Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF POEW IN TEACHING WRITING
Sianna Sianna
FKIP, UniversitasMuhammadiyahParepare, Indonesia
E-mail: sayasianna@gmail.com
Syawal Syawal
FKIP, UniversitasMuhammadiyahParepare, Indonesia
E-mail: awal.umpar@gmail.com

Abstract
This research was aimed to investigate how significant the implementation of POEW model improved the
students’ writing ability. It was conducted using a quasi-experimental method with two pretest-posttest
group design. It was implemented to the third semester students of English department of Universitas
Muhammadiyah Parepare in academic year 2016/2017. At first, the researcher implemented POEW model
to treat the students in teaching writing. After that, they were tested to find out their ability after being
treated through POEW model. Data were analyzed quantitatively using 21.0 version of SPSS program.The
result indicated that the students who were treated through POEW model have significant improvement in
their writing ability than the students who were not. It is found that the significant value (0.000) was lower
than the probability value (0.05). This means that there was a significant difference between the students’
writing ability before and after being taught through POEW model where the students’ writing ability
improved significantly in posttest (after being taught through POEW model). The mean score of posttest of
the students in experimental class (72.40) was higher than the students in control class (62.46) which
indicated that the students ability in the experimental class was better than the students in control class. The
students ability in experimental class was improved from 61.24 to 72.40 while in control class only from
61.36 to 62.46. Besides that, the standar deviation in experimental class (7.832) was also lower than in
control class (8.364) which indicated that the students ability in experimental class was slightly similar to
control class
Keywords: POEW model, students’ writing ability, writing.

found in the video and then they would watch
them. The activity helped the students predict
the video that they would watch.

INTRODUCTION
This research was based on writing
problem of the third semester students in
English department, Universitas Muhammadiyah
Parepare. The students stated that most of them
found difficulties in starting to write and in
exploring their ideas because of the lack of
vocabularies. Therefore, the researcher
conducted a study by implementing POEW
model in teaching writing. POEW stands for
Predict-Observe-Explain-Write. The students’
vocabulary can be improved in Predict and
Observe stages. During the teaching and
learning process, the students should do
prediction before writing. The researcher
prepared some vocabularies which could be

CONCEPT OF WRITING
Cox in Brindley (2005, p. 151) explains
that “written language serves many purposes
both for individuals and for society as a whole,
and is not limited to the communication of
information”. He further explains that for the
individual author, writing can have cognitive
functions in clarifying and supporting thought
while at the level of whole society, written
language serves the functions of record
keeping and storing both information and
literary works.
51

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 51-61

5. Spatial order means telling how something
looks and is more effective in describing
.
Vocabulary
One of requirements of a good writing
always depends on the effective use of words.
In personal description, word plays a dual role:
to communicate and to evoke; and then, to the
readers, it is to perceive and to feel. This
twofold purpose is evident even it is a practical
and common form of writing as in
advertisement. Effective use of words also
deals with connotative or figurative languages
which are forms of writing, but mostly in
personal description. In such description, word
values in association are more effective than
those mainly in communicating information.

Components of Writing
Hughes (2008, p. 103) points out that “in
analytic scale, it has five components in
writing”, namely:
Content
The content of writing should be clear to
the readers, so that the readers can understand
the message that is conveyed and gained from
the content of the information itself. In order to
have a good content of writing, its content
should be well unified and completed. The
term is usually known as unity and
completeness,
which
becomes
the
characteristics of a good writing.
Organization
Organization
in
writing
includes
coherence, order of important, general to
specific or specific to general, chronological
order, and spatial pattern.
1. Coherence means all ideas have to be
sticking together, in the right order, and
clear.
2. Order of importance means arranging and
building the ideas to give a strong ending
in paragraph.
3. General to specific means arranging the
topic sentence to make a general statement
followed by a series of supporting sentence
with specific, details, examples, and facts.
On the other hand, specific to general is the
contrary of general to specific.
4. Chronological order means the paragraphs
are organized chronologically, events and
details are arranged in the order in which
they occurred, usually moving from the
first and earliest to the last or latest. Not
paragraph arranged chronologically tell
stories. Some give directions of
explanation a process: other summarizes
historical events, and still others report on
the steps or action taken by an individual or
organization. Nevertheless, they all share
an underlying similarity; they present their
ideas in the order in which they happened.

