INNOVATING ACADEMIC WRITING COURSE IN LIGHT OF Introduction ECCLECTIC EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORKS

INNOVATING ACADEMIC WRITING COURSE IN LIGHT OF
ECCLECTIC EDUCATIONAL FRAMEWORKS
Adriadi Novawan
Language, Communication and Tourism Department,
Politeknik Negeri Jember (POLIJE)
Email: adriadinovawan@gmail.com

ABSTRACT
ThH article reflectively explores how DQassessment was practiced in
an Academic Writing &ourse LQƀ
the VHWWLQJof English /DQJXDJH7HDFKLQJ
LQ WKH +LJKHU (GXFDWLRQ. 7KH QRWLRQ RI DVVHVVPHQW IRU OHDUQLQJ $I/
DGRSWHGIURPHGXFDWLRQDOOLWHUDWXUHVLVXVHGIt firstly outlines the extent
to which the assessment practice was congruent with the principles of
AfL and what were impacts perceived by the students. On the basis of the
analysis, innovation for improvement is proposed. This innovation
includes reconstruction in the whole course design assuming the prominence
of assessment practice within a conceptually-prepared course. In addition, a
practical model of the assessment within a unit of lesson is also proposed.
Key words: Academic Writing, course design, educational frameworks,
assessment IRU learning

Introduction
The tenet of assessment for learning (AfL) is relatively new in Indonesian
Higher Education context. Despite the fact that the elements of AfL have been widely
practiced represented by particular approaches which emphasis metacognition, enquirybased learning, interaction, scaffolding, and feedback, they tended to be undermined by
behavioriVW LGHRORJLHV which prone to result in VWURQJassessment of learning (AoL) vis a
vis assessment for learning (AfL). Particularly, the teaching of academic writing
which ideally construes the integration of language and subject contents needs to
emphasis WKH  ‗learning‘ experience RI ZULWLQJ rather than ‗testing‘ LW. Thus,
underpinned by this postulation, this article explores the nature of pedagogy and
assessment on the basis of AfL principles and innovates how an Academic Writing
course could be developed in line with AfL principles.
Within the observed setting, Academic Writing course mainly prepares graduate
students to be able to engage in the final project in the following term (last year of
education). Therefore, it aimed to equip the students with the skill of proposal writing
and encouraged them to identify interests and develop ideas, in turn to manifest them
into a creative final project proposal. On the basis of the National Curriculum Policy for
vocational higher education, the course construes dichotomy between theory and
practice. The department curriculum team decided that the Academic Writing course
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication

JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

25

comprises 2 credits divided into 1 credit of theory (16 hours lectures) and 1 credit of
practice (32 hours practicum). As a consequence of the dichotomy between theoretical
and practical skills in the national guideline, institutional policy managed the separation
between lectures (teaching and learning of theories) and practicum (practices of theories
learned in the lectures). Consequently, the assessment was divided up into two main
areas, namely theory (contributes 40%) and practical (contributes 60%). Each focus area
was assessed twice within a term—middle tests and final tests. The tests were more
instrumental to know the students‘ performance which represented assessment of
learning (AoL) vis a vis assessment for learning (AfL).
Within the above context, the assessment practice referred to the criteria and
elements regulated institutionally. The elements assessed involved format, content and
writing technique. In terms of format, the guideline managed paper size, margins, font
type, font size, line spacing, referencing, cover template, and basic structure. Content
included accuracy, criticality, and innovativeness of the field-specific proposal. Writing
technique concerned the organisation and fluency of presentation. The three
components above were justified on the basis of institutional marking and grading

system. Scores ranged from 81 to 100 was graded A, 76 to 80 was AB, 71 to 75 was B,
61 to 70 was BC, 51 to 60 was C, 41 to 50 was D, less than 40 was E (failed).
Conceptually, the learning outcomes of the course correspond to attainment
element studied in James and Brown (2005). Since the emphasis of the subject was on
writing competence (literacy), the development of writing skill that reflect sufficient
understanding on the chosen field-specific content became the primary goal. Although
there was no ‗exact criterion‘ used to describe which level of writing skill to achieve, it
was taken into consideration that the students participating in this subject had taken
relevant subjects underpinning their writing skill such as Grammar, Writing and other
literacy-based subjects. Therefore, the assessment paid attention on the above
repertoires. Different from that of other literacy-based subjects (e.g. Reading),
Academic Writing required the students to demonstrate ‗some degree‘ of knowledge on
the chosen content-area. It then assumed that the students, without needing to be taught,
would be able to demonstrate understanding on it (e.g. Establishment of Travel
Agency).
Moreover, the assessment practice was overwhelmed and scrutinised by the
consequences of behaviouristic systems that demanded accountability and transparency
through written documents. In this circumstance, assessment was characterised by focus
on planned timetable and day-to-day learning goals, lack of effective feedback since
there was not enough time for exploring learning deeply, and orientation towards

