5

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Argumentative Writing According to Saito (2010), argumentative is the process of making what writers or speakers think clear to themselves and to others. In this sense, argument has two part structure: the statement of an opinion and the statement of one or more reasons for holding that opinion. Furthermore, Intraprawat in Saito (2010) states that argumentation as an attempt to persuade or something. To make an argument, writers need to express their point of view on a controversial issue (claim). The writers have to support it with evidence including facts or their own opinions in order to convince the readers. Another purpose of the argumentative writing is to defend writers claim or to refute another claim on a certain topic. Furthermore, Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, in Chase (2011) propose that argumentative writing requires students to embrace a particular point of view and try to convince the reader to adopt the same perspective or to perform a certain action. This form of essay writing requires the writer to draw upon his or her knowledge of argumentative discourse and create sub goals related to supporting a thesis. The writer must take a stance, anticipate the audiences position, justify his or her own position, consider the alternative positions, and if appropriate, rebut the opposing positions as

Ferretti, MacArthur, & Dowdy in Chase (2011). Subsequently, a fully developed argumentative essay is structured in a certain way that includes a statement of an opinion with support, a statement of a counterargument, a rebuttal, and a concluding 2 statement that supports the initial opinion.

2.2 Cognitive Process in Writing 2.2.1 The Nature of Cognitive Process in Writing Klein in (Kieft, 2006) states that writing is an effortful and complex activity. In order to manage the many constraints, writers need to organize the cognitive activities involved in writing. According to Flower and Hayes as cited in Galbraith (2009) writing is not simply a matter of translating preconceived ideas into text, but it also involves creating content and tailoring the way this is presented to the needs of the reader. Beside that writing is as much a matter of discovering or inventing the thought to be expressed in the text as it is a matter of expressing it in appropriate and convincing way. Moreover, writing is seen as an intricate cognitive activity necessitated by a number of processes and strategies (Chien, 2007). The use of strategy is a purposeful cognitive action. Writing is seen as a set of recursive process which are interrelated in complex ways with the writer establishing goals and working out strategies and procedures to achieve

those goals. It is also supports with Olives opinion (2004), that writing is one of the most complex cognitive activities that human beings accomplish during their life. Writing indeed involves a large number of cognitive components that operate at different levels of representation. Anson in European Journal Psychology of education (2006) proposes that writing to communicate aims to enhance the acquisition of skills and strategies for the production of formal texts for various audiences. Students also write to learn enhancing their acquisition and understanding of content. This function of writing can be found in all kinds of school subjects or disciplines and is promoted by natural and international organizations like Writing Across the Curriculum. In addition, Kieft, Rijlaarsdam and van den Bergh (2006) state that writing is an effortful and complex activity. In order to manage the many constraints, writers need to organize the cognitive activities involved in writing. As research by Rijlaarsdam and van den Bergh (1999) showed that individual differences can be identified in the way students construct their writing process. In the present study, we define the writing strategy of an individual as the way that person tends to organize cognitive activities like planning, composing and revising.

2.2.2 How does the Process Take Place

Grabe and Kaplan in (Yanbin Lu,2010), attempting to integrate the cognitive processing of a writer, the linguistic and textual resources for a writing task and the contextual factors that strongly shape the nature of writing. They proposed a model of writing which include two major components: context for language use and verbal working memory of the language users. Context as the external factor comprises situation and language performance output and the latter accounts for the actual textual output produced as a result of the processing in verbal working memory. The verbal working memory is constituted by three subcomponents: internal goal setting, verbal processing and internal processing output. In this model, the verbal working memory is the locus of internal operations for linguistic processing and the relationship among the components are depicted clearly in terms of their interactions. Grabe and Kaplan model represent an effort to incorporate social context, cognitive processing and textual product into a single model of writing from the perspective of communicative language use. Meanwhile, Flower and Hayes in Saito (2010) propose the writing model consisting of three majors cognitive processes: planning, translating, and reviewing.

