Fluency or Accuracy - Two Different ‘Colours’ in Writing Assessment ...71 Listyani
Learning Model Design Integrating ESP Course and Service Learning
Program to Promote Relevance and Meaningfulness ...82 Carla Sih Prabandari, Gregorius Punto Aji and Made Frida Yulia
Pursuing Autonomy through Dialogue ...89 Huw Davies
Domains of Political Metaphors in Presidential Speeches ...96 Truly Almendo Pasaribu
Need Analysis of English for Aeronautical Engineering Purposes at STT
Adisutjipto Yogyakarta ... 105 Dewanti Ratna Pertiwi
Students’ Lived Experience on The Toughest Place to be a Binman in
Critical Listening and Speaking 1 Class ... 115 Martha Pritzanda Pudhika
The Use of Authentic Materials in Teaching Grammar for EFL Students
(Teachers’ Perspective) ... 125 Sri Agriyanti Mestari and Fahria Malabar
Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in a Classroom Debate ... 132 Reli Handayani
LLT Journal Vol. 19
No. 2
Pages: 71-140
Yogyakarta October 2016
ISSN
1410-7201
Published by
Published by
English Language Education Study Program Sanata Dharma University
Fluency or Accuracy - Two Different ‘Colours’ in Writing Assessment ... 71
Listyani
Learning Model Design Integrating ESP Course and Service Learning Program to
Promote Relevance and Meaningfulness ... 82
Carla Sih Prabandari, Gregorius Punto Aji and Made Frida Yulia
Pursuing Autonomy through Dialogue ... 89
Huw Davies
Domains of Political Metaphors in Presidential Speeches ... 96
Truly Almendo Pasaribu
Need Analysis of English for Aeronautical Engineering Purposes at STT Adisutjipto
Yogyakarta ...105
Dewanti Ratna Pertiwi
Students’ Lived Experience on The Toughest Place to be a Binman in Critical Listening
and Speaking 1 Class ...115
Martha Pritzanda Pudhika
The Use of Authentic Materials in Teaching Grammar for EFL Students (Teachers’
Perspective) ...125
Sri Agriyanti Mestari and Fahria Malabar
Students’ Critical Thinking Skills in a Classroom Debate ...132
LLT Journal
A Journal on Language and Language Teaching
Chairman : Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo
Vice Chairman : J. Bismoko
Chief Editor : Yohana Veniranda
Managing Editors : Barli Bram and Patricia Angelina Lasut
Editors : Ignatius Harjanto, Widya Mandala Catholic University, Surabaya
Nik Aloesnita Binti Nik Mohd Alwi, Universiti Malaysia Pahang, Malaysia
Sharilyn M. Childers, Saint Cloud State University, Saint Cloud, Minnesota, USA
Lilik Ratnasari Gondopriono, City University of New York, USA
Joana Llanderal, University of Southern Mindanao, Philippines
Tariq Saeed, Open Polytechnic, New Zealand
ISSN : 1410–7201
Address : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan,
Universitas Sanata Dharma
Mrican, Tromol Pos 29
Yogyakarta – 55002
Phones : (0274) 513301, 515352, ext. 1220
Fax : (0274) 562383
Notes on articles contribution:
71 Fluency or Accuracy - Two Different ‘Colours’ in Writing Assessment
Listyani
Faculty of Language and Literature Satya Wacana Christian University
Abstract
Fluency and accuracy. These two things have victoriously won many teachers’ attention at tertiary level. In the case of writing, these two remain debatable, and
have always attracted many people, both lecturers’ and students’ attention. These
language production measures have distracted many lecturers’ concentration: should they be faithful to fluency of ideas, or grammatical and language accuracy
in correcting students’ essays? This paper tries to present the classical yet never-ending dilemmatic conflicts within the area of writing assessment. This debate still remains interesting to follow. Data were gained from close observation on
documents, that is, 21 students’ essays and interviews with 2 students of
Academic Writing in Semester II, 2015-2016. Four writing lecturers were also interviewed for their intellectual and critical opinions on these dilemmatic problems in assessing writing. Discussion results of FGD (Forum Group Discussion) involving all writing lecturers at the English Education Study Program at the Faculty of Language and Literature of Satya Wacana Christian University which were held in June, 2016, were also included as source of data.
Hopefully, this paper gives a little more “colour” in the area of writing
assessment, and gives a little enlightenment for other writing lecturers.
Keywords: fluency, content, accuracy, grammar, Academic Writing
Introduction
Students with average capability usually have some problems which can still be tolerated both in the content and language of their writing. The problem lies in the writing of students with low ability or proficiency of English. Both the content and language may be very difficult to understand. This, unavoidably, can frustrate the teacher. Perfect language with poor ideas is not enough. However, how can ideas be understood if the language as a means to convey the intended meaning is too difficult to grasp? A student may have bright
ideas, but without good language, those ideas will be in vain; they will not be conveyed properly to the readers (read: teachers). The teacher then may end up giving an emotional
comment on a certain student’s paper: “What did you intend to say,
actually?” written in red ink with big
letters. It is indeed a dilemma for teachers; they may be confused,
which one to value more? Student’s
ideas or language? It is not an easy question to answer.
72
paper, I want to argue that both the content and language in a piece of writing are to be given attention in assessment, though there may be hierarchy in the scale. The content, as well as the accuracy of language, should not be passed unnoticed by the teacher. Some data taken from
some students’ journals will be
attached as a support for my argument.
Research Methods
Data for this study were mainly derived from direct interview four lecturers and two students, whom I named Lecturer A, B, C, and D according to the time of the interviews (in chronological order). Student A and Student B. Besides that, close observation was also done
on the students’ essays. Discussion
results of Forum Group Discussion with Academic Writing Lecturers were also used as source of data. The data were then qualitatively analyzed and interpreted.
Grammatical Accuracy or
Content?
Elbow (1998, p. 299), an expert in writing who is for fluency in writing, mentions that most
people’s writing does not have
“voice” because people often stop in
the middle of the sentence and think about which word to use or which direction they should go. Writing
with “voice”, according to Elbow, is
“Writing into which someone has
breathed”. It has the fluency, rhythm,
and “liveness” that exist naturally in
the speech of most people when they are enjoying a conversation. People who write frequently, copiously, and confidently will be successful to get
voice into their writing. Writing with real voice, Elbow further explains, has the power to make you pay attention and understand; the words go deep. Writing without voice, in
his opinion, is “wooden and dead”
because it lacks sound, energy, and individuality.