marking and grading process. Therefore, the purpose of assessment was more on
supporting the students in doing the tests either in the middle or the end of term. Despite
the notion of AoL undermined AfL, formative assessment was still practised but
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

26

without sufficient fundamental knowledge and direction. For instance, scoring criteria
was done accidentally. The lessons were designed more interactively to provide
opportunities for students to work in group and to have peer assessment and self
assessment. Moderation, albeit essential, was somehow ignored. These formative
features were practiced without profound planning, recording and documentation.
Albeit the educational parties expect that the assessment practices can reduce
unintended impacts, in fact, it is still the most prominent challenge in HEIs today
(Falchikov and Boud, 2007). Studies also suggest summative assessment gives negative
impacts on student motivation, while formative assessment enables student to make
progress in their learning (Harlen and Crick, 2002; Black and Wiliam, 1998; James,
1998). This evidence is relevant to the reality in this study. With the above practice,
students had greater anxiety specifically due to facing the middle and final test rather

than any others and in many cases undermined their motivation and created stressed.
Although, there is a consideration to view this as a long-term impact latently shaped
throughout the students‘ past experiences that affected motivation today (Boud and
Falchikov, 2007), the assessment did shape impact by giving more anxiety and
stimulating them to be grade-oriented. The ineffectiveness of assessment may also
extrinsically encourage a surface learning strategy which brought about ‗shallow‘
learning. It is obvious that such assessment practice stimulated the students‘ extrinsic
motivation more than their intrinsic motivation. Whereas, some literatures associate
effective learning to intrinsic motivation (e.g. Harlen and Crick, 2002; Ecclestone,
2002).
Lessons for innovation
With the abundant studies and theories in assessment, the nature of effective
assessment is getting clearer in its fuzziness. Literatures agree that assessment is not
only powerful—shaping and orienting learning, but also complex, controversial,
invisible and dilemmatic (Black and Wiliam, 1998; Dann, 2002; Norton, 2009; Barnett,
2007; Stobart, 2008; Sadler, 2010; Crossouard, 2011; Torrance, 2012). Within this
gloomy sphere, I recognize that effective innovation has to be contextual in terms of
how to bring it into practice; depending on the structures and cultures (Archer, 1996),
but frameworks underpinning it can be generalised. Therefore, it takes the autonomy of
teachers to develop relevant perspectives, internalise them and adopt them into their

specific contexts.
Since AfL is inevitable and AoL is not sufficient for educational purposes
(James, 1998), a change in assessment orientation towards AfL is necessary, firstly, by
transforming perspective on ‗what is learning‘ and ‗what is assessment‘. The term
‗learning‘ is well-expressed through the tenet of learning to learn (L2L) that is
extracted more systemic through the powerful pedagogical strategies (PPS) (Leat and

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

27

Higgins, 2002). While ‗assessment‘ has gained its prominence through the emerge of
AfL or assessment is for learning (AifL). In principle, L2L comprises a ‗collection of
good learning practices‘ that ‗encourage learners to be reflective, strategic, intentional
and collaborative‘ (James et al. 2007, p.28), so that, it helps students see themselves as
learners (metacognition), build self-confidence, improve learning skills (e.g. thinking
skills, self-regulation, self efficacy) through teaching and learning environment
(Hughes, 2007; James et al. 2007). In complement to that, powerful pedagogical
strategies (PPS) (Leat and Higgins, 2002) help clarify it more conceptually. It puts an

