Converting Our Thesis/Dissertation into an Article

Converting a writing of more than 12,000 words into a concise article of 3000ish words is a real challenge. What to keep? What to put aside? How about the language style? Fortunately, as an inexperienced aspiring academia that I am, I’ve got some help from a dear friend, Mbak Dewi to help me answering this question. I decided to share this with you in case you are facing the same challenges like me, or even better, have more suggestion on this.

One of the most important thing is that not to leave out the quintessentials. These basically include: what your research is about, why did you choose to research on the subject, what’s significance does your research bring, how did you do your research, and what findings you’ve got. For these, the literature review part can be omitted given that you have defined the necessary terms that may come up in your writing. It comes down to the first point: don’t leave out the quintessentials – defining all the terms used shouldn’t be left out.

Secondly, our writing, should have a ‘flow’. You can juggle the formality of the wordings employed. A good article should have a flow – a narrative that can be easily understood by laymen – anyone from any field. To make sure of this narrative, we can try to re-read the writing once it’s done and ask for feedback from people outside of our fields.

Another point to note is that, we should highlight in what way our research can benefit our field of study.

For the structure, we can use this proportion: 20% introduction and literature review, 20% methodology, 40% findings and discussion and 20% conclusion.

So far, this is what I’ve got. Well, I should better of starting writing the article 🙂 Would love to welcome any feedback and suggestions on this!

English Language Teachers in Indonesia: Reflecting Their Roles and Potentials for ELT

English Language Teachers in Indonesia: Reflecting Their Roles and Potentials for ELT  .

On Pedagogical Reasoning: Towards A More Meaningful Classroom Interaction

On Pedagogical Reasoning: Towards A More Meaningful Classroom Interaction  .

An Investigation of Challenges Related to Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) Practices in Indonesian Senior High Schools

In Indonesia, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) has been implemented since early 1980s. Within CLT, communicative approach is fostered to achieve students’ communicative competence. However, many high school graduates still find difficulties in engaging in real life communication. This is in line with what is stated by Lie (2007) that regardless of the length of English exposure for Indonesian students, only few Indonesian high school graduates can actively use the languages they have learned for at least 6 years in secondary schools. This condition shows that CLT implementation in Indonesia has not yet bared its optimum results. Thus, I am interested in finding out what has been perceived by teachers to be the challenges for implementing Communicative Language Teaching in their English language classrooms. This study particularly focuses on Senior High Schools (Grade 9-12).

In order to find out the challenges faced by the teachers, a Likert 5-scale questionnaire had been distributed from January 17^th to 24^th 2015. Twenty-one participants (13 females, and 8 males) took part in the study. Among them, 52% (11) of them have been teaching for less than 5 year, while 43% (9) for 5-10 years and 5% (1) for more than 10 years.

The statistics data gathered from the questionnaire is then descriptively analyzed and discussed to identify challenges faced by teachers in implementing CLT based on teachers’ understanding of CLT principles, and challenges related to the implementation of methodology, teachers, students and educational systems. Throughout the data, to gain information about the typical answer and thus revealing typical situation among the participants, the median of the data is used. That being said, when the finding is referred as being typical, it is drawn from the median of the data, unless stated otherwise.

Teachers’ Understanding of CLT Principles

The data reveals teachers’ tendency to use various methods in the classrooms. Interestingly, besides Communicative Approach (CA), reportedly, Grammar Translation Method (GTM) is also typically often implemented in the classrooms. This shows that teachers regard communicative principles highly by using it more frequently in comparison to others methodology and approaches. However, as GTM is significantly also frequently used, there is a tendency that the participants consider grammar teaching, which is emphasized in GTM, to be not compatible and not facilitated through CA.

When participants were asked to define CLT in their own words, interestingly, only one out of 21 participants who mentioned that CLT focuses on both student-teacher interaction and student-student interaction. The rest of the participants either did not mention about which interaction to focus or only mention that the communication should be two ways or should facilitate student-teachers interaction without indicating interaction among students themselves.

