INSTRUCTION
B. Specific Competencies
2) Specific competencies
Exploring specific competences as part of identifying learning need was done by asking students’ writing competence description and way to improve their writing skill. As seen in the findings, the writing competence of the students mostly on making simple sentences, and paragraph. Making essay, academic writing, and even creative writing were still being hard to do for them. This study indicates that the need to learn writing in English still need to be pressed in order to make them able to produce better writing in English.
In supporting it, the way in teaching writing should be upgraded by modifying the teaching method, supporting better teaching facilities, transforming the system of education, and many more. This is link to the statement of Pujianto et al (2014) who said that giving more attention to the role of teacher will support better writing activity. Here, they indicated that teachers are hoped to teach with appropriate approach which considered students’ need, time, and practice as well as consider technology integration to power their teaching.
Other item in questionnaire was about students’ strategies to improve their English writing skill. The result revealed that most students develop their writing in English using technology; such as Facebook, websites, YouTube, or blog. This is good starting point in acknowledging their technology literacy toward their learning. On the other hand, it seems this result not associate with their writing competence as shown in the previous finding. Their writing skill is still in the basic level; making simple sentence and paragraph. The gap between strategy in writing and writing competence of the students can be softened by forcing suited technology, pedagogy, content use toward teaching learning process in class (Mouza, 2003; Koehler & Mishra,2006).
3) Students’ learning preferences
In this session, the most preference learning style the students chose was using physical; learning by doing, using body to assist learning, e.g. drawing diagrams, using physical objects, or role playing, followed by using social, and visual. It is clearly revealed here that students like to learn English especially writing by exploring it by their selves. This is link with the principles of TPACK which explore much the concept of constructivism. Also Pritchard (2009) supported it by stated that the main point of learning is children learn.
On learning strategy and media item, students’ most favourite option went to learning by watching audio visual aids like YouTube, television, movies or other videos. They also like learning using web 2.0 technologies, such as YouTube, wiki, podcast, blog. The findings here pointed out using interesting media and technology like audio visual aids or web 2.0 technologies in learning can propose students to have high motive to learn. This finding is consistent with findings of past studies by
Berk (2009), T. Jones & Cuthrell (2011), Alhamami (2013), Godwin Jones (2007) which evidently prove the use of attention-grabbing strategy and media can offer prospective learning contribution in classroom.
Conclusion
Regarding above discussion on researching students’ need in learning writing English, it can be drawn a conclusion from previous findings that learning preference the students opted was using technology in class such as websites for learning, YouTube (audio visuals aids) or other technology tools, using various media and various techniques. There was minor option choosing traditional classroom, but mostly selecting modern classroom involving technology in it. Therefore, it can be concluded that students learning need in writing course is in need of technology touching to all aspect of their learning. They admitted they still enjoy tradition form of teaching but will be more enthusiastic in learning with technology assistance in it.
Bibliography
Alhamami, M. (2013). Observation of YouTube language learning videos (YouTube LLVS). Teaching English with Technology, 13(3), 3-17.
Retrieved from http://www.tewtjournal.org/.
Altun, T., & Akyıldız, S. (2017). Investigating Student Teachers ’ Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge ( Tpack ) Levels.
European Journal of Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.5281/
zenodo.555996
Berk, R. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning.
Bernardini, S. (2016). Discovery learning in the language-for-translation classroom: corpora as learning aids. Cadernos de Tradução, 36(1), 14. https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-7968.2016v36nesp1p14
Bruner, J. (1961). The Act of Discovery. In Harvard Educational Review.
Bruner S., J. (1961). The act of discovery. In Harvard Educational Review.
Cahyani, I., & Yulindaria, L. (2018). the Effectiveness of Discovery Learning Model in Improving Students. Fiction Writing.
Indonesian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 1(1). https://
doi.org/10.25134/ijli.v1i1.1281
Champine, S. L., Duffy, S. M., & Perkins, J. R. (2009). Jerome S . Bruner‘s Discovery Learning Model as the Theoretical Basis of Light Bounces Lesson. Educational Psychologist.
Heinich, R., Molenda, M., Russell, J., & Smaldino, S. (2012). Instructional Media and Technology for Learning. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ARABJC.2011.11.008
Janssen, F. J. J. M., Westbroek, H. B., & van Driel, J. H. (2014). How to make guided discovery learning practical for student teachers.
Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013- 9296-z
Jones, R. H. (2014). Digital literacies for language teachers: Beyond competencies. Recent Issues in English Language Education:
Challenges and Directions.
Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational potentials and pitfalls. Computers in the Schools. https://doi.org/10.1080/073 80569.2011.553149
Juhaeni, Jazilah, N., Isnaini, L. Z., & Khoiru Fadilah, H. R. (2020).
Grammar Translation Method and Discovery Learning to Learn Tenses: Which is Better for Indonesian Students? 434(Iconelt 2019), 299–303. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.200427.060 Kemendikbud. (2012). Model pembelajaran penemuan (discovery
Learning). Jurnal Model Pembelajaran Discovery Learning.
Khan, S. H. (2014). A model for integrating ICT into teacher training programs in Bangladesh based on TPCK Shahadat Hossain Khan University of Sydney , Australia. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology, 10(3), 21–31.
Kusumawardhani, A. D., Mulya, D., & Faizah, A. (2019). Empowering Students’ Creativity and Critical Thinking through Discovery Learning-based Writing Assessment. Linguists: Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching, 5(1), 1. https://doi.
org/10.29300/ling.v5i1.1913
Machmud, K. (2011). The Integration of Technology in a Decentralized Curriculum Setting: The Case of English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Instruction in Gorontalo, Indonesia. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
Pritchard, A. (2009). Ways of learning : learning theories and learning styles in the classroom. In European Journal of Teacher Education.
Pujianto, D., Emilia, E., & Sudarsono, M. I. (2014). A process-genre approach to teaching writing report text to senior high school students. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.
org/10.17509/ijal.v4i1.603
Riandari, F., Susanti, R., & Suratmi. (2018). The influence of discovery learning model application to the higher order thinking skills student of Srijaya Negara Senior High School Palembang on the animal kingdom subject matter. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1022/1/012055 Singaravelu, G. (2012). Discovery Learning Strategies In English.
I-Manager’s Journal on English Language Teaching, 2(1), 57–62.
https://doi.org/10.26634/jelt.2.1.1620
Smaldino, S. E., Lowther, D. L., & Russell, J. D. (2012). The ASSURE Model. In Instructional Technology and Media for Learning.
Svinicki, M. D. (1998). A theoretical foundation for discovery learning.
In The American journal of physiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/
advances.1998.275.6.s4
CHAPTER III