I
NNOVATING
A
CADEMIC
W
RITING
C
OURSE IN
L
IGHT OF
E
CCLECTIC
E
DUCATIONAL
F
RAMEWORKS
Adriadi Novawan
Language, Communication and Tourism Department, Politeknik Negeri Jember (POLIJE)
Email: adriadinovawan@gmail.com
A
BSTRACTIntroduction
Within the observed setting, Academic Writing course mainly prepares graduate students to be able to engage in the final project in the following term (last year of education). Therefore, it aimed to equip the students with the skill of proposal writing and encouraged them to identify interests and develop ideas, in turn to manifest them into a creative final project proposal. On the basis of the National Curriculum Policy for vocational higher education, the course construes dichotomy between theory and practice. The department curriculum team decided that the Academic Writing course
ThH article reflectively explores how DQassessment was practiced in an Academic Writing &ourse LQƀthe VHWWLQJof English /DQJXDJH7HDFKLQJ LQ WKH +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ. 7KH QRWLRQ RI DVVHVVPHQW IRU OHDUQLQJ$I/ DGRSWHGIURPHGXFDWLRQDOOLWHUDWXUHVLVXVHGIt firstly outlines the extent to which the assessment practice was congruent with the principles of AfL and what were impacts perceived by the students. On the basis of the analysis, innovation for improvement is proposed. This innovation includes reconstruction in the whole course design assuming the prominence of assessment practice within a conceptually-prepared course. In addition, a practical model of the assessment within a unit of lesson is also proposed.
Key words: Academic Writing, course design, educational frameworks, assessment IRU learning
comprises 2 credits divided into 1 credit of theory (16 hours lectures) and 1 credit of practice (32 hours practicum). As a consequence of the dichotomy between theoretical and practical skills in the national guideline, institutional policy managed the separation between lectures (teaching and learning of theories) and practicum (practices of theories learned in the lectures). Consequently, the assessment was divided up into two main areas, namely theory (contributes 40%) and practical (contributes 60%). Each focus area was assessed twice within a term—middle tests and final tests. The tests were more instrumental to know the students‘ performance which represented assessment of learning (AoL) vis a vis assessment for learning (AfL).
Within the above context, the assessment practice referred to the criteria and elements regulated institutionally. The elements assessed involved format, content and writing technique. In terms of format, the guideline managed paper size, margins, font type, font size, line spacing, referencing, cover template, and basic structure. Content included accuracy, criticality, and innovativeness of the field-specific proposal. Writing technique concerned the organisation and fluency of presentation. The three components above were justified on the basis of institutional marking and grading system. Scores ranged from 81 to 100 was graded A, 76 to 80 was AB, 71 to 75 was B, 61 to 70 was BC, 51 to 60 was C, 41 to 50 was D, less than 40 was E (failed).
Conceptually, the learning outcomes of the course correspond to attainment element studied in James and Brown (2005). Since the emphasis of the subject was on writing competence (literacy), the development of writing skill that reflect sufficient understanding on the chosen field-specific content became the primary goal. Although there was no ‗exact criterion‘ used to describe which level of writing skill to achieve, it was taken into consideration that the students participating in this subject had taken relevant subjects underpinning their writing skill such as Grammar, Writing and other literacy-based subjects. Therefore, the assessment paid attention on the above repertoires. Different from that of other literacy-based subjects (e.g. Reading), Academic Writing required the students to demonstrate ‗some degree‘ of knowledge on the chosen content-area. It then assumed that the students, without needing to be taught, would be able to demonstrate understanding on it (e.g. Establishment of Travel Agency).
without sufficient fundamental knowledge and direction. For instance, scoring criteria was done accidentally. The lessons were designed more interactively to provide opportunities for students to work in group and to have peer assessment and self assessment. Moderation, albeit essential, was somehow ignored. These formative features were practiced without profound planning, recording and documentation.
