Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the
Field of English Education
Syayid Sandi Sukandi
1
and Dian Rianita
2
1
English Education Study Program of STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat, Jl. Gunung Pangilun, Padang, Indonesia;
2
Keywords: Composition, EFL, Thesis, Writing
Abstract: Context of this research is thesis writing in the level of bachelor‟s degree in the field of English Education.
This research used total sampling. The number of questionnaires returned was 95 questionnaires of the total
number of expected questionnaires. Respondents were categorized into two groups: 1) quantitative research
group (QRG-1); 2) qualitative research group (QRG-2). Findings of this research were divided into three
items: 1) most problematic; 2) problematic; 3) less problematic. Findings show that the most problematic
item for QRG-1 is finding sources (30.43%); meanwhile, starting the thesis or idea (21.13%) is most
problematic item for QRG-2. Problematic items in QRG-1 have three items with equal percentage: 1)
developing ideas in writing (16.67%); 2) typing in wrong spelling (16.67%); 3) analyzing data (16.67%). On
the contrary, problematic item for QRG-2 is finding sources (19.72%). Less problematic item for first
group is organizing ideas in writing (21.74%); meanwhile, less problematic item for second group is
writing in correct grammar (21.13%). In this research, EFL students‟ problems in writing thesis are
basically different individually; however, this condition is largely influenced by their perception on thesis
writing and how process approach rather than product approach should be implemented to them.
1 INTRODUCTION
To write well in English, in a sense, is problematic
for Indonesian students. Few of them mentioned that
English has many grammatical rules to be
remembered, and at the same time, to be applied to
writing. This phenomenon increases when the
students composed thesis in English for the first
time. In Indonesia, studying at bachelor‟s degree is
the stage where the students composed a thesis. As a
matter of fact, “English is only a foreign language in
Indonesia, whereas the Indonesian language is the
national, official language of Indonesia and, at the
same time, the lingua franca among speakers of
different mother tongues” (Pasassung, 2003, p. 35).
Not only English is viewed as a foreign language,
English is also considered as an international
language. On top of those all, the dominant view in
this regard is that English is a foreign language in
Indonesia. It remains as it is until today (2017).
Within the notion of English as a foreign
language in Indonesia, research that addresses issues
on writing, learning writing, and teaching writing
seems to be small in numbers. This type of research
is structured in composition studies. Basically,
research in composition studies relate to issues on
pedagogy and learning writing (Lauer & J., 1988, p.
98). Therefore, this research was framed within
issues that were related to pedagogy, especially in
relation to Indonesian students‟ problems in
composing or writing their thesis in the field of
English Education. Furthermore, research paradigm
in this research relates to Neo-Aristotelians and
Positivists. This paradigm indicates that “objective
reality can be known through the senses, with the
addition of either deductive or inductive reasoning”
(Bridwell-Bowles, 1991, p. 98). The reality that we
mean at this point refers to students‟ responses
toward questions that we asked in a questionnaire.
Their responses were noted and these responses
became objective reality afterwards.
In the context of writing thesis as an act of
composing a text, Wendy Wright in El Camino
College described that the composing process
involves in discovering, drafting, revising, and
polishing (Anderson, 2001, p. 31). Anderson
highlighted that writing a thesis in the field of
English Education demanded gradual process that
students need to encounter. Within each stage, as
448
Sukandi, S. and Rianita, D.
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education.
DOI: 10.5220/0008220000002284
In Proceedings of the 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference (BELTIC 2018) - Developing ELT in the 21st Century, pages 448-459
ISBN: 978-989-758-416-9
Copyright
c
 2022 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

stated above, the students need to find what they
wanted to search in a research, write a draft of what
they research, revise what they had written in that
research, and finalize such writing to become an
acceptable piece of writing to be called a thesis.
Unfortunately, though, students who learn
English as a foreign language and students who
learn the language as a second language are
different. In fact, they create diverse pedagogical
circumstances (Ra‟uf, 2017). The diversity between
EFL students and ESL students, in Hyland‟s terms,
is that they have “different linguistic proficiencies
and intuitions about language” (Hyland, 2003, p.
31). By taking Hyland‟s statement, then, we could
draw a line that learning English as a foreign
language was framed through different layers that
might be different within each student. This
circumstance is needed to receive proper attention
from scholars and practitioners in the field.
Research on this topic had been viewed by
researchers coming from different places in the
world. In Egypt, similar problems on cohesion and
coherence were encountered by EFL students
(Ahmed, 2010). This leads to the barrier of
accomplishing the goal of English language teaching
classroom, which is to achieve the „critical thinking‟
skills (Banegas, 2016, p. 455). Problems on
academic writing within EFL setting also happened
in China. Cailing pointed out that those Chinese
students “are more inclined to employ inductive
strategy in their English writing while westerners
favour deductive strategy” (2017). Also, direct more
was much preferable by EFL students in China (Lee,
2017). To overcome problems in EFL writing, such
as those in Bangladesh, Malik and Nahar
emphasised that analysing errors in the students‟
writings is important (2017). However, giving
appropriate training on English writing for teachers
is necessary in Sudan, for example (Osman, 2017).
