assessing students’ scientific writing skill as an...
TRANSCRIPT
ASSESSING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC WRITING SKILL AS AN
INFLUENCE OF METACOGNITION AND SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE
(A Survey Study on Sixth Semester Students of English Literature Department
in Pamulang University)
THESIS
By
Santi Setiyaningsih
21160140000015
GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2019
i
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
The writer hereby declares that this submission in his own work and to the best of his
knowledge it contains no materials previously published or written by another person,
or substantial proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma at Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University or any other
educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any
contribution made to the research by others, with whom he has worked at UIN Syarif
Hidayatullah or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. She also declares
that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of his own work, except to the
extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in the style,
presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.
Ciputat, ................. 2019
Santi Setiyaningsih
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praised be to Allah, Lord of the world, who has given the writer love and
compassion to finish the last assignment in her study. Peace and salutation be upon to
the prophet Muhammad SAW, his family, his companion and his adherence.
It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help and contribution to the institution, all
of lecturers, staff family and Friends who have contributed in different ways hence
this thesis is processed until it becomes a complete writing which will be presented to
the graduate program of English language education at the faculty of educational
sciences.
First of all, the writer would like to express her great honor and deepest
gratitude to her advisors, Dr. Kadir, M.Pd and Dr. Muhammad Farkhan, M.Pd who
had empowered the writer to enhance this this with his intellectual recommendations
and constructive comments and also her examiners Dr. Alek, M.Pd and Dr. Ratna Sari
Dewi, M.Pd who give valuable critics in accomplishing this thesis. Her special
gratitude also goes to her beloved parents (Sunaryoto and Khasanah) and her husband
(Dimas Abisono Punkastyo, M.Kom) and also to all family members who never
stopped motivating hers in accomplishing this thesis.
The writer’s sincere gratitude also goes to:
1. Dr. Sururin, M.Pd., the dean of the faculty of educational science.
2. Dr. Fahriany M.Pd., as the head of graduate program of English language
education at the faculty of educational sciences.
3. All the lecturers and staff in the graduate program of English department
who had transferred his/her knowledge and also for the valuable guidance
and encouragement.
4. Hj. Djasminar, B.A, Pg. Dipl, M.A., the head of English Literature
department in Pamulang University that give the chance to the writer in
conducting the research.
5. The writer’s classmate in graduate program of English education
department UIN Syarif Hidayatullah Jakarta class of 2016.
6. All of people who participated in the process of the thesis that the writer
couldn’t mention one by one. May Allah bless them and reward them all
better.
Ciputat, ……………..2019
(the writer)
iii
APPROVAL OF ADVISOR
ASSESSING STUDENTS’ SCIENTIFIC WRITING SKILL AS AN
INFLUENCE OF METACOGNITION AND SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE
(A Survey Study on Sixth Semester Students of English Literature Department
in Pamulang University)
A Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of Master of
Education (M.Pd.) in Graduate Program of English Education
By:
Santi Setiyaningsih
NIM. 21160140000015
Approved by the Advisors,
ENGLISH EDUCATION MAGISTER PROGRAM
FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY (UIN)
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH JAKARTA
2019 M/ 1440 H
iv
ABSTRACT
Setiyaningsih, Santi. Assessing Students’ Scientific Writing Skill as an Influence
of Metacognition and Syntactic Knowledge (A Survey Study on Sixth Semester
Students of English Literature Department in Pamulang University). Master
Program of English Education Department, Faculty of Educational Science,
2019.
Scientific writing is viewed as an empirical and knowledge based of writing that is
important to learn in the university. This study aimed at obtaining evidence of the
influence of metacognition and syntactic knowledge on students’ scientific writing
skill. The research employed survey method engaging 168 participants of sixth
semester from English literature department in Pamulang University. The data
gathered by using metacognition questionnaire, syntactic knowledge test, and
scientific test. The data analysis were done by using analysis of regression. The study
revealed that (1) students’ scientific writing skill, metacognition and syntactic
knowledge were categorized as moderate. Specifically, students’ scientific writing
skill on the aspect of thesis statement and grammar and punctuation is considered
better than the other aspects; (2) metacognition has positive influence on students’
scientific writing skill; (3) syntactic knowledge has positive influence on students’
scientific writing skill; and (4) the combination of metacognition and syntactic
knowledge simultaneously have positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill.
This study concludes that the improvement of students’ writing skill is determined by
factor of metacognition and syntactic knowledge.
Keywords: Scientific Writing Skill, Metacognition, Syntactic Knowledge
v
ABSTRAK
Setiyaningsih, Santi. Menilai Kemampuan Menulis Saintifik Mahasiswa sebagai
Pengaruh dari Metakognisi dan Pengetahuan Sintax (Studi Survey pada
Mahasiswa Semester Enam di Jurusan Sastra Inggris, Universitas Pamulang).
Program Magister Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah
dan Keguruan , 2019.
Menulis saintifik merupakan genre menulis yang berdasarkan pengetahuan empirik
sehingga sangat penting untuk dipelajari di universitas. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk
membuktikan tentang pengaruh metakognisi dan pengetahuan sintak terhadap
kemampuan menulis saintifik mahasiswa. Penelitian menggunakan metode survei
yang melibatkan 168 mahasiswa semester enam jurusan sastra Inggris Universitas
Pamulang sebagai subjek penelitian. Pengambilan data dilakukan dengan
menggunakan kuesioner metakognisi, test sintak dan test menulis esay saintifik.
Analisis data yang digunakan adalah analisis regresi. Penelitian ini membuktikan
bahwa (1) hasil menulis saintifik dan sintax serta kuesioner metakognisi mahasiswa
tegolong medium. Khusus untuk menulis saintifik, aspek thesis statement dan
grammar serta punctuation terlihat lebih baik dari aspek lainnya; (2) metakognisi
memiliki pengaruh positif terhadap kemampuan menulis saintifik mahasiswa; (3)
pengetahuan sintax memiliki pengaruh positif terhadap kemampuan menulis saintifik
mahasiswa; (4) kombinasi antara metakognisi dan pengetahuan sintax secara simultan
memiliki pengaruh terhadap kemampuan menulis saintifik mahasiswa. Penelitian ini
menyimpulkan bahwa perkembangan menulis saintifik ditentukan oleh faktor
metakognisi dan pengetahuan sintax.
Kata Kunci: Metakognisi, Pengetahuan Sintax, Kemampuan Menulis Saintifik
vi
مجرده
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY ............................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ...........................................................................................ii
APPROVAL OF ADVISOR ..................................................................................... iii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv
ABSTRAK .................................................................................................................. v
vi ............................................................................................................................ مجرده
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..........................................................................................vii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ...........................................................................................xii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1
A. Background of the Study ................................................................................. 1
B. Identification of the Problem ........................................................................... 5
C. Limitation of the Problem ............................................................................... 6
D. Formulation of the Problem ............................................................................. 6
E. Objective of the Study ..................................................................................... 6
F. Significant of the Study ................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 8
A. Scientific Writing ............................................................................................ 8
1. The Nature of Writing ................................................................................. 8
2. Types of Writing ........................................................................................ 10
3. The Understanding of Scientific Writing Skill .......................................... 13
4. The Components of scientific writing ....................................................... 14
5. Characteristics of Good Scientific Writing ............................................... 16
6. The Steps to Make Scientific Writing ....................................................... 16
7. Assessing Scientific Writing Skill ............................................................. 19
B. Metacognition ................................................................................................ 20
1. The Nature of Metacognition .................................................................... 20
2. Components of Metacognition .................................................................. 22
3. The Role of Metacognition in Writing ...................................................... 24
4. Assessing Metacognition ........................................................................... 26
viii
C. Syntactic Knowledge ..................................................................................... 28
1. The nature of Syntactic Knowledge .......................................................... 28
2. Syntactic Structure ..................................................................................... 29
3. The Role of Syntactic Knowledge in Writing ........................................... 34
4. The Ways to Develop Syntactic Knowledge in Writing ........................... 34
5. Assessing Syntactic Knowledge ................................................................ 35
D. Relevant Study............................................................................................... 36
E. Theoretical Framework ................................................................................. 37
F. Research Hypotheses ..................................................................................... 38
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ..................................................... 40
A. Place and Time of the Study .......................................................................... 40
B. Research Method and Design ........................................................................ 40
C. Population and Sampling ............................................................................... 41
1. Population .................................................................................................. 41
2. Sample ....................................................................................................... 41
D. Research Instrument ...................................................................................... 41
1. Test of Students’ scientific writing skill .................................................... 42
2. Questionnaire of Students’ Metacognition ................................................ 46
3. Test of Students Syntactic Knowledge ...................................................... 52
E. Technique of Data Collection ........................................................................ 56
F. Technique of Data Analysis .......................................................................... 56
1. Normality test ............................................................................................ 57
2. Linearity Test............................................................................................. 57
G. Statistical Hypothesis .................................................................................... 57
CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................... 59
A. Results ........................................................................................................... 59
1. Scientific Writing Skill (Y) ....................................................................... 60
2. Metacognition (X1) ................................................................................... 64
3. Syntactic Knowledge (X2) ........................................................................ 65
4. Data Analysis Technique ........................................................................... 67
B. Discussion...................................................................................................... 71
C. Limitation of the Research ............................................................................ 78
ix
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION AND SUGGESTION .................. 79
A. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 79
B. Implication ..................................................................................................... 79
C. Suggestion ..................................................................................................... 80
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 82
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................... 86
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3. 1 The Blueprint of Students’ Scientific Writing Test .................................. 42
Table 3. 2 The Rubric of Students’ Scientific Writing Skill ..................................... 43
Table 3. 3 Minimum Value of CVR, One Tailed Test, p = .05 ................................ 45
Table 3. 4 CVR Result of Scientific Writing ............................................................. 45
Table 3. 5 Criterion Validity of Scientific Writing ................................................... 45
Table 3. 6 Reliability Statistics .................................................................................. 46
Table 3. 7 The Blueprint of Students’ Metacognition Questionnaire ........................ 47
Table 3. 8 Aiken Method Result of Metacognition Instrument Validity ................... 49
Table 3. 9 Criterion Validity of Metacognition ......................................................... 50
Table 3. 10 Reliability Statistics ................................................................................ 51
Table 3. 11 The Blueprint of Syntactic knowledge test............................................. 52
Table 3. 12 CVR Result of Syntactic Knowledge ..................................................... 53
Table 3. 13 Biserial point correlation of Scientific Writing ...................................... 54
Table 3. 14 Reliability Statistics ................................................................................ 55
Table 4. 1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................ 59
Table 4. 2 Scoring of Scientific Writing Skill ........................................................... 60
Table 4. 3 Descriptive Statistic of Scientific Writing Skill Based on Indicators....... 62
Table 4. 4 Scoring of Metacognition ......................................................................... 64
Table 4. 5 Scoring of Syntactic Knowledge .............................................................. 66
Table 4. 6 One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test .................................................. 68
Table 4. 7 Linearity Y on X1 ..................................................................................... 69
Table 4. 8 Linearity Y on X2 ..................................................................................... 69
Table 4. 9 Coefficientsa ............................................................................................. 70
Table 4. 10 ANNOVAa.............................................................................................. 70
Table 4. 11 Model Summaryb ................................................................................... 71
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2. 1 Components of Metacognition ................................................................ 22
Figure 2. 2 Example of Transformational analysis of a clause .................................. 30
Figure 2. 3 Basic Constituent Structure Analysis of a Sentence ............................... 32
Figure 2. 4 Syntactic Structure Analysis of Compound Sentence ............................. 33
Figure 2. 5 Syntactic Structure Analysis of Compound Sentence ............................. 33
Figure 2. 6 Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 38
Figure 3. 1 Multiple Regression (Kadir, 2015. p. 176) ............................................. 40
Figure 3. 2 Research Design ...................................................................................... 41
Figure 4. 1 Histogram and Polygon of Scientific Writing Skill ................................ 61
Figure 4. 2 Histogram of Scientific Writing Skill Based on Indicators ..................... 63
Figure 4. 3 Histogram and Polygon of Metacognition .............................................. 65
Figure 4. 4 Histogram and Polygon of Syntactic Knowledge ................................... 67
Figure 4. 5 High Students’ Writing Result ................................................................ 72
Figure 4. 6 High Students’ Writing Result ................................................................ 74
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Instrument of Metacognition ................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix 2 Instrument of Syntactic Knowledge ...................................................... 87
Appendix 3 Instrument of Scientific Writing ............................................................ 92
Appendix 4 The Answer sheet of Instrument ............................................................ 93
Appendix 5 The Answer Sheet of Syntactic Knowledge ......................................... 94
Appendix 6 The Answer Sheet of Scientific Writing ............................................... 95
Appendix 7 Aiken Score from Panelists on Metacognition Instrument .................... 98
Appendix 8 CVR Score from Panelists on Syntactic Knowledge Instrument ........... 99
Appendix 9 CVR Score from Panelists on Syntactic Instrument ........................... 100
Appendix 10 Students’ Score on Metacognition ..................................................... 101
Appendix 11 Students’ Score on Syntactic Knowledge .......................................... 107
Appendix 12 Students’ Score of Scientific Writing ................................................ 112
Appendix 13 The Determination of Students’ Metacognition Score ...................... 117
Appendix 14 Validation of Instrument Metacognition ............................................ 118
Appendix 15 Validation Instrument of Syntactic Knowledge ................................. 119
Appendix 16 Validation of Instrument Scientific Writing ...................................... 122
Appendix 17 The Picture of the Research ............................................................... 123
Appendix 18 The Letter of Research ....................................................................... 125
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Background of the Study
Writing is one of the essential skills in learning English. It is the frame work
of our communication as it reflects clarity in one’s thought. Clear and proper language
is key to transferring knowledge and rendering an impact of the field in written
communication. Without clarity, readers will not able to get the message of the
language. The structure in developing paragraph also influence the result of writing.
In other words, writing is not only used to reinforce repetitions of grammar and
vocabulary in writing English classrooms but rather it is a system of communication.
Learning in higher education involves students to master scientific writing
skill as one important aspects of education. According to Husin and Nurbayani (2017,
p. 238), each university students is required to write a final academic report as it is
regulated by the Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education of the
Republic of Indonesia. Scientific writing skill is also needed to prepare students in
submitting any academic requirements at length such as writing observation report,
research report, academic journal and thesis. Moreover, students may comprehend any
literature written broadly in English and can compete with other students from all over
the world in a matter of English writing in academic context. Students who have
scientific writing skill will produce good quality of writing.
In educational community, scientific writing is viewed as an empirical and
knowledge based of writing. Goctu (2017, p. 83) stated that scientific writing is related
to both linguistic (vocabulary choice, grammar used, syntax and style) and
communicative (structure, topic and sub-topics, main idea, and argumentation). It
involves the forming of accurate sentences, the coherent structuring of the ideas, and
adopting the appropriate stance for citing previous work on the topic. In scientific
writing, students require ability to synthesize many resources that support the topic
when they develop paragraph. A frame work is involved to produce scientific writing
that is systemized and structured based. While in the process of producing scientific
writing, students have to manage their cognition in developing the frame work into
paragraphs. Hyland (2004, p. 12) mentions several characteristics that have to remind
in making scientific writing. The characteristics are starting good ideas, having clear
sense of purpose, using logical progression of idea, and writing clearly and directly.
In scientific writing, the students are not only write the words in a paragraph, but also
emphasize the linguistic aspects. The skill of scientific writing contributes the quality
of the writing. Therefore, most of the students are known to face problems in
developing their writing skills at the university level.
Some problems arise in scientific writing class in Pamulang University that
affect students’ score in the middle of semester. The average of students’ scientific
2
writing skill is still low. Most of students still cannot express their ideas into good
scientific writing so that the quality of their writing is still in lower level. It is showed
by the score of middle semester assessment that is handled by the lecturers. The
average score of students’ scientific writing is 65 while the highest score is 78 and the
lowest score is 45. Preliminary study is held to dig some important information related
to the problems that happen in the classroom. The preliminary interview to some
students shows that students face difficulties in producing scientific writing,
specifically in term of synthesizing some resources that support their data and
developing paragraphs into a good quality of scientific writing. Otherwise, the
learning process in the classroom describe that lecturers have already give some
corrections and revision note to the students to revise their scientific essay, but the
students still difficult to learn. Students also less understanding regarding
metacognition particularly on how it works and how to optimize it in the process of
developing paragraph. Meanwhile, the activity of metacognition exists while students
realize to adjust and to manage their thinking strategy in problem solving and shaping
learning goal in their writing. In other discussions, syntax also as one supporting
factors in writing is considered low in Pamulang University. It is showed by the
students’ score of syntax that is still low. Syntactic knowledge is viewed difficult to
apply in foreign language learning. Most of students are difficult in applying
formation of a sentence, positioning its elements and combining sentences
comprehensibly. Moreover, scientific writing skill is rarely known affected by
syntactic knowledge. Therefore, syntactic knowledge is one of linguistic aspects that
necessary for measuring writing skill. Many students in university unable to analyze
the sentences of the language so that they difficult to produce good quality of writing.
In this discussion, scientific writing is not only requires a more systematic
process but also influenced by several factors. To write academically, students should
understand two aspects. At the beginning, they should understand the steps or process
to present the meaning of an idea and the process to communicate the idea into a
writing form. In the process of writing, students’ mind’s eye enables them to write.
Students reach into their series of memories and retrieve experiences to write about.
Being able to “see” those experiences is essential to their ability to recount them
through writing and communicate them to readers. The ability to synthesize some
resources to support the data in producing good quality of scientific writing needs
good metacognition. To put in another way, engaging in metacognition is a process
that can help students be better writers. Metacognition is one of factors that can help
students arrange the information and then apply that information into a good writing.
While composing, skillful writers allocate high degrees of attention and other
cognitive resources to their writing topic. Secondly, they should understand the
aspects of writing which generally contain the content, the form, the vocabulary, the
grammar or language use, and the mechanics. One of the important aspect in scientific
3
writing is syntactic knowledge. Using syntax is not only on how students write and
punctuate a sentence, but also how the sentence is put together and constructed. A
grammatically correct sentence is great, but it is the well-crafted sentence that makes
a massive difference to make good quality of scientific writing. Syntactic knowledge
also can help students to combine the words correctly based on scientific writing style.
Related to the term of metacognition in writing, there are some fundamental
theories that can be taken as one of the keys to conduct the research. Ozsoy & Ataman
(2009, p. 68) stated that metacognition means an individual’s knowledge on his own
thinking process and his ability to control these process. Metacognition can be
explained as individuals’ information while they are writing and a deliberate
organization in cognitive processes. It involves individuals’ planning of their
information about their own and others’ cognitive processes before they fulfill their
task, observing their thinking, learning and understanding while performing a task,
controlling and regulating their thinking by making arrangements on site and
evaluating after they have completed their task. With this in mind, the students are
expected to understand the knowledge about metacognition and how to improve it.
Metacognition is one way of deep thinking which focus on self-control and self-
awareness. The activity of metacognition exists while students realize to adjust and to
manage their thinking strategy in problem solving and shaping goals (Santrock, 2010,
p. 340). In other words, when the students realize to shape their goals and how to
achieve the goals, they would have effort to manage their selves, knowledge, and
experiences relates to the goals. Moreover, Miranda (2010, p. 187) states that the
learning goals would be qualified when the students realize that they can control the
cognitive process and affect to the development of their metacognition. To put in
another way, the activities such as planning the approach of their assignment,
monitoring their understanding, and evaluating the progress of their learning goals are
included in metacognition activities.
As one of the main factors that influence student’s scientific writing skill,
metacognition becomes the essential ability to manage the writing process. Students
which give understanding on how the readers interpret the words on the page can help
them communicate more clearly and reach them through the written language that
used to tell the experiences. When students understand that other people experience
the mental process of reading and writing differently than the others do, and when
students understand how their own mental process influences what and how they
write, they are going to write in better ways.
The research that was conducted by Negretti (2012, pp. 142 – 143) shows that
theories of metacognition and self-regulated learning apply to understand how
beginning scientific writers develop the ability to participate in the communicative
practices of scientific writing. The data suggest a link between task perception and
students’ conditional metacognition—their understanding of how to adapt writing
4
strategies to specific rhetorical requirements of the task and why—and performance
evaluation. Metacognition also seems to have a reciprocal relationship with self-
regulation and students’ development of individual writing approaches. The ability to
control their cognitive is useful to succeed in scientific writing. It is also supported by
the statement that metacognition can be understood as how learners think about
thinking (King, 2004). When it comes to writing specifically, metacognition deals with
how students understand their own writing processes, and how they adapt their
processes to evolving demands.
Similarly, Pitenoee, (2017, pp. 594–600) conducted experimental
investigation to explore how the metacognitive strategies can affect the content of EFL
intermediate learners’ writing. The comparison of the post-test scores of the
experimental groups revealed that there was significant difference between the
performances of the two groups, holding that there was no significant difference
between the performances of the two groups in the pretest. That is, metacognitive
writing strategies led to a higher level of writing content, although the two techniques
were equally effective in improving the EFL learners' writing performance (Pitenoee,
2017, p. 599). The result found that metacognitive strategies implicates to the content
of students’ writing. With this in mind, it is also known that there are some aspects of
linguistics that is important in this process especially in scientific writing.
The quality of a word’s representations is composed of multiple linguistic
factors, such as morphology, syntax, and meaning. A great deal of empirical research
also has found that specific language skills such as morphological awareness,
syntactic knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge were all important in predicting
students’ writing skill. Syntax is the part of grammar that governs the structure and
elements of a sentence. It is made up of all the rules in grammar that apply to the
formation of a sentence and the positioning of its elements. For instance, syntax
describes which elements there may be or need to be in a particular type of sentence
and where the elements, particularly the verb, are to be placed. It is the way in which
words and phrases are put together. The fact that certain syntactic structures are
acquired and considered to be more difficult than others suggests that scientific writing
skill might be affected by these differences in structural complexity. In scientific
writing, students not only produce paragraph toward a topic, but also engage in a
neutral writing rather than a subjective (or personal) dialog with the reader. The
audience is assumed to be a general unknown reader who does not necessarily have
an in-depth knowledge of the topic. Therefore, all information must be clearly
explained so that a general reader can follow it. Sentence structure within a sentence
can impact the quality of scientific writing.
Prescriptive grammar involves a set of rules that speculate the way in which
language should be written and punctuated to follow agreed conventions. In a sense,
grammar does not add enhanced meaning to the sentences. It simply prescribes the
5
form that should be used. Syntax is concerned with how a sentence is worded and
structured and involves the type of sentence used, the order in which the words appear,
and the length of the sentence. Chomsky (2002, p. 11) states syntactic knowledge can
be viewed as a device of some sort for producing the sentences of the language under
analysis. In EFL context, syntax is considered to be milestones in the language
development of students, specifically coordination and subordination. Vappingo
(2018) states that there is a distinct difference between writing that is grammatically
correct and writing that is interesting to read. Syntax adds meaning and vibrancy to
the sentences, where grammar simply ensures that the rules of language are followed
within that sentence.