Albeit the educational parties expect that the assessment practices can reduce unintended impacts, in fact, it is still the most prominent challenge in HEIs today (Falchikov and Boud, 2007). Studies also suggest summative assessment gives negative impacts on student motivation, while formative assessment enables student to make progress in their learning (Harlen and Crick, 2002; Black and Wiliam, 1998; James, 1998). This evidence is relevant to the reality in this study. With the above practice, students had greater anxiety specifically due to facing the middle and final test rather than any others and in many cases undermined their motivation and created stressed. Although, there is a consideration to view this as a long-term impact latently shaped throughout the students‘ past experiences that affected motivation today (Boud and Falchikov, 2007), the assessment did shape impact by giving more anxiety and stimulating them to be grade-oriented. The ineffectiveness of assessment may also extrinsically encourage a surface learning strategy which brought about ‗shallow‘ learning. It is obvious that such assessment practice stimulated the students‘ extrinsic motivation more than their intrinsic motivation. Whereas, some literatures associate effective learning to intrinsic motivation (e.g. Harlen and Crick, 2002; Ecclestone, 2002).
Lessons for innovation
With the abundant studies and theories in assessment, the nature of effective assessment is getting clearer in its fuzziness. Literatures agree that assessment is not only powerful—shaping and orienting learning, but also complex, controversial, invisible and dilemmatic (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Dann, 2002; Norton, 2009; Barnett, 2007; Stobart, 2008; Sadler, 2010; Crossouard, 2011; Torrance, 2012). Within this gloomy sphere, I recognize that effective innovation has to be contextual in terms of how to bring it into practice; depending on the structures and cultures (Archer, 1996), but frameworks underpinning it can be generalised. Therefore, it takes the autonomy of teachers to develop relevant perspectives, internalise them and adopt them into their specific contexts.
Higgins, 2002). While ‗assessment‘ has gained its prominence through the emerge of AfL or assessment is for learning (AifL). In principle, L2L comprises a ‗collection of good learning practices‘ that ‗encourage learners to be reflective, strategic, intentional and collaborative‘ (James et al. 2007, p.28), so that, it helps students see themselves as learners (metacognition), build self-confidence, improve learning skills (e.g. thinking skills, self-regulation, self efficacy) through teaching and learning environment (Hughes, 2007; James et al. 2007). In complement to that, powerful pedagogical strategies (PPS) (Leat and Higgins, 2002) help clarify it more conceptually. It puts an emphasis on the eminence of social interaction and learning environment to create effective student-centred learning. It, not only highlights how cognitive and social process shape metacognitive awareness, but also mentally map ‗how‘ the teacher (me) develops himself to build agency capacity, that becomes the basis for developing AfL. In this light, effective assessment is AfL that supports the above notions. It can be seen as a planned assessment process that involves the students, while the information obtained is used for better teaching (by teacher) and learning (by students) (Assessment Reform Group, 2002; James, 1998).
Realising a gap between the assessment practice and the theoretical and empirical evidence above, there is a strong demand for a fundamental change in such practice. Torrance (2012) introduces different types of change to help discriminate the nature of innovation: conformative, transformative, and de-formative. Interpreting Torrance‘s (2012) argument, de-formative can happen when the assessment practice remains unchanged. Another possibility is to make a ‗wise‘ change (conformative) which enable to compromise the conflicting elements—transparency vs interaction (Blanchard, 2008). However, the best choice according to Torrance is to make transformative innovation, which is oriented towards socio-cultural concept with its inherent ambiguity. Given these alternatives, Torrance tries to convince that without the last choice, assessment practice seems to end in de-formative. It is challenging to have transformative change as a vision, nevertheless, as discussed in the literatures (e.g. Crossouard, 2011; Torrance, 2012; Dann, 2002; and others), it is complex and problematic in practice moreover in the context where behaviouristic features, strong classification and strong framing predominate. Yet, between conformative and transformative change can possibly be an initial action as a basis for further change.
Innovations Proposed
represented with a unit of visual-based interactive lecture together with the web 2.0-based practicum (Appendix 1 and 2), e-reflective writing for the middle test (Appendix 3a), and e-portfolio writing for the final test (Appendix 3b). This innovation elaborates digital technology with interactive, more divergent approach and weak framing. Closing in on the lecture and practicum, connection between them is vital. Then, Kolb‘s experiential learning cycle model—Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation (RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE) (Bergsteiner et al., 2010) is taken into account as a framework to integrate the lecture with the practicum and to provide opportunity for students to experience deep learning.
Moreover, weak framing is particularly pivotal to base the innovation implementation in the class with implicit hierarchical rule (e.g. character, manner) (Bernstein, 2003). It means that the social relation between the teacher and the students is blurred in order to encourage students‘ disposition. Whilst to allow the teacher to handle ambiguity resulted from weak framing, PPS helps the teacher have some control within the interaction with clear connections between knowledge (content), practice, pupils, beliefs and the process of professional learning and development (Leat and Higgins, 2002).
