CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter discussed the findings and the discussions toward these

findings. The findings below were based on the responses of 25 (twenty-five)

students joining the writing B in 3 (three) parallel classes.

4.1 Findings

As reflected by the title of the study and the research question, this study

focuses on the composing process of the students in writing descriptive essays.

Accordingly, the findings of this study are concerned with the composing process

of the students under study.

4.1.1 Before writing In English’ Stage

The first finding is about pre-writing or “before writing in English” stage.

The following table presents the frequency of what the students did in the pre-

writing stage.

Table 4.1. The Frequencies of ‘Before Writing in English’ Stage

Before Writing In Never Usually Some Usually Always Total

English true not true what True True
(1) (2) True (4) (5)
25 responses (3)
1. I make a
timetable for 4 3 13 3 2 25
the writing 16% 12 % 52% 12 % 8% 100%
process

24
 28% 52% 20% 100%
2. Before I start
writing I 1 1 14 6 3 25
revise the 4% 4% 56% 24% 12% 100%
requirements
8% 56% 36% 100%
3. I look at a
model written
by a native
0 2 9 9 5 25
speaker or
0% 8% 36% 36% 20% 100%
more
proficient
writer
8% 36% 56% 100%
4. I start writing
without
4 6 9 6 0 25
having a
16% 24% 36% 24% 0% 100%
written or
mental plan
40% 36% 24% 100%
5. I think about
what I want
to write and 0 3 5 10 7 25
have a plan in 0% 12% 20% 40% 28% 100%
my mind, but
not on paper.
12% 20 % 68% 100%
6. I note down
words and
1 2 8 9 5 25
short notes
4% 8% 32% 36% 20% 100%
related to the
topic
12% 32% 56% 100%
7. I write an
0 3 8 10 4 25
outline of my
0% 12% 32% 40% 16% 100%
paper
12% 32% 56% 100%
8. I write notes
or an outline 2 6 12 4 1 25
in my native 8% 24% 48% 16% 4% 100%
language
32% 48% 20% 100 %
Overall percentage of
Before writing in 19% 39% 42% 100%
English stage

In order to make the results of all findings in the form of tables easier to

understand, the writer classifies the Likert-style categories into three. The 'never

25
true' and 'usually not true' categories belong to 'not true'. The 'usually true' and

'always true' are categorized into 'true', while 'somewhat true' stands alone as the

neutral category which does not represent both sides.

The table above illustrates that, first of all, before the participants wrote

their essays or compositions, most of them sometimes made some necessary

preparations, such as making a timetable (52%). Only 20% of them made their

timetable, as opposed to 28% of the participants did not make their timetable.

Secondly, before they started writing they revised the requirements, most of them

(56%) sometimes made some revisions, 38% did some revisions, while the least

majority did not do some revisions at all. Thirdly, looking at a model written by a

native speaker or more proficient writers is highly preferred by the participants

(56%), while only 8% did not read essays written by native speakers or more

proficient writers to get better ideas. Fourthly, they started writing by having a

written or mental preparation (40%). However, the majority said that they did not

really make any preparation (36%) and even did not make any clear preparation

(24%). Fifthly, most of the participants (58%) made some mental preparation

(68%) in their minds, while the rest did not really do it (20%).

Sixthly, 56% of the participants chose to make some written preparation or

notes. The rest of them did not make any written (12%) and 32% sometimes made

some written concepts. Seventhly, 56% of the participants chose to make an

outline prior to their writing. The rest of them did not make any outline (12%) and

32% sometimes made some outline. Eighthly, almost half of the participants

(48%) sometimes make their outline in Bahasa Indonesia.

26
 In general, no more than half of the participants (42%) did this early stage

before their writing the descriptive essays properly. Some of them sometimes did

what they were supposed to do in this stage (39), and the minority (19%) was not

really into this stage (19%).

4.1.1 When Writing in English’ Stage

The second finding is about whilst-writing or “when writing in

English”stage. Table 4.2 below presents the frequency of what the students did in

the whilst-writing stage.

