and interview that 10 students had traveled abroad; their experience in English speaking countries enabled them to become fluent with both the
written and spoken forms. When the researcher conducted an observation class she found that the teaching and learning activities or teaching methods
used in the class did not fulfill the students’ needs. The Dentistry students were required to study independently. It meant that most of the lecturers gave
them many assignments and laboratory reports to write. Designing English academic writing tasks for the Dentistry students at
Gadjah Mada University will help students to master English language. This design will guide them through academic writing. The materials in this design
are taken from general academic fields rather than from areas of English grammar. This design will provide a bridge between the previous English
course and the course they will take at Dentistry. The aim of this design is not to teach information relating to the field of Dentistry, but rather to teach
students the English language they will need in order to study Dentistry.
B. Analyzing the Data
This step is important in order to identify the learner’s needs and characteristics. The analysis will be divided into two parts. First, the TSA
Target Situation Analysis attempts to identify the learner’s needs at the end of the language course having been designed. Second, a PSA Present
Situation Analysis aims to identify their characteristics; the results of the analysis will be used as an important foundation in formulating course
objectives and writing the syllabus. Distributing questionnaires to Dentistry PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
students will be the methods for collecting the data required.
Table 4.1 First Survey Data Setting Research
University Gadjah Mada University
Faculty Dentistry Faculty
Number of students 200 students 150 fresh students
50 students who repeat subject from previous semester
Sex 15 male
60 female Age
Range from 17-19
The first survey was intended to identify learners’ needs and characteristics. The results will be used as the basis for writing the material
design. The data from the first part of the questionnaire was recorded in a frequency distribution chart and is presented in the descriptive analysis that
follows. The questionnaires were distributed to respondents during compulsory Dentistry classes. There were two sub-parts in the questionnaire.
In the first part, the respondents’ identity was used to ascertain the population sample for the study. The researcher chose 75 respondents from
150 students by purpose sampling. The researcher chose 75 respondents because it was a half of the whole population of the 150 students. With a
larger sample size, over generalization was less likely to occur and create misguiding results. There were 15 male and 60 female respondents involved
in this study. The researcher included the entire class population when she distributed questionnaires to the respondents. There were 96 students who
came to the class, of which 21 students were repeating students from previous PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
semester. Those students who had previously studied the course shoppers were not included. Their age ranged from 17 to 19 years of age. The students
came from various cities all over Indonesia and most of the students were financially stable. The researcher found that around 10 respondents had been
abroad in the past and they had mastered a high level of English proficiency. The students were required to study independently. They learnt by doing.
Some of the students came from families with a background in Dentistry; however, many came from families without such a background. The
researcher chose 75 respondents to fill in the questions. Those 75 people were considered to be representative of the whole population of students in the
Dentistry Department in Yogyakarta. In the Second part, a needs analysis was used to determine the
respondents’ needs in academic writing. The researcher asked 17 questions related to the respondents’ needs and their problems relating to academic
writing. The data from the first part of the questionnaire was presented in a
frequency distribution table, see appendix 4. The responses from the questionnaire were counted and translated to
percentages for ease of comparison. Each point had its own scoring and the results of the score were also presented as a percentage score.
The researcher analyzed the first question below. Thirty-seven respondents or 49.3 of the respondents chose point 5 to indicate that they
felt that writing in English was very important. The results from the second PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
question showed those thirty-nine respondents or 52 of the respondents chose point 5, they perceived the model composition does assist in writing a
composition.