Visual based Interactive Lectures
Firstly, criteria are made explicit. For adult learners, interactive talk with probing questions can be more effective than saying it in one way. Manner and character of the teacher determines the extent of awareness the students gain. An emphatic start can be helpful to encourage students to engage in the talk. Even though the purpose of this activity is behaviouristic, the use of probing questions to provide a frame for thinking towards learning purpose, can give space for students‘ disposition with the support of weak framing, though seemingly paradoxical. Whilst the assertion made to make sense the learning purpose will be meaningful depending on the students‘ contribution to the interaction.
Scaffolding is unquestionably essential to facilitate deep learning by using probing questions to help students connect the talk with their prior knowledge and learning contexts as well as guide them in analytical and evaluative thinking. It assumes that students have experienced content-area lectures and practicum (e.g. learning, writing, simulation, field trip, etc.), and this activity calls for CE-RO through probing questions that encourage the students to attend to their own contextual repertoires and come up with relevant ideas (Pickford and Brown, 2006).
Rubric is a kind of practical but useful visual aid as a guide for students in self-assessment. However, the difficulty lies in how the questions and criteria written on it can vary and support metacognition and students‘ disposition. In this case, it is relevant that teacher use more open questions (Appendix 2a) to allow students‘ disposition rather than close ones. This activity assumes that prior to giving this rubric for self assessment, students are given relevant activities (e.g. are asked to work in pairs or groups, discuss and write their ideas on ‗what to do‘, ‗why‘, ‗what aspects to adopt from other‘, and ‗how‘...). Not only is rubric effective for self-assessment, but also helpful for pair and group activities such as peer-assessment and group-assessment (Appendix 2b).
More importantly, these rubric-based activities are fruitful accompanied with effective feedback to create effective RO where the students can understand more about the learning goal, more about their achievement status, and more about ways to bridge the gap between them (Sadler in Sadler, 2010). For this purpose, visual aids can enhance interactive feedback. First, the teacher needs to be sensitive to identify how to encourage students‘ self-disclosure after having previous activity. Without this, feedback will be fully-controlled by teacher and less meaningful. However, it is worth noting, merely using verbal expressions will not be useful. In this regards, weak framing is fundamentally necessary complemented with visual aids/multimedia. Therefore, this interactive feedback is expected to have some degree of flexibility to provide space for social construction. Concerning this course of activities—started with group work, continue to peer-assessment, move to plenary discussion. Pryor and Crossouard (2010) believe that this can optimize formative assessment.
Web 2.0-based practicum
A blended approach to learning has often been conceptually and methodologically addressed and most relate it to e-learning. Additionally, Korr et al. (2012) connect it with andragogy since its nature and complexity is relevant for adult learners. The rapid development of e-learning has encouraged plenty of exploration on web 2.0 as a powerful tool in learning, especially in writing. Viewing that writing is a part of social and cultural activity, Widodo and Novawan (2012) suggest the use of wikis or blogs to allow for interactive collaboration, active engagement, and learner-centred, while social presence within it enhances interactivity, creativity, mutual support, and social-mediation.
Continuing the lecture scenario which ended with group Exploratory Task, practicum activity is intended to facilitate students to move from assimilator cycle (RO-AC) to further learning cycles—converger (AC-AE) and accommodator (AE-CE). It is initially started with a signpost of learning progress and continued to interactive multimedia-based feedback (e.g. showing the real online features of a blog, while using weak framing to encourage students to talk) on the Exploratory Task given in the previous lecture. In this stage, interaction can be unpredictable depending on students‘ responses. More importantly, both teacher and students are aware of the Exploratory Task benefits as basis for the rest activities (e.g. blended learning, collaborative writing, e-reflective writing, portfolio-based assessment, etc.). Therefore, while paying attention on students‘ engagement, teacher encourages reflectivity and deep learning to understand how a blog works for writing their proposal (RO-AC).
In further activity, the role of the teacher is primarily demanded in leading the students to be converger (AC-AE) and accommodator (AE-CE). The main activity involves rewriting the work resulted in the previous lecture on blogs, self-assessment by using prepared framework (e.g. outlining, drafting, developing, proofreading, revising), online peer-assessment, reflective e-portfolio (e.g. on the basis of historical events or logs recorded on their blogs), blog-based writing project, etc. These activities are invaluable for short-term and long term purposes. In this stage, teacher‗s feedback either online or not, is badly needed to allow the students to experience a good accommodator (CE).
