The Implementation of Reading to Learn Pedagogy in Indonesian Junior Schools: Impact on Students’ Writing Skills and Students’ Perceptions

: This study investigates the effect of Reading to Learn Pedagogy on the writing skill of Indonesian students and their perceptions of the usefulness of the pedagogy. A quasi-experimental study involved 32 seventh graders and 54 ninth graders and two teachers of Junior High School in Indonesia. They were assigned into two groups: experimental and control. The treatment was conducted at eight sessions, including the pre-test and post-test. The scores of pre-test and post-test in writing were used as a base of quantitative data analysis, whereas the student questionnaire was used to obtain data on their perceptions of the usefulness of the Reading to Learn Pedagogy. The result reveals that the Reading to Learn Pedagogy effectively enhances the students' writing skills. Additionally, the students perceived each stage of the Reading to Learn valuable pedagogy in promoting their writing skill and accepted the pedagogy to be implemented to become a better writer of other types of text required by the curriculum. Abstrak:

grammatical structures and neglected the writing feedback process. Additionally, Husna (2017) stated that teaching writing was difficult, with teachers struggling to employ an effective strategy and provide diverse ways for students to develop their ideas. The teacher should assist students in brainstorming ideas or creating an outline for their writing in order to assist them in organizing and developing their ideas effectively. Suriyanti and Yacoob (2016) report that teachers used limited strategies when teaching writing due to a lack of knowledge and understanding about writing approaches.
Thus, developing students' writing skills in Bahasa Indonesia has become a priority to help junior high students learn Bahasa Indonesia and improve their Indonesian language proficiency. The 'Reading to Learn, Writing to Learn' (R2L) pedagogy emphasized in this study focuses on integrating reading and writing (Martin & Rose, 2005). It provides pedagogic support for scaffolding junior high school students to develop their genre-based writing skills. Rose and Martin propose three levels of teaching support (2012). Preparing before reading, joint construction, and independent writing help students comprehend texts and apply them to teacher-guided and student-independent writing. On the second level, students rewrite their essays using the schematic structure and grammatical features they have learned from reading texts. The third level includes sentence making, sentence writing, and spelling, emphasizing language pattern exercise at the word and sentence level.
R2L pedagogy has been found to be effective in teaching a wide range of text types in EFL contexts, as expected in secondary level education. For example, Ramirez (Ramírez, 2020) used R2L-Preparing to Read, Joint Construction, and Independent Construction-to guide Spanish adult learners toward producing rich genre-appropriate procedural texts in English. Sagre (Sagre et al., 2021) found that a pre-service EFL teacher used the R2L to assist a group of 42 ninth-graders. The results indicated that EFL students improve their reading and writing explanation texts independently. Kartika Ningsih and Rose (Kartika-Ningsih & Rose, 2021) found that the application of R2L shows some evidence from student assessments that suggest the development of students' autonomous skills in EFL descriptive science writing.
In tertiary level of EFL contexts, the application of R2L is also common. Chaisiri (Chaisiri, 2010) using action research design in implementing the to R2L to improve the university EFL students' writing. The findings reveal clear improvements in the students' writing Recount, Instruction/Process, Explanation, and Argument texts and they showed positive attitudes to the strategy. Some researchers focused on students' skills in argumentative writing through R2L (Lap & Truc, 2014); (Nagao, 2018); (Horverak, 2016); ( (Lo & Jeong, 2018); (Gill & Janjua, 2020). They reported that the R2L pedagogy that reinforced the scaffolding may help students improve their argumentative text writing skills. Finally, (Mirallas, 2021) found evidence that teaching university students how to write Scientific articles through the R2LP in an EFL is useful and suitable for the students' academic development.
Apart from applying R2L in EFL context, the strategy is also implemented in languages other than English. Hernández & Delgado-aguilar (Hernández & Delgado-aguilar, 2021) found that this implementation R2L provided students with a new understanding of the indigenous language (a Mexicano language), which led them to be more participative and experience meaningful learning in the classroom. Similarly, Shum et.al. (Shum et al., 2018) used the R2L strategy to the Non-Chinesespeaking (NCS) or the South Asian students studying in Hongkong to improve Chinese language writing proficiency. According to the findings, R2L pedagogy can help NCS students improve their Chinese language proficiency by teaching them how to write discussion independently and by improving their knowledge of schematic structure, clauses and conjucntions.
Hence, the implementation of R2L pedagogy in the Indonesian language context is under-researched. The current study is designed to understand how R2L pedagogy helps in improving students' genre writing achievement and how it can be applied in classroom practices. Students' perception of their experiential learning with R2L pedagogy will also be looked at to supplement the findings. With these research gaps in mind, this study seeks address the following research questions (1) what is the impact of R2L pedagogy on students' writing of Indonesian texts?; (2) what do students perceive of their experiential learning with R2L pedagogy?

