Post on 22-Jan-2021
transcript
GROUPING-BASED ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(A Descriptive Qualitative Study at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)
THESIS
By
Herdiana
NIM. 21170140000007
GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2020 M./ 1441 H.
ii
GROUPING-BASED ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(A Descriptive Qualitative Study at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)
THESIS
Completed as Partial requirement for a Completion
of Master’s Degree in Education
at Graduate Program of English Education
Faculty of Educational Sciences
Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta
By
HerdianaNIM. 21170140000007
GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH EDUCATION
FACULTY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES
SYARIF HIDAYATULLAH STATE ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY
JAKARTA
2020 M./ 1441 H.
iii
v
vi
ABSTRACT
GROUPING-BASED ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING(A Descriptive Qualitative Study at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)
This study was expected to describe profoundly theimplementation of grouping-based English language teaching atPoliteknik LP3I Jakarta, Pasar Minggu Campus. The objectives ofthe study were to investigate the curriculum used and its expectedoutcomes in the grouping-based ELT by the institution; to explorethe method and strategies; to explore the obstacles encountered bythe lecturers; and to explore how the learning evaluation was. Thestudy was held qualitatively with the participants of students andEnglish lecturers at the Campus. The data were gained byobservations, focus group discussion, and document analysis. Thedata were analyzed through data collection, data display, datareduction, and the conclusion. The results indicate that the appliedcurriculum is competence-based curriculum and the teachingmethod is adaptation of communicative approach and student-centered learning. Overall, the grouping is adaptive enoughalthough some challenges arise, particularly in teaching lower-level groups. The lower the level the more the efforts need to begiven by the lecturers. This leads to the conclusion that the roles oflecturers in this grouping-based English language teaching are verycentral, so that plotting highly competent lecturers is a need. Theauthor recommends that there should be more focused study howand to what extent grouping affects learners’ English skills,particularly speaking; there should be periodical improvements ofthe the textbooks based on the feedbacks from the lecturers and thestudents; and a need analysis, especially for the expected standard.As the limitation, this study was not expected to reveal any effectsor correlations of grouping to the English language skills mastery.However, this study may open up further research on grouping-based ELT and its related topics.
Keywords: Grouping, English Language Teaching
vii
ABSTRAK
PENGAJARAN BAHASA INGGRIS BERBASISKELOMPOK
(Sebuah Studi Deskriptif Kualitatif di Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)
Studi ini bertujuan menggambarkan secara mendalamimplementasi pengajaran bahasa Inggris (PBI) berbasis kelompokdi Politeknik LP3I Jakarta, Kampus Pasar Minggu. Tujuan daripenelitian ini adalah untuk menyelidiki kurikulum yang digunakandan hasil yang diharapkan oleh lembaga; untuk mengeksplorasimetode dan strategi pengajaran; untuk mengeksplorasi kendalayang dihadapi oleh para dosen; dan untuk mengeksplorasi evaluasipembelajarannya. Penelitian ini diadakan secara kualitatif denganpeserta mahasiswa dan dosen bahasa Inggris di Kampus tersebut.Data diperoleh dengan observasi, diskusi kelompok fokus, dananalisis dokumen. Data dianalisis melalui pengumpulan data,tampilan data, reduksi data, dan penarikan kesimpulan. Hasilpenelitian menunjukkan bahwa kurikulum yang diterapkan adalahkurikulum berbasis kompetensi dan metode pengajarannya adalahadaptasi dari pendekatan komunikatif dan pembelajaran yangberpusat pada mahasiswa. Secara keseluruhan, pengelompokan inicukup adaptif meskipun beberapa tantangan muncul, khususnyadalam mengajar kelompok tingkat bawah. Semakin rendah level,semakin banyak upaya yang harus dilakukan oleh para dosen. Inimengarah pada kesimpulan bahwa peran dosen dalam pengajaranbahasa Inggris berbasis kelompok ini sangat penting, sehinggamenempatkan dosen yang sangat kompeten adalah suatukebutuhan. Penulis merekomendasikan bahwa sebaiknya ada studiyang lebih terfokus bagaimana dan sejauh mana pengelompokanmempengaruhi keterampilan bahasa Inggris mahasiswa, terutamakeahlian berbicara; sebaiknya ada perbaikan buku teks berkalaberdasarkan masukan dari dosen dan mahasiswa; dan analisiskebutuhan, terutama untuk standar yang diharapkan. Sebagaibatasan studi, penelitian ini tidak bertujuan mengungkapkan efekatau korelasi pengelompokan dengan penguasaan keterampilanbahasa Inggris. Namun, penelitian ini dapat membuka penelitianlebih lanjut tentang PBI berbasis kelompok dan topik terkait.
Kata kunci: Pengelompokan, Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
Praise be for Allah for His continous blessings which enable the
author to have an opportunity to study and to finally complete his
Master’s Degree. This research is merely a dot among His
immense Knowledge.
The author also would like to convey his gratitude for families,
teachers, colleagues, and students who always encourage
continuing until the finish line. For his advisor, Siti Nurul Azkiyah,
M.Sc., Ph.D., thank you so much for your kind words and
motivation so he could make it. Please accept his gratitude for your
thorough and developing suggestions, quality hours of consultation
and the best proofreading ever. The author does appreciate your
concern on his thesis.
A sincere thank is also for Head of Campus, all academic team,
fellow lecturers and colleagues at PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus,
thank you for helping the author complete this research data. This
research will be nothing without your help.
The author’s sincere gratitude also goes to:
1. Dr. Sururin, M.Ag., the dean of Faculty of Educational Sciences;
2. Dr. Fahriany M.Pd., the head of Graduate Program of English
Education, Faculty of Educational Sciences;
3. The author’s fellow classmates of Graduate Program of English
Education, Faculty Educational Sciences; and
ix
4. All people who have given motivation and contribution in
completing this thesis. May Allah bless them and reward them
all better.
May Allah bless you all.
Jakarta, January, 2020
HerdianaNIM. 21170140000007
x
TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER PAGE ................................................................................. i
TITLE PAGE .................................................................................... ii
APPROVAL BY THESIS ADVISOR.............................................. iii
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY................................................ iv
APPROVAL BY THESIS EXAMINERS ...................................... v
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................... vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................... viii
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................. xii
LIST OF APPENDICES .................................................................. xiii
LIST OF ABREVIATION ............................................................... xiv
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1
A. Research Background ............................................................ 1
B. Research Focus and Subfocus ............................................... 7
C. Reasearch Questions ............................................................. 7
D. Research Objectives ............................................................... 8
E. Research Significance ........................................................... 8
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW......................................... 10
A. The Nature of English Lnguage Teaching (ELT)...................
1. The Concept of ELT .......................................................
2. Teaching Methodologies in ELT .....................................
3. Assessment in ELT .........................................................
10
11
13
22
B. Grouping-Based English Language Teaching........................ 25
C. Context, Input, Process and Product Research Framework ... 31
D. Previous Related Studies ....................................................... 32
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .......................... 39
A. Research Design..................................................................... 39
xi
B. Description of Setting and Participants ................................. 39
C. Research Instruments ...... ...................................................... 40
D. Data Collection Procedure ..................................................... 42
E. Data Analysis Procedure ........................................................ 43
CHAPTER IV FINDING AND DISCUSSION .............................. 46
A. Finding ................................................................................... 46
B. Discussion ............................................................................. 75
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ...... 93
A. Conclusion ...................................................................... 93
B. Recommendation and Limitation of the Study ............... 94
REFERENCES .................................................................................. 96
APPENDICES ................................................................................... 101
xii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.1 Positive and Negative Sides of Grouping Methods ....... 28
Table 3.1 FGD Guideline.............................................................. 41
Table 4.1 English Language Teaching Curriculum Streamline ofPLJ...................................................................................
47
Table 4.2 Timelines of ELT Targets at PLJ.................................... 49
Table 4.3 Lesson Plan..................................................................... 54
Table 4.4 Standard Reference of ECJ scoring and Speaking/ OralTest Scoring....................................................................
62
Table 4.5 Description of Obstacles Encountered by theLecturers.........................................................................
66
Table 4.6 Description of Evaluation Forms.................................... 74
xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 The vision, mission and expected outcomesof English language teaching program ofPoliteknik LP3I Jakarta .................................
101
Appendix 2 The syllabus of General English 1 (GE 1) ...... 102
Appendix 3 The syllabus of General English 2 (GE 2) ...... 121
Appendix 4 Final Term Test Guidelines (Kisi-kisi) .......... 140
Appendix 5 English Conversation Journal (ECJ) .............. 143
Appendix 6 Focus Group Discussion Format/Guide ......... 144
Appendix 7 FGD Trabscribed Notes (Lecturer 3) ............. 147
Appendix 8 FGD Transcribed Notes (Lecturer 2) ............. 147
Appendix 9 FGD Transcribed Notes (Lecturer 1) ............. 149
Appendix 10 Observation Sheet .......................................... 151
Appendix 11 Non-Participatory Observation Results ......... 152
Appendix 12 Non-Participatory Observation Results ......... 154
Appendix 13 Participatory Observation Results ................. 156
Appendix 14 Participatory Observation Results ................. 157
xiv
LIST OF ABREVIATION
BE (Business English)CALL (Computer-Assisted Language Learning)CEPA (Common Educational Profieciency Assessment)CIPP (Context Input Process Product)CV (Curriculum Vitae)ECJ (English Conversation Journal)EFL (English as a Foreign Language)ESEA (Elementary and Secondary Education Act)ELT (English Language Teaching)ESL (English as a Second Language)ESP (English for Specific Purposes)FGD (Focus Group Discussion)GBELT (Grouping-Based English Language Teaching)GE (General English)HL (Higher Level)IELTS (International English Language Testing System)KPI (Key Point Indicator)L (Lecturer)LIA (Lembaga Indonesia Amerika)LL (Lower Level)LP3I (Lembaga Pendidikan dan Pengembangan Profesi Indonesia)NOB (Non-partcipatory Observation)OB (Observation)PLJ (Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)POB (Participatory Observation)SBA (School Based Assessment)SKS (Satuan Kredit Semester)SLT (Situational Language Teaching)SS (Students)TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign Language)TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages)TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language)TOEIC (Test of English for International Communication)TPR (Total Physical Response)UAE (United Arab Emirates)UAS (Ujian Akhir Semester [Final-Term Test])UN (Ujian Nasional [National Examination])USA (United States of America)UTS (Ujian Tengah Semester [Mid-Term Test)CEFR (Common European Framework of Reference for Languages)
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. Research Background
In English language teaching, especially at English language
courses, grouping or placement or levelling is a common practice.
English learning centers place the incoming students to class
groups according to their scores of placement test. The practice is
generally intended to accommodate the learners’ needs of suitable
treatments from the learning institution according to their level of
language skills. The practice of placing learners properly
indicates the understanding that learners of language perform
well when they are grouped into classes matching their
proficiency level, immersed with their peers of equivalent
competence or aptitude and that particular placement test is
informative for the instructors. If students work on to engage in a
class group too hard for them, they are likely to get frustrated and
lose their learning enthusiasm; and vice versa, higher ability
learners placed in a too-easy class group may become bored,
which results in negative effect on learning motivation (Green,
2018, p. 1).
Another point to consider related to grouping is eficiency.
The case happens in Uni Arab Emirate (UAE), where English is
spoken as a foreign language. Howling (2017, p. 4) indicates that
poor English competence among the newly accepted tudents at
college has been a serious issue, although the students have been
2
taught English for twelve years throughout their primary and
secondary levels of education. As English is the language of
instruction at public universities in the country, the incoming
students are required to be mastering English. Yet, the problem
happens when most of the admitted students are coming to the
university without sufficient English. As the consequence, the
federal government has to spend a third of the 2014 federal
budget on English curative activities, such as English preparatory
sessions (Swan and Salem as cited in Howling, 2017, p. 1).
Howling (2017, p. 5) further shows that there is a need to re-
examine the placement method for English classes at univerities
in UAE. The current placement metod applied in the country is
tracking, a system by which the students are placed based on their
overall exam scores and academic performance. Due to this
placement system, students are in the mixed-ability class groups
when it comes to English learning. This varying ability class
groups lead to negative students attitude and motivation
(Howling, 2017, p. 3). Then, after reviewing the advantages and
disadvantages of three grouping methods for English class
(tracking or streaming, ability grouping and within-class
grouping) and examining research conducted at a state higher
learning institution in UAE, concerning English learning
experience of students taking parts in the English remedial
foundational program, Howling concludes that current class
grouping policy harms lower-achieving students and this policy
needs to be reconsidered. As the recommendation, Howling
(2017, p. 5) suggests to revise the current student grouping in
3
English classes to be student grouping in accordance to the
students’ English language abilities.
In the context of secondary schools in Asia, grouping seems
to be familiar enough among emerging Asian countries. Hwang
(2014, p. 127) indicated an example in South Korea, where the
country’s authority is supporting the implementation of it. In the
country, there has been a rising trend in implementing grouping
particularly for two lessons on which ability grouping was the
most demanded (English and mathematics). Hwang (2014, p.
127) highlighted that referring to reports from the government,
roughly 77% of secondary schools were undergoing proficiency
level-based grouping by 2009 (Yonhap News as cited in Hwang,
2014, p. 127). Accordingly, there have been growing concerns on
how grouping works or does not work. Related to this matter,
Hwang (2014, p. 128) noticed that there have been significant
studies on grouping, although the studies are mainly on the roles
of ability grouping towards academic achievemnet.
Contextually, the practice of grouping students based on their
ability in the field of education is not an unfamiliar practice.
According to Hwang (2014, p. 128), grouping in the West has
become a debated topic in education. The idea of placing students
in one group with similar level of ability has been challenged by
both its proponents and its opponents. The proponents underline
that classes carried out in homogeneous class ought to
beneficially fulfil learners’ specific needs and purposefully
manage the class order, and also positively support the students to
learn than class group consisting of learners having varied levels
4
of ability (Hwang, 2014, p. 130). On the contrary, the opponents
of the idea notice that the convincing outcomes of competence-
based grouping have not been adequately signified, and even if it
is so, the positive outcomes only benefit higher-ability students.
They also note that it is a drawback for lower-ability students in a
means of academic actualization and self-esteem (Hwang, 2014,
p. 131).
As highlighted above, there are significant propositions
whether grouping brings positive or negative effects in the EFL
classes. At a nonselective college with students having mixed
English proficiency, placing students correctly is crucial, because
they have different needs which can be altered through
appropriate supports (Barnett and Reddy, 2017). This leads to the
thinking that an English language instructor cannot use the same
approach, the same attitude and the same pace of teaching for all
students who have different level of competence in the same class
at the same timeline. On the other hand, arguments against
grouping could not be put aside. There are study results
indicating that English language teachers should reconsider
grouping. The worry that adult students have their own rights to
determine their decisions, even if they made failure; the reason
that level placement or ability grouping only shows racial and
economic background rather than academic capacities (Barnett
and Reddy, 2017). Additionally, there is an indication that
grouping may create unhealthy comparisons among learners that
potentially harm the learning process. The proposition that
grouping could affect academic self-concept as the students make
5
comparison of their English competency (Sheppard et al., 2018)
is among ideas that challenge grouping.
In Indonesia, one of the education institutions that have set
and developed English Language Teaching (ELT) based on
grouping is Politeknik LP3I Jakarta (Lembaga Pengembangan
Pendidikan Profesi [Center for the Development of Professional
Education]) Jakarta. Politeknik LP3I Jakarta (PLJ) is a Jakarta-
based vocational higher learning institution offering Diploma
Three (D3) programs. As English language skill has been an
essential demand in the industry, it is a core competence to be
possessed by PLJ students and graduates. In their Guidline Book
for the implementation of ELT at LP3I, the vision of their ELT
and learning program is to yield graduates who are able to
communicate in English both verbally and in written forms
according to the demand of workforce (Politeknik LP3I Jakarta,
2015).
As the input of their education process, PLJ admits new
students every year. The students come from different
backgrounds of education and social status. As a private
education institution that admits students without any
standardized enrollment tests, the polytechnic could be
categorized as a non-selective college among the stake holders,
particularly senior high school and vocational high school
students. Referring to that, as a nonselective college, their new
students are typically heterogeneous especially in terms of
academic qualification standards, included English language
proficiency. Thus, to accomodate the heterogenity, the institution
6
carries out the English language teaching and learning process
based on grouping for their first-year students.
In reference to the institution’s Guideline Book for the
implementation of English language learning and teaching
process:
Effective language learning is one of which determined by
the application of grouping in the learning system, namely
classifications based on the level of competence. Classes with the
same level of competency (among its students) can run more
effectively than classes with heterogeneous abilities. This is
because the teaching approach method carried out by the
lecturer becomes more focused, the material provided can be
more appropriate to the students' abilities, interaction and
communication that is built between students is more interwoven
because they are in the same level. Therefore, leveling/ grading
(grouping) in English classes is important to do. Leveling
(grouping) policy must be applied in all LP3I branches.
(Politeknik LP3I Jakarta, 2015)
In fact, since its first implementation, the Polytecnic has
never carried out any study yet to investigate how and to what
extent the grouping has been going. In connection to that, as an
English lecturer teaching at the institution, the author has a sense
of urgency to do a descriptive qualitative study on the program.
This study is significant for the improvement of ELT quality at
the institution, as it can inform the stake holders (PLJ directors,
academic staff, academic advisors, fellow lecturers, students and
parents) about how and to what extent the policy is carried out
7
and whether or not it finds its relevance for the English language
teaching and learning at the institution.
B. Research Focus and Subfocus
Based on the background presented above, the focus of this
study is the implementaion of gouping-based ELT at Politeknik
LP3I Jakarta (PLJ) Pasar Minggu Campus, with the subfocus
specified into: PLJ’s ELT curriculum, expected outcomes,
teaching and learning methodology and strategies and teaching
and learning evaluation.
C. Reasearch Questions
Refering to the background and the research framework
highlighted above, the author intends to seek further
understanding about grouping-based ELT applied by PLJ Pasar
Minggu Campus, with the specific questions as follow:
1. What curriculum did PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus use for the
grouping-based ELT and what outcomes were expected?
2. What method and strategies did PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus
apply in the grouping-based ELT?
3. What were students’ activities in the grouping-based ELT?
4. What obstacles did the lecturers encounter in the grouping-
based ELT?
5. How was the evaluation of grouping-based ELT?
8
D. Research Objectives
In connection with the research questions stated above, the
objectives of this study were:
1. to investigate the curriculum that PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus
uses for the implementation of grouping-based ELT and its
expected outcomes.
2. to explore the ELT method and startegies that PLJ Pasar
Minggu Campus applies.
3. to explore the sutudents’ activities in the grouping-based ELT?
4. to explore the obstacles that the lecturers encountered in the
implementation of grouping-based ELT?
5. to explore the evaluation of the grouping-based teaching and
learning results?
E. Research Significance
Based on the research questions and research objectives, the
results of this study are expected to give some significances to
fellow students, teachers, lecturers, further research and
researchers in terms of:
1. The contribution on the development of English teaching and
learning process, to the institution in particular and to all ELT
practicioners in general;
2. Opening up wider discussion on method or curriculum
evaluation of ELT;
3. Input on the current practice of ELT and learning for the
institution and for general audience;
4. New perspectives for the stake holders of English language
9
5. New perspectives for the stakeholders of English language
education in general.
10
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. The Nature of English Language Teaching (ELT)
A wise saying that to teach is to learn twice these catches the
author’s attention when it comes to a discourse about teaching and
learning. What the author could draw from this wise saying is that
teaching process cannot ever be separated from learning process.
In order to be a good teacher, one must be a good learner.
Therefore, in the context of English teaching, somebody cannot be
a good English teacher if he or she does not learn English well. A
teacher is always supposed to learn. Learning is the key to
teaching. The advancement of teachers in the subject they teach is
contextually associated with better learning outcomes (Schleicher,
2016, p. 11).
Related to the nature of teaching illustrated above, in this
section, the author intends to highlight three aspects of English
Language Teaching that the author takes into consideration,
namely the concept of ELT, methodologies in ELT and assesments
in ELT. These three aspects also contribute to one another in
achieving the teaching and learning outcomes. But, fundamentally,
these three are merely the forms of implementation of ELT
curriculum set by a learning institution. As it is suggested by Hall
(2017) that teachers (and students) are generally rarely ‘free
agents’; the daily decisions that practitioners make inside the
classroom, and the ‘nuance’ of classroom atmosphere, are affected
by broader societal and institutional factors. One of the most
11
apparent and broad-scope of these is the language curriculum,
which is a broad set of interrelated elements and cycles (Richards,
2001, as cited in Hall, 2017). Furthermore, as the proposition in
method as the determining aspect of language teaching has
declined, theorists and practitioners alike have increasingly
focused on second language curriculum design (Graves, 2008 as
cited in Hal, 2017). White (1988, as cited in Hall, 2017) describes
curriculum as ‘the totality of content to be taught and expects to be
implemented within a school or educational entity’. Another
definition is by Stern (as cited in Hall, 2017) indicating that
‘curriculum’ refers ‘not only to the subject matter or content, but
also to the entire instructional process including materials,
equipment, examinations and the training of teachers’ (Hall and
Hewings, 2001 as cited in Hall, 2017), although in some contexts,
the curriculum may only be implicitly reckoned, for example, from
the textbooks or assessments used by an institution. At this point,
it can be seen how central curriculum design is in language
education and how significant it is to the other aspects of teaching,
namely the concept of ELT, the teaching methodologies, and the
assessment.