At this point, we can claim that how different it is to
see EFL writing and ESL writing (Ortega, 2009, p.
232). In fact, Zidane also stated that fluency and
style are the most problematic aspects of academic
writing for EFL students (2018).
In theory, Hyland emphasizes that each type of
students, between ESL and EFL students, has
“different learning experiences and classroom
expectations” (Hyland, 2003, p. 31). Besides, lack of
reading, lack of writing exposure and low
motivation to learn English academic writing are
some factors that affect students‟ writing
performance in EFL setting (Sari, 2018). Grammar
also played a key role in learning academic
writing in EFL context (Solikhah, 2017). In Sudan,
for example, learning discourse markers for
constructing academic writing in EFL setting is
crucial to solve such issue (Tom, 2017).
The above literature, therefore, has led us to
conduct research in the form of a survey study. The
purpose is to investigate Indonesian EFL students‟
problems in the process of writing a thesis.
Therefore, this article highlights some of the
most important issues that happen among students
when they were in the middle of writing a thesis.
1.1 Academic Writing in Higher
Education
The obvious language circumstance that exists in
Indonesia is that “[the country] is linguistically so
diverse” (Riza, 2008, p. 93). From Aceh to Papua, or
from Sabang to Merauke, Indonesia has a national
language and tremendous number of vernacular
languages. By knowing this fact, it is evident to say
that the process of teaching and learning English in
Indonesia is dilemmatic and complex on its own
terms. In relation to reasons of learning academic
writing of English in Indonesia, one of them is to
enhance “language development”, which leads to
acquire “the mental activity we have to go through
in order to construct proper written texts is all part of
the on-going learning experience” (Harmer, 2003,
p.79). Writing thesis in English as a foreign
language, thus, demands such process of
language development and that the students who
face this process should face the growth of mental
activity through different layers. Furthermore,
“…writing is both a social and a cultural activity, in
that acts of writing cannot be looked at in isolation
but must be seen in their social and cultural
contexts” (Weigle, 2002, p. 22). Although learning
academic writing is framed within academic setting,
writing in its own terms as Weigle mentioned, is
basically constructed within certain social and
cultural setting. For instance, Japanese students were
much influenced by Confucian education ideals and
as such, it influence the way Japanese students learn
EFL academic writing (McKinley, 2013).
From Indonesian historical standpoint, writing
seems to be limited to students who came from rich
family. Not until late 1990s, Indonesian government
paid attention to the development of literacy as part
of growing awareness on academic writing. Even
today, “despite this long tradition of writing, literacy
in Indonesia has until recently been accessible only
to the elite” (Lowenberg, 2000, p. 139). Lowenberg
may state controversial statement, but apparently,
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
449

the statement may lead to the true condition of
literacy to the country. Moreover, Peter Lowenberg
claimed that “with regard to writing skills, many
educators complain that students receive insufficient
training and practice in writing, largely because few
teachers of language or other subjects give writing
assignments or collect or correct the assignments
that they do give” (Lowenberg, 2000, p. 144). The
same complain might exist as well when we assess
students‟ writing in the level of higher education. In
the sense of pedagogical perspective, teachers and
lecturers who teach English and give assignments to
their students really need to check and correct the
assignments. In terms of thesis writing as a form of
academic writing, therefore, lecturers supervising
students‟ thesis need to check and correct the
students‟ thesis. Otherwise, the students will not be
aware of what aspects of their thesis that are
incorrect or correct under the acceptable standard of
research report and academic writing.
After conducting a small-scale survey research to
20 postgraduate students of four nationalities in
Australia, Al Badi concluded that EFL “students
tend to have similar difficulties in academic setting”,
such as writing own voice, finding relevant topics
and sources (2015). Meanwhile, Astorga emphasized
that introducing writing pedagogic cycle is
important for EFL students: pre-writing, writing, and
post-writing (2007). Problems in voice may relate to
lack of understanding on discourse communities
(Canagarajah, 2004). On this concern, Ferenz
mentioned that foreign language practitioners need
to be aware as well on the academic discourse
community (2005).
Research shows that gap between English
languages learning outcome at high school to what is
expected in the university context may end up in
insufficient language skills to study effectively in
academic scheme (Al Seyabi & Tuzlukova, 2014).
Academic writing in higher education, in short,
is socially and culturally constructed. To reach this
point, we should start by looking at problems that
students‟ face in that setting of thesis writing.
Analogically, we always want the athletes to be the
winner, but without understanding the problems they
encounter in the process of doing exercises, then we
might already conduct the act of pushing too much.
Consequently, winning might be achieved, but it will
not happen naturally. Right at this point, the role of
thesis supervisors is really needed and crucial.