Language use
Language use in writing involves correct
usage endpoints of grammar such as verbs,
nouns and agreement. Specific nouns and
strong verbs give a reader a mental image of
description. These specific nouns can be
characterized by using modifier of adjectives,
adverbs, and participle form. There are many
opportunities for errors in the use of verb, and
mistakes in agreement are very common.
Mistakes in written work, and however, are
much more serious, and since people have an
opportunity to reread and to correct what have
been written. Errors in verbal forms, subjectverb agreement, and pronoun antecedent
agreement and in case of noun and pronoun
should be avoided.
Mechanics
The use of mechanics is due to
capitalization, punctuation, and spelling
appropriately. This aspect is very important
since it leads readers to understand or
recognize immediately what exactly the writer
means. The use of favorable mechanics in
writing will make the readers easy to
understand the conveyed ideas or the messages
that is stated in writing.
52

Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

1. Capitalization. The use of capitalization in
writing can clarify the ideas. The sentences
are capitalized correctly and they are
utilized to avoid ambiguous meaning and
misunderstanding. Besides, through correct
capitalization of sentences, it also helps the
readers to distinguish one sentence to
others;
2. Punctuation. It can be used as a unit of
meaning and it suggests how the units are
related to each other;
3. Spelling. There are three important rules
followed in using spelling appropriately,
namely:
suffixed
addition,
plural
formation, and handling-error within the
words.

the writer expects the product of writing can be
read by public and can give useful information.
There are seven types of writing classified
by Heard and Tucker in Amilah (2013, p. 17)
as in the following types:
1. Narrative tells a story and its purpose is to
provide information about an event.
2. Descriptive describes the way something
looks like.
3. Process explains something such as how to
do something, how something is done, or
how something works.
4. Compare and contrast point out the
similarities and/or differences between two
or more things.
5. Cause and effect analyze the causes or
factors that brought about an event and
examine the result or consequences of that
event.
6. Problem analysis and solution identify a
problem and offers solutions for that
problem.
7. Persuasion attempts to persuade others to
particular point of view, or tries to convince
others to do something.

Principles/Criteria of Good Writing
There are many criteria of good writing that are
presented by linguists. Cox in Brindley (2005,
p. 149) says that “the best writing is vigorous,
committed, honest and interesting”.
Crimmon (1967) emphasizes that an
effective topical paragraph has four
requirements, namely (1) unity (2)
completeness, (3) order, and (4) coherence (p.
18). Unity discusses at least one topic which
has unity of subject matter; completeness must
state all that readers need to know about the
topic; order means that the information given
in a paragraph is arranged systematically and
follows some reasonable order that readers can
recognize and follow; coherence means that
each sentence must be so tied together that
readers can read the paragraph as a unit, not as
a collection of separate sentences.

Process of Writing
Tompskins & Kenneth (1991) explained
that “it is a linear series of neatly packaged
categories in exploring the writing process”. In
the classroom activities, the stages are merged
and cycled. The students personalize the
process to meet their needs and vary the
process based on the writing assignment. This
notion implies that writing is gradual that
consists of some stages. Furthermore, they
stated that generally there are four stages in the
process of writing such as prewriting, drafting,
revising, and editing. In line with it, Graves in
Johnson (2008:179) explores the five-step of
writing process.

Types of Writing/Essay
Before writing, a writer should decide first
what types or genre of the text that he or she
wants to write. Zainurrahman (2011, p. 36)
states that “it is important, considering that
writing with concerning about certain types of
text or genre oriented writing emphasizes the
social aspect of language use”. It means that

Step 1: Prewriting
According to Graves, prewriting is the
stage where the writer starts to write by
generating ideas. Wyrick (2006:8) argues that
53

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 51-61

some people simply need to start writing to find
a focus. Then, Graves in Johnson (2008:179)
said that “listing, brainstorming, outlining,
silent thinking, conversation with a neighbor,
or power writing are all ways to generate
ideas”. Tompskins & Kenneth (1991) divided
the prewriting activities into background
activities and informal writing strategies. They
elucidate that background activities are the
experiences that provide the knowledge
students need for writing and take many forms,
including drawing, talking, redrafting, and
interviews, while informal writing strategies
includes many forms namely, brainstorming,
clustering, and free writing.