1. The Concept of ELT
As English has been a growing need globally and teaching is
not merely transfering knowledge and skills, teaching English has
been a significant concern in language education. Currently, what
we call as English teaching could be depicted as TESOL (Teaching
English as Other Language), TEFL (Teaching English as a Foreign
12
Language), and TESL (Teaching English as a Second Language)
(Lin, 2010). In general, the types of teaching English are the same.
But what make them different in particular are their emphasizes,
the backgrounds of the learners and also the area where English is
spoken, namely English-speaking country and non English-
speaking country.
Typically, ESL is used in imigrants countries such as USA and
Canada, in which many immigrants come to settle. Although
English is not their native language, they still need to learn the
language for the purpose of getting immersed with their local
communities and get themselves integrated in the immigrants
region (Lin, 2010). In the context of Asia, we can take Malaysia
for an example, as English is one of their official languages and
that they have historical links to British occupation, English is
treated as their second language and the term for teaching it there
is ESL. As for the TESOL, linguists usually use the term for giving
emphasize to the metodologies of learning and teaching English as
a profession. Lin (2010) suggests that we can most particularly
perceive that TESOL is devised institutions for training teachers
and programs that give education or instruction to Engish teachers,
or certain communities that language learnig for learners of
widening network. Meanwhile, TEFL is primarily focused on the
use of English by learners and teachers whose mother tongue is not
English. The empasize of TEFL is that the learners and teachers
position English as communication instrument in the context of
diverse nations, instead of making use of it as an official language
(Lin, 2010). Therefore, at this point we can see that context—the
13
background of the learners and teachers and also the environment
where is English is used—more or less intersects with the terms or
types of English teaching.
Still, despite the rapid development of ELT and learning and
also the context of teaching EFL rather than ESL in Indonesia, the
goals of English language teaching are relatively the same.
According to Cook (2007, p. 237), the goals could be classified to
two, namely internal and external. Internal goals intersect with the
learners’ self improvement as personalities, related to their being
as parts of scieties that understand mindfully the effects the second
language possesses on them. While external goals deal with
learners’ making use of language functions off the classroom:
business or working activities, reading, traveling, even surviving
in a new world or society. What is perceived as teacing language
in traditional contexts oftentimes emphasizes the internal goals, for
instance, studying Latin trains the brain; learning L2 literary works
heightens up awarness of cultural and socioeconomical being, and
so on and so forth.
2. Teaching Methodologies in ELT
In the implementation of ELT, at least there are four central
areas to be concerned, namely management and interaction of
classroom, methodology-method-post method, learners and the
frameworks of social and institutional context of ELT (Hall, 2017).
Regarding this proposition, in fact, from time to time, the ways
English teachers teach and the learners learn have developed a lot.
Nowadays, teaching and learning English is increasingly supported
14
by the existence of technological innovations. Students do not just
rely solely on classes but they can learn and even acquire English
(through reading, listening, speaking and writing) anywhere and
anytime using the gadgets available around them, such as
smartphone and portable computer. The rapid development of
teaching and learning contextually needs to be concerned well,
especially those who teach at the junior and senior high school
levels. The role of the teacher is no longer the only source of
knowledge but rather directs the students to learn interactively in
various media that are familiar to them.
Furthermore, it is also important to notice that the development
of methodologies in ELT is a continuous process since the past, in
line with human being cognitive advancement. Periodically, Lin
(2010) divides the the development of language teaching into three
schools, known as three schools of language acquisitions. The
three schools are the periods of 19th century, 1940s, to 1950s
(known as First School: behaviorism and structuralism; periods of
1960s to 1970s (known as Second School: rationalism and
cognitive psychology; and Third School, namely constructivism
(from 1980s to 2000).
As for the pedagogies and methodologies in the three schools
of language acquisition in the 19 Century until now Millenium Era,
at least, there have been eleven (11) methods appearing to
consider. The eleven methods are as follow:
a. The method of grammar translation
Learners are taught grammatical rules and then they utilize the
rules by a means of translating the sentences of the target language
15
(English) and their native language. Khan et al. (2016) argues that
in this method, every word and phrase in the English text are
translated by the insructor, later the learners require several
sentence translation. A contrasting understanding of the source
language and the target language gives significant view about both
languages’ structures.
b. Natural approach
Students are conditioned to acquire the target language
(English) through natural communication with comprehensible
language input. Mani (2016) notices that this approach emphasizes
the naturalistic priciples like that of first language acquisition. But,
Mani (2016) also points out that there has been growing interest to
develop langage teaching out of this approach, which leads the way
towards the so-called direct method.
c. Direct method
The teacher directly sets up real time audio visual links between
experience and expression, sentences, phrases, words and
meaning, rules and performance via the teachers’ physical
instruction and mental skills, without any aid of the students’
mother tongue. As it was mentioned in the previous point, there is
a connection between direct method and natural approach. As it is
describeb in a report by Modern Language Association, direct
method is the development of natural approch (Mani, 2016).
d. Situational Language Teaching (SLT)
The method focuses on the view of language structure, by
contextualizing the naturally occuring language with its use. Smith
at al. (2018, p. 1) argues that despite its rare adoption, SLT
16
appeared to be a significant transition from grammar translation
approach to the teaching of language.
e. Constructive analysis
It is a systematic method done by contrasting the difference and
the similarities between two languages (in this case: target
language [English] and learner’s native language). A study by
Anwar (2015, p. 62) concludes that the more students engaged the
more they feel motivated to learn, and that the method of
constructive teaching has helped contribute to learners’ learning
motivation.
f. Method of audio-lingual
Through the method, students are directed to study and use
English in a direct way, setting aside the native language of theirs
for explaining new words or grammatical patterns; with the teacher
presenting or supplying new words for sampling in the same
structure; then the students memorize and put the specific cosntruct
into practice until they are capable of using it spontaneously.
According to Alemi and Tavakoli (2016, p. 2), the audio-lingual
method gained its fame in the 1950s and 60s, and it did not just
emphasize the words undeerstanding, but also the structure and
patterns acquisition in common daily conversation. The teacher
elicits, repeats and tests the patterns until the learners give the
responses in the target language automatically.
g. Total Physical Response (TPR)
This method makes use of physical movement coordinated with
language, in which the language instrutor delivers instructions to
learners in English with body movements and they respond with
17
physical moves. This method is well known with young learners
or beginners, although it is basically still applicable for all levels
and age groups. Toghyani and Khanehgir (2017, p. 90) argue that
experimental studies focused on the EFL teaching efficiency using
TPR proved it could lead to increase vocabulary acquisition and
listening comprehension skills significantly of the learners
compared to the control groups.
h. Student-centered learning
This is the reversal of traditional method, where teacher is the
center of learning. In student-centered learning, students are the
centre of any interaction in the class; learners are strongly urged to
actively apply the language of target; and the teacher acts as
facilitator rather than instructor. A study by Goodyear and Dudley
(2015) proposes that through an explorative teacher behaviour,
interactive activities of teacher-student, and teacher-as-activator in
discussions, it is arguable that the language instructor is supposed
to give an active role in the classroom and ought to be positioned
more than merely “guiding on the side”. Thee instructors ought to
apply direct and indirect behavioral and dialogical interactions to
back up and extend the learning. The interactive actions are
expected to be relevant cntextually and be in line with the expected
outcomes of the approach.
i. Total communication
This method focuses on the use of both a visual aspect and
hearing to assist learners communicate. The method is popularly
known for helping deaf children, children with down syndrome
and other learning disabilities. Farooq (2015) explains that in
18
communicative language teaching, students are encouraged to
perform comminicative activities that can boost their reading,
writing, listening, speaking or even thinking naturally. This
idealization could be achieved through meaning making,
contextualization and the curriculum and instruction’s emphasize
on the language usefulness being learned and the activities being
concerned in, which could be held in various ways, using different
instruments.
j. Interactive approach
It is a pedagogical approach that conditions learners for an
active class atmosphere by getting them to participate with peers
in the subjects. Interactive teaching arose in the 70s of 20th
century, and it developed further later. Through interactive
teaching, instructor and learners exchane thoughts each other
concerning certain topics in equal manners by making use of varied
platforms of teaching (Lin, 2017).
k. Computer Assisted Language Learning (CALL)
This approach makes use of the computer and computer-based
teaching and learning resources (internet, multimedia tools, and so
forth). An interesting finding of researh on CALL was the one by
Alresheed et al. (2017, p. 369) in Saudi Arabia. In this country, the
government intends to integrate CALL into classrooms. However,
was found that CALL’s efficacy recognition does not appear to be
an easy accepatnce in the ESL or EFL classrooms in the country’s
schools, especially where the teaching of English and information
and communication technologies are subject to religious and
cultural restraints.
19
As digital technologies are growing rapidly nowadays, the
methodologies of teaching and learning English keep up with the
development. For instance, social media, that can influence its
users in acquiring a foreign language. Social media also allows its
users to interact with the speakers of the target language (English)
in any topics of talk.
Furthermore, having highlighted the metohds, from the oldest
to the newest, used in ELT, another concern is the content or
lessons of the teaching. Cocerning the lesson in the teaching, in
general, it refers to the need of the English learners themselves in
order to be mastering English well. In order to be competent in
English, a learner is supposed to master skills that include
speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary and grammar or
structure. The following is the review of the six English
competencies:
a. Speaking
An interesting study held in Kenya by Gudu (2015) found out
that: there was a variey of use of classroom activities, for instance,
discussion was the most applied classroom activity while oral drill
was the least applied. During classroom discussions, learners code-
switched to Kiswahili or "Sheng" (local languages) because of low
oral skills and the instructors did not integrate various classroom
activities in one lesson thus interfered learners’ opportunity of
using authentic language contextually. Later, as its significance,
the study suggests that, first, learners ought to be given chances for
practicing authentic English language in context; second, teachers
should incorporate various activities in a lesson to accomodate
20
learners' needs; and third, curriculum to acknowledge students'
cultural backgrounds in order to magnify their learning outcomes.
b. Listening
Sheerin as cited in Mee (2017) stated that important
considerations in actually teaching effective listening are sufficient
preparation, enough support and guidance of proper tasks.
However diagnosis of error patterns, coupled with positive
feedback and curative action are also cricial in teaching listening.
c. Reading
A study by Venezky (2019) points out that how reading should
be taught particularly to children depends upon four factors,
namely the skill which the learners posses for the reading activities,
the learning abilities of the leraners, the environment for teaching,
which at leats consists of teachers, resources, and the community
in which the school is placed, and the connectivity between
language and writing.
d. Writing
The teaching of writing in ELT has developed significantly in
the last decades, directing to paradigm shifts in the field.
Approaches to the teaching of writing are available in significant
amount. According to Nordin (2017), in recent years, there has
been emphasis and discourse on three major different approaches,
namely the genre-based, the process-based and the product-based.
The debates on the three approaches oftentimes result in
contradictory understandings in teaching writing.
21
e. Vocabulary
In comprehending any languge, particularly in reading,
vocabulary is an important aspect. There has been variety of
approach in vocabulary teaching in order to develop students’
lexical development. According to Pan (2017, p. 38), lexical
transfer is useful in the process of learning words with second
language translation. Moreover, the words instruction in their
specified context could activate students’ schemas, building up
links between letters and meanings and delivering enduring images
in their minds. Besides, the idioms and collocation instructions
serve as an opening not only to the extension of vocabularies but
also to the reading comprehension increase when the collocations
and idioms that could not be grasped from their surface meanings
arise in the text.
f. Grammar
Larse-Freeman (2015, p. 263), in a study, recommends viewing
grammar in more progressive terms, namely ‘grammaring’, in
order to smoothen the stagnant knowledge problem. Whereas
traditional approaches to teaching posistion grammar as a static,
finite system, leading to a linear way to increasing control of such
a system, a grammaring approach promotes the ability of students
to go beyond the input, as, in the end, learning a language is not
about conformity to uniformity (Larsen-Freeman, 2003 as cited in
Larsen-Freeman, 2015, p. 263). Thus, with the approach, the
grammar system is not rigid but constantly expanding, because of
the creativity of its users as they generate new meanings, making
it impossible to distinguish errors from linguistic innovations
22
without a consideration to authoritative factors, such as who is
doing the talking (Larsen-Freeman, 2015, p. 253).
3. Assessment in ELT
All the types of English teaching, with their varied
methodologies as highlighted above, have the same expected
oucomes, namely proficient or competent English users. Then, at
this point, an English teacher and the stakeholders need to find out
the results of their teachings. To find out the results of language
teaching and learning, there must be a measurement. This
measurement is carried out by doing a test or an assessment.
Cohen (as cited in Lin, 2010) suggests that assessments or tests are
naturally developmental and and non-harming, enabling the test
takers sufficiently show what they understand and do not
understand, and giving constructive feedback for both teachers and
learners. The same proposition also is indicated by Brown (as cited
in Lin, 2010), that a test is a means to measure a learner’s learning
development, knowledge and skills in a certain field of study. By
looking at the test results, the main stakeholders or decision makers
can recognize what appropriate teaching methods and teaching and
learning policies are.
Some testing specialists of language indicate that pratices of
assessment ought to be carried out on unbiased testing grounding,
which covers up validity, reliability, practicality, authenticity and
washback (Alderson, 2001; Hughes, 2003 and Brown 2004 as cited
in Lin, 2010). Lin (2010) argues that when a test is designed by
taking the five dimensions into consideration, it could be
23
considered valuable and accurate not just mirrors learners actual
achievement but also gives the learning institution stakeholders
and teachers a map on how and what curriculum is suitable to
apply.
The five components mentioned above are broken down as
follow:
a. Validity,
Brown (2014 as cited Lin 2010) explains that validity is what
proves appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness of
teachers’ teaching contents after the test. Validity inludes criterion-
related evidence, construct related evidence, content-related
evidence, face validity and consequential validity. Another
proposition on validity is that of Nicholson’s (2015), indicatong
that validity is concerned with whether the test measures what it is
intended to measure and for this it needs to provide proof that the
score of the test represents the area(s) of language skill intended to
be measured.
b. Reliability
Brown (2004, as cited in Lin, 2010) points out that a reliable
test is the one that is dependable and consistent. Reliability
accomodates student-related reliability, rater-reliability, test-
administration reliability and test reliability.
c. Practicality
Lin (2010) argues that practicality means how effiecient (in
terms of time and budget) and how easy to conduct a test is.
Practicality refers to resources or facilities available to developers
and users of language assessments in the processes of developing,
24
administering, scoring, and using their assessments. Bachman and
Palmer (2010 as cited in Jin, 2018, p. 1) suggest that the degree of
practicality could be measured by the difference between the
resources that will be required in the development and application
of an assessment and the resources that will be available for these
activities.
d. Authenticity
We can say that a test is authentic when it fits the learners’
studied knowledge as well as content that they need to actually
apply in the actual life contexts (Lin, 2010). Meanwhile, Pinner
(2016) argues that authenticity is a multi-dimensional concept that
ought to be seen from intricacy theory and be grasped by assessing
it from the dimensions of contextual, social, and individual, in
relation to actual people.
e. Washback
We can say a test as washback when it has an influence or an
effect on teaching and learning processes (Lin, 2010). McNamara
(2000) as cited in Cheng et al. (2015) applies two terms to
differentiate between two associative terms, name ly impact and
washback. According to Cheng et al. (2015), impacts are the
effects of tests on the macro-levels of education and society; and
washback is the effects of language tests on micro-levels of
language teaching and learning inside the classroom. In this sense,
the difference between impact and washback lies in the scope of
the effects of testing--a more narrow one of washback and the all-
embracing one of impact (Hamp-Lyons, 1997, p. 295).
25
Commonly, education institutions have their own tests or
assesments to scale up the progress and the outcomes of teaching
and learning, whether it is what is so-called progress test, mid-term
test, final test or the likes. But, beside institutional tests, there are
also independent English language testing platforms that are
knownly reliable to measure a learner’s English language
proficiency. Among these platforms are Test of English as a
Foreign Language (TOEFL), Test of English for International
Communication (TOEIC), International English Language Testing
System (IELTS) and English Qualifications of Cambridge.
Regarding the three aspects briefly explained above, the author can
categorize that English teaching at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta Pasar
Minggu Campus, where the author carries out the research for this
thesis, is Teaching English as Foreign Language (TEFL).
Meanwhile, ability grouping-based ELT as the topic of the thesis
is ELT policy that can intersect with methodologies and classroom
management intended to accelerate the teaching and learning at the
institution to satisfactorily reach the expected outcomes.
Accordingly, the following topic that the author discusses is ability
grouping based English language teaching.
B. Grouping-Based English Language Teaching
Grouping is not categorized a new practice in language
teaching. Historically, placement at learning institutions has
existed since early 20th Century. At that time, the policies of
placement were accompanied by course pre-requirement,
academic probation and progression policies, and other
26
requirements related to entrance and graduation (Barnett and
Reddy, 2017). However, later, in 1970s, the popularity of such
policies was decreasing as it got resistance from stakeholders
arguing that as adults, college students should have the right to
make their own decisions, even if it resulted in failing courses.
Still, despite challenging debates on it, ability grouping in English
language teaching is a significant issue to engage.
In English language teaching, especially at English language
courses, grouping or placement or levelling is a common practice.
English learning centers place the incoming students to class
groups according their scores of placement test. The practice is
generally intended to accommodate the learners’ needs of suitable
treatments from the learning institution according to their level of
language skills. The use of placing learners properly indicates the
understanding that learners of language perform well when they
are grouped into classes matching their proficiency level,
immersed with their peers of equivalent competence or aptitude
and that particular placement test is informative for the instructors.
If students work on to engage in a class group too hard for them,
they likely tend to get frustrated and lose their learning enthusiasm;
and vice versa, and vice versa, higher ability learners placed in a
too-easy lass group may become bored, which results in negative
effect on learning motivation (Green, 2018, p. 1). In addition, if not
informed well about varied learner capabilities, teachers may find
it difficult to plan and adjust the instruction.
In the practice of students’ grouping, there are three types,
namely tracking, ability grouping or setting and homogenous
27
within-class grouping. Tracking is placing students in class groups
based on their scores of examination or any academic performance,
such as National Examination (UN) in Indonesia or Common
Educational Profieciency Assessment (CEPA) in UAE (Uni Arab
Emirates). Ability grouping or setting is placing students based on
their ability level (usually focusing on course-specific proficiency;
so that students are in class groups in which they have similar or
equivalent level of proficiency. Homogenous within-class
grouping divides students in a class who have varying levels of
competence into smaller class groups of students having equivalent
or resemblant levels of ability (Lou et al as cited in Howling, 2017,
p. 2).
As a method in a field of language education, all types of
grouping are certainly intended to equalize or accelerate students’
language skills. Still, it does not mean that each grouping type is
without advantages and disadvantages. Howling (2017, p. 2) points
out those advantages and disadvantages as follow:
28
Table 2.1Positive and Negative Sides of Grouping Methods
Grouping
Method
Positive Negative
Tracking Simple to
implement
Tendency of
benefiting students of
advance ability level
(Suknandan & Lee,
Gamoran, Callahan as
cited in Howling,
2017).
Can give drawback
mental effect on lower
ability learners
(Suknandan & Lee;
Ireson et al; Maclntyre
& Ireson as cited in
Howling, 2017).
There is a possibility
of students being
misplaced certain
lesson-specific classes
which are not in
accordance to their
level (Howling, 2017).
29
Grouping
Method
Positive Negative
Ability
Grouping/
Setting
Decrease the negative
psychological impact
of placement on
students (Slavin as
cited in Howling,
2017)
Learners tend to be
put in a class suitable
with their level of
proficiency (Gamoran
as cited in Howling,
2017).
Possess a beneficial
impact on the
performance levels of
learners of high
medium and low
levels of ability
(Slavin as cited in
Howling, 2017).
Success depends on
every school’s
resources (Howling,
2017).
30
Grouping
Method
Positive Negative
Homogenous
Within-Class
Grouping
Tends to be the most
beneficial for students
of all levels
(Suknandan & Lee as
cited in Howling,
2017)
Class size
establishes the
efficacy of the
groupings (Lou et al;
Suknandan and Lee
as cited in Howling,
2017).
Gives extra force on
instructors, demands
distinctive
commands adjusted
to every group needs
(Lou et al as cited in
Howling, 2017).
Decrease the time of
instruction and
interaction teachers
rs have with learners
(Sukhnandan and
Lee as cited in
Howling, 2017).
In the context of ELT in Indonesia, ability grouping is not
something new, especially at well-established English courses,
such as English First, Wall Street English, LIA (Lembaga
31
Indonesia Amerika), The British Institute, and the likes. While in
higher learning ELT, ability grouping is not a common practice.
Higher learning institutions in Indonesia generally set English
language as a subject for pragmatical reason, namely to fulfil the
requirement of curriculum credits. English instructors teach
students directly according to their class of study programs, not
according their level of ability or competency. Still, there are
certain higher learning institutions that take into account ability
grouping in their ELT, particularly vocational college like
Poiteknik LP3I Jakarta. Still, in spite of its well-known
applications at schools, colleges or higher education institutions,
the applicability and effectuality of ability-based grouping has not
been scrutinized sufficiently (Sheppard et al., 2018).
