Datasets:

---

LLMDH

/

OpenScience

like 0

Follow

LLM - Digital Humanities 16

ERROR: type should be string, got "https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 Accepted: 2022-09-26 Accepted: 2022-09-26 Abstract The variation of linguistic characteristics in academic writing between male \nand female is inevitable to happen. Therefore, this study aimed at finding \nout the differences of male and female students in linguistic characteristics \nof academic writing from perspective of linguistics, especially at the level of \ntext analysis. The quantitative research method with convergent parallel \ndesign was used to analyze sixty students’ essay writing chosen by using a \npurposive sampling technique. The result revealed that there were some \ndifferences of linguistic characteristics in academic writing between male \nand female. The female students outperformed male students in all \nlinguistic characteristics in text-level analysis. The female students were \nfound more capable in paragraphing competences, linking devices, text \noutput counts, topical organization, and ending. The findings generally \nsupport the notion that differences of linguistic characteristics between \nmale and female should be considered in teaching academic writing to \ncreate a friendly teaching-learning process for both genders. Received: 2022-09-08 Received: 2022-09-08 Received: 2022-09-08 Surya Asra\n1, Grace Josephine Tiwon Wiradisastra\n2 \n1Universitas Samudra, Langsa, Indonesia \n2Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia \nE-mail: suryaasra2019@unsam.ac.id Surya Asra\n1, Grace Josephine Tiwon Wiradisastra\n2 \n1Universitas Samudra, Langsa, Indonesia \n2Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia \nE-mail: suryaasra2019@unsam.ac.id Published: 2022-12-29 Published: 2022-12-29 1. Introduction The research on the influence of gender in language teaching has been carried out by \nmany experts (Andini & Prasetyowati, 2021; Cameron, 1997; Fattahi & Nushi, 2021; Gtowka, \n2014; Mahmud, 2018; Sunderland, 2000, 2006). The studies have been conducted since \ngender becomes one of factors that causes diversity in language (Holmes, 2013). However, \nthere are only a few of the studies that examine gender focused on writing skill (Reynolds et \nal., 2015; Sunderland, 2000; Waskita, 2008). This fact has an explanation that many people \nincluding some researchers consider speaking skill as a benchmark in assessing someone’s \nlanguage skill (Waskita, 2008). As a result, the other skills (listening, reading, and writing) are \nrarely used as research topics, especially in relation to gender influence. The above assumption is not fully wrong, yet the contribution of literacy skill, \nespecially writing skill cannot be ignored. Writing skill is one of the important factors to \nachieve a better future career. Tuan (2010) reveals that the success of EFL learners in English \nwriting skill brings benefits not only for the learning process but also for a better career in \nthe future. Many tasks in working life must be accomplished by writing, such as compiling \nreport, writing scientific journal, composing speech, and so on. Therefore, writing skill is an 423 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra important factor in academic life, especially in university. In the context of higher education, \nthe function of writing skill becomes very important. Students are required to write an \nacademic paper at the end of their study at university. Besides, they are also required to \ntake academic written tests such as TOEFL and IELTS. Therefore, gender studies in relation to \nwriting skill is very necessary to conduct. The influence of gender is manifested in language products produced by men and \nwomen, both in writing and speaking. Newman, Groom, Handelman, and Pennebaker (2008) \nstate that gender differences in language use between men and women are consistent. Furthermore, Hamdan and Hamdan (2013) state that from birth both genders have followed \ndifferent codes of conduct according to existing community rules and this has caused men \nand women to have different life experiences, ways of speaking, and ways of writing. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 1. Introduction In \nsummary, writing skill as one of language skills cannot be separated from the influence of \ngender in it. Therefore, the study of gender influence in writing skill is the first step to \nunderstand the differences and then applies it to teaching-learning process of writing. There are three perspectives developed by Jones (2011) to explain the influence of \ngender in writing skill, namely cognitive psychology, socio-cultural, and linguistic \nperspectives. This study focused on linguistic perspective for analyzing written text (student \nwriting product). Linguistic analysis is in line with characteristics of academic writing in the \nclassroom context, especially for academic writing in higher education. The linguistic \nperspective analyzed the linguistic features of a text, such as text and lexical diversity. The \nanalysis carried out in this study was limited on analysis of linguistic characteristics in text \nlevel. 