Investigating the Use of Explicit Instruction in Teaching Systemic Functional Linguistics for Developing Thesis Proposal Writing Skills for STAI Hubbulwathan Duri Students

Mohd. Rafi Riyawi; Bukhori Bukhori; Nur Aisyah  Zulkifli

doi:10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.4331

Mohd. Rafi Riyawi Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia
Bukhori Bukhori Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia
Nur Aisyah Zulkifli Universitas Islam Negeri Sultan Syarif Kasim Riau, Indonesia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.63922/ijevss.v5i03.4331

Keywords: Systemic Functional Linguistics, Explicit Instruction, Thesis Proposal Writing, Academic Writing Skills

Abstract

This study examined the effectiveness of Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)-Based Explicit Instruction in improving undergraduate students’ thesis proposal writing at the English Education Department of STAI Hubbulwathan Duri. The study was motivated by students’ difficulties in producing coherent, persuasive, and academically appropriate Background of the Problem sections, particularly in managing ideational, textual, and interpersonal meanings. An embedded mixed-methods design was employed, combining a quantitative one-group pre-test and post-test design with qualitative case study procedures. Seven undergraduate students participated in the study. Quantitative data were collected through writing tests, while qualitative data were obtained from classroom observations, interviews, and document analysis. The instructional intervention was implemented using SFL-Based Explicit Instruction through the Teaching-Learning Cycle, including modeling, guided practice, scaffolding, feedback, and independent writing activities. The findings revealed a substantial improvement in students’ writing performance, with the mean score increasing from 63.47 in the pre-test to 86.83 in the post-test. Qualitative results indicated that students developed greater awareness of academic discourse, improved their use of Theme-Rheme progression, academic vocabulary, and evaluative language, and gained confidence in writing thesis proposals. The findings support the view that explicit and scaffolded instruction helps students understand how language functions to construct meaning in academic contexts. Overall, SFL-Based Explicit Instruction proved to be an effective pedagogical approach for enhancing academic writing competence, strengthening functional linguistic awareness, and supporting students’ participation in scholarly discourse within English as a Foreign Language (EFL) higher education settings.

References

Amberg, J. S. (2017). Academic writing and discourse development in higher education. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bernstein, B. (1990). The structuring of pedagogic discourse: Class, codes and control (Vol. 4). Routledge.
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. David McKay.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage.
Callaghan, M., & Rothery, J. (1988). Teaching factual writing: A genre-based approach. Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program.
Casanave, C. P. (2019). Performing expertise in doctoral dissertations: Thoughts on a fundamental dilemma facing doctoral students and their supervisors. Journal of Second Language Writing, 43, 57–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.12.003
Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2023). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (6th ed.). Sage.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280–298. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.58.3.c43481778r528qw4
Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers. PETAA.
Derewianka, B. (2015). The contribution of genre theory to literacy education in Australia. University of Sydney Press.
Emilia, E. (2005). A critical genre-based approach to teaching academic writing in a tertiary EFL context in Indonesia (Doctoral dissertation). The University of Melbourne.
Emilia, E., & Hamied, F. A. (2022). Systemic functional linguistics and genre-based pedagogy in Indonesian academic writing. Routledge.
Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 43–69). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2015). Academic publishing: Issues and challenges in the construction of knowledge. Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2022). Teaching and researching writing (4th ed.). Routledge.
Irawan, D. H., Khoiruman, M. A. K. M. A., & Untari, D. U. D. (2026). Designing AI-Aware Assessment Models to Measure Students’ Genuine English Proficiency. Jurnal Pedagogi dan Inovasi Pendidikan, 2(1).
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2), Article 43.
Khoiruman, M. A., Irawan, D. H., & Ahmad, F. (2026, June). THE ROLE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION IN SOCIAL MEDIA-BASED MARKETING STRATEGIES AND GLOBAL TRENDS: DIGITAL ETHNOGRAPHY STUDY. In International Conference on Humanity Education and Society (ICHES) (Vol. 5, No. 1).
Kusumaningrum, S. R. (2018). The implementation of systemic functional linguistics in academic writing instruction. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(2), 351–360.
Kvale, S. (1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2008). Genre relations: Mapping culture. Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2012). Learning to write, reading to learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2021). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (3rd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2024). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (5th ed.). Sage.
Moore, J. (2016). Systemic functional linguistics and academic literacy development. Linguistics and Education, 35, 35–47.
Nagao, A. (2019). The SFL genre-based approach to writing in EFL contexts. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 4(6), 1–18.
Rahmadani, D. (2020). Enhancing students’ academic writing through systemic functional linguistics. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 7(1), 87–104.
Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19, 39.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2011.03.001
Yasuda, S. (2023). Learning academic writing through systemic functional linguistics: Effects on genre awareness and rhetorical development. Journal of Second Language Writing, 60, 100982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2023.100982
Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zhang, Y., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Examining the effectiveness of systemic functional linguistics in academic writing instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Teaching Research, 25(6), 935–955.