an analysis of students’ skill in writing analytical exposition text...
TRANSCRIPT
1
An Analysis of Students’ Skill in Writing Analytical Exposition Text at
Eleventh Grade of SMA Negeri 4 Tanjungpinang
1Arda Fitria Ulfa
2Dewi Nopita
3Satria Agust
English Education Study Program
Faculty of Teacher Training and Education
Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji
Email: [email protected] Mobile phone: +6281535285275
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to to know the eleventh grade students’
skill in writing analytical exposition of SMAN 4 Tanjungpinang as investigated
by the researcher. This research belongs to descriptive qualitative research. There
are no populations and samples. Therefore, this study has participants as research
subjects. The participants were eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 4
Tanjungpinang selected using purposive sampling technique. Participants were
asked to write an analytical exposition text on the topic and they selected based on
several options provided by the researcher. To analyze the data, the data were
used scoring rubric for writing of an analytical exposition text adapted from
Brown (2004), Homp-Lyons (1994), Garrot and Wignel (1994), which consists of
five aspects. There are Organization, content, grammar, mechanics (punctuation
and spelling), and quality of expressions (style and vocabulary). Then, after got
the result, the researcher described the analytical exposition text by students form
by using Leo’s theory. The result of this research showed that the students made
mistakes organization, content, grammar, mechanics, and vocabulary. Most
dominants aspects from students’ very good achievement category until enough
achievement category dealing with writing analytical exposition text is
vocabulary, the percentage of 86%-100% means that the category is very good.
Therefore, it can be concluded that the analytical exposition text at eleventh grade
of SMA Negeri 4 Tanjungpinang in academic year of 2018/2019 the percentage of
86%-100% means that has a good analytical exposition text.
Key words: Analysis, Writing, Writing skill, Analytical Exposition Text
INTRODUCTION
Writing as known in general is the process that describe about something
or one topic then explained clearly by person through their knowledge and ability
2
also opinion what they know towards topic that discuss on written form.
Afterwards, it is important to share what their perspective to complete to reach
namely a good writing process. It should be maximal results of product in writing
and make it clearly. Moreover, it necessary to write in language that can be easily
to understanding (word-selection), so the reader do not difficult to understand the
meaning what the writer write.
In five skills of English, writing become the most difficulties one of part
skill to learn especially students. Richards and Renandya (2002) state that
“writing is the most difficult skill for second language learners to master.” it
means that writing is one of skill that needed extra times to be able for mastering
it deeply.
Furthermore, it was happened when the researcher taught in SMAN 4
Tanjungpinang as her internship in school (PPL), They got much difficulty,
lacked of vocabulary, and often making some error even mistakes in develop and
organize their idea in writing activity. It is not an easy activity for EFL students
who learn English, so the teacher needs some strategies of teaches as the
instructor who taught them to make them interesting in writing. As the effect, they
cannot writing in good paragraphs or carelessly and unwilling to write of use their
energy in writing activity. Byrd (2011) suggested that it happens because "learners
are expected to develop ideas - which may or may not be themselves - into fully
articulated products while taking into account the linguistic features of the target
language that they may not yet have". In this case they are expected to write
beyond their capability as the students or not yet the time for them to master it
well. They have to master in writing moreover they are young learners, and
3
frequently expected to make handwriting individually, even sometimes without
guidance directly by their teacher or instructor.
Based on the syllabus, the researcher knew that at eleventh grade in senior
high school, the students learn about analytical exposition. In this case, the
students have to know how to write and arrangement based on the generic
structure of simple analytical exposition text especially for Natural Disasters. The
materials can be found on chapter 4 in the first semester.
Based on the researcher’s observation when she did teaching practice
(PPL) in SMA Negeri 4 Tanjungpinang, developing ideas for making a
composition was the most students’ problem in writing class. When they were
obliged to write, the students had not enough ideas to write down. Or even worse,
they lost their ideas and did not know what to say. Thus, it needs some way or
technique to find, improve and develop ideas well.
