THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ABILITY

AND THEIR WRITING ACHIEVEMENT

(A Correlational Study at the Fifth Semster Students of the Departement of

English Education of Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta

In Academic Year 2018/2019)

By:

Arrum Astria Mahmudah

1112014000043

DEPARTEMENT OF ENGLISH EDUCATION

FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY

2019

ii

iii

iv

ABSTRACT

v

Arrum Astria Mahmudah (1112014000043). The Relationship Between Students’

Speaking Ability and Their Writing Achievement: A Correlational Study at the

Fifth Semester of Departement of English Education at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah

Jakarta, Academic Year 2018/ 2019.

Keywords: Correlation, Speaking, Writing.

This study aimed to find and describe the relationship between students speaking ability

and their writing achievement.This study took place at UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta .

The population of this study was the fifth semester students of Department of English

Eductaion in academic year 2018/2019. They are students from 5A, 5B and 5C. They are

85 students, altogether. This study used a quantitative method with the correlational as the

reasearch design of study. It was employed to find out and measure the relationship

between two variables covering speaking ability and writing skill. Documentation was

used for collecting the data of speaking and writing . Based on the research analysis,the

contribution from speaking to writing was 39%. The value of correlation between those

variables was 0.623 with 0.01 significance level. The finding was also supported by the

data and the picture of a scattred diagram where the dots were getting close to the line

which showed that the correlation between those two variables existed. Then, the

correlation coefficient (t) found was 4.215; while the t table (tt) score in the significance

of 0.05 was 1.701. Therefore, the to> tt or 4.215> 1.701. It meant that Ha was accepted. In

other words, it confirmed that there was a high relationship between speaking ability and

writing achievement of the fifth semester students of the Department of English

Education at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta in academic year

2018/2019.

vi

ABSTRAK

Arrum Astria Mahmudah (1112014000043). Hubungan Antara Kemampuan

Berbicara Siswa dan Pencapaian Menulis: Studi Korelasional di Semester Kelima

Departemen Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta, Tahun

Akademik 2018/2019.

Kata Kunci: Korelasi, Berbicara, Menulis.

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menemukan dan menggambarkan hubungan antara

kemampuan berbicara siswa dan prestasi menulis mereka. Penelitian ini berlangsung di

UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta. Populasi penelitian ini adalah mahasiswa semester lima

Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris pada tahun akademik 2018/2019. Mereka adalah

siswa dari 5A, 5B dan 5C. Jumlah mereka adalah 85 siswa, semuanya. Penelitian ini

menggunakan metode kuantitatif dengan korelasional sebagai desain penelitian

penelitian. Itu digunakan untuk mencari tahu dan mengukur hubungan antara dua variabel

yang meliputi kemampuan berbicara dan keterampilan menulis. Dokumentasi digunakan

untuk mengumpulkan data berbicara dan menulis. Berdasarkan analisis penelitian,

kontribusi dari berbicara kepada menulis adalah 39%. Nilai korelasi antara variabel-

variabel tersebut adalah 0,623 dengan tingkat signifikansi 0,01. Temuan ini juga

didukung oleh data dan gambar diagram yang tersebar di mana titik-titik semakin dekat

ke garis yang menunjukkan bahwa korelasi antara kedua variabel tersebut ada. Kemudian,

koefisien korelasi (t) yang ditemukan adalah 4,215; sedangkan skor t tabel (tt) pada

signifikansi 0,05 adalah 1,701. Oleh karena itu, ke> tt atau 4,215> 1,701. Itu berarti Ha

diterima. Dengan kata lain, itu menegaskan bahwa ada hubungan yang tinggi antara

kemampuan berbicara dan prestasi menulis siswa semester lima dari Departemen

Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta pada

tahun akademik 2018/2019.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

In the name of Allah, the Beneficent and the Merciful

All praised is due to Allah, Lord of the world, who has given me love and

chance to finish my last assignment in my study, “Skripsi”. Peace and salutation

be upon to the prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his companion and his

adherence.

It is such a pleasure to acknowledge the help from all of lecturers, institutions,

family, and friends who have helped in the different ways therefore this last

assignment is processed until it becomes complete which will be presented to the

Faculty of Educational Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of S.Pd. in English Education.

However, this success would not be accomplished without any support,

guidance, help and encouragement from individuals and institutions. Therefore,

her gratitude is addressed to her examiners, Dr. Alek, M.Pd and Zaharil Anasy

M.Hum, also a bunch of love for my advisors Ismailing Eviyuliwati,M.Hum and

Neneng Sunengsih, M.Pd who criticised, supported, and give suggestions in

finishing her research. The writer also would like to convey the sincerest gratitude

to:

1. Prof. Dr. Ahmad Thib Raya, MA., the Dean of the Faculty of Educational

Sciences Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta,

2. Dr. Alek, M.Pd, the Chairman of Department of English Education,

3. Zaharil Anasy, M.Hum., the Secretary of Department of English Education,

4. All of herlecturers from Departement of English Education Facutly of

Educational Sciences Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta, for

their knowledge, motivation, patience during her study at the English

Education Department

5. Her beloved parents who always encourage her and give all of their support to

finish this study.

6. All of staff at LIA Pramuka library who always help her in finding books.

viii

7. All of my dear friends Nameera Zahra Rambe,and Qiqi who cheer her up and

give some help along her study.

8. Her beloved friends, Kiki Rizki Amalia, who always be there for her and giving

her hands for this paper.

9. Her beloved friends on overseas who helped her to give some ideas and a lot of

sources for this skirpsi , Johnnie Mathis and Jose.

Finally, the writer does realize that this research is such an imperfection .

Therefore,critics and suggestions are really appreciated to make it better.

Jakarta, February 4th

2019

Writer

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL ........................................................................................................ ii

ENDORSEMENT SHEET ................................................................................. iii

Surat Pernyataan Karya Sendiri ......................................................................... iv

ABSTRACT ......................................................................................................... v

ABSTRAK ............................................................................................................. vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .................................................................................. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................ xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................................... xiv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................... 1

A. Background of the Study .................................................. 1

B. Identification of the Problems ........................................... 3

C. Limitation of the Problem .................................................. 3

D. Formulation of the Problem ............................................... 3

E. Objective of the Study ....................................................... 3

F. Significance of the Study ................................................... 4

CHAPTER II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .......................................... 5

A. Speaking ............................................................................ 5

1. The Nature of Speaking ......................................... 5

2. Elements of Speaking ............................................ 6

3. Factors Affecting EFL Students’ speaking ........... 7

4. Characteristics of Good Speaking Activity ........... 8

5. Problems with Speaking Activity .......................... 9

6. Types of Speaking Performance ............................ 9

x

B. Writing ............................................................................... 11

1. The Nature of Writing ........................................... 11

2. Process of Writing ................................................. 12

3. Charateristics of Written Language ....................... 13

4. Types of Text ......................................................... 14

5. Purpose of Writing ................................................. 15

6. The factors of Good Writing ................................ 16

C. Correlation between Speaking and Writing ....................... 17

D. Previous Studies ................................................................ 18

E. Conceptual Framework ...................................................... 20

F. Theoretical Hypothesis ...................................................... 21

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................................... 23

A. Time and Place of Research .............................................. 23

B. Research Design ................................................................ 23

C. Population and Sample ...................................................... 24

D. Research Instrument .......................................................... 24

E. Technique of Data Collection ............................................ 24

F. Technique of Data Analysis .............................................. 25

G. Statistical Hypothesis......................................................... 28

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSION ........................ 29

A. Research Finding ............................................................... 29

1. Data Description ....................................................... 29

2. Data Analysis ........................................................... 35

B. Discussion ......................................................................... 43

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS .................................. 44

A. Conclusion ......................................................................... 44

B. Suggestion ......................................................................... 44

xi

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................... 46

APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 49

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Table of ‘r’ Value Pearson Correlation ............................................. 27

Table 4.1 Score Range ....................................................................................... 29

Table 4.2 Student’s Speaking Score ................................................................. 30

Table 4.3 Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Speaking Score ............................ 32

Table 4.4 Student’s Writing Score ..................................................................... 33

Table 4.5 Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Writing Score .............................. 35

Table 4.6 Data of Linearity Analysis ................................................................. 36

Table 4.7 Test of Normality ............................................................................... 37

Table 4.8 Table of Calculation ........................................................................... 38

Table 4.9 SPSS Pearson Correlation .................................................................. 39

Table 4.10 Table of ‘r’ Value Pearson Correlation ............................................. 42

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Writing Process Wheel ....................................................................... 12

Figure 2.2 The Developmental Progression of Language ................................... 17

Figure 3.1 Relationship X to Y ............................................................................ 23

Figure 4.1 Histogram of Speaking Ability Score .............................................. 32

Figure 4.2 Histogram of Writing Achievement Score ........................................ 36

Figure 4.3 Scattered Diagram of Speaking and Writing..................................... 38

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 T- Table ......................................................................................... 50

Appendix 2 Speaking Syllabus ......................................................................... 51

Appendix 3 Writing Sylabus ............................................................................. 54

Appendix 4 Speaking Ability and Writing Achievement ................................. 57

Appendix 5 SPSS Outputof Linear Test ........................................................... 58

Appendix 6 SPSS Output of Normality Test ................................................... 60

Appendix 7 SPSS Output of Correlation Test ................................................... 61

Appendix 8 Surat Bimbingan Skripsi................................................................ 62

Appendix 9 Surat Permohonan Izin Penelitian ................................................. 63

Appendix 10 Lembar Ujian Referensi ................................................................ 64

Appendix 11 Example of Raw Scores................................................................ 69

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes about the background of the study,identification of the

problems, limitation of the problems, formulation of the problem, objective of the

study and the significance ofthe study.

A. Background of study

English has become the first foreign language in Indonesia which gets more

priority to be learned by students, it begin from the first year of Elementary School

level up to the university level.

