LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature 14(1) October 2019 p-ISSN 1858-0165 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id e-ISSN 2460-853X 59 One Book One Teacher Program for Upgrading Teachers’ Writing Competence (A Descriptive Survey) Rudi Hartono Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia rudi.hartono@mail.unnes.ac.id Bambang Purwanto Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia bambangpurwanto@mail.unnes.ac.id Seful Bahri Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia seful.bahri@mail.unnes.ac.id Abstract Writing competence is one of significant and basic demands for teachers in delivering their profession as educators. Many teachers feel that writing a book is a pride but it is too difficult for them to do. Many factors influence them not to start to write, such as inner motivation, institution supports, ideas, materials, and opportunities. For examples, many of them are lack of motivation to be confident course book writers, their institutions do not support their efforts and facilitate them well, they have no idea what they are going to write, they are not accustomed to provide their own lesson materials for their daily instruction—only copying from books or other resources, and most of them do not have any opportunity at all to write a course book. Therefore to create teacher-writers and produce course books in one school, One Book One Teacher (OBOT) program comes as a solution. OBOT is a program designed for teachers to be a course book writer at schools. Recently we revealed that OBOT has potential activities as an integrated program in preparing teachers to be professional course book writers. In this study, to dig up their responses on course book writing activity and OBOT implementation in their school, we conducted a descriptive survey and observation on 13 teachers in Senior High School Bina Amal Semarang. We distributed questionnaires, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted the data, then drew the conclusion. The research results show that significantly OBOT encouraged teachers to write course book actively and led them to be productive course book writers. Keywords: One Book One Teacher, writing competence, writing skill, course book INTRODUCTION Writing competence is one of significant and basic demands for teachers in delivering their profession as educators. Many teachers feel that writing a book is a pride but it is too difficult for them to do. Many factors influence them not to start to write, such as inner motivation, institution supports, ideas, materials, and opportunities. The objectives of the study are to encourage and facilitate teachers to be able to develop teaching materials for their teaching demands, guide and foster teachers to create course-books that can support teaching and learning activities, improve teachers’ competence in writing and developing learning media. The course book we mean in this study is books that refer to the syllabus of learning, so they are used as the main teaching language by teachers (Trimansyah, 2018b). The problems found in the school cover many teachers are lack of motivation to be confident course-book writers, schools do not support their efforts and facilitate them well, they have no idea what they are going to write, they are not accustomed to provide their own lesson materials for their daily LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature, 14(1) October 2019 60 instruction—only copying from books or other resources, they do not have any opportunity at all to write a course book. To overcome those problems we offer the program which leads teachers active and productive to write course books. One Book One Teacher (OBOT) program comes as a solution. In other popular term we have the term SAGUSABU (Satu Guru Satu Buku) (Maslani, 2017; Rahayu, 2017; Ihsan, 2018; Kompasiana, 2018). It is a program designed for teachers to be course book writers. This program has potential activities as an integrated program in preparing teachers to be professional course book writers. This program can motivate and increase teachers’ creativity in developing their lesson materials into a course book (Oebaidillah, 2017). In this research operationally we define OBOT as a program of writing course-books or other books for teachers who have teaching materials or important ideas to be written in printed and electronic books as a source or reference for teaching and learning activities in the classroom or reading materials for students and the general public (Hartono, 2019b). The followings are the steps of OBOT program (Hartono, 2019b). 