COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN BENCHMARKING … · pertama ialah mengenai dinamika grup belajar para kepala sekolah dalam kelas ... 11 2.1.4. Legitimate ... 57 APPENDICIES

i

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN BENCHMARKING

PREPARATION CLASS TO PROMOTE ENGLISH

LEARNING FOR ADULT LEARNERS

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as a Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

By:

Paulina Rian Kunthi Kusumadewi

Student Number: 131214153

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM

DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION

FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2017

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

ii

5


iii


iv

DEDICATION PAGE

“I will never let my fear decide my future.

So, I will give my best before going back

‘home’.”

- Paulina Rian -

To infinity and beyond


v


vi

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITLEMBAR PERNYATAAN


vii

ABSTRACT

Kusumadewi, Paulina Rian Kunthi. (2017). Collaborative Learning in

Benchmarking Preparation Class to Promote English Learning for Adult Learners.

Yogyakarta: English Language Educations Study Program, Sanata Dharma

University.

Younger students are generally seen to learn a foreign language much more

easily. On the contrary, older people are known to have more difficulties to learn a

foreign language. Adults seem to have less capability to memorize words in detail

and acquire native-like pronunciation skills.

This study reports an investigation of a benchmarking preparation class. The

benchmarking preparation program was designed to prepare a select group of

Kanisius school leaders to visit schools in neighboring countries. This program was

intended to equip the participants with communication skills. Therefore, the school

leaders were assigned as a group to Sanata Dharma to learn English. Given the fact

that the participants are above forty years of age, particular learning strategies that

were relevant to them were an urgent need to develop. Transformative learning

theory (Mezirow, 1996) suggests that learning facilitation for adults necessitates

two major requirements, namely reduced level of stress and ample opportunities for

self-expression. This study investigates individual roles in the group learning.

There are two formulated questions in this study, namely (a) how does the

learning dynamics take place in school leaders’ group learning? (b) to what extent

does the individual’s growth mindset promote learning in the group? This study

employed phenomenology to reveal participants’ learning experience in the English

course. Five school leaders, who were involved in the English course which lasted

for three months, were research participants. Data gathering was done through

observation, interviews, and Focus Group Discussion.

Two research findings were found. First, the dynamics in benchmarking

preparation class was described in general description and detailed flows. The

general description included material, media, method, classroom language,

classroom setting in adult learning. Meanwhile, the flows were drawn into opening,

main and closing by stating learning purpose, casual talk, individual performance,

discussion, feedback, and confirmation. Second, individual’s growth mindset was

found promoting learning in terms of vocabulary recall and time management as

well as achieving the improvement of the school leaders during learning including

knowledge, skill, and attitude. Finally, both facilitators’ and participants’ roles

matter in the learning by having social interaction and high expectation in group so

that each member involved and contributed.

Keywords: adult learner, collaborative learning, growth mindset, benchmarking


viii

ABSTRAK

Kusumadewi, Paulina Rian Kunthi. (2017). Collaborative Learning to Promote

English Learning for Adult Learners. Yogyakarta: English Language Educations

Study Program, Sanata Dharma University.

Pelajar muda cenderung dapat mempelajari bahasa asing dengan lebih

mudah dibandingkan dengan kaum dewasa. Kaum dewasa memiliki kesulitan

dalam mengingat suatu kata. Disisi lain pelafalan bahasa asing yang mendekati

pelafalan target bahasa juga lebih sukar bagi kaum dewasa dibandingkan dengan

kaum muda.

Penelitian ini menyajikan investigasi dari Benchmarking Preparation

Class. Progam ini dirancang untuk memfasilitasi partisipan dengan kemampuan

komunikasi yang baik dalam bahasa inggris. Yayasan Kanisius Yogyakarta menjadi

salah satu contohnya, dimana para kepala sekolah terpilih mengikuti kursus

pelatihan bahasa inggris di Sanata Dharma dalam rangka studi banding ke beberapa

negara. Kebutuhan akan penguasaan bahasa inggris sebagai penghubung antar

bahasa menjadi sangat penting. Fakta bahwa usia partisipan diatas empat puluh

tahun, maka strategi belajar merupakan hal yang penting. Oleh karena itu,

penelitian ini bertujuan untuk melihat peran individu dalam kelompok belajar.

Dalam penelitian ini terdapat dua rumusan masalah. Rumusan masalah yang

pertama ialah mengenai dinamika grup belajar para kepala sekolah dalam kelas

persiapan studi banding. Rumusan masalah yang kedua adalah mengenai peran pola

pikir bertumbuh individu dalam mempromosikan pembelajaran dalam grup. Oleh

karena itu, penelitain ini diadakan menggunakan metode fenomenologi. Hal ini

dimaksudkan dengan tujuan menyajikan pengalaman belajar dari tiap individu

dalam menjawab pertanyaan penelitian.

Peneliti menemukan dua poin inti sebagai hasil dari penelitian ini. Pertama,

dinamika di Benchmarking Preparation Class dideskripsikan secara umum dan alur

detail. Deskripsi secara umum meliputi materi, media, metode, bahasa, dan

pengaturan tata ruang dalam pembelajaran kaum dewasa tersebut. Penyampaian

tujuan belajar, diskusi informal, performa individu, diskusi, dan umpan balik

merupakan alur yang dapat dikategorikan menjadi bagian pembuka, inti, dan

penutup kegiatan belajar. Kedua, pola pikir bertumbuh individu mempromosikan

pembelajaran dalam hal penguasaan kosakata dan manajemen waktu. Hal tersebut

juga membantu meningkatkan pengetahuan, keterampilan, dan sikap belajar

partisipan. Akhirnya, baik peran fasilitator maupun partisipan berpengaruh dalam

pembelajaran yang tersaji melalui interaksi dan pengharapan yang tinggi sehingga

memungkinkan tiap partisipan terlibat dan berkontribusi dalam pembelajaran.

Keywords: adult learner, collaborative learning, growth mindset, benchmarking


ix

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to devote my deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ and

Mother Mary for all of the blessings through my ups and downs, especially until

the time I completed my thesis.

Then, I am really grateful to have my best support systems in my life. I

would like to thank Valentina Rina Hernani, my best mom in the world, for her

endless love and prayer, my dad Basuki Anwarsito and my brother Rafael Bayu

Chandrajati who have accompanied me with love and laughter.

I am wholeheartedly thankful to my thesis advisor, Bapak Markus

Budiraharjo, M.Ed.,Ed.D. for his help and trust. He lets me give my best efforts.

This was one of my best way in learning and growing as a person.

I also send my sincere gratitude to Bapak Krisna Septa Bernanda, S.Pd.,

for his suggestion and willingness to be my thesis proofreader. I would not forget

to express my gratitude for my senior, Mbak Martha Yuli Krismaheryanti, S.Pd.,

Mbak Anchieta Avi, S.Pd., Mbak Anthonia Jessy, S.Pd., Mas Putra

Wiranggelang, S.Pd, for their sharing and suggestion.

I would like to express my thanks to my awesome partners, Engky, Mas

Alfina, Gincu, Rilai, Nerai, Squizy, Aas, Marcel and Mas Ardhian Listyarian,

whose presence and support were really meaningful to me. My heartedly thanks

also referred to my senior high school mates, Ipen, Etik, Onci, Mbi Ria, Dinty,


x

Opel, and Caty. My sincere gratitude also goes to Stanis Mahendra Satyawan

for his indescribable caring.

Last but not least, I would like to thank everyone whose name I cannot

mention one by one here for giving me support during my hard times.

Paulina Rian Kunthi Kusumadewi


xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

COVER PAGE ................................................................................................... i

APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................... ii

DEDICATION PAGE ........................................................................................ iv

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY .................................................. v

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI .............................................. vi

ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................... vii

ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................... viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................... ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................... xi

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiv

LIST OF APPENDICIES ................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION

1.1. Research Background ................................................................. 1

1.2. Research Questions..................................................................... 4

1.3. Research Significance ................................................................. 4

1.4. Definition of Terms .................................................................... 5

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Theoretical Description .............................................................. 7

2.1.1. Adult Learning .................................................................... 7

2.1.2. Theory about Mindset ......................................................... 10

2.1.3. Collaborative Learning ....................................................... 11

2.1.4. Legitimate Peripheral Participation .................................... 16

2.2. Theoretical Framework ............................................................... 17

CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Method ........................................................................ 20


xii

3.2. Research Setting ......................................................................... 21

3.3. Research Participants .................................................................. 22

3.4. Instrument and Data Gathering Technique ................................. 23

3.5. Data Analysis Technique ............................................................ 25

CHAPTER IV. RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Learning Dynamics ..................................................................... 28

4.1.1. General Description ........................................................... 28

4.1.2. Learning Dynamics during Learning ................................. 31

4.2. Individual Growth Mindset Promotes Learning in Group.......... 37

4.2.1. Facing Difficulties ............................................................. 37

4.2.1.1. Difficulties during Learning ....................................... 38

4.2.1.2. Effort in Facing Difficulties ....................................... 40

4.2.2. The Participants’ Improvement ......................................... 44

4.2.2.1. Facilitators’ Role ........................................................ 47

4.2.2.2. Participants’ Role ....................................................... 50

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1. Conclusions ................................................................................ 53

5.2. Recommendations ...................................................................... 56

REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 57

APPENDICIES .................................................................................................. 60


xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Tables

Page

2.1. Characteristic of Collaborative vs Traditional Learning ............................. 14

3.1. Observation Sheet ....................................................................................... 23

4.1. Casual Conversation and Understanding Confirmation .............................. 29

4.2. Knowledge Improvement ............................................................................ 45

4.3. Skill Improvement ....................................................................................... 45

4.4. Attitude Improvement ................................................................................. 46


xiv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figures

Page

2.1. Transformative Learning Phases Theoretical Framework Chart ................ 9

2.2. Theoretical Framework Chart ..................................................................... 19


xv

LIST OF APENDICES

Page

Appendix 1. Observation Sheet Sample............................................................. 61

Appendix 2. Interview Guide ............................................................................. 65

Appendix 3. Focus Group Discussion Guide ..................................................... 67

Appendix 4. Coding of Facilitators Interview ................................................... 69

Appendix 5. Coding of Participants FGD .......................................................... 73

Appendix 6. Mindset Mini Survey ..................................................................... 78


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter consists of background of the study, problem formulations,

research significance and definition of terms. The background of the study

elaborates the topic and gives reasons of why the topic is worth studying. The

problem formulation presents research questions that guide this study. The research

significance provides contribution of this research towards some areas of

development. The last one is definition of terms, in which the researcher specifically

explains the key terms used in this research.

1.1. Research Background

A school leader as the head of the school is expected to have a capacity to

build relations with related parties in order to develop their institution. To develop

school principals’ capacities in school development, school leaders of Kanisius

Elementary Schools, who mostly have limited English proficiency, were assigned

to conduct benchmarking activities to neighboring countries, where English is used

as a medium of communication. They were expected to visit exemplary schools in

Singapore and the Philippines. The benchmarking activities are believed to expand

the knowledge of the school leaders, which in turn is expected to stimulate

innovative thinking and entrepreneurial capacities among them. Therefore, they are

expected to be comfortable to communicate in English with foreigners.


2

The Director of the Kanisius Foundation of Yogyakarta Branch decided to

send a select group of Kanisius schools leaders to attend an English course at Sanata

Dharma University for three months (September to November 2016). The course

was benchmarking preparation class which intended to equip the school leaders

with basic English communicative skills. However, the learning process turned out

to be challenging experience for the participants for three major reasons.

