Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ) Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2020 p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index 45 THE TEACHING OF WRITING RECOUNT TEXTS BY UTILIZING PADLET Asep Saepuloh English Education Study Program, Universitas Suryakancana, Indonesia E-mail: asepsaepulah@unsur.ac.id Vina Aini Salsabila English Education Study Program, Universitas Suryakancana, Indonesia E-mail: vnsabila91@gmail.com APA Citation: Saepuloh, A., & Salsabila, V. A. (2020). The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet. Indonesian EFL Journal, 6(1), 45-54. doi: 10.25134/ieflj.v6i1.2637. Received: 12-07-2019 Accepted: 23-09-2019 Published: 01-01-2020 Abstract: Writing has always been beneficial for those who master it. Albeit its virtues, it is subject to investigation due to issues concerning its derisory tasks, its complexity, and its arid learning activities. Based upon the issues, this study is aimed at portraying how English teachers teach students writing recount texts by integrating Padlet into their classroom. Involving one English teacher and a class of 25 students, this study obtained the data through observation of four class meetings. The data were then analyzed qualitatively to depict thoroughly the teaching practice of the teacher as Padlet was deployed in the classroom. The analysis resulted in findings vis-à-vis the integration of Padlet and the teacher’s ways of integrating Padlet, that the integration of technology is categorized into some levels. The findings to some extent conform to previous studies that the integration of technology has been prevalent among English teaching in general. It is therefore suggested that teachers maintain the integration of technology while keep on fostering the accompanying capability of integrating it. Keywords: writing; recount texts; Padlet; technology integration; digital teaching media. INTRODUCTION Writing constitutes one of the most essential skills for educational success (Tillema, 2012), alongside its association with literacy which draws the government’s attention to increase the literacy level in Indonesia. It is reported that Indonesia’s Literacy ranked 60 out of 61 countries (Sulistiyono, 2016). This indicates that literacy in this country is in crisis even though writing has been demanded in the era of the Industrial Revolution 4.0. In this regard, many complain that writing practice and assignments for students in Indonesia are inadequate (Lowenberg, 2000). This phenomenon denotes the necessity to keep on improving students’ writing skills. Notwithstanding its importance, writing is a complex skill to master (Tillema, 2012). In addition, based on years of experience from the writer in teaching the writing skills, the learning activities of writing recount texts tend to be uninteresting and monotonous due to lack of students’ interaction. This issue causes students to be less enthusiastic and often results in their poor writing, accordingly. Henceforth, this study is intended to depict the teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing a digital tool called Padlet. Recount text, among other texts embodied in Core Competency and Basic Competency, is supposed to be mastered by students. This type of text is defined as a text retelling an event or occurrence in the past in chronological order (Anderson, cited in Pertiwi, 2013). It functions to give readers or audience information about the event (Gerot & Wignell, 1995; Derewianka & Jones, 2013; Coogan, cited in Siswita & Al Hafizh, 2014). Besides, Derewianka and Jones (2013) argue that the organization structure of recount texts include orientation that provides background information; record of events which tells chronological steps; and comment which expresses response from the writer. In addition, types of recount texts vary as Holandyah (cited in Permatasari, 2016) affirms that recount texts can be personal, factual and imaginative. As written language is different from spoken language, strategies to teach and assess writing are also proposed (Derewianka & Jones, 2013, pp. 132-134). It can begin with assigning students to orally recount what they have just done or observed. The next strategy is to provide a jumbled text to be reassembled. Furthermore, a part of a text can be provided to let students create cohesive chains. This activity can be followed up by modelling and identifying Asep Saepuloh & Vina Aini Salsabila The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet 46 features written language compared to spoken language. As for assessing strategies, a set of criteria or rubric is required, conforming to the features of the particular genre and the mode being used, the field and the tenor. The integration of technology in the classroom is inevitable as the technology development allows teachers to employ many digital tools that can best facilitate students’ learning. The technology integration is explained by the SAMR model proposed by Puentedura (2006, 2010) cited in Ashcroft and Imrie (2014). The model classifies four stages in integrating the technology by the teachers, comprising Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. In addition to this, Apple Classroom of Tomorrow’s (hereafter, ACOT) project generated