USING SCAFFOLDING TO ENHANCE ELEVEN GRADE STUDENTS WRITING

SKILL IN LEARNING HORTATORY TEXT

IN SCHOOL OF INDONESIA RIYADH

A Research

Submitted in partial fulfillment of

promotion requirements

Rd. Karunia Swandarini

NIP. 197110062006042022

School of Indonesia in Riyadh (SIR), Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

7488 Suwaid Ibn Hubairah, Umm Al Hamam Al Gharbi, Riyadh 12329
2017

i
ii
 APPROVAL PAGE

This Research entitled “Using Scaffolding to Enhance Students Writing Skill in Learning
Hortatory Text in School of Indonesia in Riyadh”

Acknowledgment,
Principal of SMAN 5 Cimahi,

Ajat Sudrajat, S.Pd

NIP. 19640225 198703 1 008

i
 DECLARATION

I hereby certify that this Research entitled ““Using Scaffolding to Enhance Students Writing

Skill in Learning Hortatory Text in School of Indonesia in Riyadh” is completely my own work.

I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from other sources, and they are

properly acknowledged in the text.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

All praise is for Allah, the most beneficent and the most merciful that I could finally finish

writing this classroom action research (CAR).

I am really indebted to my principals: Mr. Abdullah Syfa, M.Ed, the principal of School

of Indonesia in Riyadh and Mr. Ajat Sudrajat, S. Pd, the principal of SMAN 5 Cimahi who

have given me a chance to write my research in order to get my promotion. They also inspired

me with their brilliant ideas not only that, they also support me to be a better teacher.

Many people have had part in the growth of my knowledge and of course in writing my

CAR. They encourage, support, and give high expectation for my success and share times

together, especially to my beloved friends here, Sakinah and Siryana Nurjanah as collaborators,

M. Ngafifi, Nur Afiah, Ira Irawan, Mustakim, Mashuri, Mursimin, Siti Yati Sumiyati, Sri

Anggraeni, and others who cannot be mentioned one by one. I extend my sincere thanks,

acknowledgement and appreciation wherever you may be.

Sincere thanks go to my colleagues at SMAN 5 Cimahi who have been very supportive

in the completion of this CAR. It is Also to my observer, Sakinah, who has participated in this

CAR.

Last but not least, I would like to thank to my big family, especially to the late of my

beloved mother, Susikah; my father, Sidik Sidhartawan, and his family; my husband, Ade

Nandang R; my sweet daughter Nisrina Meilani R; my cute and nice sons, M. Rayhan R and

M. Nugraha R. for their sincere support and love.

iii
 ABSTRACT

This paper will report a part of a study deals with investigating the way of an EFL

teacher scaffold their students in the writing instruction and the use of instructional scaffolding

to develop their English skills particularly in writing hortatory exposition texts at the secondary

school. It used a qualitative case study method because it focused on a particular situation

(classroom setting) and a specific phenomenon (scaffolding instruction in EFL classroom).

This research was conducted at School of Indonesia in Riyadh and employing multiple

data collection techniques, particularly classroom observation and students’ text analysis. To

do this, one teacher and their students were examined when they were studying hortatory

exposition texts.

The results of the present study have shown the three aspects related to the answer of

the research questions. First, there are eleven types of scaffolding instruction used by the teacher

realized on each stage of GBA cycles. Second, the actualization of the scaffolding instructions

were mostly provided in Modeling of Text (MoT) and faded in Independent construction (JCoT)

stage. Third, the analysis of student’ texts have derived the assumption that most students have

shown a significant progress in terms of schematic structures, linguistic features, and theme

progression. Therefore, all these suggest that scaffolding instructions, to some extents, are

proven effective in the teaching and learning process, especially to develop the students’ writing

of hortatory exposition texts.

Keywords: Scaffolding, hortatory exposition, EFL

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENT

APPROVAL PAGE ............................................................................................... i

DECLARATION .................................................................................................. ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ..................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT .........................................................................................v
CHAPTER I ...........................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
A.Research Background ......................................................................................................... 1
B.Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 2
C.Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 2
D.Scope of the Study .............................................................................................................. 2
E.Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 3
F.Outline of the Study ............................................................................................................ 4
CHAPTER II ..........................................................................................................6
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................6
A.Definition of Scaffolding .................................................................................................... 6
B.Types of scaffolding ........................................................................................................... 9
C.Scaffolding as a Basic Principle in Genre-Based Approach............................................. 13
D. Schematic Structures of Exposition Text ........................................................................ 17
E. Language Features of Hortatory Exposition .................................................................... 18
F. Systemic Functional Grammar ......................................................................................... 18
G. Modality Systems ............................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER III ......................................................................................................22
METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................22
A.Research Design ............................................................................................................... 22
B.Research Setting and Participants ..................................................................................... 22
C.Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 23
v
 D.Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER IV ......................................................................................................25
FINDING AND DISCUSSION ...........................................................................25
A.The Types of Scaffolding the Teacher Used .................................................................... 25
B.The Relation of Scaffolding to Each Curriculum Cycle ................................................... 29
C. Students’ Progress in Writing Hortatory Exposition Texts through Scaffolding
Instruction ............................................................................................................................. 34
CHAPTER V .......................................................................................................46
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................46
Bibliography ....................................................................................................... vii

vi
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. Research Background

The metaphor of scaffolding is getting increasingly popular among

educators as the quality of teaching has become a focus for educational researchers

and practitioners (Verenikina, 2004:5). They used the concept of scaffolding as the

metaphor to describe and explain the role of adults or more knowledge-able peers

in guiding children’s learning and development. Scaffolds are therefore valuable

teaching and learning resources that can help students to both manage learning tasks

and understand difficult concepts associated with the content material (Shook

Cheong and C.M. Goh, 2002:58).

The significance of scaffolding lies in it potentials in maximizing students’

zone of proximal development that defines development as the space between the

child’s level of independent performance and the child’s level of maximally assisted

performance (Bedrova and Leong, 1998:2). The ZPD is co-constructed through the

talk that occurs between teacher and students as they participate together in a

particular task. In other word, effective scaffolding is able to extend the upper limit

of the ZPD.

1
 B. Purpose of the Study

This study is concern with investigating the actualization of scaffolding

teaching to help students develop their hortatory exposition writing at second year

students in Indonesia. The present study, therefore, views through the mastery of

writing that the individual comes to be fully effective in intellectual organization,

not only in the management of everyday affairs, but also the expression of ideas

and arguments (Tribble in Frith, 2007). Moreover, writing is an important part of

education process and it plays makes another important contribution to learning in

that it helps learners to find and establish their own network of information and

ideas. It allows them to bring together to connect new and old ideas.

C. Research Questions

In line with the background of the research mentioned above, this particular

writing hopefully could provide the answers of the following research question:

1. What types of scaffolding does the teacher use?

2. Do types of scaffolding relate to each curriculum cycles?

3. Does the scaffolding improve the students’ writing skill?

4. What difference is evidenced in the students writing before and after scaffolding

instruction?

D. Scope of the Study

More specifically, genre-based pedagogies employ the notion of scaffolding

emphasizes the role of interaction with peers and with experiences others in

learning, The progress from one level to the other is not achieved only through input

but rather through social interaction and assistance of more skilled and experienced

2
others.(Hyland, 2004:122). Vygotky’s ideas, therefore, offer a theoretical basis for

genre-based-writing teaching. The concept of scaffolding is mainly associated with

SFL approaches to language instruction, which seeks to provide learners with the

means to understand and then creates new texts by process of gradual

approximation (Widdowson,1978 in Hyland,2004:122).

E. Significance of the Study

There have been several previous qualitative studies concerning the use of

instructional scaffolding in teaching writing(see Dufficy in 2001, Firkins, et.al,

2007, Roehler and Cantlon, 1997, Kurnia, 2009, Sam, 2005, Bodrova and Leong,

1998, Emilia, 2005, Priyatni,et. al., 2008, Laksmi, 2006, Cotteral and Cohen, 2003).

