The Implementation of Sidang Akademi
57 The information above was linear with the information obtained
from the document of schedule which stated that at August 18
th
2015 there was “Explanation of Academic Preliminary Meeting Program,
Election of the Program Management, Draft Arrangement”. The schedules distributed were about the arrangement date of presentation.
Besides, the guidance books distributed were about “the submission
rule for both draft and final paper after being revised, the themes that the student would talk about, and some materials related to the format
or general rule for the presentation ”. In addition, it is written in the
observation result that in the first meeting “the students were to discuss the theme they got to their friend who got the same theme and made
draft for their papers”. Therefore, in the first day both the schedule and observation result presented the linear information about the
explanation of the meeting to the students. The information about the process of the implementation was
also observed by the researcher and peer observer. Based on the observation done at September 25
th
2016, in the beginning of the process of presentation which was in the second week of
implementation, “the student tended to be nervous as they had to present in English
”. The observation result revealed that “they made some pauses many times and tended to make inappropriate movements
like smiling or touching other thing th at distracted their performance”.
It was linear with the data gathered from the document of the PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
58 implementation. Based on the minutes of the activity, it was stated that
“the presenter move too much”. Furthermore, the researcher also obtained the information from
the process of Focus Discussion. This information conveyed the influence of the implementation of the activity for the students. In the
discussion conducted on March 31
th
2016, some participants in the discussion shared their experiences based on the implementation of the
activity. A participant described the importance of the implementation as follows.
Participant :”Kita harus bersyukur bahwa yang
dijalani di SA ini baik. Dan mungkin dengan kita sadar gak bisa narik perhatian 100 kita terus belajar bahwa
nantinya dimasyarakat
belum tentu
kamu bisa
menyampaikan materi 100 dan menarik perhatian
mereka juga” Own translation
:
We have to be grateful that what we have in Academy Preliminary
Meeting is good. Maybe, by realizing that we cannot fully expect to attract the audience 100 we can learn
that later in a real life we cannot present the material 100 as well as we cannot expect them to be attracted
to what we present. The full Focus Group Discussion transcript was
provided upon request.
The implementation of Sidang Akademi facilitate the students to explore the students‟ ability especially in speaking. Based on the
student‟s point of view, the implementation of Academic Preliminary Meeting was significant in preparing them the future. This point of
view was supported by the statement revealed as follows.
Student : Saat pelaksaan SA ini bener-
bener dilatih jadi nanti pas kerja atau kuliah akan sangat
berguna juga”. Own translation
:
I was really trained in the implementation of Academic Preliminary
59
Meeting as later in the working world or college will be very beneficial as well.
The full Focus Group Discussion transcript was provided upon request.
Although the activity has been deliberately designed to improve students‟ skill through the implementation of Sidang Akademi,
some students suggested for the activity‟s betterment. These shared ideas were related to the process of the implementation of the activity.
Related to schedule and presentation division, one student gave her opinion for the betterment of the implementation.
Student :”Yang perlu dievaluasi adalah
pembagian tugas. Own translation
:
Thing to be developed was tasks division.
As stated by the student, the presentation division was needed to be improved for students did not have the same chance to present in this
activity. The student also revealed the reason why the division of presentation should be improved as follows.
Student :”Karena aku sendiri cuma dapet
jatah tampil sekali, debat, terus aku dapet masukan dari judges dan aku mikir ini buat apa karena setelah ini
aku juga gak bakal tampil lagi. Padahal yang lain ada
yang sampai tiga kali tugas.” Own translation
:
For I only got once chance to deliver presentation, which
was debate, then when I got the comment from the judges, the comment meant nothing as after that I did
not have the other chance to present. Meanwhile, there was a student who presented three times.
Actually, the suggestion was not only about the division and the schedule of presentation but also, as what the other point of view shared
in the process of Focus Group Discussion, the development of the guidance book and the instruction for the presentation.
60
Student :”Jadi kan kelas tiga ini SA dibagi
kayak statement gitu, jadi ada baiknya kalau ditambahin teori-teori apa yang harus kita bawain. Jadi
modul dibuat lengkap. Own translation
:
In the implementation of Academic Preliminary Meeting
for the third-grade students, we were distributed like statements. It was better if there were also
theories about the kind of presentation we were supposed to implement.
Another point of view was also revealed during the data gathering process related to the development of the guidance book and
the instruction for the presentation.