Other works such as Morvay (2011), Yu Chen (2014), and Ying (2011)
investigate syntactic knowledge and its relation to the language skill. Morvay (2011,
p. 430) examines the contribution of syntactic knowledge to second language students’
reading comprehension. The result found that first syntactic abilities have some
effects, while syntactic abilities in second language have a much stronger effect on
second language reading comprehension. On the other hand, Yu Chen (2014) studies
the impact of vocabulary and syntactic knowledge on reading comprehension. The
findings of the study lead to the conclusion that syntactic knowledge is as important
as vocabulary knowledge on second language reading comprehension. Thus, Ying, et
al, (2011) examines the structural relationships among vocabulary knowledge,
morphological awareness, syntactic awareness, and reading comprehension in
English-speaking adults. Notwithstanding the limitations of the topic that are
discussed, it is necessary to study syntactic knowledge relates to the other language
skill. In this context, English Department students’ thesis reviewed from several
aspects.
Based on the problems stated above, the researcher seeks to conduct further
study that investigate metacognition, syntactic knowledge and scientific writing skill
in particular point of view. This research find the importance of syntactic knowledge
and metacognition in scientific writing. The study involves the students of Pamulang
University by using survey method in order to know the students’ scientific writing as
an influence of metacognition and syntactic knowledge. So, this research choose the
metacognition, syntactic knowledge and scientific writing skill as the variables that
assumed to have influence each other.
B. Identification of the Problem
Regarding to the background of the study, the writer identifies as follows:
1. Scientific writing skill is considered low in Pamulang University. Most of students
still cannot express their ideas into good scientific writing so that the quality of
their writing is still in lower level. It is showed by the average score of middle
semester assessment.
6
2. Students face difficulties in producing scientific writing, specifically in term of
synthesizing some resources that support their data and developing paragraphs
into a good quality of scientific writing. Otherwise, the learning process in the
classroom describe that lecturers have already give some corrections and revision
note to the students to revise their scientific essay, but the students still difficult to
learn.
3. Less understanding regarding metacognition particularly on how it works and how
to optimize it. The activity of metacognition exists while students realize to adjust
and to manage their thinking strategy in problem solving and shaping learning
goal.
4. Syntax as one supporting factors in writing is considered low in Pamulang
university. It is showed by the students’ score of syntax that is still low.
5. Syntactic knowledge is viewed difficult to apply in foreign language learning.
Most of students are difficult in applying formation of a sentence, positioning its
elements and combining sentences comprehensibly.
6. Scientific writing skill is rarely known affected by syntactic knowledge.
Therefore, syntactic knowledge is one of linguistic aspects that necessary for
measuring writing skill. Many students in university unable to analyze the
sentences of the language so that they difficult to produce good quality of writing.
C. Limitation of the Problem
In this research, scientific writing skill is limited in the area of scientific essay
writing. Although there are many factors that affected scientific writing skill, the
research is limited on the effect of metacognition and syntactic knowledge. Since
scientific writing is complex writing type, the metacognition that used is in planned
learning. In order to avoid wider discussion, the syntactic knowledge analyzed in this
research is focused on the knowledge of sentence combining.
D. Formulation of the Problem
Based on the problems identification, the problems will be formulated as
follow:
1. How is students’ scientific writing skill, metacognition and syntactic knowledge?
2. Is there any influence of metacognition on students’ scientific writing skill?
3. Is there any influence of syntactic knowledge on students’ scientific writing skill?
4. Are there any influence of metacognition and syntactic knowledge simultaneously
on students’ scientific writing skill?
E. Objective of the Study
The objectives of the research are as follows:
7
1. To evaluate students’ scientific writing skill, metacognition and syntactic
knowledge.
2. To analyze if there any influence of metacognition on students’ scientific writing
skill.
3. To analyze if there any influence of syntactic knowledge on students’ scientific
writing skill.
4. To analyze if there any influence of metacognition and syntactic knowledge
simultaneously on students’ scientific writing skill.
F. Significant of the Study
There are some significant of the study regarding to the contribution of the
study both theoretically and practically for:
1. The students
The students are expected to know that good scientific writing is supported by
metacognition and syntactic knowledge, so that they could concern to use their
metacognition and syntactic knowledge in the process of making scientific writing
2. The teacher
In teaching scientific writing, the teachers can build good brainstorming for the
students in exploring their ideas, then give them understanding to use their
metacognition and develop their syntactic knowledge.
3. The institution
For the institution Pamulang University, it will be beneficial to the institution that
the students can produce good quality of scientific writing, so the institution can
document students’ product or even publish it.
4. The others researcher
For other researchers, it is benefit because it gives some insights related to
students’ metacognition, syntactic knowledge and their scientific writing skill. It
also can be one of consideration to make the further research about metacognition,
syntactic knowledge or scientific writing skill and the study on how to improve
scientific writing by developing metacognition and syntactic knowledge.
8
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Scientific Writing
1. The Nature of Writing Writing is considered a productive skill that is a visual form of
communication, either printed in hard-copy or in electronic form. Writing is a form of
communication that allows a person to put their feelings and ideas on paper, to
organize their knowledge and beliefs into convincing arguments, and to convey
meaning through well-constructed text. It follows conventions that are mutually
understandable by the writer and the reader, even if these conventions change over
time or are used with specific meanings in smaller speech communities. Senner
recognize the definition that writing is a system of human interaction by means of
conventional visible marks (Senner, 2001, p. 2). Thus, Vygotsky states that writing is
a synthesis or pulling together of ideas, images, disorganization facts and fragments
of experience (Everson, 2001, p. 11). Writing has often been seen as a secondary
symbolic system, based on speech. It is the complete skill after the students have many
knowledge in reading, listening, and speaking. In modern discourse theory, writing
represents complex, difficult and time consuming process. Gungle & Taylor (in Amer,
2013, p. 225) state that writing is inarguably one of the most difficult skills EFL
learners encounter when learning a target language due to that fact that have about
writing in English may be substantially different from those of native language users.
According to Brown (in Emelie and Nathalie, 2007, p. 335), he states that a
simplistic view of writing would assume that written language is simply the graphic
representation of spoken language. This is supported and developed by Hedge, (in
Emelie and Nathalie, 2007, p. 10) who states that “writing is more than producing
accurate and complete sentences and phrases. That writing is about guiding students
to produce whole pieces of communication, to link and develop information, ideas, or
arguments for a particular reader or a group of readers. Therefore, to produce a
complete sentence teacher must be guiding students to get effective writing.
Furthermore, effective writing requires several things: a high degree of organization
regarding the development and structuring of ideas, information and arguments, such
as: a high degree of accuracy, complex grammar devices, a careful choice of
vocabulary and sentence structures in order to create style, tone and information
appropriate for the readers of one’s written text.
Writing skill can be defined as an ability to communicate all the ideas or
imaginations into the form of structured pattern. So that, the readers may understand
what the writers mean in their writing. Writing is the skill that processed by human
being to produce his or her ideas and thought into written-forms, although the ideas
9
or thought can also produce through spoken forms. Therefore, writing is one of skill
which very important in English competence.
Besides reading, speaking and listening, writing skill is rather difficult to be
mastered because writing plays a central role in formal and non-formal education.
First, as in any institution, writing is used within institution to regulate activity. Rules,
conventions, instructions, statements of mission and aim and teacher directions are
often couched in writing. They appear in notices, in handbooks and in letters to
students. Inevitably, these written missives carry the weight of authority and control
their attempt to create a community. Second, writing is important because it marks the
kind of discourse that is highly valued. The transition from high school to the
university level marks a transition from a primarily oral world of discourse to one in
which writing takes preeminence. According to Tyjala, the role of writing stems from
several process. Written words make it possible to reflect on the ideas which are put
into words and revise them. Moreover, writers have to convey meanings
independently of the context in which the written composition is generated, requiring
them to be clear and consistent. Further, the different textual forms in which writing
is expressed contribute to the organization of ideas. Finally, writing is an active
process through which writers can explore and make their own ideas clear to
themselves.
In writing process, it can be thought of as thinking made visible. Students
have to consider vocabulary, language used, style technique and sentence formation
all at the same time. Similarly, Freeman (in Rokni and Seifi, 2013, p. 59) argues that
grammatical accuracy is one of the essential parts to ensure the writer’s intended
meaning and to avoid communicative misunderstanding. In another view, writing is
primarily about organizing information and communicating meaning that is repetitive.
Writing is identified not a highly organized linear process, but rather a continual
movement.
The purposes of the writing can be different from one writer and others such
as to communicate feelings, emotions, ideas; to record data and events; to preserve
memories and idea; and to elaborate or explain idea. In university level, writing is
course that should be comprehend by the students. In other words, writing for their
studies are integrally related that they cannot be separated from each other. The main
point of this writing is the writer tends to have knowledge-transforming process in
which goal and setting are created properly, content knowledge and discorse
knowledge can be seen from the written text they creates.
Based on the explanation above, it can be conclude that writing is an activity
that allow person to communicate with the readers to express the ideas and feelings.
Writing makes people possible deliver the information and knowledge to others. Also,
writing not only requires the other language skill, but also it needs knowledge and the
ability to process and analyze the idea.
10
2. Types of Writing
There are several distinguish types of writing with all different aims and
meanings. The scientific genre types of writing is based on the aims of what the writer
want to develop and how writing is framed. Knowing different types of writing is very
practical to recognize the writing in order to get easier way while reading. This helps
writer understand the meanings of the things you read and why they were written.
From the several source of knowledge, there are four main types of writing
that need to comprehend to the students that are expository writing, descriptive
writing, persuasive writing, and narrative writing. Each of these writing styles is used
for a specific purpose. A single text may include more than one writing style.
Expository Expository writing is one of the most common types of writing. When an
author writes in an expository style, all they are trying to do is explain a concept,
imparting information from themselves to a wider audience. Expository writing does
not include the author’s opinions, but focuses on accepted facts about a topic,
including statistics or other evidence. This kind of writing emphasizes in which
author’s purpose is to inform or explain the subject to the reader. Expository writing
is where the author intends to inform, explain, describe or define their subject to the
reader.
The writer have to know that expository writing is the writing whom concept
is based on fact and theory with no bias or opinion. Something important to keep in
mind when writing exposition is that the writer should not assume the readers have
any knowledge of the topic; don't gloss over basic or important details, even if the
writer think some of the content are common knowledge.
There are a few characteristics of expository writing you should remember
when crafting an expository essay. The first is to keep a tight focus on the main topic,
avoiding lengthy tangents, wordiness, or unrelated asides that aren’t necessary for
understanding your topic.
In the same vein, the writer should chooses one topic that is specific and
narrow, but not so narrow. It also have to have the supporting detail for developing
the topic providing by plenty of facts, details, examples, and explanations. The
supporting details that can support the expository writing is explained below:
1. Anecdotes that means the part of the text that is aimed to interest the reader and
curious to know the content of writing. In expository writing, the anecdotes can be the
problem that arose in writing.
2. Comparisons or relevant issues that give some perspectives related to topics in the
other matters. It might be the relevant study that ever conducted before the writing is
done.
11
3. Quotations that includes direct quotations or indirect quotations about the fact that
is presented in the writing.
4. Statistics are the data which are conducted along the research. The form of statistics
can be served in histograms, tables, formulas, percentages and so on.
5. Descriptive details that mean all descriptions of what is happened and all
explanations of the topic.
6. Definitions mean the statements of every focus in the writing.
The typical format for an expository essay is the traditional five-paragraph
essay. This includes an introduction and a conclusion, with three paragraphs for the
body of the paper. Most often, these three paragraphs are limited to one subtopic each.
This is the basic essay format, but expository writing does not need to be limited to
five paragraphs. Introduction must determine thesis statement and that the paper is
based on facts rather than opinions and, as with all good essay writing, it also need to
connect paragraphs with transitions.
There are some examples of expository writing such as textbooks, how-to
articles, recipes, news stories (not editorials), business, technical, or scientific writing.
Descriptive
Descriptive writing is often found in fiction, though it can make an appearance
in nonfiction as well (for example, memoirs, first-hand accounts of events, or travel
guides). When an author writes in a descriptive style, they are painting a picture in
words of a person, place, or thing for their audience. The author might employ
metaphor or other literary devices in order to describe the author’s impressions via
their five senses (what they hear, see, smell, taste, or touch). But the author is not
trying to convince the audience of anything or explain the scene – merely describe
things as they are.
Descriptive writing uses a lot of great visual words to help readers see the
person, place or thing they are writing about. The writing can be poetic at times, and
explain things in great detail. When reading descriptive writing, the readers feel as if
they are there or can actually picture in mind what the writers are describing.
Metaphors, similes and symbols are often used in descriptive writing.
When using descriptive language, it is important to vary the sentence
structure. Try to avoid using the same subject-verb pattern in all sentences. Embedding
descriptive elements and combining sentences can help to avoid the routine subject-
verb structure because it breaks the monotonous tone and the clipped, subject-verb
style.
The examples of descriptive writer are spread specifically in language
community such as poetry, journal/diary writing, descriptions of nature and fictional
novels or plays.
12
Persuasive
Persuasive writing is the main style of writing you will use in academic
papers. When an author writes in a persuasive style, they are trying to convince the
audience of a position or belief. Persuasive writing contains the author’s opinions and
biases, as well as justifications and reasons given by the author as evidence of the
correctness of their position. Any “argumentative” essay you write in school should
be in the persuasive style of writing.
Persuasive writing takes on the opinion of the writer or issue the writer is
writing for. This is considered biased material and is most often found in advertising.
It states the opinion of the writer and attempts to influence the reader.
The examples of persuasive writing are cover letters, op-Eds and editorial
newspaper articles, reviews of items, letters of complaint, advertisements or letters of
recommendation.
Narrative
Narrative writing is used in almost every longer piece of writing, whether
fiction or nonfiction. When an author writes in a narrative style, they are not just trying
to impart information, they are trying to construct and communicate a story, complete
with characters, conflict, and settings.
Narrative writing is very common in novels, poetry and biographies. The
author puts themselves in their characters shoes and writes as if they were that person.
They tell life stories and involve plots and storylines. Narrative is fun to read because
the readers can replace the author with themselves and it will seem as if the story is
happening to the readers.
There are many specific traits every piece of narrative writing should have.
All stories must have characters, also known as the people or subjects of the story.
Usually there are also specific types of characters needed in order to create a
developed story. For example, each story will often have a protagonist, which is the
hero or heroine. This is the central character of the story. Often, there is also an
antagonist, which is a character who opposes the protagonist. Overall, each story
needs characters to push forward or react to the events in the plot.
In addition to characters, every story must have a plot, or events that occur.
Every story needs a plot or events that give the characters something to react to.
Usually, the plot consists of five components: the exposition, rising action, climax,
falling action, and resolution. One of the most important components of a story is the
conflict. A conflict is any struggle between opposing forces. The characters simply
lived their happy lives with no troubles and nothing difficult to deal with. Conflict is
very important to creating interest in stories.
The examples of narrative writing are oral histories, novels, short stories,
poetry (especially epic sagas or poems), and anecdotes.
13
3. The Understanding of Scientific Writing Skill
As mentioned in the previous subchapter that scientific writing is included in
repository writing. The term of scientific writing refers to the type of writing that used
in university level. The skill of scientific writing is obliged in which students complete
many kinds of assignment in written work. Scientific writing is conducted in several
sets of forms and genres which targeted for a critical and informed audience, based on
closely investigated knowledge, and intended to reinforce or challenge concepts or
arguments. It is about using words correctly and finding precise way to explain what
the researcher did, what researcher found and why it matters (Peat et al, 2002, p. 1).
Scientific writing can take many forms from a lab notebook to a project report, or from
a paper in an academic journal to an article in a scientific magazine. In the other words,
scientific writing is a type of writing that is based on or characterized by the methods
and principles of science that is empirical and knowledge based.
According to Lindsay, a good scientific writing has some characteristics that
distinguish it from all others literature. They are precise, clear, and brief, thus it have
to be in order (2011, p. 4). Since the aim of good scientific writing is to communicate
good science of non-native English speakers who have well tools they need to write.
If it is vague, it is not scientific writing, if it is unclear, it is not scientific writing, if it
is long winded and unnecessary, and it is not scientific writing. The style of scientific
writing are plain and simple. Writing a scientific article should have to have as many
people as possible to read it, understand it, and be influenced by it.
Additionally, other characteristics of good scientific writing are structured
logically, and objective (Student Learning Development [SLD], University of
Leicester, 2009). The ideas and processes are expressed in a logical order. It is
beneficial when the writer divides the text into sections with clear headings. Thus,
statements and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence that demonstrates how
conclusions have been drawn as well as acknowledging the work of others. Goctu
(2017) states two aspects of scientific writing that are linguistics and communicative.
It involves the forming of accurate sentences, the coherent structuring of the ideas,
and adopting the appropriate stance for citing previous work on the topic. Thus,
Hyland (2004) mentions several characteristics that have to remind in making
scientific writing. The characteristics are starting good ideas, having clear sense of
purpose, using logical progression of idea, and writing clearly and directly. In
scientific writing, the students are not only write the words in a paragraph, but also
emphasize the linguistic aspects.
In scientific writing, a writer should makes the readers think along the same
path as the writer. For convincing the readers, the first objective should be to introduce
that the story being told sounds scientifically and addresses an issue logically. A good
introduction goes much further than only state the problem and provide the readers
with relevant literature. It should describe a series of logical steps that end in a
14
statement of what the experiment is about, why the writer did it and what the writer
expect to get from it. In other words, the writing needs to have a clear focus, so that
the focus will lead to readers predicting what they read, then it will make reading as
an easy task.
When writing a blog or fiction story, the writers usually have freedom to go
as deep into the topic as possible if it is necessary. Therefore, in scientific writing, the
writers have to limit the perspectives so that the readers understand the problem that
is discussed in a scientific writing. In addition, the elements of scientific writing
usually be grouped into a set of reasonably investigation which greatly facilitates
limitation of the study. Thus, the possibilities of the problem clearly needs to be
addressed. However, the other variables that is related to the discussion also need to
be considered as one of factors that influence the result. Moreover, in presenting the
idea, the discussion is not only committing the data, but also ensuring that the data
provided are structured and presented clearly.
Given the importance of good scientific writing and difficulties to achieve it,
it is admitted that students need particular skill to be improved. Scientific writing skill
is a particular ability to write based on or characterized by the methods and principles
of science that is empirical and knowledge based. It is students’ ability to write an
essay that is systematic, methodological, and structured. Systematic is done or acting
according to a fixed plan or system orderly. In this case, students are expected to have
the ability to comprehend the structure of scientific writing that consist of
introduction, body and conclusion paragraph. Thus, methodological is relating to the
system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity. Students are indicated
to have the ability to grasp the method of the study. It includes all textual evidence
relevant to topic and the explanation of the interpretation. Then, structured means that
students are obliged to have the ability to comprehend English grammar such as
sentence construction, usage and punctuation.
4. The Components of scientific writing
There are some main components which are commonly used in scientific
writing such as introduction, result and discussion (Lindsay, 2009; SLD, 2011). Some
of the experts add materials and methods before discussing the result. However, there
are three main components that are explained below.
Introduction
The principle functions of the introduction are to put writing into a general
context and to define the particular question(s) that will be addressed. The main goal
of the introduction is to convey basic information to the readers without obligating
them to investigate previous publications and to provide clues as to the results of the
present study (Aramagan, 2013). It also aimed to state the research problem, establish
15
the hypothesis, provide justification and state the methods, results and conclusions in
brief. In this part, the research objectives is described clearly and simply that explain
and state why the research is distinctive. It includes a clear statement of hypothesis,
which states what is expected to reveal. It also needs to give the current background
information about the research problem if the study is researched before. Therefore, if
it is original work, it is needed to provide a comprehensive literature review of work
preceding or closely related to it to show the gap in the existing knowledge. Thus,
another important point is to make a description on how the writer intend to answer
the problem and give the results, otherwise, detail is appropriate for this part. Most of
the introduction are presented in the present tense, since it describes a current problem
and current conclusions. However, details of methods and results given in the
introduction are mostly in the past tense, and future implications based on the
conclusions are in the future tense.
Methods
In this part, it provides an extensive protocol for the writing which can be
repeated by others. This is essentially an instruction manual, to enable reproduction
of the work and should provide details of the design, including their purpose, details
of the data recording techniques, specific methods of the sample preparation and
precise details of any subjects/samples included in the study.
Result
Result also important part in scientific writing as the priorities rather than appear
as huge information. Result with high priorities are those that relate to the testing and
hypotheses and those of low priority are those that do not. This is where the core of
the work is presented so that the clarity is essential since the rest of report hinges is
presented in this part. The purpose is to present the data in a manner that is easy to
read and interpret. The results section should be kept brief and repetition of methods
or results should be avoided. Relationships between data should be described in the
text of results section. Another particular point is to avoid discussing the implications
of results in the results section. The result usually includes tables, graphs, and figures
that are numbered and labeled. The results section may have subheadings which
complement the headings in materials and methods section.
Discussion
The discussion explores the consequences in relation to the work of other
research. The purpose of this par is to discuss the relationships between results and
how they relate to the initial objectives and hypotheses. It also includes the description
of the shortcomings and implications of the research that provide major conclusions,
supported with evidence, and suggest future applications of the research findings.
16
Therefore, it is better to discuss how the results are similar to or different from
published findings and attempt to explain the differences. The conclusions are built in
a statement with evidence from literature that makes the research clear. Then, discuss
the significance of the findings and any future implications. When discussing the data,
write in the past tense and when discussing future implications write in the future
tense.
5. Characteristics of Good Scientific Writing
To reflect the characteristics of good scientific writing, the writer need to think
about the way of writing and the language that used. A good scientific author will
have given consideration to the following choices in writing, making decisions that
improve the effectiveness of the writing. There are some characteristics that make
scientific writing is good on the quality, that are:
1) clear - it avoids unnecessary detail. The work of scientific writing has to be clear
and focus. It use strong sentence that is necessary to support the thesis statement;
2) simple - it uses direct language, avoiding vague or complicated sentences.
Technical terms and jargon are used only when they are necessary for accuracy;
3) impartial - it avoids making assumptions (e.g., Everyone knows that ...) and
unproven statements (e.g., It can never be proved that ...). It presents how and
where data were collected and supports its conclusions with evidence;
4) structured logically - ideas and processes are expressed in a logical order. The text
is divided into sections with clear headings;
5) accurate - it avoids vague and ambiguous language such as about, approximately,
almost;
6) objective - statements and ideas are supported by appropriate evidence that
demonstrates how conclusions have been drawn as well as acknowledging the
work of others.
The sentences in scientific writing tend to be dense, in other words they contain
lots of highly grammatically complex sentences. A variety of grammatical scientific
reading is demanding – both the ideas and the sentence structures can be complex. It
is useful to be aware of this and to develop the range of grammatical structures and
vocabulary that use by thinking about what they mean and trying to use them in
writing. However, scientific writing do not use words and phrases that are not familiar
with just because thinking that it will make the writing more scientific.
6. The Ways to Teach Scientific Writing
Scientific writing is a complex skill which most students actually need in order
to successfully accomplish higher education. Because everything is based on writing
during academic years, a student who possesses good writing skills will automatically
do better at everything, including exams, essays, assignments, and so on.
17
The role of a teacher is to help each and every student improve themselves,
acquire new skills, and become a better individual by the end of their time spent in
college. Even though one cannot improve their skills without working hard and having
a desire to make progress, a teacher can definitely get involved and make huge
differences concerning this matter. There are some ways of teaching that can improve
the students in scientific writing skill.