a framework, which encompasses Entry, Adoption, Adaptation, Appropriation, and Invention stages, to describe how teachers make effective use of technology aiding the teaching and learning process (ACOT, 1996). Regarding the SAMR model, Substitution is defined as the replacement of traditional ways of learning with the technology which shares something in common (Puentedura, 2006; 2010). Usually, substitution leads to efficiency of learning compared to the former old-fashioned way. For instance, instead of writing the materials on the board, teachers can make use of technology, such as LCD projector which saves time and energy efficiently. Augmentation is characterized by some improvement on the function which cannot be done through traditional media (Puentedura, 2006; 2010). This to some extent requires teachers to provide the materials or tasks which are not only available in the classroom, but also accessible regardless of the time and space. Writing the materials on the webs or blogs offers a different function where the materials can be accessed wherever or whenever students want to. In addition, modification is concerned with significantly redesigning tasks. According to Ashcroft and Imrie (2014), it encompasses importing data for creating the study set or task, using the test mode and sharing a set through the website. The last stage in the model is redefinition which deals with a new creation of tasks by utilizing technology (Puentedura, 2006; 2010). It, as Ashcroft and Imrie (2014) assert, focuses on student collaboration where they can study together or share resources. In addition to the SAMR model, the ACOT’s framework proposes five stages. In the Entry stage teachers concerns that students’ use of technology may be burdensome for them as technology is deemed to be unmanageable by them (Rein, 2000). Therefore, it denotes teachers that are still having problems with technology and that are coping with how to use the technology (ACOT, 1996; Muir-Herzig, 2004; Brooks-Young, 2007). The adoption stage constitutes a state of willingness to use technology in the classroom (Muir-Herzig, 2004). The adaptation stage denotes efficiency of learning in terms of the rate and engagement of learning in various contexts (ACOT, 1996; Muir- Herzig, 2004). At the appropriation stage, not only do teachers use technology in the classroom, but also give prominence to students’ collaboration and project-based learning (ACOT, 1996; Brooks-Young, 2007). Finally, the invention stage lies as teachers combine a number of technologies to generate numerous functions in the classroom (ACOT, 1996; Brooks-Young, 2007). Of the five stages of teachers’ technology integration, it is found that teachers’ ability to integrate the technology is limited to adaptation stage (Kurniawati, Maolida, & Anjaniputra, 2018). Concerning this, most educators are considered unready to effectively deploy the technology in such stages (Rein, 2000). Albeit teachers’ disinclination and unreadiness, integrating the technology in the classroom can generate a myriad of advantages for students in the learning process. Some of the advantages are stated that these entail enjoyable learning, learning autonomy, learner persistence, and learner engagement (Anjaniputra & Salsabila, 2018). Therefore, the use of Padlet is supposed to facilitate not only students’ interest to develop their writing skills, but also to allow for sharing ideas with others. Padlet is an ideal place to collect ideas, share ideas, and modify them in the future (Jaganathan, 2016). It encourages students’ creativity to create and gather ideas, photos, citations, and others stuffs in one room. It also becomes a virtual note or a plan notebook to gather ideas, photos, and even clip videos. The use of Padlet to teach writing skills has been conducted in several studies. Among others are studies that focus on students’ engagement in the classroom (Fusch, 2014), to assess students’ perception (Akmar, Rafidah, & Huda, 2017), and to find out the effectiveness on students’ writing Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ) Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2020 p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index 47 skills (Algraini, 2014; Haris, Yunus, & Badusah, 2017; Lestari, 2017). However, the process of how teachers teach writing skills to students and how they learn was not discussed in the previous studies. Henceforth, this study attempts to investigate how the teacher uses Padlet to teach writing recount texts to students. This problem addresses specifically two main issues of how the integration of Padlet into the classroom activities in teaching students writing recount texts is and of how the teacher employs Padlet seen from the teacher’s digital literacy. METHOD The method deployed in this study was descriptive qualitative research as this study aims to gain in-depth understanding of how Padlet is employed to teach writing recount texts. Convenience sampling was used in a way that the sample was selected due to its availability and willingness to be the subject of this study, which is a lecturer and a class of 25 students in a private university in West Java. The data were collected through observation and field-notes as well as the lesson plans created