1) Introducing the procedure of writing a course book; 2) Preparing teaching materials in accordance with the lesson plan, syllabus, and current curriculum; 3) Writing initial drafts; 4) Checking the initial drafts according to the contents and rules of course book writing; 5) Editing and revising the initial drafts to the final drafts; 6) Preparing book covers and other additional page formats; 7) Submitting manuscripts to publishers; 8) Publishing manuscripts or doing self- publishing. To have a good and standardized course, a writer should follow the process of course book writing. There are five steps of course book writing process. See the figure 1. There are five stages of the course book writing process: prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing (Trimansyah, 2018a, pp. 24-26; 2019b, p. 15). Figure 1. The process of course book writing In the prewriting stage we can do the following activities: 1) doing a literature review, 2) conducting a comparative literature study, 3) interviewing experts, 4) listing information, 5) using research results, and 6) using experience (Trimansyah, 2019d, pp. 5-6). In the drafting stage we can put ideas down to paper (Trimansyah, (2019b, p. 32). That is the command line to describe drafting. Draft or blurry is a one-time made writing. When writing a draft, you are advised to write down whatever you think about—of course related to the chapter or sub-section you compiled—and do not do the editing when writing. Meanwhile, Trimansyah LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature 14(1) October 2019 p-ISSN 1858-0165 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id e-ISSN 2460-853X 61 (2019a; 2019c) proposed things that we need to be considered in editing. They are four main aspects that need our concern in editing process. 1) Typographical error; 2) Linguistics: sentence order, and paragraphs; 3) Accuracy of data and facts; 4) Legality (related to plagiarism) and propriety. In relation to the teachers’ task in this program, we prepare a course book anatomy for them to do. The course book anatomy consists of four main parts: cover, preliminaries, text mater, and postliminaries (Putra, 2007; Setiati, 2012; Nurdiansyah, 2016). METHODOLOGY In this study we used a descriptive survey (Zurmuehlen, 1981). It attempts to establish the range and distribution of teachers’ responses on course book writing productivity and OBOT program implementation to upgrade their writing competence. There were 13 teachers of SMA IT Bina Amal Semarang as the research respondents. To have information of their responses, we distributed two sets of online questionnaires powered by SurveyMonkey Application. The first online survey is about teachers’ course book writing and publishing experiences while the second one covers their responses on the OBOT program implementation. After we took the first online survey and recognized their responses tabulated in the table 1 about Yes or No response, describing their responses on course book writing and publication experience, we trained them how to write a course book well. Each of them was assigned to write a course book based on their subject mastery. The tasks that they had to do were preparing lesson materials, writing course book units or chapters, revising and editing course book drafts, and publishing of their course books. This activity was conducted during six months. The course books were assessed and evaluated based on the criteria of English textbook (Hartono, 2015). To achieve the goal of OBOT program, we set the research steps controlled month by month. The steps were organized by the researchers and school staffs (Hartono, 2019b). The following 1) Checking need analysis; 2) Setting the OBOT program; 3) Designing a book according to the latest curriculum; 4) Implementing the OBOT program; 5) Mentoring the OBOT program; 6) Publishing the books; 7) Evaluating the OBOT program. To analyze the data of questionnaire 1, we use formulation calculated automatically in SurveyMonkey system while to calculate the data of questionnaire 2 we use Likert Scale formulation. First, to calculate the score of each respondent’s response, we used the formulae T x Pn. T means total number of respondents who responded while Pn means Likert score option. Second, to interpret the assessment of respondents' interpretation of the OBOT program, we use the formulae Index Formulation % = Total Score/High Score x 100. To see the criteria of