Writing is one of an important part in communication. Through writing, the

students can transfer information and knowledge to others by putting their ideas into

a piece of paper. Writing ability is developmentally dependent on proficiency in

listening comprehension, speaking, and reading.1 Each skill has correlation to each

other so that one skill can influence others skills. One of the skills learned in language

learning is speaking. In Speaking, the development of spoken language plays a key

role in the development in written language. These include making sense of language,

building a varied vocabulary, having a precise knowledge of verbal grammar, varying

sentence structure, and also processing information, organizing ideas, and many

more.2

In fact, Speaking is also be most people's first proper chance to create language

of their own - whether they are a little kid learning their first language or adults

learning a brand new foreign language. In Departement of English Education,

Speaking start up from the first semester ,and it’s way earlier than writing. It is

speaking which leads the way for the learners to create more language before students

1 Phelps-Gunn. Trisha, Phelps-Terisaki. Dian, and Barbara Forman. Written Language Instruction,

(London: ANASPEN PUBLICATION, 1982). p. 4.

2

Sylvie Thiviergie, The Relationship Between Spoken and Written Language,

https://lobe.ca/en/non-classe-en-en/relationship-between-spoken-and-written-language/.

2

get learn the form of writing. Speaking allows the learners to make mistakes which

writing does not. Then, both syllabuses concerned similar issues on describing,

narrative and argumentative . However, the data also showed that whoever failed or

bad at speaking. Their written language is also bad as their spoken language and

otherwise the good one is also good at writing.

Along with this study, there is another researcher who pay attention on the same

issues. Michelle and Youngjoo studied about the relationship about spoken and written

discourse of a German college student in ESL class, Mary. They want to know wheter

there is a relationship between speaking and writing through an observation. The

finding of this study revealed that using Mary seemed to write just like the way she

spoke, which contributed to making her writing formal, implicit, and less persuasive.

Her writing seems really similliar with her speaking that prove the relationship

between them. So, it can be concluded that ESL students such as Mary employ two

approaches (i.e., writing/speaking and reading writing/connections) to influence her

writing. The result of this study was there is significant relationship between those

two variables.3

Oral language lays the foundation for the reading and writing skills learners will

develop as they enter and progress through school. They will use oral language in all

aspects of their education, whether much or not. As they connect with their peers and

teachers and throughout their lives as they grow into adulthood. Even Fillmore stated

that oral language (speaking) function as a foundation for literacy and as the means of

learning in school and out.4 It is also said that students’s speaking and listening lead

the way for their reading and writing skills, and together these language skills are the

primary tools of the mind for all future learning. It can be said that a successful

writing course must select the conventions and styles which are likely to be useful to

3 Michelle Jeffries and Youngjoo Yi, Relationship Between Spoken and Written Discourse of a

Generation 1.5 ESL Student: A study of a German Student in a College ESL Composition Class, The

CATESOL Journal, 2008, pp. 65-81

4 Erin Reeder, The Importance of Oral Language for Literacy Success , GrapeSEED Journal ,2018,

pp.3 , https://grapeseedus.com/the-importance-of-oral-language-for-literacy-success/

3

the students, but a great deal of the sensitivity which students need in the use of

language will develop unconsciously from spin-off from their reading and speaking

in the rest of the English course, so writing cannot be seen as something completely

separated.5

Based on that reason, the writer is interested in finding out whether there is a

relationship between students’ speaking ability and writing achievement (a

correlational study of the 5th semester of Departement of English Education )

B. Identification of the Problems

Based on the background of the study stated above, the problems were

identified:

1. Speaking influence the production of written language.

2. Speaking give a contribution for writing.

3. Speaking lays the foundation for writing skills, learners will develop their their

language.

C. Limitation of the Problem

The problem of this study was limited to speaking ability in relation to writing

achievement of the fifth semester of English Education Departement .

D. Formulation of the Problem

The problem of this study was formulated into following question:

Is there any relationship between student’s speaking ability and their writing

achievement ,academic year of 2018/2019?

5 Geoffrey Broughthon., et al., Teaching English as a Foreign Language, ( New York: Roudledge,

1980), p.120.

4

E. Objective of the Study

The objective of the study was to know and describe about whether or not there

is a relationship between speaking ability and students’ writing achievement .

F. Significance of the Study

This research is aimed to:

1. English Learners

The result of the research will the students to speak up more often than they did

before. It also encourages to give a concern to Speaking. In addition, by improving

their speaking, they will be able to increase their writing ability.

2. English Teachers

The result of the study can give information to the teacher about the

students’ ability in writing in correlation with students’ speaking ability.

3. Other Researchers

The result of this can be useful for other researchers who will take the research

in the same field.

5

CHAPTER II

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

This chapter explain about every details of the theoretical framework

which tell the detail of writing and speaking, correlation theory between them,

previous study, theoretical thinking, and hypotheses .

A. Speaking

1. The Nature of Speaking

One of the skills learned in language learning is speaking. The reason is that

speaking may need courageous for language learners. It takes courageous because

speaking is not only producing sounds, but it needs the knowledge of how to

pronounce, to deliver meaning, and to turn ideas into words. Scott stated that

speaking is produced expression by expression, in as feedback to the word by

word and expression by expression productions of the person we are talking to our

interlocutor.1Also the other writer, Robert pointed out every time you speak, not

just when giving a talk or being interviewed, you are both conveying information

relevant to the subject being discussed and presenting yourself..2It also added by

Lynn Cameron, speaking is the active use of language to deliver points in order to

make other people can understand them.3

As a skill that enables us to produce utterances, when genuinely

communicative, speaking is desire- and purpose-driven; in other words, we

genuinely want to communicate something to achieve a particular end.4According

to Brown and Yule, the intention of teaching speaking is that the students should

be able to express himself in the target language, to copewith basic interactive

1 Scott Thornburry and Jeremy Harmer, How to Teach Speaking, ( London: Longman, 2005),

p. 2.

2Robert Barrass , Speaking for Yourself: a guide for students, ( New York: Routledge, 2006),

p. 1.

3 Lynne Cameron, Teaching Language to Young Learners, (Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press, 2001), p. 40.

4Jo McDonough,Christopher Shawand Hitomi Masuhara, MATERIALS AND METHODS IN

ELT, ( Sussex: Willey- Blackwell, 2013), p.157.

6

skills like exchanging greetings and thanks and apologies, and to express his

needs”-- request information, service and many more.5

From definitions above, speaking is a skill which deals not only the production of

what the speaker says but also the expressions of the speaker in order people

understand what they are trying to convey. Speaking is a skill which is used in

daily life and the skill is required by much repetition.

2. Elements of Speaking

There are some elements of speaking ability which correlate with the ability

to process information and language such as:6

a. Language features

Among the elements necessary for spoken production (as opposed to the

production of practical examples in language drills, for example), are the

following:

1) Connected speech: Good English speaker is not only be able to speak, but

also have to be fluent with connected speech as they pronounced their words.

They must produce the individual phonemes of English when they produced

the language.

2) Expressive devices: Native speakers of English change the pitch and stress of

particular parts of utterances, vary volume and speed, and show by other

physical and non-verbal (paralinguistic) means how they are feeling.

3) Lexis and grammar: Spontaneous speech is noted by the use of amount of

common lexical phrases, especially in the performance of certain language

functions. Teachers should give much exposure a variety of phrases for

different functions such as agreeing or disagreeing, and many more

expression.

5Brown and Yule, Teaching Spoken Language, ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1999), p. 27.

6

Jeremy Harmer, The Practice of English Language Teaching, 3rd

Edition. (London:

Longman, 2001), pp .269—271.

7

4) Negotiation language: Effective speaking benefits from the negotiatory

language we use to seek clarification and to show the structure of what we are

saying.

b. Mental/ Social Processing

The next part of a speaker productive ability included the knowledge of

language skills such as those discussed above, success is also dependent upon the

rapid processing skill that talking necessities

1) Language Processing: Effective speakers must arrange the language in their

head and put it into correct order so that it comes out in forms that are not

only understanding but also convey the meanings appropriately.

2) Interacting with others: Most of the speaking involves interactions with one

or more participants.

3) Information processing: Aside from the emotions when we deliver our

speech, English speaker have to be able to process the information and

understand what the other speakers said.

3. Factors Affecting EFL Students’ Speaking Ability

Jack and Willy pointed out that there are some factors that might be affecting

EFL students’ speaking ability such as down below:7

a. Age or Maturational Constraints

Interactive behavior of EFL learners is influenced by a number of factors.

Age is one of the most commonly spotted factors of success or failure in foreign

language learning. Most of the case, adult learners are just different with young

learners. Once the young learners begin to learn the language, their progress are

better than the adult learners. The young learners are even reach the nativelike

level while the adult learner might be stucked at some points.

b. Aural Medium

Oral skill is closely related with Listening. When we learn to speak, we tend

to imitate what we hear. Then, Brown and Yule also asserted that when an adult

foreign language learner learn to speak, they are not only depend on the listening. 7Brown and Yule, op.cit,. p. 263.

8

Their reading and writing are also influenced their speaking since adults learners

are on the other level of understanding.

c. Sociocultural Factors

Many culturalcan affect the way learners, learners can’t separate their habit

with their own culture when start to produce the language. Students have to adjust

their own mothertongue language with English itself.

d. Affective Factors

When learners try to convey their thought in front of the other people, they

will feel much insercure or anxious . It leads them to think that they are failure

learners because they care so much about the judgement from other people. That’s

why affective factor can be a crucial factor in learning.8

4. Characteristic of Good Speaking Activity

In a classroom, speaking activities may happen to practice communicative

competence.Penny stated some characteristics of a successful speaking activity

such as bellow: 9

a. Learners talk a lot.

As much as possible of the period of time allotted to the activity is in fact

occupied by learner talk. This may seem obvious, but often most time is taken up

with teacher talk or pauses.

b. Participation is even.

Classroom discussion is not dominated by a monitor of talkative participants:

all get chance to speak, and contributions are fairly evenly distributed.

c. Motivation is high.

Learners are eager to speak: because they are interested in the topic and have

something new to say about it, or because they want to contribute to achieving a

task objective.

8 Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Ready, Methodology in Language Teaching, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 205—207.

9 Penny Ur, A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press,1999),p.120.

9

d. Language is of an acceptable level.

Learners try to convey themselves in expressions which are relevant, easily

comprehensible to each other, and of an acceptable level of language accuracy.