First, in terms of English mastery, the Kanisius school leaders were not well-

trained in English. In their schools, they mostly speak Indonesian. Moreover, the

structures between Indonesian and English language are different. Indonesian as the

source language has no tenses in the language, whereas English as the target

language does (Setiyadi, 2006, p.23). It is inferred that Bahasa Indonesia, which

does not have any tenses, is structurally different to English language which is

affected by tenses in sentence formations.

Second, Kanisius school leaders, as many common adult learners, have less

time to practice English in their daily lives. School leaders have both internal and

external responsibilities in managing their school. Therefore, their time availability

to learn English is limited and centralized on the meetings. It is not surprising that

English is difficult for them.

Third, Kanisius school leaders were appointed as school principals for their

outstanding service, not their academic excellence. Education in elementary schools

situates both teachers and the principal to focus on character development, not the

academic pursuits. Meanwhile, English learning requires a different approach to

learning. Transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1995) suggests that learning


3

facilitation for adults necessitates two major requirements. Those are reducing level

of stress and giving opportunities for self-expression. This serves as a big gap

between what school principals have in their daily businesses and the academic

pursuit in English learning.

Besides, the participants in benchmarking preparation class come from

different backgrounds and difficulties in learning English. Nevertheless, drawing

from the power of personal theories, Dweck (2006) finds the importance of

believing in the growth potentials of self in learning. Individuals having fixed-

mindset are more likely to give up easily since they see a failure or success is a gift.

On the contrary, students having growth mindset are more likely to persevere and

persist in their efforts no matter how hard the challenges are. The growth mindset

refers to seeing the success which is gained by having effort not only talent (Dweck,

2006).

This study is going to describe the dynamics and the experiences of each

individual in the learning. It intends to reveal the descriptive accounts of each

individual learning experiences. The indicators of the improvements in learning

include knowledge, skills, and attitude towards English learning. Moreover, the

work of mindset is focused on the dynamic of group learning. In short, the power

of individual contribution including facilitators and participants in group is also

emphasized to draw the essence of the learning to understand and design more

meaningful learning experiences for adult learners.


4

1.2. Research Questions

Considering these explanations, the researcher formulated two research

questions in this study:

1. How does the dynamics take place in school leaders’ group learning?

2. To what extent does the individual’s growth mindset promote learning in

the group?

1.3. Research Significance

The present study is a practical one. It describes the experience of school

leaders as a group of learners that undergoes a learning process together.

1.3.1. English Trainers

This research helps English trainers who are in charges of adult learners, to

increase the awareness of adult learning in guiding the learner. The helps are by

providing appropriate dynamics of the class that are relevant to adult learning

principles, including instructional methods, techniques, materials, media, activities

and interaction among the group learning. Moreover, the capacity, problems, and

strategies are described that can take into account toward adult learning experience.

1.3.2. Adult learners

The results of the study were presented with the description of the dynamics

of the class including activity and instrument that support learning especially

collaborative learning. The problem is also derived from participants from a

beginner level of English group learning. Thus, it will be useful for the learner to

set themselves in collaborative way in group learning.


5

1.3.3. Future researcher

This study is expected to help future researchers to examine related fields

using similar learning dynamics to promote group learning among adults.

1.4. Definition of Terms

There are several terms in this topic that need to be defined in order to avoid

misunderstanding.

1.4.1. Adult learners

Adult learners in this study are Kanisius school leaders in benchmarking

preparation class. Their ages range between 41-49 years old. Forrest and Peterson

(2006) further states “adults are those individuals who have taken on adult roles in

society, whether they are the 16-year-old mother or the 87-year-old retiree” (p.

114). Moreover, Darkenwald and Merriam (1982) define meaning of adult by

distinguishing psychological and social role of adults from children. Adult is an

individual who is expected primary social role as worker, spouse, or parent and has

left the primary role of a full-time students.

Participants’ position as school leaders in their school is not only managing

systems and leading people but also dealing with technical job in school, since most

of them are not in charge to teach many classes. Writing a mail, delivering the mail,

managing files, and setting a room for a meeting are examples of the technical job

mentioned. Therefore, the school leaders are considered as adult learners in

benchmarking class due to their role in society.


6

1.4.2. Growth mindset

Based on Dweck (2006), mindset theory is divided into two types, fixed

mindset and growth mindset. However, based on a mini survey of categorizing

mindset that derived from growth mindset’s criteria, all the participants are believed

to have growth mindset. Moreover, in this context, the growth mindset means the

level at which each individual is able to sustain in order to achieve targets or face

difficulties.

1.4.3. Benchmarking preparation class

Benchmarking preparation class is a program which is initiated under

Kanisius Elementary School Foundation. The program is designed for overseas

program in 2017. The fellow countries are Singapore and Philippines. The program

is aimed to help selected school leaders to be able to communicate in English.

Furthermore, two lecturers from Sanata Dharma present as the facilitators of the

group learning for twenty meetings.


7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, the researcher provides related literature that is served as the

basic theory to answer the research questions. There are two major discussions in

this chapter. Those are theoretical description and theoretical framework.

2.1. Theoretical Descriptions

This part presents some relevant theories that are going to be used as guides

and references in conducting the research. Those are theories on transformative

learning, mindset, collaborative learning, and legitimate peripheral participation.

2.1.1. Transformative Learning Theory

Transformative learning theory is grounded in the nature of human

communication. The emphasis of this theory is the process of learning. The process

then is further explained as “the process of using a prior interpretation to construe

a new or revised interpretation of the meaning of one’s experience in order to guide

future action” (Mezirow 1996, p. 162). Transformative learning explains about

learners’ expectation framed within cultural assumptions and presuppositions that

influence the meaning.

Advantages of transformative learning are the development of greater

autonomy as a person, a crucial condition of adulthood (Mezirow, 1996). The

autonomy is further discussed in an environment in which participants have full

information, are free from pressure, have equal opportunity to assume various roles,


8

become critically reflective of assumption, are empathic and good listener, and are

willing to seek common ground or a synthesis of a different point of view.

Moreover, the transformative learning is also created through discussion and

exploration of concept relating through the experiences. The experience is

understood as learning which encounters a typical base in which every learner

develops significance through individual reflection and discussion.

Transformative learning is a model of adult learning where critical reflection

is based on learners’ prior experience. It often occurs in response to an awareness

of a contradiction among thoughts, feelings, and actions. These contradictions are

generally the result of distorted epistemic (nature and use of knowledge),

psychological (acting inconsistently from our self-concept), and sociolinguistic

(mechanisms by which society and language limit our perception) assumptions. In

essence, we realize something is not consistent with what we hold to be true and act

in relation to our world. Furthermore, reflection in transformative learning refers to

“the apperceptive process by which we change our minds, literally and figuratively.

It is the process of turning our attention to the justification for what we know, feel,

believe and act upon” (Mezirow 1995, p. 46).

Transformative learning reflects an outcome and a process of adult

development. A model of adult learning is provided by explaining the process of

how personal paradigm expand and evolve in adulthood perspective transformation.

Therefore, there are some phases in adult learning perspective based on Mezirow’s

study of national study of women returning to college who participated in an

academic reentry program after a long hiatus from school which involved in-depth


9

interviews of 83 women from 12 programs in Washington, California, New York,

and New Jersey. According to Mezirow (1995), there are ten phases in

transformative learning. Those are mentioned in the following figure.

Figure 2.1. Transformative Learning Phases


10

2.1.2. Theory about Mindset

Perspective on learning becomes basis for revealing experiences in learning.

Therefore, the definition and types of mindset needs to be define. Moreover, the

situation in which types of mindset are considered are provided.

2.1.2.1.Definition

Individuals rely on a system that organizes and controls information around

them. Mental framework that selectively processes the information which exists

around the individual is called mindset. These mental frameworks shape the

individual in viewing and behaving uniquely toward phenomena (Crum, Salovey,

and Anchor, 2013). Moreover, in terms of intelligence, a learner who has a mindset

whose intelligence can be changed, shows improvement in behavior and attitude,

compared with a learner with a fixed mindset (Blackwell, Trzeniewski, and Dweck,

2007).

2.1.2.2.Types of mindset

People with fixed mindset have a belief that their quality is unchanging

during their lifespan. When they see failure, they are consequently disengaged from

the task when they do mistake or struggle since they see failure as their absolute

lack of ability. Contrary to people having fixed mindset, people with growth

mindset believe that their basic quality is malleable as well as promoting effort and

learning. Individuals see that success relies mostly on the amount of effort, not just

derived from original talent (Dweck, 2006; Robin & Pals, 2002).


11

According to Ames & Archer (1988), people’s mindset are partially due to

mindset of achievement goals. Furthermore, there are two different categories of

achievement goals that are defined by each concern. The first is long-term skill

development which the mastery is aimed based on effort. The second is depended

on the external outcomes like grade and teacher’s praise. Fixed mindset has low

intrinsic motivation, high anxiety, and low self-efficiency and learned helpless

(Elliot & Church, 1997). However, the effect might be different based on their

emotional.

An individual with growth mindset tends to have intrinsic motivation to ask

for help when it is needed and view mistakes and setback as part of the natural

learning process impacts toward experience in learning. As a result, when a

performance goal is accompanied by positive learning environment, they can show

greater persistence. On the other hand, negative situation will lead higher level of

anxiety, unwillingness to seek for help and disruptive classroom behavior.

Moreover, individual with performance based orientation might have outward

academic success when they do not find difficulties or upsetting. When they face

setback they will disengage and avoid the difficulties which prevent them

developing their ability and fall behind the time passes (Dweck, 2006).

2.1.3. Collaborative learning

The aim of this study is to find out individuals’ role in group learning.

Nevertheless, knowing the characteristics of collaborative learning is needed since

the description of the learning dynamics is provided. By knowing the characteristic


12

of the collaborative learning, the interaction between participants is easier to

describe with the situation of the learning. Finally, advantages of collaborative

learning are also important to emphasize the essence of benchmarking preparation

class.

2.1.3.1. Definition

Collaborative learning was described earlier by Dillenbourg (1999) as

“Situation in which two or more people learn or attempt to learn something

together” (p.1). The number of people mentioned in the definition referred to a pair,

a small group that consists of three to five people, a class of 20-30 students, a

community of a few hundred or thousand people, or a society of several thousand

people. Therefore, collaborative learning is understood as learning in which more

than one person involved is called collaborative learning. Furthermore, two

perspectives in collaborative learning are provided to deepen views about

collaborative learning in learning language.

First, Vygotsky (1978) based on paradigm on collaborative learning, claims

that not only by working with more knowledgeable person but also by learning from

his or her environment that supports individual’s development. Collaboration

means where social interaction occurs as the learning process. Furthermore, the

social interaction between students and teacher or among students provides Zone

Proximal Development as to assist the students in advancing their skill. Zone

Proximal Development (ZPD) is “the distance between actual developmental level

as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential


13

development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more capable peers.” (Vygotsky 1978, p. 86).

Based on the definition above, human development is divided into two

levels; actual development and potential level. Actual development refers to

already-attained mental function. ZPD functions as completing learner’s

understanding and building learner’s existing abilities. It will work without help

from others. In contrast, potential level means the function in which individual is

not able to perform individually. The more individual works with more capable

peers, the more potential development level is increased. Since individual can work

more if he is assisted by the existent of others, learning process cannot be seen from

individual’s perspective only. Thus, ZPD and valuable role in language learning.

Second, collaborative learning is also seen from Second Language

Acquisition (SLA) perspective which focused on improving linguistic competence.

Moreover, the learning situation provides situation where the learner is able to get

the input where they can understand by listening or reading and performing the

output through speaking. The development of the second language is based on the

amount of comprehensible language input. Besides, the output means student’s

ability to reconfirm what they learn. This stage helps the students to restructure their

interlanguage grammar (Swain, 2000).