Student
:”Terkadang pendamping lupa untuk menyampaikan apa yang harus kita siapin karena waktu
yang satu setengah jam itu di SA cuma buat praktek. Jadi selanjutnya modul itu dibuat lengkap lagi jadi semua itu
yang ada di SA, kira-kira apa yang dibutuhkan pas penampi
lan.” Own translation
:
Sometimes, the facilitator forgot to explain what we had to present
because the an-hour-and-a-half time of presentation was only for practice. Thus, the module is needed to
be developed completely so it can cover what is needed in the presentation time.
Moreover, the statement above was also supported by the other statement from the student. In order to present better, it was not only
important to develop the module but also to have direction from the facilitator. The statement was stated as follows.
Student :”Aku rasa inti dari SA ini penting,
jadi kalau dilihat dari lima kelas ini contohnya aja debat, yang jadi masalah ini kita gak dikasih tau harus tampil
seperti apa, jenis debat yang mana. Own translation
:
I think that Academic Preliminary Meeting was
important, so if we take a look at the five different classes for example in presenting debate, the problem
was that weren’t explained what and how the presentation should be as well as the kind of debate.
The problem especially related to when the student had to present debating. The information above was linear to the information
61 gathered from the document which was the minutes of the meeting. In
the minutes of the meeting done at 22
nd
September 2015, the researcher discovered the comment from the facilitator related to the process of
debate. It was clearly stated “both affirmative and negative team don‟t know how to debate”. The facilitator of the meeting defined debate as
“formal way to communicate, build defence and self-esteem, conveyed ideas and thoughts coherently and passionately”. Unfortunately, the
student did not present as what was expected by the facilitator of Academic Preliminary Meeting.
In addition, the student conveyed the reason why the explanation should be explained to the student.
Student :”Kalau menurut pengalaman, kan
debat ada banyak jenisnya ada yang Australi, Asia dan lain-lain, nah itu gak dikasih tau yang mana. Minimal
ada yang dikasih tau sama gurunya sediri biar kelompok juga
paham apa yang harus mereka lakukan.” Own translation
:
Based on my experience, debate has many types, whether Australian or Asian Parliamentary
and so on, unfortunately, we weren’t explained about that. The facilitator was supposed to explain so the
group would able to know what they were to do.
This information was also linear to the content of the guidance book of the implementation. Based on the paper distributed to the
student, the researcher could not find any information about the system of the presentation. The researcher only discovered, in this case
debating process, the written explanations of the debate regulation. There were only regulation for “Main Speeches”, “Reply Speeches”,
and “Main Speeches”. The complete document presented as follows. PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
62
1. Main Speeches :
a. First Signal 1X knock
: at 3‟ menit ke tiga
b. Second Signal 2X knocks
: at 4‟ menit ke empat
c. Final Signal Continuous Knocks
: at 4‟ 20” 2.
Reply Speeches: only for 1
st
or 2
nd
speaker, negative side first, then positive side.
a. First Signal 1X knock
: at 2‟ menit ke dua
b. Second Signal 2X knocks
: at 3‟ menit ke tiga
c. Final Signal Continuous Knocks
: at 3‟ 20”
3. Main Speeches
a. 1
st
speaker Positive: define the motion, give the group‟s theme line garis besar pembicaraan
kelompok, tell the team‟s split, deliver hisher arguments and also the supporting facts and data for
the arguments. b.
1
st
speaker Negative: accept or challenge the definition given by the positive. If you accept, tell
your group‟s theme line and also the team‟s split then rebut every argument posted by the positive by giving
the opposite facts and data. If you challenge the definition, then both of the groups will work on
different matters and the adjudicators will just see which one is stronger in building the case. Remember:
the adjudicators will never be neutral c.
2
nd
speaker Positive rebuild the cases by giving more facts and data on the arguments posted by the 1
st
speaker of positive and also rebut the arguments posted by the negative. The task of this speaker is not
only to rebuild the case but this speaker must also continue the theme line.
d.
2
nd
speaker Negative rebuild the cases by giving more facts and data on the arguments posted by the 1
st
speaker of negative and also rebut the arguments posted by the positive. The task of this speaker is not
only to rebuild the case but this speaker must also continue the theme line.
e.