emphasis on the eminence of social interaction and learning environment to create
effective student-centred learning. It, not only highlights how cognitive and social
process shape metacognitive awareness, but also mentally map ‗how‘ the teacher (me)
develops himself to build agency capacity, that becomes the basis for developing AfL.
In this light, effective assessment is AfL that supports the above notions. It can be seen
as a planned assessment process that involves the students, while the information
obtained is used for better teaching (by teacher) and learning (by students) (Assessment
Reform Group, 2002; James, 1998).
Realising a gap between the assessment practice and the theoretical and
empirical evidence above, there is a strong demand for a fundamental change in such
practice. Torrance (2012) introduces different types of change to help discriminate the
nature of innovation: conformative, transformative, and de-formative. Interpreting
Torrance‘s (2012) argument, de-formative can happen when the assessment practice
remains unchanged. Another possibility is to make a ‗wise‘ change (conformative)
which enable to compromise the conflicting elements—transparency vs interaction
(Blanchard, 2008). However, the best choice according to Torrance is to make
transformative innovation, which is oriented towards socio-cultural concept with its
inherent ambiguity. Given these alternatives, Torrance tries to convince that without the
last choice, assessment practice seems to end in de-formative. It is challenging to have
transformative change as a vision, nevertheless, as discussed in the literatures (e.g.

Crossouard, 2011; Torrance, 2012; Dann, 2002; and others), it is complex and
problematic in practice moreover in the context where behaviouristic features, strong
classification and strong framing predominate. Yet, between conformative and
transformative change can possibly be an initial action as a basis for further change.
Innovations Proposed
Moving forward to the innovative proposal, literatures have recommended
methods such as: sharing of criteria, questioning, feedback and feed forward, self
assessment, peer assessment and formative use of summative tests (Black and Wiliam,
1998; James, 1998; Assessment Reform Group, 2002). In this section, I propose an
innovative model by incorporating the above features into the whole course design

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

28

represented with a unit of visual-based interactive lecture together with the web 2.0based practicum (Appendix 1 and 2), e-reflective writing for the middle test (Appendix
3a), and e-portfolio writing for the final test (Appendix 3b). This innovation elaborates
digital technology with interactive, more divergent approach and weak framing. Closing
in on the lecture and practicum, connection between them is vital. Then, Kolb‘s

experiential learning cycle model—Concrete Experience (CE), Reflective Observation
(RO), Abstract Conceptualization (AC), and Active Experimentation (AE) (Bergsteiner
et al., 2010) is taken into account as a framework to integrate the lecture with the
practicum and to provide opportunity for students to experience deep learning.
Moreover, weak framing is particularly pivotal to base the innovation
implementation in the class with implicit hierarchical rule (e.g. character, manner)
(Bernstein, 2003). It means that the social relation between the teacher and the students
is blurred in order to encourage students‘ disposition. Whilst to allow the teacher to
handle ambiguity resulted from weak framing, PPS helps the teacher have some control
within the interaction with clear connections between knowledge (content), practice,
pupils, beliefs and the process of professional learning and development (Leat and
Higgins, 2002).
Visual based Interactive Lectures
Firstly, criteria are made explicit. For adult learners, interactive talk with
probing questions can be more effective than saying it in one way. Manner and
character of the teacher determines the extent of awareness the students gain. An
emphatic start can be helpful to encourage students to engage in the talk. Even though
the purpose of this activity is behaviouristic, the use of probing questions to provide a
frame for thinking towards learning purpose, can give space for students‘ disposition
with the support of weak framing, though seemingly paradoxical. Whilst the assertion

made to make sense the learning purpose will be meaningful depending on the students‘
contribution to the interaction.
Secondly, questioning is used to challenge better thinking and higher-order
learning. More effectively, the proper use of relevant visual aids such as pictures,
posters, or realia helps students identify the intended concept (e.g. comparison) better
than without them (Novawan, 2010). For instance, using a set of photographs can
fruitfully complement teacher‘s questions to make more efficient but affects on better
understanding. Within Kolb‘s cycle, this activity can be helpful to prepare students to
observe their learning contexts to recall prior experience (CE-RO). However, it
challenges teacher in terms of how flexible this visual-based questioning can be
implemented in favour of students‘ control. Since the topic for final project proposal can
be limitless—as many as the students‘ ideas, giving room for students‘ disposition is
considered more crucial than adhering to a plan.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

