The Application of Interactive Comprehensible Written Input-Output Instruction for Teaching Writing

Lia Annisa Mahdalena, Cucu Sutarsyah, Hery Yufrizal


This study was aimed at finding out whether there was a difference on students writing ability in general as well as students aspects of writing in particular and exploringwhether there would be a difference on students prediction of Narrative and Anecdote Text as a part of Interactive Comprehensible Written Input-Output Instruction.The study involved 36 MathematicsEducation students in the first semester of academic year 2016/2017. To collect the data, the researcher administered writing testsand collected students writing drafts. Then, the data were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The results showed there was a significant difference on both students writing ability and aspects of writing after the application of this instruction. Then, there was also a difference on their prediction of two texts that it was easier for the students to predict the continuation of the story in Narrative Text rather than in Anecdote one.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah ada perbedaan dari kemampuan menulis mahasiswa secara umum dan aspek-aspek menulis mereka secara khusus dan untuk menelusuri apakah ada perbedaan dari prediksi mahasiswa terhadap Teks Narasi dan Anekdot sebagai bagian dari Instruksi Input-Output Tertulis Terpahami yang Interaktif. Penelitian ini melibatkan 36 mahasiswa Pendidikan Matematika pada tahun ajaran 2016/2017. Untuk mengumpulkan data, penelitian mengadakan tes menulis dan mengumpulkan draft-draft tulisan mereka. Data-data tersebut kemudian dianalisa secara kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa ada perbedaan dari kemampuan menulis mahasiswa secara umum dan aspek-aspek menulis mereka secara khusus setelah penerapan instruksi ini. Selain itu, terdapat perbedaan prediksi yang dibuat terhadap dua tekster sebut dengan lebih mudahnya mahasiswa untuk memprediksi kelanjutan cerita pada Teks Narasi dibandingkan Teks Anekdot.

Kata kunci: instruksi input-output, interaktif dan pengajaran menulis.

Full Text:



Alharbi, Fahad. 2015. Writing for Learning to Improve Students Comprehension at the College Level. English Language Teaching, 8 (5).

Ellis, R. 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ferdous, A.B. 2015. Investigating the Effects of Written Output and Input Enhancement on EFL Learners Grammatical Development. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 2 (7) : 138-156.

Gass, S. 1997. Input, Interaction, and Second Language Learner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hasanah, Uswatun. 2016. Directed Thinking Activity (DRTA) on Students Reading Comprehension. Unpublished Masters Thesis. Department of English Education, Lampung University.

Hirvela, A., and Du, Q. 2013. Why am I paraphrasing?: Undergraduate ESL Writers Engagement with Source-based Academic Writing and Reading. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 12: 87-98.

Izumi, S., Bigelow, M., Fujiwara, M. and Fearnow, S. 1999. Testing the Output Hypothesis: Effects of Output on Noticing and Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21: 421-452.

Izumi, S. 2002. Output, Input Enhancement and the Noticing Hypothesis. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24: 541-577.

Khatib, M. 2011. The Potential of Learner Output for Enhancing EFL Learners Short-term and Long-term Learning of the English Simple Present Tense. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1 (4): 400-407.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Beverly Hills, CA: Laredo Publishing Company.

Krashen, S. 1993. The Power of Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited.

Li, J. M. 2013. Reading and Writing: The Gap between Input and Output. Shaanxi Jiaoyu (Gaojiao), 12: 55-57.

Long, M. 1996. The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In W. Ritchie, and T. Bhatia (Eds), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition. San Diego: Academic Press.

Nowbakht, Mohammad. 2015. The Comparative Effect of Comprehensible Input, Output, and Corrective Feedback on the Receptive Acquisition of L2 Vocabulary Items. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6 (4).

Paul, P. 2003. What Writing Does and How It Does: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Philadelphia: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Pica, T. 1994. Research on Negotiation: What Does It Reveal about Second Language Learning Conditions, Processes, and Outcomes? Language Learning, 44: 493-527.

Promnont, P. 2015. Concentrated Language Encounter Instruction Model III in Reading and Creative Writing Abilities. English Language Teaching, 8 (5).

Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interaction as The Key to Teaching Language for Communication. In a Wilga M. Rivers (Eds), Interactive Language Teaching. NY: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. 1985. Communicative Competence: Some Roles of Comprehensible Input and Comprehensible Output in Its Development. In S. Gass and C. Madden (Eds), Input in Second Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Swain, M. 1995. Three Functions of Output in Second Language Learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (Eds), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. 1998. Focus on Form through Conscious Reflection. In C. Doughty and J. Williams (Eds), Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Thornbury, S. 1997. Reformulation and Reconstruction: Tasks that Promote Noticing. ELT Journal, 51(4), 326-335.

Yufrizal, Hery. 2001. Negotiation of Meaning and Language Acquisition by Indonesia EFL Learners. TEFLIN, 12 (1).


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 U-JET

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