Middle test: e-reflective writing
process (Appendix 3a). To make it relevant with previous learning, their essays are to be posted on their own blogs. Therefore, this test, not only tests the students‘ writing skill, but also functions as a form of effective self-assessment (reflectivity). In this way, feedback can be individualised (not necessarily closed) through each web logs that can also function as e-portfolio-based feedback whether as a confirmation of learning progress, appraisal, or feed forward.
Formative use of summative test
Within the lectures after the middle test, students are given a group task. In this task, they are given a week for working in group to assess and compare two different proposals written by former students. The result of the task will be discussed in a plenary discussion, where feedback is available for them to make clear criteria of a ‗good‘ proposal. This activity is essential as one of effective way to apply formativeness to summative test (Black et al., 2002).
Final test: e-portfolio writing
The notion of e-portfolio writing test is prominently crucial to orient AoL to AfL. This test is primarily powerful to integrate the entire learning process into one test. It allows connection between the first half term learning process and the middle test, the middle test and the second half term learning process, the second half term learning process and the final test. Moreover, it links all learning processes and provides both teacher and student with necessary data for sustainable metacognitive learning. In the former practice, students were encountered with two different frightening end-of-term tests: theoretical test and submitting their proposal as the practical test at the same due date. In this regards, I propose the same for the middle test, final test integrates theoretical and practical test into one form of test—only submitting their proposal online through their own blogs (Appendix 3b). With this, students are given more space to focus on the online (blog) writing process, doing self-assessment, gaining peer-feedback, supported with e-portfolio gadget, and getting individualised feedback from the teacher. Whilst the teacher can have more time to engage in the process rather than designing different tests (e.g. objective tests) each term. Related to this, Bold and Hutton (2007) recommend the use of online formative and summative assessment as an alternative that can offer greater efficiency for both students and teacher.
Involvement of content-area teachers
innovation is intended to develop consistency of standards by interpreting criteria in the same way, and consistency of approach in terms of what, how and why assessment (Gipps, 1994).
Overall, these assessment events are not fixed procedure. The presentation of lecture in Appendix 1 impresses the dominance of teacher (considering the absence of students‘ response), nevertheless, in reality, I believe the class will surprisingly be rich and profoundly can expose issues concerning student dispositions. More essentially, this model presents how formative assessment such as questioning, feedback, self assessment, peer assessment and other formative features are blended with visual aids, multimedia and ICT within the Kolb‘s cycles. Additionally, SOLO taxonomy (Biggs, 1995) is helpful to be used to measure the quality of their writing in terms of understanding and criticality on the subject written.
References
Archer, M. S. (1996) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory. Revised Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Assessment Reform Group (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. University of Cambridge, UK: Assessment Reform Group.
Barnett, R. (2007) ‗Assessment in higher education: an impossible mission?‘. In Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C. and Neumann, R. (2010) ‗Kolb's experiential learning model: critique from a modelling perspective‘. Studies in Continuing Education. 32(1), pp. 29-46.
Bernstein, B. (1977) Class, Codes and Control: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmission. 2nd Edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(1), pp. 1-17.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2002) Working inside the black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King‘s College Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998) ‗Inside the black box: raising standards through
classroom assessment‘, London: King‘s College London School of Education. Blanchard, John (2008) 'Learning awareness: constructing formative assessment in the
Bold, C. and Hutton, P. (2007) ‗Supporting Students‘ Critical Reflection-on-practice‘ In Campbell, A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher Education: Developing Reflective Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2007) ‗Introduction: assessment for the longer term‘. In Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Crossouard, B. (2011) 'Using formative assessment to support complex learning in conditions of social adversity', Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18(1), pp.59- 72
Dann, R. (2002) Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the learning process. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ecclestone, K. (2002) Learning Autonomy in Post-16 Education: The politics and practice of formative assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Entwistle, N. (2005) 'Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting disciplines and settings in higher education', Curriculum Journal, 16(1), pp. 67-82.