5. Problems with Speaking Activities

Speaking in target language might be hard for some learners. Then, some

learners may be having some difficulties to speak that will lead them to silence in

target language. Penny pointed out some problems that correlated that cause

learners don’t want to talk: 10

a. Obstacle

Unlike the other skills, speaking needs a few levels of real-time exposure to

an audience. Students are often obstacle about trying to talk anything in the target

language in the classroom, they are worried about making mistakes, shy of

criticism or get shamed of the focus that their speech appeals.

b. Nothing to say

Even if they don’t get any obstacles, we often hear students that they are

speechless and nothing to say; they don't have any reason to express their own

thoughts beyond the goofy feeling that they have to speak.

c. Low participation

Only a certain learner that usually speak up at a time when she or she is to be

heard, and in the middle of people this means they are almost not talking in the

foreign language at all, since the problem is blended by the tendency of some

students to dominate, while others give a little participation.

d. Mother-tongue use

In class, most of all people are talking in their mother language since it's

much easier than talking in the foreign language, they feel that is so strange to

speak to speak to one another in a foreign language since they think that they are

much understanding with their mother tongue. If they start to practice the foreign

10Ibid. p. 121.

10

language, it would be hard to do that, since they don't talk with the foreign

language since the beginning.

6. Types of Classroom Speaking Performance

Brown said in his book that there are six types of speaking performance in the

classroom: 11

a. Imitative

In this kind of speaking performance learners try to imitate what the teacher

says. For example, the learners practice an intonation or try to pinpoint vowel

sound. Imitation of this kind is carried out not for the purpose of meaningful

interaction, but for focusing on some particular element of language form.

b. Intensive

Intensive speaking goes one step beyond imitative to include any speaking

performance, that is designed to practice phonological or grammatical aspect of

language. Intensive speaking can be self-initiated or it can even form part of some

pair work activity, where learners are "going over" certain forms oflanguage.

c. Responsive

This kind of speaking performance is short replies to the teacher or student-

initiated question or comments. And these replies do not extend into dialogues.

For example:

Teacher: How are you today?

Student: We are great, thanks, and you?

d. Transactional

A transactional language is an extended form of responsive language. The

purpose of this kind of speaking performance is to delivering or exchanging

specific information

e. Interpersonal

Another material of talking is interpersonal dialogue, it brought out a lot of

purposes of maintaining social connections than for the transmission of facts and

information.

11 H. Douglas Brown, Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy, (San Francisco: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc, 2001), Second Edition, p. 362.

11

f. Extensive (monologue)

Learner from middle level to academic or high levels are asked on to give

long conversation in the form of oral reports, summaries or perhaps short

speeches. Comprehensive conversation is quite solemn and consultative. These

types of speaking performance need creative teachers who will always measure

speaking ability of his or her students through many kinds of techniques that are

agreed by students and suitable with their level, whether beginner, intermediate or

advanced students.

B. Writing

1. The Nature of Writing

There is no doubt that writing is the most complex skill for English learners

to learn.12

The troubles are far more than producing and arranging their thoughts,

but also in pouring these thoughts into interesting text. The skills involved in

writing are highly complex. Learner must focus on the next level skills of

planning and organizing as good as lower level skills of spelling, punctuation,

word choice,and many more. Some matters becomes even more pronounced if

their language proficiency is weak.13

Other authors said thatwriting is a system for

interpersonal connection using read-able signs or graphic symbols on a flat

surface such as paper, cloth, and much more.14

McDonough assertedthat writing

isa process of encoding (putting your message into words) carried out with a

reader in mind.15

Writing is widely used within foreign language courses as a

convenient means for engaging with aspects of language other than the writing

itself. For Example: learners written down new vocabulary;copy out grammar

12 Geoffrey Broughthon., et al., Teaching English as a Foreign Language, (New York:

Roudledge, 1980), p. 120

13

Jack C. Richards and Willy A. Ready, Methodology in Language Teaching, (Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 2002), p. 303.

14

Nesamalar Chitraveli, Sithamparam Saratha, and The Soo Choon, Elt Methodology

Principles and Practice. (Malaysia: Fajar Bakti, 2005), 2nd

Edition, p. 136.

15

Jo McDonough,Christopher Shawand Hitomi Masuhara, Materials and Menthods in Elt,

(Sussex: Willey- Blackwell, 2013), p. 253.

12

rules; or just give an answer to reading and many more. It could be said that

writing is something to share your thought and deliever it.16

In conclusion, based on the definition of writing above, writing can be

considered as a complex activity which is done individually through a number of

steps started from searching the existing knowledge to publishing the work. The

more people practice to write the more skillful they create a composition. Also,

writing can be considered as public activity because not only it involves the

writer’s skill but also involves giving the readers or the audiences needs

2. The Process of Writing

A well-written text is not composed of some easy steps, it is because to obtain

a good composition, there is some process that should be done in the process of

writing.

John Langan asserted in his book of several steps for writing: 17

a. Prewriting

This step comprises the activities such as taking considerations towards the

audience or the readers, discovering ideas, narrowing the topic through

brainstorming, determining a controlling idea, selecting the supporting ideas,

andorganizing the idea in a logical way.

b. Writing a First Draft (Drafting)

This step refers to the activity in which individuals start to write their ideas

down into a piece of paper to form a paragraph.

c. Revising

This step constitutes the activity in which individuals revise the composition

in order that the ideas are communicated plausibly and can be understood by

readers.

16

Penny Ur, op.cit., p.162.

17 John Langan, College Writing Skills with Readings, (New York: McGraw-Hill,2005), SixthEditon, pp. 22—34.

13

d. Editing

This step refers to the activity in which individuals recheck the composition

in terms of its grammar, punctuation, and spelling.Individuals need to conduct

some steps to finish the final draft. Although it seems that they have obtained their

final draft version, they should recheck their writing through planning, drafting,

and editing to get the real final draft version.

Similarlly, Harmer points out similar steps on the writing process as pictured

below : 18

Picture 2.1

The Process of Writing

In conclusion, the steps follows with similliaractivities, and these process can

be flexible. These are flexible because the completed piece of writing depends and

are in accordance with the writers‟ conditions and perceptions whether or not

their final draft have met the writing purpose and the readers‟ needs.

3. Characteristics of Written Language

Brown asserted some characteristics of written language as follows19

:

a. Permanence

When a written work put in writing and conveyed in its last form to its

intended audience , the writer share his thought for example to share his thoughtin

18

Jeremy Harmer, How to Teach Writing, (London: Pearson Education Limited, 2004), pp

4—6.

19

H. Doughlas Brown. Teaching by Principles An Interactive Approach To Language

Pedagogy, (New Jersey: Paramount, 1994). pp. 325—326

•Writing

Process

1.Planning 2.Drafting

3. Editing 4.Final

Version

14

order to improve, to clarify , to attract his audiences .Once you write down on a

paper, then it would be last forever.

b. Processing Time

Writers has no time limit to expand their works before they share the final

draft to be consumed by the audiences. But, a lot of educational contexts want

their students to finish their writing with a time limit.

c. Distance

The gap between writers and their audience. A good writer have to know how

to syncronize their thought with the audience so their work could be accepted by

their target audiences.

d. Orthography

Everything from simple greetings to extremely complex ideas are captured

through the manipulation of a few dozen letters and other written symbols.

e. Complexity

Written works are complex , writers have to know how to bring together

sentences, how to arrange the references to other elements in a text, how to built

syntactic and lexical variety.

f. Vocabulary

A written work demands the richness of language with various kinds of

words, so good writers would the richness of English vocabulary.

g. Formality

The rules or obligation of each form must be followed when the writers want

to write, such as academic writing that consist of grammar rules, the systematical

written rules and many more.

4. Types of Texts

Writing can be divided into some different ways according to their function.

James Britten divided into poetic, transactional, and poetic. Meanwhile, in ELT

15

Methodology Prince and Practices, the authors pointed out several types of

writing such as : 20

a. Personal writing

This one is usually informal, not well arranged and limited.

b. Transactional writing

Unlike personal writing, this one is well arranged, give much attention to the

detail of information or message to talk about.

c. Creative writing

This is for self-expression or leisure, usually, a writer of this writing is so

vibrant to share his thought

d. Narrative writing

The narrative contains a sequence of events together with characters and

settings.

e. Descriptive writing

While this writing is focusing on the details just like physical attributes, a

thing, an animal, a place, and many more. It shows the senses sight, hearing ,

smell, touch and taste to convey the whole illustration.

f. Expository writing

Expository explains about the presentation of facts, information, and

explanation of things as they are. This kind of writing does not provide any

interpretation or take a foundation.

g. Persuasive writing

It contains the writer's belief, knowledge, a point of view, opinion, statements

and other things that could make sure the reader to go along with the writer or

accept his belief.

5. Purpose of Writing

There are various forms in writing and each form has its own purpose. For

example, exposition writing is the genre of writing that the purpose is to explainor

20

Nesamalar Chitraveli,Saratha, and Soo Choon, op. cit., pp.136—138.

16

inform the reader.Grenville said that there a number of writing purposes which

are explained as follows: 21

a. Writing to entertain

Goal of this writing is to get engaged with the readersand share the written

work with feeling and emotion. So, the reader will feel the same way as the writer

do. This kind of writing usually in the forms of novels, stories, poems, song

lyrics, plays, and screenplays;

b. Writing to inform

This refers to inform or tell readers about something. The writing to give

information can be in the forms of writing newspaper, articles, scientific

orbusiness reports.

c. Writing to persuade

It refers to convince readers about something. Providing relevant and

plausible evidence is considered important and entailed inthis kind of writing. The

writing to persuade can be in the formsof writing for advertisements, articles,

newspaper, and magazine.

Another book also pointed out some purposes of writing, the authors

explained that writing as the daily activity with some purposes such as:

1) Writing to get things done;

2) Writing to give information;

3) Writing to persuade;

4) Writing to maintain the relationship;

5) Writing to document occurrences, events, etc;

6) Writing to record feelings, experiences, observations, etc.22

6. Factors of Good Writing

A good quality of writing is not an easy matter; there are a number of factors

that determine whether or not writing is considered good. This section attempts to

21

Kate Grenville, Writing from Start to Finish: A Six-Step Guide, (Sydney: Allen & Unwin,

2001), pp. 1—2.