Furthermore, the negotiation among participants provides chance for students to

seek information and clarification (Stroch, 2007). Negotiation in meaning by

exchanging ideas during collaborative learning enables the students able to receive


14

input and produce output as the process in learning. Therefore, comprehension

confirmation is available during the process.

2.1.3.2. Characteristics and Advantages of Collaborative Learning

As mentioned in the perspectives of collaborative learning, the collaborative

learning allows interaction among members. However, it includes more than a

person in learning. Therefore, some aspects in collaborative learning needs to be

considered. Since learning in a group is also possible to be conducted in a traditional

classroom, then the differences between collaborative and traditional setting need

to be set out.

Table 2.1. Characteristic of Collaborative vs Traditional Learning (Adapted from

Zang (2010))

Characteristics Collaborative Traditional

Goal Structure collaborative competitive or individual

Role of Students active participation,

autonomous learners

passive recipient

Role of Teachers

facilitator, guide controller, knowledge

transmitter, major source of

assistance

Material Used

materials are arranged

according to the purpose of

learning

completed set of materials

assigned by university

Type of Activities

various type of activities to

engage learners in a shared

learning community

knowledge recall and review,

language drill practice

type of interaction intense student – student

interaction

some talking among students,

mainly teacher – students type

Classroom

Physical Set-Up

U-shaped or CL groups traditional rows of separate desk

Teacher-Students

Relationship

collaborative and equal superior – inferior, or equal


15

Characteristics Collaborative Traditional

Interdependence none or negative Positive

Learning

Expectations

group success as well as

individual’s

evaluating one’s own progress in

learning

Collaborative learning allows discussion between participant in order to

strengthen and improve individual’s ability. The involvement among participant

during the activity provides some improvements toward the students’ quality in

learning a language, especially in speaking. As it is stated by Kagan (1994), there

are four main elements that are set as the characteristics of collaborative learning.

Those are simultaneous interaction, positive interdependence, individual

accountability, and equal participations. Therefore, list of advantages using

collaborative learning needs to be listed.

In order to actualize individual’s performance in speaking opportunity to

perform, the language should be presented. Long and Porter (1985); DiNitto (2000)

claim that students’ low achievement in second language acquisition is simply

because of the limited time which means no time to practice the language.

Collaborative learning helps to increase individual language practice time by

arranging students in small groups when more time can be allocated and more

involvement in form of conversation can be directed.

Different from the traditional classroom where the discourse is in form of

artificial setting, collaborative learning creates a social setting in the way that

language is used. It helps the students not only about the quantity but also the quality

of language used by engaging them in requesting, clarifying, and negotiating


16

conversations during collaborative learning. In addition, in collaborative learning,

the learners have to make themselves understood. (Long & Porter 1985). Therefore,

they need to ensure that their pairs comprehend the ideas. Moreover, this

encourages the learners to speak more accurately with appropriate language

opportunities. Thus, collaborative learning talks provides more opportunities for the

learners to produce language in a functional manner.

Using language in public is unsupportive and stressful (DiNitto 2000). It

seems having that kind of situation makes the learner feel insecure when they make

mistake or get harsh response like criticism or rejection (Brown 1994). Moreover,

according to Jiang (2009), lack of self-confidence will affect learning. However,

collaborative learning accommodates the relation between members by having a

group interaction which more comfortable and safe environment. The negotiation

of meanings are formed in the collaborative learning activity and therefore learners’

understanding is reshaped.

2.1.4. Legitimate Peripheral Participation

Legitimate Peripheral Participation is a situated learning where community

of practice encompasses learning as a part of ongoing relationship between

individual and social context (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Community of practice is

built by having interaction among members which make the discussion alive.

Therefore, learning is seen as social participation. The natural of social context

impacts significantly on the process of participation of the community and learning.

Legitimate Peripheral Participation in communities of practice includes the

relation between the master and the newcomers of the group. The apprentices


17

reportedly withhold advice and instruction appropriate to later stages, hold back and

wait until the newcomer becomes “ready” through increasing participation in the

community.

Moreover, the practice of community learning provides potential curriculum

in the broadest sense. Furthermore, this may be learned by the newcomer. As a

result, the structures of legitimacy in learning is advanced to develop a view of what

whole enterprise of the group is about. Therefore, the structure in legitimate

peripheral learning can be concluded as “acceptance and interaction with

acknowledged and adept practitioners in legitimate peripheral learning which make

learning legitimate from the point of view of the apprentice” (Lave & Wenger,

1991, pp. 91-95). Thus, the period of legitimate participation invites newcomers to

participate in a community of practitioners as well as in productive activity.

2.2. Theoretical Framework

Adult learners have experiences in terms of the use of language. However,

adult learners’ prior experience and knowledge about language are believed to both

support and disrupt the learning. According to Marriam and Caffarella (1999),

biological changes take place as individuals age, and it has been shown that memory

decreases with age. On the contrary, one’s ability to perform a cognitive task

independently is premised from social and cultural activities that form social

experience (Oxford, 1997). The school leaders in the benchmarking preparation

class are learning group. Therefore, a theory that presents adult learning with

discussion is needed. As a result, a theory about adult learning needs to be defined


18

as in transformative learning theory that affords the process in adult learning as well

as adults’ prior experiences. Moreover, the study only discusses descriptions of

transformative learning that include prior knowledge and experience as a part of

learning in adult learning.

Each school leader in the benchmarking preparation class has potential to be

considered as an individual with growth mindset. The theory of mindset categorizes

the type of mindset in several conditions. The condition in the theory includes

failure, achievement, and motivation. However, this study focuses on failure and

achievement as appeared on the dynamics of learning. Furthermore, the theory

describes the characteristics of mindset that strengthen some phenomena by giving

a clear picture of each individual mindset as a response to the learning dynamics.

Collaborative learning theory refers to learning in a group that includes

discussion activity. In benchmarking preparation class, the discussion activity is

used which makes the interaction among participants possible. Collaborative

learning theory is also used for describing what group learning of the benchmarking

preparation class is. Moreover, this phenomenology study sees phenomena from

many perspectives which need to be more elaborated with opportunities in

collaborative learning. Therefore, the essence of learning is not only able to be

described but also able to be further explained from the theory.

Levels of English mastery among participants in benchmarking preparation

are various. Therefore, the role of each participant is seen from their level of English

mastery. Legitimate Peripheral Participations describes the interaction in which the

more knowledgeable learners and newcomers learn together. Moreover, the theory


19

also explains what makes it possible for learning. Finally, interaction in the learning

dynamics needs to be explained since the unique of this study is to see the individual

contribution in the group.

The first research question focuses on the dynamics of the learning.

Therefore, the answer of the result was provided in form of description. To confirm

the characteristic of the learning, two theories are used. Those are transformative

learning theory and collaborative learning. In the second research question, the

researcher only focuses on phenomena in the benchmarking preparation class that

appear in the observation data and are approved by the data that derive from the

interview and focus group discussion to reduce researcher’s subjectivity. Therefore,

the study only focuses on the individual growth mindset towards the difficulties and

improvement during the process. As a result, the researcher needs to elaborate the

analysis with growth mindset, collaborative learning, and legitimate peripheral

participation theories. The flows of the analysis are drawn as follows.

Figure 2.2. Theoretical framework flow chart

Research question

1

Transformative

Learning Theory Collaborative

Learning to

Promote English

Learning for

Adult Learners

Collaborative

learning Research question

2

Growth mindset

Legitimate

Peripheral

Learning

Collaborative

learning


20

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Research Methodology which covers research method, research setting,

research subject, instrument and data gathering techniques, and data analysis

technique in this chapter is presented as a mean to answer the research questions.

3.1. Research Method

The study was conducted in descriptive qualitative to answer the two

research questions. The basic of qualitative research is underlying qualitative

method and not dealing with numerical data (Brown & Roger, 2002). The aims of

using qualitative method are to get the holistic depiction and in-depth understanding

rather than numerical data analysis. To be exact, this research is phenomenology

research. “Phenomenology focuses on describing what all participants have in

common as they experience a phenomenon.” (Moustakas, 1994). Finally, the

method of this study was phenomenology because the study examines each

individual’s learning experience of phenomena in the benchmarking preparation.

The phenomenology method sets researcher’s epoche or bracket in gathering

the data. Furthermore, the epoche is understood as a thing that cannot be known in

advance without internal reflection and meaning. After setting the epoch, reduction

process is needed. Reduction means the process of describing things as what is seen

by relating the phenomenon and self. This means that the researcher sets aside her

own experiences and expectations in order to get fresh perspectives on the learning


21

dynamics. Finally, the valid indicators of phenomenological research were first

person’s life experience (Moustakas, 1994).

Noting down the conversation gave time for the researcher to put aside any

expectation and assumption so that the experience and essence could be discovered.

Therefore, observation was conducted before interview and focus group discussion

in order to reveal phenomena and reduce subjective intervention. Furthermore, the

data from observation were used for seeking confirmation and further information

in interview and focus group discussion.

3.2.Research Setting

Data gathering was done using three instruments; observation, interview,

and focus group discussion. The process of gathering the data was taken from

September until December 2016. The observation started on 24th September 2016

until 19th November 2016. The researcher observed the learning process every

Saturday, from 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. at LPM meeting room in Sanata Dharma

University. In this research, the researcher fully joined as part of the participants in

the observations.

Furthermore, to confirm the observation data, the researcher held focus

group discussion and interview. The FGD held among the participants was held on

December 7th, 2016 at Kanisius Wirobrajan Yogyakarta. There were four

participants attending and sharing their feelings and experiences of the learning

process. Meanwhile, in–depth interviews with MM and MP as the facilitators were

conducted on 23rd November 2016 and 11th December 2016. Finally, the verbatim


22

transcription and coding data of the interview and FGD were done within December

2016 until February 2017.

3.3.Research Participants

This study was designed to see the phenomena in the benchmarking

preparation class from related persons including facilitators and participants who

were included in the learning process. The participants of the research consisted of

five school leaders who were in their productive ages and were considered as adult

learners. The range of the ages was around 41-49. The participants had a slight

different level in English mastery. However, the participants were still categorized

in the beginner level. In addition, the participants had similar type of job and goal

in learning English language. They were the representatives of each Kanisius

elementary school in Yogyakarta who prepared for international visits. The school

leaders were expected to be equipped with speaking skill for benchmarking

program. Therefore, they were assigned to study in Sanata Dharma.

As for facilitating the learning, two lecturers who were competent in English

language teaching from Sanata Dharma were assigned to guide the school leaders.

The facilitators’ competences were shown by prior experiences in teaching adult

learners. According to Welman and Krunger (1999), conducting phenomenology

research is taking social and psychological understanding from people involved in

the phenomenon. Therefore, facilitators were also included as research participants

of this study for completing the result.


23

3.4.Instrument and Data Gathering Technique

Phenomenological research needs instrument that helped describing the

phenomena and reducing subjectivity. In this study, observation, interview, and

focus group discussion were the three instruments which functioned as the bracket

and confirmation of data. According to Sadala and Adorno (2001), bracket in

phenomenological study refers to researcher’s personal views or preconception.

1. Observation

Observation was done by noting down conversations in class and

participants’ activities in 5 meetings. The researcher’s role during the observation

was classified as observer as participants. In other words, researcher’s presence was

identified there. Moreover, the researcher may also interact with the participants in

order to establish the data (Ary, Jacobs, and Soransen, 2010). The details were

provided in order to make meaning in the learning process and to catch the

description of the learning. Furthermore, the activities that were observed were

taken during the two hours of meeting for every scheduled week. The researcher

divided the observation note into two columns.