score interpretation, we use the following intervals: 1) Score 0% – 19,99% = Strongly Disagree 2) Score 20% – 39,99% = Disagree 3) Score 40% – 59,99% = Don’t Know 4) Score 60% – 79,99% = Agree 5) Score 80% – 100% = Strongly Agree FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Based on the research result, there are two main data as findings taken from two questionnaires. Questionnaire 1 is about teachers’ experience of writing course book before OBOT program while questionnaire 2 digs up teachers’ responses after the program. Both data are calculated, distributed, tabulated, and displayed in the tables. LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature, 14(1) October 2019 62 Table 1 describes teachers’ responses on course book writing experience before the OBOT program. Based on the research it was found that there are 9 teachers (69.23%) dislike writing and 4 teachers (30.77%) like this activity, 4 teachers (30.77%) have ever written a handout while 9 teachers (69.23%) have done yet, no teacher have ever written, developed, and self-published a course book (100%), 2 teachers published their course books (15.38%) and 11 teachers (84.62%) did not, 12 teachers were difficult to write a course book (92.31%) and 1 teacher was not, 5 teachers got a course book writing workshop (38.46%) and 8 teachers did not get it (61.54%), all teachers (100%) agreed to write and produce a course book in a year. The finding from the questionnaire 1 has a close relation to what several SABUSABU developers and practitioners found in the real life that teachers are lack of experience of writing course books and they agreed that all teachers should have inner motivation to do this effort ((Maslani, 2017; Rahayu, 2017; Ihsan, 2018; Kompasiana, 2018). Table 1. Data of Questionnaire 1 No Question Response (%) Yes No 1. I like writing. 69.23 30.77 2. I have written a handout. 30.77 69.23 3. I have written a course book. 0 100 4. I have written a coursebook developed from a handout. 0 100 5. My coursebook is self-published. 0 100 6. My coursebook is published by a publisher. 15.38 84.62 7. I am difficult to write a coursebook. 92.31 7.69 8. I have got a workshop of course book writing. 38.46 61.54 9. I must be able to write a coursebook. 100 0 10. I will produce coursebooks at least one book in a year. 100 0 In Table 2 we have data taken from the Likert scale-based questionnaire. This questionnaire sets the positive scale system with the score range from 5 to 1. The scales are Strongly Agree/SA (5), Agree/A (4), Don’t Know/DK (3), Disagree/DA (2), and Strongly Disagree/SD. The data in the table 2 use the number of respondents. The numbers listed in the table are the number of teachers responded the questionnaire. Table 2. Data of Questionnaire 2 No Question Response/Score SA A DK DA SD 5 4 3 2 1 1. The OBOT program is a very important program for teachers to produce coursebooks. 11 2 0 0 0 2. The OBOT program is very interesting for us to follow. 8 5 0 0 0 LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature 14(1) October 2019 p-ISSN 1858-0165 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id e-ISSN 2460-853X 63 3. The OBOT program is a very challenging program for teachers to produce coursebooks. 10 3 0 0 0 4. The OBOT program can lead teachers to be active, creative, and productive coursebook writers. 11 2 0 0 0 5. OBOT is very much in line with the character of 21st century teachers. 9 4 0 0 0 6. The OBOT program is very easy for teachers to follow and implement. 3 8 2 0 0 7. The OBOT program requires self-readiness, completeness of materials, and patience to implement it. 8 5 0 0 0 8. OBOT program requires good and regular time management, so that all writing targets are achieved. 11 2 0 0 0 9. The OBOT program must be supported by the government, institution, and school. 9 4 0 0 0 10. The OBOT program can improve the teachers’ welfare and enrich the school libraries. 