At tertiary level, whether they realize it or not, students are usually preoccupied with accuracy, and many do not write in English beyond sentence level when entering university. Students are typically not familiar with process approaches in writing or with the requirement of writing a research report (Reichelt, 2009). Hirose (2001), in Reichelt (2009, p. 198), indicates that for the first-year English majors in her
classes, “fluency-aimed writing
activities” besides activities that raise students’ awareness of conventions
in academic writing, are important. This is because students still have little experience of composing in English.
Other researchers, Schoonen, et.al. (2009, p. 80) argue that when it comes to formulating a message, linguistic skills and knowledge become prominent in the writing process. They further mention that for sure, the writer needs to have a
larger “repertoire of words,
collocations, sentence frames, and
morphological options” to get the
intended message across. In order to formulate fluency in writing, the retrieval of words, collocations, and sentence frames should be easy and
should not burden students’ working
memory. The underlying reason is because memory resources should be
73 proficiency and metacognitive
knowledge is higher than the ones needed for speaking. In Schoonen et
al’s opinion, “lack of context and
conversational feedback” demands a higher level of explicitness. In FL writing, things become more difficult. Limited linguistic knowledge of FL can hinder the use of metacognitive knowledge and writing experience.
Schoonen et al (2009, p.82) further claim that L1 expertise and knowledge comes under pressure at other stages of the writing process, that is, during formulation, when the writer is struggling with the difficulties caused by limited FL linguistic knowledge. Writing is much slower and cyclical than speaking. They confirm that “The relationship between L1 and FL writing proficiency is without doubt mediated by FL linguistic knowledge, but the issue of how and to what extent these three constructs interest is still not settled.” Schoonen et al show the correlations between linguistic knowledge and writing performance, and between fluency and writing performance are generally higher than for the mother tongue.
The more metacognitive and linguistic knowledge a writer has, the faster the grammatical and lexical knowledge can be retrieved, and the better the writing performance will be (Schoonen et al, 2009, p. 83). Schoonen et al also mention that. foreign langauge writing is more dependent on the level of linguistic knowledge and fluency, rather than first language (L1) writing. Foreign or second language writing is generally higher for English than for
the mother tongue. From two examples of writing texts of two students, Schoonen et al found in their research that Student A performed poorly on English grammar test and received low grades for his/ her test and the writing. On the other hand, Student B scored highly on both grammar test and writing assignment. There is a great difference on grammar repertoire on students of the same class (Schoonen et al, 2009, p.85).
Another opinion comes from Raimes (2002) who states that in the
early 1960’s, writing courses were
also treated as grammar practice. Later on, it was realized that writing was generative of ideas; it was tolerable to be messy and chaotic in the process. Raimes (2002) then sums up that teachers must accept the messy and chaotic nature of writing,
or, if teachers do not like the “mess,”
they can impose order on it to focus on grammar, rhetorical modes, and models of academic discourse. This is intended to provide teachers themselves with neat systems of teaching. To focus on both content and language is, unavoidably, an extra work on the teachers; more time to give feedback and comments on both aspects (p. 309). This is in line with Penaflorida (2002)’s opinion that:
Teacher gives writing assignments which take time to mark and give feedback to students, or
worse, teacher
sometimes fails to return the papers. We were students once and know
how important the
teacher’s feedback was
74
Ur (1999) also raises this
question, “What should feedback be mainly on: language? Content?
Organization?” She then answers
that the hierarchy should be content
first, whether the ideas written are significant and interesting, then
organization – whether the ideas are arranged in good and pleasing way - and lastly language forms, whether the grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation are acceptable in terms of the standard accuracy (p.170).
Sokolik (2003) also gives an idea of what aspects to be assessed in writing; she asks teachers to ask themselves, what aspects to assess: creativity or originality of ideas,
writing format, grammatical
accuracy, inclusion of recently
taught material, or spelling and
punctuation. In short, just as Ur’s
opinion, there are three aspects to assess: content, organization and grammar (p.94). Basically, those three aspects are to be given attention in assessing a piece of reading journal: content, organization and language.
From the discussion above, I can say that it remains debatable, which one should teacher give emphasis on the assessment of a piece of writing: the content or the grammatical accuracy, or both? Well, many argue that it is the content that becomes the primary concern of writing. As long as students can express their ideas well (clearly), then the piece of writing is considered okay, regardless of the language problems he/she may encounter. I personally prefer seeing a piece of writing from both the content or fluency and language
accuracy. Dollahite and Haun (2012)
firmly state that a writer’s goal is to
make sure that they have presented their ideas well to the readers, so that those ideas can be clear to them. Dollahite and Haun (p. 100) further
claim, “Your job is to create a reader-friendly paper that smoothly guides the reader from one idea to the next. “
As mentioned before, without understandable language, brilliant ideas will not be understood by the readers (read: teachers). Sokolik (2003) and Ur (1999) have great ideas in saying that in writing, the priority is the content, but it does not stop there; there are still other aspects to consider which are no less important than the first ones: organization of ideas and language accuracy. The biggest percentage may be given in content, but still organization and language must be given a place in the assessment, for the last two also take part in making a piece of writing understood by its target readers. As concluding remarks, I believe that every lecturer has their own beliefs and perceptions. The same case happens in this matter. Some lecturers prefer giving more emphasis on grammar or accuracy rather than content or fluency. Other lecturers would do the other way around. No one is right and no one is wrong. As long as ideas can be conveyed successfully to the readers, both are okay. Whether the content or the grammar gets priority in the assessment, it will not cause a problem. Presented
below are examples of students’
75 A student once wrote,
“The quotation from Mark Surman tell to people if they hardly to survive in the future if they get blind about digital
functions…The informations that
received by the students are more global rather than use books. The informations on web are larger than books. It
happens because the digital
informations are easly to distribute for entire world, it is not like books that need some regulation to distribute to another area.R.F. George assumed that
“We have infinite supply of information and yet we cannot read” (source: goodreads.com,no date). It means the informations that provide by digital era
are very global and many in quantity.”
