THE USE OF DICTOGLOSS AND DICTO-COMP IN IMPROVING

STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL IN RECOUNT TEXT: A Comparative

Study at Mts Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017

A JOURNAL

Submitted as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for

Sarjana Pendidikan (S.Pd.) Degree in English Education Department Faculty

of Teacher Training and Education Mataram University

BY:

ALVI SAFARA

E1D 113 013

ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

LANGUAGE AND ARTS DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

MATARAM UNIVERSITY

2017

2

3

THE USE OF DICTOGLOSS AND DICTO-COMP IN IMPROVING

STUDENTS’ WRITING SKILL IN RECOUNT TEXT: A Comparative

Study at Mts Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017

ALVI SAFARA

E1D113013

ABSTRACT

This study is aimed to find out and which method, between dictogloss and dicto-comp is

more effective in teaching writing skill at the 8th grade students at MTs Negeri 2 Mataram

in academic year 2016/2017. The population for this research were the eight grade of

MTs Negeri 02 Mataram. The eight grade students consist of 6 classes, there were 25-42

students in each class. Thus, the population of this study was 84 students. The method of

this research was comparative study with pre-test and post-test design. The data collected

was from the result of pre-test and post-test. There were 66 students as the sample of the

research. There were 33 students in dictogloss group and 33 students of dicto-comp

group. In conducting the research, the dictogloss group was taught by dictogloss

technique, while the dicto-comp group was taught by dicto-comp technique. The mean

score of the pretest of the dictogloss and the dicto-comp group are 45.90 and 45.75

respectively. The mean score of the post-test of the dictogloss and dicto-comp groups are

58.78 and 49.54 respectively. Furthermore, the score of t-test was 2.775 and the value of

t-table was 1.671 at the confidence level 0.05 (95%) and 2.390 at the confidence level

0.01 (99%) using one–tailed table test in degree of freedom (df) 64. Those result

indicated that Dictogloss was more effective than Dicto-comp in improving students’

writing skill in recount text.

Key terms: Comparative, writing skill, dictogloss, dicto-comp

4

PENGGUNAAN DICTOGLOSS DAN DICTO-COMP DALAM

MENINGKATKAN KEMAMPUAN MENULIS SISWA PADA TEKS

RECOUNT : Comparative Study di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram Tahun Ajaran

2016/2017

ALVI SAFARA

E1D113013

ABSTRAK

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui dan memilih metode antara dictogloss dan

dicto-comp yang lebih efektif dalam mengajarkan kemampuan menulis siswa pada kelas

8 di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram tahun ajaran 2016/2017. Populasi pada penelitian ini yakni

siswa kelas 8 di MTs Negeri 02 Mataram. Metode pada penelitian ini adalah comparative

study dengan menggunakan pre-test dan post-test. Dengan demikian, pengumpulan data

didapat dari hasil pre-test and post-test. Jumlah total sampel adalah sebanyak 33 siswa

pada kelompok dictogloss dan 33 siswa pada kelompok dicto-comp. dalam melakukan

penelitian ini, kelompok dictogloss diberikan teknik dictogloss, sedangkan kelompok

dicto-comp diberikan teknik dicto-comp. Nilai rata-rata pre-test yang diperoleh pada

kelompok dictogloss dan dicto-comp adalah 45.90 dan 45.75. Sedangkan nilai rata-rata

post-test yang diperoleh masing-masing kelompok adalah 58.78 dan 49.54. Selanjutnya,

nilai t-test adalah 2.775 dan nilai dari t-table adalah 1.671 pada tingkat 0.05 (95%) dan

2.390 pada tingkat 0.01 (99%) menggunakan tabel one-tailed dengan df (degree of

freedom) 64. Hasil tersebut dapat dijelaskan bahwa teknik Dictogloss lebih efektif dari

pada teknik Dicto-comp dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis siswa pada teks

recount.

Kata kunci: Comparative, kemampuan menulis, dictogloss, dicto-comp.

