1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter is presented to the discussion of several main points which serve

to lead understanding of the research on developing collaborative module for

learning writing. The points meant include background of the study, statement of

the problem, objective of the study, product specification, significance of the

study, assumption of the study scope and limitation of the study, and definition of

the key terms used in this research.

1.1 Background of the Study

There are many ways for the teacher in creating a conducive teaching

and learning processes. One of the recent appropriate ways is using a

module. Module is an organized material technique which considers the

function of education (Susil1oiwati & Indriyani: 2010). The fact, concept,

procedure and principal of the material will be conveyed by the module

which is provided. Rosyid (2010) defines module as a print learning

material which is designed to be learned independently by the students.

There are instructions and guidelines which are provided for students to

learn independently. It means that the students can learn and do the all

activities without any guidance from the teacher directly.

Writing is one of the important subjects taught in university level. We

can define writing as the activity of writing stories or articles (OXFORD

1
Susi, Menata Ulang Pemikiran Sistem Pendidikan Nasional dalam Abad 21, (Yogyakarta: Safira
Insania Press dan UII, 2003), Cet.1, hlm. 15,

1
 2

Advanced Learner’s Dictionary). Today, writing becomes a more complex

process than only the representation of spoken language in a graphical way.

Moreover, written product are often the result of thinking, drafting, and

revising procedures that required specialized skills and not every student

able to develop it naturally (Brown:2007). In syllabus of English

Department in STKIP PGRI Blitar (2012) stated that the fourth semester

students have to be able to to improve their acquired writing skill, especially

that with the dominant purpose of convincing and or persuading, the writing

tasks and exercises are in the form of argumentative and persuasive writing

such as formal letters of advice, editorials, and critical essays articles. In

fact, based on preliminary interview with the fourth semester students,

17,5% of the them feel that producing a good writing was a difficult job

and. There are two main problems that make them feel like that. First, in

their daily study, they mostly got individual writing tasks. They said that in

producing the paper, whether that was an individual task, they still need

their friends help. So, sometimes, they conducted a group discussion to

finish it. It means that in completing their tasks, they students did not realize

that in fact they used collaborative writing technique. The second problem is

there is no appropriate module in writing class to help students improve

their skill in writing.

Furthermore, the students’ difficulty in writing subject was proven by

the students’ score analysis conducted by the researcher. There were two

periodic scores that were used in this analysis. First was the Writing 4 score
 3

periodic 2010/2011 and the second was the Writing 4 s2core periodic

2011/2012. There are 9 grades used in STKIP PGRI Blitar. They are A, A-,

B+, B, B-, C+, C, D, and E. In the Writing 4 score periodic 2010/2011, there

were 8% of the students got A, 14% got A-, 34% got B+, 30% got B, and

14% got B-. In this period, there was no students got score under B-. In the

Writing 4 score periodic 2011/2012, there were 12% of the students got A,

13% got A-, 28% got B+, 22% got B, 19% got B-, 3% got C+, 1% got C,

and 2% got E. When the researcher compared the result of the two periods,

he found that there was decrease of the amount of the students who got good

score. In 2010/2011 period, none of the students got score under B-. In the

other hand, there were students who got score under B- in 2011/2012

period. There were 3% got C+, 1% got C and 2% got E.

Considering the important role of module and the importance of writing

class, it is very important to have appropriate writing module in assisting the

learning process of the students in gaining their best writing skill.

Theoretically, writing module will help the students to learn independently

and develop their ideas widely. Practically, writing module will help the

lecturers to upgrade their creativity as a professional in education.

Principally, the goal of learning is to make students success in mastering

the lesson material based on the provided indicators. The term collaborative

writing refers to projects where written works are created by multiple people

together (collaboratively) rather than individually (Wikipedia).

2
Brown, dkk., Pengukuran dalam Bidang Pendidikan, (Jakarta PPS Universitas Negri jakarta,
2000), hlm 10.
3
Ibid. (bila mengutip Halaman yang sama)
4
Ibid., hlm, 30. (bila mengutip pada halaman yang berbeda)
 4

Collaborative writing is a powerful method of writing that encourages

cooperation, critical thinking, peer learning and active participation toward

an end product. There are a number of advantages to teaching collaborative

writing to students. In the classroom, collaborative writing increases student

participation, facilitates discussion of readings, enhances critical thinking,

and improves document quality by pooling the strengths of group members

(Chan, 1996 in Hernandez, et.al). Collaborative writing improves document

quality by pooling the strengths of group members. At the same time,

individual weaknesses can be overcame by the group and revised.

Based on the important role of writing module and the appropriate

principles of collaborative writing above, the researcher assumes that the

collaborative writing module may help lecturers to help students work

together actively. The module created must fulfill valid, practical, and

effective criteria. The module is valid when it has been validated by the

experts of module and material. The score form both of the experts must be

≤ 2.00. The module is practical when it has been applied in the field and the

application must be observed by the observer. So, the ones who said that the

module is practical is the students and the observer. For the last criteria, the

module is effective when the students score after using the module in

teaching learning process have improve if it is compared with the score

before using the module.

Based on the statements and facts above, the researcher is interested to

draw the conclusion as the title for his study as “Developing Module of

Collaborative Writing to the University Students “

 5

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Based on the background of study discussed above, the statement of the

problem can be as follows: How is module of collaborative writing for

learning writing designed in order to be valid, practical and effective?

1.3 Objective of the Study

In line with above-mentioned problem, this study tries to find out how

module of collaborative writing for learning writing is designed to be valid,

practical, and effective.

1.4 Product Specification

The product produced from this developmental study is in form of

module which is collaboratively used with the characteristics including; a)

specific objectives, b) targeted outcomes, c) directions and instructions of

the task completion, d) useful for heterogeneous students with any levels, e)

positive interdependence, f) positive-social activities, g) sufficient timing of

schedule, and h) individual accountability.

From those characteristics, the usefulness of this product compared

with other products is that the collaborative module can help the students

both in pair and group to sharpen their ability in learning writing. In

addition, it provides sufficient timing and materials to the students; even

characteristics can be helpful in absorbing the content of the module.

1.5 Significance of the Study

 6

It is expected that that the finding in this study will support the theory

of collaborative learning model. Next, it is expected to motivate the next

researchers doing further studies to develop other collaborative modules on

other objects in the teaching of English.

Besides, it is hoped that this developmental study will give English

lecturer valuable information and contributions to apply the better method

of teaching writing generally in Indonesia but particularly at STKIP PGRI

Blitar. So, the students can improve their English skill on writing. Finally,

this study is aimed at helping the students to learn independently and

cooperatively so that they can reach the goal of learning.

1.6 Assumption of the Study

This study is based on this following assumption: module of

collaborative writing for learning writing is designed validly, practically,

and effectively.

1.7 Scope and Limitation of the Study

In fact, there still many factors that influence the developing a module

but not stated because the limitation of time and fund. So, the scope is

limited. The limits include: (1) the skill focused is in writing, (2) the

technique used is collaborative writing, (3) the model of developing used is

4-D by Thiagarajan, Semmel, and Semmel, and (4) the module only treated

to the second year students of STKIP PGRI Blitar.

1.8 Definition of the Key Terms

 7

To give clear information and to avoid some misunderstanding of the

terms and contents of this paper, it is necessary to clarify the following key

terms. The definitions of the key terms of this study are as follow:

1. Collaborative Writing is a powerful method of writing that encourages

cooperation, critical thinking, peer learning and active participation

toward an end product.

2. Module is learning equipment contains of material, method, limitations,

and the way to evaluate which is designed systematically and

attractively to reach the competence based on the complexity level.

3. Critical Essay is an essay made by university level students. It can be

called as an argumentative essay.

 8

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter gives the discussion of some related topics, which are important

to give us ideas about the implementation of the study. Here, some topics to

discuss are mainly focusing on some related topics such as collaborative writing,

critical essays, module, and some related studies that have relation with this study.

2.1 Collaborative Writing

Collaborative Writing is a powerful method of writing that encourages

cooperation, critical thinking, peer learning and active participation toward

an end product. It is meaningful interaction and shared decision making

between members of a group using a common set of tools; and thus, the

combination of techniques is effective in promoting improved student

writing. As technology continues to change teaching methods in the

classroom, it has created a site in which collaborative writing can take place.

Using computers to assist in collaborative writing takes teaching and

learning to new places. Through the use of collaborative writing strategies

and the utilization of specialized document sharing tools, despite certain

 9

disadvantages, collaborative writing is easier, more inviting, and produces

quality work. Collaborative writing is a good way for making the students to

be interested in writing class.

2.1.1 Definition of Collaborative writing

Wikipedia (2007) in Ojala (2008) defines collaborative writing

and peer collaboration refer to projects where written works are

8 (collaboratively) rather than
created by multiple people together

individually. Some projects are overseen by an editor or editorial

team, but many grow without any of this top-down oversight. In a

true collaborative environment, each contributor has an almost equal

ability to add, edit, and remove text. It is easier to do if the group has

a specific end goal in mind, and harder if a goal is absent or vague.

The literature in this area suggests that collaborative writing among

academics can:

1. Be more efficient – because different aspects of the task can be

shared out;

2. Be of better quality – because different individuals can contribute

different expertise; and

3. Lead to better written papers – because each individual

contributor can assist in the writing and the editing of the paper,

each seeing it from different perspectives.

2.1.2 Some Activities on Collaborative Writing

 10

Many strategies, activities or models have been created in

collaborative writing. The researcher wanted to explain some of

them.

For first one, Sharples, et. al. (1993) in Mitchell (1996) states

that there are three strategies that usually used in collaborative

writing. They are reciprocal, sequential, and parallel writing. In

reciprocal writing strategies, the authors work on the project

simultaneously. One author completes a task before the next is begun

by another in sequential writing strategies, and in parallel writing

strategies authors divide tasks and each works on a specific

component of the overall project.

Ede and Lunsford (1990) in Mitchell (1996) create models of

collaborative writing based on how the group plans, outlines, writes

the draft, and revises the document. The explanation is in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Models of Collaborative Writing by Ede and Lunsford

Models Pre-writing Writing Rewriting

1 The group plans and Each member Group combines the
outlines. drafts a part. parts and revises the
whole document.
2 The group plans and One member The whole group
outlines. drafts. revises.
3 One member plans. and writes draft The group revises.
4 One person plans and writes draft. One or more persons
revise(s) the draft
without consulting the
first writer.
5 The group plans and writes draft. One or more person(s)
revises without
consulting the writers.
6 One member Each member One person combines
assigns writing performs these segments and
tasks. individual task. revises the whole
document.
 11

7 One person Another person

dictates. transcribes the writing
and revises the text.

