Page 379 of 464
In writing the literature reviews, especially in the theoretical sections, the students had problems in synthesizing concepts from different sources. This challenge was to be related
with the academic language mechanics, which will be discussed in the following section. The stude ts u de sta di g a out esea h h pothesis as a othe halle ge fou d i this
section. It is important to note that 5 out of six students used quantitative research method. While the students could write the statistical hypothesis, they failed to explain the statistical
hypothesis that they had formulated.
In writing the research method, the students appeared to have difficulties in understanding the concepts of the population and sample. As noted previously, the students
failed to present in the title whether their study would be a quantitative or a classroom action research study. There was little consistency between the population and sample
presented in the title, and the population and sample discussed in method section.
The research instrument was also another issue found in this section. In developing a questionnaire, the students appeared to be unaware that the statements in the
questionnaires might provide specific answers leading into bias [7]. In addition, the construct that the students developed appeared to be inconsistent and did not strongly relate to the
theory discussed in the theoretical review. For example, the students developed
uestio ai es of i te est ithout i t odu i g the defi itio of hat ei g i te ested mean. This lack of specificity triggered the question of the validity issue of the instrument
[7]. It was not only the sample and the instrument of the research, but also the data analysis
that complicated the challenges. Students appeared to have problems to decide which statistical tools to be used to analyze the data. For example, they used t-test to analyze data
in classroom action research. As seen, the respondents in classroom action research is considered to be population, in which inferential statistic is not needed [1].
Another issue that emerged regarding the logic design in this study was found in the conclusions and recommendations. As mentioned previously, the main purpose of the
conclusions is to give direct answers to the research questions. However, the way the students answered the questions was inconsistent. For example, the question
Apakahadape ga uha ta a odel polaasuh o a g tuada p estasi?
hi h a e t a slated i to Is the e a elatio ship et ee the odels of pa e ti g a d stude ts
a hie e e t? as a s e ed ith adako elasipositifa ta a odel polaasuh o a g
tuada p estasi hi h a e t a slated i to the e is a positi e o elatio et ee the odel of pa e ti g a d stude ts a hie e e t.
Page 380 of 464
4.2 The Usage of Academic Language
As noted earlier, the usage of academic language was divided into two different categories, namely the implementation of academic language and the efforts to avoid
plagiarism. I categorized genres of academic language into narrating, describing, comparing and contrasting, indicating cause and effect, and persuading and arguing. This categorization
was used to
a al ze the stude ts o ks ased o Bloo s ta o o .
4.2.1 The implementation of academic language
According to Oshima and Hogue [2], the most prominent aspect in narrative writing is the sequence of an event. In terms of narrating, the students tended to skip narrating what
happened in the field. Instead of narrating what happened in a thick description, they tended to use their own interpretations. For example, without presenting the event that
might lead to this conclusion, one of my students wrote in Indonesian,
sis atidak e pe hatika gu u hi h ould e i te p eted that the stude ts did ot pa attention to the teacher. This expression implied that he judged the students observed as
not paying attention to the teacher without sufficient data.When the students were supposed to describe graphs, figures, or demography, they tended not to createthorough
description. They often included graphs, figures, or demography without sufficiently describing them. When the students were required to describe research setting, they tended
to organize their information contextually. They appeared to get confused in identifying
hethe the applied the spe tato s o i ds poi t of ie . “o eti es the just i ed the two. Consequently, it was challenging for the readers to follow.
The logic of comparing and contrasting was another challenge to be recognized. Oshima and Hogue [2] and Azar [5] indicated that in comparing and contrasting, the elements to
contrast should be at least two elements of the same levels, categories or classes. Nevertheless, the students sometimes did not pay enough attention to this approach. For
e a ple the said “is akelasA ilai ale ihti ggidi a di gde ga kelas B hi h ould e translated word by word into the scores of students in class A was higher compared with
class B. In this context, it can be seen that it is not clear what is being compared: is it the classes, the students, or the grades?
The students were challenged not only in terms of narrating, describing, and comparing and contrasting, but also in indicating cause and effect. Without providing enough premises,
the students directly drew strong conclusions to indicate the effect. For example, the students at the beginning stated that the teacher kept lecturing in the classroom, then, by
i t odu i g se agaiaki at, a I do esia e p essio e ui ale t ith as a esult, the students claimed that the students got bored. The students appeared to be unaware that it
Page 381 of 464
is possible for a teacher to have a wonderful lecturing cla ss, like the p ophets tea hi g a d
that it is the stude ts espo si ilit to a age thei o o edo . In building and developing a persuasive argument, the students appeared to have a final
challenge. According to Oshima and Hogue [1], an academic argument should review both positive and negative values of whatis being evaluated before someone states hisher
position. The students, however, appeared to fail in building their argument objectively. Instead of including these two sides in providing dialectical judgment, the students built one-
sided argument, either positive or negative to support their premise. Consequently, they tried to be judgmental, but failed to use appropriate academic language. In other instances,
the students failed to support or take a clear position in the argument as it related to their research questions.
