¹Futuh Handoyo,²Sugeng Hariyanto,³Eny Widiyowati,⁴Kun Mustain

¹Accounting Program of Accounting Department, Politeknik Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia

²English for Tourism Industry Program of Business Administration Dept., Politeknik Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia,

^3,4Business Administration Program of Business Administration Department, Politeknik Negeri Malang, East Java, Indonesia

DOI : https://doi.org/10.47191/ijsshr/v6-i5-92

Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT

This article presents an educational design research study that explores the effectiveness of incorporating a deductive approach into consciousness raising activities in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classrooms for non-English major students. The research aims to enhance students' grammatical awareness and accuracy through a deductive instructional strategy, using translation practices and focusing on conscious rule-based learning. Adopting an educational design research framework, the study combines theory-driven design principles with empirical research to develop and evaluate a deductive consciousness raising intervention. The research methodology involves the implementation of instructional intervention to a group of students and the collection of qualitative and quantitative data to assess its impact on students' grammatical competence and their perceptions of the learning experience. Using t-test statistical calculation, it was found that the intervention improved the students’ grammar mastery but not the response speed. The questionnaire result showed that students reacted positively to the intervention and their motivation increased.
Findings from the study support the previous research which found that conscious raising is effective to improve students’ learning mastery. This also provides insights that integrating deductive approaches into consciousness raising activities work for grammar teaching if the grammar items are selected appropriately. This also shows that the result of conscious knowledge is not converted automatically into subconscious knowledge. It may need time to practice again and again to make it automatic.
As this research is an educational design research, the hypothesis about the efficacy of this designed procedure is suggested to be proved in experimental research. More research to uncover the acquirability and learnability of English grammar features are also recommended to be studies further.

KEYWORDS:

grammar conscious raising, translation, deductive approach, educational design research

REFERENCES

1) Adiantika, H. N. (2020). Contrastive Analysis Between Indonesian and Englishdeclarative Sentences. ELT in Focus, 3(1), 15-25.

2) Amirian, S. M., & Sadeghi, F. (2012). The Effect of Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks on EFL Learners Performance. International Journal of Linguistics, 4(3), 708-720.

3) Aubakirova, K. A. (2016). Nurturing And Testing Translation Competence For Text-Translating. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education, 11(11), 4639-4649.

4) Azad, M. (2013, July). Grammar Teaching in EFL Classrooms: Teachers’ Attitudes and Beliefs. ASA University Review, 7(2), 111-126. Retrieved April 24, 2023

5) Azhar, I. N. (2011). A Contrastive Analysis Between English And Indonesian Language. Retrieved from pusat bahasa al azhar: https://pusatbahasaalazhar.com/trik-belajar-bahasa-inggris/a-contrastive-analysis-between-english-and-indonesian- language/

6) Basturkmen, H. (2018). Explicit Versus Implicit Grammar Knowledge. In J. I. Liontas, The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching (pp. 1-6). Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

7) Buczowski, M. (2009). Implicit versus Explicit Knowledge in Foreign Language Learning. Poznan: University of Poznan.

8) Ellis, R. (2010). Chapter 15 - Grammar Teaching – Practice or Consciousness-Raising? In J. Richards, & W. Renandya, Methodology in Langugae Teaching: An Anthology of Current Practice (pp. 167 - 174). Cambridge: University Press.

9) Evi, D. (2005). A contrastive analysis on English and Indonesian passive voice. Surakarta: UNS-FKIP Jur.Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni.

10) Fatemipour, H., & Hemmati, S. (2015). Impact of Consciousness-Raising Activities on Young English Language Learners’ Grammar Performance . English Language Teaching, 1-10. Retrieved April 21, 2023

11) Fotos, S. S. (1993). Consciousness Raising and Noticing through Focus on Form: Grammar Task Performance versus Formal Instruction. Applied Linguistics, 14(4).

12) Furaidah & Mukminatien, Nur. (2008). The Grammar and Language Teaching: An Attempt towards a synthesis of its teaching approach. Jurnal Bahasa dan Seni. 36(1). Malang: Universitas Negeri Malang.

13) Handoyo, Futuh. (2010). Improving Subconscious Grammar Competence Using Semantico-Syntactic Translation Practice. State University of Malang.

