Practicality The Development Of Whole Language Based Bahasa Indonesia Learning

Khurnia Eva Nilasari(1*), Atmazaki(2), Harris Effendi Thahar(3), Azwar Ananda(4)
  • (1) Balai Diklat Keagamaan Padang
  • (2) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (3) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (4) Universitas Negeri Padang
  • (*) Corresponding Author

Abstract

This reasearch is puposed to explain the practicality of whole language based Bahasa Indonesia learning model. The research is administered through the R & D. The practicality testing is conducted at MTsN Gunung Pangilun (MTsN A) 46 students, MTsN Lubuk Buaya (MTsN B) 28 students, and MTsN Parak Lawas 38 students. The result of the research is received through an observation of learning process, practicality assessment by a practitioner and students. Based on the data, the practicality of research product which is conducted to the schools show the difference of practicality marks. At MTsN A and C is considered practical, meanwhile MTsN C is considered very practical. In fact, the degree of practiclity is also influenced by the number of students in a classroom. The practicality of research product after practicality testing of collaborated model, build a cooperative learning so that it increases communicative interaction correlation and respective manner among students.

Keywords

bahasa indonesia skills, whole language, learning model, cooperative learning

References

  1. Abdelhamid. (2006). The Effect of Using the Whole Language Approach on Developing Some Composition Writing Skills in English for Experimental Secondary Students in Egypt http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED497775.pdf.
  2. Aghazadeh, Z. ( 2014). A Comparative Study of Iranian EFL Teachers’ versus Learners’ Perceptions of High School English Textbooks. Advances in Language and Literary Studies Vol. 5 No. 4. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.1.
  3. Aitchison, J. (2011). Complete Series Bundle RC: The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (Routledge Classics). London: Routledge.
  4. Ajideh, P. (2014). A Comparative Study of Iranian EFL Teachers’ versus Learners’ Perceptions of High School English Textbooks. Advances in Language and Literary Studies Vol. 5 No. 4; Agustus 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aic.alls.v5n4p.1.
  5. Akhadiah, S, dkk. (1991). Pembinaan Kemampuan Menulis Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga.
  6. Akker, Jan Van Den. (1999). Principles and Methods of Development Research. In Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Edited by Akker, Jan Van Den etc. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  7. Alwasilah, C. (2008). Filsafat Bahasa dan Pendidikan. Bandung:Rosdakarya.
  8. Alwi, H. et. Al. (2002). Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:Balai Pustaka.
  9. Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task Based Language Teaching: Development of CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6), 168. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n6p168
  10. Atmazaki. (2013). Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia : Pola Pikir , Pendekatan Ilmiah , Teks ( Genre ), dan Penilaian Otentik, (68), 15–22.
  11. Atmazaki. (2013). Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Indonesia: Pola Pikir, Pendekatan Ilmiah, Teks (Genre), dan Penilaian Otentik. Proceeding of The International Seminar on Languages and arts. FBS Universitas Negeri Padang http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/isla/article /view/3962/3193
  12. Badrasawi, K. J. I., Lide, N., Kassim, A., & Daud, N. M. (2017). THE EFFECTS OF TEST CHARACTERISTICS ON THE HIERARCHICAL ORDER OF, 14(1), 63–82.
  13. Borg and Gall. (1989). Educational Research, An Introduction. New York and London. Longman Inc
  14. Brockman, Beth. (1994). Whole Language: A Philosophy of Literacy Teaching for Adults, Tool. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED376428.pdf.
  15. Brown, Sam ED dan Everett, Rebecca S. (1990). Activities for Teaching Using the Whole Language Approach. U.S.A.: Charles C Thomas Publisher.
  16. Budiningsih, C Asri. 2005. Belajar dan Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  17. Campion, Michael A. (2011). Doing Competencies Well: Best Practices In CompetencyModeling. Http://Blogs.Wayne.Edu/Ioadventures/Files/2013/12/ Doing-Competencies-Well-Best-Practices.Pdf
  18. Combs, B. (2001). Cooperative Learning. In Models and Strategies for Training Design. Edited by Medsker, Karen L and Holdsworth, Kristina M. Silver Spring: International Society for Performance Improvement.
  19. Creswell. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Third Edition). New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