4.2.2 The efforts to avoid plagiarism
There are three ways to avoid plagiarism, namely by quoting, paraphrasing, and summarizing with proper citation and references [3]. The students appeared to make efforts
in avoiding plagiarism although the efforts were far from the expected ideal. In quoting other sources, for example, the students tended to quote long sentences, or even
paragraphs without including their own explanation or interpretation about the quotes used. They even appeared to copy a diagram or figure in their project without proper citation and
reference. Additionally there was an indication that the students did not ask for permission to reprint published materials. This lack of respect for copyrighted intellectual property
could be seen from the way they did not include proper citation of the sources in the diagram or figure, nor in bibliographic references.
In paraphrasing the sources, the students also tended to use the same language markers to introduce different sources, even in different paragraphs repetitively. For
e a ple, the ofte used the o d e u ut … hi h ould e t a slated i to a o di g to … to i t odu e pa aph asi g diffe e t sou es i diffe ent paragraphs in rows. In
addition, the paraphrases that they made sometimes were too close to the sources, and this tendency created the potential for plagiarism, or the borrowing of phrases without proper
citation.
While appearing not to be able to quote and paraphrase the sources appropriately, the students also appeared to be unfamiliarwith how ways to summarize sources. The language
of summary can be indicated by the appearance of the in text citation at the end of the summary [3]. However, none of the students revealed this indication.
Page 382 of 464
5. Conclusions and Recommendation
F o the fi di gs, it a e dete i ed that the stude ts halle ges i iti g esea h reports were triggered by their failure to follow the logic of the research. It is possible that
their inability to develop the logic of the research design is the inability of the students to understand the mechanics of the academic language. For this reason, it is suggested that the
department considers further courses that might help the students to understand the academic language and logic of research methodology.
R
EFERENCES
[1] A. Aron, E. N. Aron E. J. Coups, Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 4
th
ed., NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. [2]
A. Oshima A. Hogue, Writing Academic English, 4
th
ed., White Plains, NY: Longman. 2006.
[3] A. Raimes. Keys for Writers. MA: Houghton Mifflin. 2008.
[4] B. Johnson L. Christensen, Education Research: Quantitative, Qualitative and Mixed
Approaches, 4
th
ed., CA: Sage, 2012. [5]
B. S. Azar, Understanding and Using English Grammar, NY: Pearson Education, 2009. [6]
B. S. Bloom, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals, NY: Longman, 1956.
[7] L. Crocker J. Algina, Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory, OH: Cengage
Learning, 2008. [8]
M.Q. Patton, Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3
rd
ed., CA: Sage, 2002 [9]
Program StudiPendidikan Guru SekolahDasar, UniversitasSanata Dharma, Kurikulum PGSD, 2012, Unpublished.
Program StudiPendidikan Guru SekolahDasar, UniversitasSanata Dharma, PedomanSkripsi, 2012, Unpublished.
Page 383 of 464
Promoting Sarjana [Undergraduate] Paper Writing Skill through the Indigenous Wisdom Katresnanism Based Approach: A Case
Study in Poetry Class of PBI USD Yogyakarta
36
Antonius Herujiyanto
Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta, Indonesia anton.herujiyantogmail.com
Abstract
This research paper is a further attempt to critically look into the ways of optimizing the indigenous wisdom named Katresnanism based approach to promote
undergraduate paper writing skill as seen in POETRY class of the English Language Education Study Program of Sanata Dharma University Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
In line with the course objectives such as exploring questions on the art of poetry; analyzing cultural similarities with regards to the nature of poetry and world cultures [as
represented in eastern Indonesian and western [American] cultures, the class activities [both spoken and written ones] would be, therefore, dealing with the cultural
characteristics and case studies [some world noted poems]. Not only are the students encouraged to discuss their cultural understanding; the intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of
the poems discussed but they are also exposed to writing skill activities conducted in
lass. The data of this stud e e, the , gathe ed f o the stude ts iti al iti g
papers done for their midterm test 02-12042013. Their papers are on their understanding of the art of poetry discussed and learnt in class. The findings of this study
deal with the quality of their critical writing papers: whether or not they used their ideas to advance and develop their thesis.
This study is grounded on the Katresnanism based approach, proposing to apply Kat es a di i e lo e o athe positive thinking in the discussion. Its description and
o e of its o es a ed e gku u g alt uisti olla o atio ould e, thus, to ope
the study.
36
A paper presented in the International Conference on Educational Research and Innovation [ICERI 2013], in UNY Hotel, Yogyakarta State University, Indonesia, May 16-17, 2013
