AsiaTEFL V7 N1 Spring 2010 Effects of Extensive Reading On Students Writing Ability in An EFL Class

THE JOUR AL OF ASIA TEFL Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.
285-308, Spring 2010
Effects of Extensive Reading on

Students Writing Ability in an EFL
Class
Wilairat Kirin
akhon Pathom Rajabhat University, Thailand
Theoretical rationale and research evidence from L1, ESL and EFL
supports the relationships between reading and writing as well as the
advantages of encouraging students to read as much as possible to
enhance their writing ability. This paper gives details of a 15 week
reading experiment with a group of Thai EFL learners who were
encouraged to read and, by the end, were then sub-divided for statistical
analysis on the basis of their reading amounts. Designated high and
low groups, this represented the volume of their exposure to
comprehensible input. All subjects had their essay writing abilities
measured every five weeks throughout the entire engagement with
simplified reading books. Research results along with a discussion of
the results provide theoretical as well as unique characteristics of low-
ability learners and reasons why their writing abilities did not improve
despite additional reading involvement over the four months.
Key words: extensive reading, reading comprehension, writing

ability, reading amount, EFL, low proficiency, reading-writing
connection
I!TRODUCTIO!
If any structured comparison is to be made reading and writing must have

several aspects in common. Olsen in her book, for example, contends that
features such as the cognitive strategies underlying the procedures of the two
292
929
Effects of Extensive Reading on Students Writing Ability in an EFL Class
skills require planning and setting goals, tapping prior knowledge, asking
questions and making connections, constructing the gist, monitoring, revising
meaning, reflecting and relating and evaluating (Olson, 2003, p. 17). With
regard to meaning construction, the reading and writing also share similar
processes such as drafting, redrafting and negotiation with each other and so
both the reader and writer should be keeping each other in mind (Olson,
2003). Apart from that, the proficient reader and writer automatically use
their skill, which means they should both read and write actively and
strategically. Similarly, Tierney and Shanahan (1991, cited in Olson, 2003)
believe that both the reader and writer need to make sense either of or with
print through activating their prior knowledge of the topic and genre,
experience, expectations of the reader, writer and culture, and contextual
frames of reference. Overall, it seems that the reader and writer adopt similar
processes while performing tasks including having confidence and motivation
in order to read and write effectively.
As for the pedagogical context, a reader will instinctively pick up
vocabulary and language structures while reading and should be able to make
use of them in their writing work. Consequently, apart from teaching writing
skills separately, a number of teachers make use of reading as a means to
enhance the writing ability of students. For that reason, they create various
strategies to combine the two skills in order to simultaneously achieve their
goals of producing not only a skilful reader but also a capable writer. This is
apparent as a wide range of combined techniques are available in countless
commercial books and in particular on the Internet. The underlying practice
is obvious, use reading as a resource to elaborate on ideas to enhance writing
tasks while at the same time use writing as a learning tool in teaching reading
strategies.
Reading widely and in large quantities or so called extensive reading
(ER) is frequently recommended by well known reading experts such as
Grabe (2002), Eskey (2002), Nuttall (1996), Day and Bamford (1998) as well
as ER researchers as an easy but powerful means to enhance quite a few
language skills. Existing evidence relative to improvements in writing by
303
030
The Journal of Asia TEFL
means of ER have been reported both in surveys and experimental research

with various age groups of learners in the L1, ESL, and EFL contexts. From
surveys, for example, many studies have reported a positive relationship
between the amount of reading students had made and their writing abilities.
Among these, Janopoulos (1986) reported that writing proficiency was
positively correlated with the quantity of time students studying at a U.S.
university spent on pleasure reading but not on L1 pleasure reading. Likewise,
numerous studies such as those by, to name the more prominent ones Kaplan
and Palhinda (1981), Janopoulos (1986), Salyer (1987), Polak and Krashen
(1988), Tudor and Hafiz (1989), Hafiz and Tudor (1990), Constantino (1995)
and Al-Rajhi (2004) have also identified similar findings. However, a number
of studies particularly in the EFL contexts, found no relationships between
reading and writing, e.g. Lai (1993b), Caruso (1994) and Krashen (1996).
My interest was to learn, in a context where a learners proficiency,
motivation, social group and culture does not help their ability to produce
effective written work, whether the writers ability can be enhanced through
exposure to different volumes of language input. In particular, such
surroundings had neither instruction nor practice at writing performed on a
regular basis. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the writing
ability of non-English major EFL learners can be improved through reading a
large number of understandable material. The focus of the investigation was
on the influences of amounts of language input on the participants writing
ability. To reach the conclusion four aspects of reading and writing abilities
are to be addressed: reading amounts, improvement of reading
comprehension, development patterns, and relations between reading
amounts and writing scores. The research findings should shed light on the
extent of the contribution ER makes towards improving the writing ability of
low proficiency EFL learners in this specific context.
313
131
LITERATURE REVIEW
The combined knowledge of theoretical grounds and research evidence

provides useful insight into the complex relation between reading and writing
performance. On a theoretical basis, factors of conditioning by readers as
well as the society and culture in which they reside may have contributed and
shaped their language competence, particularly their writing ability, to a
greater degree. According to Brown (2001, p. 334), writing is culturally
specific, learned behaviours whereas, for Canale and Swain (1980), writing
should be viewed as a manifestation of, as well as the process of manifesting,
sociolinguistic, strategic, and grammatical competences, mediated by the use
of orthographic systems. The implication here is that predicting and
estimating writing ability is a much more complex phenomenon than just
depending exclusively on exposure to language input. Accordingly, at least
the writers nature and motivation, their sociolinguistic and culture, and the
volume of exposure to language input all play important parts in assisting
them to formulate a piece of written work. The fundamental schemata could
possibly cause the writer to choose specific rhetorical elements appropriate to
the target readers as well as the text genres to make the message
understandable in a particular context. The writers experience is thus
essential and beneficial as, according to Silva and Matsuda (2002), writing is
always embedded in a rhetorical situation, i.e. the combined elements in the
context of writing. The fundamental factors adhered to each writer would
then possibly affect their written products and could eventually help justify
the case when the reading and writing relation was found to breakdown.
Gabungan pengetahuan dasar teoritis dan bukti penelitian memberikan wawasan
yang berguna mengenai hubungan kompleks antara kinerja membaca dan menulis.
Secara teoritis, faktor pengkondisian oleh pembaca serta masyarakat dan budaya di
mana mereka tinggal mungkin telah berkontribusi dan membentuk kemampuan
bahasa mereka, terutama kemampuan menulis mereka, sampai tingkat yang lebih
tinggi. Menurut Brown (2001, hal 334), tulisan adalah "perilaku spesifik budaya,"
sedangkan untuk Canale dan Swain (1980), tulisan harus dipandang sebagai
manifestasi, serta proses manifestasi, sosiolinguistik, strategi , dan kompetensi
gramatikal, dimediasi oleh penggunaan sistem ortografi. Implikasinya di sini adalah
bahwa memprediksi dan memperkirakan kemampuan menulis adalah fenomena
yang jauh lebih kompleks daripada hanya bergantung pada paparan masukan
323
232
bahasa. Oleh karena itu, setidaknya sifat dan motivasi penulis, sosiolinguistik dan
budaya mereka, dan volume pemaparan terhadap masukan bahasa semuanya
memainkan bagian penting dalam membantu mereka merumuskan karya tulis.
Skema fundamental dapat menyebabkan penulis memilih elemen retoris tertentu
yang sesuai dengan target pembaca dan juga genre teks untuk membuat pesan
dimengerti dalam konteks tertentu. Pengalaman penulis sangat penting dan
bermanfaat karena menurut Silva dan Matsuda (2002), tulisan selalu tertanam
dalam situasi retoris, yaitu unsur gabungan dalam konteks penulisan. Faktor
fundamental yang dianut oleh masing-masing penulis kemudian dapat
mempengaruhi produk tertulis mereka dan pada akhirnya dapat membantu
membenarkan kasus ketika hubungan membaca dan menulis ditemukan rusak
In terms of research evidence, the majority of ER research concentrated

