Umi Mahmudah
Mengenai Saya
- Umi Mahmudah
- Currently I am an English teacher in an Islamic Secondary School. I have been teaching English since 1997. Besides teaching I am also assisting my principal to manage everything related to the school curriculum and attempt to improve the quality of teachers to be professional teachers at school.
Kamis, 19 September 2013
Sabtu, 14 September 2013
SOME REFLECTIONS ON LANGUAGE LEARNING MATTERS
Abstrak
Bahasa merupakan sesuatu yang sangat penting bagi kehidupan manusia.
Manusia membutuhkannya untuk berkomunikasi satu sama lain. Penulis berkeyakinan
bahwa terdapat perbedaan antara pembelajaran bahasa pertama dengan pembelajaran
bahasa kedua. Bahasa pertama dipelajari sejak usia kanak-kanak dan mereka
belajar dari kedua orangtuanya secara alamiah. Tata bahasa dari bahasa pertama
dipelajari tanpa sadar sehingga tidak ada kesulitan ketika mereka memakainya
untuk menyampaikan makna. Dalam konteks pembelajaran bahasa Inggris di
Indonesia, terdapat persepsi bahwa bahasa Inggris itu sulit karena banyak hal
yang harus dikuasai sebelum benar-benar bisa menggunakannya untuk
berkomunikasi. Diantara kompetensi linguistik yang harus dikuasai adalah
structure, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics dan contexts. Dalam
kenyataannya, seorang siswa Indonesia mengalami kesulitan dalam menggunakan
struktur bahasa Inggris karena tidak memahami tujuan fungsionalnya. Hal seperti
ini umum terjadi pada pembelajar bahasa kedua usia dewasa. Lain dengan
pembelajar usia dini, mereka bisa mempelajari bahasa asing dengan cepat melalui
proses immersion jika mereka ditempatkan pada lingkungan yang berbahasa
inggris. Akan tetapi, secara umum, untuk benar-benar bisa menguasai bahasa
kedua, dalam hal ini bahasa Inggris, pertama yang perlu dipelajari adalah
mengenai bunyi atau suara yang dihasilkan oleh organ-organ pengucapan. Hal ini
menjadi penting karena berhubungan dengan pengucapan yang tepat dan berterima.
Dalam tulisan ini, penulis menyampaikan hal-hal yang berhubungan dengan
pembelajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia secara menyeluruh. Diantaranya adalah
mengenai bahasa, tata bahasa, bahasa baku, pengajaran tata bahasa, dan yang terakhir
adalah pragmatis dalam konteks pembelajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia.
Semuanya dianalisa dan diberi refleksi berdasarkan pengalaman empiris dari
penulis yang adalah praktisi dalam pengajaran bahasa Inggris.
What is language?
When
someone asks us about what language is, perhaps each person will have a
different answer to it. Formerly, I saw language as only a means of
communication. How people try to get some information from others and
conversely, how others try to give information to us. That is language. People
use language in their daily life and it is right that the position of language
is at the center of human life
(Cook, 1996), because people cannot live without language. This view is really
a simple definition of language. I believe that L1 (first language) learning is
different from the L2 (second language) learning. In the L1 learning, people
have learned the language since they were children. In this case, the most
important thing is how they convey meaning. Children learn language from their
parents naturally. We speak our first language comfortably. We do not need to
think about grammar or structures because we have learned it subconsciously. It
seems that we do not spend a lot of energy to communicate in the L1.
On the other hand, in L2 learning or
foreign language learning it is completely different, especially, for adult
learners. Children can immerse themselves in the second language when they are
put in the target language environment. In Indonesia, it is rare to find people
who speak English fluently. One of the reasons for this is the perception that
English is a very difficult language. We only know, when we learn English, that
we have to know the structures or patterns of sentences. So structure is very
important. However, in reality, we can never use structures learned in school
without knowing about their functional use. Even when we meet a native speaker
we feel anxious greeting them. From this evidence, I assume that learning
English does not only mean knowing the structures, but also understanding the
linguistics, which are phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics, and
contexts, in which the language is used. In this respect, I do not intend to
reject Finegan (1997) and Fromkin’s (1999) idea that language is a rule-governed
system.
As noted above, we cannot see the
language simply from how sentences are formed. Language is a very broad world.
Not just the structures, but deeper understanding of the language. To know a
language, firstly, means to know how human beings produce speech sounds from
their speech organs. Different language has different sound systems. For
example, in English, some words ended by ’k’ letter always sound /k/ ‘voiced’
as in ‘kick’, ‘cook’, so when a native speaker learns Indonesian, it is difficult
for her/him to pronounce /k/ ‘voiceless’ at the end of words such as: ‘tidak’
or ‘gemuk’. From the example, therefore, knowing the sound system of a language
will show the way to the correct pronunciation.
Secondly, knowing a language also
comprises how to relate sounds and meaning (concept). When we heard the word
‘chair’, our mind will directly think of certain object, which is used to sit
and made of wood, metal, or plastic. This knowledge of words and concepts are
also used by the deaf people in using the signs, gestures or body language to
convey meaning.
As well, knowing a language involves
how to combine words into phrases and phrases into sentences. The capability of
people to understand and create new sentences is unlimited. By reading, people
can write and talk many things about human life with their own creativity of
words. Finally, to know a language people have to know how to use the sentences
in appropriate situations and contexts. This is the ability to utilise the
language in different situations, to different interlocutors and for different
purposes.
Those aspects of language above lead
to a discrepancy between what people know about language (linguistic
competence) and how people can use the language in real life situation
(linguistic performance). Linguistic competence is the knowledge of sound
system, words, word formation, sentences and meaning, while linguistic
competence is how people perform the language based on the context and
situation. Both competences support each other, so in mastering a language we
cannot leave out one of them.
In addition, I agree also with what
Finegan (1997) has proposed. To know a language, people need to consider three
sides of language: expression, this
is about words, phrases and sentences produced, content, about the meaning of expression and context or the social situation, where the expression is spoken.
Therefore, when we know a language we should know the grammar, which are the
expression and the meaning, and the context, so that we understand language and
its functions.
As language teachers, the responsibility we
have is that we have to take into account the role of the language ‘rules’.
Since language is a rule-governed system, a sentence basically consists of
words or phrases, which are highly patterned. If we misarrange a sentence, this
will lead to misinterpretation and confusion. However, in reality it is
difficult to control the rules because language is changing constantly,
developing and becoming more flexible.
From the description above it is
obvious that learning a language is not just learning its grammar, but how
people understand the meaning based on the context. As language grammar change
slowly, today people begin to start a sentence with ‘and’ and ‘but’ or using a
preposition at the end of a sentence. Indeed, these are acceptable since the
most important thing is to understand the message given.
Furthermore, God creates human beings
with brains to think and to create something new with our cognitive potentials.
So, people are creative to construct sentences, expressions, jargons, slangs,
etc. As long as the expressions are understandable, some people will accept
them. I believe that language rules play an important role in communication.
Without grammar communication does not occur. However, language teachers should
consider the best ways to teach language rules linguistically and contextually
so that learners can use the language naturally. It is important too, to
clarify to students, that in real life language is more complex than they have
learned. Language is dynamic and sometimes unpredictable, so they have to be
aware of that.
What is
grammar?
Grammar sounds very familiar to
Indonesian English classrooms because whenever and wherever students study
English, they will learn grammar. Not only students but also some English
teachers assume that the meaning of grammar refers to the structures or
patterns of sentences. Some students may feel that grammar is easy, but most of
them find difficulty in studying it. Grammar still becomes the focus of English
language teaching in Indonesia, although the 1994 curriculum has emphasized
students’ learning written and spoken language. Even in the university
‘structure’ becomes one of the required subjects.
Also in the national final exam, this demands the students’ language
knowledge in doing the test, which is always a ‘gruelling computer-scorable
standardized multiple-choice examination’ (Brown’s term). So, if we talk about
grammar students directly think about tenses. However, grammar is much more
than just tenses. It involves morphology, phonology, semantics, syntax and
lexicon (Fromkin, 1999). Actually I am still anxious if grammar only includes
the five major aspects above. I consider that discourse and pragmatics should
be included since they are important too, in learning English. Those aspects of
grammar look at the sound system, the meaning system, the word formation rules,
the sentence formation rules, how sentences are used in conversation and how
contexts influence meaning. All of these are very important in learning a
language.
Then,
some linguists divide the grammar in the terms of ‘descriptive’, ‘prescriptive’
and teaching grammar. Beforehand, those terms of the division are actually
unfamiliar for me. In fact, ‘descriptive’ grammar is only the model of the
speakers’ grammar, while ‘prescriptive’ grammar prescribes the ‘rules’ of
language we should use. Teaching grammar is the grammar we use to teach English
at school, including teaching the rules explicitly. I think all of them belong
to the traditional grammar, especially both ‘prescriptive’ and teaching
grammar, because they do not reflect the actual language spoken by language
users of that language. If we relate it to the second language learning,
‘prescriptive’ grammar is hardly applied in reality because people speak a
language cannot follow the other people dictation. This is to say,
‘prescriptive’ grammarians cannot force people to speak in monotonous rules as
language is changing steadily.
However,
it is sometimes inevitable for language teachers to teach grammar or explain
the rules of language explicitly in the classroom. In this case, teachers
should use communicative approaches and provide natural situations and contexts
so that the grammar they are learning brings about meaningful language use.
