collaborative learning in benchmarking … · pertama ialah mengenai dinamika grup belajar para...
TRANSCRIPT
i
COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN BENCHMARKING
PREPARATION CLASS TO PROMOTE ENGLISH
LEARNING FOR ADULT LEARNERS
A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS
Presented as a Fulfillment of the Requirements
to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
in English Language Education
By:
Paulina Rian Kunthi Kusumadewi
Student Number: 131214153
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION
FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2017
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
iv
DEDICATION PAGE
“I will never let my fear decide my future.
So, I will give my best before going back
‘home’.”
- Paulina Rian -
To infinity and beyond
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
vii
ABSTRACT
Kusumadewi, Paulina Rian Kunthi. (2017). Collaborative Learning in
Benchmarking Preparation Class to Promote English Learning for Adult Learners.
Yogyakarta: English Language Educations Study Program, Sanata Dharma
University.
Younger students are generally seen to learn a foreign language much more
easily. On the contrary, older people are known to have more difficulties to learn a
foreign language. Adults seem to have less capability to memorize words in detail
and acquire native-like pronunciation skills.
This study reports an investigation of a benchmarking preparation class. The
benchmarking preparation program was designed to prepare a select group of
Kanisius school leaders to visit schools in neighboring countries. This program was
intended to equip the participants with communication skills. Therefore, the school
leaders were assigned as a group to Sanata Dharma to learn English. Given the fact
that the participants are above forty years of age, particular learning strategies that
were relevant to them were an urgent need to develop. Transformative learning
theory (Mezirow, 1996) suggests that learning facilitation for adults necessitates
two major requirements, namely reduced level of stress and ample opportunities for
self-expression. This study investigates individual roles in the group learning.
There are two formulated questions in this study, namely (a) how does the
learning dynamics take place in school leaders’ group learning? (b) to what extent
does the individual’s growth mindset promote learning in the group? This study
employed phenomenology to reveal participants’ learning experience in the English
course. Five school leaders, who were involved in the English course which lasted
for three months, were research participants. Data gathering was done through
observation, interviews, and Focus Group Discussion.
Two research findings were found. First, the dynamics in benchmarking
preparation class was described in general description and detailed flows. The
general description included material, media, method, classroom language,
classroom setting in adult learning. Meanwhile, the flows were drawn into opening,
main and closing by stating learning purpose, casual talk, individual performance,
discussion, feedback, and confirmation. Second, individual’s growth mindset was
found promoting learning in terms of vocabulary recall and time management as
well as achieving the improvement of the school leaders during learning including
knowledge, skill, and attitude. Finally, both facilitators’ and participants’ roles
matter in the learning by having social interaction and high expectation in group so
that each member involved and contributed.
Keywords: adult learner, collaborative learning, growth mindset, benchmarking
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
viii
ABSTRAK
Kusumadewi, Paulina Rian Kunthi. (2017). Collaborative Learning to Promote
English Learning for Adult Learners. Yogyakarta: English Language Educations
Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.
Pelajar muda cenderung dapat mempelajari bahasa asing dengan lebih
mudah dibandingkan dengan kaum dewasa. Kaum dewasa memiliki kesulitan
dalam mengingat suatu kata. Disisi lain pelafalan bahasa asing yang mendekati
pelafalan target bahasa juga lebih sukar bagi kaum dewasa dibandingkan dengan
kaum muda.
Penelitian ini menyajikan investigasi dari Benchmarking Preparation
Class. Progam ini dirancang untuk memfasilitasi partisipan dengan kemampuan
komunikasi yang baik dalam bahasa inggris. Yayasan Kanisius Yogyakarta menjadi
salah satu contohnya, dimana para kepala sekolah terpilih mengikuti kursus
pelatihan bahasa inggris di Sanata Dharma dalam rangka studi banding ke beberapa
negara. Kebutuhan akan penguasaan bahasa inggris sebagai penghubung antar
bahasa menjadi sangat penting. Fakta bahwa usia partisipan diatas empat puluh
tahun, maka strategi belajar merupakan hal yang penting. Oleh karena itu,
penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat peran individu dalam kelompok belajar.
Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah yang
pertama ialah mengenai dinamika grup belajar para kepala sekolah dalam kelas
persiapan studi banding. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah mengenai peran pola
pikir bertumbuh individu dalam mempromosikan pembelajaran dalam grup. Oleh
karena itu, penelitain ini diadakan menggunakan metode fenomenologi. Hal ini
dimaksudkan dengan tujuan menyajikan pengalaman belajar dari tiap individu
dalam menjawab pertanyaan penelitian.
Peneliti menemukan dua poin inti sebagai hasil dari penelitian ini. Pertama,
dinamika di Benchmarking Preparation Class dideskripsikan secara umum dan alur
detail. Deskripsi secara umum meliputi materi, media, metode, bahasa, dan
pengaturan tata ruang dalam pembelajaran kaum dewasa tersebut. Penyampaian
tujuan belajar, diskusi informal, performa individu, diskusi, dan umpan balik
merupakan alur yang dapat dikategorikan menjadi bagian pembuka, inti, dan
penutup kegiatan belajar. Kedua, pola pikir bertumbuh individu mempromosikan
pembelajaran dalam hal penguasaan kosakata dan manajemen waktu. Hal tersebut
juga membantu meningkatkan pengetahuan, keterampilan, dan sikap belajar
partisipan. Akhirnya, baik peran fasilitator maupun partisipan berpengaruh dalam
pembelajaran yang tersaji melalui interaksi dan pengharapan yang tinggi sehingga
memungkinkan tiap partisipan terlibat dan berkontribusi dalam pembelajaran.
Keywords: adult learner, collaborative learning, growth mindset, benchmarking
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
ix
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to devote my deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and
Mother Mary for all of the blessings through my ups and downs, especially until
the time I completed my thesis.
Then, I am really grateful to have my best support systems in my life. I
would like to thank Valentina Rina Hernani, my best mom in the world, for her
endless love and prayer, my dad Basuki Anwarsito and my brother Rafael Bayu
Chandrajati who have accompanied me with love and laughter.
I am wholeheartedly thankful to my thesis advisor, Bapak Markus
Budiraharjo, M.Ed.,Ed.D. for his help and trust. He lets me give my best efforts.
This was one of my best way in learning and growing as a person.
I also send my sincere gratitude to Bapak Krisna Septa Bernanda, S.Pd.,
for his suggestion and willingness to be my thesis proofreader. I would not forget
to express my gratitude for my senior, Mbak Martha Yuli Krismaheryanti, S.Pd.,
Mbak Anchieta Avi, S.Pd., Mbak Anthonia Jessy, S.Pd., Mas Putra
Wiranggelang, S.Pd, for their sharing and suggestion.
I would like to express my thanks to my awesome partners, Engky, Mas
Alfina, Gincu, Rilai, Nerai, Squizy, Aas, Marcel and Mas Ardhian Listyarian,
whose presence and support were really meaningful to me. My heartedly thanks
also referred to my senior high school mates, Ipen, Etik, Onci, Mbi Ria, Dinty,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
x
Opel, and Caty. My sincere gratitude also goes to Stanis Mahendra Satyawan
for his indescribable caring.
Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone whose name I cannot
mention one by one here for giving me support during my hard times.
Paulina Rian Kunthi Kusumadewi
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
COVER PAGE ................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................... ii
DEDICATION PAGE ........................................................................................ iv
STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY .................................................. v
PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI .............................................. vi
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... vii
ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................... viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... xi
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xiii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiv
LIST OF APPENDICIES ................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Research Background ................................................................. 1
1.2. Research Questions..................................................................... 4
1.3. Research Significance ................................................................. 4
1.4. Definition of Terms .................................................................... 5
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Theoretical Description .............................................................. 7
2.1.1. Adult Learning .................................................................... 7
2.1.2. Theory about Mindset ......................................................... 10
2.1.3. Collaborative Learning ....................................................... 11
2.1.4. Legitimate Peripheral Participation .................................... 16
2.2. Theoretical Framework ............................................................... 17
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Research Method ........................................................................ 20
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xii
3.2. Research Setting ......................................................................... 21
3.3. Research Participants .................................................................. 22
3.4. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique ................................. 23
3.5. Data Analysis Technique ............................................................ 25
CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Learning Dynamics ..................................................................... 28
4.1.1. General Description ........................................................... 28
4.1.2. Learning Dynamics during Learning ................................. 31
4.2. Individual Growth Mindset Promotes Learning in Group.......... 37
4.2.1. Facing Difficulties ............................................................. 37
4.2.1.1. Difficulties during Learning ....................................... 38
4.2.1.2. Effort in Facing Difficulties ....................................... 40
4.2.2. The Participants’ Improvement ......................................... 44
4.2.2.1. Facilitators’ Role ........................................................ 47
4.2.2.2. Participants’ Role ....................................................... 50
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusions ................................................................................ 53
5.2. Recommendations ...................................................................... 56
REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 57
APPENDICIES .................................................................................................. 60
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiii
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
2.1. Characteristic of Collaborative vs Traditional Learning ............................. 14
3.1. Observation Sheet ....................................................................................... 23
4.1. Casual Conversation and Understanding Confirmation .............................. 29
4.2. Knowledge Improvement ............................................................................ 45
4.3. Skill Improvement ....................................................................................... 45
4.4. Attitude Improvement ................................................................................. 46
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xiv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures
Page
2.1. Transformative Learning Phases Theoretical Framework Chart ................ 9
2.2. Theoretical Framework Chart ..................................................................... 19
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
xv
LIST OF APENDICES
Page
Appendix 1. Observation Sheet Sample............................................................. 61
Appendix 2. Interview Guide ............................................................................. 65
Appendix 3. Focus Group Discussion Guide ..................................................... 67
Appendix 4. Coding of Facilitators Interview ................................................... 69
Appendix 5. Coding of Participants FGD .......................................................... 73
Appendix 6. Mindset Mini Survey ..................................................................... 78
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of background of the study, problem formulations,
research significance and definition of terms. The background of the study
elaborates the topic and gives reasons of why the topic is worth studying. The
problem formulation presents research questions that guide this study. The research
significance provides contribution of this research towards some areas of
development. The last one is definition of terms, in which the researcher specifically
explains the key terms used in this research.
1.1. Research Background
A school leader as the head of the school is expected to have a capacity to
build relations with related parties in order to develop their institution. To develop
school principals’ capacities in school development, school leaders of Kanisius
Elementary Schools, who mostly have limited English proficiency, were assigned
to conduct benchmarking activities to neighboring countries, where English is used
as a medium of communication. They were expected to visit exemplary schools in
Singapore and the Philippines. The benchmarking activities are believed to expand
the knowledge of the school leaders, which in turn is expected to stimulate
innovative thinking and entrepreneurial capacities among them. Therefore, they are
expected to be comfortable to communicate in English with foreigners.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2
The Director of the Kanisius Foundation of Yogyakarta Branch decided to
send a select group of Kanisius schools leaders to attend an English course at Sanata
Dharma University for three months (September to November 2016). The course
was benchmarking preparation class which intended to equip the school leaders
with basic English communicative skills. However, the learning process turned out
to be challenging experience for the participants for three major reasons.
First, in terms of English mastery, the Kanisius school leaders were not well-
trained in English. In their schools, they mostly speak Indonesian. Moreover, the
structures between Indonesian and English language are different. Indonesian as the
source language has no tenses in the language, whereas English as the target
language does (Setiyadi, 2006, p.23). It is inferred that Bahasa Indonesia, which
does not have any tenses, is structurally different to English language which is
affected by tenses in sentence formations.
