The Effectiveness of Scientific and Scaffolding Approaches in
Teaching Writing
Nurkholidah Nurkholidah and Margana Margana
Department of English Language Education, Yogyakarta State University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Keywords: Scientific Approach, Scaffolding Approach, Students’ Ability in Writing.
Abstract: This research aims to describe the effectiveness of scientific, scaffolding and conventional approaches in
teaching writing of descriptive texts for VII grade students at SMP N 1 Brebes. This research used quasi-
experimental method using pre-test and post-test. The population was all students of VII grade at SMP N 1
Brebes consisting of seven classes in the even semester of the academic year 2016/2017. The sample was
students of VII D, E and G classes determined by using simple cluster random sampling technique. The
instrument was writing test in the form of an essay. The validity of the instrument was content validity
which was obtained through the consultation with experts (expert judgment). The inter-rater technique was
used to test the reliability of the instrument with Pearson Product Moment Correlation. Normality test and
homogeneity test were performed as the analysis of the test. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was used to test
normality and Levene test was used to test homogeneity. Data analysis technique used was One Way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by Scheffe test supported by SPSS 16.0 for windows program.
The result of this research indicates that scientific, scaffolding and conventional approaches have a
significant difference in effectiveness in teaching writing of descriptive texts for VII grade students at SMP
N 1 Brebes indicated by (p) lower than 0.05.
1 INTRODUCTION
People learn English since it is very useful for their
studies, business, and social interaction
internationally. However, many students learn
English since it exists on their school curriculum.
According to the 2013 curriculum, the students have
to learn English at Junior High School in which they
are asked to master speaking, listening, writing and
reading skills. Therefore, the English teacher needs
to make the English learning fun so that the students
can master receptive and otherwise skills for
interaction both inside and outside the classroom.
Writing is regarded as a complicated activity
since it includes several cognitive and linguistic
skills. Cognitive skill is displayed from the ideas
expressed as the result of the writing process.
Ashman and Conway (1997) state that cognitive is a
blend of brain activities. It indicates that its activities
consist of understanding, especially, about how the
connection of prior knowledge with stimuli that
links inside and outside of the individual takes place.
In the context of writing, cognitive skill is displayed
by the quality of ideas, the topic chosen, and the
ideas organized in a writing product. Meanwhile, the
linguistic skill is displayed by the quality of diction,
the correct structure rule, the correct utterances, and
the correct mechanics.
Since writing is a complex activity, the students
tend to feel writing is difficult so that they easily get
bored in writing class. As said by Richard and
Renandya (2002), the difficulty in writing for the
second language (L2) learners is to generate and
organize the ideas and put these ideas into readable
text. Therefore, the students need to highly pay
attention the vocabularies, the grammar, the ideas,
and the text structures. Based on the researchers’
observation, the students’ writing ability of VII
grade students at SMP N 1 Brebes was still low.
They encountered many difficulties to express their
ideas into written form. They made a number of
mistakes in their writing in terms of vocabulary and
grammar.
In addition, they also feel that the teaching-
learning process is still teacher-centered. They were
given some examples of certain text, and then they
were asked to read them. Then, the teacher
explained about the meaning, the generic structure
632
Nurkholidah, N. and Margana, M.
The Effectiveness of Scientific and Scaffolding Approaches in Teaching Writing.
DOI: 10.5220/0007172306320637
In Proceedings of the Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference
on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education (CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017) - Literacy, Culture, and Technology in Language Pedagogy and Use, pages 632-637
ISBN: 978-989-758-332-2
Copyright © 2018 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

and the social function of the text. After that, the
students were asked to compose a text such as an
example with the free topic. The last, they submitted
the text without any revision before so that they did
not know what mistakes they made with their
writing product. As the result, most of the students
were not interested in learning writing.
Implementing appropriate teaching approach is
one of the fundamental factors which can affect the
students’ interests in learning writing. Therefore, the
teachers should improve their knowledge related to
the various approaches which might be suitable to
implement in their writing class. Then, they are
demanded to be creative in making their lesson plan.
Furthermore, they also should apply other
approaches besides conventional approach which
can make the students active in learning activities.
This is one of the basic characteristics of Scientific
Approach, known as student-centered.