That is why, studying discourse and pragmatics is important because when
students go outside the classroom, they will face a very different world of
English. Although they do not have the opportunity to live in an English speaking
country, at least, they know the functions of language.
Finally,
in teaching grammar, taking the students’ errors into account is best
considered. We should be careful in judging students’ sentences as
grammatically right or wrong. For example, in sentence ‘John uses to get up early’ (McKnight, 1998), is grammatically
correct, but this provides at least three interpretation. This can be meant
‘John usually get up early’, ‘John used to get up early’ or ‘John uses the
alarm clock to get up early’. From this evidence it is clear enough that the
teacher should know what is the intended meaning a student wants to refer to,
and also understand the context of the student’s sentences. If we know the
context, then, we can correct them.
What is
standard language?
Talking about ‘standard’ language, my first impression is a language,
which is used in formal situations, such as in a meeting, court, education,
government and media. There must be certain rules of language so that it can be
accepted as ‘standard’ language. In Indonesia, there is Standard Indonesian,
which people have to speak. Different countries have their own standard
languages. In studying English most students do not realise and know that they
study and speak Standard English since they learn English as what their teacher
has taught to them. From set readings I begin to understand that standard
language is when a language is acknowledged and accepted by a certain
community, which uses the language (Fromkin, 1999). So, whatever the language
if it is used widely and accepted this becomes the ‘standard’ language.
Then, the appearance of idiolects,
dialects, pidgin and creoles is an obvious proof that actually there is no
special ‘standard’ language. By using their idiolects, people speak to others
in different styles of speaking. We can say that idiolect is a specific,
individual characteristics of speaking influenced by age, sex, personality,
etc. But in conversation both speakers still understand each other.
Australians, for instance, speak different English idiolects, which sometimes
seems to be difficult and confusing to understand for non-native speakers.
As well, dialect, which is used by
certain group of people, is an example of language variety and mutually
intelligible. To illustrate this, as English has become an international
language and is the second most widely used language after Chinese, English has
different dialects, such as Australian English, British English and American
English. Other non-English speaking countries, which use English as the second
or foreign language, tend to follow one of those English dialects. For example,
most schools in Indonesia are likely to adopt the Standard British English.
However, in my opinion, sometimes it is difficult to determine whether a
sentence is ‘standard’ or not. In a sentence ‘I didn’t say nothing’ (McKnight, 1998) is grammatically incorrect
since there are two negators. However, it can be ‘standard’ because the speaker
and the addressee accept and understand it, though Fromkin, et.al. may classify
this sentence as non ‘standard’ one. In fact, this sentence is very common in
English.
Subsequently, as English has been
widespread to other non speaking countries by traders, refugees or
missionaries, sometimes it became mixed with the other language, which is
called ‘pidgin’. For example, the old pidgin English in Australia, by the
Aborigines and the whites was called ‘barbarous mixture’ (Baker, 1981). Pidgin
usually has more simple sentences, less prepositions and fewer words. The main
purpose of both parties is to convey the meaning. This leads to the creation of
a new language. When this new language is spoken natively by children, this is
called ‘creoles’. Examining from Fromkin, et.al., Baker (1981) and Holm (1988)
it seems that wherever people are, they need language to communicate, even it
is a simple language such as pidgin and creoles. These emerge because of
people’s needs to create them and they become ‘standard’ languages if people
speak, accept and understand the language. Thus, again it can be inferred that
‘standard’ language varies in different places in the world or there is no
‘standard’ language.
Historically, language is changing
according to the passing of time as the knowledge is developing too. Language
is changing because the community is also changing. In line with the increasing
needs of people to communicate and to express different purposes, then, it is
impossible to hinder the language change. This happens in most languages in the
world. Noting Fromkin and Finegan’s description I think people sometimes do not
realize the language transformation from generation to generation. When we read
a book from ancient time in our native language, we may feel funny about the
spelling or the structures of sentences, since we do not use it anymore.
Language changes can be investigated from newspapers, magazines, books, TV,
radios, movies, etc. and those vary from phonology, morphology, semantics,
syntax and lexical changes. Some creative people generate new terms or
formulated expressions, which were never used beforehand. Some words may be
taboo at some time and now not anymore, or even some words disappear now.
At last, relating to the above
description, it seems that there is a conflict between the modern views and the
‘prescriptive’ grammarians. In one hand, the modern views see the language
change as a development and this is natural. On the other hand, the
‘prescriptive’ grammarians try to defend certain ‘rules’ of language from
changing either in phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics since language
change is considered as corruption. I think people cannot rely on the
prescriptive grammar, which gives certain regulations in using language. I
agree with what Cook (1996) has said that grammarians only teach people the
language, not dictate what to say. In short, it would be safe for us to speak
language in acceptable and understandable ways.
The teaching of grammar
Perhaps,
most English teachers have similar experiences in teaching grammar. Basically,
the 1994 English curriculum in Indonesia has tended to adopt the communicative
approach. However, this curriculum only gives teachers a set of topics and
goals and does not provide the strategies in teaching grammar to achieve the
goals of being able to communicate in both written and spoken English. That is
why, teachers tend to teach grammar traditionally by giving students small
parts of language. This is called ‘traditional grammar’ (Cook, 1996).
However, it might be true that
traditional grammar is one of a number of approaches available to Indonesian
teachers, so they use it (Bernard, 1993). In this way, the teacher gives
explanation first about the patterns of sentences based on parts of speech,
then examples are followed by some exercises. Also the teacher teaches verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, etc. discretely. This kind of method seems not to work.
Students are not able to use English as communication since language is taught
separately, not in context. When the teacher explains the grammar, students
seem to understand, but after that they forget it.
From
the readings, I am beginning to understand that teaching grammar deductively
instead of inductively, by giving students the rules first is giving them too
much in a hurry for students to learn. Students are forced to follow the rules
in making sentences, which are abstract. How can they apply the rules in
reality if they only have the experience in cultivating the sentences based on
the rules? Actually I do not mean to blame people who agree that language
teachers might be the worst people to teach language as Lewis (1986) said.
Perhaps the way the teacher used in the class is not interesting and
challenging so that learning process has not been successful. What the teacher
has taught seems to be useless when they face the outside world of English.
Some students may feel satisfied with the teacher’s explanation, but most of
them fail even on the exam. It is difficult to judge whose fault this is, may
be the teacher, who cannot teach well or the students who do not study well.
Relating to teaching grammar, since
learning language is a process, the teacher should not hope that students will
be able to master English quickly. Teaching grammar can be through integrating
all macro skills: reading, listening, speaking and writing. The teacher should
give exposure to English. Certainly, the teacher should be creative and
adaptable in designing students’ tasks in such a way so that the materials and
tasks can be interesting and attract students’ attention. I agree with Harmer’s
suggestion to use the real objects, tape recorders, newspapers, and brochures
to teach grammar since the grammar is used in context. This is what Kettle
(1990) refers to as ‘from text to grammar’.
As
noted above, teaching grammar needs teacher’s creativity to use interesting
approaches. However, I still feel apprehensive about what Lewis has suggested
‘stop explaining, start exploring’. In Indonesia, the term ‘exploring’ is
considered as new and this will be hard to start, as students are used to being
spoonfed by the teacher. As a compromise, I agree with Garner and Harmer’s
(1991) idea, it would be better if the teacher remains introducing how to
explore and discover the grammar to students, but, if necessary, when students
get into difficulties the teacher should explain it. Exploring should be
familiarized gradually because it is being implemented in a setting, where
English is not used outside the class. Misunderstandings of teacher’s
instruction may happen, so explaining is unavoidable.
From
McKnight’s (2000) class activity, I would like to take an example of students’
exploring the grammar, that is ‘decompression’ activity, which is done in
pairs. Basically, this is a dictation activity, but the text is arranged in
such a way, without small letters, punctuations and spaces. So, when one
student dictates to the other, he/she has to contemplate not only the
linguistic components of grammar, but also the discourse and the pragmatics.
From the linguistic value students can learn the phonology (pronunciation),
morphology (word formation), syntax (sentence formation), semantics (word and
sentence meanings), discourse and pragmatics in which students concieve the
context of the discourse occurs. Besides, the communicative interaction between
student and student also can be enhanced.
From
the example above, it is apparent that most of the activity is done by
students. During the activity students are exploring the grammar by themselves.
They also employ their functional language to make agreement, negotiate the
meaning and finally construct their sentences. This activity is really a
challenging one for students to do better than the others. It is also
interesting and enjoyable so that students can engage in the materials and
analyse the grammar.
Finally, to make students are able to
use the target language formal knowledge of grammar is not always helpful. It
seems to be less useful for the teacher to teach grammar explicitly since
students would only know the language knowledge, but they do not know how to
perform the language. Thus, exploring grammar while students involve in the
class activity and experience the communication is more valuable than explicit
grammatical explanation.
Pragmatics
Pragmatics is the study of how
people interpret the meaning of utterances based on the situation and context
(Fromkin, 1999; Finegan, 1997). Yule (1998) gives a more specific term that
pragmatics is the study of ‘invisible meaning’. It means the way people try to
guess the underlying meaning behind the utterances spoken or written, including
assumptions, aims, types of actions, context and interpretations. Personally,
the study of pragmatics is relatively new for me because in the last five years
pragmatics has not been studied in the university. Perhaps only a few people
study pragmatics in Indonesia. Today pragmatics has been more popular in
campuses, but still has made little impression in language teaching and
learning. I think, then, when we study pragmatics in the first language it is
easier than the second language. The reason is we have been familiar with the
language, the context and the terms, but this is not necessarily true. In fact,
studying pragmatics is very challenging.