Posner(1991; 1992) in Mitchell (1996) gives different

perspective about the model that can be used in collaborative

writing. He makes the model based on the roles, activities, document

control methods, and writing strategies. Roles are emphasis on the

parts that members play in the group. The models based on the roles

could be seen in table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Posner’s Model Based on the Roles

Roles Explanation
Writer The member writes the document.
Consultant The member offers information but does not actively involve in the
document creation.
Editor The member modifies the document directly.
Reviewer The member suggests changes to the document without modifying
it directly.

Activities are something that the member does in the group.

Activities include brainstorming, researching, planning, writing,

editing, and reviewing. Table 2.3 below explains the model based on

the activities.

Table 2.3 Posner’s Model Based on the Activities

Activities Explanation
Brainstorming The member looks for the topic that will be presented.
Researching The member does some researches related with the topic.
Planning The member plans the draft.
Writing The member creates the document.
Editing The member checks and corrects the document.
 12

Reviewing The member make final document.

Document control concerns who manages the document and

how, and can change during the course of a project. There are four

kinds of document control. Table 2.4 below gives the clear

explanation.

Table 2.4 Posner’s Model Based on the Document Control

Kinds Of Document Control Explanation

Centralized One person controls the document during
the whole project.
Relay One person at a time controls the
document but it is not always the same
person.
Independent Each person controls the section on which
he/she is working.
Shared Everyone has the same access to the
document.

Writing strategies explain the way the members of the group

cooperate together for the writing task. In table 2.5 below, it can be

seen the types of writing strategies.

Table 2.5 Posner’s Model Based on Types of Writing Strategies

Types of Writing Strategies Explanation

Single writer One person writes, the others play other roles in the
group.
Separate writer Each person works on a different part.
Joint writing Authors work together synchronously in close
collaboration on the text.
Scribe Based on group discussions, one individual writes the
document.
 13

In this research, the researcher chose to use Posner’s model. It is

because the model gives clear steps how to write a document using

collaborative writing.

2.1.3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Collaborative Writing

As in coin, everything in the world has two sides; good and bad

one. It also happens in collaborative writing. Collaborative writing

has some advantages and disadvantages.

The advantages of collaborative writing based on Hernandez,

et.al. are: (1) increases student participation, (2) facilitates discussion

of readings, (3) enhances critical thinking, and (4) improves

document quality by pooling the strengths of group members.

On the other hand, the there are two kinds of disadvantages of

collaborative writing are. First, without careful editing, writing

appears rough due to various writing styles, and the second it is

difficult to coordinate among group members and this can be more

time consuming for producing a relatively short document.

2.2 Critical Essay

In university level, the students must not only write whatever they

know to an essay or describing something. The essay of university level

students must have some kind of value. The essay must be about a specific

topic. The job of university students is to argue using the essay about that

specific topic. Foreshaw (2010) states that an essay of university students

has an argument– a point of view or thesis that it is designed to prove.

 14

Everything the students say in the essay should be relevant to the argument

or thesis. The argument should be objective, precise and logical.

Hubert (1997) gives addition that in the argumentative essay, an issue is

stated; reasons are offered as to why the issue is basic, how it is significant

and/or why it is important or central; and an analysis of the issue follows in

which meanings are clarified. Because there must be at least two sides at

any topic, it is necessary for the students to give reasons fairly for both of

the sides. Then the students give a clear reason why one side is better that

another. Finally, the students make conclusion of the essay.

There are three steps in writing a critical essay; pre-writing, writing and

post-writing. In pre-writing, the job of the students is to prepare all of the

needs in writing the essay. Foreshaw (2010) says that the activities that

include in this step are narrowing the focus, developing a research question,

researching, note-taking, documenting sources, and organizing an outline.

There are three main parts in outlining the essay; introduction, body

(consists of four or more main parts), and conclusion.

1. Introduction

In introduction, the students must state about the background,

significance, purpose, thesis statement, and explanation of the approach

they intend to take.

2. Body

The body must be related to the topic. Every paragraph begins with

a clear topic sentence. Then it is continued by supporting sentences and

closed by a concluding sentence. Transitions between paragraphs must

 15

be smooth and the presentation of ideas must flow lightly from one

paragraph to another.

3. Conclusion

The conclusion must be brief and clear.

In writing, the job of the students is to make the essay based on the

outline made before. The students may not feel worry whether the essay is

perfect or not because it is not the final draft. There must be some revision

after the raw draft finished.

The last step is post-writing. The activities in post-writing include

revising, editing and proofreading.

2.3 Module

2.3.1 Definition and Scope of Module

Module is learning equipment contains of material, method,

limitations, and the way to evaluate which is designed systematically

and attractively to reach the competence based on the complexity

level (Riyadhi, et. al.: 2009).

They also add that module is designed based on learning

necessity of certain subjects for certain learning process necessity. A

competence or sub competence is orderly organized in one module

wholly (self contained). Module affords to learn own self or capable

to learn independently (self instructional). The employing of module

does not depend on another media (self alone). Module gives

students chances to practice and give summaries, self test and

accommodate students’ difficulties by giving feedback.

 16

The scope of module is the rule how to write a correct module.

There are eight rules on writing good module. They are: (1) module

is creative, (2) module is written based on students’ necessity and

characteristics, (3) module contains of purpose and learning

operational specifically, (4) module has learning material items in

detail to reach the goal, (5) module consists of evaluation as a media

to measure students’ achievement, (6) module can hopefully change

students’ behavior, (7) module is designed agree with the principles,

and (8) the decision of module is done by testing, remedial and

validation.

Module needs action of perfecting continuously a long with fast

growing knowledge and technology. Technology and

information/internet also give real image about the swiftness of

access and updating knowledge. A lecture as a facilitator should

have wide perception and knowledge. In writing module and

learning material, lectures should apply sufficient references.

Munir (2010) states there are three kinds of module. They are

reinforcement, repetition, and enrichment module. Reinforcement

module is a module used to strengthen the material of teaching and

learning. Repetition module is a module used to repeat some

teaching and learning material. The students used this module

usually haven’t understood about the material yet. So they need this

module. The last kind of module is enrichment module. It is the one

used to enrich teaching and learning material. The students used this
 17

kind are usually the student who have mastered the material and

want to know more detail. Based on the explanation above, the

module created in this study is reinforcement module. It is because

the module is used to give facilitation for the teacher and the

students in teaching and learning process.

2.3.2 Objectives of Module

The writing of module is used to:

a. Deliver messages clearly and easily so that it is not too oral

b. Overcome the limit time, space, and sensory perception not only

for students but also for the lectures

c. Give a various activities precisely, like: increase students’

motivation to learn, develop students’ ability socialize their

environment and other learning sources, students learn

independently based on their own abilities, and students can

measure and evaluate their learning output.

2.3.3 Characteristics of Module

In order to increase motivation, module should cover needed

characteristics. Those characteristics are as follow:

a. Self instructional

Through this module a student is able to learn

independently and does not depend on other students. To fulfill

this kind of characteristic so, module should:

 18

1. Have the main purpose competence, supporting, and other

competence clearly

2. Have learning material which contains of small units/

specific units to make students learn easily and completely

3. Have some supporting examples and illustrations in its

learning material explanation

4. Have exercises, assignments, and other kinds of tests in

order to make students respond and measure their mastery

5. Be contextual, the material given is related to the context

and atmosphere in students environment

6. Use simple and communicative language

7. Have summaries of learning material

8. Have assessment instrument which makes students do their

self assessment

9. Have assessment instrument which makes students are able

to measure and evaluate their own mastery level

10. Have feedback for student’s assessment to make them know

their own mastery level

11. Have information about references which support the related

material

b. Self contained

Self contained is the whole learning material. It means that

from one competence unit or sub-competence learned are in one

module completely. The purpose of this concept is to give

 19

students chances to learn the material completely because the

material is designed in one unit module. If the lecture wants to

divide or separate the material from one competent unit, the

lecture should do it carefully and also watch and pay attention

the wideness of competence mastered by the students.

c. Stand alone

Stand alone is a module that does not use other mediums.

Using the module, students do not depend on and should use

another medium to learn or do the exercises. If students still

need to use other mediums except the multimedia being used,

the module is not an independent medium.

d. Adaptive

The module is adaptive if it can adapt the development of

knowledge and technology and also be flexibly used in various

hard wares. By concerning the development of knowledge and

technology the development of module should be still up to date.

An adaptive module is when the content of learning material and

the software can be applied for certain time.

e. User friendly

Module should fulfill the principle of ‘user friendly’ or

close to the user. Every instruction and explanation is helpful for

the students. Students can respond easily and access all the time.
 20

The use of language is easy and simple, understandable and use

general meaning.

2.4 Some Related Studies

This research is not the only one in developing module. There are some

researches at the same topic. They have some similarities and differences if

we compare with this research. In this part, the researcher presented two

researches that have the same topic. They are the one conducted Ilmiana,

et.al. in 2012 and by Susanti and Pangesthi in 2013.

All of the researches are about developing module. The one conducted

by Ilmiana, et.al. in (2012) was a module of Physics for grade X students of

Senior High School whether Susanti and Pangesthi (2013) was a module for

Jasa Boga. In developing the module, the first one was using the model

created by I Wayan, whether the second used the same model with this

research, namely 4-D. This model was created by Thiagarajan, Semmel &

Semmel.
 21

CHAPTER III

DEVELOPMENTAL METHOD

This chapter gives explanation about developmental model, developmental

procedure, and product trial.

3.1 Developmental Model

This study uses approach of Research and Development (R & D) since

it is appropriate toward the objectives intended to reach in this study.

Meanwhile, the developmental model used in this study uses the

developmental model developed by Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel.

Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel (1974) in Wahyuningsih, et. al. (2013)

called this model as 4-D for it is the abbreviation of the steps namely

Define, Design, Develop & Dissemination. The model created by

Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel is a systematic one. The steps that must be

followed are also quite clear. The module created by the researcher is also

validated by the expert before it goes for developmental tested. It means that
 22

the module is a reliable one. Below is the procedural steps R & D of

Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel:

21

Figure 3.1 R & D design Model of Thiagarajan, Semmel & Semmel (1974)

Another reason why the researcher uses this approach is that Research

and Development is regarded to develop learning module that the purpose is

not only to find the effectiveness of certain books and composing the

module, but more about developing module which are valid and practical in

the classroom. This approach has also advantage in case of its procedures

which notice the needs and real contexts systematically in the college.
 23

R & D approach used in this study is to produce module of

collaborative writing for learning writing.

