ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 69 STUDENTS’ AND LECTURERS’ PERCEPTION ON ACADEMIC WRITING INSTRUCTION Santi Oktarina Faculty of Education and Teaching, Universitas Sriwijaya, Indonesia E-mail: santiokarina@yahoo.com Emzir Postgraduate Program, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia E-mail: emzir.unj@unj.ac.id Zainal Rafli Postgraduate Program, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia E-mail: emzir.unj@unj.ac.id APA Citation: Oktarina, S., Emzir, & Rafli, Z. (2018). Students’ and lecturers’ perception on academic writing instruction. English Review: Journal of English Education, 6(2), 69-76. doi: 10.25134/erjee.v6i2.1256. Received: 21-02-2018 Accepted: 29-04-2018 Published: 01-06-2018 Abstract: The aim of this research is to gain the perception of students and lecturers toward academic writing instruction Indonesian language classes in Universitas Sriwijaya. This current research was a part of research and development study on Moodle-based teaching model for academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes. This research and development model was carried out using survey and content analysis. The research was conducted in Universitas Sriwijaya. Questionnaire, interview and focus-group discussion (FGD) were instruments to collect data. Meanwhile, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis was used to analyze the collected data. After analyzing data from questionnaire, both students and lecturers perceived that academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes are good and proper. However, the data from interview and FGD showed that there were different views between students and lecturers regarding to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes. Keywords: perception, instruction, academic writing INTRODUCTION Academic writing is writing activity in the classrooms conducted by one institution to communicate one subject of field using linear thoughts, which is scientifically thinking and reasoning and applying scientific variety of languages based on a set of scientific requirements (Hoque, 2008; Oshima & Hoque, 2007; Greane & Lidnrky, 2012). Furthermore, Bailey (2015) wrote that the purposes of writing, as follow: 1) to report what the writer has done, 2) to answer writer’s questions, 3) to discuss one specific topic and provide writer’s opinions, 4) to synthesize research conducted by someone about one topic. From the writing purposes above, it can be academic writing ability especially in higher education is very complex and difficult; therefore, Indonesian languageclasses, in which academic writing is taught and assessed, cannot be seen as solely an additional subject. Concerning to study in higher education, students are necessary to attain academic writing ability since it influences their academic achievement. On the other side, writing activity is inseparable aspect in entire learning process in higher education. Saberi and Rahemi (2013) and Silva (2014) stated that writing has the most important role in academic success. The similar idea was also expressed by Akhadiah (2015, p. 15)that “writing for scholars is a mandatory task to support academic career”. Writing also brings many advantages for college-students mailto:santiokarina@yahoo.com Santi Oktarina, Emzir, & Zainal Rafli Students’ and lecturers’ perception on academic writing instruction 70 (Akhadiah, Arsjad, & Ridwan, 2003; Oktarina, 2014). Teaching writing has to meet the standard of national education qualification framework; the process of teaching should follow a set of principles in writing instruction (Brown, 2001) and the technical guidance of personality subject groups in each institution. However, in fact, several lecturers are able to understand the principles of teaching writing, standards in process of teaching writing, and the guidance; yet, they fail in doing and implementing what they understand. Moreover, in this current technological and science era, professionalism is one of required aspects for lecturers in higher education. To support the sight, Alwasilah (2014) stated that, based on some research findings, Indonesian languageclasses are still far away from success to enhance academic writing skill; moreover, teaching Indonesian languageespecially for academic writing in some faculties/universities can be considered a failure. This encounter is something common in teaching Indonesian language. The same thought was brought by Oktarina (2014, p. 2), she noted that “students’ levels in writing academic paper are relatively low.” A view from teaching process, it can be concluded that students find difficulty and effort in writing. This indicates that they feel uneasy to brainstorm and compose ideas in written language. This barrier ends with demotivation of writing. Furthermore, from writing product presented in the class, only a few students