Regarding grouping-based ELT at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta
Pasar Minggu Campus, in this thesis, the author does a descritive
qualitative study to reveal a comprehensive description of the
implementation of the grouping-based based ELT. In conducting
this study, the author applies Context-Input-Process-Product
research framework in one of the instruments to gather the data,
namely focus group discussion guideline. Hence, the following is
a highlight about the research framework.
C. Context, Input Process and Product Research Framework
Concerning descriptive qualiatitative study , there are types of
qualitative research framework available in the field of educational
research. From several existing frameworks, the author applies
Context, Input, Process and Product model developed by Daniel
32
Stufflebeam (2007). The framework has been widely used by
education stakeholders, as the author considers this framework is
applicative in comparison with other frameworks, particularly in
the field of education. Besides, the model was originally devised
for the evaluating Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) in the USA. The framework stretches descriptive areas of
a program or policy in the aspects of context, input, process and
product. These four evaluation aspects equip a decision-maker to
answer four basic questions: What we should do; how we should
do it; we are doing it as planned or not; and, whether or not he
program worked.
The author considers the framework applicable for guiding
project, program, product, institution, system and personnel
evaluating efforts (Stufflebeam, 2007). The framework can be used
as a tool for sound and practical evaluations and making sure that
the findings provide feedbacks for the accountability and
improvement of a program.
In connection to rouping-based ELT, there are studies
conducted previously that the author considers related to the topic.
These previous relevant studies add up some more insigths and
perspectives for the author in composing this thesis. Therefore,
next sub-chapter deals with previous relevant studies and how
these studies intersect with this research of the author’s.
D. Previous Related Studies
There are studies related to grouping in ELT (English
Language Teaching). A study conducted in Japan (Sheppard et al.,
33
2018) investigated the possibility of ability-based grouping being
impactful to university students who had followed obligatory ESP
(English for Specific Purposes) subjects. The findings show that
grouping was beneficial for students of lower proficiency, but, by
contrast, it was not impactful enough for higher level students.
Still, the study also provides its limitations by stating that features
of instruction and institution of the study program the leraners were
following and the possoble impacts of grouping on leraners’
intellectual concept of self are possible reasons for the findings.
The author considers this research relevant in informing how
grouping is described and evaluated in a tertiary education
institution.
A study conducted in the USA also appears to be a case in
grouping-based ESL teaching. This study (Gonzalves, 2017) dealt
with the standardized language assessment typically taken by adult
English as a Second Language (ESL) students after their
enrollment at California’s adult schools. The study was conducted
by participatory action research involving interviews. The findings
of this study suggest that there are discrepancies between the
state’s policies and actual pedagogical needs of the learners.
Beside the findings, it also proposes ways to reconstruct how ESL
assessment is carried out, such as making available a wider, more
comprehensive base of assessments for schools to deploy, and
offering an updated, common set of standards for use statewide.
Howling (2017, p. 1) carried out a study entitled on the need
of grouping for English classes at state secondary education
institutions in UAE. The background of the study is the poor
34
English performance of secondary school graduates in the country.
This has been an issue in the country as English is the instructive
language of learning and teaching at federal univeristies. Poor
English performance among school graduates who are just
accepted at federal universities has made UAE government spend
one-third of their university budget on English remedial courses.
Howling’s (2017, p. 1) study weighed in research done in
2014-2015 on female students’ English learning experience in the
foundational program at state tertiary education institution in UAE.
The study suggests that there is a need to re-examine the placement
method for English classes at univerities in the country. The
current placement metod applied there is tracking, a system by
which the students are placed based on their overall exam scores
and academic performance. Due to this placement system, students
are in the mixed-ability class groups when it comes to English
learning. This varying ability class groups lead to negative students
attitude and motivation (Howling, 2017, p. 3). After reviewing the
advantages and disadvantages of three grouping methods for
English class (tracking or streaming, ability grouping and within-
class grouping) and examining research conducted at a state higher
learning institution in UAE, concerning English learning
experience of students taking parts in the English remedial
foundational program. Howling concludes that current class
grouping policy harms lower-achieving students and this policy
needs to be reconsidered. As the recommendation, Howling (2017,
p. 5) suggests to revise the current student grouping in English
35
classes to be student grouping in accordance to the students’
English language abilities.
A study conducted to assess grammar teeaching programs at
schools in Iran. Jafari and Shahrokhi (2016) examined the
effectiveness of teaching second language grammar from the
perspectives of students and instructors. The participants of the
study were one hundred twenty students attending the second
grade high-schools and 10 instructors teaching in the program. The
data was gathered through a self-reported student questionnaire.
An interview which was designed for the instructors was also used.
While the data based on the questionnaire were analyzed through
descriptive and inferential statistics, content analysis was carried
out to analyze qualitative data. Results of the study indicated that
the grammar program at a highschool served for its purpose. The
findings revealed that improvements in the objectives, teaching
methods, and grammar curriculum are required to make the
grammar program more effective.
Another similar study was carried out in Malaysia. Abdullah,
Wahab, Noh, Abdullah and Ahmad (2016) co-wrote a study
entitled The evaluation and effectiveness of school-based
assessment among science teachers in Malaysia. The purpose of
this study was to identify the effectiveness of School Based
Assessment (SBA) in science subject among secondary science
teachers. The study also investigated science teachers’
performance regarding the advantages and disadvantages of SBA.
A total of 112 science teachers from 21 secondary schools in
Batang Padang District, Perak, Malaysia were involved in this
36
survey. The data from the questionnaires and survey were analyzed
using descriptive statistics and statistical inference. Frequency
distribution with mean scores and percentages and Pearson
correlation analysis were used. Results showed that the dimensions
of context, input and product are at a moderate level while the level
of process dimension is high. Hypothesis is also accepted, that
there is no significant relationship between the level of
dimensional context, input, process and product in the
implementation of SBA with teaching experience. Analysis of the
interviews showed that most respondents agree that there are
advantages of SBA, thus this is suitable with the aim of Malaysia
to create a world-class human capital. The author summarized that
the research provided new insights to language instructirs for the
execution of SBA properly by support from the government,
moitoring, courses and training.
In Indonesia, Firharmawan (2017) conducted a study for the
investigation of English for Sport Science at Sport Education
Study Program of the University of Ma’Arif Nahdlatul Ulama
(Umnu) Kebumen. The participants of the research were the
students, the English teacher, and chief of the program at the
university. The data was gained by in depth interviews with the
research participants, analysis of the existing documents, and
observation. The data were then analyzed through four steps by
using interactive model as proposed by Miles and Huberman:
collecting data, reducing data, displaying data and verifying. The
technique used in data validation is by using source triangulation.
The study pointed out that the program was ineffective. There were
37
four main factors to cause the ineffectiveness: first, the teaching
context was less supportive to good teaching practices; econd, the
inputs for the program were lack of quality, signaled by
unprofessional teachers; third, the process of teaching and learning
did not meet the stakeholders’ expectation; and the last, the product
showed the students’ less competency on good communication
skills required.
Another study conducted in Indonesia is the one by Nyoman
and Darma (2019) intended to measure the effectiveness of
theiImplementation of teaching at Politeknik Negeri Bali (PNB).
The study intended to find out the level of effectiveness of teaching
implementation at PNB by viewing it from context-input-process-
product omponents. The author collected data through
questionnaire, guided interview, and related documents. The
subjects of the study were students, lecturers, and the management
staff of PNB. The collected data were the analyzed qualitatively
and descriptively. To determine the effectiveness of the
implementation of the teaching programs, the authors transformed
the raw scores into the Z-scores and the T-scores, which were then
verified into Glickman’s quadrant prototypes. The analysis results
indicated that the efectiness of the implementation of teaching
program at PNB seen from the relatedness of context, input,
process and product falls into moderately effective category.
Beside the results, the authors also higlight the obstacles in the
implementation of teaching programs at PNB, which are those in
the components of context, input, process and product. The authors
notice that the significant obstacle appears in the product variable.
38
In regard to the literature reviews with previous studies
discussed above, the author could draw a lining on grouping based
English language teaching. Grouping in English language teaching
at education institutions, especially at higher learning level, has
been a significant topic to discuss, as many praticioners propose it
and also not a few who are against it.
39
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A. Research Design
The design of this study is descriptive qualitative. In aplplying
a certain method for research, not only does a researcher need to
understand the approach, but also, as Creswell (2017) points out,
need to take three framework elements into consideration:
philosophical contentions on what generates knowledge
projection, overall constructions of a study (inquiry strategies) and
specified step by step of gathering data, analyzing, and composing
(methods). Thus, in carrying out this research, the author takes
these framework elements into consideration. In addition, to get
more comprehensive understanding on the implementation of
grouping-based ELT at the institution, the author adds Context-
Input-Process-Product research framework (Stufflebeam, 2007) in
the instrument. The author considers the framework relevant for
spotting the obstacles of the implementation of the grouping-based
ELT.
B. Description of Setting, Time, Place and Participants
This research is focused on the implementation grouping-
based ELT at PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus of Academic Year 2017-
2018 and 2018-2019, with specific description of setting and
participants as follow:
40
1. Classroom teaching and learning activities in six class groups
of Academic Year 2017-2018 and 2018-2019;
2. Students of six grouping-based groups of Academic Year 2017-
2018 and 2018-2019 (total participants: approximately 180
students);
3. Lecturers and academic staff as the stake holders in English
learning and teaching activities; and
4. Related documents of the grouping-based teaching and learning
(the plans or vision and mission, the rationale, the syllabus, the
teaching materials, the lesson plans, the test or evaluation
gudelines, the the desired outcomes).
C. Reasearch Instruments
Instruments of research are tools built up by researchers for
reaching the projected purposes when conducting research.
Practically, the instruments are designed devices to assist in
collecting data to be analyzed. Miles and Huberman (2014)
describes research instrumentation as specific means which is
focused to gather information and it can be closely or openly
structured. In this study, the author applies the instruments of
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide, observation sheet and
documents from the institution.
1. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guideline
The author designs this FGD guide based on the the framework
of CIPP research framework projected to detect obstacles in the
implementation of grouping based ELT at PLJ.
41
Table 3.1
FGD Guideline
No. CIPP Component Points to Consider Question to Answer Remark
1. Context - Rational grounding for
determining the targets
- Relevant environment
- Expected and real conditions
of environment
- Unfulfilled needs
- Missed opportunities
*Curriculum guidelines?
*How is the teaching and
learning environment?
*What is the ideal condition
for ELT and learning at PLJ?
*What is still left to be
implemented?
*What still can be done?
2. Input - how the resources are used
- cost/material effectiveness to
meet objective and achieve
goals
- alternative strategies and
procedures
- linkage between the means &
the desired ends
*How are the resorces used
by the lecturers and
students?
*What material and how
much cost needed?
*What strategies and
procedures used as
alternatives?
*How are the means and the
targets linked?
3. Process - detect/predict defects in
procedures or in
implementation
- information for programming
decisions
- record of procedures as it
occurs
*Is there anything wrong or
confusing?
*Any information to take
into consideration?
4. Product - attainments to measure
- attainments interpretation
- evaluation as often as
necessary during program
*What attainments are
available?
*How and do the attainments
indicate?
*How often is evaluation
necessary?
42
2. Observation Sheet
In this instrument, the author designs observatin forms to note
any significant information in the implementation of grouping-
based ELT. The observation is held both participatory and non-
participatory (see Appendix).
3. Document Analysis
The plans or vision and mission, the rationale, the syllabus, the
teaching materials, the lesson plans, the test or evaluation
gudelines, the the desired outcomes of the grouping-based ELT of
PLJ are available in the documents at the institution. These
documents inform the author about the background and targets, as
well as the process of grouping based ELT implemented by the
institution.
D. Data Collection Procedure
The sources of data in this study are the main stakeholdrs
directly and indirectly involved in the implementation of grouping
based ELT at PLJ (lecturers, students, that can provide
information, experience, insights and data) and the documents
available at the institution related to the implementation of
grouping-based ELT.
. Creswell (2017) states that data collection process goes like a
“circle” of interrelated activities which cover up, but go beyond
gathering data. Refering to that statement, more specifically, in this
study, the author collects the data through the research instruments
with the process as follows:
43
1. Focus Group Discussion extracts information, experience,
insights and data in general regarding the grouping-based ELT
at PLJ. In this FGD, the author is dynamically immersed with
the main stakeholders (especially lecturers) to extract any
significant information, experience, insights and data
partucularly related to the obstacles encountered in the
implementation of grouping-based ELT.
2. Non-participatory observation and participatory observation
add any significant information in the process of grouping-
based ELT at PLJ. This could potentially strengthen what have
been found from the FGD.
3. Documents related to the implementation of grouping based
ELT at PLJ are available at the institution. Through these
documents, the author reveals the plans or vision and mission,
the rationale, the syllabus, the teaching materials, the lesson
plans, the test or evaluation gudelines and the desired outcomes
of the grouping-based ELT of PLJ.
E. Data Analysis Procedure
The researcher collects the data using document analysis, focus
group discussion and observations. The author interpretes the
results of FGD and observation to reveal the actual implementation
of grouping-based ELT. The results were transcribed from hand-
written notes. After the data is collected, the author would analyze
them according Miles and Huberman (2014), as the following:
44
1. Data Collection
At this stage, first, the author held a focus group discussion,
then, the author observed the participants through participatory and
non-participatory observations based the observation guideline
(See Appendix), later, the authorr analyzed the documents (vision
and mission, the rationale, the syllabus, the teaching materials, the
lesson plans, the test or evaluation gudelines, the the desired
outcomes of the grouping-based ELT of PLJ) available in the
documents at the institution, to investigate how grouping-based
ELT is implemented by the institution, to explore how lecturers
implement the curriculum through the teaching methods based on
the vision and mission, to explore what obstacles encountered by
the lecturers, and to explore the evaluation of grouping-based ELT.
2. Data Display
At this point, the author presents overall data consisting of the
FGD results, participatory and non-participatory observation
results and document analysis on the vision and mission, the
rationale, the syllabus, the teaching materials, the lesson plans, the
test or evaluation gudelines, the the desired outcomes of the
grouping-based ELT of PLJ.
3. Data Reduction
The author reduced the data to several significantt points
refering to the author’s study objectives, namely the
implementation of grouping-based ELT, what obstacles arise in the
process and how the lecturers cope with the obstacles. The
following are the steps that the author does:
45
a. The author categorizes the overall data consisting of FGD
results, the participatory and non-participatory observations results
and the reults of document analysis on the vision and mission, the
rationale, the syllabus, the teaching materials, the lesson plans, the
test or evaluation gudelines, the the desired outcomes of the
grouping-based ELT of PLJ into essential points as the study
objectives.
b. The author codes the data into themes. Different reseracher
means different things to code, but the thing is that this coding
process deals with closely looking through sentences, phrases,
words expressed by the informants (lecturers).
c. The author makes generalization from the themes regarding the
phenomena in questions and interprets the in relation available
literatures.
d. The author tabulates the data. In this step, the author integrates
whole data consisting of the FGD results, the results of
participatory and non-participatory observations and document
analysis on the vision and mission, the rationale, the syllabus, the
teaching materials, the lesson plans, the test or evaluation
gudelines, the the desired outcomes as the objectives of this study.
4. The Conclusion
Refering to the stages of the reduction of data described above,
the author would sum up the study results. Tthe summary shows
the expected results of this study. The summary is supposed to
answer the questions of the research, in order to achieve the study
objectives.
46
CHAPTER IV
FINDING AND DISCUSSION
A. Finding
In this section, the researcher presents descriptions of some
data findings. The descriptions are made to answer the research
questions.
1. What curriculum did PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus use for
the grouping-based ELT and what oucomes were expected?
Refering to the research question, the author analyzed
documents in connection to the implementation of the grouping-
based ELT, namely the vision and mission of English language
teaching in the institution’s guideline book, the syllabus, lesson
plans, and teaching materials. From this perspective, a curriculum
involves ‘planning, implementation and evaluation’ (Hall, 2017),
although in some contexts, the curriculum may only be implicit,
inferred, for example, from the textbooks or assessments used by
an institution.
The implementation of English language teaching at PLJ refers
to its vision, namely to yield graduates who are capable of speaking
English verbally and in written according to the needs of the
workforce (LP3I, 2015). Meanwhile, to achieve the vision, the
institution sets specific goals as follow:
a. Yield graduates who are able to communicate in offices,
businesses and every day public conversations in English well;
47
b. Yield graduates who are able to do job interviews and
presentations in English properly;
c. Yield graduatess who have expertise in writing English
correspondence or e-mail properly;
d. Yield graduates with a minimum TOEIC (Test of English for
International Communication) score of 450.
Related to the vision and the specific goals, there is a curriculum
streamline. In the streamline, PLJ distributes the subjects of the
English language teaching according to a credit system in four (4)
semesters out of six (6) semesters of Diploma Three (D3) study.
The distribution is as follows:
Table 4.1
English Language Teaching Curriculum Streamline of PLJ
Semester Subject SKS
(Credits)
1General English 1
4
2 General English 2 4
3Business English 1
4
4Business English 2
(ESP)2
As Table 4.1 shows, the total volume of English language
teaching is fourteen (14) credits, four in the first semester, four in
48
the second semester, four in the third semester and two in the fourth
semester. In the first and second semesters, students learn General
English 1 (GE 1) and General English 2 (GE 2); while in the third
and fourth semester, they are taught Business English 1 (BE 1) and
Business English 2 (BE 2 or more specifically called English for
Specific Purpose [ESP]). The implementation of GE 1 and GE 2 is
the main focus of this study as the teaching for the two courses are
based on grouping, which is the topic of this thesis.
Beside the curriculum streamline above, the author also finds
the timelines of projected targets to be acchieved by English
language team at the institution per semester (from the first until
the fourth semester). The timeline is as follows:
49
Table 4.2. Timelines of ELT Targets at PLJ
No TARGET 1st
SEMESTER2nd
SEMESTER3rd SEMESTER 4th
SEMESTER
1. TOEIC Score 300 350 400 450
2. Vocabulary
Mastery2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000
3. English as the
medium
language of
lecture
(For non-
English
subjects)
Opening
&
Closing
in
English
Question
s and and
answer in
the
interactio
n (PBM)
is 10% in
English
1 non-
English
course 75%
taught in
English
Opening &
Closing in
English
Questions
and
Answers in
teaching-
learning
interactions
10% in
English
2 non-English
courses 75%
taught in
English
Opening &
Closing in
English
Questions
and Answers
in teaching-
learning
interactions
20% in
English
2 non-
English
courses
90% taught
in English
Opening &
Closing in
English
Questions
and Answers
in PBM
interactions
20% in
English
4. Students’
English
communication
skills
25% of
students
reach
English
communicati
on skill at the
intermediate
level.
50% of
students
achieve
intermediate
level
communicati
on skills
75% of students
achieve
intermediate level
communication
skills
90% of students
achieve
intermediate
level
communication
skills
5. Mid Term Test
and or Final
Term Test (for
non-English
subjects
-
10% Questions in
UTS and UAS uses
English
20% Questions on
UTS and UAS use
English B.
20% Questions
on UTS and
UAS use
English B.
50
As the mesurement of its teaching and learning development,
there is a standard competence test applied by the institution.
Brown (as cited in Lin, 2010) indicates that a test is a means to
measure a learner’s learning development, knowledge and skills in
a certain field of study. By looking at the test results, the main
stakeholders or decision makers can recognize what appropriate
teaching methods and teaching and learning policies are. For this
purpose, PLJ selects TOEIC for the standard of English
competence to be achieved by the students. TOEIC is used by the
institution as the standard competence because it is a type of
proficiency test that is typically intended for public or commercial
pr industrial English settings, which is similar to the orientation of
PLJ in graduating the students.
The target of TOEIC score of 450 is in general and this target
was made when TOEIC score had not been stipulated as a
requirement for completing study at the institution. But, starting
from 2017 academic year, TOEIC score has been stated as the
compulsory requirement for finishing the study, in which the
minimum score that has to be achieved is 350 for students of 2017
academic year and 450 for those of 2018 academic year.
On Table 4.2, there is also a target of vocabulary mastery,
namely 2500 to 4000 starting from the first until the fourth
semester. Due to huge number of English lexical units, particularly
the ones of English-Latin combination, it is understandable why
English learners commonly need to spend fairly long time
acquiring English (Lin, 2010). For the purpose of accumulating
adequate words and build up vocabulary proficiency, English
51
language scholar have suggested the pedagogies of teaching and
learning in connection to vocabulary mastery. In the case of PLJ,
students are scheduled to do exercises on a vocabulary mastery
system installed in a computer. Then, the results of their work are
reported for evaluation, counted as a component of students’ final
score for the subjects of GE 1 and 2 and BE 1 and 2.
While for the target of students communication skills, it is in
line with the the target of TOEIC score (300, 350, 400, 450). Here,
450 TOEIC score is in average considered as intermediate level of
proficiency. Accordingly, the target of the amount of students who
achieve intermediate level is 25% in the first semester, 50% in the
second, 75% in the third and 90% in the fourth. In the academic
system of the institution, the attainments of TOEIC is part of the
Key Point Indicator (KPI), which is audited periodically by the
management of the institution.
