert personality type.
Then, essay writing skill of introvert students who were taught using Think-Pair-
Share was higher than taught using STAD technique.
Other previous research was conducted by Ahour and Haradasht (2014). They
investigated the introvert and extrovert EFL learners in learning reading
comprehension. They looked how each personality affected in competitive and
cooperative learning, and the results revealed that the extrovert was better off
receiving cooperative instruction. In contrast, introverts excelled extroverts in the
competitive group. Hence, introverts were generally better readers than extroverts.
This is very much understandable if the paradigm of extroversion and introversion
10
is put together in context: extroverts outweigh introverts in amount of speech but
they do not necessarily gain more than introverts when it comes to reading
comprehension. In addition, it was in line with Hirsh and Kise in Novitasari
(2018) who state that the extrovert people tend to like working in group
cooperatively than the introverts.
Those are some previous researches about the extroversion and introversion
towards the students‟ comprehension in reading and skill in writing. The results
revealed that introverts outperformed extroverts in writing. Extroverts‟ progress
in generating ideas depends too much on talking about the topic, interviewing, or
presenting reports. They understand the oral presentation better than the written
version. Then, introverts were also generally better readers than extroverts.
Furthermore, to know whether introversion students really enjoy the writing
process of Discuss-Predict-Share and Think-Pair-Share through interaction in
pair, and whether extroversion students are able to produce writing product as
well as the introvert, in this case aspect of personality is also importance to
analyze whether it affects students‟ writing process and product or not.
Based on the statements above, the researcher proposed DPS as a modified
strategy that provides the opportunity for the students to explore their
understanding through reading which will become the point to reconstruct the
written text and to share their work in pairs so that there will be much
comprehensible input through discussion and feedback given. It also supports
their critical thinking and helps them produce a better production of writing.
Moreover, the researcher also would implement TPS as the original strategy to
11
the control class. In the application of this strategy, the students will get the
chance to elaborate their understanding of a topic and generate the ideas in pair.
In addition, it also helps the students to develop their ability to consider other
point of view through discussion and feedback given. Hence, the researcher
would also investigate how both extrovert and introvert students in concluding
and interpreting about themselves and the use of DPS and TPS strategy in
writing recount text. In short, the researcher was interested in investigating
students‟ preference toward those strategies in writing recount text at the first
grade students of Senior High School.
1.2 Research Questions
Related to the background stated before, the researcher formulated the following
research questions:
1. Is there any different increase of students‟ writing ability between students
taught by using Think-Pair-Share and those taught by using Discuss-Predict-
Share strategy?
2. Is there any different increase of students‟ writing ability between extrovert
and introvert students after being taught through Think-Pair-Share and
Discuss-Predict-Share strategy?
3. Is there any interaction between those two strategies and personality of
students?
12
1.3 Objectives
In accordance with the formulation of the research questions, the objectives of
this research were as follows:
1. To find out whether there is different increase of students‟ writing ability
between students taught by using Think-Pair-Share and Discuss-Predict-Share
strategy.
2. To find out whether there is different increase of students‟ writing ability
between extrovert and introvert students after being taught through Think-
Pair-Share and Discuss-Predict-Share strategy.
3. To find out whether there is any interaction between those two strategies and
personality of the students.
1.4. Uses
The finding of this research might be useful both theoretically and practically.
1. Theoretically, the finding of this research might be useful for supporting the
previous theory about Think-Pair-Share and prediction strategy for optimizing
writing ability.
2. Practically, the result of this research is expected to provide teachers with a
new insight that might be taken a guideline in teaching reading and writing so
that the students are able to comprehend English texts well and optimize their
writing ability.
13
1.5 Scope
The subject of this research was limited in teaching and learning process of
writing in the first grade of SMAN 13 Bandar Lampung. There are many
strategies that can help teacher in teaching learning process to reach the goal of it.
In this case, this research was concerned on investigating students‟ writing
ability as the result of applying the modified strategy (DPS) and the original
strategy (TPS). Based on 2013 curriculum of senior high school, the researcher
found that there were many kinds of writing forms which were supposed to be
learned and mastered by students.
However, this research was limited to the investigation of Discuss-Predict-Share
and Think-Pair-Share strategy in teaching recount text. TPS and DPS were
applied by pairing the students to make a discussion about a topic in order to
develop conceptual understanding of a topic, develop the ability to filter
information and write conclusion. Moreover, in DPS, the students had essential
integrated part which determined the successful of one reading text and giving
the opportunity to predict that certain part will be challenging.
The original strategy provides the opportunity for the students to elaborate their
understanding of a topic and generate the ideas in pair. While, the modified
strategy makes the students process the provided written input by thinking
critically and connecting ideas in the previous paragraphs to form a resolution by
combining the idea from the students in a pair. It also would support their
cognitive process which would help them produce paragraph writing as the final
product. Furthermore, the researcher would evaluate students‟ writing ability in
14
accordance with some aspects of writing, such as content, organization,
vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. In addition, aspect of personality types
took part here as consideration of how introvert and extrovert students write
through this modified strategy.
1.6 Definition of Terms
In order to avoid misunderstanding, some terms used in this research were defined
as follows:
1. Writing is one of language skills in which the students learn how to get ideas
and expresses the ideas in written form by applying content, grammar,
vocabulary, mechanics, and organization.
2. Teaching writing is teaching the students how to express their ideas in a written
form by processing models provided as one of its ways.
3. Think-Pair-Share is a cooperative discussion strategy that gives the students
chance to think, answer and help each other and will increase type of
interesting learning, enjoy, and raise the student‟s cooperation and activity.
4. Prediction is thinking about what might be coming next by considering some
preceding clues. In this current study, the students are asked to think what be
coming next at the end of the story (resolution of the story) from unfinished
text provided by the researcher. To do this, they have to consider some
preceding clues given in the previous paragraphs.
5. Recount text is a text which is used to tell about event and experience that
already happened in the past.
6. Extrovert is the extent to which a person has self esteem from other people.
15
7. Introvert is the extent to which a person derives a sense of wholeness apart
from other people.
This chapter has discussed about background of the problem, research problem,
objective of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research, and the
definition of terms.
16
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter discuss about the theories which are used in this research. Those
theories are writing, teaching writing, recount text, Think-Pair-Share, prediction
strategy, teaching writing recount text using Discuss-Predict-Share strategy, the
procedures of teaching teaching writing recount text using Discuss-Predict- Share
strategy, advantages and disadvantages of Discuss-Predict-Share strategy,
personality traits, theoretical assumption, and hypotheses.
2.1. Writing
Writing is one of the four skills in learning language. The researcher focused on
this skill and tries to find out its definition; moreover, it may the basic theory of
this research. Writing is a process of communication that uses conventional
graphic system to convey a message to the reader. Hyland (2003:3) defines
writing as a product constructed from the writer’s command of grammatical and
lexical knowledge, and writing development is considered to be the result of
imitating and manipulating models provided by the teacher.
Furthermore, Krashen also discusses the research on writing and their application
to pedagogy. We learn to write by reading. To be more precise, we acquire writing
style, the special language of writing, by reading. The knowledge gained from
reading can make second language reading more comprehensible, and can make
17
the writer develop good writing in the second language (Krashen, 1993). In
addition, Weigle (2002) states that the physical act of writing is sometimes
thought of as mainly the result of cognitive effort on the part of an individual.
Based on the statement above, the researcher confirms that writing is a very
complex process that encourages thinking and learning to explore thoughts and
ideas; also, it is communicative. Creating a written text can be said difficult
because a writer should concern with grammar; also, he should consider the
aspects of writing.