5

1. INTRODUCTION

Writing is considered as the most difficult aspect of language learning for

students in every grade level, because students are struggling to write their ideas

and students have to think about their ideas. According to the Standard of 2013

Curriculum for Junior High School in Indonesia, students should learn about

recount text. Recount text is a text that retells what happened, consisting of a

series of personal events.

Based on the researcher observation at MTs Negeri 2 Mataram, the

most common problem faced by students is having lack of ideas when they try

to write paragraphs. English teacher states that the student’s ability in writing

skill is low, especially to organize their ideas, opinions, and develop paragraphs.

The English teacher rarely gives students writing assignment, so their writing

ability and the students’ selection of vocabulary are considered low. Also, their

grammar knowledge and punctuation used are usually inadequate.

In order to solve students’ problem in writing recount text, the

researcher will try to use Dictogloss and Dicto-comp, also compare those

techniques. Wajnryb (1990) in Vasiljevic (2010) explains dictogloss as a

classroom activity where teacher will dictate a text and students listen carefully.

Furthermore, students write down key–words and then work together to

reconstruct the keywords into their own paragraph with their own words.

Meanwhile, dicto-comp is also known as dictation and composition. Dicto-comp

is the technique where the teacher reads the whole paragraph three times and the

students are only given a chance to write their work after the teacher finished the

third reading. The students should recall the whole story and write the story as a

reproduction of what they heard (Oller, 1979). Finally, the researcher focus on

research to use Dictogloss (DG) and compare with Dicto-comp (DC) as a

technique to improve students’ ability in teaching writing recount text at second

grade of MTs Negeri 2 Mataram.

6

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

1) Writing

Rivers (1981:291) explains that writing is more difficult than

speaking in which writing seems like “communicating into space”. In

communication situated, there is a little time to think about what the speaker

would saying and produce it properly.

According to Martin (1985) writing is processes to bring the

experience and thought into the reality, also into arbitrary system. It means

that, to express our ideas into sentences or paragraphs, we must have ideas

or experiences. Meanwhile, Coffin (2003) attempt that writing is producing

something through a paper, therefore people can read, perform it, also use it.

In teaching writing, the teacher encourages student to produce their ideas

and thoughts into written form so that people can read it. In this case, the

students could not do it by themselves therefore the teacher obligates to

provide them some advices through teaching and learning process.

2) The Importance of Teaching Writing

As a teacher, they have to deliver strategy and media which

accordance to the material and students’ level. When a teacher could not

adapt with the students’ ability in writing, the students will not pay attention

and focus on what the teacher has presented. The teacher should have time

management and classroom management when teaching writing, teachers

should reduce the time when they give task for the students to write

something, and use a strategy which helps teacher to abridge the exact time

appropriately. Therefore, the teacher does not use much time and students

will produce a good writing.

3) Definition of Recount Text

Recount text is the genres of the text which has a general function

to retell events in order to inform and entertain the reader. When we write or

tell a story which happened in the past it means that we write about recount

text. The types of recount text may be biographies, autobiographies,

7

newspaper reports of events, histories, letters, diaries, journals, eye—witness

accounts of incidents, and accounts of accidents submitted for insurances

claims (Heinemann, 1997 in Husniati 2011).

4) Dictation

According to Oller (1979), “dictation is a task which requires the

processing of temporally constrained sequences of material in the language,

divided up to the stream of speech and then refers down what is heard

requires understanding the meaning of material.” It means that dictation is

not only the activity of listening comprehension and repeating the sound in

written form.

5) Definition of Dicto-comp

Dicto-comp is the type of dictation which actually a combination

of two forms, namely dictation and composition (Oller, 1979). Here, the

teacher reads the whole passage three times and the students are only given

chance to write their work after the teacher has finished the third reading.

The students must listen carefully each time the paragraph is read. They

should recall the whole story and write the story as a reproduction of what

they heard. The students should write it as close as possible to the original

paragraph. Teacher must prepare the students well before they do the task.

The preparation provides the students with ideas, language items, and the

organization of text (Nation, 1991). Therefore, students can focus on the

skill aspect which is writing in the case of the dicto-comp. Dicto-comp can

be done in every student proficiency level.