Several studies have revealed that scaffolding occurred as students were

learning writing from assist to independent performance in their zones of proximal

development in social constructivist classroom and the teaching and learning cycles

in genre-based approach. Those studies have discovered the types of scaffolding in

social constructivist classroom (Roehler and Cantlon, 1997). Developing new

narratives conducted for classroom practices in different kinds of classroom talk

(Dufficy, 2001). Changes in the use of scaffolded writing by the participant from

assisted to independent performance (Bodrova and Leong ,1998). Implementing the

instructional activities purpose to enrich the understanding of learning and guidance

by proposing three types of purposeful scaffolding, Sam (2005). Improving the

students’ competence in paragraph writing by Priyatni,et. al.,( 2008). promoting

learner autonomy by focusing on authentic task, making the expectation of the task

explicit, and providing flexible support for the learner as they approximate the

3
target performance, Cotteral and Cohen (2003).Potential of the process approach

with which students go through a write-rewrite process in giving students a scaffold

to work in real, live process of how a real writer engages in the process of writing,

Laksmi (2006)

However, implementing types of scaffolding and teaching and learning

cycles can be revealed in genre-based approach (see Firkins, et.al (2007) using

instructional scaffolding techniques by integrating them with the cycles of teaching

under the genre-based and activity-based pedagogical approach. The way the

teachers provided instructional scaffolding in teaching descriptive writing are

different throughout the lesson framed in the four staged teaching cycle (Kurnia,

2009) and the genre-based approach which applies the scaffolding principles is

great importance to develop Indonesian students’ academic writing ability, Emilia,

(2005).

F. Outline of the Study

Overall, from the previous studies which have been mentioned, only a few

studies discussed the implementation of scaffolding based on teaching and learning

cycles in genre-based approach for teaching writing in senior high school

particularly in hortatory exposition text. As supported by Gibbons (2002:67)

scaffolding is significant term which must be put into practice throughout the

curriculum cycle. Therefore, this present study is designed in order to investigate

the actualization of scaffolding instruction in teaching hortatory exposition.

Hortatory exposition is considered as difficult subject because it should involve

argumentation, fact, evidence, reason and evaluation of the world which require the

4
ability of expressing ideas and play an important role in academic field (Emilia,

2005).

5
 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Definition of Scaffolding

The term scaffolding was firstly introduced by Bruner and Wood to describe

the collaboration of both the leaner and expert operating within the learner’s ZPD

(see Christie, 2005:43;Burch, 2007:14; Bodrova and Leong, 1998:3;Nassaji and

Swain (2000) in Suherdi (2008:1; Kim and Kim, 2005). Definition of scaffolding

has been defined variously by different experts. Vygotsky defined scaffolding

instruction as a the “row of teachers and others in supporting the learner’s

development and providing support structures to get to that next stage or level”

(Raymond, (2000, p. 176, cited in Van Der Stuyf, 2002).

Scaffolding is an extremely social form of instruction, with peers and

teachers interacting closely with students as she or he attempt a task (Roehler and

Cantlon, 1997). Wood, Bruner and Ross, 1976, p.9 (cited in Kong, 2002) described

scaffolding as a process that enables a child or novice to solve a problem, carry out

a task, or achieve goal which would be beyond his unassist effort. Donato (1994)

cited in Weissberg (2006) in Hyland and Hyland (2006) defines scaffolding as

social interaction in which a knowledge able participant can create, by means of

speech, supportive conditions in which the novice can participate in, and extend

current skills and knowledge to higher level of competence.

The teacher or more knowledgeable person creates a supporting structure that

can initiate and sustain interest, the students become involved. As the students

gradually gain control of the task, they take over more of the responsibility. When

6
the assumption of responsibility and control occurs, the teacher removes the

scaffolding. In this study, the scaffolding are integrated in the four staged

curriculum cycle as proposes by Gibbons (2002:60-67), Derewianka (1990:6-9),

Hammond (2001:28).

Looking at the key features of scaffolding give rise question what is the

relationship between scaffolding and good teaching. Mercer (1994 in

Hammond,2001) proposes criteria for distinguishing scaffolding from other kinds

of teaching and learning. They are: students could not succeed without the teacher’s

intervention, the teacher aims for some new level of independent competence on

the students’ part, the teacher has the learning of some specific skill or concept in

mind, there must be evidence of students successfully completing the particular task

at hand and there must also be evidence that learners are now able to go on to deal

independently with subsequent related tasks or problems.

The role of the teacher is pivotal in scaffolding since scaffolding views that

learning occurs best when learner engage in task that are within their zone of

proximal development (ZPD) (Kim and Kim, 2005). Effective scaffolding is

support that is provided at the point of need. It therefore requires that teacher have

good understanding of where their learners are ‘at’(Hammond,2001:5). It is

characterized by how well the teacher is bale to judge the need and quality of

assistance required by the learner and related to the way in which help is paced on

the basis of students’ developing understanding. Thus, “The teacher or the expert

must be responsive to the need of the students;the teacher must be deliberate in

7
appropriating the support at the time it is needed” (Wells, 1999:127 cited in

Emilia,et al,2010).

A critical question may be raised in relation to the already-on-the–stage

instructional help. It has always been the main responsibility of any teachers to

provide such kind of help. Teacher should follow the characteristics of the

scaffolding. First, activities provided in scaffolding instruction are just beyond the

level of what the learner can do alone. In this case, the more capable other provides

the scaffold so that the learner can accomplish with assistance the task that he/she

could otherwise not complete, thus helping the learner through the the ZPD( Van

Der Stuyf, 2002:2). Second, the activities should much relevance to the concepts or

competences developed. Careless choice of activities or material may lead to

students’ reluctance in taking any parts in the teaching learning process. The most

critical point is that the activities or material should be sufficiently developed as to

guarantee students’ success in mastering the concepts and skills. This means that a

teacher should have a good level of patience and willingness to help students up to

the point that he/she has a good confidence to say that the students are successful

(Suherdi, 2008:2). To sum up, scaffolding instruction are systematic effort aimed

at helping students guarantee a good success in learning new concepts or skills

through maximizing students potential to reach their best achievement (see

Vygoysky, 1978;Hammond, 1986, 1990 in Suherdi, 2008).

Concerning to the genre-based teaching, the conception of scaffolding is

implemented within a four stages of curriculum cycle, through which a particular

text type can be made explicit to students. Each stage of the cycle has systemic

8
guidance and support until learners are able to carry out the writing task for

themselves.

B. Types of scaffolding
In classroom practice, a teacher can do various types of scaffolding. This

study will describe several types of scaffolding set forth by Roehler and Cantlon

(1977) ,Walqui (2006:170), and Luke , et al (2005) cited in Sam (2006:3). Roehler

and Cantlon (1997) define five types of scaffolding during the writing instruction.

They are offering explanation, inviting students’ participation, verifying and

clarifying students understanding, modeling of desired behavior, and inviting

students to contribute clues.

The first type of scaffolding is offering explanation. It refers to explicit

statements adjusted to fit the learners emerging understanding about what is being

learned (declarative or prepositional knowledge), why and when it is used

(conditional or situational knowledge), and how it is used (procedural knowledge)

(Roehler and Cantlon, 1997).

Then, inviting student participations. In this type of scaffolding, learners

are given opportunities to join in the process that is occurring. After the teacher

provided the illustrations of some of the thinking, feelings, or actions that are

needed to complete the task, the learner has the opportunities to fill in the pieces

they knew and understood. In this study, the teacher invited students’ participation

in BKOF stage.

Verifying and clarifying students understanding is the third type of

scaffolding. It deals with teachers checked the students’ emerging understandings.

If the emerging understandings were reasonable, the teacher verified the students’

9
response. If the emerging understanding were not reasonable, the teacher offered

clarification (Roehler nand Cantlon,1997:19-19).

The fourth type of scaffolding was modeling which defined as a teaching

behavior that showed how one should feel, think or act within a given situation

(Roehler and Cantlon, 1997). There are three types of modeling: think-aloud

modeling, talk-aloud modeling and performance modeling. Think -aloud modeling

is the verbalization of the thought process used to solve the particular problem. By

contrast, talk-aloud modeling is a demonstration of a task completion accompanied

by verbalization of the thought process or problem solving strategy that brought the

modeler to her conclusion. Finally, performance modeling is simply demonstration

of the task to be completed (Lange, 2002:3).

The last types of scaffolding are inviting students to contribute to clues.

In this form of scaffolding learners was encouraged to offers clues how to complete

the tasks. Together, the teachers and students verbalized the process (Roehler and

Cantlon,1997:19-19).

Furthermore, this study has also documented six types of scaffolding found

by Walqui (2006:170). They are: modeling, bridging, contextualization, schema

building, re-presenting text and developing metacognition. Modeling includes

giving clear examples of what is requested of them for imitation in hortatory text

by describing, comparing, summarizing, evaluating and so on. In this type walking

students through an interaction or first doing it together as a class activity is a

necessary step.