2.1.1. Aspects of Writing
Conceivably, there are principles in writing in order to write. They include what to
say (content), how to sequence what to say (organization and mechanic), and how
to express what was said (language use and vocabulary). It can be said that a
writer is success if his writing contains the aspects of writing. According to Jacob
et al (1981), there are five aspects of writing needed taking into serious attention
as follows:
1. Content
Content refers to the substance of writing, the experience of the main idea (unity),
i.e., groups of related statements that a writer presents as unit in developing a
subject. This term is related with the work of conveying ideas rather than fulfilling
special function of transition, restatement, and emphasis. Unity can be identified
by seeing the topic sentence and the controlling idea. Each sentence in a
paragraph should relate to the topic and develop the controlling idea. If a sentence
does not relate to the idea, it should be omitted.
18
2. Organization
Organization refers to the logical organization of the content (coherence). It
contains sentences that are logically arranged and flow smoothly. Logical
arrangement refers to the order of the sentences and ideas. While smooth flow
refers to how well one idea or sentence leads into another.
3. Vocabulary
Vocabulary refers to the selection of words which are suitable with the content. It
begins with the assumption that the writer wants to express the ideas as clearly
and directly as he or she can. A general rule, clarity should be the primary
objective. The selections of words that express the meaning correctly is
considered much.
4. Language use or grammar
Language use refers to the use of correct grammatical and syntactic pattern or
separating, combining, and grouping ideas in words phrases, clauses, and
sentences to bring out logical relationship in paragraph.
5. Mechanics
Mechanics refers to the use of particular conventions in written language.
Mechanics includes spelling, punctuations, capitalization. Mechanics can
determine whether or not writing is good. Improper application of mechanics can
make readers misunderstand about the massage of the text.
Thus, there are five aspects in writing: content, organization, vocabulary,
language use, and mechanic (Jacob et al, 1981:90). All of those aspects should be
covered so the intended readers can understand the message or information shared
by the writer effectively.
19
2.2. Teaching Writing
Teaching writing is to teach students how to express the idea or imagination in
written form. In order to be successful in writing, English teacher should guide the
students in writing, in which the material presented are relevant to their interests,
needs, capacities, and age until they are able to make a composition with few or
even no error. The aspects of writing such as content, organization, vocabulary,
language use, and mechanics cannot be separated each other. In teaching writing,
the teacher should concern to all aspects but still the material must be considered
based on students’ level.
In relation to teaching writing, Harmer (2010) states that when students are
writing-for-writing, the teacher will want to involve them in the process of
writing. In the real world, this typically involves planning what we are going to
write, drafting it, reviewing and editing what we have written and then
producing a final version. By doing so, the teacher will help the students to be
better writers both in exams. The stages are described as follows:
1. Planning
In this stage, writers try to find and produce information in writing. Before
starting to write or type, they try and decide what they are going to say. For some
writers this may involve making detailed notes. For others a few jotter words may
be enough.
2. Drafting
We can refer to the first of a piece writing as a draft. As the writing process
into editing, a number of drafts may be produces on the final to the final version.
20
3. Editing (Reflecting and Revising)
Once writers have produced a draft they then, usually, read through what they
have written to see where it works and where it does not work. Reflecting and
revising are often helped by other readers (or editors) who comment and make
suggestions. Another reader’s reaction to a piece of writing will help the
author to make appropriate revisions.
4. Final Version
Once writers have edited their draft, making the changes they consider to be
necessary, they produce the final version. This may look considerably
different from both original plan and the first draft, because things have changed
in the editing process.
Briefly, there are four steps of teaching writing: planning, drafting, editing, and
final version (Harmer in Sitompul 2016). Teaching writing involves these steps in
order to build good paragraph. Therefore, teacher could conduct the class applying
these steps.
2.3. Recount Text
Recount text is used to tell the experience in the past, obviously recount text uses
past tense form. Recount text does not use conflict, but it uses series of event as
characteristic. Recount text with complete generic structure will be constructed by
structuring orientation, events and re-orientation. Derewienka (1992) asserts in
recount, we construct past experience. A recount is the unfolding of a sequence of
events overtimes. It is used to tell past events for the purpose of informing or
entertaining. It is focus on a sequence of events. In general is begun with an
21
orientation. It provides the backgrounds information needed to understand the text
such as who was involved, where it happened and when it happened. Then, the
recount unfolds with series of events (ordered in a chronological sequence). At
various stages, there may be some personal comments on we call it re-orientation.
Recounts generally follow a similar structure, but the students should be guided
by the purpose for an audience of their text in their use of the following structure
(Derewianka, 1992) The generic structure of recount text is as follows:
1. Orientation – Scene setting opening, it gives the readers the background
information needed to understand the text such as who was involved, where it
happened, and when it happened.
2. Events – recount of the events as they occurred, for example, I saw a vase…
these events may be elaborated on by adding, for example, descriptive details.
3. Reorientation – a closing statement: When I got back, I told my mum (with
elaboration in more sophisticated text).
The language features that are usually used in recount text are:
1. Simple past tense is used in most recounts, but present tense may be used to
create immediacy. Future tense is sometimes used in the conclusion of an
imaginative or biographical recount to predict what might happen in the future,
for example,” this great tennis player will no doubt win many more
tournaments”.
2. A range of conjunction (because, although, while) is used to link clauses within
sentences.
22
1. Time connectives (firstly, secondly, next, finally) are used to link separate
events or paragraphs into cohesive whole text.
2. Passive voice is used, particularly in factual recounts to give objectivity to
the text. For example,” the land was worked by the peasants from sunrise
to sunset.”
3. Adverbs (yesterday, outside) and adverbial phrases. For example,” in
1991, in top of the hotel’, is used to indicate specific times and places.
To be clearer, here is the example of recount text that reflects the generic
structure:
Last Holiday to Kuta Beach
Orientation:
Last month, I went to Bali by plane with my family for three days and
stayed in the hotel near Kuta Beach. We chose Bali because we thought
that Bali was the most beautiful place and it was the island of The God.
Events:
At the first day, my family and I walked along the beach. My sister and I
built a sand castle, while our parents sat and enjoyed the scenery
around the beach. There were many tourists at the beach. Next day, I
swam on the beach and dived under the sea. The view was beautiful;
there were many little fishes and other sea creatures. I enjoyed my
adventure in the sea. On the last day, I sunbathed in the beach like
other tourists. Then my family and I rowed a boat around the beach.
The wind blew and we felt really relax. Kuta beach was really beautiful.
Re-orientation:
I will never forget it. And I am proud of being an Indonesian
because my country is one of the most famous places in the world.
23
Furthermore, there are five types of recount text, they are:
1. Personal Recount
Telling about activities whereas the writer or speaker involves or do by him or
her (i.e., oral anecdote, diary entry). Personal responses to the events can be
included, particularly at the end. Details are often chosen to add interest or
humor.
2. Factual Recount
Record the particulars of an incident (i.e., report of a science experiment, police
report, news report, historical account). A factual recount is concerned with
recalling events accurately. It can range from everyday tasks such as a school
accident report to a formal, structured research tasks such as historical recount.
The emphasis is on using language that is precise, factual and detailed, so that
the reader gains a complete picture of the event, experience or achievements.
This type uses the third person pronouns (he, she, it, and they). Sometimes the
ending described the outcome of the activity (i.e., science experiment). Details
of time, place and manner may need to be precisely stated, i,e.: at 2.35 pm.,
between Jhonson St and Park Rd, the man drove at 80 kph. The passive voice
may be used, i.e., the beaker was filled with water. It may be appropriate to
include explanations and justifications.
3. Imaginative Recount
Imaginative or literary recounts entertain the reader by recreating the events of
an imaginary world as though they are real. motion language, specific detail
and first person narration are used to give the writing impact and appeal.
24
4. Procedural Recount
A procedural recount records the steps taken in completing a task or procedure.