There is a tendency among teachers to acknowledge student-teacher interaction more than student-student interaction in CLT implementation. This situation potentially might facilitate less student-student interaction that may lead to less opportunity for more L2 exposure. As stated in Finocchiaro and Brumfit (1983 in Li, 1998), student-student interactions are expected, to maximize the time for the students to practice the language in the classroom.

Methodology-Related Challenges

Teachers’ opinions differ on three points. Firstly, generally speaking, they are typically neutral on the notion that CLT involves only group work or pair work. However, there is an equally higher percentage between those who agree and disagree on this notion. This shows that potentially, among those who consider that CLT involves only group work or pair work, there is a chance that they may over-use and overemphasize group work or pair work. Consequently, there are chances that other more individual activities are not accommodated.

This provides a contradicting view with the previous point. This situation reflects in which while some participants tend to disregard student-student interaction, some others reversely overemphasize classroom interaction. These contradicting views indicate that there are misconceptions of CLT among teachers.

Secondly, there is a mixed opinion on the point that there is a lack of effective and efficient instruments to assess communicative competence. This shows that some participants consider current examination system is enough and coherent in measuring communicative competence achieved, while some others do not.

Thirdly, participants’ opinions also differ on the point that CLT does not take into account the differences between EFL and ESL teaching contexts. This shows there are teachers who see CLT does not facilitate learners’ need.

Teachers-Related Challenges

This subsection made attempts to uncover challenges dealing with the teachers themselves. Interestingly, the participants have unanimous typical opinions on all five challenges. They found the challenge lie on the points that teachers need more knowledge about the appropriate use of language in context and about the target language (English) culture; there are few opportunities for teachers to get CLT training; teachers have little time to develop materials for communicative classes and that teachers have misconceptions about CLT.

This resonates the finding Martin Lamb’s review on a professional upgrading program in Indonesia which was carried two decades ago in 1995. His study on the program review one year after it was conducted shows that the participants already forgot what had been taught, faced confusion, and dissatisfaction towards the educational system. This relevance even after two decades shows that, a more effective training programs and review need to be conducted by the government so that the progress and measurable attainment level of the program can be revealed.

Drawing from his experience directing some short-in service programs in Indonesia, Tomlinson (1988 in Lamb, 1995) suggested that one-off training that is not sustained might cause teachers’ frustration. This frustration is rooted in teachers’ new understanding as well as inability to implement the understanding into their classroom practices due to other factors like incompatible national exams, big classroom size, and less lesson hours. Therefore, to improve the effectiveness of the trainings, unless of being a one off training session, more training session on regular basis is still needed. Meanwhile, other factors are also needed to maximize the success of CLT implementation.

Students-Related Challenges

Participants unanimously typically agree on these points that students have low-level English proficiency; students have a passive style of learning; students resist participating in communicative class activities; and students lack motivation for developing communicative competence. These findings are in support for the previous finding in Marcellino’s (2009) study that shows that Indonesian students are lack of motivation due to not getting lack of target language exposure and not being in target language environment. This shows that the students-related challenges have not yet been sufficiently addressed.

Educational System-Related Challenges

Participants agree on all points of these challenges: more support dealing with administration is needed; teachers need more authentic materials such as newspapers, magazines, movies etc; traditional view on teachers and learners’ role is not compatible with CLT; classes are too large for the effective use of CLT; and that grammar-based examinations have a negative impact on the use of CLT. Particularly for the challenge dealing with grammar-based examination, it is the most unanimous decision. These findings are in line with Musthafa’s (2001) exploratory study that highlights challenges in implementing CLT in Indonesia consisting all five aspects. This indicates that even after the same challenges had been highlighted since a decade ago, the problems related with the educational systems are still on the same things and not yet well tackled.