Pragmatics is important for language
teaching and learning for some reasons. Firstly, this is to give the idea to
students that language is not just in the classroom. Students will face a lot
of different utterances, discourses and conversations, which they have to
interpret. We can find many different expressions either written or spoken in
any public places. In interpreting the intended meaning of an utterance, we
should take into account both the linguistic and situational context (Fromkin,
1999). For example, when we see a sign ‘Thank
you for not smoking’ in a hospital. Literally, this is the expression of thanking
to smokers who do not smoke. But when we think deeply about the situational
context of this speech act, this is a kind of request, which should be done.
Secondly, pragmatics is important to avoid misinterpretations. A
locution sometimes serves more than one meaning, the literal and connotation
meaning. So we have to know the exact meanings of a discourse because in
pragmatics language is used in context, not abstract. Finally, pragmatics can
be used to deliver requests, opinions, etc. in appropriate ways, hopefully the
listeners will also give responses, answers, suggestions appropriately as we
wish.
Subsequently, to understand the nature of language we should
understand the pragmatics (Leech, 1983). Pragmatics involves the study of
presuppositions and speech acts. Presupposition is used to apply the utterances
in appropriate ways. In the sentence ‘Have
some more tea?’, presupposes the listener has had some tea beforehand.
Presupposition also can be used to get information indirectly (Yule, 1998). For
instance, in sentence ‘My son is very
clever’. The listener will know that the speaker has a son.
Then, speech acts can be used to express different categories of
conversation, such as: representatives,
commisives, directives, declarations, expressives and verdictives (Finegan,
1997). In ‘commisive’ speech acts,
people can practise them to bet, promise,
warn, command, etc. Fromkin,
et.al call the verbs used in ‘commisive’ speech acts as ‘performative verbs’ and the context, which underlie the purposes of
a promise, a threat, a warning, etc. are called ‘illocutionary force’ of speech acts.
Indeed, to interpret the underlying meaning, people need to know not
only the background knowledge of the context, but also the linguistic knowledge
of the discourse. However, one thing, which seems to be ‘powerful’ is the ‘cultural’ knowledge. When we are wrong
to say or ask something to someone, who has different culture with us, it will
cause a serious offence. For instance, in Indonesia asking about the age or
marital status is considered as ‘common’, but in Australia it can be considered
as interfering other people’s privacy, so it should be avoided.
Then, the use of authentic data in studying pragmatics is very
beneficial. As authentic data is taken from outside the classroom, this
provides original communication of native speakers. As a result, these
materials are more challenging, but interesting so that students are stimulated
to guess the messages or meanings of the authentic extracts. Also authentic
materials will give chance for the teacher to select the materials based on the
students’ needs and interests. Conversely, the students will feel more
motivated in learning the language and they will get more knowledge about the
culture of different countries.
In relation to the use of authentic language data, finally, it will
be empowering both teachers and students. For students, the authentic language
data will provide them valuable input because the original materials are
certainly spoken by native speakers. Students would feel independent and
doubtless in speaking English since they are sure that native speakers also use
the utterances or expressions they learned in the real life. On the other hand,
for teachers, who are the native speakers, giving students the authentic
language data will make them confident. The language data exposed was taken
from the real life conversation. It seems that the teacher gives students a
‘power’ to be ready to encounter the English environment in different
situations and contexts.
Conclusion
As a teacher of English as a foreign language in
Indonesia, we should not only know the methodology but also the terms used in
the language. Initially, the English teachers should understand the specific
features of how to learn the L1 and L2 so that they could create some
particular ways to teach English for their learners. Then, grammar knowledge is
also very important as long as the grammar teaching is in accordance with the
use of the language in the learners daily life. The grammar teaching should
also be taught in communicative ways to avoid students’ boredom and to maximize
the usage of the language meaningfully. Next, the standard language knowledge
is useful for the learners to communicate in standardized language use in
certain countries. Finally, understanding the pragmatics of certain expressions
in English is also crucial as this insight can be beneficial to learn the
different cultures between the L1 and L2.
References
Baker,
S. J. 1981, The Australian Language,
Sun Books, Australia.
Bernard,
B. 1993, A Short Guide to Traditional
Grammar, second edition, Oxford University
Press, Oxford.
Cook,
V. 1996, Second Language Learning and
Language Teaching, Second edition, Arnold,
Great Britian.
Finegan,
E., Blair, D. & Collins, P. 1997, Language:
Its Structure and Use, Second edition,
Harcourt Brace & Company, Australia.
Fromkin, V., Blair, D. & Collins, P.
1999, An Introduction to Language,
Fourth edition, Harcourt
Australia Pty
Limited.
Harmer,
J. 1991, The practice of English Language
Teaching, Longman Group Limited,
Longman.
Harmer,
J. 1998, How to teach English,
Addison Wesley Longman Limited, Longman.
Holm,
J. 1988, Pidgins and Creoles: Volume I:
Theory and Structure, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kettle,
M. 1996, ‘Teaching grammar: Rethinking the approach’, TESOL in Context, vol. 6, no. 1,
pp. 13-19.
Leech,
G. N. 1983, ‘Introduction’, Principles of
Pragmatics, Longman Group Limited, America.
Lewis,
M. 1986, ‘ Grammar in the classroom’, The
English Verb: An Exploration of Structure
and Meaning,
Language Teaching Publications, Hove, UK, pp. 15-19.
McKnight,
A. 1998, Language and Language Teaching
A: Study guide, Deakin University,
Geelong.
Yule,
G. 1998, The Study of Language,
Second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
What are the advantages and
disadvantages of using authentic materials in the classroom?
With the emergence of communicative
language teaching approaches, the campaign of ‘authentic’ language data use has
been established for second language learners in the classrooms in most
countries. However, in the field of second language acquisition research,
language-teaching practitioners have different viewpoints in relation to the
use of authentic materials in language classrooms either concerning its
importance or its effect on the students.
In teaching and learning English as a foreign
and second language, the use of authentic materials has been debated. Although
they have communicative value (Yuk-chun Lee, 1995), they bring about a
hindrance in using them. This essay, first of all, will examine the viewpoints
of written or spoken authentic and non-authentic materials from different
language teaching experts. Secondly, it will highlight the importance or
advantages of utilizing authentic materials in second language classrooms in
general. Then, I will look at the disadvantages of authentic texts used in an
English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context from the discourse and pragmatic
aspects. Next, I will attempt to discuss the applicability of authentic material
use in the Indonesian setting and provide an alternative activity to stimulate
learner authenticity in the classroom. Finally, I will present a brief summary
of the issues examined in the previous sections.
First of all, the term ‘authentic’ itself is defined as ‘known to
be true or genuine’ (Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, 1995). In line with
the term ‘authentic materials’ in second language teaching, David Forman (1986,
cited in Underwood, 1989) says:
Any text is ‘authentic’ if it was produced in response
to real life communicative needs rather than as an imitation of real life
communicative needs. The term can be applied to any sort of text, written or
spoken, and in relation to any kind of situation of language use.
Similarly, Little, Devitt & Singleson (1989, cited in Peacock,
1997) define authentic materials as those generated to ‘fulfill some social
purpose in the language community’, while Yuk-chun Lee (1995) proposes the
terms ‘text authenticity’ and ‘learner authenticity’, in which the learner can
give appropriate and positive responses towards authentic materials. Meanwhile,
Nunan (1998) characterizes authentic materials as ‘genuine inter-actions and
authentic texts’, which are not planned for ‘pedagogical purposes’. These
materials are written for real-life communicative needs, in which the writers
intend to transfer some messages to the readers.
From these definitions, it can be inferred that
any material, which is not for the intention of teaching language, is authentic
regardless of who the writers are, either native speakers or non-native
speakers. It can be English newspapers, magazines, songs, poems, brochures, or
natural conversation of native speakers in the street, at home, on some radio
programs, at meetings, and in schools (Underwood, 1989). So, any material,
which is modified for the aim of teaching language, though this is done by
native speakers, is considered not authentic. Forman (1986, cited in Underwood,
1989) also gives an example that the script of a play is an authentic play
script, but not authentic conversation.
Unlike authentic materials, which always refer
to real speech or original written text, non-authentic materials lack
‘naturalness and spontaneity’ (Underwood, 1989). Burns (1993) asserts that the
typical features of non-authentic or scripted spoken text, are ‘standard’
pronunciation, unnatural frequency, complete sentences, apparent role shift and
the same amount of talking among speakers, a slow and conscious pace, no
backchannelling, formal, finite vocabulary, too much information and lack of
outside noise. He further claims that scripted samples will de-authenticate
speech if they are used in the classroom.
Many language classrooms, especially in EFL
contexts use scripted materials in the form of textboooks as the only
resources. The reason is they are easy to find and understand since they are
mostly established by the local curriculum developers and non-native English
teachers. Dialogues or conversations in the scripted samples are often stilted,
strange and funny due to the grammar demands. Even they sometimes lose the
important elements and strategies, in which the real spoken discourse is built
together (Burns, 1993). Being exposed to artificial samples, students will not
learn about the language used in real life conversation (Underwood, 1989). It
will cause difficulty when students attempt to understand authentic written and
spoken language. As a result, the outcomes of the language learners are still
questionable.
