Getsempena English Education Journal
Volume 9, Number 2, 2022 pp. 91-97
P-ISSN: 2355-004X E-ISSN : 2502-6801
Open Access: https://ejournal.bbg.ac.id/geej

TEACHING WRITING DESCRIPTIVE TEXT THROUGH RESPONDED
THEMATIC WRITING TASK
Laila Wati*1 , Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari
Prasetyaningrum5
1,2,3,4,5Universitas Hamzanwadi
* Corresponding Author: ladyazzurry@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
This study aims at finding the effectiveness of Responded
Article history:
Received August 10, 2022
Thematic Writing Tasks in teaching writing descriptive text
Revised September 11, 2022
to develop students’ fluency in writing. This research is a
Accepted October 12, 2022
pre-experimental research with pretest-posttest design. The
Available online November 30, 2022
sample of this research was 32 students of semester 2A of
Keywords:
Study Program of English Language Education of
responded thematic technique,
Hamzanwadi University in the academic year 2021-2022. A
teaching writing, descriptive text.
writing test was used to collect the data. The data were then
analyzed by using descriptive statistic, and paired sample
T-test was used to test the hypothesis. Based on the result of
the study, the mean score of the pretest was 63.28 while the posttest was 78.75. This shows
that the mean score in the posttest was higher than the mean score in the pretest.
Additionally, the sig score was at 0.00 < 0.05, so the hypothesis (Ha) of this study was
accepted. It implies that Responded Thematic Writing Tasks was significantly effective in
developing students’ fluency in writing descriptive text. It is suggested that English
teacher use Responded Thematic Writing Tasks as an alternative technique in teaching
writing.
ARTICLE INFO

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license.
Copyright © 2021 by Author. Published by Universitas Bina Bangsa Getsempena

INTRODUCTION
Language is the most primary source for us to communicate each other (Bridgman
et al., 2020). There are thousand languages in this world. Each country has its own
language to communicate whether it is a national language or local language spoken and
understand by their people.
In this global world, English cannot be ignored and denied since according to Rao
(2019), (Smith, 2015), Efrizal (2012), English is the most common language spoken almost
in every country, and currently it is the language of most business, cultural, and
educational activates among countries in the world. Thus, English language is one of
languages that must be mastered in this era.
In response to the importance of mastering English, many countries include English
as second or foreign language in their school syllabus and start learning English at a
young age. English includes four skills in the instructional process: listening, speaking,
P-ISSN: 2355-004X E-ISSN : 2502-6801

| 91

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

reading, and writing. These skills are related to each other and cannot be independent.
Therefore, learners need to master all of the four skills. This is supported by Kyrpychenko
et al., (2021) who state that mastering language skills will determine the students’
communicative competence in the target language.
Among the four skills, writing seems to be the most complicated one to acquire.
Bulqiyah et al. (2021) state that writing is the most difficult skill for second language and
foreign language learners. This might be because writing takes many to consider. Writing
is not only generating and organizing ideas (Gregg & Steinberg, 2016) of our mind, but
also translating these ideas into a readable text (Bulqiyah et al., 2021). Based on their
arguments, it seems common that many learners –particularly those of foreign language
learners—have some degrees of difficulties in writing. Therefore, some efforts need to be
done in order to maintain or improve the students’ writing skill.
Through all the types of writing, English learners tend to have the same problems as
many students do not write coherently and ignore the importance of aspects in writing.
According to Ningsih (2016) and Apsari (2018), the most difficult thing probably to do in
writing are producing coherent, fluent, and extended ideas of writing. Besides, the
challenge in writing is, according to Jairos et.al. (2012), ensuring fluent—linguistically
competent—piece of writing.
Fluency is an essential component in writing ability and development (Abdel Latif,
2013), so it should be promoted to help develop English for foreign learners’ (EFL) writing
ability. Fluency is defined as the number of words within a writing (Baba & Nitta, 2014).
However, fluency does not only deal with the number of words, it deals more with the
appropriateness of word structure, how well the vocabulary is used, and how smooth the
content of a writing is.
In order to develop fluency in writing, teachers need to elaborate the basic pattern of
responded thematic tasks. What is meant by responding in this study is that the writing
tasks handed are given responses in order to give learners a chance to write for
purposeful communication, while thematic is meant that the writing tasks train the
learners to focus their writing on a determined theme.
Response in common can be interpreted when someone gives a reaction through
thoughts, attitudes, and behavior (Chen, Kim, & Chan, 2022). In general, the response can
be interpreted as a result or impression obtained from an observation. Response can be in
form of written or oral feedback. Responded in this study meant that the writing tasks
handed in are given responses in order to give learners a chance to write for purposeful
communication.
Responses from a teacher of writing are usually given when the writing class
commit to have a dialogue journal. In spite of giving response only on students’ dialogue
journal, giving responses to whatever –in any form—they write is the duty of teachers.
There is no specified recommendation, however about how the teacher should give the
responses and how long the responses should be. This allows teachers to offer any simple
comprehensible response to the learners’ writing.
Thematic writing is usually assigned to learners when they have to write a
paragraph on one central idea that is limited by the topic sentence (Doolan, 2021). This is
also the case when learners have to write an essay. In writing an essay, learners are