2. Literature Review The linguistic perspective is a comprehensive analysis that analyses written text \nbased on linguistic characteristics in text and sentence (Jones & Myhill, 2007). Linguistic \ncharacteristics in text-level analysis consist of topical organization, paragraphing \ncompetence, closing paragraph (endings), linking devices, and text output counts. Topical organization is a topic setting process of a paragraph to fit the topic of text \nwriting. The topic of text writing is usually determined by the organizer of writing test, and \nthis is an absolute requirement in writing text. In this study, there are four aspects of topical \norganization analyzed, consisting of: (1) paragraphs commencing with a topic sentence, (2) \nlogical order to paragraphs or following a systematic compilation of paragraphs into a logical \ntext, (3) paragraphs drifting off topic, and (4) paragraphs needing subdivision. Paragraphing competence is a process to arrange paragraphs into good text in a \nwriting. A good paragraph according to Oshima and Hogue (2006) and Johns (1997) must \nhave the following requirements: (1) topic sentence, (2) arranged logically, and (3) only one \nmain idea. In addition, Jones and Myhill (2007) and Johns (1997) state that a good paragraph \nmust use meta-discourse signs, references, and conclusion (it is not absolute). Whereas a \npoor paragraph can be seen from partial paragraphs (incomplete paragraphs), paragraphs \nwith one sentence, and the absence of paragraphs conditioned. Endings is a conclusion paragraph of an article. It consists of (1) thematic link with \nprevious paragraph, (2) thematic link with opening paragraph, (3) repetition of words or \nphrases in opening paragraph, (4) repetition of proper nouns in opening paragraph, and (5) \nsummaries, conclusions/ suggestions, or comments (Jones and Myhill, 2007). 424 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 Linking devices is hyphens that the author uses to connect words, sentences, and \nparagraphs into a complete article. The linking devices analyzed in this study consist of \n(Jones and Myhill, 2007): (1) temporal adverbials, (2) ordinal adverbials, (3) place adverbials, \n(4) manner adverbials, (5) additive adverbials, (6) adversative adverbials, (7) causal \nadverbials (8) repeated words; (9) repeated phrases; (10) repetition of proper nouns, (11) \nsynonyms, (12) hyponyms-hypernyms, (13) anaphoric pronouns, and (14) determiners. Text output counts is the total of characters, words, sentences, and paragraphs \nproduced by the author. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n425 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 3. Research Method The method used in this research was a quantitative method. Quantitative data in \nthis study is in the form of numerical data obtained from coding linguistic characteristics of \nstudents’ essay writing and then this data is analyzed statistically (descriptive and \ninferential). Meanwhile, the convergent parallel design approach was used since the data \nfrom statistical analysis and data from coding linguistic characteristics in students writing \npaper were compared to find patterns and draw research conclusions (Creswell & Plano-\nClark, 2011; Nunan & Bailey, 2009). 3.1 Participants The population of this study were students of English Education Department who \nwere in the fourth semester 4 and they took Essay Writing course. There were 108 students \nwho participated in this study consisting of 48 male students and 60 female students. Meanwhile, the sample of this study was selected by purposive or judgmental sampling \ntechnique as the process of selecting a sample is based on the researcher's belief that the \nsample can be a representation of the population based on the researcher's knowledge of \nthe characteristics the group (Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; Arikunto, 2013). As a result, 60 \nstudents were used as research samples consisting of 30 male students and 30 female \nstudents who were selected based on the characteristics that match the research objectives, \nnamely based on the average writing ability score. 2. Literature Review There are eight aspects of text output counts that are analyzed in \nthis study, including (Jones & Myhill, 2007): (1) number of characters (not including commas \nand spaces), (2) number of words, (3) number of sentences, (4) number of paragraphs, (5) \nnumber of sentences per paragraphs, (6) number of words per sentences, (7) number of \ncharacters per words, and (8) number of passive sentences. p\n,\n( )\np\n \nFor a brief description of text-level analysis, it can be seen in the following table. Category \nCriteria \nSub-criteria \nTopical \norganization \nParagraphs commencing with a \ntopic sentence \n \n \nLogical order to paragraphs \nParagraphs drifting off topic \nParagraphs needing subdivision \nParagraphing \ncompetence \nComplete paragraphs \nHaving a topic sentence, arranged \nlogically, explaining only one main idea \nUsing meta-discourse signs \nUsing references \nHaving a conclusion sentence \nIncomplete paragraphs \nPartial paragraphs \nParagraphs with one sentence \nNo paragraphs \n \nEndings \nThematic link with previous \nparagraph \n \nThematic link with opening \nparagraph \nRepetition of words or phrases in \nopening paragraph \nRepetition of proper nouns in \nopening paragraph \nSummaries, conclusions/ \nsuggestions, or comments \nLinking devices \nAdverbials \nTemporal \nOrdinal \nPlace \nManner \nAdditive \nAdversative \nCausal 425 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Repetition \nWords \nPhrases \nProper nouns \nSynonyms \n \nHyponym-hypernyms \nAnaphoric pronouns \nDeterminers \nText output counts \nNumber of characters \n \n \nNumber of words \nNumber of sentences \nNumber of paragraphs \nNumber of sentences per \nparagraphs \nNumber of words per sentences \nNumber of characters per words \nNumber of passive sentences \nAdapted from Jones and Myhill (2007) \nTable 1. Criterions for linguistic analysis in text-level analysis Repetition \nWords \nPhrases \nProper nouns \nSynonyms \n \nHyponym-hypernyms \nAnaphoric pronouns \nDeterminers \nText output counts \nNumber of characters \n \n \nNumber of words \nNumber of sentences \nNumber of paragraphs \nNumber of sentences per \nparagraphs \nNumber of words per sentences \nNumber of characters per words \nNumber of passive sentences \nAdapted from Jones and Myhill (2007) \nTable 1. Criterions for linguistic analysis in text-level analysis Table 1. Criterions for linguistic analysis in text-level analysis https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 