1.2 Supervising Thesis for Senior-Year
Students through Process Approach
In the process of writing thesis, a student is advised
and supervised by two lecturers. The first lecturer
plays a role as a content supervisor. The second
lecturer will focus on the clarity of language and
mechanics. In the sense of the student, writing is a
language activity that involves “both physical and
mental act” (Sokolik, 2003, p. 88). Physical at this
point refers to the students‟ ability not only to gather
relevant materials, read many sources, and cite the
readings in appropriate conduct. Mental act refers to
the strength that the students have in writing their
thesis. Many situations beyond expectation might
happen during this process, so the students need to
be able to cope with such situations (Dickson-Swift
et al, 2007). As lecturers of English, we are aware
that the students will individually view thesis writing
in different understanding. As such, we need to see
what they had been going through when they wrote
their thesis. Writing thesis is challenging, my
students said.
Before a student is considered as having liability
to write a thesis in the field of English Education;
three conditions that they need to meet. It leads to
the mastery of language taxonomy. Grabe and
Kaplan in 1996 theorized that three types of
knowledge involved in “taxonomy of language
knowledge”: 1) linguistic knowledge; 2) discourse
knowledge; 3) sociolinguistic knowledge (Weigle,
2002, p. 30). A student needs to be taught
understanding on linguistic aspect before letting him
or her compose a thesis. The ability to understand a
language linguistically will surely help them to
acquire good understanding on language. Discourse
knowledge refers to the students‟ complete
understanding on the field they learned. If they
studied in the field of English Education, then they
need to be trained as well about terms, ideas,
concepts, and perspectives that exist in this field.
The same condition applies to other fields of
study. Meanwhile, sociolinguistic knowledge leads
to their ability to comprehend language varieties in
terms of usage, such as academic language, formal
language, or informal language. By knowing these
three elements, then, they students can be ready to
write a thesis in the field of English Education. We
facilitate them in the process of writing without
feeding them with what we know, but we feed them
with techniques of conducting research and
academic language expression that they need for
composing a thesis (Ghadirian, et al, 2014). This
idea is related to local setting of where a student
writes a thesis. Certainly, “one of important aspects
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
450

of the local context is the local community‟s concept
of teaching and learning” (Pasassung, 2003, p. 16).
Therefore, atmosphere of writing a thesis in
Indonesia, particularly in West Sumatera, will be
different from writing a thesis in other country, such
as the United States. Besides, the degree of needs
that the students have will vary among students
coming from different English language settings.
However, research that tries to investigate this
notion in Indonesian context seems to be in need of
further action. Hopefully, this article is one of them.
2 RESEARCH METHOD
This research is classified as primary research,
which is also categorized as original research
(Bailey, 2011, p. 289). Primary research means that
this research was conducted on the basis of a
problem. Problem that was investigated in this
research was the students‟ problems in the process
of writing a thesis. Field of study in which this
research can be classified is composition studies.
Within this field, it is also categorized as field
research that used surveys as its instrument (Lauer,
1991, p. 472). The field was College of Teacher
Training and Education in the province of West
Sumatera in Indonesia. In addition, this research is
also connected to research about second language
writing [and foreign language writing] in which
focus of research is about themes and topics in
academic writing (Hyland, 2003, p. 2). A thesis is a
form of an academic writing. The core analysis that
this research presents is Indonesian EFL students‟
problems in the process of writing their thesis.
Furthermore, as commonly known, a research needs
to be conducted within acceptable research method.
In a sense, “research methods are designed to
achieve the goals of particular paradigms of
research” (Cooper, 1997, p. 559); besides, “all
research paradigms do not share the same notion of
what knowledge is, how it is produced, and how it
accumulates” (Cooper, 1997, p. 556). This research
is conducted in quantitative research paradigm.
2.1 A Qualitative-Descriptive Study: A
Survey Study
The design of this research falls into a quantitative
descriptive research in the field of composition
studies (Lauer & J., 1988, p. 99; Bridwell-Bowles,
1991, p. 99). In theory, “descriptive
researchprovides information about conditions,
situations, and events that occur in the present”
(Postlethwaite, 2005, pp. 2-3). Quantitative
descriptive studies is defined as “studies that
examine variables with statistical measures” and it
“allow[s] researchers to describe patterns within
data or subjects” (Bridwell- Bowles, 1991, p. 105).
Variables that we searched were categorized into
three dimensions, as reflected in the three questions
in the questionnaire. In addition, this research was
conducted in the form of a survey study. Survey is
an approach in quantitative research design;
meanwhile, questionnaire is used as a technique in
this survey study (Blaxter, et al., 2006, p. 63). In
the sense of research taxonomy, survey research
means “seeking information about larger groups
usually by means of sampling technique” (Lauer &
J., 1988, p. 15). The purpose is “to learn about
characteristics of an entire group of interest, or a
population by examining a subset of that group, or
a sample” (Johnson, 1992, p. 104). In this survey
study, we distributed the questionnaire to all
respondents. In theory on research methodology, it
is believed that “dalam survei, kepada semua
responden diajukan pertanyaan yang sama, sejauh
memungkinkan dalam situasi yang sama pula” (Bell,
2006, p. 12). It means that every respondent in this
research responded to the same questions in the
questionnaire. Moreover, specific form of this
survey study is in the form of census, which means
that all respondents received the same questions.
2.2 Research Instrument
In this research, three questions were asked to the
respondents. Items that were asked in the
questionnaire were in the form of “quantity or
information”, “open-ended”, and “ranking” (Blaxter,
et al., 2006, p. 181; Johnson, 1992, p. 113).