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 92

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

required to write specified in line with the ideas in a thesis statement. This thesis
statement then is develop into supporting paragraphs. In writing paragraphs or an essay,
the conclusion may be given. The conclusion in the paragraph conveys the ideas of the
topic which states the thesis and introductory paragraph. In short, thematic writing takes
learners to focus on their topic in writing. In order to bring strength in writing, response
and theme in the responded writing tasks are integrated.
Dealing with the essence of responded thematic writing task, this research is aimed
at examining the effectiveness of applying responded thematic writing tasks in
developing fluency in students’ writing descriptive text. The result of this research is
expected to give information about how important teachers’ response is toward students’
writing development. It also encourages teachers/lecturers to keep giving responses to
students’ piece of assigned writing.
RESEARCH METHOD
The study aimed at finding the effectiveness of responded thematic writing task on
students’ fluency in writing descriptive text. In order to reveal it, a pre-experiment
research was conducted. A pre-experimental design is a design that includes only one
group or class that is given pre and post-test (Nappu et al., 2022). This pretest and posttest design was carried out on one group without a control group or comparison group. It
is a quantitative approach since numerical data were gathered and analyzed. According
to Leppink (2017) and Apuke (2017) quantitative approach concerns typically on
numerical data.
This study took place at Hamzanwadi University, where students of the second
semester of Study Program of English Language Education participated. One class
consisted of 32 EFL students was chosen as sample using the purposive sampling
technique. Purposive sampling is a data retrieval technique with specific consideration
(Apostolopoulos & Liargovas, 2016). Because this research is to test the effectiveness of
thematic responded writing, one class among the four classes in the second grade was
taken as the investigated group.
The data in this study were collected through pretest, treatments, and posttest.
These tests were administered to measure the students’ writing ability. Rezeki & Rahmani
(2021) stated the test was method of measuring a person’ level of development or
progress that has been achieved by students after giving a treatment in learning process
within a certain period of time. The pretest was administered before doing the treatment
using responded thematic writing task, and the post-test was ordered after the treatment
to determine the effectiveness of responded thematic writing task in the students’ writing
fluency. The students’ writings were rated based on the elements of writing using the
scoring rubric proposed by Cohen (2001) which covers content, organization, grammar,
vocabulary, and mechanics.
The data collected then were analyzed using descriptive statistic, and paired sample
t-test was used to test the hypothesis. The statistical analysis model was used to describe
and examine the t-test. The alternative hypothesis in this research is that responded
thematic writing task is effective on students’ writing descriptive text in second semester
students of English Language Education Study Program of Hamzanwadi University. A

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 93

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

descriptive statistical analysis was to describe the calculation of mean score and standard
deviation. Furthermore, the hypothesis testing was used to determine the effectiveness of
thematic responded writing.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
After collecting and analyzing the data, the researcher found that responded
thematic writing task was effective in developing students’ fluency in writing descriptive
text. It can be seen from the score of the descriptive statistics where the mean score and
standard deviation in the pretest were lower than in the post-test. The difference of the
scores is summarized in Table 1.
Table. 1. Descriptive Statistic
Mean
Pair 1

