IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ORGANIZING IDEAS IN WRITING ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION TEXT WITH MIND MAPPING TECHNIQUE
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.main##
Abstract
This article is a report of an action research project conducted in writing class for eleventh graders of state senior high school 2 Bae Kudus in academic year 2013/2014. The objectives of this study are to describe (1) the problems faced by the students in organizing ideas in writing analytical exposition text (2)how mind mapping technique is implemented (3) how Mind mapping technique can improve the organizing ideas in writing analytical exposition texts. The result from the observation sheet and questionnaire showed that (1) the students still used bahasa indonesia in their writing analytical exposition text (2) by using mind mapping technique students’ writing skill from each cycle is increased (3) students’ score of writing skills from precycle to cycle 1 increased 14.7 points, from cycle 1 to cycle 2 increased 12.3 points from cycle 2 to cycle 3 increased 16.6 points. So the study concluded that the implementation of mind mapping technique (1) could solve the problems faced by the students in writing analitycal exposition text (2) could improve students’ organizing ideas in writing analytical exposition text.
##plugins.themes.academic_pro.article.details##
How to Cite
Anggrayani, M., Sofwan, A., & Saleh, M. (1). IMPROVING STUDENTS’ ORGANIZING IDEAS IN WRITING ANALYTICAL EXPOSITION TEXT WITH MIND MAPPING TECHNIQUE. English Education Journal, 5(1). Retrieved from https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/6841
References
Anderson, Mark and Anderson, Kathy. 1997. Text Types in English 1-2. South Yarra: Macmillan Education Australia.
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. San Francisco State University
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy, second edition. New York: Adison Wesley Longman, Inc
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York and London. Routledge
Byrne. 1998. Definition of Writing Skills. New York and London. Routledge
Celce-Murcia, Z. Dornyei and S. Thurrell. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically Model with Content Specifications. In issues in applied Linguistics, 6/2. PP 5-35.
Davies, Martin. 2010. Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter?. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. Journal accessed on March 3th 2013.
Dick, B and Swepson, P. 1997. Action Research FAQ: “frequently asked questions†file. Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gem/ar/arp/arfaqhtm. Accessed on April 2nd, 2013
Eggins, Suzanne. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistic. London
Eggins, S and D. Slade. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Casell
Faridi, Abdurrahman. 2008. Mind Mapping Technique. Semarang State University
Gerot, L and P. Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Gerdstabler
Harmer, J. 2004. How to Teach Writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Muhib, Abdul. 2014. Mind Mapping and Everybody Writers Techniques for students with high and low writing achievement (The case of the seventh graders of state Islamic Junior High School of Slawi. Thesis. Semarang State University.
Rahmaniah, Rima. 2013. Improving students’ organizing ideas in writing recount text with Content Based Textual (CBT) Technique. Thesis. Semarang State University
Brown, H. Douglas. 2004. Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices. San Francisco State University
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy, second edition. New York: Adison Wesley Longman, Inc
Burns, A. 2010. Doing Action Research in English Language Teaching: A Guide for Practitioners. New York and London. Routledge
Byrne. 1998. Definition of Writing Skills. New York and London. Routledge
Celce-Murcia, Z. Dornyei and S. Thurrell. 1995. Communicative competence: A pedagogically Model with Content Specifications. In issues in applied Linguistics, 6/2. PP 5-35.
Davies, Martin. 2010. Concept Mapping, Mind Mapping and Argument Mapping: What Are the Differences and Do They Matter?. University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia. Journal accessed on March 3th 2013.
Dick, B and Swepson, P. 1997. Action Research FAQ: “frequently asked questions†file. Available at: http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gem/ar/arp/arfaqhtm. Accessed on April 2nd, 2013
Eggins, Suzanne. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistic. London
Eggins, S and D. Slade. 1997. Analyzing Casual Conversation. London: Casell
Faridi, Abdurrahman. 2008. Mind Mapping Technique. Semarang State University
Gerot, L and P. Wignell. 1994. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. New South Wales: Gerdstabler
Harmer, J. 2004. How to Teach Writing. London: Pearson Education Limited.
Muhib, Abdul. 2014. Mind Mapping and Everybody Writers Techniques for students with high and low writing achievement (The case of the seventh graders of state Islamic Junior High School of Slawi. Thesis. Semarang State University.
Rahmaniah, Rima. 2013. Improving students’ organizing ideas in writing recount text with Content Based Textual (CBT) Technique. Thesis. Semarang State University