As explained above, that was found the main problem that the researcher
found. Many students did not write complete organization of analytical exposition
text. Teacher had exposed the students with examples of analytical exposition text
and practiced them in identifying the generic structures of the text including
thesis, arguments, and reiteration. Unfortunately, even though they succeeded in
identifying the generic structures in the text samples, they failed writing complete
organization of analytical exposition text in their writing task.
Therefore, based on explanation above, the most important thing that
students notice, is the generic structure of analytical exposition text during they
write the analytical exposition text. Generic structure is the way in which
elements of a text are arranged to match its purpose. This structure can be
4
observed by readers, and writers will use this knowledge to structure their writing,
depending on their purpose. Research in writing is very important to be conducted
in order to help both teacher and students in learning and teaching process. Lock
(1996) states that analyzing students’ text is very important to help English
teacher to find out students’ difficulties in writing. By knowing the students’
difficulties, it can lead the teacher to help the students’ problems.
The students should bring their mind into one topic to be developed. It is
important to make them focus to the topic that will be developed and created the
arguments related to the topic itself. They should be able to arrange and organize
the ideas until they have a meaning in a paragraph or a text. The ideas should be
connected well from a word to word and a word to be one sentence. In other
words, in writing analytical exposition text the generic structure should be
arranged correctly in a text. In addition, the generic structure of the analytical
exposition text concerned with the way of how the writer arranges and organizes
their ideas in writing. As a writer, students should take care of the generic
structure in their writing because it will help them to communicate successfully.
Thus, in this research, the focus is on analyzing students’ skill in writing
analytical exposition text at eleventh grade students of SMA Negeri 4
Tanjungpinang.
METHOD
This research was conducted at SMAN 4 Tanjungpinang which is located
at Jalan Pemuda, km 4 Tanjungpinang, in 17 Juni 2019. The research design was
qualitative research method. It’s because the data of the research are non-
5
numerical. It is stated by Biklen (2007) that, “qualitative is descriptive that data
collected are in the form of words or pictures rather than numbers”.
This research used purposive sampling as the sampling technique to get
the research subject for the research. A research subject is a person who is the
objects of research being investigated (Ruslan, 2003). According to Arikunto
(2010), purposive sampling is the process of selecting a sample by taking a
subject that is not based on the level of the area, but it is taken based on the
specific purpose. In this study, the research subject of this research was class
eleventh IPA 1 (XI IPA.1) of SMA Negeri 4 Tanjungpinang, which consisted of
21 students.
A research instrument is what researcher used to collect information or
data to answer the research question (Eng, 2013). The instrument of this research
was a written test. The students need to write on a piece of paper, which has been
prepared by the researcher. The researcher gave the students a written test to make
an analytical exposition text. The researcher set the simple present tense as the
rule in making the analytical exposition text. There was thirteen different topics
are given by the researcher to the students. The test took approximately forty five
minutes. As the last, the researcher collected their writing in the paper that given.
The collected data were used by the researcher to analyze, got the percentage, and
described the results of the writing skill in analytical exposition text the 11th of
SMAN 4 Tanjungpinang.
6
RESEARCH FINDINGS
In these findings, the researcher presents the result of the research and the
analysis of the data that were collected through writing test. Written test was
conducted for two days. The researcher took one class that second grade in SMA
Negeri 4 Tanjungpinang. The total numbers of student were 21 students. Data of
the student’s writing skill were obtained by writing the analytical exposition text.
The researcher classified the writing skill into five aspects in the table;
organization, content, grammar, mechanics, and vocabulary. Based on student’s
score from five aspects in writing analytical exposition text, the researcher also
found the most dominant aspects students made in writing analytical exposition
text.
