in both spoken and written English and has knowledge about academic writing in the Dentistry Field, and two English Instructors from the language
center who have experience in academic writing for ESP, EAP, EOP, and so on.
C. Setting
This study was conducted in the Dentistry Department of Gadjah Mada University. The time needed to do the observation and interview were
around seven weeks from September to November 2006 for students’ needs analysis and the specific time to do the questionnaires for lecturers’
evaluations were around three weeks during July 2007. The first week of September was used to ask for a letter of permission from the Dean of the
Dentistry Faculty, which was followed by sending a letter of permission to an English lecturer to enter his class and ask permission to use students’ writing
assignments. There was a short observation period from which to conduct the research because of the National Holiday. The researcher used one particular
class as a source of her data. It was a large class because it considered of 200 students of which 150 students were first year students and the rest had
repeated the subject from the previous semester. The class seemed crowded when all students attended the class together and it was difficult for the
lecturer to conduct teaching and learning activities intentionally with such a large class. During the first meeting all students attended the class. At the
next meeting just few students attended the class. The researcher used class PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
population under permission from the English lecturer.
D. Instruments
In conducting the study, the researcher used three types of instruments to gather data and answer the problem formulation: questionnaires, interviews
and observations checklist. They were explained as follows:
1. Questionnaires
The instrument used for this study is a set of questionnaires designed to gather information about the needs and to find out the gap of the students’
needs to match with the academic setting. The questionnaire consists of three sections: personal details and English writing needs at the Dentistry
Department of Gadjah Mada University.
Table 3.1 The First Questionnaire Need Analysis
Academic writing Question outlines
Points 1
2 3
4 5
General writing Is writing important?
Group work Peer-editing
Peer-assessment Worksheets
Structure of writing Model of writing Free writing
Types of academic writing Skills in writing
Grammar or language focus. Vocabulary in texts
Tasks of writing
The researcher chose three main topics and for each topic a main idea was developed that would be used as a questionnaire outline before the
questionnaires was written. From the question outlines 16 questions were designed for the questionnaire. The researcher made five categories for the
questionnaire’s assessment. The researcher used a scale to rate each category as a percentage, as follows:
1 = absolutely disagree with statement, ranges between 0 and 20 2 = disagree with statement, ranges between 21 and 40
3 = neither agree or disagree with statement, range between 41 and 60 4 = agree with statement, ranges between 61 and 80
5 = absolutely agree with statement ranges between 81 and 100 The researcher discussed this questionnaire in chapter four. In
conducting data analysis of this questionnaire, the researcher explained in paragraphing sentence using percentage assessment and a scale rate category.
2. Interviews
The researcher undertook an interview of some of the respondents to collect some of the data needed. The interview was recorded on a tape
recorder and transcribed into written form. The interviews were divided into two groups. The interview was directed to the students in as the first group
and the materials’ evaluators as the second group. The questions were unstructured, it meant that the researcher did not use questions list. The
interview was conducted in one week during November 2006. The researcher chose 35 students from the Dentistry faculty because 35 respondents were
considered a sufficient sample size to collect the information needed. The researcher discussed the data analysis in chapter four.
3. Observation Checklist
If the researchers wanted to enrich their understanding of language learning and teaching time was required to be spent in classroom. The
researcher attended the regular class of first year Dentistry at Gadjah Mada University. It was necessary to determine what current English comprehension
and skills the students have, in order to design and create a suitable curriculum. The teaching and learning activities were observed within the
class. The researcher observed what the roles of the teacher in the classroom were. It was necessary to determine how the lecturer created a writing
environment in the class and how the lecturer managed the class.
Table 3.2 Tally Sheet for Analyzing Classroom Interaction
No. Observation tally sheet
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 gives praise 9. Lecturer provides criticism
10. Learner asks a question 11. Learner answers question
12. Learner talks to another learner 13. Period of silence or confusion
The researcher made the tally sheet for analyzing classroom activities during class visits and observed the teaching-learning activities in the class.
This sheet would be used as a guideline in teaching and learning activities.
E. Writing Procedure Content Error Analysis
The researcher used students’ writing as the error analysis. Students were given free writing as the first writing draft to ascertain the students’
weaknesses and strengths. However, those compositions were later analyzed to observe the types of errors made. The researcher used one class meeting to
conduct the writing task with permission from the English lecturer. She took 75 respondents as her writing sample from 87 respondents because 12
respondents were repeating the subject. The researcher used the minimum requirements to assess the writing
error:
No. Minimum requirements
1. Incorrect use of word caused by transfer or awkward expression and words. 2. Subject verb agreement
3. Incorrect selection of word 4. Incorrect use of tense
5. Incorrect use or deletion of preposition 6. Incorrect use of verb be
7. Incorrect use of auxiliary 8. Incorrect use of gerund
9. Incorrect use of noun
10. Redundant use of words 11 Incorrect use of voice
12. Incorrect or omission use of article 13. Incorrect or omission of pronoun
14. Incorrect plural
The researcher used above criteria in assessing the students’ written PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
work. The students’ written work errors in each criterion would be presented in percentage.
F. Data Gathering