Theoretical Framework
The pedagogy of 'Reading to Learn, Learning to Write' (R2L) emphasized in this study, which evolved from genre-based teaching methods, emphasizes the integration of reading and writing (Martin and Rose 2005;Rose and Martin 2012). It was first intended to provide pedagogical support to disadvantaged groups assisting Aboriginal students in Australia with English language learning, a practice that has been found to be effective in pedagogical practices.
As illustrated in Figure 1, R2L is a variation on genre-based pedagogy that integrates reading and writing instruction across three levels of support involving specific strategies (Rose & Martin, 2012); (Hyland, 2007). The first level prepares students to read and comprehend genre texts by activating prior knowledge, summarizing the content of the texts to be taught, and deconstructing texts in terms of register, rhetorical structure, and information phases. Then, using joint-construction strategies, learners apply their knowledge to collaboratively construct another text of the same genre with the teacher. Finally, students create a new text on their own. The second level facilitates learners' comprehension by requiring them to read key text segments in detail. Teachers guide learners through this phase, demonstrating how lexicogrammar (i.e., lexis plus grammar) creates meaning in those segments. Students highlight these characteristics with the teacher's guidance, and the teacher then annotates them on the board. Using these notes, the teacher and students collaborate to rewrite the text in joint rewriting.
The third level provides intensive support to help students grasp specific syntactic or spelling patterns found in key sentences from the text. R2L was chosen for this study because it provides teachers with teachable and straightforward strategies for assisting students' writing development.