(Student C’s essay, paragraph 1 & 5, unedited)
Though he made lots of grammatical errors in his essay, but his ideas are still understandable. The
following example is a student’s
writing with problems in fluency which hinders understanding.
“That is simple reason why
digitalization should be taught in Senior High School. It is because Senior High School students will more accept that way than elementary or Junior High student. How do come? Senior High School students, usually have been using digitalization better than other level of
educations. It may because they have had further material and explanations about how to use Internet in previous level. High School students also have been mature to look for and get proper
informations which they absence for.” (Student D’s essay, paragraph 2, unedited)
Both students came from the same academic year, they were from Batch 2014, and they were asked to write about the same topic: Digitation in secondary education.
Yet, the first student’s essay is more
understandable than the second one. It is because, the level of errors is on the grammar, in the first student essay; while the second student had problems with her fluency.
Discussion on Interview Results
[image:8.595.121.502.601.709.2]For this paper, I interviewed 4 writing lecturers These lecturers come from different universities and they range from junior to the senior ones. Below are their opinions on grammar/ accuracy or content/ fluency. I presented the results of the interviews chronologically. The table below will clarify the four lecturers whom I interviewed.
Table 1: Lecturers who were interviewed
Initials of Lecturers Universities Experiences in teaching writing
Sexes
A Sanata Dharma
University
7 years M
B Satya Wacana
Christian University
10 years F
C Satya Wacana
Christian University
2 years M
76
Writing Lecturers’ Opinions
Lecturer A has been teaching writing for 7 years in three different universities, Universitas Kristen Krida Wacana, Sampoerna University, and Universitas Sanata Dharma. He admitted that in teaching writing, his focus is mainly on the content of my students' essays first. Then, I look at their grammar. Similar answers came from the second respondent, that Lecturer D, from Miami University in Ohio, USA. She also thinks that priority should go to content first, grammar ranks second.
Asked about priority, Lecturer A thinks that the content is the priority because the content contains the intended message. When his students write in Bahasa Indonesia, for example, they still have problems in the content. Therefore, if we can teach/assist the students to develop the content, their skills on idea development will be transferable when they write in any languages. Talking about students whose sentence forms are very simple, like S V O pattern, Lecturer A mentioned that it happened in his
class as well, “I think those students should be trained to think critically. As a result, their ideas are not superficial. And, for those students
having good ideas but poor
grammar, we should assist them to
express their ideas in good English”.
Lecturer A then suggests that writing lecturers need to focus on the fluency first (the development of ideas), accuracy later. The underlying reason is if we only focus on the accuracy, we will be trapped in grammar-oriented writing. As a
result, we teach grammar, instead of writing.
Different perspectives come from Lecturer B, who has been teaching writing for about 10 years. She was teaching Writing 3 and 4, and at present Expository and Argumentative writing, and Academic Writing. She focuses on the content, rather than grammar. For her, content - including organization of idea, coherence - is more important than grammar, because writing is not only about grammar.
She further states, “Although grammar is important, but to me it is only one of the components that supports writing. Not the heart of the writing process. Writing is about sharing or expressing our thoughts. We might have perfect grammar. But it will be meaningless, if we don't have enough idea to write on our draft. Mastery in writing is not only about grammar mastery”.
Lecturer B further states that there is no guarantee that the students who can perfectly write simple sentences can have good idea on the topic they write. Also, in terms of style, if the students keep using simple sentences, it will make the writing style boring and monotonous. Although their grammar might be perfect. It will be obvious because they only use simple sentences. So, their mistake will be very limited.
77 the topic. They can also be exposed
with the grammar and vocabulary for their own writing.
Different from the previous two Lecturers, Lecturer C, who has just been teaching writing for 2 years, Creative Writing, Argumentative Writing, and Academic Writing, always believes that good grammar can help him understand essays better. In the Creative and Argumentative Writing, he pays attention to the grammar a lot since, for him it is a "foundation" class before entering classes in their
upper semesters. “If their grammar is still bad, I will feel sorry for it. I discuss their mistakes almost every week; I remind them to use an article for a singular countable noun, for instance. However, in Academic Writing, I usually focus on their
content; seeing their outline;
coherence among paragraphs in the first five weeks though I become stricter with their grammar after they submit their first draft”.
Asked about which one should be prioritized, Lecturer C is certain that for undergraduate students, considering their role as a teacher' candidate, grammar is more important. These students will become a model for their future students. If they cannot write sentences using correct grammar, they will not be able to teach their future students to do so. His attention is more on ensuring the students' language accuracy after they graduate. For first year writing classes, Lecturer C suggests that accuracy should be give more attention because it is the "foundation" for the students before entering future writing classes. It will
be nice if students can use a software to check grammatical aspects of their writing before they submit their work.
The last respondent, Lecturer D, has been teaching writing since 1999 at the university level. She was teaching Descriptive Writing and mostly Academic Writing. Now she is teaching composition at Miami University, Ohio, The United States of America. Lecturer D states that both grammar and content should be prioritized because if we are teaching second language learners, we cannot
focus on one. “Through grammar, other people can understand the content. Both are important. If we focus on the grammar, but the content is not good, then, it’s just the same thing. But the way you teach it, I think you must focus on the content, and then, grammar”. Asked about the percentage for grammar and content in the assessment rubrics, Lecturer D mentions that in writing assessment, both need emphasizing. Content is 70%, and language or grammar is like 30%. Sometimes, there are students whose content is good, but the grammar is not, so we cannot separate grammar from content. Both are important.
78
weaknesses of their own paper and write down ways to improve it. After checking the content and organization, writers should also read the draft to check the grammatical errors and style problems. Singleton (2011) also strengthens this idea. She explains that after revising the ideas in the paragraph, a writer is ready to edit, which means to check the grammar.
Singleton further clarifies that if a writer edits the grammar first, he/she will waste his/her time working on irrelevant sentences. Smalley et al (2012, p.9) have a similar idea. They mention that editing and proofreading are the final steps in writing. Editing means checking sentences to make sure that they are all grammatically and mechanically correct. While proofreading means reading the
paper again to find “any remaining
errors in grammar, spelling, mechanics, or punctuation”.
