The Effect of Crawford Series Teaching (CST) on the Students’ Writing Achievement


  • Aswadi Jaya Universitas PGRI Palembang
  • Hermansyah Hermansyah Universitas PGRI Palembang
  • Asti Veto Mortini Universitas PGRI Palembang



CST, writing, descriptive paragraphs.


Abstract: This experimental study aimed to investigate if there was any significant difference in writing ability between the students who were taught by Crawford series Teaching technique and those who were taught by using individual writing technique. Two classes of the first grade students of SMAN 5 Palembang were selected randomly as the sample of the study; experimental and control groups. Each group consisted of 28 students. The instrument used in this study was a set of pre and post-tests. This study used t-test to see the difference achievement between experimental and control groups in terms of writing descriptive paragraph. The result showed that the students in EG achieved better performance in writing descriptive paragraph. P-value got from T-test was 0.02; it was less than the level of significance (0.05). Furthermore, the mean score of the post-test of the EG increased 13.35 points compared to the pre-test, while there was a progress of 6.67 points in the CG. The result also showed a great improvement in the five aspects of writing (content and mechanical, organization, vocabulary, and grammar. In conclusion, students’ achievement in writing descriptive paragraph improved significantly through Crawford Series Teaching technique.


Blanchard, K., & Root, C. (2003). Ready to write more: From paragraph to essay. London: Longman.

Crawford, A., Saul E.W., Mathews, S., & Makinster, J. (2005). Teaching and learning Crawford strategies for the thinking classroom. New York: The International Debate Education Association.

English First English Proficiency Index. (2014). EF EPI country rankings. Retrieved November 10, 2015 from

Harmer, J. (1991). The practice of English language teaching. New York: Longman.

Harmer, J. (1998). How to teach English. New York: Longman.
Huda, N. (1999). Language learning and teaching: Issues and trends. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to collage:What evidence is there that it works? Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). Making cooperative learning work. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.

Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing.

Lie, A. (2002). Cooperative learning: Mempraktikkan cooperative learning di ruang-ruang kelas. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2001). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McCafferty, S. G., Jacobs, G. M., & Iddings, A. C. D. (2006). Cooperative learning and second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Oshima, A. & Hogue, A. (1997). Introduction to academic writing. New York: Addison Wesley Publishing Company.
Reid, J. M., (2006). Essentials of teaching academic writing. Boston: Heinle.

Saharuddin. (2013). Perubahan kurikulum dan kualitas pendidikan di Indonesia. Retrieved November 10, 2015 from

Santoso, R. (2011). Types of cooperative learning model CST Retrieved January 29, 2015 from

Sulisworo, D. & Suryani, F. (2014). The effect of cooperative learning, motivation and information technology literacy to achievement. International Journal of Learning & Development, 4(2), 58-64.

Swan, M. (2005). Practical English usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thornburry, S. (2002). How to teach vocabulary. London: England Pearson Education Limited.