Secondly, the use of authentic language data
has been considerably widespread and promoted in language teaching and learning
for some beneficial purposes for students in the classroom. Some essential
features of real speech, which underpin the importance of it are natural
rhythm, intonation and pronunciation; speakers overlapping; normal rate of
delivery; unstructured and incomplete sentences; background noises; and natural
starts and stops (Underwood, 1989). On the other hand, written authentic
materials have more lexical density or linguistic complexity so that their
cohesive devices are more apparent. The sentences are much more formal,
although they still have a sense of naturalness with consideration for
‘rhetorical structuring of different text types (Paltridge, 1996).
Savignon (1991) stresses the importance of
authentic language data use in context in presenting either written or spoken
materials. This will provide students with various kinds of language
experiences from different language functions so that they will be stimulated
to create their own modification of expressions. In other words, they will be
creative in exploring the language from the exposure they attain.
Then, in authentic materials students will deal
with real actions and real written language in different situations and for different
purposes. In real speech students will listen to genuine communication with
‘interactional features’ (Underwood, 1989), which scripted dialogues do not
have. Doubts, false openings and errors often happen in real, spontaneous
speech, and these are very useful for students to learn when they face the
outside-classroom English, which is more practical and ordinary.
Next, in terms of linguistic complexity,
Morrison (1989) acknowledges that authentic materials generally go beyond the
students’ linguistic level. But this, in fact, will challenge them to reach an
understanding of either written or spoken text, in which the cohesion and
coherence of a discourse always comes up.
McCarthy (1991) states that generally most texts show unity in terms of
grammatical features or cohesive devices.
In addition, authentic language data may be
empowering for teachers and learners (McKnight, 1998). It is one thing that
genuine language data will offer students with valuable input, in which the
language is ordinarily utilized by native speakers, thus, they will feel
independent and confident in speaking English. It is another thing that the
teacher will give students ‘power’ to be ready to encounter the English
environment in different situations and contexts. In other words, authentic
materials can decrease students’ degree of anxiety to face the new environment
in the target language (Moya, 1998)
Finally, authentic materials will improve
students’ motivation in learning English since they are more interesting. Based
on Peacock’s (1997) classroom research with two beginner-level EFL classes,
there was a significant increase of students’ motivation in terms of ‘interest,
persistence, attention, action and enjoyment’ when they were given authentic
materials in their learning.
The following article, which was taken from
‘The Herald Sun’ on 20 May 2000, could probably be used for a reading activity
in the classroom:
E-mail jobs option
Many
recruiters now prefer to receive resumes via e-mail and some are using
technology to scan, store and screen them, an American study has found.
One-third of the human resource professionals surveyed by the Society for Human
Resource Management preferred electronic job data, but only 17 percent of job
seekers actually sent resumes via e-mail.
Of course, the use of this authentic written text will challenge
students in their learning process. From the pragmatic aspect, they have to
activate their cognitive processes and employ their schemata or background
knowledge to interpret the intended meaning of the text. Looking at the title
of the article, the readers will immediately recognize that the topic will be
about computer or the internet, whereas today we know that the internet,
especially e-mail has been popular among computer users in the world.
This is relevant to what Nunan (1988) has
mentioned that ‘the materials should reflect the outside world’. This means
that in selecting the materials the teacher should consider the topic, which
might be useful for students when they encounter the society. This will
stimulate students’ interests to know more about the text since the article is
an up to date issue. As well, the authentic text lets the students deal with
the culture and the technology from another country. For example, in the text it
is stated ‘an American study’, students will immediately guess that this
situation occurs in America, which has an advanced computer technology.
Subsequently, from
the discourse aspect, the article above will allow students to know about
‘report’ genre and ‘description’ text type (Hammond, et.al. 1992, cited in
Paltridge, 1996). As in a written text the sentences are usually well formed
(McCarthy, 1991), it is more obvious for the students to learn about cohesion
and coherence of the text from different genres and text types. As a matter of
fact, this article only consists of two sentences, but indeed between one
sentence to another there is coherence or links, which make those sentences
hang together. Hasan and Halliday (1976, cited in McKnight, 1998) have
categorized the cohesive devices in written text, which encompass reference, substitution, ellipsis,
conjunction and lexical. In the
article, for instance, students can recognize the reference, such as some and them; conjunction, such as and
and but; and lexical cohesion, such
as the collocation of the word ‘e-mail’ will suggest words like ‘technology’,
‘scan’, ‘store’, ‘screen’ and ‘electronic job data’. Thus, students will learn
how the sentences connect together.
In contrast to
those advantages above, the use of authentic materials in the language
classrooms generates constraints as well. Widdowson (1998) has argued against
the use of authentic language in the classroom since it is impossible to do so.
He explains that the classroom cannot provide the kind of contextual conditions
needed for normal pragmatic functions, which usually happen in the specific
discourse community. He further asserts that language, which is authentic for
native speakers, does not mean authentic for the learners.
Besides, some authors, such as William (1983
& 1984); Freeman and Holden, (1986); and Morrison (1989, cited in Peacock,
1997) have acknowledged that authentic materials might discourage students
since they are too difficult. This is absolutely reasonable, especially in
terms of pragmatics and culture aspects. Authentic materials generally go too
far beyond the students’ level or prior knowledge. In addition, Underwood
(1989) asserts that authentic materials cannot be arranged before they are
produced, thus careful selection by the teacher to match the material with the
course books topics is needed.
In EFL contexts, as in Indonesian classrooms,
the notion of authentic materials might be considered new for some English
language teachers because they are used to teaching using scripted materials.
Obviously, authentic language data use would bring about some problems for
them. First of all, taking into account the limited teaching and learning
resources for English lessons, it is very difficult for the teacher to find authentic
materials either from printed or electronic media. This would occur mostly in
schools, which are located in remote areas. Then, even if the teacher has found
authentic materials, he/she still has difficulty in using them in terms of the
limited time because the teacher has to use the textbook required for the
English teaching in the school concerned. Lastly, using authentic materials
reveals a difficulty in predicting the underlying meaning of the written or
spoken text. This is because with finite ‘experience and shared-cultural
knowledge’ (Turner, 1988), it is very challenging for students to decode
authentic written text and with finite ‘contextual knowledge’ (Fromkin, et.al.
1999) they will have difficulty understanding either written text or real speech
since they do not know the actual context or the pragmatics in text.
In interpreting a poem, for instance, entitled
‘The last of snow’ by Douglas Stewart
(Parker, 1960), students would deal with the collocation of the word ‘snow’. In
Indonesia, students with limited background knowledge do not know what snow is,
what snow looks like, when and why it happens. They might know the linguistic
context or the discourse (Fromkin, et.al. 1999) of the poem, but they do not
have any idea of the situational context of the countries, which have four
different seasons. On the other hand, in comprehending real speech, such as in
‘Two old friends meet up again’
(Carter and McCarthy, 1997:42), the process of learning is similar to the
written text, but spoken discourse needs more student effort to predict the
situational context backing up the conversation.
Finally, considering these advantages and
disadvantages of using authentic materials in the Indonesian classroom, there
should be a compromise in using materials for language learning in the
classroom. Firstly, the teacher should still take into account the degree of
authenticity in selecting the materials (Nunan, 1988). This means that there is
authenticity between the materials and the student activities and tasks in the
classroom. Nunan further explains that the materials should assist the students
in increasing independent learning so that they will be aware of their learning
process.
Then, authenticity is not only a matter of the
authentic text itself, but authenticity can mean the relationship between the
passage and the reader’s response (Widdowson, 1978, cited in Taylor, 1994).
Authenticity emerges in that response being appropriate. In this respect, a
genuine text does not always generate student authenticity, conversely,
inauthentic text might create authentic student response (Yuk-chun Lee, 1995).
How difficult the authentic text is not significant since its ease or
difficulty can arise from the tasks designed (Field, 1997). All of them depend on how the teacher
presents the materials and how s/he exploits it in communicative activities,
which activate students’ cognitive processes to explore the language.
The following
activity is one of the communicative activities, which makes use of authentic
materials. It has been demonstrated in McKnight’s (2000) and Reuter’s (2000)
classes. The list of words below was taken from ‘The Age’ articles, they are
‘Gold Coast beyond the theme parks’, which was published on 28 May 2000 and
‘Australian ballet gets an extra $1m’, which was on 29 May 2000.
holiday touring program Queensland
dancers off spring parks
hotel Australian ballet
ferry performing arts sheltered beaches increase
trip offer funding
lovely announcement application
guests
In this activity the teacher could adjust the texts to any ways, in which they can be utilized to maximize the students’ involvement in the class activity. For example, in the first procedure, instead of providing students with lists of words on the board, the teacher could dictate them for the purpose of activating their listening skill. Then, with their peers in groups, they can check spelling and pronunciation together. After that, the teacher asks students to divide those words into two categories according to its collocations. Lastly, they have to create a short text type based on their interests of the chosen category and perform them in front of the class.
Although those words are actually from two articles, which I
consider difficult for my students’ level, the teacher can elicit vocabulary,
which is a little bit above students’ level. So, in this case, the teacher does
modify the communicative activities in such a way that the difficult authentic
texts still can contribute valuable input for the students. From the activity,
it can be seen that all the steps of the procedure require students to employ
all their linguistic competence to create new sentences.