The use of technical terms, an accurate time sequence and first person narration
(I or we), give credibility to the information provided. Examples include a flow
chart of the actions required for making bread, a storyboard a videotaped script
or advertisement, the steps taken to solve mathematical problem.
5. Biographical Recount
A biographical recount tells the story of person’s life using a third person
narrator (he, she, and they). In this case of an autobiography, first person
narration (I, we) is used. It is usually factually accurate and records specific
names, times, places, and events, a purely factual, informative biography,
however, would lack the appeal provided by personal responses and
memorable anecdotes. There is often evaluation of the subject’s achievements
in the final section.
From five types of recount text above, the focus of the research is personal
recount since it tells the activities whereas the writer involves or does by her or
himself.
2.4. Think-Pair-Share (TPS)
TPS strategy was first proposed by Lyman in 1981, and developed by many
scientists in recent years. Basically, this strategy is to make the students more
active in the teaching learning process by discussing with their classmates. In
relation to that, Kagan (2009) states that in TPS, there are many ways to think, to
pair up, and to share with the class, TPS is a structure sequence generator. Also,
25
TPS framework can generate thousands of different three-structure sequences.
According to Lin (2015), in think-pair-share, students think to themselves on a
topic provided. They are on their own to reach consensus and share with other
peers and then the entire class. The academic and social functions of think-pair-
share is to make the students be able to express opinions, inductive and deductive
reasoning; enhancing participation and involvement. In addition, Sharma (2018)
states that TPS promotes classroom participation by encouraging a higher degree
of pupil response, rather than using a basic recitation method in which a teacher
poses a question and one student offers a response. TPS includes three steps,
Think-teacher poses an open-ended question or problem, students student think
analytically on the question. Gives students a minute or two to think about their
answer. Pair- teacher pairs the students to discuss the answer and share ideas.
Then, Share- student shares the response with the whole class.
According to Kagan (2009), TPS strategy consists of some steps, such as;
1. Organizing students into pairs
TPS model is begun by dividing the students into pairs randomly. The purpose
of choosing randomly is to avoid the gap between high students and low
students. Besides, they will have higher chance to know each other closely,
and it will increase the respect of a student to others.
2. Posing the topic or a question
Next step is posing a question or a topic to the students. The questions or the
topic should be related to the material that is going to be discussed. This stage
makes the students think deeper and deeper, and they can give their opinions
in many aspects.
26
3. Giving time to students to think
The teacher should give the students several minutes to think an answer of the
question given before. They should analyze the question and use their critical
thinking to answer it. Hopefully, each student has a different answer to be
shared to his or her classmates.
4. Asking students to discuss with their partner and share their thinking
In this section, each student will share his or her own answer to his or her
partner in pairs. They will share their thinking and discuss each other to find
the best answer. Furthermore, this activity can be developed into higher level
by gathering one pair into another pair. However, this activity helps the
students develop not only their knowledge, but also their communicative skill
and confidence.
5. Calling on a few students to share their ideas with the rest of the class
The last step of this model is calling some students to share their ideas with
the rest of the class. Some students give their answer, and the others can give
their opinion or other answers. However, it improves not only the student’s
knowledge but also their confidence.
The researcher considers that TPS is a good strategy in teaching writing since it
gives the students chance to dig and develop their own ideas about what they
want to write, share ideas with peer students, learn to criticize and accept
criticisms and promote effective team work.
27
2.5. Prediction Strategy
The prediction strategy is of key importance in the comprehension process
because it implies that we are not only comprehending the author’s literal message
but also going beyond the information given to predict the content and the way the
author will present it. Chamot (2005) states that prediction is a strategy to
anticipate information to come. Prediction plays crucial roles in making logical
guesses about what will happen in written or oral text. Moreover, a prediction
strategy at its best is conceiving a prediction then, subsequently reading the text to
find out what happens. That also includes activating background knowledge,
peeking or previewing and over viewing or summarizing (Thomas, 2005).
Moreover, predicting, confirming predictions and making predictions motivates
and engages students, provides direction for reading and leads to deeper thinking
about text (Harvey and Goudvis in Roit, 2008).
Predictions are not wild guesses. They involve making inferences, using
information in the text and prior knowledge to anticipate what will happen next.
In other words, prediction strategy can help the students to stay focus and give
them a better chance of general comprehension. As students continue through the
selection, predictions can be confirmed or verified, updated or revised based on
new information or not confirmed or not verified. Students need to learn to do the
following to make thoughtful predictions (Roit, 2008):
1. Identify clues in the text and one’s background knowledge to support a
prediction.
2. Decide when to make a prediction based on a turning point or other point in a
story.
28
3. Confirm or verify predictions during and after reading.
4. Make and evaluate alternative predictions.
5. Review predictions and thinking about why they were or were not confirmed or
verified.
Prediction strategy makes easy for the student to grasp information from the
reading text. Besides, it also improves their concentration and motivation, so the
students can be attentive in learning process.
2.6. Teaching Writing through Discuss-Predict-Share strategy
Perhaps, teaching writing is teaching the students how to use the language for
communicating, transferring idea and thought through written text. To meet the
hope for optimizing students’ writing ability and develop their accuracy and
fluency in writing, a strategy named Discuss-Predict-Share is proposed by the
researcher. The name is taken literally from every process involved in
processing Think-Pair-Share and prediction strategy. The procedures of this
strategy are basically designed from Think-Pair-Share proposed by Kagan (2009)
and prediction strategy proposed by Roit (2008).
There are many ways to think, to pair up, and to share with the class, TPS is a
structure sequence generator (Kagan, 2009). Through TPS, the students get the
opportunity to develop conceptual understanding of a topic, develop the ability to
filter information and write conclusion, and develop the ability to consider other
points of view as well.
In order to make the teaching learning process more effective, the students can be
trained to get the idea and concept of writing they will compose through reading
29
activity. In this recent study, the researcher provides unfinished written input and
asks the students to predict the continuation of the text and this idea will bring
them to reconstruct and produce other versions of that text. In addition, predicting
as reading strategy will help to expose the vocabulary, sentence structure, and
rhetorical structures of English writing, writing activities give students practice in
using them. During-reading, the activities help students integrate their own
background knowledge with the new information they get from the text. As
students read, they can gather, organize, analyze, and evaluate evidence. They can
look for answers to questions they raise and revise their predictions in pair.
Besides functioning as a comprehension check, discussion provides the
opportunity to help students deepen, extend and clarify their understanding. In
pair, they can share what they predict on the text by the information and clue
provided. As students explore ideas from the text, they can be asked to extract and
organize information. In writing and in discussion, they get practice in using
vocabulary and sentence patterns they find in the reading. Moreover, they use
their experience in comprehensible process to reconstruct the text. It means that
Discuss-Predict-Share strategy is applicable for teaching writing.
In addition, Perangin-angin (2013) described the effect of prediction strategy in
improving students’ reading comprehension in descriptive text. She stated that
students were active, enthusiastic, and interested in reading. This stage provides
the students an effective way to help them conducted the whole paragraph writing.
In order to improve their critical thinking, the ideas can be discussed in pair.
30
As quoted in Kartikasari (2014), Mandal believes that Think-Pair-Share is a
simple strategy; the instructor develops and poses questions, gives the students a
few minutes to think about a response, and then asks students to share their ideas
with a partner. This task gives them opportunity to compare and contrast their
understanding with those of another and to rehearse their response first in a low-
risk situation before going public with the whole class. This is the reason why this
strategy motivates students’ writing activity that TPS provides them clear way to
think about their writing product deeply. In addition, Siahaan (2014) state that
TPS strategy helped the students became active participants in learning and could
include writing as a way of organizing thoughts generated from discussion
Briefly, teaching linguistic elements using a modified Think-Pair-Share is
effective. Therefore, the researcher proposes Discuss-Predict-Share strategy,
which is in line with the approach of Think-Pair-Share and prediction strategy, in
order to make the output better. It will also stimulate students’ idea in writing and
it guides students about what should be written.
