LIST OF INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL REVTEWERS iNTERNAL REVIEWERS t. Endqng Mastuti Rahayu (Adi Buana University) Z. Ferra Dian Andanty (Adi Buana University) l. Nunung Nu{ati (,{di Buana University) 1. Dyah Rochmawati (Adi Buana University) 5. Wahju Bandjarjani (Adi Buana University) 5. Siyaswati (Adi Buana University) 7 . Salim Nabhan (Adi Buana University) 8. Irfan fufai (Adi Buana University) 9. Hertiki (Adi Buana University) 10. Fajar Susanto (Adi Buana University) 11. Nukmatus Syahria (Adi Buana University) 12. Joesasono Oediarti (Adi Buana University) 13. Lambang Erwanto Suyyajid (Adi Buana University) 14. Rikat Eka Prasetyawan (Adi Buana University) 15. Rahmad Hidayat (Adi Buana University) 16. Titah Kinasih (Adi Buana University) 17. EndahYulia Rahayu (Adi Buana University) I S.Maslakhatin (Adi Buana University)

EXTERNAL REVIEWERS i. Abdul Ghani Abu (University Pendidikan Sultan Idris Malaysia) 2. Mohamad Razak Abdul Karim (Open University Malaysia) 3. Aslam Khan Bin Samahs Khan (Institute of Teacher Education Intemational l,anguages Campus Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 4. Noriah Talib (Institute of Teacher Education International tanguages Campus Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 5. Fazlinah Binti Said (Institute of Teacher Education Intemational l.anguages Campus Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 6. Rozanna Noraini Amiruddin Albakri (Institute cf Teacher Education International Languages Campus Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) 7. Handoyo Puji Widodc (Shantou University, ) 8. Ahmad Idris Asmaradhani (Graduate School of English Education, IKIP Mataram, NTB) 9. Herri Mulyono (University of Prof. DR. HAMKA) 10. MukrimThamrin ( Palu) 11. E. Sadtono (Ma Chung University, ) 12. Gunadi Harry Sulistyo (Universitas Negeri Malang) 13. Suparmi (Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University, Malang) ffiffi Th" 63.d rEF'LD{ I""-",1"""1 confere'ce 2016 14. Rina Sari (Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University, Malang) 15. Achmad Farid (Universitas Pesantren Tinggi Darul Ulum Jombang) 16. Veronica L Diptoadi (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 17. Anita Lie (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 18. Agustinus Ngadiman (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 19. Harto Pramono (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 20. Siti Mina Tamah (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 21. Ruruh Mindari (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 22.Luluk Prijambodo (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 23. Mateus Yumarnamto (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 24.Yohanes Nugroho Widiyanto (Universitas ts-atolik Widya Mandala) 25. Agnes Santi Widiati (Universitas Katolik Widya Mandala) 26. Fabiola D Kurnia (Universitas Negeri Surabaya) 27.Flora Debora Floris (Universitas Kristen Petra) 28. Salimah (LTniversitas Airlang ga) 29.Yerly A Datu (Universitas Surabaya) 30. Rida Wahluningmm (Universitas Wij aya Kusuma) 31. fuca Sih Wuryaningrum (Universitas Wij aya Kusuma)

SETTING AND TYPESET 1. Irfan Rifai 2. Catherine Sitompul 3. Salim Nabhan 4. Hertiki 5. Maslakhatin 6. Aryo Wibowo 7. Samsul Khabib 8. Armelia Nungki Nurbani 9. Lutfi Prahara 10. Abdul Ghoni 11. Ratna D Wiranti 12. Desi Priskawati 13. Dinda Dwiki Prasista 14. Ahmad AzzamRidhoi 15. M. Ndaru Purwaning Laduni 16. Triana Mey Linda

COVER Tantra Sakre

The 63rd TEFLIN Intemational Conference ,016-w No. Name Affiliation I Prof. Lesley Harbon IJniversitv of Technolosv. Svdnev 2 Dr. Lindsay Miller Citv l]r-riversitv of Honskons 3 Christine C.M. Goh, PhD Nanyang Technolo gical University, Singapore) 4 William Little Regional English Language Officer, US Embassv