10
 The second type is bridging, Walqui (2006) explains that bridging can be

done in several ways. The first is activating students’ prior knowledge. Teachers

do this by inviting students to participate in the initial stage of learning. Bridging

activity can also be seen when students shares their personal experiences related to

the theme that will be introduced in the lesson. Bridging was done in the stage of

Building knowledge of the field (BKoF) when teacher described language through

preparation and elaboration.

Contextualising is the third types of scaffolding. It is done by teacher

creating analogies based on students experiences. Teachers continually search for

metaphors and analogies that bring complex ideas closer to the students’ world

experience.

Then, the fourth type is schema building. Schema refers to cluster of

meanings that are interconnected (Walqui, 2006:173). The schema building is very

essential because students must have a general knowledge of the broad picture

before studying the details. Next is, re-presenting text,it is one way in which

teachers invite students to begin the appropriation of new language is by engaging

them in activities that require the transformation of linguistic constructions they

found modeled in one genre into form used in another genre.

The last is Developing metacognition. It refers to the ways in which

students manage their thinking, which includes the aspects of: consciously applying

learned strategies while engaging in activity; knowledge and awareness of strategic

options a learner has and ability to choose the most effective one for particular

activity; monitoring, evaluating and adjusting performance during activity;

11
planning for future performance based on evaluation of past performance (Walqui,

2006:173)..

Finally, Luke, et.al. (2005) as cited in Sam (2006:3) explores three types of

purposeful scaffolding influencing learners’ achievement level in relation to the

assigned task. They are content scaffolding, strategic scaffolding and procedural

scaffolding.

In the figure above, three types of scaffolding which are interrelated each

other are elaborated. Content scaffolding refers to the guidance provided to the

students in terms of concept map and definition to help them learn to do a given

task (Luke, et.al.,2005 as cited in Sam, 2006:3) . In line with content scaffolding,

two activities are highlighted: explanation of concepts and explanation of

procedural knowledge.

To carry out content scaffolding, classroom instruction needs to be designed

carefully. Regarding to this, Strategic scaffolding is significance. It refers to

12
guidance alternative strategies or approaches that help the students learn to do a

task (Luke, Freebody, Cazden & Lin 2005 in Sam, 2006:3).For instance, students

are expected to learn how to work independently with self gathered study materials

as well as the skills to critically reflect on information gathered independently or

collaboratively. Therefore, strategic scaffolding is quite relevant to the present

study because the teaching cycle enables students to experience various activities

in different stages.

To facilitate students learning, Procedural scaffolding is also considered

necessary. It demands the guidance on how to utilize available resources, materials,

and tools to help a student to do a given task (Luke, et.al., as cited in Sam, 2006:3).

It is suggested that these two types of scaffolding occur at more superficial level of

teaching. Embedded within the content and procedural scaffolding is the third type

of help, which is, strategic scaffolding.

C. Scaffolding as a Basic Principle in Genre-Based Approach

The genre-based approach connects with work on scaffolding particularly

in the development of teaching-learning or curriculum cycle. Its connection with

principle of Vygotskian theory and with the notion of scaffolding are strong. The

impact of the genre-based approach and its associated teaching practices, articulated

through the curriculum cycle (Hammond, 2001:26).

Regarding to the basic principle of genre-based approach that the adult

caregiver guidance in ‘teaching’ appropriate genres (Hammond, 2001:26;Cope and

Kalantzis, 1993:1).The caregiver also provide guidance on appropriate sentence

structure, vocabulary and even pronunciation. It is supported by Derewianka

13
(2003):146; Hammond, 2001:28) that the teacher takes more direct role in

developing the necessary knowledge, understanding and skills, while the learner

take an ‘apprentice’ role. As the students develop greater control over the spoken

or written genre under focus, the teacher gradually withdraws support and

encourages learner independent. Moreover, in order to provide scaffolding, it is

need to utilize an activity- based approach where language is scaffolded in a manner

where the students physically modeled the genres through a range of different

activities (Firkins,et.al,2007:4-5).

As basic principle of genre-based approach, scaffolding takes the form of a

particular sequence of activities in the teaching and learning cycle, the particular

genre on which the teacher is focusing is introduced modeled and practiced in series

of staged (Gibbons, 2009: 106; Gibbons, 2002:67). Dealing with the teaching of

writing the classroom practice are hoped to raise students confidence that the

children will in time move on to use the language and the knowledge with

increasing independence, assuming chance responsibility for their own learning

(Christie, 2005:44).

In order to succeed that purpose, there has been a four stage teaching

learning cycle on which the teacher should implement the instructional scaffolding

(see Gibbons, 2002:60-61; 2009:115, Hammond, 2001:26-28; Derewianka, 1990:6-

9). The four stages refers to the theory in the curriculum cycle which have come to

be known as Building Knowledge of the Topic (BKoF), Modeling the Text (MoT),

Joint Construction of Text (JCoT) and Independent construction of text (ICoT).

14
 Relating to this research, all stages were conducted during the scaffolded

writing instructions. The activities of scaffolding are different in each stage.

In the stage of BKoF, the teacher has to make sure that the students have

enough knowledge of the topic to be able to write about it (Gibbons, 2002:60;

2009:115). The focus is primarily on the content or information of the text. At this

stage, children are long way from writing a text themselves, and activities will

involve speaking, listening, reading, information gathering, note taking and

reading. Besides, the teacher design opportunities for learner to experience and

explore the cultural and situational aspects of the social context of the target text

through activities such as brainstorming: listening and talking to others; reading

relevant material; viewing realia; pictures or videos; and taking part in role-plays,

cross-cultural comparisons, guided research or field trips (Feez, 2002:66;

Kongpetch, 2006:11).

The next stage is Modeling of text (MoT). During this phase, the teacher

strongly directs the interaction, introducing learners to model texts belonging to the

target genre in the context they have been exploring (Evangeline,et al., 2007). The

purpose of this stage is for students to become familiar with the purpose, overall

structure and linguistic features of the text they are going to write (Gibbons,

2002:61; Gibbons, 2009:115; Lin, 2006:74; Callaghan,et al.,2002:181). Teachers

teach students the generic structure and grammatical features of exposition so that

they become aware of how it’s structured to achieve its purpose. Learner learns the

grammar of the target language in context of purposeful language use (Kongpetch,

2006:12; Feez, 2002:66; Feez, 2006:29). Therefore, the focus of this stage on is on

15
the form and function of the particular text type that the students are going to write.

Of the four stages, this stage incorporates the most frequent occurrence of

scaffolded activity.

The third stage joint construction of Text (JCoT). In this stage the teacher

and the students write a text together, collaboratively constructing a piece of writing

in chosen genre, so that the students can see how the text is written (Gibbons,

2002:61;2009:115; Feez, 2006:30; Feez, 2002:66; Kongpetch, 2006:13). It involves

a period of preparation with the close guidance of the teacher who provides support

and scaffolding. In relation to the view of scaffolding, teacher must constantly

assess students’ understanding and offer frequent assistance and feedback (Lange,

2002:9; Feez, 2006:30). In this stage, strong scaffolding of the first two phases of

classroom interaction is weakened (Feez, 2002:66)

The last stage is Independent writing (ICoT). At this stage students write

their own text in the chosen genre (Gibbons, 2002:61; 2009:115). Scaffolding is

taken away and learners research the context and construct their own texts

independently, consulting with other learners and the teacher only as needed.

Learners have the opportunity to recycle what they have learned in other context of

use (Feez, 2002:66). In this stage includes the fewest occurrence of scaffolded

activity. The purpose of this stage was to enable students to practice their writing

skills and demonstrate their understanding of the genre of exposition. Teachers ask

students independently to write an essay (Kongpetch). It requires learners to work

individually and independently. Ideally this carried out only after the students have

16
successfully produced a jointly constructed text or understanding of a text (Lin,

2006: 74).

D. Schematic Structures of Exposition Text

The text organization of hortatory exposition comprises of thesis, argument

and recommendation (Derewianka, 2004:77;Gerot and Wignell (1995:204);Feez

and Joyce, 2000:138). Exposition have the following three stages which will be

elaborated based on the theory of (Derewianka, 2004:77;Gerot and Wignell

(1995:204);Feez and Joyce, 2000:138).

A thesis is announcement of issue of concern and the writer’s point of view.

Thesis refers to part of text which presents the proposition to be argued. It often

contains some background about the issue discussed, which is intended to provide

information the reader need to follow the arguments.