Looking at the syllabus and lesson plans (see appendix ...), these
documents appear to be in line with the vision and mission,
providing competent for manpowers for workforce demand. This
is proven from the competence standard of every unit of lesson in
the textbooks as the teaching materials. The books are Speaking
Practice for General English 1 and Speaking Practice for General
English 2. To meet the desired learning outcomes, the books are
enriched by guided-speaking practice, grammar for
communication, pronunciation practices and substitution drill,
vocabulary and the likes, all of which covers up four language
skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing). Furthermore, as
TOEIC has been set a standard competency to be achieved by
52
students, the books are also supplemented by TOEIC-type
questions in the listening, reading and grammar exercises.
Looking through the data highlighted above, the author
describes the curriculum applied by PLJ as a competence-based
curriculum. Regarding the method and strategies that the
institution applies, the author elaborates it in the following finding.
2. What method and strategies did PLJ Pasar Minggu
Campus apply in the grouping-based ELT?
To explore the teaching method and startegies used for this
grouping-based English language teaching, specifically GE 1 and
GE 2 subjects, beside day-to-day teaching experience at the
institution, the aouthor did document analysis on the vision and
mission, the goals, the syllabus, the textbooks and did classroom
non-participatory observation (NOB-L1-GBELT-GE2-LL p. 152,
NOB-L3-GBELT-HL-GE2 p. 154).
Based ased on space and time, there are two types of teaching
and learning activities, namely inside the classroom and outside
the classroom. Inside the classroom are teaching and learning
according to the fixed schedules with 4 (four credits) each, as long
as fourteen meetings plus mid semester test and final semester test
every semester, where in the first and second semester, the students
are grouped based on their level of English proficiency. While, for
outside classroom, there are English Conversation Journal, English
Camp and Outing classes, all of which are counted in into
assignment element of scoring for the student’s final score in each
semester.
53
In the classroom teaching, every lecturer is guided by lesson
plan and teaching material description in the textbook. The
following is the sample of lesson description provided in every
lesson unit in the textbook.
Figure 4.1
Description of Lessons to Teach of a Unit
Figure 4.1 depicts lesson description that is supposed to be
implemented by a lecturer in every unit. Every unit covers up
competence skills of speaking, listening, reading and writing,
vocabulary, and grammar.
The lesson/unit description is then implemented by the
lecturers as described in the following:
54
Table 4.3Lesson Plan
Lesson
Unit
Lecturer’s Activity Students’ Activity
Unit 2
My
Routine
Day
Students are able to:
Warm- up
Ask some questions
about routine activities
Picture talk
Talk about a picture
Vocabulary
Know some
expressions/ words
about the topic
Know about daily
activities
Listening
Pronounce the words /
expressions correctly.
Catch the points of a
talk in the audio or
video
Comprehending what
the audio /video are
talking about.
Speaking
Talk about a new friend
and his /her
activities
Students (ss) find at least 3
friends, and dig some
information how they spend their
days.
Lecturer (L) asks some questions
about a picture
Lecturer (L) elicits some
vocabularies related to the topic
from students (Ss)
L tells Ss some vocabularies
about the topic
L makes sure that all Ss
understand the vocabularies
L elicit some vocabularies about
daily activities from the
students
L adjusts an audio, then Ss
follow the way of words’
pronunciation and the
intonation
L asks students to mention what
the audio talk about
Ss answer some provided
questions
Ss practice the dialog in turn
Ss ask his /her friend about the
dialog.
55
Lesson
Unit
Lecturer’s Activity Students’ Activity
Unit 2
My
Routine
Day
Students are able to:
Grammar:
Comprehend how to
make question
Wh- and yes /no
Qurestions
Know how to some
questions
Listening
Listen to Teresa
activities
Understand the points
of a short talk.
Speaking
Talk about daily
activities
Reading
Give opinion
about a text
Comprehend a
text.
L explains about simple
present tense
Ss do some exercise
Ss practice the tense into
communication form
Ss answer the questions
about Teresa
Ss talk about Teresa’s daily
routines
Ss answer some provided
questions
L shows how to talk about
daily activities
Ss practice with their
partner
56
Lesson
Unit
Lecturer’s Activity Students’ Activity
Retell a text by
using their own
language
Writing
Write a short web profile
Make a small group in four
or five, one by one tell
group about their daily
activities from getting up till
going to bed.
Other members ask some
questions.
L asks Ss to guess what text
about
Ss read the text briefly
(scanning)
L ask about the information
they get
Ss read again to
comprehend the whole text
Ss answer the provided
questions
Ss retell by their own
languages
Ss write short paragraph about
friend’s life
57
Viewing the lesson planning on Table 4.3, the author
considers that the teaching method used by the institution is the
adaptation of interactive approach and student-centered learning.
Lin (2010) defines student-centered learning as a reversal of
traditional method. In this approach, students are the centre of any
interaction in the class; learners are strongly urged to actively
apply the language of target; and the teacher acts as facilitator
rather than instructor. While for interactive approach, Lin (2010)
defines it as a pedagogical approach that conditions learners for an
active class atmosphere by getting them to participate with peers
in the subjects.
As it is explained in its Guidebook for the Implementation of
Teaching and Learning Processes (LP3I, 2015), “effective
language learning, one of which is determined by the application
of leveling in the learning system, namely the grouping of classes
based on the level of competence. Classes with the same level of
competence can run more effectively than classes with
heterogeneous abilities. That is because the teaching approach
method used by the lecturer becomes more focused, the material
provided can be more appropriate according to students' abilities,
the interactions and communication that are built between students
are more interwined because they are at the same level. Therefore,
leveling or grading in English classes is important to do”.
The grouping policy is supposed to be applied at all PLJ
campus branches. The steps for implementing the grouping are as
follow:
58
a. Test material for grouping is a matter of TOEIC
b. Campus/ branch can do additional leveling test by interview/
oral test. But it is not permitted only by interview/ oral test
because the assessment will be less objective and less
standardized.
c. Class grouping is determined from the TOEIC test results. Or
merging the TOEIC and Oral Test scores if an oral test is
performed.
d. Classes are grouped with approximately 25 students.
e. Student grouping is done by sorting the list of new student
names from the highest grade to the student with the lowest
grade. The first 25 students with the highest grades are grouped
in one class, followed by a list of names of the next 25 students
who are included in the next class, and so on.
f. This classifications apply to all English courses
g. The class code to indicate the highest level to the lowest can be
done by: (Example for EC courses): EC 1-1, EC 1-2, EC 1-3,
etc. (Example BE courses): BE 1-1, BE 1-2, BE 1-3, etc.
Information number 1-1: the first number 1 shows the semester,
the second number 1 indicates the highest class level and so on.
h. To be able to implement the application of this ability grouping,
the English course is scheduled on the same day for all existing
programs. (This is in line with the policy of compaction of the
English language curriculum, which is 8 SKS (4 Sessions) in
Semester 1 and 8 SKS (4 Sessions of Credit Point System) in
semester 2.
59
With this grouping, the incoming students of three (3) study
concentrations (Office Administration, Computerized Accounting
and Computer Informatics) were divided into six class groups. By
doing so, there are about eleven (11) until sixteen (16) students in
every class group. These six class groups are taught by four
English lecturers. Then, looking at this composition, the ratio of
teacher : learner is considered ideal for a language class.
For further understanding, the author revealed certain strategies
used by the institution in achieving the expected outcomes. Brown
(as cited in Lin, 2010) proposes eight principal factors for teaching
English speaking well: conversational discourse, question about
intelligibility, intearction effect, pronunciation teaching, accuracy
and fluency, affective matter, genres of spoken language and the
development of spoken corpus. Regarding this view, the author
finds out that in trying to achieve the targets and realizing the
vision, the institution also sets a cumpolsory activity for all
students called English Conversation Journal (ECJ) (See
Appendix). The ECJ presentation or conversation could be carried
out anywhere around campus and anytime at the range of time set
as the schedules. The ECJ is the only component contributed to the
score of assignment which is counted for the final score (of GE 1,
GE 2, BE 1 and BE 2).
Based on the guidelines book of the institution (LP3I, 2015),
English Conversation Journal is weekly conversation report book
which is used as a monitoring of weekly activities in training
students' English communication skills. The journal contains some
topics related to the lessons taught in the classroom (see Figure
60
4.1). Every student is supposed to be able to present and answer
questions regarding topics that have been determined in the
Conversation Journal. The development of communication skills
is monitored and guided by one main contact person (usually the
lecturer who teaches in their English class). In one semester,
students must be able to complete a minimum of 7 (seven) topics.
Related to the ability grouping, ECJ is a more personalized
teaching-learning activity, as the student and the lecturer are face
to face involved in a question and answer activity (conversation),
so that the lecturer can closely observe the current English skills
and the development of the skills.
The ECJ has certain purposes as stated in the following:
a. Familiarize students to practice describing something or certain
topic and answer questions regarding the topic presented.
b. Familiarize students to practice their English outside of class
hours.
c. Give additional time to students to study outside class hours.
d. Give special attention to students who still do not meet the
standards
e. Monitor the development of student communication skills on a
weekly basis
f. Students are able to give opinions about topics contained in the
English Conversation Journal in writing and verbally. These are
the topics for ECJ used: myself, me and my family, my ideal job,
public transportation, Favorite TV program, my daily routines,
places around my town, my idol, my holiday experience, my
friend and her/his job, business activities, making an
61
appoinment, a company and its history, my favorite thing(s),
what I did last week, what I am going to do/ what I will do, food
and drinks that I have in my kitche, places that I have ever been
to and places that I have never been to, technologies that I
know, my strengths and weaknesses, things I like and things I
do not like, What is CV and how to make it, what is cover letter
and how to make it, job interview, unforgetable exprience,
interesting experience, me and my hobby, my future career, a
trip, my future plans, food, music, my dream company, how I
improve my English, and the likes (according to the creativity
of every campus branch).
The ECJ is scored and counted as the assignment, which is
contributed (as much as 25%) to the final score of every English
class that a student takes. The score is the accumulative scores of
all topics in the ECJ. The standard reference for scoing the journals
are as follow:
62
Table 4.4Standard Reference of ECJ scoring and Speaking/ Oral Test Scoring
Score Grammar Vocabulary Pronunciation Comprehension
86-90 The responsedemonstrateseffective use ofgrammar. Itexhibits a fairlyhigh degree ofautomaticity withgood control ofbasic and complexstructures (asappropriate).Some minor (orsystematic) errorsare noticeable butdo not obscuremeaning.
Rich, preciseandimpressiveusage ofvocabularywords learnedin and beyondof class.
Pronunciationwas very clear andeasy tounderstand.
Student was able tocomprehend andrespond to all of thequestions and thetopics that werebeing discussed withease
76-85 Response mayexhibit someimprecise orinaccurate use ofgrammaticalstructures used.Student was ableto express theirideas andresponses fairlywell but makesmistakes withtheir tenses.
Studentutilized thewords, in anaccuratemanner forthe situationgiven.
Pronunciationwas good and didnot interfere withcommunication
Student was able tocomprehend andrespond to most ofthe questions andtopiks that werebeing discussed.
70-75 Student was ableto express theirideas andresponsesadequately butoften displayedinconsistencieswith theirsentence structureand tenses.
Student wasable to usebroadvocabularywords butwas lacking,makinghim/herrepetitive andcannotexpand onhis/her ideas.
Student wasslightly unclearwithpronunciation attimes, butgenerally is fair.
Student fairlygrasped some of thequestions and topiksthat were beingdiscussed.
60-69 Student wasdifficult tounderstand andhad a hard timecommunicatingtheir ideas andresponses becauseof grammarmistakes.
Student hadinadequatevocabularywords toexpresshis/her ideasproperly,whichhindered thestudents inresponding.
Student wasdifficult tounderstand, quietin speaking,unclear inpronunciation.
Student haddifficultyunderstanding thequestions and topiksthat were beingdiscussed.
63
The standard scoring reference (Table 4.4) is also used for
speaking section of the Mid Semester Test (UTS) and Final
Semester Test (UAS).
Online vocabulary exercise is also available as a strategy of
vocabulary mastery, based on PLJ’S timeline of targets (see Table
4.2), namely 2500 to 4000 starting from the first until the fourth
semester. Due to huge number of English lexical units, particularly
the ones of English-Latin combination, it is understandable why
English learners commonly need to spend fairly long time
acquiring English (Lin, 2010). For the purpose of accumulating
adequate words and build up vocabulary proficiency, English
language scholar have suggested the pedagogies of teaching and
learning in connection to vocabulary mastery. In the case of PLJ,
students are scheduled to do exercises on a vocabulary mastery
system installed in a computer. Then, the results of their work are
reported for evaluation, counted as a component of students’ final
score for the subjects of GE 1 and 2 and BE 1 and 2.
Another strategy is the standard competency for English
lecturers using TOEIC score, which is 650 minimum. Considering
learning is the key to teaching, the advancement of teachers in the
subject they teach is contextually linked to better learning
outcomes (Schleicher, 2016, p. 11). In fact, from the four lecturers
teaching at the institution, 75% fulfil the standard. In addition, the
institution also trains the lecturers regularly in the semester break,
called lecturer development program,
64
3 What were the students’ activities in the grouping-based
ELT?
Related to this research question, the author investigated the
institution’s English teaching guideline, syllabus-lesson plan, and
did non-particopatory observation. It starts with the process of
grouping-based ELT at the institution starts just before the
incoming students commence their study at the institutution. The
incoming students are supposed to do TOEIC (prediction test)
simultaneously on the same day. The results of test (the scores) are
then used to map out and group them into class groups.
As for the students of 2017 and 2018 academic years, there were
six (6) class groups as the results of placement. Then, these six
class groups are taught by four English lecturers. Each class group
consisted of ten (10) to sixteen (16) students. These classes are
taught GE 1 and GE 2 in the first and second semester by four
English lecturers according the schedules allocated (4 credits in
one semester). In these first two semesters, PLJ students’ English
proficiency is projected in the level of Pre-Intermediate or B1-B2
in the standard of CEFR (Common European Framework of
Reference for Languages). In these foundational learning stages,
the learning and teaching materials in the text books are
supplemented with guided-speaking practice, grammar for
communication, pronunciation practices and substitution drilling
methods. Lin (2010) concludes that in an interactive and
immersing approach of speaking teaching, English instructors can
aid their learners non-verbal ways of communicating, like body
65
languages and gestures in the absence of sufficient target language
understanding.
The lecturers teach them using students talking time-oriented
approach, based on the reference book entitled Speaking Practice
for General English 1 and Speaking Practice for General English
2. This type of approach appears to be the combination of student-
centered and interactive approach, as Lin (2010) points out that in
student-centered learning, students are the centre of any learning
interaction in the class and the teacher acts as a facilitator; while
interactive approach conditions the learners for an active class
atmosphere by getting them to participate with peers. Although the
approach emphasizes student talking time rather than teacher
talking time, the three other skills of English language (listening,
writing and reading) are still covered proportionally.
Green (2018, p. 1) suggests that learners can learn language best
when they are grouped in classes with their peers who have similar
ability or aptitude. Accordingly, ability grouping is a form of
institutional policy for the students and the lecturers aimed to
accelerate the ELT at the institution. Still, as cited earlier, PLJ is a
non-selective college, not a college which admits the incoming
students through a competitive or strict test. In fact, PLJ apllies an
unmeasured acceptance to the incoming students. Therefore, due
to the unmeasured accepatance, the challenges faced by the
English lecturers are more specific compared to other colleges
especially competitive colleges. For example, among the incoming
students there is sometimes one or two who are still not familiar
enough with certain basic understanding of English language, for
66
example: numbers (cardinal numbers and ordinal numbers),
alphabet spelling and pronuciation, names of days, colors, and the
likes. These challenges are more or less affect the ways the
lecturers teach students, especially students with ‘speacial needs’.
4. What obstacles did the lecturers encounter in the grouping-
based ELT?
Regarding obstacles that the lecturers encountered in the
implementation of grouping based ELT at the institution, the
author gathered information through Focus Group Discussion and
both participatory and non-participatory observations. The data
gathered are desribed as folllows:
Table 4.5
Description of Obstacles Encountered by the Lecturers
Descrition Obstacle Sources
Speaking - In lower-level class groups, the
lower ability students meet or are
paired with another lower ability
students make it difficult for
pair-work speaking exercises.
- Students do not directly
understand the instruction from
L1. So, L1 needs to repeat
several times in understandable
ways (LL) .
-
L1-GBELT-
FGD, p. 149
NOB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-
LL, p. 152
67
Descrition Obstacle Sources
Reading - Students still ask each other
about how to pronunce certain
unfamiliar words. Even some of
the try to use their smartphone to
find the meaning and the proper
pronunciation from internet.
NOB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-
LL, p. 152
Listening - Ideal for ELT, there should be
special a lab for listening,
because students can be more
focused on the learning.
- Students do not directly
understand the instruction from
L1. So, L1 needs to repeat
several times in understandable
way. (LL)
- Student’s lack of English
listening habits/ exposure.
L3-GBELT-
FGD, p. 145
NOB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-
LL, p. 152
POB-R-
GBELT-LL-
ECJ, p. 157
Writing - When the students are asked to describe
people activities in a pictures (past
continuous topic), they look confused
how to start. (LL)
- student’s sentences are the results of
her translating using google translate.
(LL)
NOB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-LL,
p. 152
POB-R-GBELT-
LL-ECJ, p. 157
68
Description Obstacle Sources
Grammar - Some students still do not
understand the proper “to be” for
the proper sentence subjects (in
the lesson of past continuous
tense).
NOB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-
LL, p. 152
Vocabulary - Students’ dependance on using
Google translate for finding
finding new words, especialy in
writing exercises.
- Their level of vocabulary
mastery is more or less the same
as their grammar mastery.
POB-R-
GBELT-LL-
ECJ, p. 157
POB-L1-
GBELT-GE2-
LL, p. 157
Textbook - The textbooks for GE 1 and GE
2 are already good enough. But
for higher-level students, the
books are too simple and boring
if the lecturer does not do any
improvization.
- The drills in the textbook need
to be in sequence, especially for
reading materials.
L3-GBELT-
FGD, p.145
L2-GBELT-
FGD p. 147
69
Description Obstacles Sources
Expected
Learning
Outcome
- The TOEIC standard and
teaching need to be reviewed.
- 450 is not realistic enough for
LP3I students. The 450 TOEIC
score standard is too high.
L2-GBELT-
FGD, p. 147
L1-GBELT-
FGD, p. 149
It starts from L1 (L1-GBELT). According to L1, the idea of
grouping-based ELT at the campus is overall acceptable. Some
points that L1 takes into consideration are mainly the day-to-day
experience in the class. A notices that when doing a pair work in
the class, especially for speaking drills, a lower-level student
paired with a lower level student could be a case. They both have
the same ability in trying to understand the instruction from the
lecturer; so that sometimes the pair drilling does not move
anywhere as they both do not have the clues on what to do
purposedly. Related to this, Yoshida’s study (2008) (as cited in
Lin, 2010) suggests students’ satisfaction with their pair-work
interactions in class and constructive feedback from the instructor
is important in teaching speaking. Thus, the roles of a teacher in
finding the understandable clues or key sentence are vital.
Furthermore, L1 indicates that independent tasks for lower
level students need to be adjusted by the the lecturer, as, for
instance, there is a potential that they give unclear or out of context
responses in the drills. This implies that the lecturer is conditioned
70
to put extra efforts in directing lower level students. Lin (2010)
argues that many English teaching speacialists have proposed the
significance of role play in interactive formats (Brash and
Warnecke, 2009; Carlson, 2009; Powell, 2009; Sung and Hsu,
2009). For instructing and learning of speaking, writing and
vocabulary, directing the learners to interact in pairs is a means as
it may hint the interacting members to dig in the contents of
interactive activities and recognize the partners intended meanings
of vocabulary more productively.
Beside what are highlighted above, L1 also notified that there
is ‘secure mental stability’ in the class. This is because the students
feel that they are in the same level of English skills, so that the are
not worried of being labelled as weak - strong or lower – higher in
the class. This condition leads to the state of fair self confident
among students in that class group. Slavin (as cited in Howling,
2017, p. 3) indicates that grouping decrease the negative
psychological effect of placement on students. Howling (2017, p.
2) also underlines that grouping learners in a different way can
assist in inreasing learners’ motivation and development.
Another lecturer, L2 (L2-GBELT), has some insigts in the
teaching pratices at the institution. The lecturer notes that, overall,
the grouping is relevant, in the sense that the lecturer knows or has
a map about the incoming students, so that the lecturer could alter
the materials and the teaching plans to be applied. As for the equal
ability among the students in the class group, L2 sees that it may
boost students’ confidence in the class. This is confirmed in
Hwang’s study (2014, p. 133) that points out students who take
71
views of others into consideration and expect to get ahead of others
are more likely to lose confidence in themselves and their
academic ability when they are compared with stronger peers in
the upper level.
L2 also cites that the teaching materials in the textbook already
cover the four skills of English language, although L2 still thinks
there is still room for improvement, which is about the secquences
of the drills and exercises for every chapter or topic in the textbook.
The usual sequence of teaching stages in teaching are relatively
presentation. practice and production. L2 percieved that the
teaching material sequences in the book are disordered, in the parts
of practice, still there is grammar explanation (which should be
part of presentation), for instance. In addition, L2 conceived that
the listening materials are adequate but reading materials are still
insufficient. L2 concluded that in general the grouping has been
running well, with a note in the roles of lecturer as a key factor,
especially for lower-level class groups.