Students’ Opinions
Besides the four lecturers, I also interviewed two students whom I thought had good mastery of grammar. From my on-line interview with two Academic Writing students, I found that both students consider grammar an important part of writing which helps readers understand their ideas. These two students always had good ideas besides very good grasp of English grammar. Student A firmly says that in writing both grammar and content are important.
She explains further, “The content of our writing should be meaningful, interesting, and reach the purpose of the text. We also should make our writing understandable by using
correct grammar” (Unedited). Being a daughter of an English teacher, she feels that she has more opportunities to acquire English more than others who do not have English teacher parents.
Similar to Student A, Student B also thinks that grammar and content are equally important,
especially in writing. She claims, “If we master the grammar well, ppl (people) will easily understand what we're going to convey (content). The use of language in writing is important because the language is a tool to make ppl understand our meaning. It's kinda a bridge to help us deliver our ideas well to the
reader.” (Unedited)
Talking about how she acquired good command of English, Student B said that she started to join an English course since I was at the first grade of elementary school. That time her mother asked an English tutor to come. She then I joined an English course in Salatiga when she was eight. The course has many stages, such as beginner, intermediate, and advanced. Each stage is divided into some levels also and every 4 months, she had to pass each level. When she was in grade 6, she passed the end of the intermediate level, while her other course mates were senior high school students. These two students excelled in terms of grammatical awareness in their writing.
79 thoughts in writing. Thus, it will help
readers understand their view points. Their opinion is in line with Chin, et al (2013b, p.125)). They mention
clearly, “Writing filled with errors in grammar, punctuation, selling, and capitalization is very distracting to a
reader.” They further assert that
writers have to fix these errors before submitting the essay for evaluation.
Forum Group Discussion (FGD) with Academic Writing Lecturers
[image:12.595.158.466.302.364.2]On June 24, 2016, I managed to conduct a forum group discussion with four Academic Writing Lecturers, all from Satya Wacana Christian University Salatiga. One of them was Lecturer C (who also became the respondent I interviewed). The table below will clarify the FGD attendees.
Table 2: FGD Attendees
Initials of Lecturers Experiences in teaching writing Sexes
C 2 years M
E 17 years F
F 14 years M
G 2 years F
One of the topics discussed is grammar in writing. Dealing with the first problem discussed, Should grammar also be taught in writing classes? The answers are as follows. Yes, grammar should be taught in writing, but independent grammar classes are still needed, with 2 reasons. First, grammar teaching surely helps students in using grammar in context in their writing. Secondly, lecturers do not need to spend too much time on grammar.
Discussing the second question (Which one is to be the top priority for contextual grammatical aspects to be taught in writing?), all the lecturers had the same agreement. Frequency of the most frequently seen/found grammatical points that appear in writing is not the only parameter that needs consideration. The common and important ones should be taught. Talking about point 3 (Which one should be prioritized? The fluency, the accuracy, or both?) The lecturers attending the group
discussion had various answers. One prefers giving equal attention to both, one lecturer to grammar. One junior lecturer mentioned that for lower-level writing classes, yes, grammar should be prioritized; another lecturer prefers to give priority to fluency, and the last one, content first, grammar later.
The last question is Should grammar get a better position in the rubrics? All the lecturers agreed that the percentage should be between 30-35% for grammar in the assessment rubrics in all levels of writing. This is similar to Lecturer
D’s opinion. The underlying reasons
80
grammar, then their writing is not realistic.
Agreement was made at the end of this FGD session. There were three points. First, grammar needs to be taught, though independent grammar classes are still needed. Secondly, the most-frequently appearing grammatical items are not necessarily the ones to be taught. The next agreement is both fluency and accuracy should be given priority in writing assessment. The final agreement is that rubrics for grammar should cover 30-35% of the whole percentage of scores.
Conclusion
From the discussion part above, two conclusions can be drawn. Frist, every lecturer of writing courses has their own preference of which should be given
priority. Grammar or fluency. Secondly, grammar needs to be given bigger portion in the assessment rubrics. Rubrics for grammatical points of 30-35% will be ideal for writing assessment. The rest 65-70% should be given to fluency or content.
Acknowledgements
I owe words of thanks to my respondents, Ibu Henny Zacharias-Liem, Bapak Priyatno Ardi, Bapak Yustinus Calvin, and Ibu Anita Kurniawati. Also to my students Bene and Bella. A bunch of thanks are also given to Academic Writing Lecturers who attended FGD, Ibu Titik Murtisari, Pak Yustinus Calvin, Pak Christian Rudianto, and Bu Yustina. Thank you so much for your help.
References
Chin, Peter; Reid, Samuel; Wray, Sean; and Yamazaki, Yoko. Academic Writing Skills. Student’s Book 1. (2013a). CUP.
Chin, Peter; Reid, Samuel; Wray, Sean; and Yamazaki, Yoko. Academic Writing
Skills. Student’s Book 3. (2013b). CUP.
Dollahite, Nancy, E & Haun, Julie. (2012). Source Work: Academic Writing from Sources. Boston: Cengage Learning.
Elbow, Peter. 1998. Writing with Power: Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. OUP.
Penaflorida, Andrea H. (2002). “Nontraditional Forms of Assessment and
Response to Student Writing: A Step Toward Learner Autonomy.” In
J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Raimes, Ann. (2002). “Ten Steps in Planning and Training Teachers of Writing”.
In J.C. Richards & W.A. Renandya (Eds.). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reichelt. 2009. A Critical Evaluation of Writing Teaching Programs in Different Foreign Language Settings. In Rosa M. Manchón. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol: Datapage International Ltd.
Sasaki, Miyuki. 2009. “Changes in English as a Foreign Language Students’
81 Manchón. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol: Datapage International Ltd.
Schoonen, Rob; Snellings Patrick; Stevenson, Marie; and Gelderen, Amos Van.
2009. “Towards a Blueprint of the Foreign Language Writer: The Linguistic and Cognitive Demands of Foreign Language Writing. In Rosa M. Manchón. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research. Bristol: Datapage International Ltd.
Singleton, Jill. (2011). Writers at Work. The Paragraph. 11th Printing. CUP. Smalley, Regina L.; Ruetten, Mary K.; and Kozyrev, Joann Rishel. (2012).
Refining Composition Skills. Academic Writing and Grammar. Boston; Cengage Learning.