Diagram table 4.2 The Descriptive Statistics of the Respondents’ Opinion on the First Survey Research.
a. Question 1 to 4
48 58.6
52 49.3
15 30
45 60
75
english is impor
tan t
model of c
o mpos
ition anal
ysi s of
model c
o mpos
ition s
tr u
ct ur
e o f
c o
mpos ition
In response to the third question,
writing activity started, it is better preceded with the analysis model of composition
58.6 of respondents chose point 5 suggesting they example composition. In the fourth question, 48
respondents chose point 5 identifying that they needed a structure outline for compositions.
b. Question 5 to 8
40 40
32 49.3
15 30
45 60
75
need comment
need peer- editing and
peer assessment
difficulty in grammar
difficulty in vocabulary
In response to the fifth question, A larger percentage, 49,3 of the respondents chose point 4 agreeing that they benefit from other people
reading over their writing draft and they recognized a need for their writing to be checked by a proofreader. Approximately a quarter of the respondents, A
slightly larger group, 32 of the respondents, chose point 4, agreeing that peer-editing was important as input for their writing draft and identifying a
need for peer-editing and peer-assessment to revise their writing Meanwhile, 34 of the respondents chose point 3 to indicate uncertainty about the
benefits of having peers check their work. According to the respondents, sometimes the input or feedback provided by their peers was faulty.
The seventh question asked respondents their opinion on the need for a grammar focus when assigned English writing tasks. Most of the
respondents, 40 identified this provision as a positive guideline as they selected points five and four, respectively. The eighth question was responded
to positively by 40 of respondents who chose point 5, feeling strongly about PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
the benefits of the provision of vocabulary suggestions, and were slightly less confident about the benefits of vocabulary provisions.
c. Question 9 to 12
38.6 49.3
38.6 44
15 30
45 60
75
fi nding
ide a
pa ir
wo rk
and gr
oup wor
k oft
h er
ty pe
of a
c ti
v iti
e s
oth e
r topics
For the ninth question 44 of respondents chose point 5 meaning that they had difficulty in finding the idea and they still had difficulty in finding
the idea. There were 38.6 or 29 respondents chose point 5. Pair or group work was very important to them and found group work and working in
pairs helpful. When it came to the eleventh question almost half 49.3 of the
respondents chose point 5 and because they considered writing other types of academic writing helped their writing progress.
The twelfth question asked if they liked to choose a common topic such as film, music and current affairs. Twenty-nine respondents chose
point 5 indicated that they definitely did like this. 26 respondents or 38.6 PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
of respondents who chose point 4 showed a slightly lower level of interest.
d. Question 13 to 16
69.3 34.6
49.3 36
15 30
45 60
75
fr ee
wr iting
p ract
ic e
wr it
ing wor
k sh
ee t
pa per
writ in
g a
c tivies
There were 36 respondents agreed that free writing were a good tool to use as draft in conveying idea. Question fourteen referred to the need for
practice writing in basic writing types. 49.3 respondents chose for point 1 and 23.9 for point 2 felt that they definitely needed practice in basic
writing in English. The fifteenth question’s responses showed that the majority of students 69.3 chose point 5 saying that the writing activities
they need are essay writing, summary and paraphrasing. When the researcher conducted interviews with the students, she did
not inform the students that she was conducting research for her thesis, in order to obtain honest answers from the students. The material for the
interview was limited to the questions that were related to writing and the use of English within the Dentistry Faculty. The second interview was
conducted with English lecturers and English Instructors during the design process of the materials. It recorded respondents’ opinions, criticisms, and
suggestions for the materials designed to improve or revise current materials. The researcher used unstructured questions. The questions asked
varied depending on the interviewee’s responses. The researcher chose three people for this interview.
The responses given during the interview indicated that, the students do not have enough time to focus to writing. Secondly, their courses are not
presented in English and they don’t have to write their tests in English. Moreover, they suffer from insufficient knowledge of general vocabulary
and therefore they cannot write appropriately in order to be able to help Dentistry students write academic writing in English well. There is a need
for lecturers to take into account the processes involved in good writing and the outcomes of writing.
The students must have more opportunities for writing. As revealed in their interviews, when they didn’t know the word for something, they use
one of two strategies; they both use a bilingual dictionary and choose a word they have not come across before and therefore had no feeling for, or they
“write around” the gap, describing the concept they are aiming for. The first strategy usually ends up with a word with inappropriate connotations and
the second often produces a complex and mixed sentence structure. Moreover, the researcher observed the class regularly but the full
lecture was only given on four occasions. The rest of the time the lecturer just gave home assignments to his class. He asked the students to have
independent study giving them assignments to do at home. The study materials that the lecturer gave were not suitable for the students’ need.