5 Dr. Willy A Renandya Nanyang Technological University, National Institute of Education. Sinsapbre 6 Joseph Emest Mambu, PhD Satya Wacana Christian University, Salatiga, l Made Hery Sautosa, PhD Ganesha University of Education, , Indonesia

No. Name Affiliation Dr Chan Yue Wens REI-C 2 Pa1'upol Suthathothon Thai TESOL J Ted O'Neili JALT 4. Cohn Downes British Council 5. Lai-Mei l,eong MELTA 6. Nicholas N1illward CamTESOL 7. Sothearak l'{orng CamTESOL 8. Brad Huches Universitv of Technolosv Svdnev 9. Dr. Aurora Murphv Universitv of Technolosv Svdnev 10. Dr. Neil Ensland Universitv ol Technolosv Svdnev ll David Akast British Counc 12. Ann Eastlake British Counc I 13 Michael Little British Council t4 Itie Chodidiah British Council 15. Aslam Khan Bin Samahs Khan Institute of Teacher Education Intemational Lansuases Camous Kuala Lumour. Malavsia 16. Zoe Kenny IALF Surabaya, Indonesra 17. Wendv Georse Aliansi Lembasa Bahasa Asine

UNIVERSITY PRESS ADIBUANA SURABAYA

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any foffn or by any means: electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any infomation stroge and retrieval system, whithout prior written pennission from the writers.

The 63rd TEFLIN International Conference 2016 W N{ERTTS OF EN{PLOYING PAIR WORK STRAT'F,GY IN EFL CLASSROOMS

,"",_^ii,lj6Hil:" Uniyersitas Bung Hailct"","

M. Adnan Latief Uniyersitas Negeri Malang

Utami Widiati (Jniv ers i tas Neg eri M al ang

ARSTRACT EFL instructictn slrtttegl; hcts been revised.from time to time in order that EIt[, Ieerners can hsve better EFL competence. One oJ'strategies offered is pair \|ork strategy in EFL clctssrooms. This strateglt has been suc'cesftLlly attracling EFLreseqt"chers'attenlior.r. The1, s6Trdtr.ted studies on the strategy and.fotmd set,eral advantages of employing pair work in EFL classrooms. First, learner's v'ho complcttcl lhc: task in pairs outpet'fonnecl those v,ho rtftt'mptetl it intlitidu(tll y-. Ssr:orLd, lent':tL'r'.s lr;rliir;;; iir puirs hqtl more opportunities to coniilirrrii:ittc in the target language thctn itt feocher fi'oiitecl classrooms. Three, -students working in pair can ctssist each other, sharing ideu.s lo c:ot'rt1tlete the task. Next, pair w-rn'k hud lto.rilive t:t;ttiribtttion.t to lenrnet1t, rttotivatiort. Thr:n. iecu'ners' ctnxiety decreoses ctnd their langtrage pt'ojlciency inrproves wlzen ihey worlc in puirs The.foltowing is pah vrork cnhance learner self-esteem to i.mprove their communication skill. At last, pair-work helps students build positive interpersonal relationships trnd create u high level of acsdemic solitlarity and conficlence. Based on the finclings aboie, EFL teachers ore suggested to employ pair v;ork strqtegy in EFL classrooriis to get studerts's better competenc?.