1) Encourage good writing
Some teachers expect good results, but they never do anything in order to
motivate their students. Stress the fact that good, thoughtful, and clear writing will be
greatly rewarded. Let the students know that bonus points will be available for those
who make greater efforts to express themselves better on paper.
On the other hand, let them understand that poor quality writing will bring the
exact opposite results. So if an essay has good points and ideas, but the writing shows
little effort, the grade will be lower. Another thing teacher can do, is let them know
that it’s perfectly fine if they start improving themselves using online sources.
2) Work on student’s mindset
Sometimes, stating clear rules and expectations is just not enough. It may not
work for every student. That is why teacher should also take a lighter path. It means
that you can use non-intrusive motivation techniques that will inspire the students
instead of scaring them.
For example, one way that can make them understand that writing is extremely
important in their lives, and not only during college. Give a few examples of
individuals who have missed great life and career opportunities because of their poor
writing skills. Teacher could also make them understand that writing will help them
think better, connect things easier, and ultimately make their life easier in so many
aspects.
3) A lot of practice equals better performance
Every human skill gets better with constant, repetitive practice. In this case,
teacher could easily make a small change in the classroom routine, and organize brief
writing sessions each and every day. Ask the students to write a relatively small
amount of words on a specific subject every day. It may be painful for them at first,
but the more they write, the better their writing will get.
These brief writing sessions, combined with their home assignments and exams
(most of which will require essay writing skills), will assure that their writing is always
practiced. In this way, they will find it much easier to pull off better words, ideas, and
content.
Another good thing teacher can do is to diversify the writing topics and genres.
For example, during one class the students can write a non-fiction piece of content.
During another class, they can put their imaginations to work and do some novel
writing.
18
4) Provide instructions throughout the writing process
The moment when teacher provide the students with a specific assignment, take
a few moments and explain to them how they should go about it. The teacher can
emphasize the importance of creating clear and concise outlines before students start
writing. Another thing is give them a starting point. Show them some techniques that
will save them time and energy. By approaching them in this manner, and giving them
more than enough in order to complete their assignments, students will just do better.
With time, they will significantly improve their writing skills.
5) Provide helpful feedback
When it comes to improving writing skills—for everybody, not just for
students—feedback plays a huge role during the process. Teachers have a great deal
of knowledge compared to fellow students. They see the teacher as a role model.
Teacher’s role, besides the teaching, is to offer the quality feedback. Feedback should
contain specific tips and corrections for each and every student separately.
6) Make students read a lot
Most successful writers are also keen readers. Try to make the students
understand the importance of everyday reading, and the link between reading and
writing. A good way to make it easier for them is to give those clear instructions and
reading material.
For example, teacher can give them a list of books/articles/essays, and offer them
specific and clear indications of where to look when they start the reading process,
how to study the sentences, the style, and so on. In doing so, they will see great
improvements when it comes to their word choice, sentences structure, and how the
whole content will sound.
Writing is a basic skill that can be practiced over and over again. With teacher’s
help, the students can become better and better as the time passes. As mentioned
earlier, teacher play a huge role in their education and in their skills development
process.
7. The Steps to Make Scientific Writing
In research process, there are three distinct phases that usually done by the
researcher that are planning the work, doing the research, and writing it up.
Meanwhile, the three phases is very integrated and related each other that none can be
completed successfully without the other two. Broadly, the thinking process in writing
a paper parallels that for designing itself. According to Lindsay (2011, p. 6), there are
some steps that is required to build a scientific writing, as follows:
Step 1: Predict the result of the research that is planned to do. In this step, the
researcher simply work the research by making the prediction of the research result.
Step 2: Sort out the reason of why the researcher think that they will get these
result. It is more difficult than step 1 where the researcher requires to support the
19
prediction logically based on the evidence on published and acceptable information.
This part involves a lot of thinking, reading, interpretation and rethinking. When the
information is finished to write, the prediction that is written before can become a
hypothesis which used as the central of the focus.
Step 3: Imagine how to present the research. It is important to present the
research in a correct order. As already mentioned earlier, there are three main part that
is used as the elements of good scientific writing that are introduction, result and
discussion.
Step 4: Imagine how to explain the research. It means that the hypothesis that
have already formulated is proved based on the evidence from the data, figure and
explanation.
There are a lot of advantages writing a scientific paper by using these steps
which can impact the thinking become logically and scientifically. More important,
the researcher will have a clear focus that makes the reader predicting the way research
is done.
8. Assessing Scientific Writing Skill
Developing a good quality of scientific writing requires a certain
organizational structure to ensure that the paper can be read and understood clearly by
the targeted readers of a particular scientific community (Rakhmawati, 2012, p. 267).
Scientific writing is an important communication and learning tool in scholar
community, yet it is a skill not adequately cultivated in introductory undergraduate
English courses. Proficient, confident scientific writers are produced by providing
specific knowledge about the writing process, combined with a clear student
understanding about how to think about writing (also known as metacognition).
To assess scientific writing skill some components should be carefully
noticed. There are some general points that any good scientific essay should follow.
These points can be used a as general consideration of scientific writing skill
assessment. The first point is structure. Scientific writing should make an argument
which means that essay should have a point and reach a conclusion, even if tentative,
and the writers should try to convince the reader that the point is correct. The important
points in writing a good essay will help the writers to make it well organized, and
well-written. Clarity of thought and argument provide the necessary basis for a clear
writing style, a logical progression, using data or evidence to support each step of
argument, then come to a logical conclusion. Next, it is key to back up each crucial
point of the research with data. By briefly describing its key result in a sentence and
explain explicitly, it makes the essay precise and avoid from unclear data. Each piece
of data should be cited at the appropriate place in the argument and not repeated
excessively in other less appropriate places. On the other hand, the writer should
consider to always cite relevant data even if the data goes against the arguments. Thus,
20
another point to consider is proof of the research. The logic of scientific discovery is
that of generating a list of possibilities and then doing experiments to test them.
There are some particular structure that must be exist in the paper including
title, abstract, introduction, aim, method, result, discussion and conclusion. Those
parts have to describe clearly based on the characteristics of good scientific paper. The
assessment of scientific writing text is usually used direct assessment, which is giving
the score by each frame (O‘Neill, 2011, p. 11).
In assessing the scientific writing skill, this research uses assessment. There
are four aspects used to measure the quality of scientific writing in this research. The
scientific writing aspects is described as follow:
1. Organization of the writing refers to the coherent paragraph and defined pattern
of scientific writing that consists of introduction, method, result, and discussion.
This point is used to measure how the writer unifies the paragraph, develops it
with correct arrangement and relates each other
2. Focus and Unity of the introduction include developed introduction with thesis
statement and each paragraph relates to the topic.
3. Thoughtful analysis includes the method presented and the analysis of result and
discussion. The points are in the describing the data, relevant evidences and
interpreting the result.
4. Composition skill refers to the use of varied sentence structure, standard grammar
and punctuation.
Based on the theories that presented above, it can be concluded that scientific
writing skill is a skill to provide conventional thinking to the reader about one
particular issue of scientific writing from the writers’ view based on the data and
strong evidences. It is measured by some indicators that are:
1. presenting paragraph follow a coherent, defined pattern;
2. elaborating the unity of introduction with thesis statement;
3. relating paragraph to the topic;
4. describing the data and relevant evidence;
5. interpreting the result and conclusion;
6. generating varied sentence structure with word choices;
7. using standard grammar and punctuation.
The instrument for assessing the scientific writing is essay test where the
students construct essay based on the requirement of scientific writing.
B. Metacognition
1. The Nature of Metacognition
Metacognition is the essential part in term of raising students’ awareness in
English thinking skill. By developing metacognition skills, students know how to
recognize the weaknesses and shortcomings in the process of thinking, revealing what
21
people think, restoring the efforts that they have made, and deciding which element is
understandable and not understandable (Kadir & Sappaile, 2019, p. 182).
Metacognition essentially means cognition about cognition; that is, it refers
to second order cognitions: thoughts about thoughts, knowledge about knowledge or
reflections about actions (Louca, 2008, p. 2). The definition of metacognition has been
broadened and includes, not only “thoughts about thoughts” and cognitive states as it
was before considered, but also affective states, motives, intentions and the ability to
consciously and deliberately monitor and regulate one’s knowledge, processes,
cognitive and affective states, motives and intentions.
Metacognition is defined most simply as “thinking about thinking.”
According to Schraw (2001, p. 3), there are two components in the concept of
metacognition, “knowledge of cognition and regulation of cognition”. In general,
these metacognitive skills are actual strategies being utilized to control and regulate
cognitive activities. Metacognition occurs as a result of one’s individual evaluation
and observation of their cognitive behavior in a learning environment. According to
Akturk and Sahin (2011, p. 3732), metacognition is a theoretical structure where
learners take effective responsibility of their learning and is individuals’ being aware
of their learning and its management. Based on some theories stated above,
metacognition is one important aspect of human intelligence and it is also the aspect
of intelligence that can be more easily promoted by education. In practice these
capacities are used to regulate one's own cognition, to maximize one's potential to
think, learn and to the evaluation of proper ethical/moral rules. It can also lead to a
reduction in response time for a given situation as a result of heightened awareness,
and potentially reduce the time to complete problems or tasks.
More complete concept relating to metacognition is made clear by Marzano
et al. (in Kadir, 2019, p. 182) who elucidated that metacognition was a skill that could
be organized into multiple domains, namely: (1) self-organization (self-regulation
skills), including a commitment to academic tasks, positive attitude of students toward
academic work, and controlling attention to the needs of academic work, (2) the use
of the kind of knowledge (types of knowledge) which include; declarative knowledge,
procedural, and conditional knowledge, and (3) control of the implementation
(executive control skills), which include: skills to evaluate, plan and monitor the
process skills.
Therefore, the concepts of cognition and metacognition are different although
they are related to each other. While metacognition is necessary to understand how a
task will be performed, cognition is required to fulfill a task (Schraw, 2001, p. 4).
While cognition means being aware of and understanding something, metacognition
is being aware of and knowing how one learns in addition to learning and
understanding something. On the other hand, cognition is necessary to form the
learning process and information while metacognition is required for individuals to
22
observe, develop, and evaluate their own processes and apply their knowledge to new
situations. Therefore, metacognition is a basic requirement for cognitive effectiveness.
It is necessary to understand the relationship between metacognition and cognition.
Metacognitive activities occur before cognitive activities (planning), during activities
(monitoring) or after activities (evaluating). We can give as an example a student who
uses self-observation strategy during reading to exemplify the relationship between
metacognition and cognition. The student knows that they cannot comprehend
(metacognition) what they are writing. At the same time, they know that they can
understand the text better when they prepare a conceptual map or makes a summary
(cognition).
2. Components of Metacognition
Since the discussion of metacognition began several years ago, evidence has
accumulated on important elements of metacognition. Metacognition can be
conceptualized as having two fundamental elements. The ‘meta’ refers to higher-order
cognition about cognition, or ‘thinking about one’s thinking’. It is often considered to
have two dimensions: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Based
on Schraw (2001, p. 3), there are two components of metacognition that consists of
several points. The information is described in the following figure 2.1:
Figure 2. 1
Components of Metacognition
Metacognition has two components that are knowledge and regulation.
Knowledge of cognition encompasses declarative, procedural, and conditional
knowledge. The other component is regulation of cognition that consists of three
essential skills which enable students to control their learning (Schraw, 2001). These
skills include: planning, monitoring, and evaluating.
23
Knowledge of Cognition
Knowledge of person variables refers to general knowledge about how human
beings learn and process information, as well as individual knowledge of one's own
learning processes. For example, students may be aware that their study session will
be more productive if they work in the quiet library rather than at home where there
are many distractions. Knowledge of task variables include knowledge about the
nature of the task as well as the type of processing demands that it will place upon the
individual.
There are three aspects of learning applicable to both subject content and
strategy knowledge that help to define Metacognition:
1. Declarative knowledge is factual information that can be declared, spoken or
written. Declarative knowledge refers to “knowledge about oneself as a learner
and what factors influence one’s performance” (Schraw, 2001, p. 4). It refers to
the knowledge, skills and strategies needed to effectively complete a task under
one or more condition. Within the context of writing, example of declarative
knowledge include understanding the purposes for writing, the topics, needs of
intended audience, genre constraints, linguistic structures, and the higher order
processes that underlie skillful composing such as planning, drafting and revising
(Donovan and Smolkin, 2006). Another aspect of declarative knowledge involves
awareness of one’s strength and weaknesses with regard to a task, as well as other
affective dimensions such as self-efficacy and motivation.
2. Procedural knowledge is knowledge of how to perform the steps in a process
(techniques): the procedure(s) to ‘do’ decomposition, the steps in an experiment,
to plan extended writing or revise for a test. Procedural knowledge is knowledge
about doing things. As explained by Schraw (2001), it refers to knowledge about
how to do things and “is represented as heuristics and strategies” (p. 4). It includes
information about how to successfully apply the various actions or strategies
comprising declarative knowledge, In other words, this is a knowing how.
Example of procedural knowledge within the context of writing include an
understanding of general strategies that allow for efficacious planning, text
production, and revising. Procedural knowledge also can include information
related to creating an environment that is conducive to writing.
3. Conditional knowledge is knowledge about when to use a particular skill or
technique strategically and when not to use it; why a procedure works and under
what conditions; and why one procedure is better than another. Conditional
knowledge refers to knowledge about “the “why” and “when” aspects of
cognition”. It allows the writer to determine the appropriate conditions in which
to apply procedural and declarative knowledge. Within the context of composing,
conditional knowledge enables the writer to, for instance, critically consider a
specific writing task, determine what skills and strategies will be best scaffold
24
achievement of the goals for the task, identify when and why to employ various
compositional processes, and modify environmental condition.
Regulation of Knowledge
Metacognitive experiences involve the use of metacognitive strategies or
metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive strategies are sequential processes that one
uses to control cognitive activities, and to ensure that a cognitive goal (e.g.,
understanding a text) has been met. These processes help to regulate and oversee
learning, and consist of planning and monitoring cognitive activities, as well as
checking the outcomes of those activities.
1. Planning is the skill of selecting proper strategies and resources “that affect
performance” (Schraw, 2001, p. 5). Planning pertains to goal-setting that guides
cognitions in general and monitoring specifically (Pintrich et al., 2000). In term
of writing, planning is a fundamental and essential component that occurs before
and during text production. Many skilled writers devote more than two-thirds of
their writing time to planning. The typical planning begin by critically considering
the task. In planning, writers formulate goals and make an outline conceptual level
plans that reflect crucial elements such as their rhetorical purpose, perceived
audience needs, genre demands, appropriate tone, and effective linguistic style.
2. Monitoring means one’s knowledge about understanding and performing a task.
Monitoring activities include assessing learning and performance-in-action while
regulation pertains to changing cognitions and behavior to match them with
personal goals and task demands (Pintrich et al., 2000).
3. Evaluating means “appraising the products and efficiency of one’s learning”
(Schraw, 2001, p. 5). Evaluation pertains to “appraising the products and
efficiency of one’s learning” by re-visiting one’s goals and conclusion
3. The Role of Metacognition in Writing
Metacognition can be developed in students in the context of their current
goals and can enhance their learning of competencies as well as transfer of learning,
no matter their starting achievement level. In fact, it may be most useful for lower-
achieving students, as the higher-achieving students are already employing strategies
that have proven successful for them.
Metacognition defines and provides an overview of its role and impact with
regard to composing (Waters and Schneider, 2010, p. 227). While composing, skillful
writers devote varying degrees of attention and other cognitive resources to their
writing topic, their intended audience, their compositional purpose, and their text
structure. Even professional authors commonly face the complexity and difficulty
associated with writing, and even greater challenge associated with learning how to
write. In this case, students who have higher levels of self-efficacy (more confidence
25
in their ability to achieve their goals) are more likely to engage in metacognition and,
in turn, are more likely to perform at higher levels. This strongly indicates a positive
feedback loop for high-achieving students—they are more successful by using
metacognitive strategies, which increases their confidence and in turn leads them to
continue to increase their performance. Metacognition is an integral part of this
virtuous learning cycle, and one that is amenable to further improvement through
instruction. The more students are aware of their thinking processes as they learn, the
more they can control elements such as personal goals, dispositions and attention.
Self-awareness promotes self-regulation. The simplest approach to developing
metacognition in students is to stop telling them what to think and get them to explain
to you, themselves and each other what they are thinking.
A substantial body of research offers insight about the nature and impact of
metacognitive writing knowledge (Waters and Schneider, 2010, p. 229). This study
has documented its developmental trajectory, as well as the critical role it plays with
regard to writing development and performance. The available evidence supports four
prepositions (Graham, 2006): (1) skilled writer are more knowledgeable about writing
than less skilled writers; (2) students become increasingly knowledgeable about
writing with age and schooling; (3) the level knowledge writers bring to the
composing task is related to their writing performance; (4) instruction that enhances
writers’ knowledge combined with meaningful practice opportunities leads to
improvements in writing output and quality.
Skilled writers have a rich understanding of the essential elements and
characteristics of high-quality compositions. They also have knowledge of the various
higher order processes that allow one to compose proficiently. In contrast, beginner
and struggling writers frequently lack knowledge of conceptualization form over
function and the contribution of god writing product and process.
In another component, skilled writing explicitly and implicitly acknowledge
the critical role of self-regulatory process include goal setting and planning, seeking
information, record keeping, organizing, transforming, self-monitoring, reviewing
record, self-evaluating, revising, self-verbalizing, rehearsing, environmental
structuring, time planning, self-consequences, seeking social assistance, and self-
selecting models. Planning is essential component of skillful writing that occur before
and during text production. In fact, skilled writers often devote more than two-thirds
of their writing time to planning. They typically begin planning by critically
considering the task. This allows them to formulate goals and delineate conceptual
level plans that reflect crucial elements such as their rhetorical purpose, perceived
audience needs, genre demands, appropriate tone, and effective linguistic style.
Throughout the composition process, skilled writers frequently pause to reflect upon
their developing text and draw from designed strategies to facilitate the generation and
26
organization of content. Students who have high metacognitive skill perform better in
writing lessons than students who have low metacognition.
Like planning, revising is also critical and multidimensional component of
skillful writing. For skilled writers, revision is integral, extensive, and ongoing activity
that involve the coordination and management of several cognitive skills and draws
upon the resources of both working and long term memory. Guided by their
overarching goals, skillful writers increase the overall quality of their composition by
attending to both the conceptual and linguistic aspects of their texts. Skilled writers
focus their attention on the macro structure and meaning of their composition, rather
than on surface-level textual features of discrete sentence and words.
4. Assessing Metacognition
In literature, metacognition is assessed by different procedures and measures.
Common measures and procedures will be disseminated with regards to
metacognition components. Measures assessing metacognition can look similar to
standard tests because knowledge of cognition is considered much like knowledge
stored in memory (Pintrich et al., 2000, p. 45). That is, individuals tell whether they
know or do something or not.
Measurement of metacognition is naturally difficult because metacognition is
not an explicit behavior. Metacognition is not internal process only; on the contrary,
individuals are not aware of these processes. As cited by Sandí-Ureña (in Veenman,
2005), he defined methods of measuring metacognition, via the temporary
relationships of the method of measurement concerning the implementation of a task,
as probable if it was implemented before the task, simultaneous if it was implemented
during the task and retrospective if it was implemented after the task. Measurement
tools that are used to measure metacognition can be investigated in two categories,
namely reports based on an individual’s own telling (questionnaires and interviews)
and objective behavior measurements (i.e. systemic observation and think aloud
protocols). The method of measuring metacognition, on the other hand, can be
determined according to the type of the measurement tool that was used to measure
metacognition.
In case of writing, measurement tools that can use to measure metacognition
is Metacognitive Awareness Inventory (MAI). The Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory is an instrument designed to assess general self-regulated learning skills
across the disciplines. It is developed by Schraw and Dennison that has 52 items that
are classified by type of cognitive knowledge: declarative (DK), procedural (PK), and
conditional (CK); or by specific metacognitive process: planning (P), information
management strategies (IMS), monitoring (M), debugging strategies (DS), and
evaluation (E).
27
Kadir and Sappaile (2019) presents more complete indicators of development
scale of metacognition for high school students in mathematics using confirmatory
approach. The final measurement model comprised 46 items and three factor were
more appropriate as a scale for measuring the students’ metacognition in mathematics.
The indicators of metacognition dimension are commitment to an academic task,
positive attitude toward an academic task, controlling attention to the requirements of
an academic task, declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional
knowledge, evaluation skill, planning skill, and regulation process skill.
Another source is presented to consider the development of a metacognition
scale for students: (1) self-regulation skill as measured by commitment to the task,
positive attitude toward the task, and control of attention to the task. (2) Types of
knowledge consisting of declarative knowledge, procedural, and conditional. (3)
Executive control skills are measured by the skills of evaluating, planning, and
regulating processes. The three factors are the main factors which determining the
students’ metacognition on the tasks.
Motivation is essential in metacognition. Students who are not motivated to
complete tasks may struggle with self-reflection. Though metacognitive strategies can
be taught and learned over time, students must be motivated in order for them to be
effective. To help these individuals to succeed, it may be necessary to teach self-
evaluation skills and to identify what finished work looks like.
Recent research indicates that metacognitive aware learners are more strategic
and perform better than unaware learners, allowing individuals to plan, sequence, and
monitor their learning in a way that directly improves performance. Knowledge about
cognition corresponds to what students know about themselves, strategies, and
conditions under which strategies are most useful. Declarative, procedural, and
conditional knowledge can be thought of as the building blocks of conceptual
knowledge. Regulation of cognition corresponds to knowledge about the way students
plan, implement strategies, monitor, correct comprehension errors, and evaluate their
learning.
However, many relevant research developed in term to assessing students’
metacognition, this research uses questionnaire that adapted from Metacognitive
Awareness Inventory. There are two aspects used to measure metacognition in this
research. The aspects are described as follow:
1. Knowledge about cognition that consists of declarative knowledge, procedural
knowledge and conditional knowledge.
2. Regulation of cognition that consists of planning, information management
strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies, and evaluation.
Based on the theories that presented above, it can be concluded that
metacognition is defined as the capability of a person that used to control his cognition
process and is associated with two components; knowledge of cognition and
28
regulation of cognition which is measured by some aspects include declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge and regulation of cognition
that is assessed from planning, information management strategies, comprehension
monitoring, debugging strategies and evaluation. It is measured by some indicators
that are:
1) Factual knowledge the learner needs before being able to process or use critical
thinking related to the topic
2) knowledge of one’s skills, intellectual resources, and abilities as a learner
3) obtain knowledge through presentations, demonstrations, discussions
4) knowledge about how to implement learning strategies
5) know the process as well as when to apply process in various situations
6) determination under what circumstances specific processes or skills should
transfer
7) knowledge about when and why to use learning procedures
8) application of declarative and procedural knowledge with certain conditions
presented
9) planning, goal setting, and allocating resources prior to learning
10) skills and strategy sequences used to process information more efficiently
11) assessment of one’s learning or strategy use
12) strategies to correct comprehension and performance errors
13) analysis of performance and strategy effectiveness after a learning episode.