This paper, rather than bringing up generalizability, is an attempt to enrich the discussion of challenges of CLT perceived by teachers. Additionally, as stated by Karavas-Doukas (1996), there is a chance of potential discrepancy between teachers’ framework and classroom implementation. That being said, it is acknowledged that teachers’ perspectives may not provide total classroom overview. Thus, more future research which ethnographically investigating classroom practices of CLT is needed to give a more holistic overview of challenges faced in implementing CLT in Indonesia.

REFERENCES

Adi, S. S. (2012). Communicative Language Teaching: Is it appropriate for Indonesian context?. Instructional Technology, 51.

Brandl, K. (2007). Communicative language teaching in action: Putting principles to work. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language teaching and learning. White Plains, NY: Longman.

Celce-Murcia, M. , Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1997). Direct approaches in L2 instruction: A turning point in communicative language teaching?. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 141-152.

Chang, M., & Goswami, J. S. (2011). Factors affecting the implementation of communicative language teaching in Taiwanese college English classes. English Language Teaching, 4(2), p3.

Karavas-Doukas, E. (1996). Using attitude scales to investigate teachers’ attitudes to the communicative approach. ELT journal, 50(3), 187-198.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-81.

Lamb, M. (1995). The consequences of INSET. ELT journal, 49(1), 72-80.

Li, D. (1998). “It’s always more difficult than you plan and imagine”: Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea. TESOL Quarterly, 32(4), 677-703.

Littlewood, W. (2007). Communicative and Task-Based Language Teaching in East Asian Classrooms. Language Teaching, 40(03), 243-249.

Marcellino, M. (2009). English Language Teaching in Indonesia: A Continuous Challenge in Education and Cultural Diversity. TEFLIN Journal: A publication on the teaching and learning of English, 19(1).

Mitchell, R. (1988). Communicative Language Teaching in Practice. London: Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research.

Musthafa, B. (2001). Communicative language teaching in Indonesia: Issues of theoretical assumptions and challenges in classroom practice. Journal of Southeast Asian Education, 2(2).

Nishino, T. (2008). Japanese secondary school teachers’ beliefs and practices regarding communicative language teaching: An exploratory survey. JALT Journal, 30(1), 27.

Nunan, D. (1987). Communicative language teaching: Making it work. ELT journal, 41(2), 136-145.

Nunan, D. (2000). An introduction to task-based teaching. ELT Advantage, Cengage Learning.

Ozsevik, Z. (2010). The Use of Communicative Language Teaching (CLT): Turkish EFL Teachers’Perceived Difficulties in Implementing CLT in Turkey (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).

Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sakui, K. (2004). Wearing two pairs of shoes: Language teaching in Japan. ELT Journal, 58(2), 155-163.

Savignon, S. J. (1991). Communicative Language Teaching: State of The Art. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 261-278.

Savignon, S. J., & Wang, C. (2003). Communicative Language Teaching in EFL contexts: Learner attitudes and perceptions. IRAL, 41(3), 223-250.

Sun, G., & Cheng, L. (2000). From Context to Curriculum: A Case Study of Communicative Language Teaching in China.

Thompson, G. (1996). Some misconceptions about communicative language teaching. ELT journal, 50(1), 9-15.

Bedanya Approach, Methods and Technique

Beberapa waktu yang lalu saya mendapat pertanyaan melalui email dari seorang kawan baru. Kawan saya ini bertanya mengenai perbedaan model pembelajaran dan metode. Pasalnya, ia sedang mencari tahu dan ingin membedakan apakah jigsaw dalam pembelajaran bahasa Inggris itu termasuk metode atau model pembelajaran. Pertanyaan yang sederhana ini, ternyata membutuhkan beberapa penjelasan, karena memang sering digunakan secara bergantian dalam konsep yang sama.