N

Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

PreTest

63.28

32

8.387

1.483

PosTest

78.75

32

10.473

1.851

Table 1 shows the differences in students’ average pretest and post-test scores
before and after the treatment implemented. In the descriptive statistic, the average score
in the pretest was 63.28 and 78.75 in the posttest, so it improves 17.47 points from the pretest to the post-test. The findings indicate that responded thematic writing task develop
students’ fluency in writing descriptive text.
Based on the result of the calculation of descriptive statistic using SPSS 22 for
Windows, it was determined that the significance 2 tailed level is 0.00 which was lower
than 0.05. It means that hypothesis is accepted. This concludes that responded thematic
writing is effective in developing EFL learners’ fluency in writing descriptive text.
Learning EFL writing is the last skill to be acquired (Wati, et.al., 2021) as it is
assumed to be the most difficult language skill to learn (Salma, 2015 and Winardi, 2020).
The result of this research proves that writing can be much easier by the teacher’s
responses on the students’ writing product. In implementing this responded thematic
writing, students were provided with learning material in a paper then the students
explored the material deeper in the classroom. More time to practice by the technique
suitable with the teaching and learning writing was provided. Their writing then were
submitted and given written responses.
The responses given to the students’ writing plays very important role as the basis
for them to edit and revise their work. As a response toward the students’ writing,
feedback—according to Bijami, Kashef, & Nejad, (2013)—has come to take an important
part in writing instruction because it provides a flexible platform to help students’ writing
progress. This feedback represent important information especially when students revised
their draft based on the comments given (Cavanaugh & Song, 2014) by the teacher.
Additionally, in this research, the presence of teacher’s feedback on the students’
writing motivate them more to produce much better piece of writings. The students
become more responsible to what they have written on their drafts then fix and complete
their draft into a more developed writing product. In a nutshell, responded thematic
writing task is significantly effective on the EFL learners’ writing.

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 94

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

CONCLUSION
Based on the findings, it is deduced that responded thematic writing task was
significantly effective toward the EFL learners’ ability in writing descriptive text. The
result of this research also shows that the students’ fluency in writing descriptive text
developed better. The responses motivated and helped them advance the choices of
words in their writing.
SUGGESTION
With respect to the process and finding of this study, some suggestions are
offered. This study only included a small number of students in the English Language
Education Study Program. Therefore, further researchers are suggested to carry out the
same research involving larger number of sample.
This research focused only on teaching writing descriptive text and only
administered writing test as the instrument to collect the data, so it provides opportunities
for further researchers to conduct deeper research using more instruments for more detail
data and information.
Referring to the result of this study, it is suggested that EFL teachers/lecturers,
especially writing lecturers, to apply responded thematic writing task to get students’
interest and motivation in learning writing and to give responses to students’ writing
more frequently because it may provide a chance for students to write with a sense of
communication purpose.
REFERENCES
Abdel Latif, M. M. M. (2013). What do we mean by writing fluency and how can it be
validly measured? Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 99–105. Retrieved: 16 August 2022.
Apostolopoulos, N., & Liargovas, P. (2016). Regional parameters and solar energy
enterprises: Purposive sampling and group AHP approach. International Journal of
Energy Sector Management, 10(1), 19–37. Retrieved: 21 August 2022.

Apsari, Y. (2018). Reflective reading journal in teaching writing. Indonesian EFL Journal,
4(2), 39–47. Retrieved; 13 August 2022.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Kuwait
Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 33(5471), 1–8.
Retrieved: 19 August 2022.
Baba, K., & Nitta, R. (2014). Phase transitions in development of writing fluency from a
complex dynamic systems perspective. Language Learning, 64(1), 1–35. Retrieved;
13 August 2022.
Bijami, M., Kashef, S. H., & Nejad, M. S. (2013). Peer feedback in learning English writing:
Advantages and disadvantages. Journal of Studies in Education, 3(4), 91–97.
Retrieved: 21 August 2022.