3.2 Developmental Procedures

Developmental procedures are the procedures that must be done by the

researcher in making product. It is different with developmental model in

explaining product design components which has developed. In this thesis

the researcher took some procedures in order to get the final product like the

following figure:

DEFINE

Front-End Analysis Classroom Analysis Concept Analysis

DESIGN

Designing Module Designing RPP Designing Instruments

DEVELOP

Yes
Expert Appraisal Developmental Testing

No
Main Preliminary
Revision

Final Module
 24

DISSEMINATION

Figure 3.2 Developmental Product

The steps above are explained as follow:

3.2.1 Front-End Analysis

The first step in developing module of collaborative writing for

learning writing is by conducting a front-end analysis. The goal of

front-end analysis is to appear and decide the basic problem faced in

teaching learning process so that it needs to develop module. Using

this analysis, we can get the fact in field, hope, and alternative

solution of the basic problem. It consists of Stevenson’ Question,

Curriculum Analysis, Course Outline Analysis, and Questionnaire

for the students.

3.2.2 Classroom Analysis

In this step, the researcher does analysis of the classroom. He

prepares the score record, questionnaire for the students’ need of the

module, the interview sheet for the Head of English department of

STKIP PGRI Blitar and the writing lecturer of English department of

STKIP PGRI Blitar.

3.2.3 Concepts Analysis

On this step, the researcher does observation on the concept of

the module of collaborative writing for learning writing especially

 25

for writing critical essays. There will be the concept analysis of

module, collaborative writing, and collaborative writing module.

3.2.4 Designing Module

The researcher designs collaborative writing module on critical

essay for the second year students of STKIP PGRI Blitar. From the

previous stages, he compiles the module components which include

eight components, they are: (1) cover, (2) introduction, (3) table

content, (4) acknowledgement, (5) direction in using module, (6)

learning objectives, (7) the material, and (8) scoring.

3.2.5 Designing Course Outline

After designing the module, the researcher creates a course

outline to be done in the classroom. The researcher does the revision

or betterment toward the lacking of writing module in order to get

higher score on the next day.

3.2.6 Designing Instruments

The researcher makes instruments to measure the validity of the

module. There are nine instruments made. They are module

validation sheet, course outline validation sheet, observation sheet of

module practicality, validation sheet of observation sheet of module

practicality, students’ questionnaire toward the module, validation

sheet of students’ questionnaire toward the module, writing test,

validation sheet of writing test, and scoring rubric for writing test.

3.2.7 Expert Appraisal

 26

The aim of expert appraisal is to collect the data which can be

used as the basic of determining the efficiency and validity of the

product. There are two kinds of expert used by the researcher;

language, and material and module expert. If both of approve the

module, the researcher will continue to the developmental tested, but

if they do not approved, the researcher will make some revisions to

make the module better before he continues to developmental tests

step. The criterion for the expert is the expert should have finished or

almost finished his/her doctorate degree.

3.2.8 Developmental Tests

After all of the experts approve the module; it is the time for

testing the product to the subjects. There are two kinds of testing.

First is preliminary testing and the second is main testing. For

preliminary testing, the researcher tries the module in a small group

consisted of 6 students of the fourth semester at STKIP PGRI Blitar.

He tries to 6 students because he wants to make 2 groups (each

consists of 3 students) in this preliminary test. By using 2 groups, he

expects that he can compare the result of the writing exercise. After

conducting preliminary testing and does the revision, the researcher

does the main testing by trying the module to a class of fourth

semester consists of 43 students at STKIP PGRI Blitar. So, there will

be thirteen groups in this testing. When the main testing is over, he

makes the last revision for the module.

 27

3.2.9 Final Product

The product result is in the form of module. The module

consists of the following components: (1) cover, (2) introduction,

(3) table content, (4) acknowledgement,(5) direction in using

module, (6) learning objectives, (7) the material, and (8) scoring.

3.3 Product Trial

The purpose of this step is to account the validity of the efficiency

module of collaborative writing for learning writing. In this step, it is

necessary to explain about:

3.3.1 Design of the Trial

In this design of the trial, the researcher conducts

developmental testing which consists of preliminary and main field

testing. The purpose of this step is to see the level of validity and

efficiency of the module before it is used toward the target. The

following is the figure of design of the trial:

The Draft of Module of Collaborative Writing for Learning

Writing on the Second Year Students of STKIP PGRI Blitar

Stage I
Language, and Data Analysis Revision I
Material and
Module Expert
Appraisal
Stage II
Developmental
Testing Data Analysis
 28

Revision II

The Product of Module of Collaborative Writing for Learning

Writing on the Second Year Students of STKIP PGRI Blitar

Figure 3.3 Design of the Trial Product

3.3.2 Subject of the Trial

The trial of developing module of collaborative for learning

writing on the second year students of STKIP PGRI Blitar uses

some subjects:

1. Language Expert

The researcher asks MM to be the examiner of the language.

2. Material and Module Expert

The researcher decides to ask MM as the examiners of material

and module.

3. Developmental Tested

The subject of the developmental tested consists of the

researcher and the 49 students of second year at STKIP PGRI

Blitar.

3.3.3 Kinds of the Data and Source of the Data

 29

Kinds of data in this module product trial are:

1. The accuracy of module content and design from the material

and module expert.

2. The efficiency of the module of collaborative writing on the

second year students of STKIP PGRI Blitar

3. The effectiveness of module guiding to reach learning

objectives from trial students.

The researcher has qualitative and quantitative data. The

qualitative data is from questionnaire and observation whereas the

quantitative data is from the tests using module of collaborative

writing.

3.3.4 Instruments of the Data Collection

The instrument of the data collection is questionnaires and

tests. The researcher uses three big classifications of instruments, to

prove the validity, the practicality, and the effectiveness.

1. Valid

To make the result of the research valid, the researcher

made four kinds of validation sheets. They were module

validation sheet, validation sheet of course outline, validation

sheet of observation sheet of module practicality, and

validation sheet of students’ questionnaire toward the module.

2. Practical

To prove that the result of the research was practical, the

researcher made two instruments. They were observation sheet

 30

on module practicality and students’ questionnaire toward the

module.

3. Effective

To know that the result of the research was effective, the

researcher made a writing test. The result of the writing test

then compared with the students’ writing score before they

used collaborative writing module. Before the test was tested

to the students, the experts validated it first.

3.3.5 Technique of Data Analysis

The data analysis is done to get the success of making the

product. The result that is gained is used to be consideration in

module revision. There are three techniques of data analysis. They

are content analysis, descriptive analysis and t test analysis.

1. Content analysis

The researcher does the content analysis by formulating the

learning objectives of writing and the basic principles of

collaborative writing. The result of this analysis then will

become the basic of developing module of collaborative

writing.

2. Descriptive analysis

On the trial stage, the researcher gets data from close

questionnaire and open questionnaire to give critic, advice and

betterment. The data can be classified into two kinds.

 31

Quantitative deals with the numbers and qualitative deals

with words or symbols. The qualitative data is analyzed

logically and meaningful whereas the quantitative data is

analyzed with descriptive percentage. The result of descriptive

analysis is used to establish the efficiency and validity of

module of collaborative writing on the second year students of

STKIP PGRI Blitar.

The efficiency and validity of module are known from the

result of trial activity analysis. These trial activities are

implemented through two steps. First, material and module

expert review, and language expert review, the second is on

field assessment. It consists of the lecturer and the second year

students of STKIP PGRI Blitar. To interpret the result of data

analysis in module validity, the researcher gives the following

criteria:

Table 3.1 Criteria of the Result of Data Analysis in Module Validity

Score Qualification Decision

4 Very good The product is ready to apply in the field
and there is no revision
3.00-3.99 Good The product is ready to apply in the field
and there are some revision
2.00-2.99 Good enough The product should be revised and need
to find the weaknesses in order to make
perfect
1.00-1.99 Poor The product fails and need to have big
revisions concerning about the content

The module is valid if the average score from both of the

experts is ≤ 2.00.
 32

3. T-test analysis

T-test analysis is used to know the effectiveness of the

product toward the result of group trial on the second year

students of STKIP PGRI Blitar before and after applying the

module of collaborative writing. The data of group trial is

collected by pre-test and post-test. The result of pre-test and

post-test are then analyzed using t-test, to know the difference

between the result of pre-test and post-test. The researcher uses

SPSS 17 to help him compute the data.

The result of the trial is compared on T table with the

significant percentage 0.05 (5%). The result of the trial is used

to know whether there is significant difference before and after

applying the module.

H0 = there is no significant difference (5%) before and after

using the module

H1 = there is significant difference before and after using the

module

Decision:

If T observed> T table, H0 will be accepted

If T observed=/< T table, H0 will be rejected

 33

CHAPTER IV

DEVELOPMENTAL RESULT

This chapter discusses about the result of develop the research.

4.1 Data of Developmental Testing

4.1.1 Define Step

1. Front-end analysis

a. Stevenson’s questions

In this analysis, the researcher used Stevenson’s questions

(2010) to know the problem and how to solve it. These

questions were asked by the observer to the students and the

writing lecturer. By doing this analysis, the researcher hoped the

problem in teaching learning Writing 4 in English Department

of STKIP PGRI Blitar would be clear and he could find the way

to solve it. These questions were given in pre research step.

 34

The questions are as follow:

Table 4.1 Stevenson’s Questions

No Category Question Explanation

1. Performance Do we have a problem? Based on what evidence can you
Analysis say you have a problem?
Do we have a performance
problem?
How will we know when the When indicators from the first
problem is solved? question are the exception
What is the performance
problem?
Should we allocate resources Do the benefits of solving the
to solve it? problem outweigh the costs?
2. Cause Analysis What are the possible causes Lack of data, tools, incentives,
of the problem? knowledge, capacity, motives?
What evidence bears on each
possibility?
What is 33
the probable cause? Based on Questions 6 and 7,
what is the probable cause of
the problem?
3. Intervention What general solution type is
Selection, Design, indicated?
and Development What are the alternate What else could you do to solve
subclasses of solution? the problem?
What are the costs, effects, Research the costs of each
and development times of solution
each solution?
What are the constraints? Research the constraints of each
solution
What are the overall goals? What goals would management
like to adopt?

From thirteen questions, the researcher only took eight

questions. It was because the rest of the questions did not relate

to the students’ problem had been found by the researcher. The

researcher took five questions in performance category, two

questions in cause categories, and one question in intervention

selection, design, and development category.

 35

From those questions, the researcher got answers. Based on

the evidence (writing scores were decreasing), the students had

problem in writing subject. The problem was about

performance. The performance problem was they could not

maximally finish their writing task alone. They still needed the

lecturer’ or their friends’ help when they found difficulty. The

researcher would know if the problem had been solved if the

students’ score increased.