Second, Kanisius school leaders, as many common adult learners, have less
time to practice English in their daily lives. School leaders have both internal and
external responsibilities in managing their school. Therefore, their time availability
to learn English is limited and centralized on the meetings. It is not surprising that
English is difficult for them.
Third, Kanisius school leaders were appointed as school principals for their
outstanding service, not their academic excellence. Education in elementary schools
situates both teachers and the principal to focus on character development, not the
academic pursuits. Meanwhile, English learning requires a different approach to
learning. Transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1995) suggests that learning
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
3
facilitation for adults necessitates two major requirements. Those are reducing level
of stress and giving opportunities for self-expression. This serves as a big gap
between what school principals have in their daily businesses and the academic
pursuit in English learning.
Besides, the participants in benchmarking preparation class come from
different backgrounds and difficulties in learning English. Nevertheless, drawing
from the power of personal theories, Dweck (2006) finds the importance of
believing in the growth potentials of self in learning. Individuals having fixed-
mindset are more likely to give up easily since they see a failure or success is a gift.
On the contrary, students having growth mindset are more likely to persevere and
persist in their efforts no matter how hard the challenges are. The growth mindset
refers to seeing the success which is gained by having effort not only talent (Dweck,
2006).
This study is going to describe the dynamics and the experiences of each
individual in the learning. It intends to reveal the descriptive accounts of each
individual learning experiences. The indicators of the improvements in learning
include knowledge, skills, and attitude towards English learning. Moreover, the
work of mindset is focused on the dynamic of group learning. In short, the power
of individual contribution including facilitators and participants in group is also
emphasized to draw the essence of the learning to understand and design more
meaningful learning experiences for adult learners.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
4
1.2. Research Questions
Considering these explanations, the researcher formulated two research
questions in this study:
1. How does the dynamics take place in school leaders’ group learning?
2. To what extent does the individual’s growth mindset promote learning in
the group?
1.3. Research Significance
The present study is a practical one. It describes the experience of school
leaders as a group of learners that undergoes a learning process together.
1.3.1. English Trainers
This research helps English trainers who are in charges of adult learners, to
increase the awareness of adult learning in guiding the learner. The helps are by
providing appropriate dynamics of the class that are relevant to adult learning
principles, including instructional methods, techniques, materials, media, activities
and interaction among the group learning. Moreover, the capacity, problems, and
strategies are described that can take into account toward adult learning experience.
1.3.2. Adult learners
The results of the study were presented with the description of the dynamics
of the class including activity and instrument that support learning especially
collaborative learning. The problem is also derived from participants from a
beginner level of English group learning. Thus, it will be useful for the learner to
set themselves in collaborative way in group learning.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
5
1.3.3. Future researcher
This study is expected to help future researchers to examine related fields
using similar learning dynamics to promote group learning among adults.
1.4. Definition of Terms
There are several terms in this topic that need to be defined in order to avoid
misunderstanding.
1.4.1. Adult learners
Adult learners in this study are Kanisius school leaders in benchmarking
preparation class. Their ages range between 41-49 years old. Forrest and Peterson
(2006) further states “adults are those individuals who have taken on adult roles in
society, whether they are the 16-year-old mother or the 87-year-old retiree” (p.
114). Moreover, Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) define meaning of adult by
distinguishing psychological and social role of adults from children. Adult is an
individual who is expected primary social role as worker, spouse, or parent and has
left the primary role of a full-time students.
Participants’ position as school leaders in their school is not only managing
systems and leading people but also dealing with technical job in school, since most
of them are not in charge to teach many classes. Writing a mail, delivering the mail,
managing files, and setting a room for a meeting are examples of the technical job
mentioned. Therefore, the school leaders are considered as adult learners in
benchmarking class due to their role in society.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
6
1.4.2. Growth mindset
Based on Dweck (2006), mindset theory is divided into two types, fixed
mindset and growth mindset. However, based on a mini survey of categorizing
mindset that derived from growth mindset’s criteria, all the participants are believed
to have growth mindset. Moreover, in this context, the growth mindset means the
level at which each individual is able to sustain in order to achieve targets or face
difficulties.
1.4.3. Benchmarking preparation class
Benchmarking preparation class is a program which is initiated under
Kanisius Elementary School Foundation. The program is designed for overseas
program in 2017. The fellow countries are Singapore and Philippines. The program
is aimed to help selected school leaders to be able to communicate in English.
Furthermore, two lecturers from Sanata Dharma present as the facilitators of the
group learning for twenty meetings.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
7
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, the researcher provides related literature that is served as the
basic theory to answer the research questions. There are two major discussions in
this chapter. Those are theoretical description and theoretical framework.
2.1. Theoretical Descriptions
This part presents some relevant theories that are going to be used as guides
and references in conducting the research. Those are theories on transformative
learning, mindset, collaborative learning, and legitimate peripheral participation.
2.1.1. Transformative Learning Theory
Transformative learning theory is grounded in the nature of human
communication. The emphasis of this theory is the process of learning. The process
then is further explained as “the process of using a prior interpretation to construe
a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide
future action” (Mezirow 1996, p. 162). Transformative learning explains about
learners’ expectation framed within cultural assumptions and presuppositions that
influence the meaning.
Advantages of transformative learning are the development of greater
autonomy as a person, a crucial condition of adulthood (Mezirow, 1996). The
autonomy is further discussed in an environment in which participants have full
information, are free from pressure, have equal opportunity to assume various roles,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
8
become critically reflective of assumption, are empathic and good listener, and are
willing to seek common ground or a synthesis of a different point of view.
Moreover, the transformative learning is also created through discussion and
exploration of concept relating through the experiences. The experience is
understood as learning which encounters a typical base in which every learner
develops significance through individual reflection and discussion.
Transformative learning is a model of adult learning where critical reflection
is based on learners’ prior experience. It often occurs in response to an awareness
of a contradiction among thoughts, feelings, and actions. These contradictions are
generally the result of distorted epistemic (nature and use of knowledge),
psychological (acting inconsistently from our self-concept), and sociolinguistic
(mechanisms by which society and language limit our perception) assumptions. In
essence, we realize something is not consistent with what we hold to be true and act
in relation to our world. Furthermore, reflection in transformative learning refers to
“the apperceptive process by which we change our minds, literally and figuratively.
It is the process of turning our attention to the justification for what we know, feel,
believe and act upon” (Mezirow 1995, p. 46).
Transformative learning reflects an outcome and a process of adult
development. A model of adult learning is provided by explaining the process of
how personal paradigm expand and evolve in adulthood perspective transformation.
Therefore, there are some phases in adult learning perspective based on Mezirow’s
study of national study of women returning to college who participated in an
academic reentry program after a long hiatus from school which involved in-depth
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
9
interviews of 83 women from 12 programs in Washington, California, New York,
and New Jersey. According to Mezirow (1995), there are ten phases in
transformative learning. Those are mentioned in the following figure.
Figure 2.1. Transformative Learning Phases
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
10
2.1.2. Theory about Mindset
Perspective on learning becomes basis for revealing experiences in learning.
Therefore, the definition and types of mindset needs to be define. Moreover, the
situation in which types of mindset are considered are provided.
2.1.2.1.Definition
Individuals rely on a system that organizes and controls information around
them. Mental framework that selectively processes the information which exists
around the individual is called mindset. These mental frameworks shape the
individual in viewing and behaving uniquely toward phenomena (Crum, Salovey,
and Anchor, 2013). Moreover, in terms of intelligence, a learner who has a mindset
whose intelligence can be changed, shows improvement in behavior and attitude,
compared with a learner with a fixed mindset (Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck,
2007).
2.1.2.2.Types of mindset
People with fixed mindset have a belief that their quality is unchanging
during their lifespan. When they see failure, they are consequently disengaged from
the task when they do mistake or struggle since they see failure as their absolute
lack of ability. Contrary to people having fixed mindset, people with growth
mindset believe that their basic quality is malleable as well as promoting effort and
learning. Individuals see that success relies mostly on the amount of effort, not just
derived from original talent (Dweck, 2006; Robin & Pals, 2002).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
11
According to Ames & Archer (1988), people’s mindset are partially due to
mindset of achievement goals. Furthermore, there are two different categories of
achievement goals that are defined by each concern. The first is long-term skill
development which the mastery is aimed based on effort. The second is depended
on the external outcomes like grade and teacher’s praise. Fixed mindset has low
intrinsic motivation, high anxiety, and low self-efficiency and learned helpless
(Elliot & Church, 1997). However, the effect might be different based on their
emotional.
An individual with growth mindset tends to have intrinsic motivation to ask
for help when it is needed and view mistakes and setback as part of the natural
learning process impacts toward experience in learning. As a result, when a
performance goal is accompanied by positive learning environment, they can show
greater persistence. On the other hand, negative situation will lead higher level of
anxiety, unwillingness to seek for help and disruptive classroom behavior.
Moreover, individual with performance based orientation might have outward
academic success when they do not find difficulties or upsetting. When they face
setback they will disengage and avoid the difficulties which prevent them
developing their ability and fall behind the time passes (Dweck, 2006).
2.1.3. Collaborative learning
The aim of this study is to find out individuals’ role in group learning.
Nevertheless, knowing the characteristics of collaborative learning is needed since
the description of the learning dynamics is provided. By knowing the characteristic
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
12
of the collaborative learning, the interaction between participants is easier to
describe with the situation of the learning. Finally, advantages of collaborative
learning are also important to emphasize the essence of benchmarking preparation
class.
2.1.3.1. Definition
Collaborative learning was described earlier by Dillenbourg (1999) as
“Situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something
together” (p.1). The number of people mentioned in the definition referred to a pair,
a small group that consists of three to five people, a class of 20-30 students, a
community of a few hundred or thousand people, or a society of several thousand
people. Therefore, collaborative learning is understood as learning in which more
than one person involved is called collaborative learning. Furthermore, two
perspectives in collaborative learning are provided to deepen views about
collaborative learning in learning language.
First, Vygotsky (1978) based on paradigm on collaborative learning, claims
that not only by working with more knowledgeable person but also by learning from
his or her environment that supports individual’s development. Collaboration
means where social interaction occurs as the learning process. Furthermore, the
social interaction between students and teacher or among students provides Zone
Proximal Development as to assist the students in advancing their skill. Zone
Proximal Development (ZPD) is “the distance between actual developmental level
as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
13
development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky 1978, p. 86).
Based on the definition above, human development is divided into two
levels; actual development and potential level. Actual development refers to
already-attained mental function. ZPD functions as completing learner’s
understanding and building learner’s existing abilities. It will work without help
from others. In contrast, potential level means the function in which individual is
not able to perform individually. The more individual works with more capable
peers, the more potential development level is increased. Since individual can work
more if he is assisted by the existent of others, learning process cannot be seen from
individual’s perspective only. Thus, ZPD and valuable role in language learning.
Second, collaborative learning is also seen from Second Language
Acquisition (SLA) perspective which focused on improving linguistic competence.
Moreover, the learning situation provides situation where the learner is able to get
the input where they can understand by listening or reading and performing the
output through speaking. The development of the second language is based on the
amount of comprehensible language input. Besides, the output means student’s
ability to reconfirm what they learn. This stage helps the students to restructure their
interlanguage grammar (Swain, 2000).
Furthermore, the negotiation among participants provides chance for students to
seek information and clarification (Stroch, 2007). Negotiation in meaning by
exchanging ideas during collaborative learning enables the students able to receive
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
14
input and produce output as the process in learning. Therefore, comprehension
confirmation is available during the process.