2.7. Procedures of Teaching Writing through Discuss-Predict-Share strategy
These steps in Discuss-Predict-Share strategy are combination of Harmer (2010).
The integrated procedures can be described as follows:
1. Planning
- The teacher provides some samples of Recount texts and shows them to
the students. Then let them read the text.
- The students are asked the questions related to the text. The teacher and
students may have questions and answers session.
31
- The teacher introduces the lesson and gives models to them: The
application of Discuss-Predict-Share strategy in teaching recount text. The
teacher asks the students to answer questions based on the text. Then, they
are guided to predict the resolution to the problems as the continuation of
the story and reconstruct the text based on the questions they have
answered.
- The students are asked to provide some feedback and match the
reconstructed text with the original one.
- After the students familiarize with discuss-predict-share strategy, they
begin to experience this strategy.
- The students are given unfinished recount text with the comprehensible
questions. They are asked to read the text and think about the questions to
engage them. They may write the answers on the notes.
- Students form a pair with another student to talk and compare their
response to the prompt. They are divided into pairs randomly. The purpose
of choosing randomly is to avoid the gap between low and high students.
2. Drafting
- The students discuss their answers of the questions, clarify the answer of
continuation of the story, and talk about the content of text. They may try
to solve the problems together. Later, both teacher and students discuss the
answers. New and difficult words and expressions in each passage are
marked and provided explanations to help the students understand the
passage better. This stage is useful for the students in helping them deeply
and personally involved in the process of writing.
32
- The students are asked to produce the text, which is, reconstructing the
text. They are asked to reconstruct the text by considering some related
questions they have answered before and complete the unfinished text by
predicting the resolution of the text. Each student in every pair
reconstructs the writing text with the idea they have discussed in a pair.
This text becomes their draft.
3. Editing (Reflecting and Revising)
- The students are given the feedback sheet as guideline. It will help them to
check their friend’s draft and improve the quality of their critical thinking.
- Every student is asked to exchange their work to the other students in the
other pairs to provide the feedback. The feedback is concerned on five
aspect of writing; content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and
mechanics.
- The draft is given back to every student in the former pairs. Then, each
student in every pair checks and revises their draft by considering the
feedback given.
4. Final Version
- The students submit the final draft.
- Some students are asked to share their ideas with the rest of the class.
Some students give their answer, and the others can give their opinion or
other answers. However, it gives the opportunity for the students to
improve their knowledge and confidence.
- After sharing, the teacher evaluates student’s works by comparing their
reconstructed text with the original full one.
33
Based on the procedure above, the researcher surely thinks that it can help the
teacher and the students more active, creative and also enjoyeable in delivering
and accepting the material by using Discuss-Predict-Share strategy in teaching-
learning process.
2.8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Discuss-Predict-Share Strategy
The advantages of Discuss-Predict-Share strategy are all students more actively
involves in group discussion and class participation; it enhances interaction,
motivation, and cognitive growth of the students; it increase comprehension
through its strong emphasis on student-generated prediction, speculation,
conclusion, which are based on and grow from prior knowledge and experience. It
gives benefits for students in the area of peer acceptance, peer support, academic
achievement and self-esteem.
While the disadvantage that will appear is that the students tend to concern on the
memorization form of the words especially the new ones since the following task
is reconstructing the text. In reconstructing the text; it is free for them to express
the ideas by using their own words as long as the meaning intended is the same as
in the original text. Moreover, they can prefer to use language use and vocabulary
used in original text. Consequently, they tend to get stuck in reconstructing the
text when they forget about what they have memorized. It will be time consuming
if the process does not run well. Then, the class will be so noisy because all the
students put in pairs participates actively in the learning process.
34
2.9. Personality Traits (Extrovert and Introvert)
Individual differences in personality are important in predicting individuals’
behavior in umpteen real world conditions. We can think first when we face certain
person by considering his/ her personality. Moreover, not only in working place,
in teaching learning process when teacher ask students to work individually or in
team or peer, some considerations of personality sometimes take part. As cited in
Novitasari (2018), Hirsh and Kise explain that understanding people‘s types
allows us to tap into their strengths, discover how we work best together, and
minimize unnecessary conflict. Type frequently is helpful in predicting both the
strengths and the developmental needs of each personality type and provides a
positive language for discussion and understanding. Furthermore, they also state
that through type, we will be able to identify and reduce sources of conflict. For
example, if one person prefers to talk about everything out loud (extraversion) and
the other likes peace and solitude for reflection (introversion), they can negotiate
their shared and private space.
Furthermore, Eysenk (1998) states that the introvert has a more subjective, the
extravert a more objective outlook; (b) the introvert shows a higher degree of
cerebral activity, the extravert a higher degree of behavioural activity; (c) the
introvert shows a tendency to self-control (inhibition), the extravert a tendency to
lack of such control. According to Schmeck and Lockart (1983), Introverts tend
to seek out an environmental where there is relatively little stimulation.
Extraverts, on the other hand, require strong stimulus to perceive a stimulus and
tend to seek out environments that provide relatively large amounts of stimulation.
In addition, introverts are more influenced by punishments than by reward, and
35
they are more sensitive than extraverts to social prohibition. Also, introverts are
more sensitive than extraverts to pain more prone to fatigue, and their
performance suffers more when they are excited.
The following are the differences between extroversion and introversion stated
briefly (Hirsh and Kise in Novitasari, 2018).
Table. 2.1. The Differences between Extroversion and Introversion
No Extroversion Introversion
1 Talk it out Think it through
2 Extend into our environment by reaching out to others
Defend against our environment by stepping back or avoiding others
3 Act first, think later Think first, act later
4 Enjoy variety and action Enjoy concentration and reflection
5 Prefer face-to-face Communication
Prefer written forms of communication
6 Frequently hear that we are not available because we are out and
about
Frequently hear that even though we are present, we are miles away, deep in
thought
7 Find action for stimulation Find quiet for reflection
8 Be involved in many things at Once
Take an in-depth approach to a few tasks
9 Change tasks and add variety to maintain interest
Concentrate on the task at hand
10 Keep up networks of contacts Work without interruption
11 Clarify thoughts through Discussion
Clarify thoughts through reflection
12 Move about for action, Interaction
Have private space for working
13 Work within a team Engage in small-group or one-on-one Interactions
14 Focus externally on the market Focus internally on their own resources and competencies
However, the teacher should remember that personality trait is not a box put us
into; rather, it is a way to understand our preferences and those of others.
Moreover, type alone cannot solve all our organization‘s problems. However, it
can lead to a deeper understanding of the value of each team member and
36
provide a logical model for why people do and say the things they do.
Moreover, no one type is better than another. Each type has its unique
combination of assets and blind spots, so it is why personality will be considered
to use in pairing students in this research.
2.10. Theoretical Assumptions
As has already been stated that writing is counted as the most difficult skill,
students need to consider the five aspects of writing namely content, grammar,
organization, vocabulary, and mechanic. It makes the students hard to plan their
ideas in systematical way. Therefore, the teacher should have the ability to choose
an appropriate way and implement it in the teaching learning process to obtain the
goal.
Perhaps, Discuss-Predict- Share strategy can optimize students’ writing ability.
This strategy gives the opportunity for the students to combine reading text
completed by the comprehension questions provided, predict the continuation of
the text and reconstruct the text by using those questions as the guideline, and
have interaction. As the result, it provides more opportunities for explanation,
logical inferences, and debates to elaborate students’ understanding of reading
materials and makes ideas concrete. It also makes the students easier to write and
this will prompt their fluency and accuracy in writing.