The instrument for assessing metacognition is questionnaire where the
students put the checklist on the column that is suitable with their condition by using
scale. There are 5 scale that used in the questionnaire such as always, often,
sometimes, ever, and never.
C. Syntactic Knowledge
1. The nature of Syntactic Knowledge
Every human language engage to put meaningful elements together to form
phrases, phrases together to form clauses, clauses together to form sentence, and
sentences together to form texts. Language has often been characterized as a
systematic correlation between certain type of gestures and meaning. Syntax is the
component of human life (Vallin Jr, 2006, p. 1). It is not the case that every possible
meaning that can be expressed is correlated with a unique and unanalyzable gestures.
Rather, each language has a stock of meaning-bearing elements and different ways of
combining them to express different meaning. For instance in the example below:
John gave the money for Intan. And Intan gave the money for John.
29
The sentences contain exactly same meaning-bearing elements (i.e. words),
but they have different meaning because the words combined differently in them.
These different combinations fall into the domain of syntax.
The term ‘syntax’ is come from Ancient Greek, sỳntaxis, a verbal noun which
literally means arrangements or setting out together (Vallin Jr & LaPolla, 2006, p. 1).
Generally, it refers to the branch of grammar dealing with the ways in which words,
with or without appropriate inflections, are arranged to show connection of meaning
within the sentence. The modern study of syntax begins with the observation that
people can produce and understand sentences that they have never heard before. A
theory of syntactic development begins with an understanding of children’s syntactic
representations and the degree to which they are like those of adults. There are three
features of syntactic symbol systems that are shared across all languages. First,
syntactic representations are hierarchically structured. Second, rules of grammar make
reference to abstract relations defined over these hierarchically structured
representations. Third, certain abstract properties of syntactic representations
contribute to the behavior of wide ranges of syntactic phenomena.
Syntax is the part of grammar that governs the structure and elements of a
sentence. It also can be defined as the rules governing sentence formation. It is made
up of all the rules in grammar that apply to the formation of a sentence and the
positioning of its elements. For instance, syntax describes which elements there may
be or need to be in a particular type of sentence and where the elements, particularly
the verb, are to be placed.
Syntactic knowledge is the theoretical or practical understanding of syntax
that is acquired by a person through experience or education. It is the knowledge of
how words can be combined in meaningful sentences, phrases, or utterances. It
involves the way that words are assembled and sentences are constructed in a
particular language.
Thus, syntactic knowledge refers to the ability to know how to combine words
to create meaningful expressions. It is knowledge of the system of rules unique to each
language system and is often referred to as grammar. Characteristics of normal
development relating to this aspect include, telegraphic speech (use of two or three
content words in an utterance with no function words), difficulty in pronounce use,
speaking in short utterances, and an increase in the number of adverbs used to expand
verb phrases.
2. Syntactic Structure
There are two fundamental aspects of structure which every theory must deal
with relational and non-relational structure. As the names imply, relational structures
deals with the relations that exist between one syntactic element and another such as
30
semantic or pragmatic, whereas non-relational structure expresses the hierarchical
organization of phrases, clauses and sentences, however it may be conceptualized.
Syntactic structure introduced the idea of transformational generative
grammar. This approach to syntax (the study of sentence structures) was fully formal
(based on symbols and rules). For instance, sentence clause structure, commonly
known as sentence composition, is the classification of sentences based on the number
and kind of clauses in their syntactic structure. At its base, this method uses phrase
structure rules. These rules break down sentences into smaller parts from sentence into
noun phrase, verb phrase, prepositional phrase, adverbial phrase, noun, article,
determiner and so on . Chomsky then combines these with a new kind of rules called
"transformations". This procedure gives rise to different sentence structures. Chomsky
aimed to show that this limited set of rules "generates" all and only the grammatical
sentences of a given language, which are unlimited in number (Moodle, 2019). Look
at figure 2.2 below.
Figure 2. 2
Example of Transformational Analysis of a Clause
Chomsky actually occurring form a sentence, the surface structure, constitutes
the overt level of representation, and there is in addition covert. The transformational
analysis represents the actual form of the sentence. This is reflected in their distinct
positions in the phrase structure tree; the subject NP (e.g., Tran in the left tree structure
in Figure 2.2) is in the NP immediately dominated by the S (sentence) node and verb
phrase (VP) node, while the NP object is dominated by determiner and noun.
The structure of clauses and sentences
The words in sentences can be classified in various ways and it is sensible to
first distinguish between form and function. According to form, a word can belong to
31
a certain lexical class, for example the word book is a noun. According to function a
noun may typically be a subject or an object (The book fell off to the floor versus She
bought a book). The major lexical categories involved in forming sentences are nouns
and verbs, they are also many grammatical words as shown in the following.
1) Lexical words such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. In this case, if the article
forms a unit with the noun that follows it, it would be expect that in an alternative
form of the same sentence the two would have to be found together and could not
be split up. Thus, in passive version of this sentence, A book was read by the
teacher in the library, the unit a book serves as subject, and the unit the teacher
is called noun phrase (NP); as will be shown later, NPs can be very complex. Then,
the verb plus NP following it form a unit as well, as shown by sentence like I
expected to find someone reading the book, and reading a book was a teacher.
The constituent composed of a verb plus following NP is called verb phrase (VP)
(Vallin Jr, 2001, p.5)
2) Grammatical words that include; auxiliary verbs such as may, might, must, will,
can, could, should; determiners like definite and indefinite articles, demonstrative
pronouns, possessive pronouns; prepositions such as on, over, towards, under,
against, beside, at, around; personal pronouns for example I, you, he, she, it, we,
they; me, his, her, its, us, them; quantifiers for instance very, more, too, a lot, all;
qualifiers i.e. maybe, never, almost, always; and conjunction such as and, or,
although, but.
A dependent clause is a group of words with a subject and a verb. It does not
express a complete thought so it is not a sentence and can't stand alone. These clauses
include adverb clauses, adjective clauses and noun clauses.
1) Adverb Clauses that modify verbs and begin with subordinating conjunctions, for
instance Until the sun sets; While flowers continue to bloom; Whenever you come
to visit.
2) Adjective Clauses modify nouns and usually begin with a relative pronoun and
sometimes with a subordinating conjunction. The example of adjective clause are
Which is located in Italy; Who is intelligent; Whom we met after the movie; Whose
writing is always intriguing.
3) Noun clauses name a person, place, thing or idea. Since it acts as a noun, it can be
a subject, object, a subject complement, an object complement or an appositive.
The examples of noun clause such as That you are listening; Whether he can drive
that far; If the dress is on sale.
Syntactic Structure of Simple Sentence
A sentence may be one of four kinds, depending upon the number and types
of clauses it contains. Therefore, simple sentence has one independent clause. Clause
itself is a combination of words/phrases, usually structured around a verb. The
32
transformational analysis of a simple sentence are broken down in the following
figure.
Figure 2. 3
Basic Constituent Structure Analysis of a Sentence
The sentence in figure 2.3 consists of noun phrase, verb phrase and
prepositional phrase. The noun phrase dominated by article and noun as a subject,
while the verb phrase is the verb itself as a predicate. Then, the object is dominated
by prepositional phrase that consists of preposition and noun phrase as the noun phrase
dominated by article and also noun.
Syntactic Structure of Compound Sentence
Compound sentence has two independent clauses joined by a coordinating
conjunction such as for, and, nor, but, or, yet, so. The other compound sentence is
joined by a conjunctive adverb (e.g. however, therefore), or a semicolon alone.
Compound sentence that use coordinating conjunction usually form as independent
clause, coordinating conjunction, independent clause. Therefore, the punctuation
pattern for the compound sentence that use conjunction adverb is Independent clause;
conjunctive adverb, independent clause. Thus, the pattern that use semicolon is
independent clause; independent clause. The syntactic structure of compound
sentence is presented in figure 2.4.
33
Figure 2. 4
Syntactic Structure Analysis of Compound Sentence
Syntactic Structure of Complex Sentence
A complex sentence has one dependent clause that is headed by a
subordinating conjunction or a relative pronoun joined to an independent clause. In
the other words, complex sentence has independent and dependent clause. So, it must
contain at least one subordinate clause.
Figure 2. 5
Syntactic Structure Analysis of Compound Sentence
34
3. The Role of Syntactic Knowledge in Writing
Hillocks (2006, p. 150) states that "sentence combining practice provides
writers with systematic knowledge of syntactic possibilities, the access to which
allows them to sort through alternatives in their heads as well as on paper and to
choose those which are most apt". Research also shows that sentence combining is
more effective than free writing in enhancing the quality of student
Moreover, Wriillocks and Smith (2001, p. 24) show that systematic practice
in sentence combining can increase students' knowledge of syntactic structures as well
as improve the quality of their sentences, particularly when stylistic effects are
discussed as well. Sentence-combining exercises can be either written or oral,
structured or unstructured. Structured sentence-combining exercises give students
more guidance in ways to create the new sentences; unstructured sentence-combining
exercises allow for more variation, but they still require students to create logical,
meaningful sentences. Research reports that in many studies, sentence-combining
exercises produce significant increases in students' sentence-writing maturity.
Given the analysis that syntactic knowledge affect writing style, sentence
combining is an effective method for helping students develop fluency and variety in
their own writing style. Students can explore sentence variety, length, parallelism, and
other syntactic devices by comparing their sentences with sentences from other
writers. They also discover the decisions writers make in revising for style and
effective.
4. The Ways to Develop Syntactic Knowledge in Writing
Languages vary considerably in the number and type of complements and
modifiers that may occur within a single noun phrase (NP). English is probably more
liberal than most, allowing very complex NP structures. In languages which impose
greater restrictions, it is fairly common for speakers to use a relative clause
construction when they want to express more (or more complex) modifiers than would
otherwise be allowed.
Syntactic knowledge is most naturally integrated during the revising, editing,
and proofreading phases of the writing process. After students have written their first
drafts and feel comfortable with the ideas and organization of their writing, teachers
may wish to employ various strategies to help students see syntactic concepts as
language choices that can enhance their writing purpose. Students will soon grow
more receptive to revising, editing, and proofreading their writing. As the teacher and
student discuss the real audience(s) for the scientific writing, the teacher can ask the
student to consider the level of formality in oral conversation, depending on their
listeners and the speaking context. The teacher can then help the student identify
words in his or her writing that change the level of formality of the writing.
35
Teachers can help students edit from passive voice to active voice by
presenting a mini lesson. In editing groups, students can exchange papers and look for
verbs that often signal the passive voice, such as was and been. When students find
these verbs, they read the sentence aloud to their partners and discuss whether the
voice is passive and, if so, whether an active voice verb might strengthen the sentence.
The student writer can then decide which voice is most effective and appropriate for
the writing purpose and audience.
Teachers can help students become better proofreaders through peer editing
groups. Based on the writing abilities of their students, teachers can assign different
proofreading tasks to specific individuals in each group. For example, one person in
the group might proofread for spelling errors, another person for agreement errors,
another person for fragments and run-ons, and another person for punctuation errors.
As students develop increasing skill in proofreading, they become responsible for
more proofreading areas. Collaborating with classmates in peer editing groups helps
students improve their own grammar skills as well as understand the importance of
grammar as a tool for effective communication.
5. Assessing Syntactic Knowledge
Syntax can be defined as the study of how words are combined into sentences
and how sentences are linked to each other, giving shape to what is known as sentence
structure. Generally speaking, words are at first combined to create phrases, namely
strings of words, which behave the same way linguistically; phrases are then bound to
form sentences. Certain combinations thus occur before others, and syntax and
constituency aim at unveiling precisely what the order must be. Whereas expanded
use of syntactic forms in student writing has been reported with use of instruction in
sentence combining, this methodology still does not address error as does traditional
or transformational grammar instruction, both of which focus on teaching the standard
language conventions either prescriptively or descriptively.
According to Yu Chen (2014, p. 44), syntactic knowledge can be measured
by using test. The syntactic knowledge test (hereafter, SKT) was adopted from the
TOEFL and the General English Proficiency Test (GEPT) sample tests. Both tests are
standardized tests. The Structure and Written Expression portion of the TOEFL is
designed to measure participants’ basic grammar knowledge in written text, and the
test item does not relate to any specific academic field. Moreover, Howard (2012, p.
50) mention some main aspects that need to engage in conducting syntax test. The
main aspects are constituent elements and sentence elements. Constituent elements is
related to the phrases and clauses while the sentence elements includes simple,
compound and complex sentence. To assess syntactic knowledge, this research use
the syntax test based on Howards’ aspect assessed whose item numbers are taken from
some sources which represent the aspects.
36
Based on the theories that presented above, it can be concluded that Syntactic
knowledge is the understanding of syntax that is acquired by students in term of the
knowledge of how words can be combined in meaningful phrase and sentences and
involves the way that words are assembled and sentences are constructed that is
reflected two aspects constituent element and sentence element that broken down into
by some indicators, that are:
1) knowing syntactic structure of a phrase
2) knowing syntactic structure of a clause
3) knowing syntactic structure of compound sentence
4) knowing syntactic structure of complex sentence.
D. Relevant Study
Some investigations were conducted by researchers dealing with the issues of
metacognition, syntactic knowledge and scientific writing. Relating to this research,
some previous researches were conducted by some previous researchers related to this
topic. First, the research that was conducted by Negretti (2012) showed that theories
of metacognition and self-regulated learning apply to understand how beginning
scientific writers develop the ability to participate in the communicative practices of
scientific writing.
Second, Morvay (2011) investigated the relationship between syntactic
knowledge and reading comprehension in EFL learners. The power correlations and
regression analyses rendered results that showed syntactic knowledge to be a
statistically significant estimator for foreign language reading comprehension. The
study provides evidence that the ability to process complex syntactic structures in a
foreign language does contribute to one’s efficient reading comprehension in that
language.
Third, the research that was conducted by Yu Chen (2014) entitled
Vocabulary, Syntactic Knowledge and Reading Comprehension: the Perspective of
College EFL Students. The interview results lead to the conclusion that syntactic
knowledge was an element that affected participants’ reading comprehension. Most
of the participants in this study had similar reading patterns in comprehending the
context; however, the participants who had better language proficiency tended to
utilize more literacy skills, or prior knowledge and schemata skills, to interpret the
content of reading passages than lower language proficiency learners.
These previous researches will be used as the consideration to conduct this
research. Also, previous research will be used to strengthen this research because there
were some researchers who investigate related topics. The distinction of this research
is in the aspect of writing. Therefore, the research is expected to give a contribution
to the gap made by the previous researchers.
37
E. Theoretical Framework
Based on theories and some previous researches elaborated above, it can be
conceptualized that in the significance and the connection among the variables to
scientific writing skill, some problems are considered to be the fundamental aspects
for conducting further research. First, scientific writing test is considered as one of the
indicators of students’ foreign language skill. Scientific writing is taught as one of
lecture in English literature department. After the students got syntax lecture in fifth
semester, they have scientific writing lecture in the sixth semester. Scientific writing
is considered as one of the difficult lecture in the sixth semester. The syllabus of
scientific writing in English literature department in Pamulang University considered
scientific essay as the final examination of the lecture. The students are expected to
have scientific writing skill for gaining the writing ability to write scientific paper such
as an essay. The goal of the lecture is to make students understand the concept of
scientific writing theoretically and how to write scientific essay comprehensively. In
contrast, most of the students are still low in their writing skill. It is seemed that they
did some mistakes related to vocabulary choice, grammar used, and spelling. They are
still find problems to develop paragraph correctly based on the concept of scientific
writing. They are also difficult to combine the sentence comprehensibly. In contrast,
scientific writing requires a firm foundation in English sentence construction, usage,
and punctuation. It is the activity of decoding information from the written language.
Scientific writing is the skill needed in the university level that supports any kind of
learning. It supports learning achievement for further steps of completing the study.
While writing, there are two important components which support the successful in
making scientific writing. The two components are knowledge of cognition and
regulation of cognition that are known as the concept of metacognition.
Second, some theories support the relationship among scientific writing skill
and metacognition. Since the process of writing involves metacognition activities as
it proven by some theories which has been elaborated above. In other words,
metacognition is one of factors that may affect scientific writing skill. Metacognition
leads a person to recognize the process of his thinking. Metacognition provides self-
monitoring, which is a step-by-step process of evaluation during the learning process.
The ability to control their cognitive is useful to succeed in scientific writing. Some
writers may succeed to understand word meaning; however, understanding word
meaning does not in a package with comprehension because comprehension takes
effort in interpreting. In other words, the ability to use their metacognition helps the
students to enhance their scientific writing skill. Therefore, most of the students in
Pamulang University are still not aware with their knowledge concerning their own
process. They have little knowledge about metacognition and how to improve it.
Based on the pre interview to the lecturer, the problems appear when the students are
38
difficult to focus manage their selves, knowledge and experience while doing their
work that result they hard to involve optimum metacognition to achieve learning goal.
Thus, syntactic knowledge is one of linguistic aspect that necessary for
measuring writing skill. Syntactic knowledge is the knowledge of how words can be
combined in meaningful sentences, phrases, or utterances. It involves the way that
words are assembled and sentences are constructed in a particular language. Syntactic
knowledge affect writing style, sentence combining is an effective method for helping
students develop fluency and variety in their own writing style. Students can explore
sentence variety, length, parallelism, and other syntactic devices by comparing their
sentences with sentences from other writers. However, it rarely exposed by the
students. Syntactic structured are considered to make good quality of scientific
writing. The studies that relates syntactic knowledge and language skill such as
reading skill and listening skill are Therefore, a little number of research that focus on
syntactic knowledge and its influence on students’ scientific writing skill to be
discussed.
Based on the explanation above, it is assumed that metacognition and
syntactic knowledge simultaneously have positive influence students’ scientific
writing skill Moreover, it is presumed that the more aware students in their
metacognition, the better skill they have in scientific writing and the more aware
students in syntactic knowledge, the more ability they have in scientific writing. Thus,
to present clearer explanation, the theoretical framework is visualized as follow:
F. Research Hypotheses
Based on the theories explanation above, the research hypothesis are as
follows:
Figure 2. 6
Theoretical Framework
39
1. Metacognition has a positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill.
2. Syntactic knowledge has a positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill.
3. The combination of metacognition and syntactic knowledge simultaneously have
positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill.
40
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Place and Time of the Study
The study is conducted at the sixth semester students of English Literature
Department in Universitas Pamulang that is located in Campus B, on Jl. Raya Puspitek
number 46, Buaran, Serpong, Kota Tangerang Selatan, Banten. The study is held in
the sixth semester students in which it already assumed that the students have done
syntax lecture in the fifth semester. Hence, the research conducted on May until June
2019.
B. Research Method and Design
The study is a quantitative research by using survey method and which will
be designed by multiple regression. The method is to know the influence of variables
X1 and X2 on variable Y, which X1 is metacognition, X2 is syntactic knowledge, and
Y is students’ scientific writing skill. First, this research finds out the metacognition
and syntactic knowledge. Then discover the effect of both variables (X1 and X2) on
students’ scientific writing skill (Y).
Figure 3. 1
Multiple Regression (Kadir, 2015. p. 176)
As the Figure 3.1 above, the influence of X1 and X2 on Y is shown between
the circle of X1, X2, and Y at the center. The design does not attempt to manipulate
or interfere any variable, but it is used to predict if the variables share the same
variance. If the scores of the variables co-vary, meaning that the score of a variable
can be predicted from the score of the other variables. The research designed can be
seen at the figure below:
41
Figure 3. 2
Research Design
Note:
X1 : Metacognition
X2 : Syntactic Knowledge
Y : Students’ Scientific Writing Skill
C. Population and Sampling
1. Population
Population is the large group to which a researcher wants to generalize the
sample results (Johnson & Christensen, 2012, p. 218). The population in this study is
students of the sixth semester of English literature department of Pamulang University
who already passed syntax lecture in fifth semester and scientific writing in the sixth
semester. The total number of population is 215 students.
2. Sample
Sampling technique in this research is done by simple random (simple random
sampling). Fraenkel (2009, p. 102) suggested that in correlational study should be
taken for at least 50 participants, to make sure the actual relation among the variables.
However, it was suggested that the greater the sample the better for quantitative
research, because the bigger the sample the more it represents the population. There
are 168 students that are taken as sample of the research which are chosen randomly
by simple random technique sampling.
D. Research Instrument
Research instrument is a tool for collecting data in the research. The collected
data shows whether the research hypothesis is accepted or not. Research instrument
covers observations sheet, interview guide or test, depending on the technique of
collecting data needed. In this research, the writer uses test and non-test as the research
instrument. Metacognition is measured by using questionnaire, syntactic knowledge
X1
X2
Y
42
is measured by using test, and students’ scientific writing skill is measured by using
test. The explanation of the instrument is elaborated below.
1. Test of Students’ scientific writing skill
Conceptual definition
Scientific writing skill is a skill to provide conventional thinking to the reader
about one particular issue of scientific writing from the writers’ view based on the
data and strong evidences.
Operational Definition
Scientific writing skill is a skill to provide conventional thinking to the reader
about one particular issue of scientific writing from the writers’ view based on the
data and strong evidences which is measured by some indicators that are presenting
paragraph follow a coherent defined pattern, elaborating the unity of introduction with
thesis statement, describing the data and relevant evidence, interpreting the result and
conclusion, generating varied sentence structure with word choice, and using standard
grammar and punctuation.
The Blueprint The blueprint of students’ scientific writing skill is in the following table.
Table 3. 1
The Blueprint of Students’ Scientific Writing Test
Assessed Aspects Indicators Item no.
Organization of the
writing
Presenting paragraph follow a coherent
defined pattern 1
Focus and Unity of
introduction
Elaborating the unity of introduction with
thesis statement 2
Thoughtful
analysis
Describing the data and relevant evidence 3
Interpreting the result and conclusion 4
Composition skill Generating varied sentence structure with
word choice
5
Using standard grammar and punctuation 6
Adapted from O‘Neill (2011, p. 11)
Scoring Rubric
To collect data for scientific writing skill, the writer used some scientific writing
essay guidelines then adapt into a scoring rubric that is appropriate to the research.
Meanwhile in assessing the students’ argumentative writing ability the scoring
43
technique classified by grade 1-4 with their description. The description of each grade
can be seen in Table 3.2.
Table 3. 2
The Rubric of Students’ Scientific Writing Skill
Indicator SCORING SCALE
1 2 3 4
Presenting
paragraph
follow
a coherent
defined
pattern
Unclear
principle of
organization and
description
arrange with
misuse of
connectives
Some paragraphs
should be re-
ordered and
descriptions
arrange with few
misuse of
connectives
Essay reads
coherently
and all points
are made
according to a
defined
pattern.
Paragraphs are
well
ordered to provide
strong flow and
synthesis of
individual
points.