A series of arguments which support the thesis is the point in which the

writer justifies the taken position. Usually there is more than one point put forward

in argument, and each one should be supported by evidence and possibly by

examples. The points are carefully selected and developed to add weight to the

arguments. All points should relate directly back to the statement of positions and

there are often internal link between the various points too. Moreover, the aim of

arguments are to convince the audience, picture may also be used to help persuade

the audience (Anderson &Anderson, 1997)

Summing up of the position (recommendation) is statement of what

ought or ought not to happen. It reaffirms the general issues under discussion and

possibly calling for action.

17
E. Language Features of Hortatory Exposition

Language features of hortatory exposition focus on generic human and non

human participants, except for speaker or writer referring to self. Use of mental

processes: to state what writer thinks or feels about issue. material processes: to

state what happens, and relational processes: to state what is or should be and the

last the use of simple present tense (Gerot &Wignell, 1994:210).

Derewianka (2004:76) asserts that language features of hortatory exposition

consist of generalized participants; sometimes human but often abstract. Unless the

issue centres on a particular event or incident. Variety of verb (process) types

compromise the action (material), linking (relational), saying (verbal) and mental.

Mainly timeless present tense when presenting position and points in the arguments,

but might change according to the stage of the text. Frequent use of passive to help

structure of the text. Connectives is intended associated the reasoning using

particular conjunctive, e.g. therefore, so, because of, the first reason,ect. And

arguments quite often employ emotive words which the use of words that express

feeling and verb such as ‘should’. The last is the use of words to link the cause and

effect.

F. Systemic Functional Grammar

In this study, the researcher uses Systemic Functional Grammar

(abbreviated to SFG) which is relevant as a tool to analyze students’ hortatory

exposition text. This section address the the realization of meaning including

Themes system (Gerot and Wignell, 1994;Martin, et al.1997; Eggin, 1994)

Transitivity systems (Halliday, 1985), and aspect of modality ( Eggin, 1994).

18
 (i) Theme system

The theme system concerned with the organization of information within

individual clauses, and through this, with the organisation of a larger text (Martin,

Mathiessen, and Painter, 1997). The theme system is realized through a structure in

which the clause falls into two main constituents: a Theme and a Rheme. A theme

as “the point of departure for the message” (Halliday and Mathiesen, 2004:64) or

“the starting point for the message: it is what the clause is going to be about”

(Eggins, 2004:299). Theme can be identified as an element which comes first in the

clause. Meanwhile, the Rheme is “the part of the clause in which the Theme is

developed or everything that is not the Theme is the Rheme” (Eggins, 2004:300).

In terms of category, Gerrot and Wignell (1994:104), Eggins (2004:300)

define theme system into three categories: Ideational (topical), textual and

interpersonal. The topical theme refers to an element of a clause to which a

transitivity function can be assigned occurs in first position in a clause (Eggins,

2004:301; Martin, et al,1997:24). It is realized by a participant, process or

circumstances. The topical themes can be marked or unmarked. Marked theme

refers to a theme which is not positioning as the subject of a clause.

The second type of Theme is textual theme which is defined as elements

“which do not express any interpersonal or experiential meaning, but which are

doing important cohesive work in relating the clause to its context” (Eggins, 1994:

305).

The last category of theme is interpersonal theme. It refers to the

interpersonal part of the Theme. Interpersonal Theme in students’ texts can be

19
categorized into unfused finite and all categories of Modal Adjusts: Mood,

Vocative, Polarity and Comment.

(ii) Transitivity Systems

Transitivity system belongs to the experiential meta function and is the overall

grammatical resource for construing goings on (Martin, Mathiessen and Painter,

1997:100). Transitivity refers to how the text is organizes the experience, which

deals with relationship among process, participant, and circumstances in

sentence(s). Transitivity systems talk about clauses as representation (Gerot and

Wignell, 1995:52; Eggin, 2004:213). Therefore, the process in transitivity system

is classified into five main categories: material, mental, behavioral, verbal,

existential and relational process.

First, material processes are defined as processes of doing (Eggins,1996;

Martin et.al,1997:103; Butt,et al 2003:52). Material processes undertake some

action. They involve two most frequent participants: the actor and the Goal (Eggins,

2004,215).Second, mental processes encode meaning of thinking or feeling

(Eggins, 2004:225). They “construe a quantum of change in the flow of events

taking place in our own consciousness” (Halliday and Mathiessen, 1997:197).

Third, behavioral processes represent the meaning between material and mental

processes. It concerns on physiological and psychological behavior such as

breathing, dreaming, snoring, smiling, looking, watching (Gerrot and Wignel,

1995:60;Eggins, 2005:233;Halliday, 1994a:139, see also Butt,et al,2000:54).The

participant must be a conscious being and is called the behaver (Eggin, 2004:233).

20
 Fourth, verbal process refers to process of saying, as in what did you say?

(Halliday, 1994a:140:But,et al,2000:56) but this category includes not only the

different modes of saying (asking, commanding, offering, stating) but also semiotic

processes that are not necessarily verbal (showing, indicating) (see Martin,

Mathiessen and Painter, 1997:108). Verbal processes constitute three participants,

sayer, receiver and verbiage, which is relevant to (Halliday,1994a:141; Halliday

and Mathiesen, 1997:108; Eggin, 2004:235).

The fifth, existential processes represent by positing that ‘there was/is

something (Eggin, 2004:238). It represents that something exists or happens

(Halliday,1994a:142). Existential processes are expressed by verbs of existing: be,

exist, arise and the existent can be a phenomenon of any kind. The last, relational

process refers to the process of being or having (Eggins, 2004:239). It is used to

characterize or to identify (Halliday, 2004:210). Relational process relate a

participant to its identity or description (But,et al, 2000:58).

G. Modality Systems

Modality is defined as a complex area of English grammar dealing with the

different ways in which language users can intrude on his/her message, expressing

attitude and judgments of various kinds (Eggins, 1994:172). Regarding to this, two

types of modality are addressed: modalisation concerning to probability and

usuality and modulation dealing with obligation or inclination.

21
 CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

This study employed an action research method. Richards & Farrel (2005)

point out that “Action research can be a powerful way for language teachers to

investigate their own practice.” The study was conducted in line with the cycle

adapted from Ferrance (2000)It is qualitative as the researcher is the primary

instrument for gathering and analyzing data (Merriam, 1998: 20; Alwasilah, 2008:

78). It captures process of understanding a social or human problem, based on

building complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of

informants, and conducted in natural setting to its subject matter (Cresswell, 1994;

Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). The researcher use a case study as an ideal design to

understand a particular phenomenon particularly to investigate scaffolding

instruction provided by teacher at learning cycle stage.

B. Research Setting and Participants

This research was conducted at School of Indonesia in Riyadh. The

participants of the study are one English teacher who acts as the researcher and the

eleventh-grade students. The teacher did the research because she applied GBA in

her teaching process and frequently provided scaffolds to enhance their students

learning. Then, she wants to know whether her students can improve their writing

skills. The students were taken as sample through purposive sampling.

22
 C. Data Collection

There were three techniques of data collection used in this study comprised

classroom observation, interview, and collection of students’ texts. Since this is an

action research, an observer is available to observe the classroom activity. The

observer took notes on what was said and done by the teacher and students during

the class activity. The classroom observation was done in all stages of teaching

cycles. video-taping was carried out to obtain a clear picture of the activity. The

interviews are conducted in Bahasa Indonesia which is intended to obtain clear

understanding of what was uttered by both researcher and participants. The

researcher conducted a focus group interview, to gather students’ opinion toward

the classroom interaction. A semi structured interview was used in interviews to

enable the researcher to get all information required.

D. Data Analysis

The students’ texts were analyzed using Systemic Functional Grammar

(SFG) in terms of schematic structures, linguistic features and thematic system

proposed by Eggins (1996). Data analysis in this study was conducted inductively

(Alwasilah, 2008: 105) during and after data collection. Therefore, the process of

data collection and analysis is recursive and dynamic (Merriam, 1998:155). In

analyzing the data classroom observation the researcher watched the video

recording of the lesson for many times. The researcher transcribed all observation

notes which were taken during the teaching and learning process. Then the data

were coded and categorized based on each theme. The data from interview were

transcribed or converted in written forms. The transcripts were read many times and

23
condensed or compressed into briefer statement in which the main sense of what is

said is rephrased in a few words (Kvale, 1996: 192). Afterwards, the data were

coded and categorized. The text analyzed the social function, the schematic

structure, the language feature, and the modality system as suggested by

Derewianka (2004), Feez and Joyce (2000), Martin (1995).