As the questionnaire is displayed in Figure 1, we
notice that question 1 is a question that asked for
information, question 2 is a question that has open-
ended response, and question 3 is a question that
asked for responses in the form of ranking toward
five provided items. One of the questions in the
questionnaire is in the form of closed question. The
purpose of using this type of questions is because
such question is “easier to process, but open
questions will collect a wider range of responses”
(Bailey, 2011, p. 268). In relation to ethics in this
research, identity of the students was not requested
and it was not displayed in this article in order to
reach high anonymity and abide ethical research
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
451

conduct (Blakeslee & Fleischer, 2007, p. 58; Bell,
2006, p. 62)
Q u e s tionnaire
1 What is your research approach for t h e s i s ?
a. Quantitative
b. Qualitative
Answer: ………………………
2 In one word or a phrase, what was the problematic items
that you faced when you wrote your thesis?
a. Most Problematic Items
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
b. Problematic Items
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
c. Less Problematic Items
……………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………
3 Which one of the following aspects of a thesis that you
evaluated as problematic to write for you?
(Please arrange from the most difficult, or 1 , to the least difficult, or 2 )
(……….) Writing Research Title
(……….) References: Books/ Journals
(……….) Place of Research: Campus/School/Village (……….)
English Language: Writing (Sentences/Paragraphs) (……….)
English Language: Grammar (Spelling/Vocabulary/Tenses)
Figure 1: Research Instrument i.e. Questionnaire
Data in this survey study are in the form of nominal
or numerical data. This kind of data means that
“numerical values are assigned to categories as
codes” (Blaxter, et al., 2006, p. 217). To manage the
data in this research, descriptive statistics is applied.
It relates to managing data that are in the form of
“variable frequencies” (Blaxter, et al., 2006, p. 215;
Johnson, 1992, p. 116). Furthermore, coding is used
in gathering data of responses in the second and
third question of the questionnaire. First question
was used to separate responses from the respondents
into two groups: 1) quantitative research group
(QRG-1); 2) qualitative research group (QRG-2).
Analyses toward these responses are briefly
presented in the data analysis section of this article.
2.3 Respondents
Questionnaire of this research was distributed in
November 28, 2015 when the event of alumnae
gathering of English Education Study Program of
STKIP PGRI Sumatera Barat took place.
Respondents who filled out this questionnaire were
students who graduated in 2015. Based on the
database about the respondents‟ grade point average,
more than a half students had GPA from 3.01 to
3.50. This data can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1:GPA Range of the Students in this Research
No
GPA Range
Number of
Students
Percentage
1
2.50 - 3.00
8
5.80%
2
3.01 - 3.50
92
66.67%
3
3.51 - 4.00
38
27.54%
138
From Table 1 above, it can be seen that majority of
the students graduating in academic year of
2015/2016 had good GPA. Only 5.80% of alumnae
had lower GPA. Total number of respondents was
138 respondents. Meanwhile, number of responses
that was collected after the questionnaire was
distributed was numerous. Each question has
different number of responses. Each respondent
provided response for each question in different
manner.
2.4 Technique of Data Analysis
Data that were collected in this research are in the
form of empirical data. Empirical data are viewed as
“information that can be sensed or experienced and
collected, analysed, and interpreted” (Bridwell-
Bowles, 1991, p. 99). The data were collected
through a means of a questionnaire, then the data
were analysed according to the responses given, and
the data were interpreted according to what occur as
responses in each question.
In the questionnaire, three questions were
provided for respondents to answer. First question
was asked to the respondents to classify the
responses according to type of research they did.
Data were collected numerically by applying note-
taking. We noted how many respondents responded
quantitative and how many respondents responded
qualitative. Second question was asked to determine
the hierarchy of problems that the respondents
encountered during the process of thesis writing.
Kesulitan paling umum means the most problematic
items. Kesulitan umum means the problematic items.
Kesulitan biasa means the less problematic items.
Third question was asked to determine the degree of
problems that most students encounter. The provided
items in the questionnaire were chosen after initial
observation during the process of supervising
students‟ thesis. Thus, we were interested to find out
the degree of provided issues that were perceived as
common issues among Indonesian EFL students.
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
452

3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings of this research are presented into three
sections. The first section is the responses from
question 1. The second section is the responses from
question 2. The third section is the responses from
question 3. The responses in each question were
presented in the form of table and figures.
3.1 Findings for Question 1
Question 1 in the questionnaire was about
classification of respondents according to the type of
research that they composed for thesis. Findings for
question 1 can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2: QRG - 1 and QRG - 2
From Figure 1, we can see that two groups had
different number of research type. The first group
(QRG-1) is lesser than the second group (QRG-2).
The total number of respondents who responded the
first question was 95 students. Only 24.21% of the
population had quantitative research and 75.79% of
the respondents had qualitative research for their
thesis. In other words, the total number of
respondents is 68.84% or 95 respondents from 138
expected questionnaires. Consequently, the validity
of this research is relatively high because the data
were taken from more than 50% of the population.