by the teacher to implement Padlet in the classroom. The observation was administered four times since the teacher taught writing recount texts in four meetings. During the observation, activities in the classroom were video-recorded so as to help analyze and interpret the findings in this study. To analyze the data, what happened in the classroom was synchronized with the data from the lesson plans and field-notes. The synchronized data were then displayed in relation to the purposes of this study to find out stages of technology integration in which Padlet is employed in the classroom and portray the process of how it is used. After that, the data were reduced to general themes in order to focus on what is sought in this study. By doing data reduction, the data which share common information were categorized into broader themes based upon the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006; 2010) in which its classification includes Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition and in relation to the ACOT’s framework (1996) consisting of entry, adoption, adaptation, appropriation, and invention level. Finally, the data were organized properly to go through data interpretation where the results were interpreted to become findings and the findings were associated to previous theories or studies. By doing so, it is expected that this study results in comprehensive, thorough findings and discussion. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Meeting 1 The lecturer greeted, welcomed, and thanked the students for joining the class. The lecturer also initiated the lesson through the ice breaking activities to get the attention and focus of all students. The lecturer then checked the presence of students, there were several students who were absent that day. The lecturer asked some students in random about their past activities like where they went yesterday, what tourism attractions or interesting places they had already visited before. The students actively responded the questions and they shared their past experiences. Further, the lecturer asked the students whether or not they had already made Padlet’s account. The lecturer then asked them to create an account of Padlet by downloading it from the appstore or opening it in website. Later, students were given a link code or barcode to open through the Padlet application and the lecturer wrote some questions on the Padlet wall that were shared with students, such as what did you do on the weekend? What did you visit on your last holiday? What was your favorite activity in high school? What was the memorable moment that happened when you were a child? and how could Indonesia get its independence? Afterward, students were asked to comment on each available theme. Each student had to respond at least three questions available in the Padlet wall and put the name at the bottom of his/her posts. The lecturer discussed some students’ comments and gives appreciation and feedback. The lecturer then informed the students that the material that they would learn was recount text. In the main activities, the lecturer brainstormed the idea about recount text by asking the students about what they knew about recount text. The students were asked to express their opinions on Padlet Wall which had been provided by clicking the shared link or by scanning the given barcode. Regarding SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006; 2010), asking the students to express their ideas or opinion on Padlet wall instead of paper was included in substitution, since Padlet as a product of technology only replaces the traditional ways, Asep Saepuloh & Vina Aini Salsabila The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet 48 meanwhile the functionality is not distinctive and no improvement in terms of functions is made. Meanwhile, in relation to the ACOT’s framework (1996), the above stage was categorized into adoption stage as the teacher was willing to and did not hesitate to use technology in the classroom. In line with the adoption stage, Inan and Lowther in Howard and Mozejko (2015) state that teachers who are more confident using technology are more likely to integrate technology in the classroom. Thus, being confident is the first thing that the teacher should do to be able to integrate the technology in the classroom. Some students responded the activities enthusiastically, they tried to define recount text based on their experiences ranging from definition, generic structure, and language features of recount text. The teacher intended to build students’ framework about recount text, so that they would be able to create it. Since recount text is one of text types that is enough complicated, so it is necessary for teacher to build students’ prior knowledge. Because writing is not only the activity of producing symbols of language in written form, but also a mean to deliver ideas. When people start writing, they do not only write all their ideas. They need to convey and organize their ideas into a readable text that has some meanings (Harris & Ansyar, 2014). In line with this, writing recount text is not only a matter of delivering ideas, but also organizing ideas in the correct order or sequence. Therefore, students’ writings must follow the