The objective of teaching writing is students are able to produce written form of
their ideas and thoughts correctly based on writing aspects. The researcher
believes that this strategy can affect students’ aspect of writing in term of content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics. It is done since the
37
students are asked to process the comprehensible input and debating what they
have done in the stage of thinking, pairing and sharing which they will pay
attention to the content and the organization of the text in general and to
vocabulary, language use, and mechanics in particular.
In addition, this application can result in a different prediction of recount text
with the point that it will be easier for the students to predict the continuation of
recount text. This is because by working in pair, they can share ideas to another,
students a chance to dig their own ideas on what to write, develop ideas, and
promote effective team work. The students will be trained to improve their
cognitive skills as well as productive skill through collaborative learning
Furthermore, the implication of understanding the students’ personality in the
classroom will also help the students to deal effectively with the classroom
situation which do not match the students’ learning style. However, some students
like to communicate in spoken, but some in reading and written. In this present
study, the researcher also tried to accommodate and facilitate the students based
on their preferred learning styles. Extroverts are easier to communicate because
they do not feel the fear of saying something wrong. On the other hand, introverts
feel a lot safer when they are put to work individually and at their own pace.
Although extroverts are assumed to be good at expressing themselves through
speaking, the findings of most studies reveal that they are not as successful as
introverts in writing.
In this way, DPS and TPS strategy are believed can make introvert and extroverts
work together. Applying these strategies, the teacher attempts to provide
38
opportunities for the students to have more discussion during the writing process.
It provides processing time and builds in wait-time which enhances the depth and
breadth of thinking. In control class, the students will be trained to elaborate their
understanding, develop the ability in generating the ideas, and consider other
points of view through cooperative learning. In addition, in the experimental class,
the teacher asks the students to deal with the reading process which let them to
answer comprehensible questions and predict the continuation of the story
individually and then each student will have to turn to their partner, provide them
the answers, and have a meaningful discussion. Thus, these strategies are great
exercises since the introvert students’ anxiety will decrease because they know
better about what they are going to say in pair which means they become more
comfortable about themselves. While, most of extroverts are lack in writing, these
strategies especially the modified one, give a better chance to have more
discussion so it can help them to solve the difficulty in generating ideas in
isolation. Thus, the strategies are proved to be more effective in the process of
writing for both introverts and extroverts.
The researcher believes that teaching writing using this application creates good
effect in the classroom, so the students will not get bored in teaching learning
process and this condition is expected to help students improve their writing
ability especially in recount text.
39
2.11. Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were proposed in order to answer the stated research
questions.
(1) For the first research question, the hypothesis was:
There is difference increase of students’ writing ability between students
taught by using Think-Pair-Share and those taught by using Discuss-
Predict-Share strategy.
(2) For the second research question, there is no difference increase in
students’ writing ability between extrovert and introvert students after
being taught through Think-Pair-Share and Discuss-Predict-Share
strategy.
(3) For the third research question, there is an interaction between those two
strategies and personality of the students.
Briefly, those are the explanation about this chapter that are about writing,
teaching writing, recount text, Think-Pair-Share, prediction strategy, teaching
writing using Discuss-Predict-Share strategy, the procedures of teaching writing
using Discuss-Predict-Share strategy, advantages and disadvantages of Discuss-
Predict-Share strategy, personality traits, theoretical assumption and hypotheses.
40
III. METHODS
This chapter discusses about the methods of the research and they are research
design, population and sample, research instruments, criterea of evaluating
students’ writing, validity and reliability, data collecting technique, research
procedures, data analysis, and hypothesis testing.
3.1. Research Design
This research used quantitative approach. The design of this research was factorial
design. Factorial designs were those where more than one independent variable
was involved in the design. Since factorial design is the most common way to
study the effect of two or more independent variables and focused on the design
that has only two independent variables that combined all categories of the other
independent variables to produce all possible conditions, this research was
suitable with this design. As seen that there were two independent variables from
the strategies and it had an upshot to the levels of personalities, this design was
implemented.
In this research, the design included two variables and each variable had two
categories. The independent variables were the strategies i.e. Think-Pair-Share
and Discuss-Predict-Share and personality had two categories i.e introvert and
extrovert personalities. This was called a 2x2 (two-by-two) factorial design
41
since there were two independent variables, each of which has two levels.
One way to represent a factorial design was with a design table. The table below
represents a 2x2 factorial design in which two independent variables were the
type of the strategies in teaching writing and personality of the students.
Table 3.1 Research Design in Table
Variable Technique (A)
Variable Personality (B)
Strategies
Think-Pair-
Share (A1)
Discuss-Predict-Share (the modified TPS)
(A2)
Personality Introvert (B1) A1B1 A2B1
Extrovert (B2) A1B2 A2B2
It is a research design in which two groups of participants are pretested and then
posttested after the treatments have been administered. The pretest was given to
the students in order to measure their writing entry point and to make sure they are
homogeneous before they are given two treatments of the application of Discuss-
Predict-Share and Think-Pair-Share strategy for teaching writing. Later, the
posttest was given to measure how far the improvement of their ability in writing
after those treatments.
3.2. Population and Sample
The population in this research was the first grade students of SMAN 13
Bandarlampung. The research took two classes in the school as the sample. They
were X MIPA 5 and X MIPA 6. In determining the sample, the classes were
selected randomly. It is applied based on the consideration that every student in
42
the population has the same chance to be chosen. The researcher used two classes
as control and experiment class. Each class consisted of 31 students.
3.3. Research Instruments
The data of this research was gained by two instruments:
1. Personality Trait Questionnaire
Questionnaire is an instrument which is very effective to measure aspects and
variables associated with personality, psychology aspect or sociology
(Setiyadi, 2006:54). In relation to the personality, the result of the
students’ answer in questionnaire separated them into introvert and extrovert
students.
The questionnaire was in Indonesian language in order to minimize the
misinterpretation by the students which was adapted from Novitasari (2016).
The questionnaire consisted of 24 items, 12 questionnaire items of introvert
personality and 12 questionnaire items of extrovert personality. The
questionnaire was close-ended questions with four options using Likert scale
started with strongly agree up to strongly disagree towards the statement of
each item.
By using the result of the questionnaire, the researcher classified the students
into introvert and extrovert personalities. If the answer of the students in
extrovert question were more than introvert question, then, it figured out that
the students had extrovert personality and vice varsa.
43
2. Writing test
The other instrument in this research was writing test. The researcher
conductsed the writing test for the pretest and posttest for the control and
experimental group. The purpose of the test was for gaining the data. The data
was the students’ recount text writing ability scores before and after the
treatment in performing the text writing.
3.4. Criteria for Scoring Students’ Writing Ability
The consideration of criteria for evaluating students’ recount text writing ability is
based on the ESL Composition Profile by Jacob et al (1981). There were five
aspects to be tested: content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and
mechanics.
In evaluating the students' writing scores the researcher analyzes the result of
students’ text writing. Pretest and posttest text writing result of the experimental
group were analyzed to make sure that the treatment that have been given impact
the students’ ability. The criteria of scoring system are based on the rating sheet
from Jacob et al (1981) which concerns to the five aspects of writing (See
Appendix 9).
44
3.5. Validity and Reliability
A good writing test must be valid and reliable. The following things are the
criteria of a good writing.
3.5.1. Validity
Validity of Test
Validity refers to the extent to which the text measures what is intended to
measure. A test can be considered valid if the test measure the object to be
measured and suitable with the criteria (Hatch and Farhday, 1982). In this
research, the researcher used Face, Content, and Construct Validity. To get face
validity, the instruction of wrting test was previously examined by the
researcher’s advisors to check whether it had been clear, readable, and
understandable to do by the the students or not. The result showed that the
instruments used were clear because there had been instruction stated involving
what to do complete by time allotment; they were understandable for the students
because simple vocabulary was used.