Research Participants
The research design of this study was quasi-experimental as it was suitable to investigate the impact of R2L pedagogy on students' writing performance. The participating teachers in this study were two female teachers teaching Indonesian Language as L1 in the Indonesian Junior High School in Malang, East Java Province, Indonesia. As the national language, Indonesian language plays an essential role in the academic and professional life of Indonesians. In the current curriculum, they have to teach secondary students to achieve a high level of proficiency in Indonesian language. Students must write descriptive, recount, narrative, explanations, procedure, biography, and argumentative essays (Ministry of Education of Indonesia, 2013).
The two teachers (Ms. FA and Ms. RI) participated in the Literacy and Higher Order Thinking Skills Program held by the Ministry of Education in cooperation with a teacher-training university. The program was initiated to respond to the Indonesian students' low performance in the PISA test (OECD, 2019). In the last few years, the Indonesian students' performance on the PISA test has been declining. To overcome the problems, the Ministry of Education assigned the Teacher Training Institution to train, monitor, and evaluate in-service teachers and pre-service teachers on using the genre pedagogy as an innovation to improve the students' literacy and high thinking skills. Ms. FA had been teaching in the school for ten years when the study took place in 2021. She obtained a master's degree in Indonesian Language Teaching from a reputable teacher training university in Indonesia.
In contrast, Ms. RI held a bachelor's degree in Indonesian Language Teaching and had more experience than Ms. FA. They were invited to participate in this study because their school was the target of the PISA Performance Improvement Program. Two classes of Year 7 students taught by Ms. FA and two classes of Year 9 taught by Ms. RI participated in the study. Year 7 students were about 12-13 years old. At the study time, the Year 7 students studied one text type, a Description. Therefore, they focus on the different types of descriptive texts (describing people, animals, and places). Year 9 class (14-15 years old) focused on narrative texts. Procedure This study included two variables: independent and dependent variables. The independent variable was the application of the R2L, and the dependent variable was the learners' writing skills. There were eight meetings, including the administration of pre-test and post-test, and the pre-test was administered in the first meeting.
In the treatment, the participants learned to write descriptive and narrative texts in 8 meetings, each running for 40 minutes. The experimental and the control groups received different treatments. The students in the experimental group were exposed to R2L pedagogy, which covered six stages (1) preparing before reading, (2) detailed reading, (3) sentence or notemaking, (4) joint rewriting, (5) individual writing, (6) independent writing, The conventional method was applied to the control group. The teacher asked the students to follow pre, main and postreading activities and continued writing activities. Additionally, the learners in the control group were given worksheets to complete all the tasks without any activities engaging with the R2L pedagogy. The detailed treatment is presented in Table2. Following the treatment, the post-test was administered in the eight meetings. In the post-test, the learners were asked to write a topic different from topics assigned in the pre-test and writing assignments to avoid the threat of testing effect. Preparing before reading: a) Asking students' background knowledge they need to understand the texts. b) Telling students what the text says in a way that all students can understand. Giving a brief summary of each section of the text. c) Asking the student to read the text aloud, d) Leading the class in discussing important points as the text is read and after it is read.

Pre-reading activities:
a) Asking the students to do a worksheet on vocabulary matching. 3 Detailed reading: a) Guiding the class to find information that they will use later for writing. b) Asking the students to highlight or underline each key point or key words. c) Long or difficult texts, the teacher guides students to mark two or three key points in each paragraph. d) With short texts, the teacher guides students to mark key information in each sentence.
Main Activity: a) Asking the students first silently to read the target text. b) Giving the worksheet on exercises related to meaning of words/sentences of the text and any grammar patterns encountered.
4 Sentence or note making: a) Asking the students to make notes by underlining words, phrases, or sentences from what they have read. b) Asking one of the students to write it on the blackboard to make a new text containing the note.
Post Activity: a) Asking the students to complete a worksheet on the comprehension questions of the texts.

5
Joint rewriting: a) Guiding the students to make new sentences based on notes that have been found in the reading. b) This activity will deepen students' reading comprehension and help students' writing skills; Writing activity: a) Asking the students to write the target texts individually.

6
Individual rewriting: a) Asking the students to apply reading notes to be developed into new writing according to their ideas Writing activity: a) Asking the students to write the target texts individually.
Asking the students to do their own research and produce their written texts.
Writing activity: a) Providing assessment for the student written texts. Instruments Three research instruments were used in this study: Writing Pre-test and Post-test, a scoring rubric, and a student questionnaire. Pre-test and post-test measures were to estimate the potential impact of the intervention on student writing. Before the intervention, as a pre-test, Miss FA asked the seven graders to write a descriptive on the topic provided: describing a person. The nine graders were asked to write a narrative text on a person's act of heroism.
After implementing genre-based pedagogy on the topic, the seven graders were asked to write on describing a place/a building/a room, and the nine graders were to write a narrative text related to someone's honesty which served as the post-test. It can be noted that the two tests shared the same genre (i.e., descriptive and narrative) and very similar topics. Such a design allows the researchers to compare the students' mastery of the target genre.
A marking scheme was designed to assess students' performance in the pre-test and post-test. The marking scheme in this study took the form of analytic rubrics. The rubric covered four categories, namely (a) content (30%); (b) generic structure (20%); (c) diction (20%); and (d)the grammatical feature (20%) and (e) mechanics (10%). For each section, marks were given according to the analytic rubrics of four performance levels (Brown, 2006).
The student questionnaire was designed to generate feedback from the intervention group concerning the effectiveness of R2L pedagogy. It contained eight questions: closed-ended and open-ended. In the closed-ended questions, the students were required to assess the usefulness of each stage on a scale of 1-10. Cronbach's internal consistency alpha for the closed-ended items was 0.76, categorized as a high-reliability questionnaire. The questionnaire was carried out online via Google form.
The two researchers marked all the pre-tests and post-tests independently, with an inter-rater reliability of .85 (measured with Pearson correlation coefficient). The two researchers then went through all the differences in their scoring and reached a consensus. Paired sample t-tests were performed to compare the students' performance on the writing tasks before and after the intervention.