Elaborating
the unity of
introduction
with thesis
statement
The thesis
statement is not
clear and the
details are not
relating to the
topic
The thesis
statement is
complete and
clear but the
details are not
relating to the
topic
The thesis
statement is
complete and
clear but the
details are
almost
relating to the
topic
The thesis
statement is
complete and clear
with details
relating to the
topic
Describing
the data and
relevant
evidence
Includes little
evidence
showing
familiarity with
text
Includes
incomplete
evidence from
text to support
statements
Uses
extensive
evidence
closely
related to
points being
made
Includes all
evidence
relevant to points
being made
Interpreting
the result
and
conclusion
Mostly
summarizing,
with some errors
Summarizes
accurately
but little evidence
of
analysis
Interprets text
analytically
with some
unnecessary
use of
summary
Analyses text
perceptively, using
summarizing only
as needed
Generating
varied
sentence
structure
with word
choice
Mostly short
simple
sentences and
fragments
Many short rough
sentences in need
of
transition
Varying
sentence
forms with
word choices
Varied and
sophisticated
sentence
forms with word
choices
44
Validation
1) Validity
The first section of this research is making the content validity of each items
before the empirical validity. Content validity is carried out by taking into account
the opinions of experts on the suitability of indicators and items developed. In this
research, there are 6 experts which are eligible in academic and scientific writing
field. They are 4 English literature lecturer of Unpam and 2 English education lecturer
of UIN Jakarta. The result of this validity is used as a reference to improve the
research instrument. Improvements made include improving the editorial of the
problem for easy understanding of students, modify the problem that is considered
too easy, Modify problems that are considered less realistic. The formula to calculate
content validity ratio (CVR) used Lawshe pattern, it was devised:
𝐶𝑉𝑅 = 𝑁𝑒 − 𝑁/2
𝑁/2
Note:
Ne : the number of panelist indicating “essential”
N : the total number of panelist
CVR : a direct linear transformation from the percentage saying “essential”
The content validity by CVR method is done on each item question. If the CVR
value does not meet the statistical significance specified from the minimum CVR
Lawshe table, the item is not valid and will be omitted.
Indicator SCORING SCALE
1 2 3 4
Using
standard
grammar
and
punctuation
Contains serious
errors in the
convention of
English
(grammar,
punctuation,
capitalization
and spelling)
and may
interfere the
reader’s
understanding of
the writing
Contains several
errors in the
convention of
English
(grammar,
punctuation,
capitalization and
spelling) and may
interfere the
reader’s
understanding of
the writing
Contains
some errors in
the
convention of
English
(grammar,
punctuation,
capitalization
and spelling)
but not
interfere the
reader’s
understanding
of the writing
Contains few, if
any, errors in the
convention of
English (grammar,
punctuation,
capitalization and
spelling) but not
interfere the
reader’s
understanding of
the writing
45
Table 3. 3
Minimum Value of CVR, One Tailed Test, p = .05
The amount of Panelists Minimum Value
6 0.99
7 0.99
8 0.78
9 0.75
10 0.62
Based on the calculation results in Table 3.3 that obtained from 6 items, all of
them are categorized as valid. The following test shows the validity of 6 experts in
the Table 3.4.
Table 3. 4
CVR Result of Scientific Writing
No. RECAP
N N(E) N/2
N(E)
-
N/2
CVR
score
Minimum
Score Status
E NE NR
1 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
2 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
3 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
4 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
5 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
6 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
The second way to check the validity is based on criterion related validity. In
this research, the form used is concurrent validity, one of the form of criterion-related
validity (Fraenkel, 2008, p. 152). Concurrent validity is chosen as the data collecting
in nearly at the same time which follows the basic function of concurrent validity.
Criterion validity result can be seen in the Table 3.5.
Table 3. 5
Criterion Validity of Scientific Writing
No. r-obs p-values Status
1. 0.807 0.000 Valid
2. 0.832 0.000 Valid
3. 0.763 0.000 Valid
46
No. r-obs p-values Status
4. 0.829 0.000 Valid
5. 0.785 0.000 Valid
6. 0.702 0.000 Valid
2) Reliability
Reliability test conducted to determine the consistency of the interval among
the variables and instruments. The point about items tested were valid. Therefore, the
method used to test the reliability is alpha Cronbach and the formula is as follow:
𝑟11 =𝑛
𝑛 − 1(1 −
∑𝜎𝑖2
𝜎𝑡2 )
Note :
𝑟11 : Reliability score
∑𝜎𝑖2 : Total variance score
𝜎𝑡2 : Total variance
𝑛 : Item score
According to Sudjono (2010), if the reliability score (r11) is higher than 0,7.
the reliability of the instrument is adequate. The level of reliability is as follow;
0.80 < r11 ≥ 1.00 Very reliable
0.60 < r11 ≥ 0.80 Reliable
0.40 < r11 ≥0.60 Moderate
0.20 < r11 ≥ 0.40 Less reliable
0.00 < r11 ≥ 0.20 Poor
Table 3. 6
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach Alpha N of Items
.876 6
As shown in the Table 3.6, the data regarding to the reliability of scientific
writing test, the valid items are 6 in 60 respondents. The reliability calculation is
0.876. Thus, it means that the test is very reliable.
2. Questionnaire of Students’ Metacognition
Conceptual definition
Metacognition is the capability of a person that used to control his cognition
process and is associated with two components; knowledge of cognition and
regulation of cognition.
47
Operational Definition
Metacognition is the capability of a person that used to control his cognition
process and is associated with two components; knowledge of cognition and
regulation of cognition which is measured by some aspects include declarative
knowledge, procedural knowledge, conditional knowledge, planning, information
management strategies, comprehension monitoring, debugging strategies and
evaluation. Metacognition is reflected by some indicators that are; (1) factual
knowledge the learner needs before being able to process or use critical thinking
related to the topic, (2) knowledge of one’s skills, intellectual resources, and abilities
as a learner, (3) obtain knowledge through presentations, demonstrations, discussions,
(4) knowledge about how to implement learning strategies, (5) know the process as
well as when to apply process in various situations, (6) determination under what
circumstances specific processes or skills should transfer, (7) knowledge about when
and why to use learning procedures, (8) application of declarative and procedural
knowledge with certain conditions presented (9) planning, goal setting, and allocating
resources prior to learning, (10) skills and strategy sequences used to process
information more efficiently, (11) assessment of one’s learning or strategy use, (12)
strategies to correct comprehension and performance errors, (13) analysis of
performance and strategy effectiveness after a learning episode.
The Blueprint
The instrument of metacognition is adapted from Metacognitive Awareness
Inventory (MAI) that is developed by Schraw and Denison. The blueprint of students’
metacognition questionnaire has been explained in Table 3.7.
Table 3. 7
The Blueprint of Students’ Metacognition Questionnaire
Components
of
Metacognition
Assessed
Aspects Indicators
Item
Numbers
Total
of
valid
items
Knowledge
about
Cognition
Declarative
knowledge
Factual knowledge the learner
needs before being able to
process or use critical thinking
related to the topic
5, 10, 17 3
Knowledge of one’s skills,
intellectual resources, and
abilities as a learner
12, 16, 20 3
Obtain knowledge through
presentations, demonstrations,
discussions
21, 28* 1
48
Components
of
Metacognition
Assessed
Aspects Indicators
Item
Numbers
Total
of
valid
items
Knowledge
about
Cognition
Procedural
knowledge
Knowledge about how to
implement learning strategies
3, 14, 23 3
Know the process as well as
when to apply process in various
situations
8, 11, 27* 2
Conditional
knowledge
Determination under what
circumstances specific
processes or skills should
transfer
15, 19 2
Knowledge about when and why
to use learning procedures
18, 22 2
Application of declarative and
procedural knowledge with
certain conditions presented
26, 29 2
Regulation of
Cognition
Planning Planning, goal setting, and
allocating resources prior to
learning
4, 6 2
Information
management
strategies
Skills and strategy sequences
used to process information
more efficiently
9, 13 2
Comprehen-
sion
monitoring
Assessment of one’s learning or
strategy use
1, 2 2
Debugging
strategies
Strategies to correct
comprehension and
performance errors
25, 30 2
Evaluation Analysis of performance and
strategy effectiveness after a
learning episode
7, 24 2
Total 30 28
Adapted from Schraw & Dennison (2004)
Note: (*) = not valid
Each statement applied a Likert-Scale of five-point rating scale, starting from
never, very rare, rare, often, and very often. As it is mentioned that a rating scale is
used to measure the five categories of the metacognition on the questionnaire, this
indicates that the minimum score for each factor is 1 and the maximum is 5.
49
Validation
1) Validity
The questionnaire is aimed to know the students’ metacognition. This
questionnaire consisted of 28 statements. The students are given 5 choices very often,
often, seldom, very seldom, and never to choose the best answer that reflect the
students’ metacognition.
The way to determine the validity of metacognition instrument is to use the
Aiken method (Kadir, 2017). In this research, there are 6 experts in English language
field who are consulted and asked to give judgement whether the instruments valid or
not. From the results of the method, all items are declared as valid.
Table 3. 8
Aiken Method Result of Metacognition Instrument Validity
No. Panelists’score
Total Mean V Status 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 5 5 5 5 5 28 4.60 0.917 Valid
2 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
3 3 5 5 5 5 5 28 4.60 0.917 Valid
4 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.875 Valid
5 4 5 4 4 5 5 27 4.50 0.958 Valid
6 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
7 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
8 3 5 5 5 5 5 28 4.60 0.917 Valid
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
10 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
11 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
12 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
13 5 5 5 5 4 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
14 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
15 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
16 5 5 4 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
17 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
18 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
19 5 5 3 5 5 5 28 4.60 0.917 Valid
20 3 5 4 5 5 5 27 4.50 0.875 Valid
21 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
22 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
23 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
24 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
50
No. Panelists’score
Total Mean V Status 1 2 3 4 5 6
25 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
26 4 5 5 5 5 5 29 4.80 0.958 Valid
27 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
28 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
29 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 0.958 Valid
30 5 5 5 5 5 5 30 5.00 1.000 Valid
Based on the data result in Table 3. 8, all item numbers in metacognition
instrument by using Aiken method is determined as valid. The second way to test the
validity of metacognition instrument, the test of item validity is used an internal
consistency approach, which is by calculating the correlation coefficient between
scores with the total test score itself. The results of metacognition questionnaire
measurements by forming item scores were calculated using Pearson's product
moment correlation coefficient technique (Arikunto, 2005).
𝑟𝑖𝑥 = 𝑛(∑𝑖𝑥) − (∑𝑖)(∑𝑥)
√𝑛 (∑𝑖2) − (∑𝑖)2][𝑛(∑𝑥²) − (∑𝑋)²]
Note :
𝑟𝑖𝑥 : Correlation coefficient of an item test
𝑛 : Number of respondent
𝑖 : Score of an item
𝑥 : Total score
To judge the validity of each item can be seen from the column corrected
item-total (r observation) compared to r table. If r observation > r table that items are
valid using α = 0.05. And based on trying out of all the instruments which was
conducted to 60 respondents. There are 30 valid items. It can be seen in the Table 3.9.
Table 3. 9
Criterion Validity of Metacognition
No. r-obs p-values Status
1. 0.473 0.000 Valid
2. 0.515 0.000 Valid
3. 0.592 0.000 Valid
4. 0.544 0.000 Valid
5. 0.431 0.000 Valid
6. 0.550 0.000 Valid
7. 0.391 0.001 Valid
51
No. r-obs p-values Status
8. 0.437 0.000 Valid
9. 0.632 0.000 Valid
10. 0.342 0.004 Valid
11. 0.486 0.000 Valid
12. 0.384 0.001 Valid
13. 0.582 0.000 Valid
14. 0.318 0.007 Valid
15. 0.576 0.000 Valid
16. 0.608 0.000 Valid
17. 0.287 0.013 Valid
18. 0.444 0.000 Valid
19. 0.252 0.026 Valid
20. 0.400 0.001 Valid
21. 0.405 0.001 Valid
22. 0.235 0.035 Valid
23. 0.581 0.000 Valid
24. 0.354 0.003 Valid
25. 0.486 0.000 Valid
26. 0.346 0.003 Valid
27. 0.147 0.147 Drop
28. 0.213 0.251 Drop
29. 0.444 0.000 Valid
30. 0.556 0.000 Valid
2) Reliability
As for measuring the reliability of the test, for mixed data from metacognition
using Cronbach alpha (Aiken, 2008, p. 92). This study uses a criterion of 0.7 as a
good reliability coefficient. And the reliability test result can be seen in Table 3.10:
Table 3. 10
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha Total Items
.876 28
As seen the data in table 3.10 about the reliability of critical reading skill test
above, it can be seen that the reliability calculation is 0.876. Based on the criteria that
mention in page 40, the score categorized as very reliable.
52
3. Test of Students Syntactic Knowledge
Conceptual definition
Syntactic knowledge is the understanding of syntax that is acquired by
students in term of the knowledge of how words can be combined in meaningful
phrase and sentences and involves the way that words are assembled and sentences
are constructed.
Operational Definition
Syntactic knowledge is the understanding of syntax that is acquired by
students in term of the knowledge of how words can be combined in meaningful
phrase and sentences and involves the way that words are assembled and sentences
are constructed that is reflected by knowing syntactic structure of a phrase, clause,
compound sentence and complex sentence.
The Blueprint
The blueprint of students’ syntactic knowledge has been explained in table 3.11.
Table 3. 11
The Blueprint of Syntactic knowledge test
No Aspect
Assessed
Indicators Item Test Total of
valid
items
1 Constituent
elements
Knowing syntactic structure of a
phrase
1*, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6*,
7, 8 6
Knowing syntactic structure of a
clause
9*, 10, 11*, 12,
13**, 14*, 15 3
2 Sentences
elements
Knowing syntactic structure of a
compound sentence.
16**, 17, 18**,
19, 20, 21, 22,
23*
6
Knowing syntactic structure of a
complex sentence.
24*, 25**, 26,
27, 28, 29, 30,
31
5
Total 31 20
Adapted from Howard (2012, p. 50)
Note:
(*) = item drop from CVR
(**) = item drop from Concurrent validity
53
Validation
1) Validity
The test is aimed to know the students’ syntactic knowledge. This test
consisted of 30 multiple choice questions. The students are given 4 choices to choose
the best answer that reflect the students’ syntactic knowledge.
CVR also used for this variables that is assessed by 6 experts which are eligible
in syntax field. The result of this validity is used as a reference to improve the research
instrument. From the results of this method, from 31 item numbers, 24 are categorized
as valid while 7 numbers are declared as drop. The data is served in the table below.
Table 3. 12
CVR Result of Syntactic Knowledge
No
Recap
N N(E) N/2
N(E)
-
N/2
CVR
Score
Minimum
Score Status
E NE NR
1 2 2 2 6 2 3 -1 -0.33 0.99 Drop
2 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
3 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
4 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
5 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
6 4 1 1 6 4 3 1 0.33 0.99 Drop
7 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
8 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
9 2 0 4 6 2 3 -1 -0.33 0.99 Drop
10 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
11 5 1 0 6 5 3 2 0.67 0.99 Drop
12 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
13 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
14 5 1 0 6 5 3 2 0.67 0.99 Drop
15 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
16 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
17 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
18 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
19 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
20 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
21 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
22 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
23 5 1 0 6 5 3 2 0.67 0.99 Drop
54
No
Recap
N N(E) N/2
N(E)
-
N/2
CVR
Score
Minimum
Score Status
E NE NR
24 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
25 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
26 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
27 5 1 0 6 5 3 2 0.67 0.99 Drop
28 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
29 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
30 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
31 6 0 0 6 6 3 3 1.00 0.99 Valid
Thus, the second way to determine this instrument, the research also used
construct validity. Correlation biserial point is chosen as the data collecting. Biserial
point is the correlation that used to one variable which is measured by interval scale
or ratio. The formula of biserial point correlation is presented below.
𝑟 𝑝𝑏𝑖𝑠 = 𝑥₁ − 𝑥₂
𝑆𝐷ₜ√𝑝. 𝑞
Note:
r : biserial point correlation
x1x2 : mean of 1 and 2
SDt : the total of deviation
p : proportion (n/N)
q : 1-p
The biserial point correlation result can be seen in the table below.
Table 3. 13
Biserial point correlation of Scientific Writing
No. Item
No.
r-pbis p-values Status
2 1. 0.423 0.000 Valid
3 2. 0.341 0.004 Valid
4 3. 0.289 0.012 Valid
5 4. 0.526 0.000 Valid
7 5. 0.330 0.005 Valid
8 6. 0.376 0.002 Valid
10 7. 0.366 0.002 Valid
12 8. 0.535 0.000 Valid
55
No. Item
No.
r-pbis p-values Status
13 9. 0.283 0.140 Drop
15 10. 0.453 0.000 Valid
16 11. 0.125 0.171 Drop
17 12. 0.130 0.161 Valid
18 13. 0.187 0.760 Drop
19 14. 0.458 0.000 Valid
20 15. 0.447 0.000 Valid
21 16. 0.374 0.002 Valid
22 17. 0.309 0.008 Valid
25 18. 0.139 0.144 Drop
26 19. 0.359 0.002 Valid
27 20. 0.415 0.000 Valid
28 21. 0.272 0.018 Valid
29 22. 0.278 0.016 Valid
30 23. 0.271 0.018 Valid
31 24. 0.249 0.027 Valid
2) Reliability
As for measuring the reliability of the test, for mixed data from
metacognition using Kuder Richardson 20 (Anas, 2009, p. 209). The score range is
between 0 until 1. The formula of KR-20 is presented below.
𝐾𝑅 − 20 = (𝑛
𝑛 − 1) (
𝑆ₜ² − ∑ 𝑝𝑞
𝑆ₜ²)
Notes:
KR -20 : reliability
p : the right item
q : the wrong item
pq : the nu mber of product between p and q
N : the number of item (valid)
The reliability test result can be seen in Table 3.14:
Table 3. 14
Reliability Statistics
KR-20 Total Items
.648 20
56
As seen the data in Table 3.13 about the reliability of syntactic
knowledge test above, it can be seen that the reliability calculation is 0.644. It
means that the test is reliable.
E. Technique of Data Collection
In collecting the prerequisite data, there are two main tests and a
questionnaire as the primary sources and also documents. The test is used to obtain
data for scientific writing skill and syntactic knowledge, while questionnaire is used
to obtain the data for metacognition.
The test for writing required students to write a scientific essay with the
particular topics. The writing test’s purpose is to find out the students’ skill in writing
scientific essay. The students write an essay in writing’s sheet based on the topics
were given by the researcher. They choose one of the topics, and then write
introductory paragraph, several body paragraphs, and a concluding paragraph. The
second instrument is questionnaire of metacognition that purpose to find out
students’ metacognition. The last is syntactic knowledge test which purpose is to find
out students’ syntactic knowledge. The test for syntactic knowledge use multiple
choice test.
The second primary instrument is documents. The document is asked from
the lecturers of the courses and students of 6th semester including in conducting the
class, assessment during the activity and other important information related to
scientific writing.
F. Technique of Data Analysis
Data analysis technique used in this research is descriptive analysis and
inferential analysis. Descriptive analysis is used to describe and present the data.
Descriptive analysis includes; median, mean and curtosis mean. The descriptive
analysis composed hypothesis of the data with tables, graphs and measuring the
central tendency and variability (Kadir, 2015, p. 239).
While inferential analysis uses analysis multiple regression. The model
multiple regression is as below:
Ү = 𝛽0 + 𝛽1𝑥1 + 𝛽2𝑥2 + 𝜀
Then, the regression function is as below :
Ŷ = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2
Note :
Y : Dependent variable
X : Independent variable
𝛽0 : Constanta
𝛽1 and 𝛽2 : Regression coefficient
57
Before testing the hypothesis, the requirements analysis test included the
normality test and linearity test.
1. Normality test
Normality test is a prerequisite test before analyzing the hypothesis. This test
purpose is to find out whether the distribution of the test is normal or not. As the
normal distribution leads to the idea that the test has been conducted properly and
following the procedure.
In this research, normality test that used is Kolomogorov-Sminorv test by
using SPSS 25.00. The result is appeared by the score of D-count which compare to
D-table. However, in finding the number of D-Count it is necessary to find a1 and
a2. Then, the result table of Kolomogrov-Sminorv test is used to find the score of
galat Y on X1 and galat Y on X2.
2. Linearity Test
Linearity test is a prerequisite test after testing the normality of the data. This
test purpose is to find out whether the variables of the research is linear or not. As
the linearity between variables is an important part of doing data analysis.
The result appeared by the score of F-count which then compare to the score
on F-table. If the F-count is smaller that F-table then the population is classified as
linear. However, the score of F-count is conducted by SPSS where the formula can
be seen below:
F count (Reg) =𝑅𝐽𝐾 (𝑅𝑒𝑔)
𝑅𝐽𝐾 (𝑅𝑒𝑠)
Note:
RJK (Reg) : Mean score deviation
RJK (Res) : Mean score within group
(Kadir, p. 205)
G. Statistical Hypothesis
In order to calculate the three variables in this research, it is needed to be
formulated the statistical hypothesis as follows:
1. Ho : β1 ≤ 0
Ha : β1 > 0
2. Ho : β2 ≤ 0
Ha : β2 > 0
3. Ho : β1-β2 ≤ 0
Ha : β1-β2 > 0
58
Note:
Ho : null hypothesis
Ha : alternative hypothesis
β1 : the coefficient among students’ metacognition and their scientific writing
skill.
β2 : the coefficient relationship among students’ syntactic knowledge and their
scientific writing skill.
β1- β2 : the coefficient of relationship among students’ metacognition, syntactic
knowledge, and their scientific writing skill.
59
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Results
The following data were obtained through questionnaire of metacognition,
test of syntactic knowledge and test of scientific writing skill. Thus, finding is the last
step of research where the data are elaborated and explained comprehensively. There
are two main topics that are discussed in this subchapter. First, data description that
describes whole variables and population briefly. Second, data analysis that provides
the discussion related to how the data is analyzed and the research hypothesis are
answered.
In this research, there are 168 students who participated as the sample of the
research. All of them are students of sixth semester in English Literature Department
at Pamulang University. They have finished the tests and questionnaire from the
research instruments. There are three variables researched in this research, those are;
metacognition, syntactic knowledge, and scientific writing skill. Metacognition (X1)
and Syntactic knowledge (X2) are classified as the independent variables, while
scientific writing skill is classified as the dependent variable. The data was collected
using questionnaire to measure students’ metacognition and two types of test; the first
test is a multiple-choice test to obtain the data of syntactic knowledge. The last test is
writing test to measure the quality of scientific writing skill. The data that was taken
from the test result of students then are analyzed to find out the range of data, the
mean, median, mode, and standard deviation. The descriptive analysis can be seen in
the Table 4.1.
Table 4. 1
Descriptive Statistics
X1 X2 Y
N Valid 168 168 168
Missing 0 0 0
Mean 100.49 63.45 59.86
Std. Error of Mean .835 1.229 1.244
Median 100.00 65.00 63.00
Mode 100 60a 63
Std. Deviation 10.828 15.924 16.126
Variance 117.245 253.579 260.035
Skewness .179 -.063 -.087
60
X1 X2 Y
Std. Error of Skewness .187 .187 .187
Kurtosis -.194 -.931 -.930
Std. Error of Kurtosis .373 .373 .373
Range 59 60 63
Minimum 74 30 29
Maximum 133 90 92
Sum 16883 10660 10057
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
Note:
X1 : Metacognition
X2 : Syntactic Knowledge
Y : Scientific Writing skill
The data shown in Table 4.1 displays the mean, mode, median, standard
deviation, variance and range of each variables. The mean of metacognition is 100.49,
mean of syntactic knowledge is 63.45, while the mean of scientific writing skill is
59.86. The whole explanation related to Y variable is shown below.
1. Scientific Writing Skill (Y)
To give comprehensive explanation related to scientific writing skill score,
the data is seen in the Table 4.2 below.