22

Nesamalar, Saratha & Soo Choon, op. cit.,p. 136.

17

disclose and reveal the features that make and lead to the quality of a good writing

in details. Moreover, White points out that a good writer is produced through a

careful thinking that goes along with four pillars as follows: 23

a. The appeal to the target audience

It refers to the audience or readers‟ needs. Writers are required to have

adequate understanding and considerations about readers in order to the readers

interested to read the writing.

b. A coherent structure

It refers to the organizational patterns or schemes encompassing introduction,

body, and conclusion which interrelate well and plausible.

c. A smooth detailed development

It refers to the condition in which the ideas of the writing are developed and

expanded through raising the general points and then discussing them in detail.

d. An appropriate style

It refers to the meaningful and good combination of word choices in

communicating the intended ideas.

C. Correlation Between Speaking and Writing

1. Developmental of Writing Skill

Efficiency in written expression is built on a foundation of adequency in

receptive and expressive oral and receptive written language. The following

behaviors correspond to the language mode description:24

a.receptive oral language corresponds to listening comprehension.

b. expressive oral language corresponds to speaking.

c. receptive written language corresponds to reading.

d. expressive written language corresponds to writing.

23 Fred D. White, The Writer’s Art: A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook, (New York: Wadsworth, Inc., 1986), pp. 7—9.

24 Phelps-Gunn. Trisha, Phelps-Terisaki. Dian, and Barbara Forman. Written Language

Instruction, (London: Anaspen Publication, 1982). pp. 4—5.

18

Writing ability is developmentally dependent on proficiency in listening

comprehension, speaking, and reading. This diagram below will represent a

diagram of the three basic components of the language system. This diagram

shows the developmental relationship of the language as pictured down below:

Picture 2.2

The Developmental Progression of Language

2. Speaking and Writing

When thinking how people write, we need to think the similiarities and

differences between writing and speaking. Although the fact that the differences

in two forms can be seen, there are some concerns when speaking and writing

look very resemble each other and are done in much the same way.

a. Time and Space

Whereas spoken cmmunication operates in the here and now world of

immediate interaction, writing transcends time and spance. Speaking is often

transcient, whereas writing tends to be more permanent. Spoken words dissappear

and not permanent while written words last forever.

Some speech feels much like writing too, lecturers, for example, are certainly

spoken events, but they are often read out from written notes or a text. And

whether they are constituted from the lecturers script or from the notes made by

member of the audience.

b. Participants

We have seen the importance of audience in the writing process, suggesting

that one of a competent author’s abilities is the ability to know who they are

The Experiental

Base and Inner

Language System

Oral language:

Receptive (Listening)

Expressive (Speaking)

Written Language:

Receptive (Reading)

Expressive (Writing)

19

writing for. Not all speaking are informal, like writing, the participats are usually

from the colleges, bussiness man or educated audience.

c. Processes

Writing is much different than speaking. The final product of writing is not

nearly so instant, and as a result the writer has a chance to plan and modify what

will finally appear as the finished product or final draft after being edited and

corrected so many times. Anyway, speaking is not always a process free their

heads before they start to speak or before a pre arrange conversational encounter

(such as interview, a meeting, a formal discussion, and many more) takes place

and well prepared before delivering the speech to the audiences. We may even

rehearsse what we are going to say and we wrtitten down what we are going to

say for the events.25

D. Previous Study

The study of the correlation between speaking ability and writing

achievement has been done by a few researchers. They found out that there is a

significant effect or no effect and correlation between the speaking ability and

writing achievement.

In Michelle Jeffries and Youngjoo Yi had been conducted this study26

. The

title this study was Relationship Between Spoken and Written Discourse of a

Generation 1.5 ESL Student: A study of a German Student in a College ESL

Composition Class.The research was conducted at the University of Arkansas in

Fayetteville in the United States, precisely in ESL composition class in the

University of Arkansas. She used the case study as a methodology. The object of

the study was Mary, a student from Germany who learned English in ESL class.

The instruments are the documentation and observation. The finding showed that

there a correlation between speaking ability and writing achievement because

Mary showed that both her spoken and written are alike. These findings indicate

25

Jeremy Harmer, op. cit,.pp. 6—9.

26

Michelle Jeffries and Youngjoo Yi, Relationship Between Spoken and Written Discourse of

a Generation 1.5 ESL Student: A study of a German Student in a College ESL Composition Class,

The CATESOL Journal, 2008, pp. 65—81.

20

that Mary seemed to write just like the way she spoke, which contributed to

making her writing informal, implicit, and less persuasive. Finding from this study

suggest that Generation 1.5 ESL students such as Mary employ two approaches

(i.e., writing/speaking and reading writing/connections) to improving writing.

Next, Relationship between Second Language Speaking and Writing Skills

and Modality Preference of University EFL Students was conducted by Kyoko

Baba, Yuri Takemoto and Miho Yokochi27

. Its objective was to investigate the

students’ speaking and writing skills on academic performance. The participants

were 26 Japanese EFL students class. Data was collected through an oral test and

in writing, the participant answered questionnaires about their modality preference

and educational experiences, then also an interview. The findings revealed that the

ESL students preferred writing (70%) and some of them are performed equally in

both modality. In addition, pointed out that the participants used a wider variety of

vocabulary and shorter sentences in writing than in speaking. Then, few of their

writing is just as same as they were speaking. But, others participants prefer

writing than speaking. That was meant that there was a relationship between

speaking and writing.

Last, a study under the title The Relationship between English Speaking

and Writing Proficiency and Its Implications for Instruction was conducted by

Pamela Rausch, a researcher from St.Cloud State28

. It was conducted to find out

the influence of instruction in argumentative speaking on students’ ability to write

argumentatively on the academic performance of eight students of high school in

the United States. A case study was employed as a design of this study.The

instrument used was test and survey. Its finding revealed that is such a purposeful

instruction of speaking appeared to be transferable to writing skills, also

benefiting English learner skills.

27

Kyoko Baba, Yuri Takemoto & Miho Yokochi, “Relationship between Second Language Speaking and Writing Skills and modality preference of university EFL students", 2013, pp. 56—

67.

28

Pamela Rausch, "The Relationship between English Speaking and Writing Proficiency and

Its Implications for Instruction", Culminating Projects in English at St.Cloud State University,

2015, p 34.

21

From the previous research, the writer finds some differences and similarities with

this study. Some differences in the previous studies are the objective, place, time,

and method of the study. This present study used quantitative descriptive as the

method and while the previous studies used a case study approach and an

experimental approach method for their study. The similarity between this present

research with the previous is about speaking and writing as the materials.

E. Theoretical Thinking

According to the writer’s thought and experience, Speaking is an act of

giving so much exposure to the students in learning a foreign language. Speaking

is important in language learning even though speak in a foreign language has

hardly happened. In the classroom, students are very passive and rarely get

exposure from teachers or even their surroundings. In fact, in learning a foreign

language, students need more practice to use the foreign language.

When we are young, we learn our mother tongue by listening, after that we are

mimicking what we hear by speaking, after we are able to speak and understand

the language learned. We learn to read and then finally write.So, everything is

interconnected, how the ability to speak someone in a foreign language can be

related to their ability to write. They both are productive and active skill. Realize

it or not, it’s the same as through a bridge to get to the next destination, speaking

becomes a bridge in developing language skills. Not only that, but it also became

the basicfoundation in writing, we learned to compose sentences with correct

grammar, learn various kinds of vocabulary, and also put them in writing.

Writer also find in the oral approach that she learned that approach give

focus on the speaking that comprehension about the language, grammar,

vocabulary , and many more before they get into reading and writing. In fact, all

skills are related each other , so that is why those learners who are productive to

use a speaking skill with a lot of language inputs are better in developing their

other language skill, in this case, writing. Because they know how to play with

words on the paper such as what they have learnedin other skill. That is how the

22

researcher assumes that there is a correlation between speaking ability mastery

and writing achievement in language learning.

F. Hypothesis

Based on the theories that have been discusssed above, the writer assumed it

can be proposed that there is significant correlation between students’ speaking

and their writing achievement..

.

23

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter discusses research methodology which consists of time and

place of study, research design, population and sample, research instrument,

technique of data collection, technique of data analysis and statistical hypotheses.

A. Time and Place of the Study

Thiscorrelational study was conducted inUniversity of SyarifHidayatullah Jakarta

academic year of 2018/2019. It is located in Jl.Ir. Haji Juanda at

Ciputat,Tanggerang Selatan. The research had been conducted in the fifth

semester since June 2018 until January 2019.

B. Research Design

The research design in this study was descriptive quantitative

usingcorrelational design. It was employed to find out and measure the

relationship between two variables covering speaking ability as an independent

variable and writing skill as a dependent variable by using correlational analysis.

Picture 3.1.

Relationship X to Y

Creswell said that a correlation is a statistical test to determine the tendency

or pattern for two or more variables or two set of data to vary constantly. In the

case of two variables, it means that two variables share common variance, or

theyco-vary together.1 Research design used to find out the correlation between

1

John. W. Creswell, Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating

Speaking Writing

24

two variables and to see the influence of each other. In this case, this design was

employed to seek the relationship between students’ speaking ability and their

writing achievement at the fifth semester of Departement of English Education

Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta in academic year 2018/2019.

C. Population and Sample

The population of this study was fifth semester of Department of English

Education in UIN SyarifHidayatullah academic year of 2018/2019. They are

students from 5A, 5B and 5C. They are 85 students, altogether.However, only 30

students were taken as the samples of the study.Cohen asserted in taking big

amount of sample is better to present a better reliability and help more statistics to

be used.2 Those samples were determined by using a simple random sampling

technique.