The lecturer, marked as L3 (L3-GBELT) finds no serious issue
regarding the implementation of ability grouing. Still. L3 has
several insights to take into consideration. First concern to note
from L3 is about the textbook. The concern of a textbook is
confirmed in Lin (2010) that indicates that vocabulary pre-teaching
and then reading the load of the textbook are common means how
English instructor introduces or familiarizes new words.
According to L3, if the implementation of grouping must be in line
with the contents of the textbook used, or in other words, if the
students are classified or grouped according to their ability, the
72
textbook also needs to be adjusted based on students’ level of
ability. Therefore, refering to L3’s point of view, the higher level
class group must use higher level textbook as well; and vice versa
for lower level class grouped. L3 emphasizes that if the textbook
is the same for all levels of class groups, it is better not to apply the
ability grouping; because some students whose abilities are below
the average, will likely feel difficult in understanding the materials,
and for those whose abilities are above the average, the materials
are potentially too easy or boring. Yet, regarding the quality of the
textbook used by the institution (for GE 1 and GE 2), based on L3’s
teaching experience, the textbook is generally representative for
middle and basic level students, but for the advance or higher level
students, the textbook is too simple or not challenging enough if
the lecturer does not do any improvisation or creativity. River
(1987, 2001 as cited in Lin, 2010) mentions that development of
language control goes on by creativity, being maintained by
participatory and interatcive activities.
5. How was the evaluation of the grouping-based ELT?
The author digged in the syllabus and test guidelines in order to
scrutinize how the evaluation of the English teaching at the
institution was. The following is the highlight of the data gathered.
To evaluate the results of English teaching, every semester there
are UTS (Ujian Tengah Semester [Mid Semester Test]) and UAS
(Ujian Akhir Semester [Final Semester Test]). For the first and
second semester students, the subject that are tested are General
English One (GE 1) and General English Two (GE 2). In both mid
73
semester test and final semester test, there are two types of test,
namely oral (spoken) English test and written English test.
Therefore, all skills of English language (speaking, reading,
listening and writing) are covered in the tests. Accordingly, the
final scores gained by the students are the combination of oral test
scores and written test scores. The combination means the oral test
scores plus written test scores, then it is divided into two, resulting
in the final score of a student.
Beside GE 1 and GE 2 in the first and second semester, there
are also TOEIC (Institutional TOEIC Prediction test) tests given
every end of semesters (first semester, second semester, third
semester and fourth semester. The minimum score as the standard
of General English 1 and General English 2 is 75 (Seventy-five),
while for TOEIC, the minimum standard scores are different for
2017 students and for 2018 students: for 2017 students, it is 350
and for 2018 students, it is 450. Students who fail to get the
minimum scores are supposed to take remedial classes and
students who fail to get minimum scores for official TOEIC test
(held by ITC [International Test Center) in the fifth semester are
considered not eligible to take part in Final Assignment Hearing
(Sidang Tugas Akhir) as the main requirement to graduate from
the institution. Practically, the scores of both subjects (General
English and TOEIC) are the quantitative indicators of the success
of ability grouping based ELT at the institution.
The following is the descripton of how every aspect of English
language skill is evaluated (see Appendix) in the Mid-Term Test
and Final Term Test:
74
Table 4.6
Description of Evaluation Forms
No. Language Skill Form of Evaluation
1 Listening Multiple choice, fill in the blanks,
answering question/ essay
2 Vocabulary Cloze test, matching
3 Reading Multiple choice, answering question/
essay
4 Grammar Multiple choice, fill in the blanks (with
proper verb forms)
5 Writing Stuents are asked to write a composition
of at least 100 or 150 words in length
based on the topic given.
6 Speaking/ oral
test
- Held in one-on-one format
- Students are given topics based on
what have been learnt in the class.
- A student present a topic, followed by
question and answer session with the
lecturer.
- The scoring is based on fluency,
pronunciation and comprehension
(See Table 4.4 for the scoring
standard)
75
As for the final score of every student, it is derived from: formative
(20%), assignment/task (30% [ECJ 15% and online vocabulary
15%]), mid-term test (20%), and final test (30%).
B. Discussion
Based on the data desribed in the the finding, there are certain
points to be concerned refering to the research questions:
1. The Curriculum that PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus used in
the grouping-based ELT and the expected outcomes
It is explorative to view an educational institution setting up
their English language teaching curriculum. The competence-
based English language teaching curriculum apllied by Politeknik
LP3I Jakarta is contextually the reflection of the institution’s need,
which practically goes side by side with its vision and mission (see
Appendix). As a private polytechnic with the label of vocational, a
tagline of prospective jobs after graduation to attract new students
is something normative, as students are the main resources for the
continuation of education service by the institution. But, it does not
mean that it has nothing to do with the curriculum and expected
outcomes stipulated by the institution. Grouping-based ELT here
is one of the strategies in the English language curriculum that
could not even make sense if in its implementation is not supported
by other strategies and policies set by the institution as well.
White (1988, as cited in Hall, 2017) describes curriculum as
‘the totality of content to be taught and expects to be implemented
within a school or educational entity’. Another definition is by
76
Stern (as cited in Hall, 2017) indicating that ‘curriculum’ refers
‘not only to the subject matter or content, but also to the entire
instructional process including materials, equipment, examinations
and the training of teachers’ (Hall and Hewings, 2001 as cited in
Hall, 2017), although in some contexts, the curriculum may only
be implicit, inferred, for example, from the textbooks or
assessments used by an institution. Based on the findings, the
author practical experience at the institution, and the existing
curriculum terminologies, the competence-based ELTcurriculum
at PLJ is more or less a compromising between the institution’s
need, the demand in indistry and the resources availale at the
institution. The process of adoption and trial and error have been
part of curriculum development at PLJ although its compatibility
with the output is till another point to discus.
Nevertheless, related to the expected outcomes, the author finds
that the standard score of TOEIC of 350 for 2017 academic year
students and 450 for 2018 academic year students and also the
standard score for GE 1 and GE 2 of 75 still appear to be a concern,
particularly related to its rationale grounding. As the lecturers deal
with teaching, learning and evaluating, the figure from 350 to 450
is a significant elevation that needs rationale calculation by the
stakeholding parties in the institution. In this case, the institution
needs further comprehensive need-based analysis refering to the
expected output (graduates) and the existing input (incoming
students).
77
2. Method and strategies that PLJ Pasar Minggu Campus
applied in the grouping-based ELT
The method and strategies applied by PLJ appear to be a major
concern of this grouping-based ELT because it is the realization
and even execution of the curriculum. For over a century,
‘language educators sought to solve the problems of language
teaching by focusing attention almost exclusively on Method’
(Stern, 1983, p. 452 as cited in Hall, 2017), with methodologists
(and presumably teachers) asking which method or approach was
the most effective for English language teaching-perhaps, for
example, Audio-lingualism, the Silent Way or maybe
Communicative Language Teaching. In recent years, however, the
debate has developed in significant new directions. It has been
argued that we are no longer asking the right question, that Method,
traditionally seen as a theoretically consistent set of teaching
principles that would lead to the most effective learning outcomes
if followed correctly, is not, and cannot provide, ‘the answer’ to
making English language teaching and learning more effective.
The propositions of method highlighted above also corespond
with those of PLJ’s. The expected outcomes have led the teaching
stakeholders at PLJ find the suitable methods to be applied. The
findings and also the author personal teaching experience at the
institution reveal that the method currently applied is sort of
adaptaion or a compromise from certain avaiable methods,
particularly communicative approach and student-centered
learning. The concerns over properness of the implemented
method then arise to be a case.
78
Hall (2017) indicates that that teachers generally adapt and
approach the method they apply refering to the contextual
influences and their own personal beliefs. Pennycook (as cited in
Hall, 2017) also argued that the idea of Method and the search for
a best method maintained unequal power relationships within ELT
between academics and researchers on the one hand, and teachers
in language classrooms on the other. Indeed, researchers such as
Kumaravadivelu (1994, 2003, 2006, as cited in Hall, 2017) have
noted that we are now in a ‘Postmethod era’. If we are in a
Postmethod era, ‘methods can be studied not as prescriptions for
how to teach but as a source of well-used practices, which teachers
can adapt or implement based on their own needs’ (Richards and
Rodgers, 2001 as cited in Hall, 2017). For example, the
development, drilling and practising of dialogues in the classroom
defined the audiolingual era, yet drills are still used by many
teachers today, whether they explicitly associate such techniques
with Audiolingualism or not. Hence, Bell (2007 as cited in Hall,
2017), having asked whether teachers think that methods are
‘dead’, finds that they offer a source of options and practical
classroom interventions. Thus even, perhaps especially, in a
Postmethod world of methodological eclecticism, knowledge of
methods is useful (Hall, 2017)
In term of teaching speaking and listening, seen from the lesson
description, lesson plan, and its implementation, it appears that
cultural and background knowledge of students are still significant
factors to be considered by the lecturers. Oftentimes the lecturers
try hard to adjust their speed of speaking when seeing the students
79
‘get lost’ in the speaking and listening. Furthermore, students’s
lack of exposure in their daily lives has made them assume that the
speakers in the listening materials are too fast for them to follow.
Such challenges are amplified in a study held in Kenya by Gudu
(2015) suggests that, first, learners ought to be given chances for
practicing authentic English language in context; second, teachers
should incorporate various activities in a lesson to accomodate
learners' needs; and third, curriculum to acknowledge students'
cultural backgrounds in order to magnify their learning outcomes.
Although the materials for all skills to be taught are the same,
as it uses the standardized textbooks and teaching materials, the
lecturers have their own creativities in executing them and also
interestingly their own challenges. A study by Venezky (2019)
suggests that reading should be taught by considering four factors,
namely the skill which the learners posses for the reading activities,
the learning abilities of the leraners, the environment for teaching,
which at least consists of teachers, resources, and the community
in which the school is placed, and the connectivity between
language and writing. In the case of PLJ, the teaching method of
reading means spending more efforts in connecting or bridging
students’s background knowledge and culture to the reading
materials (words, sentences, phrases, expressions, and the likes)
before getting them to deal with the reading text or passages.
While for teaching writing, according to Nordin (2017), in
recent years, there has been emphasis and discourse on three major
different approaches, namely the genre-based, the process-based
and the product-based. The debates on the three approaches
80
oftentimes result in contradictory understandings in teaching
writing. For the first year students (GE 1 and GE 2), the lecturers
are supposed to follow the three major approach as the contents of
the lessons are general, not like in the second year where they are
exposed to more specific English, namely Business English (BE)
and English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Still, as matter of local
curriculum at secondary schools in Indonesia, writing is mostly not
part of assessment for graduation; therefore, when they learn
language at college, writing lesson and teaching writing appears to
be challenging.
One of the challenging part in teaching writing is vocabulary.
According to Pan (2017, p. 38), lexical transfer is useful in the
process of learning words with second language translation.
Moreover, the words instruction in their specified context could
activate students’ schemas, building up links between letters and
meanings and delivering enduring images in their minds. Overall,
the lecturers seem to be aware that teaching does not mean asking
students to meorize certain words in order for the students to have
enduring images about the ords. Instead, familiarizing the students
with the words through certain interesting activities or games
appear to be implemented by the lecturers, as the instructions in
the book and lesson plans also allow the lecturers to do
improvization.
Larse-Freeman (2015, p. 263), in a study, recommends viewing
grammar in more progressive terms, namely ‘grammaring’, in
order to smoothen the stagnant knowledge problem. Whereas
traditional approaches to teaching posistion grammar as a static,
81
finite system, leading to a linear way to increasing control of such
a system, a grammaring approach promotes the ability of students
to go beyond the input, as, in the end, learning a language is not
about conformity to uniformity (Larsen-Freeman, 2015, p. 263).
Seen from this perspective, the existing grammar lesson and
method at PLJ is still questionable to called ‘grammaring’. The
grammar lesson and exercises are still instructive and authoritative,
embracing finite and static system. The students are still faced to
traditional drills, particularly when dealing with tenses
explanations.
As it is confirmed by Stern (as cited in Hall, 2017) that
‘curriculum’ refers ‘not only to the subject matter or content, but
also to the entire instructional process including materials,
equipment, examinations and the training of teachers’, teachers’
development has been part of teaching quality improvement at
PLJ. Still, due to limited time and participation, the results of the
training relatively could not be shared proportionally to all active
lecturers, resulting in some discrepancy at certain points in
executing the curriculum and syllabus. The example of the
discrepancy is in the English teaching thinking frameworks. As the
teaching approach at the institution has emphasized more on the
communicative approach, in which student talking time is more
than talking time, traditional teaching approach has often still been
dominant to be carried out rather than student-centered learning.
Regarding the strategies applied, it is interesting to view the
roles of English Conversation Journal. (See Appendix). Brown (as
cited in Lin, 2010) proposes conversational discourse, question
82
about intelligibility, intearction effect, pronunciation teaching,
accuracy and fluency, affective matter, genres of spoken language
and the development of spoken corpus as principal factors for
teaching English speaking well. Although in its implementation,
the author saw certain practice from the obeserved students who
just memorized words per words in performing the English
conversational journal. Yet, how far it boosts students’ speaking
skills and whether or not its just familiarizes students’ with the
fundamentals of English conversation is a matter for further study.
3. Students’ activities in the grouping-based ELT
The idea of grouping is not just about the hetrogenity of
incoming students’ background, but certainly the expected
outcomes. They are both interelated to each other related to
students day-to-day activities. Although in general, students
activities are activities intended to achieve the ELT targets (see
Table 4.2), student’s readiness for the grouping, especially related
to learning motivition is significant to discuss.
Students activities (classroom and non-classroom) towards the
teaching program, sense of competition among students, and any
other psychological aspects are directly and indirectly related the
grouping policy of the campus. Grouping is something new for
ELT at college, or at least at PLJ, because in Indonesian
educational system for secondary education, there are no rules
related to grouping for certain subject or course, particularly
English language. This leads to a concern about PLJ’s incoming
83
students’ readiness for grouping-based ELT and its desired
outcomes.
In term of students readiness to meet the tagetted outcomes
from the ELT, in fact, there is an anticipation made by the
institution, namely foundation program or matriculation or pre-
lecture for the already registered students before they start their
study. In Howling’s study (2017, p. 5), it is recognized that once
grouped in a class fit with their proficiency levels and received
compatible instruction and assistance in the foundational program,
the students gained confidence and began to enjoy learning
English. But, in cased of PLJ, the foundation program itself does
not go as it is expected. Because the program is not categorized as
compulsory for the incoming students, the students come to the
program classes based on how comfortable they feel to come,
instead of being a need to prepare themselves for improving their
English. In addition, the institution cannot spot which students
need English preparation and which students do not, as there is no
mechanism or a test to detect the readiness of incoming students
for standardized English English competency they need to achieve
in their study. As the result, the preparation program is not focused
to tackle students proficiency needs and tend to be random, even
appears to be merely promotional introduction of the institution.
However, the view that the ability to learn a language is innate
(and hence second language learning may resemble first language
acquisition) could lead teachers to suggest that exposure to
language should be a primary concern in the second language
classroom, the implication being that exposure may lead to
84
language being ‘taken up’ in a ‘naturalistic’ means. Indeed,
Krashen (1982, as cited in Hall, 2017) developed the Monitor
Model, in which he argued that, given comprehensible input (i.e.,
language just beyond what has already been acquired) and a
relaxed state of mind that is ready to learn then learners would
acquire language. Thus given appropriate input and a readiness to
learn, learners would acquire language; language use follows, and
is evidence of, acquisition. (Hall, 2017)
4. Obstacles that the lecturers encountered in the grouping-
based ELT
Based on the described findings, it can be infered that most
significant obstacles encountered by the lecturers in teaching
Genral English are in teaching lower-level class groups. But, it
does not pratically mean that there are no obstacles at all in
teaching higher-level class groups. Generally, the obstacles in
teaching speaking, listening, reading, writing, vocabulary, and
grammar are the same or interrelated to each other, which are
relatively connected to unmeasured students’ admission by the
institution, students cultural and knowledge background, and
possibly from learning environment or even the mismatch between
learning-teaching materials, and so on so forth.
A study held in Kenya by Gudu (2015) suggests that, first,
learners ought to be given chances for practicing authentic English
language in context; second, teachers should incorporate various
activities in a lesson to accomodate learners' needs; and third,
curriculum to acknowledge students' cultural backgrounds in order
85
to magnify their learning outcomes. This study amplifies the
listening and speaking teachings at PLJ, where it appears that
cultural and background knowledge of students are still significant
challenges to be tackled by the lecturers. Oftentimes, if not always,
the students appear to ‘get lost’ in the speaking and listening. The
lecturers try hard to adjust their speaking pace to repeat or re-play
the listening audio more than twho times, for instance. Another
point to consider related to teaching speaking are certain pair work
guidances for speaking which works for higher level students but
do not for lower level students. For this matter, the role of a lecturer
in using more understandable language in explaining the
instructions is an advantage.
Teaching reading also means spending more efforts in
connecting or bridging students’s background knowledge and
culture to the reading materials (words, sentences, phrases,
expressions, and the likes) before getting them to deal with the
reading text or passages. A study by Venezky (2019) suggests that
reading should be taught by considering four factors, namely the
skill which the learners posses for the reading activities, the
learning abilities of the leraners, the environment for teaching,
which at least consists of teachers, resources, and the community
in which the school is placed, and the connectivity between
language and writing.
In teaching writing, the point of views on the three approaches
(Nordin (2017)--the genre-based, the process-based and the
product-based--eventually result in contradictory understandings
in teaching writing. For the first year students
86
(GE 1 and GE 2), the lecturers are supposed to follow the three
major approach as the contents of the lessons are general. Still, as
matter of local curriculum at secondary schools in Indonesia,
writing is mostly not part of assessment for graduation; therefore,
when they learn language at college, writing lesson and teaching
writing appears to be difficult subject.
In teaching grammar and vocabulary, the concerns are relatively
similar. The grammar lesson and exercises available in the
teaching materials are still instructive and authoritative, embracing
finite and static system, instead of advocating the more progressive
paradigm called ‘grammaring’ (Larse-Freeman, 2015, p. 263). The
students are still faced to traditional drills, particularly when
dealing with tenses explanations. While for the vocabulary,
overall, the lecturers seem to be aware that teaching does not mean
asking students to memorize certain words in order for the students
to have enduring images about the ords. Instead, familiarizing the
students with the words through certain interesting activities or
games appear to be implemented by the lecturers, as the
instructions in the book and lesson plans also allow the lecturers to
do improvization.
As highlighted by the lecturers who teach and use the books,
there are still some loopholes with the the textbook, typos of
spelling of words, the missing of audio files for certain listening
materials, a disordered sequence of drilling and target language
explanation, and so on so forth. But despite these discrepancies,
overall, the lecturers relatively consider the book usable and
teachable. Futhermore, still related to the textbook, there is a
87
proposition that if the students are group based on their level of
competence, the textboook applied also must be classified based
on their level of competence. This proposition is interesting, but
the implications also need to be re-assessed by the institution,
especially in terms of budgets. Yet, one thing that can be a red
lining from this textbook concern, is the lower the level of students
ability the higher the creativity and effort needed from the lecturer,
and vice versa.
All of the obstacles discussed above could not be set aside from
the fact that grouping students based on their prficiency relates to
psycholgical aspects. Hwang (2014, p. 146) concludes that placing
students into lower class groups possibly tends to yield a labeling
effect or stereotype, and such atmosphere likely appears to
structurally harm them. But, the contrast may likely occur because
of the difference of the object of the study, where Hwang (2014, p.
127) studies grouping impacts on Korean middle school learners,
while in this study, the author deals with grouping at a tertiary level
of education in Indonesia. Regarding this, the author perceives that
the roles and the capacity of lecturers are significantly vital in
stimulating and maintaining students’ learning motivation,
particularly the students of lower-level class groups.
5. The evaluation of grouping-based ELT
Lin (2010) emphasizes that more systematic measurements of
English skills ought not to merely be built up as a statistical device
for recognizing learners’ and teachers’ competencies of learning
and teaching, but also be set up as a functional arrangement that
88
asserts the effectiveness of teacher and students. The concern to
weigh in is how the evaluation in the grouping-based ELT
coresponds with the existing assessment criteria (Validity,
reliaility, practicality, authenticity, and washback).
Viewed from how the students are tested, as a college whose
graduates are projected to fulfil the demand of industry or
workforce, practically, there is a red lining between the learning
assessment and the targetted skills to be achieved by the students.
Overall, the forms of evaluation are still in line with the teaching
contents. This means that appropriateness, meaningfulness and
usefulness of teachers’ teaching contents after the test (Brown,
2014 as cited Lin, 2010) as validity criteria, remain in place.
Brown (2004, as cited in Lin, 2010) points out that a reliable
test is the one that is dependable and consistent. Reliability
accomodates student-related reliability, rater-reliability, test-
administration reliability and test reliability. As for written form
test uses the same standard from the PLJ Headquarters English
language team, the reliability issues may arise in the speaking test.
Overall, in the skills area that are evaluated, it appears that
listening and speaking assessment that need to be paid attention.
Although all of the listening audio is spoken by native speakers,
the students’ day-today exposure or immersion (included with the
lecturers) are still far from the expected English language input.