more on the quantities and length of time readers were exposed to language
input and so the two factors are mainly used as a basis to compare the effects
of ER on a readers writing ability. Different contextual ESL and EFL studies
have reported inconsistent results regarding the influences of reading on
writing abilities of learners across different age groups. With regard to the
extent or volume of exposure to the target language of learners, among the
333
333
studies that found positive relationships between reading amounts and
writing scores there was reported a wide range of quantities and durations of
exposure to input. Given that more emphasis had been placed on quantities of
reading engagement alone, the writing abilities were reported to have been
increased based on various ranges of exposure to the target input. The
following studies are examples of this and are ordered from the least amount
of reading upwards. Hong Kong students who read 14.2 graded readers over
four weeks and had score gains of only 1.1 in a reading comprehension test
did show an increase in their writing scores (Lai, 1993a). In Japan, 100
second year university students who read for a total of 90 minutes per week
and read an average of 759 pages outside the class were found to have
improved their writing ability (Hayashi, 1999). Mason and Krashen (1997)
also report similar findings from 104 English major students reading an
average of 1,500 pages of graded readers and gaining scores in writing with
impressionistic measures. In another case, Japanese college students who
read an average of 2,300 pages over three semesters without any practice or
additional instruction in writing showed an improvement in their writing
ability over the groups with only writing practice (Mason, 2004).
Dari segi bukti penelitian, sebagian besar penelitian ER berkonsentrasi lebih pada
jumlah dan lama pembaca yang terpapar masukan bahasa dan kedua faktor
tersebut terutama digunakan sebagai dasar untuk membandingkan efek ER
terhadap kemampuan menulis pembaca. Studi ESL dan EFL kontekstual yang
berbeda telah melaporkan hasil yang tidak konsisten mengenai pengaruh
pembacaan terhadap kemampuan menulis peserta didik di berbagai kelompok umur.
Berkenaan dengan tingkat atau volume keterpaparan pada bahasa target peserta
didik, di antara
Studi yang menemukan hubungan positif antara jumlah membaca dan nilai tulisan
dilaporkan memiliki berbagai jumlah dan durasi pemaparan terhadap masukan.
Mengingat bahwa penekanan lebih pada jumlah keterlibatan membaca saja,
kemampuan menulis dilaporkan meningkat berdasarkan berbagai rentang
pemaparan pada masukan target. Studi berikut adalah contoh dari hal ini dan
dipesan dari jumlah pembacaan yang paling sedikit ke atas. Siswa Hong Kong yang
membaca 14,2 pembaca bergradasi selama empat minggu dan memperoleh
keuntungan hanya 1,1 dalam tes pemahaman bacaan menunjukkan peningkatan
nilai tulisan mereka (Lai, 1993a). Di Jepang, 100 mahasiswa kelas dua yang
membaca total 90 menit per minggu dan membaca rata-rata 759 halaman di luar
kelas ternyata telah meningkatkan kemampuan menulis mereka (Hayashi, 1999).
Mason dan Krashen (1997) juga melaporkan temuan serupa dari 104 siswa besar
Inggris yang membaca rata-rata 1.500 halaman pembaca berbobot dan memperoleh
skor secara tertulis dengan tindakan impresionistik. Dalam kasus lain, mahasiswa
Jepang yang membaca rata-rata 2.300 halaman selama tiga semester tanpa latihan
atau instruksi tambahan secara tertulis menunjukkan peningkatan kemampuan
menulis mereka terhadap kelompok yang hanya memiliki praktik menulis (Mason,
2004).
343
434
With regards to the length of time spent reading, empirical evidence drawn
from experiments, particularly with ESL learners, reports an improvement in
writing as a result of engaging in wide reading, even of a relatively short
duration. In an as short as a ninety-hour study, for example, Hafiz and Tudor
(1990) found that there were significant gains in both the fluency and
accuracy of the use of expressions by the subjects, though not in the range of
structures used. Advice drawn from the research is that ER can provide
learners with a set of linguistic models, which may then by a process of over-
learning, be assimilated and incorporated into the learners active L2
repertoire. In their other study, Tudor and Hafiz (1989) set up a three-month
ER programme using graded reading books to improve the learners
language competency. Results demonstrated an improvement in the learners
reading and writing skills and a simpler but more correct use of syntax in the
L2. Similarly, in a one-semester reading class of adult lower intermediate
353
535
students in the U.S. Constantino (1995) reported that as the course progressed, more and more students
not only wrote journal entries but the length of these entries increased.
Berkenaan dengan lamanya waktu yang digunakan untuk membaca, bukti empiris
yang diambil dari eksperimen, terutama dengan peserta didik ESL, melaporkan
adanya peningkatan dalam penulisan sebagai hasil pembacaan yang luas, bahkan
dalam durasi yang relatif singkat. Dalam sekurang-kurangnya sembilan puluh jam
belajar, misalnya, Hafiz dan Tudor (1990) menemukan bahwa ada keuntungan
signifikan baik dalam kefasihan dan keakuratan penggunaan ungkapan oleh subjek,
meskipun tidak dalam kisaran struktur yang digunakan. Saran yang diambil dari
penelitian ini adalah bahwa ER dapat memberi peserta didik seperangkat model
linguistik, yang mungkin kemudian melalui proses belajar berlebih, diasimilasi dan
digabungkan ke dalam daftar pengikut aktif L2 peserta didik. Dalam studi mereka
yang lain, Tudor dan Hafiz (1989) membuat program ER tiga bulan dengan
menggunakan 'buku bacaan bertingkat' untuk meningkatkan kompetensi bahasa
peserta didik. Hasil menunjukkan peningkatan kemampuan membaca dan menulis
peserta didik dan penggunaan sintaks yang lebih sederhana namun lebih tepat di
L2. Demikian pula, dalam kelas membaca semester satu dewasa menengah bawah
Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

EFL
siswa di A.S. Constantino (1995) melaporkan bahwa seiring berjalannya waktu,

semakin banyak siswa tidak hanya menulis entri jurnal namun panjang entri ini
meningkat
While positive gains in writing scores resulting from reading a lot of books
have been reported more often with ESL learners, for EFL learners more
negative results have been revealed both from short- and long-term reading
engagements in several contexts. For example, Lee and Krashen (1996)
found that a group of 318 high school students in Taiwan had a positive but
343
434
very modest relationship between measures of free voluntary reading and
their writing ability. In a nine-week experiment by Caruso (1994) eight
classes of Spanish 4 students read and summarised a variety of interesting
material during the first 15 minutes of each class while the control groups
spent the first 15 minutes of class practicing productive skills involving
speaking or writing. After the experiment the writing complexity of the texts
produced by the students was evaluated comparing pre- and post-test mean T-
unit lengths. Statistics showed that there was no significant difference in the
writing scores of students in any of the groups. Also, Lai (1993b) reported
that four out of eight groups of 345 Hong Kong secondary students who read
extensively for one year gained vocabulary recognition, listening
comprehension, and reading speed; however, they did not outperform the
control groups in the areas of reading comprehension and writing ability.
Over a two lesson period the experimental groups were taught intensive
reading for one lesson, and the second was spent reading on their own in a
low-filtered environment, whereas those in the control groups were taught
intensive reading for both lessons. Measures of sentence writings showed
that two of the ER groups significantly outperformed the control groups but
two did worse. Based on this evidence it is not clear whether repeatedly
encountering numerous words and grammatical structures through ER does
contribute to the improvement of writing ability in specific groups of
learners.
Previous findings report both positive and negative relationships depending
on the quantity of reading and length of exposure to the language.
Nevertheless, inconsistent results taken from just a part of the empirical
evidence on what
353
535
is known about the relationship between reading comprehensible texts and

writing competency seem to suggest that there is no systematic correlation
between the two variables. This seems applicable particularly among EFL
learners and, as a result, leads to verification of the phenomenon through this
study with the aim to scrutinise the relation of reading and writing in the
context where much less supporting factors are contributed.
Sementara keuntungan positif dalam menulis skor yang dihasilkan dari membaca
banyak buku telah dilaporkan lebih sering terjadi pada peserta didik ESL, karena
pembelajar EFL hasil yang lebih negatif telah terungkap baik dari kegiatan membaca
jangka pendek maupun jangka panjang dalam beberapa konteks. Misalnya, Lee dan
Krashen (1996) menemukan bahwa sekelompok siswa SMA di Taiwan memiliki
hubungan positif tapi sangat sederhana antara ukuran pembacaan sukarela dan
kemampuan menulis mereka secara gratis. Dalam sebuah eksperimen sembilan
minggu oleh Caruso (1994), delapan kelas siswa 'Spanyol 4' membaca dan
merangkum berbagai materi menarik selama 15 menit pertama setiap kelas
sementara kelompok kontrol menghabiskan 15 menit pertama kelas untuk
mempraktikkan keterampilan produktif yang melibatkan berbicara atau menulis
Setelah percobaan, kompleksitas penulisan teks yang dihasilkan oleh siswa
dievaluasi membandingkan rata-rata pre-and post-test T-unit. Statistik menunjukkan
bahwa tidak ada perbedaan signifikan dalam nilai penulisan siswa pada kelompok
manapun. Juga, Lai (1993b) melaporkan bahwa empat dari delapan kelompok yang
terdiri dari 345 siswa SMA Hong Kong yang membaca secara ekstensif selama satu
tahun mendapatkan pengakuan kosa kata, pemahaman mendengar, dan kecepatan
membaca; Namun, mereka tidak mengungguli kelompok kontrol di bidang
kemampuan membaca dan menulis. Selama dua periode pelajaran, kelompok
eksperimen diajari membaca intensif untuk satu pelajaran, dan yang kedua
dihabiskan untuk membaca sendiri di lingkungan yang saring rendah, sedangkan
kelompok kontrol diajari membaca intensif untuk kedua pelajaran tersebut. Ukuran
tulisan kalimat menunjukkan bahwa dua kelompok ER secara signifikan mengungguli
kelompok kontrol namun dua lainnya mengalami keadaan buruk. Berdasarkan bukti
ini, tidak jelas apakah berulang kali menghadapi banyak kata dan struktur
gramatikal melalui ER berkontribusi terhadap peningkatan kemampuan menulis
pada kelompok pelajar tertentu.
Temuan sebelumnya melaporkan hubungan positif dan negatif tergantung pada
jumlah pembacaan dan lamanya pemaparan terhadap bahasa tersebut. Namun
demikian, hasil yang tidak konsisten hanya diambil dari bukti empiris tentang apa
363
636
Jurnal Asia TEFL
diketahui tentang hubungan antara membaca teks yang dapat dipahami dan
kompetensi menulis nampaknya menunjukkan bahwa tidak ada korelasi sistematis
antara kedua variabel tersebut. Hal ini tampaknya berlaku khususnya di kalangan
pelajar EFL dan, sebagai hasilnya, mengarah pada verifikasi fenomena melalui
penelitian ini dengan tujuan untuk meneliti hubungan antara membaca dan menulis
dalam konteks di mana faktor penunjangnya kurang banyak.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Study Sample
The experiment was conducted on 34 second year non-English major