. The cause of the performance problem was related to the

lack of collaborative writing module on critical essay in Writing

4 subject. This module was needed because, based on the

students questionnaire, when the students did the writing task,

they still needed their friends’ help in finishing it. There was

also no critical essay material in the course outline, although

this material was stated in the syllabus. The general solution for

the problem was developing collaborative writing module on

critical essay for university problem, especially for the students

of STKIP PGRI Blitar.

b. Curriculum analysis

There are five subjects of writing in English Department in

STKIP PGRI Blitar. They include Writing 1, Writing 2, Writing

3, Writing 4, and Writing 5. Those subjects are different with

each other. The difference could be seen in the learning

objectives, material, teaching method/activities, and evaluation.

 36

For Writing 1, the learning objective is to provide the

student with the ability to write Basic English sentences. The

materials for practice will include all the basic sentences

Patterns which may express basic ideas. The activities in this

course will be mostly practice in constructing Basic English

sentences, lectures and discussions. The evaluation is based on

student’s performance in mid-term and final tests. Handbook or

textbook can be used are Guide to Patterns and Usage in

English Written by Hornby (1976), Basic Grammar for Writing

by Ehrlich, Eugene cs. (1967), and Paragraph Practice by

Sullivan, Kathleen E (1976).

In Writing 2, the learning objective is to provide the student

with the skill to write Paragraph of to inform by organizing or

reorganizing events in the form of narrative report, news, and

instruction. The student is expected to be able to organize and

reorganize visual images, facts, mental stares, and ideas, in the

form of description. The class activities will be mostly

discussion and exercises. Evaluation is based on the student

performance in both mid-term and final tests as well as written

assignments. The handbooks or textbooks are English for

Academic Uses by Adam, Judth-Anne cs. (1982), and

Paragraph Practice by Sullivan, Kathleen E (1976).

Moreover, in Writing 3, the learning objective is to provide

the student with the ability to write complete compositions

 37

broader than paragraph. The objective is limited to giving

information. The course deals with expository writing i.e.

definition, commentary, curriculum vitae, and resume from

articles. The cognitive processing will cover inventing or

generating ideas, mental states, and alternative words. The class

activities will be mostly discussion and exercises. The

evaluation is based on the student’s performance in mid-term

and final tests, as well as class exercises. The handbooks or

textbooks are the same with those are used in Writing 2.

Whereas, in Writing 4, the learning objective is to give the

student the opportunity to improve his acquired writing skill,

especially that with the dominant purpose of convincing and or

persuading, the writing tasks and exercises will be in the form of

argumentative and persuasive writing such as formal letters of

advice, editorials, and critical essays articles. The class activities

will be mostly discussion and exercises. The evaluation is based

on student performance in mid-term and final tests as well as

written assignments. The handbooks or textbooks are English

for Academic Uses by Adam, Judth-Anne cs. (1982), and

Writing Academic English by Oshima, Alice and Haque.

For the last, Writing 5, the learning objective is designed to

help the student reach the advanced level of English writing

proficiency. The course gives the student the opportunity to

improve more advanced in his acquired writing skill, especially

 38

that with the dominant purpose of convincing and or persuading,

the writing tasks and exercises will be in the form of

argumentative and persuasive writing such as formal letters of

advice, editorials, and critical essays articles. The class activities

will be mostly discussion and exercises. The evaluation is based

on student performance in mid-term and final tests as well as

written assignments. The handbooks or textbooks are the same

with Writing 4.

From those analyses, the researcher concluded that there is

no handbook/textbook/module that combines writing essay

material especially critical essay and collaborative writing

technique. It is why the researcher wanted to develop this kind

of module for university students, especially English

Department students of STKIP PGRI Blitar.

c. Course outline analysis

There were 6 points evaluated in the course outline. They

were course description, objective, material, activities, and

assessment. The table of the analysis is as follow:

Table 4.2 Analysis of Course Outline

No. Point Syllabus Course Outline

1. Course The course gives the student This course provides the
description the opportunity to improve his students with the skill to write
acquired writing skill, expository essays and their
especially that with the ideas development. It develops
dominant purpose of the students’ ability to write
convincing and or persuading, various types of expository
in the form of argumentative essays such as using examples,
and persuasive writing. details, process, classification,
comparison-contrast, and cause-
 39

effect.
2. Objectives Improve his acquired writing Improve the students writing
skill, especially that with the skill especially in implementing
dominant purpose of the ways to convey their ideas
convincing and or persuading, communicatively in the written
in the form of argumentative form (expository text); in
and persuasive writing. showing their enthusiasm,
carefulness, and accuracy in
writing (expository text); and in
conveying their ideas through
written media in the form of
expository writing.
3. Material In the form of argumentative Types of expository essays,
and persuasive writing such as steps in developing an essay
formal letters of advice, (pre-writing,
editorials, and critical essays organizing/drafting, writing,
articles. revising (peer response groups),
and editing) and publishing
expository essays.
4. Activities The class activities will be Lectures, group discussion, and
mostly discussion and presentation.
exercises.
5. Assessment The evaluation is based on Weekly assignment,
student performance in mid- presentation, and participation
term and final tests as well as (30%), mid-term test (30%), and
written assignments. final test (40%).
6. Handbook/ English for Academic Uses by The Essential of English: a
textbook/ Adam, Judth-Anne cs. (1982), Writer’s Handbook by Hogue
module and Writing Academic English (2003) and Writing Academic
by Oshima, Alice and Haque. English by Oshima, Alice and
Haque.
(Analysis Result, 2012)

From 5 points evaluated, the researcher found inconsistency

between syllabus and course outline in course description,

objectives and material points. In the course description, the

syllabus said that the material was in the form of argumentative

or persuasive writing, but in the course outline the material was

various types of expository essays. In the objectives, the

syllabus said that the material was in the form of argumentative

or persuasive writing, but in the course outline the material was

various types of expository essays. The fifth point, material, the

 40

syllabus said that the material is in the form of argumentative or

persuasive writing such as formal letters of advice, editorials,

and critical essays articles, but in the course outline the material

was various types of expository essays, steps in developing an

essay (pre-writing, organizing/drafting, writing, revising (peer

response groups), and editing) and publishing expository essays.

And in the last point, handbook/textbook/module existence,

there was one book in the syllabus that was also stated in course

outline. It was Writing Academic English by Oshima, Alice and

Haque.

For the fifth points, the researcher found consistency

between the syllabus and the course outline, but there were

additions and omission. The additions were lecturing and

presentation activities. The omission were exercise activities

and handbook used in the classroom. In the fifth points, he also

found consistency between syllabus and course outline.

From this course outline analysis, the researcher concluded

that there was not critical essay material. Moreover, he could

not find collaborative writing technique. From those

conclusions, the researcher wanted to develop collaborative

writing module on critical essay for university students,

especially the students of STKIP PGRI Blitar.

2. Classroom analysis
 41

There were two kinds of data in this step. They were students and

lecturer and head of English department data.

a. Students

1) Score

There were two periodic scores that were used in this

analysis. First was the Writing 4 score periodic 2010/2011

and the second was the Writing 4 score periodic 2011/2012.

There are 9 grades used in STKIP PGRI Blitar. They are A,

A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, D, and E.

In the Writing 4 score periodic 2010/2011, there were 8%

of the students got A, 14% got A-, 34% got B+, 30% got B,

and 14% got B-. In this period, there was no students got

score under B-.

In the Writing 4 score periodic 2011/2012, there were 12%

of the students got A, 13% got A-, 28% got B+, 22% got B,

19% got B-, 3% got C+, 1% got C, and 2% got E.

When the researcher compared the result of the two

periods, he found that there was decrease of the amount of

the students who got good score. In 2010/2011 period, none

of the students got score under B-. In the other hand, there

were students who got score under B- in 2011/2012 period.

There were 3% got C+, 1% got C and 2% got E.

Table 4.3 Score Analysis Result

 42

Academic Year
Score 2010/2011 2011/2012
(Person) (Person)
A 18 30
(8%) (12%)
A- 31 31
(14%) (13%)
B+ 79 69
(34%) (28%)
B 70 54
(30%) (22%)
B- 32 47
(14%) (19%)
C+ - 8
(3%)
C - 2
(1%)
D - -
E - 4
(2%)
(Scores Analysis Result, 2012)

2) Questionnaire

The questionnaires are about students’ opinion in learning

English especially writing subject. The form of the

questionnaire is multiple choices. There are 10 numbers of

questions. There are 40 students who filled the

questionnaire. The result of questionnaire is as follows:

a) Out of 40 students, 17.5% of the students answered that

studying writing is difficult, 80% of them answered

sometimes and 2.5% of them answered that studying

writing is not difficult.

b) Out of 40 students, 60% of the students answered that

they often asked lecturer’s or their friends’ help when

they find difficulty in learning English and 40% of them

answered sometimes
 43

c) Out of 40 students, 62.5% of the students answered that

they use module/handbook when learning writing in the

classroom, 20% of them answered sometimes, 15% of

them answered no, and 2.5% did not answer the

question.

d) Out of 40 students, 52.2% of the students answered that

their lecturer has given them individual task in writing

class and 2.5% of them answered sometimes.

e) Out of 40 students, 27.5% of the students answered that

they need their friends’ help in finishing the individual

task, 67.5% of them answered sometimes and 5% of

them answered no.

f) Out of 40 students, 15% of the students answered that

they discuss with their friends in finishing the individual

task and 85% of them answered sometimes.

g) Out of 40 students, 7.5% of the students answered that

their lecturer has ever introduced them to collaborative

writing technique, 42.5% of them answered sometimes,

45% of them answered no, and 5% of them did not

answer.

h) Out of 40 students, 7.5% of the students answered that

their lecturer has ever given them collaborative writing

task, 42.5% of them answered sometimes, 45% of them

answered no, and 5% of them did not answer.

 44

i) Out of 40 students, 10% of the students answered that

they have ever heard about critical essay, 17.5% of them

answered sometimes and 72.5% of them answered no.

j) Out of 40 students, 5% of the students answered that

their lecturer has ever given them a critical essay task,

17.5% of them answered sometimes and 77.5% of them

answered no.

3) Questionnaire for the Students’ Need toward the Module

The questionnaires were about students’ need in developing

the module. The form of the questionnaire was multiple

choices. There were 10 numbers of questions. There were 38

students who filled the questionnaire. The result of

questionnaire was as follows:

a) Out of 38 students, 13.15% of the students answered

that they liked black and white lay out for the module,

73.68% of them answered they did not like and 13.15%

of them answered they really did not like.

b) Out of 38 students, 65.7% of the students answered that

they really liked colorful lay out for the module and

34.2% of them answered they liked.

c) Out of 38 students, 65.7% of the students answered that

they really need source material that has correlation to

the topic before starting writing the essay and 34.2% of

them answered they need.