are actively and creatively write in the classroom; meanwhile, the rest of them is still struggle. There are many strategies that can be applied to improve academic writing. At first, the use of teaching model can enhance writing skill (Elola & Eskoz, 2010; Grani, 2012; Kuiper, Smit, Wchter, & Elen, 2017). Secondly, the use of technology can also increase academic writing skill (Adas & Bakir, 2013; Wulandari, 2016, Joseph & Ghazali, 2013). The lecturers can use these strategies based on the needs of writing instruction in their classrooms. With their professionalism, they can wrap and deliver the effective writing lesson in the line with the students’ needs. To have these sights in mind, a teaching model particularly for academic writing in Indonesian language classes is necessary in Universitas Sriwijaya. Before designing a model for academic writing, need assessment is firstly conducted to gain information from students and lecturers. Their perception concerning to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes is one of aspects collected in this research. This present study addressed to get Lecturers and students’ perception related to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes in Universitas Sriwijaya. METHOD The research was carried by research and development design. Meanwhile, this current study was part of Moodle-based academic writing instruction for Indonesian language classes Universitas Sriwijaya. Within this phase, survey and content analysis, as methods used in research and development (Richey & Klein, 2007, p. 40), were used as research methods. According to Emzir (2013, p. 39), survey is a method that applied sampling and the result for describing entire population by using a set of questions in questionnaire. Moreover, content analysis is a set of technique to systematically analyze a text involving one type of communication (conversation, written text, interview, photography, etc.) which is then categorized and classified (Emzir, 2012, p.285). This present research was conducted in Universitas Sriwjijaya from February 2016 to June 2016. To collect data, questionnaire, interview and focus-group discussion (FGD) were selected as instruments. At first stage, questionnaire was distributed to the students in semester two and students in semester 4; they both entered Indonesian language classes. The students, as entire population, were 1.278 student-respondents from semester 2 and 1.255 student-respondents from semester 4 who were following Indonesian language classes in UPT university personality subjects. As a result, there were 2.503 student-respondent taken a part in this research as population. Meanwhile, sample of the research, 10-15% of the population, was approximately 360 student- ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 71 respondents. Nonetheless, only 324 papers of questionnaire were put back to the researcher and considered valid. From interview session, 3 lecturers who taught Indonesian language from UPT MPK Universitas Sriwijaya were interviewed related to the teaching process of academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes they have experienced. The third instrument was FGD in which was followed by 7 student- respondents as representative of 7 faculties in Universitas Sriwijaya. In analyzing the gathered data, both quantitative and qualitative data analysis were used to get more comprehensive data and presentation. The gathered data from FGD and interview was analyzed qualitatively by organizing, reading, memoing, describing, classifying, and interpreting data into several codes and themes; then the process of analyzing data was continued by presenting and visualizing the gathered data. Moreover, the gathered data from questionnaire of lecturers and students was scaled using Likert scale. The table below is the category of perception concerning to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes in Universitas Sriwijaya. Tabel 1. Criteria of perception Range Category 1.00—1.72 not suitable 1.73—2.48 less suitable 2.49—3.24 suitable 3.25—4.00 very suitable RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on the research findings gathered from questionnaire, interview and FGD, the presentation of result of the research is as follow. Questionnaire was distributed to the lecturers and students. 