According to Education and Culture Minister
(2013), scientific approach is a teaching approach
aims to support and motivate the students to think
critically, analytically, and precisely in recognizing,
understanding, solving problems, and practicing the
learning materials. Hosnan (2014) says that there are
five steps of implementing the scientific approach in
the teaching-learning process, they are observing,
questioning, experimenting, associating, and
communicating. In scientific approach, these steps
involve listening, speaking, reading and writing
skills to gather the data and information with the
final outcome is written product. At the end of the
scientific activity, the product will be presented in
front of class seen by all students in that class.
In brief, by using scientific approach for the
writing activity, the students will be involved in
some interesting activities such as determining the
purpose, the process, and the result. Therefore, the
students are not considered as passive receivers but
they have to be given chances to find ideas and
concepts. In summary, by using this approach the
students are expected to have good skills,
knowledge, and attitude.
Besides scientific approach, the appropriate
approach for learning writing is Scaffolding
Approach. Scaffolding is an approach in which the
teacher assists the students temporarily to complete
the task so that they can do it by themselves. This is
in line with the opinion of Maybin et al. (1992) that
scaffolding is the temporary help but essential nature
of the teacher’s assistance in supporting students to
carry out the tasks successfully. Scaffolding has
relation with the concept of Vygotsky (1980).
Vygotsky (1980) in his concept named Zone of
Proximal Development (ZPD) state that
development is the space among the child’s level of
independent performance and the child’s level of
maximally assisted performance. From that concept,
the students need teachers to assist them in
developing their knowledge or skill. Therefore,
scaffold writing is needed to make the students
being an independent writer. It also helps the
students to become actively engaged in assessing
their needs, progress, achievement, and effort in
learning writing. In summary, by using scaffolding
approach the students are able to write
independently after getting temporary guidance from
their teacher.
In addition, some studies have been done to
explore the effectiveness of scientific and
scaffolding approaches in teaching and learning
English. Zaim (2017) aimed at implementing of
scientific approach in the teaching of English at
senior high school in Indonesia. The findings
showed that among the five steps of scientific
approach, the teachers have implemented
experimenting, associating and communicating well
in teaching English. As a result, the students’ ability
in English improved.
Yasinta (2014) studied at covering the effects of
scaffolding techniques on writing proficiency among
VIII grade students. Moreover, it seeks to explore
the relationship between the effectiveness of
scaffolding technique and writing proficiency. It was
experimental research and the result showed that
independent t-test and paired t-test revealed the
experimental group improved significantly and
indicated that writing proficiency was a significant
factor in the effectiveness of scaffolding technique.
The above studies deal with scientific and
scaffolding approaches in teaching English.
However, those two approaches have not been
known effective in teaching writing for grade VII
students at SMP N 1 Brebes. In this research, hence,
the researcher focuses on the effectiveness of
scientific and scaffolding approaches in teaching
writing for grade VII students at SMP N 1 Brebes.
2 METHODS
This research was quasi-experimental using pre-test
and post-test control group design. There were two
variables involved, i.e. the approaches used in
teaching writing of descriptive texts as the
independent variable and the students’ ability in
writing of descriptive texts as the dependent
The Effectiveness of Scientific and Scaffolding Approaches in Teaching Writing
633

variable. The population was all students of VII
grade at SMP N 1 Brebes consisting of 267 students
which divided into seven classes in the even
semester of the academic year 2016/2017. The
sample was students of VII D, E and G classes
determined by using simple cluster random sampling
technique.
The students of VII E class was the experiment
group 1 taught through the scientific approach. The
students of VII G class was the experiment group 2
taught through scaffolding approach. Then, the
student of VII D class was control group taught by
using conventional approach. Furthermore, the pre-
test was administered as a means to find out the
homogeneity of the two groups before the treatment
and the post-test was administered as a means to find
out the effectiveness of the teaching approaches.
The research was programmed for nine meetings
from March to April 2017. The teaching schedules
for the experimental groups and the control group
were in the similar weeks. The meetings held twice a
week for both groups based on the schedule from the
school. The instruments employed in this research
were writing test (pre-test and post-test) and the
scoring rubric to assess the students’ works. Writing
test was employed to gain the students’ essays and
the scoring rubric was employed as a guide of the
assessment to score the essays. The sample of this
research was 90 students.
The data were gathered using a test. The
instrument was writing test in the form of an essay.