Figure: Hayes (1996) model 2.2.2.1 Planning Hayes in Lu (2010) explains that in the planning process, the writer takes information from the task environment and the long term memory and uses it to generate ideas, set goals, and establish a writing plan. In this model, the planning process involves three sub-processes including generating, organizing and goal setting. Flower and Hayes as cited in Saito (2010) add that the generating process is to retrieve information from writers long term memory and the task environment. Meanwhile, in

10

organizing process, the writer organizes all information into an outline for writing. The last sub-process is goal setting. In this process, the writer select relevant information needed for the text. Furthermore, Biasutti (1999) proposes that planning could be considered as a sequence of actions that are important for obtaining a goal. In planning it is important to discover the correct path to follow for explaining the ideas in a good way. Planning could be divided into the sub processes of generating, organizing and goal-setting. The process of writing is developed following goals. Goals direct the work and define also the standards for reviewing. 2.2.2.2 Translating In the translating process, the writer transforms the information, ideas, and plans into written text, Hayes in Lu (2010). As Benton in Saito (2010) states that in the translating process, the writers transform semantics into syntax. It is also explained by Biasutti (1999) that in translating, the writer adapt the writing plans into formal prose. The writer organizes thinking in sentences. That work involves explaining briefly sketched ideas, interpreting nonverbal material in verbal form, and carrying out instruction.

11

2.2.2.3 Reviewing In the reviewing process, the writer reads and edits what has been produced to improve the quality of the text Hayes in Lu (2010). Furthermore, Benton in Saito (2010) adds that in the reviewing process, the writers improve their written text using the sub-processes of reading and editing. According to Biasutti (1999), reviewing is the phase in which the writer try to improve the draft. It is consist of two processes: reading and editing. Reading is considered the phase in which the writer read his/ her draft and found some errors or correct sentences. Meanwhile, editing is the systematic process, usually realized at the end and it is used by the writer for checking errors. He adds that reviewing is a general process which concerns not only with formal errors but also to general plans. Reviewing a new composition, the writer can change a false note but also deciding to change a general plan of articulation of the piece.

2.2.3 What Factors affect the Process

12

According to Lu (2010), there are several factors affect the process of writing, they are:
1. L1 Writing Ability

Kaplan in Lu (2010) mentioned that the influence of L1 writing on a language learners L2 writing has been a primary concern since an exploration of the different rhetorical patterns of writings produced by culturally and linguistically distinct groups of writers. In terms of second language acquisition (SLA), he proposed that the influence of L1 on L2 learning has been considered negative transfer or interference; that is, the quality of L2 writing might be negatively influenced by a learners L1 rhetoric patterns. Moreover, According to Cummins in Lu (2010) postulated that there is a common underlying proficiency in terms of ones cognitive and linguistic abilities and that L1 background serves as the basis for L2 learning, one might hypothesize that a learners L2 writing ability is dependent upon his/ her L1 writing ability.
2. L2 Language Proficiency

L2 proficiency plays more important role than L1 writing ability as an explanatory variable for L2 writing performance (Yun, 2005, cited in Yanbin Lu, 2010).

13

3. Use of Writing Strategies

In general, expert writers are found to spend more time planning and revising their work than novice writers (Weigle, 2005, cited in Yanbin Lu, 2010). He explained that the skill writers tend to work recursively, managing the whole process flexibly with a balanced interaction between planning, generating, rereading, and revising, etc. On the other hand, in the discourse level, they pay more attention to the content, the organization, and the choice of words and phrases. When they revise, they tend to edit globally for content and organization rather than simply making surface local changes to the text. Skilled writers also tend to take into account the readers expectations and handle their writing accordingly. They are also found to have a more highly developed schemata for the genres in which they are writing than less skilled writers.
4. Working Memory Capacity

McCutchen in Lu (2010) proposed that person who has a limited working memory capacity will constrained by the limitations and tend to depend on knowledge- telling strategies and engage in non- interactive processes. He concluded that novice writers who have limited working memory unable to deal with the complex demands imposed by the writing process. Meanwhile, skilled writers possess fluent encoding processes for the text-

14

generation and transcription, as well as extensive knowledge about topic, genre, and routines for coordinating writing processes. Therefore, skilled writers are able to move beyond the limits of short-term working memory and tap the resources of long term memory. Meanwhile, Van den berg and Rijlaarsdam propose that there are several factors which affect the process of writing, they are: 1. Cognitive Activities of The Writers According to Rijlaarsdam and van den Bergh, the differences between writers are related to differences in text quality. Some writers consult the assignment (relatively) frequently during the beginning and considerably less during later phases in the writing process. For some writes, an increase in the probability of occurrence of reading the assignment shows at the end of the writing. For other group of writers the probability of observing this cognitive activity remains constant during the writing process. They also mentioned that the second is the differences in temporal organization of one activity are related to the temporal organization of other activities. In other words, the relation between reading the

assignment and generating also different between writers. For some writers there is a positive relation between reading the assignment and

15

generating while for other writers the relation between these two activities is negative.