undergraduates from a random selection made among those students who had
registered for the Fundamental Reading course at Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat
University in Thailand in the academic year 2007. The participants were not
taking any other English-related courses during the experimental period.
Most students were post-beginners of English but five were considered
slightly stronger. These students came from middle-to low-income families
so their chance of exposure to English outside the classroom such as through
satellite TV, English material and media was rare and also their motivation to
become proficient readers and writers was also relatively low.
Percobaan dilakukan pada 34 tahun mahasiswa non-Inggris kelas dua dari seleksi
acak yang dilakukan di antara siswa-siswa yang telah mendaftar untuk kursus
'Membaca Dasar' di Universitas Nakhon Pathom Rajabhat di Thailand pada tahun
ajaran 2007. Peserta tidak mengambil kursus bahasa Inggris lainnya selama masa
percobaan. Sebagian besar siswa adalah pemula pemula bahasa Inggris namun lima
orang dianggap sedikit lebih kuat. Siswa-siswa ini berasal dari keluarga menengah
ke bawah sehingga kesempatan mereka terpapar bahasa Inggris di luar kelas seperti
melalui TV satelit, materi bahasa Inggris dan media jarang terjadi dan juga motivasi
mereka untuk menjadi pembaca dan penulis yang mahir juga relatif rendah.
Instruments
The instruments utilised for data collection relating to reading ability were
373
737
a researcher constructed reading comprehension test and a reading log for
recording details of reading. A semi-structured interview script was also
adopted to verify the information recorded by the participants reading
engagement. As for measurement of writing ability, four writing prompts
were used. All instruments were initially verified by language experts in the
field and tried out with students of similar backgrounds.
Instrumen yang digunakan untuk pengumpulan data yang berkaitan dengan

kemampuan membaca adalah peneliti yang membangun tes pemahaman bacaan
dan catatan pembacaan untuk mencatat rincian bacaan. Skrip wawancara semi
terstruktur juga diadopsi untuk memverifikasi informasi yang dicatat oleh
keterlibatan membaca peserta. Sedangkan untuk pengukuran kemampuan menulis,
ada empat perintah penulisan yang digunakan. Semua instrumen awalnya
diverifikasi oleh pakar bahasa di lapangan dan diadili dengan siswa dengan latar
belakang yang sama.
383
838
Research Procedures
Orientation Stage: Prior to the experiment all participants were given an

orientation, covering such areas as how to choose an appropriate book, how
to read for pleasure, how to record their reading, the teacher expectations, and
purposes of the interview.
Reading Engagement Tasks: ER tasks were integrated into a normal
weekly three-consecutive fifty-minute period reading course taught by the
researcher. The reading material participants in the study used consisted of a
reading textbook developed by English teachers from the English Programme
and their own choice from an appropriate range of simplified fiction and non-
fiction books available. In detail, the first part which was used for reading
strategy instruction, the second and sometimes third for motivating activities,
e.g. sharing what they had read, exchanging views on characters, plots, genre,
lessons from the stories and collecting some new words. The remaining time
was used for silent reading of simplified materials of interest. The readers
were also required to read as much as possible out of class and to keep a
record of the amount of reading they had undertaken.
Data Collection
The effects of ER activities, on both the reading and writing abilities of the
participants, were collected concurrently and analysed quantitatively. Data
for the reading abilities was composed of the combined reading amounts and
scores derived from the reading comprehension ability tests, with the former
having greater emphasis as they were used to identify the extent to which
each participant was exposed to the language input. The reading amount of
each participant was totalled at the end of each five week period of the
reading engagement. This gave three sets of data that were then used for
further comparison with their own writing scores which had also been
collected concurrently. In addition, the final reading amounts of individual
participants were used to create two individual reader groups, designated as
393
939
either high and low reading groups. Data representing the writing ability
of the participants consisted of four sets of writing scores collected in the
same sessions as those of the reading amounts. Scores of each piece of
written work were assigned and averaged by two trained raters analytically
using the same system to eliminate bias. The inter-rater reliability values of
the two sets of scores from the Cronbach correlation coefficient was 0.99.
Tahap Orientasi: Sebelum eksperimen semua peserta diberi orientasi, meliputi area
seperti bagaimana memilih buku yang sesuai, cara membaca untuk kesenangan,
cara merekam bacaan, harapan guru, dan tujuan wawancara.
Tugas Keterlibatan Membaca: Tugas ER diintegrasikan ke dalam kursus membaca
tiga kali mingguan tiga kali berturut-turut mingguan yang diajarkan oleh peneliti.
Peserta bacaan dalam penelitian yang digunakan terdiri dari buku teks bacaan yang
dikembangkan oleh guru bahasa Inggris dari Program Bahasa Inggris dan pilihan
mereka sendiri dari rangkaian fiksi dan buku nonfiksi yang disederhanakan yang
tersedia. Secara rinci, bagian pertama yang digunakan untuk membaca instruksi
strategi, yang kedua dan kadang-kadang ketiga untuk memotivasi kegiatan, mis.
berbagi apa yang telah mereka baca, bertukar pandangan tentang karakter, plot,
genre, pelajaran dari cerita dan mengumpulkan beberapa kata baru. Waktu yang
tersisa digunakan untuk pembacaan diam-diam bahan-bahan yang disederhanakan.
Pembaca juga diminta membaca sebanyak mungkin di luar kelas dan menyimpan
catatan jumlah pembacaan yang telah mereka lakukan.
Pengumpulan data
Efek aktivitas ER, baik kemampuan membaca maupun menulis para peserta,
dikumpulkan bersamaan dan dianalisis secara kuantitatif. Data untuk kemampuan
membaca terdiri dari jumlah bacaan gabungan dan skor yang diperoleh dari tes
kemampuan pemahaman bacaan, dan yang pertama memiliki penekanan lebih
besar karena mereka terbiasa mengidentifikasi sejauh mana masing-masing peserta
terpapar masukan bahasa. Jumlah bacaan setiap peserta dihitung pada akhir setiap
periode lima bulan keterlibatan membaca. Ini memberi tiga set data yang kemudian
digunakan untuk perbandingan lebih lanjut dengan nilai tulisan mereka sendiri yang
juga telah dikumpulkan secara bersamaan. Selain itu, jumlah pembaca akhir dari
peserta individual digunakan untuk membuat dua kelompok pembaca individual,
yang ditunjuk sebagai
404
040
Jurnal Asia TEFL
kelompok membaca 'tinggi' dan 'rendah'. Data yang mewakili kemampuan menulis
peserta terdiri dari empat set nilai tulisan yang dikumpulkan dalam sesi yang sama
dengan jumlah pembacaan. Skor masing-masing karya tulis ditugaskan dan dirata-
ratakan oleh dua penilai terlatih yang secara analitik menggunakan sistem yang
sama untuk menghilangkan bias. Nilai reliabilitas inter-rater dari dua set skor dari
koefisien korelasi Cronbach adalah 0,99.
Tes penulisan diberikan sebagai deret waktu, masing-masing lima minggu,
sedangkan tes pemahaman baca hanya diberikan dua kali, sebagai tes awal dan
pasca ujian. Hal ini untuk menghindari pengaruh keterampilan yang mungkin
diambil penguji tes ketika mereka mengalami pertanyaan berulang yang khas
mengenai tes membaca dan karena itu memperoleh nilai bacaan mungkin tidak
mencerminkan kemampuan sebenarnya dari pengambil tes. Dengan tes penulisan
naratif, fakta bahwa tidak ada instruksi atau latihan dan isi dari empat permintaan,
meskipun serupa dalam hal genre, berbeda dalam setiap situasi pengujian, berarti
pengumpulan nilai waktu dari nilai tulisan dipandang tidak mengganggu. dengan
kemampuan menulis peserta dalam penelitian ini.
The writing tests were administered as time series, each at five weeks apart,
while the reading comprehension tests were administered only twice, as a
pre-test and post-test. This was to avoid the effects any skills the test takers
might adopt when they experienced typical repeated questions regarding the
reading tests and as such obtained reading scores might not reflect the true
abilities of the test takers. With the narrative writing tests, the fact that there
was neither instruction nor practice and the contents of the four prompts,
though similar in terms of genre, were different in each testing situation
meant the time-series collection of writing scores was seen as not interfering
with the writing capability of the participants in this study.
Data Analysis
The participants created their own reading records by keeping a written log
of the number of pages they had covered. The total of the three reading
amounts of an individual participant were used for the comparison with their
simultaneously collected writing scores. The Repeated Measures Analysis of
Covariance or RMANCOVA (Johnson & Wichern, 1998) was adopted to
determine the developmental patterns from the data while the correlation
414
141
coefficient (Dowdy & Wearde, 1985) was for measurement of degree of
association of the relationship between reading amounts and writing scores.
The pre and post-tests reading comprehension scores were also divided
according to the reading group that the participants had been placed in and
finally analysed through a t-test to measure their statistical differences.
Overall, four sets of data were analysed through different statistics to address
their corresponding research questions. In all the cases of the findings of
424
242
reading amounts; differences between pre and post reading comprehension

tests; developmental patterns and relationships between reading amounts and
writing scores, the data was classified into the two reading sub-groups of
high and low.
Analisis data
Peserta membuat catatan bacaan mereka sendiri dengan menyimpan catatan

tertulis dari jumlah halaman yang telah mereka bahas. Total dari tiga jumlah
pembacaan peserta individual digunakan untuk perbandingan dengan nilai tulisan
mereka yang dikumpulkan secara bersamaan. Analisis Tindakan Berulang
Covariance atau RMANCOVA (Johnson & Wichern, 1998) diadopsi untuk menentukan
pola perkembangan dari data sementara koefisien korelasi (Dowdy & Wearde, 1985)
adalah untuk pengukuran tingkat hubungan antara jumlah membaca dan menulis
skor Skor pemahaman membaca pra dan pasca tes juga dibagi menurut kelompok
bacaan yang telah ditempatkan peserta dan akhirnya dianalisis melalui tes-t untuk
mengukur perbedaan statistik mereka. Secara keseluruhan, empat set data
dianalisis melalui statistik yang berbeda untuk menjawab pertanyaan penelitian
yang sesuai. Dalam semua kasus temuan

