Putri Melati, Yayan Sudrajat

Kalimat Efektif dalam Teks Resensi

Introduction

Kalimat efektif dalam teks resensi. Analisis kesalahan penggunaan kalimat efektif dalam teks resensi biografi siswa kelas XII. Mengidentifikasi masalah kesepadanan, kesejajaran, ketepatan & kelogisan.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to analyze the misuse of effective sentences in the biographical reviewer text of class XII. The research method used to analyze effective sentences in the reviewer text is a qualitative descriptive method with emphasis on content analysis. The technique used by researchers is the analysis of the contents of the reviewer text. After analyzing the characteristics of effective sentences in the text of student reviews, the authors conclude that there are errors in the use of effective sentences in the text of class XII student reviews. After the writer analyzes the reviewer text, finally the writer can conclude the percentage difference as follows: From 21 student reviewer text data, there are 32% of data that has 16 equivalence sentences, 4% of data that has 2 parallelism sentences, 10% of data which has 5 sentences of accuracy , 26% of the data had 13 sentences of efficiency, 14% of the data had 7 sentences of cohesiveness, 2% of the data had 1 sentence of firmness, and there were 12% of the data which had 6 logical sentences. So that the amount of data contained in the table is 50 data.

Review

This study, titled "Kalimat Efektif dalam Teks Resensi" (Effective Sentences in Review Texts), addresses a pertinent issue in language education: the accurate and effective use of Indonesian in student writing. The paper aims to analyze the misuse of effective sentences within biographical review texts produced by Class XII students, a topic of clear relevance for improving the quality of student academic and critical writing. The chosen methodology, a qualitative descriptive approach with an emphasis on content analysis, is well-suited for a linguistic study of this nature, allowing for a detailed examination of textual errors. The research successfully identifies and categorizes various types of errors in effective sentence usage, which is a strength of the study. The authors meticulously break down the errors into specific categories such as equivalence, parallelism, accuracy, efficiency, cohesiveness, firmness, and logicality, and quantify their occurrences across 21 student review texts. The reported percentages provide a granular view of which aspects of effective sentence construction pose the most significant challenges for students. The conclusion that errors are indeed prevalent validates the initial premise of the study and provides a solid foundation for understanding student writing deficiencies. While the study offers valuable insights, the abstract itself presents a few areas for potential refinement. The phrase "biographical reviewer text" could benefit from clearer definition or consistent terminology throughout, especially when later referred to as "student reviews." More critically, the presentation of the quantitative data in the abstract could be made more precise; the statement "From 21 student reviewer text data, there are 32% of data that has 16 equivalence sentences..." implies 32% of the *texts* contained 16 equivalence sentences, which is grammatically ambiguous, and "So that the amount of data contained in the table is 50 data" following percentages for error types needs clearer explanation (e.g., 50 *instances of errors* were identified across the 21 texts). Addressing these points would enhance the clarity and rigor of the abstract, mirroring the very effective sentence principles the study advocates.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.