Then, content validity emphasized on the equivalent between the material that had
been given and the items stated. Simply, the items in the test must represent the
material that had been taught. In addition, to get the content validity of the writing
test, the material and the test were composed based on the syllabus taken from
“2013 English curriculum” for the first grade students of senior high school in
2019/2020 academic year. The materials in the treatments were in line with the
syllabus, that was, concerning to comprehending the text. To asses students’
comprehension, writing activity was followed. Then, the tests given also were in
line with the material that they were asked to compose a text.
45
Meanwhile, for construct validity, it concerned on whether the test was actually in
line with the theory of what writing was. It meant that the test measured certain
aspects based on the indicators. The researcher examined it by referring to the
theories of aspect of writing (Jacob et al, 1981). The writing test given also had
met the criteria of construct validity. This was because in the test, the students had
to compose a text by paying attention to writing aspects they had learnt within the
treatments, which was, content, organization, vocabulary, language use, and
mechanics.
Furthermore, in order to judge the validity, expert judgement was used. It would
be consulted with some experts to ask their opinion about the instrument that was
created. The experts were lecturers at Lampung University. Based on their
decisions, the writing test used in this research is valid (Appendix 7). It means that
test items measure what are expected to be measured.
Validity of Questionnaire
The validity of questionnaire was also measured to find if the components were
suitable and related to the relevant theories of introvert and extrovert
personalities. For face validity, it would be previously examined by the advisor to
check whether the items in the questionnaireare were clear, readable, and
understandable to be responded by the students. In addition, for the construct
validity of students’ personality trait questionnaire adopted from Novitasari
(2018) in this research, it was suited with Hirsh and Kise’s theory (2006). Then,
the personality trait questionnaire was 24 items, for each was translated into
Indonesian language to avoid misunderstanding among the researcher and
students.
46
Table. 3.2. Specification of Personality Trait Questionnaire
No
Aspects
Indicators
No.
item Total
1 Activity Extrovert:
Active and fast in moving
11 1
Introvert:
Inactive physically or slow in moving
12 1
2 Sociability Extrovert:
Easy going and like social activities
13 1
Introvert:
Not easy in socializing and like to be alone
14 1
3 Expressive-
Ness
Extrovert:
Show the emotion up and open-ended in
such anger, frightened, love and hatred.
1,15 2
Introvert:
Be capable in managing and controlling
themselves to share opinions and feelings.
2,16 2
4 Risk taking Extrovert:
Like challenge and risked activities
3,17 2
Introvert:
Like safe activities without any risks
4.18 2
5 Reflective-
Ness
Extrovert:
Prefer doing something to thinking
something
5,19 2
Introvert:
Have theoretical thought and tend to be
interested in ideas
6,20 2
6 Responsibi-
Lity
Extrovert:
Less responsible and less capable in
holding the promise
7,21 2
Introvert:
Responsible and can hold the promise
8,22 2
7 Impulsive-
Ness
Extrovert:
Act first, think later; decide any decisions
in hurry; not standfast
9,23 2
Introvert:
Consider many matters carefully; standfast
10,24 2
Total 24 24
47
Furthermore, the validity of students’ personality trait questionnaire was
measured by using SPSS 16 after the data gotten from the students out of sample
through try-out test. Hence, there were finally 24 items consisted of 12 items for
each kind of personality aspect specification (See Appendix 3).
3.5.2. Reliability
Reliability of Test
Reliability refers to extend to which the test is consistent in its score and gives us
an indication of how accurate the test score are (Hatch and Farhday, 1982). In
achieving the reliability of the pretest and posttest of writing, interrater reliability
was used in this study. It needed some researchers as a team; moreover, the
researchers must determine the test and the criteria of the test before gathering the
data (Setiyadi, 2006:19). The first rater was the researcher herself and the second
rater was the the student of Master in English Language Teaching and Study
Program at Lampung University. In addition, the second rater’s experience in
investigating students’ English writing by using the criteria of Jacob, et al (1981)
made her chosen to be the second rater in this study. In achieving the reliability of
pretest and posttest of writing test, first and second raters discussed and put mind
of the writing criteria in order to obtain the reliable result of the test.
The researcher also uses the statistical formula for counting the reliability score
between the first and second raters. The statistical formula of reliability was as
follow:
48
R= 1 (
)
R = Reliability
N = Number of students
d = the different of rank correlation
1-6 = Constant number
Shohamy (1985: 213)
After finding the coefficient between raters, the researcher would analyze the
coefficient of reliability with the standard of reliability below:
The criteria of reliability were:
0.00- 0.19 : very low
0.20- 0.39 : low
0.40- 0.59 : average
0.60- 0.79 : high
0.80- 1.00 : very high
After calculting the reliability of the students’ writing test, it was found that every
score was reliable. In details, the results of the reliability of each score in each
class were as follows.
Table. 3.3. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest and Posttest Score in
Experimental Class
Reliability Criteria
Pretest 0.9791 Very high
Posttest 0.9738 Very high
In line with table 3.2 above, the reliability of writing pretest score showed that it
was 0.9791. Referring to the criteria, it belonged to very high. Then it was
revealed that the reliability of writing posttest score was 0.9738 (See Appendix
20). Reffering to the criteria, it belonged to very high as well.
49
In addition, the researcher also calculated the reliability of students’ writing
pretest and posttest score in control class. In details, the reliability was shown as
follows.
Table. 3.4. The Reliability of Students’ Writing Pretest and Posttest Score in
Control Class
Reliability Criteria
Pretest 0.9482 Very high
Posttest 0.9875 Very high
The table showed that the pretest was reliable since reliability was 0.9482.
Referring to the criteria, it belonged to very high. Then it was revealed that the
reliability of writing posttest score was 0.9875 (See Appendix 21). Reffering to
the criteria, it belonged to very high as well.
Reliability of Questionnaire
The data obtained with the questionnaire will be first computer-coded with the
help of SPSS 16.0. To measure a reliability assessmemt of the instrument’s ability
to accurately and consistently measure the target areas is carried out using
Chronbach’s Alpha. It is calculated based on the average correlation between
items (Setiyadi,2006). Moreover, after the items of personality trait questionnaire
became 24 items after validated, then, the result of personality trait questionnaire
reliability test showed the Alpha 0.859, so it came into reliable data because it
was higher than 0.06 (See Appendix 4).
3.6. Data Collecting Technique
This research was aimed at gaining the data on the students’ writing ability score
before the treatment (pretest) and after the treatment (posttest) related to students’
personality traits (extrovert and introvert). Therefore, personality trait and writing
50
test would represent the students. The description of personality trait questionnaire
and writing test could be seen as follows:
1. Distributing Personality Trait Questionnaire
Distributing students’ personality trait questionnaire was done in the first time
before the researcher gave pre-test and treatment to the students. It was done to
know their personality trait whether it was extrovert or introvert.
2. Writing Test
Pretest
The pretest was conducted before the treatment administered. It was administered
to the control and experimental class. The pretest was given before the treatment
in order to know how far the competence of students in writing recount text. By
giving the pretest, the researcher knew the problems that students faced in writing.
The test was in written form and the materials that would be tested based on the
curriculum that was used in the school.
Posttest
The posttest was given after the treatment in order to know whether there was
any improvement of students’ recount text writing that was taught by Think-Pair-
Share and Discuss-Predict-Share strategy. The test was in written form and the
materials that would be tested, relate to curriculum that was used in the school
and suitable with their level. The result of the posttest compared with the
pretest in order to make sure whether the strategy improved students’ ability in
writing recount text or not.