rules and must be suitable with the text social function, generic stuctures, and language features. After that, students were asked to read some texts from other various types of recount text on Padlet. Then, students were asked to determine what types of texts were given. The students answered easily when they were showed a text example of personal recount. However, they could not answer as the teacher displayed other types of recount text, such as biographical, autobiographical, historical, and literary recount text. This phenomenon happened as they were only exposed to one type of recount text when they were in junior or senior high school. Thus, when they were given another type of recount text, they got confused since what they found was different with what had been explained by their previous teachers. According to Anderson and Anderson (1998), even though recount text had been studied since junior high school, sometimes the students had problems in writing it. It is because in writing recount text, the students should be aware in using the schematic structure of recount text including orientation, record of events, and reorientation (Anderson & Anderson, 1998). Besides, the students should apply the linguistic features of recount in their text, including specific participants, circumstance of time and place, first person, additive conjunction, material process, and past tense (Gerot & Wignell, 1995, p. 194; Nafisah & Kurniawan, 2007). The teacher then gave a number of questions to students regarding the text they read. For example: What activities are told? When did it happen? What places are told in the text? Who made the text? What is the author’s opinion about the activity? The teachers proposed those questions to show the students the way of developing paragraph of orientation, series of events, and reorientation. The questions were seemingly intended to make the students understand the steps for developing each schematic structure of recount text. Meliyanti, Sutapa and Husin (2012) suggest that by giving guided questions with what, who, when and where related with the topic, the students could easily arrange the orientation aspect by using the answers that they have had. The guided questions also can help the students in determining the events that they want to develop. By answering the question, such as what happened next, the students can develop their writing ideas in sequence related to the topic. After that, the teacher concluded that recount text had specific functions and it was different from other types of text. The teacher also explained the schematic structure of the text that had been given and explained it in detail. To measure students’ understanding of recount text, students were instructed to mention the function, schematic structure, and language features of the text. That technique was applied to any other examples of recount text with different themes and types from the first text, and the teacher did that process on and on until the students really understood the material delivered by the teacher. In the closing activity, the teacher reviewed the learning material, appreciated those who answered the questions and reinforced their answers. The teacher also asked several students to explain the recount text material correctly and thoroughly. Before going home, the teacher assigned the students to visit the Padlet wall that would be used in the next meeting and reminded Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ) Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2020 p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index 49 them to download Padlet. Eventually, the teacher ended the class and reminded the students to relearn the material. Meeting 2 In the second meeting, as usual the teacher greeted, called the roll, and reviewed the previous material. The teacher then informed the students that they would learn the generic structure and language features of recount text. The teacher divided the students into four groups and told them that they would learn recount text through game. The teacher tried to apply different technique that day since he found some students who seemed less enthusiastic and unmotivated in the first meeting. This was a classical problem usually encountered by teachers as students still perceived writing as a difficult thing to learn. As the depiction above, Ferguson and Mickerson (in Indariati, 2012) state that writing is one of English skills that should be taught in an integrated way because it is regarded as the most difficult language skill to learn. It is often perceived as the most difficult language skill as it requires a higher level of productive language control than the other skills. As the objective reality found, so the teacher tried to solve the problem through playing a game to make the students enthusiastic and interested in learning writing. As stated by Indariati (2012), by applying game techniques, the teacher could encourage the students to participate in the classroom activities. The teacher should also be able to encourage the students to express their ideas into good writing. The teacher gave opportunities to the students to write their ideas without being afraid of making mistake. The game was whisper game about determining