Modified Instructional Teaching Method

Abstract

Competency-based Language Teaching (CBLT) causes character education issue and its competence in facing a complex social circumstance which is quite conspicuous when implementing in national scale. Content-based Instruction (CBI) covers students and teacher proficiency that is considered not effective if the implementation does not take material and students' different competence into account. Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) weakness shows a feasible challenging with the classroom discussion dynamics and the allotted time. The weakness shows one leads to a broad scale, the other one causes teacher and students and the last costs the practical implementation.

Full text

7
Copyright © 2020, Journal La Edusci, Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0
JOURNAL LA EDUSCI
VOL. 01, ISSUE 01 (007-011), 2020
Modified Instructional Teaching Method
Luís Manoe
Student, St. Thomas University of Mozambique, Mozambique
Corresponding Author: Luís Manoe
Article Info
Article history:
Received 05 January 2020
Received in revised form 12
January 2020
Accepted 21 February 2020
Keywords:
Language Teaching
Modified Instruction
Classroom Management
Abstract
Competency-based Language Teaching (CBLT) causes character
education issue and its competence in facing a complex social
circumstance which is quite conspicuous when implementing in national
scale. Content-based Instruction (CBI) covers students and teacher
proficiency that is considered not effective if the implementation does
not take material and students’ different competence into account.
Cooperative Language Learning (CLL) weakness shows a feasible
challenging with the classroom discussion dynamics and the allotted
time. The weakness shows one leads to a broad scale, the other one
causes teacher and students and the last costs the practical
implementation.
Introduction
CBT is adopted from CBE (Competency-based Education) which considers output more than
input (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). CBT clusters students based on their competency and
directly addresses students lack in performing language skill (Stallard et al., 2013). Teachers
in designing the syllabus are obliged to meet the students need in order to accustom students
to their target language environment.
Specifically, competency element involves everything contributes to learner successful
performance in target language environment which includes particular knowledge and skill
(Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The prominent results of CBT course develop learner’s in
understanding context and performing appropriate language competencies in prospective
working environment i.e. understanding instruction, giving appropriate respond, reading
charts, labels and forms. The target language mastery is taught based on the students’
proficiency stage where the standard of success relies on the students’ triumph meeting
required ability after the course.
Assessment in CBT is meritorious with three educational assessment involved. Placement test
that is essential to categorise students’ current stage ability (Glickman, 2008). Formative
assessment that helps teacher to determine whether learners understand and to improve their
instruction. Summative assessment which values students’ success during the course. There is
also possibility of employing diagnostic assessment that assists teacher in developing their
instruction through analysing problems faced during the course. Those assessments’
fruitfulness is feasible in CBT by means of its concrete measure.
Teachers are more to be instructor rather than giving lecture which result to a better teaching
outcome. Lecture in classroom interaction most likely reduces students’ necessary practice
during the allotted time. When it comes to language learning, it obviously requires learner to
have exposure to the targeted language both receptively and productively. Furthermore, the
study of Hackathorn, Solomon, & Blankmeyer, (2011) revealed that lecturing result to less

