Enhancing Writing Ability Through Idea Listing Technique

The study is aimed at developing the Idea Listing Technique (ILT) to enhance the students‟ writing ability. The Classroom Action Research was applied in this study. The subjects of the study were 31 students, the students taking the course of Writing II, of the third semester of English Department of one State Islamic College at Palangka Raya, Indonesia, in the 2012/2013 academic year. The findings show that the implementation of ILT can enhance the students‟ ability in writing expository paragraph. It is indicated by the enhancements of the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69), and of the percentage of their involvement in the writing activities during the implementation of ILT in Cycle I and II. Thus, the enhancement of the students‟ ability in writing expository paragraph can be reached but it should follow the appropriate procedures of the implementation of ILT having been developed.


INTRODUCTION
Writing, as one of the productive skills that has been developed in the instructional activities at the university, is considered to be the most complicated problem for students. Therefore, it requires more effort to produce meaning through writing than to recognize meaning through the other skills (Dixon & Nessel, 1983). Byrne (1984) asserts that writing is difficult for students because they are required to write on their own writing, struggling by themselves to refine their writings without any interaction or feedback from either other friends or teacher. Dealing with this, Mukminatien (1991) points out that the difficulties are not merely caused by the students" themselves but they can also be caused by the unvaried and uninteresting techniques of the teachers in teaching writing. As a result, the students are bored and have less motivation in learning writing. However, learning writing must be experienced by the students, particularly the students majoring in English.
Additionally, Gebhard (2000) states that there are problems faced by the English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers in writing instructions. It deals with the less-proficient students that tend to use ineffective writing strategies. They think that they cannot write in English. It is happened because the teacher does not show the students how to write. Consequently, the teachers should find an effective way of building students" self-confidence in the writing activities.
Nirwani (in Miftah, 2010) indicates that proficiency to write in English is one of the basic requirements for those who want to involve themselves in occupational or academic purposes as well as in international life. In any case, nowadays the students, particularly English Department students of the State Islamic College of Palangka Raya, might involve themselves in those proposes. That is why mastering writing in English should be provided for the students as early as possible. To do so, the curriculum of English Department of the State Islamic College of Palangka Raya has offered the courses of Writing I, II, III and IV with 2 credits respectively.
Dealing with the need of building the students" writing, Harmer (2007) suggests that it is encouraged to build the students" writing habit. Many students either think or say that they cannot, or do not want to write. This may be because of their lack of confidence. They think that writing is boring. Therefore, the teacher needs to engage them, from early levels, with easy and enjoyable activities as their habit, so that writing activities not only become a normal part of the classroom but also present opportunities for students to achieve almost instant success.
The preliminary study conducted by giving the writing task of writing an expository paragraph to the third-semester students, the students taking the Course of Writing II, of English Department of the State Islamic College of Palangka Raya on 10 September 2012. It shows that their writing ability was still low. The percentage of the students" score obtained from the 31 students" writing tasks was that 6.45% (2 students) got score A, 22.58% (7 students) got score B, 16.13% (5 students) got score C, and 54.84% (17 students) got score D. These results are considered to be insufficient since majority of the students were unsuccessful in this course. Only 45.16% (14 students of the class) achieved the score greater than or equal to C (60-69). It did not yet achieve the target of the study of the Course of Writing II at the university. It must at least get score C (60-69) for majority of the students for the Course of Writing II success as stated in the guideline of scoring at the university.
In addition, the observation conducted in the writing class showed that there were a lot of problems to solve. The fact shows that how to get started to write is the starting point the students should experience to the next process of writing. Hence, the students" problem of how to get ideas becomes a major problem to solve in the writing activity. In response to the problem faced by the students in the writing class, in the present study, the researcher focuses on solving the problem related to only how the students generate ideas to write for the target topic.