29

Scaffolding is unquestionably essential to facilitate deep learning by using
probing questions to help students connect the talk with their prior knowledge and

learning contexts as well as guide them in analytical and evaluative thinking. It assumes
that students have experienced content-area lectures and practicum (e.g. learning,
writing, simulation, field trip, etc.), and this activity calls for CE-RO through probing
questions that encourage the students to attend to their own contextual repertoires and
come up with relevant ideas (Pickford and Brown, 2006).
Rubric is a kind of practical but useful visual aid as a guide for students in selfassessment. However, the difficulty lies in how the questions and criteria written on it
can vary and support metacognition and students‘ disposition. In this case, it is relevant
that teacher use more open questions (Appendix 2a) to allow students‘ disposition rather
than close ones. This activity assumes that prior to giving this rubric for self assessment,
students are given relevant activities (e.g. are asked to work in pairs or groups, discuss
and write their ideas on ‗what to do‘, ‗why‘, ‗what aspects to adopt from other‘, and
‗how‘......). Not only is rubric effective for self-assessment, but also helpful for pair and
group activities such as peer-assessment and group-assessment (Appendix 2b).
More importantly, these rubric-based activities are fruitful accompanied with
effective feedback to create effective RO where the students can understand more about
the learning goal, more about their achievement status, and more about ways to bridge
the gap between them (Sadler in Sadler, 2010). For this purpose, visual aids can
enhance interactive feedback. First, the teacher needs to be sensitive to identify how to
encourage students‘ self-disclosure after having previous activity. Without this,
feedback will be fully-controlled by teacher and less meaningful. However, it is worth
noting, merely using verbal expressions will not be useful. In this regards, weak framing
is fundamentally necessary complemented with visual aids/multimedia. Therefore, this
interactive feedback is expected to have some degree of flexibility to provide space for
social construction. Concerning this course of activities—started with group work,
continue to peer-assessment, move to plenary discussion. Pryor and Crossouard (2010)
believe that this can optimize formative assessment.
Closing activity is pivotally relevant for further learning process (RO-AC).
Beside this section reemphasises the extent of students learning (can also function as
general feedback) in relation to their next learning, it can be used to give group projectbased task (discovery/exploratory learning) then can be called ‗Exploratory Task‘
(Appendix 2c). This task is particularly critical to advance learning opportunities within
Kolb‘s learning cycles and to demonstrate the notion of socio cultural within writing
process.

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

30

Web 2.0-based practicum
A blended approach to learning has often been conceptually and
methodologically addressed and most relate it to e-learning. Additionally, Korr et al.
(2012) connect it with andragogy since its nature and complexity is relevant for adult
learners. The rapid development of e-learning has encouraged plenty of exploration on
web 2.0 as a powerful tool in learning, especially in writing. Viewing that writing is a
part of social and cultural activity, Widodo and Novawan (2012) suggest the use of
wikis or blogs to allow for interactive collaboration, active engagement, and learnercentred, while social presence within it enhances interactivity, creativity, mutual
support, and social-mediation.
Continuing the lecture scenario which ended with group Exploratory Task,
practicum activity is intended to facilitate students to move from assimilator cycle (ROAC) to further learning cycles—converger (AC-AE) and accommodator (AE-CE). It is
initially started with a signpost of learning progress and continued to interactive
multimedia-based feedback (e.g. showing the real online features of a blog, while using
weak framing to encourage students to talk) on the Exploratory Task given in the
previous lecture. In this stage, interaction can be unpredictable depending on students‘
responses. More importantly, both teacher and students are aware of the Exploratory
Task benefits as basis for the rest activities (e.g. blended learning, collaborative writing,
e-reflective writing, portfolio-based assessment, etc.). Therefore, while paying attention
on students‘ engagement, teacher encourages reflectivity and deep learning to
understand how a blog works for writing their proposal (RO-AC).
In further activity, the role of the teacher is primarily demanded in leading the
students to be converger (AC-AE) and accommodator (AE-CE). The main activity
involves rewriting the work resulted in the previous lecture on blogs, self-assessment by
using prepared framework (e.g. outlining, drafting, developing, proofreading, revising),
online peer-assessment, reflective e-portfolio (e.g. on the basis of historical events or
logs recorded on their blogs), blog-based writing project, etc. These activities are
invaluable for short-term and long term purposes. In this stage, teacher‗s feedback
either online or not, is badly needed to allow the students to experience a good
accommodator (CE).
Middle test: e-reflective writing
One of possible way of transforming summative-oriented middle test into
formative-oriented one is by closing the gap between the first half term learning process
and the middle test, and making available meaningful feedback and feed forward. For
instance, theory and practical tests are merged into one integrated test to reduce negative
impacts. Moreover, the test design is made meaningful and more reflective in the form
of reflective essay writing that allow the students to closely relate it to the learning
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