EFL
jumlah membaca; perbedaan antara tes pemahaman pra dan post reading; pola
perkembangan dan hubungan antara jumlah membaca dan nilai tulisan, data
dikelompokkan ke dalam dua sub kelompok pembacaan
'tinggi dan rendah.'
434
343
RESULTS
Reading Amount
At the end of the 15 weeks, all recorded sheets of the individual reading
amounts were totaled. Calculation of data revealed that the lowest and
highest quantities of reading were 79 and 481 pages. Based on an appropriate
value of 250 pages the readers were subsequently separated into two equal
groups of 17 readers labeled as high and low readers. The high group
read an average of 364 pages or around three to four pages a day. The second
group of readers, low, read 147 pages or around one and a half pages a day.
Details of reading done at the three and five week time points are shown in
Table 1.
Pada akhir 15 minggu, semua lembar tercatat dari jumlah pembacaan individual
dihitung. Perhitungan data menunjukkan bahwa jumlah terbawah dan terbawah
adalah 79 dan 481 halaman. Berdasarkan nilai yang sesuai dari 250 halaman,
pembaca kemudian dipisahkan menjadi dua kelompok yang sama dengan 17
pembaca yang diberi label sebagai pembaca 'tinggi' dan 'rendah'. Kelompok 'tinggi'
membaca rata-rata 364 halaman atau sekitar tiga sampai empat halaman sehari.
Kelompok pembaca kedua, 'rendah', membaca 147 halaman atau sekitar satu
setengah halaman sehari. Rincian pembacaan yang dilakukan pada titik waktu tiga
dan lima minggu ditunjukkan pada
TABLE 1
Reading Amounts of the High and LowGroup
Data Collection Series N Min. Max. Mean S.D. High
Time 1 17 23 149 68.18 34.417
Time 2 17 54 306 172.59 69.507
Time 3 17 252 481 364.35 52.817

Low Time 1 17 19 60 34.88 12.155
Time 2 17 46 141 82.59 26.975
Time 3 17 79 247 147.41 49.223
Reading Comprehension Ability
The subsequent division of the participants into the high and low
444
444
groups was based on their reading amounts so the independent t-test statistics
were performed to ensure the two groups were not different in their reading
comprehension at the start of the 15 week study. As shown in Table 2, the t-
test p-value of 0.123 of the pre-tests indicated that the high and low groups
were not different in their reading comprehension ability from the beginning
whereas in the post-tests (0.003), they were (p <0.05).
kelompok didasarkan pada jumlah bacaan mereka sehingga statistik uji t
independen dilakukan untuk memastikan kedua kelompok tidak berbeda dalam
pemahaman bacaan mereka pada awal penelitian selama 15 minggu. Seperti
ditunjukkan pada Tabel 2, nilai pustaka uji 0,2323 dari pre-test menunjukkan bahwa
kelompok tinggi dan rendah tidak berbeda dalam kemampuan pemahaman bacaan
mereka sejak awal sedangkan pada tes pasca (0,003), mereka (p <0,05).
TABLE 2
Comparison of Pre and Post-test of Reading Comprehension
Levenes Test for
t-test for Equality of Means
Equality of Variances
Test Type
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
Variance F Sig. t df.
tailed) Difference Difference
Pre-tests Equal
(High & variances 2.191 0.149 -1.584 32 0.123 -1.94 1.226
Low group) assumed
Post-tests Equal
(High & variances 1.118 0.298 0.298 32 0.003* 0.298 0.298
Low group) assumed
* p <0.05
Further analysis of dependent t-test to compare the pre and post-test scores
of the participants in each group revealed that the compared scores of the
high group were significantly different at a statistical level of 0.05 whereas
those of the low group were not. It can be seen, therefore, that low and high
quantities of exposure to language input does have a different affect on the
reading comprehension of the reader. Although the results of the participants
reading comprehension are not the focus of this study they provide useful
evidence for further analysis: the high group improved their understanding
statistically whereas the low group did not. The rather strong (1.10) effect
454
545
size of the practicality significance signifies the effectiveness of the research
results.
Analisis lebih lanjut tentang uji t bergantung untuk membandingkan skor pra dan
pasca tes peserta di masing-masing kelompok menunjukkan bahwa skor yang
dibandingkan dari kelompok tinggi berbeda secara signifikan pada tingkat statistik
0,05 sedangkan kelompok rendah tidak. Oleh karena itu, dapat dilihat bahwa jumlah
paparan masukan bahasa yang rendah dan tinggi memang memiliki pengaruh yang
berbeda terhadap pemahaman bacaan pembaca. Meskipun hasil pemahaman
bacaan para peserta tidak menjadi fokus penelitian ini, mereka memberikan bukti
yang berguna untuk analisis lebih lanjut: kelompok tinggi meningkatkan
pemahaman mereka secara statistik sedangkan kelompok rendah tidak. Ukuran efek
yang agak kuat (1,10) dari kepraktisan signifikansi menandakan efektivitas hasil
penelitian.
464
646
Writing Ability
According to Table 3, writing scores of the participants in both groups

showed an increasing pattern. However, for the high group, the range of
writing scores was narrower than that of the low group although their reading
amounts at three series were much higher, i.e. 68, 172, and 364 pages
compared to 34, 82, 147 pages of the low group.
Menurut Tabel 3, skor penulisan peserta pada kedua kelompok menunjukkan pola
yang meningkat. Namun, untuk kelompok tinggi, kisaran nilai penulisan lebih sempit
daripada kelompok rendah meskipun jumlah bacaan mereka pada tiga seri jauh
lebih tinggi, yaitu 68, 172, dan 364 halaman dibandingkan dengan 34, 82, 147
halaman yang rendah kelompok.
TABLE 3
Descriptive Statistics of Writing Ability Tests
Group Test N Mean S.D. Std. Error Mean
High Pre 17 47.59 6.246 1.515
1st 17 50.94 6.129 1.486
2nd 17 51.97 7.821 1.897
3rd 17 52.32 7.506 1.821

Low Pre 17 41.71 7.726 1.874
1st 17 42.09 7.523 1.825
2nd 17 46.21 8.378 2.032
3rd 17 45.44 10.247 2.485
Further computation of post hoc RMANCOVA analysis to examine the

mean difference of writing tasks performed by readers in both groups at the
three time points indicated that, for the high group, all the immediate pairs of
writing scores were not significantly different. However, for the low group,
scores of the first writing task were significantly different from those of the
second and third tasks.
Based on the findings, it should be noted here that while reading
approximately 100 pages could statistically increase the writing scores of the
low group this was not observed in the high group. In addition, the mean
scores of writing of those in the high group who read twice as many pages as
the low group did not show any significant difference. As a result, it seems
that the findings do not appear to support any positive connection between
reading input and writing production.
Perhitungan lebih lanjut analisis RMANCOVA post hoc untuk memeriksa perbedaan
rata-rata tugas menulis yang dilakukan oleh pembaca pada kedua kelompok pada
tiga titik waktu menunjukkan bahwa, untuk kelompok tinggi, semua pasangan
langsung nilai tulisan tidak berbeda secara signifikan. Namun, untuk kelompok
rendah, skor tugas menulis pertama berbeda secara signifikan dengan tugas kedua
dan ketiga.
Berdasarkan temuan tersebut, perlu dicatat di sini bahwa saat membaca sekitar 100
halaman secara statistik dapat meningkatkan nilai tulisan kelompok rendah, hal ini
tidak diamati pada kelompok tinggi. Selain itu, nilai rata-rata dari penulisan di
kelompok tinggi yang membaca dua kali lebih banyak halaman karena kelompok
rendah tidak menunjukkan perbedaan yang signifikan. Akibatnya, tampaknya
temuan tersebut tampaknya tidak mendukung adanya hubungan positif antara input
membaca dan produksi tulisan.
Buka di Google Terjemahan

Developmental Patterns of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores
Using SPSS version 16 for the trend analysis among all the categorised
data of the reading amounts and writing scores collected over the treatment
period, there is no apparent systematic pattern of development. That is, the
plotted graphs representing both groups of readers data showed that at any
reading amount completed by the two groups of readers over time their
writing scores could be inconsistently high or low (as shown in Figures 1 &
2). In addition, the r square levels of regression indicated that reading
amounts only predicted writing scores 3% of the time for the low group and
8% for the high group. This is similar to the results revealed by the post hoc
analysis of RMANCOVA and correlation coefficients (to be subsequently
described).
Dengan menggunakan SPSS versi 16 untuk analisis kecenderungan di antara semua
data kategori jumlah pembacaan dan nilai tulisan yang dikumpulkan selama masa
pengobatan, tidak ada pola perkembangan sistematik yang jelas. Artinya, grafik
diplot yang mewakili kedua kelompok data pembaca menunjukkan bahwa pada
setiap jumlah bacaan yang diselesaikan oleh dua kelompok pembaca dari waktu ke
waktu skor tulisan mereka tidak konsisten tinggi atau rendah (seperti yang
ditunjukkan pada Gambar 1 &
2). Selain itu, tingkat r square regresi menunjukkan bahwa jumlah membaca hanya
memprediksi nilai tulisan 3% dari waktu untuk kelompok rendah dan
8% untuk kelompok tinggi. Ini mirip dengan hasil yang diungkap oleh post hoc
analisis RMANCOVA dan koefisien korelasi (untuk kemudian dijelaskan).
FIGURE 1
Developmental Pattern of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores in the
High
Group
FIGURE 2
Developmental Pattern of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores in the Low
Group
Relationships between Reading Amount and Writing Score
The correlation coefficient was adopted to calculate the relationships