24
 CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION

The two types of data gained from the observation and document analysis

will be described and discussed in relation to the four research questions, i.e. (1)

The types of scaffolding the teacher used; (2) The relation of each type of

scaffolding to each curriculum cycles in Genre-based approach; (3) The students’

progress in writing hortatory exposition texts through scaffolding instruction.

A. The Types of Scaffolding the Teacher Used

From observation data, there were eleven types of scaffolding provided by

the teacher.

The first type of scaffolding is offering the explanation. In general, from the three

kinds of explanation, i.e. declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and

conditional knowledge, the data show that there were two kinds of explanation

implemented by teacher, i.e. declarative knowledge and procedural knowledge.

Discussion of declarative knowledge can be identified particularly in MoT stage

when the teacher explained what was being learnt, such as, highlighting the

schematic structure of hortatory exposition text under discussion. Furthermore, in

explaining how to apply procedural knowledge, she mentioned how the text was

constructed to achieve its purpose. The teacher also reviewed the schematic

structure of hortatory exposition by re-explaining the thesis, argument and

recommendation in the text given and explaining the social function and purpose of

the text.

25
 The second type is modeling. To commence this type of scaffolding, the

teacher introduced the model of genre (hortatory exposition) in the class. She gave

several different topics familiar with the students such as facebook, cell phones,

national examination and students’ smoking. Other activities provided the chance

for students to talk and develop their understanding based on the information in the

text.

The third type is inviting students’ participation. In this activity, the teacher

asked the students to concentrate when they were listening to a recorder. She, then,

gave them several questions to encourage the students to express their opinion,

preference, and agreement on the topic discussed in the texts supported by

evidences. At the same time, she asked the students to find the generic structure of

the text.

Afterward, verifying and clarifying students understanding is the next type

of scaffolding found in this study. It deals with teachers checked the students’

emerging understandings. Teacher checked students understanding by asking the

content of the text and then if students make mistake teacher will clarify which one

is the correct one. Another types of scaffolding is inviting students to contribute to

clues. In this form of scaffolding learners was encouraged to offers clues how to

complete the tasks. Together, the teachers and students verbalized the process

(Roehler and Cantlon, 1997:27). Teacher provided this instruction such as students

gave opinion agree or disagree about the text, discussing the answer of dialog

questions, teacher discussed with students the meaning of words in the text and

students showed the thesis, argument and recommendation in the text. The

26
following excerpt showed the students gave opinion toward the topic they

discussed.

The teacher also showed how new material was relevant to the students’

life. This type of scaffolding is appropriate to the concept of bridging. The activity

is activating students’ prior knowledge. It is identified in this study that teacher

guided students listening to hortatory videos entitled “TV is the drug of the nation”

then students gave opinion toward the song displayed. She also gave student to have

note the difficult words and find the meaning of those word in dictionary and how

to pronounce them. Next, She had students connecting the reading with their

previous knowledge. Relating to this view, Walqui (2006:171) explains that a

common bridging approach is to activate students’ prior knowledge.

This study also documented schema building as the type of scaffolding. The

schema building is very essential because students must have” a general knowledge

of the broad picture before studying the details” (Walqui, 2006:174). Teacher asked

students to preview the texts when preparation for reading, in this way, student

begin their reading with a general sense of the topic and its organization and ready

to accept new connection. Then, she provided relevant texts with the students’

knowledge and directed students to understand the important information in

Also, content scaffolding occurred when teacher provided content

scaffolding in explaining definition of hortatory exposition text, explained the

characteristic in hortatory text and explain grammar in language features of the text

such as present tense, passive voice and language features of the text. It is relevant

27
with guidance provided to the students in terms of explanation procedural

knowledge particularly grammar (Luke, at,al.,2005 cited in Sam,2006:3).

Furthermore, teacher told the students the step how to understand the text,

and then ask the students to practice and explain those steps, at the end

apprenticeship given the student could find the schematic structure of hortatory

exposition text by themselves. It reflects a type of scaffolding known as developing

metacognition (Walqui, 2006:176).

Teacher further have implemented strategic scaffolding to carry out content

scaffolding. In present study this activity is actually found in stages of learning

where students were given explanations, work in group, and finally did the task

independently. The strategic scaffolding that the teachers provide also is using

current issues texts or materials which close to students’ life. They gave several

pictures dealing with facebooks, national examination, cellphone and students’

smoking.

Procedural scaffolding is also considered necessary to facilitate students

learning. Teachers presented this type of scaffolding by providing teaching media

like songs, pictures, internet, and LCD to increase students’ awareness. Teacher

gave students question which increase their critical thinking, and provided students

opportunity to choose the topic will be written. It demands the guidance on how to

utilize available resources, materials, and tools to help a student to do a given task

(Luke, et.al., as cited in Sam, 2006:3)

28
B. The Relation of Scaffolding to Each Curriculum Cycle

This section will present and discuss the finding with regard to second sub

research problem on Based on the observation data, the curriculum cycles in genre-

based approach connect with work on scaffolding which is emphasize on the

socially constructed nature of language and learning and an emphasis on the active

role of all participants (students and teachers) in negotiation and construction of

language text. The emphasized is incorporated into curriculum cycles. The cycles

will be discussed as follows:

(i) Scaffolding in Building Field of Knowledge (BKoF)

To enhance students understanding of the topic, the teacher scaffold

students’ learning by providing visual illustration such as pictures, photographs,

posters, and watching video. Teacher also asked students listening to songs to

improve students understanding of the topic. They discussed the pictures, songs and

videos. It is a way of scaffolding students to build up a shared knowledge, the

teacher design opportunities for learner to experience and explore the cultural and

situational aspects of the social context of the target text through activities such as

brainstorming: listening and talking to others; reading relevant material; viewing

realia; pictures or videos; and taking part in role-plays, cross-cultural comparisons,

guided research or field trips (Feez, 2002 cited in Johns, 2002); Gibbon (2002:62);

Kongpetch (2006:10).

Another activity is teachers gave task to students to find certain expression

in hortatory texts such as agree/disagree, likes/dislikes and asked them to give

29
opinion about the text using those expressions. An activity of inviting students

participation and as type of scaffolding noted by Roehler and cantlon (1997:18)

identified in this study. Other scaffold provided by teacher in this stage is bridging.

Teacher give the students different kind example of hortatory texts such as

facebook, national examination, cellphone and smoking should be banned at school.

Teacher also providing students related vocabularies to the topic by asking

them make note the difficult words in the texts and find those meaning in dictionary

or they can discuss with their friend so they have enough background knowledge to

learn a target text.

(ii) Scaffolding in Modeling of Text (MoT)

MoT stages consist of several scaffolding activities and this stage

incorporates the strongest scaffolds. The teacher introduced a model of genre to the

class. They gave several texts which the topic was familiar to students’ environment

and understanding such as facebook, cellphone, students’ smoking and national

examination. This activity can enhance the modeling strategy that the teacher

strongly directs the interaction, introducing learners to model texts belonging to the

target genre in the context they have been exploring as supported by Feez (2002:66).

Besides, they teach the social function, review the language features of hortatory

text, analyzed the generic structure of model text and give comment to students

texts (Feez, 2002:66; Kongpetch, 2006:11:Gerot and Wignell, 1994:208; Anderson

and Anderson, 1998:26;Derewianka, 2004:76)

In addition, another type of scaffolding in MoT is offering explanation

(Roehler and Cantlon, 1997:17), it can be in form of declarative knowledge,

30
procedural knowledge and conditional or situational knowledge. Declarative

knowledge can be identified when teacher explained what was being learnt such as

reviewing the schematic structure, language features and social function of

hortatory exposition text under discussion. To apply procedural knowledge,

teachers mentioned how the text was constructed and explain the difference

between hortatory and analytical exposition, monitoring when students making the

texts. Besides, teachers used conditional or situational knowledge as why and when

to used the genre.

During the MoT cycle, the teacher also showed new material was relevant

to the students life by stating that hortatory exposition can help them persuade

someone to do or not to do something. This type of scaffolding is the concept of

bridging identified by Walqui (2006:171).Furthermore, the teacher provided types

of scaffolding as known as schema building. Teacher had student to read the text

for understanding the content of the text, also directing students to understand

pieces of information that would be discussed. Schema building is very essential

for the students to enable them to have a general knowledge of the broad picture

before studying the details (Walqui,2006:174). Next types of scaffolding provided

by teachers is verifying and clarifying students understanding. Teachers asked the

content of the text and asked the characteristic of the texts they have written such

as the thesis, arguments and recommendation of texts. Through verification

students’ effort was acknowledged and the knowledge was signaled as important

and useful (Roehler and Cantlon,1997:18). Teachers then inviting students to

contribute to clues such as students gave opinion about the texts, discussing the

31
question of the dialogue in the recorder, discussing the meaning of words in the text

and students showed the thesis, arguments and recommendation in the texts.