the generic structure of recount text. Further, the teacher arranged the chairs in four lines facing forward and instructed each group to sit on each line. The teacher explained the rules of whisper game. The teacher gave each group a worksheet consisting of 10 paragraphs and told the students that he would whisper a clue about the explanation of one of the generic structures of recount text to the student sitting in the back and the student had to whisper it to his or her friend in the front lines. Then, the student who sat on the first front chair had to fill out the worksheet by writing one of the recount text generic structures (orientation, record of event, or re-orientation) in one paragraph within 30 seconds. The first front student had to move to the back and the other students behind had to move to the front chairs and so on, then the teacher also explained that he would whisper the second, third, fourth clue and so forth. The game would be finished once one of the groups could fill all worksheets. Afterwards, the teacher asked the students whether or not they were ready to start the game. The teacher then started the game and put the worksheet in front of the class so that the student who filled the worksheet would not be intervened by his or her group friends. All students were engaged in playing the game and they really enjoyed the game since it was interesting and fun. The students played the game cheerfully and occasionally interspersed with jokes and laughter when they found something funny. The teacher had to wait until all groups finished filling out the worksheet because there was no group that could guess the answers correctly. After all group finished, the teacher and students discussed the answers. The teacher also explained about linguistic features (participant, past simple tense, description of time and place, and sequence of events) from each paragraph in the worksheet so that the students could understand. Furthermore, the teacher divided the students into 9 groups. Each group was asked to make an orientation, series of events and reorientation. The first three groups had to make an orientation, the second three groups had to make a series of events and the rest had to make a reorientation of at least 100 words. Before instructing the students to start writing, the teacher previously provided some examples of how to write orientation, series of events and reorientation by accommodating students’ ideas. The teacher wrote it on Padlet so that all students could see the process. Then, the students were given 15 minutes to make one of the recount text structures. Students had to write it directly on the Padlet wall like the example given by the teacher. The teacher also asked all groups to give numbers for each of their posts. Subsequently, the teacher instructed each group to analyze the grammatical errors found in the text of other groups. After that, each group corrected the other group’s text in the comments column. The teacher kept reminding all groups to write their group numbers when giving comments. After finishing the section, the teacher and the students directly corrected the text of each group based on suggestions or comments from other groups. This was intended Asep Saepuloh & Vina Aini Salsabila The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet 50 to make students know how they should correct to fit the linguistic features of the recount text. Based on the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006; 2010), the above activities concerning the use of Padlet, were included into redefinition since it dealt with a new creation of tasks, especially as students were identifying the grammatical errors of the other group’s text on Padlet. Padlet also facilitates collaborative learning where each student can have access to it as long as he has the link or the barcode of the tasks. Therefore, students can work together and cooperate to do the same tasks without having them gather in the same place at the same time. In the meantime, regarding the ACOT’s framework (1996), those activities were included into appropiation because the teacher not only used Padlet as a technological tool in the classroom, but also used it as a medium of students’ collaborative learning where students worked together and interacted each other for accomplishing the same target. According to Webb (in Laal & Ghodsi, 2011), collaborative learning builds more positive heterogeneous relationships and develops higher-order thinking skills. Therefore, it is essential for teachers to use digital technology as a collaborative learning media to develop students’ higher-order thinking skills. At last, the teacher reviewed the material that had been learnt, such as asking about the generic structure and language features of recount text. Besides, the teacher also appreciated and reinforced students’ answers as well as asked them to post the results of their group’s written corrections. Eventually, the teacher ended the class by reminding students to relearn the material. Meeting 3 Same as the previous meeting, the teacher greeted, checked students’ attendance, reviewed the previous material, gave appreciation, feedback, and reinforcement on students’ answers. The teacher then informed the students