Initially, in listening to the teacher’s dictation, the students recall or activate their background language knowledge about words and spelling they already know, then practise how to articulate them in appropriate pronunciation. Additionally, the nature of authenticity of the actual social interaction of the language classroom (Breen, 1985, cited in Taylor, 1994) appears when students collaboratively interact in producing sentences. Finally, while constructing a paragraph students have to determine what sort of text type they like to create: a description, an exposition or others and what kind of mass media their texts are supposed to be: television news, radio news or newspapers. In this case, students will learn different kinds of language functions in the social community. This process of learning has generated ‘learner authenticity’, in which the students appreciate and acknowledge the text, task, set of materials or learning activity (Nunan, 1988). In other words, the students can respond to the materials appropriately and positively.
I agree with Underwood (1989) that the terms ‘authentic’, non-authentic’ or ‘semi-authentic’ are, in fact, not crucial. The most important thing is that the students can authenticate the materials they deal with (Nunan, 1988). This means that the students can engage with the materials given and the materials can accommodate students’ interests and trigger their background knowledge and experience because these can expedite the students learning process. Thus, students will be encouraged to create genuine communication in the language classroom.
More importantly,
the teacher should not always rely much on authentic written or spoken
discourse, which might be a waste of time and energy. This is also significant
considering the limited authentic learning resources in EFL contexts,
especially in Indonesia. The teacher still can utilize ‘realia’ or a real
object to stimulate students’ creativity in exploring the language.
For example, in a ‘genre exploration’ activity,
which has been demonstrated in Reuter’s (2000) class, the teacher makes use of
a shoe, to arouse students’ curiosity. From only one object, the teacher can
stimulate students to construct short texts in different genres and text types
according to the students’ proficiency level. They can learn how to make a
report, an advertisement, a storybook and a procedural text. Of course,
beforehand the students need to be exposed to examples of different genres and
text types so that they can employ both their communicative and linguistic
competence in the negotiation of meaning and make decisions.
Indeed, referring to the activity above, the
teacher can bring into play anything, which is beneficial for students in the
learning process. The final product is not really the crucial thing in this
respect, but the students’ process of learning. In other words, the students
have the opportunity to use the target language in context, thus in a
meaningful way. So, it seems that it is a matter of the teacher’s creativity in
modifying either authentic, semi-authentic texts or realia to activate student
authenticity in the classroom with regard to the target goals in the
curriculum.
In conclusion, the emergence of authentic
materials use in the language classroom has brought about controversial points
of view among language teaching practitioners. Some of them believe that the
use of authentic materials is very important for students because it will
improve their motivation in the learning process. On the other hand, a few of
them assume that authentic language data use will also generate more problems
apart from their difficulty, when it is implemented in EFL contexts, as in
Indonesia. However, there are still some ways to adapt pure authentic materials
into communicative activities, which stimulate and activate students’ cognitive
processes in the classroom. As a result, a kind of genuine communication, which
occurs in the simulated real context, will be established.
References
‘Queensland winter breaks: Gold
Coast beyond the theme parks’, 2000, An advertising
feature, The Age, 28 May, p. 11.
Burns, A. 1993, ‘Spoken discourse
in the TESOL classroom’, TESOL in Context,
vol. 3,
no. 1, pp. 5-8.
Carter, R. & M. McCarthy,
1997, Exploring Spoken English,
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Collier, K. 2000, ‘E-mail jobs
option’, Herald Sun, 20 May, p. 63.
Field, J. 1997, ‘Notes on
listening: Authenticity’, Modern English
Teacher, vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 49-51.
Fromkin, V., D. Blair & P.
Collins, 1999, An Introduction to
Language, Fourth edition,
Harcourt Australia PTY
Limited, Australia.
Hornby, A.S. 1995, Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary,
Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Lawson, V. 2000, ‘Australian
ballet gets an extra $1m’, The Age,
29 May, p. 5.
McCarthy, M. 1991, Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers,
Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
McKnight, A. 1989, Language and Language Teaching: Study Guide,
Deakin University,
Geelong, Victoria,
Australia.
Morrison, B. 1989, ‘Using news
broadcasts for authentic listening comprehension’, ELT
Journal, vol. 43, no. 1, pp.
14-23.
Moya, M. L. 1998, Using Authentic Materials in the Foreign Language Classroom to
Meet the Needs of Sojourners, A thesis,
Nunan, D. 1988, The Learner-Centred Curriculum,
Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Nunan, D. 1998, Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook
for Teachers,
International Book
Distributors Limited, Great Britain.
Paltridge, B. 1996, ‘Genre, text
type, and the language learning classroom’, ELT
Journal,
vol. 50, no. 3, pp.
237-43.
Parker, E. W. 1960, ‘The last of
snow’ in Fresh Field, Longman Inc.,
Australia.
Peacock, M. 1997, ‘The effect of
authentic materials on the motivation of EFL learners’,
ELT Journal, vol. 51, no. 2, pp.
144-49.
Savignon, S. J. 1991,
‘Communicative language teaching: State of the art’, TESOL
Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 2, pp.
261-77.
Taylor, D. 1994, ‘Inauthentic
authenticity or authentic inauthenticity?’, TESL-EJ,
Turner, L. 1988, ‘Why Chinese
ducks say ‘Gar Gar’ and Australian ducks say ‘Quack
Quack?’, in Plummer, Planning for Thinkers and Learners: The
Early Years,
Australian Reading
Association Inc., Victoria, Auatralia.
Underwood, M. 1989, Teaching Listening, Longman Group UK
Limited, New York.
Widdowson, H. G. 1998, ‘Context,
community, and authentic language’, TESOL
Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp.
705-15.
Yuk-chun Lee, W. 1995,
‘Authenticity revisited: Text authenticity and learner
authenticity’, ELT Journal, vol. 49, no. 4, pp. 323-28.
Selasa, 10 September 2013
MY PROJECT REPORT
KARYA TULIS
(Project Report)
Being A District Trainer and A
Master Trainer of Teacher Training Projects in Improving the Teachers' Quality as an Implementation of Society Development Program
Diajukan untuk memenuhi persyaratan Lomba Guru MTs
Berprestasi 2013 di Lingkungan Kementerian Agama
Tingkat Provinsi Jawa Timur
Oleh:
UMI
MAHMUDAH, SPd., M.Ed.
MTsN
TAMBAKBERAS JOMBANG
KEMENTERIAN AGAMA KABUPATEN JOMBANG
TAHUN 2013
KATA
PENGANTAR
Alhamdulillahhirrabil
alamin, penulis telah berhasil
menyelesaikan karya tulis tentang kegiatan-kegiatan selama menjadi District
Trainer (Pelatih Wilayah) pada Program IAPBE (Kemitraan Indonesia-Australia) di
Kabupaten Jombang periode 2005-2007 dan sebagai Master Trainer pada program
ELTIS (Pelatihan Guru Bahasa Inggris di Sekolah-sekolah Islam) periode 2007 – 2010 di Propinsi Jawa Timur
(Pamekasan, Sumenep, Probolimggo, dan Situbondo. Program ini didanai dan disponsori oleh
Pemerintah Australia ( Ausaid)
Karya tulis ini khusus
ditujukan sebagai persyaratan dalam mengikuti
Lomba guru MTs Berprestasi 2013 dilingkungan Kementrian Agama Tingkat
Propinsi Jawa Timur. Semoga bisa
bermanfaat bagi pembaca dan khususnya penulis.
Jombang,
Agustus 2013
Penulis
BAB I
PENDAHALUAN
Seiring
dengan berkembangnya dan pesatnya pertumbuhan teknologi, kebutuhan akan
tingginya ilmu pendidikan di Indonesia
mutlak harus terus ditingkatkan. Jika melihat Human Development Index (Indeks
Pembangunan Manusia) tahun 2012 dari www.undp.org.
peringkat Indonesia di nomor 121 dari 187 negara, dibandingkan dengan negara
Malaysia yang berada di urutan 64, sangat jauh selisihnya. Pada jaman dulu
berbondong-bondong pelajar justru warga Malaysia yang belajar di Indonesia.
Akan tetapi beberapa tahun terakhir justru banyak pelajar dan mahasiswa yang
dikirim belajar ke Malaysia. Sungguh kita perlu mengevaluasi diri dengan
keadaan Indonesia saat ini.
Menukil
dari perkataan salah satu Presiden Afrika Selatan, Nelson Mandela, yang
mengatakan bahwa “Pendidikan adalah senjata paling mematikan, karena dengan itu
Anda dapat mengubah dunia”. Begitu dahsyatnya peran pendidikan di dunia ini
sampai bisa mengubah dunia ternyata sudah banyak terbukti. Semakin tinggi tingkat
pendidikan sebuah negara, semakin maju pula negara tersebut. Untuk itu
Indonesia juga harus ikut berpacu meningkatkan diri di bidang pendidikan jika
tidak mau kalah dengan negara lain.
Sehubungan
dengan peningkatan mutu pendidikan di Indonesia, dalam Undang-Undang Dasar 1945
bangsa Indonesia telah mempunyai cita-cita yang luhur yaitu ikut serta dalam
‘mencerdaskan kehidupan bangsa’ (UUD 1945). Artinya bahwa bangsa kita telah
bertekad untuk selalu meningkatkan mutu pendidikan di Indonesia. Sementara itu,
pemerintah telah berupaya untuk terus menerus membenahi Kurikulum pendidikan di
sekolah-sekolah di seluruh penjuru Indonesia. Mulai dari Kurikulum 1974,
Kurikulum 1984, Kurikulum 1994, Kurikulum 2004 (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi),
Kurikulum 2006 (Kurikulum Satuan Tingkat Pendidikan) dan yang terakhir adalah
Kurikulum 2013 yang sekarang sedang diterapkan pada beberapa sekolah yang
terpilih sebagai Pilot Project untuk menerapkan Kurikulum 2013 ini,
semua pada dasarnya bertujuan sama yaitu untuk meningkatkan mutu pendidikan di
Indonesia.