27
 Table 4.2. The Frequencies of ‘ When Writing in English’ Stage

When Writing In Never Usually Some Usually Always Total

English true not true what True True
(1) (2) True (4) (5)
25 responses
(3)
1. I start with the 0 0 6 11 8 25
introduction. 0% 0% 24% 44% 32% 100%
0% 24% 76% 100%
2. I stop after each
2 0 8 13 2 25
sentence to read it
8% 0% 32% 52% 8% 100%
again.
8% 32% 60% 100
3. I stop after a few
sentence or a 0 0 9 13 3 25
whole paragraph, 0% 0% 36% 52% 12% 100%
covering one idea.
0% 36% 64% 100%
4. I reread what I
have written to get 2 0 3 9 11 25
ideas how to 8% 0% 12% 36% 44% 100%
continue.
8% 12% 80% 100
5. I go back to my
4 2 11 6 2 25
outline and make
16% 8% 44% 24% 8% 100%
changes in it.
24% 44% 32% 100
6. I write bits of the
text in my native
3 4 7 8 3 25
language and then
12% 16% 28% 32% 12% 100%
translate them into
English.
28% 28% 44% 100
7. I go for sure in
1 3 11 8 2 25
grammar and
4% 12% 44% 32% 8% 100%
vocabulary.
16% 44% 40% 100
8. I simplify what I
want to write if I
dont know how to 1 1 7 13 3 25
express my 4% 4% 28% 52% 12% 100%
thoughts in
English.
8% 28% 64% 100
9. If I dont know a
word in english, I
0 4 7 9 5 25
write it in my
0% 16% 28% 36% 20% 100%
native language
and later try to

28
 find an appropriate
English word.
16% 28% 56% 100%
10. If I don’t know a
word in English, I
0 0 9 10 6 25
find a similar
0% 0% 36% 40% 24% 100%
English word that
I know.
0% 36% 64% 100%
11. If I don’t know a
word in English, I
0 2 8 8 7 25
stop writing and
0% 8% 32% 32% 28% 100%
look up the word
in the dictionary.
8% 32% 60% 100%
12. I use a bilingual 1 3 10 7 4 25
dictionary. 4% 12% 40% 28% 16% 100%
16% 40% 44%
13. I use a
0 6 10 6 3 25
monolingual
0% 24% 40% 24% 12% 100
dictionary.
24% 40% 36% 100
14. I ask somebody to
help out when I 2 4 4 11 4 25
have problems 8% 16% 16% 44% 16% 100%
while writing.
24% 16% 60% 100%
Overall Percentage
12.86% 31.43% 55.71% 100%
when writing

The table above depicts some useful information on the participants’

behaviours when they wrote their descriptive essays. First of all, when the

participants started writing their essays, most of them started with the introduction

(76%). Only 24% of them sometimes made their introductions. After that, they

made some stops in different ways. Most of them (60%) stop after each sentence

to read it before continuing to the next ones, while only a small number of

participants did not make any stops (8%). Futhermore, when they finished writing

several sentences or the whole paragraph, most of them (64%) stopped to read

their sentences to make sure they had written a single idea in that particular

29
paragraph. The other 36% of them sometimes did it. The next thing is the majority

of the participants (80%) read their sentences again to have ideas what sentences

to write later on.

In terms of grammar and vocabulary, most of the participants did not show

positive confidence when they wrote their descriptive essays in English. The

majority (68%) were not sure whether they used correct grammar forms and

precise vocabulary. On the contrary, the rest of the participants (32%) believed

that they usually used correct grammar and vocabulary in their essays. It is very

common for EFL students to have problems in finding the English word for the

words or sentences they want to use. Related to these problems, the participants

reacted differently. Most of them (64%) simplified their expressions or sentences

in English according their existing knowledge (item no. 8). Moreover, when they

had difficulties in finding the English words, they wrote them in Bahasa Indonesia

and later tried to find the appropriate English words (56%) (item no. 9). Another

strategy they used was to find similar or familiar English words they knew (64%)

(item no. 10).