 45

d) Out of 38 students, 78.9% of the students answered that

they really need a clear instruction in doing the exercise

and 21% of them answered they need.

e) Out of 38 students, 47.3% of the students answered that

they really need theory in collaborative writing before

starting the exercise and 52.6% of them answered they

need.

f) Out of 38 students, 7.8% of the students answered that

they really liked politics as the topic in writing essay,

10.5% of them answered they like, 52.6% of them

answered they did not like, and 28.9% of them answered

they really did not like.

g) Out of 38 students, 13.15% of the students answered

that they really liked education as the topic in writing

essay, 78.9% of them answered they like, and 7.8% of

them answered they did not like.

h) Out of 38 students, 28.9% of the students answered that

they really liked environment as the topic in writing

essay, 68.4% of them answered they like, and 2.6% of

them answered they did not like.

i) Out of 38 students, 10.5% of the students answered that

they really liked law as the topic in writing essay, 18.4%

of them answered they like, 31.5% of them answered

 46

they did not like, and 39.4% of them answered they

really did not like.

j) Out of 38 students, 36.8% of the students answered that

they really liked today hot news as the topic in writing

essay, 52.6% of them answered they like, and 10.5% of

them answered they did not like.

From three kinds of data above, the researcher concluded that

he found decrease of the amount of the students who got good

score in 2011/2012 period. This was because sometimes the

students felt that studying writing was difficult. When they

found difficulty, most of the students asked lecturer’s or their

friends’ help. In finishing individual task form the lecturer, most

of the students sometimes needed their friends’ help and also

discussed the task with their friends. In line with the problem,

when the researcher asked the students whether they had known

about collaborative writing technique, most of them answered

no. To solve the problem, the researcher had one technique,

namely collaborative writing. This technique was hoped to be

able to accommodate the students’ behavior in writing class. So,

the researcher decided to compose collaborative writing module

for the university students.

For the module, the students wanted it was in the colorful lay

out. Before starting the writing process, the students needed

source material or a kind of brainstorming step that had

i?
 47

correlation with the topic would be discussed. In doing writing

using collaborative writing technique, the students needed a

clear instruction in every step of writing. They also needed the

theory of collaborative writing technique to make them easily

compose a writing product using this technique.

b. Lecturer and Head of English Department of STKIP PGRI

Blitar

1) Head of English Department of STKIP PGRI Blitar

The interview is about teaching writing subject in STKIP

PGRI Blitar. There are 6 numbers of questions. The result of

interview is as follows:

a) There is no specialty in English Department of STKIP

PGRI Blitar. Any lecturer can teach writing subject.

b) Because there is no specialty, he cannot measure how

long each lecturer teaches writing subject.

c) The method used in teaching writing subject by the

lecturer is varied. It depends on the lecturer’s creativity.

d) English department of STKIP PGRI Blitar has module

or handbook for writing subject, but he did not mention

one by one.

e) The exercise or task that should be given to the students

is varied. It depends on the lecturer’s creativities.

 48

f) Occasionally it is possible if the students do the writing

task collaboratively, but there should be individual task

to measure the students’ ability.

2) Writing Lecturer of STKIP PGRI Blitar

The interview is about teaching writing subject in STKIP

PGRI Blitar. There are 8 numbers of questions. The result of

interview is as follows:

a) The lecturer has taught writing subject for two years.

b) The problem that she usually faces in teaching writing is

the students have had many vocabularies and good

grammar mastery, but the problem is more in building

their writing habit and brainstorming the idea then

expressing it in meaningful sentence.

c) The material that she usually gives is comparison and

contrast paragraph and introduction to essay writing.

d) The method that she usually uses is group work.

e) The students usually face difficulty in writing subject.

To overcome it, she then builds the students’ writing

habit and brainstorms their idea. Getting the idea and

putting it in words is the most difficult for the students.

The other ways to solve the problem are by using

various methods, giving them more practice, and

encouraging them in writing.

 49

f) In teaching writing subject, the lecturer uses handbooks.

The handbooks are Introduction to Academic English

and The Essential of Writing.

g) Those handbooks are appropriate depends on the

lecturer because they give clear explanation and more

practice for the students.

h) The lecturer usually gives task both in individual and

group form.

From two kinds of data, the researcher came to the

conclusion. There was no specialty in English Department of

STKIP PGRI Blitar. It meant that every lecturer could teach

writing subject. The method used in teaching writing subject

was varied. It depended on the lecturer’s creativity. One of the

lecturer used group work as the method when she taught.

Problem usually occurred in teaching writing was more in

building the students’ writing habit and brainstorming the idea

then expressing it in meaningful sentences although the students

had had many vocabularies and good grammar mastery.

3. Concept analysis

a. Module

There are five aspects of module used based on Riyadhi, et.

al. (2009). They are self-instructional, self-contained, stand

alone, adaptive, and user friendly. The first aspect used in all of

part of the module; direction in using module, learning

 50

objective, introduction, and unit 1-4. The second aspect used in

introduction and unit 1-4. The third aspect used in unit 1. The

fourth aspect used in unit 3 and unit 4. The last aspect used in

unit 1-4.

b. Collaborative Writing

From many models of collaborative writing that have been

explained in chapter 2, the researcher used the models of

collaborative writing by Ede and Lunsford (1990) in Mitchell

(1996). It was because the model give clear explanation how to

write collaboratively step by step from pre-writing, writing, and

post-writing. There are seven kinds of group work in this model.

All of them are different one from another. The researcher called

them Model 1-7.

In Model 1, all of the members of the group plan the

writing and the outline in pre-writing step. In writing step, each

of the members drafts one part of the writing. All of the

members combine the parts as the raw writing and revise them

together in post-writing. In Model 2, all of the members of the

group plan the writing and the outline in pre-writing step. In

writing step, one member of the group makes the draft as the

raw writing. In post-writing, all of the members gather again the

revise the raw draft. In Model 3, a member of the group plans

and outlines the writing in pre-writing. In writing, he or she then

writes the raw draft. In post-writing, all of the members of the

 51

group gather to revise the raw draft. Model 4 is almost the same

with Model 3. The difference is in the post-writing step. In

Model 4, the rest of the members of the group gather to revise

the raw draft without consulting to the other member who writes

it.

Furthermore, in Model 5, all of the members of the group

plan and make the outline in pre-writing. In writing step, one

member writes the raw draft. In post-writing, the rest of the

members of the group gather and revise the raw draft without

consulting to the researcher. For Model 6, one member of the

group plans and makes the outline in pre-writing step. Based on

the outline, each members of the group performs different task

in writing step. In post-writing, one member gathers the raw

draft and revised them. The last model, Model 7, is the most

difficult of all. There is no pre-writing step in this model. So the

group does not make any outline. In writing step, one member

dictates the raw draft and one more writes them. In post-writing,

the member who has not performed the task yet revises the raw

draft.

c. Collaborative Writing Module

Collaborative writing module is the combination of module

aspects and collaborative writing model. So, in this kind of

module, the tasks or exercises use collaborative writing

technique. There are seven essential parts in this module. They

 52

are direction in using module, learning objectives, introduction,

Unit 1 (environment), Unit 2 (today hot news), Unit 3 (health),

and Unit 4 (education).

The researcher put self-instructional aspect in the direction

in using module and learning objectives. In introduction, the

researcher combined the self-instructional and self-contained

aspects. Unit 1 is the combination of self-instructional, self-

contained, stand alone, user friendly, Model 1, and Model 2.

The topic used in Unit 1 is about environment. Unit 2 is the

combination of self-instructional, self-contained, user friendly,

Model 3, and Model 4. Unit 2 is about today hot news. Unit 3 is

the compilation of self-instructional, self-contained, adaptive,

user friendly, Model 5, and Model 6. Unit 3 talks about health.

The last Unit, Unit 4 is the compilation of self-instructional,

self-contained, adaptive, user friendly, and Model 7. This unit is

about education.

The researcher chose those topics for Unit1-4 because all of

them are common topic for the students. He put environment

topic in Unit 1 because it is the closest topic to the students. It

means that they do not need a complicated research for the

writing product. They only need to observe the environment

around to be reported in the form of critical essay. From

environment topic, the researcher moved to today hot news

topic. In this topic, the students need to do a bit research about

 53

news that becomes hot lately. Health is the topic for Unit 3. This

topic needs deep research because the students must have proof

for every statement. The last topic is education. The researcher

chooses this topic because his students are the candidates of

educational practitioner. So, this topic has a strong correlation to

them.

The table 4.4 below gave clearer vision about the prototype

of the collaborative writing module.

Table 4.4 Prototype of Collaborative Writing Module

Unit Topic Collaborative Model Module Aspect

1 Environment Model 1 and 2 self-instructional, self-contained,
stand alone, user friendly
2 Today hot news Model 3 and 4 self-instructional, self-contained, user
friendly
3 Health Model 5 and 6 self-instructional, self-contained,
adaptive, user friendly
4 Education Model 7 self-instructional, self-contained,
adaptive, user friendly
4.1.2 Design Step

1. Designing Module

After making the concept of the module, the prototype, the

researcher started to make the module. There are eleven parts of

the module; cover, acknowledgement, table content, direction in

using the module, learning objective, introduction, Unit1

(environment), Unit 2 (today hot news), Unit 3 (health), Unit 4

(education), scoring collaborative writing, and references.

For the cover, the researcher chose “Collaborative Writing

Module on Critical Essay: for Undergraduate Students” as the title

 54

of the module. He put three pictures that have correlation to writing

activity, collaborative technique, and critical essay.

In the acknowledgement, the researcher wrote a brief description

of the module. Table content is the list of the module contents. By

looking at this part, the user of the module are hoped to find the

content of the module he wants to open faster.

Direction in using the module is made for explaining how to use

the module. There are two kinds of direction, for the lecturer and

for the students. In learning objectives, the researcher put the goal

will be reached after using the module. He explains the theory in

introduction. Two kinds of theory are explained. First is the theory

about collaborative writing and the second is the theory about

critical essay. After reading the introduction, the students are

hoped getting a clear understanding how to write critical essay

using collaborative writing technique.

In every unit, the researcher gives the same content;

Brainstormer, guidelines to collaborative model, and exercise

based on the model. Kinds of Brainstormer are different one from

another. In Unit 1, the researcher used questions as the

Brainstormer. Brainstormer for Unit 2 are pictures. For Unit 3, the

researcher used articles and in Unit 4, he combines questions,

pictures, and articles as the Brainstormer. There are two guidelines

in every chapter. It is because there are two exercises that use two

different kinds of collaborative writing model. The every

 55

guidelines is equipped its’ simulation pictures. These simulation

pictures are hoped to give clearer explanation to the students how

to write collaboratively using each model.