Akan tetapi, pembenahan mutu
pendidikan secara global harus dibarengi dengan peningkatan mutu guru secara
menyeluruh. Beberapa tahun silam, penyebaran kebijakan dan pendekatan-pendekatan
pembelajaran baru dirasa belum menyentuh hingga ke seluruh praktisi pendidikan,
terutama di daerah-daerah pinggiran dan pelosok. Memang tidaklah mudah untuk
bisa menyebarluaskan pengetahuan dan pendekatan baru kepada semua guru dan
komponen pendidikan lainnya. Hal ini disebabkan oleh banyak faktor antara lain
adalah kurang lancarnya jaringan komunikasi
baik melalui fasilitas fisik maupun kontak antar personil di daerah pedesaan
dan terpencil. Seandainyapun ada itu hanya dimiliki oleh kalangan tertentu saja
dan belum populer di kalangan guru dan tenaga pendidik lainnya. Faktor penyebab
lain adalah sebagian besar masyarakat di Indonesia masih gagap teknologi
tingkat tinggi. Bahkan para guru juga masih banyak yang awam dengan teknologi
modern, misalnya dalam pengoperasian komputer, yang sebenarnya sangat penting
untuk kebutuhan pembelajaran saat ini, yaitu Pengolah Kata (Ms Word), Pengolah
Angka (Ms Excel), Data Base, dan program-program lainnya. Dalam hal pencarian
pengetahuan yang lebih luas, sebenarnya guru dan komponen pendidik lainnya bisa
juga memanfaatkan Internet. Dengan ketrampilan mengeksplorasi Internet, penulis
yakin dunia seakan berada dalam genggaman kita sebagai praktisi pendidikan.
Yang terakhir adalah faktor yang paling vital, yaitu belum adanya tindakan
penyebaran yang bisa menjangkau daerah-daerah pelosok sehingga terjadi
ketidakseimbangan tingkat sumber daya manusia antara daerah satu dengan
lainnya.
Sebagai
tenaga pendidik masa kini, sangatlah penting untuk selalu meningkatkan
kompetensi dan potensi diri, baik pengembangan secara administrasi maupun
pengembangan potensi diri untuk menjadi tenaga pendidik yang profesional.
Desakan dan tuntutan jaman untuk mengimbangi budaya dan teknologi dunia barat
mutlak harus dilakukan, terutama dengan peningkatan mutu sumber daya tenaga guru
di Indonesia. Dengan mutu pendidikan yang baiklah bangsa Indonesia akan mampu
bersaing di dunia internasional.
Oleh karena itu, penulis
sangat berkeinginan untuk selalu berpartisipasi dalam penyebarluasan pengetahuan
dan pendekatan-pendekatan mutakhir dalam dunia pembelajaran di sekolah dasar
dan menengah. Dalam karya tulis ini, penulis akan memaparkan tentang
keterlibatannya dalam program peningkatan mutu pendidikan berupa Pelatihan Guru
dan Tenaga Kependidikan lainnya. Yang pertama yaitu pada tahun 2005-2007
menjadi District Trainer di sebuah program pelatihan yang didanai oleh
Pemerintah Australia yang disebut dengan IAPBE (Indonesia Australia
Partnership in Basic Education) atau Program Kemitraan Indonesia Ausralia
untuk Pendidikan Dasar. Yang kedua yaitu pada tahun 2007-2010 menjadi Master
Trainer dalam sebuah proyek yang juga didanai oleh Pemerintah Australia,
LAPIS-ELTIS (Learning Assistance Program for Islamic Schools-English
Language Training for Islamic Schools) atau Program Bantuan Belajar bagi
Sekolah Islam/Madrasah dalam hal ini program untuk Pelatihan Bahasa Inggris
bagi Sekolah Islam/Madrasah. Yang terakhir, penulis akan memaparkan
pengembangan dan penyebaran yang bisa dilakukan di madrasah sendiri maupun tempat
lainnya.
BAB II
MENJADI DISTRICT TRAINER DI
IAPBE
(Indonesia Australia
Partnership in Basic Education)
Sejak
bertugas pertama di MTsN Model Trenggalek, penulis sudah terlibat dalam
peningkatan mutu guru, yaitu sebagai fasilitator dalam In Service Training se
Wilker Kediri III. Di samping itu, juga aktif sebagai Guru Inti untuk membantu
di MGMP dan menulis LKS. Kemudian pindah tugas ke MTsN Tambakberas Jombang pada
tahun 2005, penulis langsung bergabung di sebuah program kemitraan dengan
Pemerintah Australia yaitu IAPBE (Indonesia Australia Partnership in Basic
Education) setelah melalui seleksi administrasi, wawancara dan praktek
mengajar.
Indonesia
Australia Partnership in Basic Education (IAPBE) adalah program kemitraan antara
pemerintah Indonesia dan Australia di bidang pendidikan dasar yang bertujuan
untuk meningkatkan kualitas pendidikan dasar di Jawa Timur, khususnya di tiga
Kabupaten sasaran yaitu Jombang, Gresik dan Jember (IAPBE, 2007). IAPBE lahir
pada tahun 2004 dan telah berhasil meningkatkan kualitas 180 sekolah sasaran
dari tiga kabupaten sasaran tersebut. Program ini melatih hampir semua komponen
yang ada di sekolah, yaitu guru, kepala sekolah, pengawas, komite sekolah dan
Tim sekolah yang meliputi guru, orang tua peserta didik, komite dan kepala
sekolah. Tm sekolah juga dari unsur Kepala UPTD, Camat, Komisi D DPRD dan Dewan
Pendidikan.
Penulis adalah salah satu District
Trainer (Pelatih Kabupaten) di Jombang pada tahun kedua usia IAPBE tahun
2005 dan menjadi Pelatih Tahap 2 dengan sasaran kecamatan Jombang dan Perak. Di
awal perekrutan Pelatih, diberikan pelatihan pelatih atau Training of
Trainers (TOT) di Malang yang bertujuan untuk mempersiapkan guru-guru
terbaik yang sudah terpilih menjadi Pelatih agar mampu dan siap untuk
melaksanakan berbagai pelatihan untuk guru, komite dan tim sekolah dari
sekolah-sekolah sasaran IAPBE.
TOT dilaksanakan dalam 4
seri A, B, C, D yang masing-masing dilaksanakan selama 4 hari atau equivalen
dengan 31,5 jam. Materi disiapkan berbeda untuk setiap seri, akan tetapi ada
materi yang sengaja diulang untuk penguatan. Materi TOT meliputi Sekolah
Efektif, Peningkatan Peran Serta Masyarakat, Outbound Activities, Pembelajaran
PAKEM dan Kontekstual, Kurikulum, Strategi Pembelajaran, Penciptaan Lingkungan
Belajar yang Kondusif, Penilaian Berbasis Kelas, Rencana Pelaksanaan Pembelajaran,
Micro Teaching, Rencana Pengembangan Sekolah, Visi Misi Tujuan Sasaran Sekolah,
Analisis SWOT, Program Sekolah, RAPBS, Monitoring dan Evaluasi Sekolah,
Silabus, Pembelajaran Inklusif Gender, Tujuan Peran dan Fungsi Komite Sekolah,
AD ART Komite sekolah, Program Kerja Komite Sekolah, Monev Komite, Ketrampilan
berkomunikasi dan Mengelola Konflik, Pembelajaran Orang Dewasa, Real Teaching,
Tim Building, Mengelola KKG dan MGMP, Ketrampilan Negosiasi, Penelitian
Tindakan Kelas, Gender dan PSM, Penggalian dan Pendalaman Materi Ajar.
Setelah TOT seri A, B dan C,
penulis harus sudah berperan aktif di kabupaten dalam pelatihan Komite Sekolah,
Tim Sekolah dan Guru SD/MI dan SMP/MTs. Meskipun seiring dengan berjalannya
Pelatihan yang ada di kabupaten, penulis juga tetap harus menjalani Pelatihan
Pelatih untuk Tahap berikutnya untuk materi lanjut, antara lain KTSP, Gender,
Pelaporan hasil kegiatan, Ketrampilan menggunakan pohon masalah, Standar
Pelayanan Minimal, Penciptaan Lingkungan Sekolah yang Sehat dan Aman,
Penciptaan Sistem Administrasi sekolah yang Efektif, juga Ketrampilan
memberdayakan warga sekolah.
Pelatihan yang pertama yaitu
Pelatihan Komite Sekolah. Pelatihan ini diadakan karena Komite Sekolah
mempunyai peranan penting dalam mewujudkan sekolah yang efektif atau sekolah
yang berMBS (Manajemen Berbasis Sekolah). Dalam menjalankan fungsi dan
perannya, Komite Sekolah harus memiliki kompetensi yaitu sebagai Pemberi Pertimbangan,
Pendukung, Pengontrol dan Mediator bagi sekolah. Dengan kompetensi yang
dimiliki dan dianggap memadai diharapkan dapat meningkatkan kualitas sekolah
yang dibinanya.
Sasaran peserta Pelatihan
Komite Sekolah SD/MI, SMP/MTs ini adalah ketua, wakil ketua, sekretaris dan
bendahara.
Pelatihan selanjutnya yaitu
Pelatihan Tim Sekolah. Tim Sekolah memegang peranan yang sangat penting dalam
pengembangan sekolah efektif. Komponen Tim Sekolah yang menjadi sasaran adalah
kepala sekolah, guru senior, ketua komite sekolah, dan wakil orang tua siswa.