Sokolik, Maggie. (2003). “Writing.” In David Nunan (Ed.). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Ur, Penny. (1999). A Course in Language Teaching. Practice and Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
82
A Learning Model Design Integrating ESP Course and Service Learning Program
to Promote Relevance and Meaningfulness
Carla Sih Prabandari, Gregorius Punto Aji and Made Frida Yulia Sanata Dharma University
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
Abstract
Relevance and meaningfulness of the content courses need to be established to make learners realize that the knowledge acquired in the clasroom can be utilized to give contributions to society. This research is aimed at designing a learning model integrating ESP course and Service Learning Program. ESP is a subject designed to enable students to design ESP programs. The integration of ESP and SLP allows students to exercise their skills in designing an ESP program, which is eventually implemented as one of their SLP programs. The current research is targeted to describe what the learning model design integrating ESP Course and Service Learning Program looks like.
Keywords: Learning Model, English for Specific Purposes, Service Learning Program (KKN), Relevance, Meaningfulness
Introduction
In the era of progressivism in education and curriculum development, the focus of education is on the relevance, meaningfulness, self-actualization and emancipation. Relevant and meaningful learning is a process which roots into the reality
in the learners’ lives. In progressive
education programs, the goal is self-fulfillment of the learners. To achieve the goal, education programs are focused on the process-based learning to develop learners’ awareness, responsibility and autonomy for life-long learning (Richards and Renandya, 2002)
In order that learning can be meaningful and relevant, the process must enable the learners to connect the classroom activities and the real life that they face. There must be a relation between theories that the learners learn in class and how the
theories can be applied in their life. Furhermore, learners should be able to experience how useful the theories are in solving social problems in their community. Thus, learning is said to be relevant and meaningful when the acquired kowledge can be put into practice for serving others.
83 Among the courses offered in
the curriculum of the English Language Education Study Progam are English for Specific Purposes (ESP) course and Service Learning Program (Kuliah Kerja Nyata). English for Specific Purposes (ESP) is an elective course whose goal is to enable students to design their own ESP programs. The course requires students to understand concepts of ESP and utilize their knowledge in the process of designing their programs. Although in practice, the students are required to design an ESP program, their design is not based on actual need analysis and they are not required to implement their designed program. In the process of designing their ESP program, the students follow the steps in developing the components of the design, including setting the goal, teaching learning procedure, material and assessment designs. However, the design cannot be implemented since it is not based on actual needs of the clients. The product is submitted only for the sake of their ESP Course grade. The current practice in ESP course, which is still felt to be theoretical, needs to be reviewed and revitalized in order to make the couse more meaningful and relevant to the learners.
Meanwhile, Service Learning Program (SLP) is a compulsory course whose objective is to train students to develop their potentials by means of doing community service. The course provides students with oppotunities to exercise their hard skill and soft skill to solve problems they find in their community. They are required to conduct observations and needs
survey in order to identify problems that occur in society. Based on their observations and needs analysis, the students, as educated young generation, are to perform as agents of change in the community by offering community service program. Through SLP, students have an opportunity to experience being members of a community who are responsible to exercise their hard skill and soft skill to serve others. As the nature of SLP course is to start from the needs of society, the programs that the students prepare should address the real and contextual needs of the society.
To make ESP more meaningful, some effort has been made. For example, Shu-Chiao Tsai
conducted research on “Integrating
English for specific purposes courseware into task-based learning in a context of preparing for
international trade fairs” (2013). The
84
problems in society. The learning model will provide opportunities for the learners to apply their knowledge of ESP during the process of SLP.
In developing the proposed learning model, the research adapted the steps of Educational Research and Development methodology as presented by Dick, Carey, and Carey (2003). The research subjects were students of ESP class who were taking SLP in the same semester. Besides, the research also involved experts in ESP and SLP to evaluate the proposed design.
Discussion
Most research and development projects in ESP are aimed at developing classroom materials. This research, however, aims at developing learning model to integrate SLP in ESP course. The discussion will be divided into four sections, namely ESP and its development, meaningful and relevant learning in the paradigm of progressivism, and the description of the learning model.
ESP and Its Development
ESP emerges from the reatity that English learning develops in different parts of the world to serve different needs of the learners, such as for business and trade, technology, education, and various industry (Hutchinson and Waters, 1994).
Thomas Orr (2002) specifically explains that ESP refers to three aspects. First, ESP is designed for specific needs of English learning. Second, ESP is a branch of ELT whose aim is to help learners master English for specific purposes. Three, ESP is seen as a movement to expand the role of English in different professions.
The idea is also supported by Ann M. Johns and Donna Prince-Machado (as cited in Celce-Murcia, 2001: 43) who suggest that language learning should be based on the need of the learners, their learning styles and their socio-cultural context where the language is used. ESP has been developed for a wide range of purposes, such as English for Academic Purposes (EAP) and English for Professional Purposes or English for Occupational Purposes (Hutchinson and Waters, 1994).
Steps in Developing ESP Programs
85 Theoretical
views of language
Identify target situation
Analyze skills required
in the target situation
Write a syllabus
Select text and Write exercises to focus on
skills
Develop evaluation procedures
[image:18.595.124.463.106.259.2]Theoretical views of learning
Figure 1: Steps in developing ESP program by Hutchinson and Waters (1994)
The first step is analyzing the target situations, which refers to the context where the language is used. From the results of the analysis, then, the course designer can identify the language skills required for the particular context. Only after the the language skills have been identified, s/he can proceed to the development of syllabus. The next step is selecting or developing suitable learning materials, which focuses on the required skills. The last step is developing the evaluation and assessment to measure the the achievment of the learning objectives and the effectiveness of the program.
Relevant and Meaningful Learning in Progressivism Philosophy of Education
In the paradigm of Progressivism, the emphasis of education and curriculum development are on the relevance, meaningfulness, self-actualization and emancipation. According to John Dewey (1897, p. 1), education is a process that should enable the learners to behave as active beings to
participate “in the social consciousness of the race.” In the
higher education, learners are expected to be able to develop their knowledge and partake in society. In
Dewey’s belief, learners learn
through actions and being involved in the process. This would require learners to work in hands-on project so as to ensure that learning would take place, rather than demanding them to do memorization. Thus, within this philosophy, in order to create a relevant and meaningful learning, classroom activities should be tailored to facilitate the learners development by providing relevant and meaningful tasks.