how to use the grammar and spelling functions
on a word processor.
Step 5: Publishing and sharing
Graves says that publishing and sharing
are the stage where students’ writing is shared
with an audience. He adds that writing
becomes real and alive at this point. In
addition, he says that publishing can involve
putting together class books, collections of
writing, school or class newspapers, school or
class magazines, or displaying short samples of
writing in the hall or out in the community.
The Concept of POEW Model
The Nature of POEW model
Sholihat (2012) states that POEW model is
developed by the combination of PredictObserve-Explain (POE) teaching model and
Think-Talk-Write (TTW) teaching strategy.
Joyce (2006) also explains that POE model was
developed by White and Gunstone in 1992 to
uncover individual students’ predictions, and
their reasons for making these into a specific
event. Joyce continued that POE is a strategy
often used in science which works best with
demonstrations
that
allow
immediate
observations and suit Physical and Material
World context. He also adds that mathematics,
particularly in statistics, is a subject where POE
strategy can also work well. It is said that it can
be used for finding out students’ initial ideas;
providing teachers with information about
students’ thinking; generating discussion;
motivating students to want to explore the
concept; generating investigation.
There are three main steps of POE (Joyce,
2006; Solihat, 2012; Sani & Laurent, 2010; and
Juita, 2013) namely:
1. Prediction, that is making hypothesis of an
event.
2. Observation, doing analysis what happen
in the event.
3. Explanation, giving explanation related to
their hypothesis and what have been
happened. Joyce (2006) adds that in this

Step 2: Drafting
Graves says that drafting is the writer’s
first attempt to capture ideas on paper which
quantity is valued over quality. He adds that
when it is done correctly, the draft is rambling,
disconnected accumulation of ideas.
Step 3: Revising
Graves explains that revising stage is
where the piece is revised and reshaped many
times. He argues that the draft stage is like
throwing a large blob of clay on the potter’s
wheel then shaping the blob, adding parts,
taking parts away, and continually molding and
changing. Here the writer looks for flow and
structure. The writer rereads paragraphs and
moves things around.
Step 4: Editing
Graves elucidates that editing is the stage
where the grammar, spelling, and punctuation
errors are corrected. Johnson adds that real
writers edit their writing at the end and also
rely on editors, spell check, and grammar
check. He also says that teaching students to
approximate the writing process used by real
writers means teach them to become authors
and composers of authentic writing. It is to set
up peer editing groups and to teach students

54

Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

and also the students’ paradigm will be
honed.
Besides all those advantages of POEW
model, there are also some disadvantages as in
the following lists:
1. Each step—predict, observe, explain,
write—needs much time to be done.
Therefore, the teacher should estimate the
time for each step.
2. For the first time, the teacher probably
encounters difficulties because the students
are still not accustomed with the process of
the POEW model.
3. There will be some students encountering
difficulty in predicting process without
guidance from the teacher.
4. There will be some students who do not do
the observation as good as their friends’s
because in the explanation step they could
not get information which is related to the
observation from the other students. In this
case, the teacher should walk around to
monitor the students’ activity and check the
students’ note in observation process.
Based on description above, the researcher
will ask the students to prepare their notes
while doing the observation until the end of the
writing step.. The researcher assumes that both
POE and TTW are kinds of cooperative
teaching model. The explain phase in POE and
talk in TTW have the same process in doing the
discussion. Discussion is a kind of cooperative
activity, either in group or in pairs. Harmer
(1998:21) stated that “groupwork is a
cooperative activity: five students, perhaps,
discussing a topic, doing role-play or solving
problem”. He further explains that in group,
students tend to participate more equally, and
they are also more able to experiment and use
the language than they are in a whole-class
arrangement. In pairwork, the students start
talking about something and only one student
talks at a time when the teacher is working with
the whole class.
In another part, Harmer informs that the
students are given chances for greater