  20. Daise, L. (1994). Whole Language An Introduction. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED404501.pdf.
  21. De Carlo, Julia E. (1995). Perspective in Whole Language. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  22. Dewey, J. (2009). Pendidikan Dasar Berbasis Pengalaman. Jakarta:PT Indonesia Publishing.
  23. Dixon, L. Q., & Wu, S. (2014). Understanding Language Learning : Interaction Model in Foreign Language Contexts. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 11, 23–39. Retrieved from http://mjli.uum.edu.my/images/pdf/11mjli/2understandingg.pdf
  24. Djiwandono, S. (2008). Tes Bahasa: Pegangan bagi Pengajar Bahasa. Jakarta:Indeks.
  25. Dunkin, J. (1986). The International encyclopedia of Teaching and Teacher Education. Oxford:Pergamon Press.
  26. Emilian, E. (2011). Pendekatan Genre-Based dalam Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris:Petunjuk Guru. Bandung:Rizky Press.
  27. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. (1992). Whole Language For Second Language Learners. Amerika: United States of Amerika.
  28. Freeman, Y. S., & Freeman, D. (1998). ESYEFL teaching:Principles for success. Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
  29. Froese,V. (1991). Itroduction to whole – language teaching and learning.In V.Froese (Ed.),Whole Language: Practice and theory. Needham Height,MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  30. Fu, X. (2013). An action research report on applying co-operative learning techniques in an intensive english reading class in China. English Language Teaching, 6(10), 17–31. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v6n10p17.
  31. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). The Nature of Education Research. Educational Research: An Introduction. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-97171-000
  32. Gilles, C. (2006). An Invitation For A Special Issue On Whole Language (Online): International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 2 (2). http://inased. org/ijpev2n2/gilles2 .htm).
  33. Goodman, Kenneth S. (2005). What's Whole in Whole Language? University of Arizona:RDR Books.
  34. Groof, P. (1997). Journal of the Simplified Spelling Society (Online) 22, 1997/2 p11-15] http://spellingsociety.org/journals/j22/ wholelang.php
  35. Grover, C E. (2013). Well, That Was An Intellectual Dialogue!”: How A Whole-School Focus On Improvement Shifts The Substantive Nature Of Classroom Talk. English Teaching: Practice and Critique. Volume 12, Number 2. http://education.waikato.ac.nz/research/files/etpc/files/ 2013 v12n2art7.pdf
  36. Halimah, L. (2005). Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Bahasa Secara Utuh Untuk Meningkatkan Kompetensi Komunikatif. UPI:Disertasi http://digilib.upi.edu/digitalview.php?digital_id=1328.
  37. Han, M. (2015). An empirical study on the application of cooperative learning to English listening classes. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 177–184. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v8n3p177.
  38. Hartoko. D. dan Rahmanto. (1986). Pemandu di Dunia Sastra. Yagyakarta: Kanisius.
  39. Hasani, A. (2005). Ikhwal Menulis. Serang: Universitas Sultan Ageng Tirtayasa Press.
  40. Hayat, B. (2008). Assesment Berbasis Kelas. Badan Litbang Depdiknas: Pusat Penilaian Pendidikan.http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.1.
  41. Hei, K. C., & David, M. K. (2015). BASIC AND ADVANCED SKILLS THEY DON ’ T HAVE : THE CASE OF POSTGRADUATES AND LITERATURE http://mjli.uum.edu.my, 12, 131–150.
  42. Huang, L. Y. (2014). Learning to read with the whole language approach: The teacher’s view. English Language Teaching, 7(5), 71–77. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n5p71.
  43. Indonesia, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2013. Bahasa Indonesia Wahana pengetahuan:BukunGuru/Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Jakarta:Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
  44. Irwan, P. (1999). Logika dan Prosedur Penelitian, Pengantar Teori dan Panduan Praktis Penelitian Sosial bagi mahasiswa dan Peneliti Pemula. Jakarta: STIA-LAN.
  45. Joyce, B., Marsha W., and Emily C. (2011). Models of Teaching:Model-model Pengajaran. Edisi 8. Terjemahan oleh Achmad Fawaid dan Ateilla Mirza. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
  46. Joyce, B., Marsha W., and Emily C. (2015). Models of Teaching (9th ed.). Terjemahan oleh Rianayati Kusmini dan Pancasari. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
  47. Keraf, Gorys. 1988. Komposisi. Ende : Nusa Indah.
  48. LeDoux, A. (2006). Investigating the Implementation of Whole Language: Strengths and Weaknesses. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED496339.pdf.
