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.