6) Definition of Dictogloss

This method helps students to develop their paragraph with the

key–words which have been dictated by the teacher during the dictation

activity (Nunan, 1991). This method also makes students more active in

understanding and comprehending the text. In addition, students will make

inferences thing that not directly stated in the text and identifies the type

and the topic of the text. Dictogloss provides a context in which students’

grammar is improve through the productive use of grammar. Dictogloss

8

could be an effective way for teaching strategy because it makes students

aware of their own strengths and weaknesses in learning English during

the small group activity.

7) Previous Study

a) The study by Shofiyah (2010). The aim of this study was to find out the

empirical evidence about the effectiveness of dictogloss technique

towards students’ narrative writing at the first-grade students of SMA

Manba’ul Ulum. The method of this study was quantitative method. This

study used quasi experimental design with pre-test and post-test. The

result of this study showed that the value of to (t-observation) was 5.26.

The value of tt (t-table) with degree of freedom 38 in significance degree

5 % was 2.02 and in significance degree 1% was 2.71. It indicates that to

was higher than tt or 2.02 < 5.26 > 2.71. As a result, the null hypothesis

(Ho) was rejected and the alternative hypothesis (Ha) was fail to be

rejected. Hence, it was inferred that there was a significant difference

between students’ narrative writing score who were taught by dictogloss

technique and those who were not taught by using dictogloss technique.

b) The Study by Anis (2013) entitled “The Writing Skill of the Eleventh

Grade Students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati Taught by Using Dicto-

comp Technique in the Academic Year 2013/2014”. The study was an

experimental research. The level of the writing skill of the eleventh-

grade students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati in the academic year

2013/2014 after being taught by using dicto-comp technique is

improving although several students still performed adequately.

Therefore, there is a significant difference between the writing skills of

the eleventh-grade students of SMK Tunas Harapan Pati in the academic

year 2013/2014.

3. RESEARCH METHOD

1) Research Design

9

In this research, the researcher used comparative research design as a

method.

2) Population and Sample

The population of the research was second grade students of MTs Negeri 2

Mataram in academic year 2016/2017. The eight grade students consist of 6

classes, there were 25-42 students in each class, and the total number of the

students was 225. Each class consists of 42 students. Thus, the population of

this study was 84 students. The technique that was used in this study was

purposive sampling. The researcher used VIII C and VIII D. The students of

those classes have the similarity in terms of ability and age. The researcher

found it from the observation in the previous semester.

3) Method of Data Collection

In this research, the researcher used writing test in collecting the data.

The data obtained through:

a. Pre-test.

b. Treatments.

c. Post-test.

4) Data Analysis Procedure

After all of the data were collected, they were analyzed using the rubric

of assessment. Rubric of assessment is a form to check students’ ability in

teaching and learning process by indicating some points of view below.

No. Aspects of Writing

Recount Text

Score Description

1 Content 50 Excellent to very good: clear

understanding the task and the content is

clear

40 Good: understanding of the task, well

developed

30 Fair: a weak understanding, thinly

developed

20 Inadequate: little or no understanding of

the task minimally developed

0 Unacceptable: blank, off topic, illegible

2 Lexico grammatical

features

30 Excellent to very good: follows the rules

that build a text, such as: focus on specific

participants, uses of material processes,

10

circumstance of time and place, use of

past tense and focus on temporal

sequence.

20 Good: it generally follows the rules that

build a text

10 Fair: enough follow the rules that build a

text

5 Inadequate: not follow the rules

0 Unacceptable: Blank of topic, illegible

3 Generic structure 20 Excellent to very good: follows the rules

that build a text, such as: orientation,

series of events and reorientation

15 Good: generally, it follows the rules that

build a text

10 Fair: enough follow the rules that build a

text

5 Inadequate: not follow the rules

0 Unacceptable: blank of topic, illegible

(adapted from Heaton: 1975)

Subsequently, the researcher used the formula to find the t-value using the

following formulas:

1. Finding out the mean score of both classes, DG group (x) and DC (y), by the

totaling all of the scores in each classes.

a. Mdx = ∑𝑑𝑥

N

b. Mdy = ∑dy

N

2. The next step was calculating the square mean deviation by using the

following formula.

a. The square mean deviation of DG group:

∑X2 = ∑dx2 - (∑x)2

Nx

b. The square mean deviation of DC group:

∑Y2 = ∑dy2 - (∑y)2

Ny

3. Then the correlation coefficient was calculated of the two mean scores

whether they are categorized as significant or not, the formula below will be

used:

11

t – test = 𝑀𝑥−𝑀𝑦

√(∑𝑥2+ ∑𝑦2

𝑁𝑥+𝑁𝑦−2 )(

1

𝑁𝑥+

1

𝑁𝑦)

4. The last step was to count the degree of freedom, the following formula will

be used:

df = (Nx + Ny) – 2

Where:

T-test = the degree of difference

Mdx = the mean deviation score of samples in X (DG group)

Mdy = the mean deviation score of samples in Y (DC group)

∑dx2 = the total number of square deviation of sample in X

∑dy2 = the total number of square deviation of sample in Y

Nx = the total sample in X

Ny = the total sample in Y

(Arikunto, 2006)

4. PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of this study is to:

1. To find out which technique is more effective between dictogloss and

dicto-comp in teaching writing recount text at the 8th grade of MTs Negeri

2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017.

5. RESULTS

The lowest score of pre-test in dictogloss group was 10 and for dicto-comp

group was 30. The highest score of the pre-test for dictogloss group was 80 while

the highest score of the pre-test in dicto-comp group was 85. The lowest score of

post-test for dictogloss was 35 and for the dicto-comp group was 30. While the

highest score of post-test for dictogloss was 90 and for dicto-comp group was 90.

Table 4.1.1 The Score of Pre-test and Post-Test of Dictogloss (X) and Dicto-

comp Group (Y)

No. Sample Pre-Test

(X1)

Post-Test

(X2)

No. Sample Pre-Test

(Y1)

Post-Test

(Y2)

1 ANR 55 80 1 AGAB 80 70

2 AAA 50 60 2 BDJ 35 50

3 AFR 40 55 3 FR 30 35

12

4 AHY 30 70 4 F 50 40

5 DR 35 50 5 HNA 30 30

6 FAT 30 50 6 LMS 45 65

7 IP 55 50 7 MA 25 35

8 LMZ 40 55 8 MR 35 45

9 LMTK 40 45 9 MRA 30 35

10 MA 50 55 10 MT 30 65

11 MSA 45 50 11 RRH 30 40

12 AA 80 55 12 WMK 30 30

13 AR 55 70 13 BAAF 35 40

14 AEA 10 40 14 BHJ 40 40

15 DI 40 65 15 BHPS 50 50

16 DR 50 70 16 DA 45 40

17 HJ 40 55 17 GS 50 55

18 HTS 55 70 18 H 55 55

19 IP 50 45 19 HMS 55 50

20 KA 40 35 20 IJ 30 50

21 LD 35 55 21 NF 60 55

22 M 30 40 22 NMAA 55 60

23 MA 70 90 23 PSH 50 80

24 NRA 40 85 24 PH 30 45

25 NF 40 65 25 RKS 65 65

26 PH 35 35 26 RM 50 35

27 RS 55 70 27 SNK 85 90

28 RC 75 65 28 TMC 50 30

29 R 80 80 29 WA 50 60

30 SSE 55 75 30 ZAM 45 40

31 SNA 35 55 31 NSU 55 55

32 WA 30 40 32 SM 50 35

33 YF 45 60 33 MRAF 55 65

Total 1515 1940 Total 1510 1635

MEAN 45.90 58.78 MEAN 45.75 49.54

Table 4.1.1 above shows that there were 4 students who got the minimum

standard score 70 in the pre-test of the dictogloss group, while 29 students got

score under 70. In the dicto-comp group, there were 2 students who got up to the

minimum standard score 70 in the pre-test, while 31 students got score under 70.