stage, the students discuss their observation
result together.
Meanwhile, TTW was developed by Huinker
& Laughlin in 1996 (Sholihat, 2012), it is
explained that there are also three main stages
of TTW, namely:
1. Think. It means thinking about feasible
answer or finding out a solution for a
problem.
2. Talk. It refers to discussion, construction of
some ideas related to the problem. Kuswari
(2012) explained that the process of TTW
strategy will run well in a heterogenic
group which consists of 3-5 students.
3. Write. In this stage, the students are
instructed to write their idea as a result of
their think and talk or discussion process.
4. In their research, Sani & Laurent (2010)
explain that POEW model result has some
advantages as follows:
5. Enabling the students to be active in
teaching and learning process.
6. Giving them chance to construct their
knowledge, communicating their ideas and
discussing their result to comprehend the
problem well, mastery the concepts, and
improve their critical thinking skill.
7. The students’ participation in teaching and
learning process will improve through
POEW model because they are involved
directly in every stage of the teaching and
learning process as follows:
a. Making hypothesis of the problem that
can galvanize their critical thinking
skill;
b. Doing experiment to test their
prediction. By observing directly, the
students are able to differentiate
theories and realities;
c. Explaining through group discussion
and writing down the result by using
their own words. Oral and written
communication is really important
because through communication, the
ideas can be used in every perspective;
55

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 51-61

independence through both pairwork and
groupwork. Because they are working together
without the teacher controls in every move,
they take some of their own learning decisions,
they decide what language to use to complete a
certain task, and they can work without the
pressure of the whole class listening to what
they are doing. Decisions are cooperatively
arrived at and responsibilities are shared.
Fountain in Brindley (2005:50) explains
ways to organize small-group work which will
encourage pupils to review their current
understandings. According to him, three
examples of classroom strategies are as
follows:
1. Brainstorm, e.g. pairs quickly remember
and write down three reasons why people
write poetry, then share their ideas with
another pair, rework them and appoint one
person to feel back to a whole-class scribe
2. Talk patterns can be asked to interview
each other to find out what their partner
thinks or know about x or y.
3. Talk partners can be given a minute to
review what they did at the last session and
what they hope to achieve in.

4. Writing. In this step, the students reflect
their knowledge and opinion in written
form. According to Masingila & Wisnioska
(1996:95), writing helps the students to
express their knowledge and idea. They
explain further that the advantages of
students’ writing for the teacher are: (a)
direct communication in written form from
whole class, (b) information about
mistakes, misconception, thinking habit,
and the students’ belief, (c) the variance of
students’ concept from the same idea, and
(d) evident of students’ achievement or
performance. In addition, Rivard & Straw
(2000:29) state that analytical writing is an
important
tool
for
transforming
rudimentary ideas into knowledge that is
more coherent and structured.
Those steps are implemented by the
researcher in conducting this study. They were
modified to suit the teaching and learning
English writing.
METHOD OF THE RESEARCH
The method used by the researcher in this
study was a quasi-experimental method which
involved two classes with different treatment,
namely experimental and control classes. The
experimental class received a treatment
through POEW model meanwhile the control
class was treated through a conventional
method. The control class was needed in order
to compare whether the treatment of
experimental class was more effective than the
conventional method or not. The design is
presented as follows:

The Process of POEW Model
The main steps of POEW according to
Sholihat (2012) are combining the steps of
POE and TTW as in the following description:
1. Predicting. In this step, the students have to
think first or predict about a problem as a
step to get in to their knowledge which is
related to the problem. According to
Samosir (2010:12), predict and think stages
are identical.
2. Observing. The main goal of this step is to
prove the students’ prediction in the first
step.
3. Explaining. In this step, the students are
doing discussion related to their
observation result. By doing discussion, the
students’ comprehension can be improved.
Samosir (2010:12) says that explain stage
is identical to talk stage.