8
Copyright © 2020, Journal La Edusci, Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0
knowledge acquisition and lack of real application. They added that not only contribute to
accurate proficiency of target language application, it also promotes preferable comprehension
through group discussion. The shift of teacher position in CBT is therefore effective when it
comes to outcome-base.
First, it only prepares the student for a specific condition. Focus on specific environmental case
will put aside creativity and innovation (Bataineh & Tasnimi, 2014). It is important to note that
the essence of education is to equip students with knowledge and skill to face the complex
world dynamics. Brady (2006) has criticized Competency-base Teaching which negatively
influences huge scale of education. The worst scenario when generally relying on CBT in
national scale is high probability to obstruct human civilization advancement. This claim
sounds tremendously assumptive but given the fact that what has driven human to current state
civilization is because the existence of curiosity which is the basic stage of creativity and
innovation.
Bataineh & Tasnimi (2014) suggest that this approach espouses students to be individualistic.
Radically thinking, any approach, model, technique and method in teaching have implication
that forms students’ personal character. CBT give exposure on how individual success is
critically matter for anyone. It neglects the promotion of cooperative work that helps solve
problem better. For some countries, education is essential to strengthen their identity.
Indonesia, for instance, has emphasized character education in its curriculum as counter
balance of their moral degradation issue. CBT for such purpose is therefore less recommended.
Cooperative Language Learning
The leading principle is promoting cooperation within students (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).
The classroom climate is designed to encourage students working together by problem given
to solve. Students are obliged to contribute by involving and contributing to group discussion.
While teacher is assigned as facilitator that offers students opportunity to work in by paying
attention and sharing opinion.
Another principle is developing communicative competence (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). CLL
in its implementation positions students as the centre of the teaching learning process. It is done
by paring or grouping students with a more dynamic interactive discussion. This mechanism
conspicuously shapes students’ communicative skill.
It is believed to increase motivation in learning. Teacher during the learning process assesses
students by their performance that tends to be appreciative. The stimulating learning climate
through an attractive learning model encourages students develop their communicative skill
and critical thinking. Through discussion of solving the problem given, the sense of learning is
urged.
CLL is further leading up to group working that promotes cognitive development. The
discussion of the students in the group is coming from different proficiency. A major finding
(Wilkinson, 2016) suggests that discussion result to better knowledge acquisition. Distinct
proficiency in understanding context, concept or problem compels a glimpse of material
discussed. Through process of exchanging information in the discussion, students
understanding are therefore faster to be constructed.
It is not obvious that students will perform expected group dynamic application. Individuals
are different by nature and it is more challenging to guide students to work hand in hand.
Conflict between different perception and ideas are inevitable during a discussion. Considering
that one teaching allotted time could not facilitate students with time they need to get their
work done, learners would not completely understand a concept or solve a problem. This is
possible to take place if teacher groups students without considering their competence.
Furthermore, teacher pushes ahead students in their group discussion, while this pressure my

9
Copyright © 2020, Journal La Edusci, Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0
cost students’ motivation in learning. Considering this constraint, it is not concrete to assume
that students would definitely have done the process in cooperative learning.
Content-Based Instruction
The core idea of CBI focuses on the material substance (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Its
concern puts aside language grammatical approach as the material. The practice exposes the
use of real communication and exchange of information. The acquisition of content is done
through language rather than stud of language.
Another basic principle of this approach focuses on promoting learning autonomy within
students by attracting students through interesting material (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). The
focus of the material is determined by its affection on students learning. The material used is
relevant to student’s life, interest or goal.
The similarities of these principles can be seen from its mechanism in addressing learners’ need
in learning. The development of students’ competence through a specific target knowledge and
skill in language teaching is examined by their performance during learning process rather than
final test requirement.
They likewise shape students’ personality in learning. Motivation in learning is a key factor
that determine students’ willingness. Since it is found that comprehension and performance are
more espoused when students have a strong stimulus (Ahmadi, 2017), the similarity therefore
promotes learning autonomy.
Differences are minor to be found. They only differ seen from the position and role of the
teacher. Consecutively, one stays as instructor to guide the students during the learning activity.
Another one puts teacher as facilitator that provides further information and correcting students
misunderstanding. The last position teacher as guide, information centre and instructor.
CBI contributes to social collaborative attitudes. Problem solving process obviously builds
bounding among learners. Knowledge sharing occurrence naturally shapes their role in group.
Different characteristics of individuals are recognised by each and their roles are determined
by means of each own proficiency and expertise. A good bounding within students is determent
It likewise provides extensive and contextualised-language knowledge. The course provision
equips students with real use of linguistic competence in different social context. Although the
content is determined based on attractive material and learners’ goals of the target language,
but the learning activity habituate students with critical thinking that contributes to their
aptitude dealing with complex social context.
Material prepared and instructed to discuss may not meet students’ proficiency. in language
proficiency case, students might get excited by the material, but a course that requires students
to speak English would be a burden in conveying their ideas. In EFL learner context, this
problem always takes place and becomes a huge issue for the teacher to address. In the
comprehension aspect, teacher may provide material that is beyond students understanding.
Thus, background knowledge should be there to advocate students in order for the learner to
be able to engage in the dynamic of the discussion. It will cost the allotted time for discussion.
This proficiency issue is quite peremptory for the success of CBI.
Similarities and Differences
Similarly, the three approaches cost possibility of students’ personal character in learning
whether it is their motivation or personal competence. These weaknesses are avoidable by
making sure the provision well prepared. While the differences in weakness can be seen in its
scale of casualty. CBLT causes character education issue and its competence in facing a
complex social circumstance which is quite conspicuous when implementing in national scale.
CBI covers students and teacher proficiency that is considered not effective if the