RESULTS
In order to answer research question 1, the pre-test scores of the students from the experimental and control groups were compared. The pre-test score of 7th graders in the experimental group obtained an average of 48.88 and a standard deviation of 2.75, while the control group obtained an average of 47.75 and a standard deviation of 3.38. These results indicate that the average pretest score in the 7th grade students in the experimental group is higher than in the control group. The results of the independent ttest showed no significant difference (sig > 0.05) between the experimental group and the control group.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics of the Pre-test Scores of the students from the Experimental and Control Groups
Furthermore, the pre-test score of the 9th graders in the experimental group obtained an average of 50.44 and a standard deviation of 4.98, while the control group obtained an average of 48.78 and a standard deviation of 6.03. These results indicate that the average pre-test score in the 9th grade students in the experimental group is higher than in the control group. The results of the independent t-test showed no significant difference (sig > 0.05) between the experimental group and the control group.
The result of the comparison of the pre-test scores using independent sample t-test implied no significant difference in the pre-test scores between the experimental group and control group in both grades this means that the writing skill of both groups were equal before the treatment (see Table 3).

Comparison of the Post-test Scores of the Learners from the Experimental and Control Groups
The descriptive statistics of post-test scores of the experimental and control groups showed that the mean score of the 7 th graders' experimental group was 85.75, with a standard deviation of 7.95. Meanwhile, the control group's mean score was 75.94, and the standard deviation was 3.79, respectively (see Table 4). Furthermore, the mean score of the 9 th graders' experimental group was 85.85, with a standard deviation of 6.04. Meanwhile, the control group's mean score was 75.74, and the standard deviation was 5.21, respectively. Comparing the descriptive statistics on the mean scores of the post-test asserted an improvement in the students' writing skills after the treatment for both 7 th graders and 9 th graders. The independent-sample t-test was then applied to examine the impact of the Reading to Learn Pedagogy on the students' writing skills (RQ1). The result of the comparison of the post-test scores using an independent sample t-test implied significant differences in the post-test scores between the experimental group for seven graders (p-value = 0.000) and 9 th graders (p-value = 0.000). This means that both experimental groups' writing skill was higher after the treatment (see Table 4).

Indonesian junior high school students' perceptions of the R2L pedagogy
This section presents the students' responses to the R2L pedagogy questionnaire. The genre pedagogy questionnaire was administered at the end of the sessions to uncover the intervention group's views about the R2L pedagogy for teaching Indonesian language writing. The statistical results of the participant's responses to the closed-ended items are given in the figures below.

Figure 2. Students' responses to the usefulness of Pre-reading activities
Of the 43 students, almost all the students considered the pre-reading activities beneficial to understand the target text as they provided the score for this statement high that is 10, 9. 8, and 6. Only one participant (2,3%) did not believe in the effect of pre-activities in understanding the use of the pre-activities.

Figure 3. Students' responses on the benefit of Reading in Detail
The majority of the respondents rate this item high. They perceived that the reading for detail activities supported their understanding of the target texts. Only one participant (2,3%) scored 4 for this item, indicating he did not believe in the effect of the reading in details benefits him.