Sedangkan kompetensi yang harus dicapai oleh peserta adalah Tim Sekolah mampu
bersama-sama mewujudkan sekolah yang berMBS, mampu memberikan dukungan untuk
mewujudkan sekolah yang menerapkan pembelajaran PAKEM/CTL dan mampu memberikan
dukungan terhadap manajemen yang responsif gender.
Jenis pelatihan yang ketiga
adalah Pelatihan Guru SD/MI dan SMP/MTs. Guru adalah kunci keberhasilan
pembelajaran di kelas. Untuk itu guru harus memahami dan terampil secara
menyeluruh dalam perencanaan pembelajaran, pelaksanaan pembelajaran dan
evaluasi pembelajaran. Penulis dan seluruh tim IAPBE sangat memperhatikan
kebutuhan guru dalam meningkatkan kualitasnya dalam pembelajaran berupa
pelatihan-pelatihan guru yang berjenjang ini, mulai dari materi-materi dasar
sampai materi tingkat pengayaan. Para guru tersebut terdiri dari guru Mata
Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia, Matematika, IPA, Kelas awal dan Bahasa Inggris
Sedangkan kompetensi yang
harus dicapai oleh peserta dalam pelatihan guru adalah mampu menerapkan
PAKEM/CTL pada mata pelajaran Matematika, Sains, Bahasa Indonesia, Bahasa
Inggris atau Kelas Awal, mampu menerapkan prinsip sekolah berMBS/sekolah
efektif dan cara mewujudkannya dan mampu menerapkan pembelajaran yang responsif
gender.
Dalam pelaksanaannya, baik
para peserta Komite Sekolah, Tim Sekolah dan para guru SD/MI dan SMP/MTs sangat
antusias dan bersemangat dalam mengikuti pelatihan-pelatihan yang diadakan oleh
IAPBE. Mereka merasa benar-benar membutuhkan materi-materi yang sudah ditawarkan
oleh IAPBE karena jarang sekali bahkan belum ada lembaga atau organisasi yang
mengadakan pelatihan dengan materi-materi seperti tersebut di atas. Pada akhir
program ini selesai, hampir semua peserta berharap bahwa program pelatihan akan
tetap dilanjutkan, meskipun oleh pengelola dan pelaksana yang lain.
BAB III
MENJADI MASTER TRAINER DI
ELTIS
(English Language Training
for Islamic Schools)
Setelah
program di IAPBE selesai pada tahun 2007, penulis mengajukan permohonan untuk
bisa bisa terlibat dalam program English Language Training for Islamic
Schools (ELTIS). Setelah melalui
beberapa tahap seleksi, yaitu tes IELTS, wawancara dan praktek mengajar,
penulis resmi menjadi Master Trainer ELTIS untuk Provinsi Jawa Timur.
ELTIS adalah program pendidikan yang didanai oleh Pemerintah Australia di
bidang pelatihan Bahasa Inggris bagi sekolah-sekolah Islam atau Madrasah. ELTIS
bertujuan untuk mengembangkan keahlian berbahasa Inggris dan kemampuan mengajar
lebih dari 750 guru Madrasah Tsanawiyah (MTs) dari Jawa Timur, Madura, NTB dan
Sulawesi Selatan, juga untuk memperkuat kapasitas lembaga-lembaga perguruan
tinggi mitra untuk merencanakan, mengelola dan mengadakan pelatihan Bahasa
Inggris dan guru di tempat kerja, dan menguatkan jaringan dukungan daerah.
ELTIS bekerja sama dengan tiga perguruan tinggi Islam, yaitu IAIN Sunan Ampel
Surabaya, IAIN Mataram dan STAIN Watampone, Bone. Sementara di dalam
sekolah-sekolah target sendiri, tujuan ELTIS adalah untuk meningkatkan
kemampuan berbahasa Inggris baik peserta didik putri maupun putra di Madrasah
Tsanawiyah melalui pengembangan kemampuan bahasa dan mengajar guru-guru Bahasa
Inggris.
Sebelum
melatih peserta, penulis harus menjalani Short Course terlebih dahulu, yaitu
Cambridge ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages)-ICELT (In-service
Certificate of English Language Teaching) selama 20 minggu. Short Course ini
dilaksanakan di IALF Bali dan para Master Trainers harus menyelesaikan tiga
Modul ICELT, antara tentang Bahasa untuk Guru (Language for Teachers),
Praktek Mengajar (Teaching Practice) dan Metode Mengajar (Methodology).
Dengan ketiga modul tersebut, penulis digembleng dengan berbagai ilmu
pembelajaran, mulai dari mengamati bahasa guru dan peserta didik, penggunaan
bahasa Inggris di kelas, merencakan pembelajaran, melaksanakan pembelajaran,
serta metode-metode dan teknik pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris yang menyenangkan di
kelas. Selain materi tersebut, penulis juga menjalani beberapa workshop
tambahan, antara lain workshop Training of Trainers, Guru sebagai Agen
Perubahan (Agent of Change), workshop HIV dan AIDS, Gender dan workshop motivasi lainnya.
Program pelatihan yang
diadakan ELTIS adalah pelatihan untuk peningkatan kemampuan Bahasa Inggris guru
(ELU=English Language Upgrading) dan kemampuan mengajar Bahasa Inggris
dengan pendekatan yang Communicative (CELTT= Communicative English
Language Teacher Training). Dalam hal ini, penulis terpilih untuk menjadi
Pelatih di CELTT. Sehingga dalam TOT penulis bersama Master Trainers lainnya
juga mendesain Modul CELTT, mempresentasikan dan mempraktekkannya untuk melihat
sejauh mana respon peserta. Penulis benar-benar merasakan banyak sekali ilmu
yang diperoleh dalam ICELT course ini.
Pada
awal tahun 2008, mulailah penulis memberi training pada guru-guru Bahasa
Inggris MTs dari sekolah sasaran kabupaten Bondowoso, Situbondo, Probolinggo.
Pada tahap-tahap terakhir program ini, ditambah kabupaten Sumenep dan
Pamekasan, Madura. Peserta dari daerah sebelumnya sudah diseleksi dan
dikelompokkan sesuai dengan hasil Placement Test. Peserta tidak akan memasuki
Tahap Pelatihan CELTT sebelum lolos dalam Pelatihan ELU sampai Modul 4.
Sedangkan pelatihan CELTT terdiri dari lima Modul. Modul 1 tentang
Prinsip-prinsip Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris yang Komunikatif (CLT) bagian 1.
Modul 2 masih melanjutkan materi CLT bagian 2. Modul 3 tentang Pengajaran
ketrampilan Listening dan Reading. Modul 4 tentang Pengajaran
ketrampilan Speaking dan Writing. Sedangkan yang terakhir Modul 5
tentang Pengajaran Grammar dan Vocabulary.
Dalam
setiap pelatihan para Trainee diharapkan mampu mengambil manfaat yang
sebesar-besarnya sebagai bekal untuk proses pembelajaran di madrasah
masing-masing. Dalam hal ini, berbagai materi dan metode yang disajikan
haruslah menjadi inspirasi pembelajaran yang lebih baik untuk peserta didiknya.
Para trainee benar-benar tampak antusias di setiap pelatihan meskipun tampak
sekali perbedaan kemampuan dasar mereka.
Sebagai bentuk monitoring
ELTIS, para Master Trainers dijadwal juga untuk melaksanakan Kunjungan Sekolah
(School Visits) setelah trainee menjalani CELTT 3 dan 5. Hal ini
bertujuan untuk memberikan dukungan kepada para trainee di sekolah
masing-masing, menyediakan feedback atau umpan balik bagi guru/trainee
dalam pembelajaran mereka di kelas, dan untuk memantau sejauh mana para trainee
mampu menyerap dan menerapkan Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris yang Komunikatif di
kelas mereka sendiri dengan segala keterbatasan mereka.
Diantara para trainee, ada
beberapa yang dipilih untuk menjadi District Trainers untuk daerah
masing-masing. Mereka juga diberi workshop Cambridge ESOL Teaching Knowledge
Test (TKT) Preparation Course dan TOT di IALF Bali. Ka dipersiapkan untuk
menjadi penerus Master Trainers setelah Program ELTIS berakhir untuk tetap
menghidupkan kegiatan MGMP mereka. Ada 5 MGMP Groups di Jawa Timur yang
dibentuk ELTIS untuk menyediakan sebuah forum bagi guru untuk bertemu dan
mendiskusikan isu-isu dalam proses belajar mengajar dan mengembangkan
ketrampilan yang relevan, serta kesempatan pengembangan guru yang terus menerus
melalui komunitas berbahasa Inggris tingkat kabupaten.
Selain kegiatan di atas,
penulis juga termasuk salah satu Master Trainers yang terpilih dalam penulisan
Paket Materi ELT ELTIS (Resource Packs) yang sebelumnya juga dibekali dengan
Workshop Pembuatan Materi dari IQRA’ Singapore. Setelah itu penulis dan tim
Resource Packs terus menerus bekerja untuk menghasilkan sebuah Paket Buku
Suplemen sebagai pendukung Buku Paket di madrasah. Materi dalam Resource Pack
didesain bernuasa Islam, jadi semua konteks dalam semua materi harus
memperhatikan kaidah-kaidah pembelajaran Islam.