D. Research Instrument

The instrument of the study was the documentation of speaking scores and

writing scores. Documents consist of public and private records that qualitative

researchers obtain about a site of participats in a study. It also said that They are

also ready for analysis without the necessary transcription that is required with

observational or interview data.3

E. Technique of Data Collection

Documentation

To collect the data, the researcher used an instrument. The instrument that the

researcher used was the documentation of speaking scores and writing scores that

were obtained from two different lecturers teaching those two courses (speaking

and writing). Besidecollecting the data of scores, the writer took a look at the

students’ test papers of both courses to see whether they were in line in terms of

Quantitative and Qualitative Research, (Boston: Pearson Education Inc., 2012), 4th ed., p. 338.

2 Louise Cohen, et al., Research Method in Education , (New York: Routledge, 2007), 6

th Ed,

p. 101.

3Creswell, op. cit., p. 223.

25

Learning Outcomes which had been expected to achieve according to the syllabus

of each course. In fact, both syllabuses concerned similar issues on describing,

narrative and argumentative texts. Finally, the documentation of two courses were

more valid since they were given by two different lecturers.

F. Technique of Data Analysis

In analyzing the data, the writer uses correlation product moment which

developed by Carl Pearson because the researcher wants to find out the influence

which is related to correlational study. “Correlation product moment is used to

show whether there is a correlation or relationship between X variable and Y

variable.” The symbol of the correlation product moment is “r”. Before the writer

get to know the correlation, she had to check the normality, the linearity before

taking the correlation product moment test at the end.

1. Linearity formula

Linearity test aims to determine whether the two variables significantly have

a linear relationship or not. This test is used as a prerequisite in the analysis of

correlation or linear regression. The formula is as follow:

a2= ∑p-Ф

a2= value of amax

∑p= sum value of data probability

Ф= value ofKolmogrov table

To find out the regression line, the variance analysis table (ANOVA) was used in

this study

2. Normality formula

Testing normality is used to check whether the population has normal

distribution or not. The formula is as follow:

Z= x - x.s

Z=standart score

x= student score

x = the mean score

26

s=standart deviation

After getting the value of amax, the value of normality table with

significance 5% is sought. After the value of normality table is found, it has to be

compared with the value of to find whether the data has a normal distribution or

not.

3. Finding the number of correlation using formula4

rxy =

𝐍 ∑ 𝐗𝐘−( ∑ 𝐗) (∑ 𝐘)√[𝐍 ∑ 𝐗𝟐−(∑ 𝐗)𝟐][𝐍 ∑ 𝐘𝟐−(∑ 𝐘)𝟐)]

N = Number of Participants

X = Students’ Speaking Scores

Y = Students’ WritingScores

∑X = The Sum Scores of Speaking Ability

∑Y = The Sum Scores of Writing Achievement

∑X2 = The Sum of the Squared Scores of Speaking

∑Y2 = The Sum of the Squared Scores of Writing

∑XY = The Sum of Multiplied Score between X and Y

This formula is used in finding index correlation "r" product moment between X

variable and Y variable (rxy).

4. Degree of Freedom Formula.

Before, the writer get to know the significance between two variable, To

determine the t table, degree of freedom (df) is required. To obtain the score of

degree of freedom, the following formula is used: 𝒅𝒇 = 𝒏 − 𝟐

df = degree of freedom

n= number of participants

5. Significance Formula

To know the significance between two variables, the formula of the

significance test is:5

4 Supardi ,Aplikasi Statistika dalam Penelitian (1

st Ed.), (Jakarta: Ufuk Press, 2012), p. 161.

5 Sugiyono, MetodePenelitianKuantitatif, Kualitatifdan R & D, (Bandung: Alfabeta, 2013),

27

Tcount= 𝐫 √𝐝𝐟√𝟏−𝐫𝟐

tcount = t value

r = value of correlation coefficient

df= degree of freedom

6. Pearson Correlation Value

In order to explain the indicator scores of “r” correlation, product moment

(rxy) usually used the interpretation such as bellow6:

Table 3.1

Table of ‘r’ Value Pearson Correlation

Value of “r” product moment Explanation

0.00 – 0.19 The correlation is very weak or no

correlation between x and y.

0.20 – 0.39 The correlation is low or weak between

x and y.

0.40 – 0.59 The correlation is medium between x

and y.

0.60 – 0.79 The correlation is strong between x and

y.

0.80 – 1.00 The correlation is perfect between x and

y.

7. Value of Determinant Coefficient

Then, to know how many percent of the contribution from the independent

(speaking) variables to dependent variable (writing) can be shown by using this

formula:

KP =r2 x 100%

p.187

6http://www.statstutor.ac.uk/resources/uploaded/pearsons.pdf, 2018.

28

KP = value of determinant coefficient

r = value of correlation coefficient

Before the writer use this formula , the score of ‘r’ correlation must be gotten

from the SPSS.

8. Statistical Hypothesis

There are two statistical hypotheses:

a. If ro is the same as or higher than rt, the Ha is accepted. There is a significant

relationship between Students’ Speaking Ability and Students’ Writing

Achievement (A Correlational Study of the 5th

Semester Students of

Departement of English Education at SyarifHidayatullah Islamic University

in in Academic Year 2018/2019).

b. If ro is lower than rt, the Ha is rejected. There is no significant relationship

between Students’ Speaking Ability and Students’ Writing Achievement ( A

Correlational Study of the 5th

Semester Students of Departement of English

Education at SyarifHidayatullah Islamic University in in Academic Year

2018/2019).

29

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH FINDING AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter discusses the research finding which consists of data description,

data analysis and discussion sections. The data description section describes the data

of the speaking ability and the writing achievement. The data analysis describes the

findings on Test of Linearity, Test of Normality, Analysis of Correlation Coefficient,

Test of Hypothesis, and Determination of Coefficient. Last, the chapter presents the

discussion of the findings.

A. Research Finding

1. Data Description

This research was conducted at the Department of English Education of Syarif

Hidayatullah State Islamic University in Jakarta. The participants of this research

were thirty (30) students of the fifth semester, classes 5A, 5B and 5C who had been

selected randomly by the writer as the sample. The writer took their Speaking III and

Writing II scores since the syllabuses of both courses mostly targeted similar

Learning Outcomes, for example to enable the students to produce descriptive texts

orally in Speaking and writtenly in Writing. Therefore, the documentation of

speaking and writing scores was chosen to be the technique of data collection. The

data of both scores are described in the sub-sections 1 and 2 of this chapter. Before

the data are described, the writer would like to show the scoring ranges used in the

Department of English Education. The score are characterized as follows:1

Table 4.1

Score Range

Number 80-100 70-79 60-69 50-59 00-50

Letter A B C D E

1 Pedoman Akademik Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta 2013/2014

(Jakarta: Biro Administrasi Akademik dan Kemahasiswaan UIN Jakarta, 2012), p.39.

30

An “A” is characterized as an excellent score. It is the highest score and the

students who obtained it, passed the test excellently. Then, “B” is characterized as a

good score. Next, “C” is characterized as a medium score, or the test takers passed

the test but it is recommended to retake the test or have remedial test. Then, “D” and

“E” scores are characterized as a bad score or the test takers failed to pass the test.

a. Speaking Ability

The table 4.2 below presents the speaking ability of the students shown by the

scores Speaking III Course.

Table 4.2

Students’ Speaking Scores

Participants Score

Student 1 70

Student 2 72

Student 3 78

Student 4 74

Student 5 74

Student 6 80

Student 7 75

Student 8 75

Student 9 80

Student 10 80

Student 11 76

Student 12 84

Student 13 75

Student 14 80

Student 15 74

Student 16 80

Student 17 77

Student 18 83

Student 19 75

Student 20 75

Student 21 70

Student 22 68

Student 23 84

Student 24 80

31

Participants Score

Student 25 82

Student 26 76

Student 27 82

Student 28 78

Student 29 83

Student 30 80

The data in the table 4.2 shows that all of the students has passed the minimum

criterion of the speaking class which means that all of the students were good enough

at speaking. To be more specified, thirteen students obtained “A” which means

excellent, sixteen students obtained “B” which means good and only one students

obtained “C” which means medium or fair. To give a visualization of the data

distribution of speaking ability, the histogram of frequency distribution is presented

in figure 4.1 as follows:

Figure 4.1

Histogram of Speaking Ability Score

32

In addition, to describe the more detail data, the descriptive statistics of

students’ speaking score is provided below.

Table 4.3

Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Speaking Ability Score

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std.

Deviation

Variance Median Mode

Speaking_Score

30 16.00 68.00 84.00 2320.00 77.3333 4.29381 18.437 77.5 80

Valid N (listwise) 30

The data in the table 4.3 indicates that there were 30 students’ speaking ability

scores collected. The Mean of the students’ speaking ability score was 77.33 which

was interpreted as the average score obtained by the students. The Median or the

middle score of speaking ability was 77.50.

Then, the Mode of the students’ speaking ability score which was interpreted

as the score that appears the most was 80.00. It means that most of the students

obtained 80.00 in the speaking class. In addition, the highest score of the speaking

ability score was 84.00, whereas, the lowest score was 68.00. Therefore, the range

score between the highest and the lowest score was 16.00. Lastly, the standard

deviation of the speaking ability was 4.29 which means the range between the scores

to the average score was low.

b. Writing Achievement

The data in the table 4.4 present the writing achievement of the students shown

by the scores Writing II Course.

33

Table 4.4

Students’ Writing Achievement Score

Participants Score

Student 1 70

Student 2 77

Student 3 80

Student 4 82

Student 5 74

Student 6 74

Student 7 75

Student 8 80

Student 9 77

Student 10 82

Student 11 73

Student 12 81

Student 13 74

Student 14 80

Student 15 78

Student 16 82

Student 17 77

Student 18 83

Student 19 76

Student 20 72

Student 21 74

Student 22 67

Student 23 81

Student 24 82

Student 25 74

Student 26 86

Student 27 78

Student 28 80

Student 29 87

Student 30 82

34

The data in the table 4.4 shows that all of the students has passed the

minimum criterion of the writing class which means that all of the students were good

enough at writing. To be more specified, fourteen students obtained “A” which means

excellent, fifteen students obtained “B” which means good and only one students

obtained “C” which means medium or fair.

To provide an additional vivid visual of the data distribution of writing

achievement, the histogram of frequency distribution is presented in figure 4.2 as

follows:

Figure 4.2

Histogram of Writing Achievement Score

35

In addition, to describe the more detail data, the descriptive statistics of students’

speaking score is provided below.