that the material they would learn was writing recount text in group from one part of the text made at the previous meeting. The teacher also motivated the students to keep their passion in writing by telling them that writing was not an instant process and it needed stages. As stated by Harmer (in Utami, 2012), the stages on writing process are planning, drafting, revising, and final drafting. Writing process as a classroom activity that incorporates those four basic writing stages is seen as a recursive process (see Figure 1). This means that it has a cycle which integrates among stages. It can be seen as a process wheel in which it clearly shows the directions that the writers may take during their process in writing. Meanwhile, Tooley (2009) stated that writing is a complex subject; there is no “one right way” to teach it. He also added that the teaching of writing is a multifaceted subject that does not come with a manual. As writing was considered as a complex and multifaceted subject, so it certainly involves a number of theories, strategies, and approaches to enhance the quality of writing. Due to the complexity of writing, teacher should make students aware that learning writing is not an instant process. Writing is not only a matter of grammar and vocabulary. There are many factors that should be considered both in learning and teaching writing. In line with the statement above, Perl and Wilson (in Monaghan, 2007) concluded that, just as there are any number of ways in which to write, there are any number of ways in which to teach writing. The strategies and curriculum a teacher chooses are dependent on who he is, what’s important to him, the background he brings into the classroom, and the students he finds there. In this case, teacher plays an important role in encouraging and motivating the students to keep them excited in writing since this skill can be the key to success. As what Tooley (2009) stated, despite the barriers, teaching writing well is a worthwhile endeavor. It is an essential skill for success both in school and workplace. Figure 1. The wheel process of writing taken from Harmer (2004, p. 4). First of all, the teacher divided the students into 9 groups. The teacher said that each student should sit with his or her group. The teacher then asked the students to open Padlet at the last meeting where each group had made one part of recount text. The teacher gave each part of the text that each group had written at the previous Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ) Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2020 p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index 51 meeting to the other group. After that, the teacher gave students a recount plan that they had to fill in to develop the recount text. Each group wrote their own recount texts. They were expected to be able to complete all informations in accordance with the recount plan. For example, if they got an orientation, so they had to make sure that their orientation complied with the concept of 5W+1H. If not, they should complete it before they continued telling series of events. The series of events should consist of 6 events, so they had to develop 6 events with different conflicts. The teacher approached and guided each group to consult on problems that students experienced while they were writing. After finished, the teacher asked the students to post the results of their writing on Padlet which the teacher had prepared. Afterwards, the teacher asked each group to give comments on the other groups’ writing through the comment column available on Padlet. The comments given should be based on the revision rubric that the teacher gave and each group of students should revise the recount text from each comments or suggestions that the other group gave and immediately edited their own writing on Padlet. Referring to the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006; 2010), the activities in the third meeting were categorized into modification and redefinition level. In modification level, it was portrayed when the teacher asked the students to open Padlet through the shared links or barcode since Padlet as a technological tool used for creating the study set and sharing a set. In redefinition level, it was depicted when the teacher used Padlet as a medium for collaborative learning. Meanwhile, in line with ACOT’s framework (1996), the above stage was in adaptation level since it denotes the efficiency of learning in terms of the rate and engagement of learning in various contexts. Lastly, the teacher asked the students about what they had learnt, appreciated, reinforced the students’ answers, and asked them to post the results of their group’s written corrections as well. Finally, the teacher asked the students to pray after reminding them to relearn the material. Meeting 4 The teacher welcomed and thanked the students for joining the class. Before starting the class, he reviewed the previous material, gave appreciation and feedback as well as reinforcement on students’ answers. The last, he informed that the material that would be learnt that day was writing recount text individually. The teacher instructed the students to write a recount text. Further, the teacher divided the students into six