2. Topic Knowledge of the Writers

Van den berg and Rijlaarsdam stated that some writers use the information in the assignment to generate new information to write about, whereas others do not need the information in the assignment to generate content information. Perhaps this difference in functional relation between these activities is mediated by topic knowledge; if one knows enough on topic, one does not know what to write, it seems a plausible strategy to see if the assignment contains unused information. According to Xinghua (2010), the students differences in writing can be influenced by the students good writing capacity and their understanding of the characteristics of a good argumentative text and the writing process as well. In addition, students educational background and current writing instruction also involves in writing plans. Furthermore, Ransdell and Barbier (2002) stated that the differences between second language and L1 writers are in terms of uses and needs for writing. Both groups may also differ in the role writing plays in their respective native cultures. As stated by Leki in ( Ransdell and Barbie,

16

2002) mention that ESL students writing is highly valued both from the cultural and the social points of view while for some basic writers have seldom been taught any respect for their linguistic traditions or dialects. 2.3 Cognitive Process in Argumentative Writing 2.3.1 The Nature of Cognitive Process in Argumentative Writing According to Kellog (2001), writing well is a major cognitive challenge. It is at once a test of memory, language, and thinking ability. It also demands rapid retrieval of domain-specific knowledge about the topic from long term memory. Meanwhile, Chase (2011) proposes that the act of writing creates an environment for the development of cognitive and organizational strategies whereby students link new concepts with familiar ones, synthesize knowledge, explore relations and implications, outline information, and strengthen conceptual frameworks. Furthermore, the act of writing involves self-monitoring, planning, concept-building, and the review of information processes, which promote the building of domain knowledge as explained by Bangert-Drowns et al in Chase (2011). Argument is the process of making what writers or speakers think clear to themselves and to others. According to Saito (2010), argumentative writing is a kind of essay writing that is organized around a clear thesis. Its purpose is to argue the controversial topic or issue to convince the readers to accept or agree with the writers point of view. To achieve the goal of

17

argumentative writing, the writer takes a position or makes a claim (thesis) and provides reasons and evidence to support his claim/ point of view or position with logical arguments and refute possible counter arguments. In addition, Hale in (Yanbin Lu, 2010) mentions that the genre of argumentative is believed involves complex cognitive functions to generate and organize ideas with examples or evidence for the type of writing. Argumentative essay writing is one of the common essay genres that students may encounter across the curriculum. 2.3.2 The Process of Argumentative Writing Toulmin in Saito (2010) views the production of argumentative text as the cognitive process of problem- solving. In this case, writing problems generally arise from the writers attempt to map language onto his or her own thoughts and feelings as well as the expectations of the reader. This endeavor highlights the complexity of writing, in that problems can range from strategic considerations (such as the organization of ideas) to the implementation of motor plans (such as finding the right keys on the keyboard). In addition, Hayes and Flower in EST Research Report (2008) propose that problem solving has been conceptualized in terms of information processing. In their original model, which has achieved broad acceptance in the field of writing research, Hayes and Flower (1980) attempted to classify the various activities that occur during writing and

18

their relationships to the task environment and to the internal knowledge state of the writer. Hayes and Flower posited that the writers long-term memory has various types of knowledge, including knowledge of the topic, knowledge of the audience, and stored writing plans (e.g., learned writing schemas).

2.3.3 The Structure Elements of Argumentative Writing According to Hatch in Saito (2010), a classical description of the structure of argumentative text consists of introduction, explanation of the case under consideration, outline of the argument, proof, refutation, and conclusion. However, there are many various pattern of argumentative text than the classic form for the argumentative genre. Macoun as cited in Saito (2010) states that there are several patterns for organizing argumentative discourse in a written prose, they are: 1. Zig-zag solution There are two ways in organizing this pattern depending on a position of the writer holds, 1) The outline would be: pro, con, pro, con and pro if the writer is a proponent of a position. 2) The outline would be: con, pro, con, pro, and con if the writer is an opponent.