Table 4.5

Descriptive Statistics of Students’ Writing Achievement Score

Descriptive Statistics

N Range Minimum Maximum Sum Mean Std. Deviation Variance Median Mode

Writing_Score 30 20.00 67.00 87.00 2338.00 77.9333 4.64560 21.582 78 82

Valid N

(listwise)

30

The data in the table 4.5 indicates that there were 30 students’ writing scores.

The Mean of the students’ speaking ability score was 77.93 which was interpreted as

the average score obtained by the students. The Median or the middle score of

speaking ability was 78.00. Then, the Mode of the students’ speaking ability score

which was interpreted as the score that appears the most was 82.00. It means that

most of students obtained 82.00 in the speaking. In addition, the highest score of the

speaking ability score was 87.00, whereas, the lowest score was 67.00. Therefore, the

range score between the highest and the lowest score was 20.00. Lastly, the standard

deviation of the speaking abilitywas 4.64 which meansthe range between the scores to

the average score was low.

2. Data Analysis

a. Test of Linearity

The linearity of students’ speaking ability and writing achievement data is

analyzed using SPSS software and presented using ANOVA Table.

36

The result of the analysis is represented in the table below:

Table 4.6

Data of Linearity Analysis

ANOVA Table

Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Writing_Score *

Speaking_Score

Between Groups (Combined) 389.310 11 35.392 2.693 .030

Linearity 243.293 1 243.293 18.513 .000

Deviation from 146.017 10 14.602 1.111 .405

Within Groups 236.557 18 13.142

Total 625.867 29

The data in the table 4.6 above reveals the linearity distribution of the data of

both students’ speaking ability and writing achievement. It reveals that the

significance of the linearity is 0.405. It is higher than the level of significance 0.05

which means that both of the data have linear distribution; therefore, parameter

statistic is used in this study. For the visualization, the scattered diagram is provided

as follow:

Figure 4.3

Scatter Diagram of Speaking and Writing

37

b. Test of Normality

The normality test was conducted using SPSS software. It is done in order to

know whether the populations from which the samples are taken are normally

distributed or not. It is important because normal data is an underlying assumption in

parametric testing. The result of normality test is presented as follows:

Table 4.7

Test of Normality

Tests of Normality

Group Kolmogorov-Smirnov

a Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Score Speaking

Score

.166 30 .034 .955 30 .225

Writing

Score

.138 30 .147 .973 30 .619

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

Refering to the data in the table 4.7 above, both students’ speaking ability and

writing achievement are normally distributed because the values of both scoresare

higher than value of 5% or 0.05. The test of normality was analyzed using Shipiro –

Wilk. The test result showed that the significancevalue of students’ speaking ability is

0.225, in which 0.225 > 0.05. Moreover, the significancevalue of students’ writing

achievement was 0.619, in which 0.619 > 0.05. Since the data distribution is normal

and linear, the statistical analysis also uses parametric procedure, which is Product

Moment Correlation.

c. Analysis of Correlation Coefficient

This part explains the calculation before using SPSS to get a faster result. This

table also demonstrates the manual calculation of using Pearson Correlation Formula

38

to get a double check in finding the correlation coefficient. The data is described as

follows:

Table 4. 8

Table of Calculation

X Y XY X2 Y

2

70 70 4900 4900 4900 72 77 5544 5184 5929 78 80 6240 6084 6400 74 82 6068 5476 6724 74 74 5476 5476 5476 80 74 5920 6400 5476 75 75 5625 5625 5625 75 80 6000 5625 6400 80 77 6160 6400 5929 80 82 6560 6400 6724 76 73 5548 5776 5329 84 81 6804 7056 6561 75 74 5550 5625 5476 80 80 6400 6400 6400 74 78 5772 5476 6084 80 82 6560 6400 6724 77 77 5929 5929 5929 83 83 6889 6889 6889 75 76 5700 5625 5776 75 72 5400 5625 5184 70 74 5180 4900 5476 68 67 4556 4624 4489 84 81 6804 7056 6561 80 82 6560 6400 6724 82 74 6068 6724 5476 76 86 6536 5776 7396 82 78 6396 6724 6084 78 80 6240 6084 6400 83 87 7221 6889 7569 80 82 6560 6400 6724

∑X =2320 ∑Y= 2338 ∑XY=181166 ∑X2 =179948 ∑Y

2=182834

Refering to the data in the table 4.8, it shows that there are 39 participants, the

sum of the speaking ability score (X) is 2108, the sum of writing achievement (Y) is

3427, the multiplication between X and Y is 185584, the variable X squared is

118512, and the variable Y squared is 304021.

39

After getting the results from the table 4.8, the calculation of the data to Pearson

Product Moment Formula is presented as follows:

N = 30

∑X = 2320

∑Y = 2338

∑X2 = 181166

∑Y2 = 179948

∑XY =182834

rxy = …?

rxy =

N ∑ XY−( ∑ X) (∑ Y)√[N ∑ X2−(∑ X)2][N ∑ Y2−(∑ Y)2)]

rxy =

30(181166)−( 2320)(2338)√[30(179948)−(2320)2][30(182834)−(2338)2]

rxy = 0,623

To make sure the result of the calculation above, the Pearson Product Moment in

SPSS statistic calculation is conducted to know whether the calculation that has been

calculated manually is correct or not to make sure that there is no mismatching

calculation between score that the writer counted. The calculation of Pearson Product

Moment is described as follows:

Table 4.9

SPSS Pearson Correlation

Correlations

Speaking_Score Writing_Score

Speaking_Score Pearson Correlation 1 .623**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N 30 30

Writing_Score Pearson Correlation .623**

1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

40

Both of the calculations above show the outcome of Pearson Product Moment

Correlation Coefficient, using manual calculation and SPSS software. It shows

thatthe value of coefficient correlation of the independent variable (speaking) and the

dependent variable (writing) is 0.623.Since in this research the writer prefers to use n

which is the number of sample, the rxy is converted to t using the following formula: 𝑡 = 𝑟√𝑛 − 2√1 − 𝑟2

𝑡 = 0.623√30 − 2√1 − 0.6232

𝑡 = 3.2960.782 𝑡 = 4.215

From the calculation above, t obtained (to) is 4.215.

d. Test of Hypothesis

To test the hypothesis, the correlation coefficient from the calculation (rxy) which

is converted to t obtained (to) is compared to t table (tt). In the term of the statistical

hypotheses, these can be portrayed as follows:

1. If to ≤ tt = Hois accepted. It means there is no correlation between students’

English speaking ability and writing achievement.

2. If to > tt = Hois rejected. It means there isa correlation between students’ English

speaking ability and writing achievement.

To determine the t table, degree of freedom (df) is required. To obtain the score of

degree of freedom, the following formula is used: 𝑑𝑓 = 𝑛 − 2 𝑑𝑓 = 30 − 2 𝑑𝑓 = 28

41

After the degree of freedom is determined. It is found that the value of t table (tt)

using the level of significance or α = 5%, in other words the corresponding

confidence level of 95%, is 1.701. Based on the both value of t obtained (to) = 4.215

and the t table (tt) = 1.701, the hypothesis is analyzed that the value of t obtained is

higher than t table (to >tt,or 4.215 > 1.701). It is interpreted that Ho is rejected which

means that there is a correlation between students’ English speaking ability and

writing achievement.

e. Determination of Coefficient

Coefficient determination is interpreted as the amount of contribution of the

variable x to variable y. It is obtained by the following formula: 𝑅 = 𝑟2𝑥100% 𝑅 = 0.6232𝑥100% 𝑅 = 0.39𝑥100% 𝑅 = 39%

This means that the contribution of X or students’ speaking ability is 39%

towards Y or students’ writing achievement. The other contributions are given by

other variables.

B. Discussion

Based on the data description above, it is found that the students’ speaking

ability of the fifth students of English Education of Syarif Hidayatullahis averagely

fairly good. It is indicated by the average score (Mean) of students’ speaking ability

that is 77.33. The students’ writing achievement in average is fairly good as well. The

mean score of students’ writing achievement is 77.93. It is slightly better than the

score of students’ speaking ability. Meanwhile, based on the calculation of the

42

analysis above, the score of correlation coefficient (r) which was converted to to is

higher than score in the t table (tt). In this case, the correlation coefficient (t ) found is

4.215; while the t table (tt) score in the significant of 0.05 (5%) is 1.701. Therefore,

the to= 4.215 > tt = 1.701. It is interpreted that a correlation exists between the two

variables. In other words, there is significant relationship between students’ speaking

ability and writing achievement at the fifth semester of English Education in

academic year 2018/2019.

Moreover, based on the calculation of determination coefficient (R), speaking

ability has 39% contribution towards writing achievement of the fifth semester of

English Education in academic year 2018/2019. In other words, the writing

achievement ability of the students of the fifth semester of English Education

academic year of 2018/2019 is influenced by 39% of their speaking ability and 61%

by other factors.Besides, it can also be interpreted with the table of r score

interpretation as follows:

Table 4.10

Table ‘r’ of Value Coefficient Correlation

No The “r” score Interpretation

1. 0.80 - 1.00 Very High

2. 0.60 – 0.79 High

3. 0.40 – 0.39 Moderate

4. 0.20 – 0.39 Low

5. 0.00 – 0.19 Very Low

Based on Table 4.10, the score of correlation resulted in this study is 0.623. It

places in the range of 0.60 - 0.79. It indicates that there is high relationship between

two variables (students’ speaking ability and writing achievement). Therefore, it can

be interpreted that students’ speaking abilityhas high correlation with their writing

achievement.

43

This study is far from a perfection, so there are few limitations in this study. The

first, the source of this study is kind of hard to find, it start from the previous study

who are only limited people who have done the same research. Second obstacle came

from the literature that is hard to access on the internet since there are only legitimate

people who can access the theory for this study.

44

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter presents the conclusion of the study. In addition,several

suggestionsare given for English language lecturers, English language students

and further researchers.