Another finding that was interesting from the table above is about how the

participants make use of dictionaries. Most of the participants (60%) looked up

the words they did not know in the dictionary (item no. 11). However, only 44%

of them consulted their bilingual dictionaries and monolingual dictionaries (36%)

(item no. 12). They also preferred to have somebody else help them out when they

had problems in writing (60%) (item no. 13).

30
 In conclusion, the participants tried their best to perform better in this

stage (56%). Compared to the finding in their previous stage (39%), they

performed much better in this phase.

4.1.3 When Revising in Writing in English Stage

The third finding is about revision stage or “when revising in writing in

English” stage. Table 4.3 below presents the frequency of what the students did in

the revision stage.

Table 4.3 The Frequencies of ‘ When Revising in Writing in English ‘Stage

When revising Never Usually Some Always

Usually
Writing In true not true what True
True Total
English True
(4)
25 responses (1) (2) (3) (5)
1. I read the
3 6 11 3 2 25
text
12% 24% 44% 12% 8% 100%
aloud.
36% 44% 20% 100
2. I only
read what
I have
written
3 6 9 5 2 25
when I
12% 24% 36% 20% 8% 100%
have
finished
the whole
paper.
36% 36% 28% 100%
3. I make
changes
in
vocabulary,
4 6 8 4 3 25
sentence
16% 24% 32% 16% 12% 100%
structure,
the
content or
ideas.
40% 32% 28% 100%
4. I use 2 3 7 8 5 25
dictionary 8% 12% 28% 32% 20% 100%

31
 when
revising
20% 28% 52% 100
5. I make
changes
1 3 11 7 3 25
in
4% 12% 44% 28% 12% 100%
vocabular
y.
16% 44% 40% 100
6. I make
changes
0 2 10 9 4 25
in
0% 8% 40% 36% 16% 100%
sentence
structure
8% 40% 52% 100
7. I make
changes
in the 1 2 13 5 4 25
structure 4% 8% 52% 20% 16% 100%
of the
essay.
12% 52% 36% 100
8. I make
changes
1 4 11 8 1 25
in the
4% 16% 44% 32% 4% 100%
content or
ideas.
20% 44% 36% 100
9. I focus on
one thing
at a time
when 0 4 12 6 3 25
revising 0% 16% 48% 24% 12% 100%
(e.g.,
content,
structure).
16% 48% 36% 100
10. I drop my
first draft 3 2 12 5 3 25
and start 12% 8% 48% 20% 12% 100%
writing.
20% 48% 32% 100
11. I check if
my essay
matches 0 0 9 10 6 25
the 0% 0% 36% 40% 24% 100%
requireme
nts.
0% 36% 64% 100
12. I leave 3 0 15 5 2 25

32
 the text 12% 0% 60% 20% 8% 100%
aside for
a couple
of days
and then I
can see it
in a new
perspective
12% 60% 28% 100
13. I show
my text to
somebody
2 3 10 9 1 25
and ask
8% 12% 40% 36% 4% 100%
for
his/her
opinion.
20% 40% 40% 100
14. I compare
1 6 8 7 3 25
my paper
4% 24% 32% 28% 12% 100%
paper.
28% 32% 40% 100
15. I give
myself a
reward 3 3 13 6 0 25
for the 12% 12% 52% 24% 0% 100%
assignme
nt.
24 % 52% 24% 100
16. I check
my
mistakes
after I get
back the
paper
with the 0 1 6 13 5 25
feedback 0% 4% 24% 52% 20% 100%
from the
teacher,
and try to
learn
from
them
4% 24% 72% 100
Percentage
41.25
of when 19.5% 39.25% 100%
%
revising

33
 The table above provides some information about what the participants did

after they had received their essays back from their teachers. Most of them 80 %

sometimes or even did not read their text aloud (item no. 1). Only small numbers

of them read their essays when they had finished their whole essays 28 % (item

no. 2).