Table 3.1. Observation Sheet

Observation Researcher’s view


24

The first column was for writing down all conversation in class. In the

second column, the researcher focused on noting down the interpretation during the

class that accommodated both interaction in group and individuals. Furthermore,

the observation table provided conversation between participants and the

facilitators in order to see the detail dynamics and reduce bias towards researcher’s

view. In addition, this instrument was used in order to bracket researcher’s own

experience.

2. Interview

Besides, the researcher also gathered the data using an in-depth interview

with the facilitators. The type of interview is interview guide approach. The

interviewer has an outline of topics or issues to be covered, but is free to vary the

wording and order of the questions to some extent (Patton, 1990). The questions

were about (1) the background of this program, (2) the expected goal of the group,

(3) method and technique for teaching the group, and (4) the view towards dynamics

of the class. In this data gathering, note and recording were used as the tools in

conducting the interview.

3. Focus Group Discussion

The third data gathering was done by conducting a focus group discussion

(FGD) among the participants. Focus group discussion is defined as a research

technique that collects data through group interaction on a topic determined by the

researcher (Morgan, 1996). During the data gathering process, the FGD was

conducted both in formal and in informal occasion. The informal FGD was held

when the researcher had lunch with the participants. The data from the informal


25

discussion was written in the observation notes. The informal FGD started with a

simple conversation led by the researcher about their feeling towards the learning

experience. This was done as to confirm the phenomena that were related with the

feeling at that moment.

In formal focus group discussion, main points that were raised in the

discussion had been shared with the participants before. This technique was

designed to minimize bias by giving a spontaneous answer in the discussion. The

points that were discussed in FGD included four major points; (1) experience and

feeling towards the benchmarking preparation class (2) dynamics and improvement

during the process (3) difficulties in learning English in the benchmarking

preparation class (4) background of the participants.

3.5. Data Analysis Technique

Different from a narrative analysis that presents general template in the

qualitative research, a phenomenology research needs explication process as the

way to transforming the data through interpretation. Phenomenological data

analysis was done in several phases based on Hycner (1999): (1) bracketing

researcher own experiences (2) delineating units of meaning (3) clustering data into

themes (4) summarizing interview (5) extracting general and unique themes.

First, the researcher conducted the observation. The researcher divided the

observation table into 2 sections. Those were the dynamics captured by the

researcher and observer’s view. The observation sheets include the dynamics

between a participant to participants, a participant to the lecturers, a participant to


26

the researcher. The observation helped the researcher set aside her own experience

in order to get fresh observation results.

Second, the data on the observation was read. Then, some phenomena

appeared on the observation were listed. Furthermore, the listed phenomena were

brought into interview and FGD section to confirming meaning of the phenomena.

However, the confirmation meaning from observation was aimed not to direct the

discussion in the FGD and interview but it was aimed to provide general themes

about experiences and values during benchmarking preparation class.

Third, the researcher conducted interview and FGD to strengthen as well as

to form the data. The FGD and interviews referred to the lecturers and school

leaders who were involved in the program from the beginning until the end of the

benchmarking preparation class. Lastly, the researcher gathered the data from the

participants after the last meeting, thus they had been familiar with the presence of

the researcher. In the focus group discussion, the lecturers were not involved.

Therefore, the participants could express their feeling and view on the facilitators.

As a result, bias in expressing their idea during the FGD due to other parties’

presence could be minimized.

Next step was conducting interview with the facilitators. The lists of

statements were made in order to avoid repetitive and overlapping statements. FGD

and interview were important in revealing phenomena in benchmarking preparation

class. Thus, spontaneous responses needed to be avoided. Therefore, the researcher

gave a brief introduction of the purpose and points that would be discussed.


27

Moreover, the participants were given time to write about their points of the topic

given.

Fourth, the researcher highlighted the experiences appearing in the process

as a process of summarizing data. Furthermore, the lists of the statements in the

interview and FGD were clustered into larger units which were called themes in

coding data. Then, the researcher adjusted the phenomena revealed by both

participants and facilitators’ view on the dynamic descriptions to get the essence of

the learning. Finally, “the researcher took the essence of the study in terms of

knowledge and future direction to professional-personal life.” (Moustakas, 1994,

p.184). The steps in conducting phenomenology research helped the study to

provide the data that included general perspective and personal perspective.

In short, the flow of conducting the research was arranged in three

triangulations. The first step was class observation in which the researcher collected

the data based on observation sheets. In the observation, the researcher noted down

interaction and phenomena during the class. Second, the researcher conducted

review of the observation for both participants and facilitators’ perspectives. The

review was done in two ways: interviewing the lecturers and conducting focus

group discussion (FGD) with the participants. The review towards the lecturer was

aimed to confirm the situation in the learning process and to enrich the data of the

background of the benchmarking class preparation. The FGD was conducted for

developing information about individuals’ contribution and how they make

meaning of the learning.


28

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

There are two things generated from conducting the research. The first is

the learning dynamics in the benchmarking preparation class. The second is the

essence of individual growth mindset in promoting learning in the community

learning. The data of this research was based on class observations, focus group

discussion with the participants, and interview from the facilitators towards the

learning in the benchmarking preparation class.

4.1. Learning Dynamics

Learning dynamics in benchmarking preparation class were presented in

general description and comprehensive description. The general description

covered the overall meetings like participants, settings, materials, classroom

language. Further, the flows of the learning dynamics were described by providing

the situation in the benchmarking preparation class.

4.1.1. General Description

In general, benchmarking preparation class was a group of learning which

consisted of six Kanisius school leaders. The participants were initialized as BK,

PM, PE, BE, PD, and BD. Besides, the learning was facilitated by two lecturers

from Sanata Dharma University. The lecturers were initialized as MM and MP who

were alternately in charged as the facilitators. However, PD, one of the school

leaders who had joined the benchmarking preparation class for several meetings


29

decided not to continue the program due to his health condition. As a result, PD was

not mentioned in the finding since he was not fully observed and further

interviewed. Meanwhile, the other participants finished twenty meetings in the

benchmarking preparation class.

Each meeting was constantly conducted in 120 minutes which covered

several topics. The topics were about stating habit, describing places, asking

direction, and sharing experiences. Most of the time, the facilitators constantly used

simple English language in giving instruction and feedback in each meeting.

However, in giving complex explanation, the facilitators used Indonesian language.

Taken as examples were some conversations between facilitators and participants

in casual talks and reconfirming participants’ understanding.

English Language Used Indonesian Language Used

Casual conversation

PE: a lot of mistakes yes we do

MM : Mistake is welcomed

PE: we try (asking the structure about

statement he is going to make)

sometimes got wrong at meaning.

MM: “It has been a long time not to

speak English?”

Reconfirm participants’ understanding

PE: what’s the best way? Ibarat e jalan

yang terbaik?

MP: itu terjemahan harafiahnya, kalau

artinya ya yang paling dekat yang

paling enak.

Table 4.1. Casual Conversation and Understanding Confirmation

Furthermore, in order to transfer the material well, the facilitators used a

method which is called backward principle. According to Wiggins and McTighe

(2001), backward principle is a method that brings the purpose and standard of

learning in the start. Moreover, “it derives the curriculum from the evidences of

learning (performance) called for by the standards and the teaching needed to equip


30

students to perform” (p.8). The transcripts that proved about the method in class

were provided as follow.

Lebih ketujuan. Berorientasi tujuan. Jadi yang relevan dengan acuan. Dan

kalau mengacu ke individuya rata-rata lah artinya ya sambil menakar

kemampuan mereka, se-level ini. Walaupun ada yang sudah lebih berani,

lebih lancar, walaupun secara grammatical masih banyak salah-salah. (MP

interview transcript line 76 - 78)

(It focuses on the purpose. So it should be relevant with the indicators.

Moreover, it focuses on the type of the participants. In other words, their

level is considered, although some of them are more advanced, they still

make grammatical mistakes.)

Cuman saya rasa barang kali perlu ada sentuhan-sentuhan lain. Maka saya

sendiri sejak minggu lalu mencoba memberikan rangsangan-rangsangan

baik video maupun audio. Itu sebagai sebuah respon terhadap dinamika di

kelas ya. (MM interview transcript line 196 - 198)

(But I think, other learning stimuli need to be added and adjusted. Therefore,

I used video and audio since last meeting, as response toward the dynamics

in the class)

Gak ada yang bisa dirancang. Saya sendiri e.. belajar dengan fakta begini.

Belajar itu dinamis, dalam pengertian, kita tidak selalu bisa mengandalkan

bahwa materi itu harus sequential. Ini adalah penemuan yang mengejutkan.

(MM interview transcript line 219 - 223)

(Nothing can be made up in the beginning. I learned with the fact that

learning was dynamics. We can’t rely on the notion that materials should be

presented sequentially. This is a surprising finding)

Some media were used during the learning such as video and handout. The

media were varied based on the facilitators’ preferences in seeing the aids that

participants needed. MM preferred to use laptop and LCD to provide the opening

material or to type important notes, whereas MP preferred to distribute handout and

discuss the topic. However, both lecturers used videos to support the learning either

at the beginning or the end of the session.


31

Lastly, the point was about the setting of the class. The participants were

always seated in U-shaped classroom physical set-up. Therefore, the participants

were able to see one another including the facilitators. The class formation was set

in a collaborative learning setting. According to Zhang (2010), it was not in

traditional raw as in traditional setting. The participants were able to choose which

chair they wanted. Moreover, the participants stated that the setting of the class

helped them to be more comfortable in learning.

Saya juga merasa senang, yang pertama cara duduknya. Kalau cara duduk

yang pernah kami dapatkan tu cara duduk yang seperti kelas macam ini

bejejer tapi kalau kemarin kan melingkar. (BK - Participants FGD

transcript line 47)

(I feel happy. First it is because of the classroom chair setting. The setting

that we have found is traditional setting, whereas here is in U-shape

classroom setting.)

4.1.2. The Dynamics during Learning

As to describe the activities in class, the activities are divided into three

sections in the meetings namely; opening, main, and closing. Based on the

observation, both lecturers could not be compared with the opening and closing

activities. They had different sections in giving material for each meeting.

However, some continual activities could be arranged into pattern. In the opening

sections, the lecturers always introduced the topic that was being discussed. In the

main sections, both lecturers used discussion regularly as the main activity with

repetition to confirm participants’ attempt in performing the language. Then, the

meetings were ended with various ways such as by simply having lunch, sharing,


32

or asking questions. The detailed descriptions of the dynamics were provided as

follows:

4.1.2.1. Opening Section

In opening section, the lecturer delivered the goal of the learning and gave

small talks. First, the goal was presented in the benchmarking preparation class as

in adult learning characteristics. Second, small talks usually sparked when the

facilitator used English. The facilitator usually raised the topic about participants’

experiences and opinion about common issue. The occasion of conducting the small

talks was done by having talks in informal conversation or in lunch time.

However, when there was no small talk, the opening section was different

from the previous observed meetings. The participants tended to be more passive

in the main discussion. It was shown on the observation sheet, where only some

participants responded what was discussed in the beginning of the meeting. As it

was noted in the observer’s view column during observation on 8 October 2016

when discussing about giving direction, the participants were less participative than

in the previous meetings in responding to others’ performance.

4.1.2.2. Main Section

The main activity was done by having discussions that facilitated multi-

interaction among participants and facilitator to participants. The discussions were

conducted through presenting, sharing, and responding to the topic that was being

discussed. Before having a discussion, the facilitators modeled the expression.

Then, it was followed by repetition method before the participants had their

practice. Furthermore, the facilitators monitored their performance as well as


33

guided the discussion. The monitoring role was aimed to give feedback toward

participants’ performance. Both facilitators tended to do repetition in correcting

mistakes and emphasizing important points. Besides, the guiding role focused on

each participant’s equal opportunity to present and give responses in the

discussions.