2.1.3.2. Characteristics and Advantages of Collaborative Learning
As mentioned in the perspectives of collaborative learning, the collaborative
learning allows interaction among members. However, it includes more than a
person in learning. Therefore, some aspects in collaborative learning needs to be
considered. Since learning in a group is also possible to be conducted in a traditional
classroom, then the differences between collaborative and traditional setting need
to be set out.
Table 2.1. Characteristic of Collaborative vs Traditional Learning (Adapted from
Zang (2010))
Characteristics Collaborative Traditional
Goal Structure collaborative competitive or individual
Role of Students active participation,
autonomous learners
passive recipient
Role of Teachers
facilitator, guide controller, knowledge
transmitter, major source of
assistance
Material Used
materials are arranged
according to the purpose of
learning
completed set of materials
assigned by university
Type of Activities
various type of activities to
engage learners in a shared
learning community
knowledge recall and review,
language drill practice
type of interaction intense student – student
interaction
some talking among students,
mainly teacher – students type
Classroom
Physical Set-Up
U-shaped or CL groups traditional rows of separate desk
Teacher-Students
Relationship
collaborative and equal superior – inferior, or equal
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
15
Characteristics Collaborative Traditional
Interdependence none or negative Positive
Learning
Expectations
group success as well as
individual’s
evaluating one’s own progress in
learning
Collaborative learning allows discussion between participant in order to
strengthen and improve individual’s ability. The involvement among participant
during the activity provides some improvements toward the students’ quality in
learning a language, especially in speaking. As it is stated by Kagan (1994), there
are four main elements that are set as the characteristics of collaborative learning.
Those are simultaneous interaction, positive interdependence, individual
accountability, and equal participations. Therefore, list of advantages using
collaborative learning needs to be listed.
In order to actualize individual’s performance in speaking opportunity to
perform, the language should be presented. Long and Porter (1985); DiNitto (2000)
claim that students’ low achievement in second language acquisition is simply
because of the limited time which means no time to practice the language.
Collaborative learning helps to increase individual language practice time by
arranging students in small groups when more time can be allocated and more
involvement in form of conversation can be directed.
Different from the traditional classroom where the discourse is in form of
artificial setting, collaborative learning creates a social setting in the way that
language is used. It helps the students not only about the quantity but also the quality
of language used by engaging them in requesting, clarifying, and negotiating
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
16
conversations during collaborative learning. In addition, in collaborative learning,
the learners have to make themselves understood. (Long & Porter 1985). Therefore,
they need to ensure that their pairs comprehend the ideas. Moreover, this
encourages the learners to speak more accurately with appropriate language
opportunities. Thus, collaborative learning talks provides more opportunities for the
learners to produce language in a functional manner.
Using language in public is unsupportive and stressful (DiNitto 2000). It
seems having that kind of situation makes the learner feel insecure when they make
mistake or get harsh response like criticism or rejection (Brown 1994). Moreover,
according to Jiang (2009), lack of self-confidence will affect learning. However,
collaborative learning accommodates the relation between members by having a
group interaction which more comfortable and safe environment. The negotiation
of meanings are formed in the collaborative learning activity and therefore learners’
understanding is reshaped.
2.1.4. Legitimate Peripheral Participation
Legitimate Peripheral Participation is a situated learning where community
of practice encompasses learning as a part of ongoing relationship between
individual and social context (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Community of practice is
built by having interaction among members which make the discussion alive.
Therefore, learning is seen as social participation. The natural of social context
impacts significantly on the process of participation of the community and learning.
Legitimate Peripheral Participation in communities of practice includes the
relation between the master and the newcomers of the group. The apprentices
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
17
reportedly withhold advice and instruction appropriate to later stages, hold back and
wait until the newcomer becomes “ready” through increasing participation in the
community.
Moreover, the practice of community learning provides potential curriculum
in the broadest sense. Furthermore, this may be learned by the newcomer. As a
result, the structures of legitimacy in learning is advanced to develop a view of what
whole enterprise of the group is about. Therefore, the structure in legitimate
peripheral learning can be concluded as “acceptance and interaction with
acknowledged and adept practitioners in legitimate peripheral learning which make
learning legitimate from the point of view of the apprentice” (Lave & Wenger,
1991, pp. 91-95). Thus, the period of legitimate participation invites newcomers to
participate in a community of practitioners as well as in productive activity.
2.2. Theoretical Framework
Adult learners have experiences in terms of the use of language. However,
adult learners’ prior experience and knowledge about language are believed to both
support and disrupt the learning. According to Marriam and Caffarella (1999),
biological changes take place as individuals age, and it has been shown that memory
decreases with age. On the contrary, one’s ability to perform a cognitive task
independently is premised from social and cultural activities that form social
experience (Oxford, 1997). The school leaders in the benchmarking preparation
class are learning group. Therefore, a theory that presents adult learning with
discussion is needed. As a result, a theory about adult learning needs to be defined
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
18
as in transformative learning theory that affords the process in adult learning as well
as adults’ prior experiences. Moreover, the study only discusses descriptions of
transformative learning that include prior knowledge and experience as a part of
learning in adult learning.
Each school leader in the benchmarking preparation class has potential to be
considered as an individual with growth mindset. The theory of mindset categorizes
the type of mindset in several conditions. The condition in the theory includes
failure, achievement, and motivation. However, this study focuses on failure and
achievement as appeared on the dynamics of learning. Furthermore, the theory
describes the characteristics of mindset that strengthen some phenomena by giving
a clear picture of each individual mindset as a response to the learning dynamics.
Collaborative learning theory refers to learning in a group that includes
discussion activity. In benchmarking preparation class, the discussion activity is
used which makes the interaction among participants possible. Collaborative
learning theory is also used for describing what group learning of the benchmarking
preparation class is. Moreover, this phenomenology study sees phenomena from
many perspectives which need to be more elaborated with opportunities in
collaborative learning. Therefore, the essence of learning is not only able to be
described but also able to be further explained from the theory.
Levels of English mastery among participants in benchmarking preparation
are various. Therefore, the role of each participant is seen from their level of English
mastery. Legitimate Peripheral Participations describes the interaction in which the
more knowledgeable learners and newcomers learn together. Moreover, the theory
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
19
also explains what makes it possible for learning. Finally, interaction in the learning
dynamics needs to be explained since the unique of this study is to see the individual
contribution in the group.
The first research question focuses on the dynamics of the learning.
Therefore, the answer of the result was provided in form of description. To confirm
the characteristic of the learning, two theories are used. Those are transformative
learning theory and collaborative learning. In the second research question, the
researcher only focuses on phenomena in the benchmarking preparation class that
appear in the observation data and are approved by the data that derive from the
interview and focus group discussion to reduce researcher’s subjectivity. Therefore,
the study only focuses on the individual growth mindset towards the difficulties and
improvement during the process. As a result, the researcher needs to elaborate the
analysis with growth mindset, collaborative learning, and legitimate peripheral
participation theories. The flows of the analysis are drawn as follows.
Figure 2.2. Theoretical framework flow chart
Research question
1
Transformative
Learning Theory Collaborative
Learning to
Promote English
Learning for
Adult Learners
Collaborative
learning Research question
2
Growth mindset
Legitimate
Peripheral
Learning
Collaborative
learning
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
20
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research Methodology which covers research method, research setting,
research subject, instrument and data gathering techniques, and data analysis
technique in this chapter is presented as a mean to answer the research questions.
3.1. Research Method
The study was conducted in descriptive qualitative to answer the two
research questions. The basic of qualitative research is underlying qualitative
method and not dealing with numerical data (Brown & Roger, 2002). The aims of
using qualitative method are to get the holistic depiction and in-depth understanding
rather than numerical data analysis. To be exact, this research is phenomenology
research. “Phenomenology focuses on describing what all participants have in
common as they experience a phenomenon.” (Moustakas, 1994). Finally, the
method of this study was phenomenology because the study examines each
individual’s learning experience of phenomena in the benchmarking preparation.
The phenomenology method sets researcher’s epoche or bracket in gathering
the data. Furthermore, the epoche is understood as a thing that cannot be known in
advance without internal reflection and meaning. After setting the epoch, reduction
process is needed. Reduction means the process of describing things as what is seen
by relating the phenomenon and self. This means that the researcher sets aside her
own experiences and expectations in order to get fresh perspectives on the learning
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
21
dynamics. Finally, the valid indicators of phenomenological research were first
person’s life experience (Moustakas, 1994).
Noting down the conversation gave time for the researcher to put aside any
expectation and assumption so that the experience and essence could be discovered.
Therefore, observation was conducted before interview and focus group discussion
in order to reveal phenomena and reduce subjective intervention. Furthermore, the
data from observation were used for seeking confirmation and further information
in interview and focus group discussion.
3.2.Research Setting
Data gathering was done using three instruments; observation, interview,
and focus group discussion. The process of gathering the data was taken from
September until December 2016. The observation started on 24th September 2016
until 19th November 2016. The researcher observed the learning process every
Saturday, from 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. at LPM meeting room in Sanata Dharma
University. In this research, the researcher fully joined as part of the participants in
the observations.
Furthermore, to confirm the observation data, the researcher held focus
group discussion and interview. The FGD held among the participants was held on
December 7th, 2016 at Kanisius Wirobrajan Yogyakarta. There were four
participants attending and sharing their feelings and experiences of the learning
process. Meanwhile, in–depth interviews with MM and MP as the facilitators were
conducted on 23rd November 2016 and 11th December 2016. Finally, the verbatim
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
22
transcription and coding data of the interview and FGD were done within December
2016 until February 2017.
3.3.Research Participants
This study was designed to see the phenomena in the benchmarking
preparation class from related persons including facilitators and participants who
were included in the learning process. The participants of the research consisted of
five school leaders who were in their productive ages and were considered as adult
learners. The range of the ages was around 41-49. The participants had a slight
different level in English mastery. However, the participants were still categorized
in the beginner level. In addition, the participants had similar type of job and goal
in learning English language. They were the representatives of each Kanisius
elementary school in Yogyakarta who prepared for international visits. The school
leaders were expected to be equipped with speaking skill for benchmarking
program. Therefore, they were assigned to study in Sanata Dharma.
As for facilitating the learning, two lecturers who were competent in English
language teaching from Sanata Dharma were assigned to guide the school leaders.
The facilitators’ competences were shown by prior experiences in teaching adult
learners. According to Welman and Krunger (1999), conducting phenomenology
research is taking social and psychological understanding from people involved in
the phenomenon. Therefore, facilitators were also included as research participants
of this study for completing the result.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
23
3.4.Instrument and Data Gathering Technique
Phenomenological research needs instrument that helped describing the
phenomena and reducing subjectivity. In this study, observation, interview, and
focus group discussion were the three instruments which functioned as the bracket
and confirmation of data. According to Sadala and Adorno (2001), bracket in
phenomenological study refers to researcher’s personal views or preconception.
1. Observation
Observation was done by noting down conversations in class and
participants’ activities in 5 meetings. The researcher’s role during the observation
was classified as observer as participants. In other words, researcher’s presence was
identified there. Moreover, the researcher may also interact with the participants in
order to establish the data (Ary, Jacobs, and Soransen, 2010). The details were
provided in order to make meaning in the learning process and to catch the
description of the learning. Furthermore, the activities that were observed were
taken during the two hours of meeting for every scheduled week. The researcher
divided the observation note into two columns.