  49. Lems, K. (1995). Whole language and the ESYEFL classroom. (Report No. FL 022 904) ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. 384 210.
  50. Lie, A. (2002). Cooperative Learning; Mempraktikkan Cooperative Learning di Ruang-ruang Kelas. Jakarta:Grasindo.
  51. Ling, P. (2012). The “whole language” theory and its application to the teaching of English reading. English Language Teaching, 5(3), 147–152. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v5n3p147
  52. Luxemburg, Jan van Mieke Bal, & Willem G. Weststeijn. (1992). Pengantar Ilmu Sastra. Jakarta:Gramedia.
  53. Maddox, K., & Feng, J. (2013). Whole Language Instruction vs. Phonics Instruction: Effect on Reading Fluency and Spelling Accuracy of First Grade Students.
  54. Mahmoud, A. R. A., Sahrir, M. S., & Osman, R. bt A. H. (2013). Integration of an interactive program in learning Arabic language for Non-Native speakers via virtual tutor. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 13(3), 117–131.
  55. Mahsun. (2014). Teks dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta:Raja Grafindo Perkasa.
  56. Marrelli, A. F., Tondora, J., & Hoge, M. A. (2005). Strategies for developing competency models. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 32(5–6), 533–561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-005-3264-0
  57. Mcclintock, R., Aera, A., & Roman, T. (2007). Educational Research. Educational Research.
  58. Miles, Matthew B dan Huberman, A Michael. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis, Second Edition. California: Sage Publication.
  59. Musdi, Edwin.( 2012). “Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Geometri Berbasis PMR SMPN Kota Padang”. Disertasi, Tidak Diterbitkan. Padang: Pogram Pascasarjana UNP.
  60. Nieveen, Nienke. (1999). Prototyping to Reach Product Quality. In Approaches and Tools in Education and Training. Edited by Akker, Jan Van Den etc. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  61. ---------------------. (2010). Formative Evaluation In Educational Design Research. In An Introduction to Educational Design Research. Proceedings of the Seminar Conducted at the East China Normal University, Shanghai (PR China), November 23-26, 2007. Edited by Plomp, Tjeerd and Nieveen, Nienkee. Netherlands: SLO Netherlands Institute for Curriculum Development.
  62. Notodiputro, K. A. (2013). Kompetensi Dasar SD/MI. Jakarta: Kemendikbud.
  63. Patzelt. Karen, E. (1995). Principles of Whole Language and Implications for ESL Learners. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED400526.pdf.
  64. Plomp, T. (2010). Educational Design: Introduction. From Tjeerd Plomp (eds). Educational &Training System Design: Introduction. Design of Education and Training (in Dutch).Utrecht (the Netherlands): Lemma. Netherland. Faculty of Educational Science andTechnology, University of Twente.
  65. Popkin, D. (1985). Dialogue journals: A way to personalize communication in a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 18(2), 152-56. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-9720.1985.tb01783.x/full.
  66. Purwo, B.K. (1986). Pusparagam Linguistik dan Pengajaran Bahasa. Jakarta: Arcan.
  67. Rahayu, S.H. (1990) Pengetesan Kemampuan Membaca secara Komunikatif. Jakarta: Universitas Indonesia.
  68. Richards, Jack C. (2013) Creativity in language teaching. Irania Journal of Language Teaching Research 1(3), (Oct., 2013) 19-43. www.urmia.ac.ir.ijltr.
  69. Riduwan. (2011). Belajar Mudah Penelitian untuk Guru-Karyawan dan Peneliti Pemula. Bandung: Alfabeta.
  70. Rorabacher, E. Louise and Georgia Dunbar. (1987). Assignment In Exposition. New York: Harper &Row Publishers.
  71. Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.
  72. Rubin, J. (1975). What the “Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly, 9(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586011
  73. Santoso, A. (2003). Bahasa Politik Pasca Orde Baru. Jakarta:Wedatama Widya Sastra.
  74. Schwarzer, D. (2001). A Qualitative Assessment of a Foreign Language Whole Language Class. Foreign language annals (Online) Vol. 34,(1) http://onlinelibrary.Wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1944-97.
  75. Schwarzer, D. (2001). Whole language in a foreign language class: From theory to practice. Foreign Language Annals, 34(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-9720.2001.tb02802.x.
  76. Sodiq, S. (2015). Developing Language Learning Textbooks Enriched with Sense of Literacy: The Case of Junior High School in Indonesia. International Education Studies, 8(9), 120–125. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v8n9p120
  77. Soekamto, Toeti dan S. W. Udin. (1997). Teori Belajar dan Model-model Pembelajaran. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