Pinner (2016) argues that authenticity is a multi-dimensional
concept that ought to be seen from intricacy theory and be grasped
by assessing it from the dimensions of contextual, social, and
individual, in relation to actual people. For this reason,
89
occasionally the author received suugestion from the English
language team to give task to students for interviewing native
speakers at certain foreigner destinations or even to invite antive
speakers to the campus for giving authentic English language
exposure. Furthermore, still related to the speaking assessment, in
every tests (see Appendix), the formats are always in one-on-one
question and answer, which at some points resembles those of job
interview fromat. According to Cheng et al. (2015), impacts are the
effects of tests on the macro-levels of education and society; and
washback is the effects of language tests on micro-levels of
language teaching and learning inside the classroom. In this sense,
the difference between impact and washback lies in the scope of
the effects of testing--a more narrow one of washback and the all-
embracing one of impact (Hamp-Lyons, 1997, p. 295).
As a matter of fact, the aspects of evaluation are not just General
English whose evaluations are discussed above, but also TOEIC,
whose evaluation is held every semester. The concern of TOEIC
evaluation are intended to make the students achieve the standard
TOEIC scores (350 for 2017 academic year students and 450 for
2018 academic year students) in order for them to graduate from
the college. As the author seeks to find out the rational ground why
the expected scores were 350 and (TOEIC) and 75 (GE 1, GE 2),
the stakeholding parties deliver rationales that if their scores are
below 450, they show no better English communication, which is
not selling enough in the industry, and that if their scores in English
subject are below75, it means their English is still poor. What the
author finds missing at this point is the empirical analysis on why
90
the numbers are 350, 450 and 75, refering to the fact that the
incoming students are admitted without any academic
measurement (an admission test or the likes). This could lead to a
question about the readiness of the students to achieve the
targetted scores. Cohen (as cited in Lin, 2010) suggests that
assessments or tests are naturally developmental and and non-
harming, enabling the test takers sufficiently show what they
understand and do not understand, and giving constructive
feedback for both teachers and learners. Hence, what could be a
case is that there is still a gapping whole between the background
of incoming students with the standard scores targetted.
Viewed from rom the two indicators of the evaluation (TOEIC
score and GE scores), it is only TOEIC that can be made sure to
notice. TOEIC, although in this case, it is a prediction test, is a
standardized test that can be used to show an English language
competency. As for GE test, it is a non-standardized test that is
made by the English language team at the institution based on the
guidelines from the syllabus and refering to the materials that have
been taught to the students. And the scoring reference for GE is not
based on a standardized formula, especially for scoring the writing
or composition of the students. While, for TOEIC, all of the
questions are in form of multiple choices and there is formalized
standard reference for calculating the score. Therefore, the issue of
subjectivity in scoring tends to be in GE test, rather than in TOEIC.
Moreover, it is not only the different reference standard of
scoring between GE and TOEIC that can be an issue. The case of
remedial also needs attention here. Starting in academic year 2015-
91
2016, students who fail to get minimum 75 for an English subjects
has to take a remedial. The remedial costs certain amount of
moneyper credit (SKS). For the majority of PLJ students who come
from middle and lower level family, that amount of money is a
burden. This condition at certain points affect the attention of the
lecturers who teach them. Then, pragmatically, instead of
burdening the students and interfering the administration affairs of
academic team, the students tend to do it ‘safe’ by giving
satisfying scores (of minimum 75) to students, especially the ones
who are in need of ‘intervention’. This concern of remedial,
especially related to budget, is also amplified by Howling (2017,
p. 1), that to deal with the students’ low performance, a third of the
2014 (UAE) federal budget for higher education was allocated on
remedial efforts, such as the English foundational year programs.
This subjectivity issue is also more or less intersected with the
policy of the institution on remedial for students who fail to get
score of more than 75 for GE. The students who is supposed to do
the remedial has to pay certain amount of money which is more
likely burdening the majority of students who come from low
economic background, leading to a subjective consideration by the
lecturers in giving scores
Another point to discuss is the characteristic and motivational
issues among students, aprtcularly students in the lower level class
group. These findings are in contrast with Howling’s study (2017,
p. 5) that concludes the on going class grouping policy at the
secondary school level does not benefit lower-performing learners.
92
Hwang (2014, p. 127)’s conclusion that placement students into
lower stage tends to yield labeling effect, and this such distinct
atmosphere appears to structurally position lower performing
learners at harm. This finding intersects with what Howling (2017,
p. 5) concludes that ability grouping would possibly boost lower-
performing students’ motivation and confidence, making them
build more academic development and yield with satisfactorily
proficiency level.
93
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
A. Conclusion
Based on the finding and discussion, it could be concluded
that:
The curriculum is practically linked with the need and vision-
mision of PLJ. It is apparent that the English language teaching
curriculum applied by PLJ contextually accomodates its vison and
mission to yield its graduates who are competent in English. PLJ
standpoint as a vocational higher education institution more or less
intersects with the way the institution admits and educates the
students. As a private college with the label of vocational, a tagline
of prospective jobs after graduation to attract new students is
something normative. But, it does not mean that it has nothing to
do with the implementation of ELT, the expected outcomes and the
strategies of teaching applied. The method and strategies are
relatively some adaptation of particularly communicative approach
and student-centered learning.
Nevertheless, the curriculum, the method and strategies in its
implementation, need certain adjusment, related to the nature of
PLJ in admitting students for the input of education process. The
heterogenous level of English competency as the results of
unmeasured admission leads to a need of accurate mapping of the
incoming students’ English proficiency in order for the institution
to accelerate the implementation of ELT. This grouping-based
94
ELT is overall adaptive enough to meet the need athough some
challenges still need to be addressed well.
Meanwhile, the major obstacles relatively come in teaching
lower-level students. The lower the level the more the efforts need
to be given by the lecturers. However, it does not automatically
mean that the higher level can be treated with previlege because of
their better ability, but, in fact, they also need even more care and
treatment from the lecturers, as their learning enthusiasm need to
be kept on the track by paying attention to their motivation or
ecouragement, and other psychological aspects that make them
always sthrive to achieve more. This leads to the conclusion that
the roles of lecturers in this grouping-based English language
teaching are very central, so that plotting highly competent,
dedicated and motivating lecturers is a must. This need of good
resources is confirmed in Howling’s study (2017, p. 2) that
indicates one of the disadvantages of proficiency-based grouping
is that its success depends on each educational institution’s
resources, namely the number of specialist staff employed.
B. Recommendation and Limitation of the Study
Furthermore, based on the findings, discussion, and
conclusion, the author recommends some points to consider. First,
there should be more focused study how and to what extent
grouping affects learners’ English skills, particularly speaking.
Second, as part of the teaching and learning, it needs to explore
more on how and to what extent English Conversational Journal
(ECJ) affects students’ English skills, especially speaking. Third,
95
related to the textbooks used, the author suggests there should be
periodical improvement of the the textbooks based on the
feedbacks from the main stakeholders, namely the lecturers and the
students. Fourth, the institution should conduct need analysis,
especially for the expected standard score of TOEIC and GE. The
rationale grounding and need-based analysis of setting up the
targets of 350 – 450 of TOEIC are important to give more focused
guidelines for the the stakeholders.
Last but not least, the recommendations highlighted above also
relate to the limitations of this study. This descriptive qualitative
study was not expected to reveal any effects and correlations of
grouping to the English language skills mastery or in between.
However, this study may open up further research on grouping-
based ELT, particularly its effects or correlation to the English
language skills mastery.
96
REFERENCE
Abdullah, N., Wahab, N. A., Noh, N. M., Abdullah, E. M., &
Ahmad, A. (2016). The evaluation and effectiveness of
school-based assessment among science teachers in
Malaysia using CIPP model. International Journal of
Advanced and Applied Sciences, 3(11), 1-7.
Alemi, M., & Tavakoli, E. (2016). Audio lingual method. In 3rd
International Conference on Applied Research in Language
Studies.
Alresheed, S., Raiker, A., & Carmichael, P. (2017). Integrating
computer-assisted language learning in Saudi schools: A
change model. In Handbook on digital learning for K-12
schools (pp. 369-380). Springer, Cham.
Anwar, K. (2015). A constructive teaching model in learning
research concept for English language teaching students.
International Education Studies, 8(5), 62-68.
Barnett, E., & Reddy, V. (2017). College Placement Strategies:
Evolving Considerations and Practices 1. In Preparing
Students for College and Careers (pp. 82-93). Routledge.
Koordinator Bidang Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris Politeknik LP3I
Jakarta (2015). Buku Panduan Pelaksanaan Proses Belajar
Mengajar Bahasa Inggris di LP3I. LP3I. Jakarta
Cheng, L., Sun, Y., & Ma, J. (2015). Review of washback research
literature within Kane's argument-based validation
framework. Language Teaching, 48(4), 436-470.
97
Cook, V. (2007). The goals of ELT. In International handbook of
English language teaching (pp. 237-248). Springer, Boston,
MA.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and
research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage
publications.
Farooq, M. U. (2015). Creating a communicative language
teaching nvironmenet for improving students'
communicative competence at EFL/EAP university level.
International Education Studies, 8(4), 179-191.
Firharmawan, H. (2018). Cipp-based evaluation on English for
sport science at sport education study program of the
University of Ma’Arif Nahdlatul Ulama (Umnu) Kebumen.
Eternal (English Teaching Journal), 6 (1).
Gonzalves, L. (2017). Placement, progress, and promotion: ESL
assessment in California's adult schools. Catesol Journal,
29(2), 163-184.
Goodyear, V., & Dudley, D. (2015). “I’m a facilitator of learning!”
Understanding what teachers and students do within student-
centered physical education models. Quest, 67(3), 274-289.
Green, A. (2017). Learning-oriented language test preparation
materials: a contradiction in terms? Papers in Language
Testing and Assessment.
Green, A. (2018). Placement testing. The TESOL Encyclopedia of
English Language Teaching, 1-6.
Gudu, B. O. (2015). Teaching speaking skills in English language
using classroom activities in secondary school level in
98
Eldoret Municipality, Kenya. Journal of Education and
Practice, 6(35), 55-63.
Gunung, I. N., & Darma, I. K. (2019). Implementing the context,
input, process, product (CIPP) evaluation model to measure
the effectiveness of the implementation of teaching at
Politeknik Negeri Bali (PNB). International Journal of
Environmental and Science Education.
Hall, G. (2017). Exploring English language teaching: Language
in action. Routledge.
Hamp-Lyons, L. (1997). Washback, impact and validity: Ethical
concerns. Language testing, 14(3), 295-303.
Howling, C (2017). The need for ability grouping in English
classes in public schools in the UAE: Policy Paper.
https://coerll.utexas.edu/methods/modules/classroom/02/howman
y.php
https://www.bartleby.com/354/18.html
Hwang, Y. J. (2014). Effects of ability grouping on middle school
students’ affective outcomes in Korean education in
changing economic and demographic contexts (pp. 127-
149). Springer, Singapore.
Jafari, S., & Shahrokhi, M. (2016). A CIPP approach to evaluation
of grammar teaching programs at Iranian high-schools: a
case study. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language
Research, 3(3), 199-223.
Jin, Y. (2018). Practicality. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, 1-6.
99
Khan, A. B., & Mansoor, H. S. (2016). The effectiveness of
grammar translation method in teaching and learning of
English language at intermediate level. International Journal
of Institutional & Industrial Research, 1(1), 22-25.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2015). Research into practice: Grammar
learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 48(2), 263-280.
Lin, G. H. C., & Chien, P. S. C. (2010). An introduction to English
teaching, A Textbook for English Educators. ERIC
Lin, W. (2017). On interactive teaching model of translation course
based on wechat. English Language Teaching, 10(3), 21-25.
Mani, K. R. S. (2016). The natural approach. Journal of English
Language and Literature (JOELL), 3(1), 8-16.
Mee, Y. (2017). Teaching listening: An overview. The English
Teacher, 9.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative
data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 3rd. ed: Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicholson, S. J. (2015). Evaluating the TOEIC® in South Korea:
Practicality, reliability and validity. International Journal of
Education, 7(1), 221-233.
Nordin, S. M. (2017). The best of two approaches: Process/genre-
based approach to teaching writing. The English Teacher,
11.
Pan, Y. C. (2017). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading
comprehension. Studies in Literature and Language, 15(4),
38-40.
100
Pinner, R. S. (2016). Reconceptualising authenticity for English as
a global language. Multilingual Matters, 208, 29-95.
Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional
learning and policy reform. Lessons from Around the
World, International Summit on the Teaching Profession.
Sheppard, C., Manalo, E., & Henning, M. (2018). Is ability
grouping beneficial or detrimental to Japanese ESP
students' English language proficiency development?
English for Specific Purposes, 49, 39-48.
Smith, M., & Loewen, S. (2018). Situational language teaching.
The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching,
1-6.
Stufflebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist.
Retrieved January, 8, 2012.
Toghyani Khorasgani, A., & Khanehgir, M. (2017). Teaching new
vocabulary to Iranian young FL learners: Using two
methods total physical response and keyword method.
Online Submission, 5(1), 90-100.
Venezky, R. L. (2019). Theoretical and experimental base for
teaching reading (Vol. 9). Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co
KG.
101
Appendix 1: The vision, mission and expected outcomes of English Language
Teaching Program at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta
BUKU PANDUANPELAKSANAAN PROSES BELAJAR MENGAJAR
BAHASA INGGRIS DI LP3I
PROGRAM BAHASA INGGRIS DI LP3I
VISIMenciptakan lulusan yang mampu berbahasa Inggris secara lisan dan tulisan sesuai dengan
kebutuhan dunia kerja
MISI1. Menyelenggarakan mata kuliah bahasa Inggris dari semester 1 sampai dengan 42. Menjadikan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa pengantar untuk mata kuliah non-bahasa Inggris
mulai di Semester 43. Menyelenggarakan proses belajar mengajar dengan menggunakan buku referensi berbahasa
Inggris mulai di semester 44. Menyelenggarakan English Environment bagi seluruh civitas akademika dan siswa di
lingkungan kampus5. Menjadikan bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa komunikasi antar mahasiswa dengan mahasiswa,
mahasiswa dengan manajemen dan manajemen dengan manajemen6. Menyelenggarakan pelatihan peningkatan kualitas tenaga pengajar secara berkala7. Memiliki tenaga pengajar bersertifikasi mengajar international
TUJUAN1. Menghasilkan mahasiswa yang mampu melakukan komunikasi perkantoran, dunia usaha dan
percakapan umum sehari-hari dalam bahasa Inggris dengan baik2. Meluluskan mahasiswa yang mampu melakukan interview kerja dan presentasi dalam bahasa
Inggris dengan baik3. Menghasilkan mahasiswa yang memiliki keahlian dalam penulisan surat menyurat ataupun
email dengan baik4. Menghasilkan mahasiswa dengan nilai TOEIC minimal 4505. Menyediakan tenaga pengajar yang menguasai metode pengajaran bahasa Inggris secara baik6. Menyediakan tenaga pengajar dengan nilai TOEIC minimal 6507. Menyediakan Manajemen / Civitas Akademika yang mampu berbahasa Inggris dengan baik
102
Appendix 2: The Syllabus of General English 1 (GE 1)
DIREKTORAT PROGRAMNomor LP3I/DPO/SAP-GE/007Tanggal : 5 Agustus 2018
SATUAN ACARA PENGAJARANRevisi : 03Total Halaman : 29
SUBJECT : GENERAL ENGLISH 1PROGRAM : ALL PROGRAMSSEM/CREDIT : 1 / 4 CreditsSESSION : 28 SESSIONS @ 100 MINUTES, EXCLUDING MID & FINAL TEST
General Objectives:After the teaching learning process, students are hoped to:1. Students are able to speak English fluently.2. Students are able to apply the grammar, structure, and to utter the pronunciation of words or phrases correctly.3. Students are able to write a narrative paragraph in each unit of the book.
References:English Practice for General English by Nur Haris Effendi, M.Pd and Sudirman, S.Pd
Teaching Media:Computer, Projector, CD, etc.
Remark: Since the general objective of teaching English is to make the students able to speak English fluently, lecturers are supposed to give more oral
practices rather than explain the detailed structure or grammar in longer time. Lecturers are supposed to have a game or an icebreaking for every session about 5-10 minutes. Lecturers are supposed to remind the Students to do speaking practices by using English Conversation Journal.
Change Note Adapting the need of learning material content
Cause of the changes Based on the evaluation and input from the team think tank and lecturer meeting in order toimprove the quality of teaching materials
Prepared by : Acknowledged by : Approved by :
Nur Harris Efendi, M.PdThink Tank Team
Sudirman, S.Pd., C.STMIHead of Language
Rony Setiawan, M.KomVice Director I
103
SESSION TOPICS SPECIFIC
OBJECTIVE Activity Source/page
Languagefocus
Assignment Media
1 Unit 1Introduction
Students are able to:
Warm- upAsk some questionsabout personalinformation
Picture talkTalk about a picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words for doingthe introduction
Know a number ofprofession’snames
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly.
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Introduce
himself /herself toothers, askone’s origin,talk aboutpersonalinformation.
Talk aboutone’sprofession
Students (ss) practice inturn to ask about their
friends’ personalinformation
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells Ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicits name ofprofessions from thestudents
L adjusts an audio, thenss follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn about introduction
Ss talk aboutprofessions, wherethey work, and whatthey do
p. 2
p. 2
P. 1
P. 4
p. 3
p. 3
p.g
p. 2, 3
p. 4 d& 5
Be (am, is,are)
Roleplay:introduction
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
2 Unit 1introduction
Students are able to:
Grammar: Comprehend
simplepresent tense
To do simplepresent tenseexercise well
L explains about simplepresent tense
Ss do some exercise
P. 6
P. 6 -9
SimplePresenttense
Roleplay:introduction
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Questionsaboutrelatedgrammar
104
Know how touse simplepresent tense
ListeningUnderstand the pointsof a short talk.
SpeakingTalk about dailyactivities
Reading Give
opinionabout atext
Comprehend a text.
Retell atext byusing theirownlanguage
WritingWrite a short webprofile
Review Unit 1
Ss practice the tenseinto communicationform
L adjusts a short talk,then Ss tell the classabout what the audiotalk about.
Ss answer someprovided questions
L shows how to talkabout daily activities
Ss practice with theirpartner
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write shortparagraph about theirpersonal information
L asks Ss to grade theirpartner.
p. 9
P. 11
P. 10
P. 10
p. 12
3 Unit 2My RoutineDay
Students are able to:Warm- up
Ask somequestionsabout routineactivities
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words about thetopic
Know about dailyactivities
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly.
Students (ss) find at leat 3friends, and dig someinformation how theyspend their days.
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about a picture
Lecturer (L) elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from students(Ss)
L tells Ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all Ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicit somevocabularies about dailyactivities from thestudents
p. 14
P. 14
P. 13
P.15
P.15
Work inpair,record avideoaboutfriend’sdailyroutines
105
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprehendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about a
new friendand his /heractivities
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
P. 15
p. 15
4 Unit 2My RoutineDay
Students are able to:Grammar: Comprehend
how to makequestion
Wh- and yes/noQurestions
Know how tosomequestions
Listening Listen to Teresa
activities Understand the
points of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about dailyactivities
T
Reading Give
opinionabout atext
Comprehend a text.
Retell atext byusing their
L explains about simplepresent tense
Ss do some exercise
Ss practice the tenseinto communicationform
Ss answer thequestions about Teresa
Ss talk about Teresa’sdaily routines
Ss answer someprovided questions
L shows how to talkabout daily activities
Ss practice with theirpartner
Make a small group infour or five, one by onetell group about theirdaily activities fromgetting up till going tobed.
Other members asksome questions.
P.16
P. 16
P. 16
P.16
p. 17
P. 17
P. 19
P. 20
Wh and Yes/No question(Simplepresenttense)
Work inpair,record avideoaboutfriend’sdailyroutines
106
ownlanguage
WritingWrite a short webprofile
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write shortparagraph aboutfriend’s life
P.20
5 FormativeTest
Practice Testunit 1 - 2
Techniques:Interview orpresentation
6 Unit 3My LeisureTime
Students are able to:Warm- up
Ten commonthings
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words about thetopic
Know about hobbies
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly.
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about a
new friendand his /heractivities
In a group talk about tencommon things
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about a picture
Lecturer (L) elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from students(Ss)
L tells Ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all Ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicit somevocabularies abouthobbies from thestudents
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
P. 22
P. 22
P. 21
P.23
P. 22
P. 23
P. 22
p. 23
P. 23
Make ashortpresentaion:Drescribe myleisuretime
107
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
7 Unit 3My LeisureTime
Students are able to:Grammar: Modals
Know how tosome questions
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about dailyactivities
Reading Read a text
about hobbies(sport, music,etc)
‘ WritingWrite a shortparagraph abouthobbies
Review unit 3
L explains aboutmodals
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss answer thequestions about sally
Ss listen to aconversation, thenanswer some questions
L shows how to talkabout daily activities
Ss practice with theirpartner
Make a small group infour or five, one by onetell group about theirdaily activities fromgetting up till going tobed.
Other members asksome questions.
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss Write a short paragraphabout hobbies
P. 24
p. 25
P. 28
P. 28
p. 31
Internet orothersources
P. 33
P. 34
ModalsMake ashortpresentaion:Drescribe myleisuretime
108
Tell your partner about thetopic, and ask him / her tograde you
8 Unit 4Describingplaces
Students are able to:Warm- up
Find friendswho have thesame answer
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words about thetopic
Memorize list ofadjectives
Know about somefamous place
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about a
place
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicits some adjectivesthat ss know.