Kemudian strategi pembelajaran berikutnya itu lebih banyak melibatkan

aktivitas sosial. Dikelas dicoba dilakukan interaksi sosial satu sama lain

dan pada waktu yang sama, strategi keempat gitu ya. Itu terjadi meaningful

repetition. (MM interview transcript Line 63)

(Then, the next strategy is by involving participants in a social activity. The

interaction is attempted in class. So, it is the fourth strategy where

meaningful repetition occurs)

Saya ambil dengan pengulangan-pengulangan. Oke diulang. Jadi ya

diulangi beberapa kali. Guru yang satu kemudian gentian. (MP interview

transcript Line 27)

(I use repetitions. Okay repeat it! So the repetition comes many times one

by one.)

Sometimes before going to further discussion or topic, the activity was

paused by having lunch together. Kanisius foundation facilitated the meeting by

providing refreshments for the participants and the facilitators. In the lunch time,

the facilitators asked about their experience during the day or just had a simple talk.

In the following meetings, the participants were able to lead the casual conversation.

Thus, lunch time provided extra time for the participants to speak in English.

The flows of the main activity were done in collaborative way. First, the

facilitators modeled the expression, where the participants would repeat afterward.

Second, after being given a task, the participants performed the language about a

certain topic. In addition, they were given time and autonomy to prepare. However,

sometimes in performing the language, the facilitators encouraged the participants


34

in form of impromptu speaking by directly asking their opinion. In this step, the

participants had equal opportunities to perform the language. Third, during the

discussion each participant might contribute by asking and answering, giving

contextual example, or sharing ideas.

The feedback of participants’ performance was derived from facilitators to

participants, participants to facilitators, or participants to participants. After each

participant had performed, if the performance was good, the facilitators gave them

reward by saying “good”, “excellent” then repeated what was being said. On the

other hand, when one participant made a mistake, the facilitator corrected it and

asked all participants to repeat. In addition, the participants liked to repeat the

feedback that referred to the group since the correction was open for the group.

Thus, the feedback belonged to the group.

In the process, there were some improvements on putting effort towards the

learning. Those were shown by using a dictionary to look up words, taking notes,

doing repetition, confirming understanding and having discussion with friends.

Long and Porter (1985) stated that in collaborative learning the learners have to

make themselves understood. The efforts were also confirmed as an attempt to

understand the material and join the discussion better.

Ketika merasa kesulitan tentu dalam memaknai. Memaknai kata ketika ada

kesulitan itu saya langsung meminta mendownload kamus di handphone

saya. Kamus yang kami miliki dikamus itu menolong kami. (BK -

Participants FGD transcript line 252)

(Facing difficulties surely was when grasping the language. When came to

that situation, I directly downloaded a dictionary on my phone. The

dictionary that we had was so helpful in the difficult situation)


35

Kami mencari aplikasi- aplikasi yang ada. Cuman sekarang untuk belajar

itu sangat dimanjakan dengan fitur belajar. Misal dengan kamus yang

ditampilkan kami semua punya. Kemudian dengan cerita ceritanya ada.

Kemudian percakapan nya juga ada. Semisal diwaktu-waktu lengang di

waktu kosong bisa melihat sambil menunggu. (PM - Participants FGD

transcript line 258)

(We looked for available applications. Since nowadays, learning was

supported with sophisticated features. Take the dictionary that we all have

as an example. It contains story as well as conversations. Therefore, we can

take a look in our spare time.)

Jadi kesempatan belajar lebih tinggi. Kalau ada, waktu itu tiap pagi saya

setengah 7 saya sudah datang. Anak-anak saya kasih soal 3 lalu saya buka

kamus. Terus anak anak saya suruh ngomong apa artinya apa. coba tebak-

tebakan. Kalo ini apa, huruf depannya A. kalau anak-anak sudah selesai

gentian. memberi pertanyaannya. (PE - Participants FGD transcript line

372)

(So, opportunities for learning were increaseable. If it is possible I come to

school at 6.30. The students are given 3 questions then I open the dictionary.

After that the students are asked to guess the meaning. So, we guessed some

words with some clues. When they are done, they may do it back and forth)

Nonetheless, when it was the time to deliver an individual presentation,

most of the participants focused on their own work. However, as time goes by, some

participants were involved in the discussion by not only answering from others’

responses but also giving correction, opinion, or suggestion. As an example, BK

was the one who constantly gave contributions in the discussion. In addition, the

contributions were in form of sharing her understanding and vocabulary mastery to

other participants. In the further meetings, not only BK but PE and BE also initiated

to respond the discussion.

Problems were part of the learning which both participants and facilitators

experienced. The participants were found several times coming late to class because

of their primary job. On the other hand, the participants had difficulties in grasping


36

meaning of words while maintaining their time with their primary job. Maintaining

their time referred to their extra time to learn outside the class.

Moreover, participants and facilitators faced and adapted to difficult

situations. First, the facilitators warmly welcomed the participants to join the class,

even when they came late to class. Second, both facilitators always emphasized the

participants not to be afraid of making mistakes. For instance, when BE came late

to class, the facilitator welcomed her and encouraged her to join the discussion.

Therefore, BE was able to perform the language and get feedback from other

participants and facilitators. Besides, the participants were also able to adapt to the

lack of vocabulary by bringing dictionary and having discussions with friends in

class about the expressions, phrases, or words they did not know during the

learning.

Kalau dilihat dari dinamikanya e… ada cukup konsistensiya konsistensi

(silent for a while) daya juang, peningkatan itu ada, cuman saya rasa

barang kali perlu ada sentuhan sentuhan lain. (MM interview transcript line

195)

(If it was seen from the learning dynamics, there was consistency in

persistence and effort, but somehow I think they need impulse in learning.)

4.1.2.3. Closing Section

Finally, the benchmarking preparation class was ended by having lunch

together or asking participants about their understanding. The meetings were

dominated with discussion among participants. Therefore, collaborative learning

was obvious in the process. The learning included more than one person by having

an interaction with one another as the process of learning (Vygotsky, 1978).


37

Furthermore, the process of negotiation could be seen when there was guidance

from a more knowledgeable person.

4.2. Individual Growth Mindset Promotes Learning in Group

Dweck (2006) mentioned that each individual has a system that organizes

and controls information around them which is called mindset. There are two types

of mindset; growth and fixed mindset. As a part of learning, both types of mindset

differ in the way an individual perceive failure and goals. Therefore, a mini survey

to categorize participants’ mindset was conducted. The survey was done by 4 out 5

participants who joined the class.

Generally, the participants were categorized as persons with growth mindset.

Nevertheless, there were two levels of growth mindset: fully growth and growth

with fixed. The levels of mindset were derived from mini survey of their perspective

on learning English (see Appendix 13). BK and PM were considered in fully growth

mindset while BE and PE are considered in growth with fixed mindset. Therefore,

some phenomena raised by the participants and the facilitators were revealed in

order to describe individual growth mindset in learning. Based on the triangulated

data, there were two points that were emphasized. Those included difficulties in

learning and improvements in learning.

4.2.1. Facing Difficulties

In benchmarking preparation class, both the facilitators and the participants

faced a difficult situation as mentioned earlier in the learning dynamics. The


38

following discussion presented the situation in the benchmarking class that

described not only frustrating situations but also efforts to cope with the difficulties.

4.2.1.1. Difficulties During Learning

The facilitators and the participants recognized that participants’

memorization ability and time management were the problems during the learning.

According to Marriam and Caffarella (1999), biological changes take place as

individuals age, and it has been shown that memory decreases with age. It is

memory that helps linking new and old information. Moreover, compared to

children, adults have more limited time to learn. They divided their focus on family

and job as well. However, the participants did not give up with the problems, as

what was seen in the observation and focus group discussion. In addition, it was

strengthened from facilitators’ views about participants’ persistence during

learning.

Vocabulary mastery was demanded so that the participants could join the

discussion as the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class. The

participants sometimes lost some words that have been discussed on previous

meeting or even in the earlier discussion. They admitted that memorizing words

was difficult. Moreover, they only had limited time to learn outside the class.

Saya ya biasa saja. Saya memang satu saya melihat kemampuan untuk

mengingat terbatas. Nanti kalau sendiri tu ya merasa, ga ada temannya ya

merasa tertekan. Ketika harus menanggapi bahasa inggris sepotong-sepotong,

tapi yo artinya jujur lho ini jujur, lebih asik kalau ada temannya. (PM -


(Indeed, I realized that my memorizing ability is limited. When coming alone I

was burdened a little. When being asked to respond in English, I chunked the

words as far as I can. So, to be honest, it is more fun when friends are around)


39

Another difficulty in benchmarking was the fact that the participants had a primary

job that took a lot of energy and time. As a result, in some meetings, they came late

to class and could not focus on the learning. As an example, the frustrating situation

happened when the participants were having a lot of tasks during the exam week at

the school. At the end of the lesson, the facilitator played an audio about direction.

Most of the participants were confused. Some of them confessed that they had

difficulty in grasping the meaning from audio. This was proven in the lunch time

where they said that they were having lots of task after the exam week and those

burdened them.

The fact was seen as something that should be understood in facilitators’

view. The facilitators said that they should appreciate and help the participants since

the facilitators knew their background and condition. During the meetings, MP and

MM always welcomed the participants by not punishing or intimidating them when

they came late to class. The facilitators tended to explain what was discussed and

encouraged them to join the discussion.

Facilitators’ attitude was seen positively by the participants. Some of the

participants said that they felt guilty when they came late to class. However, they

said the facilitators welcomed them and never punished them. Therefore, they felt

secure and focused when joining the discussion. Moreover, this was also clearly

seen from the observation, when BE and BK said “sorry” for coming late. Soon

after, they focused on doing the tasks. In other words, the participants felt secure


40

because they were given opportunity to try and were not punished when they made

mistakes.

4.2.1.2. Efforts in Facing Difficulties

In facing difficulties there were some phenomena. Those included efforts

from the facilitators and participant and support from collaborative learning setting.

The details of each phenomenon was presented in the following points:

4.2.1.2.1. Repetition Strategy

Repetition strategy was used to help some words that were usually

mispronounced or misinterpreted right after they performed their tasks. Most of the

time, corrections belonged to the group. The repetition strategy enabled the

facilitators to check other participants’ performance as well. Moreover, other

participants were pleased to repeat the correction. Therefore, the participants

appreciated this strategy because they saw this way was helpful and encouraged

them to try. In addition, they also mentioned that they felt secure since mistake was

welcomed and the facilitators would correct their mistakes using repetition.

4.2.1.2.2. Facilitators’ High Expectation in Collaborative Learning

Lacking vocabulary with limited time to study was seen as a changeable

situation from facilitators’ view. Thus, the facilitators gave autonomy for the

participants to show their efforts. This belief was derived from high expectation that

the facilitators brought to the class which showed the growth mindset character in

seeing problems (Dweck, 2006; Robin & Pals, 2002). Therefore, the facilitators

gave high expectation by encouraging them to have a mini discussion with other


41

participants and autonomy to help themselves and others. However, after they were

done with the discussion, facilitators continued with confirmation and feedback on

their performances or problems.

As exemplified in the dynamics description, when the facilitator did not

directly help them to overcome the problem, negotiation was made. The negotiation

in social interaction was made as a form of confirmation and restructuring their

prior knowledge with the output of their performance. The autonomy in learning in

which prior knowledge and experience were used as sources in learning was the

characteristic of adult learning (Mezirow, 1997). This climate triggered the

participants to be more proactive in learning. This could be seen from their effort

in using dictionary, having mini discussions with other participants, and actively

checking their understanding with the facilitators. As a result, the participants

showed more positive attitude toward the difficulties.

Saya berikan kesempatan untuk e… dari segi bahasa pola tertentu ya.