Falchikov, N. and Boud, D. (2007) ‗Assessment and emotion: the impact of being assessed‘. In Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Frodesen, J. (1995) ‗Negotiating the syllabus: A learning-centerd, interactive approach to ESL graduate writing course design‘. In Belcher, D. and Braine, G. Academic Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. New Jersey: Ablex Publishing
Gipps, C. (1994) ‗Quality in Teacher Assessment‘, in Harlen, W. Enhancing Quality in Assesment, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Harlen W, Deakin Crick R (2002). ‗A systematic review of the impact of summative assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning (EPPI-Centre Review, version 1.1)‘. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. Issue 1. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Harlen, W. (1994) ‗Towards Quality in Assessment‘ in Harlen, W. Enhancing Quality in Assesment. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Hayward, Y., Priestley, M. and Young, M. (2004) ‗Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor: merging practice, policy and research in assessment in Scotland‘, Oxford Review of Education, 30 (3), pp. 397-415
Hughes, P. (2007) ‗Learning about Learning or Learning to Learn (L2L)‘. in Campbell, A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher Education: Developing Reflective Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
James, M. and Brown, S. (2005) 'Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes', Curriculum Journal, 16(1), pp. 7 - 30.
James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Drummond, M., Fox, A., MacBeath, J., Marshall, B., Pedder, D., Procter, R., Swaffield, S., Swann, J. and Wiliam, D. (2007) Improving Learning How to Learn: Classrooms, Schools and Networks. Milton Park: Routledge.
Korr, J., Derwin, E. B., Greene, K. and Sokoloff, W. (2012) ‗Transitioning an Adult -Serving University to a Blended Learning Model‘, The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 60 (1), pp. 2-11
Leat, D. and Higgins, S. (2002) 'The role of powerful pedagogical strategies in curriculum development', Curriculum Journal, 13(1), pp. 71 - 85.
Norton, L. (2007) ‗Using Assessment to Promote Quality Learning in Higher Education‘. In Campbell, A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher Education: Developing reflective practice. Exeter: Learning Matters. Novawan, A. (2010)‘ The Use of Visual Aids in Materials Development‘ In Widodo, H.
P. & Savova, L. (Eds.), The Lincom guide to materials design in ELT. Muechen, Germany: Lincom Europa.
Pickford, R. and Brown, S. (2006) Assessing Skills and Practice. Milton Park: Routledge.
Priestley, M. and Sime, D. (2005) ‗Formative assessment for all: a whole-school approach to pedagogic change‘, The Curriculum Journal, 16 (4), pp. 475 – 492 Pryor, J. and Crossouard, B. (2010) 'Challenging formative assessment: disciplinary
spaces and identities', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (3), pp. 265-276
Sadler, D. R. (2010) ‗Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic achievement‘, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), pp. 727-743 Sfard, A. (1998) ‗On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one‘,
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times: The uses and abuse of assessment. London: Routledge
Torrance, H. (2012) ‗Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative, deformative and transformative assessment‘, Oxford Review of Education, 38 (3), pp. 323-342
Appendix 1 Lecture (Week 1)
No Teacher’s Activities (Weak framing) Description
1 Sharing of learning objective and criteria:
„Writing a field-specific proposal for final project... it seems uneasy to do, right? When I was a student I found it hard to start writing it.‟ „...So, can you tell me how will you write your idea today to make clear what do you want to do in your final project.‟
An emphatic start indicating what the teacher aware of to encourage students to engage in the talk
Moving forward to diagnostic question on ‗how to learn‘, not ‗what to learn‘
Probing questions for self-learning purpose identification
Making emphasis of the learning purpose to make sure students‘ understanding
2 Visual-based questioning to give specific learning contexts of writing:
„Let‟s see these photos! Do you know where is it taken?... I am sure some of you must be familiar with these..‟
„You‟re right! Papuma beach…. So, what do you think of this object? Beautiful? or.. How can you describe it? How could you compare this to Kuta Beach in Bali? What make different? Why people prefer going to Kuta to Papuma?‟
„So, what kinds of opportunity we can catch?..Is
that making sense to connect with your final
project?.. Tell more!‟ ... (continue with other
pictures in other fields)
Visual-based warm-up to give the context for idea exploration
Visual-based questioning to lead them to consider alternatives for relevant project e.g. designing media for promoting local tourism object, establishing a ‗special‘ travel agency, development project in collaboration with Tourism District Agency, etc.
3 Scaffolding for deep/experiential learning:
project or innovation do you know (e.g. that you get from news, books, TV programs, field-specific subjects, experiences or other sources) that make you interested in?...Which aspect make you interested in it?‟
„What do you think of what are required to create
such innovation? Do they work in the context? Why?...‟
Well, actually, what kinds of project or innovation do you want to make for you final project?.. Why are you interested in it?... Tell us more!‟
More analytical and evaluative questions to encourage deeper exploration
Reflective questions to connect previous exploration with their learning context.