Ss memorize list ofadjectives
L elicit somevocabularies aboutfamous place from thestudents
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students to
mention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog with
partner by using someinformation in the table
P. 36
p. 35
P. 41 - 42
P. 37
P. 36
P. 37
P. 38
Recorda videoabout atourismplace.(a placein yourhometown isstronglyrecommended)
9 Unit 4 Students are able to:Grammar:
109
DescribingPlace
Adjective
Know thefunction andposition ofadjective
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about a place
Reading Read a text
about a famousplace inIndonesia
‘ WritingWrite a shortparagraph about aplace
L explains about how touse adjective in acontext.
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss answer thequestions about sally
Ss listen to aconversation, thenanswer some questions
L explain how todescribe a place
Ss practice with theirpartner
Ss ask their partnersome questions abouttheir neighborhood tocomplete the table
Make a small group infour or five, one by onetell group about theirdaily activities fromgetting up till going tobed.
Other members asksome questions.
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss describe a place theyfamiliar with
Internet otothersources
P. 39 & 41
P. 39
P. 40
adjectives Make ashortpresentation:Describe aplace
110
10 FormativeUnit 3 -4
Practice Test Interview, presentation, roleplay
11 Unit 5GettingAround
Students are able to:Warm- up Vocabulary game
mastery
Picture talk Talk about a picture
Vocabulary Know some
expressions/words about thetopic
Stores in a mall
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about
how to reacha place
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicits some name ofstores / outlet in a mallthat ss know.
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
L elicits some word/phrases about direction
Go straight, turn right, turnleft, take a U-turn, T-Junction,Y-junction, intersection, trafficlight, etc.
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
P. 44
p. 44
P. 43
P. 45P. 44
P. 44
P. 44
P. 45
Roleplay:wheredid yougo lastholiday?
111
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
12 Unit 5Gettingaround
Students are able to:
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
SpeakingTalk about how
to reach a place
Talk about howto reach yourhouse or a publicplace in yourregion
Direction
Alternative game
Reading Read a text
about a famousplace inIndonesia
‘WritingWrite a shortparagraph about howto reach a place
Ss listen and completea conversation
Practice the dialogswith three differentpartner
Ss practice with theirpartner how to reach aplace
Enjoy the game
Divide the students into two orthree teams.Each group makes someinstructions about how toreach a place.Group A reads the instruction,another teams try to guess it.
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write an instruction how toreach a recreation place or aplace ss have visited
P. 46
P. 46
P. 47
DirectionRoleplay:wheredid yougo lastholiday?
13 &14
Comprehensive Test (cover all skills) Oral and written test
Mid Term Test
15 Unit 6How much isthe red bag?
Students are able to:Warm- up
P. 50Roleplay:
112
DescriptiveGame
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words aboutshopping
Know somevocabulary aboutthings to buy in amall
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about
shopping
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L elicits some things tobuy in a mall that ssknow.
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
Practice some dialogs withdifferent partner by usingsome information in thetable
P. 50
P. 51
P. 50
P. 51
P. 50
P. 52 & 53
Shopping
16 Unit 6How much isthe red bag?
Students are able to:Grammar:
How much is ...?Singular and plural
L explains thedifferences between P. 52
Roleplay:
113
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about a shopping
Reading Read a text
about a famousplace inIndonesia
‘ WritingWrite a shortparagraph aboutshopping
Achievement check
how much is ../ howmuch are ..?, this, that,these, those.
. Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss answer thequestions about thethree conversations
Ss listen to aconversation, thenanswer some questions
Ss practice four dialogswith their differentpartner
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write a paragraph aboutshopping
Ss ask some friends to checktheir learning achievement
P. 53
P. 54
P. 53
p. 54
p. 55
p. 56
P. 56
Shopping
17 Unit 7I am studyingEnglish
Students are able to:Warm- up
Guessing mygesture
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words aboutsome housechores
Listening Pronounce the
words /
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
P. 58
P. 58
P. 57
Make ashortPresentaion:Housechores
114
expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about
house chores
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
Practice some dialogs withdifferent partner by usingsome information in thetable
P. 59
P. 58
P. 61,
18 Unit 7I am studyingEnglish
Students are able to:Grammar:
Present ContinuousTense (PCT)
Know how to use PCT
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about what theyare doing.
Reading Read a text
about Mary’sactivities
L explains about PCT.
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss Listen to Kimactivities, then answerthe questions
Ss practice four dialogswith their differentpartner
P. 59
P. 60
P. 62
P. 63
P. 62
P. 63
Make ashortPresentaion:Housechores
115
WritingWrite a shortparagraph about apicture
Achievement check
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write a paragraph aboutwhat the people in the picturedoing.
Ss ask some friends to checktheir learning achievement
P. 64
P. 64
19 Formative Test Unit 6 & 7 Practice Test
20 Unit 8What is helike?
Students are able to:Warm- up
“Who am I”game
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
Vocabulary Know
someexpressions/ wordsaboutsomeone’sappearance
Listening
Pronounce thewords /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalks about
Ss answer someprovided questions
P. 66
Roleplay:Talkingaboutcharacter
116
Drescribingpeople
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
Practice some dialogs withdifferent partner by usingsome information in thetable
21 Unit 8What is helike?
Students are able to:
Grammar:Present Continuous
Tense (PCT)
Know how to use PCT
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a short talk.
SpeakingTalk about what theyare doing.
Reading Read a text
about Mary’sactivities
WritingWrite a shortparagraph about apicture
Achievement check
L explains about PCT.
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss Listen to Kimactivities, then answerthe questions
Ss practice four dialogswith their differentpartner
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Roleplay:Talkingaboutcharacters
117
Ss write a paragraph aboutwhat the people in the picturedoing.
Ss ask some friends to checktheir learning achievement
22 Unit 9FunWeekendActivities
Students are able to:Warm- up
Guessing mygesture
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words aboutsome housechores
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about
house chores
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
Practice some dialogs withdifferent partner by usingsome information in thetable
Roleplay:Activities on myweekend
23 Unit 9FunWeekendActivities
Students are able to:Grammar:
Present ContinuousTense (PCT)
Know how to use PCT
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
L explains about PCT.
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Roleplay:Activities on myweekend
118
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about what theyare doing.
Reading Read a text
about Mary’sactivities
WritingWrite a shortparagraph about apicture
Achievement check
Ss Listen to Kimactivities, then answerthe questions
Ss practice four dialogswith their differentpartner
L asks Ss to guess
what text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write a paragraph aboutwhat the people in the picturedoing.Ss ask some friends to checktheir learning achievement
24 FormativeUnit 8 & 9
25 Unit 10Vacation
Students are able to:Warm- up
Guessing mygesture
Picture talk Talk about a
picture
VocabularyKnow some
expressions/words aboutsome housechores
Listening Pronounce the
words /expressionscorrectly
Catch the pointsof a talk in theaudio or video
Comprendingwhat the audio
See the instruction
L asks some questionsabout a picture
L elicits somevocabularies related tothe topic from ss
L tells ss somevocabularies about thetopic
L makes sure that all ssunderstand thevocabularies
L adjusts an audio, thenSs follow the way ofwords’ pronunciation andthe intonation
Make ashortpresentaion:Myvacation
119
/video are talkingabout.
Speaking Talk about
house chores
L asks students tomention what the audiotalk about
Ss answer someprovided questions
Ss practice the dialog inturn
Ss ask his /her friendabout the dialog.
Practice a dialog withpartner by using someinformation in the table
Practice some dialogs withdifferent partner by usingsome information in thetable
26 Unit 10Vacation
Students are able to:Grammar:
Present ContinuousTense (PCT)
Know how to use PCT
Listening Listen to complete
the conversation
Understand thepoints of a shorttalk.
SpeakingTalk about what theyare doing.
Reading Read a text
about Mary’sactivities
WritingWrite a shortparagraph about apicture
Achievement check
L explains about PCT.
Ss do some exercises
Ss listen and completea conversation
Ss Listen to Kimactivities, then answerthe questions
Ss practice four dialogswith their differentpartner
L asks Ss to guesswhat text about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write a paragraph aboutwhat the people in the picturedoing.
Make ashortpresentaion:Myvacation
120
Ss ask some friends to checktheir learning achievement
27 &28
Comprehensive Test(cover allskills)
Final Test
Note:1. One session of teaching learning process is supposed to be done outside the class-room (Outdoor activities).2. 1 session (2 credits) in 1 semester should be handled by native speakers.
121
Appendix 3: The Syllabus of General English 2 (GE 2)
DIREKTORATPROGRAM
Nomor : LP3I/DPO/SAP-GE/007Tanggal : 11 Januari 2018
SATUAN ACARAPENGAJARAN
Revisi : 10
Total Halaman : 29
SUBJECT : GENERAL ENGLISH 2PROGRAM : ALL PROGRAMSSEM/CREDIT : 1 / 4 CreditsSESSION : 28 SESSIONS @ 200 MINUTES, EXCLUDING MID & FINAL TEST
General Objectives:After the teaching learning process, students are hoped to:4. Students are able to speak English fluently.5. Students are able to apply the grammar, structure, and to utter the pronunciation of words or phrases correctly.6. Students are able to write a narrative paragraph in each unit of the book.
References:English Practice for General English by Nur Haris Effendi, M.Pd and Sudirman, S.Pd
Teaching Media:Computer, Projector, CD, etc.
Remark: Since the general objective of teaching English is to make the students able to speak English fluently, lecturers are supposed to give more oral
practices rather than explain the detailed structure or grammar in longer time. Lecturers are supposed to have a game or an icebreaking for every session about 5-10 minutes. Lecturers are supposed to remind the Students to do speaking practices by using English Conversation Journal.
Prepared by : Acknowledged by : Approved by :
Sudirman,S.Pd., C.STMISec. of Head ofLanguage
Nur Harris Efendi, M.PdHead of Language
Rony Setiawan, M.KomVice Director I
Change Note Adapting the need of learning material content
Cause of the changes Based on the evaluation and input from the teamthink tank and lecturer meeting in order to improvethe quality of teaching materials
122
SESSION TOPICS SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE Activity
Source/page
Language focus Assignment Media
1 Unit 1Wouldyou mindclosingthewindow?
Students are able tomake and respond torequests
Warm- upIce-Breaking Ask some questions
about some things theyhave in common
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen and read Pronounce the words
and expressionscorrectly
Vocabulary Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Conversation Practice Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andRespond
Students (ss) practice inturn to ask about somethings they have incommon
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they arepronounced
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss complete thesentences with correctwords
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 2
p. 2
p. 3
p. 3
p. 4
p. 5
p. 6
p. 7
Would you, canyou, do youmind..
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
2 Unit 1Wouldyou mindclosing
Students are able to:
Grammar: L explains about
using would you,P .8
would you, couldyou, can you, doyou mind..
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,
123
thewindow?
Understand how to usewould you, could you,can you, do you mind..
Do the exercise well
Listening Understand the points
of short talks.
Reading Give an opinion about
a text Comprehend a text.
Retell a text by usingtheir own language
Writing Write a note
could you, can you,do you mind..
Ss do some exercise
Ss practice the tenseinto communicationform
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the dialog isabout
Ss put the sentencesin order
L plays the audioagain, ss and thestatement true orfalse
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, sschoose the bestanswer
L elicits somequestions related tothe reading
Ss read the readingand answer someprovided questions
Ss discuss theanswer with theirfriends
Ss retell what thereading is about
L shows how to writea note
Ss practice writingnotes
p. 8-9
p. 9
p. 9
p.10
p. 11
p. 12
Questionsaboutrelatedgrammar
3 Unit 2I knowwhat youdid lastweek
Students are able to talkabout Past Stories andsome Hobbies
Warm- upIce-Breaking Understand a short
story in Simple Pastand rewrite it
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
Pronunciation Practice
L reads a short story inSimple PastSs listen to the storySs rewrite the story ingroups
L asks some questionsabout the picture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
p. 14
p. 14
p. 14
Simple Past:Regular andIrregular verbs
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
124
Pronounce the wordscorrectly
Listen and read Pronounce the words
and expressionscorrectly
Vocabulary Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Conversation Practice Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andRespond Find the right
response
L pronounce the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss complete thesentences with correctwords
Ss match each hobbyand interest with a picture
Ss discuss their answer
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p.15
p. 15-17
p. 18
p. 19
p. 19
125
4 Unit 2I knowwhat youdid lastweek
Students are able to:
Grammar: Understand how to use
Simple Past
Do the exercise well
Listening Understand the points
of short talks.
Reading Give an opinion about
a text Understand a text.
Retell a text by usingtheir own language
Writing Write a note
L explains about usingSimple Past
Ss do some exercise Ss practice the tense into
communication form
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the dialog is about,ss answer the questions
Ss listen to dialog againand match the nameswith the places
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
L elicits some questionsrelated to the reading
Ss read the reading andanswer some providedquestions
Ss discuss the answerwith their friends
Ss retell what the readingis about
Ss practice writing simplepast stories
p. 20-21
p. 22
p. 22-23
p. 23-24
p. 24
Simple Past:Regular andIrregular verbs
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Questionsaboutrelatedgrammar
5 FormativeTest
Practice Testunit 1 – 2
Assessing students’conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics= Conversation topicsin the textbook)
6 Unit 3What wasshedoing?
Students are able to tella story happened in thepast using PastContinuous
Warm- upIce-Breaking Understand and write
sentences in PastContinuous form
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Ss see a picture shortlyshown by L, and write asmany sentences as sscan using PastContinuous in groups
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
p. 26
p. 26
p. 26
p. 27
Would you, canyou, do youmind..
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
126
Listen and read Pronounce the words
and expressionscorrectly
Vocabulary Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Conversation Practice Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andRespond Find the right
response
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss complete thesentences with ss’ ownsentences
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 28-29
p. 29
p. 30
7 Unit 3What wasshedoing?
Students are able to:
Grammar: Understand how to use
Past ContinuousTense
Do the exercise well
Listening Understand the points
of short talks.
Speaking PracticeWrite a story and share
Reading Give an opinion about
a text Understand a text.
L explains about usingPast Continuous Tense
Ss do some exercise
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the dialog is about,ss answer the questions
Ss listen to dialog againand write true or false
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
Ss write a story and share itto ss’ friends
p. 31
p. 31
p. 31-32
p. 33
p. 33
Simple Past:Regular andIrregular verbs
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Questionsaboutrelatedgrammar
127
Retell a text by usingtheir own language
Writing Write a holiday story
L elicits some questionsrelated to the reading
Ss read the reading andanswer some providedquestions
Ss discuss the answerwith their friends
Ss retell what the readingis about
Ss practice writing aholiday story
p. 34
8 Unit 4What’stheupcomingfestival?
Students are able to talkabout celebrations
Warm- upIce-Breaking Differentiate and
explain about events
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
What’s your favoritecelebration
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen, read, andpractice
Substitution Drills Practice making and
responding torequests
Questions andRespond Find the right
response
Ss discuss among themabout some events
Ss explain some eventsin their local city
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss match statement withits response
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
Ss explain an event andshare it in a group
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
p. 36
p. 36
p. 37-38
p. 39
p. 39
p. 40
p. 41
p. 41-42
Will vs “be goingto”
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
128
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
9 Unit 4What’stheupcomingfestival?
Students are able to:
Grammar: Understand how to use
Past ContinuousTense
Do the exercise well
Short Talk Understand a
description
Talk More
Listening Skill Listen and match
Reading Give an opinion about
a text Understand a text.
Retell a text by usingtheir own language
Writing Write about popular
celebrations
L explains about will and“be going to”
Ss do some exercise
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the description isabout, ss answer thequestions
Ss listen to dialog againand write true or false
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
Ss write a story andshare it to ss’ friends
Ss talk about importantoccasion
L plays an audio and ssmatch with a date
Ss listen again and fill inthe table
elicits some questionsrelated to the reading
Ss read the reading andanswer some providedquestions
Ss discuss the answerwith their friends
p. 43-44
p. 45
p. 46
p. 46
p. 47
p. 47
p. 48
Will vs “be goingto”
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,
129
Ss retell what the readingis about
Ss practice writing apopular celebration
10 FormativeTest
Practice Testunit 3 – 4
Assessing students’conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics= Conversation topicsin the textbook)
11 Unit 5Do youeat muchfish?
Students are able to talkabout foods and drinks
Warm- upIce-Breaking Describe Indonesian
dishes
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen and read Pronounce the words
and expressionscorrectly
Vocabulary Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Conversation Practice
Practice conversationbased on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
Ss write and describeone of Indonesian dishesin groups
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
Ss complete the phraseswith words
In pairs ss read outloudthe words and definitions
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
p. 50
p. 50
p. 50
p. 51
p. 52
p. 53-54
p. 54-55
Countable andUncountablenouns
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
130
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
12 Unit 5Do youeat fish?
Students are able to:
Grammar: Understand how to use
Countable andUncountable nouns
Do the exercise well
Listening Understand a
description
More Speaking PracticeInterview a partner
More Listening Identifying context
Reading Give an opinion about
a text Understand a text.
Retell a text by usingtheir own language
Writing Write a local dish
L explains about usingPast Continuous Tense
Ss do some exercise
L plays the audio andasks the class somespecific questions aboutEmily
L plays the audio andasks the class tocomplete the blanks
Ss complete a surveythen interview a partner
Ss answer the questions Ss complete the phrase
L elicits some questionsrelated to the reading
Ss read the reading andanswer some providedquestions
Ss discuss the answerwith their friends
Ss retell what the readingis about
Ss write a popular localfood/dish where ss live
p. 55
p. 56
p. 56
p. 56
p. 57
p. 58
p. 58
Countable andUncountablenouns
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Questionsaboutrelatedgrammar
13 &14
Comprehensive Test (cover all skills) Oral and written test Assessing students’
conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics= Conversation topicsin the textbook)
Written Progress TestMid Term Test
15 Unit 6 Students are able to talkabout obligations:
Obligation: haveto/ don’t have to
Laptop,speaker,audio,
131
Whatshould Ido?
Warm- upIce-Breaking Guessing Game
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Classify somephrases
Last book a vacation
Words and definition Complete the text
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen, read, andpractice
Substitution Drills Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
Ss guess places andtheir rules.
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss match statement withits response
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
Ss classify some phrases
Ss tell a partner aboutwhat they had to dobefore leaving for avacation
In pairs ss read outloudthe words and definitions
Ss do the exercise
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 60
p. 60
p. 61
p. 61-62
p. 62
p. 63
p. 64
Possibility:Can/ can’t
video, wifi,Script.
132
16 Unit 6Whatshould Ido?
Students are able to:Grammar:
Understand how touse have to/ don’thave to?
Can/ can’t
Listening Understand a
description
TOEIC Skill-Based Understand the points
of short talks.
Reading Read a text about a
regulation
WritingWrite a regulation
L explains about therules of have to/ don’thave to, can/ can’t
Ss do some exercises
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the description isabout, ss answer thequestions
L plays the audio again,ss writes about Henryusing have to, doesn’thave to, can, can’t
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
L asks Ss to guess whatthe text is about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L ask about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write a regulation incertain public places
p. 65
p. 65
p. 66-67
p. 67
p. 68
17 Unit 7Have youever beenthere?
Students are able to talkabout vacations
Warm- upIce-Breaking Talk about first
vacation
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
How do the peoplefeel?
Adjectives
Ss share their firstvacation
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
p. 70
p. 70
p. 71
p. 72
p. 72
Present Perfect
Ever, never
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
133
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Words and definition Complete the text
Listen, read, andpractice
Substitution Drills Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
Ss match statement withits response
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
Ss match the word withthe picture
Ss complete thesentences with adjectives
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
In pairs ss read outloudthe words and definitions
Ss do the exercise
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions in turns
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 72
p. 73
p. 73
p. 74
18 Unit 7Have youever beenthere?
Students are able to:Grammar:
Understand how touse PresentPerfect Tense?
ListeningShort Talk Understand the points
of short talks.
TOEIC Skill-Based Understand the points
of short talks.
L explains about therules of Present PerfectTense
Ss do some exercises
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the dialog is about,ss answer the questions
p. 75-76
p. 76
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
134
Talk more Interview a partner
Reading Read a text about a
regulation
WritingWrite an experience
L plays the audio again,ss writes about Noriko
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
Ss interview each otherand report it to the class
L asks Ss to guess whatthe text is about
Ss read the text briefly(scanning)
L asks about theinformation they get
Ss read again tocomprehend the wholetext
Ss answer the providedquestions
Ss retell by their ownlanguages
Ss write an experience
p. 77
p. 78
p. 78
19 Formative Test Unit 6 & 7 Assessing students’conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics= Conversation topicsin the textbook)
20 Unit 8Are youfeelingok?
Students are able to talkabout health conditions:
Warm- upIce-Breaking Ask a friend about
health
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Words and definition
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Ss interview each otherusing questions provided
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
In pairs ss read thewords and definitions
Ss match statement withits response
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
In pairs ss read outloudthe words and definitions
p. 80
p. 80
p. 80-81
p. 82
p. 83
Should/ shouldn’t,why don’t you …
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
135
Listen, read, andpractice
Substitution Drills Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions in turns
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 84
p. 84-85
p. 85
21 Unit 8Are youfeelingok?
Students are able to:Grammar:
Understand how touse Should/Shouldn’t
ListeningShort Talk Understand a
description
TOEIC Skill-Based Understand the points
of short talks.