14) Hasselqvist, E. (2013). Teaching Grammar in EFL Classrooms in Swedish Upper-Secondary School: An Empirical Study on the Use of Two Models. Västerås: School of Education, Culture and Communication, Malardalen Univeristy, Sweden. Retrieved April 24, 2013

15) Humairo, L. (2015). A Contrastive Analysis Between English and Indonesian General Sentences Pattern. Medan: Universitas Muhammadiyah Medan.

16) Iskandar, J. (2022). Grammar Consciousness-Raising Activities and Their Impact on Students’ Grammatical Competence. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 2(1), 62-77.

17) Iskandar, J., & Heriyawati, D. (2015). Grammar Consciousness-Raising Activities and Their Impact on Students’ Grammatical Competence. JEELS, 2(1), 62-77.

18) Ko, H. (2022). Explicit Knowledge of English Grammar and Sentence Writing with Implicit Knowledge by Korean Students . English Teaching, 77(1), 3-20.

19) Stephen, K. (1981). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning: Oxford: Pergamon Press.

20) Stephen, K. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

21) Kusumawati, A. (2009). Contrastive Analysis between Indonesian and English Declarative Sentences. Jakarta: Fakultas Ilmu Tarbiyah dan Keguruan, Universitas Islam Negeri Syarif Hidayatullah.

22) Liao, P. (2006). EFL Learners’ Beliefs about and Strategy Use of Translation in English Learning. RELC Journal, 37(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033688206067428

23) Lynch, L. (2022, April 1). Grammar Teaching: Implicit or Explicit? Retrieved from ESL Base: https://www.eslbase.com/teaching/grammar-teaching-implicit-explicit

24) McKeney, Susan and Reeves, Thomas C. (2020). Educational design research: Portraying, conducting, and enhancing productive scholarship. Medical Education. 2020;55:82–92. Association for the Study of Medical Education and John Wiley & Sons Ltd Medical Education.

25) McKeney, Susan and Reeves, Thomas C. (2013). Chapter 9: Educational design research. Handbook of Research on Educational Communications Technology. Editors: J. Michael Spector, M. David Merrill, Jan Elen, M. J. Bishop. Springer

26) Miranda, J. P., Fallas, E., Blanco, M., Salas, D., Alfaro, L., & Vásquez, J. (2018, December). Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 1-27.

27) Roza, V. (2014). A Model of Grammar Teaching Through ConsciousnessRaising Activities. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature (IJSELL), 1-5.

28) Sadat, M. (2017, January). Revisiting the Debate of Grammar Teaching: A Young Scholar’s Perspective. Sino-US English Teaching.

29) Saengboon, S., Panyaatisin, K., & Toomaneejinda, A. (2022, June). The Roles of Grammar in English Language Teaching: Local Viewpoint. PASAA, 63(1), 179-204. Retrieved April 22, 2022, from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1348266.pdf

30) Schmidt, R. (2010). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in language learning. In W. M. Chan, S. Chi, K. N. Cin, J. Istanto, M. Nagami, J. W. Sew, T. Suthiwan, & I. Walker, Proceedings of CLaSIC 2010, Singapore, December 2-4 (pp. 721-737). Singapore: National University of Singapore, Centre for Language Studies.

31) Scrivener, J. (2006). Debate: Is it possible to teach grammar? Retrieved from onestopenglish: https://www.onestopenglish.com/methodology-tips-for-teachers/debate-is-it-possible-to-teach-grammar/144666.article

32) Sulastri, S., & Rizkariani, R. (2020). A Contrastive Analysis Study Between English and Macassarese in Request Sentence. ELT Worldwide, 7(2), 192-202.

33) Suter, C. (2001). Discussing and Applying Grammatical Consciousness-Raising. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.

34) Tilahun, S., Simegn, B., & Emiru, Z. (2022). Using grammar consciousness-raising tasks to enhance students’ narrative tenses competence. Cogen Education, 9(1).

35) Widodo, H. P. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 5(1), 122-141.

36) Yarahmadzehi, N., Ghalaee, A., & Sani, S. (2015). The Effect of Teaching Grammar through Consciousness Raising Tasks on High School English Learners' Grammatical Proficiency. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 401-413.

VOlUME 06 ISSUE 05 MAY 2023