In the dictogloss group, 10 students got the minimum standard score in the post-

test and 23 students got score under 70. While in the dicto-comp group, 3 students

got the minimum standard score in post-test, and 30 students got score under 70.

After distributing the pre-test scores and post-test scores, the deviation

score was calculated in which it can be seen further in Table 4.1.2 and 4.1.3

13

below. Table 4.1.2 shows the deviation score of Dictogloss group, while Table

4.1.3 shows the deviation score of Dicto-comp group.

Table 4.1.2 The deviation score of Dictogloss Group

No. Sample Pre-Test

(X1)

Post-Test

(X2)

Deviation Square of

Pre-Test and Post-Test

(Dx)

Square

Deviation Score

(Dx2)

1 ANR 55 80 25 625

2 AAA 50 60 10 100

3 AFR 40 55 15 225

4 AHY 30 70 40 1600

5 DR 35 50 15 225

6 FAT 30 50 20 400

7 IP 55 50 -5 25

8 LMZ 40 55 15 225

9 LMTK 40 45 5 25

10 MA 50 55 5 25

11 MSA 45 50 5 25

12 AA 80 55 -25 625

13 AR 55 70 15 225

14 AEA 10 40 30 900

15 DI 40 65 25 625

16 DR 50 70 20 400

17 HJ 40 55 15 225

18 HTS 55 70 15 225

19 IP 50 45 -5 25

20 KA 40 35 -5 25

21 LD 35 55 20 400

22 M 30 40 10 100

23 MA 70 90 20 400

24 NRA 40 85 45 2025

25 NF 40 65 25 625

26 PH 35 35 0 0

27 RS 55 70 15 225

28 RC 75 65 -10 100

29 R 80 80 0 0

30 SSE 55 75 20 400

31 SNA 35 55 15 225

32 WA 30 40 10 100

33 YF 45 60 15 225

Total 1515 1940 420 11600

MEAN 45.90 58.78

14

Table 4.1.3 The deviation score of Dicto-comp Group

No. Sample Pre-Test

(Y1)

Post-Test

(Y2)

Deviation Score of Pre-

Test and Post-Test (Dy)

Square Deviation

Score (Dy2)

1 AGAB 80 70 -10 100

2 BDJ 35 50 15 225

3 FR 30 35 5 25

4 F 50 40 -10 100

5 HNA 30 30 0 0

6 LMS 45 65 20 400

7 MA 25 35 10 100

8 MR 35 45 10 100

9 MRA 30 35 5 25

10 MT 30 65 35 1225

11 RRH 30 40 10 100

12 WMK 30 30 0 0

13 BAAF 35 40 5 25

14 BHJ 40 40 0 0

15 BHPS 50 50 0 0

16 DA 45 40 -5 25

17 GS 50 55 5 25

18 H 55 55 0 0

19 HMS 55 50 -5 25

20 IJ 30 50 20 400

21 NF 60 55 -5 25

22 NMAA 55 60 5 25

23 PSH 50 80 30 900

24 PH 30 45 15 225

25 RKS 65 65 0 0

26 RM 50 35 -15 225

27 SNK 85 90 5 25

28 TMC 50 30 -20 400

29 WA 50 60 10 100

30 ZAM 45 40 -5 25

31 NSU 55 55 0 0

32 SM 50 35 -15 225

33 MRAF 55 65 10 100

Total 1510 1635 125 5175

MEAN 45.75 49.54

Based on Table 4.1.2 and Table 4.1.3 above, it can be seen that there is

improvement of the students’ score of both classes after accepting the treatments.

15

The mean score of the pretest of the dictogloss and the dicto-comp group are

45.90 and 45.75 respectively. In addition, the mean score of the post-test of the

dictogloss and dicto-comp groups are 58.78 and 49.54 respectively. Thus, the

mean score of dictogloss group is higher than that of the dicto-comp group in the

pre-test and the post-test. It means that students’ writing skill on dictogloss group

was better than the dicto-comp group.