Talk more Interview a partner
Reading Read a text
WritingWrite an experience
L explains about therules of using should/shouldn’t
Ss do some exercises
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the description isabout, ss answer thequestions
L plays the audio again,ss write T (true) or F(false)
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
Ss interview each otherand report it to the class
L asks Ss to guess whatthe text is about
L splits the class intosome groups and asks
p. 85-87
p. 88
p. 89
p. 89-91
p. 92
Should/ shouldn’t,why don’t you …
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script
136
each group to discussone reading.
Each group report toclass what the reading isabout
Ss write an experience22 Unit 9
Are yousmarterthan him?
Students are able toabout comparisons
Warm- upIce-Breaking Ask friends about kinds
of persons
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Words and definition
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen, read, andpractice
Substitution Drills Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
Ss interview each otherusing questions provided
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
In pairs ss read out loudthe words and definitions
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions in turns
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p. 94
p. 94
p. 95
p. 96
p. 97
p. 97
p. 98
Comparative andsuperlative
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
23 Unit 9 Students are able to:Grammar:
Comparati Laptop,speaker,
137
Are yousmarterthan him?
Understand how touse Comparativeand Superlative
TOEIC Skill-Based Understand the points
of short talks.
Reading Read a text
WritingWrite an article usingcomparative degree
L explains about therules of Comparative andSuperlative
Ss do some exercises
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
L asks ss to guess whatthe text is about
L asks ss to read the text L divide the class into 2
groups Ask one group to make
questions and askanother group to answer.
Ss write an article usingcomparative degree
p. 99-102
p.103
p.104
p.104
ve andSuperlative
audio,video, wifi,Script
24 Formative Unit 8 & 9 Assessing students’conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics =Conversation topics inthe textbook)
25 Unit 10Moderntechnology
Students are able toabout things they havedone
Warm- upIce-Breaking Use a word connected
to the previous word
Pictures talk Talk about a picture
VocabularyEnrichment Understand and use
some words andexpressions
Words and definition
Pronunciation Practice Pronounce the words
correctly
Listen, read, andpractice
Ss interview each otherusing questions provided
Lecturer (L) asks somequestions about thepicture
Ss answer the questions Ss ask and answer
questions in pairs
Ss match the words witha picture
Ss do the exercise byfilling in the blanks
In pairs ss read out loudthe words and definitions
L pronounces the words,then ss follow the wayhow L pronounces them
p.106
p.106
p.106-107
p.108
108
Present Perfectfor / just / since /yet / already
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script.
138
Substitution Drills Practice conversation
based on model
Questions andResponse Find the right
response
L asks some students(one by one) to read thewords, and other ssfollow it
L plays an audio, then ssfollow how they are read
Students take turns asspeaker 1 and speaker 2
Ss ask and answer thequestions in turns
L gives an example ofpracticing the model ofconversation
Ss practice the dialogs inpairs
Ss answer the rightresponse
Ss practice the dialog inpairs
p.109
p.109
p.110
26 Unit 10Vacation
Students are able to:Grammar: Understand how to use
Present Perfect
Short Talk Understand a
description
TOEIC Skill-Based Understand the points
of short talks.
Talk More Interview classmates
Listening Understand a listening
and state true or false
Reading Read a text
WritingWrite about a gadget
L explains about therules of Comparative andSuperlative
Ss do some exercises
L plays the audio andasks the class aboutwhat the description isabout, ss answer thequestions
L plays the audio again,ss write T (true) or F(false)
L plays TOEIC skill-based audio, ss choosethe best answer
SS interview each otherusing the questionsprovided
Ss listen and write true orfalse
L asks ss to guess whatthe text is about
L asks ss to read the text L divide the class into 2
groups Ask one group to make
questions and askanother group to answer.
p.110-111
p.112
p.112-113
p.113
p.114
Present Perfectfor / just / since /yet / already
Laptop,speaker,audio,video, wifi,Script
139
Ss write about gadget
27 &28
Comprehensive Test (cover all skills) Oral and written test Assessing students’
conversation skills onECJ topics (ECJ topics= Conversation topicsin the textbook)
Written Progress TestFinal Test
Note:3. One session of teaching learning process is supposed to be done outside the class-room (Outdoor activities).4. 1 session (2 credits) in 1 semester should be handled by native speakers.
140
Appendix 4: Test Guidelines
01 GeneralEnglish 2(SpeakingPracticeforGeneralEnglish 2)
WRITTENMateri dari Unit 5 Sampai Unit 8
I. Listening: 20 PointsFormat: Multiple choice (5
questions) Fill in theblanks (5 questions)Essay (5 questions)
II. Vocabulary: 20 pointsFormat: Cloze test (10
questions)Matching (10questions)
III. Reading: 20 pointsFormat: Multiple choice (10
questions) Essay (5questions)
IV. Grammar: 20 pointsFormat: Multiple choice (10 questions)
Fill in the Blank with aproper verb form (5questions)
V. Writing : 20 points
ORAL TESTTopik 5 -8Setiap Penguji harus membawalaptop masing-masing.Model Test:
Setiap penguji harus memintamahasiswa untuk memperkenalkandiri.
Mahasiswa harus mampu melakukanself-
introduction (kemampuanbicara paling dasar).Mahasiswa yang tidak bisamelakukan self-introductiondan tidakmampu memberikan jawaban-jawaban atas pertanyaan-2 spontanpada saat ditanya, makadirekomendasikan untuk mengambilmake up test (Tes ulang)
Written Test:Waktu: 200menit
Oral TestWaktu: 200Menit Diujioleh 2 pe guji.
141
dengan:1. Introduction2. Favorite food3. Traveling preparation4. A place has ever visited5. an illness had ever had
FormatNilai OralTest
1. Fluency2. Pronunciation3. Comprehension
Dosen penguji menginput nilai ORALTEST kedalam Laptop masing-masing,kemudian dicopikan ke KPS bahasaInggris, atau staff yang sedangditugaskan.
142
02 BusinessEnglish 2
WRITTEN1. Transferable skill2. CV3. Cover letter (based on a jobadvertisement)4. Interview Preparation
Keterangan: Iklan akan disediakansesuai jurusan
ORAL TESTSetiap Penguji harusmembawa laptop masing-masing.Model Test:
Setiap penguji harus memintamahasiswa untukmemperkenalkan diri.Mahasiswa harus mampumelakukan self- introduction(kemampuan bicara palingdasar). Mahasiswa yang tidakbisa melakukan self-introduction dan tidak mampumemberikan jawaban-jawabanataspertanyaan-2 spontan padasaat ditanya, makadirekomendasikan untukmengambil make up test (Tesulang)
Dosen Penguji mengajukanbeberapa pertanyaankepada Mahasiswa terkaitdengan:1. Introduction2. Job Interview
FormatNilai Oral
Test4. Fluency5. Pronunciation6. Comprehension
Dosen penguji menginput nilaiORAL TEST kedalam Laptopmasing-masing, kemudian dicopikanke KPS bahasa Inggris, atau staffyang sedang ditugaskan.
WrittenTest:Waktu: 100menit
Oral TestWaktu: 200 MenitDiujioleh 2 peguji.
03 TOEIC Listening: 100 soalReading: 100 soal
Durasi:200 menit
143
Appendix 5: English Conversation Journal (ECJ)
144
Appendix 6: Focus Group Discussion Format/ Guide and Attendance List
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSIONGROUPING BASED ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING
(A Qualitative Descriptive Study at Politeknik LP3I Jakarta)
No. CIPPComponent
Points to Consider Question to Answer Remark
1. Context - Rationale for the determination ofobjectives
- Relevant environment- Desired and actual conditions of
environment- Unmet needs- Unused opportunities
*Curriculum guidelines?*How is the teaching and learningenvironment?*What is the ideal condition for ELTand learning at PLJ?*What is still left to be implemented?*What still can be done?
2. Input - how the resources are used- cost/material effectiveness to meet
objective and achieve goals- alternative strategies and procedures- linkage between the means & the
desired ends
*How are the resorces used by thelecturers and students?*What material and how much costneeded?*What strategies and procedures usedas alternatives?*How are the means and the targetslinked?
3. Process - detect/predict defects in proceduresor in implementation
- information for programmingdecisions
- record of procedures as it occurs
*Is there anything wrong orconfusing?*Any information to take intoconsideration?
4. Product - attainments to measure- attainments interpretation- evaluation as often as necessary
during program
*What attainments are available?*How and do the attainments indicate?*How often is evaluation necessary?
145
Appendix 7: FGD Transcribed Notes (Lecturer 3)
ABBREVIATIONSL3: Lecturer 3GBELT: Grouping-Based ELTQ: Question (By the Researcher)A: Answer (By the Informant [L3])
CODE: L3-GBELT-FGDNo Q AQ What do you think of the
Curriculum guidelines for thisgrouping-based ELT?
I think this grouping is good enough, but, if wegroup the students based on their proficiencylevel, the textbooks also must be adjusted basedon the level.
For the curriculum of GE 1 and GE 2, it isbetter to be specified to the job world (do notbe too general).
A How is the teaching andlearning environment?
The teaching-learning environment at thecampus is conducive enough, both its facilitiesand administrative supports.
Q What is the ideal condition forELT and learning at PLJ?
Ideal for ELT, there should be special a lab forlistening, because students can be more focusedon the learning.
A What is still left to beimplemented?
The textbooks for GE 1 and GE 2 are alreadygood enough. But for higher-level students, thebooks are too simple and boring if the lecturerdoes not do any improvization.
Q What still can be done? Categorize the textbooks based on the students’level.
A How are the resorces used bythe lecturers and students?
So far, it is used well enough
Q What material and how muchcost needed?
The special lab for listening practices
A What strategies andprocedures used asalternatives?
ECJ and online vocabulary exercises are goodbut not enough.
Q How are the means and thetargets linked?
They are linked well.
A Is there anything wrong orconfusing?
Yes, it is related to the existing scoring system.Instead, it is better to be taken from students’daily performance (e.g daily score, quiz,assignment and formative).
146
Q Any information to take intoconsideration?
I would like to emphasize that if the textbooksare still the same for all level, the grouping isnot necessary, because for some studentswhose proficiency is under average, it will bedifficult to understand the materials and forthose whose proficiency is above average, itwill be too boring.
A What attainments areavailable?
Students’ daily performance needs to be addedto evaluation.
Q How and do the attainmentsindicate?
It is still normative.
A How often is evaluationnecessary?
The existing evaluation system is good, but stillneed to focus on students’ daily performance(e.g daily score, quiz, assignment andformative).
147
Appendix 8: FGD Transcribed Notes (Lecturer 2)
ABBREVIATIONSL2: Lecturer 2GBELT: Grouping-Based ELTQ: Question (By the Researcher)A: Answer (By the Informant [L2])
CODE: L2-GBELT-FGDNo Q AQ What do you think of the
Curriculum guidelines for thisgrouping-based ELT?
It is relevant.
A How is the teaching and learningenvironment?
Supportive enough.
Q What is the ideal condition forELT and learning at PLJ?
It needs more systematic textbooks.
A What is still left to beimplemented?
No answer.
Q What still can be done? The drills in the textbook need to be insequence, especially for reading materials.
A How are the resorces used by thelecturers and students?
They are good enough.
Q What material and how muchcost needed?
The existing facilities and textbooks aregood enough.
A What strategies and proceduresused as alternatives?
English Conversation Journals and onlinevocabulary exercises.
Q How are the means and thetargets linked?
It is still relevant and good enough.
A Is there anything wrong orconfusing?
The TOEIC standard and teaching need tobe reviewed.
Q Any information to take intoconsideration?
- With this grouping program, lectureresknow the students ability level- Teaching approach can be adjusted based
on their level.- With equivalent skills, students still can
complete each other.- Students are confident enough because they
are at the same level of competency.- Lecturer is the key factor.- In general, the grouping program is good
enough.
148
A What attainments are available? The existing attainments are representativeenough.
Q How and do the attainmentsindicate?
Realistic enough.
A How often is evaluationnecessary?
Speaking and writing skill tests in formative,assignments (ECJ, etc), miedterm test andfinal term test are enough for evaluation.
149
Appendix 9: FGD Transcribed Notes (Lecturer 1)
ABBREVIATIONSL1: Lecturer 1GBELT: Grouping-Based ELTQ: Question (By the Researcher)A: Answer (By the Informant [L1])
CODE: L1-GBELT-FGDNo Q AQ What do you think of the
Curriculum guidelines for thisgrouping-based ELT?
In my opinion, overall, this groupingprogram is just good, I mean, it is stillrelevant alhough many challenges inits implementation.
A How is the teaching and learningenvironment?
So far, the learning environment isconducive enough to support theteaching and learning.
Q What is the ideal condition forELT and learning at PLJ?
What are now available at the campusare ideal enough.
A What is still left to beimplemented?
The need assessment for the TOEICscore standard, because 450 is notrealistic enough for LP3I students.
Q What still can be done? Improve the quality of the textbooksby involving lecturers’ reviews.
A How are the resorces used by thelecturers and students?
The resources are used properly, sofar.
Q What material and how much costneeded?
The facilities for vocabularyimprovement are needed, for examplelaboratory.
A What strategies and proceduresused as alternatives?
English Conversation Journal is usefulfor familiarizing the students in activeEnglish conversation.
Q How are the means and the targetslinked?
The target and the means to achievethe targets are still proportional,although the 450 TOEIC scorestandard is too high.
A Is there anything wrong orconfusing?
In lower-level class groups, the lowerability students meet or are paired withanother lower ability students make itdifficult for pair-work speakingexercises. It needs more efforts by thelecturer.
150
Q Any information to take intoconsideration?
- weak students meet weak students inlower level class group.-The skill gap among students are nottoo far.- The students do not feel shy or
inferior, because they are groupedwith students of the same level ofability.
A What attainments are available? It is quite normative.
Q How and do the attainmentsindicate?
The results of the evaluation isrealistic.
A How often is evaluationnecessary?
Speaking and writing skill tests informative, assignments (ECJ, etc),miedterm test and final term test arenough for evaluation.
151
Appendix 10: Observation Sheet
Lecturer: ____________________Course: ___________________Peer/Observer: _________________Date and Time: _____________
Use criteria that apply to the format of grouping-based ELT observed.
Overall view of the teaching and learning activities:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Review Section Description/Comments
1. SPEAKINGACTIVITIES
2. READING ACTIVITIES
3. LISTENINGACTIVITIES
4. WRITING ACTIVITIES
5. GRAMMAR
6. VOCABULARYMASTERYACTIVITIES
152
Appendix 11: Non-Participatory Observation Results
Lecturer: L1Course: GE 2Date and Time: May 10, 2019/ 13.00-15.40Class Group: Lower Level (LL)
CODE: NOB-L1-GBELT-GE2-LLNo Review
SectionDescription/ Comments
1 SpeakingActivities
-Lecturer (L) asks some questions about the picture-Ss answer the questions-Ss ask and answer questions in pairs-L pronounces the words, then ss follow the way howL pronounces them-L asks some students (one by one) to read the words,and other ss follow it
-L explains about using Past Continuous Tense
L1 directs the students to be in pairs for speakingpractice.
Students do not directly understand the instructionfrom L1. So, L1 needs to repeat several times inunderstandable ways.
2 ReadingActivities
-L elicits some questions related to the reading-Ss read the reading and answer some providedquestions-Ss discuss the answer with their friends-Ss retell what the reading is about
Students still ask each other about how to pronuncecertain unfamiliar words. Even some of the try to usetheir smartphone to find the meaning and the properpronunciation from internet.
3 ListeningActivities
-L plays an audio, then ss follow how they are read-Students take turns as speaker 1 and speaker 2-Ss ask and answer the questions-Ss match the words with a picture-In pairs ss read the words and definitions-Ss complete the sentences with ss’ own sentences
153
-L gives an example of practicing the model ofconversation-Ss practice the dialogs in pairs
Students do not directly understand the instructionfrom L1. So, L1 needs to repeat several times inunderstandable ways.
4 WritingActivities
-Ss see a picture shortly shown by L, and write asmany sentences as ss can using Past Continuous ingroups. Then Ss are asked to write a story and shareit to ss’ friends
When the students are asked to describe peopleactivities in a picture (past continuous topic), theylook confused how to start.
5 Grammar -Ss are asked to do some exercises available in theunit.
Some students still do not understand the proper tobe for the proper sentence subjects (in the lesson ofpast continuous tense).
6 VocabularyMasteryActivities
Their level of vocabulary mastery is more or less thesame as their grammar mastery.
Overall view:
In this observation, the researcher just fully observes the students-teacher interactionwithout involving in the activities.
For lower-level students, the researcher finds significant obstacles, even some basicunderstanding of to be (is, am, are), etc. The lecturer puts extra efforts in making everyinstruction as clear as possible.
154
Appendix 12: Non-Participatory Observation Results
Lecturer: L3Course: GE 2Date and Time: May 10, 2019/ 08.00-10.40Class Group: Higher Level
CODE: NOB-L3-GBELT-GE2-HLNo Review
SectionDescription/ Comments
1 SpeakingActivities
-Lecturer (L) asks some questions about the picture-Ss answer the questions-Ss ask and answer questions in pairs-L pronounces the words, then ss follow the way how Lpronounces them-L asks some students (one by one) to read the words, andother ss follow it
-L explains about using Past Continuous Tense
L1 directs the students to be in pairs for speaking practice.
Students directly understand the instruction from L1. So, L1does not need much time to repeat the instructions.
2 ReadingActivities
-L elicits some questions related to the reading-Ss read the reading and answer some provided questions-Ss discuss the answer with their friends-Ss retell what the reading is about
Most Studens are already familiar on how to pronunce certainnew words.
3 ListeningActivities
-L plays an audio, then ss follow how they are read-Students take turns as speaker 1 and speaker 2-Ss ask and answer the questions-Ss match the words with a picture-In pairs ss read the words and definitions-Ss complete the sentences with ss’ own sentences
-L gives an example of practicing the model of conversation-Ss practice the dialogs in pairs
All Students directly understand the instruction from L1. So, L1does not need to repeat all the ways.
155
4 WritingActivities
-Ss see a picture shortly shown by L, and write as manysentences as ss can using Past Continuous in groups. Then Ssare asked to write a story and share it to ss’ friends.
When the students are asked to describe people activities in apictures (present continuous toipic), they look enthusiasticenough to start it.
5 Grammar -Ss are asked to do some exercises available in the unit.
Almost all of the students already understand the proper to befor the proper sentence subjects (in the lesson of pastcontinuous tense).
6 VocabularyMasteryActivities
Their level of vocabulary mastery is more or less the same astheir grammar mastery.
Overall view:
In this observation, the researcher just fully observes the students-teacher interaction withoutinvolving in the activities.
For higher-level group students, the researcher finds no significant obstacles in instructingand guiding students for every activity. even some basic understandin of to be (is, am, are),etc. Compared to lower-level group, in this higherlevel group, the lecturer does not put muchefforts. She just follows the steps as in the textbook and the students look more comfortablein following the lesson.
156
Appendix 13: Participatory Observation Results
Student observed: A student from higher-level groupCourse: GE 2-English Conversation Journal (ECJ)Date and Time: May 9, 2019/ 09.40-10.00Class Group: Higher LevelObserver: Researcher
CODE: POB-R-GBELT-HL-ECJNo Review Section Description/ Comments1 Speaking Activities The researcher asks him about his daily routines (one of
the topics in the ECJ book).
2 Listening Activities The student understands directly what he needs to dowhen the researcher ask, “What do you do in your sparetime?”
3 Writing Activities The student almost makes no mistakes in writingsentences related to the topic of daily routines (simplepresent).
4 Grammar He already understands the word “spare”, and heunderstands that the context of the sentence is in presentsimple tense.
5 VocabularyMastery Activities
The student talks about his favorite thing (playing onlinegames). He says that he gains many new vocabulariesfrom playing games because he interacts with peoplewho use English language.
Overall view:
ECJ is an English speaking activity based on the sentences that student writes in the pocket-size journal. In this observation, the researcher becomes the student’s speaking partner.
For higher level level students, there are no srious obstacles. They just need practice morewhile improving the grammar understanding.
157
Appendix 14: Participatory Observation Results
Student observed: A student from lower-level groupCourse: GE 2-English Conversation Journal (ECJ)Date and Time: May 9, 2019/ 10.00-10.20Class Group: Lower LevelObserver: Researcher
CODE: POB-R-GBELT-LL-ECJNo Review Section Description/ Comments1 Speaking Activities The researcher asks her about her daily routines (one of
the topics in the ECJ book).
2 Listening Activities The student does not understand directly what she needsto do when the researcher asks, “What do you do in yourspare time?”
It seems that she does not know the word “spare”. SS isnot familiar enough with the word.
Then, the researcher tries to use similar word, “free”time, holiday, weekend, etc.
3 Writing Activities The researcher assumes that the student’s sentences arethe results of her translating using google translate.
4 Grammar She appears to have no idea about word “spare”, and shehas no clues about how to reply.
5 VocabularyMastery Activities
The student knows what to say but she does not knowhow and what to say it in English.
When the researcher asks her where she finds the wordsto write the ECJ sentences in English, she admits thatshe translates her sentences using Google translate.
Overall view:
ECJ is an English speaking activity based on the sentences that student writes in the pocket-size journal. In this observation, the researcher becomes the student’s speaking partner.
For lower-level students, the researcher finds significant obstacles, even some basicunderstandin of to be (is, am, are), etc.