Analytical and evaluative questions to encourage better connection
4 (Students are asked to work in pairs or groups, discuss and write their ideas on ‗what to do‘, ‗why‘, ‗what aspects to adopt from other‘, and ‗how‘...)
Self-assessment by using a rubric of ‘How is my idea?‘ (Appendix 2a)
Self-assessment by using rubric with more open questions on learning purposes and criteria
5 Peer-assessment by using a rubric of ‘How is my friend’s idea?’ (Appendix 2b)
Peer-assessment by using rubric to promote better understanding on the learning purposes
6 Visual-based interactive feedback:
„So far, how do you feel of your idea? Is that
getting better now? Do you have issues within pair/group work to discuss in this class?‟
„Let me show you some works!‟ (Examples are provided....) What do you think of the description of project purpose in this writing? Is this clear or less clear? Why do you think so? How to improve it?...‟
„Now, let‟s see my comments on it!... What do
Questions to encourage openness and monitor negative impacts
Here, the teacher stops at every point and interacts with them to make sure they can connect their writing with the examples. Teacher‘s comments on the example are shown after receiving response from the students
you think? Similar? Or different?‟
„So, how is yours then? Is there anything to improve?... You know that your idea needs to be more specific in that point! That‟s good! In that case, the clarity of your writing can be enhanced by .... Do you think so?‟
feedback and feed forward
7 Signpost of the learning progress and giving a group exploratory task on blog:
„What we have done so far....If anyone still has question, don‟t hesitate to ask.. Important to note is that practicum next week will be done in computer cluster. So, you will be able to....‟
„Within the week, it will be very helpful if you could meet with your group with the same interest and explore the following questions‟
Statements to signpost the learning activity and encourage openness. It is essential considering that Javanese culture tends to recommend some extent of self-closure.
Appendix 2a
A rubric of ‘How is my idea?’
Assess the idea of your writing on the basis of the questions below. a. How is my description on ‗what‘? Why?
Answer : _________________________________________(How clear?) Description : ___________________________________________________ b. How is my clarification on ‗why‘ logic and reasonable? Why?
Answer : ____________________________________ (How reasonable?) Description : ___________________________________________________ c. How is my analysis on ‗what aspects to adopt from the former project‘? Why?
Answer : ______________________________________ (How relevant?) Description : ___________________________________________________ d. How is my thinking on strategy? Why?
Answer : ____________________________________ (How workable?) Description : ___________________________________________________
Appendix 2b
A rubric of ‘How is my friend’s idea?’
Assess the idea of your friend‘s writing on the basis of the questions below. a. How is my friend‘s description on ‗what‘? Why?
Answer : _________________________________________(How clear?) Description : ___________________________________________________ b. How is my friend‘s clarification on ‗why‘ logic and reasonable? Why?
Answer : ____________________________________ (How reasonable?) Description : ___________________________________________________ c. How is my analysis on ‗what aspects to adopt from the former project‘? Why?
Answer : ______________________________________ (How relevant?) Description : ___________________________________________________ d. How is my friend‘s thinking on strategy? Why?
Appendix 2c
Exploratory Task
Appendix 3a
Middle test: (includes both theoretical and practical skill)
Reflective-based essay writing
Instruction:
Writing a field-specific proposal for final project is a process-based activity that requires you to identify your interest, explore your problem, develop your idea, and deal with technicality of writing process.
So far, how have you been experiencing the process of writing your proposal? Have you encountered significant problem during the process? Can you describe it? What aspects of criteria do you consider the most difficult (format, content or writing technique)? Why do you think so? What do you think of how to solve the difficulty and improve your writing?
Write a 250-word essay based on the questions above and post it on your blog before due date.
Your essay will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Content : fluency of idea, reflectivity and relevance to questions
2. Writing technique : fluency of presentation, organisation and coherence
3. Language use : range of vocabulary, grammar and punctuation
Appendix 3b
Final test: (includes both theoretical and practical skill)
E-portfolio (summative)
Instruction:
Write a-2000 word final project proposal and post it on your own blog before due date. Consider feedbacks you have received from your friends and tutors on it and make sure that you have understood the criteria of a ‗good‘ proposal as discussed previously. Your proposal will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Format : appropriateness based on the guideline 2. Content : accuracy, criticality, innovativeness