Here are the following descriptions of generic structure (organization aspect)
and language feature (grammar) as the findings in this research;
Table 4.1
Generic structure of student in Writing Analytical Exposition Text
N
O
Participant
s
Score
Catego
ries
7
Org
an
izati
on
Con
ten
t
Gra
mm
ar
Mec
han
ics
Voca
bu
lary
TOT
AL
SCO
RE
1 Student 1 4 5 4 4 3 20 GOOD
2 Student 2 4 3 4 4 3 18 GOOD
3 Student 3 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
4 Student 4 2 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
5 Student 5 4 5 4 4
5 22 VERY
GOOD
6 Student 6 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
7 Student 7 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
8 Student 8 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
9 Student 9 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
10 Student 10 4 4 5 4 3 20 GOOD
11 Student 11 4 5 4 4 5 22 VERY
GOOD
12 Student 12 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
13 Student 13 5 4 3 4 5 21 GOOD
14 Student 14 5 4 4 4 5 22 VERY
8
GOOD
15 Student 15 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
16 Student 16 5 4 4 4 5 22 VERY
GOOD
17 Student 17 2 4 4 4 5 19 GOOD
18 Student 18 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
19 Student 19 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
20 Student 20 5 4 4 3 5 21 GOOD
21 Student 21 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
NOTE:
= Highest Score
The result of this table showed writing skill that from 21 participants who
did the test, the researcher found that there were 12 students categorized as good
and 1 student categorized fair achievement in generic structure or organization
aspect of writing analytical exposition text. Based on the table, it also showed the
most dominant in generic structure or organization aspect from 21 participant or
all students in writing analytical exposition text. The most dominant in generic
structure or organization aspect that student could do in writing analytical
exposition text is there were 7 students got the highest score in generic structure
or organization aspect.
9
Table 4.2
Language feature of student in Writing Analytical Exposition Text
NO
Participan
ts
Score
Categories
Org
an
izati
on
Con
ten
t
Gra
mm
ar
Mec
han
ics
Voca
bu
lary
TOT
AL
SCO
RE
1 Student 1 4 5 4 4 3 20 GOOD
2 Student 2 4 3 4 4 3 18 GOOD
3 Student 3 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
4 Student 4 2 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
5 Student 5 4 5 4 4
5 22 VERY
GOOD
6 Student 6 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
7 Student 7 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
8 Student 8 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
10
NOTE:
= Highest Score
The result of this table showed writing skill that from 21 participants who
did the test, the researcher found that there were 19 students categorized as good
and 1 student categorized fair achievement in language feature or grammar aspect
of writing analytical exposition text. Based on the table, it also showed the most
dominant in language feature or grammar aspect from 21 participant or all
9 Student 9 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
10 Student 10 4 4 5 4 3 20 GOOD
11 Student 11 4 5 4 4 5 22 VERY
GOOD
12 Student 12 5 5 4 4 5 23 VERY
GOOD
13 Student 13 5 4 3 4 5 21 GOOD
14 Student 14 5 4 4 4 5 22 VERY
GOOD
15 Student 15 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
16 Student 16 5 4 4 4 5 22 VERY
GOOD
17 Student 17 2 4 4 4 5 19 GOOD
18 Student 18 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
19 Student 19 4 4 4 4 5 21 GOOD
20 Student 20 5 4 4 3 5 21 GOOD
21 Student 21 4 4 4 4 3 19 GOOD
11
students in writing analytical exposition text. The most dominant in generic
structure or organization aspect that student could do in writing analytical
exposition text is there was 1 student got the highest score in language feature or
grammar aspect.
In this research, the researcher used Brown (2004), Homp-Lyons (1994)
also Garrot and Wignel (1994) writing assessment to assessing students' skill in
writing analytical exposition text. The table below is a data display that shows the
students’ raw scores in organization aspect (Generic Structure) and Language
Feature (Grammar aspect).