Another types of scaffolding namely developing metacognition (Walqui,

2006:177). It refers to the ways in which students manage their thinking, which

includes the aspects of consciously applying learned strategies while engaging in

activity. Teacher A told students the steps how to understand the text and asked

them to practice and explain the steps.

(iii) Scaffolding in Joint Construction of Stage (JCoT)

During this stage, the teachers let the students to work in group to compose a new

text in similar genre. They shared opinion concerning the topic and grammatical

features as well. The students work on group of four. They were busy discussing

with their own partner. This activity run well because the topic written is familiar

for them. This fact supported by Derewianka (1990:4) saying that a functional

approach to language supports the small group works practices of today’s

classrooms. The students were also helped by their teacher who always walk around

the classroom and encouraged the student to focus on all aspect of writing (Gibbons,

2002:67). The teacher also guided the students in terms of suggesting the

appropriate vocabularies, correcting grammar mistake and spelling and pay

attention on sentence constructions.

The most scaffolding found in JCoT was offering explanation (Roehler and

Cantlon, 1997:17). It could be identified when the teacher showed how the text was

constructed to achieve its purpose, reviewed the schematic structure of text,

explained the social function and purpose of the text, and explained the difference

32
between hortatory and analytical exposition. She also reviewed the schematic

structure and linguistic features of hortatory text. Overall, this stage incorporates

smaller amount of scaffolding than the first two stages. It is in line with Feez

(2002:66) jugement that strong scaffolding of the first two phases of classroom

interaction is weaken in the joint construction phases.

(iv) Scaffolding in Independent Construction of Stage (JCoT)

During this final stage, scaffolding is faded and learners research the context

and construct their own texts independently, consulting with other learners and the

teacher only as needed the teacher took away the scaffolding (Feez, 2002:66: Feez,

2002006:31;Kongpetch, 2006:13). The purpose of this stage was to enable students

to practice their writing skills and demonstrate their understanding of the genre of

exposition (KongPetch,2006:13).

The teacher did not guide the students to choose which topic to write but

she gave the students freedom to choose the topic. The teacher implemented content

scaffolding in this stage by explaining definition of hortatory text, schematic

structure and language features and explain grammar in language features of the

text. Then the teacher conducted strategic scaffolding when she utilizes current

issues texts and close with students’ experience, student worked in groups until do

the task independently (Sam, 2006:3). Finally, the teacher provided procedural

scaffolding as teacher provided teaching aid like songs, pictures, internet and LCD

to improve students’ awareness, teacher giving question which raise students’

awareness.

33
C. Students’ Progress in Writing Hortatory Exposition Texts through
Scaffolding Instruction

The students’ texts were analyzed in order to see their development in

writing hortatory exposition text as the effect of scaffolding writing instructions.

The analysis is focused on exploring the schematic structure, social function and

language features several hortatory exposition text written by the students (Gerrot

and Wignell, 1995:209;Knap &Watkin, 2009:190; Anderson &

Anderson,1997:124). In this study, there were nine texts being analyzed: three were

taken from diagnostic texts, three from joint construction texts and three from the

final texts. The three from each stage covers three types of learners: low, middle,

and high achievers. The analysis was based on three basic points: the schematic

structures and linguistic features of an exposition text. Those analysis were based

on Systemic Functional grammar (SFG) proposed by Martin et al (1997),Halliday

&Matthiesen (2004), Gerrot and Wignell, (1995) and Eggin, (2004) dealing with

theme system, transitivity and mood.

The analysis has shown that all the three types of learners (high, middle,

and low) have made a significant progress in their hortatory exposition writing.

Therefore, this paper will only describe and discuss one type of learners (a high

achiever) as the example of the text analysis carried out in this study.

(i) Diagnostic texts

Analysis of Schematic Structure of Text 1, Text 2 and Text 3

This part presents the analysis of hortatory exposition text produced by high

achiever student. The student followed three stages there are diagnostic text, JCOT,

and ICOT. The text will be presented as follow.

34
 Table 1.1 Text1 produced by High Achiever Student

Positive and Negative from Cell Phone for Student

Cell phone is a tool for communication and almost many people have a cell phone.

These day cell phone become a certain tool for people, and should have a cell phone.

Application of cell phone have many functions for all people. Cell phone can we use to talking

with our friends without need to meet and we can also to send a text messaging.

The biggest user for cell phone is teenagers and they is the students. Many students have

only for talking send messaging. For they cell phone also can use to help the students such as to

mobile dictionary. And cell phone can be tool for play in the spare time such as playing game and us

cell phone has negative think such as the students can disturb, when they while study.

So, cell phone has many positive think than negative think and cell phone is a good

tool for people especially the students.

In terms of schematic structures, the student’s text was written in different

paragraphs, each of which not presenting well different elements required in an

exposition text, i.e. thesis, a list of arguments (argument 1-4), and recommendation

(Derewianka, 1990:77;Gerrot and Wignell, 1995:210;Feez and Joyze, 2000:138).

Moreover, the three elements are not clearly differentiated through

linguistic choices in which they are realized. This text is much closer to the nature

of an analytical exposition because its schematic structure comprises reiteration not

recommendation as reaffirming the general issue under discussion. The thesis was

not arranged well because thesis is not accompanied by some background

35
information on positive and negative of cell phone for students and no position of

the writer in thesis clearly. Meanwhile, the thesis and the title did not coherence

because the thesis did not support and explain the title. In this way, the texts have

not fulfilled the generic structure of hortatory exposition text which comprise of

thesis, arguments and recommendation

In the second paragraph the argumentation did not arrange well. However,

the writer gave recommendation supported by her and her friends’ experience when

they were using their cell phones. It is relevant to the steps in constructing a written

exposition that argument should be supported by more than one point, evidence and

possibly by examples and should relate directly back to the statement of position

(Anderson & Anderson, 1997; Callaghan and Rothery, 1988; Martin and Rose,

2008.)

The recommendation the writer provided in the last part of the text is not

successful because it is not a recommendation as statement of what ought or ought

not to happen (Gerot and Wignell, 1995:210. Instead the writer wrote reiteration,

that was restated writer’s position (Gerrot & Wagnell, 1995:210). To sum up, the

schematic structure discussion demonstrates that the text is not constructed in three

elements. The students thus did not demonstrate some understanding of the

structure of the target genre and some sense of its special purpose. In other words,

it suggests that the student at this stage has not a good control of the schematic

structure of an exposition text.

(ii) Joint Construction of Text

36
The next part is the analyses of JCOT of higher achiever. In this part, together with

her friends S1 made a new writing. The following text is the text made by them.

Table 1.2 Text2 produced by high achiever

The Drug Users is Increased

The drug is chemical substantive which is very dangerous and make

people who use it addicted. Recently, more drug users is caught especially

teenagers. In Indonesian, the number of drug users are increased.

Actually, all people should not use drug, except for medical necessity.

But, there are still many users use drug. They use drug just for their happiness.

They can get drug very easily.

To prevent users of drug increase, the police should improve their

awareness duty to check every passenger luggage in airports, harbours, city

borders, etc. And for parents, they should watch their kid about this problem.

In this joint construction of text the student made some improvements. The

students write hortatory exposition in an appropriate schematic structure, that is

thesis, argumentation and recommendation. It is relevant with steps in constructing

hortatory exposition text (Derewianka, 2004;76; Gerrot and Wignell, 1995:210).

The students start their writing with thesis which showed their position that the

number of drug users is increased. The thesis was accompanied by some

background of information which stated that the drug is substantive which is very

dangerous and makes people who use it addicted. It is relevant to Derewianka,

37
(2004:76) who proposes that thesis statement often accompanied by some

background information.

In the second paragraph, the thesis was followed by only one argument to

support the issue taken. The argument disputed that they can get drug very easily.

However there was no evidence or fact to support the argument. It was not in line

with Derewianka (2004:76);Feez and Joyze (2000:138) who say that to make a good

argument usually there is more than one point put forward in the argument, and

each one should be supported by evidence and possibly by examples.

Concerning to the recommendation, students presented three

recommendations that all people should not use drug, except for medical necessity,

the police should improve their awareness duty to check every passenger luggage

in airports, harbors, city borders, etc. The last is for parents, they should watch their

kid about this problem.