3.2 Findings for Question 2
In question 2, the question was directed to find out
hierarchy of problems that the respondents had in
the process of writing their thesis. Data that had
been collected for responses in question 2 are
displayed through a table. One table represents one
degree of problematic items, from the most
problematic to less problematic items.
3.2.1 Most Problematic Items
Data that were collected from question 2 that are
categorized into the most problematic items are
displayed in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 2: Most Problematic Items for QRG-1
Group
Most Problematic Items
Number
of
Students
Percentage
Within
the same
reearch
type
Within
All
Researc
h types
Quantitative (QRG0 1)
Finding Sources
7
30%
7%
Writing in Correct
Grammar
3
13%
3%
Organizing Sentences
Academically
2
9%
2%
Meeting with Lecturers
2
9%
2%
Selecting Relevant
Theories
2
4%
2%
Finding Data
1
4%
1%
Explaining Data
1
4%
1%
Formulating Calclation
1
4%
1%
Advising Schedule
1
4%
1%
Writing Research
Background
1
4%
1%
No Answer
2
9%
2%
Total
23
100%
Table 3: Most Problematic Items for QRG-2
Group
Most Problematic Items
Number
of
Students
Percentage
Within
the same
reearch
type
Within
All
Researc
h types
Quantitative (QRG0 2)
Starting the Thesis (Idea)
15
21%
16%
Writing in Correct
Grammar
10
14%
11%
Finding Sources
9
13%
10%
Meeting with Lecturers
7
10%
7%
Writing Background of
the Research
4
6%
4%
Finding Related Theories
3
4%
3%
Managing Time
2
3%
2%
Organizing Writing
2
3%
2%
Determining Research
Tittle
2
3%
2%
Developing Ideas in
Chapter 1
2
3%
2%
Analyzing Data
1
1%
1%
Describing Phenomena
1
1%
1%
Writing Research
Findings
1
1%
1%
Feeling Bored
1
1%
1%
Feeling Lazy to Start
1
1%
1%
No Answer
10
14%
11%
Total
71
100%
The total number of respondents who answered
the second question in the questionnaire was 94
respondents. It impacts validity of the data to be
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
453

68% from all 138 expected respondents. However,
still, this percentage is acceptable. It reaches more
than 50% of the population.
From Table 2, we can notice that the first group
preferred finding sources as the most problematic
item. It has 30% within the same group. Meanwhile,
the second group preferred starting the thesis
(idea)as the most problematic item. It has 21%
within the same group. Furthermore, as we can see
in the Items column, we notice ten most
problematic items for the respondents in QRG-
1 and fifteen most problematic items for the
respondents in QRG-2.
Apparently, despite the number of respondents in
each item is different, however, we could notice the
name of each item in the Items list. By knowing
these facts, we could figure out that the ten most
problematic items in QRG-1 and fifteen most
problematic items in QRG-2 need further attention
from us. From these findings, we could arrange how
to help students.
3.2.2 Problematic Items
Data that were collected from question 2 that are
categorized into the problematic items are displayed
in Table 2 and Table 3.
Table 4. Problematic Items in QRG-1
group
Problematic items
Number
of
Students
Within the
same
research
type
Within
all
research
types
Quantitative (QRG-1)
Developing Ideas in Writing
3
17%
3%
Typing in Wrong Spelling
3
17%
3%
Analyzing Data
3
17%
3%
Writing in Correct Grammar
2
11%
2%
Developing Ideas in the
Background
2
11%
2%
Typing the Thesis
2
11%
2%
Meeting with Lecturers
1
6%
1%
Reviewing Experts in Chapter 2
1
6%
1%
No Answer
1
6%
1%
Total
18
100%
The same notion had been noticed by
researchers in the field. Herizi noticed that “most
students seem to consider literature review as a
product rather than a process of summarizing and
synthesizing that should be well handled” (2017, p.
266). Meanwhile, Peng in China, also found out
that composing the narrative of literature review
and the lack of conceptual framework were
problems in writing thesis for Chinese EFL
students (2018, p. 93). Strauss stressed out that
in terms of forums to discuss findings about
research in the discipline of English for academic
purposes, “the less powerful voices of the EAP
practitioners and the students will not be
marginalized” (2012). On the other side, Wang
noticed that EFL students, or international students,
who composed thesis in Australia need careful
attention from their research supervisors (2008), so
that problems as in Table 4 and Table 5 can be very
much avoided.
Table 5: Problematic Items in QRG-2
The total number of respondents who answered
the second question in the questionnaire is 89
respondents. It impacts validity of the data to be
64% from all 138 expected respondents. However,
still, this percentage is acceptable. It reaches more
than 50% of the population. From Table 4, we can
notice that the first group preferred developing ideas
in writing as the most problematic item. It has 17%
within the same group. Meanwhile, the second group
finding sources as the most problematic item. It has
20% within the same group. Furthermore, as we can
see in the Items column, we notice eight problematic
items for the respondents in QRG-1 and fifteen
problematic items for the respondents in QRG-2.
