Interweaving Conceptual and Substantial Problems of Writing Instruction: Socio Reflective on Exploring Hortatory and Analytical Exposition

Authors

  • Wiwiek Afifah Politeknik LPP
  • Anida Sarudin Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i1.1634

Keywords:

analytical, hortatory exposition, writing, instruction

Abstract

This paper explores interweaving conceptual and substantial problems of teaching writing skills for analytical and hortatory exposition texts. Under the narrative inquiry, five English teachers’ personal life experiences were analyzed. Having been analyzed, the findings reveal: (1) students were still weak in understanding the concept of the two texts (social function, generic structure, and lexicogrammatical features of the text). (2) Students’ confusion to distinguish the two genres is supported by the condition that they do not learn the genres in their primary language. (3) The students are not accustomed to expressing their arguments whereas in analytical and hortatory texts the main points are presenting sequences of arguments in the body of the text. (4) Students have low motivation to read therefore it is hard for them to propose the suggestion and make reiteration in the end of hortatory and analytical exposition texts, and (5) lexicogrammatical features or the grammar that are commonly used in those texts are complex for the students in that level.

References

Alfatia, V., & Al-Hafizh, M. (2013). Teaching writing a hortatory exposition text to senior high school students by using an advertisement. Journal of English Language Teaching, 1(2), 128-134.
Bowkett, S. (2009). Countdown to creative writing. Oxon: Routledge.
Bilal, H. A., Tariq, A. R., Din, N. u., Latif, H., & Anjum, M. N. (2013). Investigating the problems faced by the teachers in developing English writing skills. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 238-244.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Prinsip pembelajaran dan pengajaran bahasa. (Noor Cholish and Yusi Avianto Pareanom, Translator). Jakarta: The US Embassy.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices. New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (1996). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes: Teacher stories – stories of teachers, school stories – stories of school. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 2–14.
Clandinin, D.J., & Connelly, F.M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Harris, D. P. (1969). Testing English as a second language. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Gilstrap, R. L. (1991). Writing for social studies. In J. P. Shaver, Handbook of research on social studies teaching and learning. A project of the National Council for the social studies (pp. 578-587). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Hess, N. (2001). Teaching large multilevel classes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1996). A corpus-based investigation of the language and linguistic patterns of one genre and the implications for language teaching. Research in the Teaching of English, 472-489.
Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and second language writing. University of Michigan Press.
Indrowaty, S. A., Djatmika, D., Purnanto, D., & Hariri, T. (2018, August). Analyzing the structure and the texture of Japanese advertisement (A systemic functional linguistics approach). In Fourth Prasasti International Seminar on Linguistics (Prasasti 2018). Atlantis Press.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in languaeg teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kroll, B. (1994). Second language writing. Research insight for the classroom. Sydnes: Cambridge University Press.
McDonough, J., & Shaw, C. (2003). Materials and methods in ELT. Malden, USA: Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.
Moore, A. (2003). Teaching and learning: Pedagogy, curriculum, and culture. London: Routledge Fallmer.
Moore-Hart, M. A. (2010). Teaching writing in diverse classrooms, k-8: Enhancing writing through literature, real-life experiences, and technology. Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1991). Writing academic English. California: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Rahmatunisa, W. (2015). Problems faced by Indonesian EFL learners in writing argumentative essays. English Review: Journal of English Education, 3(1), 41-49.
Raimes, A. (2003). Ten Steps in Planning a writing course and training teachers of writing. In J. C. Richard, Methodology in language teaching (pp. 306-314). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2003). Methodology in language teaching. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C., & Schmitd, R. (2002). Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. Kuala Lumpur: Longman Publisher.
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions and content familiarity. Written communication, 18(4), 506-548.
Stern, H. (1991). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Seow, A. (2003). The writing process and process writing. In J. C. Richards, & W. A. Renandya, Methodology in language teaching. An anthology of current practice (pp. 315-320). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, S. (2009). Text types and dynamism of genres. Discourse of course: An overview of research in discourse studies.Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company
Wang, W. (2004). A contrastive analysis of letters to the editor in Chinese and English. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 72-88.
Williams, C., Stathis, R., & Gotsch, P. (2008). Speaking of writing: The significance of oral language in English learners’ literacy development. Retrieved September Monday, 10, 2014, from Teacher Writing Center: www.teacherwritingcenter.org.
Yancey K. (2015) The social life of reflection: Notes toward an eportfolio-based model of reflection. In: Ryan M. (eds) Teaching reflective learning in higher education. Springer, Cham

Downloads

Published

2020-04-29

How to Cite

Afifah, W., & Sarudin, A. (2020). Interweaving Conceptual and Substantial Problems of Writing Instruction: Socio Reflective on Exploring Hortatory and Analytical Exposition. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 3(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v3i1.1634

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 1 (2020)

Section

Articles

License

Authors who publish in ELTEJ agree to the following terms: Authors retain copyright and grant the ELTEJ right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format) and adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) the work for any purpose, even commercially with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in ELTEJ. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).