Kemudian dari segi isi kan mereka saya suruh untuk, untuk menentukan

sendiri, menggunakan sekolah mereka, menggunakan situasi mereka untuk

menggunakan bahasa yang diprediksi akan mereka gunakan.(MP interview

transcript Line 33)

(I gave pattern in language. Then, I asked them to think about the content.

For example, they were going to use their school and the situation in it for

benchmarking program)

4.2.1.2.3. Social Interaction during Discussion

Collaborative learning made it easier for participants’ to acquire input.

When participants discussed the difficulties in the discussion or listening to other

participants about, they built a social interaction. Moreover, they sought


42

confirmation towards the facilitators afterward. As the result, the linguistic level of

each participant in the group improved more or less the same level. According to

Swain (2000), collaborative learning group enriches the language input as well as

promoting frequent and communicative classroom talk in supportive environment.

The social interaction in the benchmarking preparation class included seeking

information and clarification of the input that they did not understand, which

extended their language input.

Em strategi saya eemmm memberi kesempatan sebanyak-banyaknya untuk

mereka praktek. Jadi saya lebih ke bahasa bukan sebagai sesuatu yang

dibicarakan, tetapi lebih sebagai bahasa adalah sesuatu yang digunakan.

Nah, ada language-language function yang sudah kita identifikasi, polanya

kita beritahukan, kemudian beri mereka kesempatan yang merata untuk

mencoba. Makanya strategi yang saya gunakan sendiri “take turn.” (MP

interview transcript Line 20)

(The strategy that I used was giving as much time as possible for practice as

much as possible. So, language was not something that was discussed, but

language was something that is used. Thus, language functions that had been

identified were shared. Soon after, the participants were given equal

opportunities to practice. The strategy that I used was called “take turn”)

4.2.1.2.4. Participants’ Role as an Apprentice in Group Learning

The participants were confused when they were asked to follow a map in

asking and giving direction materials. It happened due to participants’ lack of

vocabulary and lack of speed of the audio. However, BK was able to follow the

audio since the first the audio was played. She shared her understanding about the

audio to the class. Although she could follow, she still tried doing translation since

the facilitator asked the group to understand the audio by paying attention in each

expression. Following this, the facilitator confirmed the general idea raised by BK.

Therefore, in peripheral legitimate participation, BK became an apprentice whereas


43

the other participants became the newcomer toward what was talked in the audio.

Thus, there were social participations in the learning between the participants who

became the apprentices in the target language and the “newcomer” participants who

still needed assistance in order to participate actively in the group discussion.

The role of the apprentice was appreciated by the other participants by

acknowledging that BK helped them to engage the discussion and linked their

understanding to what was discussed. Thereby, their anxiety and confusion during

the discussion were reduced. Meanwhile, they were inclined to keep trying and

confirming their understanding. Finally, at the end of the section, all participants

got the idea and was involved in the discussion. The dynamics showed assisting

process. Thus, withhold advice and instruction appropriate to later stages, hold back

and wait until the newcomer becomes “ready” through increasing participation in

the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991).

Dengan satu kata yang dilontarkan pake kok BK itu kami bisa ikut, o itu

yang membuat kami… menjadi stimulus bagi kami (BE - Participants FGD


(Using words uttered by BK we could follow the discussion. It becomes a

stimulus for us)

During the challenging situation, PE and BE tended to cross-check their

understanding with the facilitators. Moreover, some participants also tried to have

a discussion with BK who had understood what had been discussed. In this part,

zone of proximate development (ZPD) was seen. ZPD helped them to decrease their

consciousness in learning, since BD and PM were not really confident in speaking

with the facilitators as the purpose of Zone Proximal Development by Vygotsky


44

(1978), to actualize knowledge together so that they are able to complete the same

task individually. Furthermore, this group also performed better on the next task

individually.

4.2.2. The Participants' Improvement

Participants and facilitators have reflected several indicators that were

improved by joining the benchmarking preparation class. The improvements were

defined into three aspects; knowledge, skill, and attitude based on the goals that had

been stated in the benchmarking preparation program. In addition, the data was

derived by triangulating the data through observation, interview, and focus group

discussion. Areas that improved included vocabulary mastery, error recognition,

and more secure feeling in learning.

Table 4.2. Knowledge Improvement

Improvement Observation Focus Group

Discussion Interview

Vocabulary

Mastery

Observer comment: Most of the

participants are confused to say

a sentence in the early meeting.

However, they become better

by only asking one or a few

word at the next meeting.

(Observation data 5)

BK stated that

she knew how

to pronounce

words in book.

(Participants

FGD Line

166-170)

MP stated

that their

language

mastery has

already

improved.

(MP

interview

transcript

line 43)

PE: “we try” (asking the

structure about statement he is

going to make) lost words.


Observer comment: PE

frequently asked the meaning

of some words “bedanya sama

cross the line?” “oh sama ya”



45

Table 4.3. Skill Improvement


Discussion Interview

Error

Recognition

PM read the text, then

he realized that he

made mistake then

soon after he started to

revise it.

(Observation data 5 )

PM mentioned

how a word

correctly was

pronounce in

their meeting.

(Participants

FGD Line 242)

MM stated that the

participants are able

to elaborate with

material that given

on previous

meetings. The

participants were

able to recognize

their mistake and

made new question

as confirmation

process

(MM Interview


By the absence of the facilitator, the participants had time to do self-

evaluation in that they reviewed their experiences and added new information for

clarification or confirmation of their prior knowledge. As an example, when BE and

PE had a discussion about direction from the audio which was difficult for them,

they cross-checked their understanding with the facilitators by thinking out loud.

The other participants were also enriched by the confirmation from the facilitators

that addressed to the group.


46

Table 4.4. Attitude Improvement


Discussion

Interview

Secure Feeling

in Learning

English

BD improves her

courage in learning by

using some pens to do

the given task

seriously, opening an

electronic dictionary,

whispering the text.

Meanwhile, in some

previous meeting, she

was not too

interactive in

learning.


BK and BE stated that

they were more

confident in speaking

English.

(FGD L. 170, L. 184)

MP mentioned

that the

participants

become more

confident on the

following

meetings. The

participants

enjoyed the

learning process.

The environment

supported good

learning climates.

(MP Interview

transcript Line

38, line 133)

Participants were able to share their improvement in learning which was

more confident in learning. Some participants in the benchmarking preparation

class used their prior experiences in learning language which was stated that when

they had bad experience in learning English, but the autonomy in learning helped

them to be more confident in speaking English. The autonomy in learning was an

emphasized aspect in adult learning (Mezirow, 1996). Furthermore, the

collaborative learning made the autonomy in learning possible.

The improvements could not be separated from individual contribution

toward the learning. Based on the focus group discussion among participants that

was strengthened by the interview with facilitators, both facilitators’ and


47

participants’ role contributed to the improvement of the participants. Thus, those

would be discussed in the following paragraph.

4.2.2.1.Facilitators’ role

Discussion was the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class. The

discussion was guided by the facilitators. However, the roles were not only guiding

but also monitoring and giving high expectation that led to some improvements that

reflected in the observation and group learning’s view.

4.2.2.1.1. Guiding Discussion

The facilitators were used to guide the flow of the discussion so that each

participant had equal opportunity to speak and respond. This role was also

supported by the dynamics in collaborative learning which gave equal opportunities

in the discussion (Kagan, 1994). Having discussion where the facilitators and group

members gave responses to each other was helpful for the participants’ better

understanding about English language. This was done by both an open-discussion

and an addressed discussion. In some early observed meetings, the common flow

was in form of addressed discussion. This means the participants were asked to

respond to what other participants communicated. Meanwhile, in the following

meetings, the participants were able to perform the language. Then other

participants and the facilitator could respond in the open-discussion.

Kemudian pembimbing memberikan tugas yang sama pada kami untuk

secara rata menyampaikan, mengungkapkan, membaca dan apapun sama

setiap peserta diberikan tugas yang sama dengan posisi duduk yang seperti

itu dan santai jadi merasa enjoy saja lancar (BK - Participants FGD

transcript line 49)


48

(Then, the facilitators gave equal task for us to present, respond and read.

Moreover, seated in that way made me enjoy and the discussion also ran

smoothly)

4.2.2.1.2. Monitoring

The facilitators monitored the participants’ performance by giving

feedback. The feedback was in form of reward, confirmation, and correction of the

output or a question that was derived from the school leaders. Moreover, the fact

that the facilitators corrected participants’ mistakes proved to be valuable for the

participants. Facilitators, participants, and researcher reflected that during the

discussion the participants were more confident in speaking English. Based on the

data, the participants said that the facilitator encouraged them not to be afraid of

making mistakes during the discussion. As a result, they had more time to practice

speaking in class.

Saya menambahkan rasa senangnya kenapa yang pertama ketika ta

melakukan kesalahan dalam membaca dalam berbicara selalu di stop.

Kami lebih senang ditegur, didengarkan dari pada dibiarkan. (BK -


(I want to add, there is a happy feeling when the facilitators are willing to

give correction when we read or say something in a wrong way. We are

happier when our mistakes are corrected)

4.2.2.1.3. Giving High Expectation

According to Dweck (2006), the characteristic of growth mindset is a belief

in effort rather than an external factor. The facilitators believed in an effort to

achieve the goal rather than relied on praise from the facilitators or from grades.

This was seen when the facilitators were not focused on ranging participants’ score


49

during the discussion. As a result, individuals were aware towards group problems.

The advantage of discussion activity in group learning was strengthened by Ohta

(2000) that assumes collaborative talks provides more opportunities to produce

language in a practical way. Therefore, they were more able to improve themselves

by solving problems and being more aware of seeing mistakes both via self-

correction or evaluating others’ performance since the problem and performance

were shared to the group members.

Baik sebetulnya sungguh mengasyikan dalam mengikuti kursus itu kenapa

pertama, karena dibuat rasa senang. Jadi tidak merasa takut. Hal hal yang

senang itu akan mengasyikan. Kemudian dalam pembelajarannyapun

dibuat santai selalu tidak ada ikatan tapi selalu ada pelajaran yang dipandu

betul sehingga kami tidak tertekan. (PM - Participants FGD transcript line

55)

(Well, actually what made the program fun was because we enjoyed. In the

discussion, we were guided with secure feeling. Moreover, the facilitator

really monitored us. Therefore, we did not feel burdened)

Kalo perasaannya saya lebih senang sih karena sangat berbeda dengan

yang saya belajar dulu dengan sekarang mungkin karena tentornya juga

mungkin lebih senior gitu jadi mungkin lebih bisa membantu saya dari yang

saya itu bahasa inggris itu ibaratnya sangat takut kemarin sudah mulai mau

belajar diwaktu waktu kosong saya sudah mau menulis atau kadang

membaca, paling tidak itu. (BE - Participants FGD transcript line 49)

(I am happy, because the learning experience here is different from my

previous experience. Also, the facilitators are professional. So, I think the

facilitators are helpful. I was afraid of learning English. Now in my spare

time at least, I am willing to write and read)

4.2.2.2. Participants’ Role

During the earlier process of the learning, BD, BE, and PM were quite

passive in the discussion. They were not confident in speaking English due to

several reasons. First, they were confused with the language used in class since the


50

facilitator (MM) used to speak English all the time. Second, BE had a traumatic

experience in learning English, thereby she was so tense in early meetings.

Facilitators’ language preference and prior experiences were described as follows:

Ya kalau saya merasa terlalu jauh saja dengan MM. Ketika dalam

percakapan MM merasa sangat mudah, saya merasa sangat sulit. Jadi

belum ketemu gitu lho. (PM - Participants FGD transcript line 328)

(I felt the language that MM used is too advance. Perhaps, MM thought it

was easy, but it was not for me. So, I think I cannot quite follow.)