Table 3.1. Observation Sheet
Observation Researcher’s view
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
24
The first column was for writing down all conversation in class. In the
second column, the researcher focused on noting down the interpretation during the
class that accommodated both interaction in group and individuals. Furthermore,
the observation table provided conversation between participants and the
facilitators in order to see the detail dynamics and reduce bias towards researcher’s
view. In addition, this instrument was used in order to bracket researcher’s own
experience.
2. Interview
Besides, the researcher also gathered the data using an in-depth interview
with the facilitators. The type of interview is interview guide approach. The
interviewer has an outline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the
wording and order of the questions to some extent (Patton, 1990). The questions
were about (1) the background of this program, (2) the expected goal of the group,
(3) method and technique for teaching the group, and (4) the view towards dynamics
of the class. In this data gathering, note and recording were used as the tools in
conducting the interview.
3. Focus Group Discussion
The third data gathering was done by conducting a focus group discussion
(FGD) among the participants. Focus group discussion is defined as a research
technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the
researcher (Morgan, 1996). During the data gathering process, the FGD was
conducted both in formal and in informal occasion. The informal FGD was held
when the researcher had lunch with the participants. The data from the informal
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
25
discussion was written in the observation notes. The informal FGD started with a
simple conversation led by the researcher about their feeling towards the learning
experience. This was done as to confirm the phenomena that were related with the
feeling at that moment.
In formal focus group discussion, main points that were raised in the
discussion had been shared with the participants before. This technique was
designed to minimize bias by giving a spontaneous answer in the discussion. The
points that were discussed in FGD included four major points; (1) experience and
feeling towards the benchmarking preparation class (2) dynamics and improvement
during the process (3) difficulties in learning English in the benchmarking
preparation class (4) background of the participants.
3.5. Data Analysis Technique
Different from a narrative analysis that presents general template in the
qualitative research, a phenomenology research needs explication process as the
way to transforming the data through interpretation. Phenomenological data
analysis was done in several phases based on Hycner (1999): (1) bracketing
researcher own experiences (2) delineating units of meaning (3) clustering data into
themes (4) summarizing interview (5) extracting general and unique themes.
First, the researcher conducted the observation. The researcher divided the
observation table into 2 sections. Those were the dynamics captured by the
researcher and observer’s view. The observation sheets include the dynamics
between a participant to participants, a participant to the lecturers, a participant to
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
26
the researcher. The observation helped the researcher set aside her own experience
in order to get fresh observation results.
Second, the data on the observation was read. Then, some phenomena
appeared on the observation were listed. Furthermore, the listed phenomena were
brought into interview and FGD section to confirming meaning of the phenomena.
However, the confirmation meaning from observation was aimed not to direct the
discussion in the FGD and interview but it was aimed to provide general themes
about experiences and values during benchmarking preparation class.
Third, the researcher conducted interview and FGD to strengthen as well as
to form the data. The FGD and interviews referred to the lecturers and school
leaders who were involved in the program from the beginning until the end of the
benchmarking preparation class. Lastly, the researcher gathered the data from the
participants after the last meeting, thus they had been familiar with the presence of
the researcher. In the focus group discussion, the lecturers were not involved.
Therefore, the participants could express their feeling and view on the facilitators.
As a result, bias in expressing their idea during the FGD due to other parties’
presence could be minimized.
Next step was conducting interview with the facilitators. The lists of
statements were made in order to avoid repetitive and overlapping statements. FGD
and interview were important in revealing phenomena in benchmarking preparation
class. Thus, spontaneous responses needed to be avoided. Therefore, the researcher
gave a brief introduction of the purpose and points that would be discussed.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
27
Moreover, the participants were given time to write about their points of the topic
given.
Fourth, the researcher highlighted the experiences appearing in the process
as a process of summarizing data. Furthermore, the lists of the statements in the
interview and FGD were clustered into larger units which were called themes in
coding data. Then, the researcher adjusted the phenomena revealed by both
participants and facilitators’ view on the dynamic descriptions to get the essence of
the learning. Finally, “the researcher took the essence of the study in terms of
knowledge and future direction to professional-personal life.” (Moustakas, 1994,
p.184). The steps in conducting phenomenology research helped the study to
provide the data that included general perspective and personal perspective.
In short, the flow of conducting the research was arranged in three
triangulations. The first step was class observation in which the researcher collected
the data based on observation sheets. In the observation, the researcher noted down
interaction and phenomena during the class. Second, the researcher conducted
review of the observation for both participants and facilitators’ perspectives. The
review was done in two ways: interviewing the lecturers and conducting focus
group discussion (FGD) with the participants. The review towards the lecturer was
aimed to confirm the situation in the learning process and to enrich the data of the
background of the benchmarking class preparation. The FGD was conducted for
developing information about individuals’ contribution and how they make
meaning of the learning.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
28
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
There are two things generated from conducting the research. The first is
the learning dynamics in the benchmarking preparation class. The second is the
essence of individual growth mindset in promoting learning in the community
learning. The data of this research was based on class observations, focus group
discussion with the participants, and interview from the facilitators towards the
learning in the benchmarking preparation class.
4.1. Learning Dynamics
Learning dynamics in benchmarking preparation class were presented in
general description and comprehensive description. The general description
covered the overall meetings like participants, settings, materials, classroom
language. Further, the flows of the learning dynamics were described by providing
the situation in the benchmarking preparation class.
4.1.1. General Description
In general, benchmarking preparation class was a group of learning which
consisted of six Kanisius school leaders. The participants were initialized as BK,
PM, PE, BE, PD, and BD. Besides, the learning was facilitated by two lecturers
from Sanata Dharma University. The lecturers were initialized as MM and MP who
were alternately in charged as the facilitators. However, PD, one of the school
leaders who had joined the benchmarking preparation class for several meetings
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
29
decided not to continue the program due to his health condition. As a result, PD was
not mentioned in the finding since he was not fully observed and further
interviewed. Meanwhile, the other participants finished twenty meetings in the
benchmarking preparation class.
Each meeting was constantly conducted in 120 minutes which covered
several topics. The topics were about stating habit, describing places, asking
direction, and sharing experiences. Most of the time, the facilitators constantly used
simple English language in giving instruction and feedback in each meeting.
However, in giving complex explanation, the facilitators used Indonesian language.
Taken as examples were some conversations between facilitators and participants
in casual talks and reconfirming participants’ understanding.
English Language Used Indonesian Language Used
Casual conversation
PE: a lot of mistakes yes we do
MM : Mistake is welcomed
PE: we try (asking the structure about
statement he is going to make)
sometimes got wrong at meaning.
MM: “It has been a long time not to
speak English?”
Reconfirm participants’ understanding
PE: what’s the best way? Ibarat e jalan
yang terbaik?
MP: itu terjemahan harafiahnya, kalau
artinya ya yang paling dekat yang
paling enak.
Table 4.1. Casual Conversation and Understanding Confirmation
Furthermore, in order to transfer the material well, the facilitators used a
method which is called backward principle. According to Wiggins and McTighe
(2001), backward principle is a method that brings the purpose and standard of
learning in the start. Moreover, “it derives the curriculum from the evidences of
learning (performance) called for by the standards and the teaching needed to equip
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
30
students to perform” (p.8). The transcripts that proved about the method in class
were provided as follow.
Lebih ketujuan. Berorientasi tujuan. Jadi yang relevan dengan acuan. Dan
kalau mengacu ke individuya rata-rata lah artinya ya sambil menakar
kemampuan mereka, se-level ini. Walaupun ada yang sudah lebih berani,
lebih lancar, walaupun secara grammatical masih banyak salah-salah. (MP
interview transcript line 76 - 78)
(It focuses on the purpose. So it should be relevant with the indicators.
Moreover, it focuses on the type of the participants. In other words, their
level is considered, although some of them are more advanced, they still
make grammatical mistakes.)
Cuman saya rasa barang kali perlu ada sentuhan-sentuhan lain. Maka saya
sendiri sejak minggu lalu mencoba memberikan rangsangan-rangsangan
baik video maupun audio. Itu sebagai sebuah respon terhadap dinamika di
kelas ya. (MM interview transcript line 196 - 198)
(But I think, other learning stimuli need to be added and adjusted. Therefore,
I used video and audio since last meeting, as response toward the dynamics
in the class)
Gak ada yang bisa dirancang. Saya sendiri e.. belajar dengan fakta begini.
Belajar itu dinamis, dalam pengertian, kita tidak selalu bisa mengandalkan
bahwa materi itu harus sequential. Ini adalah penemuan yang mengejutkan.
(MM interview transcript line 219 - 223)
(Nothing can be made up in the beginning. I learned with the fact that
learning was dynamics. We can’t rely on the notion that materials should be
presented sequentially. This is a surprising finding)
Some media were used during the learning such as video and handout. The
media were varied based on the facilitators’ preferences in seeing the aids that
participants needed. MM preferred to use laptop and LCD to provide the opening
material or to type important notes, whereas MP preferred to distribute handout and
discuss the topic. However, both lecturers used videos to support the learning either
at the beginning or the end of the session.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
31
Lastly, the point was about the setting of the class. The participants were
always seated in U-shaped classroom physical set-up. Therefore, the participants
were able to see one another including the facilitators. The class formation was set
in a collaborative learning setting. According to Zhang (2010), it was not in
traditional raw as in traditional setting. The participants were able to choose which
chair they wanted. Moreover, the participants stated that the setting of the class
helped them to be more comfortable in learning.
Saya juga merasa senang, yang pertama cara duduknya. Kalau cara duduk
yang pernah kami dapatkan tu cara duduk yang seperti kelas macam ini
bejejer tapi kalau kemarin kan melingkar. (BK - Participants FGD
transcript line 47)
(I feel happy. First it is because of the classroom chair setting. The setting
that we have found is traditional setting, whereas here is in U-shape
classroom setting.)
4.1.2. The Dynamics during Learning
As to describe the activities in class, the activities are divided into three
sections in the meetings namely; opening, main, and closing. Based on the
observation, both lecturers could not be compared with the opening and closing
activities. They had different sections in giving material for each meeting.
However, some continual activities could be arranged into pattern. In the opening
sections, the lecturers always introduced the topic that was being discussed. In the
main sections, both lecturers used discussion regularly as the main activity with
repetition to confirm participants’ attempt in performing the language. Then, the
meetings were ended with various ways such as by simply having lunch, sharing,
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
32
or asking questions. The detailed descriptions of the dynamics were provided as
follows:
4.1.2.1. Opening Section
In opening section, the lecturer delivered the goal of the learning and gave
small talks. First, the goal was presented in the benchmarking preparation class as
in adult learning characteristics. Second, small talks usually sparked when the
facilitator used English. The facilitator usually raised the topic about participants’
experiences and opinion about common issue. The occasion of conducting the small
talks was done by having talks in informal conversation or in lunch time.
However, when there was no small talk, the opening section was different
from the previous observed meetings. The participants tended to be more passive
in the main discussion. It was shown on the observation sheet, where only some
participants responded what was discussed in the beginning of the meeting. As it
was noted in the observer’s view column during observation on 8 October 2016
when discussing about giving direction, the participants were less participative than
in the previous meetings in responding to others’ performance.
4.1.2.2. Main Section
The main activity was done by having discussions that facilitated multi-
interaction among participants and facilitator to participants. The discussions were
conducted through presenting, sharing, and responding to the topic that was being
discussed. Before having a discussion, the facilitators modeled the expression.