groups complying with the number of the themes of recount text types. Each group was asked to choose one of the themes displayed on Padlet wall. After getting the themes, the students were given 45 minutes to write a complete recount text individually. Students were also asked to write the text they made in the previous Padlet wall by logging in first so that their names appeared. Besides, he reminded the students that their writing had to be based on the recount plan and consisted of at least 300 words. As depicted above, it was the same as the first meeting, the activities concerning Padlet were included in substitution (Puentedura, 2006; 2010) since Padlet was only used to replace the traditional ways, in this case, Padlet was used as an alternative to replace paper, however, as the teacher asked the students to log in through shared links and barcode scanning, like and dislike, give numerical score, etc. They indicate the technology integration process at modification level (Puentedura, 2006; 2010) and regarding the ACOT’s framework (1996), the above stage was in invention stage as the teacher was able to combine a number of technologies to generate numerous functions in the classroom (ACOT, 1996; Brooks-Young, 2007). During the students wrote their recount texts, the teacher approached each student to provide suggestion and guidance in writing, such as reminding students to give a title for their writing, asking whether his or her orientation based on the concept of 5W+1H, asking whether the student had decided his or her record of events to be developed, etc. Then, the teacher asked the students to give comments on their friends’ writing. However, there were some problems found in running this activity, some of students seemed confused to find errors in their friends’ writings and they left the comment column blank. The teacher then asked some students to know why they did so. They said that they did not know what to write, they could not analyze the errors for they were not good at grammar or sentence structure. They were not consistent in using past tense, even they still confused to differentiate between past and present tense. Thus, it is important for teachers Asep Saepuloh & Vina Aini Salsabila The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet 52 to emphasize and highlight the use of language features in students’ writings. As suggested by Anderson (in Nurohmah, 2013), the students should apply the language features of recount in their text, including specific participants, circumstance of time and place, first person, additive conjunction, material process, and past tense (Gerot & Wignell, 1995, p. 194; Nafisah & Kurniawan, 2007, p. 71). During writing recount text, the teacher also suggested the students to utilize the features of Padlet, such as like and dislike, giving rates, and scores. To check students’ works, the teacher kept walking around the class and occasionally approached some students who found problems and needed some suggestions and guidance in writing. After getting comments from their friends, each student was asked to revise his or her own writing based on the comments and suggestions given. The teacher ensured that all students had revised the results of their writing because the final results of the writing would be assessed. The teacher gave extra time for students to revise their writings at home in case some of them had no sufficient time to revise them in class. Again, the teacher reminded the students to revise their writings at home before it was too late. The teacher reminded the students to relearn the material at home before praying to end the class. CONCLUSION The use of Padlet as a technological tool greatly depends on the user itself, how far the user can explore and optimize its function and utility, Padlet can only reach the substitution level or higher levels. Padlet can be a model of how a technology is integrated into classroom. Padlet can fulfil the four stages of SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006, 2010), namely Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. In fact, Padlet can be used as a media for collaborative learning that allows students anywhere and anytime interact each other in one platform. Students know types of recount text, such as personal recount, biographical recount, autobiographical recount, historical recount, and literary recount. They can also differentiate the generic structure of each text. It was different with the first time the teacher brainstormed the students about recount text, they could only mention the generic structure of personal recount. REFERENCES Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. (1998). Text types in English 1-2. Australia: MacMillan. ACOT. (1996). Teaching learning and technology: A report of 10 years of ACOT research. Apple Computer Inc. Akmar, F., Rafidah, & Huda, N. (2017). Padlet: A digital collaborative tool for academic writing. Journal of Education and Social Sciences, 8(1), 179–184. Algraini, F. N. A. (2014). The effect of using padlet on enhancing EFL writing performance. Al- Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University. Anjaniputra, A. G., & Salsabila, V. A. (2018). The merits of Quizlet for vocabulary learning at tertiary level. Indonesian EFL Journal, 4(2), 1– 11. doi: 10.25134/ieflj.v4i2.1370. Ashcroft, R. J., & Imrie, A. C. (2014). Learning vocabulary with digital flashcards. JALT2013 Conference Proceedings (pp. 639–646). Tokyo: JALT. Brooks-Young, S. (2007). Digital-age literacy for teachers: Applying technology standards to everyday practice. Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education. Derewianka, B., & Jones, P. (2013). Teaching language in context. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. Fusch, B. (2014). The writing is on the wall: Using Padlet for whole-class engagement. LOEX Quarterly, 40(4), 7–9. Retrieved from https://uknowledge.uky.edu/libraries_facpub/24 0. Gerot, L., & Wignell, P. (1995). Making sense of functional grammar. Sidney: Gerd Stabler. Harris & Ansyar. (2014). An analysis of students' difficulties in writing recount text at tenth grade of SMAN 1 Sungai Limau. Journal English Language Teaching, 2(1). Retrieved from http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.php/elt/article/vi ewFile/4567/3609. Haris, M., Yunus, M. M., & Badusah, J. H. (2017). The effectiveness of using Padlet in ESL classroom. International Journal of Advanced Research, 5(2), 783–788. doi: 10.21474/IJAR01/3214. Howard, S. K., & Mozejko, A. (2015). Teachers: Technology, change and resistance. In M. Henderson & G. Romeo (Eds.), Teaching and digital technologies: Big issues and critical questions (pp. 307-317). Port Melbourne, Australia: Cambridge University Press. Indariati, D. (2012). Improving students' writing competence using game (bouncing stories). Retrieved from https://digilib.uns.ac.id/dokumen/download/276 59/NTg1MjQ=/Improving-Students-Writing- Competence-Using-Game-Bouncing-Stories-A- Classroom-Action-Research-Study-At-Senior- High-School-1-Cepu-20112012-abstrak.pdf. Indonesian EFL Journal (IEFLJ) Volume 6, Issue 1, January 2020 p-ISSN 2252-7427, e-ISSN 2541-3635 https://journal.uniku.ac.id/index.php/IEFLJ/index 53 Jaganathan, S. (2016). Edmodo and Padlet as a collorative online tool in enriching writing skills in language learning and teaching. Global English-Oriented Research Journal (GEORJ), 1(6). Kurniawati, N., Maolida, E. H., & Anjaniputra, A. G. (2018). The praxis of digital literacy in the EFL classroom. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguitics, 8(1), 28–37. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v8i1.11459. Lestari, S. (2017). Implementing padlet application to improve writing ability in English writing skill for non English department students. LET: Linguistics, Literature and English Teaching Journal, 7(1), 1-16. Lowenberg, P. (2000). Writing and literacy in Indonesia. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 30, 136–148. Laal, M., & Ghodsi, S. M. (2011). Benefits of collaborative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 486-490. Muir-Herzig, R. G. (2004). Technology and its impact in the classroom. Computers & Education, 42, 111–131. doi: 10.1016/S0360- 1315(05)00067-8. Meliyanti, Sutapa, G, Husin, S. (2012). Improving students’ recount text writing ability through guided questions technique. Journal, 1–8. Monaghan, C. (2007). Efective strategies for teaching writing. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?d oi=10.1.1.577.4665&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Nafisah, N., & Kurniawan, E. (2007). Writing English for general communication. Bandung: UPI PRESS. Permatasari, I. (2016). Teaching writing recount text by using PQP (Praise-Question-Polish) strategy to the tenth grade students of SMA Muhammadiyah 5 Palembang. UIN Raden Fatah Palembang. Pertiwi, Y. D. (2013). Teaching writing recount text for the second year students of SMP Negeri 2 Banyudono in 2012/2013 academic year (A descriptive study). Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Puentedura, R. R. (2006). Transformation, technology, and education. Puentedura, R. R. (2010). SAMR and TPCK: Intro to advance practice. Rein, D. (2000). What is effective integration of technology, and does it make a difference? Cupertino, CA: Apple Computer Inc. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?d oi%0A=10.1.1.493.5211&rep=rep1&type=pdf %0A. Siswita, F., & Al Hafizh, M. (2014). Teaching writing recount text to senior high school students by using reading-writing connection strategy. JELT, 2(2). Sulistiyono, A. G. (2016). Indonesia second least literate of 61 nations. The Jakarta Post. Retrieved from https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/03/ 12/indonesia-second-least-literate-61- nations.html. Tillema, M. (2012). Writing in first and second language: Empirical studies on text quality and writing processes. Utrecht: LOT. Tooley, S. H. (2009). The art in teaching writing. Masters Thesis & Specialist Projects. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.wku.edu/theses/83. Utami, A. B. (2012). Improving students' writing skills on recount texts through collaborative writing technique. Retrieved from https://eprints.uny.ac.id/38716/1/Amrih%20Bek ti%20Utami_07202244062.pdf. https://eprints.uny.ac.id/38716/1/Amrih%20Bekti%20Utami_07202244062.pdf https://eprints.uny.ac.id/38716/1/Amrih%20Bekti%20Utami_07202244062.pdf Asep Saepuloh & Vina Aini Salsabila The teaching of writing recount texts by utilizing Padlet 54