between the amounts of reading and the writing scores. According to the
coefficient values relationships between the two variables rarely existed.
Among the six corresponding pairs of reading amounts and writing mean
scores, only one pair, i.e. the second series of reading amounts and writing
mean scores correlated at a moderate level (r = 0.543). The other two series
had no statistical correlation sign and the values tended to show more of a
reverse sign between the two variables such that while the reading amounts
did increase in relation to longer periods of reading engagement, nonetheless,
the correlation values kept decreasing, e.g. from 0.417, 0.534, to 0.246, for
the high group, and from 0.356, 0.273, to 0.187, for the low group,
respectively as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
Koefisien korelasi diadopsi untuk menghitung hubungan antara jumlah pembacaan
dan nilai tulisan. Menurut nilai koefisien hubungan antar dua variabel jarang ada.
Diantara enam pasangan angka bacaan dan nilai rata-rata tulisan yang sama, hanya
satu pasangan, yaitu seri kedua jumlah bacaan dan nilai rata-rata menulis
berkorelasi pada tingkat sedang (r = 0,543). Dua seri lainnya tidak memiliki tanda
korelasi statistik dan nilainya cenderung menunjukkan lebih banyak tanda balik
antara dua variabel sehingga sementara jumlah pembacaan meningkat dalam
kaitannya dengan periode keterlibatan membaca yang lebih lama, namun nilai
korelasi terus menurun, mis. dari 0,417, 0,534, untuk 0,246, untuk kelompok tinggi,
dan dari 0,356, 0,273, sampai 0,177, untuk kelompok rendah, masing-masing
seperti ditunjukkan pada Tabel 4 dan 5.
TABLE 4
Correlation Matrix of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores of the High Group
1st Reading Amounts 2nd Reading Amounts 3rd Reading Amounts
1st Writing 0.356

2nd Writing 0.530* 0.273
3rd Writing 0.432 0.050 0.187
* p <0.05
TABLE 5
Correlation Matrix of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores of the Low Group
1st Reading Amounts 2nd Reading Amounts 3rd Reading Amounts
1st Writing 0.417

2nd Writing 0.426 0.543*
3rd Writing 0.134 0.395 0.246
* p <0.05
The findings derived from quantitative investigation through test of means

equality, trend analysis, and correlation coefficients suggest that reading
amounts and writing ability generally neither increase nor decrease
concurrently. In the case of the correlation, for example, only one pair, out of
six reading and writing data collected at the same time point correlated at a
moderate level. Such a relationship occurred when reading was done at 82
pages on average. The time series analysis also confirmed inconsequential
relationships between reading and writing as no systematic pattern of these
two sets of variables was apparent and furthermore, the post hoc analysis
from RMANCOVA has provided some additional evidence that among all
the immediate pairs of writing mean scores only two sets of writing tasks
produced when the reading was less than 100 pages were found to be
significantly different but reading at a higher extent was not.
The suggestion from this study is that although some small degree of
relationship has been found between reading amounts and writing scores the
overall findings from the three statistical computations do not support the
assertion that a higher exposure to language input leads to an improvement in
writing ability of EFL readers. It is impossible, therefore, to estimate
statistically the exact amount of reading that will affect the readers writing
ability. It is only safe to surmise that the reading amount may possibly be one
indicator that can be used to predict the writing ability of low proficiency
EFL readers. There could be other factors that contribute more effectively to
the writing competency of these learners.
Temuan yang diperoleh dari penelitian kuantitatif melalui uji mean mean, analisis
kecenderungan, dan koefisien korelasi menunjukkan bahwa jumlah membaca dan
kemampuan menulis pada umumnya tidak meningkat atau menurun secara
bersamaan. Dalam kasus korelasi, misalnya hanya satu pasangan, dari enam data
bacaan dan penulisan yang dikumpulkan pada titik waktu yang sama berkorelasi
pada tingkat sedang. Hubungan seperti itu terjadi saat pembacaan dilakukan rata-
rata 82 halaman. Analisis deret waktu juga mengkonfirmasi adanya hubungan yang
tidak penting antara membaca dan menulis karena tidak ada pola sistematis dari
dua variabel ini. Selanjutnya, analisis post hoc dari RMANCOVA telah memberikan
beberapa bukti tambahan bahwa di antara semua pasang langsung nilai rata-rata
hanya dua set tugas menulis yang dihasilkan saat pembacaan kurang dari 100
halaman ditemukan berbeda secara signifikan namun pembacaan pada tingkat yang
lebih tinggi tidak.
Saran dari penelitian ini adalah bahwa walaupun beberapa tingkat hubungan yang
kecil telah ditemukan antara jumlah membaca dan nilai tulisan, keseluruhan temuan
dari tiga perhitungan statistik tidak mendukung pernyataan bahwa pemaparan yang
lebih tinggi terhadap masukan bahasa mengarah pada peningkatan kemampuan
menulis. Pembaca EFL Oleh karena itu, tidak mungkin untuk memperkirakan secara
statistik jumlah pembacaan yang tepat yang akan mempengaruhi penulisan
pembaca

EFL
kemampuan. Hanya aman untuk menduga bahwa jumlah bacaannya mungkin bisa
menjadi salah satu indikator yang dapat digunakan untuk memprediksi kemampuan
444
444
menulis pembaca EFL dengan kemampuan rendah. Mungkin ada faktor lain yang
berkontribusi lebih efektif terhadap kompetensi menulis peserta didik ini.
DISCUSSIO!
Justifications for the inconsistent connection between reading and writing

abilities of low proficiency EFL learners are unquestionably not simply due
to the language input to which they have been exposed but rather to other
underlying theory-related dimensions. Factors which will be elaborated
below as possible influences on the progress of the participants writing
competence include language input, language production, conscious language
learning, language proficiency and principles of ER.
With reference to language input, although the findings revealed by this
study do not seem congruent with the present beliefs of the connections
between reading and writing, particularly that of Krashen (1987) in his Input
Hypothesis, it is worth reconsidering whether or not the theorys fundamental
conditions have been met. According to Krashen, (1984), the most influential
theorist who supports ER as a way to improve writing competence, writing
ability is not learned but is acquired via extensive reading in which the focus
of the reader is on the message, i.e. reading for genuine interest and/or
pleasure (p. 23). In addition, he asserts that the acquisition of language will
be most effective when the readers filters are down so that input can be
acquired unconsciously. Most importantly, the language to be exposed to
must be at the i + 1 level, i.e. just a little above the readers language ability.
If Krashens criteria need to be achieved to successfully increase the readers
writing ability then this study has provided almost the entire necessary
environment appropriate to the context. For instance, the environment
encompassed various strategies to reduce the participants anxiety including
allowing them to choose appropriate books on their own, not testing what
454
545
was read and focusing on general comprehension only. In addition, evidence

from the perception surveys showed that readers from both groups rated
enjoyment and pleasure from reading at moderate to high degrees of
magnitude across the 15 weeks, with the higher amount of engagement
corresponding with the higher degrees of enjoyment.
Justifikasi untuk hubungan yang tidak konsisten antara kemampuan membaca dan
menulis dari pembelajar EFL dengan keterampilan rendah tidak diragukan lagi tidak
hanya karena masukan bahasa yang telah mereka hadapi melainkan dimensi teori
lainnya yang terkait. Faktor-faktor yang akan diuraikan di bawah ini mungkin
mempengaruhi kemajuan kompetensi menulis peserta termasuk masukan bahasa,
produksi bahasa, pembelajaran bahasa sadar, kemampuan bahasa dan prinsip-
prinsip ER.
Dengan mengacu pada masukan bahasa, walaupun temuan yang diungkap oleh
penelitian ini tidak sesuai dengan keyakinan sekarang tentang hubungan antara
membaca dan menulis, terutama mengenai Krashen (1987) dalam Hipotesis
Masukannya, sebaiknya pertimbangkan ulang apakah teori tersebut Kondisi
fundamental sudah terpenuhi. Menurut Krashen, (1984), teoretikus paling
berpengaruh yang mendukung ER sebagai cara untuk meningkatkan kompetensi
menulis, "kemampuan menulis tidak dipelajari namun diperoleh melalui pembacaan
yang ekstensif dimana fokus pembaca ada pada pesan, yaitu membaca untuk minat
dan / atau kesenangan sejati "(hal 23). Selain itu, dia menegaskan bahwa perolehan
bahasa akan sangat efektif saat filter pembaca turun sehingga masukan dapat
diperoleh secara tidak sadar. Yang terpenting, bahasa yang harus terpapar harus
berada di tingkat i + 1, yaitu hanya sedikit di atas kemampuan bahasa pembaca.
Jika kriteria Krashen perlu dicapai untuk berhasil meningkatkan kemampuan menulis
pembaca maka penelitian ini telah menyediakan hampir seluruh lingkungan yang
diperlukan sesuai dengan konteksnya. Misalnya, lingkungan mencakup berbagai
strategi untuk mengurangi kecemasan para peserta termasuk membiarkan mereka
memilih buku yang sesuai dengan mereka sendiri, tidak menguji apa
Jurnal Asia TEFL

464
646
dibaca dan dipusatkan pada pemahaman umum saja. Selain itu, bukti dari survei
persepsi menunjukkan bahwa pembaca dari kedua kelompok menilai kenikmatan
dan kesenangan membaca pada tingkat sedang sampai tinggi selama 15 minggu,
dengan jumlah pertunangan yang lebih tinggi sesuai dengan tingkat kenikmatan
yang lebih tinggi.
In the study the one condition that was not easy to manage was having
readers receive i + 1 input that was generally comprehensible to them. The
main reasons for this incomplete provision stems from the relatively low
English proficiency of most participants. Although all readers started their
reading at the beginner level, many still found the books too difficult to
read extensively. Thus, these readers only partially understood the stories
causing diminished enjoyment. All readers from the low reading group and
some from the high group revealed that they had reading problems, especially
with vocabulary, which affected their understanding of the stories. Simply
put, even though they chose books at the beginning level they were still
finding more than ten unknown words in a page. Furthermore, the
requirement of only needing to acquire a general understanding from the texts
allowed readers to only superficially read stories. Such practice across the
treatment period, even with some increased vocabulary, may not have been
adequate to enable them to reach the programme expected threshold level of
producing language at the sentence level. The two constraints might,
therefore, explain the inadequacy of meeting Krashens assertion and a major
justification for the lack of the relationship between reading and writing.
Language input alone may not be sufficient to explain the growth of the
participants writing ability. Language output or the production of written
work may be required to coordinate and confirm language learned from the
reading engagement. According to Silva and Matsuda (2002) understanding
some of the writing strategies through practice is helpful especially for less
experienced writers. In fact, a number of ER studies; for example Mason
(2004) and Caruso (1994), have proven that writing practice does partly
contribute to the improvement in a readers writing ability. On the other hand
studies by Mason and Krashen (2004) also claim writing progress despite any
474
747
formal instruction or practice.