For collaborative writing scoring, the researcher adapted the

theory from Wigglesworth and Storch (2009: 453) and Oshima and

Hogue (2007: 197). There are two kinds of scoring; scoring for the

processes and scoring for the writing result. In the scoring for the

processes, the maximum points the students can get is 40 and 60 is

the maximum points in the writing result. The aspects scored in

processes are pre, whilst, and post writing. Moreover, the aspects

scored in the writing result are format, mechanics, content,

organization, and grammar and sentence structure.

Figure 4.1 to 4.6 below gave view of the module design.

Figure 4.1 Front Cover Figure 4.2 Direction in Using Module

 56

Figure 4.3 Unit 1 Figure 4.4 Unit 2

Figure 4.5 Unit 3 Figure 4.6 Unit 4

 57

2. Designing Course Outline

After designing the module, the researcher then designed course

outline to do in developmental tested. The form of the course

outline was the same with one used in the English Department of

STKIP PGRI Blitar. There were six points that were stated in the

course outline. All of the point should be in line with the syllabus

of English Department of STKIP PGRI Blitar.

The first was course objectives. It contained the goal of the

course. The course objectives were the course gave the students the

opportunity to improve their acquired writing skill, especially

which with the dominant purpose of convincing and or persuading,

the writing tasks and exercises would be in the form of

argumentative and persuasive writing, especially critical essays

articles.

The second was the course material. It contained the material

that would be taught during the teaching learning. The course

material was the students were required to prepare writing

processes of critical essays articles about certain topics that in turn

would be done in class whether collaboratively or individually.

The third was the course activities. The activities included

mostly discussion and exercises of writing collaboratively. The

fourth point was references. The researcher used four books or

articles as his reference.

 58

In the last point, the researcher arranged the meeting schedule.

There were fourteen meeting in each semester. The schedule could

be seen in the table 4.5 below.

Table 4.5 Meeting Schedule in Course Outline

No Date Topic/Activity
1. Meeting 1 Introduction
2. Meeting 2 Discussing of Environment topic
3. Meeting 3 Doing exercise 1 of Environment topic
4. Meeting 4 Doing exercise 2 of Environment topic
5. Meeting 5 Discussing of Today Hot News topic
6. Meeting 6 Doing exercise 1 of Today Hot News topic
7. Meeting 7 Doing exercise 2 of Today Hot News topic
8. Meeting 8 Discussing of Health topic
9. Meeting 9 Doing exercise 1 of Health topic
10. Meeting 10 Doing exercise 2 of Health topic
11. Meeting 11 Discussing of Education topic
12. Meeting 12 Doing exercise of Education topic as Mid Term Test
13. Meeting 13 Discussing and correcting the result of Mid Term Test
14. Meeting 14 Evaluation

3. Designing Instruments

Finishing composing the module and the course outline, the

researcher designed the instruments to make sure the result of his

research became valid, practical, and effective. The instruments

were divided into three big categories. They were valid, practical,

and effective instruments.

a. Valid

To make the result of the research valid, the researcher

made four kinds of validation sheets. They were module

validation sheet, validation sheet of course outline, validation

sheet of observation sheet of module practicality, and validation

 59

sheet of students’ questionnaire toward the module. The first

and the second were in the form of choosing answer. The last

two instruments were in the form of essay questions.

In module validation sheet, there were three categories

scored. They were content of the module; language, text, and

lay out; and advantages of module. There were seven questions

in content of the module category, seven questions in language,

text, and lay out category, and three questions in advantages of

the module category. The module validation sheet then was

given to the experts scored and gave advice for the module

made by the researcher. In validation sheet of course outline,

there were six questions that could be used to score the course

outline.

The validation sheet of observation sheet of module

practicality included two essay questions. It was the same with

the last instrument. The last also had two essay questions.

b. Practical

To prove that the result of the research was practical, the

researcher made two instruments. They were observation sheet

on module practicality and students’ questionnaire toward the

module. Before the instruments were fulfilled by the observer or

the students, the experts validated them first.

The form of the observation sheet on module practicality

was yes/no questions. The observation sheet was scored by an

 60

observer while the researcher applied the module in teaching

learning process. There were three categories of the questions.

They were teaching, learning, and classroom interaction. Each

of the categories had five questions.

The second instrument, students’ questionnaire toward the

module, was done by the university students. There were ten

items that must be scored by the students.

c. Effective

To know that the result of the research was effective, the

researcher made a writing test. The result of the writing test then

compared with the students’ writing score before they used

collaborative writing module. Before the test was tested to the

students, the experts validated it first.

The test included two points. The first was the Brainstormer

and the second was the test itself. The Brainstormer was in the

form of picture. In the test, the students were asked to make a

critical essay about local tourism object in their place. The

students did the test individually.

4.1.3 Develop Step

1. Expert Appraisal

Finishing the module and the instruments, the researcher went to

the experts. The researcher asked the experts to validate the module

and the instruments. There were two experts used by the researcher.

The first was the module and material experts and the second was
 61

linguistics expert. The researcher went to the first expert first. After

the first expert approved the module and the instruments, he then

went to the second expert to get the approval of the language used

in the module and instruments.

a. First Expert

The first expert was a module and material expert. She was

one of the lecturers in one of big Islamic University in Malang.

She was a Doctorate degree.

In the process of the approval, the researcher got ten kinds

of module revision. First revision was about the address of the

researcher in the front cover of the module. The first expert said

that it was not necessary. So, it must be omitted. The second

revision was in the acknowledgement of the module. The first

expert advised to researcher to add the reasons why he chose the

topics stated in the first paragraph.

The introduction was also revised. The researcher had to add

clearer topic examples of critical or argumentative essay. The next

revision was in the Brainstormer of Unit 3. The expert said that the

letter in the first text was too small. So, the researcher had to make it

bigger. The fifth revision was a kind of advice. It was in the first

exercise of third Unit. The expert said that the question in the

introduction was good. It was because it had correlation with the task.

She asked the researcher to check the second exercise in third Unit also.

The second exercise of Unit 3 became the next revision. The expert said
 62

that the question in the introduction was not good because it did not

have correlation with the task.

The form of the seventh and the eight revisions were the same. The

expert asked the researcher to change the format of the text in Unit 4

Brainstormer step. She asked to make the format better. In the ninth and

tenth revisions, the expert asked the researcher to add the source of the

scoring collaborative writing table under them.

After all of those revisions, the first expert approved the module

and gave it score. Figure 4.7 and 4.8 of the validation sheet were as

follow:

Figure 4.7 First Page Figure 4.8 Second Page

 63

Over all, the score was good. She gave score 3 or 4 for each

evaluation point. It meant that the module was proper with the points

evaluated. The expert gave notes that in page 38 there were some

paragraphs only consisted of one sentence. Please make it better. And

the reference should be used inside the content of the module.

Beside validating the module, the first expert also validated

the instruments. She gave score in every instrument. There were

four instruments validated by the expert. Those are course

outline, observation sheet on module practicality, students’

questionnaire toward the module, and writing test.

The result of the course outline validation sheet was good.

The expert gave score 3 or 4 for each question. He said that the

course outline had been in line with the syllabus and the aspects

needed. It could be seen in Figure 4.9 below:

Figure 4.9 Course Outline Validation Sheet

 64

The result of observation sheet on module practicality was also

good. The expert said that the check lists were appropriate with the

point must be evaluated in teaching and learning process and the

classroom interaction. She stated that there were some points must be

concerned so that there was not any overlapping. The figure of the

validation sheet was as follow:

Figure 4.10 Observation Sheet on Module Practicality

The third instrument that had been validated by the expert was

students’ questionnaire toward the module. The expert scored that the

questionnaire was appropriate enough in scoring the collaborative

 65

writing module from the students’ side. She did not give any kind of

addition in this instrument. The figure of the validation sheet was as

follow:

Figure 4.11 Questionnaire Validation Sheet

The last instrument scored by the expert was writing test. She

thought there was no addition in this instrument. It meant that this

 66

instrument was good enough. The figure of the validation was as

follow:

Figure 4.12 Writing Test Validation Sheet

b. Second Expert

The second expert was a linguistics expert. He was one of

the lecturers in Islamic University in Blitar. He was a candidate

of Doctorate degree in UNS Surakarta.

In the process of the approval, the researcher got five kinds

of module revision. Four of the five revisions were about the

diction of the word and grammatical structure. The last was

about the content of the module. The second expert said that the

list of learning objectives were not actually the objectives. He

said that those were the directions in using the module. He

advised the researcher to adopt the learning objectives in

module from the course outline or from the syllabus of English

Department on STKIP PGRI Blitar.

 67

After finishing revising the module, the second expert

finally approved the module and gave score. The figures of the

validation sheet were as follow:

Figure 4.13 First Page Figure 4.14 Second Page

Over all, the score was good. It was because the expert

gave score 3 for each questions. It meant that the module was

proper with the points evaluated. The expert said that basically,

the module had been proposed well, however, it needed to be

revised as noted in the module draft.

Beside validating the module, the second expert also

validated the instruments. He gave score in every instrument.

There were four instruments validated by the expert. Those are

course outline, observation sheet on module practicality,

students’ questionnaire toward the module, and writing test.

The result of the course outline validation sheet was good.

The expert gave score 3 for each question. He said that the
 68

course outline had been in line with the syllabus and the aspects

needed. The figure of the validation sheet was as follow:

Figure 4.15 Course Outline Validation Sheet

The result of observation sheet on module practicality was

also good. The expert said that the check lists were appropriate

with the point must be evaluated in teaching and learning

process and the classroom interaction. He gave addition in the

point must be evaluated. He added the point whether the

researcher could manage the time well in teaching category.

Because of that reason, there was changing in the number of

points or questions in the observation sheet, from fifteen to

sixteen numbers. The figure of the validation sheet was as

follow:
 69

Figure 4.16 Observation Sheet Validation

The third instrument that had been validated by the expert

was students’ questionnaire toward the module. The expert

scored that the questionnaire was appropriate enough in scoring

the collaborative writing module from the students’ side. He did

not give any kind of addition in this instrument. The figure of

the validation sheet was as follow:

Figure 4.17 Questionnaire Validation Sheet

 70

The last instrument scored by the expert was writing test.

The expert said that the questions in Brainstormer step had

already been led the students to topic discussed. One thing that

the researcher must considerate was the question in the

Brainstormer must give input for the students’ topic sentence.

He added that the questions in Brainstormer also able to help the

students in doing the writing test. The figure of the validation

sheet was as follow:

Figure 4.18 Writing Test Validation Sheet

2. Developmental Testing

a. Preliminary
 71

In preliminary testing, the researcher used two groups of

students. There were three students in each group. It meant that

there were six students used in preliminary testing. The purpose

of using two groups was to make comparison of the

collaborative writing result.