Research Design
Gay (2006:256) shows the following
two pretest-posttest group research design
which was used by the researcher.
Table 1. Research design
Class
E
C

56

Pre-Test
O1
O1

Treatment
X1
X2

Post-test
O2
O2

Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

Where:
E
: Experimental Class
C
: Control Class
O1 : Pre-test
O2 : Post-test
X1 : The treatment for experimental class
X2 : The treatment for control class
The data were collected from both pretest
and posttest. The procedures of data in this
research were:
1. Pre-test
The researcher gave the pre-test before
giving treatment to the students both in
experimental and control group. Its
purpose was to measure and define the
students’ prior ability in writing. This test
used writing test by giving some topics to
the students. The students had to explore
their ideas in written form or essay without
cheating to their neighbor/friends. The
processes were:
a. The
researcher
explained
the
procedure of the test to the students.
b. The researcher distributed the test to
the students.
c. The researcher asked the students to
read the instruction carefully before
doing the test.
d. The researcher let the students to do
the test.
e. The researcher asked the students to
submit their work.
2. Post-test
The post-test was given after the students
of experimental and control group
administered the treatment. It was given to
find out the significant improvement of the
students’ writing skill after being treated
through POEW model. The process was
similar to pretest process.

students through the data that had been
analyzed through SPSS program with version
21.0.
The result of the students’ writing ability
in pretest was shown in the following table and
histogram.
Table 2. Students’ writing ability in pretest
Statistics
Experimental Control
Valid
25
28
N
Missing
3
0
Mean
61.24
61.36
Median
63.00
61.50
Mode
60a
61
Std. Deviation
8.719
7.804
Variance
76.023
60.905
Range
35
32
Minimum
40
43
Maximum
75
75
Sum
1531
1718
a. Multiple modes exist. The smallest value
is shown

In the table above, it can be seen that the
mean score of experimental group was slightly
similar with the control group’s but the median
in experimental group was higher than in
control group’s. The mode, standard deviation
and variance of control group were lower than
the experimental group’s. Besides that, the
minimum and score of the control group was
also higher than experimental group’s. The
result indicated that the prior ability of the
students in control group was categorized fair
than the experimental group. The category was
based on UMPAR scoring classification.
The following table shows the students’
classification in pretest based on UMPAR
score classification.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
In the following description, the
researcher presents the writing ability of the

57

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 51-61

Table 3. Students’ score classification in pretest
No

Range Percentage

Classification

1
2
3
4
5

85% - 100%
70% - 84%
55% - 69%
50% - 54%
0% - 49%
Total

Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor

Based on the data in the table above, it
showed that most of students in both
experimental and control group were
categorized fair. 76% - 8.57% students were in
this category. Only few of them (about 8%10.71%) were categorized good and very poor.
No one was categorized very good from both
groups. This indicated that most students in
pretest were difficult to generate their ideas in
constructing an essay in the form of narrative
text, in this case.
The following table shows the students
writing score in posttest.

F
0
3
22
0
3
28

Control
(%)
0%
10.71%
78.57%
0%
10.71%
100%

The perceding table showed that there was an
improvement of mean score, median, mode,
minimum and maximum score from both
groups in posttest but the experimental group
was extremely higher than the control group’s.
Besides that, standard deviation, variance, and
range in experimental group was lower than in
control group’s. It can be assumed that there
was a significant improvement of students’s
writing from both groups but the experimental
group was more significant than the control
group’s. The data showed that the mean score
of most students in experimental group was
categorized good while the students in control
group were categorized fair. The students’s
score classification is shown in the following
table:

Table 4. Students’ writing ability in posttest
Statistics
Experimental
Valid
25
N
Missing
3
Mean
72.40
Median
77.00
Mode
77
Std. Deviation
7.832
Variance
61.333
Range
25
Minimum
55
Maximum
80
Sum
1810

Experimental
F
(%)
0
0%
2
8%
19
76%
1
4%
3
12%
25
100%

Control
28
0
62.46
63.50
70
8.364
69.962
33
42
75
1749

58

Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

Table 5. Students’ score classification in posttest
No

Range Percentage

Classification

1
2
3
4
5

85% - 100%
70% - 84%
55% - 69%
50% - 54%
0% - 49%
Total

Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor

The data in the table above presents that
none student was categorized very good but the
frequency of the students in both groups in this
category was improved. The frequency of the
students in experimental group was extremely
increased from 8% in pretest to 80% in
posttest. Whereas in control group, the
frequency of students in good category was
also increased from 10.71% in pretest to
21.42% in posttest. In the meantime, the
frequency of the students in fair category both
in experimental and control groups was
decreased. In experimental group, only 20%
students were categorized fair and none was

Experimental
F
(%)
0
0%
20
80%
5
20%
0
0%
0
0%
25
100%

F
0
6
19
0
3
28

Control
(%)
0%
21.42%
67.85%
0%
10.71%
100%

categorized poor and very poor. Meanwhile,
67.85% students were categorized fair, none
was categorized poor, and 10.71% students
were categorized very poor in control group.
The data indicated that most of students’
writing ability in experimental group was more
improved than the students’s in control group.
The following table is a result of
multiplication of the data through SPSS
program. The data in the table shows the
answer of the research question about the
significant difference resulted from t-test
value.