Table 4. 2
Scoring of Scientific Writing Skill
Y
N Valid 168
Missing 0
Mean 59.86
Median 63.00
Range 63
Minimum 29
Maximum 92
Grade A (80-100)
Grade B (70-79)
Grade C (60-69)
Grade D (50-59)
Grade E (0-49)
17
38
30
41
42
Std. Deviation 16.126
61
Based on the data in Table 4.2, scoring of students’ scientific writing skill has
shown. The first data that is collected from the sample is scientific writing score. The
test was conducted by essay test. The total items which classified as valid were 6
items. The students choose one from four topics given. The students are asked to write
scientific essay in 200-250 words within 120 minutes. The score was given based on
the scoring rubric of scientific writing from 1 to 4, and then it converted into 0-100
scale to provide same value with other variables.
Based on the result of dependent variable of the research, it can be seen that
the mean is 59.86 from the scale 0-100, the median is 63.00, and the range is 63. The
score classification based on the statistical calculation of the data shows that the lowest
score is 29 and the highest score is 92. Therefore, the mean of the students for
scientific writing skill scoring is 59.86 which is classified as moderate score. The
correct answer is categorized in five levels based on the level grade in English
literature department of Unpam, that are A (80-100), B (70-79), C (60-69), D (50-59),
E (0-49). Therefore, the highest score is A which reached by 17 students (10.12%).
Meanwhile, 38 students (22.62%) get B, 30 students or 17.86 % of total students get
C, 41 students (24.40 %) get D and the lowest score is E that is gotten by 42 students
or 25 % from the total of students. Moreover, the standard deviation 16.126 indicated
that the answer given by the students are relatively same. It can be seen in Figure 4.1
Histogram and polygon presented below:
Figure 4. 1
Histogram and Polygon of Scientific Writing Skill
62
The Figure 4.1 shows the data about scientific writing skill scoring that
achieved by the students. From the figure, it can be seen the result of the test is between
29 until 92 where the score. The histogram showed the score, while the polygon give
the description that the average students’ score is between 50 and 80. So, the students’
score in scientific writing skill is categorized as moderate.
Furthermore, based on the indicators of students’ scientific writing skill, the
descriptive analysis is reviewed below.
Table 4. 3
Descriptive Statistic of Scientific Writing Skill Based on Indicators
Coherent
Paragraph
Thesis
Statement
Data &
Relevant
Evidence
Result &
conclusion
Word
choice
Grammar &
punctuation
N Valid 168 168 168 168 168 168
Missing 0 0 0 0 0 0
Mean 58.63 65.63 57.14 58.04 56.99 62.35
Median 50.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
Mode 50 50 50 50a 75 50
Std. Deviation 20.834 21.661 20.681 21.942 20.822 17.085
Variance 434.043 469.218 427.716 481.448 433.575 291.894
Skewness -.032 .083 .130 .021 -.188 .022
Std. Error of Skewness .187 .187 .187 .187 .187 .187
Kurtosis -.650 -.750 -.549 -.780 -.919 -.194
Std. Error of Kurtosis .373 .373 .373 .373 .373 .373
Range 75 75 75 75 75 75
Minimum 25 25 25 25 25 25
Maximum 100 100 100 100 100 100
Sum 9850 11025 9600 9750 9575 10475
Percentiles 25 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
50 50.00 75.00 50.00 50.00 50.00 50.00
75 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
63
The data shown in Table 4.3 displays the mean, mode, median, standard
deviation, variance and range reviewed by each indicator of scientific writing skill.
The maximum and minimum score of each indicator is same as in the maximum score
is 100 while in minimum score is 25. Similar with the maximum and minimum score,
the range of each indicator is also same that is 75. Therefore, the mean score of
indicator presenting paragraph follow a coherent pattern is 58.63, while the mean
score of indicator elaborating the unity of introduction with thesis statement is 65.63.
Next, based on thoughtful analysis aspects, the mean score of indicator describing the
data and relevant evidence is 57.14, while the mean score of indicator interpreting the
result and conclusion is 58.04. Thus, in term of composition skill aspect, the mean
score of indicator generating varied sentence structure with word choice is 56.99,
while the mean score of indicator using standard grammar and punctuation is 62.35.
From the data shown above, the mean score of each scientific writing skill
indicator is compared in histogram below.
Figure 4. 2
Histogram of Scientific Writing Skill Based on Indicators
Based on histogram in Figure 4.2, the highest mean score of scientific writing
skill based on indicators is 65.65 reached by the indicator elaborating the unity of
introduction with thesis statement. Meanwhile, the lowest mean score is 56.99 that
reached by the indicator generating varied sentence structure with word choice.
64
2. Metacognition (X1)
The statistic data related to students’ metacognition scoring is presented as in
the Table 4.4.
Table 4. 4
Scoring of Metacognition
X1
N Valid 168
Missing 0
Mean 100.49
Median 100.00
Range 54
Minimum 79
Maximum 133
High ( > 103) 64
Medium (65 - 103) 104
Low ( < 65) 0
Std. Deviation 10.828
The data presents in Table 4.3 is the scoring of metacognition. Based on the
data, there are some findings related to the score of metacognition. Questionnaire was
used as the instrument in order to measure students’ metacognition. The questionnaire
consisted of 28 item numbers which have 5 scale that are never, very rare, rare, often,
and very often. It can be chosen as the best description that suitable with the students.
The minimum score for the questionnaire is 28 and the maximum score is 140.
The result of metacognition showed that the mean is 100.49, the median is
100 and the range is 54. The maximum score that can be reached by the student is 133,
meanwhile the minimum score is 74. Therefore, it can be described that the mean of
the students’ metacognition as good score.
The range is counted by the average of lower score and higher score than the
mean of total score. The decision of level of metacognition is based on the criteria that
65
presented from statistic expert. Therefore, the low score is considered below 65 and
the total students with this score is 0 students (0%). The medium score range is 65-
103 where the total students with the score is 104 students or about 61.90% of
students. The last is high score for this questionnaire is considered higher than 103
with total students 64 students or about 38.10%. Then the standard deviation 10.838
indicated that the answer given by the students are relatively same. It can be seen in
Figure 4.2 histogram and polygon presented below.
Figure 4. 3
Histogram and Polygon of Metacognition
The Figure 4.2 shows the histogram of metacognition scoring. It can be seen
the result of the students’ test. The figure indicates that the curve from polygon and
the histogram form is symmetric. The students gained the score between 79 until 133.
The average of students’ score is between 90 and 110. So the students’ metacognition
is categorized as moderate.
3. Syntactic Knowledge (X2)
The statistic data is presented in Table 4.3 below.
66
Table 4. 5
Scoring of Syntactic Knowledge
X2
N Valid 168
Missing 0
Mean 59.86
Median 63.00
Range 63
Minimum 30
Maximum 90
A (80-100) 41
B (70-79) 22
C (60-69) 48
D (50-59) 24
E (<50) 33
Std. Deviation 15.924
Based on the data in Table 4.3, scoring of students’ syntactic knowledge has
shown. The test was conducted by multiple choice test. The total items which
classified as valid were 20 items. The students answer by choosing one from four
choices. The score was given to the students based on the correct answer that students
have, and then it converted into 0-100 scale to provide same value with other variables.
Based on the result of dependent variable of the research, it can be seen that
the mean is 59.86, the median is 63.00, and the range is 63. The score classification
based on the statistical calculation of the data shows that the lowest score is 30 and
the highest score is 90. Therefore, the mean of the students for syntactic knowledge
scoring is 59.86 which is classified as moderate score. Same with the scoring of
scientific writing, scoring of syntactic knowledge also graded into five levels, that is
A (80-100), B (70-79), C (60-69), D (50-59), and E(0-49). There are 41 students
(24.4%) who get A, meanwhile 22 students (13.1%) get B, 48 students or 28.57% of
students get C, 24 students (14.29%) get D, and 33 students or 19.64% of students get
E. Moreover, the standard deviation 15.924 indicated that the answer given by the
67
students are relatively same. It can be seen in the histogram and polygon presented
below:
Figure 4. 4
Histogram and Polygon of Syntactic Knowledge
From the Figure 4.4, it can be seen that the figure indicates the curve from
polygon and the histogram form is symmetric. The students gained the score between
30 until 90. The average of students’ score based on syntax test is between 50 and 80.
So the students’ syntactic knowledge is categorized as moderate.
4. Data Analysis Technique
Before analyzing the data and prove the hypothesis, the normality and
linearity of the data were tested. Normality test is used to know whether the data is
normally distributed or not. While the linearity test is used to know whether the two
variables have linear relationship or significance.
Normality Test
In this analysis, normality test is used to determine whether the data is
distributed normally or not by residual with Liliefors test. Based on the sample, it was
tested the hypotheses 0 (H0) as the normal distribution and H1 as the abnormal
distribution. The significance level α = 0.05 to accept or reject the normality test.
The normality test is done after the data calculated into residual variable Y on X1
and residual variable Y on X2. The calculation was done by SPSS program version
68
25.00 used one sample Kolmogorov Smirnov. The data was normal if significance
(sig) > 0.05, it means H0 is accepted. But if the sig < 0.05 it means H1 is rejected.
Table 4. 6
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Residual Y on X1 Residual Y on X2
N 168 168
Normal Parametersa,b Mean .376851 .074604
Std. Deviation 13.8327953 10.4642335
Most Extreme
Differences
Absolute .066 .068
Positive .056 .048
Negative -.066 -.068
Test Statistic .066 .068
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .070c .054c
a. Test distribution is Normal.
b. Calculated from data.
c. Lilliefors Significance Correction.
Referring to the data in Table 4.5 one sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, the
data was shown in column Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z. The normal data from p-value is
0.070 and 0.054. Both the p-value are > 0.05, so the distribution H0 is accepted or the
data is normally distributed. It can be concluded that all data from the sample in this
research was normally distributed.
Linearity Test
After doing the normality test, linearity test is also done in analyzing the data
in order to know is positive influence between two variables, which is Y on X1 and Y
on X2. It also used for correlation analysis with linear regression. The significance
(linearity) is 0.05 or H0 is accepted. Thus, line from Y on X1 and line from Y on X2
are linear. The SPSS output can be seen in the Table 4.6 and 4.7.
69
Table 4. 7
Linearity Y on X1
ANOVA Table
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Y * X1 Between
Groups
(Combined) 18600.360 42 442.866 2.230 .000
Linearity 11471.967 1 11471.967 57.763 .000
Deviation from
Linearity
7128.393 41 173.863 .875 .682
Within Groups 24825.491 125 198.604
Total 43425.851 167
Based on the data in Table 4.6, it was seen in deviation from Linearity of Y
on X1, the score of p-value = 0.682 > 0.05. It means the data of metacognition on
students’ scientific writing is linear. The data was calculated on Annova of Deviation
from Linearity in Table 4.7.
Table 4. 8
Linearity Y on X2
ANOVA Table
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square F Sig.
Y *
X2
Between
Groups
(Combined) 26325.416 12 2193.785 19.885 .000
Linearity 25149.097 1 25149.097 227.954 .000
Deviation
from Linearity
1176.319 11 106.938 .969 .477
Within Groups 17100.436 155 110.325
Total 43425.851 167
Referring to the data in Table 4.7, it was seen in deviation from Linearity of
Y on X1. The score of p-value = 0.477 > 0.05. It means the data of syntactic
knowledge on students’ scientific writing skill is linear. The data was calculated on
Annova of Deviation from Linearity in Table 4.7.
The Testing Hypotheses
The hypotheses of this analysis used multiple regression. The hypotheses are
calculated by SPSS version 25.00
70
1) Testing of hypotheses 1 and 2
Table 4. 9
Coefficientsa
Model
Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
T Sig.
Correlations
B
Std.
Error Beta
Zero-
order Partial Part
1 (Constant) -3.759 7.586 -.495 .621
X1 .193 .089 .129 2.155 .033 .514 .165 .107
X2 .697 .061 .689 11.472 .000 .761 .666 .571
a. Dependent Variable: Scientific writing skill
As seen the data in Table 4.8 coefficient above, it was reported that the
constant in B column stated b0 = -3.759. Regression coefficient b1 = 0.193 and b2 =
0.697. From the score that stated above, the regression formula is conducted by
substituting the score to formula Y = -3.759 + 0.193 X1 + 0.697 X2. The result from
the analysis showed that the value of variable coefficient X1 is t-observation = 2.155,
and p-value = 0.033 < 0.05 that means H0 is rejected, so metacognition has positive
influence on scientific writing skill. Thus, from Table 4.8, it is found that the value of
variable X2 is t-count = 11.472 and p-value 0.000/2 < 0.05. From the value, it is found
that H0 is also rejected. So that syntactic knowledge has positive influence on scientific
writing skill.
Based on the explanation above, there are several points that can be concluded
from the relationship between metacognition, syntactic knowledge and scientific
writing skill. First, the relationship between those variables is positive among those
variables which means the high score in metacognition has a tendency to result high
score in scientific writing skill and the high score in syntactic knowledge has a
tendency to result high score in scientific writing skill. Second, relationship between
those variables is significant, and the last is the strength of those variables’ relationship
is considered to the level of strong positively.
2) Testing on hypotheses 3
Table 4. 10
ANNOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares Df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 25649.520 2 12824.760 119.039 .000b
Residual 17776.331 165 107.735
Total 43425.851 167
a. Dependent Variable: Y
b. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X1
71
As shown the data in Table 4.9, it shows that the value of F column is F-
observation = 119.039 and p-value 0.000< 0.05. So H0 is rejected. It means that there
is a positive influence of metacognition and syntactic knowledge on students’
scientific writing skill.
Table 4. 11
Model Summaryb
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 .769a .591 .586 10.380 .591 119.039 2 165 .000
a. Predictors: (Constant), X2, X1
b. Dependent Variable: Y
Based on the data described in Table 4.10 model summary. It can be
concluded that the coefficient multiple correlation = 0.769 and F-observation =
119.039 p-value = 0.000 < 0.05. It means H0 rejected and the coefficient multiple
regression of metacognition (X1) and syntactic knowledge (X2) on students’ scientific
writing skill (Y) is significant. It means the relationship of metacognition and syntactic
knowledge on students’ scientific writing skill is 59.1 %. So it indicates strong
relationship. Shown with the correlational coefficient 0.769 which means the
relationship. As the range of correlation 0-1 is considered as positive correlation and
0—1 is considered as negative correlations. Therefore, the relationship is positive and
there is a tendency in this case high score metacognition and syntactic knowledge will
most likely lead to a high score in scientific writing.
B. Discussion
This paper investigates metacognition and syntactic knowledge to students’
scientific writing skill. The results suggest that metacognition, syntactic knowledge
and scientific wring skill of sixth semester students of English literature department
in Pamulang University are moderate. When the test was conducted, the students seem
good to make an essay because the test is taken in the last meeting of scientific writing
lecture, so that the students are already elaborated with the instruction. They were
familiar with the themes given. The themes that were taken by students were spread
out equally in the classroom. The time allocation also be used maximally, even some
of them are finish it quicker than the time was allocated. Once students has finished
their scientific writing, the students use their remaining time for reviewing.
Most of high students could make good quality of scientific essay and apply
the structure of essay correctly. They elaborated the introduction from the thesis
statement become a paragraph. Moreover, the high level students are able to write
what is in their mind correctly by using the style of expository writing. Although the
data presented is limited, the writing is still communicative and try to explain the topic
72
based on the data that taken from synthesizing the sources. It can make the reader
desire in reading because the writing result presented interesting topic and also support
with the details, which are facts. There is also few error that is found in the use of
standard grammar and punctuation including tenses, part of speech, punctuation and
capitalization.
In line with the scoring rubric that mentioned in the previous chapter that the
good writing have to consider the use of standard grammar and punctuation. In the
content view, the students seemed so confident to write the essay as it shown that the
high students used steps to make scientific writing comprehensively. They put the
introduction, method, result and discussion in a good order even though there are some
limit in time. The analysis of students’ scientific writing is in the figure 4.5.
introduction
method
result
discussion
wrong passive
voice
wrong grammar
good thesis
statement
providing data
wrong punctuation
Figure 4. 5
High Students’ Writing Result
73
The data in figure 4.5 Sample of Student with High Score in Scientific Writing
showed that they already put the organization of each paragraph correctly from the
introduction until the discussion. They also provided strong flow of introduction as
seen in the first paragraph. The sentence began with thesis statement then the next
sentences supported the thesis statement.
Therefore, low students are basically know about the structure and
organization of scientific writing, unfortunately, they still cannot apply in a good
order. They are difficult to synthesize the sources and still misuse of connective. In
term of focus and introduction, they failed to elaborate the thesis statement with the
supporting detail, so that some students are not consistent on one topic. They give few
data and tend to provide the opinion, not relevant evidence. The students seems
difficult to find the suitable data that relevant with the topic, so that they only guess
what they experienced that tend to bring it to opinion. Different with the high students,
the low students still difficult to explain the topic, and mostly summarizing the
information that they get.
In composition skill aspects, the low students are still fair enough to choose
the appropriate words (diction) in their essay. It because most of them are lack of
vocabulary especially academic vocabulary which appropriate with the style of
writing. Therefore, word choice is important to create a certain tone that support
purpose. Likewise, Suharho (2001) argues compellingly in favor of this point of view
that said that the use of proper language is an essential element in writing scientific
papers.
They also made few mistakes in using standard grammar, punctuation and
capitalization. But still, some of them made serious error in grammar that may
interfere the readers’ understanding of the writing such as the wrong active or passive
sentence and spelling. However, the students who got low score in scientific writing
find the difficulties in term of elaborating the topic because their skill is still need to
improve.
The low students could not recognize the organization principles of scientific
writing. The students were failed to write thesis statement clearly which is also not
supported by relating details. They also presented without the data and evidences and
tended to use opinion rather than served the data. Meanwhile, in term of grammar, the
errors mostly happened in tenses and punctuation. The low students’ scientific writing
result is presented in the following figure 4.6.
74
However, not all of the indicators in scientific writing skill achieved well. The
students commonly achieved bad result on the indicator of sentence and word choice.
The result show that the indicator generating varied sentence structure with word
choice is the lowest. It can be concluded that most of the student use simple sentence
structure and still cannot consider appropriate vocabulary to their writing. Meanwhile,
diction is also very essential in deciding the quality of a scientific paper. An
inappropriate choice of words may obscure the meaning and the sentences become
less vivid.
On the contrary, the result of indicator elaborating the unity of introduction
with thesis statement is good enough. The result show that this indicator is the highest
in all scientific writing indicators. Thus, it assumed that students are better in
developing the introduction from the thesis statement and supporting the thesis with
the details.
introduction
result
discussion
thesis statement
directly write
the result
wrong
grammar &
punctuation
Picture 4. 2
High Students’ Writing Result
Figure 4. 6
High Students’ Writing Result
75
The analysis also confirm the positive influence of metacognition on students’
scientific writing skill. The statistical calculation shows the p-value is higher than 0.05
that lead to the accepted of the null hypotheses. Based on the questionnaire result, the
students had good response in doing the questionnaire. Most of the students finished
the questionnaire in less than 20 minutes. From the questionnaire result, it is found
that most of the students did not find difficulties to understand the statement because
the items was arranged. The average of students’ result in metacognition shown that
the capability of students is in moderate. They tended to answer based on what they
experienced so that the questionnaire results were good.
Most of the students who got good score in scientific writing also achieve
good metacognition. Otherwise, the students who got bad score in scientific writing
also achieve low metacognition. The result showed that the students have good
response in doing the questionnaire. This result is confirmatory evident that
corresponds with numerous types of research before that try to check the influence
between metacognition with scientific writing skill. For instance, the research that was
conducted by Negretti that resulted the significant relationship of metacognition on
students’ scientific writing. It showed that theories of metacognition and self-
regulated learning apply to understand how beginning scientific writers develop the
ability to participate in the communicative practices of scientific writing (Negretti,
2012, p. 142). As well as Xiao (2007) that argued students who have good
metacognition learn about what the strategies are, how to use the strategies, when and
why to apply the strategies, and as a result, learn to regulate through their cognitive
activities as it applied in writing class. He advise that metacognitive instruction takes
up a great deal of class time but is effective in improving students’ writing.
It is in accordance to theory that is proposed by Kadir (2019) related to the
scale of knowledge about cognition dimension that use in assessing metacognition,
for instance the item, “In order to be easier to understand the type of the test, I start
with posing questions: what is known? What is asked? And what data must be
fulfilled?” It shows the factual knowledge the students’ needs before being able to
process or use critical thinking related to the topic. The students with high
metacognition present this knowledge before doing scientific writing test, so that they
can determine the following process they will face with. Other factor that may
contribute to the result is explain as follow.
The first reason is the element of scientific writing scoring. As have been
explained before that in scoring scientific writing, thoughtful analysis is one of the
aspects in deciding whether a scientific essay is good or not. In fact, metacognition
contributes in part of cognitive process while writing. Thoughtful analysis aspects of
scientific writing is assessed by the students’ ability to describe the data with relevant
evidence and interpret the result and conclusion which need not only high thinking
76
process of their cognition, but also use critical thinking that is presented in their
metacognition.
The second reason is the structure of scientific writing skill that consist of
introduction, method, discussion and result. The organization of scientific essay
absolutely make the students planning the process to reach the goal. In line with this
aspects, metacognition consider planning as part of regulation of cognition. So as
before and while doing the writing, students need to present their regulation of
cognition in order to set the goal of writing. Therefore, students with high
metacognition will monitor their selves’ process of writing by presenting their
metacognition.
Thus, the results also reveal that syntactic knowledge has positive influence
on students’ scientific writing skill. The statistical calculation shows that p-value is
smaller than 0.05. On the other word that the hypothesis null is rejected. Based on
students’ syntactic knowledge, it can be concluded that the students of English
literature department in Unpam were not bad in syntax. In the syntactic test, the
students seemed serious to do the test. Surprisingly, most of the students could do the
test with good score. Not to mention that the students seemed still remember about
what they learnt in syntax in the fifth semester.
The results of current study have similar result of research conducted by
another researcher. The previous study that was conducted by Morvay (2011, p. 415)
about the relationship of syntactic knowledge which related to reading
comprehension. Similar in one variable, he found that syntactic knowledge also has
significant correlation to reading comprehension. The analysis that used in his study
is power correlations and regression analyses rendered results that showed syntactic
knowledge to be a statistically significant estimator for foreign language reading
comprehension. The major research question that was the focus of this study: What is
the role of the ability to process complex syntactic structures in efficient English
reading? By looking at the data, it can be noted that all the independent measures
correlated with English reading comprehension either at the .05 or at the .01
probability level. In other words, the following ranking of correlations emerged: The
measure most highly correlated with English reading comprehension was English
syntactic ability. The study provides evidence that the ability to process complex
syntactic structures does contribute to one’s efficient reading comprehension in that
language. Despite the distinction between this research and the current research, the
result still show that syntactic knowledge has significant effect to the language skills.
Another factor that may contribute to result is explained below.