3.3 Data analysis The data analysis procedure was by using SPSS v.22 and coding of the writing \nadapted from Jones and Myhill categories (2007), particularly analysis in text level (see table \n1). The statistical analysis was conducted to obtain an overview of the significance level of \ndifferences between male and female students. Descriptive and inferential statistical \nanalysis used included t-test to see the significance of the overall linguistic characteristics \nand two-way ANOVA test (two-way analysis of variance) to see the level of significance of \naspects of linguistics. The results of statistical analysis from the SPSS program were \npresented in the form of a table of mean and significance values with a comparative \nsignificance level of 5% (p=0.05). It means that the significance value was categorized to be \n“significant” if it was lower than p=0.05 and “insignificant” if it was higher than p=0.05. 3.2 Instruments Data for this study were collected through an academic written test of five-paragraph \nessay. The test was a paper-based test consisting of five paragraphs with one paragraph of \nintroduction, three paragraph of body, and one paragraph of conclusion. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 426 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 4. Results and Discussion It was found that there were differences in linguistic characteristics produced \nbetween male and female students. The researchers found that female students \noutperformed male students in all linguistic characteristics in text-level analysis. 4.1. Topical organization The researchers found that female student ability to organize a topic in academic \nwriting were better than male student ability. This is due to the tendency of male students \nnot to follow the rules of good paragraph compilation, for example not having the same \ntopic among paragraphs and not arranging paragraphs in logical order. The following table \nshows a different frequency of topical organization aspects between male and female \nstudents. Aspects of topical organization \nFrequency of gender differences \nMale \nFemale \nParagraphs commencing with a topic sentence \n96 \n118 \nLogical order to paragraphs \n7 \n18 \nParagraphs drifting off topic \n54 \n32 \nParagraphs needing subdivision \n54 \n38 \nTable 3. Frequency of topical organization. Aspects of topical organization Firstly, for paragraphs commencing with a topic sentence, female students produced \n118 paragraphs, while male students produced 96 paragraphs. There are 22 paragraphs of \ndifference. Secondly, for logical order to paragraphs, there were only 7 male students who \narranged their paragraphs sequentially and logically, while there are 18 female students who \narranged their paragraphs sequentially and logically. The difference is 11 students. Thirdly, \nfor paragraphs drifting off topic, male students wrote 54 paragraphs that do not fit the topic, \nwhile female students only wrote 32 paragraphs. The difference is 22 paragraphs. Fourthly, \nfor paragraphs needing subdivision, male students wrote 54 paragraphs, while female \nstudents only wrote 38 paragraphs. The difference is 16 paragraphs. Generally, it was found that female students produce more paragraphs than male \nstudents in aspects of paragraphs commencing with a topic sentence and logical order to \nparagraphs. While male students produce more paragraphs than female students in aspects 427 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra of paragraphs drifting off topic and paragraphs needing subdivision. The statistical analysis \non each aspect of topical organization can be seen in the table below. graphs drifting off topic and paragraphs needing subdivision. The statistical analysis \nh aspect of topical organization can be seen in the table below. Aspects of topical organization \nMean \nSig. of \nANOVA Test \nMale \nFemale Difference \nParagraphs commencing with a topic sentence \n3.2 \n3.9 \n.7 \n.006 \nLogical order to paragraphs \n.233 \n.6 \n.367 \n.003 \nParagraphs drifting off topic \n1.8 \n1.067 \n.733 \n.006 \nParagraphs needing subdivision \n1.8 \n1.267 \n.533 \n.031 \nTable 4. Statistical test of topical organization All aspects of topical organization have a significant difference value. 4.1. Topical organization Their values are \nlower than significance level p=0.05. It means that the difference is statistically significant. In \nother words, female students’ ability on topical organization is better than male students. Therefore, writing instructors must emphasize to their students that they need to write \nparagraphs according to the topic required by test organizer are important in writing \nacademic. In addition, they also need to state to their students that they must be logical and \navoid writing two different ideas in one paragraph. Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n428 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus //jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n42 https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n428 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 4.2. Paragraphing competence It was found that female students were better than male students to form \nparagraphs. They tend to follow some rules in writing a good paragraph, such as having a \ntopic sentence, writing in logical order, and explaining only one main idea. On the contrary, \nmale students tend to violate the rules of good paragraph compilation. In addition, male \nstudents also tend not to pay attention to the conditions requested by the test organizer, \nincluding number of paragraphs needed. The following table presents a different frequency \nof paragraphing competence aspects between male and female students. p\ng\np\ng\np\np\nAspects of \nparagraphing \ncompetence \n \nFrequency of gender differences \nMale \nFemale \nComplete paragraphs \nHaving a topic sentence, \narranged