ASIA TEFL CONFERENCE
BANGKOK 7-9 AUGUST 2009
STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION ON
ABSTRACT SELF ASSESSMENT USING
SYSTEMIC AND FUNCTIONAL
GRAMMAR
By
Didi Sukyadi (Indonesia Education
University)
Fiftinova (University of Sriwijaya)
Introduction
• This study explored students’ perception on the use of
Systemic Functional Grammar for students’ self
assessment. Specifically, this study seeks what
aspect of functional grammar which becomes their
primary concern when evaluating their writing.
• Rationale:
• The major contribution of systemic functional
grammar (SFG) to the teaching writing skill
(Halliday: 1994).
• The Importance of Self Assessment
• There are still limited studies on SFG framework
Objectives
1) To identify students’ perception on the
function of functional grammar for selfassessment (Is there any difference before and
after students learn SFG? Does the way they
see their writing change?
2)To identify aspects of functional grammar
which is used by students as self-review
checklist. (How do students of higher level
education assess their writing by using SFG
approach)
Significance
• This study will give information how students of
higher level education choose and produce
meaning.
• Another significant aspect of this study is that
students of English education program could
use it as a reflection or reflective thinking.
• Through this study, teachers will be aware of the
importance of functional grammar in many
aspects of language learning. They can apply it
to the teaching of language skills, assessment,
and to the selection of teaching materials.
Literary Review
• Self assessment (Brown ( 2004: 270),
Dickinson, 1987; Richard and Frye 1992;
Vygotsky 1962 as cited in Wray 1994 as
cited in Srimavin and Darasawang, 2004)
• Self assessment as part of adults learners
learning (Brown, 2004)
• Self assessment in writing (Brown, 2004)
• Previous Research
Literary Review
• Systemic Functional Linguistics:
1) Definition
2) Context of situation
3) Context of culture
• Systemic Functional Grammar
1) Transitivity
2) Mood
3) Theme- Rheme system
Methodology
• Setting and Participants
• Survey
1. Questionnaire: Adapted Amadeus SelfReview from Aluisio, Sandra Maria &
Gantenbein
2. Interview
• Documentation of students’ texts
Result
• Through the analysis, it is found that all
participants had positive attitudes towards the
use of SFG for their self-evaluation.
• They said that their abstract writing before
learning SFG is bad, but after that they
considered their writing as a better one.
• One participant claims that before learning
SFG, she did not know what to evaluate. This
indicates that SFG provides an effective
analysis-tool for self-assessment.
Conclusion
• Students of high level education feel satisfied with the
existence of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). Most
of them believe that SFG is helpful for self-assessment.
So far, they evaluate their writing by seeing the macro
level or the schematic structure of their writing. Also, they
review the cohesiveness and the coherence of their text.
• The result above also indicates that by using SFG,
students are able to have self-assessment even though
the lecturer does not invite them to do so. Naturally, they
become aware what is right for their writing. However, in
the future, it is suggested that lecturers or teachers asks
their students to have self-assessment to their writing by
using systemic functional grammar approach. They can
analyze their writing by using transitivity, modality and
theme-rheme system as well as schematic structure of a
text in order to evaluate their writing product.
Appendices-Interview Guidelines
No. 1 to 8 deal with respondent
perception on their abstracts before being
introduced to Systemic Functional Grammar
(SFG):
Question
1) How did you assess your abstract before studying
SFG?
2) Do you thing your abstract was good?
3) Why do you think that your abstract was good?
4) Or why do think that your abstract was poor?
5)What information did you include in your abstract?
6)What were the procedures and stages that you
went through when writing your abstract?
7) What did you look at when writing an abstract? Did
you pay your attention on lexical choice, grammatical
feature, or punctuation?
8) How did you organize information in your abstract?
Interview Guidelines
Question No. 9 to No. 14 deal with the respondents’
perception on their abstract after being introduced to
SFG:
9)In what semester did you study functional grammar?
10) Did you consider that the abstract you wrote was
good?
11) What are the contribution of SFG on how you wrote
your abstract?
12)How did you develop your ideas in your abstract?
13)How did you discuss those topics?
14)How did you express you ideas or your assessment
towards the abstract?
15)Hoe did you develop the coherence and unity of your
abstract?
16)How did you use logical connection?
Questionnaire: Adapted Amadeus Self-Review from Aluisio,
Sandra Maria & Gantenbein
1.
Structure : Components and Strategies
Introduction research topic from the research area
Student A
Student B
Student C
*
*
*
Familiarizing terms or objects or processes
Argumenting about the topic prominence
2.
*
*
*
*
Historical reviews
*
*
*
Current Trends
*
*
*
General to Particular ordering for citations
*
*
*
*
*
*
Unresolved conflict or problem among previous studies
*
*
*
Restrictions in previous approaches
*
*
*
Raising Questions
*
*
*
Review Strategies
Progress in the area
Requirements for the progress in the area
State of the art
Compounding review of the literature and their gaps
Citations grouped by approaches
3.
Gap Strategies
4.
Purpose Strategies
Indicating the main purpose
*
*
*
*
*
*
Solving a conflict among the authors
Presenting a novel approach or methodology or technique
Presenting an improvement of a research topic
*
Presenting an extension of a previous author’s work
*
Presenting an alternative approach
*
Presenting a comparative approach
*
Specifying the purpose
*
*
Introducing more purposes
5.
6.
7.
*
*
Methodology Strategies
Listing Criteria or Conditions
*
*
*
Describing materials and methods
*
*
*
Justifying choices for materials and methods
*
*
*
Presenting results
*
*
*
Commenting on the results
*
*
*
*
*
*
Result Strategies
Value Strategies
Stating the value of the work