Key worrls: merit, pair work strategy, EFL classrooms

INTRODUCTION Teaching writing as foreign language does not mean teaching how to transfer sentences in students' mother tongue into English sentences. An English teacher should consider many things in teaching writing as foreign language. Related to this, Sokolik (2003) and Kroll (2001i, who are interested in English Language Teaching propose several ideas reiated teaching writini. Sokolik (2003) proposes some principles for teaching writing. First, students' reasons for writing should be understood. The big dissatisfaction witl writing instruction comes when teacher's goals do not match the students' goals or the goals of the school. It is important to understand the students' goals or the goals ofthe school and to convey goals that are rneaningful to students. Second, the teacher should provide many opportunities for sfudents to write. Writing skill requires a lot exercises because it has *any urp""ts to fulfill (grammar. vocabulary, discourse features). It is impossible to master it in slort time and wiil a [ttte exercise' Writing in mother tongue is very difficult, let alone in foreign language. The practice given to the students should provide be presented in different types of writing. fiira, the teacher should make feedback helpful and meaningful. If a teachei wants to write comments on student's works, he has to be sure that the sfudents the vocabulary or symbol used. He can take time to discuss them in class. Fourth, the teacher should clarify for himself and for stgdents how the writing task will be evaluated. To avoid*slqdents' misunderstanding toward teacher's evaluation, the teacher should develop a rubric, a kind of scoring grid ihat elaborates the elements of writing that are to be evaluated. This rubric should outline the weight of grammar and mechanics in relationship to content and ideas as well as other features of writing that arb considered to be important. Kroll (2001) sates that there are some point to be considered for teaching EFL writing course. The first is syllabus design. A syllabus should be designed to take'into account The 63rd TEFLIN International Conference20l6 curricular goals ancl par.ticular students and teacher tvill face. The syllabus fr-rrther reflects the philosophy of teaching writn'rg that a teacher has adopted for particular coLrrse in a particular institution. in general. the tcacher uses syllabus to announce to students rvhat lte or slie sees as important as tire conrsc ancl r'r'hat is tmportant to good writing. Second, teacher slioulcl have techniques to help rvriters get stafteci. Sornetin'res, it is hard 'Io to write sornething and it lcciuires stimulus from outside in order to be at-.lc to u'rite. do this, teacher can do several iictivities; a) brainstonning. This is a group exercise irt rvhich all students in the class are eucouritgcd to participate about particular subiect. This generates far more material th4n any cne stucleut is likely to think of on his or her own; b) listing. It is a quiet and individual activity. ln this step, students are encouraged to think as iuatry icleas as possible of main ideas about topic to be cliscussed; c) clustering, this activity is done by jotting clolvn all of free-association triggered by subject matters; d) free-writing, for EFL leaners, this technique often works best if tlie tcacher provides an opening clause or sentence for tl're itudents to staft with to structure the [r'r'c rr r itirrg. Third, there shoulcl be assignment design. in Cesigning assiErment, a teacher should pay attention to sorne points, a1 ir rrriting assignment should be presented r,r'ittr its cotrtext clearly statecl such that the st.udent understands the reasons for the assignment; b) the content of the tasUtopic should be accessible to the writers and allow for multiple approaches; c) the ianguage of the task and the instr-uction rt is ernbedded should be clear, comprehensible, and transparent; d) the task shoulcl be focused enough to allow for completion in the time or leugtli constraints given; e) the rhetorical spr:cifications should provide a ciear direction of likel-'v shape arrd fonnat of the finished assignmetrt. including appropriate references to an anticipatecl auclience; f) the evaluation criteria slioulcl be identified so that students will know itr aclvance iror.v their output will be judged At last, there should be teacher's and peers responses to r.vriting. Talking about students' writing abiliry, rnany studies were conducted by tesearcirers t-rtl this aspect. Some of them are Attarnim (2001), U1fiati (2010), and Isnawati (2010). They" reported that the students, in general, had problems in writing. The students had 1or", motivation, / poor writing ability, and lack ol conirdence. Referring to low motivatiou, the stuCents did nct do / the exercises seriously arrd did uot bring dictionary into classroom io help them in writing. Theirr,t poor writing ability was reflected in the facts that they often did not know what to write, howff organize ideas r.vell, could not explore ideas, and did many mistakes related to grarpln\af (ungrammatical sentences and inappropriate transitional signal) and vocabula;X'{w-ronfwords choice). If they could cornplete the writing task, the result was far from rl'H.at was expected. Related to this, Spelkova and Hurst in a study (....) also say that the most probldmatic problems in writing were inappropriate grammar and structures and Strong influence of mother tongue. Talking about self-confidende, they were also not confident with what they wrote. They tend to rewrite or change what they had written. For them, what they had written was not good. Actually, writing is considered to be relatively difficult by some students for, at least, two reasons. First, writir-rg is really difficult. Related to this, Nunan (1999) states that writing is something native speakers never master. It means that English native speakers themselves cannot master writing skill, let alone foreign language learners. Furthermore, he says that for 'second language learners, the challenges are more enonnous, particularly for those who go on to university and study a larrguage that is not thpir own. Second, Richard and Renandya (2002) also say that the skills involved in writing, particularly in English, are highly complex. It consist of the higher level skills of planning and arganizing ideas as,well as the lower level skill of spelling, punctuation, word choice, etc. From what Nunan and Richard and Rbnandya said above, it can be seen that writing skill, particularly in English will be a challenging for language learners. Related to the study on the writing performance of students working individually as employed commonly in classroom, Kasman (2004) and kawati (2008) found that many college studerrts and university graduates in Indonesia had low writing competency, especially in rwiting academic texts. What was found by the researchers above were also invented by Ahmed (2010), Barrett and Chen (2011), Zakai^a and Mogaddam (2013), Harnmad (2014), Al Seyabi and Tuziukova (2014), and Javid and Umer (2014).In general, their findings revealed that students had writing problems.in lhe aspects of article, grammar, vocabulary, cohesion and coherent, content, and The 63rd TEFLIN International Conference 20i6 Wffi orgalllsatron' The researh findings indirectly can leacl to a conchrsion that rvriting individually is a hard task to contplete. Payine attention to what was found by previor.rs researchers above, it seems that the findings ctrtr be evidences to support Cahyono and Widiati's statement (2011) saying that rvriting is olien believed to be the most complex one cornpared to the three other skills (listenirrg' speaking. and reading). The finclings is also relatei ro Tsai and Lin,s idea (2012) sayrng that u riting is considered a cornplicated and rnultifaceted task. in addition, the findings also support opinion by Richard and Renarrdya (2002') that the skills involved in writing are highly cotnplex. it consists of the higher level skiils of planning - and organizing ideas as well as the lor.ver le'el skill of spelling, punctuatiou, and lvord choice.