Then, it was followed by repetition method before the participants had their
practice. Furthermore, the facilitators monitored their performance as well as
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
33
guided the discussion. The monitoring role was aimed to give feedback toward
participants’ performance. Both facilitators tended to do repetition in correcting
mistakes and emphasizing important points. Besides, the guiding role focused on
each participant’s equal opportunity to present and give responses in the
discussions.
Kemudian strategi pembelajaran berikutnya itu lebih banyak melibatkan
aktivitas sosial. Dikelas dicoba dilakukan interaksi sosial satu sama lain
dan pada waktu yang sama, strategi keempat gitu ya. Itu terjadi meaningful
repetition. (MM interview transcript Line 63)
(Then, the next strategy is by involving participants in a social activity. The
interaction is attempted in class. So, it is the fourth strategy where
meaningful repetition occurs)
Saya ambil dengan pengulangan-pengulangan. Oke diulang. Jadi ya
diulangi beberapa kali. Guru yang satu kemudian gentian. (MP interview
transcript Line 27)
(I use repetitions. Okay repeat it! So the repetition comes many times one
by one.)
Sometimes before going to further discussion or topic, the activity was
paused by having lunch together. Kanisius foundation facilitated the meeting by
providing refreshments for the participants and the facilitators. In the lunch time,
the facilitators asked about their experience during the day or just had a simple talk.
In the following meetings, the participants were able to lead the casual conversation.
Thus, lunch time provided extra time for the participants to speak in English.
The flows of the main activity were done in collaborative way. First, the
facilitators modeled the expression, where the participants would repeat afterward.
Second, after being given a task, the participants performed the language about a
certain topic. In addition, they were given time and autonomy to prepare. However,
sometimes in performing the language, the facilitators encouraged the participants
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
34
in form of impromptu speaking by directly asking their opinion. In this step, the
participants had equal opportunities to perform the language. Third, during the
discussion each participant might contribute by asking and answering, giving
contextual example, or sharing ideas.
The feedback of participants’ performance was derived from facilitators to
participants, participants to facilitators, or participants to participants. After each
participant had performed, if the performance was good, the facilitators gave them
reward by saying “good”, “excellent” then repeated what was being said. On the
other hand, when one participant made a mistake, the facilitator corrected it and
asked all participants to repeat. In addition, the participants liked to repeat the
feedback that referred to the group since the correction was open for the group.
Thus, the feedback belonged to the group.
In the process, there were some improvements on putting effort towards the
learning. Those were shown by using a dictionary to look up words, taking notes,
doing repetition, confirming understanding and having discussion with friends.
Long and Porter (1985) stated that in collaborative learning the learners have to
make themselves understood. The efforts were also confirmed as an attempt to
understand the material and join the discussion better.
Ketika merasa kesulitan tentu dalam memaknai. Memaknai kata ketika ada
kesulitan itu saya langsung meminta mendownload kamus di handphone
saya. Kamus yang kami miliki dikamus itu menolong kami. (BK -
Participants FGD transcript line 252)
(Facing difficulties surely was when grasping the language. When came to
that situation, I directly downloaded a dictionary on my phone. The
dictionary that we had was so helpful in the difficult situation)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
35
Kami mencari aplikasi- aplikasi yang ada. Cuman sekarang untuk belajar
itu sangat dimanjakan dengan fitur belajar. Misal dengan kamus yang
ditampilkan kami semua punya. Kemudian dengan cerita ceritanya ada.
Kemudian percakapan nya juga ada. Semisal diwaktu-waktu lengang di
waktu kosong bisa melihat sambil menunggu. (PM - Participants FGD
transcript line 258)
(We looked for available applications. Since nowadays, learning was
supported with sophisticated features. Take the dictionary that we all have
as an example. It contains story as well as conversations. Therefore, we can
take a look in our spare time.)
Jadi kesempatan belajar lebih tinggi. Kalau ada, waktu itu tiap pagi saya
setengah 7 saya sudah datang. Anak-anak saya kasih soal 3 lalu saya buka
kamus. Terus anak anak saya suruh ngomong apa artinya apa. coba tebak-
tebakan. Kalo ini apa, huruf depannya A. kalau anak-anak sudah selesai
gentian. memberi pertanyaannya. (PE - Participants FGD transcript line
372)
(So, opportunities for learning were increaseable. If it is possible I come to
school at 6.30. The students are given 3 questions then I open the dictionary.
After that the students are asked to guess the meaning. So, we guessed some
words with some clues. When they are done, they may do it back and forth)
Nonetheless, when it was the time to deliver an individual presentation,
most of the participants focused on their own work. However, as time goes by, some
participants were involved in the discussion by not only answering from others’
responses but also giving correction, opinion, or suggestion. As an example, BK
was the one who constantly gave contributions in the discussion. In addition, the
contributions were in form of sharing her understanding and vocabulary mastery to
other participants. In the further meetings, not only BK but PE and BE also initiated
to respond the discussion.
Problems were part of the learning which both participants and facilitators
experienced. The participants were found several times coming late to class because
of their primary job. On the other hand, the participants had difficulties in grasping
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
36
meaning of words while maintaining their time with their primary job. Maintaining
their time referred to their extra time to learn outside the class.
Moreover, participants and facilitators faced and adapted to difficult
situations. First, the facilitators warmly welcomed the participants to join the class,
even when they came late to class. Second, both facilitators always emphasized the
participants not to be afraid of making mistakes. For instance, when BE came late
to class, the facilitator welcomed her and encouraged her to join the discussion.
Therefore, BE was able to perform the language and get feedback from other
participants and facilitators. Besides, the participants were also able to adapt to the
lack of vocabulary by bringing dictionary and having discussions with friends in
class about the expressions, phrases, or words they did not know during the
learning.
Kalau dilihat dari dinamikanya e… ada cukup konsistensiya konsistensi
(silent for a while) daya juang, peningkatan itu ada, cuman saya rasa
barang kali perlu ada sentuhan sentuhan lain. (MM interview transcript line
195)
(If it was seen from the learning dynamics, there was consistency in
persistence and effort, but somehow I think they need impulse in learning.)
4.1.2.3. Closing Section
Finally, the benchmarking preparation class was ended by having lunch
together or asking participants about their understanding. The meetings were
dominated with discussion among participants. Therefore, collaborative learning
was obvious in the process. The learning included more than one person by having
an interaction with one another as the process of learning (Vygotsky, 1978).
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
37
Furthermore, the process of negotiation could be seen when there was guidance
from a more knowledgeable person.
4.2. Individual Growth Mindset Promotes Learning in Group
Dweck (2006) mentioned that each individual has a system that organizes
and controls information around them which is called mindset. There are two types
of mindset; growth and fixed mindset. As a part of learning, both types of mindset
differ in the way an individual perceive failure and goals. Therefore, a mini survey
to categorize participants’ mindset was conducted. The survey was done by 4 out 5
participants who joined the class.
Generally, the participants were categorized as persons with growth mindset.
Nevertheless, there were two levels of growth mindset: fully growth and growth
with fixed. The levels of mindset were derived from mini survey of their perspective
on learning English (see Appendix 13). BK and PM were considered in fully growth
mindset while BE and PE are considered in growth with fixed mindset. Therefore,
some phenomena raised by the participants and the facilitators were revealed in
order to describe individual growth mindset in learning. Based on the triangulated
data, there were two points that were emphasized. Those included difficulties in
learning and improvements in learning.
4.2.1. Facing Difficulties
In benchmarking preparation class, both the facilitators and the participants
faced a difficult situation as mentioned earlier in the learning dynamics. The
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
38
following discussion presented the situation in the benchmarking class that
described not only frustrating situations but also efforts to cope with the difficulties.
4.2.1.1. Difficulties During Learning
The facilitators and the participants recognized that participants’
memorization ability and time management were the problems during the learning.
According to Marriam and Caffarella (1999), biological changes take place as
individuals age, and it has been shown that memory decreases with age. It is
memory that helps linking new and old information. Moreover, compared to
children, adults have more limited time to learn. They divided their focus on family
and job as well. However, the participants did not give up with the problems, as
what was seen in the observation and focus group discussion. In addition, it was
strengthened from facilitators’ views about participants’ persistence during
learning.
Vocabulary mastery was demanded so that the participants could join the
discussion as the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class. The
participants sometimes lost some words that have been discussed on previous
meeting or even in the earlier discussion. They admitted that memorizing words
was difficult. Moreover, they only had limited time to learn outside the class.
Saya ya biasa saja. Saya memang satu saya melihat kemampuan untuk
mengingat terbatas. Nanti kalau sendiri tu ya merasa, ga ada temannya ya
merasa tertekan. Ketika harus menanggapi bahasa inggris sepotong-sepotong,
tapi yo artinya jujur lho ini jujur, lebih asik kalau ada temannya. (PM -
Participants FGD transcript line 319)
(Indeed, I realized that my memorizing ability is limited. When coming alone I
was burdened a little. When being asked to respond in English, I chunked the
words as far as I can. So, to be honest, it is more fun when friends are around)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
39
Another difficulty in benchmarking was the fact that the participants had a primary
job that took a lot of energy and time. As a result, in some meetings, they came late
to class and could not focus on the learning. As an example, the frustrating situation
happened when the participants were having a lot of tasks during the exam week at
the school. At the end of the lesson, the facilitator played an audio about direction.
Most of the participants were confused. Some of them confessed that they had
difficulty in grasping the meaning from audio. This was proven in the lunch time
where they said that they were having lots of task after the exam week and those
burdened them.
The fact was seen as something that should be understood in facilitators’
view. The facilitators said that they should appreciate and help the participants since
the facilitators knew their background and condition. During the meetings, MP and
MM always welcomed the participants by not punishing or intimidating them when
they came late to class. The facilitators tended to explain what was discussed and
encouraged them to join the discussion.
Facilitators’ attitude was seen positively by the participants. Some of the
participants said that they felt guilty when they came late to class. However, they
said the facilitators welcomed them and never punished them. Therefore, they felt
secure and focused when joining the discussion. Moreover, this was also clearly
seen from the observation, when BE and BK said “sorry” for coming late. Soon
after, they focused on doing the tasks. In other words, the participants felt secure
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
40
because they were given opportunity to try and were not punished when they made
mistakes.
4.2.1.2. Efforts in Facing Difficulties
In facing difficulties there were some phenomena. Those included efforts
from the facilitators and participant and support from collaborative learning setting.
The details of each phenomenon was presented in the following points:
4.2.1.2.1. Repetition Strategy
Repetition strategy was used to help some words that were usually
mispronounced or misinterpreted right after they performed their tasks. Most of the
time, corrections belonged to the group. The repetition strategy enabled the
facilitators to check other participants’ performance as well. Moreover, other
participants were pleased to repeat the correction. Therefore, the participants
appreciated this strategy because they saw this way was helpful and encouraged
them to try. In addition, they also mentioned that they felt secure since mistake was
welcomed and the facilitators would correct their mistakes using repetition.
4.2.1.2.2. Facilitators’ High Expectation in Collaborative Learning
Lacking vocabulary with limited time to study was seen as a changeable
situation from facilitators’ view. Thus, the facilitators gave autonomy for the
participants to show their efforts. This belief was derived from high expectation that
the facilitators brought to the class which showed the growth mindset character in
seeing problems (Dweck, 2006; Robin & Pals, 2002). Therefore, the facilitators
gave high expectation by encouraging them to have a mini discussion with other
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
41
participants and autonomy to help themselves and others. However, after they were
done with the discussion, facilitators continued with confirmation and feedback on
their performances or problems.