Seemingly, despite the number of respondents in
each item is different, however, we could notice the
name of each item in the Items list, as what we could
see in Table 3 and Table 4. By knowing these facts,
we could figure out that the eight problematic items
in quantitative research and fifteen most problematic
items in qualitative research are various among
students. From these findings, we could probably
need to arrange how to adjust our students‟ attention
to tackle to problematic items that they faced during
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
454

thesis writing process. On the other side, we could
also improve our supervision strategy for the
students so that they can overcome all these
problematic items.
3.2.3 Less Problematic Items
Data that were collected from question 2 that were
categorized into the less problematic items are
displayed in Table 6 and Table 7.
Table 6: Less Problematic Items for QRG-1
Table 7: Less Problematic Items in QRG-2
The total number of respondents who answered
the second question in the questionnaire is 94
respondents. It impacts validity of the data to be
68.11% from all 138 expected respondents.
However, this percentage is acceptable. It reaches
more than 50% of the population.
From Table 5, we can notice that the first group
preferred organizing ideas in writing as the less
problematic item. It has 22% within the same group.
Meanwhile, the second group preferred writing in
correct grammar as the most problematic item. It has
21% within the same group. Furthermore, as we can
see in the Items column, we notice seven less
problematic items for the respondents in QRG-1 and
fifteen most problematic items for the respondents in
QRG-2.
Responses that had been collected for this third
question show that several items for some students
become most problematic items for them.
Meanwhile, for other students, the same items
become problematic items and the rest of the
students view the items as in the category of less
problematic items. Data in this third category reflect
that students who preferred quantitative research for
their thesis considered that organizing ideas in
writing was less problematic item for them. On that
contrary, writing in correct grammar was common
problematic item for students who preferred
qualitative research for their thesis.
Table 8: Answers with High Frequency from QRG-1
The Highe s t Pe rce ntage from QRG-1
Items
Most Difficult Items
Finding Sources
Difficult Items
Developing Ideas in Writing
Typing in Wrong Spelling
Analyzing Data
Less Difficult Items
Organizing Ideas in Writing
Table 9: Answers with High Frequency from QRG-2
The Highe s t Pe rce ntage from QRG-1
Qualitiative (QRG-2)
Most Difficult Items
Starting the Thesis
Difficult Items
Finding Sources
Less Difficult Items
Writing in Correct Grammar
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
455

In brief, major findings for responses
for question 2, or as they are displayed in
Table 6, reflect that findings for question 2
show that research type at some points
influence students‟ understanding on
recognizing problems they encountered in the
process of writing thesis. Most problematic item
for QRG-1 is finding sources (30.43%) of all
students, or respondents, who belong to this group.
It implies that as lecturers of English, we need to
provide students on technical matters on how to
find relevant, reliable and readable sources that are
useful for their research. On the other side, QRG-2
found that starting the thesis or idea
(21.13%) was the most problematic item. It implies
that the students who are classified into this group
need to be trained on how to invent, find, or
narrow their research topic.
Since qualitative research demands more
information on the aspect of theory and conceptual
understandings on the topic under study, therefore,
aiming to help students to be more specific in the
topic of their research might be useful. Besides,
teaching them to find out topic that is most
interesting for them is also crucial. Of course,
the one who did the research is them, so they should
be the people who are interested to the research
topic, and then it is our job to decide whether the
topic is within our field of research or beyond what
we specify in our capacity as a thesis supervisor for
our students.
The second category for responses in question 2
is known as problematic items. These items have
lower degree compared to the most problematic
items. For QRG-1, developing ideas in writing
(16.67%) is the problematic item. For QRG-2,
finding sources (19.72%) is problematic item.
Findings of problematic items for these two types of
research present insightful ideas to us that for QRG-
1, finding sources become the most problematic
item, while this item only becomes problematic item
for QRG-2. Implicitly saying, both groups consider
that finding sources become a problem when the
respondents wrote a thesis. In other words, both
groups need training on how to find related sources
for their
research.
The last category for response in question 2 is
coded as less problematic items. QRG-1 preferred
organizing ideas in writing (21.74%) as the less
problematic item; while QRG-2 preferred writing in
correct grammar (21.13%) as the less problematic
item. Although this category has the meaning of
less, compared to the first and second category, it
still means a problem, but the degree is less than the
other two types of problematic items. This third
response reflects to us that writing is a less
problematic item for both groups. The first group is
related to writing and how the writing is organized.
The second group is related to writing and how to
write a well writing in grammatically correct
sentences. Both of these responses are similar in
meaning. Therefore, paying attention to our students
in terms of the process of writing a thesis on the
basis of organization and grammar is also needed.
Statistical graph about this description is in Figure 2.
3.3 Findings for Question 3
Question 3 presents the hierarchy of
problematic issues that were encountered by the
respondents. Responses in question 3 were
collected through all groups. In other words, data
analysis toward responses on question 3 provided
no classification of the responses on the basis of
research type. All responses from both research
groups were considered as one group. We
categorized the responses for question 3 into five
degree of difficulties: 1 – most difficult; 2 – more
difficult; 3 – difficult; 4 – less difficult; 5 – not
difficult. Context of responses for question 3 was
finding out which aspect that was the most
difficult one and which aspect that was not
difficult for the respondents.