As Gebhard (2000) suggests that in the writing process the teachers" role is to provide chances for students to develop workable strategies for getting started to generate writing ideas. To do so, the teachers are encouraged to have students work through one of the writing processes, prewriting. Prewriting stage encourages the generation of ideas (Brown, 2001), and it is a way of organizing students' thoughts and beginning to put the information they have (English Works Online, 2002). In addition, as indicated by Graves in Widiati & Widayati (1997), students can produce creative and interesting texts when teachers allow them time and opportunity. Among other things, it is for generating ideas. In fact, the generation of ideas is very necessarily conducted before the students are going to write. Therefore, the researcher intends to solve the problem.
Regarding the problems to solve, the researcher proposes the Idea Listing Technique (ILT). Some reasons for proposing this technique applied in this study because in teaching writing the teacher"s role is to encourage students to develop their own ideas in writing (Brown, 2001). It is a prewriting technique focusing on idea generation (Oshima & Hogue, 2007). Besides, he believes that ILT with the appropriate procedures developed seems to be applicable in teaching writing, particularly with the emphasis on encouraging the students to get ideas. Also, it becomes an efficient technique in writing; to lead the students easily let their first ideas flow onto the paper (Brown, 2001). Finally, it can hopefully overcome the students" problems in writing especially in terms of how they generate ideas to write for the target topic and enhance their writing ability.
According to Kaner et al. (2007), ILT is the fastest way to collect the ideas of their various discussions. Through the activity of this technique, writers have more time to go into depth on topics of interest. It will draw out a wide range of thoughts on given topic and help them to rapidly identify many aspects the topic even when they are just beginning to think about it. By listing ideas, the writers can see the breadth of their thinking. They are likely encouraged to create or discover as many as they can. That is why it is very helpful when we want to generate the ideas for the target topic. Oshima & Hogue (2007) assert that idea listing is a prewriting technique. It, one of the prewriting techniques, is a way to get ideas in which writers write the topic at the top of a piece of paper and they quickly make a list of the words or phrases coming into their mind. Through this activity the writers collect ideas to explain the topic they have. In addition, the technique is a way to narrow general topic to a smaller one by listing every word or phrase coming into their mind.
In relation to study in teaching writing, particularly focusing on the study of how to solve the writing problem in term of generating ideas, few studies had been conducted. Maloho (2009), for example, conducted a study focused on improving the students' ability in writing descriptive paragraphs. The result showed that the students' ability could be increased by implementing Concept Mapping. Miftah (2010) did a study trying to solve the students' problem in writing by utilizing Mind Mapping. The finding showed that by implementing the strategy, the students" writing ability improved. In addition, Makhfudhoh (2011) applied Story Mapping strategy to increase the students" skill in writing narrative paragraph. The finding indicated that by applying the strategy, the students" writing skill increased.
In the present study, the researcher attempts to overcome his problem in the writing class in terms of generating ideas to write for the target topic by implementing the ILT. Therefore, it is very much necessary to conduct a study to enhance the writing ability of the third-semester students of English Department of State Islamic College of Palangka Raya through the ILT. The researcher tries to develop the appropriate procedures of the implementation of the technique to be applicable in the writing instruction at the university.
On the basis of the background of the study previously stated, the research problem is then formulated as follows, "How can the Idea Listing Technique (ILT) enhance the writing ability of the thirdsemester students of English Department of State Islamic College of Palangka Raya?" Meanwhile, the study is aimed at developing the ILT to enhance the writing ability of the third-semester students of English Department of State Islamic College of Palangka Raya. The study centered on developing the ILT to solve the problem of generating ideas in writing. The implementation of the technique in this study was centered on enhancing the writing ability of the English Department students, taking the course of Writing II, of the State Islamic College of Palangka Raya in the third semester of the 2012/2013 academic year.
The type of writing used in this study was limited to expository paragraph writing as offered in the course in which the students are considered as the post beginners. It was applied since the students in this level have low skill in writing this paragraph. As indicated by Gebhard (2000), the use of kind of the writing activities for post beginners is led to focus more easily on communicating their ideas through paragraph writing. In this level they are encouraged to be able to produce paragraph that explains or analyzes a topic. The paragraph that has main purpose to explain and analyze a topic is expository paragraph (Smalley et al., 2001). Hence, it should provide them with an experience of writing expository paragraph.