Figure 4. Students' responses on the benefit of Note making
None of the respondents scored negatively on highlighting and writing the keywords of the target texts. The majority of the respondents (41,9%) perceived these activities very high. They believe that highlighting and documenting the keywords are helpful to improve their comprehension of the target texts. Only one participant (2,3%) scored 5 for this item, indicating he was not sure about the effect of identifying and writing the keywords.

Figure 5. Students' responses on the benefit of Joint rewriting sentences based on the keywords collaboratively
The majority of the respondents (44,2%) perceived these activities very high. They believe that writing the keywords into the sentences jointly is helpful to improve their writing of the target texts. Only one participant (2,3%) scored 3 for this item, indicating he did not believe that writing the keywords into the sentences jointly could improve his writing performance.

Figure 6. Students' responses on the benefit of Individual writing
The majority of the respondents (46,5%) perceived these activities very high. They believe that writing the keywords into the sentences jointly is helpful to make writing on their own or individual of the target texts easier. Only one participant (2,3%) scored 4 for this item, indicating he was not entirely convinced of the benefits of the joint construction for his writing.

Figure 7. Students' responses on the usefulness of the overall stage of the Pedagogy
The majority of the respondents (48,8%) perceived the overall stage of the learning model as useful to improve the student writing performance. They believe that steps guide them to learn the model text, understand them, and finally lead them to create a new one. Only one participant (2,3%) scored 5 for this item, indicating he was not entirely convinced of the benefits of the overall stage of the learning model.
The intervention group was also asked to answer two open-ended questions. The first question asked students to 'Please indicate your difficulties in learning using this model'. Question two asked them to 'Please indicate whether you approve the use of genre-based pedagogy to teach the writing of other texts and tell why.' For question one, 8 of the 43 students (78%) indicated that they did not experience problems or difficulties in following the genre pedagogy. The majority of these students (n=22 56.4%) made comments on challenges on finding the keywords in the genre-based activity (e.g. 'At first, I cannot find the keywords, it seems to me that all the words are important"). Almost 40% of the students had difficulties finding the similarity of the keywords. Twenty-five percent of the students reported developing or creating new sentences based on the keywords is challenging. Three percent of students complained of taking too much time doing all the activities and were tired and bored.
For question two, most of these students (n=41, 93.9%) approved the use of Reading to Learn pedagogy for learning to write other texts in the curriculum. The reasons were the pedagogy was a) fun and made them understand the text easily (n=7), b) allowed them to understand content by underlining the keywords (n=11) quickly, c) allowed them to look for keywords from paragraphs, and made them more thorough and creative (n=5), d) increased their ability to write smoothly (n=4), e) helped them making individual texts based on examples of texts that had made together, (n=4). Only two students (6%) indicated disapproval of Reading to Learn pedagogy in the future reading and writing class.