19

2. Problem and refutation of the oppositions argument This pattern includes problem and refutation of the oppositions argument followed by the solution and like the first pattern, requires refutation of the oppositions argument. 3. One-sided argument In this pattern the writer presents only one-sided point of view and there is no refutation presented. 4. The writer selects to reject some viewpoints In this pattern, the writer selects to reject some viewpoints and to accept another or to combine some point of view together.
5. Oppositions arguments followed by the writers argument

This pattern contains the oppositions arguments first, followed by the writers argument. 6. The other-side question This pattern involves questioning but not direct refutation of the oppositions argument. 7. There is no refutation presented

20

This pattern has no refutation presented. It contains two-sided point of views, while one is favored.

Meanwhile, Hyland (2008) proposed that there are several stages of the structure of the argumentative essay, they are: 1. The Thesis Stage This stage introduces the discourse topic and advances the writers proposition or central statement. It is identified as consisting of five moves, only one of which is obligatory. 2. The Arguments Stage This stage presents the infrastructure of reasons which characterize the genre. The argument stage consist of a possible four move cycle repeated indefinitely in a specific order.
3. The Conclusion Stage

The conclusion is a fusion of constituents in this genre. It functions to consolidate the discourse and retrospectively affirm what has been communicated. There is a possible four move sequence in this stage.

21

According to Toulmin in Chase (2011), argumentation is composed of the following elements: a) Claim, which is an assertion presented in response to a problems, b) Data, which includes the evidence or grounds on which claims are made, c) Warrant, which supports the link between the claim and data, d) Backing, known as support of the warrant, e) Qualifier, which is a term indicating the probable nature of the claim, and f) a Reservation, which refers to the conditions under which the warrant will not hold and cannot support the claim (Crammond, 1998). These elements represent the basis of argumentative discourse and an organizational framework for argumentative essay writing. Yeh in Saito (2010) states that Toulmins model of argument is useful for teaching and assessing the arguments for many reasons. One of the reason is this model is widely accepted and it is used to assess, teach and study both debate and argumentative writing. Moreover, this model helps the unskilled writers to produce a simple argument. Finally, the major benefit of the Toulmins model is that it presents the basic layout of an argument. 2.4 The Writers Psychological Attributes According to Kingfairgod (2008), psychological attributes are not linear or unidimensional. They are complex and expressed in terms of dimensions. They are usually multi-dimensional. In assessing assessment

22

of a person, it need to assess how she/ he functions in various domains or areas, such as cognitive, emotional, social, etc. There are five important attributes that interest to psychologists. These attributes are categorized on the basis of varieties of tests used in psychological literature.

1. Intelligence Intelligence is the global capacity to understand the world, think rationally, and use available resources effectively when faced with challenges. Intelligence tests provide a global measure of a persons general cognitive competence including the ability to profit from schooling. Generally, students having low intelligence are not likely to do so well in schoolrelated examinations, but their success in life is not associated only with their intelligence test scores. 2. Aptitude Aptitude refers to an individuals underlying potential for acquiring skills. Aptitude tests are used to predict what an individual will be able to do if given 4 Psychology proper environment and training. A person with high

23

mechanical aptitude can profit from appropriate training and can do well as an engineer. Similarly, a person having high language aptitude can be trained to be a good writer. 3. Interest Interest is an individuals preference for engaging in one or more specific activities relative to others. Assessment of interests of students may help to decide what subjects or courses they can pursue comfortably and with pleasure. Knowledge of interests helps us in making choices that promote life satisfaction and performance on jobs.

4. Personality Personality refers to relatively enduring characteristics of a person that make her or him distinct from others. Personality tests try to assess an individuals unique characteristics, e.g. whether one is dominant or submissive, outgoing or withdrawn, moody or emotionally stable, etc. Personality assessment helps us to explain an individuals behavior and predict how she/he will behave in future. 5. Values

24

Values are enduring beliefs about an ideal mode of behavior. A person having a value sets a standard for guiding her/his actions in life and also for judging others. In value assessment, we try to determine the dominant values of a person (e.g., political, religious, social or economic).

2.5 The characteristics of Science and Social Students 2.5.1 The Characteristics of Science Students

There are several characteristics of science students that generally reflected on their attitudes in learning. Typically science students are accustomed to think logically and based on the facts. As OBrien in Theiler (2006) stated that science students have logical mathematical and they have high level of inductive and deductive reasoning. Moreover, they are able to manipulate numbers and quantities and operations.

