Based on the principle of “i+1” suggested by Krashen (1982), the reading material involved in the continuation writing exercise should be chosen at a level slightly above students’ current level of comprehension to ensure that the cohesive devices and discourse patterns used in the given text are understandable but still challenging enough to facilitate acquisition. This principle is applied in both action research cycles to ensure that students are able to internalize the cohesive properties of the input without overloading students due to the level of complexity. Secondly, the output hypothesis is a reason behind putting writing production at the core of the instructional design. In each cycle, students are required to write continuation writing which involves the active use of cohesive devices and the construction of coherent narratives. Thirdly, the combination of the input and output hypothesis promotes the cyclical character of the action research.

Based on the principle of “i+1” suggested by Krashen (1982), the reading material involved in the continuation writing exercise should be chosen at a level slightly above students’ current level of comprehension to ensure that the cohesive devices and discourse patterns used in the given text are understandable but still challenging enough to facilitate acquisition. This principle is applied in both action research cycles to ensure that students are able to internalize the cohesive properties of the input without overloading students due to the level of complexity. Secondly, the output hypothesis is a reason behind putting writing production at the core of the instructional design. In each cycle, students are required to write continuation writing which involves the active use of cohesive devices and the construction of coherent narratives. Thirdly, the combination of the input and output hypothesis promotes the cyclical character of the action research.