To conclude, S1 was lack in elaborating the arguments. It can be seen from

the argument which stated that they can get drug very easily. In fact, the students

should elaborate the reason why and how they can get drug very easily, give

evidence taken from statistics or quotation and the example of they can get drug

very easily (Derewianka, 2004:76;Feez and Joyze, 2000:138). In relation to the

diagnostic text, student had improved her text in term of recommendation. As

indicated in diagnostic text,S1 did not write a recommendation as statement of what

ought or ought not to happen but it was reiteration which restates the writer position.

(iii) Independent construction of Text

38
 After finishing two stages, S1 continued her learning processed to the next

stage. This stage was ICOT. In the stage S1 wrote her composition alone. The

following text is her composition.

Table 1.3 Text 3 Produced High Achiever Student

Global Warming

Global warming is a natural phenomenon that is very dangerous

for the future of the earth. However, now people are start to learn a lot about

global warming. Signs of global warming has occurred is to begin unbalance

the weather on earth.

There are several causes of global warming. Firstly, because of air

pollution from motor vehicles. The smoke produced by motor vehicles to make

the air becomes dirty. And if inhaled will cause respiratory illness and making

the environment into heat. Secondly, the causes of emergence of global

warming is, too much power consumption. Electricity consumption too much

can make the earth becomes hotter.

To prevent the global warming is not happen:

1. Don’t use excessive electricity

2. Reduce the use of motor vehicles

3. Generate electricity from nonpolluting sources.

In her composition, S1 writes her hortatory exposition text in appropriate schematic

structure, that is, thesis, argument, and recommendation as proposed by

Derewianka (2004:76), Gerrot and Wignell (1995:210). The students start her

39
writing with thesis by writing “Global warming is a natural phenomenon that is

very dangerous for the future of the earth.” It is obvious that she thought that global

warming is very dangerous. She also elaborated her thesis by putting background

information about global warming which lead to the issue discussed that now people

are start to learn a lot about global warming.

In the second paragraph, shows two arguments that relate to the statement of

the issue why global warming is dangerous. The elaboration of first argument

improved rather than the two previous text. In this case, students elaborated that the

smoke produced by motor vehicles to make the air becomes dirty. And if inhaled

will cause respiratory illness and making the environment into heat”.It was provided

by evidence that global warming was produced by motor vehicle. Providing

evidence in stating argument made the argument sound logical (Derewianka,

2004:76; Feez and Joyze, 2002). The second argument was provided by stating the

cause of emergence of global warming is too much power consumption. Then, the

student presents the reason which is directly related to the issue that was stated in

the thesis.

The recommendation is placed in the third paragraph. In this paragraph S1

wrote three recommendations which is relevant to the arguments. Regrettably she

did not elaborate her recommendations so the recommendations were not intense.

It can be seen from text 1 text 2 and text 3, S1 made a progress in schematic

structures. In Diagnostic text, S1 separated thesis and argument but she did not

make recommendation but it is reiteration which is much closer on analytical

exposition. Her thesis and argumentations are not clear and she did not arrange them

40
in good order. However, in JCOT and ICOT she made improvement. In JCOT stage

she separated thesis, argumentations and recommendations, though she placed only

one argument in one paragraph. Providentially, she made argumentation

background before she went to her argument. In ICOT her writing improves

properly which is in line with the convention of schematic structure proposed by

Derewianka (2004:76), Gerot and Wignell (1995:210). Moreover, the improvement

realized in the presence of reasoning to support the arguments, giving more

background of information of the thesis. Though she still made a mistake but the

mistake can be fixed easily. The following table will present the summary of

schematic structures produced by High achiever students

Table 1.4

The Summary of Schematic Structures Produced by High Achiever Students

Diagnostic Text JCOT ICOT

S Thesi Arg. Arg. Rec Thesi Arg Arg Rec Thesi Arg Arg Re

s 1 2 . s .1 .2 . s .1 .2 c.

S √ √ - - √ √ - √ √ √ √ √

Analyses of the Linguistic Feature

The analysis of linguistic features of the text results in a description about

generalized participant, possibility of technical terms relating to the issue, variety

of verb (process) types, use of present tense, passives use, connectives, and emotive

words employed in arguments as proposed by Derewianka ( 2004:76-78). From the

41
result of analysis, it has been found that the student has applied the appropriate

linguistic features of an exposition text in the following table.

Table 4.6

The Summary of Linguistic Features of Texts Produced by the High Achiever

Student

No. Linguistic Features First text JCOT text ICOT text

1 Generalized Participant

a. human 13 13 1

b. non – human 18 10 16

2 Process Type

a. Material 9 5 7

b. Mental 2 2 1

c. Relational 11 4 7

d. Modality 12 4 2

3 Present tense 15 9 9

4 Passive voice 1 1 2

5 Connective conjunction (reasoning) 2 3 5

From the table above it can be seen that S1 applied the appropriate language

features for hortatory exposition. In terms of participants, she used general

participant, sometimes human but most non-human. The existence of non-human

and human was the characteristics of hortatory exposition (Derewianka, 204:76;

Gerot and Wignell, 1995:210). The student mainly used relational process to state

42
what is or should be and many verbs which refers to describing process of doing or

to state what happen (material process). The students also use mental verb to state

what writer thinks or feels about issue. To be more specific, she used 21 material

processes, 5 mental processes, 22 relational processes.

Regarding the use of present tense verbs, the student had applied them in all

sentences of the three texts. It is indicated that the students is able to use present

tense verb as the requirements in hortatory exposition text (Derewianka, 2004:78;

Gerot &Wignell, 1995:210).The use of modality system can also be found in the

three texts expressing the student’s judgement about the probability such as in Cell

phone can we use to talking with our friends without need to meet.

As the use of connective conjunction that were intended to structure argument

revealed improvement. Texts three contains more connective conjunction than the

two texts as in so, cell phone has many positive think than negative think, but, there

are still many users use drug. However S1 has weaknesses in arranging sentences,

structuring sentences and choosing appropriate words. The ungrammatical patterns

were found merely in text 1 and text 3 such as, application of cell phone have

many functions.

To sum up, based on the analysis above that the student has applied the

appropriate language features of hortatory exposition. the use of human and non-

human participants, action verbs (material process), feeling verbs (mental

processes), relational processes, present tense, passive voice, connective

conjunction shows the student has applied the appropriate linguistic features of

hortatory exposition text. Moreover, various processes (21 material processes, 22

43
relational processes, and 5 mental processes) used in the text indicates that the

students has good understanding in how to write hortatory exposition text. The

analysis of transitivity system show how the text organizes experience, as one part

of ideational function of language (Emilia, 2005:87). Therefore, those text can be

considered as a good hortatory exposition text as suggested by Halliday (2004:76;

Gerot &Wignell, 1995:210) that in hortatory exposition is expected to find a great

variety of process types and the process types is central to transitivity.

During the process of writing in the ICOT stage, S1 presented her

improvement, though she still made a mistake in arranging the sentence. But in

general the mistakes made as not many as before.

Analysis of Thematic System

Thematic analysis was applied to examine the cohesive development of

clauses (Eggin, 2004:298). The three categories of thematic system cover topical,

textual and interpersonal (Gerrot and Wignell, 1994:104; Eggin, 2004:301). The

summary of thematic systems produced in the two texts was presented in the table

below.

Table 4.7 The Summary of Thematic System in Texts Produced by High Achiever

Students

Types of Theme Text1 Text 2 Text 3

Topical 15 12 10

Interpersonal - 1 -

Textual 7 3 4

44
 The analysis of theme system of this text indicates the student’s ability to

organize text coherently. It can be seen from the finding revealed that three of

topical types of thematic system were used in all text produced by S1. The use of

topical themes as reference showed the thematic progression. The theme

progression is a basic way to keep a text focused. The first text identified that

reiteration and zig-zag pattern were found as in:

Cell phone is a tool for communication and almost many people have a cell phone

These day cell phone become a certain tool for people and should have cell phone.

The repetition is an effective means of creating cohesion but it will be boring to

read (Eggins, 2004:324).

Moreover, the third text use zig-zag pattern which indicates that the student have

capability creating a cohesive and coherent text with a clear focused

(Eggin,2004:324).