As the goal of education is self-fulfillment of the learners, education is not oriented toward measurable objectives as in the Objectivist-reconstructionism
paradigm but rather on the process of learning (process-based learning). The process is designed to develop
learners’ understanding and
86
The link and match needs to be established in order to ensure that the concepts and theories that they learn during class will not remain abstract
in the learners’ mind but will be
useful for solving problems in society. Learning takes place when the learners are aware that what they learn in class benefits them in their real life because they can give contributions to society.
A Learning Model of Integration of SLP in ESP Course
The proposed learning model is not to merge the two courses, since they remain separated in the curriculum, but it is meant to establish relevance and meaningfulness to the learners. The end product of the research is a learning model which integrates SLP in ESP course. The model consists of five major components, namely the Goal of the Project, Learning Outcomes and Indicators, Classroom Implementation, Learning Contents, and Assessment and Evaluation. The following is the elaboration of the model.
Goal of the Project
The goal of the project is to design a learning model which integrates SLP in ESP Course. There are two rationales for this. They are: 1) The integration of SLP in ESP
course will provide opportunities for learners to realize the relevance between the theory and the practice of ESP in society. 2) The integration allows learners to
develop their own ESP programs which are ready for implementation
Learning Outcomes, Competence and Indicators
Learning Outcomes, Competence and Indicators are components of the Learning Semester Plan. In this project, the learning outcomes, competence and indicators are formulated as follows.
Learning Outcomes
The learning outcomes in this model cover the three aspects of Competence, Conscience and Compassion. They are set according to the Ignation Pedagogy, as in the following:
Competence (Kompetensi):
Understanding the nature, basic concept and theories in ESP, designing concrete ESP programs to suit the need of the real clients in society, implementing the design. Conscience (Suara Hati)
Honesty in joining the course, hard work in executing the given tasks. Compassion (Bela Rasa)
Responsibility in doing the assigned tasks with the groups and in implementing the programs, assiduousness in identifying and solving problems, care for others, good communication ability with friends and others in society, synergy in planning, developing and implementing the program.
Competence and Indicators
87
Hard Skills Soft Skills
ESP
1. Explain the goal and outcome of the course 2. Explain the concepts and elements of ESP 3. Elaborate the steps in developing ESP
programs
4. Choose potential clients 5. Conduct need survey
6. Interpret target situation based on the survey result
7. Develop the syllabus, material and assesment
SLP
1. Explain the vision and mission of SLP 2. Explain the procedure of SLP 3. Explain concept and practice of SLP 4. Elaborate the metod of program development 5. Conduct observation and collect data 6. Analyse data and develop plans of progams,
one of which is ESP program
ESP
1. Show interest in ESP
2. Show independence and trustworthiness in developing the program
3. Show hard work in executing the tasks 4. Communicate effectively with other members
of the group
5. Cooperate with other members of the group
SLP
1. Show responsibility in developing the program 2. Show honesty managing the finance
3. Show enthusiasm and care in serving others 4. Show empathy and good leadership 5. Take sides on the marginalized society 6. Adapt onself with others
7. Learn and appreciate the local wisdom
Learning Activities and Procedure
The learning activities take place in and outside classroom. They are designed based on the cycle of Ignatian Pedagogy, i.e. Context, Experience, Reflection, Action and Evaluation.
Context: Learners are guided to understand the current context of learning and the benefits of their learning.
Experience: Learners are guided to undertake authentic tasks and share their understanding through group discussion and presentation. Learners gain feedback from peers and the teacher.
Reflection: Learners are guided to write reflection on their learning process so that they realize what aspects which need improvements and what aspects are already good. Learners reflect on the values they have learned throughout the process. Action: Learners plan and take action based on their reflection in order to better their learning outcome.
Evaluation: Learners are evaluated based on their performance, participation and test results on individual and group bases.
Learning Contents
The learning contents are organized in the following order: Introduction to ESP, Kinds of ESP, ESP Program Design, Need Analysis, Progess Test, ESP Syllabus Development, Learning Activities Design, Material Evaluation and Material Design, Assessment Design, Final Project.
Assessment and Evaluation
88
aspect is evaluated based on their reflection and peer evaluation.
Conclusion
In a nutshell, it can be seen that the learning model which integrates SLP in ESP couse can be a solution to establish more relevant and meaningful learning to the students. The integration provides students with at least three benefits. First, it allows them to experience how thoeries are put into practice by designing an ESP program of their
own. In this case, they exercise their cognitive competence. Second, they are encouraged to conduct needs analysis based on on the community they would serve, in which they develop their compassion. Third, the group dynamic gives them a chance to exercise their conscience and compasion. As they develop their cognitive competence, conscience and compassion, learners will hopefully feel self-fulfilled. Thus, they realize that the learning process is relevant and meaningful to them.
References
Celce-Murcia, Marianne (Ed.). (2001). Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Heinle & Heinle, Inc.
Dewey, John(1897). My Pedagogic Creed. School Journal, vol. 54 (3) p. 77-80. Hutchinson, Tom, and Alan Waters. (1994). English for specific purposes.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Orr, Thomas (Ed.). (2002). English for specific purposes. Virginia, USA: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Richards, Jack C., dan Willy A Renandya. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, Jack C., dan Theodore S Rodgers. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Setiyadi, Aq Bambang. (2006). Teaching English as a foreign language. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Graha Ilmu.
Smith, Mark K. (2000). “Curriculum theory and practice.” The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education, www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.
89 Pursuing Autonomy through Dialogue
Huw Davies
Kanda University of International Studies, Chiba, Japan [email protected]
Abstract
In the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) at a university in Japan, language learners create and implement individual learning plans. Strategies to facilitate reflective dialogue are used by learning advisors to encourage these learners to pursue their language goals and become increasingly less reliant on direction from their teachers. In this paper, a definition for autonomy is given, and the teaching setting is introduced, giving an overview of the SALC and outlining the ways learners use it, drawing on examples of learners at different stages on their journey to autonomy. After looking at theory and practical applications, this paper demonstrates that guiding learners through dialogue is an appropriate way to challenge meanings and raise consciousness, and move learners towards managing their own language learning.