10
Copyright © 2020, Journal La Edusci, Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0
implementation does not take material and students’ different competence into account. CLL
weakness shows a feasible challenging with the classroom discussion dynamics and the allotted
time. The weakness shows one leads to a broad scale, the other one causes teacher and students
and the last costs the practical implementation.
The similarities of the three approach can be seen from its focus in addressing students’
development in learning. As suggested that cooperativeness of students would escalate
communicative competence (Ahmed & Pawar, 2018), the strengths mostly substantiate the
acquisition of linguistic knowledge and skill. The implementation facilitates learners with
knowledge sharing process through discussion, cooperation, and problem solving.
The differences rely on its relativity in of the material taught. CBLT takes students need in
learning language as the outcome of the course, CLL focuses more on the target language
exposure through social communicative competence in learning, while CBI ensures the
learners to have enticement to excite them in learning.
Modification
in public school context, students are obliged to have inputs that is standardised by government.
The CBLT modification takes national competency standard as the outcome source. CBI would
contribute to the provision of the course’s content material that is considered attractive and
stimulating for students learning behaviour. CLL principles applied as a mechanism to
complement students with social communicative competence and critical thinking.
As an instance, taking place in one full teaching learning process about 90 minutes is described
in the following paragraph.
The material taught is assimilating students with kinds of text and producing one kind of text
for each group. The first five minutes would be a praying and greeting session. Five minutes
ahead, teacher is reflecting previous lesson to brainstorm their understanding. The next five
minutes, teacher explains the classroom activity and groups the students based on students’
competence. Teacher’s glasses on learner that is considered capable of leading the group based
on their comprehension capability would be vital in ensuring expected classroom dynamic
occurred. Students are given thirty minutes to discuss the concept of different types of text.
The next twenty minutes students are producing their own text with different types for each.
During the allotted of the discussion process, students are able to ask question if the group
stuck to understand concept. Because there are few numbers of groups, teacher is unable to
observe students’ participation in the discussion. Therefore, each student in the group will be
asked to take note ideas produced by peers. By the collection of the note, teacher would be able
to assess students’ contribution and willingness in learning.
The next fifteen minutes, students are then grouped based on kinds of text they are writing.
During this allotted time, students are required to read their peer writing and to comment either
it lacks or not. Remaining fifteen minutes, teacher point a representative of each text group to
explain about their own text concept and tricks the reveal in writing the text.
Potential Problems
To identify the possible problems during the practice of the modification, associating the
practice with the teaching purpose could be a good standard. The problem probably takes place
during within the text production. Even if discussion runs well, students’ competence in
producing text might be different. Reflecting to previous teaching experience, some students
are incapable of producing writing in limited time. The process of writing text based on specific
type examine creativity. This is less creative when racing with time because idea does not come
spontaneously. Understanding concept and producing text should be done in different period
of time.

11
Copyright © 2020, Journal La Edusci, Under the license CC BY-SA 4.0
Conclusion
The similarities of the three approach can be seen from its focus in addressing students’
development in learning. The differences rely on its relativity in of the material taught. CBLT
takes students need in learning language as the outcome of the course, CLL focuses more on
the target language exposure through social communicative competence in learning, while CBI
ensures the learners to have enticement to excite them in learning. In implementing this
modified method, Understanding concept and producing text should be done in different period
of time.
References
Ahmed, S. T. S., & Pawar, S. V. (2018). Communicative competence in English as a foreign
language: Its meaning and the pedagogical considerations for its development. The
Creative Launcher, 2(4), 301-312.
Ahmadi, M. R. (2017). The Impact of Motivation on Reading Comprehension, 1–7.
Bataineh, K. B., & Tasnimi, M. (2014). Competency-Based Language Teaching, Express, an
International Journal of Multi Disciplinary Research, 1(7).
Brady, L. (2006). Outcome ‐ based education : a critique, (March 2015), 37–41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0958517960070102
Glickman, N. (2008). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for deaf and hearing persons with
language and learning challenges. Routledge.
Hackathorn, J., Solomon, E. D., & Blankmeyer, K. L. (2011). Learning by Doing : An
Empirical Study of Active Teaching Techniques, Journal of Effective Teaching 11(2),
40–54.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2001). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge University Press.
Stallard, P., Phillips, R., Montgomery, A. A., Spears, M., Anderson, R., Taylor, J., ... &
Georgiou, L. (2013). A cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the clinical
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of classroom-based cognitive-behavioural
therapy (CBT) in reducing symptoms of depression in high-risk adolescents. Health
technology assessment (Winchester, England), 17(47), vii.
Wilkinson, I. A. G. (2016). Discussion methods, (January 2009). In book: Psychology of
classroom learning: An encyclopedia. Publisher: Gale/Cengage