Main Article Content
The objective of conducting this research was to find out : (1) whether or not the use of thematic progression pattern is more effective than direct instruction in teaching writing to the second semester students at English Education Department; (2) the students who have a low writing apprehension have better writing skill than those who have a high writng apprehension; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching technique and writing apprehension in teaching writing skill. This reasearch was an experimental research design. The population of this research was the second semester students at English Education Department of IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro. Meanwhile the sample of this research was selected by using cluster random sampling. The instruments of data collection were witing test and writing apprehension questionnaire. The findings of this study are: (1) thematic progression pattern is more effective than direct instruction in teaching writing; (2) the students who have low writing apprehension have better writing skill than those who have high writing apprehension; and (3) there is an interaction between teaching technique and writing apprehension in teaching writing skill. It can be summarized that thematic progression pattern is an effective technique in teaching writing skill at the second semester students of English Education Department in IKIP PGRI Bojonegoro. The effectiveness of the technique is affected by writing apprehension.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Alnufaie, M. & Grenfell, M. (2013). EFL writing apprehension: the macro or the micro?. Journal of arts and humanities. 79-89.
- Alonso, S. & McCabe, A. (2003). Improving text flow in ESL learner compositions. The Internet TESL Journal. 9(2).
- Berlitz, Maximilian. (2011). Direct Method. Retrieved from www.tefl.pedia.
- Bloor, M., & Bloor, T. (1992). Given and new information in the thematic organization of text: An application tothe teaching of academic writing. Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics, 33-43.
- Brown, J. Dean. & Kathleen M. Bailey. (1984). A Categorical Instrumental for Scoring Second Language Writing Skills. Language Learning. 21-42
- Butt, David et.al. (2000). Using functional grammar. An explorer’s guide. Sydney: National centre for English language teaching and research.
- Christie, F., & Dreyfus, S. (2007). Letting the secret out: Successful writing in secondary English. AustralianJournal of Language and Literacy, 235-247.
- Cruickshank, D.R & Metcalf, Kim K. (1999). The Act of teaching. New York: Macgraw-Hill College.
- Daly, J. & Miller, M. D. (1975). Apprehension of Writing as a predictor of message intensity. The journal of psychology. 173-177.
- Daud, N. M., & Abu Kasim, N.L. Writing Anxiety: Causeor Effect. Malaysian Journal of ELT.
- Gerot, Linda and Wignell, Peter. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar.New South Wales: Gerd Stabler.
- Halliday,M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Second Edition. London: Edward Arnold.
- Hawes, T.P., & Thomas, S. (2012). Theme choice in EAP and media language. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 175-183.
- Hettich, R.L. (1994). Writing apprehension: critique. Unpublished PhD thesis. Purdue University.
- Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
- Paltridge, Brian. (2000). Makingsense of discourse analysis. Australia: Gerd Stabler.
- Raimes, A. (1983). Techniques in teaching writing. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Rørvik, S. (2012). Thematic progression in learner language. In S. Hoffmann, P. Rayson & G. Leech (Eds.),English corpus linguistics: Looking back, moving forward .165-177.
- Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Mahwah: LawrenceErlbaum.
- Schleppegrell, M. J. (2009). Grammar for generation 1.5.: A focus on meaning. In M. Roberage, M. Siegal & L.Harklau (Eds.), Generation 1.5 in college composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educatedlearners of ESL 221-234). New York: Routledge.
- Tarigan, G. (1987). Menulis sebagai suatu ketrampilan berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
- Vande Kopple, W. J. (1991). Themes, thematic progressions, and some implications for understanding discourse.Written Communication.311-347.
- Wang, L. (2007). Theme and rheme in the thematic organization of text: Implications for teaching academicwriting. Asian EFL Journal. 164-176.
- Wei, J. (2013a). Corpus-based research on the development of thematic choices in Chinese learners’ Englishspeech. Journal of Education and Practice.38-45.
- Wei, J. (2013b). Corpus-based research on topical thematic choices in Chinese and Swedish English learners’English writing. Theory and Practice in Language Studies.2202-2208.
- Wei, J. (2014). Theme and thematic progression in learner English: A literature review. Colombian AppliedLinguistics Journal.67-80.