Dalam studi satu kondisi yang tidak mudah dikelola adalah membuat pembaca
menerima input i + 1 yang pada umumnya dapat dipahami oleh mereka. Alasan
utama untuk ketentuan yang tidak lengkap ini berasal dari kemampuan bahasa
Inggris yang relatif rendah dari kebanyakan peserta. Meskipun semua pembaca
memulai pembacaan mereka di tingkat "pemula", banyak yang masih menganggap
buku-buku itu terlalu sulit untuk dibaca secara ekstensif. Dengan demikian, pembaca
ini hanya sebagian mengerti cerita yang menyebabkan berkurangnya kenikmatan.
Semua pembaca dari kelompok membaca rendah dan beberapa dari kelompok
tinggi mengungkapkan bahwa mereka memiliki masalah membaca, terutama
dengan kosa kata, yang mempengaruhi pemahaman mereka terhadap cerita
tersebut. Sederhananya, meskipun mereka memilih buku di tingkat awal mereka
masih menemukan lebih dari sepuluh kata yang tidak dikenal di halaman.
Selanjutnya, kebutuhan untuk hanya memperoleh pemahaman umum dari teks
memungkinkan pembaca untuk hanya membaca cerita secara dangkal. Praktik
semacam itu selama masa perawatan, bahkan dengan beberapa peningkatan kosa
kata, mungkin belum memadai untuk memungkinkan mereka mencapai tingkat
ambang batas bahasa yang diharapkan pada tingkat kalimat. Dua kendala itu
mungkin, karena itu, menjelaskan ketidakmampuan memenuhi pernyataan Krashen
dan pembenaran utama karena kurangnya hubungan antara membaca dan menulis.
Masukan bahasa saja mungkin tidak cukup untuk menjelaskan pertumbuhan
kemampuan menulis peserta. Output bahasa atau produksi karya tulis mungkin
diperlukan untuk mengkoordinasikan dan mengkonfirmasi bahasa yang dipelajari
dari keterlibatan membaca. Menurut Silva dan Matsuda (2002) memahami beberapa
strategi penulisan melalui latihan sangat membantu terutama bagi penulis yang
kurang berpengalaman. Sebenarnya, sejumlah studi ER; misalnya Mason (2004) dan
Caruso (1994), telah membuktikan bahwa praktik menulis sebagian berkontribusi
pada peningkatan kemampuan menulis pembaca. Di sisi lain, studi oleh Mason dan
Krashen (2004) juga mengklaim kemajuan menulis meskipun ada

EFL
484
848
instruksi atau latihan formal
The idea of writing practice is in line with the Output Hypothesis proposed
by Swain (1999) in so far as the production of language is necessary because
while creating a piece of work the writer can at the same time both
hypothesize and take notice of the language they are using in their writing.
Without the opportunity for decision making in selecting words to create
longer sentences it is highly likely that the language is not adequately noticed
and besides, the acquired knowledge a reader gains from comprehensible
input could be easily lost. In this study, writing was neither taught formally
nor practiced across the period of experiment and it was ensured that all
participants did not have any writing exercises of their own. In fact, it was the
intention of the researcher not to have the participants practice writing since
the purpose was to examine whether or not reading alone could help enhance
their writing skills. A consequence of such practice would cause several
participants to get stuck while doing the writing test since the words needed
may not spring to mind to adequately express their desired concept. Evidence
from work by Yamazaki (1996) has demonstrated that nine weeks of
engagement in reading 18 graded readers with a 26% gain in vocabulary did
not greatly increase written competency because, according to results from a
delayed post-test, there was a vocabulary loss, though not to pre-test levels. If
such acquisition of language is so delicate, it could help explain why the
readers did not significantly improve their writing ability.
Gagasan praktik menulis ini sejalan dengan Hipotesis Keluaran yang diajukan oleh
Swain (1999) sejauh pembuatan bahasa diperlukan karena sambil menciptakan
sebuah karya penulis sekaligus bisa berhipotesis dan memperhatikan bahasa
tersebut. mereka menggunakan dalam tulisan mereka. Tanpa kesempatan untuk
membuat keputusan dalam memilih kata-kata untuk menciptakan kalimat yang lebih
panjang, kemungkinan besar bahasa tersebut tidak diperhatikan secara memadai
dan disamping itu, pengetahuan yang didapat pembaca mendapatkan masukan
yang dapat dipahami dapat dengan mudah hilang. Dalam penelitian ini, penulisan
tidak diajarkan secara formal atau dipraktekkan selama periode eksperimen dan
dipastikan bahwa semua peserta tidak memiliki latihan menulis mereka sendiri.
Sebenarnya, niat peneliti agar peserta tidak berlatih menulis karena tujuannya untuk
memeriksa apakah membaca saja bisa membantu meningkatkan kemampuan
menulis mereka. Konsekuensi dari praktik semacam itu akan menyebabkan
beberapa peserta terjebak saat melakukan tes tulis karena kata-kata yang
dibutuhkan mungkin tidak diingat secara memadai untuk mengungkapkan konsep
yang mereka inginkan. Bukti dari pekerjaan oleh Yamazaki (1996) telah
menunjukkan bahwa sembilan minggu pertunangan dalam membaca 18 pembaca
bergradasi dengan kenaikan kosakata 26% tidak meningkatkan kompetensi tertulis
karena, menurut hasil dari penundaan post-test, ada kerugian kosa kata. , meski
tidak sampai tingkat pra-tes. Jika perolehan bahasa begitu rumit, bisa membantu
494
949
menjelaskan mengapa pembaca tidak secara signifikan meningkatkan kemampuan
menulis mereka.
While exposure to language input is believed to unconsciously contribute

to language enhancement in general, awareness of what is being read also
plays a crucial role in improving ones writing ability. Motivational ER
activities which emphasised playing with and recycling words and sentences
found in stories read are considered as conscious learning. However,
according to Harmer (2001) the noticed language infers neither the
acquisition of language nor the ability to use it immediately. The spontaneous
production of the acquired or learned language takes a longer period since it
needs sufficient processing time in the learners memory through noticing
and may be restructured before being available for use. In addition, according
505
050
to Batstone (1994) there are stages when the noticed language is structured
and restructured before the learner finally adjusts it to their existing
hypothesis of language. In this study, conscious learning of language was not
intensely or regularly done over the 15 weeks of experiment as there was a
wide range of activities to cover and as such the language students were
learning formally in class might not have been able to reproduce the written
form spontaneously or in a short period. As a result, such activities may have
had very little impact on the written performance of the participants, if none
at all. It is possible that, if the tasks were given greater emphasis, they might
trigger the writers repertoire to the point where they can produce language of
their own. The time-consuming process of competency building does help to
explain why the correlation between the reading amounts and writing scores
of the participants in either group scarcely exists.
Sementara pemaparan terhadap masukan bahasa diyakini secara tidak sadar
berkontribusi terhadap peningkatan bahasa secara umum, kesadaran akan apa yang
dibaca juga memainkan peran penting dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis
seseorang. Kegiatan ER Motivasi yang menekankan bermain dengan dan mendaur
ulang kata-kata dan kalimat yang ditemukan dalam cerita baca dianggap sebagai
pembelajaran sadar. Namun, menurut Harmer (2001), bahasa yang diperhatikan
tidak mempengaruhi perolehan bahasa maupun kemampuan untuk
menggunakannya segera. Produksi spontan dari bahasa yang didapat atau dipelajari
membutuhkan waktu lebih lama karena memerlukan waktu pemrosesan yang cukup
dalam memori peserta didik melalui pemberitahuan dan dapat direstrukturisasi
sebelum tersedia untuk digunakan. Selain itu, menurut
Jurnal Asia TEFL
515
151
ke Batstone (1994) ada tahapan ketika bahasa yang diperhatikan terstruktur dan
direstrukturisasi sebelum pelajar tersebut akhirnya menyesuaikannya dengan
hipotesis bahasa mereka yang ada. Dalam penelitian ini, pembelajaran bahasa
secara sadar tidak dilakukan secara intensif atau rutin selama 15 minggu percobaan
karena ada berbagai macam kegiatan untuk ditutup dan karena itu siswa bahasa
belajar secara formal di kelas mungkin tidak dapat mereproduksi tulisan bentuknya
spontan atau dalam waktu singkat. Akibatnya, kegiatan semacam itu mungkin
sangat berdampak pada kinerja tertulis para peserta, jika tidak ada sama sekali. Ada
kemungkinan bahwa, jika tugas diberi penekanan lebih besar, mungkin akan
memicu repertoar para penulis sampai pada titik di mana mereka dapat
menghasilkan bahasa mereka sendiri. Proses pembangunan kompetensi yang
memakan waktu membantu menjelaskan mengapa korelasi antara jumlah membaca
dan nilai penulisan peserta pada kedua kelompok tidak ada.
On the whole, the previously mentioned theoretical influences of language