Now people are start to learn a lot about global warming

Sign of global warming has occurred is to begin unbalance the weather on earth

45
 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION

The finding shows that teacher provided eleven types of scaffolding

instruction realized in the curriculum cycles of genre-based approach. Teacher

provided scaffolding instruction in each cycle of genre-based which is the strongest

scaffolding in modeling stage (MoT) and moved in Independent construction of

text. The result of text analysis from students text show significant progress of

students hortatory exposition writing in terms of schematic structure, social

function and thematic system. This finding strengthen the previous studies

conducted by Roehler and Cantlon (1997), Sam (2005) and also elaborated the types

of scaffolding activity proposed by Walqui (2006). The students’ texts show

progress as a result of scaffolded writing activities. Their knowledge of schematic

structures from diagnostic test to final construction has improvement as student can

separated thesis, argument and recommendation correctly.

Furthermore, the student has applied the appropriate language features of

hortatory exposition. the use of human and non-human participants, action verbs

(material process), feeling verbs (mental processes), relational processes, present

tense, passive voice, connective conjunction shows the student has applied the

appropriate linguistic features of hortatory exposition text indicate that the students

has good understanding in how to write hortatory exposition text. Meanwhile, in

terms the analysis of theme system of this text indicates the student’s ability to

organize text coherently. The finding revealed that three of topical types of

thematic system were used in all text produced by students. Therefore, the text the

46
student write in Independent construction at final stage of curriculum can be

considered as a good hortatory exposition text as it is relevant with steps in

constructing hortatory exposition text (Derewianka, 2004;76; Gerrot and Wignell,

1995:210) that the students write hortatory exposition in an appropriate schematic

structure.

47
1
 Bibliography

Alwasilah, A.C. (2008). Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-Dasar Merancang dalam Melakukan

Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Dunia Pustaka Jaya.

Anderson, M. & Anderson. K. (1997). Text Type in English 2. Australia: Mcmillan

Education Australia Pty.Ltd.

Bodrova, E. & Leong, D.J. (1998). Scaffolding Emergent Writing in the Zone of Proximal
Development. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 3 (2), 1-18.

Burch, J.R. (2007). A Study examining the Impact of Scaffolding Young Children
Acquisition of Literacy in Primary Grades. A Dissertation. USA: Graduate Faculty
of the Louisiana State University.

Butt, D., et al. (2000). Using Functional Grammar an explorer’s guide.Sydney: National
centre for English language teaching and research.

Callaghan, et al.,(2002).Genre in Practice. In John, A.M. 2002. Genre in the Classroom.

Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.

Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in Primary Years. Sydney:UNSW press.

Cope, B. Kalantzis, M. (1993). The Power of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching

Writing. London: The Falmer Press.

Cotteral and Cohen (2003). Scaffolding for second Language writers: producing an
academic essay.ELT journal volume 57/2 April 2003.Oxford university press.

Cresswell, J.W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches.

California:SAGE Publications,Inc.

Denzin, N K and Yvonna S. Lincoln (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research. USA. Sage
Publications, Inc.

Derewianka, Beverly. (1990). Exploring How Text Work. Sydney:Primary English Teaching
Association.

Dufficy, P. (2001). Scaffolding and Assisted Performance in Multilingual Classrooms.

Journal of Educational Enquiry, Vol.2, No.1,2001. Retrieved from:
http://www.education.unisa.edu.au/JEE/Papers/JEEVol2No1/paper3.pdf (December
24, 2010).

Eggins, S. (2004). An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics 2nd edition. New

York. London: Continuum International Publishing Group

vii
Emilia, E. (2005). A Critical Genre-Based Approach to Teaching Academic Writing in a
Tertiary EFL Context in Indonesia, unpublished Ph.D thesis, volume 1, Australia:
Department of Language, Literary art education. Faculty of Education. The
University of Melbourne.

Evangeline, J.J., Deborah, C.F. &Pearlyn, L.P. (2007). Applying a socio-cognitive model to
the teaching of expository writing. Paper 3: A pedagogy for shaping student thinking
and genre practice. Proceeding of the Redesigning pedagogy: Culture, knowledge and
understanding conference. Singapore, May 2007.

Feez,S & Joyze H. (1998). Writing Skilss: Narrative and Non-fiction Text Types.Australia.
Phoenix Education Pty Ltd.

Feez,S. (2006).Text-Based Syllabus design. Sydney: Macquarie University.

Feez,S. (2002). Heritage and Innovation in second language education. In John, A.M. 2002.
Genre in the Classroom. Mahwah, New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Publisher.

Firkins, A.,Forey,G.,&Sengupta,S. (2007). ‘A Genre-Based Literacy Pedagogy: Teaching

Writing to Low Proficiency EFL students’. English language Teaching Journal,
fortcoming Oct 2007. Retrieved from
http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/61/4/341 (October 12, 2009).

Frith,James. (2007). A Process Genre Approach to writing Transsactional Letters Retrieved

from:http://developing teachers.com/articles_tchtraining/processgenre4_james.htm
(Januari,2010)

Gerot,L., and Wignell,P (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Sydney:Antipodean

Educational Enterprises

Gibbon, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, Scaffolding Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Gobbon,P. (2009). English Learners academic literacy and Thinking. Learning in the
challenge Zone. Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Halliday, M.A K. and Matthiessen. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar.

London:Arnold.

Hammond, J. (2001). Scaffolding, Teaching and Learning in Language and Literacy

Education. Newtown: PETA.

Hyland,K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Michigan: The University of
Michigan Press.

Hyland,K.,and Hyland,F.,(2006). (Ed.)Feedback in Second Langauge Writing.Cambridge:

Cambridge University press.

viii
Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research
Interviewing.California: SAGE publication, Inc.

Knapp, P. and Watkins, M. (2009). Genre, Text, Grammar, Technologies for Teaching and
Assesing Writing. Sydney: University of South Wales Press Ltd.

Kim, Y. and Kim J. (2005). Teaching Korean University Writing Class.Balancing the
process and the genre approach. ASIAN EFL Journal volume 7. Issue 2. article 5.
Retrieved from: http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/June_05_yk&jk.php (September
24, 2010).

Kongpetch, S.(2006). Using Genre-based approach to teach writing to Thai students: A

case study. Prospect vol.21, No.2.August 2006. Retrieved from:
http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_21_no_2/21_2_1_K
ongpetch.pdf (April 1, 2010).

Kurnia, A.D. (2009). Instructional Scaffolding in Teaching Descriptive Writing. A Thesis.

English Education Department Post Graduate School Indonesia University of
Education.

Laksmi, E.D. (2006). Scaffolding students’ writing EFL Class: Implementing Process
approach. TEFLIN journal,Volume XVII, number 2, August 2006.

Martin, J.R. Mathiessen and Painter. (1997). Working with Functional Grammar.
London:Arnold.

Merriam, Sharan B. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Application in

Education.San Fransisco:Jossey-bass publishers.

Priyatni, et.al.,(2008). Peningkatan Kompetensi menulis paragraph dengan teknik

scaffolding.Bahasa dan Seni, tahun 36, nomor 2, Agustus 2008.

Reppen, R. (2003). A Genre-based Approach to content writing instruction. In

Richards,Jack. C. and Renandya Willy A. (2003). Methodology in language
Teaching an anthology of current practice. Cambridge. Cambridge university press.

Roehler, L. R.,&Cantlon,D.J. (1997). ‘Scaffolding: A powerful Tool in Social Constructivist

Classrooms’. In K.Hogan & M.Pressley. (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning:
Instructional Approaches and Issues. Cambridge: Brookline Books, Inc.

Sam, C. (2005). ‘Purposeful Scaffolding: Beyond Modelling and Thinking Aloud’. Paper
presented at the Conference on Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy,Practice,
30 May to 1 June 2005. Retrieved from http:
conference.nie.edu.sg/paper/Converted%20Pdf/ab00655.pdf (September 24, 2009).

Shook Cheong,A.C.,&C.M Goh,Christine. (2002). Teachers’ Handbook on Teaching

Generic Thinking Skills. Singapore:Prentice Hall.

ix
Suherdi,D. (2008). Scaffolding in Junior High school (SMP) English Teaching-Learning
Processes. A Paper presented in the international conference on applied linguistics 1,
11-12 June 2008 in Indonesia university education.

Van Der Stuyf, R.R. (2002). Scaffolding as Teaching Strategy. Retrieved from http:
condor.admin.ccny.cuny.edu/.../Van%20Der%20Stuyf%20Paper.doc. (September
24, 2009).

Verenikina, I. (2004). From Theory to Practice:What Does the Metaphor of Scaffolding

Mean to Educators Today?Outlines.No.2. 2004. Retrieved from
http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/viewFile/2140/1886
(December 17,2010).

Walqui, A. (2006). ‘Scaffolding Instruction for English Language Learners: A Conceptual;

Framework’. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Vol.9, No.2.