Neither was there any syllabus given to the students. So, the students did not have guidance for studying during the semester. In one instance the time
allocation for the lecture was 100 minutes but the lecturer only used 45 minutes after which he gave out an assignment and left the class. There was
no attendance list taken for this class.
Table 4.3 Tally Sheet for Analyzing Classroom Interaction Checklist
No. Observation tally sheet
Check 1. Lecturer asks a display questions i.e. a question to which he knows the answer
√ 2. Lecturer asks a referential question i.e. a question to which he does not know
the answer √
3. Lecturer explains a grammatical point √
4. Lecturer explains meaning of a vocabulary item √
5. Lecturer explains functional point √√
6. Lecturer explains point relating to the content themetopic of the lesson √√
7. Lecturer gives instructionsdirections √√
8. Lecturer praises √√
9. Lecturer criticizes √√
10. Learner asks a question √√
11. Learner answers question √√
12. Learner talks to another learner √
13. Period of silence or confusion √
√
This symbol represents students’ activities in classroom
√√
This symbol represent that students who were not active in classroom.
The findings from Table 4.3, Tally Sheet for Analyzing Classroom Interaction, showed that learners rarely answered the question that was
asked by the lecturer. Even though there were questions asked by the lecturer, these questions were in the form of display questions. The lecturer
also asked referential questions for use in group discussion. Grammar points PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
and vocabulary were taught as a main lecture. Oftentimes the lecturer introduced the lecture materials straight away without reviewing the
previous lesson or the point of the lecture that day. The lecturer always gave assignments to the students and most of them seemed confused about the
instructions. Learners had to guess what kind of assignment it was. Learners needed reinforcement and praise. When learners made mistakes or gave
unrelated answers the lecturer seldom commented. One of the difficulties in handling a large class is that most of the learners talk to other students
instead of referring to the lecturer. Learners seemed to spend their time doing nothing. It could be said that the learners were in a state of confusion.
The researcher used the students’ writing as the error analysis. Students were asked to write a piece of free writing in first draft form so that
the researcher could discover the students’ weaknesses and strengths. These compositions were analyzed to see the types of errors made. The researcher
used one class meeting to carry out this writing with the permission of the English lecturer. The researcher asked the students to write a free writing
composition with the title “My Embarrassing Day“. The writing was analyzed to identify the major writing problems.
They were examined with regard to language skills, that is, spelling, grammar, syntax, and vocabulary devices, coherence and organization. All
types of spelling mistake were considered, for example writing “daybetic” instead of “diabetic”. Examples of grammar mistakes were “she developing
a knee pain since a month ago” and “my headache is very strong and I break PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
down to the floor”. In syntax the students sometimes did not follow the rules of grammar for ordering and connecting words to form phrases and
sentences. Examples of incorrect of vocabulary wee using “ breast” instead of “ chest” or forgetting the word for “paint” and leaving it blank.
Sometimes there were no close relationship, based on grammar or meaning, between different parts of a sentence or between one sentence and
cohesion. In some writing, there was no consistency and reasonable connection between of their writing coherence. All such writing was
considered as a mistake. The data was then analyzed to see whether any one factor was the main cause of the writing problems.
Diagram percentage of the common errors from student’s writing
28 16.7
10.4 16
Tense Selection of word
Verb agreement Awkward expression and words
Some of the students actually wrote an Indonesian version of the composition and translated it word for word into English. Such a procedure
caused them to come up with awkward expressions in their writing. They PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
took for granted that whatever was written in the dictionary was absolutely appropriate and correct as well as a precise translation.
The researcher identified total errors based on the writing of 75 students and analyzed them in 14 categorized see appendix 5. The
researcher discovered that the most frequent error was the incorrect use of word caused by transfer or awkward expressions and words article 28
Errors. Errors in subject verb agreement were the next most frequent 16,7 , while 16 errors were errors of incorrect selection of word and the error
of incorrect use of tense occurred 10,4.
C. Writing a Syllabus of Instructional Materials Development