The stages of writing process were applied in this study. The ILT is one of the prewriting techniques; in the main time, the implementation of it is stressed on the stage of prewriting (Oshima & Hogue, 2007). Meanwhile, regarding the assessment, the study focused on the writing componentscontent, organization, and grammar. Those three aspects are paramount importance to assess since they can establish the quality of the writing. Content is the substance and the essence of writing. It is the heart-beat of any great writing (Onukwugha, 2006). To develop the paragraphs students soundly organize the specific facts and ideas, and require grammar for making sentences (Bramer & Sedley, 1981).
The findings of this study are expected to have theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it is expected to support the theory of applying ILT in the teaching of writing. Meanwhile, practically, it hopefully gives meaningful contributions to the students, teachers and future researchers. The students can apply it in writing so that their writing ability enhances. The teachers can utilize it as an alternative way in teaching writing in terms of the idea generation, while the future researchers of the writing field can use the research findings as the recent data concerning with the teaching of writing implementing ILT.

METHOD
The study employed Collaborative Classroom Action Research which was in a cyclical process adapted from the model proposed by Kemmis & McTaggart (1992). It covers four stepsplanning, implementing, observing, and reflecting the data gained from the teaching and learning processwhich run into two cycles, each of which covers four meetings. This study took a place at the State Islamic College of Palangka Raya. Meanwhile, the subjects of the study were 31 students, the students taking the course of Writing II, of the third semester of English Department in the 2012/2013 academic year. All students are taken as the subjects under the consideration that their writing ability is insufficient. It is based on the observation and writing task given in the writing class.
In implementing the action, it was based on the planning of developing ILT that was well-prepared. It included the appropriate procedures of implementation of ILT, the lesson plans, the design of research instruments, and the criteria of success. To obtain the data of the students" writing ability, the writing tasks were given. The writing tasks were in the form of writing expository paragraphs. There were two writing tasks assigned; one was given in Cycle I and the rest was given in Cycle II. The topics of the writing tasks were selected for the appropriateness in terms of the course syllabus of Writing II and students" interest. The topics (general topics) given in Cycle I were "University", "Family", and "Sport". Meanwhile, the topic (general topic) given in Cycle II was only a topic, "Fruits", by which it was to be more focused. In analyzing the data, the researcher analyzed them based on two classifications.
The data dealing with the students' writing achievement were analyzed by utilizing the analytic scoring rubric adapted from Cohen (1994). Their individual score was obtained from the sum of scores from each component obtained by the student, while the mean of the students' score was obtained from the sum of the student's individual score divided by the number of the students.
In addition, the students" compositions were analyzed and scored by the researcher (Rater 1) and his collaborator (Rater 2) independently to avoid the subjectivity of the gained scores. It was conducted to know reliability of the test. Reliability of the test of writing ability test can be gained from two rows of score taken by two raters from the students" work (Djiwandono, 2008). In this study rater reliability (inter-rater reliability) was applied. Then the student"s final writing score was obtained from the mean score of their individual score taken by Rater 1 and 2. The results of the analysis were then presented quantitatively in the form of number as shown in the Appendix (Table 1 and 2). Additionally, the proof of validity empirically was done by presenting the empiric evidence gained from the result of correlation computation of two rows of score taken by two raters. So the correlation of Pearson product-moment is used to find the correlation coefficient (Djiwandono, 2008).
The data dealing with the students" involvement in the writing activities gathered through observation checklist were analyzed quantitatively based on the number of the scale checked by the observer in the observation checklist. The results of all the analyses, furthermore, were employed to decide whether the predetermined criteria of success met or not. The result of this reflection was then used as the basic consideration to draw a conclusion whether the action stopped or needed improving.

