Article Sidebar

Submitted
August 6, 2019
Accepted
August 6, 2019
Published
August 23, 2019
Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 228 Download : 264

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

This research aims to investigate the students’ English competence, the highest percentage of students’ mistake and their difficulties in responding to the TOEFL structure and written expression sections. All of the 6th semester students of the English Education Study Program of Universitas Bengkulu who had passed all structure courses were involved in this research. The data were collected through a TOEFL test and an interview. The results show that majority of the students’ English competence was poor. It also reveals that the most difficult topic in grammar section was redundancy. There were two factors that affected the students’ performance in redundancy, ambiguity and the interference of first language. In contrast, gerund and infinitives were the easiest topic in grammar section. Simple rules and the most common expression were contributed to the students’ performance in gerund and infinitives. In responding to structure and written expression section there were four factors that influenced students’ difficulties, poor understanding of grammar, less focus, lack of practice and limited vocabulary.

Keywords

Students’ English Competence TOEFL Structure Written Expression Section

Article Details

License
Lisensi Creative Commons
Ciptaan disebarluaskan di bawah Lisensi Creative Commons Atribusi-BerbagiSerupa 4.0 Internasional.
How to Cite
Tilana, P. E., Yunita, W., & ., Z. (2019). Students’ English Structure and Written Competence. Journal of English Education and Teaching, 3(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.3.2.180-194
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Akbari, O. (2008). Teaching Vocabulary Items through Contextualization and Picture to Elementary Iranian EFL Students. Asian EFL Journal, 10(3), 53-77.
  2. Brown, D. (2008). Teaching by Principles, An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. London: Pearson Longman.
  3. Chamber, C. G. (2007). Competition during Second-Language Listening: Sentence Context, but not Proficiency, Constrains Interference from the Native Lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(4), 1029–1040.
  4. Hajri, T. (2018). An Analysis of Difficulties in Answering Structure and Written Expression of TOEFL Made By English Students of Universitas Negeri Padang. Journal of English Language Teaching, 7(1), 1-13.
  5. Hambali, M. (2008). Shortcut Strategies in Analyzing Sentence Structures in TOEFL. Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, 9(2), 82-88.
  6. King, C., & Stanley, N. (2006). Building Skills for the TOEFL, Second Edition. London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd.
  7. Mahmud, M. (2014). The EFL Students’ Problems in Answering the Test of English as Foreign Language (TOEFL): A Study in Indonesian Context. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(12), 2581-2587.
  8. Nurhayati, N. (2016). An Analysis of Students’ Strategies in Answering TOEFL. The Journal of English Language Studies, 1(1), 10-18.
  9. Mayuasti, M. (2013). Students’ Ability in the TOEFL–Like Structure Subtest (A Study at STKIP PGRI of West Sumatera). Jurnal Pelangi, 6 (1), 1-10.
  10. Schwartz, M., & Causarano, P.L. (2007). The Role of Frequency in SLA: An Analysis of Gerunds And Infinitives in ESL Written Discourse. Arizona Working Papers in SLA & Teaching, 14(2), 43-57.
  11. Sharpe, P. J. (2013). TOEFL iBT ;14th Edition. New York: Barons Education Series.
  12. Warfield, W. L. R. & Geyer, R.W. (2013). Examining Results and Establishing Benchmark Data from the TOEFL ITP Test. American Academic & Scholarly Research Journal, 5(3), 191-198.
  13. Wright, S. W. & Sukur S. G. (2012). Soal-Soal Grammar TOEFL. Yogyakarta: Kalarana Press.