Table 6. T-test: Paired Samples Test
Paired Differences

Pair 1

Mean

Std.
Deviation

Std. Error
Mean

Pretest - -11.160
Posttest

5.850

1.170

The result of t-test in the table above
shows that the significant value was lower than
the probability value (0.05). This means that
there was a significant difference between the
students’ writing ability before and after
treated through POEW model. Whereas, the
students’ writing ability was improved
significantly in posttest. This data was

t

95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-13.575
-8.745 -9.538

df

24

Sig. (2tailed)

.000

supported by the research result found by Sani
and Laurent (2012). They conclude that
students’ learning achievement was better
taught through POEW learning model. In
addition, Juita (2013) argues that the
implementation of POEW model motivated
the students to study because the students could
observe their prediction directly.
59

International Journal of Language Education, Vol. 1 No. 1, March 2017 pp. 51-61

Based on the research findings, the
researcher found that teaching writing through
POEW model can be used to improve the
students’ writing ability more significantly
than the students who teach in a conventional
way. This result was proven by the results of
students’ writing test which were conducted in
pretest and posttest. The score in pretest
showed that the students’ mean score in
experimental and control classes was almost
equivalent (61.24 in experimental and 61.36 in
control) which was then categorized as fair
based on UMPAR score classification and the
standard deviation in experimental was higher
(8.719) than in control class (7.804) which
indicated that the students’ writing ability was
quite various in the class. Whereas the score in
posttest showed that the mean score of the
students’ writing ability in experimental class
was extremely improved with 72.40 which was
then categorized as good. Its standard deviation
was also decerased with 7.832. Meanwhile, in
control class, the mean score of the students’
writing ability was also increased with 62.46
which was lower than the former.
This study supports some related previous
researches. Sani & Laurent (2012) conducted
their research in physics by using POEW
model but they did not use video as in this
research. They used visual aids that were
frequently used in physics instructions. In their
research, they distinguished their students’
ability in experimental and control groups. The
results were 74.97 for experimental group and
73.05 for control group. Even though, their
research design used only one group pretestposttest in time series design, their result
showed the difference between the students’
ability which was treated by POEW and and
which was not. In line with it, Supriyati (2013)
who also conducted her research in physics
found that there was an improvement of her
students’ ability who were taught using POEW
model and POE model. The students’ gained
score after treated through POEW model was
0.63. While, the students who were treated

through POE model gained 0.50 score. These
results supported this study which also found
an improvement of the students’ writing ability
after treated through POEW model.
Moreover, Juita (2013) also found in her
research that the studets’ concept mastery in
learning physics was improved after being
treated through POEW model. She also found
that the students were motivated to study
physics because they observed their prediction
directly. Likewise, in this study, the students
did direct observasion by watching the video to
prove whether the words that they predicted
would be used in the video or not. Therefore,
they focused more their attention on watching
the video before rewriting the story in the
video. Besides in physics, Suspriati (2012) in
her research used POEW model in teaching
biology. She combined it with SETS approach
and PBL model. Her research result also
showed her students’s improvement after
applying POEW model in her class.
In conducting this study, the researcher
was confronted with time zone. This study took
too much time because of the length of time to
use to watch the video. The purpose to watch
the video was to clarify the students’s
prediction. The researcher also encountered the
other problem, that was, time management in
the class. Therefore, it was suggested that the
time duration of watching the video and the
kinds of activities applied in the class should
be paid more attention in writing class. Even
though the researcher faced those problems,
she could finish the study and found that the
students’s writing was improved significantly
after treated through POEW model.
REFERENCES
Tompskins, Gail E. & Kenneth Hoskisson.
(1991). Language Arts. Content and
Teaching
Strategies.
New
York:
Macmillan Publishing Company.
Huinker, D. & Laughlin, C. (1996). Talk Your
Way into Writing. In P. C. Elliot, and M.
J. Kenny (Eds). Communication in
60