FINDINGS Findings from Cycle I The Students' Achievement
Based on the analysis on the students" compositions in Cycle I as shown in the Appendix (Table 1), the findings show that the students" achievement in writing expository paragraphs in Cycle I was not satisfactory yet. It was found that the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) was only 67.74% (21 students of the class). This percentage was greater than those obtained from the writing tasks in Preliminary Study (45.16% or 14 students of the class). From those findings, it means that the students" achievement in writing expository paragraphs in Cycle I enhanced enough but it did not meet the first criterion of success. It was stated that that the criterion was reached if ≥75% students of the class achieved the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) of the range that lies from 0-100. The students" unsatisfactory writing achievement happened because most of the students still could not yet produce a good expository paragraph. They were still difficult to express their ideas in the process of producing the paragraph through the steps of writing such as prewriting, drafting, revising and editing. In prewriting they did not yet maximize the ILT as the technique to explore ideas. Moreover, Most of the students still got problems about writing topic sentence, supporting sentences, and concluding sentence. In addition, their paragraphs were not coherent since they did not use transitional signals properly. As a result, most of their writings did not present some details information yet. The topic sentence or main ideas of their paragraphs stated somewhat unclear or inaccurate and some others stated not clear or accurate. Their writings were organized with ideas that were generally related but it did not have transitional signals or sentence connectors properly while some others loosely organized but main ideas clear, logical, but incomplete sequencing. Moreover, their writings still contained grammatical mistakes. The mistakes made by the students made their writings not easy to understand.

The Students' Involvement
Based on the result of analysis on the data gained from the observation checklist in Cycle I, the findings show that the students" involvement in the writing activities was categorized as fair. It was found that the average percentage of the students doing the activities was 69.44% (22 students of the class were actively involved in the writing activities). It means that the result was fail since it did not meet the second criterion of success. It was stated that the criterion was reached if the students' involvement during implementation of the technique in the writing activities was categorized as good (70%-84% students of the class or 23-26 students did the activity).
It happened since during the instruction process in the four meetings, the students faced the trend problems. Most of the students had problems of how to do prewriting. They did not use the ILT maximally to generate ideas for the target topic. They did not get involved in group activities and follow the rules yet. Also, they did not think about possible ideas with adequate time. Moreover, they could not rearrange the ideas based on the categories. In addition, most of the students had problems of how to write first draft since they had insufficient background knowledge of the topic they were going to write. They were still difficult to use one of the orders of the expository paragraph since they did not quite understand the expository paragraph itself. Also, they did not use transitional signals properly to make the paragraph coherence. Moreover, some students did not refer their activities in drafting stage to those in prewriting stage.

Revision on the Strategy
Some modifications were centered on the procedures of implementing the action in order to find the appropriate procedures of implementing ILT which were applicable in the writing class. First, the way used by the teacher to grouping was that he asked them to make group of 3 based on the students" interest. He selected a facilitator of each group. It hopefully facilitated them with fun and effective activities. Second, the teacher assigned to write expository paragraph for one target topic (a general topic) in order to focus on listing the ideas into sub topic (smaller topic) since in Cycle I he provided them with more one topic in which they broke their concentration. Third, the teacher maximally assigned the students to rearrange or grouping their listed ideas into the categories. It was to lead them to easily write topic sentence and supporting sentences based on the categories arranged. Fourth, media such as picture for brainstorming used in prewriting stage should be presented through LCD because it was bigger and more visual. Fifth, the teacher provided each student with sufficient amount of larger paper (A4 paper) to help them focus on the activities of generating ideas through ILT aiming at giving them chance to produce more ideas and at giving them interest to do the activity. It is followed with some questions related to the topic discussed for brainstorming. Sixth, the teacher asked them to maximally make two kinds of idea listings; one was to generate ideas for sub topic and the rest was to explore ideas for words/phrases to lead them to easily write suitable topic sentence and supporting sentences for expository paragraph. Additionally, the teacher reminded the students that the time would be up, so they may produce additional ideas. Seventh, the teacher clarified his instruction for each stage by elaborating the strange words or sentences clearly and repeatedly when some students looked confused to interest them and to avoid miscommunication. In addition, he gave more control when the students were doing activities in each stage. Eighth, the teacher gave extra treatment individually for those who got problems during the writing class and were in low level. Finally, to make the students clear when doing the writing tasks, the teacher gave review of understanding expository paragraph, and of using ILT in prewriting stage by modeling.