The first reason is because scientific writing skill is assessed one of them by
grammar part, one of them is syntax. Syntactic knowledge that is assessed in this
research is syntactic structure of complex and compound sentence which is obliged in
scientific writing. As mention in the previous results, that one of the indicator of
77
scientific writing is generating varied sentence structure which means the sentence
that made in scientific writing is based on syntactic structure. So that, the more
students got in syntactic knowledge, the ore they get in scientific writing.
Lastly, the results suggest that the combination of metacognition and syntactic
knowledge simultaneously have positive influence in students’ scientific writing skill.
The result showed that the students’ scientific writing is good enough. They can
elaborate the topic in introduction, give relevant data and evidence. The data found
that most of their essays are still ordinary. There are some students who did little
mistake in grammar and punctuation.
The elaboration of the data of scientific writing then followed by the
comparison between the aspects of scoring of scientific writing. As shown above that
there are some mistakes made by the writers, for example in term of word choice,
grammar, punctuation and capitalization. The other problems are from the thoughtful
analysis aspect that is still need to improve in most of the students and also word
choice. For example, the students sometimes tend to repeat the vocabulary more than
once specifically in conjunction. Looking back the result, syntactic knowledge was
needed to write correct sentences.
The result as shown above could be explained briefly. Students still have
difficulties create text with good coherency. However, they have good language
feature in the text, including using proper diction, punctuation and grammatical
feature. Despite writing are considered to have a small gap. In another word the way
students write has covered coherence, content, and language feature in an advance
way.
The factor that related metacognition and syntactic knowledge on students’
scientific writing skill is because all of the students are sixth semester students and all
of them have completed the syntax lecture in the fifth semester. Besides, they have
accomplished the courses in semester six, the students also demanded to create a
scientific essay in form of scientific writing. And also, they are already familiar with
scientific writing in form of journal, skripsi so that they recognize the aspects and
maximize their metacognition to engage with the essay. Some of students even used
citation to strengthen their ideas and used good diction that made their scientific
writing more specific and deep.
Syntactic knowledge helps students to create good sentence structure in
composition aspect. Therefore, metacognition helps students manage their cognition
to write the content based on the knowledge about scientific writing that had been
learnt and also can regulate their knowledge to synthesize the idea that they get from
other resources and form it as a frame of scientific writing. So, scientific writing skill
can be done perfectly if the students have good metacognition and have capability in
syntactic knowledge. Based on the result that said there are significant correlation of
metacognition and syntactic knowledge on students’ scientific writing skill is proven.
78
Concluding all the discussion above, the research question proposed in this
research in some part in line with other research metacognition is found to be
positively influence students’ scientific writing skill. The idea goes the same with how
the relationship between metacognition and syntactic. Both of the variables have
moderate strength in term of the influence to students’ scientific writing skill.
C. Limitation of the Research
This research have already focused on metacognition and syntactic
knowledge and its effect on students’ scientific writing skill. On the other side, the
empirical results reported herein should be considered in the light of some limitations.
The limitation of the studies are described below.
1) The assessment of scientific writing is done only by the researcher based on the
scoring rubric of test.
2) This research is lack of previous research studies. The main reason of this
limitation is because there still few of survey studies that related syntactic
knowledge variable and writing variable. Most of them only focus on syntax and
reading. And also the studies about syntax are commonly researched in early age
students.
3) There are some limitations of accessing the data. The main data that were taken
from the samples are enough. Yet, the supporting data related to the real condition
of the population and sample are limited because the researcher is not insider of
the institution so that it is rather difficult to get involve in the institution.
Above all, the limitation of this research might be one of the consideration of
better further research that relates to these variables.
79
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION, IMPLICATION, AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
Based on the result and discussion of the study, there are some conclusions that
are included as in the explanation below.
First, students’ scientific writing skill, metacognition and syntactic knowledge
are categorized as moderate. Specifically, the important aspects in students’ scientific
writing skill are coherent paragraph, thesis statement, data and relevant evidence,
result and conclusion, word choice, and grammar and punctuation. Students’ scientific
writing skill on the aspect of thesis statement and grammar and punctuation is
considered as better than the other aspects.
Second, metacognition has positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill.
Therefore, the improvement of metacognition shall enhance students’ scientific
writing skill. In other word, in English learning, variable metacognition plays
important role in term of enhancing the quality of students’ scientific writing skill.
Third, syntactic knowledge has positive influence on students’ scientific writing
skill. The scientific writing skill is determined by syntactic knowledge. Thus, this
factor has dominant role in term of supporting the quality of students’ scientific
writing skill.
Fourth, the combination of metacognition and syntactic knowledge
simultaneously have positive influence on students’ scientific writing skill. Therefore,
the improvement of students’ writing skill is determined by factor of metacognition
and syntactic knowledge.
B. Implication
Looking back the result, either theoretically or practically, there are several
implication of research that could enhance and strengthen the quality of English
Literature students, specifically in Pamulang University. The implication of the
research are explained below.
First, the research gives some insights to English literature department
students to improve not only learning process of scientific writing course, but also the
learning process of syntax course. The students realized that to be good in scientific
writing, they need to improve the factors that might influence the quality of writing.
Second, it also can be one of the additional resource as the research that is
conducted related to metacognition, syntactic knowledge to scientific writing skill is
still limited in Indonesia. Especially research that use those variable. This research
also gives new perspectives about how is writing in college level. As it is important
to see how non-native speaker like Indonesian respond to the language skill in English.
In term of metacognition, this research hoped to be able to give information
about the elements of metacognition. Therefore, this result could be broaden the view
to the further research.
80
C. Suggestion
From the results and conclusions of the research, there is the relationship
among metacognition, syntactic knowledge and students’ scientific writing skill. This
scope is not only for the students but also for the other researchers, and teachers. The
following are the detail suggestions that can be implemented further.
For Students
The students who want to able in scientific writing, they have to learn syntax
comprehensively. So, when the students learn syntax in the fifth semester, they can
set the goal to comprehend syntax in order to get ready on scientific writing course
that is taken in the following semester. Not to mention that the students will realize,
syntax is more than theoretical course, it is also about the practical understanding that
useful to be practiced.
It is also need to consider that the students need to evaluate themselves to
control their metacognition well. It is not only depended on cognition, but also develop
the capability of metacognition in order to build awareness. If students have built the
awareness, they will easily engaged in scientific writing.
For Teachers
The teachers should master, syntactic knowledge and students’ scientific
writing skill and have high awareness to manage their metacognition. Teachers can
also stimulate and practice how to manage metacognition to the students. The course
also need the continuity learning that means the goal of the learning process is
continued to the related course in the following semester, either in syntax course or
scientific writing course.
For Institution
The research is hoped give some benefits to the institution, especially
Pamulang University in enhancing the relevant information about metacognition,
syntactic knowledge and scientific writing. It is also suggested to the institution to
make lecturer group discussion in order to align the mindset then formulated suitable
curriculum and syllabus that can support the development of institution.
For Further research
It also can be one of consideration to make the further research about
metacognition, syntactic knowledge or scientific writing skill and the study on how to
improve scientific writing by developing metacognition and syntactic knowledge.
81
82
REFERENCES
Amer, M. (2013). The effect of explicit instruction in expository text structure on the
writing performance of Arab EFL University students. The Islamic University
of Gaza Press, pp. 234-270.
Anshori, D. S. (2004). Peningkatan kemampuan menulis mahasiswa melalui model
workshop dalam perkuliahan kependidikan pada program non kependidikan
jurusan pendidikan bahasa dan sastra Indonesia FPBS UPI. Jurnal Bahasa Dan
Sastra FPBS, 4(6), 390–403.
Ariyanti, A. (2016). Shaping students’ writing skills shaping students' writing skills:
the study of fundamental aspects in mastering academic writing. Indonesian
Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(11), 2503–4197.
Armagan, A., (2013). How to write an introduction section of a scientific article? Turk
J urol, 13(1), 8-9.
Ary, D. J., and Sorensen. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education: 8th edition.
Canada: Wadsworth, engage Learning.
Barbara J, E. (1991). Vygotsky and the teaching of writing. Quarterly of the National
Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 13(3), 8-
11. Retrieved from:
https://www.nwp.org/cs/public/download/nwp_file/789/Vygotsky.pdf?x-
r=pcfile_d.
Brown, S. (2010). Likert scale examples for surveys. URL:
http://www.extension.iastate.edu/ag/staff/info/likertscaleexamples.pdf
Chomsky, N. (Ed.). (2002). Syntactic Structure (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Mouton
De Gruyter.
Creswell, J.W., (2012). Educational Research: Planning, conducting and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education. Inc.
Gotcu, R, (2017). Metacognitive Strategies in Academic Writing. Journal of
Education in Black Sea Region, 2(2), 82-96. Retrieved from
https://jebs.ibsu.edu.ge/jms/index.php/jebs/article/download/44/52
83
Haris, K., Santangelo, T., Graham, S. (2010). Metacognition and Strategies Instruction
in Writing. New York: The Guilford Press.
Howard, P. (2012). Development of a Measure Assessing Knowledge and Use of
Internal Punctuation to Signal Syntactic Relationships. Electronic Theses and
Dissertations. 295.
Husin, N., & Nurbayani E. (2017). The ability of Indonesian EFL learners in writing
academic papers. Dinamika Ilmu, 17(2), 237-250. Retrieved from
https://journal.iain-samarinda.ac.id/index.php/dinamika_ilmu/article/view/725
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: social interactions in academic writing.
MI: University of Michigan Press.
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2012). Educational Research: Quantitative,
Qualitative and mixed Approaches (4th edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publication. Inc.
Kadir. (2015). Statistika terapan: konsep, contoh dan analisis data dengan program
SPSS/Lisrel dalam Penelitian. Ed. 2. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.
Kadir. (2017). Determine the Validity of instrument with Aiken Method. Proceedings
of the Quantitative Research Course. Jakarta.
Kadir, & Sappaile, B.I. (2019). Development of a metacognition scale in learning
mathematics for senior high school students. Pertanika Journal Social Science
and Humanity, 27 (1), 181-194.
Kadir. (2019). The Determination of Metacognition Score. Proceedings of the
Quantitative Research Course. Jakarta.
Lindsay, D.R., (2011). Scientific writing = thinking in words. Victoria, Australia:
Csiro Publishing.
Miranda, Y. (2010). Dampak pembelajaran metakognitif dengan strategi kooperatif
terhadap kemampuan metakognitif siswa dalam mata pelajaran biologi di SMA
Negeri Palangka Raya. Jurnal Penelitian Kependidikan, 20(2).
Moodle. (2019). Retrieved July 21, 2019, from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moodle
84
Morvay, G. (2011). The relationship between syntactic knowledge and reading
comprehension in EFL learners. Department of English Studies, Faculty of
Pedagogy and Fine Arts, Adam Mickiewicz University, Kalisz SSLLT 2(3), 415-
438. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1135869.pdf
Mulyaningsih, I., Suwandi, S., Setyawan, B., Rohmadi, M. (2013). Encouraging
scientific writing: an explorative study on the Indonesian general course learned
at Islamic colleges in Cirebon regency, West Java province, Indonesia.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), 4(6), 2900-2907.
Retrieved from http://www.ijsr.net/archive/v4i6/SUB156015.pdf
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: a longitudinal study
of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation,
and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142—179.
doi: 10.1177/0741088312438529.
Nguyen, H. (2016). Peer Feedback Practice in EFL Tertiary Writing Classes. English
Language Teaching; Vol. 9, No. 6; 2016 ISSN 1916-4742 E-ISSN 1916-4750
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education. pp. 76—91.
Ozturk, N. (2017). Assessing Metacognition: Theory and Practices. Int. J. Asst. Tools
in Educ., Vol. 4, Issue 2, (2017) pp. 134-148
Pintrich, P. R., Wolters, C. A., & Baxter, G. P. (2000). Assessing metacognition and
selfregulated learning. In G. Schraw & J. C. Impara (Eds.), Assessing
metacognition and self-regulated learning (pp. 43–97). Lincoln, NE: Buros
Institute of Mental Measurements.
Pitenoee, M., Modaberi, A., Ardestani, E. (2017). The effect of cognitive and
metacognitive writing strategies on content of the Iranian intermediate EFL
learners’ writing. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 8(3), 594—600.
doi: 10.17507/jltr.0803.19.
Santrock, W. (2010). Psikologi Pendidikan. Jakarata, Indonesia: Kencana Prenada
Media Group.
Schraw, G. (1994). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. In H. J. Hartman
(Ed.), Metacognition in Learning and Instruction (pp. 3-16). Dordrecht,
London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-
2243-8_1
Senner, W (Ed.). (2001). The origin of writing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
85
Student Learning Development, University of Leicester. 2009. Writing for science.
Retrieved from https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/ld/resources/study-guides-
pdfs/writing-skills-pdfs/writing-for-science-v1.0.pdf
Tynjala, P., Mason, L., Lonka, K., (Ed.). (2001). Writing as a Learning Tool:
Integrating Theories and Practices (1st ed.). Helsinki, Finland: Springer Science
+ Bussiness Media, B.V.
Valin Jr, R. D., & LaPolla, R. J., (2004). Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function.
New York, US: Cambridge University Press.
Valin Jr., R. D. (2001). An Introduction to Syntax. Cambrige, UK: Cambrige
University Press.
Veenman, M. V. J., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. and Afflerbach, P. (2006).
Metacognition and Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations.
Metacognition and Learning. Science Direct Vol. 1. pp. 3—14.
Waters, Harriet Salatas., Schneider, W (Ed.). (2010). Metacognition, Strategy Use and
Instruction, New York: The Guilford Press.
Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ying, G., Roehrig, A., Williams, R. (2011). Morphological Awareness and Syntactic
Awareness to Adults’ Reading Comprehension: Is Vocabulary Knowledge a
Mediating Variable? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(2), 159–183. doi:
10.1177/1086296X11403086
Yu Chen, K. (2014) Vocabulary, syntactic knowledge and reading comprehension:
the perspective of college EFL students. WHAMPOA - An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 66(2014), 39-52. Retrieved from
https://www.cma.edu.tw/journal/66files/(39-
52)Vocabulary,%20Syntactic%20Knowledge%20and%20Reading%20Compr
ehension%20the%20Perspective%20of%20College%20EFL%20Students.pdf.
86
METACOGNITION QUESTIONNAIRE
Directions:
Below is the questionnaire that given related to your metacognition. Give the checklist
(√) in the appropriate column based on your real condition on the answer sheet
provided by using this scale.
The scale is presented as follow:
1 = never; 2 = very rare; 3 = rare; 4 = often; 5 = very often
Statements:
1. I ask myself periodically if I am meeting my goals.
2. I consider several alternatives to a problem before I answer.
3. I try to use strategies that have worked in the past.
4. I pace myself while learning in order to have enough time.
5. I understand my intellectual strengths and weaknesses.
6. I think about what I really need to learn before I begin a task
7. I know how well I did once I finish a test.
8. I set specific goals before I begin a task.
9. I consciously focus my attention on important information.
10. I know what kind of information is most important to learn.
11. I find myself using helpful learning strategies automatically
12. I am good at organizing information.
13. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I study.
14. I am a good judge of how well I understand something.
15. I learn best when I know something about the topic.
16. I learn more when I am interested in the topic.
17. I am good at remembering information.
18. I use different learning strategies depending on the situation.
19. I know when each strategy I use will be most effective.
20. I find myself analyzing the usefulness of strategies while I study.
21. I periodically review to help me understand important relationships.
22. I ask myself questions about the material before I begin.
23. I think of several ways to solve a problem and choose the best one.
24. I ask myself how well I accomplish my goals once I’m finished.
25. I ask others for help when I don’t understand something.
26. I can motivate myself to learn when I need to
27. I use my intellectual strengths to compensate for my weaknesses.
28. I stop and reread when I get confused.
87
Appendix 2
Instrument of Syntactic Knowledge
SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE TEST
Pilihlah salah satu jawaban yang paling tepat dari pilihan jawaban A, B, C, dan
D!
1. They hope to win the main prize of the competition.
From the sentence above, the noun phrase is …...
A. They Hope to
B. To win
C. The main prize of the competition
D. The main prize
2. The Children at the school tried to solve the math problem.
The underlined word is the structure of …..
A. noun phrase
B. verb phrase
C. adverbial clause
D. prepositional phrase
3. She seemed extremely pleasant.
From the sentence above, the adjective phrase is …..
A. She
B. She seemed
C. pleasant
D. extremely pleasant
4. Which one of the following phrase that is a correct form of adverbial phrase?
A. She wake up early in the morning.
B. We entered the school when the doors were open.
C. Kay bring the umbrella in her bag.
D. There was an overtime game because the score was even.
The figure is to answer question number 5-6
5. The suitable structure to fill the blank space number 5 is ….
A. ADJ
B. NP
C. CONJ
D. VP
88
6. The suitable structure to fill the blank space number 6 is ….
A. CONJ
B. PP
C. NP
D. VP
7. I was reading the newspaper while having breakfast
The main clause in the sentence above is …..
A. I was reading the newspaper
B. having breakfast
C. while having breakfast
D. none of them
8. As he was not there, I could not speak to him.
The subordinate clause in the sentence above is ….
A. I could not speak
B. As he was not there
C. he was not there
D. I could not speak to him
9. Which one of these sentences that have two independent clauses?
A. As you have come late to class three times this week, you are in detention
after school on Friday.
B. You must wait here until I get back.
C. When you arrive in school every day, you must go to your locker to get your
things ready for class.
D. While Tom reads novels, Jack reads comics, but Sam only reads magazines.
10. The clauses that are not categorized as adverb clause is ….
A. While flowers continue to bloom
B. Whenever you come to visit
C. Unless you have the right size
D. Where I went to elementary school
11. Below are not included as coordinating conjunction ….
A. for
B. and
C. nor
D. however
12. The sentence that has punctuation pattern {Independent clause; coordinating
conjunction; independent clause} is ….
A. Charles rides a horse, but Jim rides motorcycle.
B. Jack, who reads comics, rarely reads novels.
C. Bill come to the school, however, Jane doesn’t come.
D. The author, whom I met at the book signing, was very cordial.
13. The way mummies’ brains were removed is really, deeply gross.
If we change this simple sentence to create a logical compound sentence, the
sentence will become ….
A. The ways mummies’ brains were removed through their noses is really deeply
gross.
89
B. Mummies’ brains were removed through their noses and it was really, deeply
gross.
C. Mummies’ brains were removed through their noses, a deeply gross
procedure.
D. The way mummies’ brains, really, deeply gross, were removed.
14. Stina is really, extraordinarily good at playing billiards. I've never dared to play
with her.
The option that best combines these sentences into a logical compound sentence
is ….
A. Stina is really, extraordinarily good at playing billiards, so I've never dared
to play with her.
B. Stina is really, extraordinarily good at playing billiards, I've never dared to
play with her.
C. I've never dared to play with Stina, really, extraordinarily good at playing
billiards.
D. I’ve never dared to play with extraordinarily good at playing billiards, Stina.
15. Which of these options is a compound sentence?
A. The venus fly trap snapped shut, catching a bug.
B. The venus fly trap snapped shut and caught a bug.
C. The venus fly trap snapped shut and caught by bug.
D. The venus fly trap snapped shut, but the nearby bug narrowly escaped being
caught.
16. I bought a delicious pie at an Amish country store. I think it’s got apples and
peaches in it.
Combine the two sentences to make a logical compound sentence!
A. The delicious pie I bought at an Amish country store has apples and peaches
in it.
B. I bought a delicious pie, I think it’s got apples and peaches in it, at an Amish
country store.
C. I bought a delicious pie at an Amish country store; I think it’s got apples and
peaches in it.
D. I bought a delicious pie at an Amish country store where I can get apples and
peaches in it.
17. Compound sentence that has two independent clauses joined by conjunction
adverb is ….
A. Charles rides a horse, but Jim rides motorcycle.
B. Jack, who reads comics, rarely reads novels.
C. Bill come to the school, however, Jane doesn’t come.
D. The author, whom I met at the book signing, was very cordial.
18. John believes that my uncle owns Sentosa Island.
The syntactic structure of the sentence above is ….
A. [S [NP] [VP [V][S’[COMP][S[NP][VP[V][NP]]]
B. [S [VP] [VP [V][S’[COMP][S[NP][NP]]]
C. [S [NP] [NP [N]] [S’[COMP][S’[NP]]]
D. [S [NP] [VP [V][S’[COMP][VP][NP]]]
90
The Figure for Question number 19.
19. The sentence that appropriate from the tree diagram above is ….
A. My mother is baking a cake for my sister
B. The dog run to catch the ball in the field.
C. Our brothers are walking up through the stars.
D. The children are gathering in the school hall.
20. You can write on paper, although a computer is better if you want to correct
mistakes easily.
The punctuation pattern of the sentence above is ….
A. independent clause; dependent clause; dependent clause
B. dependent clause; dependent clause; independent clause
C. independent clause; independent clause
D. dependent clause; independent clause
21. Combine these parts to make a logical complex sentence.
1. When I go swimming
2. I have to keep my eyes closed underwater
A. I have to when I go swimming keep my eyes closed underwater.
B. When I go swimming, I have to keep my eyes closed underwater.
C. I have to keep my eyes closed when I go swimming under water.
D. When I go swimming underwater have to keep my eyes closed.
22. Combine these parts to make a logical complex sentence!
1. Despite living farther away from my family now.
2. I make a greater effort to see them.
3. I visit at least once a month.
A. Despite living farther away from my family now, I make a greater effort to
see them; I visit at least once a month.
B. Despite living farther away from my family now, I make a greater effort to
see them, which is why I visit at least once a month.
C. I make a greater effort to see them and I visit at least once a month despite
living farther away from my family now.
D. I visit at least once a month despite living farther away from my family now.
91
Figure for questions number 23-24
23. The figure above is the structure of ….
A. subordinate clause
B. main clause
C. complex sentence
D. compound sentence
24. The correct sentence that use the same structure from the figure above is ….
A. Sam feel that he wants to throw up.
B. I know that these birds are beautiful.
C. I remember that Claire is looking at me.
D. Noah saw that the thief killed her.
92
Appendix 3
Instrument of Scientific Writing
SCIENTIFIC WRITING TEST
Time allocation: 120 minutes
Direction:
Choose one of the topics below. Then, write a good scientific essay from topic you
have chosen (at least 200-250 words). Write your scientific essay on the answer sheet.
a. The Use of Mind Map in Improving Students’ Writing Skill
b. Need Analysis for Developing Translation’s Text book
c. An Analysis of Students’ English Textbook
d. Facebook: An Online Environment for Learning English in Institutions of Higher
Education
93
Appendix 4
The Answer sheet of Instrument
LEMBAR JAWABAN
KUESIONER METACOGNITION
Name : ........................................................................
Class/Semester : ........................................................................
Gender : ………………………………………………
Date of Birth : ………………………………………………
Hobby : ………………………………………………
TOEFL score : ………………………………………………
English Course experience : 1. ……………………………... year: …………
2. ……………………………... year: …………
3. ……………………………... year: …………
No Skala Penilaian
1 2 3 4 5
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
No Skala Penilaian
1 2 3 4 5
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
94
Appendix 5
The Answer Sheet of Syntactic Knowledge
LEMBAR JAWABAN
SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE
Name : ........................................................................