Table 4.1 Students’ Writing Scores in organization aspect (Generic
Structure)
No. Name Organization
aspect Information
1. Student 1 4 Good
2. Student 2 4 Good
3. Student 3 4 Good
4. Student 4 2 Fair
5. Student 5 4 Good
6. Student 6 5 Very good
7. Student 7 5 Very good
8. Student 8 4 Good
9. Student 9 4 Good
10. Student 10 4 Good
11. Student 11 4 Good
12. Student 12 5 Very good
13. Student 13 5 Very good
14. Student 14 5 Very good
15. Student 15 4 Good
16. Student 16 5 Very good
17. Student 17 2 Fair
18. Student 18 4 Good
19. Student 19 4 Good
20. Student 20 5 Very good
21. Student 21 4 Good
12
Table 4.2 Students’ Writing Scores in grammar aspect (Language Feature)
No. Name Organization
aspect Information
1. Student 1 4 Good
2. Student 2 4 Good
3. Student 3 4 Good
4. Student 4 4 Good
5. Student 5 4 Good
6. Student 6 4 Good
7. Student 7 4 Good
8. Student 8 4 Good
9. Student 9 4 Good
10. Student 10 5 Very good
11. Student 11 4 Good
12. Student 12 4 Good
13. Student 13 3 Fair
14. Student 14 4 Good
15. Student 15 4 Good
16. Student 16 4 Good
17. Student 17 4 Good
18. Student 18 4 Good
19. Student 19 4 Good
20. Student 20 4 Good
21. Student 21 4 Good
The researcher assessed the total of students’ writing scores, she calculated
them with existing formula by Asrul et al (2014) as the following table:
Table 4.2 Students’ Highest and Lowest Scores
Students’ Highest Score Students’ Lowest Score
Final Score = students′score
5× 100
Final Score = 5
5× 100 = 100
Final Score = students′score
5× 100
Final Score = 2
5× 100 = 40
According to the table 4.1 and 4.2, the researcher classified the students’
score with students’ achievement table by Asrul et al (2014) to know the position
13
of students who got high and low score in two aspects; Generic Structure
(organization) and Language Feature (grammar).
Table 4.3 Students’ Written Test Final Scores in Generic structure
(organization)
No. Name Score Grade
1. Student 1 80 A
A. Student 2 80 A
3. Student 3 80 A
4. Student 4 40 D
5. Student 5 80 A
6. Student 6 100 A
7. Student 7 100 A
8. Student 8 80 A
9. Student 9 80 A
10. Student 10 80 A
11. Student 11 80 A
12. Student 12 100 A
13. Student 13 100 A
14. Student 14 100 A
15. Student 15 80 A
16. Student 16 100 A
17. Student 17 40 D
18. Student 18 80 A
19. Student 19 80 A
20. Student 20 100 A
21. Student 21 80 A
Table 4.4 Students’ Written Test Final Scores in Language Feature
(Grammar)
No. Name Score Grade
1. Student 1 80 A
A. Student 2 80 A
3. Student 3 80 A
4. Student 4 80 A
5. Student 5 80 A
6. Student 6 80 A
7. Student 7 80 A
8. Student 8 80 A
9. Student 9 80 A
10. Student 10 100 A
14
11. Student 11 80 A
12. Student 12 80 A
13. Student 13 60 C
14. Student 14 80 A
15. Student 15 80 A
16. Student 16 80 A
17. Student 17 80 A
18. Student 18 80 A
19. Student 19 80 A
20. Student 20 80 A
21. Student 21 80 A
After the researcher got total of the students’ scores and grades, then it
calculated with existed formula by Hatch & Farhady (1982) and changed it into
percentage. This percentage is useful to know how many percent students’ of
class eleventh IPA 1 (XI. IPA 1) got in organization (generic structure) and
grammar (language feature) of writing analytical exposition text. The percentage
table would appear below:
Table 4.5 Students’ Writing Percentage in organization or generic structure
No. Grade
Total
of
Student
Percentage
(%) Information
1. A 19 90.47% Nearly all of the students
2. B - - -
3. C - - -
4. D 2 9.52% A few students
Table 4.6 Students’ Writing Percentage in grammar or language feature
No. Grade
Total
of
Student
Percentage
(%) Information
1. A 20 95.23% Nearly all of the students
2. B - - -
3. C 1 4.76% A few students
4. D - - -
15
And then, the researcher also computes the averages of the students’ score
with Hadi (1988) formula, in order to find out whether the class eleventh IPA one
(XI.IPA 1) students have a low skill in writing or not. The data would appear
below:
�̅� =∑ 𝑥
𝑁
�̅� =1.740
21
�̅� = 82.85
The mean of the test score is 82.85, and then it would calculate by using
the formula as stated by Hatch & Farhady (1982) as follow:
Percentage of the students’ average = 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒
𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑐𝑜𝑟𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡 𝑋 100%
= 82.85
100 𝑋 100%
= 82.85%
Based on the table 3.4 in the chapter three, 82.85% is regarded as good
achievement. So it can be concluded that the average of the students’ skill on the
writing analytical exposition by using simple present tense is good.