Findings from Cycle II The Students' Achievement
Based on the analysis on the students" compositions in Cycle II, the findings show that the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) was 80.65% (25 students of the class). This percentage was greater than those obtained from Cycle I (67.74% or 21 students of the class). From these findings, it means that the students" achievement in writing expository paragraph in Cycle II enhanced and it met the first criterion of success. It was stated that that the criterion was reached if ≥75% students of the class achieved the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) of the range that lies from 0-100. Even though the students" achievement in writing enhanced, it was still found the certain types of mistakes made by the students in their writings. The number of the mistakes had begun reducing. It seemed that the students doing some mistakes were those who were categorized as the students of the lower of English. Most of the students" writings presented more details information and the topic sentence or main ideas of their paragraph stated fairly, clearly and accurately. Also, most of their paragraphs were fairly well organized and generally coherent as shown from the supporting sentences with the supporting details and the proper transitional signals used, but their writings still contained some grammatical mistakes. Even though some students could not yet revise their inappropriate sentences, their writings had already improved. In the writing activities the students could express or expose their ideas dealing with writing expository paragraphs. Their expository paragraphs were already understandable and readable since they had good content and organization.

The Students' Involvement
Based on the result of analysis on the data gained from the observation checklist in Cycle II, it was found that the average percentage of the students doing the activities was 84.86% (26 students of the class were actively involved in the writing activities). This result was greater than those gained from Cycle I (69.44% students or 22 students of the class). It means that the students" involvement in the writing activities was categorized as good and it met the criterion of success. It was stated that the criterion was reached if the students' involvement in the writing activities was categorized as good (70%-84% students of the class or 23-26 students did the activity).

The Procedures Employed in Implementing ILT
The procedures of the implementation of ILT developed by the lecturer for writing activities involves the application of the writing stages adapted from Gebhard (2000), those are, prewriting, drafting, revising, and editing. The focus of implementation of ILT was particularly on prewriting stage.
Prewriting activities focused on implementing ILT in generating ideas. Prewriting is a preparation to write and the gettingready-to-write stage which is like a warming-up for the athletes (Tompkins & Hoskisson, 1995). The process steps when utilizing the ILT are as follows. First, the lecturer led students to a topic by showing pictures through LCD followed by some questions as brainstorming. Then he introduced the issue or topic and told the instructional objectives. The students were given an allotted time to respond to the question; however, when necessary, it is important that they remain flexible in taking additional time. They should be able to complete steps one through seven within 15 to 30 minutes (Rebori & Havercamp, 2007).
Second, the lecturer asked the students to participate in generating ideas through ILT. To do so, he distributed a model of expository paragraph and asked them to sit in groups of three and asked a group member to be facilitator to lead the process. Then he assigned them to analyze the paragraph for focusing on the writing task that was to write an expository paragraph. It is believed that the use of ILT in prewriting stage enables the students to get ideas and then enhance their writing ability because it is similar to the techniquesways to get startedused in prewriting stage such as brainstorming, clustering, strategic questioning, sketching, free writing, exploring the senses, interviewing, and information gathering (Gebhard, 2000).
Third, the lecturer distributed a large sheet of paper (A4). It is suggested to arrange a large sheet of paper (i.e., wall paper, A4 paper, flip chart). Students often produce more ideas than they expect, thus a sufficient amount of larger paper is required (Rebori & Havercamp, 2007). He next informed the students to be involved in their group activities and follow the rules includeall ideas count even the "crazy" ones and no side conversations during the activities.