1) Activity

There were four meetings in this step. The time allocation

was ninety minutes. The first meeting was used to do

introduction of what collaborative writing module was. In

the second meeting, the researcher introduced Unit 1 and

asked the students to do exercise 1. The students were asked

to do exercise 2 of Unit 1 in the third meeting. The fourth

meeting was used by the researcher to do writing test.

During the process of preliminary testing, there was an

observer that observed all of the process. At the end of the

process, he would fill the observation sheet.

a) First Meeting

The first meeting was done on August 19th 2013.

The meeting was started at 09.00 a.m. It took ninety

minutes.

In the beginning of the meeting, the researcher

greeted the students and checked whether all of the

students were present. None of the students was absent in

this first meeting. Finishing checking, the researcher

 72

introduced the collaborative writing module on critical

essay for university students that had been compiled by

himself. He explained the theory of collaborative writing

technique and the theory of critical essay deeply.

During the first meeting, there was no big obstacle.

The meeting was going smooth. The students tried to

understand both of the theory.

b) Second Meeting

The second meeting was done on August 22nd 2013.

The meeting was started at 09.00 a.m. It took more than

ninety minutes.

The second meeting took longer time because the

students still adapted with the technique. So, they still

had confusion whether the researcher had explained it

deeply. In this meeting, the students were introduced to

the first topic or Unit 1 in the module. After they had

clearer vision of the topic, the researcher asked them to

do exercise 1.

In every collaborative writing result, there were two

points evaluated, the process of collaborative writing and

the final writing product itself. The score of the process

of collaborative writing was 40 in maximum and 60 in

maximum for the score of the final writing product. The

result of the first exercise was as follow:

 73

Table 4.6 Score of Collaborative Writing from Exercise 1

Process Final Product Total Score

No Group
Score Score
1. Group A 28 40 68
2. Group B 30 50 80

c) Third Meeting

The third meeting was done on August 26th 2013. The

meeting was started at 09.00 a.m. It took ninety minutes.

The second meeting was on time because the students

had adapted with the technique. In this meeting, the

students were asked the students to do exercise 2 in Unit

1. The result of the second exercise was as follow:

Table 4.7 Score of Collaborative Writing from Exercise 2

Process Final Product Total Score

No Group
Score Score
1. Group A 32 48 80
2. Group B 32 55 87

d) Fourth Meeting

The fourth meeting was used to do writing test. This

test had a purpose to know the score of the students’

individual writing product after they did the writing

exercise using the collaborative writing module. The

meeting was done on August 29th 2013. The time

allocation for the test was ninety minutes.

 74

The results of the test were good. All of the students

got score more than (70). Revering to the score criteria of

English Department on STKIP PGRI Blitar, they got (B)

minimally. Comparing with the groups’ score, some of

the individual score were lower. It happened because in

collaborative writing, the students cooperated in doing

the exercise. So, the clever students could help the less

clever one. Comparing to the score before the students

used the collaborative writing module; those students’

score had been increasing. The table below showed the

result of the writing test comparing with the previous

students’ score before using collaborative writing

module.

Table 4.8 Writing Test Score Comparing with Previous Score

No. Name Previous Score Writing Test Score

1. BS 60 79
2. DRP 75 80
3. HC 78 85
4. MAP 80 85
5. YP 80 90
6. YZ 80 88
Average Score 75.5 84.5
The scoring of individual test was different from the

collaborative writing exercise. If there was process score in

collaborative writing exercise, there was no process score in

individual writing test scoring. The example of the writing test

scoring was as follow:

 75

Figure 4.19Writing Result Figure 4.20 Example of Scoring

2) Observation

During the preliminary testing, there was an observer that

observed the process. In the end of fourth meeting, the

observer was asked to fill the observation check list. The

result of the observation was out of sixteen questions, the

observer gave thirteen check signs in ‘yes’ column and three

check signs in no column. The observer answered ‘no’ in the

questions of whether the researcher could manage the time

well, whether the students did researching before they made

first draft, and whether the interaction among students in the

group the same with expectation. The observer also gave

note. He stated that it seemed that the teacher (researcher)

should adapt in managing the time with the plan. Hence, the

interaction should occur naturally.

 76

The figure of the observation sheet was as follow:

Figure 4.21Observation Sheet in Preliminary

3) Questionnaire result

The questionnaires were about students’ opinion toward

the module. The form of the questionnaire was multiple

choices. There were 10 numbers of questions. There were 6

students who filled the questionnaire. The result of

questionnaire was as follows:

a) Out of 6 students, 16.7% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 1 was

suitable with their writing ability and 83.3% of them

answered agree.

b) Out of 6 students, 33.3% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 2 was

suitable with their writing ability, and 66.7% of them

answered agree.
 77

c) Out of 6 students, 83.3% of the students stated they

agree that the difficulty level in Unit 3 was suitable with

their writing ability and 16.7% of them answered did

not agree.

d) Out of 6 students, 16.7% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 4 was

suitable with their writing ability and 83.3% of them

answered agree.

e) Out of 6 students, 100% of the students stated they

agree that they understand how to write critical essay

collaboratively based on the material.

f) Out of 43 students, 16.7% of the students stated they

really agree that the language used was suitable with

their ability and 83.3% of them answered agree.

g) Out of 6 students, 100% of the students stated they

agree that the language used was understandable.

h) Out of 6 students, 83.3% of the students stated they

agree that the language used was not make any

misunderstanding and 16.7% of them answered did not

agree.

i) Out of 6 students, 100% of the students stated they

agree that the lay out was interesting.

 78

j) Out of 6 students, 16.7% of the students stated they

really agree that the lay out used made them motivated

to write and 83.3% of them answered agree.

b. Main

In main testing, the researcher used thirteen groups of

students. The number of students in groups was different. There

were nine groups that had three members and four groups that

had four members. It meant that there were 43 students used in

main testing.

1) Activity

Based on the course outline, there were fourteen meeting

plus one more meeting for writing test. The meetings were

begun on September 2nd 2013. From fourteen meetings,

seven meeting were used to practice writing using

collaborative writing module. Those were at the third,

fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth, tenth, and twelfth meeting. The

rest of the meetings were used to discuss the theory and the

Brainstormer step in every unit. The schedule of the

meeting could be seen in the table below.

Table 4.9 Schedule of Main Testing

No Date Activity
1. Sep 2nd 2013 Introduction
2. Sep 4th 2013 Discussing of Environment topic
3. Sep 9th 2013 Doing exercise 1 of Environment topic
4. Sep 11th 2013 Doing exercise 2 of Environment topic
 79

5. Sep 16th 2013 Discussing of Today Hot News topic

6. Sep 18th 2013 Doing exercise 1 of Today Hot News topic
7. Sep 23rd 2013 Doing exercise 2 of Today Hot News topic
8. Sep 25th 2013 Discussing of Health topic
9. Sep 30th 2013 Doing exercise 1 of Health topic
10. Oct 2nd 2013 Doing exercise 2 of Health topic
11. Oct 7th 2013 Discussing of Education topic
12. Oct 9th 2013 Doing exercise of Education topic as Mid Term Test
13. Oct 14th 2013 Discussing and correcting the result of Mid Term Test
14. Oct 16th 2013 Evaluation
15. Oct 21st 2013 Writing test

When the students do exercise in the meeting, the

researcher scored the collaborative process and the writing

product. The results of the second exercises were as follow:

Table 4.10 Score of Collaborative Writing in Main Testing

Group
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
Kinds of
Score
First exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 29 32 30 32 28 30 33 32 26
Final Product 50 52 46 56 50 55 57 48 45 51 50 46 45
Total 82 84 78 88 79 87 87 80 73 81 83 78 71
Second
exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Final Product 51 53 51 48 54 55 55 51 47 51 52 47 48
Total 83 86 83 80 86 87 87 83 79 83 84 79 80
Third exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Final Product 54 53 50 53 53 55 54 52 51 54 46 46 49
Total 86 86 82 85 85 87 86 84 83 86 78 78 81
Fourth
exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Final Product 52 51 54 56 51 53 51 49 51 53 51 50 50
Total 84 83 86 88 83 85 83 81 83 85 83 82 82
Fifth exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Final Product 52 52 54 50 49 51 55 52 53 52 52 50 49
Total 84 84 86 82 81 83 87 84 85 84 84 82 81
Sixth exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
 80

Final Product 50 52 52 51 50 53 52 54 51 50 53 52 51
Total 82 84 84 83 82 85 84 86 83 82 85 84 83
Seventh
exercise
Process 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32
Final Product 54 53 53 50 53 53 52 52 52 54 50 54 50
Total 86 85 85 82 85 85 84 84 84 86 82 86 82

In the end of the main testing, the researcher gave

writing test to the students to measure the increasing of their

written ability. The meeting was done on October 21st 2013.

The time allocation for the test was ninety minutes.

The results of the test were good. All of the students got

score more than 70. Revering to the score criteria of English

Department on STKIP PGRI Blitar, they got (B) minimally.

Comparing with the groups’ score, some of the individual

score were lower. It happened because in collaborative

writing, the students cooperated in doing the exercise. So,

the clever students could help the less clever one.

Comparing to the score before the students used the

collaborative writing module; those students’ score had

been increasing. The table below showed the result of the

writing test comparing with the previous students’ score

before using collaborative writing module.

Table 4.11 Writing Test Score Comparing with Previous Score

No. Name Previous Score Writing Test Score

1. PJ 60 75
2. AY 75 80
3. ADR 60 74
 81

4. A Ri 78 85
5. A Ro 80 84
6. BY 75 80
7. BT 85 90
8. CWR 80 88
9. DA 78 87
10. FF 74 85
11. HHA 80 90
12. IR 70 80
13. I 70 84
14. LD 70 78
15. L 74 85
16. MWS 75 88
17. MS 75 86
18. NTS 80 90
19. NNT 75 83
20. NRA 78 86
21. PAW 78 90
22. RDV 80 90
23. SK 80 89
24. SC 80 88
25. S Sa 80 90
26. ISN 65 75
27. ELM 65 78
28. RSP 68 75
29. ATC 64 78
30. IDA 74 85
31. MM 78 85
32. PP 75 88
33. RDE 80 89
34. S Sh 80 90
35. SN 75 86
36. TS 75 85
37. WMN 70 85
38. ZR 75 85
39. SF 75 84
40. LNI 80 88
41. MBH 85 90
42. FAK 78 80
43. NM 70 80
Average Score 74.93 84.44

The figure of the scoring of the writing test was as follow:

 82

Figure 4.22 Writing Test Result Figure 4.23 Example of Scoring

2) Observation

During the main testing, there was an observer that

observed the process. In the end of fourteen meeting, the

observer was asked to fill the observation check list. The

result of the observation was out of sixteen questions, the

observer gave check signs in ‘yes’ column in all questions.