From Figure 3, we figure out five important
findings. These findings are based on the highest
number of respondents who preferred each
hierarchy. The explanation is as the following
description.
First, the most difficult aspect of writing a
thesis is writing research title. This aspect is the
most difficult aspect for the students. From this
finding, we could imply that Indonesian EFL
students need to be informed how to frame their
research through the title. On the surface, title
represents the topic of research that they will carry
out throughout the stages of studying in the
last senior-year. It indirectly impacts the
students‟ comforts in conducting a research. It
might be true to say that title can change
during research takes place; however, for these
types of students, changing a title means changing
all aspects of a thesis. Otherwise, they would not
decide this aspect as the most difficult aspect
of writing a thesis.
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
456

Then, the more difficult aspect is writing the
thesis itself. It makes sense to us to see that after the
students knew which topic and variables that they
would research, then writing became the next
challenging aspect. Very different from writing a
thesis in their native language, which has more
familiar rules and, of course, they already
comprehend the deep structure of the language. In
terms of writing a thesis in English, writing the
thesis is actually difficult for them. Then, at this
point, we can judge that, indeed, we should limit
levels of challenges that we give to them. In the field
of English Education, the thesis must be written in
formal Standard English. The question is, is it
possible for us to supervise them only after a few
meetings with them? Or, should we prolong the
length of time for them to be supervised by us?
Should we consider their time and other needs when
we supervise them? Until which level of writing a
thesis that we should demand them to write? All
these questions provoke our thoughts to know that
writing a thesis is more difficult for Indonesian EFL
students than, perhaps, speaking about the thesis in
English, for a few of them.
Third, the difficult aspect of writing a thesis is the
grammar. How interesting! We usually notice that
Indonesian students often claimed that grammar is
the nightmare for them. Knowing that grammar
become the difficult aspect in writing a thesis is
indeed an interesting finding, but at the same it also
leads us to ask for further rhetorical questions
pedagogically. Have we trained the students well on
grammar before we judge them as liable to write a
thesis in English?
How far we should evaluate and judge them in
terms of grammar in their thesis? Is grammar a
crucial aspect to be seen from an Indonesian EFL
student‟s thesis? At last, the not difficult aspect of
writing a thesis is place of research, such as school,
campus, or village. This aspect, as we predicted
before conducting this research, was not difficult. It
only plays out as technical aspect of conducting
a research in the field of English Education in
Indonesia.
4 CONCLUSION
Implication from this research emphasizes that
constructivist model in supervising students‟ activity
on writing thesis is crucial. This model claims that
“learners actively construct their own
understanding” and it highlights the notion that it
focuses on “the processes of thinking, recognizes the
place of students‟ life experiences and cultural
schemata” (Au, 1993, p. 48). We could emphasize
that paying attention more on the process of writing
a thesis in the field of English Education is much
more important than paying attention to the product,
or the thesis, solely. Process approach is important
for supervising and evaluating a thesis. In that way,
we could help our students to avoid wasting their
time and money by submitting plagiarized work,
which may lead them to failure. A thesis is a thesis,
but the core value of a thesis lies in the mind of the
writer. Either quantitative or qualitative research
method that an Indonesian EFL student prefers; he
or she basically will face challenges after challenges
Figure 3: Findings for Question 3
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
457

in writing a thesis. Have we prepared ourselves to
guide them or we simply become a thesis supervisor
and examiner? Which role we decide, we should
take responsibility, afterwards.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, AH 2010, Students‟ problems with cohesion and
coherence in EFL essay writing in Egypt: Different
perspectives. Literacy Information and Computer
Education Journal (LICEJ), 1(4), PP. 211-221.
Al Badi, I.A.H., 2015. Academic writingdifficulties of
ESL learners. In The 2015 WEI
International Academic Conference Proceedings,
Barcelona, Spain (pp. 65-78).
Al Seyabi, F. and Tuzlukova, V., 2014. Writing problems
and strategies: An investigative study in the
Omani school and university context. Asian Journal
of Social Sciences & Humanities, 3(4), pp.37-48.
Anderson, M., 2001. Keys to Successful Writing:
Unlocking the writer within. New York: Longman.
Astorga, M.C., 2007. Teaching academic writing in the
EFL context: Redesigning pedagogy. Pedagogies:
An International Journal, 2(4), pp.251-267.
Au, K. H., 1993. Literacy Instruction in
multicultural settings. Fort Worth: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Bailey, S., 2011. Academic Writing: A Handbook
for International students. 3 ed. London:
Routledge- Taylor and Francis Group.
Banegas, D.L. and Villacañas de Castro, L.S.,
2016. Criticality. Elt Journal, 70(4), pp.455-457
Bell, J., 2006. Doing your research project: A guide for
first-time researchers in education, Health, and
Social Science. Jakarta: PT. Indeks.