Otherwise, the deviation score of the dictogloss is 420 and the square

deviation is 11600. Meanwhile, the deviation score of the dicto-comp group is 125

and the square deviation is 5175. The deviation score and the square deviation of

the dictogloss group is higher than that of the dicto-comp group. Then, the

researcher computed the mean deviation score and sum of square deviation score

of both classes to decide the significance of deviation by using following

formulas:

Mean deviation score of Dictogloss group and Dicto-comp group.

Mdx = ∑𝑑𝑥

N And Mdy =

∑dy

N

Mdx = 420

33= 12.727 Mdy =

125

33= 3.787

Sum of Square deviation score of Dictogloss group and Dicto-comp group.

∑X2 = ∑dx2 - (∑x)2

Nx And ∑Y2 = ∑dy2 -

(∑y)2

Ny

= 11600 - (420)2

33 = 5175 -

(125)2

33

= 11600 - 176400

33 = 5175 -

15625

33

= 11600 – 5345.454 = 5175 – 473.484

= 6254.546 = 4701.516

After that, the researcher calculated the data to know the t-value by using the

following t-test formula:

t–test = 𝑀𝑥−𝑀𝑦

√(∑𝑥2+ ∑𝑦2

𝑁𝑥+𝑁𝑦−2 )(

1

𝑁𝑥+

1

𝑁𝑦)

=12.727−3.787

√(6254.546+4701.516

33 +33−2 )(

1

33+

1

33)

16

=8.94

√(10956.062

64)(

2

33)

= 8.94

√(21912.124

2112)

= 8.94

√10.375

= 8.94

3.22

= 2.775

The result shows that the t-value is 2.775. However, in order to know the

meaning of this value, the researcher had to check the t–table to find minimum

coefficient for the difference in score to be significant. Before that, the researcher

needed to decide the degree of freedom (df) as the interpretation to compare the

critical value, t–test and t–table.

df = (Nx + Ny) – 2

= (33 + 33) – 2

= 66 – 2

= 64

Finally, the researcher compared the result of t-test and t-table to know the

significant difference of two groups using one–tailed table test.

Table 4.1.4 Degree of Freedom

Value of t-test Value of t-table (one–tailed test)

Degree of

Freedom

0.05

(Confidence level

of 95%)

0.01

(Confidence level

of 99%)

2.775 64 1.671 2.390

According to the t-table, it can be seen that the value of t-test is 2.775 and

the degree of freedom (df) is 64. Meanwhile, value of t-table on confidence level

of 0.05 (95%) is 1.671 and on the confidence level of 0.01 (99%) is 2.390. It

means that the effectiveness of the treatment is significant.

17

6. DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was to know which technique is more effective

between dictogloss and dicto-comp in teaching writing recount text at 8th grade of

MTs Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017.

There were only 33 students who joined this research of each groups. The

result of the data provided by the researcher above showed that there was

difference between the deviation score of class that used dictogloss and dicto-

comp. The mean deviation score of dictogloss class was 12.727. Meanwhile,

dicto-comp class showed that the deviation score was 3.787. In other words, the

mean deviation score in dictogloss class was higher than dicto-comp class. The

value of t-test was 2.775 and the value of t-table on confidence level 0.05 (95%)

was 1.671 and t-table on confidence level 0.01 (99%) was 2.390 in the degree

freedom (df) 64. It means that, the value of t-test was higher than the t-table.

When the value of t-Test is higher or equal to the value of t-table on level 0.05

and 0.01, Ha is failed to be rejected.

Dictogloss is more effective than dicto-comp because students in DG class

were taught to written down the key–words (verbs and adjectives) from the

passage that have been dictated by the teacher. Each groups have to discuss and

reconstructed the key–words into their own paragraph. According to Nunan

(1991) this method also makes students more active in understanding and

comprehending the text. In addition, students make inferences on the things that

are not directly stated in the text and identify the type and the topic of the text.