51
3.7. Research Procedures
The researcher used the following procedures in order to collect the data:
1. Determining the research problem
The main concern of this research was finding out whether there was a
difference on students’ writing ability in general as well as students’ aspects
of writing in particular.
2. Determining population and sample
The population of this research was the first grade students’ of SMAN 13
Bandarlampung. Therefore, the researcher replaced the teacher’s teaching
time in the school and focus to teach two classes.
3. Selecting the material
The materials of this research were taken from Recount text.
4 . Trying out the instruments
The questionnaire of personality trait was tried out to non-sample students in
order to know the validity and reliability of the instrument.
5. Analyzing the try out result
After the try-out class finish answering the questionnaire of personality trait,
the analysis of validity and reliability of this instrument was analyzed.
6. Distributing personality trait questionnaire to the sample
It was done to know their personality trait whether it was extrovert or
introvert.
52
7. Administering writing tests before the treatment
Before conducting the treatments, there was a writing pretest. The students
were asked to choose one of the available topics and compose a writing text
based on the topic they chose consisting Opening, Content, and Closing.
8. Conducting treatments
In this research, the treatments are conducted within two meetings to recount
text which take 90 minutes for every meeting in both classes. Discuss-
Predict-Share and Think-Pair-Share strategy were conducted to teach the
students of how to produce recount reading text.
9. Administering writing tests after the treatments
After conducting the treatments, there was a writing posttest. They were
asked to choose one of the available topics and compose a writing text based
on the topic they chose consisting Opening, Content, and Closing.
10. Analyzing the data
In this step, the researcher made up the data of her questionnaire which
contained the students’ personality traits. The data were analyzed in order to
know students’ personalities before being taught through these strategies. In
addition, the researcher drew conclusion from the tabulated results of the tests
that had been administered. The researcher examined the students’ works
based on the guidance from scoring rubric of writing in terms of content,
organization, vocabulary, language use, and mechanics adapted from Jacob et
al (1981).
Those ten things, starting from determining the research problem until analyzing
the data, were the whole procedures in administering this research.
53
3.9. Data Analysis
In analyzing the data obtained, the researcher used quantitative data analysis
according to the types of data gathered. Data analysis of each instrument would be
described as follows:
1. Writing Test
In order to have the same perception in assessing the students’ test, the researcher
explained the writing scoring rubric assessment used in the study for the second
rater before they assess the students’ test. After that, the steps follow were
conducted:
1. The researcher and inter-rater scored students’ writing test.
2. The researcher tabulated the result of pretest, posttest, and N-Gain for both
control and experimental class into SPSS 16. The result of N-Gain between the
prestest and posttest scores in control and experimental class was to avoid the
biased researcher conclusions. The comparison of normalized gain values (N-
Gain) between the experimental and control class can be calculated by this
formula:
g = Sposttest – Spretest
Smaksimum-Spretest
The criteria are:
g > 0,7 : high
0,7 > g > 0,3 : average
g < 0.3 : low
(Hake, 1999)
54
3. The tabulated data were analyzed using Independent Group T-Test and Two
Way Anova. Independent Group T-Test was used to compare “mean” from
two different groups and both of groups were taken in different situation. Two
Way Anova was used if the research had two variables that were compared,
and each variable had two levels or more. This analysis was used for the data
that were retrieved through factorial design.
4. The researcher drew the conclusion from the data.
3.10. Hypotheses Testing
To test the first hypothesis, Social Sciences (SPSS) windows version 16.0 was
used. The hypothesss was analyzed at significance level of 0.05 in which the
hypothesis was approved if Sig < α. It meant that probability of error in
hypothesis was only about 5%. The hypotheses were drawn as follows:
1. Related to the first research question in the chapter one of this research,
the hypothesis was:
a. Ha: There is different increase of students’ writing ability between
students taught by using think-pair-share and those taught by using
discuss-predict-share strategy.
2. Related to the second research question in the chapter one of this research,
the hypothesis was:
a. Ho: There is no different increase of students’ writing ability between
extrovert and introvert students after being taught through think-pair-
share and discuss-predict-share strategy.
3. Related to the third formulation of the problem in the chapter one of this
research, the hypothesis was:
a. Ha: There is an interaction between those two strategies and personality
of the students.
55
Briefly, those are the explanations of this chapter which were research design,
variables, data source, research instruments, and criteria of evaluating students’
writing, validity and reliability, data collecting technique, research procedures,
data analysis, and hypothesis testing.
95
V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
This final chapter presents the conclusion of the research findings and suggestion
for English teachers who want to try to implement the modified writing
procedures based on Discuss-Predict-Share strategy and for further researcher
who want to investigate the research about this modified strategy.
5.1. Conclusion
Reffering to the discussion of the research findings on the previous chapter, the
researcher comes to those following conclusion. Based on the research, it was
concluded that:
1. DPS strategy has more advantages than TPS strategy in affecting students’
writing ability. Discuss-Predict-Share strategy as one of the recommended
ways in learning English, especially in learning recount text writing. Providing
the students with the opportunity to get input by reading, produce output by
writing, and have interaction by interacting with other students made them
increase the quality of critical thinking. So, the students were able to result a
better production of English writing. This was because by providing the
students with input, they could identify a correct model of how to compose a
text. This assisted them when producing the writing product as an output.
Moroever, in producing the text, the students would process the input
effectively to notice the gap in their knowledge for the sake of accuracy and
fluency in writing. The cooperative nature in this learning process also helped
96
them to ellaborate the ideas and realizes their errors in writing that in the end; it
would optimize their writing ability. Hence, the students’ results shows that
DPS gave higher and better increase in writing recount text than TPS strategy.
2. The result shows the differences of the process and writing result of each
personality. The strategies let the students to increase their cognitive process as
well as productive skill by ellaborating ideas individulally, having discussion,
and reconstructing a text. In this case, introvert can enjoy the situation and
focus on their activity which not involved many people, such as reading and
writing. These cases could make the intovert students became more
comfortable to have discussion and sharpen their critical thinking. Meanwhile,
because of a graet tendency to be engaged in group activities, extroverts
seemed to enjoy the interaction happened more during the process of the
strategies. The extrovert students got the chance to dig much information
from the interaction. As the result, they also could improve their recount
text writing ability. Both extrovert and introvert could pass the process of
writing through the modified strategy (DPS) and the original one (TPS).
Although introvert students have higher increase, the difference is relatively
not far. Thus, there is no different increase of recount text writing ability
after being taught by using those strategies.
3. The last finding showed that there was no interaction between teaching
strategies and personality learning styles. Thus, the significant achievement
gained by the students in each group was attributed to by the teaching original
and modified strategies by mantaining the philosophical basis of the original
strategy and suiting the actual needs of the students.
97
5.2. Suggestions
By considering the conclusions above, the researcher proposes some suggestions
as follows:
5.2.1. Suggestions for Students
1. Students have to bring the dictionary to make them easier in translating the
words into English. So, they will have efficient time when making the
paragraph writing.
5.2.2. Suggestions for English Teacher
1. The modified strategy used in this research is really effective to be applied
in writing process. It can be seen from students’ progress during the
treatment and the improvement of students’ writing ability after the
treatment. Hence, it suggested for the teacher to implement this strategy in
writing for its adventages.
2. The English teacher should provide the students with a variety of exercises
that involve the students to process input both written and spoken so that
input may lead to intake and innte followed by producing paragraph
writing.
3. Since DPS strategy can develop students’ creativity in writing, teachers
might try to give more topics to be chosen.
4. The English teacher is suggested to give a kind of appropriate test that can
help the students know about their ways of learning such as personality
trait in this research, learning style test, and multiple intellegence test. So,
it will help the teacher to create an effective teaching-learning process and
result better students’ ability improvement.