31

process (Appendix 3a). To make it relevant with previous learning, their essays are to be
posted on their own blogs. Therefore, this test, not only tests the students‘ writing skill,
but also functions as a form of effective self-assessment (reflectivity). In this way,
feedback can be individualised (not necessarily closed) through each web logs that can
also function as e-portfolio-based feedback whether as a confirmation of learning
progress, appraisal, or feed forward.
Formative use of summative test
Within the lectures after the middle test, students are given a group task. In this
task, they are given a week for working in group to assess and compare two different
proposals written by former students. The result of the task will be discussed in a
plenary discussion, where feedback is available for them to make clear criteria of a
‗good‘ proposal. This activity is essential as one of effective way to apply formativeness
to summative test (Black et al., 2002).
Final test: e-portfolio writing
The notion of e-portfolio writing test is prominently crucial to orient AoL to
AfL. This test is primarily powerful to integrate the entire learning process into one test.
It allows connection between the first half term learning process and the middle test, the
middle test and the second half term learning process, the second half term learning
process and the final test. Moreover, it links all learning processes and provides both
teacher and student with necessary data for sustainable metacognitive learning. In the
former practice, students were encountered with two different frightening end-of-term
tests: theoretical test and submitting their proposal as the practical test at the same due
date. In this regards, I propose the same for the middle test, final test integrates
theoretical and practical test into one form of test—only submitting their proposal
online through their own blogs (Appendix 3b). With this, students are given more space
to focus on the online (blog) writing process, doing self-assessment, gaining peerfeedback, supported with e-portfolio gadget, and getting individualised feedback from
the teacher. Whilst the teacher can have more time to engage in the process rather than
designing different tests (e.g. objective tests) each term. Related to this, Bold and
Hutton (2007) recommend the use of online formative and summative assessment as an
alternative that can offer greater efficiency for both students and teacher.
Involvement of content-area teachers
The involvement of content-area teachers is one of important part of assessment
innovation in order to improve reliability of assessment and conduct shared
understandings of criteria. This involvement can be included within the course of a
lecture or practicum, however, they can also be invited to involve in moderation. This
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

32

innovation is intended to develop consistency of standards by interpreting criteria in the
same way, and consistency of approach in terms of what, how and why assessment
(Gipps, 1994).
Overall, these assessment events are not fixed procedure. The presentation of
lecture in Appendix 1 impresses the dominance of teacher (considering the absence of
students‘ response), nevertheless, in reality, I believe the class will surprisingly be rich
and profoundly can expose issues concerning student dispositions. More essentially, this
model presents how formative assessment such as questioning, feedback, self
assessment, peer assessment and other formative features are blended with visual aids,
multimedia and ICT within the Kolb‘s cycles. Additionally, SOLO taxonomy (Biggs,
1995) is helpful to be used to measure the quality of their writing in terms of
understanding and criticality on the subject written.

References
Archer, M. S. (1996) Culture and Agency: The Place of Culture in Social Theory.
Revised Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Assessment Reform Group (2002) Assessment for Learning: 10 Principles. University
of Cambridge, UK: Assessment Reform Group.
Barnett, R. (2007) ‗Assessment in higher education: an impossible mission?‘. In Boud,
D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education: Learning for
the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Bergsteiner, H., Avery, G. C. and Neumann, R. (2010) ‗Kolb's experiential learning
model: critique from a modelling perspective‘. Studies in Continuing Education.
32(1), pp. 29-46.
Bernstein, B. (1977) Class, Codes and Control: Towards a Theory of Educational
Transmission. 2nd Edn. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Biggs, J. (1995). Assessing for learning: Some dimensions underlying new approaches
to educational assessment. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 41(1),
pp. 1-17.
Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B. and Wiliam, D. (2002) Working inside the
black box: assessment for learning in the classroom. London: King‘s College
Black, P. J., & Wiliam, D. (1998) ‗Inside the black box: raising standards through
classroom assessment‘, London: King‘s College London School of Education.
Blanchard, John (2008) 'Learning awareness: constructing formative assessment in the
classroom, in the school and across schools', Curriculum Journal, 19 (3), pp. 137150