Jawaban yang cukup komprehensif bisa didapatkan di sini http://file.upi.edu/Direktori/FIP/JUR._PEND._LUAR_SEKOLAH/195404021980112001-IHAT_HATIMAH/Pengertian_Pendekatan,_strategi,_metode,_teknik,_taktik_dan.pdf

Pengertian jigsaw, seperi dijelaskan di Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jigsaw_(teaching_technique)) adalah pengorganisasian kelas, di mana siswa dibagi dalam beberapa kelompok kecil. Di dalam kelompok kecil ini, mereka diberi satu topik atau kasus untuk dipelajari atau diselesaikan. Kemudian, secara individu dan kemudian kembali ke kelompok, siswa akan memecahkan kasus tersebut dan menyimpulkan apa yang mereka pelajari bersama. Melihat dari terperincinya langkah-langkah yang dijabarkan dalam Jigsaw, jika mengacu pada pengertian hal-hal yang dilakukan dalam pengajaran, maka bisa terlihat bahwa Jigsaw merupakan model pembelajaran. Sayangnya, artikel pertama di atas, tidak melampirkan contoh apa yang dimaksud dengan teknik dll, sehingga perbedaan interpretasi dari pengertian yang dilampirkan sangat mungkin terjadi.

Akan tetapi, jika kita lihat lagi dari tautan Wikipedia di atas, dan hasil yang akan kita temukan dari pencarian Google berbahasa Inggris, maka akan kita temukan bahwa banyak yang memasukkan Jigsaw sebagai teaching technique, teknik pengajaran. Sementara itu, jika kita melakukan pencarian Google dalam bahasa Indonesia, akan kita temui bahwa Jigsaw adalah model pembelajaran. Nah, jadi mana yang benar?

Perbedaan makna maupun tumpang tindih makna dari satu bahasa ke bahasa lainnya adalah sesuatu yang wajar. Karena mengutip salah seorang pakar pendidikan, teks tidak pernah terlepas dari konteks. Hanya karena A diartikan a dalam bahasa Inggris tentu bukan berarti A dalam bahasa Indonesia harus diartikan a.

Berikut adalah pengertian approach (pendekatan), methods (metode) dan techniques (technique) mengacu pada beberapa teori dan buku dalam bahasa Inggris.

Approach (Pendekatan) dalam pembelajaran dan pengajaran bahasa didefinisikan oleh Brown (2000) sebagai kerangka teori yang melingkupi penerapan pembelajaran bahasa dalam lingkup pendidikan. Beberapa pendekatan pembelajaran (learning approach) yang sering kita dengar adalah seperti pendekatan komunikatif, dan pendekatan humanistik. Lebih lanjut lagi, Brown mendefinisikan techniques (teknik) sebagai penyusunan aktivitas dalam pembelajaran untuk mencapai tujuan pembelajaran yang diinginkan. Sedangkan, method (metode) menjembatani keduanya. Metode memberikan poin-poin apa saja yang harus dlakukan dalam pembelajaran itu. Misalnya direct methods, audio lingual methods dll. (Baca lagi)

Salah satu yang kontroversial apaakah harus dikategorikan ke dalam pendekatan (approach), methodology ataukah methods adalah CLT (Communicative Language Teaching). Misalnya saja Brown, menyebutkan bahwa CLT merupakan approach, sedangkan Brandl, menyebutkan bahwa CLT merupakan methodology. Jadi mana yang benar? Tentu saja tidak ada satu jawaban pasti mengenai ini, dan perbedaan pendapat ini sangat dihargai. Yang membedakan apakah A haruslah disebut methodology ataukan pendekatan adalah apa yang dimaksud di dalamnya. Tergantung dari mana kita mau membahas CLT, apakah dari bagaimana CLT sebagai metodologi yang terstruktur ataukah CLT dari sisi communicative nya.

Nah, jadi kesimpulannya jigsaw itu model pembelajaran atau metode? Jawaban paling sederhananya, ya, model pembelajaran. Lho, tapi di sumber lain kok metode? Ya, silakan dilihat lagi. Sama seperti kasusnya CLT bisa jadi disebut methodology, bisa pula approach. Kalau dalam bahasa Inggris, jigsaw tentulah masuk ke dalam kategori technique. Pada akhirnya, yang paling penting adalah bagaimana penerapannya dalam pembelajaran, bukan?