先思考还是先写?

L. Nurjamin, Y. Fajriah, A. Suminar
{"title":"先思考还是先写?","authors":"L. Nurjamin, Y. Fajriah, A. Suminar","doi":"10.4108/eai.13-2-2019.2286152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In response to the problematic educational policy related to an EFL curriculum, there must be explicit techniques to use, particularly the techniques in teaching writing. In accordance, this study is aimed to examine the effective technique in teaching writing by comparing the two; think-talk-write (TTW) and fast writing techniques. This quantitative study was deployed in terms of quasi-experimental design. The data were collected through the test and conducted in one suburban junior high school in Indonesia involving 250 2 year students as the population and 46 sample students. In conclusion, the result statistically reveals that 82% students in TTW class reached the passing grade. Meanwhile, those who were taught under fastwriting were only 42%. Hence, think-talk-write is more effective than fastwriting technique. Therefore, the policy maker should explicitly state on the EFL curriculum that think-talk-write is the recommended technique applied by higher education level while fast writing is for lower education level.","PeriodicalId":199842,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business, Law And Pedagogy, ICBLP 2019, 13-15 February 2019, Sidoarjo, Indonesia","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Think first or just do writing?\",\"authors\":\"L. Nurjamin, Y. Fajriah, A. Suminar\",\"doi\":\"10.4108/eai.13-2-2019.2286152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In response to the problematic educational policy related to an EFL curriculum, there must be explicit techniques to use, particularly the techniques in teaching writing. In accordance, this study is aimed to examine the effective technique in teaching writing by comparing the two; think-talk-write (TTW) and fast writing techniques. This quantitative study was deployed in terms of quasi-experimental design. The data were collected through the test and conducted in one suburban junior high school in Indonesia involving 250 2 year students as the population and 46 sample students. In conclusion, the result statistically reveals that 82% students in TTW class reached the passing grade. Meanwhile, those who were taught under fastwriting were only 42%. Hence, think-talk-write is more effective than fastwriting technique. Therefore, the policy maker should explicitly state on the EFL curriculum that think-talk-write is the recommended technique applied by higher education level while fast writing is for lower education level.\",\"PeriodicalId\":199842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business, Law And Pedagogy, ICBLP 2019, 13-15 February 2019, Sidoarjo, Indonesia\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business, Law And Pedagogy, ICBLP 2019, 13-15 February 2019, Sidoarjo, Indonesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-2-2019.2286152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Business, Law And Pedagogy, ICBLP 2019, 13-15 February 2019, Sidoarjo, Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4108/eai.13-2-2019.2286152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

为了应对与英语课程相关的有问题的教育政策,必须使用明确的技巧,特别是写作教学技巧。因此,本研究旨在通过对两者的比较,探讨有效的写作教学技巧;思考-谈话-写作(TTW)和快速写作技巧。本定量研究采用准实验设计。数据通过测试收集,在印度尼西亚一所郊区初中进行,以250名2年级学生为总体,46名样本学生。综上所述,统计结果显示TTW班有82%的学生达到了及格分数。与此同时,那些接受快速书写教育的学生只有42%。因此,思考、谈话、写作比快速写作技巧更有效。因此,政策制定者应该在英语课程中明确指出,思考-谈话-写作是高等教育水平的推荐技巧,而快速写作是低教育水平的推荐技巧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Think first or just do writing?
In response to the problematic educational policy related to an EFL curriculum, there must be explicit techniques to use, particularly the techniques in teaching writing. In accordance, this study is aimed to examine the effective technique in teaching writing by comparing the two; think-talk-write (TTW) and fast writing techniques. This quantitative study was deployed in terms of quasi-experimental design. The data were collected through the test and conducted in one suburban junior high school in Indonesia involving 250 2 year students as the population and 46 sample students. In conclusion, the result statistically reveals that 82% students in TTW class reached the passing grade. Meanwhile, those who were taught under fastwriting were only 42%. Hence, think-talk-write is more effective than fastwriting technique. Therefore, the policy maker should explicitly state on the EFL curriculum that think-talk-write is the recommended technique applied by higher education level while fast writing is for lower education level.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信