Fourth, the lecturer asked the students to explore and share ideas of a general topic to be smaller ones or sub topics (in words and phrases), and list them on the paper as the first list. If students begin to discuss ideas while they are still being listed, the facilitator should remain them of the ground rule side conversations are not allowed (Rebori & Havercamp, 2007). In addition, he reminded them that the time would be up, so they might produce additional ideas. It is suggested that near completion of generating ideas, the teacher announces to the students that "Approximately two minutes remain for generating ideas." Sometimes this announcement may produce additional ideas (Rebori & Havercamp, 2007). After that, he asked them to read the ideas listed and discuss them for clarity and grouping in categories, and then rearrange the ideas based on the categories. Next, he asked them to choose one of the items listed in the categories to be a smaller topic to write expository paragraph.
Fifth, the students were asked to generate ideas of the sub topic that had been decided in words or phrases, and list them on the paper as the second list. It was to lead them to easily write suitable topic sentence for expository paragraph. Any of these ideas could be the controlling idea in their topic sentence, while some others could be supporting sentences. He also reminded them that the time would be up, so they might produce additional ideas. After that, to organize their ideas generated using ILT, he assigned the students to make a paragraph outline for expository paragraph.
Sixth, the lecturer assigned the students to write first draft in drafting stage. Drafting stage centers on providing students chances to start writing based on a paragraph outline idea they had made in the previous stage. Drafting is a stage designed to allow the writers to put their ideas on paper without worrying about mechanics or neatness (Roe et. al., 1995). In this stage, the students were assigned to write rough draft as their first drafts. For so doing, the students were assigned to write a title and start writing their first drafts individually based on the outline they had made.
Seventh, the lecturer asked the students to revise their first drafts in revising stage. Revising stage focuses on providing students chances to revise their first drafts they have made in the drafting stage with emphasis on the content and organization rather than on the mechanics. Revising is to make the writing clearer and more interesting to the readers (Glencoe, 2001). Both drafting and revising stages are the core of the writing process (Brown, 2001). In revising stage the students rethink and rewrite the first draft to form the second draft. To do so, he guided them to revise their writing in terms of content and organization through peer revising and self-revising. To do peer revising, the students were asked to make a group of three. They were suggested to use Peer Review Checklist for Expository Paragraph taken from book, Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar (Smalley, et. al., 2001). They responded to each other"s drafts by answering the questions of the checklist in their task books. Meanwhile, for self-revising, the students were assigned to revise their own drafts by using Revision Checklist for Expository Paragraph taken from book, Refining Composition Skills: Rhetoric and Grammar (Smalley, et. al., 2001). They answered the questions of the checklist in their task book, and then wrote second draft based on the suggestion from peer and self-revising.
Finally, the lecturer assigned the students to edit their second draft in editing stage. Editing stage centers on providing the students chances to edit the drafts, and proofread the drafts for accuracy and correctness in spelling, punctuation, capitalization, and grammar. Editing is putting the piece of writing into its final form. It is the process in which the students begin to look at correctness (Stone, 1990). To do so, he guided the students to edit their second draft through self-editing. They were suggested to use Self Editing Worksheet taken from book, Introduction to Academic Writing (Oshima & Hogue, 2007). They responded their own drafts by answering the questions of the worksheet. After that, they were asked to write final version of their writings, and then to submit.
Some other aspects considered that had given a significant contribution to the students" enhancement during the implementation of ILT were: (1) clear instruction and explanation of doing the activities in each writing stage, (2) maximal guidance and control in applying the ILT, (3) the need of visual media such as picture through LCD related to the topic discussed, (4) the way of grouping in doing the writing task that should be based on the students" interest, not based on the teacher"s decision, (5) the need of one target topic (general topic) only for a writing task to be focused, (6) the need of rearranging or grouping listed ideas into categories for leading writers to write topic sentence and supporting sentences easier, (7) the need of sufficient amount of larger paper such as A4 paper to give writers chance to produce more ideas, (8) the more listed ideas of generating ideas through ILT, the easier the writers write paragraph, (9) the need of extra treatment individually for those who get problems during the writing class, and (10) the need of review session of understanding the paragraph writing, and of using ILT.