As exemplified in the dynamics description, when the facilitator did not
directly help them to overcome the problem, negotiation was made. The negotiation
in social interaction was made as a form of confirmation and restructuring their
prior knowledge with the output of their performance. The autonomy in learning in
which prior knowledge and experience were used as sources in learning was the
characteristic of adult learning (Mezirow, 1997). This climate triggered the
participants to be more proactive in learning. This could be seen from their effort
in using dictionary, having mini discussions with other participants, and actively
checking their understanding with the facilitators. As a result, the participants
showed more positive attitude toward the difficulties.
Saya berikan kesempatan untuk e… dari segi bahasa pola tertentu ya.
Kemudian dari segi isi kan mereka saya suruh untuk, untuk menentukan
sendiri, menggunakan sekolah mereka, menggunakan situasi mereka untuk
menggunakan bahasa yang diprediksi akan mereka gunakan.(MP interview
transcript Line 33)
(I gave pattern in language. Then, I asked them to think about the content.
For example, they were going to use their school and the situation in it for
benchmarking program)
4.2.1.2.3. Social Interaction during Discussion
Collaborative learning made it easier for participants’ to acquire input.
When participants discussed the difficulties in the discussion or listening to other
participants about, they built a social interaction. Moreover, they sought
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
42
confirmation towards the facilitators afterward. As the result, the linguistic level of
each participant in the group improved more or less the same level. According to
Swain (2000), collaborative learning group enriches the language input as well as
promoting frequent and communicative classroom talk in supportive environment.
The social interaction in the benchmarking preparation class included seeking
information and clarification of the input that they did not understand, which
extended their language input.
Em strategi saya eemmm memberi kesempatan sebanyak-banyaknya untuk
mereka praktek. Jadi saya lebih ke bahasa bukan sebagai sesuatu yang
dibicarakan, tetapi lebih sebagai bahasa adalah sesuatu yang digunakan.
Nah, ada language-language function yang sudah kita identifikasi, polanya
kita beritahukan, kemudian beri mereka kesempatan yang merata untuk
mencoba. Makanya strategi yang saya gunakan sendiri “take turn.” (MP
interview transcript Line 20)
(The strategy that I used was giving as much time as possible for practice as
much as possible. So, language was not something that was discussed, but
language was something that is used. Thus, language functions that had been
identified were shared. Soon after, the participants were given equal
opportunities to practice. The strategy that I used was called “take turn”)
4.2.1.2.4. Participants’ Role as an Apprentice in Group Learning
The participants were confused when they were asked to follow a map in
asking and giving direction materials. It happened due to participants’ lack of
vocabulary and lack of speed of the audio. However, BK was able to follow the
audio since the first the audio was played. She shared her understanding about the
audio to the class. Although she could follow, she still tried doing translation since
the facilitator asked the group to understand the audio by paying attention in each
expression. Following this, the facilitator confirmed the general idea raised by BK.
Therefore, in peripheral legitimate participation, BK became an apprentice whereas
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
43
the other participants became the newcomer toward what was talked in the audio.
Thus, there were social participations in the learning between the participants who
became the apprentices in the target language and the “newcomer” participants who
still needed assistance in order to participate actively in the group discussion.
The role of the apprentice was appreciated by the other participants by
acknowledging that BK helped them to engage the discussion and linked their
understanding to what was discussed. Thereby, their anxiety and confusion during
the discussion were reduced. Meanwhile, they were inclined to keep trying and
confirming their understanding. Finally, at the end of the section, all participants
got the idea and was involved in the discussion. The dynamics showed assisting
process. Thus, withhold advice and instruction appropriate to later stages, hold back
and wait until the newcomer becomes “ready” through increasing participation in
the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).
Dengan satu kata yang dilontarkan pake kok BK itu kami bisa ikut, o itu
yang membuat kami… menjadi stimulus bagi kami (BE - Participants FGD
transcript line 356)
(Using words uttered by BK we could follow the discussion. It becomes a
stimulus for us)
During the challenging situation, PE and BE tended to cross-check their
understanding with the facilitators. Moreover, some participants also tried to have
a discussion with BK who had understood what had been discussed. In this part,
zone of proximate development (ZPD) was seen. ZPD helped them to decrease their
consciousness in learning, since BD and PM were not really confident in speaking
with the facilitators as the purpose of Zone Proximal Development by Vygotsky
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
44
(1978), to actualize knowledge together so that they are able to complete the same
task individually. Furthermore, this group also performed better on the next task
individually.
4.2.2. The Participants' Improvement
Participants and facilitators have reflected several indicators that were
improved by joining the benchmarking preparation class. The improvements were
defined into three aspects; knowledge, skill, and attitude based on the goals that had
been stated in the benchmarking preparation program. In addition, the data was
derived by triangulating the data through observation, interview, and focus group
discussion. Areas that improved included vocabulary mastery, error recognition,
and more secure feeling in learning.
Table 4.2. Knowledge Improvement
Improvement Observation Focus Group
Discussion Interview
Vocabulary
Mastery
Observer comment: Most of the
participants are confused to say
a sentence in the early meeting.
However, they become better
by only asking one or a few
word at the next meeting.
(Observation data 5)
BK stated that
she knew how
to pronounce
words in book.
(Participants
FGD Line
166-170)
MP stated
that their
language
mastery has
already
improved.
(MP
interview
transcript
line 43)
PE: “we try” (asking the
structure about statement he is
going to make) lost words.
(Observation data 1)
Observer comment: PE
frequently asked the meaning
of some words “bedanya sama
cross the line?” “oh sama ya”
(Observation data 3)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
45
Table 4.3. Skill Improvement
Improvement Observation Focus Group
Discussion Interview
Error
Recognition
PM read the text, then
he realized that he
made mistake then
soon after he started to
revise it.
(Observation data 5 )
PM mentioned
how a word
correctly was
pronounce in
their meeting.
(Participants
FGD Line 242)
MM stated that the
participants are able
to elaborate with
material that given
on previous
meetings. The
participants were
able to recognize
their mistake and
made new question
as confirmation
process
(MM Interview
transcript line 210)
By the absence of the facilitator, the participants had time to do self-
evaluation in that they reviewed their experiences and added new information for
clarification or confirmation of their prior knowledge. As an example, when BE and
PE had a discussion about direction from the audio which was difficult for them,
they cross-checked their understanding with the facilitators by thinking out loud.
The other participants were also enriched by the confirmation from the facilitators
that addressed to the group.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
46
Table 4.4. Attitude Improvement
Improvement Observation Focus Group
Discussion
Interview
Secure Feeling
in Learning
English
BD improves her
courage in learning by
using some pens to do
the given task
seriously, opening an
electronic dictionary,
whispering the text.
Meanwhile, in some
previous meeting, she
was not too
interactive in
learning.
(Observation data 4)
BK and BE stated that
they were more
confident in speaking
English.
(FGD L. 170, L. 184)
MP mentioned
that the
participants
become more
confident on the
following
meetings. The
participants
enjoyed the
learning process.
The environment
supported good
learning climates.
(MP Interview
transcript Line
38, line 133)
Participants were able to share their improvement in learning which was
more confident in learning. Some participants in the benchmarking preparation
class used their prior experiences in learning language which was stated that when
they had bad experience in learning English, but the autonomy in learning helped
them to be more confident in speaking English. The autonomy in learning was an
emphasized aspect in adult learning (Mezirow, 1996). Furthermore, the
collaborative learning made the autonomy in learning possible.
The improvements could not be separated from individual contribution
toward the learning. Based on the focus group discussion among participants that
was strengthened by the interview with facilitators, both facilitators’ and
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
47
participants’ role contributed to the improvement of the participants. Thus, those
would be discussed in the following paragraph.
4.2.2.1.Facilitators’ role
Discussion was the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class. The
discussion was guided by the facilitators. However, the roles were not only guiding
but also monitoring and giving high expectation that led to some improvements that
reflected in the observation and group learning’s view.
4.2.2.1.1. Guiding Discussion
The facilitators were used to guide the flow of the discussion so that each
participant had equal opportunity to speak and respond. This role was also
supported by the dynamics in collaborative learning which gave equal opportunities
in the discussion (Kagan, 1994). Having discussion where the facilitators and group
members gave responses to each other was helpful for the participants’ better
understanding about English language. This was done by both an open-discussion
and an addressed discussion. In some early observed meetings, the common flow
was in form of addressed discussion. This means the participants were asked to
respond to what other participants communicated. Meanwhile, in the following
meetings, the participants were able to perform the language. Then other
participants and the facilitator could respond in the open-discussion.
Kemudian pembimbing memberikan tugas yang sama pada kami untuk
secara rata menyampaikan, mengungkapkan, membaca dan apapun sama
setiap peserta diberikan tugas yang sama dengan posisi duduk yang seperti
itu dan santai jadi merasa enjoy saja lancar (BK - Participants FGD
transcript line 49)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
48
(Then, the facilitators gave equal task for us to present, respond and read.
Moreover, seated in that way made me enjoy and the discussion also ran
smoothly)
4.2.2.1.2. Monitoring
The facilitators monitored the participants’ performance by giving
feedback. The feedback was in form of reward, confirmation, and correction of the
output or a question that was derived from the school leaders. Moreover, the fact
that the facilitators corrected participants’ mistakes proved to be valuable for the
participants. Facilitators, participants, and researcher reflected that during the
discussion the participants were more confident in speaking English. Based on the
data, the participants said that the facilitator encouraged them not to be afraid of
making mistakes during the discussion. As a result, they had more time to practice
speaking in class.
Saya menambahkan rasa senangnya kenapa yang pertama ketika ta
melakukan kesalahan dalam membaca dalam berbicara selalu di stop.
Kami lebih senang ditegur, didengarkan dari pada dibiarkan. (BK -
Participants FGD transcript line 237)
(I want to add, there is a happy feeling when the facilitators are willing to
give correction when we read or say something in a wrong way. We are
happier when our mistakes are corrected)
4.2.2.1.3. Giving High Expectation
According to Dweck (2006), the characteristic of growth mindset is a belief
in effort rather than an external factor. The facilitators believed in an effort to
achieve the goal rather than relied on praise from the facilitators or from grades.
This was seen when the facilitators were not focused on ranging participants’ score
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
49
during the discussion. As a result, individuals were aware towards group problems.
The advantage of discussion activity in group learning was strengthened by Ohta
(2000) that assumes collaborative talks provides more opportunities to produce
language in a practical way. Therefore, they were more able to improve themselves
by solving problems and being more aware of seeing mistakes both via self-
correction or evaluating others’ performance since the problem and performance
were shared to the group members.
Baik sebetulnya sungguh mengasyikan dalam mengikuti kursus itu kenapa
pertama, karena dibuat rasa senang. Jadi tidak merasa takut. Hal hal yang
senang itu akan mengasyikan. Kemudian dalam pembelajarannyapun
dibuat santai selalu tidak ada ikatan tapi selalu ada pelajaran yang dipandu
betul sehingga kami tidak tertekan. (PM - Participants FGD transcript line
55)
(Well, actually what made the program fun was because we enjoyed. In the
discussion, we were guided with secure feeling. Moreover, the facilitator
really monitored us. Therefore, we did not feel burdened)
Kalo perasaannya saya lebih senang sih karena sangat berbeda dengan
yang saya belajar dulu dengan sekarang mungkin karena tentornya juga
mungkin lebih senior gitu jadi mungkin lebih bisa membantu saya dari yang
saya itu bahasa inggris itu ibaratnya sangat takut kemarin sudah mulai mau
belajar diwaktu waktu kosong saya sudah mau menulis atau kadang
membaca, paling tidak itu. (BE - Participants FGD transcript line 49)
(I am happy, because the learning experience here is different from my
previous experience. Also, the facilitators are professional. So, I think the
facilitators are helpful. I was afraid of learning English. Now in my spare
time at least, I am willing to write and read)
4.2.2.2. Participants’ Role
During the earlier process of the learning, BD, BE, and PM were quite
passive in the discussion. They were not confident in speaking English due to
several reasons. First, they were confused with the language used in class since the
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
50
facilitator (MM) used to speak English all the time. Second, BE had a traumatic
experience in learning English, thereby she was so tense in early meetings.