18 lecturers were asked to fill the questionnaire sheets; while there were 360 student-respondents to fill the sheets. However, only 324 sheets were registered back and called valid. There are 3 aspects of teaching academic writing asked and assessed on the questionnaire; namely: planning the lesson, implementing the lesson, and evaluating the lesson. The table shows the perception on both parties of respondents. Table 2. Lecturers’ and students’ perception on academic writing instruction from questionnaire planning the lesson No. Components of Planning the lesson Perception Students Lecturers 1. Competence and objectives meet the student needs 3,26 VS 3,56 VS 2. The existing teaching model is suitable for the characteristics of the subject/lesson 3,07 S 3,50 VS 3. The assessment points are clear 3,07 S 3,39 VS 4. The use of reference and literature is novel and recent (at least 5 years) 2,87 S 3,28 VS 5. The lesson is equipped by module/ppt slides/dictates 2,87 S 3,67 VS 6. The lesson is supported by web-learning facility 2,43 LS 1,00 NS Note: Very suitable= VS, Suitable= S, Less suitable= LS, Not suitable= NS From the questionnaire, it can be stated several conclusions related to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes in the term of lesson planning. Firstly, either lecturers or students mostly agree that competence and teaching objectives, the existing teaching model, assessment points, references and literature, and facility used in the classroom are relatively suitable and very suitable. Nevertheless, the students-respondent thought that they had never experienced learning academic writing using web-learning facility in Indonesian language classes. Santi Oktarina, Emzir, & Zainal Rafli Students’ and lecturers’ perception on academic writing instruction 72 Table 3. Implementing the lesson No. Components of Implementing the lesson Perception Students Lecturer 1. The lesson begins and ends on time 3,06 S 3,44 VS 2. The learning materials are based on the syllabus of teaching 3,26 S 3,61 VS 3. It conducts student-centered learning 3,09 S 3,44 VS 4. The existing teaching model can motivate students 2,94 S 3,44 VS 5. The existing teaching model improves the interactions between students and lecturers 3,21 S 3,44 VS 6. The lesson leads the students to build ideas and new knowledge from various learning resources 3,21 S 3,39 VS 7. The lesson fosters the students to analyze many ideas and lot of experiences and to develop profound reasoning ability 3,14 S 3,50 VS 8. The lesson pushes the students to synthesis and discuss concepts of writing in the front of the class for group work activity 3,08 S 3,44 VS 9. the lesson integrates and combines inter-discipline, even multidiscipline of knowledge field 2,89 S 3,22 S 10. The lesson applies and emphasizes scientific approach 2,88 S 3,44 VS 11. The students plan before they write 2,97 S 3,50 VS 12. The students in group work activity produce writing based on the required genre 2,73 S 3,11 S 13. The students in individual activity produce wiring based on the required genre 2,22 LS 3,22 S 14. Peers in the classroom provide comments to student writing product 2,77 S 3,17 S 15. The lecturers give feedbacks to students’ writing products 3,14 S 3,44 S 16. The students edit their writing based on comments and feedback given by peers and lecturers 3,13 S 3,28 VS 17. The students revise their writing based on comments and feedback given by peers and lecturers 3,06 S 3,28 VS 18. The given tasks are discussed and evaluated in classroom discussion 2,99 S 3,44 VS 19 The lesson uses various teaching media, such as whiteboard, LCD projector, props. 3,48 VS 3,78 VS 20. The lesson uses social media sites, such as Facebook or blog as teaching media 2,35 LS 2,11 LS 21. The lesson applies web learning -based teaching such as Moodle 2,31 LS 1,00 NS Note: VS= Very Suitable, S= Suitable, LS= Less Suitable, NS= Not Suitable From the table above, it can also be summarized some conclusions about academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes in the term of implementing the lesson. The first point is both students and lecturers generally perceive that the process and implementation of academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes are relatively good and effective. It has proven by the scores from item 1-19 gain in the range of very suitable and suitable. Secondly, on the item no.20, stating the use of social media sites for teaching media, both parties fall to disagree. The third conclusion is, from item no. 21, students view that the existing teaching model is rarely using web learning facility; moreover, the lecturers claim that they had never conducted it in their classrooms. Table 4. Evaluating the lesson No. Components of Evaluating the lesson Perception Students Lecturers 22. Peer-evaluation is conducted for each writing product 2,40 LS 2,83 S 23. Lecturer’s evaluation is organized for each task given 3,19 VS 3,39 VS 24. Self-evaluation is arranged for each writing product 2,62 S 2,89 S 25. Self-evaluation, peer-evaluation and lecturer’s evaluation are presented directly and manually to the students 2,81 S 3,00 VS 26. Self-evaluation. Peer-evaluation and lecturer’s evaluation are 2,29 LS 1,00 NS ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 73 presented through web learning facility 27. Evaluation points are based on the indicators that have been approved in the first meeting 3,20 S 3,39 VS 