Keywords: self-access, learner autonomy, dialogue, transformational learning.
Introduction The Setting
This paper is focused on learner-advisor dialogue in the Self-Access Learning Center (SALC) at a small private university on the eastern edge of the Tokyo metropolis. On a spacious campus, the university has almost 4,000 students, 97% of whom are undergraduates on four-year courses majoring in foreign languages and international communication. Since 2001, it has had a self-access center, and presently there are ten full-time learning advisors working in the SALC.
The advisors support the student body through optional self-directed learning courses for credit and noncredit modules; the dialogue that takes place on these courses is largely written. In addition the advisors work on the help desk
where learners can drop in with queries, booked 30-minute advising sessions, and more informal advising that takes place around the SALC. The help desk, sessions and informal advising is spoken dialogue. The learners referred to in this paper booked 30-minute advising sessions with the author, who is a learning advisor.
Dialogue and Autonomy
Dialogue is a fundamental component of learning. Classroom teaching is a dialogue between teacher and learner, and self-study is an internal dialogue within the
student. “Every element in an
instructional system is either a dialogue (intrapersonal or interpersonal) or a resource which
supports dialogue” (Gorsky, Caspi &
90
to use dialogue, but how best to utilize it. In this paper, the focus is on interpersonal dialogue, specifically the dialogue between an educator and a learner.
Two key points should be considered about interpersonal dialogue between a teacher and a student. Firstly, as this dialogue is an essential part of how learning takes
place, the teacher’s approach should
be strategic and considered. Secondly, dialogue is a two-way interaction so the teacher should be focused on listening closely.
The definition of autonomy in language learning has caused much debate. When considering the connection between autonomy and dialogue, it is useful to consider van
Lier’s (2004) belief that developing
autonomy requires the learner to develop their own voice. Another
popular definition is “the capacity to take control over learning” (Benson,
2001); moreover, Little has argued that to develop autonomy is to
“develop a deep awareness of the
learning process, be able to take responsibility, plan, monitor, and evaluate his or her own learning, and to transfer learning to different
contexts” (cited in Kato & Mynard,
2016). The quality of dialogue required to do something as complex as increase awareness and take
control or responsibility for one’s
own learning surely needs to be social rather than internal; increased self-regulation comes as a result of
“supportive interpersonal processes”
(Ushioda, 2014), it requires support and guidance from others.
A learner who is able to
self-regulate displays “the ability to
reflect critically on her learning processes, trust her feelings and decisions, reach out for necessary support and resources, recognize, and utilize her negative feelings effectively to establish a continuous
learning system” (Yamashita, 2015).
To effectively guide learners towards autonomy requires encouraging reflection at a deeper level; fostering autonomy can be viewed as a journey along a trajectory, with learners’ continued reflection leading towards a transformational learning experience. Students who use the SALC are at varying places on this continuum, and second language ability is not a good indicator of a
student’s position or depth of reflection.
91 Two Cases - Initial Meetings
Hana and Maki (both pseudonyms) are students at the university who are at different points in their journey towards autonomy. For Hana, reflecting on her learning is a new thing and in her sessions the advisor was trying to encourage her to think more deeply. Maki is more comfortable with self-reflection and can be found towards the other end of the trajectory.
Hana is a freshman student in her first term at university. From her previous educational experience it is clear that she has not been encouraged to reflect on the language learning process. She is unsure how to manage her learning and has not really thought about how to do it.
Maki is in her third year of university study and a regular user of the SALC. She works in the SALC part-time on the front desk. She has a clear idea of her needs to develop as a language learner.
In her initial advising session, Hana was unfocused, or unable to focus on just one aspect of her learning. She found it difficult to both express her long-term language goal, and reflect on her immediate needs in order to plan her learning in the short-term. She seemed to be looking for the advisor to provide a panacea that would suddenly improve her all-round English skill.
She was showing “characteristics of
a learner with low metacognitive
awareness” (Yamashita, 2015).
Ultimately she decided to focus on learning vocabulary to use in conversation.
Maki came to her first session to talk about a piece of writing she had had trouble with. She had
already reflected on why she had struggled to write in a different medium, a blog, and used the advisor as a sounding board.
Discussion
Background to Transformational Dialogue
Kato and Mynard, drawing on Mezirow, have stated that reflective dialogue can be transformational: learners actively engage themselves to develop and extend their worldview through discourse and reflection (2016).
Reflection is often viewed as interpersonal, a private activity done alone. This lone reflection seldom goes deep enough to be transformative, and reflection through dialogue with a person who supports and challenges is more likely to bring about change (Brockbank, 2009). Self-reflection does not allow as many possibilities to restructure opinions and assumptions (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Deeper reflection which leads to changes in learning habits and greater autonomy is triggered by dialogue with another.
If autonomy is about taking control of learning, and taking control is a form of seizing power, dialogue can work to change power relations in favor of learners. By engaging students in dialogue about their learning, advisors give previously suppressed voices respect. Reflective dialogue is empowering
because “when the learner’s desires,
wants and dreams are made explicit then there is a realization of what has
previously been hidden” (Brockbank,
92
Being listened to is a powerful thing for language learners. As a result of being listened to in an advising session, learners tend to feel comforted and find the circumstances facilitate expressing emotions, beliefs and concerns about learning (Kato & Mynard, 2016). Being listened to builds intrinsic motivation, which is linked to autonomy and competence (Brockbank, 2009).
Practical Application
In practice, there are a number of strategies that can intentionally be used to develop a dialogue which encourages deeper reflection from learners. These strategies may already be used instinctively by many teachers, but it is worthwhile for teachers to take control over what they are saying to students and reflect on the effect their words have.
Yuliati (2014) has demonstrated that Indonesian learners of English often fail to communicate because of difficulty
pronouncing consonant clusters. The reaction of many teachers approached by a student worrying about this difficulty would be to try to offer a solution in the form of an activity or a stock piece of advice. This advice may not have the desired effect because the teacher could have
missed the student’s real meaning, or
the student may have heard the same advice before. Additionally, any
benefit taken from this teacher’s
approach would be short term and surface level, the learner would have no input in solving the problem.