2.5.2 The Characteristics of Social Students Social students are accustomed to memorize and recall information. As Scharfersmen in Lisa (1991) proposed that they are accustomed to explain something based on social phenomena. It is also related to the Ministry Education of Ontario curriculum (2004) that mentioned social students must

25

develop a thorough knowledge of basic concepts that they can apply in a wide range of situations. Social students have to learn critically to solve problems and to make decision on variety of issues. 2.6 Conceptual Framework Writing is a complex activity. It involves some basic abilities, such as grammar and spelling. Writing also requires the coordination of a variety of different cognitive processes as a matter of discovering or inventing the thought to be expressed in the text. There are some researches done to improve the students ability in writing but there is still a fact that the quality of students writing in Indonesia is still far from the expectations due to an inadequate understanding of how texts are organized. In this research, there is an objective to describe the cognitive process related to the writers intern factors, especially the cognitive thinking. There are several stages of the cognitive process occur in the students mind and affect the students thinking skill; 1) the long term memory, 2) planning, 3) goal-setting, 4) translating, 5) reviewing, 6) the monitor. This research will be done by separated the intern factors from extern factors to see the influence of cognitive process in writing by made some of instruments in selecting the subject of the research. The research instruments are: (1) writing genre in argumentative form; from the two majors science and social class

26

students, (2) questionnaires; to see the subjects cognitive process in the topic the researcher provides. By selecting the researchs subject, there will be students from the two majors who will be the research subjects. Each of the subjects from science and social class will write an argumentative text. The subject also will give the information about their cognitive process in writing argumentative text by following the interview session. Each subject will be interviewed after finishing writing an argumentative text. Finally, the data will be proceed into a conclusion of cognitive process which commonly known as: (1) the long term memory, (2) planning, (3) goal-setting, (4) translating, (5) reviewing, (6) the monitor.

2.6 Previous Research Many researchers conducted studies about cognitive process in writing hoping that it can help teachers and learners to have a better understanding in writing. Roh and Halani discuss undergraduate students cognitive process when they attempt to write proofs about inequalities involving absolute values. They found that the theory of conceptual blending accounts for students cognitive processes behind their reasoning in proving inequalities

27

involving absolute values. In fact, the students did not map the inequalities and the absolute value symbol into blended spaces, and hence they were not integrated in the blended spaces. The research literature indicates that undergraduate students struggle with proof writing. Students tend to structure their proofs in chronological order of their thought process instead of reorganizing it with proper implications. Also, students have difficulty with utilizing. The cognitive process in composition conducted by Michelle Biasutti (1999), he analyzed the cognitive process involved in musical composition. Knowing the cognitive processes involved in musical composition is useful to the composers, because it allows them to develop skills for improving the level of consciousness in the task resolved. It is important to stimuli the metacognition processes because they allow to understand all the abilities that we have and that are involved in composition. Making reference to the linguistic field, he reported a cognitive model for the processes involved in music composition. He also discussed the importance of applying the result of cognitive research to other fields, such as education. The study of cognitive process involved in composition is very important because it allows schematizing the single processes of writing. It has many implications also for education, because it can influence a new approach in teaching.

28

As a research conducted by Olive, Alves and Castro (2009) about cognitive processes in writing during pauses and execution periods, he found that a central issue in research on writing concerns how writers manage the cognitive processes they need to compose a text. He added that writing a text requires several high and low level processes. Choi in Saito (2010) investigated a contrastive analysis of argumentative essays written in English by Korean ESL students and by native Englishspeaking students. The purpose of the study was to identify and examine in what different ways native speakers of Korean (ESL) and native speakers of English write English argumentative compositions regarding error types, textual organization, and cohesion device. The researcher found that the Korean ESL students wrote shorter essays and showed more errors, more textual organization patterns, and less use of cohesion devices. However, a similarity between the two groups basically preferred the three-unit organizational structure (introduction-body-conclusion) and they also favor the use of subcategories of each organization type such as claim, justification, and conclusion. The researches above relate to this research as they are concerned on the cognitive process in writing. While some of the researches focus on the students cognitive process in composing music, some others focus on the students process in writing argumentative essay. Meanwhile, as Roh and

29

Halani (2009) and Michelle Biasutti (1999) concern on cognitive process in writing in Math of undergraduate students and Music subject, this research tries to find out the cognitive process of the SMA students with different majors in writing argumentative text. As Olive (2009) investigating the cognitive process of the students in writing during pauses and excursion period, and Choi in Saito (2010) concern on students ability in writing argumentative essay, this research concerns on investigating the cognitive process of the students with different majors in writing argumentative text.