3
rd
speaker of Positive still have to rebuild the case and continue the theme line and be the bulldozer for
any opinions that are failed to be rebutted and left by the 1
st
and 2
nd
speaker of hisher group. May bring new issue. Restate the group‟s theme line.
f. 3
rd
speaker of Negative still have to rebuild the case and continue the theme line and be the bulldozer for
any opinions that are failed to be rebutted and left by
63
the 1
st
and 2
nd
speaker of hisher group. No new matters brought. Restate the group‟s theme line.
4. Reply speeches are a time for restatement of the
group‟s position. Neither new matter nor arguments may be brought during these sessions. It‟s better to tell
the adjudicators about the group‟s strength and the rival‟s weaknesses in a convincing but polite way.
Besides, the researcher also gave another example from the guidance in conducting seminar. In the part of “Seminar”, there was
only written explanation which entitled “Classroom Process”. In the explanation of “Classroom Process”, there were elaborations of the
process for the student, as present as follows.
A. Moderator sidang adalah sekaligus moderator
seminar, begitu juga note – taker dan tim pembahas
pembanding.Own translation
:
The moderator of the meeting is the seminar’s moderator as well as
the note taker B.
Proses dimulai dengan proses Sidang Akademi yang normal. Doa, Pembacaan Notulen dan Presensi dan
Pengantar. Own translation
:
The process is begun with the Academic Preliminary Meeting process as
normally done C.
Setelah seremonial Sidang Akademi selesai, baru
proses Seminar dimulai. Own translation
:
After the Academic Preliminary Meeting’s ceremonial
process is conducted, the process of Seminar is conducted
D.
Setelah proses seminar selesai, persilahkan pembahas untuk memberikan bahasannya seputar proses sidang
bukan tentang materi yang dibawakan oleh presenter. Own translation
:
After the process of the seminar is done, the commentator is to give his comment
about the process of the meeting not about the material delivered by the presenter
Another students gave his point of view related to the implementation of the activity. The development of the topic and theme
that they had to explore was one element of the activity needed to be improved. The statement as follows.
64
Student :”Topiknya itu kurang menarik.
Kalau temanya dibuat lebih variatif dan menarik lagi aku rasa bisa menarik perhatian mereka peserta sidang.
Kadang ada yang ngobrol sendiri.” Own translation: The topics were tiresome. If the themes were
developed in varied way and interesting, I think it could attract the audiences. Sometimes, the audiences
were busy talking.
The statement was supported by the result of the observation. The researcher and the peer observer found
“the audience talking to the other audience in the middle of the presentation
”. “The audience did not pay attention to the point of the presentat
ion”. “The other audience was caught sleeping or doing other thing while the presenter was presenting
in the front of the class”. This information was linear to the note written in the minutes of meeting. A facilitator gave her comment to the student
in th e end of the process “student X and Y were talking during the class
activity”. A student presented her suggestion related to the involvement of
the audience.
Student :”Biar audiencenya gak ngobrol
sendiri dan ngantuk, kasih tugas, jadi kan ada paper yang
harus mereka
isis tentang
pokok yang
dibicarakan.” Own translation: In order to involve the student it’s needed to give them task, so they had
to fill the paper related to the point being discuss so that they would not be busy talking.
Another student thought that the task given should not be a simple task. The student, therefore, compared the task given in the
previous grade as follows.
Student :”Sebenernya kita udah dikasih
tugas tapi kalau menurutku itu tugasnya terlalu singkat. Jadi menurutku jangan cuma yang singkat kaya gitu,
65
kaya ditambahin pertanyaan. Dibandingin SA kelas satu dan dua kita lebih fokus kerena waktu itu kita harus nulis
notulen jadi menurutku itu bisa lebih fokus.” Own translation
: Actually, we had been given task but it’s unfortunately too simple. So, in my opinion, the task
was not supposed to be that simple, it’s needed to add the
guiding question.
Compared to
the implementation of Academic Preliminary Meeting
conducted in the first and second grade, every of us was require to write minutes, that made student more
focus.
In addition, another student suggested that the time management of the implementation should be maintained better. The student always
experienced to have extended time in the implementation. He suggested that every class should have same approach.
Student :”Sayangnya kelasku itu terkenal bakalan
pulang lebih lama dari jadwal”. Own translation
:
Unfortunately, my class was always known as class which ended longer than scheduled time.
The above information was to answer the question number one. The following themes elaborated below were to answer the second
research question proposed in chapter II, which was how do the third- grade students in Pangudi Luhur Van Lith Senior High School develop
their confidence in speaking English through the implementation of Sidang Akademi.