The result of the data then would be discussed elaborately in this step.Related
to the research question in chapter I, the discussion would cover only focused of
two aspects of five aspects of written test of analytical exposition by the 21
16
students; Organization aspect (Generic structure) and Grammar aspect (Language
Feature).
DISCUSSIONS
The result of the data then would be discussed elaborately in this
step.Related to the research question in chapter I, the discussion would cover only
focused of two aspects of five aspects of written test of analytical exposition by
the 21 students; Organization aspect (Generic structure) and Grammar aspect
(Language Feature).
1. Organization aspect (Generic structure)
In this case, they did not add supporting knowledge like definition and
data in argument. For example student 1 did not add, “As we know garbage
as…., or research shows that garbage service has many complaints……” For
this text, the student did not write supporting knowledge to convince the reader
about the topic.
Student 4 did not mention the writer’s position about the topics such as
”Blog and social media networking is the form of social media that mostly used
by the community around the world. For this text, the student did not indicate
writer’s position or point of view. This thesis statement or incorrectly sentences
could write as “However, i think there are many negative than positive impact
to the children and teenagers of social media.”
Student 17 did mistake that the reiteration that did not have a conclusion
and restated the thesis or writer’s position but not related to the topic such as,”
Further, music can unite people and changes the world. A song with good lyric
and striking deep chord can stimulate certain universal feeling of all people.”
17
This conclusion could write as, “So what would the world be like without music?
It would be lonely.” It can happened because the students still cannot understand
how to signals the end of the essay which can be done by beginning the
conclusion with a transition signal. The student also couldn’t remind and reiterate
the student’s opportunity to convey a strong, effective message that the reader will
remember.
Jacobs et al. (1981) stated that organization is like the little ideas in a piece
fit in paragraphs under the bigger ideas. It means among topic sentence,
supporting sentence and concluding sentence is differentiated. In term of
organization, the supporting detail is used to tell reader more about the topic in
paragraph and the concluding sentences generally conclude the overall
paragraph briefly.
In this research, there were 7 students got the highest score, 12 students in
good score categories, and 2 students got fair in organization.
2. Grammar aspect (Language Feature)
In this case, they did not add mental verbs (e.g. think, feel, believe, guess,
etc.), internal conjunction (e.g. Firstly, secondly, next, finally), causal conjunction
(e.g. because, consequently, despite, due to, for that reason, in that case, even
though, yet, otherwise, etc.).
For example student 4 did not write internal conjunction such as
“Cigarette smoke has been linked to heart and respiratory disease.” This
sentence could write as “Firstly, Cigarette smoke has been linked to heart and
respiratory disease.” Student 4 also did not write or add mental verbs as “There
is no pleasant experience, and this is why smoking must be banned in public
18
places.” This sentence could write as “There is no pleasant experience, and I
strongly believe smoking must be banned in public places.”
As Jacobs et al. (1981) stated that “Grammar contains rules about how
words change their form and combine with other words to make good sentences.
Good writing must show correct pattern based on grammar.” It can be happened
because they still don’t know all element or parts in grammar that put in analytical
exposition. They just knew some parts or elements of them.
According to Garot and Wignel (1994), there are consists into five
characteristic of language feature such as, using simple present tense, emotive
words, relational process, internal conjunction, and causal conjunction.
In this research, there was 1 student got the highest score, 19 students in
good score categories, and 1 student got fair in grammar.