8 4 1 0 0 Based on the teachers’ responses on questionnaire 2 in table 1, for question 1 it was found that 11 teachers strongly agreed the OBOT program and 2 teachers agreed. It means that 63% of teachers agreed the program. According to question 2, 8 teachers strongly agreed and 5 teachers agreed the program. It means that 60% of teachers agreed the program. Question 3 indicates that 10 teachers strongly agreed and 3 teachers agreed the program. It means that 62% of teachers agreed the program. Question 4 shows that that 11 teachers strongly agreed and 2 teachers agreed the program. It means that 63% of teachers agreed the program. Question 5 describes that 9 teachers strongly agreed and 4 teachers agreed the program. It means that 61% of teachers agreed the program. Question 6 indicates that 3 teachers strongly agreed, 8 teachers agreed, and 2 teachers did not know the program. It means that 53% of teachers did know whether the OBOT program was easy or not for them to follow and implement. Questions 7 shows that 8 teachers strongly agreed and 5 teachers agreed the program. It means that 60% of teachers agreed the program. Question 8 describes that 11 teachers strongly agreed and 2 teachers agreed the program. It means that 63% of teachers agreed the program. Question 9 indicates that 9 teachers strongly agreed and 4 teachers agreed the program. It means that 61% of teachers agreed the program. Finally question 10 shows that 8 teachers strongly agreed, 4 teachers agreed, and 1 teacher did not know the program. It means that 59% of teachers did know whether the OBOT program could improve the teachers’ welfare and enrich the school libraries or not. CONCLUSION Based on the findings and discussion above, it can be concluded that there were very high responses of writing course book through OBOT program. Furthermore, it significantly can improve the teachers’ competence of writing course books better. The OBOT has the potential to increase the teachers’ writing competence and improve their writing product of course books though some of them were not sure that the program was easy or not for them to do and could increase their welfare or not. LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature, 14(1) October 2019 64 REFERENCES Hartono, R. (2015, May 10). Evaluating the criteria of English textbook [PowerPoint slides]. Semarang, Indonesia: English Dept. UNNES. Hartono, R. (2019a, July 20). English material development: the standardization of English textbook [PowerPoint slides]. Semarang, Indonesia: PkM UNNES. Hartono, R. (2019b, July 20). Implementasi One Book One Teacher Program bagi guru SMA Islam Terpadu Bina Amal Kota Semarang [PowerPoint slides]. Semarang, Indonesia: PkM UNNES. Ihsan (2018). Satu Guru Satu Buku (Sagusabu) Bersama Media Guru. Retrieved from http://ihsan.gurusiana.id/article/satu-guru-satu-buku-sagusabu-bersama-mediaguru- 5295313 Kompasiana (2018). Panggilan Menulis "Satu Guru Satu Buku". Retrieved from https://www.kompasiana.com/thsalengke/5b0e3daacaf7db7850549c92/panggilan-menulis- satu-guru-satu-buku Maslani (2017). Literasi dan Gerakan Satu Guru Satu Buku. Retrieved from https://blog.igi.or.id/literasi-dan-gerakan-satu-guru-satu-buku.html Nurdiansyah, B. (2016, October 26). Mari menulis buku ajar, inilah format penulisan buku ajar yang baik [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://www.duniadosen.com/mari-menulis-buku- ajar-g028/ Oebaidillah, S. (2017). Tingkatkan Literasi, Guru Diminta Kreatif Menulis Buku. Retrieved from http://mediaindonesia.com/read/detail/105878-tingkatkan-literasi-guru-diminta-kreatif- menulis-buku Putra, R.M.S. (2007). How to Write Your Own Text Book: Cara Asyik Mambuat Buku Ajar yang Powerful! Bandung: Penerbit Kolbu. Rahayu, S. (2017). Guru Penulis, Satu Guru Satu Buku. Retrieved from http://www.jurnalasia.com/opini/guru-penulis-satu-guru-satu-buku/ Setiati, S. (2012, Juni 20). Anatomi dan struktur buku ajar [PowerPoint slides]. Pelatihan Buku Ajar Kopertis Wilayah VI. Jawa Tengah, Indonesia: Ditjen Dikti Kemendikbud. Trimansyah, B. (2018a). Menulis Saja: Insaflah Menulis sebelum Menulis itu Dilarang. Jakarta: PT. Inkubator Penulis Indonesia (IPI). Trimansyah, B. (2018b). Catatan Anti Bingung Menulis Buku Ilmiah: Membedah Pedoman Dikti dan LIPI dalam Penulisan-Penerbitan Buku Ilmiah. Jakarta: PT. Inkubator Penulis Indonesia (IPI). Trimansyah, B. (2019a). Editing Pedia: Segala Hal tentang Editing Naskah Yang Perlu Anda Ketahui. Jakarta: PT. Inkubator Penulis Indonesia (IPI). Trimansyah, B. (2019b). Konversi KTI non buku menjadi buku [Handout]. Jakarta, Indonesia: Inkubator Penulis Indonesia (IPI). Trimansyah, B. (2019c). Tentang penulisan buku dari hasil penelitian dan sertifikasi penulis buku [PowerPoint slides]. Semarang, Indonesia: UNNES Press. Trimansyah, B. (2019d). Penulisan buku ajar [Handout]. Semarang, Indonesia: Jurusan Bahasa dan Sastra Inggris, FBS UNNES. LANGUAGE CIRCLE: Journal of Language and Literature 14(1) October 2019 p-ISSN 1858-0165 Available online at http://journal.unnes.ac.id e-ISSN 2460-853X 65 Zurmuehlen, M. (1981). Working papers in art education. Iowa Research Online. 1(1), 54-63. DOI: 10.17077/2326-7070.1025