The Enhancement of the Students' Writing Ability
The implementation of ILT with the appropriate procedures developed can enhance the students" ability in writing an expository paragraph. The enhancement can be examined from the enhancements of the students" achievement in writing an expository paragraph, and of their involvement in the writing activities during the implementation of ILT in the teaching and learning process.
The students" achievement in writing an expository paragraph enhanced is shown from the enhancement of the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) of the range that lies from 0-100 in Preliminary Study, Cycle I and II as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1 the Enhancement of the Percentage of the Students
Achieving the Score ≥ C (60-69) Figure 1 shows that the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69) in Preliminary Study was 45.16% (14 students of the class). It increased enough into 67.74% (21 students of the class) in Cycle I. Meanwhile, in Cycle II it enhanced into 80.65% (25 students of the class). This was a slight enhancement. Dealing with the students" involvement in the writing activities during the implementation of ILT in the teaching and learning process, it is shown from the enhancement of the percentage of the students" involvement in the writing activities in every cycle (Cycle I and II) is shown in Figure 2.   Figure 2 shows that in Cycle I some students did not implement all activities seriously. Only 69.44% students (22 students of the class) were involved in the writing activities. Meanwhile, in Cycle II the students involved in the writing activities increased into 84.86% students (26 students of the class). They were actively involved in the writing activities.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
After implementing ILT with the appropriate procedures developed, the students" ability in writing an expository paragraph enhances. It is indicated by the enhancements of the percentage of the students achieving the score greater than or equal to C (60-69), and of the percentage of their involvements in the writing activities during the implementation of ILT in Cycle I and II (Figure 1 and 2). The success of this study is in Cycle II. So, it needs long time to succeed in this study.
The enhancement of the students" ability in writing an expository paragraph can be reached but it should follow the appropriate procedures of the implementation of ILT as follows: (1) leading students to the topic (general topic) by involving them in brainstorming activity utilizing pictures related to the topic discussed through LCD followed by questions to recall their background knowledge, (2) telling students about the instructional objectives, (3) asking students to generate ideas through ILT in group of three with a group member to be facilitator, (4) assigning students to analyze a model of expository paragraph to focus on the writing task, (5) distributing a large sheet of paper (A4 paper), (6) asking students to explore and share ideas of the topic to be smaller ones (sub topics) in words and phrases, and list them on the paper as the first list, (7) asking students to read the ideas listed and rearrange them based on the categories, and then decide a sub topic, (8) asking students to generate ideas of the sub topic in words and phrases, and list them on the paper as the second list, (9) reminding students that the time will be up, so they may produce additional ideas, (10) assigning students to organize their ideas generated by making a paragraph outline, (11) asking students to write their first drafts, (12) having a miniconference to give suggestions and comments to revise their drafts through peer and self-revising, (13) assigning students to edit their own drafts and write final version, and (14) having students submit their final products.
To follow up the conclusion, some suggestions are proposed to the English teachers/lecturers, students and future researchers. The English teachers/lecturers of Writing Course are recommended to employ the appropriate procedures of implementation of ILT as one of the alternative techniques in their writing classes because of its effectiveness. The procedures proposed, however, need to agree with the students" characteristics and conditions. They have better development of their ways of teaching related to the procedures of the implementation of ILT for the more appropriate application.
Regarding the implementation of ILT with the appropriate procedures developed was effective and suitable to enhance the students" ability in writing expository paragraph, the students are suggested to apply it independently both in the classroom and outside wherever they are writing any types of writing. In addition, future researchers are recommended to conduct such kinds of research concerning with the implementation of ILT in English teaching applying the other kinds of writings such as descriptive, narrative, process, comparison and contrast, etc., in the form of paragraph or essay by considering the strength of the implementation of ILT as a technique in teaching writing. Finally, the researcher thanks to those who contributed in this study, and who concern with its recommendation.