Even if they read their returned essays, the majority was not motivated to

make any revision on their essays. Those who made some changes in all aspects,

like as vocabulary, sentences structure, the content, or idea was are only 28 %

(item no. 3). Most of them, used their dictionaries when they had to revise their

essays 52 % (item no. 4). They wanted to make some changes only in vocabulary

(40%) (item no. 5), sentences structures 52% (item no. 6), structure of the essays

36% (item no. 7), and the content or ideas 36 % (item no. 8). Most of them, on the

other hand, preferred to focus on one thing at a time when they had to revise their

essays 52 % (item no. 9). However, the participants checked their essays if they

matched the requirements (64%) (item no. 11) and left the text aside for a couple

of days in order to later see it in a new perspective (28%) (item no. 12).

The participants also showed their essays to somebody else for his/her

opinion or compared theirs with someone else’s essays (40% respectively) (item

no. 13 & 14). Surprisingly, when they received feedback from their teachers, they

tended to check their mistakes and learned from their mistakes (72%) (item no.

16). Afterwards, most of them did not or rarely gave themselves rewards for the

good assignments they had produced. (76%) (item no. 15).

34
 All in all, the participants did not show positive performance in this last

stage of the writing process. Most of them (61%) did not or sometimes paid good

attention on some activities they were supposed to do in this final stage. Only 39%

of the participants did those activities well.

4.2 Discussion of the Findings

In the 'Before writing in English' stage, greater numbers of the participants

conducted to major things, namely making some necessary preparations, in this

case making outlines, and they wrote it in Bahasa Indonesia (L1). Hung & Van

(2018) state that pre-writing stage was crucial as it could improve writing

performance because learners could outline and organized their ideas individually

to prepare themselves for writing. Quoting the studies by Shin (2008) and Zheng

(2012), they also mentioned that the more time for the learners invested their time

in the pre-writing stage, the better the quality of the writing performance would

be. Their study also showed that outlining was found useful in helping organizing

ideas. Though this research does not investigate the impact of making outline with

the writing quality, it is hoped that the participants’ writing performance is good

as they may have followed the instruction of their teacher to make outlines before

composing any types of essays.

The use of L1 is also important in ESL/ EFL writing compositions. The

participants of this study preferred to use Bahasa Indonesia when they made their

outlines to convey their ideas easier. Wang & Wen (2002) argued that the use of

L1 was considered as a fairly common strategy among L2 writers. Similarly,

Friedlander (1990) mentioned that the EFL writers tended to use transfer writing

35
abilities and strategies from their first language (L1) to their second language

(L2). From previous findings, he mentioned that the reasons could be deficient

rhetorical strategies( Mohan & Lo, 1985) and finding support from their

knowledge about writing from their L1to writing in the target language ( Edelsky,

1982). However, it may cause L1 interference in English compositions. L1

interference in the form of ‘cross-linguistic and language transfer’ signifies the

influence of native language structures on students’ performance and development

in the target language (Bennui, 2016). His study on Thai students’ EFL writing

compositions showed that the students made lexical interference or literal

translation from Thai to English, syntactic interference or word order, subject-

verb agreement, noun determiners), and discourse interference level of language

style and Thai cultural knowledge). Similar study is also conducted by Zare-ee &

Farvardin (2009) which indicated the first language influence on linguistic and

rhetorical patterns in their Persian EFL learners’ argumentative compositions.

Those kinds of interference might also happen in the English descriptive texts

written by the participants. Further investigations needed to be conducted on this

matter.

In the 'When writing in English' stage there are three main issues that arise

from data above. Those issues are the participants made some regular stops to

make sure that they wrote a single idea, confronting grammar and vocabulary

problems, and consulting the dictionaries and peers when they had syntactical and

lexical problems. Making regular stops to make sure that the compositions

contained single ideas is a good conduct. It requires the knowledge of coherence

36
and cohesion. There have been numerous studies on EFL writing coherence and

cohesion, such as Ahmed (2010), Castro (2004), and Khalil (1989). However,

little information can we obtain from this study as it does not go deeper into their

coherence and cohesion.