98
5.2.3. Suggestions for Further Research
1. The present study calls for replications in other productive skill, which is,
speaking since this current research just concern on writing productive
skill.
2. It is suggested for further research to consider the other factor that can
affect writing ability, such as studens’ motivation, learning styles, and
multiple intelligences.
In brief, those are the conclusion of the research finding and suggestions for the
students to be better in writing class, English teachers who want to implement
DPS strategy in teaching writing, and for further researchhers who want to
investigate the research about this stategy.
99
REFERENCES
Ahour, T. & Haradasht, N, P. 2014. The Comparative Effect of Using
Competitive and Cooperative Learning on the Reading Comprehension of
Introvert and Extrovert EFL Learners. Advances in Language and Literary
Studies ISSN: 2203-4714, 5(4), 2017-213.
Ariansyah, M. 2014. The Use of Think-Pair-Share Technique to Improve the
Writing Ability of the Students of SMA Negeri 03 Pekanbaru in Recount
Text. English Language and Education: Riau University.
Aziz, I, C. 2016. Using Prediction Strategy to Improve Students’ Ability in
Reading Comprehension. English Education Department: Ar-Raniry State
Islamic University.
Azizollah, Dabaghi, Reza , Z, and Mohsen, R. 2013. Argumentative and
Narrative Written Task Performance: Differential Effects of Critical
Thinking. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning
2013 April, 2(2), 3-14.
Boroujeni, J, A, A. 2015. The Impact of Extroversion and Introversion Personality
Types on EFL Learners’ Writing Ability. Iran: Shahrekord University.
Byrne, D. 1993. Teaching Writing Skills. London and New York: Longman.
Chamot, A. U. 2005. CALLA: An Update. In P. Richard-Amato & A. Snow (eds.),
The Multicultural Classroom. White Plains: Longman.
Derewianka, B.1992. Exploring How Text Works. Newton, NSW: Primarily
English Teaching Association.
Dhillon, S.P.B., and Hutauruk, S, B. 2016. The Effect of Predicting Strategy for
Listening Comprehension in EFL Classroom on the Third Year Students
(academic year 2012) at English Department in FKIP Universitas HKBP
Nommensen Pematangsiantar. Journal of English Language and Culture,
6 (2), 87-108.
Escribao, D. P. 1999. Teaching Writing through Reading:A Text-Centred
Approach. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
100
Eysenck, H. J. (1981). A Model for Personality. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Giesen. 2001. Activities for Integrating Reading and Writing in the Language
Classroom. Vermont : Master of Arts in Teaching degree at the School for
International Training.
Hake, R. 1999. Analyzing Change/ Gain Score. Indiana: Indiana University.
Harmer, J. 2010. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Pearson Longman.
Hatch, E. and Farhady, H. 1982. Research Design and Statistics for Applied
Linguistics. London: Newbury House, Inc.
Heaton, J. B. 1991. W riting English Language Test. New York: Longman Inc.
Herdawan, D. 2012. A Comparative Study of Students’ Writing Achievement
Between Extrovert And Introvert Students’ Personality At The Second Year
Of Sman 7 Bandar Lampung. English Education Study Program: Lampung
University.
Hyland, K. 2003. Second Language Writing. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Jacobs, H., Zinkgraf, S., Wormuth, D., Hartfiel, V., & Hughey, J. 1981. Testing
ESL Composition: A Practical Approach. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Kagan, S., and Kagan, M. 2009. Kagan Cooperative Learning. San Clamente,
CA: Kagan Publishing.
Kartikasari, E. 2014. Improving Students’ Writing Skill by Using Think-Pair-
Share. Journal of the 61 TEFLIN International Conference, UNS Solo.
Krashen, S. 1993. We Learn to Write by Reading, But Writing Can Make You
Smarter. University of Shouthern California.
Lin, L. 2015. Investigating Chinese HE EFL Clasroom Using Collaborative
Learning to Enhance Learning. Springer-Verlag: Berlin Heidelberg.
Muharrami, M, L. 2013. A Comparative Study between Introvert and Extrovert
Students Personality in Listening Achievement. English Education Study
Program: Lampung University.
Novitasari, A. 2018. Designing Collaborative Blended Learning Activities for
Extrovert and Introvert Students to Improve Their Argumentative Essay
Writing Ability through Whatsapp Use at Uin Raden Intan Lampung.
Master In English Language Teaching Study Program: Lampung
University.
101
Perangin-angin, H. 2013. Improving Students’ Reading Comprehension in
Descriptive Text by Applying Prediction Strategy. Online Journal of
Unimed, 2(1), 20-27.
Raba, A.A.A. 2017. The Influence of Think-Pair-Share (TPS) on Improving
Students’ Oral Communication Skills in EFL Classrooms. Creative
Education, 8(1), 12-23.
Richards, J,. and Renandya, W. 2002. Methedology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roit, M. 2008. Effective Teaching Strategies for Improving Reading
Comprehension in K-3 Students. Colombus: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Samand, M. S. 2019. Analysis On The Relationship Of Extrovert-Introvert
Personality And Students’ Speaking Performance In English Study
Program Of Halu Oleo University. Journal of Language Education and Educational Technology, 4(1), 19-25.
Schmeck, R,R and Lockhart, D. 1993. Introverts and Extraverts Require Different
Learning Environments. Educational Leadership, Vol. 40 Issue 5.
Setiyadi, Ag. B. 2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing:
Pendekatan Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu Publish.
Sharma, L, H. 2018. TPS (Think-Pair-Share): An Effective Cooperative Learning
Strategy for Unleashing Discussion in Classroom Interaction. USA:
International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, Vol. 8 Issue 5.
Shohamy, E. 1985. A Practical Handbook in Language Testing for the Second
Language Teacher. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University.
Siahaan, N, E. 2014. Improving Students’ Achievement in Writing Procedure
Text through Think-Pair-Share (TPS) Technique. Journal of English
Language Teaching and Learning of FBS. University of Medan.
Sitompul, P, I. Improving Students’ Writing Skills of Analytical Exposition Texts
through Mind Mapping Strategy the Second Grade of SMAN 9 Bandar
Lampung. English Education Study Program: Lampung University.
Suliman, Fatma Hsain Ali. 2015. The Role of Extrovert and Introvert
Personality in Second Language Acquisition. IOSR Journal Of
Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 20(2), 109-114.
Sumarsih. 2013. TPS as an Effective Technique to Enhance Students’
Achievement on Writing Descriptive Text. Journal of English Language
Teaching; Vol. 6, No. 12. English and Literature Department, Faculty of
Languages and Arts: University of Medan.
102
Sutrisno. 2018. The Effect Of Cooperative Language Learning And Personality
Types Towards Essay Writing. Journal of English Education., Vol 6, Issue
2. Jawa Barat: Universitas Kuningan.
Thomas, U. 2005. The Power of Prediction: Using Prediction Journals to Increase
Comprehension in Kindergarten. A paper of Georgia Association of Young
Children Conference 2005. Atlanta.
Promnont, P., and Saowalak, R. 2015. Concerated Language Encounter
Instruction Model III in Reading and Creative Writing Abilities. English
Language Teaching; 8 (5), 1-10.
Pourqardash, Maryam and Afshin Soori. 2017. The effects of EFL learners’
extroversion and introversion on their development of grammatical
knowledge in terms of applying feedback types. International Journal of
English Research, 3(4), 95-99.
Weigle, Sara Cushing. 2002. Assessing Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zafar, S. 2017. Extraversion-Introversion Tendencies and their Relationship with
ESL Proficiency: A Study of Chinese Students in Vellore, India.
Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25 (2), 687 – 704.