PAIR \\OI{K IN EFL \\RITING Pair r'r'ork is one of strategies in language leanring in which stuclents work i1 pairs to complete language task. This atrategi' also can be ernployed in EFL writing classroom. Fauziah and Latief (2015. 180) propose activities of pair rvork in EFL wr-rtirg. It can be seen below table

Table 1: 'f he r\ctivities of Pair Work in EFL Writing

Writing Stage Students Activities

The pairs discuss the gii,.itir iopii The pairs share ideas and brainstonn tl-re target topic and or ganize the infomation to {:ether. e The pairs fonnulate a draft thesis or argument. Drattiiigu'nting o Separately (each student hu,r" hirih", o*r, portio" t, do) "ff""il,U -After planning a'd making an outline, the students divide the writing task equally. For instance they wante tc cornpose a four-paragraph essay, then every student have to write two paragraphs. -The researcher explaine to the students that brainstorming the main points of their paper as a goup r.vas iielpful, even if separate parts of the writing are assigned to individuals. They have to be sure that everyone agrees on the central ideas. -While writing, the student may ask his/ her friend if they find any difficulties Together (the group actually compose text collaboratively) -The pairs disc'oss and decide where their individuar writing fit into the whole document. -The pairs have to make sure that the finished document have one cohesive voice. -The pairs might get all of the ideas down on paper rough form before disoussin exact Revisiug, editing, Although the pairs drafted parts of the ao""-*t ,"p*ut.fy, and proofreading $ey had to merge their ideas together into a single document first, then focus on meshing the styles. The first concern was to create a coherent product with a logical flow of ideas. Then the stylistic differences of the individual portions had to be smoothed over. Revising: The pairs revised the ideas and structure of the paper' befory worrying about smaller, sentence-level errors flike problems with puncfuation, grammar, or word choice). Is the argument clear? Is the evidence presented in a logicai order? Do the hansitions connect the ideas effectively? freadine: Checkine for t ffi The 63rd TEFLIN International Conference 2016 pr.luctuation problems, tbrmattrng issues, and grarnt.naticaI nristakes. Publishing Aiier they revised and checked all componettts as tneutioned in thc previous step, then they were ready to publish their drafl Iror the irrst draft, the student A r'vrote the final dtalt in the instrurnentation fonn. Work on the second draft, student A and B su'itched role for this part. That was, this time student B had to r.vrite the final drai't. For the next writing assignment, if a student ri'as already assigued the role of A, they then assuued the role ol B and vice versa" to ensure fatrness.