Class/Semester : ........................................................................
Gender : ………………………………………………
Date of Birth : ………………………………………………
Hobby : ………………………………………………
TOEFL score : ………………………………………………
English Course experience : 1. ……………………………... year: …………
2. ……………………………... year: …………
3. ……………………………... year: …………
No Jawaban
A B C D
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
No Jawaban
A B C D
11.
12.
13.
14.
15
16.
17.
18
19.
20.
95
Appendix 6
The Answer Sheet of Scientific Writing
SCIENTIFIC WRITING TEST
ANSWER SHEET
Name : ........................................................................
Class/Semester : ........................................................................
Gender : ………………………………………………
Date of Birth : ………………………………………………
Hobby : ………………………………………………
TOEFL score : ………………………………………………
English Course experience : 1. ……………………………... year: …………
2. ……………………………... year: …………
3. ……………………………... year: …………
Topic you chosen : ……………………………………………………………
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
96
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
97
98
Appendix 7
Aiken Score from Panelists on Metacognition Instrument
ANALISIS INDIKATOR METACOGNITION
NO KODE SOAL PENILAI
1 2 3 4 5 6
5 X1 3 5 5 5 5 5
17 X2 5 5 4 5 5 5
10 X3 3 5 5 5 5 5
20 X4 5 5 4 5 5 5
12 X5 4 5 4 4 5 5
16 X6 5 5 4 5 5 5
21 X7 5 5 4 5 5 5
28 X8 3 5 5 5 5 5
3 X9 5 5 5 5 5 5
14 X10 5 5 5 5 5 5
23 X11 5 5 5 5 5 5
8 X12 5 5 5 5 5 5
27 X13 5 5 5 5 4 5
11 X14 5 5 4 5 5 5
15 X15 5 5 5 5 5 5
19 X16 5 5 4 5 5 5
18 X17 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 X18 5 5 5 5 5 5
26 X19 5 5 3 5 5 5
29 X20 3 5 4 5 5 5
22 X21 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 X22 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 X23 5 5 5 5 5 5
13 X24 5 5 5 5 5 5
1 X25 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 X26 4 5 5 5 5 5
25 X27 5 5 5 5 5 5
30 X28 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 X29 5 5 5 5 5 4
24 X30 5 5 5 5 5 5
99
Appendix 8
CVR Score from Panelists on Syntactic Knowledge Instrument
ANALISIS INDIKATOR SYNTACTIC KNOWLEDGE
NO KODE SOAL PENILAI
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 X1 NR E E NR NE NE
2 X2 E E E E E E
3 X3 E E E E E E
4 X4 E E E E E E
5 X5 E E E E E E
6 X6 E E NR E E NE
7 X7 E E E E E E
8 X8 E E E NE E E
9 X9 NR E NR NR NR E
10 X10 E E E E E E
11 X11 NE E E E E E
12 X12 E E E E E E
13 X13 E E E E E E
14 X14 E E E NE E E
15 X15 E E E E E E
16 X16 E E E E E E
17 X17 E E E E E E
18 X18 E E E E E E
19 X19 E E E E E E
20 X20 E E E E E E
21 X21 E E E E E E
22 X22 E E E E E E
23 X23 E E E E E NE
24 X24 E E E E E E
25 X25 E E E E E E
26 X26 E E E E E E
27 X27 E E E E E E
28 X28 E E E E E E
29 X29 E E E E E E
30 X30 E E E E E E
31 X31 E E E E E E
100
Appendix 9
CVR Score from Panelists on Syntactic Instrument
ANALISIS INDIKATOR SCIENCETIFIC KNOWLEDGE
NO KODE SOAL PENILAI
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 X 1.1 E E E E E E
2 X 1.2 E E E E E E
3 X 1.3 E E E E E E
4 X 1.4 E E E E E E
5 X 1.5 E E E E E E
6 X 1.6 E E E E E E
101
Appendix 10
Students’ Score on Metacognition
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S1 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 111
S2 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 95
S3 2 3 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 4 5 2 1 2 91
S4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 115
S5 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 87
S6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 116
S7 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 3 4 5 99
S8 2 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 86
S9 4 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 2 2 3 5 4 2 3 90
S10 4 5 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 128
S11 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 2 3 4 2 5 3 4 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 2 4 5 93
S12 4 5 5 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 3 3 2 4 3 2 5 3 4 3 3 5 110
S13 2 4 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 5 4 3 5 101
S14 5 3 3 4 3 3 1 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 5 5 3 4 1 2 1 3 3 2 5 5 1 5 90
S15 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 92
S16 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 92
S17 3 4 3 5 4 3 2 3 3 4 4 2 3 3 5 5 4 3 2 3 3 3 5 4 5 4 5 5 102
S18 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 3 3 2 5 3 4 3 4 3 3 2 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 107
S19 1 2 3 3 3 5 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 4 4 2 5 99
S20 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 4 3 5 4 3 4 94
S21 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 104
S22 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 4 4 91
S23 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 100
S24 4 3 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 113
S25 4 5 5 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 115
S26 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 118
S27 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 5 106
S28 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 118
S29 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 97
S30 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 88
S31 4 4 3 4 5 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 5 79
102
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S32 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 97
S33 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 118
S34 4 5 4 3 5 3 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 118
S35 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 94
S36 4 4 4 5 4 5 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 112
S37 2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 99
S38 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 2 4 3 5 109
S39 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 4 3 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 111
S40 3 4 4 3 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 5 104
S41 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 85
S42 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 88
S43 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 94
S44 4 5 4 5 4 2 1 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 3 5 109
S45 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 88
S46 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 5 3 4 2 2 3 5 3 3 5 4 1 4 94
S47 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 116
S48 2 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 91
S49 4 4 5 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 5 4 4 2 3 2 2 4 4 3 3 5 4 99
S50 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 5 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 5 114
S51 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 92
S52 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 110
S53 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 2 3 112
S54 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 5 5 3 4 5 102
S55 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 88
S56 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 1 2 4 4 2 3 4 94
S57 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 107
S58 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 4 3 5 3 5 5 5 5 123
S59 3 3 4 3 3 5 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 3 4 3 5 4 3 5 106
S60 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 3 4 5 2 4 3 3 3 2 5 4 5 4 3 5 102
S61 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 133
S62 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 3 5 5 2 3 3 4 5 5 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 3 4 100
S63 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 5 3 2 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 88
S64 3 3 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 5 105
S65 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 114
103
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S66 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5 108
S67 4 4 4 2 5 3 4 4 1 4 4 3 2 5 5 5 5 3 4 2 2 3 5 1 3 5 3 5 100
S68 4 5 4 3 3 5 3 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 107
S69 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 79
S70 1 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 98
S71 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 5 3 3 5 108
S72 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 4 5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 2 4 4 4 94
S73 4 5 4 5 4 2 1 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 3 5 4 3 5 110
S74 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 88
S75 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 3 2 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 95
S76 3 3 3 4 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 3 5 105
S77 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 3 4 5 3 5 4 5 4 4 5 114
S78 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 2 3 112
S79 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 2 3 5 5 3 4 5 102
S80 4 3 5 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 3 4 5 4 4 5 5 109
S81 3 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 4 4 2 3 4 97
S82 4 5 4 4 4 3 5 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 3 3 5 3 5 5 4 4 5 3 5 114
S83 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 92
S84 3 4 5 4 5 5 4 5 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 110
S85 3 3 4 3 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 3 5 3 3 5 4 3 5 109
S86 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 107
S87 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 95
S88 2 2 3 3 4 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 2 4 2 74
S89 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 5 4 3 4 5 3 3 5 4 2 5 2 4 3 4 2 3 3 95
S90 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 3 5 5 90
S91 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 100
S92 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 107
S93 4 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 4 5 5 2 4 122
S94 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 100
S95 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 104
S96 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 3 4 4 5 3 5 2 4 5 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 113
S97 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 99
S98 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 103
S99 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 4 5 5 3 4 3 3 3 3 5 2 5 5 5 4 104
104
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S100 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 5 3 3 5 4 3 5 102
S101 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 94
S102 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 4 4 4 3 4 2 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 103
S103 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 4 2 98
S104 4 4 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 4 3 4 5 3 3 118
S105 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 3 4 5 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 5 5 3 5 5 107
S106 3 5 3 4 4 5 4 5 4 5 3 5 3 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 4 5 119
S107 3 5 2 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 5 4 4 107
S108 2 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 3 2 4 5 5 2 4 84
S109 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 3 5 3 4 4 100
S110 4 4 4 5 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 104
S111 5 4 4 4 5 4 2 3 4 4 5 3 5 2 4 5 3 4 3 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 112
S112 3 4 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 4 3 3 4 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 93
S113 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 5 4 5 100
S114 4 5 3 3 4 3 2 2 3 4 3 4 3 5 2 4 4 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 4 89
S115 2 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 91
S116 5 5 4 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 5 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 4 3 4 88
S117 2 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 99
S118 3 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 98
S119 4 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 5 4 2 5 4 4 5 3 3 5 2 3 2 5 3 5 5 5 5 107
S120 2 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 77
S121 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 3 4 104
S122 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 4 4 91
S123 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 95
S124 2 3 2 4 2 3 2 3 4 3 2 3 4 4 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 83
S125 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 90
S126 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 118
S127 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 5 106
S128 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 5 118
S129 2 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 91
S130 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 97
S131 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 103
S132 4 4 3 4 5 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 5 79
S133 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 97
105
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S134 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 118
S135 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 5 91
S136 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 93
S137 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 98
S138 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 97
S139 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 2 3 2 4 3 4 88
S140 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 4 3 4 4 90
S141 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 101
S142 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 2 3 2 4 4 2 3 2 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 84
S143 2 2 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 87
S144 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 3 5 3 3 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 113
S145 4 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 2 5 5 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 5 96
S146 3 3 2 3 3 4 2 3 2 3 4 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 87
S147 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 89
S148 4 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 5 4 4 3 2 4 4 92
S149 3 4 5 3 3 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 5 100
S150 4 3 5 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 3 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 100
S151 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 102
S152 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 5 5 4 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 4 4 5 5 116
S153 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 101
S154 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 3 5 3 5 3 4 4 115
S155 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 97
S156 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 93
S157 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 4 5 90
S158 4 4 3 4 3 2 2 1 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 1 2 2 4 3 3 3 5 4 3 5 77
S159 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 97
S160 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 5 109
S161 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 5 4 5 4 4 5 97
S162 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 103
106
Ss'
Code
Questionnaire Items Tot
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
S163 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 4 2 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 4 3 4 92
S164 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 100
S165 3 4 3 4 5 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 5 5 3 4 4 4 3 4 5 3 2 4 3 5 107
S166 4 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 96
S167 3 4 4 4 5 5 3 3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 5 4 4 5 106
S168 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4 3 2 3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 92
107
Appendix 11
Students’ Score on Syntactic Knowledge
Ss'
Code
Item Number (S) Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
S1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 15 75
S2 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 16 80
S3 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 7 35
S4 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S5 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 8 40
S6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S7 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 13 65
S8 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 6 30
S9 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 8 40
S10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S11 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 8 40
S12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S13 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 11 55
S14 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 13 65
S15 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 8 40
S16 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 9 45
S17 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 16 80
S18 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S19 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 11 55
S20 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S21 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 13 65
S22 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 12 60
S23 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S24 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 16 80
S25 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 80
S26 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S27 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 10 50
S28 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S29 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 8 40
S30 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 40
S31 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S32 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 40
S33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
108
Ss'
Code
Item Number (S) Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
S34 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S35 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 9 45
S36 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 45
S37 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 8 40
S38 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S39 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 15 75
S40 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S41 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 16 80
S42 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 11 55
S43 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 13 65
S44 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 12 60
S45 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 40
S46 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 8 40
S47 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S48 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 7 35
S49 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S50 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 13 65
S51 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 9 45
S52 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 15 75
S53 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 15 75
S54 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 17 85
S55 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 40
S56 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 16 80
S57 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 80
S58 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 13 65
S59 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 16 80
S60 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S61 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 75
S62 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 8 40
S63 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 45
S64 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 75
S65 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S66 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S67 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 11 55
S68 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
109
Ss'
Code
Item Number (S) Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
S69 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 7 35
S70 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 10 50
S71 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 12 60
S72 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 9 45
S73 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 11 55
S74 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 12 60
S75 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 11 55
S76 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 11 55
S77 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 12 60
S78 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S79 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S80 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 17 85
S81 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 50
S82 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 12 60
S83 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 14 70
S84 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S85 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 11 55
S86 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 11 55
S87 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S88 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 55
S89 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 70
S90 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 10 50
S91 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 12 60
S92 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 15 75
S93 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S94 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 12 60
S95 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 12 60
S96 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 80
S97 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 11 55
S98 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 16 80
S99 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 13 65
S100 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 55
S101 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13 65
S102 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 50
S103 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 6 30
110
Ss'
Code
Item Number (S) Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
S104 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S105 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 18 90
S106 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 17 85
S107 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S108 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 11 55
S109 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S110 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 8 40
S111 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 12 60
S112 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 40
S113 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 11 55
S114 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 9 45
S115 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 12 60
S116 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 12 60
S117 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 9 45
S118 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S119 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 65
S120 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 8 40
S121 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 13 65
S122 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 50
S123 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S124 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 9 45
S125 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 12 60
S126 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 17 85
S127 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 13 65
S128 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 14 70
S129 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 15 75
S130 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 13 65
S131 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 16 80
S132 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 10 50
S133 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 14 70
S134 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S135 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 14 70
S136 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 70
S137 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S138 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 13 65
111
Ss'
Code
Item Number (S) Score
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 12 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24
S139 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 8 40
S140 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S141 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 13 65
S142 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 13 65
S143 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 14 70
S144 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S145 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 50
S146 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 12 60
S147 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S148 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 15 75
S149 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S150 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S151 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 13 65
S152 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S153 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 10 50
S154 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 90
S155 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 12 60
S156 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 40
S157 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 60
S158 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 8 40
S159 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 14 70
S160 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 17 85
S161 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 12 60
S162 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S163 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 35
S164 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
S165 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 17 85
S166 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 11 55
S167 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 85
S168 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 13 65
112
Appendix 12
Students’ Score of Scientific Writing
Ss'
Code
Indicators Total Score
A B C D E F
S1 2 4 2 3 2 4 17 71
S2 3 2 4 3 2 3 17 71
S3 1 2 2 2 1 1 9 38
S4 2 3 3 2 3 3 16 67
S5 2 2 1 2 1 2 10 42
S6 2 4 3 3 3 3 18 75
S7 2 3 1 2 2 2 12 50
S8 1 2 2 2 1 1 9 38
S9 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 38
S10 4 3 4 3 4 4 22 92
S11 1 2 2 2 1 3 11 46
S12 4 4 3 2 3 3 19 79
S13 2 3 3 3 2 3 16 67
S14 3 2 2 2 3 3 15 63
S15 1 2 3 1 1 2 10 42
S16 2 1 2 1 2 1 9 38
S17 3 3 2 3 4 3 18 75
S18 2 2 3 2 1 2 12 50
S19 2 3 2 2 1 2 12 50
S20 3 3 2 2 3 4 17 71
S21 3 3 3 3 2 3 17 71
S22 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S23 4 3 3 4 2 2 18 75
S24 3 3 3 3 4 4 20 83
S25 3 3 4 4 3 3 20 83
S26 2 4 2 3 3 4 18 75
S27 2 3 2 1 3 2 13 54
S28 2 3 2 3 1 2 13 54
S29 1 2 1 1 1 3 9 38
S30 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 46
S31 2 2 3 2 3 3 15 63
S32 1 1 1 2 2 1 8 33
S33 3 4 3 3 3 2 18 75
113
Ss'
Code
Indicators Total Score
A B C D E F
S34 2 3 2 3 3 3 16 67
S35 1 2 2 1 1 1 8 33
S36 2 4 4 1 3 3 17 71
S37 2 2 1 1 2 2 10 42
S38 3 2 2 2 2 1 12 50
S39 1 2 2 2 3 2 12 50
S40 4 3 4 3 3 3 20 83
S41 3 2 3 3 3 3 17 71
S42 1 2 1 1 2 2 9 38
S43 3 2 2 2 3 2 14 58
S44 1 2 2 3 2 2 12 50
S45 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 46
S46 2 2 3 3 2 2 14 58
S47 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 54
S48 2 1 2 1 1 1 8 33
S49 4 4 3 4 3 4 22 92
S50 2 3 3 2 2 1 13 54
S51 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 33
S52 3 4 3 3 3 4 20 83
S53 3 3 2 2 2 2 14 58
S54 4 4 3 3 3 3 20 83
S55 2 2 2 1 2 2 11 46
S56 2 2 3 3 2 2 14 58
S57 3 4 3 4 3 3 20 83
S58 2 2 3 2 1 2 12 50
S59 3 4 4 4 3 4 22 92
S60 3 2 3 2 3 2 15 63
S61 3 4 4 4 3 3 21 88
S62 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 38
S63 2 2 2 1 1 1 9 38
S64 2 2 2 2 3 3 14 58
S65 3 4 3 4 2 3 19 79
S66 4 3 4 4 3 3 21 88
S67 3 3 2 2 1 2 13 54
S68 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 83
114
Ss'
Code
Indicators Total Score
A B C D E F
S69 2 1 1 1 1 2 8 33
S70 2 3 3 2 2 2 14 58
S71 2 2 2 3 3 2 14 58
S72 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 54
S73 3 3 2 2 2 2 14 58
S74 2 2 3 3 2 2 14 58
S75 3 4 2 2 3 3 17 71
S76 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S77 3 2 3 2 3 3 16 67
S78 2 2 3 2 2 3 14 58
S79 3 2 2 2 2 2 13 54
S80 3 4 3 2 3 3 18 75
S81 3 3 2 3 3 3 17 71
S82 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50
S83 3 3 2 3 3 3 17 71
S84 3 4 3 2 3 3 18 75
S85 3 3 2 2 2 3 15 63
S86 3 3 2 3 3 3 17 71
S87 3 3 2 2 2 3 15 63
S88 2 1 2 1 2 2 10 42
S89 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 54
S90 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 29
S91 2 2 3 3 2 2 14 58
S92 2 3 1 2 2 2 12 50
S93 3 4 3 3 3 3 19 79
S94 2 3 2 2 3 3 15 63
S95 2 3 3 3 3 3 17 71
S96 4 3 3 4 3 3 20 83
S97 3 2 2 2 3 3 15 63
S98 2 1 2 1 2 2 10 42
S99 3 3 3 2 3 2 16 67
S100 1 2 3 1 1 2 10 42
S101 3 2 2 3 3 3 16 67
S102 3 2 3 2 2 3 15 63
S103 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
115
Ss'
Code
Indicators Total Score
A B C D E F
S104 3 4 3 3 2 3 18 75
S105 4 3 3 3 3 3 19 79
S106 3 4 3 3 3 4 20 83
S107 3 4 2 2 3 3 17 71
S108 1 1 2 3 1 2 10 42
S109 3 2 2 3 2 3 15 63
S110 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S111 2 2 2 3 2 2 13 54
S112 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S113 1 1 1 2 1 2 8 33
S114 1 2 2 1 1 2 9 38
S115 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 33
S116 3 4 3 2 3 3 18 75
S117 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S118 1 2 1 1 1 3 9 38
S119 2 1 2 3 2 3 13 54
S120 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 38
S121 3 3 2 2 3 3 16 67
S122 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 54
S123 1 2 2 2 2 3 12P 50
S124 2 2 1 1 1 2 9 38
S125 3 3 2 2 2 3 15 63
S126 3 4 3 3 3 3 19 79
S127 2 2 2 3 2 3 14 58
S128 3 3 3 3 3 2 17 71
S129 2 3 2 3 3 3 16 67
S130 3 2 2 3 3 3 16 67
S131 3 3 3 4 3 3 19 79
S132 2 2 3 2 3 3 15 63
S133 3 3 2 3 3 3 17 71
S134 4 3 3 4 4 3 21 88
S135 3 3 2 2 3 2 15 63
S136 3 3 2 3 2 3 16 67
S137 2 4 3 2 3 2 16 67
S138 3 2 3 3 3 3 17 71
116
Ss'
Code
Indicators Total Score
A B C D E F
S139 1 2 2 1 2 2 10 42
S140 2 2 3 2 2 2 13 54
S141 3 3 1 2 2 3 14 58
S142 2 3 1 3 3 3 15 63
S143 3 4 3 3 3 2 18 75
S144 3 4 3 4 4 3 21 88
S145 2 3 2 3 2 3 15 63
S146 3 3 2 3 2 3 16 67
S147 2 2 2 2 1 2 11 46
S148 2 3 3 3 2 3 16 67
S149 3 3 3 3 3 3 18 75
S150 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 50
S151 2 3 2 2 3 2 14 58
S152 3 4 3 3 3 2 18 75
S153 3 3 2 4 3 2 17 71
S154 3 3 4 3 3 3 19 79
S155 2 2 2 3 3 2 14 58
S156 1 2 1 2 1 2 9 38
S157 2 2 3 3 2 2 14 58
S158 2 2 1 2 2 2 11 46
S159 2 3 2 2 2 2 13 54
S160 3 4 2 3 4 3 19 79
S161 2 3 1 3 3 3 15 63
S162 3 4 3 3 3 3 19 79
S163 1 2 1 1 1 2 8 33
S164 2 1 2 3 3 2 13 54
S165 4 3 3 3 3 3 19 79
S166 3 3 2 3 2 2 15 63
S167 3 4 4 3 3 3 20 83
S168 2 3 2 2 3 3 15 63
117
Appendix 13
The Determination of Students’ Metacognition Score
(Kadir, Quantitative Research Course, 2019)
Number of Item : 28 numbers
Score scale : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Max. score : 5 x 28 = 140
Min. score : 1 x 28 = 28
Mean : 3 x 28 = 84 = μ
δ = 1
6(𝑚𝑎𝑥 − 𝑚𝑖𝑛 )
= 1
6(140 − 28 )
= 18.67
High : > μ + δ = > 103
Medium : 65 – 103
Low : < μ – δ = < 65
118
Appendix 14
Validation of Instrument Metacognition (part 1)
119
Validation of Instrument Metacognition (part 2)
120
Appendix 15
Validation Instrument of Syntactic Knowledge (Part 1)
121
Validation Instrument of Syntactic Knowledge (part 2)
122
Appendix 16
Validation of Instrument Scientific Writing
Correlations
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 XTOT
X1 Pearson
Correlation
1 .606** .556** .607** .602** .397** .807**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
X2 Pearson
Correlation
.606** 1 .534** .650** .531** .531** .823**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
X3 Pearson
Correlation
.556** .534** 1 .581** .501** .420** .763**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
X4 Pearson
Correlation
.607** .650** .581** 1 .550** .474** .829**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
X5 Pearson
Correlation
.602** .531** .501** .550** 1 .557** .785**
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
X6 Pearson
Correlation
.397** .531** .420** .474** .557** 1 .702**
Sig. (1-tailed) .001 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
XTOT Pearson
Correlation
.807** .823** .763** .829** .785** .702** 1
Sig. (1-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 60 60 60 60 60 60 60
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).
123
Appendix 17
The Picture of the Research
124
125
Appendix 18
The Letter of Research