The validity of the instrument was content validity
which was obtained through the consultation with
experts (expert judgment). The inter-rater technique
was used to test the reliability of the instrument with
Pearson Product Moment Correlation. Normality test
and homogeneity test were performed as the analysis
of the test. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was used to test
normality and Levene test was used to test
homogeneity. Data analysis technique used was One
Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) followed by
Scheffe test supported by SPSS 16.0 for windows
program.
3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Findings
3.1.1 Preliminary Research
The researcher with the English teacher at SMP N 1
Brebes conducted the pre-test on March 8th, 2017.
All students of the two groups were given the pre-
test simultaneously to control the external validity of
the experiment. The purpose of this pre-test was to
assess the students’ writing ability before getting a
series of treatment. Before calculating the mean, the
maximum and minimum score, standard deviation,
variance, and the score distribution, the researcher
coordinated the early condition of both groups. It
was required to prove that the final outcome was
only affected by the treatments. In this case,
normality distribution and homogeneity of variance
testing were employed as the pre-requisite analysis.
In common, normality distribution was computed by
using Kolmogorov-Smirnov with the sig. value
(0.05). Hence, after computing the score of writing
performance pre-test done by the three groups, then
the data of normal distribution was displayed in
table 1.
Table 1: The Result of Normality Distribution of Pre-Test.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
1st Exp.
Group
(Scientific)
2nd Exp.
Group
(Scaffolding)
Control Group
(Conventional)
Kolmogorov
-Smirnov Z
.747
.662
.651
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
.633
.772
.790
Based on the data presented in Table 1, it could
be described that the p-value of the first
experimental group was 0.633. Meanwhile, the p-
value of the second experimental group was 0.772.
The last group that was the control one had p-value
0.790. Therefore, it could be said that the scores of
the pre-test of all groups were normally distributed
since p-value > 0.05. After showing that the pre-test
data were normally distributed, the researcher
examined the homogeneity of variance of the pre-
test. Its result was presented in Table 2.
Table 2: The Result of Homogeneity Variance of Pre-Test.
Levene
Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
.526
2
87
.593
From the Levene Test presented in Table 2, it
could be read that (p) is higher than 0.05 (0.593 >
0.05). In brief, both the experimental groups and the
control one were homogeneous. After the Pre-
requisite Analysis had been fulfilled, ANOVA
independent test was conducted. Its result was
presented in Table 3.
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
634

Table 3: Anova of Pre-Test Score.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Between
Groups
241.800
2
120.900
1.643
.199
Within
Groups
6400.200
87
73.566
Total
6642.000
89
Based on table 3, the level of significance (p)
was 0.199. It was higher than 0.05 (0.199 > 0.05). In
other words, there was not a significant difference in
students’ pre-test scores between the experimental
groups and the control one. In brief, the students’
writing competence of descriptive text of the three
groups at the beginning of the research was the
same.
3.1.2 The Description of Pre-test
Here, the students had to write a descriptive text
about describing a rhinoceros, GUCI and their
favorite idol. The result of students’ writing pre-test
is presented in table 4.
Table 4: The Description of Pre-test Score.
1st Exp.
Group
(Scientific)
2nd Exp.
Group
(Scaffolding)
Control Group
(Conventional)
N
30
30
30
Mean
54.9000
53.2000
50.9000
Median
55.0000
55.0000
52.0000
Std.
Deviation
8.33087
9.01110
8.37216
Variance
69.403
81.200
70.093
Minimum
37.00
36.00
32.00
Maximum
67.00
67.00
67.00
Based on Table 4, the average scores of the three
groups at the beginning of the research were 54.90,
53.20, and 50.90.
3.1.3 The Description of Post-test
After applying the three approaches, the researcher
conducted a post-test to all groups with the same
instruction as in pre-test. Its result is presented in
table 5.
Table 5: The Description of Pre-test Score.
1st Exp.
Group
(Scientific)
2nd Exp.
Group
(Scaffolding)
Control Group
(Conventional)
N
30
30
30
Mean
78.3000
72.2000
66.3000
Median
79.0000
72.5000
64.0000
Std.
Deviation
7.45631
8.47471
5.98936
Variance
55.597
71.821
35.872
Minimum
65.00
60.00
55.00
Maximum
88.00
86.00
80.00
Based on Table 5, the average scores of the three
groups after getting the treatments were 78.30,
72.20, and 66.30. In other words, the average score
of the first experimental group was the highest
compared to other groups. Therefore, after
calculating the score of writing performance post-
test achieved by the three groups, then the data of
normal distribution is presented in Table 6.