In line with the previous study in one of the researcher related findings by
Dimas Yudha Putra Garintama “Analysis on Analytical Exposition Text Written
by Eleventh Graders of SMA Hang Tuah 4 Surabaya”. Related to this research, it
discusses students’ skill in writing analytical exposition text. The previous
research has more concern on analytical exposition text compositions, while the
researcher has more concern into as assessing by rubric. In that research, just or
only focused or concerned on analytical exposition text compositions of organize
their analytical exposition writing text in terms of its generic structure. It is
different from the researcher who more concern to assessing students writing in
five aspects, which are organization, content, grammar, mechanic and vocabulary.
Also, both of these researches are having different resulted, that the students
having poor score in writing in that researcher. Different with him, the researcher
19
students got good score. But, both of them are having same purposed which has
two research questions, in terms of its generic structure and language feature.
CONCLUSIONS
From the data, there are 21 students as the participant of this research.
Related to the research question in chapter I, the researcher finds that they have
some problems to organize their paragraph. They do not add supporting
knowledge like definition and data in argument. They do not mention the writer’s
position about the topics, and they make mistake on reiteration which they do not
give a conclusion and restate the thesis. They make mistake that some unrelated or
irrelevant material is present and the essay address the issue but miss some points
in content. In grammar, they do not add mental verbs, internal conjunction causal
conjunction, and wrong in using tenses. They have problems with word choice. In
mechanics aspect, they make mistake or problems in some writing conventions or
punctuation occasional spelling errors. In vocabulary, they make mistake that
some vocabulary misused. Most dominants aspects from students’ very good
achievement category until enough achievement category dealing with writing
analytical exposition text is vocabulary, because almost of them show attempt
variety that is good vocabulary, not wordy and concise. Besides that, they
vocabulary shows that they are lacks accuracy of diction but meaning obscured
also may be too wordy.
The researcher concludes that the students’ writing skill in writing generic
structure and language feature of analytical exposition text at the eleventh grade
students in SMAN 4 Tanjungpinang ion academic year of 2018/2019 is
categorized as good.
20
REFERENCES
Linda Gerot, Peter Wignell. (1995). Making Sense of Functional Grammar: An
Introductory Workbook. Gerd Stabler: New south wales.
M.Anderson & K. Anderson. (2003b). Text Types in English 2. Melbourne:
MacMillan.
.G., D. (2002). Writing.
A.Hughes. (2003). Testing for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
A.Oshima and A. Hogue. (2007). Introduction to Academic Writing.3rd Ed. . New
York: Pearson Education, Inc.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment principles and classroom practices .
New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2004). Strategies for Success: A Practical Guide to Learning
English. New York: Longman.
Cunningsworth, A. (1987). Evaluation and Selecting EFL Teaching Materials.
London: Heinemann Education Book.
D.Brown, H. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy (2nd Ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman,
Inc.
D.Brown, H. (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th Ed.).
New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
D.Nunan. (2004). Task-based Language Teaching. UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Gay, L. R., Milss, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational
Research:Competencies for Analysis and Application. USA: Pearson
Education Inc.
Harmer, J. (2003). The Practice of English Language Teaching. London :
Longman.
M.Celce-Murcia. (2001). Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,
3rd edition. Heinle: Cengage Learning.
Martin,J.R and Rose, David. (2008). Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond
the Clause. . Sydney: Halliday Centre.
Priyana,J., Riandi,& Mumpuni, A. P. (2008). Interlanguage: English for senior
high school students XI science and social study program. Jakarta,
Indonesia: Pusat Perbukuan, Departememen Pendidikan Nasional.
R Smalley and Ruetten. (1986). Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and
Grammar for ESL Students. New York: University of New Orleans.
R.Hammond, E. (1983). Teaching Writing. New York: Mc. Graw-Hill Book Mc.
Graw-Hill Book.
S.Arikunto. (2005). Manajemen Penelitian. Jakarta: Bumi Aksara.
Sudijono. (1996). Evaluasi Pendidikan. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada.
Taylor, G. (2009). A Student’s writing Guide. United Kingdom (UK): University
Press Cambridge.
Ur, P. (1996). A Course in Language Teaching:Practice and Theory. London:
Cambridge University Press.
21