Facilitators’ language preference and prior experiences were described as follows:
Ya kalau saya merasa terlalu jauh saja dengan MM. Ketika dalam
percakapan MM merasa sangat mudah, saya merasa sangat sulit. Jadi
belum ketemu gitu lho. (PM - Participants FGD transcript line 328)
(I felt the language that MM used is too advance. Perhaps, MM thought it
was easy, but it was not for me. So, I think I cannot quite follow.)
MM itu memang pinter tapi bagi kami itu terlalu tinggi gitu untuk bahasa
inggrisnya. Tapi mungkin benar itu buat MM paling sederhana. (BE -
Participants FGD transcript line 330)
(MM was professional, but the language was too advance for us. Yet,
perhaps it is true, that the language used was already the simplest.)
Karena selama ini memang trauma tapi saya punya niat mesti bisa belajar
bahasa inggris walaupun pada akhirnya saya belum maksimal masih
terbata-bata. Kemudian bisa membaca lancar, harapan saya itu nanti
kedepannya bisa menyampaikan sesuatu pada anak, kemarin juga saya
coba juga ternyata anak-anak, ‘oh ternyata bu erna sedikit-sedikit bisa’.
(BE - Participants FGD transcript line 29)
(I have traumatic experience in learning English, yet I have belief that I am
able to learn it. Although, in the output I am not so fluent in speaking. I have
hope that in the future, I will be able to say something for the students.
Besides, I already tried it, and the students’ response was ‘oh ternyata bu
erna sedikit-sedikit bisa’)
However, in this community of learning, they showed their individual
contribution towards social interaction. The collaborative learning also supported
the contribution of the participants that was in form of interaction in discussion.
Long and Porter (1985) state that in collaborative learning the learners have to make
themselves understood. Therefore, in the following paragraph some efforts in
collaborative learning were presented.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
51
Based on group interview, the group agreed that BK and PE helped the other
participants to be involved in the discussion. The participants said that BK and PE
were more resourceful in terms of vocabulary mastery. Their presence in class was
considered as stimulating and helpful because they could bridge communication
and share their understanding to the class. BE said that she responded the
conversation easier by assistance of other participants.
Karena kalau gabisa menjawab temannya langsung menjawab, oh jadi
begitu maksudnya…
Kalau sendiri gimana ya..
Karena bekerjanya lebih ekstra ya. Kalau ada temannya, ada bu kris ada
pak eko jadi tau oh itu to yang dimaksud. Lebih nyaman saja ya pak ya. (BE
and PM - Participants FGD transcript line 324-327)
(Because if we cannot answer, other friends will directly answer. Oh, so that
was what being discussed… If we are alone in the class… Because we pay
extra effort. When BK and PE we know what is being discussed then. So
we enjoy, don’t we?)
Group’s success in the benchmarking preparation class was perfectly seen
in Legitimate Peripheral Participation by Lave and Wenger (1991). Learning in the
community of practice is best realized when the each participant is given authority
and legitimacy in the field while performing simple tasks. The learning through
discussion including casual conversation was essential. It also embraced most
knowledge acquisition. Therefore, the participants who were not really confident in
performing the language were encouraged to join the discussion so that the
discussion was more lively and resourceful.
Ketika saya menjawab pertanyaan dari PM dan BK akan berbeda dengan
ketika saya mendapat pertanyaan dengan tentor. Mungkin saya masih
bingung, tapi ketika saya mendapat pertanyaan dari teman sejawat itu
mungkin lebih mudah gatau mungkin karena sederhananya bahasa. Ini juga
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
52
sangat mendukung buat temen-temen. (BE - Participants FGD transcript
line 214)
(When I answer question from PM and BK, it would be different from
answering question from the facilitators. Perhaps I am still confused, but
when I get question from fellows it seems easier. I don’t know, perhaps
because of the less advanced language used. So the interaction among
participants also support other participants.)
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
53
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of two parts. The first part presents conclusions of the
analysis and the answers of the problems formulated. The second part presents
recommendation drawn from the study for related parties.
5.1. Conclusions
The study was conducted based on researcher’s concern about Kanisius
school leaders as adult learners who learning in a group. The school leaders joined
the benchmarking preparation class since they were assigned as the representative
of their foundation to go abroad. However, they have limited time to learn English
which resulted in their below average proficiency. As a result, they were assigned
to Sanata Dharma as a group to have preparation as to equip the school leaders with
English for communication. The researcher considered a classroom observation to
see the dynamics and phenomena in the community of learning.
Each school leader brought different experiences in learning English.
Therefore, this study was conducted to see the dynamics of group learning and
individual contribution in the group learning. There are two questions in this
research. The first is how the dynamics of school leaders’ group learning takes
place. The second is to what extent does individual growth mindset promotes
learning in group.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
54
The dynamics of the learning were divided into three sections: opening,
main, and closing activity. The opening section was done by having small talks and
delivering the goal of the meeting before starting the main activity. Meanwhile, the
main activity was in form of group discussion. The last was closing section which
was done by confirming participants’ understanding.
Discussion was the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class.
The discussion was provided both in casual and formal situation. The casual talk
covered sharing experiences. Meanwhile, the formal situation was addressed for the
participants to perform the language. Collaborative learning was applied in the
discussion. It was reflected by the psychical classroom set-up, the flow of the
discussion, the role of the facilitators, and the type of interaction.
In the discussion, the participants were able to perform the language by
presenting their ideas and responding to other participants. This situation revealed
the efforts and the difficulties that were faced by both facilitators and participants.
In the process, the participants had difficulties in grasping the language due to
lacking of vocabulary. Meanwhile, the facilitators faced the participants who
sometimes came late to the class due to their primary job as school leaders.
The feedback of individual’s output in the discussion was shared in the
group. Moreover, the feedback was derived not only from the facilitators but also
from the participants. Therefore, it enabled language input restructuring and
confirmation of individuals’ prior knowledge. In addition, in benchmarking
preparation class, the school leaders had prior experience and knowledge. There
was learners’ autonomy in benchmarking preparation class.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
55
Two major things were emphasized during the learning by the facilitators
and the participants. Those were the difficulties appeared during the learning and
the participants’ improvements. The difficulties during the learning were about the
lack of vocabulary and time constraint in learning English. Participants’
improvements were vocabulary mastery, ability to recognize error, and more secure
feeling in learning. Moreover, the improvements were derived from individuals’
contributions which were seen from both facilitators and participants.
In facing the difficulties, the growth mindset from both facilitators and
participants was shown by giving efforts. There are four major points that appeared
in the benchmarking class when facing the difficulties: 1) repetition strategy as
feedback of individual’s performance. 2) Facilitators’ high expectation that drew
more effort from the participants. 3) Social interaction during discussion that helped
confirmation and clarification of language input occurred in learning. 4)
Participants’ role as the apprentice in the group learning that bridged the
compensated for different level of understanding among participants.
Facilitators’ contributions were categorized into three roles. First, guiding
role referred to giving equal opportunities for the participants to perform the
language. Second, monitoring meant facilitators’ feedback on participant’s
performance. Third, giving high expectation meant that there was no scoring policy
during discussion.
Participants’ roles in the benchmarking preparation class were seen by the
apprentice participants assisting other participants who were not confident. The
willingness to share understanding to the group helped them to bridge the level of
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
56
the language barrier between one another. Furthermore, it helped more participants
to be more engaged to the discussion. As a result, the discussion became more
interactive.
5.2. Recommendations
In this part, the researcher would like to give some recommendations to
some related parties.
5.2.1. English Trainers
This study has shown benefits for English trainers related to knowledge in
teaching and skill to teach adult learners in group with specific purposes and time
constraint. This study was done with an emphasis on individual growth mindset in
collaborative learning. Therefore, having growth mindset in learning situations will
ease the learning process. The growth mindset is aimed to view not only one’s
growth mindset but also the role of growth mindset in learning dynamics.
Moreover, having discussion in a collaborative way will help trainers to focus on
the output since it provides opportunities for learning. However, the English trainers
need to consider the equal opportunities for each participant to perform the language
and to give feedback towards the output as a confirmation process for learners.
5.2.2. Further Researchers
For further researchers, there are still many aspects of this research which
can be explored further. Further researchers can study more about the growth
mindset in motivation aspects which is not being discussed in this study.
Furthermore, further researchers can see the improvement from the formative
measurement not only from the feedback and perspective of the participants.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
57
REFERENCES
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’
learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80 (3), 260–267.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzenrewsk, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of
intelligent predict achievement across an adolescent transition. A
longitudinal study and an intervention child development, 78, 246-263.
Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language
pedagogy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. New York:
Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from
http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/60120.
Crum, A.J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of
mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 104(4), 716-733.
Darkenwald, G. G. & Merriam, S. B. (1982) Adult Education. Foundations of
practice, New York: Harper and Row.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do yuo mean by collaborative leraning?.(P.
Dillenbourg, Ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.
DiNitto R. (2000). Can collaboration be unsuccessful? a sociocultural analysis of
classroom setting and Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. J Assoc
Teach Jpn 34(2):179-210.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and
avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 72 (1), 218-232.
Forrest III, S.P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It’s called andragogy. Academy of
Management Learning & Education 5(1), 113-122.
Hycner, R. H. (1999). Some guideline for the phenomenological analysis of
interview data. (Bryman & R.G. Burgess, Ed.). London: Sage.
Jiang, Y. M. (2009). Applying Group Work to Improve College Students’ Oral
English. International Education Studies, 2(3), 136-139.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente. CA: Resources for
Teachers, Inc.
Lave, J & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral
Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M.H. & Porter, P.A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second
language acquisition. TESOL Q, 19(2), 207-228.
Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformative Theory of Adult Learning. (M. Welton, Ed.).
New York: State University Press.
Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education
Quarterly. 46 (3), 158-172.
Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus group. Annual review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.
Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research method. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Oxford, R. (1997) Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction.
Three communication Strands in language classroom, 81(4), 443-456.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain.
Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self esteem
change. Self and Identity,1, 313 – 336.
Sadala, M. L. A., & Adorno, R.deC. F. (2001). Phenomenology as a method to
investigate the experiences lived: A perspective from Husserl and
Merleau-Ponty’s thought. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 282-293.
Setiyadi, A.B. 2006. English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.
Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL
classes. Lang Teach Res, 11(2), 143-159.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition
through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf JP (ed) Sociocultural theory and
second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological
processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
59
Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and
administrative sciences South Africa: International Thompson. Retrieved on
November 17, 2017 from
http://webpages.uidaho.edu/css/Readings/groenewaldphenommethodology.p
df.
Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2001). What is Backward Design?. In
Understanding by Design 1st ed. Upper Saddie River, NJ: Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and
teaching. J Lang Teach Res, 1(1), 81-83.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
Observation sheet sample (taken on Saturday, 15 October 2017)
Observation Researcher’s view
MM : delivering the goal of the meeting and
brief the materials. He gives the instruction to
the work.
he explained the words in the material first
PM : he wrote a note when MM tried to explain
the meaning of the word.