Meanwhile in the DC group, students were not allowed to write before the

researcher finished reading the paragraph three times. Dicto-comp is known as

traditional dictation exercise which students write what they remembered. It is

supported by Wishon and Burks (1968), dicto-comp extent the students write the

passage which has been dictated by the teacher and rewrite the passage

contextually with structural correctness. Because this kind of technique, the

students were getting lack of memorizing the passage and rewrite the passage

meaningfully.

18

Based on those explanation, the researcher finally concluded that the Null

Hypothesis (Ho) that states, “Dictogloss is not more effective in improving

students’ writing skill specifically in recount text” is rejected. Whereas,

Alternative Hypothesis (Ha) which states “Dictogloss is more effective in

improving students’ writing skill specifically in recount text” is failed to be

rejected by ignoring the score of mean deviation and sum of square of deviation of

DG and DC classes. Therefore, there is a significant difference between the

students’ performance of DG group and DC group.

7. CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis and discussion from the previous chapter, it is

concluded that Null Hypothesis (Ho) that states “Dictogloss is not more effective

than Dicto-comp in teaching writing recount text at the 8th grade of MTs Negeri 2

Mataram in Academic Year 2016/2017” is rejected and the alternate Hyphotesis

(Ha) which state “Dictogloss is more effective than Dicto-comp in teaching

writing recount text at the 8th grade of MTs Negeri 2 Mataram in Academic Year

2016/2017” is failed to be rejected. It was seen from the mean score of post-test of

dictogloss group was higher than the dicto-comp 58.78 and 49.54. In addition, the

score of t–test was 2.775 and the value of t–table was 1.671 at the confidence

level 0.05 (95%) and 2.390 at the confidence level 0.01 (99%) in degree of

freedom 64. In conclusion, the value of t–test was higher than t–table after

compared. Thus, it proved that dictogloss is more effective in improving students’

writing recount text.

19

REFERENCES

Alkire, S. 2002. Dictation as a language learning device. Internet TESL Journal,

Vol. VIII. No. 3. Retrieved from: http://iteslj.org/techniques/Alkire-

Dictation.html

Arikunto, S. 2006. Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: PT

Rineka Cipta

Broadmann, & Frydenberg, J. 2002. Writing to Communicate. New York: Person

Education, Inc.

Brown, H. 2001. Teaching by Principle: An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy. New York: And Pearson Education Company.

Brown, H. 2001. Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy Second Edition. Longman: San Francisco State

University.

Coffin, C., Carry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings A., Lillis T. M., & Swann. J.

2003. Teaching Academic Writing. London: Centre of Language

and Communication, Routledge, Falmer.

Cohen, E. G. 1994. Restructuring The Classroom: conditions for productive small

groups. Review of Educational Research: 64 (1), 1-35.

Davis, P. & Rinvolucri, M. 1988. Dictation: New methods, new possibilities.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fachrurrarzy. 1989. Dictation as a Device for Testing English as a Foreign

Language. Journal Guidelines. Volume II. No. 2: 61.

Fasya, D. M. 2015. Improving The Grade VIII Students’ Writing Skill of Narrative

Text Through Dictogloss at SMPN 1Mungkid Magelang in The

Academic Year 2014/2015. A Published Thesis of Sarjana Degree in

English Education Department of Universitas Negeri Yoyakarta.

Yogyakarta: UNY.

Hafniah, L. F. 2010. A Study on Students’ Ability in Writing Narrative Text. An

Unpublished Thesis of Sarjana Degree in English Education FKIP

Unram. MATARAM: UNRAM.

Heaton, J. B. 1975. Writing English Language Test. London: Longman Group.

20

Hedge, T. 2010. Teaching and Learning in Classroom, New York: Oxford

University Press

Hughes, A. 1989. Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Husniati. 2011. Improving Writing Recount Text Using Genre-Based Approach

(GBA) at First Grade Students of Madrasah Aliyah Putri AL-

Islahuddin Kediri in Academic Year 2010/2011. An Unpublished

Thesis of S1 in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM:

UNRAM.

Humaero, S. 2016. The Comparative Study on Standard Dictation and Partial

Dictation in Listening Comprehension at 11th Grade of SMAN 01

Labuapi in Academic Year 2015/2016. An Unpublished Thesis of

S1 in English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: UNRAM

Hornby, A.S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learners’ Dictionary of Current English.

London: Oxford Progressive Press

Jacobs, G. & Small, J. 2003. Combining Dictogloss and Cooperative

Learning to Promote Language Learning. The Reading

Matrix, Vol. 3(1): 1-15.

Li, W, and Renandy, A. W. 2012. Effective Approaches to Listening. The Journal

of Asia Tefl Vol. 9, No. 44, PP 79-111, Winter 2012.

Ma, L. 2004. Employing Dictogloss in the Teaching of Newspapers to Enhance

EFL Students' Integrated Skills. Sino-US English Teaching, 1(6),

40-43.

Martin, C. 1985. Exploring American English. London: Collier Macmilan

Publisher.

Marzban, A. & Abdollahi, M. 2013. The Effect of Partial Dictation on The

Listening Comprehension Ability of Iranian Intermediate EFL.

Learners International Research Journal of Applied and Basic

Sciences ISSN 2551- 838X / Vol. 5 (2): 238-244 Science Explorer

Publications.

Nation, P. 1991. Dictation, Dicto-comp, and Related Techniques. New Zealand:

Victoria University of Wellington.

21

Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A Text Book for Teacher.

New York: Prentice Hall International English Language Teaching.

Oller, J. W. 1979. Language Test at School. London: Longman

Oller, J. W. & Streiff, V. 1975. Dictation: A test of grammar based expectancies.

English Language Teaching.

Putri, S. N. 2011. The Use of Picture Series to Improve Students’ Ability in

Writing Recount Text. An Experimental Research on The Second

Year Students of SMPN 7 Mataram in Academic Year 2011/2012.

An Unpublished Thesis of S1 PBS FKIP Unram. Mataram:

UNRAM

Raimes, A. 1998. Teaching writing. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 18,

142-167. Oxford: OUP

Renandya, W. A. 2011. Extensive Listening in the second language classroom.

In H. P. Widodo & A. Cirocki (Eds.), Innovation and creativity in

ELT methodology (pp. 28-41). New York: Nova Science Publishers.

Rivers, W. M. 1981. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University

of Chicago Press.

Rofiqoh, A. 2013. The Writing Skill of The Eleventh Grade Students of SMK

Tunas Harapan Pati Taught By Using Dicto-comp Technique in the

Acadmic Year 2013/2014. A Published Thesis of S1 English

Education Department of Muria Kudus University. Kudus:

Universitas Muria Kudus.

Saifullah, A. 2013.The Effect of Using Mind Mapping Toward Students’ Writing

Ability: An Experimental Study at Eight Grade Students of SMPN

17 Mataram. An Unpublished Thesis of English Education Program

Faculty of Teacher Training Education Mataram University.

Shofiyah, E. 2014. The Effectiveness of Dictogloss Technique Toward Students’

Narrative Writing: A Quasi Experimental Study at The First Grade

Students of SMA Manba’ul Ulum. Thesis of Department English

Education at Faculty of Tarbiyah and Teachers’ Training of State

Islamic University Syarif Hidayatullah. Jakarta.

Sugiyono, 2013. Statistika Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta

22

Sullivan, J. & Caplan, N. 2004. Beyond the dictogloss: Learner generated

attention to form in a collaborative, communicative classroom

activity. Penn Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 19(1), 65-

89.

Ubuhiyah. 2014. The Effect of Using Mind Mapping Towards Students’ Writing

Skill: An Experimental Study at SMPN 04 Mataram in Academic

Year 2013/2014. An Unpublished Thesis of Sarjana Degree in

English Education FKIP Unram. MATARAM: Unram.

Vasiljevic, Z. 2010. Dictogloss as an Interactive Method of Teaching Listening

Comprehension to L2 Learners. English Language Teaching. Vol.

3, No 1.

Wajnryb, R. 1990. Grammar dictation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wishon, G. E. & Burks, J. M. 1968. Let’s Write English. New York: American

Book Company.