Although the observer gave ‘yes’ check signs in all

questions, he also gave notes. He stated that generally, the

teaching process and the practical module work well.

However, the students and the teacher (researcher) have

mutual interaction in the classroom in writing

collaboratively.

The figure of the observation sheet was as follow:

 83

Figure 4.24 Observation Sheet in Main Testing

3) Questionnaire result

The questionnaires were about students’ opinion toward

the module. The form of the questionnaire was multiple

choices. There were 10 numbers of questions. There were 6

students who filled the questionnaire. The result of

questionnaire was as follows:

a) Out of 43 students, 6.9% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 1 was

suitable with their writing ability, 88.3% of them

answered agree and 4.6% of them answered did not

agree.

b) Out of 43 students, 4.6% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 2 was

suitable with their writing ability, 86% of them

answered agree and 9.3% of them answered did not

agree.
 84

c) Out of 43 students, 86% of the students stated they

agree that the difficulty level in Unit 3 was suitable with

their writing ability, 11.6% of them answered did not

agree and 2.3% of them answered really did not agree.

d) Out of 43 students, 2.3% of the students stated they

really agree that the difficulty level in Unit 4 was

suitable with their writing ability, 90.6% of them

answered agree and 6.9% of them answered did not

agree.

e) Out of 43 students, 11.6% of the students stated they

really agree that they understand how to write critical

essay collaboratively based on the material, 69.8% of

them answered agree, 16.3% of them answered did not

agree, and 2.3% of them answered really did not agree.

f) Out of 43 students, 16.3% of the students stated they

really agree that the language used was suitable with

their ability, 74.4% of them answered agree, and 9.3%

of them answered did not agree.

g) Out of 43 students, 25.6% of the students stated they

really agree that the language used was understandable,

67.4% of them answered agree, and 6.9% of them

answered did not agree.

h) Out of 43 students, 9.3% of the students stated they

really agree that the language used was not make any
 85

misunderstanding, 79% of them answered agree, and

11.6% of them answered did not agree.

i) Out of 43 students, 6.9% of the students stated they

really agree that the lay out was interesting, 79% of

them answered agree, and 14% of them answered did

not agree.

j) Out of 43 students, 9.3% of the students stated they

really agree that the lay out used made them motivated

to write, 67.4% of them answered agree, and 23.2% of

them answered did not agree.

3. Final Module

Concerning the revision from the experts, the researcher made

his module. All of the changings were explained in the product

revision. Finishing making the module better, the researcher then

disseminated the module.

4.1.4 Disseminate Step

To disseminate the product, the researcher made writing group in

Facebook. The members of the group were university students, English

teachers, and English Lecturers. The name of the group was “Let’s

Share and Care (Writing Club)”.

4.2 Data Analysis

1.1.1. Validity of Writing Module

 86

From the first and the second experts, the researcher got score. The

mean score of the module from both of the experts was as follow:

Table 4.12 Module Validity

Score
No Evaluated Point
Expert 1 Expert 2
1. Content
Applicability to the syllabus 3 3
Applicability to the material 4 3
Correctness of the concept/material 4 3
Developed critical essay understanding 4 3
Topics used are suitable with the difficulty level 3 3
Topics used are able to develop by the students 4 3
Topics used are able to motivate the students to write 4 3
2. Language, writing, and lay out
Use the standardized English 4 3
The language is clear 4 3
Use communicative language 3 3
Use simple structure language 3 3
Use understandable symbols 3 3
Completed with table, figure, and diagram related to the content 4 3
The color, size of the letter, and picture are interesting and readable 4 3
3. Module benefit
Facilitate the lecturers in teaching and learning process 4 3
Can be used as the students’ guide book in learning 4 3
Make the students active and independent in learning 3 3
Total score 62 51
Average score of all points 3.65 3
Average score of all points for both of the experts 3.33

As had been stated in chapter 3, the module was appropriate to be

used and valid if the average scores of the module was ≥2.00. It can be

shown in the table above that from the calculation, the average scores

was 3.33 ≥ 2.00 It meant that the module was valid and appropriate to

be used in development testing with some revisions. The revisions

could be seen in the Appendix.

4.2.2 Practicality of Writing Module

To measure the practicality of the module, the researcher used

observation sheet. The observation sheet was filled by the observer, not

the researcher. The observer filled the observation sheet in the end of
 87

preliminary and main testing. As had been stated in chapter 3, the

module was practical if the lecturer or researcher could do almost all of

the evaluated points.

In the end of the preliminary testing, the result of the observation

was out of sixteen questions, the observer gave thirteen check signs in

‘yes’ column and three check signs in no column. The observer

answered ‘no’ in the questions of whether the researcher could manage

the time well, whether the students did researching before they made

first draft, and whether the interaction among students in the group the

same with expectation. The observer also gave note. He stated that it

seemed that the teacher (researcher) should adapt in managing the time

with the plan. Hence, the interaction should occur naturally.

In addition, the result of the observation in the end of main testing

was out of sixteen questions, the observer gave all check signs in ‘yes’

column. Although the observer gave ‘yes’ check signs in all of the

questions, he also gave some notes. He stated that generally, the

teaching process and the practical module work well. However, the

students and the teacher (researcher) have mutual interaction in the

classroom in writing collaboratively.

4.2.3 Effectiveness of Writing Module

To measure the effectiveness of the module, the researcher

compares the average of students’ score before using module and after

using module in preliminary and main testing. In preliminary testing,

before using the module, the average of students; score was 75.5. After
 88

using the module, the average was increased, 84.5. To know the

significant difference before after using the module, the researcher used

t-test. To help the researcher compute the data, he used SPSS 17. The

result of the computation was as follow:

Figure 4.25 Result of Computation in Preliminary Testing

Having the result of the computation above, we could conclude

that there was significant different between before and after using the

module, 0.009 < 0.05. It could be seen also that the mean score of after

using the module was higher than before using the module, 84.5 > 75.5.

It meant that the module was effective when it was applying in the

preliminary testing.

In main testing, before using the module, the average of students;

score was 74.93. After using the module, the average was increased,

84.44. To know the significant difference before after using the module,

the researcher used t-test. To help the researcher compute the data, he

used SPSS 17. The result of the computation was as follow:

 89

Figure 4.26 Result of Computation in Main Testing

Having the result of the computation above, we could conclude

that there was significant different between before and after using the

module, 0.000 < 0.05. It could be seen also that the mean score of after

using the module was higher than before using the module, 84.44 >

74.93. It meant that the module was also effective when it was applying

in the main testing.

4.3 Product Revision

During the research, the researcher got some module revisions from both

of the experts. From the first experts, the researcher got ten revisions. First

revision was about the address of the researcher in the front cover of the

module. The first expert said that it was not necessary. So, it must be omitted.

The second revision was in the acknowledgement of the module. The first

expert advised to researcher to add the reasons why he chose the topics stated

in the first paragraph.

 90

The introduction was also revised. The researcher had to add clearer

topic examples of critical or argumentative essay. The next revision was in

the Brainstormer of Unit 3. The expert said that the letter in the first text was

too small. So, the researcher had to make it bigger. The fifth revision was a

kind of advice. It was in the first exercise of third Unit. The expert said that

the question in the introduction was good. It was because it had correlation

with the task. She asked the researcher to check the second exercise in third

Unit also. The second exercise of Unit 3 became the next revision. The expert

said that the question in the introduction was not good because it did not have

correlation with the task.

The form of the seventh and the eight revisions were the same. The

expert asked the researcher to change the format of the text in Unit 4

Brainstormer step. She asked to make the format better. In the ninth and tenth

revisions, the expert asked the researcher to add the source of the scoring

collaborative writing table under them.

Furthermore, from the second expert, the researcher got five revisions.

Four of the five revisions were about the diction of the word and grammatical

structure. The last was about the content of the module. The second expert

said that the list of learning objectives were not actually the objectives. He

said that those were the directions in using the module. He advised the

researcher to adopt the learning objectives in module from the course outline

or from the syllabus of English Department on STKIP PGRI Blitar. All of the

figures of the revisions could be seen in Appendix 9.

 91

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION AND SUGGESTION

This chapter explains about the product discussion and usage suggestion.

5.1 Product Discussion

Finishing doing the research, the researcher came to some discussions. The

discussions were about whether the product was valid, practical, and

effective.

1. Based on the data, the product made by the researcher, Collaborative

Writing Module on Critical Essay: For Undergraduate Students, was

valid with some revisions. It was proved by the validation result from the
 92

first and second expert. From the first expert, the module got 3.65 as the

average score. Furthermore, the second expert gave 3 as the average score

of the module. When both of the average scores, the researcher got 3.33

as the module score. It was good. It meant that the module was valid,

ready to be applied with some revisions. The revisions could be seen in

Appendix 9.

2. From the result of the observation sheets filled up by the observer (not the

researcher), it can be concluded that the product, Collaborative Writing

Module on Critical Essay: For Undergraduate Students, was practical

with some notes. It was proved by the result of the observation of

preliminary and main testing in develop step. Although in preliminary

testing the result was not too good, the researcher improved the way in

implementing the module in main testing. As the final result, the

implementation was better. The researcher could did all of the evaluated
91
points in the observation sheet.

3. Knowing the product was valid and practical, the researcher tested

whether it was also effective. The researcher did testing in the final

meeting in the end of preliminary and main testing. Getting the result, he

compared the students’ average score before and after implementing the

module to the students. He also checked the effectiveness of the product

using t-test. The computation was done by SPSS 17. As the result of the

computations, there was significant different between before and after

implementing the product to the students. In preliminary testing, the

product was significant in .009; whether in main testing, the product was
 93

significant in .000. From those result, it could be concluded that the

product, Collaborative Writing Module on Critical Essay: For

Undergraduate Students, was also effective.

5.2 Usage Suggestion

Because of some limitations of the research, the researcher considered

some suggestions.

1. Application

In implementing the product, the lecturers should pay attention to

the students’ collaborative processes. They also have to be able to make

heterogeneous group (consist of different intelligence level).

2. Dissemination

The product can be used in middle level of undergraduate students in the

other Universities that have the same material in their syllabus.

3. Next Development

The product only focused on critical essay material. For the next

development, the next researcher can make collaborative writing module

in different material. The module also used the models of collaborative

writing by Ede and Lunsford (1990) in Mitchell (1996). For, the next

development, the next researcher can use the other model of collaborative

writing.