A. Conclusion

Based on the findings of the research in the previous chapter, it can be concluded

thatthere was a significant correlation between speaking ability and writing

achievement of the fifth semester students of Department of English Education at

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta in academic year

2018/2019. The contribution from speaking to writing was 39%. The value of

correlation between those variables was 0.623 with 0.01 significance level. The

finding was also supported by the data and the picture of a scattred diagram where

the dots were getting close to the line which showed that the correlation between

those two variables existed.From SPSS Statistics program, the outcome showed

that the correlation between the variables was high.Then, the correlation

coefficient (t) found was 4.215; while the t table (tt) score in the significance of

0.05 was 1.701. Therefore, the to> tt or 4.215> 1.701. It means that Ha is accepted.

In other words, it confirmed that there is a high relationship between speaking

ability and writing achievement of the fifth semester studentsof theDepartment of

English Education at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University of Jakarta in

academic year 2018/2019.

B. Suggestions

Based on the conclusion above, the writer would like to give some suggestions as

follows:

1. For English Language Lecturers

The findings of this study has proved that there is a high correlation between

speaking ability and writing achievement. Therefore, the lecturers of Speaking

and Writing can sit together to design the syllabuses for both speaking and writing

45

courses to make them inter-related in terms of the learning activities to achieve the

targeted learning outcomes.

2. For English Language Students

Based on the research result, speaking skill gives contributions towards writing

one.Students learning English can improve themselves in their spoken language

skill so they can at the same time improve the writing skill.

3. For Further Researchers:

Further researchers can make use the research methodology of this skripsi to

conduct similar studies but correlating different language skills other than

speaking and writing.Further researchers can also conduct studies on speaking and

writing, but using other research designs, for example experimental

design.Finally, the result of this study can be a reference for the next researchers

to conduct studies in the area of English language teaching and learning.

46

BILBIOGRAPHY

Broughthon, Geoffrey., et al., English as a Foreign Language, Second Edition,

New York: Roudledge, 1980.

Brown, Douglas H, Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy, Second Edition, New York: Pearson Education Company,

2002.

Brown , Gillian., and Yule, George. Teaching Spoken Language, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Chitraveli, Nesamalar., et al., The, ELT MethodologyPrinciples andPractice. 2nd

Endition. Malaysia: FajarBakti, 2005.

Cresswell, John. W. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and

Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Boston: Pearson

Education Inc., 2012.

Cohen, Louise. Research Method in Education. 6th

Edition. New York: Routledge,

2007.

Cameron, Lynne. Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2001.

Fromkin, Victoria., and Rodman, Robert. An Introduction to Language, Victoria:

Holt Rineheart and Winston, Inc, 2011.

Grenville, Kate. Writing from Start to Finish: A Six-Step Guide. Sydney: Allen &

Unwin, 2001.

Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching.Third Edition.

London: Longman, 2001.

Harmer, Jeremy. How to Teach Writing. London: Pearson Education Limited,

2004.

Harmer, Jeremy. How to Teach Speaking. London: Pearson Education Limited,

2005.

Julie E. Dockrell., and Vincent Connelly, The Impact of Oral Language Skills on

The Production of Written Text.Journal for Teaching and Learning

Writing.2, 2009.

47

Kroll, Barry M. Exploring .Speaking-Writing Relationships: Connections and

Contrast. 16493,1981.

Langan, John. College Writing Skills with Readings. 6th

Edition. New York:

McGraw Hill, 2005.

McDonough, Jo., et al.,Material an Methods in ELT. Sussex: Willey- Blackwell,

2013.

Michelle Jeffries and Youngjoo Yi, Relationship Between Spoken and Written

Discourse of a Generation 1.5 ESL Student: A study of a German Student

In a College ESL Composition Class, The CATESOL Journal, 2008, pp

65-81.

Kyoko Baba, Yuri Takemoto& Miho Yokochi, “Relationship between Second

Language Speaking and Writing Skills and modality preference of

university EFL students” , 2013, pp 56-67.

Pamela Rausch, "The Relationship between English Speaking and Writing

Profiiency and Its Implications for Instruction", Culminating Projects

in English at St.Cloud State University,2015, pp 34.

Pedoman Akademik Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta

2012/2013 (Jakarta: Biro Administrasi Akademik dan Kemahasiswaan

UIN Jakarta, 2012.

Pheleps-Gunn.Trisha, Pheleps-Terisaki.Dian, and Forman, Barbara.Written

Language Instruction, London: Anaspen Publication, 1982.

Prof. Dr. Sugiyono, METODE PENELITIAN KUANTITATIF, KUALITATIF, DAN

R&D, Bandung: Alfabeta, 2012.

Reeder, Erin. “The Importace of Oral Language For Literacy Success”,

www.Greepseed.com , 10 Oktober 2018.

Richard, Jack C., and Rodgers, Theodore S.Approach and Method in Language

Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Richards, Jack C and Willy A. Ready, Methodology in Language Teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Supardi, APLIKASI STATISTIKA DALAM PENELITIAN, 1st

Ed.. Jakarta: Ufuk

Press, 2012.

48

Thivierge, Sylvie. “The Relationship between spoken and written language”,

http://lobe.ca/en/non-classee-en-en/relationship-between-spoken-and

written-language, 2018.

Ur, Penny, A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory, London:

Cambridge University Press, 1996.

White, Fred D. The Writer’s Art : A Practical Rhetoric and Handbook. New

York: Wadsworth, Inc. 1986.

49

APPENDICES

50

APPENDIX 1

T Table

Pr 0.25 0.10 0.05 0.025 0.01 0.005 0.001

df 0.50 0.20 0.10 0.050 0.02 0.010 0.002

1 1.00000 3.07768 6.31375 12.70620 31.82052 63.65674 318.30884

2 0.81650 1.88562 2.91999 4.30265 6.96456 9.92484 22.32712

3 0.76489 1.63774 2.35336 3.18245 4.54070 5.84091 10.21453

4 0.74070 1.53321 2.13185 2.77645 3.74695 4.60409 7.17318

5 0.72669 1.47588 2.01505 2.57058 3.36493 4.03214 5.89343

6 0.71756 1.43976 1.94318 2.44691 3.14267 3.70743 5.20763

7 0.71114 1.41492 1.89458 2.36462 2.99795 3.49948 4.78529

8 0.70639 1.39682 1.85955 2.30600 2.89646 3.35539 4.50079

9 0.70272 1.38303 1.83311 2.26216 2.82144 3.24984 4.29681

10 0.69981 1.37218 1.81246 2.22814 2.76377 3.16927 4.14370

11 0.69745 1.36343 1.79588 2.20099 2.71808 3.10581 4.02470

12 0.69548 1.35622 1.78229 2.17881 2.68100 3.05454 3.92963

13 0.69383 1.35017 1.77093 2.16037 2.65031 3.01228 3.85198

14 0.69242 1.34503 1.76131 2.14479 2.62449 2.97684 3.78739

15 0.69120 1.34061 1.75305 2.13145 2.60248 2.94671 3.73283

16 0.69013 1.33676 1.74588 2.11991 2.58349 2.92078 3.68615

17 0.68920 1.33338 1.73961 2.10982 2.56693 2.89823 3.64577

18 0.68836 1.33039 1.73406 2.10092 2.55238 2.87844 3.61048

19 0.68762 1.32773 1.72913 2.09302 2.53948 2.86093 3.57940

20 0.68695 1.32534 1.72472 2.08596 2.52798 2.84534 3.55181

21 0.68635 1.32319 1.72074 2.07961 2.51765 2.83136 3.52715

22 0.68581 1.32124 1.71714 2.07387 2.50832 2.81876 3.50499

23 0.68531 1.31946 1.71387 2.06866 2.49987 2.80734 3.48496

24 0.68485 1.31784 1.71088 2.06390 2.49216 2.79694 3.46678

25 0.68443 1.31635 1.70814 2.05954 2.48511 2.78744 3.45019

26 0.68404 1.31497 1.70562 2.05553 2.47863 2.77871 3.43500

27 0.68368 1.31370 1.70329 2.05183 2.47266 2.77068 3.42103

28 0.68335 1.31253 1.70113 2.04841 2.46714 2.76326 3.40816

29 0.68304 1.31143 1.69913 2.04523 2.46202 2.75639 3.39624

30 0.68276 1.31042 1.69726 2.04227 2.45726 2.75000 3.38518

31 0.68249 1.30946 1.69552 2.03951 2.45282 2.74404 3.37490

32 0.68223 1.30857 1.69389 2.03693 2.44868 2.73848 3.36531

33 0.68200 1.30774 1.69236 2.03452 2.44479 2.73328 3.35634

34 0.68177 1.30695 1.69092 2.03224 2.44115 2.72839 3.34793

35 0.68156 1.30621 1.68957 2.03011 2.43772 2.72381 3.34005

36 0.68137 1.30551 1.68830 2.02809 2.43449 2.71948 3.33262

37 0.68118 1.30485 1.68709 2.02619 2.43145 2.71541 3.32563

38 0.68100 1.30423 1.68595 2.02439 2.42857 2.71156 3.31903

39 0.68083 1.30364 1.68488 2.02269 2.42584 2.70791 3.31279

40 0.68067 1.30308 1.68385 2.02108 2.42326 2.70446 3.30688

51

APPENDIX 2

Speaking Sylabus

Mata Kuliah : SPEAKING III

Kode : BHS 7024

Bobot SKS : 2 sks

Jurusan : PBI

Program Studi : PBI

Semester : III (tiga)

Mata Kuliah Prasyarat : SPEAKING I dan II.

Pengajar : Dr. AtiqSusilo

Capaian Pembelajaran : Mahasiswa mampu berkomunikasi lisan baik

transaksional maupun interaksional dengan

pronunciation yang layak, kelancaran yang nyaman,

ketepatan tata bahasa yang berterima, pengutaraan

makna yang benar dan kosakata yang cukup.

Deskripsi Mata Kuliah Speaking III adalah MK yang memfasilitasi mahasiswa

berlatih dan menerapkan ketrampilan berbicara dengan

dasar yang sudah diperoleh pada speaking I dan II serta

melatih mahasiswa mengemukakan makna denga

ungkapan yang berterima pada tingkat kelancaran dan

lafal ucapan yang nyaman dalam berbincang dalam

bahasa Inggris.