Wang &Wen (2002) mention ESL/ EFL writers used their L1 when

composing in their second language. The participants in this study had

grammatical and lexical problems when they tried to convey their ideas in written

English. This problem might arise due to their efforts of transferring their

syntactical and lexical competence of first language into the target language which

may not be parallel. Wang & Wen’s study interestingly showed that the first

language occurred greatly in narrative composition tasks rather than in

argumentative ones. Since, this study investigates the descriptive texts written by

EFL students, there will be great possibility that the influence of L1 is high. The

problems experienced by the participants in this study is in line with Ariyanti &

Fitriana (2017) that students had major difficulties in grammatical, cohesion, and

coherence terms, while minor problems included vocabulary misspelling.

When the participants got grammatical and/or vocabulary difficulty, they

consulted their dictionaries. Due to a limited vocabulary size, EFL learners often

had to consult a dictionary when they encountered vocabulary problems (Lai &

Chen, 2015; Yoon, 2016).The use of dictionaries, either electronic or non-

electronic have been found to be useful for EFL writers (Christianson, 1997).

Bruton (2007) indicated that the use of bilingual dictionary/glossary support had

improved significantly on vocabulary items. However, Chon (2009) argued that

37
dictionary was not an instant problem-solver and led writers to identify further

dictionary-based lexical problems due to writers’ lack of knowledge of the L2

word(s) offered, or when the L2 word(s) were known but were considered

inappropriate or wrong by the writer in some way to convey the intended

meaning. Another way of solving grammatical and vocabulary problems is by

asking their friends for help or support. Peer support in writing was also important

as it provided at least three types of support: cognitive, strategic and feedback

kinds of support (Guerra Lyons, 2016). In the SLA contexts, peer interaction in

small groups had also stimulated much interest from researchers around the world.

Interaction among learners had been found useful to integrate linguistic, cognitive

and social dimensions of communication. This sort of interaction was a space

where “language use and language learning can co-occur. It is language use

mediating language learning. It was cognitive activity as well as social activity”.

In "When revising writing in English" stage, the participants were not

really motivated to make any revisions. When they wanted to make any changes,

they focused more on sentence structures. Furthermore, this study revealed the

most important finding related to teacher feedback.

Teacher feedback is a fundamental finding from the data presented in the

previous section of this chapter. Much research available shows the crucial role of

teacher feedback, such as Diab (2005), Elwood & Bode (2014), Enginarlar (1993),

Muncie (2000), Wu (2006), Yang, Badger, & Yu, (2006), and Zhao

(2010). Compared to self and peer feedback, teacher feedback was much more

preferable by EFL learners (Diab, 2005) and led to both positive and negative

38
revisions, depending on learners‟ attitude and English proficiency (Wu, 2006). Enginarlar (1993) concluded that EFL learners perceived

attention to linguistic errors from their teachers as effective teacher feedback. In the long term, (Muncie, 2000) stressed that teacher

feedback improved learners' writing ability. Also, it led to greater improvements in the writing development (Yang et al., 2006). Looking at

the fact that the participants of this study received feedback from their teachers and responded it by making revisions of their written works

were good practices.

Writing has been recognized as the most challenging language skill to learn for EFL learners. Thinking in English while

writing in English was very difficult for EFL learners (Bennui, 2016). Ahmed (2010) mentioned that acquiring the writing skill seems

to be more laborious and demanding than the other language skills. Moreover, producing a coherent piece of writing is an enormous

challenge, especially in a second/foreign language. All of these can explain why most participants were reluctant to reread their own

compositions and made some necessary improvement. When they decided to make any changes, they tended to pay more attention to

the grammar or sentence structure aspect. Grammatical mistakes were easily found in most texts. When writing teachers found this

kind of mistakes, they would circle them and asked their students to later on revise them (Christianson, 1997). Quoting Truscott

(1996), (Bruton, 2007) emphasized that grammar correction should have been abandoned, because it was ineffective and could even

be psychologically harmful for ESL/EFL learners. Correcting their own grammatical mistakes could be a way for the participants of

this study to avoid such harm.

39