MM itu memang pinter tapi bagi kami itu terlalu tinggi gitu untuk bahasa

inggrisnya. Tapi mungkin benar itu buat MM paling sederhana. (BE -


(MM was professional, but the language was too advance for us. Yet,

perhaps it is true, that the language used was already the simplest.)

Karena selama ini memang trauma tapi saya punya niat mesti bisa belajar

bahasa inggris walaupun pada akhirnya saya belum maksimal masih

terbata-bata. Kemudian bisa membaca lancar, harapan saya itu nanti

kedepannya bisa menyampaikan sesuatu pada anak, kemarin juga saya

coba juga ternyata anak-anak, ‘oh ternyata bu erna sedikit-sedikit bisa’.

(BE - Participants FGD transcript line 29)

(I have traumatic experience in learning English, yet I have belief that I am

able to learn it. Although, in the output I am not so fluent in speaking. I have

hope that in the future, I will be able to say something for the students.

Besides, I already tried it, and the students’ response was ‘oh ternyata bu

erna sedikit-sedikit bisa’)

However, in this community of learning, they showed their individual

contribution towards social interaction. The collaborative learning also supported

the contribution of the participants that was in form of interaction in discussion.

Long and Porter (1985) state that in collaborative learning the learners have to make

themselves understood. Therefore, in the following paragraph some efforts in

collaborative learning were presented.


51

Based on group interview, the group agreed that BK and PE helped the other

participants to be involved in the discussion. The participants said that BK and PE

were more resourceful in terms of vocabulary mastery. Their presence in class was

considered as stimulating and helpful because they could bridge communication

and share their understanding to the class. BE said that she responded the

conversation easier by assistance of other participants.

Karena kalau gabisa menjawab temannya langsung menjawab, oh jadi

begitu maksudnya…

Kalau sendiri gimana ya..

Karena bekerjanya lebih ekstra ya. Kalau ada temannya, ada bu kris ada

pak eko jadi tau oh itu to yang dimaksud. Lebih nyaman saja ya pak ya. (BE

and PM - Participants FGD transcript line 324-327)

(Because if we cannot answer, other friends will directly answer. Oh, so that

was what being discussed… If we are alone in the class… Because we pay

extra effort. When BK and PE we know what is being discussed then. So

we enjoy, don’t we?)

Group’s success in the benchmarking preparation class was perfectly seen

in Legitimate Peripheral Participation by Lave and Wenger (1991). Learning in the

community of practice is best realized when the each participant is given authority

and legitimacy in the field while performing simple tasks. The learning through

discussion including casual conversation was essential. It also embraced most

knowledge acquisition. Therefore, the participants who were not really confident in

performing the language were encouraged to join the discussion so that the

discussion was more lively and resourceful.

Ketika saya menjawab pertanyaan dari PM dan BK akan berbeda dengan

ketika saya mendapat pertanyaan dengan tentor. Mungkin saya masih

bingung, tapi ketika saya mendapat pertanyaan dari teman sejawat itu

mungkin lebih mudah gatau mungkin karena sederhananya bahasa. Ini juga


52

sangat mendukung buat temen-temen. (BE - Participants FGD transcript

line 214)

(When I answer question from PM and BK, it would be different from

answering question from the facilitators. Perhaps I am still confused, but

when I get question from fellows it seems easier. I don’t know, perhaps

because of the less advanced language used. So the interaction among

participants also support other participants.)


53

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter consists of two parts. The first part presents conclusions of the

analysis and the answers of the problems formulated. The second part presents

recommendation drawn from the study for related parties.

5.1. Conclusions

The study was conducted based on researcher’s concern about Kanisius

school leaders as adult learners who learning in a group. The school leaders joined

the benchmarking preparation class since they were assigned as the representative

of their foundation to go abroad. However, they have limited time to learn English

which resulted in their below average proficiency. As a result, they were assigned

to Sanata Dharma as a group to have preparation as to equip the school leaders with

English for communication. The researcher considered a classroom observation to

see the dynamics and phenomena in the community of learning.

Each school leader brought different experiences in learning English.

Therefore, this study was conducted to see the dynamics of group learning and

individual contribution in the group learning. There are two questions in this

research. The first is how the dynamics of school leaders’ group learning takes

place. The second is to what extent does individual growth mindset promotes

learning in group.


54

The dynamics of the learning were divided into three sections: opening,

main, and closing activity. The opening section was done by having small talks and

delivering the goal of the meeting before starting the main activity. Meanwhile, the

main activity was in form of group discussion. The last was closing section which

was done by confirming participants’ understanding.

Discussion was the main activity in the benchmarking preparation class.

The discussion was provided both in casual and formal situation. The casual talk

covered sharing experiences. Meanwhile, the formal situation was addressed for the

participants to perform the language. Collaborative learning was applied in the

discussion. It was reflected by the psychical classroom set-up, the flow of the

discussion, the role of the facilitators, and the type of interaction.

In the discussion, the participants were able to perform the language by

presenting their ideas and responding to other participants. This situation revealed

the efforts and the difficulties that were faced by both facilitators and participants.

In the process, the participants had difficulties in grasping the language due to

lacking of vocabulary. Meanwhile, the facilitators faced the participants who

sometimes came late to the class due to their primary job as school leaders.

The feedback of individual’s output in the discussion was shared in the

group. Moreover, the feedback was derived not only from the facilitators but also

from the participants. Therefore, it enabled language input restructuring and

confirmation of individuals’ prior knowledge. In addition, in benchmarking

preparation class, the school leaders had prior experience and knowledge. There

was learners’ autonomy in benchmarking preparation class.


55

Two major things were emphasized during the learning by the facilitators

and the participants. Those were the difficulties appeared during the learning and

the participants’ improvements. The difficulties during the learning were about the

lack of vocabulary and time constraint in learning English. Participants’

improvements were vocabulary mastery, ability to recognize error, and more secure

feeling in learning. Moreover, the improvements were derived from individuals’

contributions which were seen from both facilitators and participants.

In facing the difficulties, the growth mindset from both facilitators and

participants was shown by giving efforts. There are four major points that appeared

in the benchmarking class when facing the difficulties: 1) repetition strategy as

feedback of individual’s performance. 2) Facilitators’ high expectation that drew

more effort from the participants. 3) Social interaction during discussion that helped

confirmation and clarification of language input occurred in learning. 4)

Participants’ role as the apprentice in the group learning that bridged the

compensated for different level of understanding among participants.

Facilitators’ contributions were categorized into three roles. First, guiding

role referred to giving equal opportunities for the participants to perform the

language. Second, monitoring meant facilitators’ feedback on participant’s

performance. Third, giving high expectation meant that there was no scoring policy

during discussion.

Participants’ roles in the benchmarking preparation class were seen by the

apprentice participants assisting other participants who were not confident. The

willingness to share understanding to the group helped them to bridge the level of


56

the language barrier between one another. Furthermore, it helped more participants

to be more engaged to the discussion. As a result, the discussion became more

interactive.

5.2. Recommendations

In this part, the researcher would like to give some recommendations to

some related parties.

5.2.1. English Trainers

This study has shown benefits for English trainers related to knowledge in

teaching and skill to teach adult learners in group with specific purposes and time

constraint. This study was done with an emphasis on individual growth mindset in

collaborative learning. Therefore, having growth mindset in learning situations will

ease the learning process. The growth mindset is aimed to view not only one’s

growth mindset but also the role of growth mindset in learning dynamics.

Moreover, having discussion in a collaborative way will help trainers to focus on

the output since it provides opportunities for learning. However, the English trainers

need to consider the equal opportunities for each participant to perform the language

and to give feedback towards the output as a confirmation process for learners.

5.2.2. Further Researchers

For further researchers, there are still many aspects of this research which

can be explored further. Further researchers can study more about the growth

mindset in motivation aspects which is not being discussed in this study.

Furthermore, further researchers can see the improvement from the formative

measurement not only from the feedback and perspective of the participants.


57

REFERENCES

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’

learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80 (3), 260–267.

Blackwell, L. S., Trzenrewsk, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of

intelligent predict achievement across an adolescent transition. A

longitudinal study and an intervention child development, 78, 246-263.

Brown, H. D. (1994) Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.

Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. S. (2002). Doing second language research. New York:

Oxford University Press. Retrieved November 4, 2017 from

http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/60120.

Crum, A.J., Salovey, P., & Achor, S. (2013). Rethinking stress: The role of

mindsets in determining the stress response. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 104(4), 716-733.

Darkenwald, G. G. & Merriam, S. B. (1982) Adult Education. Foundations of

practice, New York: Harper and Row.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do yuo mean by collaborative leraning?.(P.

Dillenbourg, Ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.

DiNitto R. (2000). Can collaboration be unsuccessful? a sociocultural analysis of

classroom setting and Japanese L2 performance in group tasks. J Assoc

Teach Jpn 34(2):179-210.

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset. New York: Random House.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and

avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 72 (1), 218-232.

Forrest III, S.P., & Peterson, T. O. (2006). It’s called andragogy. Academy of

Management Learning & Education 5(1), 113-122.

Hycner, R. H. (1999). Some guideline for the phenomenological analysis of

interview data. (Bryman & R.G. Burgess, Ed.). London: Sage.

Jiang, Y. M. (2009). Applying Group Work to Improve College Students’ Oral

English. International Education Studies, 2(3), 136-139.


http://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/60120

58

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente. CA: Resources for

Teachers, Inc.

Lave, J & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning Legitimate Peripheral

Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Long, M.H. & Porter, P.A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second

language acquisition. TESOL Q, 19(2), 207-228.

Mezirow, J. (1995). Transformative Theory of Adult Learning. (M. Welton, Ed.).

New York: State University Press.

Mezirow, J. (1996). Contemporary paradigms of learning. Adult Education

Quarterly. 46 (3), 158-172.

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus group. Annual review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research method. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Oxford, R. (1997) Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and interaction.

Three communication Strands in language classroom, 81(4), 443-456.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Robins, R. W., & Pals, J. L. (2002). Implicit self-theories in the academic domain.

Implications for goal orientation, attributions, affect, and self esteem

change. Self and Identity,1, 313 – 336.

Sadala, M. L. A., & Adorno, R.deC. F. (2001). Phenomenology as a method to

investigate the experiences lived: A perspective from Husserl and

Merleau-Ponty’s thought. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 37(3), 282-293.

Setiyadi, A.B. 2006. English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Storch, N. (2007). Investigating the merits of pair work on a text editing task in ESL

classes. Lang Teach Res, 11(2), 143-159.

Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: mediating acquisition

through collaborative dialogue. In: Lantolf JP (ed) Sociocultural theory and

second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Vygotsky LS (1978) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological

processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.


59

Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business and

administrative sciences South Africa: International Thompson. Retrieved on

November 17, 2017 from

http://webpages.uidaho.edu/css/Readings/groenewaldphenommethodology.p

df.

Wiggins, G. P., & McTighe, J. (2001). What is Backward Design?. In

Understanding by Design 1st ed. Upper Saddie River, NJ: Merrill Prentice

Hall.

Zhang, Y. (2010). Cooperative language learning and foreign language learning and

teaching. J Lang Teach Res, 1(1), 81-83.


http://webpages.uidaho.edu/css/Readings/groenewaldphenommethodology.pdf

http://webpages.uidaho.edu/css/Readings/groenewaldphenommethodology.pdf

60

APPENDICES


61

APPENDIX 1

OBSERVATION SHEET


62


62

Observation sheet sample (taken on Saturday, 15 October 2017)

Observation Researcher’s view

MM : delivering the goal of the meeting and

brief the materials. He gives the instruction to

the work.

he explained the words in the material first

PM : he wrote a note when MM tried to explain

the meaning of the word.

BE : observed the material then open electronic

BD prefer to read the text then she makes her

own note.