Selama tiga tahun menjadi
Master Trainer dan berpartisipasi aktif di setiap kegiatan ELTIS merupakan
pengetahuan dan pengalaman yang sangat bermanfaat bagi pengembangan diri dan
karir penulis. Dan ini merupakan bekal yang sangat berharga dalam membantu
rekan guru yang lainnya baik di tempat kerja sendiri dan tempat lain yang
membutuhkan.
BAB IV
PENGEMBANGAN KEGIATAN PASCA
IAPBE DAN ELTIS
Pada
bab ini penulis mencoba mendeskripsikan kegiatan pengembangan pasca IAPBE dan
ELTIS. Ada dua bagian dalam bagian ini, yaitu Kegiatan di dalam madrasah dan di
luar madrasah.
Pada tahun 2008, tepatnya pada
bulan Maret, penulis untuk pertama kalinya diminta oleh Kepala Madrasah, Bapak
Drs. H. Ach. Hasan, M.Pd.I, untuk memberikan pelatihan di madrasah sendiri, MTsN
Tambakberas dengan materi yang sekiranya bermanfaat bagi para guru. Untuk itu,
penulis memilih materi ‘Multi Metode Pembelajaran’ yang secara praktis akan
diterapkan langsung di kelas oleh para guru tersebut. Memang pada saat itu,
para guru di madrasah penulis sangat membutuhkan sekali materi semacam itu.
Pada tahun 2009, penulis
diberi tambahan tugas di MTsN Tambakberas Jombang sebagai Wakil Kepala Bidang
Kurikulum oleh Kepala Madrasah yang baru, yaitu Bpk. Drs. H. Anshori. Hal ini
sangat memberikan kesempatan bagi penulis untuk lebih dekat dengan para guru
dan membantu mereka dengan cara merencanakan kegiatan-kegiatan yang bersifat
meningkatkan profesionalisme atau kualitas dalam pembelajaran mereka di dalam
Program Kurikulum setiap tahunnya. Paling sedikit setahun satu kali harus ada
pelatihan bagi guru maupun pegawai. Nara sumber tidak hanya penulis sendiri,
tetapi lebih sering juga Outsourcing dari lembaga relevan lainnya.
Program pelatihan yang sudah
penulis laksanakan sebagai Wakil Kepala Kurikulum antara lain adalah Workshop I
Action Research sebagai Upaya meningkatkan Profesionalisme Guru. Penulis
mengundang seorang Dosen dari UIN Malang Sebagai Nara sumber. Dalam pelatihan
ini para guru belajar bagaimana menulis sebuah laporan Penelitian Tindakan
Kelas (PTK) sendiri dimana sebelumnya merasa bahwa menulis itu sangat sulit.
Workshop ini dilanjutkan dengan Action Research tahap II dimana para guru
menyerahkan tugas membuat Proposal PTK yang selanjutnya diperiksa dan diberi
feedback oleh nara sumber.
Tim Kurikulum juga
mengadakan Workshop Sosialisasi Administrasi Kurikulum pada bulan Juli 2009,
dimana saat itu Kurikulum mengenalkan beberapa format administrasi baru untuk
Agenda Guru, Jurnal Kelas, dan lain-lain. Pada bulan yang sama Tim Kurikulum
juga mengadakan Kunjungan Belajar ke Universitas Brawijaya Malang, untuk
mengikuti Workshop Pengembangan Metode Pembinaan Siswa Peserta Olimpiade Sains
Nasional. Hal dilakukan karena MTsN Tambakberas berencana untuk mengadakan
Pembinaan Kelas Olimpiade secara Rutin pada tahun berikutnya. Selanjutnya pada
bulan Desember 2009 kami mengadakan pelatihan Bahasa Inggris bagi guru non
Bahasa Inggris. Pelatihan ini bertujuan untuk mempersiapkan para guru untuk
bisa berkomunikasi dua bahasa di dalam kelas.
Pada bulan April 2010
penulis dan Tim Kurikulum baru mempunyai kesempatan untuk mengadakan Pelatihan
Guru Pembina Kelas Olimpiade untuk Mata Pelajaran IPA, IPS, Bahasa Inggris dan
Matematika. Dalam pelatihan ini para pembina kelas Olimpiade diberikan materi
dan soal-soal olimpiade dan diharapkan setelah pelatihan para pembina sudah
siap untuk membina peserta didik di setiap ada kompetisi baik tingkat kabupaten
maupun yang lebih tinggi.
Pada awal tahun ajaran
2010-2011, penulis juga mengadakan workshop tentang Manajemen Sekolah dimana
penulis juga menyajikan materi tentang Classroom Management untuk membekali
para guru dengan berbagai teknik pembentukan kelompok di kelas, dilanjutkan semester
berikutkan pada bulan Januari 2011 dengan workshop Pembuatan Analisis Ulangan
dan Implementasi Team Teaching oleh Pengawas Kemenag Jombang.
Selanjutnya di awal tahun
pelajaran 2011-2012, penulis mengadakan workshop Penulisan Silabus dan RPP
berkarakter. Dan pada tahun berikutnya bulan Oktober 2012, diadakan Pelatihan
Lesson Study serta implementasinya pada bulan berikutnya dimana setiap kelompok
MGMP melakukan Open Class dan mengadakan Refleksi setelahnya untuk memperbaiki
pelaksanaan pembelajaran yang telah dilaksanakan.
Materi pelatihan yang tidak
kalah pentingnya bagi guru adalah pelatihan Komputer Program Pengolah Angka
bagi guru, khususnya Wali Kelas. Ketrampilan mengolah angka ini sangat
dibutuhkan sekali oleh guru, terutama dalam mengolah nilai, membuat grafik
untuk proses kemajuan prestasi siswa, juga untuk membuat grafik dalam berbagai
bentuk. Pelatihan ini sudah beberapa kali penulis adakan dan nara sumber juga
dari tenaga ahli ICT Center MTsN Tambakberas Jombang. Pembekalan komputer ini juga
untuk mempersiapkan wali kelas dengan Aplikasi Nilai baru yang diciptakan
sendiri oleh ICT Center untuk mempermudah kerja para wali kelas dalam pembuatan
Laporan Hasil Belajar Peserta Didik kepada Wali Murid. Pelatihan Komputer yang
terakhir dilaksanakan dengan Tema ‘Workshop TI Sebagai Media
Pembelajaran’.
Selain untuk Mata Pelajaran
Umum, sebagai Waka Kurikulum, penulis juga menyeimbangkan kebutuhan akan
pelatihan bagi guru Keagamaan dan Kepesantrenan. Misalnya dengan mengadakan
Kursus Bahasa Arab dengan mendatangkan Nara Sumber berpengalaman, juga
pendalaman Fiqih Wanita untuk semua guru. Yang akan segera diadakan juga
workshop Amtsilati bagi guru Nahwu dan Shorof.
Semua kegiatan di atas
adalah kegiatan yang penulis lakukan di dalam madrasah sendiri. Sementara itu,
sekali waktu penulis juga tetap aktif berpartisipasi dalam pelatihan di luar
madrasah.
Beberapa kegiatan yang sudah
penulis lakukan yaitu pada bulan Maret 2008, membantu memberikan bimbingan
dalam pelatihan PTK bagi guru-guru anggota MGMP MTs se-Kabupaten Jombang. Disini
penulis berbagi pengetahuan tentang bagaimana menulis PTK dengan benar. Yang
paling berat saat menulis adalah pada waktu akan memulai, tetapi sekali kita
memulai, selanjutkan akan lancar dengan sendirinya.
Pada bulan Mei 2012, sebagai
Master Trainer ELTIS, penulis diundang untuk menjadi Nara Sumber dalam
Pelatihan Peningkatan Mutu Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di Madrasah se-Indonesia
di Yogyakarta. Pelatihan ini diadakan oleh Direktorat Pendidikan Madrasah,
Dirjend Pendais Kemenag RI. Penulis benar-benar merasa senang dengan kesempatan
yang sudah diberikan karena bisa bertemu dengan guru-guru dari seluruh propinsi
di Indonesia. Selain itu, penulis juga pernah diminta untuk menjadi Nara Sumber
di Balai Diklat Kegamaan Surabaya pada bulan Juni 2012.
BAB V
PENUTUP
Demikian
sedikit paparan tentang Kegiatan Penulis dalam berpartisipasi aktif di berbagai
pelatihan guru dan pengembangannya baik di madrasah sendiri maupun di luar
madrasah.
Menjadi
District Trainer dalam Program IAPBE Jombang merupakan tambahan pengalaman yang
sangat bermanfaat untuk membantu mengembangan pengetahuan baik di bidang Bahasa
Inggris maupun pengetahuan manajemen dan penerapannya.
Menjadi
Master Trainer dalam Program ELTIS Jawa Timur juga telah menjadikan penulis
semakin matang dalam pemahaman konsep pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Dengan bekal
yang cukup dan memadai penulis selalu siap dalam berpartisipasi dalam berbagai
event pelatihan yang diadakan oleh Kementerian Agama.
Pasca
IAPBE dan ELTIS, penulis merasa harus bisa mengembangkan potensi yang, terutama
untuk para guru di sekitarnya, khususnya di MTsN Tambakberas Jombang. Akan
tetapi, juga tidak menutup kemungkinan juga untuk membantu memberikan training
di tempat lain. Dimanapun tempatnya, yang penting dengan tujuan yang sama yaitu
ikut meningkatkan kualitas dan kapasitas guru akan tetap bermanfaat bagi
sesama. Amiin..
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)