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 95

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

Bridgman, A., Merkley, E., Loewen, P. J., Owen, T., Ruths, D., Teichmann, L., & Zhilin, O.
(2020). The causes and consequences of COVID-19 misperceptions: Understanding
the role of news and social media. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation
Review, 1(3).
Bulqiyah, S., Mahbub, M., & Nugraheni, D. A. (2021). Investigating Writing Difficulties in
Essay Writing: Tertiary Students’ Perspectives. English Language Teaching
Educational Journal, 4(1), 61–73.
Cavanaugh, A. J., & Song, L. (2014). Audio feedback versus written feedback: Instructors’
and students’ perspectives. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(1), 122.
Retrieved: 21 August 2022.
Chen, H.-T., Kim, Y., & Chan, M. (2022). Just a glance, or more? Pathways from counterattitudinal incidental exposure to attitude (de) polarization through response
behaviors and cognitive elaboration. Journal of Communication, 72(1), 83–110.
Retrieved: 19 August 2022.
Cohen, A.D. 1994. Assessing Language Ability in the Classroom. (2nd Ed).
MA: Heinle & Heinle.

Boston,

Doolan, S. M. (2021). An exploratory analysis of source integration in post-secondary L1
and L2 source-based writing. English for Specific Purposes, 62, 128–141.
Efrizal, D. (2012). Improving students’ speaking through communicative language
teaching method at Mts Ja-alhaq, Sentot Ali Basa Islamic boarding school of
Bengkulu, Indonesia. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2(20),
127–134. Retrieved, August, 12, 2022.
Gregg, L. W., & Steinberg, E. R. (2016). Cognitive processes in writing. Routledge.
Retrieved, August, 12, 2022. Retrieved, August, 12, 2022.
Jairos, G., Rugare, M., Washington, T. D., & Jabulani, S. (2012). Academic writing
challenges at universities in Zimbabwe: A case study of Great Zimbabwe
University. International Journal of English and Literature, 3(3), 71–83. Retrieved; 13
August 2022.
Kyrpychenko, O., Pushchyna, I., Kichuk, Y., Shevchenko, N., Luchaninova, O., & Koval,
V. (2021). Communicative Competence Development in Teaching Professional
Discourse in Educational Establishments. International Journal of Modern
Education & Computer Science, 13(4). Retrieved; 13 August 2022.
Leppink, J. (2017). Revisiting the quantitative–qualitative-mixed methods labels: Research
questions, developments, and the need for replication. Journal of Taibah University
Medical Sciences, 12(2), 97–101. Retrieved: 19 August 2022.
Nappu, S., Dewi, R., Hasnawati, H., & Hamid, R. (2022). The Effect of Online Learning on
Academic Writing Course During Covid-19 Pandemic. VELES Voices of English
Language Education Society, 6(1), 247–257.

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 96

Laila Wati*1, Siti Husna Maab2, Hamzani Wathoni3, Siti Maysuroh4, and Ari Prasetyaningru5 (2022). Journal GEEJ.
Vol.9(2) PP. 91-97

Ningsih, S. (2016). Guided writing to improve the students’ writing ability of junior high
school students. Indonesian Journal of EFL and Linguistics, 1(2), 129–140. Retrieved;
13 August 2022.
Rao, P. S. (2019). The role of English as a global language. Research Journal of English,
4(1),
65–79.
Retrieved
from
https://www.rjoe.org.in/Files/vol4issue1/new/OK%20RJOE-Srinu%20sir(6579).pdf (Retrieved, August, 12, 2022).
Rezeki, Y. S., & Rahmani, E. F. (2021). The implementation of collaborative writing
technique to improve students’ writing performance and soft skill. VELES Voices of
English Language Education Society, 5(2), 81–94.
Salma, U. (2015). Problems and practical needs of writing skill in EFL context: An analysis
of Iranian students of Aligarh Muslim University. IOSR Journal of Humanities and
Social Sciences, 20(11), 74–76. Retrieved: 21 August 2022.
Smith, L. E. (2015). English as an international language: No room for linguistic
chauvinism. Journal of English as a Lingua Franca, 4(1), 165–171. Retrieved, August,
12, 2022.
Wati, L., Maysuroh, S., Wahyuni, S., Yusri, A., & Hindri, N. (2021). Toondoo comic in
teaching speaking (a pre-experiment research). JPPI (Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan
Indonesia), 7(1), 43–47. Retrieved: 21 August 2022.
Winardi, Y. K. (2020). Improving Students’ Writing Skill Using a Mobile Learning
Application. Jurnal Basis, 7(2), 281–290. Retrieved: 21 August 2022.

P-ISSN: 2086-1397 E-ISSN : 2502-6860

| 97