Blakeslee, A. & Fleischer, C., 2007. Becoming a writing
researcher. New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C. & Tight, M., 2006. How to
research. England: Oxford University
Press.Bridwell-Bowles, L., 1991. Research in
composition: Issues and methods. In: E. Lindemann
& G. Tate, eds. An Introduction to Composition
Studies. New York: Oxford UP, pp. 94-117.
Cailing, Q.I.N., 2017. The impact of cultural thought
patterns upon English writing. Cross-
Cultural Communication, 13(10), pp.10-13.
Canagarajah, S., 2004. Multilingual writers and
the struggle for voice in academic discourse.
Negotiation of identities in multilingual contexts, 45,
p.266.
Cooper, M. M., 1997. Distinguishing critical and
post- positivist research. College Composition and
Communication, 48(4), pp. 556-561.
Dickson-Swift, V., James, E.L., Kippen, S. and
Liamputtong, P., 2007. Doing sensitive research:
what challenges do qualitative researchers face?
Qualitative research, 7(3), pp.327-353.
Ferenz, O., 2005. EFL writers' social networks: Impact
on advanced academic literacy development.
Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4(4),
pp.339-351.
Ghadirian, L., Sayarifard, A., Majdzadeh, R., Rajabi,
F. and Yunesian, M., 2014. Challenges for better
thesis supervision. Medical journal of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, 28, p.32.
Harmer, J., 2003. How to teach English. England:
Pearson Education Limited.
Herizi, N.N., 2017. Writing a successful review of the
literature: A dilemma for undergraduate students
in EFL classes.                  , 2(1),
pp.279-266.
Hyland, K., 2003. Second language writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, D. M., 1992. Approaches to research in
second language learning. New York: Longman
Publishing Group.
Lauer, J., 1991. Research strategies. In: Four worlds of
writing inquiry and action in context. 4th ed.
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing .
Lauer, J. M. & J., W. A., 1988. Composition
research: empirical designs. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lee, J.W. and Yoon, K.O., 2017. EFL Learners' direct
vs. translated writing in different writing genres.
English teaching, 72(2).
Lowenberg, P., 2000. Writing and literacy in
Indonesia. studies in the linguistic series, 30(1), pp.
136-144. Mallik, S. and Nahar, J., 2017. Error
analysis and second or foreign language writing:
The case of students of the tertiary level
of Universities of Chittagong. Academic
Discourse, 6(1), pp.91-102.
McKinley, J., 2013. Displaying critical thinking in
EFL academic writing: A discussion of Japanese to
English contrastive rhetoric. RELC Journal,
44(2), pp.195-208.
Ortega, L., 2009. Studying writing across EFL contexts:
Looking back and moving forward. Writing in
foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and
research, pp.232-255.
Osman, T.M., 2017. Investigating difficulties
facing Students at tertiary level in
writing composition (Doctoral dissertation, Sudan
University of Science & Technology).
Pasassung, N., 2003. Teaching English in an
'acquisition- poor-environment': An ethnographic
example of a remote Indonesian EFL
classroom, Sydney: Department of Linguistics -
University of Sydney.
Peng, H., 2018. Supervisors‟ views of the generic
difficulties in thesis writing of Chinese EFL
research students. The Asian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 5(1), pp.93-103.
Postlethwaite, T. N., 2005. Educational Research: Some
basic concepts and terminology.. France:
International Institute for Educational
BELTIC 2018 - 1st Bandung English Language Teaching International Conference
458

Planning/UNESCO.
Ra‟uf, M.M. and Foo, T.C.V., 2017. Academic writing
in science: Iraqi EFL postgraduates‟ difficulties
in writing abstracts of theses and dissertations in
physical disciplines. Advanced Science Letters,
23(4), pp.2734-2739.
Riza, H., 2008. Resources Report on Languages
of Indonesia. s.l., s.n.
Sari, F. 2018. Factors of affecting the undergraduate
Students‟ writing performance and strategies for
improvement. English Empower: Journal of
Linguistics and Literature, 3(1), pp. 1-9.
Sokolik, M., 2003. Writing. In: Practical
English language teaching. New York:
McGraw- Hill/Contemporary, pp. 87-90.
Solikhah, I., 2017. Linguistic problems in English
essay by EFL Students. IJOLTL: Indonesian
Journal of Language Teaching and Linguistics,
2(1), pp.31-44.
Strauss, P., 2012. „The English is not the
same‟: challenges in thesis writing for second
language speakers of English. Teaching
in higher education, 17(3), pp.283-293.
Tom, A.A.M., 2017. Investigating difficulties
encountered by EFL learners in using discourse
markers in written texts (Doctoral dissertation,
Sudan University of Science and Technology).
Wang, T. and Li, L.Y., 2008. Understanding
International postgraduate research students‟
challenges and pedagogical needs in thesis
writing. International Journal of pedagogies and
Learning, 4(3), pp.88-96. Weigle, S. C., 2002.
Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Zidane, R., 2018. The challenging facets of EFL
learners' writing performance. Social Sciences
Review of the Faculty of Sciences &
Letters University of Uludag/Fen Edebiyat
Fakültesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 19(34).
Problems of Indonesian EFL Students in Writing Thesis in the Field of English Education
459