EVALUATION OF JAPANESE LANGUAGE WRITING CLASS: INTEGRATING JAPAN FOUNDATION STANDARD WITH THE VISION OF THE UNIVERSITY IN A LECTURE’S LEARNING OBJECTIVE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/q9nepw42Keywords:
Evaluation, Self-Assessment, Students’ Perception, WritingAbstract
Universitas Negeri Semarang, as a conservation-oriented university, has been using a curriculum that implements conservative values in its lecture sessions. For instance, Sakubun Schochukyu subject (elementary-level writing skill) adds conservative values-related objective (culture, environment, and character) in its learning syllabus. The evaluation of the lecturing process has only been carried out during tests or when giving assignments to the students. However, a learning course is supposed to be evaluated by referring to several factors to define its success. Therefore, the Sakubun Schochukyu lecturing process is evaluated based on self-assessment, students’ perception, and writing assessment. This study reported that students’ self-assessment highly contributed to the learning objective. The students also responded positively to the Sakubun Shochukyu lecture. In addition, students’ writing ability fell under a “very good” category with the score ranging from 81-85. Nevertheless, the element of grammar still needed improvement since there were some grammatical and expression errors that occurred in the writing, yet the overall meaning were still understandable.
Downloads
References
1. Ainley, M., & Ainley, J. (2011). Student engagement with science in early adolescence: The contribution of enjoyment to students’ continuing interest in learning about science. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.08.001
2. Areum, S. E. O. (n.d.). 中級日本語学習者の作文を評価するための汎用性のある評価基準の作成 ―― JF 日本語教育スタンダードに基づいて ―― 徐アルム. pp. 193–213.
3. De Smet, M. J. R., Brand-Gruwel, S., Leijten, M., & Kirschner, P. A. (2014). Electronic outlining as a writing strategy: Effects on students’ writing products, mental effort and writing process. Computers and Education, 78, 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.010
4. Demirel, M., & Coşkun, Y. D. (2010). A study on the assessment of undergraduate students’ learning preference. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2(2), 4429–4435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.706
5. Escorcia, D., & Gimenes, M. (2019). Metacognitive components of writing: Construction and validation of the Metacognitive Components of Planning Writing Self-inventory (MCPW-I). Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2019.100515
6. Fahmy, R., Bachtiar, N., Rahim, R., & Malik, M. (2015). Measuring Students' Perceptions of Personal Characters Building in Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 851–858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.112
7. Ghonoodi, A., & Salimib, L. (2011). The study of elements of curriculum in smart schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 68–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.014
8. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Mason, L. (2005). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and self-efficacy of struggling young writers: The effects of self-regulated strategy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(2), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.08.001
9. Gurung, R., & Landrum, R. E. (2012). Comparing student perceptions of textbooks: Does liking influence learning? International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(2), 144–150.
10. Hashemian, M., & Heidari, A. (2013). The Relationship between L2 Learners’ Motivation/Attitude and Success in L2 Writing. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 476–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.01.085
11. Hillis, A. E. (2008). Cognitive processes underlying reading and writing and their neural substrates. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 88(410), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0072-9752(07)88015-8
12. Hirsenberger, H., Ranogajec, J., Vucetic, S., Lalic, B., & Gracanin, D. (2019). Collaborative projects in cultural heritage conservation – management challenges and risks. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 37, 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2018.10.006
13. Iskandar, S. M. (2014). Cognitive Skill Approach in Classroom Science Learning. Erudio Journal of Educational Innovation, 2(2), 13–20. https://doi.org/10.18551/erudio.2-2.3
14. Karlen, Y., Suter, F., Hirt, C., & Maag Merki, K. (2019). The role of implicit theories in students’ grit and motivation. Learning and Individual Differences, 74, 101757. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101757
15. Kawashima et al. (2015). 日本語学習サイト「まるごと＋（まるごとプラス）」の開発.
16. Kijima et al. (2012). JF日本語教育スタンダード準拠コースブックの開発.
17. Liu, Y., & Du, Q. (2018). Intercultural rhetoric through a learner lens. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2018.01.001
18. Longyan, X., & Zhifei, Z. (2010). 主観的健康感を中心とした在宅高齢者における健康関連指標. 83–91.
19. Martin, F., Ritzhaupt, A., Kumar, S., & Budhrani, K. (2019). Online teaching practices. Internet and Higher Education, 42, 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2019.04.001
20. Matsuda, P. K., Chinokul, S., & Sukavatee, P. (2017). Assessing Second Language Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 37, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2017.09.002
21. Mbizvo, G. K., et al. (2019). Local people engagement in nature conservation. Epilepsy Research, 106192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eplepsyres.2019.106192
22. Miangah, T. M. (2012). Mobile-Assisted Language Learning. International Journal of Distributed and Parallel Systems, 3(1), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.5121/ijdps.2012.3126
23. Motamed, H. R., Yarmohammadian, M. H., & Yousefy, A. (2013). Comparative Study of Curriculum Approaches. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 83, 831–835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.156
24. Nazilah, S. A. (2014). Teachers' Perceptions of Physics Teaching Book. Radiasi: Jurnal Berkala Pendidikan Fisika, 5(1), 20–23.
25. Osgerby, J., Jennings, P., & Bonathan, A. (2018). Students’ perceptions of programme focussed assessment. International Journal of Management Education, 16(2), 327–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2018.04.006
26. Rotgans, J. I., & Schmidt, H. G. (2011). Teachers’ role in facilitating situational interest. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 37–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.025
27. Shi, D., Wang, L., & Wang, Z. (2019). Energy conservation behavior. Energy Policy, 128, 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.12.061
28. Steinert, M., et al. (2020). Conservation of solitary bees. Global Ecology and Conservation, 21, e00823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00823
29. Syaifudin, A., et al. (2019). Embedding scholarly literacy in curriculum. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1387(1). https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1387/1/012072
30. The Japan Foundation. (2017). JF日本語教育スタンダード.
31. Thomas, N. (2018). Analysis of program evaluation course content. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 59, 187–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.08.001
32. Ülger, M., Yiğittir, S., & Ercan, O. (2014). Teachers’ Beliefs on Character Education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 442–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.145
33. UNNES, T. P. P. A. (2018). Panduan akademik (Issue 338).
34. Voi Ngoc, H. (2019). Learners’ acceptance of mobile devices. Computers & Education, 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103761
35. Yu, S., et al. (2019). Student motivation in Chinese EFL writing. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 62, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.06.002
36. Yusuff, K. B. (2018). Personalized goal setting and study planning. Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences, 13(3), 232–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2018.02.001
37. Zhou, J. H., & Wu, P. L. (2012). Conservation Culture Development in Shandong Province, China. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 13, 1283–1290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.121
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