Indikator : Setelah menyelesaikan seluruh materi perkuliahan

diharapkan mahasiswa memiliki kemampuan:

1. Memiliki kemampuan bahasa yang efektif meski masih

melakukan beberapa kekeliruan, ketidak tepatan

ungkapan, kekurang berterimaan ungkapan dan keliru

pemahaman. Memahami makna dan dapat

menggunakan ungkapan yang cukup rumit (komplek)

52

terutama pada situasi yang dekat atau dikenalinya.

(familiar situation).

2. Mampu bertahan pada suatu situasi percakapan

dengan kepercayaan diri serta kompetensi yang cukup

meski mengalami beberapa kesulitan pada tingkatan

menengah. Masih sering meminta pengulangan,

sering terlewat hal-hal kecil, dan sedikit penggunaan

gaya bahasa, masih sering mengalami kesulitan

memulai percakapan dan ragu-ragu berucap.

3. Mampu memelihara dialogue dengan inisiatif

memulai, meski dengan topic sederhana dan sedikit

variasi percakapan.

4. Aksen bahasa aslinya masih sangat kentara dan sering

mengganggu intelligibilitas.

Materi Pokok

Perkuliahan

: 1. Asking for and giving personal information.

2. Identifying and Describing people (Age, build, look,

complexion)

3. Talking about daily activities.

4. Describing process

5. Asking and telling an event in the past.

6. Describing the past activities. (used to, continuous

tenses)

7. Talking about future planning

8. Mid-semester test.

9. Asking and telling location.

10. Telling and showing direction (giving instruction)

11. Persuading people (selling something to others)

12. Talking about future. (certainty, plan, probability)

13. Asking and giving advice and suggestion.

14. Asking and giving argument / opinion

15. Agreeing and disagreeing an issue

16. Final Test

Pendekatan

Pembelajaran

: Student oriented methods and techniques are

implemented in the teaching and learning process. Hand

out shall be the main media in learning.

53

Penilaian

: Penilaian diperoleh dari aspek-aspek:100%

1. class participation: 20%

2. UTS................: 30%

3. UAS................: 50%

Buku Sumber

: 1. Hadfield, Jill: Intermediate Communciation Games

2. Hall, Diane and Mark Foley., Speaking Out.

3. Ur, Penny., and Andrew Wright., Five Minutes

Activities.

4. Rinvolucry, Mario., Grammar Games.

Mengetahui, Jakarta,

………………………….

Ketua Jurusan/Prodi Dosen Pengampu Mata

Kuliah

Dr.Alek, M.Pd.

NIP. 19690912200901 1 002

54

APPENDIX 3

Writing Syllabus

Subject : Writing II

Code :

Credits : 2

Department : English Education

Semester : 4 (four)

Pre-requisite Subject : Writing I

Delivery Mode

Lecturer

:

:

Face to Face

Learning Outcome : 1. Observing sample of a clear paragraph.

2. Describing concepts of paragraph.

3. Developing a clear paragraphon narrative,argumentative

and descriptive

4. Producing a good paragraph on illustration and

descriptive

Subject Description : Writing II prepares students to be able to develop sentences

into a paragraph. The development of topic sentences and

supporting details are the main focus of the subject. In this

area, students are introduced different models of

developing a paragraph such as narration, description,

process, illustration, and argumentation. Other points such

as punctuation, coherence and unity are also introduced.

Indicators : At the end of the semester, the students will be able to:

1. Understand how to develop a paragraph

2. Master several areas of grammar and mechanics that

support the development of paragraphs

3. Produce, analyze, and edit paragraphs

4. Shape the critical thinking

Weekly Materials : 1. Introduction: Syllabus orientation and need assessment

2. Introduction to writing paragraphs; from sentences to

paragraph

3. The organization of a paragraph

4. Steps of developing a paragraph

5. The development of a topic sentence and supporting

details (practice 1 - Narration)

6. The development of a topic sentence and supporting

details (practice 2 - Description)

7. Mid test

55

8. The development of a topic sentence and supporting

details (practice 3 - Process)

9. The development of a topic sentence and supporting

details (practice 4 - Illustration)

10. The development of a topic sentence and supporting

details (practice 5 - Argumentative)

11. Troubleshooting a paragraph

12. Editing and Revising a paragraph

13. Review

14. Final Test

Teaching and

Learning Approach

: The writing skill will be delivered in tandem; it will be

integrated with other skills and sub-skills in each meeting

with the purpose of maximizing the teaching and learning

process. The students will also be exposed with varied

reading discourse that will train their critical thinking. The

students are also required to show their active participation

in the classroom and act as independent learners. This

means that the learning does not only occur inside, but also

outside the classroom; the lecturer will assist the students in

realizing this by providing practice and appropriate

materials and guiding the discussion. The subject will be

delivered through lecturing, practice, problem-solving, and

discussion modes.

Assessment Criteria : 1. Formative : 30%

2. Mid-Test : 30%

3. Final Test : 40%

Total: 100%

Assessment Overview:

Assessment

Item

Details Weighting

Formative Attendance,

active

involvement

and

assignments

Assessed

weekly

30%

Mid-Test Writing a

paragraph of

narration and a

30%

56

paragraph of

description

Final Test Writing a

paragraph of

description,

argumentative

and a

paragraph of a

process or

illustration

40%

Passing

Requirements

References

:

:

The students are expected to attend on a regular basis.

The minimum attendance is 75%. Failure to do this will

inhibit the students to follow the final test. Also, the

students must complete every assessment item in order

to pass the subject.

1. Bander, R. G. (1985). From Sentence to Paragraph, A

Writing Workbook. New York: Holt, Rinehart and

Winston

2. Barton, L., &Sardinas, C. D. (2004). Reading and

writing. New York: Pearson.

3. Hopper, V. F., & Gale, C. (2000). Essential of Writing

(5th ed.). NY: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-

Publication Data.

4. Meyers, A. (2005). Gateways to academic writing.

New York: Pearson Education.

5. Ruetten, M. K. (2001). Developing composition skills:

Rhetoric and grammar. Boston: Heinle.

6. Ur, P. (1991). A course in language teaching.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

7. Relevant internet websites

Jakarta, May 2014

Head of Department, Lecturer,

Dr.Alek, M.Pd. Dr.AtiqSusilo

NIP. 1964 1212199103 1 002

57

APPENDIX 4

Speaking Ability and Writing Achievement

X Y XY X2 Y

2

70 70 4900 4900 4900

72 77 5544 5184 5929

78 80 6240 6084 6400

74 82 6068 5476 6724

74 74 5476 5476 5476

80 74 5920 6400 5476

75 75 5625 5625 5625

75 80 6000 5625 6400

80 77 6160 6400 5929

80 82 6560 6400 6724

76 73 5548 5776 5329

84 81 6804 7056 6561

75 74 5550 5625 5476

80 80 6400 6400 6400

74 78 5772 5476 6084

80 82 6560 6400 6724

77 77 5929 5929 5929

83 83 6889 6889 6889

75 76 5700 5625 5776

75 72 5400 5625 5184

70 74 5180 4900 5476

68 67 4556 4624 4489

84 81 6804 7056 6561

80 82 6560 6400 6724

82 74 6068 6724 5476

76 86 6536 5776 7396

82 78 6396 6724 6084

78 80 6240 6084 6400

83 87 7221 6889 7569

80 82 6560 6400 6724

∑X =2320

∑Y= 2338 ∑XY=181166 ∑X2 =179948 ∑Y2

=182834

58

APPENDIX 5

SPSS Output of Linear Test

Notes

Output Created 20-DEC-2018 18:02:53

Comments

Input Data

Active Dataset DataSet1

File Label

Filter <none>

Weight <none>

Split File <none>

N of Rows in Working Data File 30

Missing Value Handling Definition of Missing User-defined missing values

are treated as missing.

Cases Used Statistics are based on cases

with no missing values for

any variable used.

Weight Handling

Syntax REGRESSION

/MISSING LISTWISE

/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R

ANOVA

/CRITERIA=PIN(.05)

POUT(.10)

/NOORIGIN

/DEPENDENT Writing_Score

/METHOD=ENTER

Speaking_Score

/RESIDUALS

HISTOGRAM(ZRESID)

NORMPROB(ZRESID).

Resources Processor Time 00:00:01.26

Elapsed Time 00:00:05.86

Memory Required 1356 bytes

Additional Memory Required for Residual

Plots

656 bytes

59

Variables Entered/Removeda

Model Variables Entered Variables Removed Method

1 Speaking_Score

b

. Enter

a. Dependent Variable: Writing_Score

b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summaryb

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the

Estimate

1 .623a .389 .367 3.69640

a. Predictors: (Constant), Speaking_Score

b. Dependent Variable: Writing_Score

ANOVAa

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 243.293 1 243.293 17.806 .000b

Residual 382.574 28 13.663

Total 625.867 29

a. Dependent Variable: Writing_Score

b. Predictors: (Constant), Speaking_Score

Residuals Statisticsa

Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N

Predicted Value 71.6374 82.4304 77.9333 2.89645 30

Residual -7.08130 8.96608 .00000 3.63211 30

Std. Predicted Value -2.174 1.553 .000 1.000 30

Std. Residual -1.916 2.426 .000 .983 30

a. Dependent Variable: Writing_Score

60

APPENDIX 6

SPSS Output of Normality Test

Tests of Normality

Group Kolmogorov-Smirnova Shapiro-Wilk

Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig.

Score Speaking Score .166 30 .034 .955 30 .225

Writing Score .138 30 .147 .973 30 .619

a. Lilliefors Significance Correction

61

APPENDIX 7

SPSS Output of Correlation Test

Correlations

Speaking_Score Writing_Score

Speaking_Score Pearson Correlation 1 .623**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

Writing_Score Pearson Correlation .623** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N 30 30

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

62

APPENDIX 8

Surat Bimbingan Skripsi

63

APPENDIX 9

Surat Permohonan Izin Penelitian

64

APPENDIX 10

Lembar Uji Referensi

65

66

67

68

69

APPENDIX 11

Example of Raw Scores

70