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

33

Bold, C. and Hutton, P. (2007) ‗Supporting Students‘ Critical Reflection-on-practice‘ In
Campbell, A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher
Education: Developing Reflective Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2007) ‗Introduction: assessment for the longer term‘. In
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher Education:
Learning for the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Crossouard, B. (2011) 'Using formative assessment to support complex learning in
conditions of social adversity', Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy &
Practice, 18(1), pp.59- 72
Dann, R. (2002) Promoting Assessment as Learning: Improving the learning process.
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Ecclestone, K. (2002) Learning Autonomy in Post-16 Education: The politics and
practice of formative assessment. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Entwistle, N. (2005) 'Learning outcomes and ways of thinking across contrasting
disciplines and settings in higher education', Curriculum Journal, 16(1), pp. 6782.
Falchikov, N. and Boud, D. (2007) ‗Assessment and emotion: the impact of being
assessed‘. In Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. Rethinking Assessment in Higher
Education: Learning for the longer term. Oxon: Routledge.
Frodesen, J. (1995) ‗Negotiating the syllabus: A learning-centerd, interactive approach
to ESL graduate writing course design‘. In Belcher, D. and Braine, G. Academic
Writing in a Second Language: Essays on Research and Pedagogy. New Jersey:
Ablex Publishing
Gipps, C. (1994) ‗Quality in Teacher Assessment‘, in Harlen, W. Enhancing Quality in
Assesment, London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Harlen W, Deakin Crick R (2002). ‗A systematic review of the impact of summative
assessment and tests on students' motivation for learning (EPPI-Centre Review,
version 1.1)‘. In: Research Evidence in Education Library. Issue 1. London:
EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.
Harlen, W. (1994) ‗Towards Quality in Assessment‘ in Harlen, W. Enhancing Quality
in Assesment. London: Paul Chapman Publishing
Hayward, Y., Priestley, M. and Young, M. (2004) ‗Ruffling the calm of the ocean floor:
merging practice, policy and research in assessment in Scotland‘, Oxford Review
of Education, 30 (3), pp. 397-415
Hughes, P. (2007) ‗Learning about Learning or Learning to Learn (L2L)‘. in Campbell,
A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in Higher Education:
Developing Reflective Practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
James, M. (1998) Using Assessment for School Improvement. Oxford: Heinemann
Educational Publishers.
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

34

James, M. and Brown, S. (2005) 'Grasping the TLRP nettle: preliminary analysis and
some enduring issues surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes',
Curriculum Journal, 16(1), pp. 7 - 30.
James, M., McCormick, R., Black, P., Carmichael, P., Drummond, M., Fox, A.,
MacBeath, J., Marshall, B., Pedder, D., Procter, R., Swaffield, S., Swann, J. and
Wiliam, D. (2007) Improving Learning How to Learn: Classrooms, Schools and
Networks. Milton Park: Routledge.
Korr, J., Derwin, E. B., Greene, K. and Sokoloff, W. (2012) ‗Transitioning an AdultServing University to a Blended Learning Model‘, The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, 60 (1), pp. 2-11
Leat, D. and Higgins, S. (2002) 'The role of powerful pedagogical strategies in
curriculum development', Curriculum Journal, 13(1), pp. 71 - 85.
Norton, L. (2007) ‗Using Assessment to Promote Quality Learning in Higher
Education‘. In Campbell, A. and Norton, L. Learning, Teaching and Assessing in
Higher Education: Developing reflective practice. Exeter: Learning Matters.
Novawan, A. (2010)‘ The Use of Visual Aids in Materials Development‘ In Widodo, H.
P. & Savova, L. (Eds.), The Lincom guide to materials design in ELT. Muechen,
Germany: Lincom Europa.
Pickford, R. and Brown, S. (2006) Assessing Skills and Practice. Milton Park:
Routledge.
Priestley, M. and Sime, D. (2005) ‗Formative assessment for all: a whole-school
approach to pedagogic change‘, The Curriculum Journal, 16 (4), pp. 475 – 492
Pryor, J. and Crossouard, B. (2010) 'Challenging formative assessment: disciplinary
spaces and identities', Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35 (3), pp.
265-276
Sadler, D. R. (2010) ‗Fidelity as a precondition for integrity in grading academic
achievement‘, Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(6), pp. 727-743
Sfard, A. (1998) ‗On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one‘,
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Stobart, G. (2008) Testing Times: The uses and abuse of assessment. London:
Routledge
Torrance, H. (2012) ‗Formative assessment at the crossroads: conformative,
deformative and transformative assessment‘, Oxford Review of Education, 38 (3),
pp. 323-342
Widodo, H. P. and Novawan, A. (2012) ‗Implementing Wiki and Blog Mediated
Writing Tasks in an EFL Context‘. In Kabilan, M. K., Too, K. W. and Widodo,
H.P. ICT and ELT Researches and Practices in South East Asia. Pinang,
Malaysia: MELTA-USM Publishers.