28. Objective Evaluation is applied 3,23 S 3,50 VS 29. Evaluation is in the form of manual portfolio assessment 3,00 S 3,28 VS 30. Evaluation is in the form of portfolio assessment 2,49 S 2,56 VS 31. Quiz and Tests (mid and final) are held in the classroom and scored and assessed by clear, definite and concise criteria 3,18 S 3,39 VS 32. Quiz and Tests (mid and final) are given through web learning facility and scored and assessed by clear, definite and concise criteria 2,37 LS 1,00 NS Note: VS= Very Suitable, S= Suitable, LS= Less Suitable, NS= Not Suitable The questionnaire above shows perception from students and lecturers toward academic writing instruction specifically in evaluating the lesson of Indonesian language. The first encounter isthe students think that the evaluation process using peer-review was infrequently undertaken for each writing product; in contrast, the lecturers revealed that peer-review process had once conducted. The second conclusion shows that both lecturers and students fall to suitable and very suitable for these following items: 1) evaluation is mostly done by lecturers, 2) self-evaluation had once conducted for each writing product, 3) peer-review and lecturer review have directly and manually implemented for the given tasks, 4) evaluation is based on a set of indicators approved in the first meeting, 5) evaluation is in objective form, 6) manual portfolio assessment and 7) portfolio assessment are used, and 8) quiz and tests are given in the classroom, and assessed by a clear, definite and concise criteria. On the third conclusion, the students stated that self- evaluation, peer evaluation and lecturer’s evaluation are rarely conducted through web learning facility. On the other hand, the lecturers revealed the opposite ideas. They have never used web learning facility in the classrooms. In addition to evaluation, students declared that quiz and tests are often given in the classroom through web learning facility and scored using clear criteria. Nonetheless, the lecturers said that this kind of activity has never been done in their classrooms. For getting data, FGC was conducted by seven student-respondents. They were as representatives from seven faculties of Universitas Sriwijaya; the faculty of Law, Medicine and Health, Politics and Social Sciences, Mathematics and Sciences, Agricultures, Technical Engineering, and Teaching and Education. FGD purposes to gain students perception, opinion and perspectives concerning to academic writing instruction they have experienced. From FGD, some findings were revealed and presented into several items. The first finding shows that, from competence and teaching objective, the teaching and learning process was mostly discussed and practiced language materials and contents instead of implementing genre- based instruction. From the second finding, in the form of lesson structure, learning activity was delivered by lectures and class discussion that mostly applied teacher-centered learning with limited student-lecturer interaction. Writing activity does not depict the application of writing process approach and procedure, such as pre-writing, whilst-writing, and post- writing. Then, the third finding proves that, from the principles of reaction, the lecturers do not sufficiently motivate to learn and write in the classrooms. Moreover, from the view of social system, the process of teaching does not provide high and full interaction between students and lecturer. At last, in the supporting system point, some components are concluded as follow: 1) the materials are limited, 2) materials are various from class to class, 3) the lecturer uses only one reference/course book, 4) references are limited, 5) the lesson is not web-learning based. Interview is one of the instruments to collect data related to lecturers’ perception, opinion, experiences, and perspectives upon academic writing instruction they have taught. Then, three lecturers who taught Indonesian language in Universitas Sriwijayahave been Santi Oktarina, Emzir, & Zainal Rafli Students’ and lecturers’ perception on academic writing instruction 74 interviewed. As a result, some findings are described below. The first finding reveals that academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes has based on the principles of teaching writing, the standard of national education qualification framework (KKNI), and the guidance in implementation of personality subject at higher education. However, the implementation of these principles and standards is still need improved. In addition, other constraints in academic writing instruction are also apparent, such as students’ lack of motivation, large classes, ineffective class rules. The second item is that several lecturers said that they do not use web learning facility provided by the institution. It can be assumed that one of the constraints in