A strategic, dialogic approach where the teacher resists preaching would be far more beneficial. Kato and Mynard (2016) have suggested four core strategies for facilitating a reflective dialogue, which will be discussed below, with an Indonesian learner struggling with consonant clusters in mind.
The first strategy is repeating, where the advisor uses an exact phrase the advisee utters, reflecting the tone and intonation. For example:
Student: I always have to repeat what I say. People never hear the ending of the words. [disappointed tone]
Teacher: They never hear the ending of the words? [copies same disappointed tone]
This strategy can be particularly effective when the advisor feels that the student could be struggling with a motivational or affective issue rather than with the language.
Although it takes some
practice, copying the learner’s body
language is productive in building rapport. Care should be taken when
mirroring that the student does not become aware that the teacher is doing it so a short wait time is advisable, but when done well it helps the learner relax.
Reformulating or restating is similar to repeating, but the statement is recast in the advisor’s words. This helps the advisor to clarify the situation and check they have understood, and allows the advisee to look at the same problem from a slightly different viewpoint. For example:
93 Teacher: So, you are struggling to
communicate because people mishear you?
Going through the problem multiple times leads to greater clarity and can help the learner to unravel their concern and find their voice.
Finally, summarizing, or bringing together the main points is effective in both confirming understanding, and in validating the learner - making them feel like they have been listened to.
Teacher: You are finding it difficult to make yourself understood and it is affecting your motivation to speak English. Is that right?
Through following these four strategies, it is possible to promote a deeper reflection from the learner, to get closer to the root of the problem, and to encourage the student to take greater control over deciding and taking the next step.
A deeper reflection occurs when the dialogue allows the advisee to explore their issue more deeply and to become more aware about their situation. Dialogue, as suggested in Figure 1, above, leads towards transformation in how the learner views learning. A pre-prepared piece of advice from the teacher would not encourage the learner to get started on the learning trajectory.
As well as developing the
learner’s autonomy, engaging in a
reflective dialogue enables the teacher to develop and to ultimately give more appropriate advice.
“Teachers have been successful in
learning a language but only in their
own way” (Cotterall & Crabbe,
2008), they need to understand other problems and techniques to aid other
learners. Cotterall and Crabbe suggest that the way to do this is to keep a record of dialogues with learners and store them in a database
in order to “enrich our understanding
of the range and nature of possible
problems and solutions” (2008). In
my own experience as an advisor, learners tend to respond well to suggestions backed up by sharing the successes and experiences of other learners.
Cases - Subsequent Meetings
In Hana’s second advising
session she brought along her vocabulary notebook, and seemed to be looking for some kind of teacherly reassurance. However, to encourage movement towards autonomy, she was asked how she felt about what she did, and the strategies restating and repeating were used in order to encourage her to reflect on what she had done and on the effectiveness of her study techniques. This has resulted in her being able to be more expressive in subsequent meetings, suggesting a greater awareness about her learning is developing.
94
In both cases, the strategies for reflective dialogue used in the sessions allow the learner to find and
develop their own voice. In Hana’s
case, she is beginning to form and express her feelings and beliefs about her learning for the first time. For
Maki, this is an opportunity to give validation to her voice and opinions. These strategies are valuable for promoting autonomy, however aware or autonomous the learner is to begin with.
Conclusion and Suggestion
In many language learning and teaching contexts, not enough time and space is given over to encouraging learners to reflect deeply on their learning. The predicament in many language education settings in Japan and elsewhere is that the short-term need to pass tests overrides the need for long-term personal development for university students. Engaging learners in reflective dialogue has the potential to foster autonomy, to build intrinsic motivation and encourage exploration of language beyond course constraints. Having a SALC and dedicated learning advisors is advantageous, but the four core
strategies for reflective dialogue can be adopted by teachers in any setting. I would encourage all language teachers to experiment with these strategies. Reflective dialogue aids learners of all levels, and is beneficial for anyone, however critical or aware of the learning process, and able to self-regulate.
In order to engage learners in reflective dialogue, the teacher should adopt the role of a facilitator (Brockbank, 2009), first building trust and empathy, then allowing the learner to develop their voice. Through continued dialogue over time, the teacher can accompany the student in their pursuit of autonomy.
References
Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and Researching Autonomy in Language Learning. Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Brockbank, A. (2009). The Role of Reflective Dialogue in Transformational Reflective Learning (doctoral dissertation). City University, CASS Business School, London, UK.
Cotterall, S., & Crabbe, D. (2008). Learners talking: From problem to solution. In T. Lamb & H. Reinders (Eds.) Learner and teacher autonomy: Concepts, realities and responses (pp. 125-140). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gorsky, P., Caspi, A., & Smidt, S. (2007). Use of instructional dialogue by university learners in a difficult distance education physics course. Journal of Distance Education, 21(3), 1-22.
Kato, S., & Mynard, J. (2016). Reflective dialogue: Advising in language learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
95
and foreign language learning: From theory to practice (pp. 31-49).
Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Yamashita, H. (2015). Affect and the development of learner autonomy through advising. Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 6(1), 62-85.
96
Domains of Political Metaphors in Presidential Speeches
Truly Almendo Pasaribu Sanata Dharma University [email protected]
Abstract
Speeches are products of human minds reflecting ideas and opinions of the speakers. Crystal (1987) mentions that the way people use language does not only give us information about their geographical, ethnic and social background, but it also reflects the type of context in which they are communicating. As an interesting feature of a language, metaphors in political speeches can be powerful and persuasive. This research aimed at finding the source domains of political metaphors in Joko Widodo’s speeches, namely: his victory speech and his inaugural speech. These speeches were chosen to be analyzed due to their distinct context and setting. To achieve the goal of the study, the paper explicated Lakoff and Johnson’s Contemporary Theory of Conceptual Metaphor (1980, 1992). The findings and discussion argue that the speeches use more positive metaphors of
“unity” rather than metaphors of “battle or competition”. Furthermore, the texts
also conceptualize Indonesian political realm as a journey and navigation, which give the audience a sense of progress. The maritime metaphors in particular are abundant in the two speeches because they reflect one of Widodo’s visions to strengthen Indonesian maritime.
Keywords: political metaphors, speeches, conceptual metaphors
Introduction
Speeches reflect how creative human minds can be in expressing ideas, intention and thoughts. A speech can be enterta