BE : observed the material then open electronic
BD prefer to read the text then she makes her
own note.
MM plays an audio as the source to do the
exercise
-----------------when the audio is played-----------
----------
BK came late because she prepared for the
meals. She tried to sit and read the text given
without asking “what to do” although in the text
there is no instruction at all. Then before the
second round she start the negotiation so that the
audio can be replayed. And the lecturer warmly
welcome the negotiation offered.
PE came late and said directly in English.
MM opened the discussion by asking them one
by one to answer the blank space in full
sentence.
BD read the text, she is better now in reading.
Just still has not fluent by some long pausing
BE read the answer. And after she read, she
makes sure with the word meaning of the
answer of that number.
MM always repeat the text after the participant
read that.
I found something interesting today,
that BD can be talkative when she
talks about things she knows.
Example school, and situation in
school in Indonesian
In the beginning they are more quite.
They don’t start with informal
conversation in class. They directly
have a seat.
When they listen the audio, (first
round) they are all focus. None of
them give up by paying attention on
the text, write. At least they kept on
watching the text given.
on the second round all of them tried
to write. This happened after Mr.
Markus support them to do as far as
they can.
MM not interrupt the pronunciation
mistakes during the rereading. But
repeat the text.
most of them still read the text in
words (BE and PM)
they don’t give up. Although it comes
to difficult words, they always tried to
pronounce the words.
I thought BD improve in her courage
in learn, by using other pen seriously
do the task, open electronic
dictionary, repeating the audio.
Whereas on some previous meeting,
she is not to interactive in learning.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
63
After number 5, the students starts to repeat the
dialogue. BE and PE did the repetition. But the
first, PE start it.
BD start using intonation little bit at reading the
text. For example “oooh” she said with shocking
intonation.
PE consistenly repeat the words
BK read confidently fluent.
PM read the text, then he realize that he made
mistake then soon after he start to revise it.
BD, the key is she keep paying attention on the
answer. She keeps looking at her answer list
while others paying attention on the text. BD do
that especially when almost her turn to answer.
BK always revise everything that she knows to
her friend.
MM just pause the reading with revision when it
comes to the word that very crucial “honestly”
BK starts to add her view with MM. Signing
that at least she understand about what is talking
about at that part.
none of them give up with the word.
most of them do not note a new vocabulary that
not to related with the material given. for
example when MM gives new vocab about alat
bantu dnegar “hearning aids” none of them note
that. But at least some of them repeat the word.
MM do repeatation until they can repeat almost
near the correct pronun
----------they are given new task to underline the
subject and verb of the txt. But they divided into
numbers to do”----------------------------------------
---------
*) although MM didn’t explain why
kata-ktanya itu bisa panjang. Kepana
subjek aja bisa panjang
misal :
-debat yang sangat panjang
membuka…….
but after BK ask and try to guess it as
“kalimat majemuk” MM baru
menjelaskan
nah dengan penjelasan “kenapa la
knapa ga for?” itu akan menimbulkan
pertanyaan lanjutan?
kok kayaknya iya. Sepertinya di
pertemuan sebelumnya udh pernah
ada pertanyaan serupa.
on the last number BD benar. Brati dia
baru paham konsep subjek dan
predikat yang basic.
I need to ask why you correct their
wrong answer?
like it actually should explain the
subject.
although actually only in BK part I
think. (only once)
BK always tries to remind her friend
or share opinion, when she notices it
wrong.
BK like to think / guess using logic.
Like some meetings ago, she also
guess derived word by logic.
today she did so:
MM : persuaded apa artinya?
BK : dari kata persuade – persuasi ya
dalam bahasa Indonesia? Dibujuk.
maintaining “the good mood” is
important
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
64
BD uses other color pen to underline.
after several time after some of them done with
the work, PM still listen to the audio and read
the text.
BD start to try saying the meaning in Indonesian
of the words.
PE tried several time to guess the meaning
thrown.
BK like to do conversation in English, like
“here you are”
BE says “I’m happy” like to express the feeling
in English.
BK asks, why use…. Not use for?
MM: supaya sulit.
.
tapi baiknya, MM memberikan contoh
baru yang terdapat dalam contoh
keseharian dan memberikan tips
dalam belajar kosakata yakni dengan
membuat tingkatan bahasa.
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
66
Delivering purpose of the research: First, existing learning experience by looking from
participants’ background and environment. Second, revealing individual’s contribution and
improvement in learning.
1. The purpose of conducting benchmarking class for Kanisius school leaders?
2. What kind of strategy was used in benchmarking class?
3. Material given and media used in benchmarking class
4. Experience in teaching the adult learners
5. What was expected from the learning?
6. How was the progress?
7. Interaction among members in the learning process
8. How was the improvement of the participants? What about lunch-talk?
9. How was the role of the facilitator in the class?
10. What was the difficulty in the learning?
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
68
FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDIANCE
Pertanyaan berikut adalah beberapa pertanyaan yang akan diajukan oleh peneliti dalam FGD.
Anda dapat menuliskan poin-poin penting yang akan anda sampaikan dalam kegiatan FGD.
1. Bagaimana perasaan dan pengalaman anda dengan proses pembelajaran ini?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
2. a. Perubahan yang anda rasakan dari sebelum mengikuti kelas ini sampai akhir
pertemuan dalam kelas ini?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
b. Ilmu atau pelajaran apa saja yang sudah Anda dapatkan di kelas ini?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
Adakah kesulitan dalam belajar bahasa inggris yang Anda hadapi?
Jika ada kesulitan seperti apa dan bagaimana cara anda mengatasinya?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
3. Bagaimanakah pengalaman belajar bahasa inggris Anda di masa lalu?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
4. Apa pendapat Anda mengenai lingkungan belajar di kelas ini?(baik dari sisi teman-
teman kelompok belajar dan pembimbing?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………
- Terimakasih -
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
70
MM and MP’s Coding Data
Learning Dynamic
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
1) subjective
goal
MP specific language in use for
benchmarking
encouraging them using
English to communicate
language in specific
purposes
encouraging
performance
PL.9
PL.16
MM Solidarity between participants
to achieve group success.
endless learning spirit and risk
tasking
learning attitude
sustainable learning
ML. 97
ML.21
6
2) approach
and
strategy
MP simplify language function
(derived from MM)
every participants takes turn as
many as possible to use the
language
repetition and direct correction
drilling and supporting
learning climates
rotating peer partner during
practice
flow of material has set
simplify language
function
task value
meaningful
repetition
mechanical and
communicative
approach
collaborative
learning
syllabus based
ML.62
PL.19
PL.27
PL.224
PL.234
&
247
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
71
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
2) approach
and
strategy
MM unburden feeling and
cooperative situation
the use of online quiz, video
and audio as learning media to
maintain their progress
melibatkan yang paling pintar
dalam group untuk membantu
social interaction in group
between participants
meaningful repetition
material adjust the major
participants
Impromptu
General material given
experience subject based
material
supporting learning
environment
various learning
media
collaborative
learning
collaborative
learning
meaningful
repetition
group adjustment
English for General
Purposes
experimental
learning(?)
ML.19
7
ML.24
3
ML.23
6
PL.
245
PL.
281
ML.31
6
3) facilit
ator
role in
class
MP group pace
managing each participant
involvement
giving direct correction
giving correct example
facilitator
controlling
monitoring
modelling
PL. 77
&PL.8
1
PL. 103
PL. 109
MM expecting learner self-directed
understanding students
background
as colleague with the
participants in class
high expectation
compassionate
Egalitarian
ML.18
9
ML.20
5
ML.26
6
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
72
4) participa
nts
dynamic
MP Participants become braver
using English for
communication.
they enjoy in learning process
Some of participants have
intrinsic motivation for self-
enrichment
participants have self-doubt in
first meeting
braver performance
outcome
enjoy
intrinsic motivation
self-doubt
PL. 38
PL.40
PL.56
PL. 168
MM improvement in persistency
elaborating previous material
with present material
the use of whatsapp for learning
media
Observe one participants that
improve the most.
Facilitator not conducting test.
elaboration
Whatsaap as
learning media
individual
monitoring
unmeasurable
improvement
progress
ML.195
ML.211
ML. 82
& 90
ML.240
ML.259
Essential Learning
essence MP specific language in use for
benchmarking
encouraging them using English
to communicate
language in specific
purposes
encouraging
performance
PL. 9
PL.16
M
M
Solidarity between participants to
achieve group success.
endless learning spirit and risk
tasking
the presence of the facilitator is
really important
learning attitude
sustainable learning
ML. 97
ML.216
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
74
Learning Dynamic
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
1) subjectiv
e goal
MP specific language in
use for
benchmarking
encouraging them
using English to
communicate
language in specific purposes
encouraging performance
MPL.9
MPL.16
MM Solidarity between
participants to
achieve group
success.
endless learning
spirit and risk
tasking
learning attitude
sustainable learning
MMML.
97
MMML.2
16
2) approach
and
strategy
MP simMPLify language
function (derived
from MM)
every participants
takes turn as
many as possible
to use the
language
repetition and direct
correction
drilling and
supporting learning
climates
rotating peer partner
during practice
flow of material has
set
simMPLify language function
task value
meaningful repetition
mechanical and
communicative approach
collaborative learning
syllabus based
MMPL.62
MPL.19
MPL.27
MPL.224
MPL.234
& 247
MM unburden feeling
and cooperative
situation
the use of online
quiz, video and
audio as learning
media to maintain
their progress
supporting learning
environment
various learning media
collaborative learning
collaborative learning
MML.197
MML.243
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
75
Learning Dynamic
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
Involving more
knowledgeable
participants in group
social interaction in
group between
participants
meaningful
repetition
material adjust the
major participants
Impromptu
General material
given
experience subject
based material
meaningful repetition
group adjustment
English for General Purposes
experimental learning
MML.236
MPL. 245
MPL. 281
MML.316
3) participa
nts
dynamic
MP Participants become
braver using English
for communication.
they enjoy in
learning process
Some of participants
have intrinsic
motivation for self-
enrichment
participants have
self-doubt in first
meeting
braver performance outcome
enjoy
intrinsic motivation
self-doubt
MPL. 38
MPL.40
MPL.56
MPL. 168
MM improvement in
persistency
elaborating previous
material with
present material
the use of whatsapp
for learning media
elaboration
WhatsApp as learning media
individual monitoring
MML.195
MML.211
MML. 82
& 90
MML.240
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
76
Learning Dynamic
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
Observe one
participants that
improve the most.
Facilitator not
conducting test.
unmeasurable improvement
progress
MML.259
4) facilitato
r role in
class
MP group pace
managing each
participant
involvement
giving direct
correction
giving correct
examMPLe
facilitator
controlling
monitoring
modelling
MPL. 77
&MPL.81
MPL. 103
MPL. 109
MM expecting learner
self-directed
understanding
students background
as colleague with the
participants in class
high expectation
compassionate
Egalitarian
MML.189
MML.205
MML.266
Essential Learning
essence MP specific language in
use for
benchmarking
encouraging them
using English to
communicate
language in specific purposes
encouraging performance
MPL.9
MPL.16
MM Solidarity between
participants to
achieve group
success.
learning attitude
sustainable learning
MML. 97
MML.216
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
77
Learning Dynamic
Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source
endless learning
spirit and risk
tasking
the presence of the
facilitator is really
important
PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI