EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 75© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare MAMAN ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & ELY SA’DIAH Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i of State Islamic University in Bandung: Toward a Total Immersion ABSTRACT: Arabic is indispensably necessary, especially in the Muslim-majority in Indonesia. However, it takes a lot of time to acquire Arabic, since there are various linguistic branches to learn for anyone who wishes to fluently understand it. On the top of that, Arabic has different characteristics from those of the Indonesian language. The present study was based on the results of a preliminary study that show a significant lack of Arabic teaching innovation, when compared with the teaching of other foreign languages, especially English. The purpose was to figure out the concept of Arabic teaching in the “Ma’had Jami’i” in terms of its objective, process, evaluation, issues, and challenges. To this end, an embedded case study was carried out. The data sources included informants, teaching activities, and documents. The data were analyzed using data source triangulation and an interactive model of method triangulation. The results show that the objective of Arabic teaching was to equip students with Arabic knowledge and skills in order for them to be able to keep up with the lesson and practice Arabic in university classrooms; the teaching process was theory and practice-oriented to create a conducive language learning environment; the evaluation was conducted through written and performance tests during the placement test, midterm test, and final test; and the teaching challenges lay in the psychological, educational, and social aspects. It is recommended that further studies deal with students’ interactions, second language acquisition, interference problem, and teaching components, specifically in the context of language dormitory. KEY WORDS: Second Language Acquisition; “Ma’had Jami’i” Dormitory; Arabic Teaching Innovation; Students of Islamic State University; Total Immersion. About the Authors: Prof. Dr. Maman Abdurahman, Prof. Dr. Rahman, and Dr. Ely Sa’diah are the Lecturers at the Faculty of Language and Literature Education UPI (Indonesia University of Education), Jalan Dr. Setiabudhi No.229 Bandung 40154, West Java, Indonesia. For academic interests, corresponding author is: mamanabdurrahman@upi.edu Suggested Citation: Abdurahman, Maman, Rahman & Ely Sa’diah. (2018). “Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i of State Islamic University in Bandung: Toward a Total Immersion” in EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February, pp.75-86. Bandung, Indonesia and BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam: Minda Masagi Press owned by ASPENSI and BRIMAN Institute, ISSN 1979-7877. Article Timeline: Accepted (November 16, 2017); Revised (January 5, 2018); and Published (February 28, 2018). INTRODUCTION According to M.A. Khûli (1987), Arabic has a special place among world’s languages. Not only does its function as the language of religious matters, but also it is one of international languages. Politically, Arabic is one of the six official languages of the UN or United Nations (Khuli, 1987:19-20). As A.R. Tu’aimah (1986) puts also it that, nowadays, the Arabic language holds a special position among modern world’s languages. By virtue of the decree of the UN General Assembly, Number 3190 (d-28) announced at the plenary meeting, number 2206 in December 1973, it is also of the UN official languages (Tu’aimah, 1986:4). M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 76 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare As matters stand, Arabic is indispensably necessary, especially in the Muslim-majority in Indonesia. However, it takes a lot of time to acquire Arabic, since there are various linguistic branches to learn for anyone who wishes to fluently understand it. On the top of that, Arabic has different characteristics from those of the Indonesian language (Dahlan, 1992; Lipinski, 2001; and Azhar, 2005). M.A. Wahab (2009), as cited also in A.M.S. Islam (2015), explained that inhibiting factors in Arabic learning was associated with psychological, educational, and social factors (Wahab, 2009; and Islam, 2015:3). This is based on the results of Jamsuri Muhammad Syamsuddin & Mahdi Mas’ud (2007)’s scientific work, which reveal that the source of difficulties in Arabic learning does not entirely lie the Arabic language per se, but in the lack of learning interest, 100%; the lack of background knowledge about Arabic, 87%; university curriculum, 83%; difficult Arabic instructional materials, 57%; and unconducive classroom environment, 50% (Syamsuddin & Mas’ud, 2007). Thus, the difficulties are not only of linguistic factors or internal factors, but also of non-linguistic factors or external factors. Therefore, the selection of teaching approach and method should take account of psychological, educational, and social factors (Wahab, 2007:10). In Indonesia, Arabic teaching has long been taking place, and instructional innovations have actually been long developed. However, these innovations are yet to yield a significant progress, especially when compared with that of English teaching (Quirk & Widdowson eds., 1985; and Mumtaz, 2000). According to A.F. Effendi (2012), the fact Arabic teaching merely plays an adopting role makes it left behind (Effendi, 2012:1). As M.A. Wahab (2015b) puts it that the development of Arabic teaching methodologies is more or less two decades behind that of English teaching methodologies (Wahab, 2015b:2). Therefore, teaching Arabic is not adequately sufficient to take place in university classrooms. A program that can facilitate Arabic learning is badly needed (cf Wahab, 2015a; and Alrabai, 2016). To address this challenge, the Arabic Education Program of Faculty of Tarbiya and Teacher Training UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia organized an Arabic boarding school program for the freshmen. The goal is to equip them with basic knowledge and skills to facilitate their learning of Arabic and other subjects at the campus environment (cf Watkins, 2010; and Christodoulou, 2016). The present study was aimed at analyzing the implementation of this Arabic broad school program in terms of its objective, process, evaluation, issues, and challenges. It is also going to be elaborated pertaining: teaching concept; Arabic teaching; and difficulties in learning Arabic. Teaching Concept. Teaching, according to Rusman (2014), is a process of interaction between students and the teacher, and learning resources available in the learning environment (Rusman, 2014:3). The main characteristic of the teaching activities is the interaction between learners and their learning environment: the teacher, friends, tutors, instructional media, and/or other learning resources. Other characteristics of the teaching activities are associated with the component of teaching per se (cf Rusman, 2014; and Riyana, 2017:3). The components of teaching are a set of interconnecting items that, according to C. Riyana (2017), include objectives, instructional materials, teaching method and media, evaluation, students, and the teacher (Riyana, 2017:3). Meanwhile, according to Fathurrohman & Sutikno (2009), these components include instructional objectives, materials, activities, methods, media, resources, and evaluation (Fathurrohman & Sutikno, 2009:13). S. Mustofa (2011) states also that teaching components are the teacher, teaching objectives, students, instructional materials, instructional media, instructional methods, administration, and funding that enables an optimal the instructional process (Mustofa, 2011:9). It can be concluded that the teaching components are instructional objectives, EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 77© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare materials, methods, media, activities, evaluation, students, teachers, administration, and funding. Arabic Teaching. Generally, the teaching of Arabic language is to equip students with four basic language skills: listening or istima’, speaking or kalam, reading or qira’ah, and writing or kitabah (Wati, 2017; and Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016). On language skills, N. Chomsky (1965) and Y. Yano (2003), as cited also in Y. Sudaryat (2015), distinguished between language competence and language performance. Language competence refers to the language knowledge of speakers and listeners, and language performance is the realization of language usage in concrete situations (Chomsky, 1965; Yano, 2003; and Sudaryat, 2015:174). Teaching of Arabic elements include: firstly, Ashwat Arabiyah or Arabic Phonology. The sound system or ashwat is critical in Arabic learning. Therefore, its teaching strategies and method, be it at the beginning, intermediate, and advanced level should be paid a great attention to (Mustofa, 2011:27). Secondly, Mufradat or Arabic Vocabulary. Vocabulary is one of language elements a foreign language learner should master to acquire skills to communicate in the foreign language in question (Effendi, 2012:126). However, vocabulary is not the only one element. Thirdly, Al-Qawa’id or Arabic Grammar. According to A.F. Effendi (2012), the teaching of grammar is to facilitate language learning. Grammar is not the goal (ghaya) of teaching, but a vehicle (wasila) for someone to be able to use language properly (Effendi, 2012:112). The teaching of grammar is divided into two: introduction to Arabic morpho-syntax or Nahw and Sarf; and drilling exercises (Effendi, 2012:113). Language skills are divided into receptive and productive skills. The former include listening and reading, and the latter are speaking and writing. In terms of its communication modes, language skills can be divided into spoken and written language skills. The former has two aspects: listening and speaking, so does the latter: reading and writing (Sudaryat, 2015:175). Difficulties in Learning Arabic. The difficulties in learning Arabic are of linguistic and non-linguistic. Arabic is linguistically different from the Indonesian language and local languages in Indonesia in their sound systems, vocabulary, sentence patterns, and orthography (Dahlan, 1992; Lipinski, 2001; and Azhar, 2005). The non-linguistic difference between them lies in the socio- cultural aspects of their speakers. Both linguistic and non-linguistic differences are quite influential and can be obstacles in learning Arabic. Other sources of L2 (Second Language) learning difficulties include learning time allocation, role of teachers, instructional materials, teaching methods, interference, motivation, learners’ ages, and formal instruction (Mar’at, 2005; dan Chaer, 2009). Motivation is crucial to the success of one’s learning. It is a psychological force that encourages learners to engage in learning effectively to achieve the desired level and also is very influential in learning (Al-Fauzân, 2011:141). The lack of motivation may lead to the non-optimal learning achievement. In this context, R.C. Gardner (1985); A. Chaer & Agustina (2006); A. Santoso (2007); and D. Soen (2011) stated that motivation in foreign language learning is very influential, since it is one of the learner’s socio-cultural factors (Gardner, 1985; Chaer & Agustina, 2006; Santoso, 2007; and Soen, 2011). Motivation in foreign language learning has two functions. Firstly, integrative function: motivation that encourages one to learn a foreign language, because he/she wishes to communicate with the native speakers of the target foreign language and wishes to become a part of that target foreign language community. Secondly, instrumental function: motivation that encourages one to learn a foreign language for specific purposes, such as seeking employment (cf Yano, 2003; and Gilakjani, 2012). About the age factor, a student is an individual who is undergoing a developmental process, aged from 18-24, or could be categorized as an adult. E. Sadtono (1987) and S.J. Savignon (1997 and 2007)’s research works reveal that students who were given M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 78 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare opportunities to practice foreign language speaking, since the first class meeting outperformed those who learned foreign language without any interaction with native speakers of the target foreign language (Sadtono, 1987:66; and Savignon, 1997 and 2007). About the formal instruction factor, Arabic teaching programs, both in schools and Islamic boarding schools, is of formal teaching. It is so-called, because there involve many aspects in the teaching activities, such as teachers, media, curriculum, instructional materials, instruments, and so on. All of these influence the success rate of Arabic learning as a second language due to various factors and variables that have been prepared in advance (Chaer, 2009:252). The point is that formal instruction is engineered to achieve the desired competencies in school environments, while non-formal or natural foreign language acquisition takes place in the countries, where the target foreign language is spoken, or could be said as total immersion. METHOD The present study employed a qualitative naturalistic approach (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie eds., 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; and Williams, 2007). This approach was used to describe the implementation of teaching Arabic in the dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to freshman students enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. Specifically, the present study employed an embedded case study design, because the research focus had been determined prior to the conduct of the research (Creswell, 2003; and Williams, 2007). Interviews were conducted to capture the opinions, behaviors, knowledge, and feelings of the informants consisting of the daily director, tutors, caregivers, and students at different levels of proficiency (Tashakkori & Teddlie eds., 2003; and Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004). Then, observation activities were conducted to analyze the instructional activities and the language practices in the Arabic dormitory using R. Millrood (2001)’s classroom interaction evaluation standards, and to analyze the evaluation sheet and the course book. Documents analyzed as the data sources in this study include instructional materials, test questions, students’ documents, and language dormitory program evaluation documents (Millrood, 2001). The questionnaires comprise of three closed-ended questions and 37 open-ended questions. The measurement used of L. Guttman (1950) and G.B. Flebus (2003) scale in the form of multiple choice, where the highest score is 1 and the lowest one is 0 (Guttman, 1950; and Flebus, 2003). FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Instructional Objective. R. Susilana et al. (2006) explain that an instructional objective is a desired target of instructional activities (Susilana et al., 2006:108). The Arabic boarding school of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia is aimed to develop two aspects: language performance and language competence (TP, 2015:7). The first includes listening, speaking, reading, writing, and translation skills; and the latter includes the understanding of grammar and vocabulary. The results of interviews reveal that the objective of Arabic boarding school program is to equip students with basic knowledge of Arabic, including grammar and vocabulary development. This is due to the fact that the enrolled students have different educational backgrounds and different Arabic language abilities (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016). Based on the results of questionnaires, it is also revealed that 29.76% of students came from SMA (Sekolah Menengah Atas or conventional Senior High School); 43.86% came from MA (Madrasah Aliyah or Islamic Senior High School); and the rest of 27.38% has SMA/MA and Islamic boarding schools’ education background. Thus, it can be concluded that the objective of the implementation of Arabic boarding school program is to develop language performance, including the four basic language skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 79© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare and translation skill; and to develop language competence, including understanding of semantic aspect of vocabulary, grammar, and skills to communicate in Arabic (cf TP, 2015; and Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016). However, direct cultural introduction has not intensively done. Arabic Teaching Process. Based on research findings, the Arabic boarding school program offers the following: (1) basic lesson on language skills; (2) basic lesson on Arabic grammar or nahw and sarf; (3) theory and practice of reading, translating, understanding, and composing text in Arabic; (4) applied linguistics, tafsir or text interpretation, and Islamic book readings; (5) ibadah or religion obligataion’s practice and Al-Qur’an memorization; (6) written and spoken tests; and (7) evaluation. About Instructional Materials. Based on the questionnaire data, 96.43% of students stated that the Arabic instructional materials offered in the boarding school improved their Arabic language ability. The rest 3.57% stated, “don’t know”. The material delivery affects both competence and performance. The materials facilitating the Arabic competence development include: new instructional materials; knowledge enrichment; understanding enhancement; and the development of linguistic knowledge, be it semantics, Al-Qur’an memorization, syntax, and basic knowledge of the Arabic language. The materials facilitating Arabic performance include: language practice; language training; translation; conducive learning environment; applied nahw for Al-Qur’anic studies; and assignments. The negative statement from the low achieving students was that they were unable to identify their current proficiency level (interview with Respondent E, 23/10/2016). About Instructional Media. Based on the research findings, there were several instructional media, as follows: (1) visual media, including bulletin board written Arabic and vocabulary walls; (2) audio medium in the form of loudspeakers; and (3) audiovisual medium in the form of a television. More then half (66.67%) of students stated that these media facilitated their learnings. Based on the interview results, it was revealed that the instructional media included: media to facilitate learning process; loudspeakers to deliver announcements and listen to the music; visual media to display vocabulary in every room and sentence examples in the form of announcement and written rules; and audiovisual media in the form of films (interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). Some negative statements regarding the instructional media were about: intensity, it is rare to use of instructional media; relevancy; creativity; and under-facilitated learning environment (interview with Respondent E, 23/10/2016). About Teaching Method and Strategy. A method is a systematic way of working to facilitate the implementation of an activity in order to achieve the desired goals (Creswell, 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie eds., 2003; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; and Williams, 2007). Based on the observation, the following teaching methods were used: lecture; questioning; discussion; singing; drilling; direct method; and demonstration. The use of these varied teaching methods was based on the classroom condition, topic of the lesson, and the condition of the students at the given time (interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016). Thus, in practice a teacher could employ more than one methods. See table 1. About Teacher. The questionnaire data revealed that 70.24% of students stated that the teacher had orchestrated an active, creative, innovative, and fun learning process. The rest 29.76% said the otherwise. Positive statements put forward by students were caused by several components, as follows: PAIKEM (Indonesian language: Pembelajaran Aktif, Inovatif, Kreatif, Efektif, dan Menyenangkan or Active, Innovative, Creative, Effective, and Fun Learning) delivery method; exercise provision; teacher’s qualification; and the system of the program (interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). This is similar to Andayani Agustina Rini & Nugraheni Eko Wardani (2013) and others’ findings that the teacher was more focused on the teaching process and tended to develop Indonesian language skills (Fathurrohman & Sutikno, M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 80 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Table 1: The Linguistic Materials Based on the Observation Using R. Millrood (2001)’s Classroom Interaction Evaluation Standards Classroom communication Vocabulary Understanding (Collective) Vocabulary Understanding (Group) Applied Nahw Method Development Writing Training The most frequent (90-99%) Sometimes (25-75%) Never (0%) The most frequent (90-99%) Sometimes (25-75%) Never (0%) The most frequent (90-99%) Sometimes (25-75%) Never (0%) The most frequent (90-99%) Sometimes (25-75%) Never (0%) The most frequent (90-99%) Sometimes (25-75%) Never (0%) 1. The teacher questioned the students. √ √ √ √ √ 2. The students presented problems to discuss. √ √ √ √ √ 3. The students freely gave their opinions. √ √ √ √ √ 4. The teacher asked for students’ opinions. √ √ √ √ 5. The students only spoke when called upon personally by the teacher. √ √ √ √ √ 6. The students asked the teacher when they don’t understand. √ √ √ √ √ 7. The students passively listened to the teacher. √ √ √ √ √ 8. The students were listening when their peers were talking. √ √ √ √ √ 9. The students spoke loudly to the whole class √ √ √ √ √ 10. The students had peer discussions before the teacher answered. √ √ √ √ √ 11. The students were afraid to make mistakes when talking. √ √ √ √ √ 12. The teacher encouraged the students to take risks and to freely speak √ √ √ √ √ 13. The students asked for the teacher’s opinion about their problems. √ √ √ √ √ 14. The teacher organized students’ interactions in pairs, small groups, moving circle, and parallel lines. √ √ √ √ √ 15. The students copied the answer key during a test. √ √ √ √ √ 16. The students conducted peer- teaching for a test. √ √ √ √ √ 17. The teacher was open to informal communication. √ √ √ √ √ 2009; and Rini & Wardani, 2013). Students’ negative statements were as follows: some teachers still generalized the ability of students; the classroom was overcrowded; instructional materials were beyond the reach of the students; some teachers did not personally know the students; and lack guidance (interview with Respondent E, 23/10/2016). About Arabic Language Environment. Based on observations, there were rules that require students to speak in Arabic, programmed teaching and training, student weekend activities, rotational student speeches, vocabulary learning groups, where all students were divided into ten groups and other various activities. Various wall posters were special reading viewing media. The questionnaire data revealed that the students felt that the learning environment affected their communication skills by 92.86%. Students statements about learning environments include several aspects: training and habit-making; system, i.e. students were required to speak in Arabic; and communication skill optimization. Students’ EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 81© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare information sources were: teachers, peers, bulletins written in Arabic, and instructional materials (interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). Peers influenced the improvement of students’ Arabic skills for several reasons: they felt motivated, when the roommates were talking in Arabic; they could speak Arabic more freely with peers; they felt inferior when speaking Arabic with the lecturers; they felt more confident when talking with peers than with the lecturers; and talking to the more knowledgeable students could get feedbacks on the mistakes (interview with Respondent D and E, 23/10/2016). This is evident in that 84.52% of students felt that peers improved their Arabic skills, 11.90% said the otherwise, and the rest 4.76% were undecided. About Motivation. The questionnaire data revealed that 73.81% were motivated to learn Arabic; 20.24% were not; and the rest 5.95% were undecided. Some of motivated students wanted to speak Arabic fluently; and some of them felt motivated to learn Arabic because it was a compulsory subject, they wanted to able to translate Arabic texts, they need it to understand Islam and Al-Qur’an, and they thought that Arabic was unique (interview with Respondent D and E, 23/10/2016). Thus, it can be concluded that student motivation to learn Arabic was influenced by socio-cultural factors. For example, the religious motivation was more dominant than the professional one (cf Benson, 2007; Zimmerman, 2008; and Csizér & Kormos, 2009). Evaluation. Based on the results of interviews and document analyses, the evaluation activities were carried out very well. The evaluation was conducted at the beginning, the middle, and the end of the program (JCSEE, 1994; Granello & Wheaton, 2004; and Wall, 2004). In general, the tests were administered on a scheduled basis. This referred to the boarding school program guideline book. The tests were of two types: placement test and achievement test or mid-term test and final test (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; and interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016). The measurements were conducted through tests and non-tests or practices. The measuring instruments used a variety of written tests, including: a disaggregated vocabulary test consisting of 40 vocabulary items and an integrated cloze test consisting of 15 questions; a disaggregated structure test consisting of five open-ended questions and an integrated structure test; and language style development tests in the form of multiple choice questions, translation test, and objective test. The practice test was on the speech training. Based on the result of evaluation sheet analysis, this course was to measure the following: title-content consistency; language style; word and syllable accentuation; sentence intonation; and body and facial mimicry (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). Difficulties in Learning Arabic. It is consisted of students’ difficulties; difficulties in listening and speaking; difficulties in reading, writing, and translating; self- confidence issue; and interference. The elaborations are following here: About Students’ Difficulties. Based on the interview results, the sources of Arabic learning difficulties lay in the internal and external factors. The learner internal factors were: intelligence; grammar and vocabulary understanding; physical condition; and emotional state. The external factors included time and overoccupancy (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). Intelligence, grammar and vocabulary understanding, and emotional state were the psychological constraints faced by students in Arabic learning (cf Wu, 2010; Ansari, 2012; and Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016). Pertaining the linguistic factors, we noted that student linguistic difficulties in Arabic leaning as follows: competence aspects, like difficulties in understanding sentences, in memorizing rarely used words, in understanding meanings, and limited vocabulary; and performance aspects like communication difficulties, difficulties in sentence composition, difficulties in speaking M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 82 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare with Arabic native speakers and in reading Arabic texts (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). These difficulties, as S. Mar’at (2005) and A. Chaer (2009) put forward, are associated with the lack of opportunity to use Arabic (Mar’at, 2005:94-96; and Chaer, 2009:250-254). Arabic is a Semitic language that has a different linguistic system from that of Indonesian and students’ native languages (Dahlan, 1992; Lipinski, 2001; and Azhar, 2005:52). Pertaining the non-linguistic factors, student non-linguistic difficulties are associated with their internal aspects, such as low self-commitment, bad learning time management, low motivation, tired physical condition, low cognitive memory and material comprehension, laziness, low self- confidence, and inferiority; with the aspects of educational system, such as low demands of Arabic practice, tight learning schedule, and overcrowded classroom; and with external aspects, like bad influence from friends (cf Mall, 2002; Mar’at, 2005; and Chaer, 2009). The boarding school system can have a good impact on the acceleration of second language acquisition (Staffolani, 2016; Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016; and interview with Respondent C, 16/10/2016). About Difficulties in Listening and Speaking. Listening and speaking difficulties lie in linguistic and non-linguistic factors. The linguistic factors include issues in phonology, like the low exposure to Arabic sound listening and native pronunciation; and in semantics, like limited vocabulary, which in turn affects the understanding of fusha or formal and amiya or informal Arabic (al-Mohsen, 2016; and Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016). The non-linguistic aspects include low self-confidence and low exposure to the target language. Vocabulary enrichment is one of the ways to address this problem. About 88.10% of students experienced listening and speaking difficulties; and the other, 11.90%, said the otherwise. These, difficulties were actually caused by the low motivation to improve listening skills (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). The research findings showed that Arabic listening and speaking difficulties were the results of low understanding, lack of practice, and low exposure to Arabic listening and speaking since some of them were too narrowly focused on Arabic vocabulary and grammar. About Difficulties in Reading, Writing, and Translating. The sources of reading, writing, and translating difficulties were: language competence aspects, such as semantics, vocabulary, meaning understanding, specialized registers, grammar, syntax, and morphology; and performance aspects, such as diction, grammar, sentence composition in the target language (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). Consulting to dictionaries is a way to address these difficulties (Lew, 2004; Wekke, Ernawati & Hudaya, 2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). About 90.48% of students had reading, writing, and translating difficulties; and the other, 11.90%, did not experienced them. About Self-Confidence Issue. Students’ problems associated with low self-confidence are caused by several factors, such as limited linguistic knowledge that produce anxieties in pronunciation, syntax, morphology, and limited vocabulary; student internal and psychological factors, such as personal anxiety and inferiority; and contextual factors, such as low self-confidence when speaking in public, interacting with lecturers and with the more knowledgeable students (interview with Respondent D and E, 23/10/2016). Thus, it can be concluded that low understanding and limited practice may lead to the low self-confidence in using Arabic in a way that the students feel inferior, anxious, and nervous. Time also becomes a benchmark for self-confidence. The amount of time spent on a foreign language practice can reflect one’s self-confidence to use the foreign language in question (Mar’at, 2005; and Chaer, 2009). EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 83© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare An interview data revealed that it took two months for an advanced student to develop self-confidence to use Arabic, despite the fact that he had a good proficiency in it. This is because the lack of demand for using Arabic. Students at the beginning and intermediate level still had difficulties in applying semantic and grammar concept (interview with Respondent A, 2/10/2016; interview with Respondent B, 9/10/2016; and interview with Respondent D, 23/10/2016). About Interference. Language interference is referred to the negative transfer of elements of one language into another (Ellis, 1986; Shastri, 2010; and Sirbu, 2015). The majority of students enrolled to the Arabic Education Program in the context of this study speak Sundanese or Indonesian as their L1 (First Language). These two languages greatly influenced their Arabic. Phonologically, the research findings show that 64.29% felt that their local language interfered their Arabic pronunciation. These phonological interferences included stress, intonation, difficulty in pronouncing the labiodental sound (ف), the apicodental sound .(ق) and (ك) and the dorsovelar sounds ,(ز) Student difficulty in pronouncing the dorsovelar sounds, in particular, is because these two sounds are similar but has different speech organs. In addition, these sounds are not available in the sound system of their L1. In this context, Y.B. Sanusi (2005)’s work also found a similar result, i.e. there was an interference Arabic in English in pronouncing certain similar sounds: /p-b/ /t-d/ and /k-g/ (Sanusi, 2005:2). CONCLUSION Based on the above explanation, it can be concluded that the goal of Arabic boarding school program was to equip students Arabic knowledge and skills in order for them to be able to keep up with the lesson and practice Arabic in university classrooms; the teaching process was theory and practice-oriented to create a conducive language learning environment; the evaluation was conducted through written and performance tests during the placement test, midterm test, and final test; and the teaching challenges lay in the psychological, educational, and social aspects. It is recommended that further studies deal with students’ interactions, second language acquisition, interference problem, and teaching components, specifically in the context of language dormitory.1 References Al-Fauzân. (2011). Idhâ’ât li Mu’alim al-Lughah al- Arabiyah li Ghair al-Nâthiqîn Bihâh. Al-Riyâd: Al- Mamlakah al-Arabiyah al-Su’ȗdiyah. al-Mohsen, Abeer. (2016). “Arabic Teachers’ Perception of an Integrated Approach for Teaching Arabic as a Foreign Language in Colleges and Universities in the United States”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Available online also at: https://repository.usfca. edu/diss/310 [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Alrabai, Fakieh. (2016). “Factors Underlying Low Achievement of Saudi EFL Learners” in International Journal of English Linguistics, Vol.6, No.3. Available online also at: http://www. ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/ viewFile/57994/32256 [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Ansari, Asghar Ali. (2012). “Teaching of English to Arab Students: Problems and Remedies” in Educational Research, Vol.3(6), June, pp.519-524, ISSN 2141-5161. Available online also at: http:// www.interesjournals.org/full-articles/teaching-of- english-to-arab-students-problems-and-remedies [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Azhar, M. (2005). “Beberapa Aspek Keunikan dan Keistimewaan Bahasa Arab sebagai Bahasa Al- Qur’an” in Jurnal Teknologi UKM, (42), pp.61-76. Benson, P. (2007). “Autonomy in Language Teaching and Learning” in Language Teaching, 40, pp.21-40. Chaer, A. (2009). Linguistik Umum. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Chaer, A. & Agustina. (2006). Sosiolinguistik: Suatu Pengantar. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of the Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Christodoulou, D. (2016). Making Good Progress? The Future of Assessment for Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2nd edition. Csizér, K. & J. Kormos. (2009). “Modelling the Role of Inter-Cultural Contact in the Motivation of Learning English as a Foreign Language” in Applied Linguistics, 30, pp.166-185. Dahlan, J. (1992). Arabic Language Teaching and Learning 1Statement: We, hereby, declare that this article is not product of plagiarism, not yet to be submitted and published by other journal; and if our article has been received, we will not withdrawal this paper from the EDUCARE journal. M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 84 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Methods. Surabaya: Al-Ikhlas. Effendi, A.F. (2012). Metodologi Pengajaran Bahasa Arab. Malang: Misykat, fifth printed. Ellis, Rod. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fathurrohman & Sutikno. (2009). Strategi Belajar-Mengajar melalui Penanaman Konsep Umum dan Konsep Islami. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama, cetakan ketiga. Flebus, G.B. (2003). “The Validation of Scores on a Questionnaire about Indecision of School Choice with the Optional Scoring Method” in Review of Psychology, Vol.10, No.1, pp.3-10. Available online also at: file:///C:/Users/acer/Downloads/ Flebus_2003_10_1.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gilakjani, Abbas Pourhosein. (2012). “A Study on the Role of Motivation in Foreign Language Learning and Teaching” in International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science, 7, pp.9-16. Available online also at: http://www.mecs-press.org/ijmecs/ ijmecs-v4-n7/IJMECS-V4-N7-2.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Granello, D.H & J.E. Wheaton. (2004). “Online Data Collection: Strategies for Research” in Journal of Counseling and Development, 82, pp.387-393. Guttman, L. (1950). “The Principal Components of Scale Analysis” in S.A. Stoufer [es]. Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Interview with Respondent A, a Director of Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to Freshman Students Enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati, in Bandung, Indonesia, on October 2, 2016. Interview with Respondent B, a Tutor of Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to Freshman Students Enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati, in Bandung, Indonesia, on October 9, 2016. Interview with Respondent C, a Caregiver of Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to Freshman Students Enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati, in Bandung, Indonesia, on October 16, 2016. Interview with Respondent D, a Student of Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to Freshman Students Enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati, in Bandung, Indonesia, on October 23, 2016. Interview with Respondent E, a Student of Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory of Ma’had Jami’i to Freshman Students Enrolled in the Arabic Education Program of UIN (State Islamic University) Sunan Gunung Djati, in Bandung, Indonesia, on October 23, 2016. Islam, A.M.S. (2015). “Faktor Demotivasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab dalam Perspektif Siswa Madrasah” in Arabiyât: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab dan Kebahasaaraban, 2(1), pp.1-16. JCSEE [Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation]. (1994). The Program Evaluation Standards: How to Assess Evaluations of Educational Programs. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, R.B. & A.J. Onwuegbuzie. (2004). “Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come” in Educational Researcher, 33(7), pp.14-26. Khûli, M.A. (1987). Asâlîb Tadrîs al-Lughah al-Arabiyah. Riyâdh: Dâr al-Ulûm. Lew, Robert. (2004). Which Dictionary fro Whom? Receptive Use of Bilingual, Monolingual, and Semi-Bilingual Dictionaries by Polish Learners of English. Poland: Motivex. Available online also at: http://www. staff.amu.edu.pl/~rlew/pub/Lew_2004_book.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Lipinski, Edward. (2001). Semitic Languages: Outlines of a Comparative Grammar. Leuven: Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta, 2nd edition. Mall, M.A. (2002). “The Problem Experienced with the Teaching of Arabic to Learners in Muslim Private Schools in South Africa and Botswana” in Per Linguam, XVII(2), pp.42-54. Mar’at, S. (2005). Psikolinguistik: Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: PT Refika Aditama. Millrood, R. (2001). Communicative Language Teaching: Modular Course ILT Methodology. USA [United States of America]: Aptembeba O.A. Mumtaz, Shazia. (2000). “Factors Affecting Teachers’ Use of Information and Communications Technology: A Review of the Literature” in Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9(3), pp.319-342, Available online also at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ pdf/10.1080/14759390000200096 [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Mustofa, S. (2011). Strategi Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab Inovatif. Malang: UIN [Universitas Islam Negeri] Maliki Press. Quirk, Randolph & H.G. Widdowson [eds]. (1985). English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures. Cambridge: University Press Cambridge. Available online at: https:// www.teachingenglish.org.uk/sites/teacheng/files [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Rini, Andayani Agustina & Nugraheni Eko Wardani. (2013). “Implementasi Pembelajaran Bahasa Indonesia bagi Penutur Asing di UPT P2B Universitas Sebelas Maret Surakarta” in Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra, Vol.1, No.2, ISSN 1693-623X 2013. Available online also at: http:// jurnal.pasca.uns.ac.id [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Riyana, C. (2017). “Komponen-komponen Pembelajaran”. Available online at: www.file. upi.edu/Direktori/FIP/JUR/Komponen_ Pembelajaran.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. EDUCARE: International Journal for Educational Studies, Volume 10(2), February 2018 85© 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Rusman. (2014). Model-model Pembelajaran untuk Mengembangkan Profesionalisme Guru. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada, edisi kedua. Sadtono, E. (1987). Pengajaran Bahasa Asing, Khususnya Bahasa Inggris. Jakarta: Penerbit P2LPTK. Santoso, A. (2007). “Ilmu Bahasa dalam Perspektif Kajian Budaya” in Bahasa dan Seni, Vol.35(1), pp.1-16. Sanusi, Y.B. (2005). “Efektivitas Formal Instruction dalam Peningkatan Kemampuan Mahasiswa Melafalkan Fonem-fonem Frikatif Bahasa Arab” in Jurnal Bahasa dan Seni, Vol.33(1), pp.1-19. Savignon, S.J. (1997). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: McGraw-Hill. Savignon, S.J. (2007). Communicative Language Teaching: Linguistic Theory and Classroom Practice. New York: The McGraw Hill Second Language Professional Series. Shastri, Pratima Dave. (2010). Communicative Approach to the Teaching of English as a Second Language. Mumbai: Himalaya Publishing House. Sirbu, Anca. (2015). “Language Interference Triggered by Bilingualism” in Mirceacel Batran: Naval Academy Scientific Bulletin, Vol.XVIII, Iss.1. Available online also at: https://www.anmb.ro/buletinstiintific/ buletine/2015_Issue1/FCS/374-376.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Soen, D. (2011). “Jewish Students’ Attitude towards the Arabic Language and Their Willingness to Learn it in Israel” in Arabic: What for, III(2), pp.184-208. Staffolani, Martin. (2016). “7 Reasons Why a Boarding School in Canada Can Enhance Your Child’s Education, University & Career Path”. Available online at: http://bodwell.edu/boarding-school- canada-education-university-career [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Sudaryat, Y. (2015). Metdodologi Pembelajaran: Aplikasinya dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa dan Sastra. Bandung: Penerbit SPs UPI [Sekolah Pascasarja Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia]. Susilana, R. et al. (2006). Kurikulum dan Pembelajaran. Bandung: UPI [Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia] Press, limited publication. Syamsuddin, Jamsuri Muhammad & Mahdi Mas’ud. (2007). “Shu’ûbat Ta’allum al-Lughah al-Arabiyyah lada Thullâb al-‘Ulûm al-Insâniyyah (‘Ilm al- Siyâsah) fi al-Jâmi’ah al-Islâmiyyah al-‘Âlamiyyah bi Malaysia” in Dudung Rahmat Hidayat & Yayan Nurbayan [ed]. Seminar Internasional: Bahasa Arab dan Sastra Islam Kurikulum dan Perkembangannya. Bandung: UPI Press. Tashakkori, A. & C. Teddlie [eds]. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. TP [Tim Penyusun]. (2015). “Petunjuk Teknis Pesantren Bahasa”. Unpublished Paper. Bandung: Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Arab, Fakultas Tarbiyah dan Keguruan UIN [Universitas Islam Negeri] Sunan Gunung Djati Bandung. Tu’aimah, A.R. (1986). Al-Marji’ fi Ta’lîmi al-Lughah al-Arabiyah li al-Nâthiqîn bi Lughât Ukhra (Al-Juz al-Tsânî): Al-Manâhij wa Thuruq al-Tadrîs. Makata al- Mukarramah: Jâmi’ah Umu al-Qura. Wahab, M.A. (2007). “Tantangan dan Prospek Pendidikan Bahasa Arab di Indonesia” in Jurnal Afaq Arabiyyah, 2(1), pp.1-18. Wahab, M.A. (2009). Pemikiran Linguistik Tammam Hassan dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab. Jakarta: UIN [Universitas Islam Negeri] Press dan Ceqda. Wahab, M.A. (2015a). “Inovasi Pemikiran Linguistik dan Metodologi Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab Kontemporer”. Paper presented at Seminar dan Lokakarya Pengembangan Kurikulum 2013 Bahasa Arab, in UPI [Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia], in Bandung, on November 17. Wahab, M.A. (2015b). “Pembelajaran Bahasa Arab di Era Posmetode” in ARABIYAT: Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa Arab dan Kebahasaaraban, 2(1), pp.1-18. Wall, J.E. (2004). “Harnessing the Power of Technology: Testing and Assessment Applications” in J.E. Wall & G.R. Walz [eds]. Measuring Up: Assessment Issues for Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc., pp.665-684. Wati, Wiwit Rahma. (2017). “Project-Based Learning for Improving Motivation and Student’s Speaking Ability in Arabic Teaching and Learning” in Proceeding ICIED: International Conference on Islamic Education, Volume 2. Available online also at: file:///C:/Users/acer/ Downloads/510-37-1062-1-10-20180116.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Watkins, C. (2010). “Learning Performance and Improvement” in Research Matters, Issue 34, Summer. Available online also at: http:// www.mantleoftheexpert.com/wp-content/ uploads/2010/06 [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: October 20, 2017]. Wekke, Ismail Suardi, Ernawati & Ujang Hudaya. (2016). “Aspects of Arabic Teaching and Learning in Elementary Madrasah on Minority Muslim Indonesia”. Paper presented in the International Conference Arabic Language Education and Literature and Islamic Values between Expectation and Realization Bandung, on 11-12 November. Williams, Carrie. (2007). “Research Methods” in Journal of Business & Economic Research, Vol.5, No.3 [March]. Available online also at: file:///C:/Users/ acer/Downloads/2532-Article%20Text-10126-1- 10-20110207%20(1).pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Wu, Kun-Huei. (2010). “The Relationship between Language Learners’ Anxiety and Learning Strategy in the CLT Classrooms” in International Education Studies, Vol.3, No.1 [February]. Available online also at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066074.pdf [accessed in Bandung, Indonesia: August 17, 2017]. Yano, Y. (2003). Communicative Competence and English as an International Language. Waseda: Waseda University Press. Zimmerman, B.J. (2008). “Goal Setting: A Key Proactive Source of Academic Self-Regulation” in D.H. Schunk & B.J. Zimmerman [eds]. Motivation and Self-Regulated Learning: Theory, Research, and Applications. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.267-295. M. ABDURAHMAN, RAHMAN & E. SA’DIAH, Teaching Arabic in the Dormitory 86 © 2018 by Minda Masagi Press Bandung, Indonesia and BRIMAN Institute BS Begawan, Brunei Darussalam ISSN 1979-7877 and www.mindamas-journals.com/index.php/educare Teaching of Arabic Language in State Islamic University in Bandung (Source: https://www.google.co.id/search?biw, 28/10/2017) The goal of Arabic boarding school program was to equip students Arabic knowledge and skills in order for them to be able to keep up with the lesson and practice Arabic in university classrooms; the teaching process was theory and practice-oriented to create a conducive language learning environment; the evaluation was conducted through written and performance tests during the placement test, midterm test, and final test; and the teaching challenges lay in the psychological, educational, and social aspects.