Kajian Bahasa Pendidik di Kabupaten Mimika

Educational Language Study in Mimika District

Authors

  • Siswanto Siswanto Balai Bahasa Papua
  • Normawati Normawati Balai Bahasa Papua

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26499/kc.v17i2.288

Keywords:

Effective Sentence, Ineffective Sentence, And Mimika Junior High School Teacher

Abstract

One of the skills to be mastered well by teachers to show their professional identity as an academic community is writing skills. This research aims at describing effective sentences and ineffective sentences produced by junior high school teachers in Mimika Regency, Papua Province and describe the causes of ineffectiveness based on theoretical framework. The results of this study are expected to be useful to develop the ability of teachers to deal with problems in classroom learning, especially problems relating to writing sentences in scientific work. In addition, this study serves as a material consideration in an effort to improve the quality of teachers and schools so as to improve the quality and achievements of graduates. This study uses a descriptive method to describe the latest conditions related to the ability of non-language teachers in junior high schools to write scientific papers in the form of writing class action research reports. Exposure is focused on the ability, language knowledge, and experience of writing non-language teachers in developing the ability to write classroom action research. Based on an analysis of eleven manuscripts, the number of effective sentences is less than the ineffective sentences. This shows that generally writers have not been able to make good texts. The main cause of the ineffectiveness of the sentences produced by the teacher is due to the influence of spoken language.

References

Alwi, Hasan, dkk. 2000. Tata Bahasa Baku Bahasa Indonesia (Edisi Ketiga). Jakarta: Balai Pustaka.

Arifin, E. Zainal. 1998. Dasar-Dasar Penulisan Karangan Ilmiah. Jakarta: Grasindo.

Brown, Douglas H. 2007. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education.

Ellis, RobertA., Taylor, Charlotte E. & Drury, Helen. 2005. “Evaluating Writing Instruction Through an Investigation of Students’ Experiences of Learning Through Writing”. International Science 33: 49-71.

Hamberlandt, Karl. 1997. Cognitive Psychology. Second Edition. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan Republik Indonesia. 2013. Bahasa Indonesia: Ekspresi Diri dan Akademik. Jakarta: Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Langer, JudithA. 1992. Reading, Writing, and Genre Development. Dalam Irwin, Judith.W & Doyle, Mary A. (Eds). Reading/Writing Connections: Learning from Research. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.

Peraturan Pemerintah Nomor 74 Tahun 2008 Tentang Guru Pedoman Penetapan Peserta Sertifikasi Guru 2010.

Rahardjo, Mudjia. 2010. Kemampuan Menulis Guru Lemah?. Harian Kompas. Tanggal 19 Maret 2010 halaman 12.

Setiadi, Riswandi. 2016. “Kemampuan Menulis Akademik Guru Mata Pelajaran Nonbahasa di Jawa Barat”. Dalam Litera. Edisi Volume 2016.

Sudaryanto. 2005. Metode dan Teknik Penelitan Bahasa.

Sugono, Dendy. 2011. Buku Praktis Bahasa Indonesia 2. Jakarta: Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa, Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.

Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 14 Tahun 2005 tentang Guru dan Dosen. Jakarta.

Widjono, H.S. 2005. Bahasa Indonesia: Mata Kuliah Pengembangan Kepribadian di Perguruan Tinggi. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia.

Downloads

Published

2020-10-01

How to Cite

Siswanto, S., & Normawati, N. (2020). Kajian Bahasa Pendidik di Kabupaten Mimika: Educational Language Study in Mimika District. Kibas Cenderawasih, 17(2), 179-201. https://doi.org/10.26499/kc.v17i2.288