Many researchers also pay atiention to investigate pair work. Althor.rgh the use of pair work in classroorrr is relativeiy lulited (Storch, 2011), this strategy is believed to have beneficial points. Many reseirrchers found that pair work contributed to students' writing perfonnance. They are Sorch ( 1999, 2005, and 2007), Wigglesrvorth and Storch (2009), ^Sh"hud.h (2011),.Iafad ancl Arrsari QAn), Chen (2012), Biria and.Tafari (2013), Meihaini, Meihami, and Vannaghani (2013), and Dobao QAID. Thier findings, in general, are as follws. First, collaboration hacl a posrtive effect on overall gramtnaticitl accuracy. It means that pairs producecl -shorter:rr.ril br:r'rirl tcrts lirat hacl greater gTalrrtnafir:a1 rcltitair';:irld linguistic complexity. and ai-e rnrire snccinct. Second, tseside Storch, four otirer-researchers also fbund the effect of pair u,ork toward students' writing performance. Shehaclch (201i:2E6) fortrrd that collaborative writing had an overall significant effect on students' L2 rvriting. Iloivever, this effeci varied tiom one writing skilI area to auother. Third, students working in pairs had better writing accrlracy than those rvorking individually. Fourth, most stucietrts pelceived their collaborative writing expeiiences quite positively. Students' perceived bt-trcfits of collaborative vniting were numerous, ranging fiom opportunities to exchange idcas to cieveloprnent of communication. Fifth, practicing in pairs realiy improved the overall quality of the leamers' writing procluctions even though the fluency of written texts did not change significantiy. Sixth, collaborative work (pair work) could improve students' gramtnatical accuracy in their upcoming writings. Seventh, collaboration afforded students the opportunity to pool ideas and piovide each othlr with feedback. Eighth, most pairs engage actively in discussing language. They tend to reach correct resolutions. Ninth, writing tasks completed in pairs offer learners an ' opportunity to colLaborate in the solution of their language-reiated problems, co-constr-uct new language knowledge, and produce linguistically more accurate written texts. Tenth, most students in the pair work setting have the enjoyable experience.

CONCLUSION EFL students are required to have good EFL writing ability and they sirould be * _fapillt4ted to leach the target. Teacher can do many things in classroorri to facilitate the sfudents. G" of tt"* is emptoying pair work in the classroom. Many researchers have found that this strategy is really beneficial to help sfudents to have good EFL writing ability.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

conference. The financial assistence provided is really important and useful for me.

REFERENCES Ahmed, A. H. 2010. Students' Problems with Cohesion and Coherence in EFL Essay Writing in Egypt: Different Perspectives . Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal, | (4):2tt-22t. Al-Seyabi, F. & Tuzlukova, V. 2014. Writing Problems and Strategies: ,An Investigative Study in the Ornani Schooi and University Context. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humqnities, 3 (4): 31-48.

4|r : Attanrim, Z. 2007. The Implemenlation ttf C)oc.tStt:ratit'c Leqrning to Improve sludents' Proficiency in ll/riting poragroph ut i\'[ultammadyah University of Ponorogo. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: PPs N{alang. Baret, N. E. & Chen, L.2011- English Articlc En'ors in Taiwanese College Students' EFL Writing. Computational Linguisri<:.s and Chinese LarLguage Processing,l6 (3): 1-20. Biria, R. & Jafari, S. 2013. The Lnpact of Coliabolatii,e Writing on the Writing Fluency of Iranian EFL Learners. Journal of Lrtngtnge T'eaching and Research, 4 (1): 164-115. Cahyono, B. Y. &Widiati, U. 2011. T'lte Tectc:hinq c,f English as a foreign Languaga in Indonesia. Malang: State University' ol Malang Press. Chen, C. W.2012. Collaborative Writing in an [:l]'l- lJniversity Classroom Context:Voices tiom Students. Asian Jou'nal o-f English LttttgLLage feaching, 22:2543. Dobao, A. F. 2012. Collaborative Writing 'I'asks in the L2 Classroom: Comparing Group, Pair, and lndividual Work. .lotu'nol of Second Language Writing,2l: 40-58 Flarnmad, E. A.2014. Palestinian University Students' Problerns with EFL Essay Writing in an instructional Setting. Jow"nal of .Sec

The 63rd TEFLIN lnternational Conference 2016 W