  78. Stern. H.H. (1983). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. USA. University Press.
  79. Staton, J. (1988). An introduction to dialogue journal communication. In J. Staton, R. W. Shuy J. K. Peyton, and L. Reed (Eds.) Dialogue journal communication: Classroom, linguistic, social, and cognitive Views. NJ: Ablex
  80. Studies, L. (2014). A Comparative Study of Iranian EFL Teachers’ versus Learners’ Perceptions of High School English Textbooks. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.5n.4p.1
  81. Su, Y.-C. (2003). How the Whole Language Approach Using Predictable Strategies Motivates Bilingual Children. Eric, (3), 1–53. Retrieved from papers2://publication/uuid/07CFE64D-F3BD-4F6F-9A09-B01B64B1242C.
  82. Sugiyono. (2011). Metode Penelitian Pendidikan (Pendekatan Kuantitatif, Kualitatif, danR & D). Bandung: Alfabeta.
  83. Suparno, P. (1997).Filsafat Konstruktivisme Pendidikan. Yogyakarya: Kanisius.
  84. Suratinah & Prakoso T. (2003). Pendekatan Pembelajaran Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia SD: Mmateri dan Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia SD. Jakarta: Universitas Terbuka.
  85. Suriasumantri, J. S. (2005). Filsafat Ilmu Sebuah Pengantar. Jakarta: Pustaka Sinar Harapan.
  86. Tampubolon, DP. (1990). Kemampuan Membaca: Teknik Membaca Efektif dan Efesien. Bandung:Angkasa.
  87. Tarigan, H. G. (1994). Menulis Sebagai Suatu Keterampilan Berbahasa. Bandung: Angkasa.
  88. Tarigan, H. G. (2008). Pengajaran Kompetensi Berbahasa. Bandung:Angkasa.
  89. Tarigan, H.G. (2006). Dasar-dasar Kurikulum Bahasa. Bandung:Angkasa.
  90. Taylor, George R.; And Others. (1992). The Whole Language Approach: Panacea or Myth? http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED364828.pdf
  91. Taylor, M., & Otinsky, G. (2007). International Journal of Progressive Education, Volume 3 Number 2, 2007 © 2007 INASED. International Journal, 3(2).
  92. Thahar, H. E. (2008). Menulis Kreatif. Panduan bagi Pemula. Padang:UNP Press.
  93. Tim Penyusun. (2007). Kamus Besar Bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.
  94. Tomlinson, B. (2001). Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages: Materials development. Edited Ronald Carter and David Nunan. Cambridge:University Press.
  95. Turula. (2016). What The Good (Digital) Language Learner Can Teach Us. Teaching English with Technology, 16(3), 52-73, http://www.tewtjournal.org.
  96. Vale, D., Scarino, A. & McKay P. (1991). The Eight Principles of Language Learning,in Pocket all : a users’ guide to the teaching of languages and ESL. Carlton: Curriculum Corporation.
  97. Wahab, A. (1991). Isu Linguistik Pengajaran Bahasa dan Sastra. Surabaya:Airlangga University Press.
  98. Wang, P. (2011). The Effect of Computer-Assisted Whole Language Instruction on Taiwanese University Students’ English Learning. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p10.
  99. Weaver, C. Diane S., Janet V. (1990). Understanding Whole Language. Miami University and Emerit: Western Michigan University.
  100. Widiyatmoko, W. A. (2016). Preparation Model of Student Teacher Candidate in Developing Integrative Science Learning. Journal of Education and Human Development, 5(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.15640/jehd.v5n2a20
  101. Wood, B. S. (1981). Children and Comunication, Verbal and nonverbal, Language Development. London: Prentice –Hall. Inc. Englewood Clifes. Inc. 07632
  102. Wuryan & Yufiarti. (2017). The effect of teaching methods and learning styles on capabilities of writing essays on elementary schools students in East Jakarta. Educational Research and Reviews, 12(12), 635–642. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2017.3187.
  103. Yamin, M. (2012). Desain Baru Pembelajaran Konstruktivistik. Jakarta: Referensi.
  104. Yule, G. dan Gillian B. (1996). Analisis Wacana. Discourse Analysis. Jakarta:Gramedia.
  105. Yusuf, M. (2011). Asesmen dan Evaluasi Pendidikan. Padang:UNP Press.
  106. Zaidi, Z. (2017). Formal Classroom Observations: Factors That Affect Their Success. English Language Teaching, 10(6), 83. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n6p83.
  107. Zaim, M. (2017). Implementing Scientific Approach to Teach English at Senior High School in Indonesia. Asian Social Science, 13(2), 33. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v13n2p33

DOI : https://doi.org/10.29210/201815

International Conferences on Educational, Social Sciences and Technology

International Conferences on Educational, Social Sciences and Technology

Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan UNP

978-989-758-296-7

978-602-73537-9-4

April 2018

  View Articles

© 2024 GCI, Global Conferences Index, Lda - All rights reserved.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.