logically, explaining \nonly one main idea \n111 \n126 \nUsing meta-discourse signs \n36 \n75 \nUsing references \n0 \n2 \nHaving a conclusion sentence \n16 \n38 \nTotal \n163 \n241 \nIncomplete \nparagraphs \nPartial paragraphs \n73 \n23 \nParagraphs with one sentence \n8 \n4 \nTotal \n81 \n27 \nNo paragraphs \n \n2 \n0 \nTotal \n2 \n0 \nTable 5. Frequency of paragraphing competence. Frequency of gender differences Frequency of gender differences Aspects of \nparagraphing \ncompetence Aspects of \nparagraphing \ncompetence Firstly, for complete paragraphs with a topic sentence, logical arrangement, only one \nmain idea, female students produced 126 paragraphs, while male students produced 111 \nparagraphs. The difference is 15 paragraphs. For complete paragraphs using meta-discourse 428 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 \n \nsigns, female students wrote 75 paragraphs, while male students wrote 36 paragraphs. There are 39 paragraphs of difference. For complete paragraphs using references, female \nstudents compiled 2 paragraphs, while there were no male students compiling paragraphs \nwith references. Then, for complete paragraphs with a conclusion sentence, female students \nproduced 38 paragraphs, while male students produced 16 paragraphs. The difference is 22 \nparagraphs. If all those aspects are summed, female students produced 241 paragraphs for \naspect of complete paragraphs, while male students produced 163 paragraphs. There are 78 \nparagraphs of difference. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 signs, female students wrote 75 paragraphs, while male students wrote 36 paragraphs. There are 39 paragraphs of difference. For complete paragraphs using references, female \nstudents compiled 2 paragraphs, while there were no male students compiling paragraphs \nwith references. p\nj\np p\ng\ng\ny\nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus //jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n42 Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus nally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n429 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 4.2. Paragraphing competence Then, for complete paragraphs with a conclusion sentence, female students \nproduced 38 paragraphs, while male students produced 16 paragraphs. The difference is 22 \nparagraphs. If all those aspects are summed, female students produced 241 paragraphs for \naspect of complete paragraphs, while male students produced 163 paragraphs. There are 78 \nparagraphs of difference. Secondly, for incomplete/partial paragraphs, female students only produced 23 \nparagraphs, while male students produced 73 paragraphs. The difference is 50 paragraphs. Then, for incomplete paragraphs with one sentence, female students wrote only 4 \nparagraphs, while male students wrote 8 paragraphs. If both of them are summed, female \nstudents only produced 27 paragraphs, while male students produced 81 paragraphs. There \nare 54 paragraphs of difference. Thirdly, for no paragraphs, there is no mistake made by \nfemale students, while male students had the lack number of paragraphs required by the \ntest organizer (no two paragraphs). It can be concluded that the number of good paragraphs with a topic sentence, \nlogical arrangement, only one main idea, meta-discourse signs, references, and conclusion \nsentence produced by female students is more than male students. While male students \nproduced more bad paragraphs, such as partial paragraphs and paragraphs with one \nsentence than female students. Even, they made the absence of 2 paragraphs (no \nparagraphs) out of the total 150 paragraphs that should have been produced in the test. The \nstatistical analysis on each aspect of paragraphing competence can be seen in the table \nbelow. be o\nAspects of \nparagraphing \ncompetence \n \nMean \nSig. of \nANOVA \nTest \n \nMale \nFemale \nDifference \nComplete \nparagraphs \nHaving a topic \nsentence, arranged \nlogically, explaining \nonly one main idea \n3.7 \n4.2 \n.5 \n.028 \n \nUsing meta-discourse \nsigns \n1.2 \n2.5 \n1.3 \n.001 \n \nUsing references \n.000 \n.067 \n.065 \n.155 \n \nHaving a conclusion \nsentence \n.533 \n1.267 \n.734 \n.009 \nIncomplete \nparagraphs \nPartial paragraphs \n2.433 \n.767 \n1.666 \n.000 \n \nParagraphs with one \nsentence \n.233 \n.133 \n.1 \n.374 \nNo paragraphs \n \n.067 \n.000 \n.067 \n.155 \nTable 6. Statistical test of paragraphing competence Aspects of \nparagraphing \ncompetence It appears that there are four aspects of paragraphing competence that have a \nstatistically significant difference between male and female students (their values are lower 429 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra than significance level p=0.05). 4.2. Paragraphing competence There are (1) complete paragraphs with a topic sentence, \nlogical arrangement, and only one main idea, (2) complete paragraphs using meta-discourse, \n(3) complete paragraphs with a conclusion sentence, and (4) partial paragraphs. Related to \ncomplete paragraphs and partial paragraphs, writing instructors must emphasize to their \nstudent that there are three absolute requirements in compiling a good paragraph, \nespecially on a condition that there should be only one main idea in one paragraph. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n430 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus y Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 4.3. Endings Statistical test of endings 430 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, an\nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 It can be seen that there are three aspects of endings that have statistically \nsignificant differences between male and female students, namely thematic link with \nprevious paragraph, thematic link with opening paragraph, and summaries, conclusions/ \nsuggestions, or comments. Their values are lower than significance level p= 0.05. Therefore, \nwriting instructors must pay attention to their student ability in compiling a closing \nparagraph, especially on significantly different aspects. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 4.3. Endings It was found that the closing paragraph quality of female students was better than \nmale students. Yet, the difference is not so prominent between them because it only focuses \non the last paragraph. To see the difference on aspects of endings (closing paragraph) \nbetween male and female students, the following table presents their different frequency. Aspects of endings \nFrequency of gender \ndifferences \nMale \nFemale \nThematic link with previous paragraph \n21 \n28 \nThematic link with opening paragraph \n20 \n28 \nRepetition of words or phrases in opening paragraph \n7 \n11 \nRepetition of proper nouns in opening paragraph \n0 \n0 \nSummaries, conclusions/ suggestions, or comments \n20 \n29 \nTable 7. Frequency of endings Firstly, there were 28 female students who had closing paragraph related to previous \nparagraph, while there were 21 male students who had it. The difference is 7 students. Secondly, there were also 28 female students who had closing paragraph related to opening \nparagraph, while there were 20 male students who had it. There are 8 people of difference. Thirdly, for repetition of words or phrases in opening paragraph, there were 11 female \nstudents who repeated words or phrases in opening paragraph, while there were 7 female \nstudents who did it. The difference are 4 students. Fourthly, for repetition of proper nouns \nin opening paragraph, there were no students who did it, both male and female students. Fifthly, there were 29 female students who had closing paragraph containing summaries, \nconclusions/ suggestions, or comments, while there were only 20 male students who had it. The difference were 9 students. From those points, it can be concluded that closing \nparagraph aspects of female students are better than male students. The statistical analysis \non each aspect of endings (closing paragraph) can be seen in the table below. Aspects of endings \nMean \nSig. of \nANOVA Test \nMale Female \nDifference \nThematic link with previous paragraph \n.7 \n.933 \n.233 \n.019 \nThematic link with opening paragraph \n.667 \n.933 \n.266 \n.009 \nRepetition of words or phrases in opening \nparagraph \n.233 \n.367 \n.134 \n.267 \nRepetition of proper nouns in opening \nparagraph \n.000 \n.000 \n. . Summaries, conclusions/ suggestions, or \ncomments \n.667 \n.967 \n.3 \n.002 \nTable 8. Statistical test of endings Table 8. 4.4 Linking devices Female students wrote 806 items, while male students \nwrote 686 items with 120 items of difference. Secondly, for repeated words, female students produced 5.548 words, while male \nstudents produced 4.444 words. The difference is 1.104 items. For repeated phrases, female \nstudents wrote 383 phrases, while male students wrote 381 phrases. There are only 2 \nphrases. Then for repetition of proper nouns, it was not found in all writings, both male and \nfemale students. If those repetitions are summed, there are 5931 repetitions made by \nfemale students, while there are 4825 repetitions made by male students. There are 1105 \nrepetitions of words, phrases, and proper nouns. However, the small number of repetitions \ndoes not make writing of male students better than female students because the small \nrepetition also shows a small amount of text output (number of words and phrases \nproduced). Thirdly, female students used 241 synonyms, while male students used 231 \nsynonyms. The difference is 10 synonyms. With that slight difference, it can be concluded \nthat the ability to use synonyms between genders is no different. An article is categorized to \nbe good if the repetition of words/phrases is few and the use of synonyms increases. Yet, \nthis study found that the use of synonyms between male and female students is almost the \nsame. Fourthly, female students produced 87 hyponyms-hypernyms, while male students \nproduced 68 hyponyms-hypernyms. The difference is 19 hyponyms-hypernyms. It means \nthat the ability of female students to use hyponyms-hypernyms is better than female \nstudents. Therefore, the writing of female students becomes more detailed using more \nspecific terms. Fifthly, female students produced 608 anaphoric pronouns, while male \nstudents used 404 anaphoric pronouns. The difference is 204 anaphoric pronouns. Sixthly, \nfemale students used 1280 determiners, while male students used 1093 determiners. There \nare 187 determiners of difference. It means that the writing of female students has more \nwords than male students. Generally, it can be concluded that for the use of adverbials, repetitions, \nsynonyms, hyponyms-hypernyms, anaphoric pronouns, and determiners, female students \noutperformed male students. The statistical analysis on each aspect of linking devices can be \nseen in the table below. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n432 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus \n \n \n \n \nAspects of linking \ndevices \nMean \nSig. 4.4 Linking devices The researchers found that female students were better in using linking devices than \nmale students, both in terms of usage and number. However, female students did more \nword repetition. This is because the number of words produced by female students is also \nmore than male students. Besides, female students were also better at using hyponym-\nhypernym. Therefore, female student's writing became more detailed, and their argument \nbecame stronger due to adding examples. To see each aspect of linking devices, the \nfollowing table presents a different frequency between male and female students. Aspects of linking \ndevices \n \nFrequency of gender \ndifferences \nMale \nFemale \nAdverbials \nTemporal \n174 \n228 \n \nOrdinal \n26 \n61 \n \nPlace \n2 \n3 \n \nManner \n77 \n90 \n \nAdditive \n141 \n158 \n \nAdversative \n126 \n131 \n \nCausal \n140 \n135 \nTotal \n686 \n806 \nRepetition \nWords \n4444 \n5548 \n \nPhrases \n381 \n383 \n \nProper nouns \n0 \n0 \nTotal \n4825 \n5931 \nSynonyms \n \n231 \n241 \nHyponym-hypernyms \n \n68 \n87 \nAnaphoric pronouns \n \n404 \n608 \nDeterminers \n \n1093 \n1280 \nTable 9. Frequency of linking devices Firstly, for temporal adverbials, female students produced 228 items, while male \nstudents produced 174 items. There are 54 items of difference. For ordinal adverbials, \nfemale student made 61 items, while male students made 26. The difference is 35 items. For \nplace adverbials, female students wrote 3 items, while male students wrote 2 items. There \nwas only one item for difference. For manner adverbials, female students made 90 items, \nwhile male students made 77 items. The difference was 13 items. For additive adverbials, \nfemale students produced 158 items, while male students produced 141 items. the \ndifference is 17 items. For adversative adverbials, female students wrote 131 items, while \nmale students wrote 126. There are 5 items of difference. Then, for causal adverbials, female 431 https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra students produced 135 items, while male students produced 140 items. There are also 5 \nitems of difference, but male students produced more causal adverbials than female \nstudents. However, if all aspects of adverbials are summed, female students still produced \nmore adverbials than male students. y Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n432 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Nationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus al.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n432 4.4 Linking devices of \nANOV\nA Test \nMale \nFemale \nDifference \nTemporal adverbials \n5.8 \n7.6 \n1.8 \n.046 \nOrdinal adverbials \n.867 \n2.033 \n1.166 \n.014 \nPlace adverbials \n.067 \n.1 \n.033 \n.703 \nManner adverbials \n2.567 \n3 \n.433 \n.438 \nAdditive adverbials \n4.7 \n5.267 \n.567 \n.392 \nAdversative \nadverbials \n4.2 \n4.367 \n.167 \n.833 \nCausal adverbials \n4.667 \n4.5 \n.167 \n.796 \nRepeated words \n148.133 \n184.933 \n36.8 \n.001 nal uisu ac id/index php/languageliteracy\nAspects of linking \ndevices \nMean \nSig. of \nANOV\nA Test \nMale \nFemale \nDifference \nTemporal adverbials \n5.8 \n7.6 \n1.8 \n.046 \nOrdinal adverbials \n.867 \n2.033 \n1.166 \n.014 \nPlace adverbials \n.067 \n.1 \n.033 \n.703 \nManner adverbials \n2.567 \n3 \n.433 \n.438 \nAdditive adverbials \n4.7 \n5.267 \n.567 \n.392 \nAdversative \nadverbials \n4.2 \n4.367 \n.167 \n.833 \nCausal adverbials \n4.667 \n4.5 \n.167 \n.796 \nRepeated words \n148.133 \n184.933 \n36.8 \n.001 432 https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n432 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 \n \nRepeated phrases \n12.7 \n12.767 \n.067 \n.962 \nRepetition of proper \nnouns \n.000 \n.000 \n. . Synonyms \n7.7 \n8.033 \n.333 \n.612 \nHyponym-hypernyms \n2.267 \n2.9 \n.633 \n.094 \nAnaphoric pronouns \n13.467 \n20.267 \n6.8 \n.009 \nDeterminers \n36.433 \n42.667 \n6.234 \n.028 \nTable 10. Statistical test of linking devices It can be concluded that there are five aspects of linking devices that have significant \ndifferences between male and female students for significance level of p=0.05, namely \ntemporal adverbials, ordinal adverbials, repeated words, anaphoric pronouns, and \ndeterminers. Therefore, writing instructors must pay attention to all significant aspects of \nlinking devices when teaching writing skill. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \n \n433 \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 4.5 Text output counts From the analysis of student writing using Markin 4, it was found that number of text \noutput counts of female students was better than male students. It means that female \nstudents produced a greater number of text output count than male students. It makes the \nwriting of female students is better and more detail than female students. To see the \ndifferent aspects of the number of text output counts, the following table presents the \ndifferent frequency between male and female students. Aspects of text output \ncounts \nFrequency of gender differences \nMale \nFemale \nNumber of characters \n34049 \n40529 \nNumber of words \n7601 \n9081 \nNumber of sentences \n475 \n601 \nNumber of paragraphs \n148 \n150 \nNumber of sentences per \nparagraphs \n96 \n120.2 \nNumber of words per \nsentences \n494.24 \n452.96 \nNumber of characters per \nwords \n133.29 \n133.73 \nNumber of passive \nsentences \n31 \n38 \nTable 11. Frequency of text output counts Firstly, for number of characters, female students produced 40529 characters, while \nmale students produced 34049 characters. The difference is 6480 characters. Secondly, for \nnumber of words, female students produced 9081 words, while male students only \nproduced 7601 words. The difference is 1480 words. Thirdly, for number of sentences, \nfemale students produced 601 sentences, while male students produced 475 sentences. The \ndifference is 126 sentences. Fourthly, for number of paragraphs, female students produced \n150 paragraphs. while male students produced 148 paragraphs. It has only 2 paragraphs of 433 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra difference because there are 2 male students who only write 4 paragraphs. It should be the \nsame if male students followed the requirements stated by the test organizer. It has been \ndiscussed in the aspect of no paragraphs. Fifthly, for number of sentences per paragraph, \nfemale students got 120.2 sentences, while male students got 96 sentences. The difference \nis 24.2 sentences. It means that female students have more sentences for each paragraph \nthan male students. difference because there are 2 male students who only write 4 paragraphs. It should be the \nsame if male students followed the requirements stated by the test organizer. It has been \ndiscussed in the aspect of no paragraphs. Fifthly, for number of sentences per paragraph, \nfemale students got 120.2 sentences, while male students got 96 sentences. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 5. Conclusion The highest significant difference of linguistic characteristics in text-level analysis is \nparagraphing competences. Paragraphing competences consist of complete paragraphs \n(topic sentence, one main idea, logical order, paragraphs with meta-discourse, paragraphs \nwith references, and paragraphs with conclusion sentences), incomplete paragraphs (partial \nparagraphs and paragraphs with one sentence), and no paragraphs. For this linguistic \ncharacteristic, it is found that female students produced more complete paragraphs. In other \nwords, female students outperformed male students. Otherwise, male students produced \nmore partial paragraphs, paragraphs with only one sentence, and no paragraphs. The most \ndominant cause that makes female students are superior to male students in paragraphing \ncompetences is meta-discourse. Female students in writings tend to use meta-discourse \nsigns, such as first (ly), second (ly), third (ly), last (ly), in conclusion, therefore, and so in their \nwriting. The use of meta-discourse signs also influences other linguistic characteristics, such \nas topical organization and endings. Meta-discourse signs make topical organization easier, \nand endings (closing paragraphs) has a good quality. There are several notions that need to be considered by writing instructors and \nfurther researcher. Writing instructors (teachers, lecturers, tutors, etc.) should consider \ngender differences in teaching English, especially in teaching academic writing skill and pay \nmore attention when teaching students with different gender in one class. This attention can \nbe focused on aspects of linguistic characteristics of academic writing in order to specifically \nhelp their students in teaching-learning process. Besides, further researchers can do more \nwritten tests as a research instrument, not just one written test in order to validate research \ndata. Further researchers can also use different types (genres) of text, such as analyzing \nstudent daily journals, both in text and sentence levels. 4.5 Text output counts They can excel almost in all of these linguistic characteristics in text-level \nanalysis (topical organization, paragraphing competences, ending, linking devices, and text 434 Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 \n \noutput counts. Besides, it was also found that all of these linguistic characteristics obtained \nsignificant differences at a significance level of p=0.05. However, the differences are not \nstatistically significant. From previous research conducted by Jones and Myhill (2007), it was \nalso found that men tend to write long paragraphs. On the contrary, this research proves \nthat female students tend to write longer paragraphs with a higher number of sentences. Language Literacy: Journal of Linguistics, Literature, and Language Teaching \nVolume 6, Number 2, pp: 423-436, December 2022 \ne-ISSN: 2580-9962 | p-ISSN: 2580-8672 \n \n \nDOI: 10.30743/ll.v6i2.5910 output counts. Besides, it was also found that all of these linguistic characteristics obtained \nsignificant differences at a significance level of p=0.05. However, the differences are not \nstatistically significant. From previous research conducted by Jones and Myhill (2007), it was \nalso found that men tend to write long paragraphs. On the contrary, this research proves \nthat female students tend to write longer paragraphs with a higher number of sentences. 4.5 Text output counts The difference \nis 24.2 sentences. It means that female students have more sentences for each paragraph \nthan male students. Sixthly, for number of words per sentence, female students got 452.96 words, while \nmale students got 494.24 words. The difference is 41.28 words. Male students have more \nwords for each sentence than female students in this aspect. This is due to the smaller \nnumber of sentences of male students than female students. Seventhly, for number of \ncharacters per word, female students got 133.73 characters, while male students got 133.29 \ncharacters. There is only 0.44 characters of difference. It means that both male and female \nstudents have the same number of characters for each word. Eighthly, for number of passive \nsentences, female students produced 38 sentences, while male students produced 31 \nsentences. The difference is 7 sentences. Although the difference of text output counts is not too many, it can still be inferred \nthat the writing of female students is better than female students. The statistical analysis on \neach aspect of text output counts can be seen in the table below. Aspects of text output \ncounts \nMean \nSig. of \nANOVA \nTest \nMale \n \nFemale \n \nDifference \n \nNumber of characters \n1.134.967 1.350.967 \n216 \n.003 \nNumber of words \n253.367 \n302.7 \n49.333 \n.002 \nNumber of sentences \n15.833 \n20 \n4.167 \n.000 \nNumber of paragraphs \n4.933 \n5 \n0.067 \n.155 \nNumber of sentences \nper paragraphs \n3.2 \n4 \n0.8 \n.001 \nNumber of words per \nsentences \n16.475 \n15.56 \n0.915 \n.218 \nNumber of characters \nper words \n4.443 \n4.458 \n0.015 \n.817 \nNumber of passive \nsentences \n1.033 \n1.267 \n0.234 \n.500 \nTable 12. Statistical test of text output counts It can be concluded that there are four aspects of text output counts that have \nsignificant difference values for significance level of p=0.05, namely number of characters, \nnumber of words, number of sentences, and number of sentences per paragraph. These four \naspects, especially number of words sentences must be writing instructors’ attention in \nteaching writing skill. In addition, although number of passive sentences does not experience \na significant difference, writing instructors should also emphasize to their student about the \nimportance of using passive sentences in academic writing to produce formal writing and \nobjective writing styles (Jordan, 2003). Female students had better abilities than male students in all linguistic characteristics \nof text analysis. Acknowledgements This paper was funded by the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP). Therefore, we would like to thank the Indonesia LPDP for funding this research. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus References Andini, T., M. & Prasetyowati, S. (2021). Gender differences learning strategy at English \nlanguage education department students university of muhammadiyah Malang. Jurnal \nInovasi \nPembelajaran, \n7 \n(2), \n217-226. Retrieved \nfrom \nhttp://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jinop Andini, T., M. & Prasetyowati, S. (2021). Gender differences learning strategy at English \nlanguage education department students university of muhammadiyah Malang. Jurnal \nInovasi \nPembelajaran, \n7 \n(2), \n217-226. Retrieved \nfrom \nhttp://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jinop Andini, T., M. & Prasetyowati, S. (2021). Gender differences learning strategy at English \nlanguage education department students university of muhammadiyah Malang. Jurnal \nInovasi \nPembelajaran, \n7 \n(2), \n217-226. Retrieved \nfrom \nhttp://ejournal.umm.ac.id/index.php/jinop Arikunto, S. (2013). Prosedur Penelitian: Suatu Pendekatan Praktik. Jakarta: Rineka Cip Cameron, D. (1997). Performing gender Identity: Young men’s talk and the Construction of \nheterosexual masculinity. In Sally, J. & Meinhof, U. (Eds.), Language and masculinity. Oxford: Blackwell. https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus 435 Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Linguistic Variation between Male and Female Students in Academic Writing, Surya Asra, Grace Josephine \nTiwon Wiradisastra Creswell, J. W. & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods \nResearch (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fattahi, N. & Nushi, M. (2021). The effect of gender and language proficiency on the \nmetaphor use in the writing of TEFL students. Asian. J. Second. Foreign. Lang. Educ. 6, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-021-00126-1 Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E. & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational research: Competencies for analysis \nand application. (8th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Prentices Hall. Gtowka, D. (2014). The impact of gender on attainment in learning english as a foreign \nlanguage. Studies in Second Language Learning and Teaching (SSLLT), 4 (4), 617-635. doi: 10.14746/ssllt.2014.4.4.3 Hamdan, S. M. & Hamdan, J. M. (2013). Authors’ perceptions of author’s gender: A myth or a \ntruth?. International Journal of English and Literature, 4 (10), 523-528. Retrieved from \nhttps://academicjournals.org/article/article1383241609_Hamdan%20and%20Hamda\nn.pdf Holmes, J. (2013). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed.). New York: Routledge. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies. Cambridge: \nCambridge University Press. Jones, S. & Myhill, D. (2007). Discourses of differences? Examining gender differences in \nlinguistic characteristics of writing. Canadian Journal of Education,30 (2), 456-482. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/20466646 Jones, S. (2011). Mapping the landscape: gender and the writing classroom. Journal of \nWriting Research, 3 (3), 161-179. doi: 10.17239/jowr-2012.03.03.2 Jordan, R. R. (2003). https://jurnal.uisu.ac.id/index.php/languageliteracy \nNationally Accredited SINTA 3, and indexed in DOAJ and Copernicus References Academic writing course: Study skills in English. London: Pearson \nEducation Limited. Mahmud, M. (2018). Gender differences in English language teaching. Confrence TESOL \nIndonesia \n– \nAsian \nEFL \nJournal, \n20 \n(5). Retrieved \nfrom \nhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/321722800_Gender_Difference_in_Engli\nsh_Language_Teaching Newman, M. L., Groom. C. J., Handelman, L. D. & Pennebaker, J. W. (2008). Gender \ndifferences in language use: An analysis of 14.000 text samples. Discourse Processes, \n45, 211-236. doi: 10.1080/01638530802073712 Nunan, D. & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A \ncomprehensive guide. Boston: Heinle, Cengage Learning. Oshima, A. S. & Hogue, A. (2006). Writing academic English. (4th ed.). New York: Longman. Reynolds, M.R., Scheiber, C., Hajovsky, D. B., Schwartz, B., & Kaufman, A. S. (2015). Gender \ndifferences in academic achievement: Is writing an exception to the gender \nsimilarities hypothesis?. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 176 (4), 211-234. doi: \nhttps://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2015.1036833 Sunderland, J. (2000). Issues of language and gender in second and foreign language \neducation. Language Teaching, 33, 203-223. doi: 10.1017/S0261444800015688 Sunderland, J. (2006). Language and gender. New York: Routledge Applied Linguistics. Tuan, L. T. (2010). Enhancing efl learners’ wrriting skill via journal writing. English language \nTeaching, 3 (3), 81-88. doi: https://doi.org/10.31538/alsuna.v2i2.397 Waskita, D. (2008). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL academic writing at the University \nof Melbourne. Jounal of Sociotechnology, 14 (7), 448-463. Retrieved from \nhttp://journals.itb.ac.id/index.php/sostek/article/view/1005 Waskita, D. (2008). Differences in men’s and women’s ESL academic writing at the University \nof Melbourne. Jounal of Sociotechnology, 14 (7), 448-463. Retrieved from \nhttp://journals.itb.ac.id/index.php/sostek/article/view/1005 436"