There
are many theories about the teaching and learning English Lang as a second
language (L2) as well as theories of teaching and learning writing. Some of
these theories are Second Language Acquisition Theory by Kreshen (1982), Chomsky
Universal Grammar Theory, Chomsky SLA Theory (Ren Hulin & Xu Na, 2014), Writing
Theory (Homstad & Thorson (1994), Situated Cognition Theory, Construction Theory
of Writing, and others. The researcher intends to highlight the Situated
Cognition Theory to help in understanding the study.
Situated
cognition theory
This
theory is specifically discussing about writing practices. The Situated Theory
(Wilson, 2002; Greeno, 1998; Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) is very useful
in explaining about two important matters to affect students’ performance and
ability to write. One, writing instruction. Two, an assessment that is
sensitive to the conflicting demands of the act of writing.
According
to Situated Theory, the cultural background, societal context, and individual
situations that pass through teaching (D’Andrade, 1981) are counted in
reviewing the writing of the students. Moreover, the theory also believe that
learning to write is achieved in the periodic process, situated in the genuine
and dynamic learning environments as the act of learning itself (Duguid et al.,
1989). This theory recognizes the dynamic nature of learning based on the view
of learning in which “cognitive activity is circulated across individuals and
situations” (Robbins & Aydede, 2009).
Situated
Cognition Theory also focuses on the time, purposes, and needs of the learners
in their writing session. In the modern classroom, the theory has recognized that
the relationship between the students and teachers is different compare to a
traditional, transmission of knowledge-centred classroom. In this view, teachers
are not the distributors of knowledge but they are the facilitators
pedagogically. To note, this notion of the relationship between students and
teachers is in attempt to explain that writing lesson is not just to learn in
the classroom, but it needs a kind of the instruction that emphasizes the
side-by-side learning, repeated practice, modelling and scaffolding in which
all the processes looks more like apprenticing (Lave, 1997; Rogoff, 1991).
One
model that looks suitable to use in teaching a writing process is the Six+1 Trait Writing Model by
Bellamy (2005). The Analytic Writing Continuum (Bellamy, 2005), which includes
refined and clarified definitions of the constructs measured, assesses the
following elements of writing:
•
Content
The
content category describes how effectively the writing establishes and
maintains a focus, selects and integrates ideas related to the content or body
of the composition (i.e., information, events, emotions, opinions, and
perspectives). In addition, put some evidences, details, reasons, anecdotes,
examples, descriptions, and characteristics in the explanation of the ideas.
•
Structure
The
structure category describes how effectively the writing establishes logical
arrangement, coherence, and unity within the writing processes of a composition.
It can be called as the organization of the composition writing.
•
Stance
The
stance category describes how effectively the writing converses a perspective
by using a certain level of formality, elements of style, and tone suitable for
the audience and purpose of writing. It may be suit to be known as a style of
writing.
•
Sentence Fluency
The
sentence fluency category describes how effectively the sentences are constructed
to fulfil the purpose of the writing, in terms of rhetorical purpose, rhythm,
and flow.
•
Diction (Language)
The
diction category describes the accuracy and suitability of the words and vocabularies
for the writing task and how effectively they create imagery, provide mental
pictures, or convey feelings and ideas to be written in the composition.
•
Conventions
The
conventions category describes how effectively the writing demonstrates
age-appropriate control of usage, punctuation, spelling, capitalization, and
paragraphing.
Peach
& Campos (2008) have reported that the national panel of experts on student
writing and the senior NWP researchers determined that even the Six +1 Trait Model
necessarily complete, it still required certain modifications to make it more
appropriate for the use in research studies. And, the following modifications
were implemented in the NWP Analytic Writing Continuum (Peach & Campos,
2008) prior to the scoring conference:
•
The scale of the rubric was extended from four to six points in order to ensure
sufficient discrimination and therefore to allow increased sensitivity to any
changes that might be observed.
•
The language defining the traits was clarified to improve the consistency of
the assessment of the writing.
•
The assessment was modified to focus entirely upon the student writing (where,
on occasion, the rubric previously included references to the reader’s responses
or to the writer’s personality as the basis for the assessment).
Most of these studies have examined the use of the respective
traits in one school in a neighborhood, one grade, or one classroom. All the
studies have shown the positive change in student writing performance (Jarmer
et al., 2000; Bellamy, 2000). In the fall, for example, in the first test administered,
only 14 second graders showed an exceptional brainstorm of ideas, in which by spring
that number had risen up to 262 students. Next, in a yearlong intensive traits writing
program with Dr. Ruth Culham where the
children or kids even primary students have proven a significant writing growth
across the six traits of writing (Bridges,
2011). All these examples show that the writing practices using the Six+1 Trait
Writing Model may help students to improve their writing performance in English
Lang subject.
To compare, this Six+1 Trait Writing Model in the
process of composition writing seems to have nearly a similar concept to the
latest writing research by Mukundan et al., (2013). They have elaborated that
the writing skills of students are taught and assessed based on five different
domains of writing (Mukundan et al., 2013) which are;
•
Content
The
content has to be entirely relevant to the topic of a composition.
•
Organization
The
structure of the composition writing which includes the logical sequence,
clearly stated, and the cohesive presentation of the ideas.
•
Language Use
The
writing which emphasizes a correct grammatical rules in the entire content of
the composition.
•
Vocabulary
The
sentences built and arranged with an appropriate words choice, using bombastic
words, proverbs and idioms etc.
•
Mechanisms
The writing which emphasizes on the appropriate
flows of paragraphing, punctuation, spelling etc.
Hence, the researcher knows that these two
comparison can be blended to suit the situation of the students in the
classroom in teaching them how to write effectively, so students can have a
better performance in writing as well as in English Lang subject.