input (which was not strong enough due to insufficient volume and
comprehension), language output (which was not performed on a regular
basis) and conscious learning (which was not done intensely and regularly)
did considerably affect the progress of the participants writing ability. From
the researchers experience with EFL learners in this context, believably, the
primary problem of such scarcity of language intake lies in the participants
low proficiency which subsequently distorted the influence of reading on
writing. It was also apparent from the written work submitted that almost half
the readers were not yet capable of constructing basic sentences in English.
This is possible since previously most participants had neither been taught
nor practiced writing in class, so they had no background on how a piece of
written work could be organised or even how a sentence could be formulated.
Thus, it would probably take them longer than a period of several months or
maybe even years to acquire or learn how to put words into logical sentences.
The findings confirm the remark made by Nuttall (1996) stating that the
improvement in writing of readers who read in large quantity may be
noticeable in a year or two, not overnight.
Secara keseluruhan, pengaruh teoritis yang disebut input bahasa (yang tidak cukup
kuat karena volume dan pemahaman yang tidak mencukupi), keluaran bahasa (yang
tidak dilakukan secara teratur) dan pembelajaran sadar (yang tidak dilakukan secara
intensif dan teratur) sangat mempengaruhi kemajuan kemampuan menulis peserta.
Dari pengalaman peneliti dengan peserta didik EFL dalam konteks ini, secara pasti,
masalah utama kelangkaan asupan bahasa semacam itu terletak pada kemampuan
rendah peserta yang kemudian menyimpang dari pengaruh membaca saat menulis.
Hal itu juga terlihat dari karya tulis yang disampaikan bahwa hampir separuh
pembaca belum mampu membuat kalimat dasar dalam bahasa Inggris. Hal ini
dimungkinkan karena sebelumnya sebagian besar peserta tidak pernah diajarkan
atau mempraktikkan penulisan di kelas, jadi mereka tidak memiliki latar belakang
bagaimana sebuah karya tulis bisa diatur atau bahkan bagaimana sebuah kalimat
dapat dirumuskan. Dengan demikian, mungkin akan memakan waktu lebih lama dari
525
252
beberapa bulan atau bahkan bertahun-tahun untuk mendapatkan atau belajar
bagaimana memasukkan kata-kata ke dalam kalimat logis. Temuan tersebut
mengkonfirmasi ucapan yang dibuat oleh Nuttall (1996) yang menyatakan bahwa
"peningkatan penulisan pembaca yang membaca dalam jumlah besar mungkin akan
terlihat dalam satu atau dua tahun, tidak dalam semalam."
The last source of scarceness for the reading/writing relationship is
535
353
believed to stem from the salient principles of ER. It appears that the
pleasurable nature of engagement in stories with no comprehension check,
the low-anxiety scheme applied and the choice of texts, all combined, may
not contribute to growth in writing competence. It was apparent from the
interviews that while reading, the reader focused more on plots and roles that
characters play in the stories and not on the language. Most readers generally
created pictures in their minds while their eyes went rapidly through sentence
after sentence, particularly during the climax. Some participants continued
reading but only with a general understanding, i.e. they focused mainly on
key words and ignored grammatical structures so it was seen that in those
cases, vocabulary or language structures found in the books were not taken in
comprehensibly. Those who just passed their eyes over words without any
genuine understanding certainly did not learn them to the point where they
could make use of the vocabulary, although they found the words repeatedly.
It is possible that these readers incidental and fragile learning from
comprehensible language may not be strong enough to enable the production
of written language. Although acquisition may occur at any moment, this
may not happen overnight. Otherwise, it is possible that there is a threshold
level of reading input that facilitates the reproduction of language in written
form. As a final point, the text genre could be counted as another aspect of
simplified books that affected the writing ability of a reader. Most
participants chose different genres of books to read each time they changed a
book. Once they had finished a detective story and turned to a historical book
they were encountering a different set of vocabulary although the overall
structure may have remained the same. Generally students who have read
texts of the same genre will find their reading much easier when on their
second and third books.
In summary, inadequate volume, repetition and noticing of language input,
and lack of language production, when combined with the low expectations
from the programme due to the pleasurable nature of ER, are major sources
of inconsistency in the reading and writing relationship. More studies should,
therefore, be initiated, in particular the aspects being deteriorated in this study.
545
454
Sumber terakhir dari kelangkaan untuk membaca / menulis adalah hubungan

EFL
diyakini berasal dari prinsip-prinsip penting ER. Tampaknya sifat keterlibatan yang
menyenangkan dalam cerita tanpa pemeriksaan pemahaman, skema kecemasan
rendah diterapkan dan pilihan teks, semua digabungkan, mungkin tidak
berkontribusi terhadap pertumbuhan dalam kompetensi menulis. Dari wawancara
yang terlihat saat membaca, pembaca lebih fokus pada plot dan peran yang
dimainkan karakter dalam cerita dan bukan pada bahasa. Sebagian besar pembaca
umumnya membuat gambar di pikiran mereka sementara mata mereka bergerak
cepat melalui kalimat demi kalimat, terutama selama klimaks. Beberapa peserta
terus membaca tapi hanya dengan pemahaman umum, yaitu mereka berfokus
terutama pada kata-kata kunci dan struktur gramatikal yang diabaikan sehingga
terlihat bahwa dalam kasus-kasus tersebut, struktur kosa kata atau bahasa yang
ditemukan dalam buku tidak dipahami secara masuk akal. Mereka yang hanya
memandangi kata-kata tanpa pemahaman yang tulus pasti tidak mempelajarinya
sampai pada titik di mana mereka bisa menggunakan kosa kata tersebut, walaupun
mereka menemukan kata-kata itu berulang-ulang. Ada kemungkinan bahwa
pembelajaran insidental dan rapuh pembaca ini dari bahasa yang dapat dimengerti
mungkin tidak cukup kuat untuk memungkinkan produksi bahasa tertulis. Meskipun
akuisisi dapat terjadi kapan saja, ini mungkin tidak akan terjadi dalam semalam. Jika
tidak, ada kemungkinan bahwa ada tingkat ambang membaca yang memudahkan
reproduksi bahasa dalam bentuk tertulis. Sebagai titik akhir, genre teks bisa dihitung
sebagai aspek lain dari buku sederhana yang mempengaruhi kemampuan menulis
pembaca. Sebagian besar peserta memilih genre buku yang berbeda untuk dibaca
setiap kali mereka mengubah sebuah buku. Begitu mereka menyelesaikan sebuah
cerita detektif dan beralih ke sebuah buku sejarah, mereka menemukan kumpulan
kosakata yang berbeda walaupun keseluruhan strukturnya tetap sama. Umumnya
siswa yang telah membaca teks dengan genre yang sama akan menemukan
pembacaan mereka lebih mudah saat berada di buku kedua dan ketiga mereka.
Singkatnya, volume, pengulangan dan pemberitahuan masukan bahasa yang tidak
memadai, dan kurangnya produksi bahasa, bila dikombinasikan dengan harapan
rendah dari program karena sifat menyenangkan ER, merupakan sumber utama
ketidakkonsistenan dalam hubungan membaca dan menulis. Oleh karena itu,
penelitian lebih lanjut harus diinisiasi, terutama aspek yang memburuk dalam
penelitian ini.
555
555
SUGGESTIO!S FOR FUTURE STUDIES
It is apparent from the discussion that there were some conditions

insufficiently fulfilled in the experiment particularly with regard to the
participants reading engagement plus the environment of EFL learners.
Much of these if they could have been improved may affect the writing
ability of the learners differently. More studies of similar research design
should, therefore, be conducted so EFL teachers can be certain they can make
use of the two skills more fruitfully. These are:
1. Students should read regularly so that the language subconsciously acquired is

then encountered repeatedly and transferred systematically to both the short-
and long-term memory.
2. Texts chosen by the readers themselves should be understandable, preferably up
to 90% comprehension.
3. Students may have to stick to the same genre of text for up to three books before
moving on to a higher level so that vocabulary of that particular genre are met
repetitively and eventually learned.
4. Writing should be done both immediately, e.g. by writing a summary of the text,
and regularly, e.g. through writing journals, so that the acquired language is
sufficiently used and recycled.
Hal ini terlihat dari diskusi bahwa ada beberapa kondisi yang kurang terpenuhi
dalam percobaan terutama berkaitan dengan keterlibatan membaca peserta
ditambah lingkungan peserta didik EFL. Sebagian besar jika mereka bisa diperbaiki
dapat mempengaruhi kemampuan menulis peserta didik secara berbeda. Oleh
karena itu, penelitian lebih lanjut tentang desain penelitian serupa dapat dilakukan
sehingga guru EFL dapat yakin mereka dapat memanfaatkan dua keterampilan
tersebut dengan lebih baik. Ini adalah:
1. Siswa harus membaca secara teratur sehingga bahasa yang didapat secara tidak
sadar kemudian ditemui berulang kali dan ditransfer secara sistematis ke memori
jangka pendek dan jangka panjang.
2. Teks yang dipilih oleh pembaca sendiri harus bisa dimengerti, sebaiknya sampai
90% pemahaman.
3. Siswa mungkin harus tetap pada genre teks yang sama sampai tiga buku sebelum
beralih ke tingkat yang lebih tinggi sehingga kosa kata dari genre tertentu terpenuhi
berulang-ulang dan akhirnya dipelajari.
565
656
4. Menulis harus dilakukan segera, mis. dengan menulis ringkasan teks, dan secara
teratur, mis. melalui penulisan jurnal, sehingga bahasa yang diperoleh cukup banyak
digunakan dan didaur ulang.
CO!CLUSIO!
Results from this research seem to have depreciated the theoretical and
natural association between reading and writing ability as revealed by a
number of studies of L1, ESL and EFL. For the high reading group the
reading comprehension ability, which was proved to be statistically enhanced,
did not facilitate writing skills whereas, for the low reading group, their
inability to understand texts even at the beginning level over the 15 weeks of
study, was only found to boost their written work to a certain level. Findings
575
757
of this study alone may only lead to a partial summary that the unmanageable
low ability and low motivation of learners impede their understanding of
language and thus causing infrequent and low volume of reading engagement.
This, in turn, justifies why the belief in noticing of language and the
unconscious acquisition of language do not seemingly take effect in
enhancing the learners writing ability as being theorized. To genuinely
understand the power of reading on EFL learners written work more studies
with similar backgrounds but with participant being exposed to more volume
of language input is profoundly demanded as the results are of great value
particularly to EFL teachers.
Hasil dari penelitian ini nampaknya telah mendepresiasi hubungan teoritis dan alami
antara kemampuan membaca dan menulis seperti yang diungkapkan oleh sejumlah
studi L1, ESL dan EFL. Bagi kelompok bacaan yang tinggi, kemampuan pemahaman
bacaan, yang terbukti meningkat secara statistik, tidak memfasilitasi keterampilan
menulis, sedangkan untuk kelompok membaca rendah, ketidakmampuan mereka
untuk memahami teks bahkan pada tingkat awal selama 15 minggu belajar, hanya
ditemukan untuk meningkatkan pekerjaan tertulis mereka ke tingkat tertentu.
Temuan