Table 6: The Result of Normality Distribution of Post-test.
One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Test
1st Exp.
Group
(Scientific)
2nd Exp.
Group
(Scaffolding)
Control Group
(Conventional)
Kolmogorov-
Smirnov Z
.816
.652
1.086
Asymp. Sig.
(2-tailed)
.519
.790
.189
From the result of the computation as seen in
table 6, it could be said that the data of the first
experimental group is normally distributed with
probability 0.519. The student’s post-test score of
the second experimental group also had normality
distribution with the sig. Level 0.790. Meanwhile,
for the control group, the data was normally
distributed in probability level of 0.189. Those three
values were higher than 0.05. In other words, the
data of the post-test of the two groups had a normal
distribution. After showing that the post-test data
were normally distributed, the researcher examined
the homogeneity of variance of the post-test. Its
result is presented in Table 7.
Table 7: The result of Homogeneity Variance of Post-test.
Levene
Statistic
df1
df2
Sig.
1.721
2
87
.185
From the Levene Test presented in Table 7, it
could be described that (p) is higher than 0.05 (0.185
> 0.05). In brief, both the experimental groups and
the control one were homogeneous. After the Pre-
requisite Analysis had been fulfilled, ANOVA
independent test was conducted. The result of
ANOVA independent test presented in Table 8.
Table 8: Anova of Post-test Score.
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Between
Groups
2160.200
2
1080.100
19.844
.000
Within
Groups
4735.400
87
54.430
Total
6895.600
89
The Effectiveness of Scientific and Scaffolding Approaches in Teaching Writing
635

Based on Table 8, it could be described that the F
value is 19.844 in sig. Level 0.000. Thus, (p) was
lower than 0.05. Therefore, the Ha (Alternative
Hypothesis) was accepted and the Ho (Null
Hypothesis) was rejected. In conclusion, there was a
significant difference writing competence between
the students who involved in the experimental
groups and the control group. In other words,
scientific, scaffolding and conventional approaches
were a significant difference in the effectiveness in
teaching writing. Therefore, it is continued by
conducting the scheffe test to determine the
sequence effectiveness of the three approaches as
presented in Table 9.
Table 9: The Result of Scheffe Test.
(I)
APPROACH
(J)
APPROACH
Mean Difference (I-J)
Std. Error
Sig.
95% Confidence Interval
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
1
2
6.10000*
1.90490
.008
1.3558
10.8442
3
12.00000*
1.90490
.000
7.2558
16.7442
2
1
-6.10000*
1.90490
.008
-10.8442
-1.3558
3
5.90000*
1.90490
.011
1.1558
10.6442
3
1
-12.00000*
1.90490
.000
-16.7442
-7.2558
2
-5.90000*
1.90490
.011
-10.6442
-1.1558
3.2 Discussion
Based on the result of analysis, the researcher
discusses the results of the research findings as
follows.
3.2.1 Scientific, Scaffolding and
Conventional Approaches Have
Significantly Different in Effectiveness
in Teaching Writing
Based on One-way ANOVA test, it is shown by (p)
< 0.05 (0.000 < 0.05). In conclusion, Scientific,
Scaffolding, and Conventional approaches have a
different level of effectiveness in teaching writing.
In Scientific approach, the students are engaged
actively in the teaching and learning activities from
the beginning to the end. In other words, it is
categorized as student-centered. In addition, their
other skills such as speaking, reading and listening
also improve especially when the students collect the
data and information.
Furthermore, scaffolding is very popular in the
educational world. It is able to help students to
organize their ideas so that it is good for writing
practices. The scaffolding approach is helpful in
writing since teacher provides guidance to students
until they could write independently. It helps
students to think more clearly. Therefore, it makes
the writing process more enjoyable. However,
students become dependent on their teacher.
Meanwhile, the conventional approach also has
given a contribution for teaching-learning writing
and for students’ writing ability. However, teacher
has more authority than students, starting from
deciding the topic, doing the writing activities,
editing the writing product, and publishing. Thus, in
the conventional class, teacher is more dominant
than students in the writing activities.