MM plays an audio as the source to do the

exercise

-----------------when the audio is played-----------

----------

BK came late because she prepared for the

meals. She tried to sit and read the text given

without asking “what to do” although in the text

there is no instruction at all. Then before the

second round she start the negotiation so that the

audio can be replayed. And the lecturer warmly

welcome the negotiation offered.

PE came late and said directly in English.

MM opened the discussion by asking them one

by one to answer the blank space in full

sentence.

BD read the text, she is better now in reading.

Just still has not fluent by some long pausing

BE read the answer. And after she read, she

makes sure with the word meaning of the

answer of that number.

MM always repeat the text after the participant

read that.

I found something interesting today,

that BD can be talkative when she

talks about things she knows.

Example school, and situation in

school in Indonesian

In the beginning they are more quite.

They don’t start with informal

conversation in class. They directly

have a seat.

When they listen the audio, (first

round) they are all focus. None of

them give up by paying attention on

the text, write. At least they kept on

watching the text given.

on the second round all of them tried

to write. This happened after Mr.

Markus support them to do as far as

they can.

MM not interrupt the pronunciation

mistakes during the rereading. But

repeat the text.

most of them still read the text in

words (BE and PM)

they don’t give up. Although it comes

to difficult words, they always tried to

pronounce the words.

I thought BD improve in her courage

in learn, by using other pen seriously

do the task, open electronic

dictionary, repeating the audio.

Whereas on some previous meeting,

she is not to interactive in learning.


63

After number 5, the students starts to repeat the

dialogue. BE and PE did the repetition. But the

first, PE start it.

BD start using intonation little bit at reading the

text. For example “oooh” she said with shocking

intonation.

PE consistenly repeat the words

BK read confidently fluent.

PM read the text, then he realize that he made

mistake then soon after he start to revise it.

BD, the key is she keep paying attention on the

answer. She keeps looking at her answer list

while others paying attention on the text. BD do

that especially when almost her turn to answer.

BK always revise everything that she knows to

her friend.

MM just pause the reading with revision when it

comes to the word that very crucial “honestly”

BK starts to add her view with MM. Signing

that at least she understand about what is talking

about at that part.

none of them give up with the word.

most of them do not note a new vocabulary that

not to related with the material given. for

example when MM gives new vocab about alat

bantu dnegar “hearning aids” none of them note

that. But at least some of them repeat the word.

MM do repeatation until they can repeat almost

near the correct pronun

----------they are given new task to underline the

subject and verb of the txt. But they divided into

numbers to do”----------------------------------------

---------

*) although MM didn’t explain why

kata-ktanya itu bisa panjang. Kepana

subjek aja bisa panjang

misal :

-debat yang sangat panjang

membuka…….

but after BK ask and try to guess it as

“kalimat majemuk” MM baru

menjelaskan

nah dengan penjelasan “kenapa la

knapa ga for?” itu akan menimbulkan

pertanyaan lanjutan?

kok kayaknya iya. Sepertinya di

pertemuan sebelumnya udh pernah

ada pertanyaan serupa.

on the last number BD benar. Brati dia

baru paham konsep subjek dan

predikat yang basic.

I need to ask why you correct their

wrong answer?

like it actually should explain the

subject.

although actually only in BK part I

think. (only once)

BK always tries to remind her friend

or share opinion, when she notices it

wrong.

BK like to think / guess using logic.

Like some meetings ago, she also

guess derived word by logic.

today she did so:

MM : persuaded apa artinya?

BK : dari kata persuade – persuasi ya

dalam bahasa Indonesia? Dibujuk.

maintaining “the good mood” is

important


64

BD uses other color pen to underline.

after several time after some of them done with

the work, PM still listen to the audio and read

the text.

BD start to try saying the meaning in Indonesian

of the words.

PE tried several time to guess the meaning

thrown.

BK like to do conversation in English, like

“here you are”

BE says “I’m happy” like to express the feeling

in English.

BK asks, why use…. Not use for?

MM: supaya sulit.

.

tapi baiknya, MM memberikan contoh

baru yang terdapat dalam contoh

keseharian dan memberikan tips

dalam belajar kosakata yakni dengan

membuat tingkatan bahasa.


65

APPENDIX 2

INTERVIEW GUIDE


66

Delivering purpose of the research: First, existing learning experience by looking from

participants’ background and environment. Second, revealing individual’s contribution and

improvement in learning.

1. The purpose of conducting benchmarking class for Kanisius school leaders?

2. What kind of strategy was used in benchmarking class?

3. Material given and media used in benchmarking class

4. Experience in teaching the adult learners

5. What was expected from the learning?

6. How was the progress?

7. Interaction among members in the learning process

8. How was the improvement of the participants? What about lunch-talk?

9. How was the role of the facilitator in the class?

10. What was the difficulty in the learning?


67

APPENDIX 3

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDE


68

FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION GUIDIANCE

Pertanyaan berikut adalah beberapa pertanyaan yang akan diajukan oleh peneliti dalam FGD.

Anda dapat menuliskan poin-poin penting yang akan anda sampaikan dalam kegiatan FGD.

1. Bagaimana perasaan dan pengalaman anda dengan proses pembelajaran ini?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

2. a. Perubahan yang anda rasakan dari sebelum mengikuti kelas ini sampai akhir

pertemuan dalam kelas ini?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

b. Ilmu atau pelajaran apa saja yang sudah Anda dapatkan di kelas ini?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

Adakah kesulitan dalam belajar bahasa inggris yang Anda hadapi?

Jika ada kesulitan seperti apa dan bagaimana cara anda mengatasinya?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

3. Bagaimanakah pengalaman belajar bahasa inggris Anda di masa lalu?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

4. Apa pendapat Anda mengenai lingkungan belajar di kelas ini?(baik dari sisi teman-

teman kelompok belajar dan pembimbing?

…………………………………………………………………………………………

………………………………………

- Terimakasih -


69

APPENDIX 4

CODING OF FACILITATORS

INTERVIEW


70

MM and MP’s Coding Data

Learning Dynamic

Aspect IN Primary Coding Final Coding Source

1) subjective

goal

MP specific language in use for

benchmarking

encouraging them using

English to communicate

language in specific

purposes

encouraging

performance

PL.9

PL.16

MM Solidarity between participants

to achieve group success.

endless learning spirit and risk

tasking

learning attitude

sustainable learning

ML. 97

ML.21

6

2) approach

and

strategy

MP simplify language function

(derived from MM)

every participants takes turn as

many as possible to use the

language

repetition and direct correction

drilling and supporting

learning climates

rotating peer partner during

practice

flow of material has set

simplify language

function

task value

meaningful

repetition

mechanical and

communicative

approach

collaborative

learning

syllabus based

ML.62

PL.19

PL.27

PL.224

PL.234

&

247


71


2) approach

and

strategy

MM unburden feeling and

cooperative situation

the use of online quiz, video

and audio as learning media to

maintain their progress

melibatkan yang paling pintar

dalam group untuk membantu

social interaction in group

between participants

meaningful repetition

material adjust the major

participants

Impromptu

General material given

experience subject based

material

supporting learning

environment

various learning

media

collaborative

learning

collaborative

learning

meaningful

repetition

group adjustment

English for General

Purposes

experimental

learning(?)

ML.19

7

ML.24

3

ML.23

6

PL.

245

PL.

281

ML.31

6

3) facilit

ator

role in

class

MP group pace

managing each participant

involvement

giving direct correction

giving correct example

facilitator

controlling

monitoring

modelling

PL. 77

&PL.8

1

PL. 103

PL. 109

MM expecting learner self-directed

understanding students

background

as colleague with the

participants in class

high expectation

compassionate

Egalitarian

ML.18

9

ML.20

5

ML.26

6


72

4) participa

nts

dynamic

MP Participants become braver

using English for

communication.

they enjoy in learning process

Some of participants have

intrinsic motivation for self-

enrichment

participants have self-doubt in

first meeting

braver performance

outcome

enjoy

intrinsic motivation

self-doubt

PL. 38

PL.40

PL.56

PL. 168

MM improvement in persistency

elaborating previous material

with present material

the use of whatsapp for learning

media

Observe one participants that

improve the most.

Facilitator not conducting test.

elaboration

Whatsaap as

learning media

individual

monitoring

unmeasurable

improvement

progress

ML.195

ML.211

ML. 82

& 90

ML.240

ML.259

Essential Learning

essence MP specific language in use for

benchmarking

encouraging them using English

to communicate

language in specific

purposes

encouraging

performance

PL. 9

PL.16

M

M

Solidarity between participants to

achieve group success.

endless learning spirit and risk

tasking

the presence of the facilitator is

really important

learning attitude


ML. 97

ML.216


73

APPENDIX 5

CODING OF PARTICIPANTS FGD


74

Learning Dynamic


1) subjectiv

e goal

MP specific language in

use for

benchmarking

encouraging them

using English to

communicate

language in specific purposes

encouraging performance

MPL.9

MPL.16

MM Solidarity between

participants to

achieve group

success.

endless learning

spirit and risk

tasking

learning attitude


MMML.

97

MMML.2

16

2) approach

and

strategy

MP simMPLify language

function (derived

from MM)

every participants

takes turn as

many as possible

to use the

language

repetition and direct

correction

drilling and

supporting learning

climates

rotating peer partner

during practice

flow of material has

set

simMPLify language function

task value


mechanical and

communicative approach

collaborative learning

syllabus based

MMPL.62

MPL.19

MPL.27

MPL.224

MPL.234

& 247

MM unburden feeling

and cooperative

situation

the use of online

quiz, video and

audio as learning

media to maintain

their progress

supporting learning

environment

various learning media



MML.197

MML.243


75

Learning Dynamic


Involving more

knowledgeable

participants in group

social interaction in

group between

participants

meaningful

repetition

material adjust the

major participants

Impromptu

General material

given

experience subject

based material


group adjustment

English for General Purposes

experimental learning

MML.236

MPL. 245

MPL. 281

MML.316

3) participa

nts

dynamic

MP Participants become

braver using English

for communication.

they enjoy in

learning process

Some of participants

have intrinsic

motivation for self-

enrichment

participants have

self-doubt in first

meeting

braver performance outcome

enjoy

intrinsic motivation

self-doubt

MPL. 38

MPL.40

MPL.56

MPL. 168

MM improvement in

persistency

elaborating previous

material with

present material

the use of whatsapp

for learning media

elaboration

WhatsApp as learning media

individual monitoring

MML.195

MML.211

MML. 82

& 90

MML.240


76

Learning Dynamic


Observe one

participants that

improve the most.

Facilitator not

conducting test.

unmeasurable improvement

progress

MML.259

4) facilitato

r role in

class

MP group pace

managing each

participant

involvement

giving direct

correction

giving correct

examMPLe

facilitator

controlling

monitoring

modelling

MPL. 77

&MPL.81

MPL. 103

MPL. 109

MM expecting learner

self-directed

understanding

students background

as colleague with the

participants in class

high expectation

compassionate

Egalitarian

MML.189

MML.205

MML.266

Essential Learning

essence MP specific language in

use for

benchmarking

encouraging them

using English to

communicate

language in specific purposes

encouraging performance

MPL.9

MPL.16

MM Solidarity between

participants to

achieve group

success.

learning attitude


MML. 97

MML.216


77

Learning Dynamic


endless learning

spirit and risk

tasking

the presence of the

facilitator is really

important


78

APPENDIX 6

MINDSET MINI SURVEY


79

BE


80

PE


81

PM


82

BK


83

BD


Documents

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN BENCHMARKING … · pertama ialah mengenai dinamika grup belajar para kepala sekolah dalam kelas ... 11 2.1.4. Legitimate ... 57 APPENDICIES