DISCUSSION
This study investigates the impact of R2L pedagogy on students' writing performance, particularly concerning writing descriptive text narrative texts Indonesian language and the students' perceptions on the R2L Pedagogy. The researchers worked with two junior high teachers to implement the R2L Pedagogy. This study identified some potentials and limitations of genrebased pedagogy that merit further discussion.
The learning cycle of R2L pedagogy seems to have aided students' writing development of Indonesian text types. The results of the present study have confirmed the significant improvement of participants in writing descriptive and narrative essays in terms of the generic structure of the text, vocabulary used in the text, the grammatical features used in the text and the mechanics. The post-intervention essays show students' mastery of writing descriptive and narrative texts. In addition, students' views of the steps of the genre pedagogy and the model essays contributed to improving students' writing performance. They accepted the R2L pedagogy as a method to be applied in future writing instruction.
The results from this study indicated that the R2L pedagogy helped participants enhance their ability to write descriptive and narrative essays. The results are consistent with studies by (Ramírez, 2020); (Becerra et al., 2020), and. In this study, the participants improved their writing performance due to their control over the four essential features, namely the contents, generic structure, grammatical features, vocabulary, and mechanics in their descriptive and narrative essays.
This improvement could be attributed to the teacher's explicit discussion of the descriptive and narrative's key stages and language features, together with some sample texts. Based on the 'teaching/learning cycle', the intervention tried out in this study, the teacher targets a specific, typical genre for a topic. The teacher can identify the various language features that students need to master in the Detailed Reading stage with that genre in mind. After covering that topic's key content/concepts, the teachers could ask students to highlight and write the keywords in the note-making stage. This task is to help the students understand the target genre, identify key stages in sample texts, and learn how ideas were organised. The rewriting stage, which was done in collaboration, provides more concrete and practical ways to write the target texts. This stage may overcome the challenges faced by students who find it challenging to write fluently.
Suryati, Riadina, Istiqomah, Kusumawati, Febryan, The Implementation of Reading… 1751 Furthermore, the results from the post-test revealed the participants' mastery in incorporating the contents, generic structure, grammatical features, vocabulary, and mechanics elements into their descriptive and narrative essays. Students' mastery of the texts is due to the teacher scaffolding the stages and techniques embedded in the R2L Pedagogy. Bruner (1978) describes scaffolding as "the steps taken to reduce the degrees of freedom in carrying out some tasks so that the child can concentrate on the different skill she is in the process of acquiring" (p. 19). In classroom interaction, scaffolding is temporary assistance provided by the teacher in helping students carry out tasks or develop an understanding of the subject to accomplish the tasks by themselves (Hammond & Gibbons, 2001). The stages applied in Reading to Learn Pedagogy reflect Brunner's scaffolding principles (Brunner, 1978). Teachers create opportunities for the students to develop their writing through different stages and exploration and discussion with friends and the instructor. This is well reflected in Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development, which proposed that knowledge is best constructed when students negotiate with peers and teachers in meaningful activities.
The results from the student questionnaire revealed that the participants' positive perceptions towards the implementation of the R2L Pedagogy and the contribution of stages in the teaching and learning cycle to their writing descriptive and narrative essays. The progress could explain the positive perceptions they made in their writing performance. The participants indicated benefits of the R2L Pedagogy compared to other approaches used in their writing classes. The implementation of R2L Pedagogy assisted them in understanding the purpose and organization of the target genre they are about to write, thereby increasing their confidence and belief in their writing ability.
This finding is well supported (Hernández & Delgado-aguilar, 2021) found that this implementation R2L has facilitated students to be more active and participative, and the stages are meant to support the mastery of target text in the classroom. Similarly, (Lo & Jeong, 2018) used the R2L strategy to teach argumentative essays to 8 graders. The teacher participants perceived R2L pedagogy intervention to teach explanation text was 'quite effective', especially for the lower achievers. They believed that the pedagogy made the purpose and organisation of exposition texts more explicit for the students. Their perception was also echoed by the students' views, who commented that the approach was good. They felt that their writing became more fluent.

CONCLUSION
The present study examined the effect of Reading to Learn pedagogy on the junior high school students' writing performance, especially descriptive and narrative texts. In a nutshell, Reading to Learn pedagogy can be selected as an alternative to teaching Indonesian language writing. The effectiveness of Reading to Learn pedagogy is supported by some factors: the students' awareness and developing control of texts in terms of the content of the text, the generic structure of the text and vocabulary used in the text, the grammatical features used in the text and the mechanics. Apart from the successful result in the implementation of Reading to Learn Pedagogy on the writing skill of Indonesian junior high students, it is discovered that the students perceived each stage of the Reading to Learn as beneficial in improving their mastery of the text writing and have accepted R2L Pedagogy to be applied into their future learning of writing different types of text in the future. This result suggests that whenever teachers would like to use Reading to Learn Pedagogy, they should carefully implement each stage to promote the students' writing skill development. The study achieved its research aims. However, the number of teacher participants was small, with only two teachers, and the target texts only covered two types. Therefore, how R2L pedagogy affects Indonesian students compose different texts as mandated by the current curriculum deserves research on a larger scale.