Sianna and Syawal, The Implementation of POEW in Teaching Writing

Matematics, K-12 and Beyond. USA:
NCTM.
Masingila, J.O & Wisniowska, E.P. (1996).
Develoving and Assessing Mathematical
Understanding in Calculus thorough
Writing. In P.C Elliot and M.J Kenny
(Eds). Yearbook Communication in
Mathematics K-12 and Beyond. Reston
VA: The National Council of Teacher of
Mathematics.
Harmer, Jeremy. (1998). How to teach English.
England: Longman.
Rivard L. P. & Straw, S. P. (2000). The effect
of talk and writing on learning science: An
exploratory study. Journal of Science
Education, 84(5), 566-593.
Brindley, Susan. (2005). Teaching English.
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes: Taylor &
Francis e-Library.
Gay, L. R. (2006). Educational Research,
Competencies
for
Analysis
and
Application. Eight Edition. Columbus,
Ohio: Merrill Prentice Hall, Pearson
Education Inc.
Joyce, Chris. (2006). Predict, Observe,
Explain (POE). Retrived fromarb.nzcer
website:
http://arb.nzcer.org.nz/strategies/poe.php,
Hughes, Arthur. (2008). Testing for Language
Learners, UK, Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Johnson, Andrew P. (2008). Teaching Reading
and Writing: A Guidebook for
Tutoringand
Remediating
Students.
United States of America: Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
UMPAR. (2008). Pedoman Akademik
Universitas Muhammadiyah Parepare.
Parepare.
Samosir, Heppy. (2010). Model Pembelajaran
Predict-Observe-Explain-Write (POEW)
untuk Meningkatkan Penguasaan Konsep
Kalor dan Keterampilan Berpikir Kritis
Siswa SMA. Unpublished Thesis.
Bandung: PPS UPI Bandung.

Zainurrahman. (2011). Menulis dari Teori
Hingga Praktik. Bandung: CV. Alfabeta.
Kuswari, Usep. (2012). Model Pembelajaran
Menulis dengan Teknik Think-Talk-Write
(TTW).Retrived fromfile.upi website:
http://file.upi.edu/direktori/fpbs/jur._pend
._bahasa_daerah/195901191986011usep_kuswari/model_pembelajaranmenul
is_dengan_teknikthik.pdf
Sani, Ridwan Abdullah & Laurent Febrina
Anggryani Sinaga. (2012). Improvement
of Student Competency in Physics Using
Predict-Observe-Explain-Write (POEW)
Learning Model at Senior High School.
Jurnal Penelitian Inovasi Pembelajaran
Fisika. ISSN 2085-5281.. Retrived from
jurnalagfi
website:
http://jurnalagfi.org/wpcontent/uploads/2
013/03/Artikel-Ridwan-1-7.pdf.
Sholihat, Rizky Nur. (2012). Model
Pembelajaran POEW (Predict, Observe,
Explain and Write. Retrieved from
rofayuliaazhar
website:
http://www.rofayuliaazhar.com/2012/12/
model-pembelajaran-poew-predictobserve.html
Amilah,
(2013).
Enriching
English
Instructional Material to Improve The
Students’ Writing Ability Through Mind
Mapping SMP Negeri 2 Pinrang.
Unpublished Thesis: Pps UMPAR.
Heard, James (Ed.). (2013). Advanced Writing:
An Accelerated Method for University
Students.
Juita, Dewi (Ed.). (2013). Predict-ObserveExplain-Write Model: Bagaimana Model
Pembelajaran Tersebut Meningkatkan
Pemahaman Konsep dan Motivasi Siswa
Terhadap Materi Fisika? Prosiding
Seminar Kontribusi Fisika 2013 (SKF
2013), 2-3 Desember 2013, Bandung,
Indonesia. Retrieved from prosiding:
http:prosiding.papsi.org/index.php/SFN/a
rticle/view/545/556

61