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

35

Appendix 1
Lecture (Week 1)
No
1

Teacher’s Activities (Weak framing)

Description

Sharing of learning objective and criteria:
„Writing a field-specific proposal for final An emphatic start indicating what the
project... it seems uneasy to do, right? When I teacher aware of to encourage
was a student I found it hard to start writing it.‟
students to engage in the talk
„...So, can you tell me how will you write your Moving forward to diagnostic
proposal then?‟
question on ‗how to learn‘, not ‗what
to learn‘
„What do you think about idea? Is that Probing questions for self-learning
important?... Can you go through your writing purpose identification
without it?... So, what do you need to do before
writing?‟
„Yes, right! That‟s why we are discussing your Making emphasis of the learning
idea today to make clear what do you want to do purpose to make sure students‘
understanding
in your final project.‟

2

Visual-based questioning to give specific
learning contexts of writing:
„Let‟s see these photos! Do you know where is it Visual-based warm-up to give the
taken?..... I am sure some of you must be familiar context for idea exploration
with these..‟
„You‟re right! Papuma beach…. So, what do you
think of this object? Beautiful? or.. How can you
describe it? How could you compare this to Kuta
Beach in Bali? What make different? Why people
prefer going to Kuta to Papuma?‟

Visual-based questioning to lead
them to consider alternatives for
relevant project e.g. designing media
for promoting local tourism object,
establishing a ‗special‘ travel agency,
development project in collaboration
with Tourism District Agency, etc.

„So, what kinds of opportunity we can catch?..Is
that making sense to connect with your final
project?.. Tell more!‟ ... (continue with other
pictures in other fields)
3

Scaffolding for deep/experiential learning:
„So, now, what attracts you?—what kinds of Probing
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

questions

for

reflective
36

project or innovation do you know (e.g. that you exploration based on prior knowledge
get from news, books, TV programs, field-specific and experience
subjects, experiences or other sources) that make
you interested in?...Which aspect make you
interested in it?‟
„What do you think of what are required to create More analytical and evaluative
such innovation? Do they work in the context? questions to encourage deeper
Why?...‟
exploration
Well, actually, what kinds of project or Reflective questions to connect
innovation do you want to make for you final previous exploration with their
project?.. Why are you interested in it?... Tell us learning context.
more!‟
„So, what do you think of what aspects from Analytical and evaluative questions
former project you have just shared that can be to encourage better connection
adopted in your project? How?‟
4

(Students are asked to work in pairs or groups, Self-assessment by using rubric with
discuss and write their ideas on ‗what to do‘, more open questions on learning
‗why‘, ‗what aspects to adopt from other‘, and purposes and criteria
‗how‘......)
Self-assessment by using a rubric of ‘How is my
idea?‘ (Appendix 2a)

5

Peer-assessment by using a rubric of ‘How is my Peer-assessment by using rubric to
promote better understanding on the
friend’s idea?’ (Appendix 2b)
learning purposes

6

Visual-based interactive feedback:
„So far, how do you feel of your idea? Is that Questions to encourage openness and
getting better now? Do you have issues within monitor negative impacts
pair/group work to discuss in this class?‟
„Let me show you some works!‟ (Examples are
provided....) What do you think of the description
of project purpose in this writing? Is this clear or
less clear? Why do you think so? How to improve
it?...‟