3.2.2 Scientific Approach and Scaffolding
Approach Have a Different Level of
Effectiveness in Teaching Writing
According to Scheffe test, Scientific is more
effective than Scaffolding approach in teaching
writing with (p) > 0.05 (0.008 < 0.05). Based on the
researchers’ observation, Scientific gives the
students independence to decide the topic and design
the task. It creates them freely to be creative and
innovative. Meanwhile, in Scaffolding class, the
students looked little interested in learning activities.
They get teacher guidance to put their ideas into
written form. The learning process is also done
under the teacher guidance until the students could
write independently.
3.2.3 Scientific Approach is More Effective
than Conventional Approach in
Teaching Writing
In accordance with the Scheffe test, there is a
different mean of effectiveness between the students
who are taught by scientific and conventional
CONAPLIN and ICOLLITE 2017 - Tenth Conference on Applied Linguistics and the Second English Language Teaching and Technology
Conference in collaboration with the First International Conference on Language, Literature, Culture, and Education
636

approaches, indicated by (p) 0.000. Since the (p) is
lower than the sig. value 0.05, it is concluded the
different mean of effectiveness between the two
groups is significant. Therefore, the two approaches
have a different level of effectiveness.
3.2.4 Scaffolding Approach is More
Effective than Conventional Approach
in Teaching Writing
According to Scheffe test, it is concluded that
Scaffolding is more effective than Conventional one
with (p) 0.011. It is lower than 0.05 (.011 < 0.05).
Based on the researchers’ observation during the
treatment, the students who are engaged in the
Control group get the problem in organizing their
ideas. On the other hand, those who are treated by
Scaffolding approach are able to explore and
organize their ideas more easily. Therefore, their
writing competence is higher than those of the
Control group.
3.2.5 Scientific Approach is the Most
Effective compared to Scaffolding and
Conventional Approaches in Teaching
Writing
According to Scheffe test, it is obviously described
that mean difference of scientific to scaffolding and
conventional approaches is positive (6.10000 and
12.00000). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected
and the alternative hypothesis is accepted. Thus, it is
concluded that the use of scientific approach was the
most effective compared to scaffolding and
conventional approaches in teaching writing. As a
result, students’ writing ability of the first
experimental group after the treatments given is at
the highest level compared to the second
experimental group and the control group.
4 CONCLUSIONS
According to the research findings, the researcher
concludes this research into several statements.
First, scientific, scaffolding, and conventional
approaches have a significant difference of the
effectiveness in teaching writing. Second, scientific
approach is more effective than scaffolding
approach in teaching writing. Third, scientific
approach is more effective than conventional
approach in teaching writing. Fourth, scaffolding
approach is more effective than conventional
approach in teaching writing. Finally, scientific
approach is the most effective compared to
scaffolding and conventional approaches in teaching
writing.
Those conclusions are drawn based on the
research employed at SMP N 1 Brebes by including
the students of VII E, VII G, and VII D classes as
the samples of this research. This research was
conducted during two months. In the long time of
conducting the experiment, the bias of the
experimental research might happen. To avoid that,
the researcher controlled the internal validity to
make sure that the findings were only affected by the
independent variable.
REFERENCES
Ashman, A. F., Conway, R. N. F., 1997. An Introduction
to Cognitive Education: Theory and Applications.
Routledge. London.
Hosnan, M., 2014. Pendekatan saintifik dan kontekstual
dalam pembelajaran abad 21, Ghalia Indonesia.
Bogor.
Kemdikbud, 2013. Peraturan menteri pendidikan dan
kebudayaan nomor 81A tahun 2013 tentang
implementasi kurikulum 2013.
Maybin, J., Mercer, N., Stierer, B., 1992. 'Scaffolding':
learning in the classroom. In: Norman, Kate ed.
Thinking Voices: The work of the National Oracy
Project, Hodder & Stoughton. London.
Richard, J. C., Renandya, W. A., 2002. Methodology in
Language Teaching an Anthology of Current
Practice, Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S., 1980. Mind in society: The development
of higher psychological processes. Harvard university
press.
Yasinta, Y., 2014. The Effectiveness of Using Scaffolding
Technique towards Students’ Skill in Writing
Descriptive Text. Dept. of Art and Language, Syarif
Hidayatullah University. Unpublished.
Zaim, M., 2017. Implementing Scientific Approach to
Teach English at Senior High School in Indonesia.
Journal of Asian Social Science. 13(2), pp. 33-40.
The Effectiveness of Scientific and Scaffolding Approaches in Teaching Writing
637