Natural Approach-Based Activities for Raising Students’ Writing Achievement
Abstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan mencari tahu apakah pembelajaran berdasarkan Natural Approach mampu meningkatkan pencapaian menulis siswa. Penelitian ini menerapkan desain kuantitatif kuasi-eksperimental dengan grup pre-test post-test yang hanya satu. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa ada peningkatan di dalam pencapaian itu. Mempertimbangkan penemuan ini, dapat disimpulkan bahwa aktifitas-aktifitas itu menguntungkan untuk siswa dalam hal pencapaian menulis. Oleh karenanya, guru dan perumus kurikulum diharapkan melihat Natual Approach sebagai pendekatan yang seharusnya dipertimbangkan, terutama jika tujuannya adalah membuat pencapaian menulis siswa lebih baik. Namun demikian, harus dicatat bahwa, dikarenakan keterbatasan yang dimiliki penelitian ini, penelitian yang lebih jauh perlu dilaksanakan, terutama, penelitian yang berkaitan dengan penerapan jangka panjang dari Natural Approach, skill dan level lainnya.
This research aimed at finding out if Natural Approach facilitates students to improve their writing achievement. It applied the quasi-experimental quantitative design with the single-group pretest-posttest. The result showed that there was a statistically significant improvement of the writing achievement with the significant level 0,05. This indicates Natural Approach is beneficial for students in terms of writing achievement improvement. Therefore, the teachers and curriculum formulators are expected to perceive Natural Approach as an approach that should be taken into account, particularly if the purpose is to make students’ writing achievement better. Nevertheless, it should be noted that, due to the limitations of this research, some further research needs to be conducted, in particular, the research with respect to the long-term application of Natural Approach, other skills, and levels.
Keywords: Natural approach, writing achievement, writing skill.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Abukhattala, I. (2013). Krashen’s five proposals on language learning: are they valid in Libyan EFL classes. English Language Teaching, (6) 1, 128-131.
Ahmad, S., & Rao, C. (2012). Applying communicative approach in teaching English as a foreign language: a case study of Pakistan. Porta Linguarum, (20) 4, 187-203.
Aksu, N., & Gönül, Ü. (2014). Learning languages without grammar. Journal of Educational and Social Research, (4) 2, 39-42.
Al-Mansour, N. S., & Al-Shorman, R. A. (2014). The effect of an extensive reading program on the writing performance of Saudi EFL university students. International Journal of Linguistics, (6) 2, 258-275.
Ashari, N., & Zarrin, N. (2014). Problems in using communicative language teaching in Iran and possible solutions. Technical Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, (4) 4, 257-266.
Bahrani, T. (2013). Importance of language input in language learning. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, (6) 10, 1376-1379.
Barkaoui, K. (2007). Teaching writing to second language learners: insights from theory and research. TESL Reporter, (40) 1, 35-48.
Braine, G., & Yorozu, M. (1998). Local area network (LAN) computers in ESL and EFL writing classes: promises and realities. JALT Journal, (20) 2, 47-59.
Graham, S. (2008). Effective writing instruction for all students. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning, Inc.
Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1982). Design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Heaton, J. B. (1991). English language test. New York: Longman Inc.
Huy, N. T. (2015). Problems affecting learning writing skill of grade 11 at Thong Linh High School. Asian Journal of Educational Research, (3) 2, 53-69.
Javed, M., Juan, W. X., & Nazli, S. (2013). A study of students’ assessment in writing skills of the English language. International Journal of Instruction, (6) 2, 129-144.
Keskin, H. K. (2015). The relationships between dimensions of writing motivation and reading comprehension. Educational Research and Reviews, (10) 7, 856-860.
Koosha, M., & Yakhabi, M. (2013). Problems associated with the use of communicative language teaching in EFL contexts and possible solutions. International Journal of Foreign Language, (1) 4, 63-76.
Krashen, S. D. (1983). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. California: Pergamon Press Inc.
Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1983). The natural approach: language acquisition in the classroom. Alemany Press.
Liu, D. (2015). A critical review of Krashen’s input hypothesis: three major arguments. Journal of Education and Human Development, (4) 4, 139-146.
Lo, J., & Hyland, F. (2007). Enhancing students’ engagement and motivation in writing: the case of primary students in Hong Kong. Journal of Second Language Writing, (16) 3, 219-237.
Moreen, M., & Soneni, M. (2015). The acquisition – learning distinction: a critique of Krashen’s monitor model. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, (6) 2, 198-200.
Parham, M., Goudarzi, A., Mahdian, M. J., & Goudarzi, M. M. (2013). Natural Approach: the influence on learning English language skills among B. A. students of Borujerd Azad University. Journal of Science and today's world, (2) 11, 1391-1401.
Ruiz-Funes, M. (2015). Exploring the potential of second/foreign language writing for language learning: the effects of task factors and learner variables. Journal of Second Language Writing, (28) 2, 1-19.
Setiyadi, A. B. (2006). Metode penelitian dan pengajaran bahasa asing: pendekatan kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Syomwene, A. (2016). Motivating learners in the teaching and learning of the English language curriculum in schools in Kenya: the teacher’s role. International Journal of Education and Research, (4) 2, 19-30.
Terrell, T. D. (1977). A natural approach to second language acquisition and learning. The Modern Language Journal, (61) 7, 325-337.
Terrell, T. D. (1986). Acquisition in the natural approach: the binding/access framework. The Modern Language Journal, (70) 3, 213-227.
Westera, W. (2011). On the changing nature of learning context: anticipating the virtual extensions of the world. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (2), 201-212.
Zafar, M. (2009). Monitoring the 'monitor': a critique of Krashen's five hypotheses. The Dhaka University Journal of Linguistics, (2) 4, 139-146.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2019 U-JET
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.