EFL
Dari studi ini saja hanya dapat mengarah pada ringkasan parsial bahwa kemampuan
rendah yang tidak terkendali dan motivasi peserta didik yang rendah menghalangi
pemahaman bahasa mereka dan dengan demikian menyebabkan jarangnya jumlah
terbitan terbaca. Hal ini, pada gilirannya, membenarkan mengapa kepercayaan
untuk memperhatikan bahasa dan perolehan bahasa yang tidak disadari tampaknya
585
858
tidak berpengaruh dalam meningkatkan kemampuan menulis peserta didik sebagai
berteori. Untuk benar-benar memahami kekuatan membaca pada karya tulis peserta
didik EFL, lebih banyak studi dengan latar belakang yang sama namun peserta yang
terpapar dengan jumlah masukan bahasa yang lebih banyak sangat dibutuhkan
karena hasilnya sangat berharga terutama bagi guru EFL.
THE AUTHOR
Wilairat Kirin is an Associate Professor in the English Program at Nakhon

Pathom Rajabhat University in Thailand. Her research interests involve
teacher development, extensive reading of native and foreign languages and
reading-writing relationships.
Her recent publications include English for Secretaries and Office
Management and Reading Instruction and Promotion (in Thai).
Email: wilairatkirin@gmail.com
REFERE!CES
Al-Rajhi, A. (2004). Joining the online literacy club: Internet reading among Saudi
EFL learners. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania,
Pennsylvania. Retrieved from Pro Quest Digital Dissertations database. (UMI
Publication No. AAT 3149714).
Batstone, R. (1994). Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy (2nd ed.). NY: Longman.
Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to
second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistic, 1, 1-47.
595
959
Caruso, J. M. (1994). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension and

writing proficiency in foreign language learning. Unpublished dissertation.
UMI AAT 9543412
Constantino, R. (1995). Learning to read in a second language doesnt have to hurt:
The effect of pleasure reading. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39,
68-69.
Day, R. D., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language
classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge.
Dowdy, S., & Wearden, S. (1985). Statistics for research. NY: John-Wiley & Sons.
Eskey, D. E. (2002). Reading and the teaching of L2 reading. TESOL Journal, 11(1),
5-9.
Grabe, W. (2002). Reading in a second language. In R. B. Kaplan (Ed.), The Oxford
handbook of applied linguistics (pp. 49-59). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Hafiz, F. M., & Tudor, I. (1990). Graded readers as an input medium in L2 learning.
System, 18, 31-42.
Harmer, J. (2001). The practice of English language teaching (3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson
Education Limited.
Hayashi, K. (1999). Reading strategies and extensive reading in EFL classes. RELC
Journal, 30(2), 114-132.
Janopoulos, M. (1986). The relationship of pleasure reading and second language
writing proficiency. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 763-768.
Johnson, R. A., & Wichern, D. W. (1998). Applied multivariate statistical analysis.
London: Prentice Hall International.
Kaplan, J., & Palhinda, E. (1981). Non-native speakers of English and their
composition abilities: A review and analysis. In W. Frawley (Ed.), Linguistics
and literacy (pp. 425-457). NY: Plenum Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1984). Writing: Research, theory, and applications. Torrance, CA:
Laredo.
Krashen, S. D. (1987). Principles and practice in second language acquisition.
Hertfordshire: Prince Hall International.
Krashen, S. D. (1996). The case for narrow listening. System, 24(1), 97-100.
Lai, E. F. K. (1993a). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing
skills. System, 21, 87-100.
Lai, E. F. K. (1993b). Effect of extensive reading on English learning in Hong Kong.
CUHK Education Journal, 21(1), 23-36.
Lee, S. Y., & Krashen, S. D. (1996). Free voluntary reading and writing competence
in Taiwanese high school students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83(2), 687-
606
060
690.
Mason, B. (2004). The effect of adding supplementary writing to an extensive reading
program. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 1(1), 2-16.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. D. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign
language. System, 25, 91-102.
Mason, B., & Krashen, S. D. (2004). Is form-focused vocabulary instruction
worthwhile? RELC Journal, 35, 179-185.
Nuttall, C. (1996). Teaching reading skills in a foreign language. Oxford: Heinemann.
Olson, C. B. (2003). The reading/writing connection: Strategies for teaching and
learning in the secondary classroom. Pearson Education: Boston.
Polak, J., & Krashen, S. (1988). Do we need to teach spelling? The relationship
between spelling and vocabulary reading among community college ESL
students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 141-146.
Salyer, M. (1987). A comparison of the learning characteristics of good and poor ESL
writers. Applied Linguistics Interest Section ewsletter, TESOL, 8, 2-3.
Silva, T., & Matsuda, P. K. (2002). Writing. In N. Schmitt (Ed.), An introduction to
applied linguistics (pp. 251-266). London: Oxford University Press.
Statistics show reading rate of Thais reduced. (2009). Educational and cultural news.
aewnar, March 18.
Swain, M. (1999). Integrating language and content teaching through collaborative
tasks. In C. S. Ward & W. A. Renandya (Eds.), ew insights for the language
teacher (pp. 125-147). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Tudor, I. & Hafiz, F. (1989). Extensive reading as a means of input to L2 Learning.
Journal of Research in Reading, 12, 164-78.
Yamazaki, A. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition through extensive reading. Unpublished
Dissertation, Temple University.
616
161

AsiaTEFL V7 N1 Spring 2010 Effects of Extensive Reading On Students Writing Ability in An EFL Class

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AsiaTEFL V7 N1 Spring 2010 Effects of Extensive Reading On Students Writing Ability in An EFL Class

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE JOUR AL OF ASIA TEFL Vol. 7, No. 1, pp.

285-308, Spring 2010

Effects of Extensive Reading on

Key words: extensive reading, reading comprehension, writing

If any structured comparison is to be made reading and writing must have

means of ER have been reported both in surveys and experimental research

The combined knowledge of theoretical grounds and research evidence

In terms of research evidence, the majority of ER research concentrated

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

siswa di A.S. Constantino (1995) melaporkan bahwa seiring berjalannya waktu,

is known about the relationship between reading comprehensible texts and

The experiment was conducted on 34 second year non-English major

Instrumen yang digunakan untuk pengumpulan data yang berkaitan dengan

Orientation Stage: Prior to the experiment all participants were given an

reading amounts; differences between pre and post reading comprehension

Peserta membuat catatan bacaan mereka sendiri dengan menyimpan catatan

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

Time 3 17 252 481 364.35 52.817

Time 2 17 46 141 82.59 26.975

Time 3 17 79 247 147.41 49.223

Reading Comprehension Ability

According to Table 3, writing scores of the participants in both groups

1st 17 50.94 6.129 1.486

2nd 17 51.97 7.821 1.897

3rd 17 52.32 7.506 1.821

1st 17 42.09 7.523 1.825

2nd 17 46.21 8.378 2.032

3rd 17 45.44 10.247 2.485

Further computation of post hoc RMANCOVA analysis to examine the

Buka di Google Terjemahan

Developmental Patterns of Reading Amounts and Writing Scores

Relationships between Reading Amount and Writing Score

The correlation coefficient was adopted to calculate the relationships

1st Writing 0.356

1st Reading Amounts 2nd Reading Amounts 3rd Reading Amounts

1st Writing 0.417

The findings derived from quantitative investigation through test of means

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

Justifications for the inconsistent connection between reading and writing

was read and focusing on general comprehension only. In addition, evidence

Jurnal Asia TEFL

formal instruction or practice.

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

While exposure to language input is believed to unconsciously contribute

Jurnal Asia TEFL

On the whole, the previously mentioned theoretical influences of language

The last source of scarceness for the reading/writing relationship is

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

SUGGESTIO!S FOR FUTURE STUDIES

It is apparent from the discussion that there were some conditions

1. Students should read regularly so that the language subconsciously acquired is

Pengaruh Pembacaan Ekstensif terhadap Kemampuan Menulis Siswa dalam Kelas

Wilairat Kirin is an Associate Professor in the English Program at Nakhon

Caruso, J. M. (1994). The effects of extensive reading on reading comprehension and

You might also like