academic writing instruction is caused by lecturers’ incapability to use technology, particularly web learning facility. Based on the findings revealed on this study, there are some similarity and differences perception among students and lecturers. Both students and lecturers are in the side related to the situation encounters on academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes. To be more specific, they agree that the instruction still needs improved and is not yet completed by web learning facility that provided by institution. Furthermore, the students are expecting that the lecturers teach them with technology provided by institution. The similar ideas has been also proposed by Adas and Bakir (2013), Wulandari (2016), andJoseph and Ghazali (2013). They had experienced using technology in teaching academic writing. Not only that, this research also found some different point of views between lecturers and students. The lecturers perceived that they have effortfully taught academic writing to the students although they modestly admitted that some aspect in the implementation of teaching writing still needs improvement. On the other side, what the students perceived is slightly different. They think that a lot of aspects in academic writing instruction are necessary to develop. This finding is consistent to what was proposed by Alwasilah (2014; Oktarina, 2014) that teaching Indonesian language especially in higher education is out of its track. The process is not yet improving student performance in academic writing skill. CONCLUSION After collecting and analyzing data from students and lecturers concerning to academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes in Universitas Sriwijaya, it can be drawn some conclusions. The first is that the academic writing instruction in Indonesian language classes is relatively good and suitable for recent situation. However, in fact, some aspects in implementation of teaching academic writing need improvement. This can be proven by the different perception among lecturers and students regarding to the quality of the existing academic writing instruction. REFERENCES Adas, D., & Bakir, A. (2013).Writing difficulties and new solutions: Blended learning as an approach to improve writing abilitiy. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(9), 254-266. Akhadiah, S., Arsjad, M. G., & Ridwan, S. H. (2003). Pembinaan kemampuan menulis bahasa Indonesia. Jakarta: Erlangga. Akhadiah, S. (2015). Bahasa sebagai sarana komunikasi ilmiah. Bekasi: Paedea. Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing: A handbook for international student. London: Routledge. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching approach to language pedagogy. New York: Longman. Elola, I.,& Oskoz, A. (2010). Collaborative writing: Fostering foreign language and writing conventions development. Language Learning and Technology, 14(3), 51-71. Emzir. (2012). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif: Analisis data. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers. Emzir. (2013). Metodologi penelitian pendidikan: Kuantitatif dan kualitatif. Jakarta: PT Raja Grafindo Persada. Grani, M. A. (2012). Online collaborative writing for ESL learners using blogs and feedback checklist. English Language Teaching, 5(10), 43-48. Greane, S., & Lidnrky, A. (2012). From inquiry to academic writing: A text and reader. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin. Kuiper, C., Smit, J., De Wachter, L., & Elen, J. (2017). Scaffolding tertiary students’ writing in a genre- based writing intervention. Journal of Writing Research, 9(1), 27-59. Oktarina, S. (2014). The use of creative and productive facebook-based model to increase the quality of writing course. Journal of Teaching and Education, 3(1), 137-149. ENGLISH REVIEW: Journal of English Education Volume 6, Issue 2, June 2018 p-ISSN 2301-7554, e-ISSN 2541-3643 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/ERJEE 75 Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (2007). Introduction to academic writing. New York: Pearson. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and development research: Methods, strategies, and issues. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Saberi, E., & Rahimi, R. (2013). Guided writing tasks vs production writing tasks in teaching writing: The impact on Iranian EFL learners' paragraph writing. Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods, 3(2), 129-142. Silva, R. D. (2015). Writing strategy instruction: Its impact on writing in a second language for academic purposes. Language Teaching Research, 19(3), 1-15. Wulandari, M. (2016). Moodle-based learning model for paragraph writing class. Jurnal on Language and Language Teaching, 18(2), 73-90. Santi Oktarina, Emzir, & Zainal Rafli Students’ and lecturers’ perception on academic writing instruction 76