Here, the teacher stops at every point
and interacts with them to make sure
they can connect their writing with
the examples. Teacher‘s comments
on the example are shown after
receiving response from the students

„Now, let‟s see my comments on it!... What do Promoting
Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

reflectivity

through
37

you think? Similar? Or different?‟

feedback and feed forward

„So, how is yours then? Is there anything to
improve?... You know that your idea needs to be
more specific in that point! That‟s good! In that
case, the clarity of your writing can be enhanced
by .... Do you think so?‟
7

Signpost of the learning progress and giving a
group exploratory task on blog:
„What we have done so far....If anyone still has
question, don‟t hesitate to ask.. Important to note
is that practicum next week will be done in
computer cluster. So, you will be able to....‟

Statements to signpost the learning
activity and encourage openness. It
is essential considering that Javanese
culture tends to recommend some
extent of self-closure.

„Within the week, it will be very helpful if you A project-based discovery learning
could meet with your group with the same through the Exploratory Tasks on
interest and explore the following questions‟
blog, (Appendix 2c)

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

38

Appendix 2a
A rubric of ‘How is my idea?’
Assess the idea of your writing on the basis of the questions below.
a. How is my description on ‗what‘? Why?
Answer
: _________________________________________(How clear?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
b. How is my clarification on ‗why‘ logic and reasonable? Why?
Answer
: ____________________________________ (How reasonable?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
c. How is my analysis on ‗what aspects to adopt from the former project‘? Why?
Answer
: ______________________________________ (How relevant?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
d. How is my thinking on strategy? Why?
Answer
: ____________________________________ (How workable?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
Appendix 2b
A rubric of ‘How is my friend’s idea?’
Assess the idea of your friend‘s writing on the basis of the questions below.
a. How is my friend‘s description on ‗what‘? Why?
Answer
: _________________________________________(How clear?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
b. How is my friend‘s clarification on ‗why‘ logic and reasonable? Why?
Answer
: ____________________________________ (How reasonable?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
c. How is my analysis on ‗what aspects to adopt from the former project‘? Why?
Answer
: ______________________________________ (How relevant?)
Description : ___________________________________________________
d. How is my friend‘s thinking on strategy? Why?
Answer
: _____________________________________ (How workable?)
Description : ___________________________________________________

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

39

Appendix 2c
Exploratory Task
Do you know what is blog? Please visit http://www.edublogs.org and explore what
features does it have and what for? What can you do by using the features? How can
you write, post or upload any documents on it? Can you reach other‘s writing and give
comments on it? How can you access particular sources from the internet while writing
on it? How will a blog be useful for developing your proposal? How can you make use
of historical events on it?

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

40

Appendix 3a
Middle test: (includes both theoretical and practical skill)
Reflective-based essay writing
Instruction:
Writing a field-specific proposal for final project is a process-based activity that
requires you to identify your interest, explore your problem, develop your idea, and deal
with technicality of writing process.
So far, how have you been experiencing the process of writing your proposal? Have you
encountered significant problem during the process? Can you describe it? What aspects
of criteria do you consider the most difficult (format, content or writing technique)?
Why do you think so? What do you think of how to solve the difficulty and improve
your writing?
Write a 250-word essay based on the questions above and post it on your blog before
due date.
Your essay will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
1. Content

: fluency of idea, reflectivity and relevance to questions

2. Writing technique

: fluency of presentation, organisation and coherence

3. Language use

: range of vocabulary, grammar and punctuation

Appendix 3b
Final test: (includes both theoretical and practical skill)
E-portfolio (summative)
Instruction:
Write a-2000 word final project proposal and post it on your own blog before due date.
Consider feedbacks you have received from your friends and tutors on it and make sure
that you have understood the criteria of a ‗good‘ proposal as discussed previously.
Your proposal will be assessed on the basis of the following criteria:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Format
Content
Writing technique
Language use

: appropriateness based on the guideline
: accuracy, criticality, innovativeness
: fluency of presentation, organisation and coherence
: range of vocabulary, grammar and punctuation

Journal of English in Academic and Professional Communication
JEAPCo, 2(1) 2016

41