Self-Assessment Questionnaire Model for Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho

(LRM) in the Japanese Department

Idrus and Lady Diana Yusri

Japanese Department, Faculty of Humanities, Universitas Andalas, Padang, Indonesia

Keywords: Self-Assessment, Questionnaire, Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho, Japanese Department.

Abstract: Linguistic Research Methodology Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho (LRM) is a compulsory subject in the Japanese

Department curriculum. Students learn how to write background, formulation of problems, goals, benefits,

research methods, previous research, and theoretical basis for research. After studying various research

methods in the field of linguistics, students write a linguistics research proposal that can be submitted as the

thesis proposal. In this term, 'self-assessment rubric' was used as a new variable in the assessment system.

Students were given the opportunity to provide an assessment of the achievements they had obtained

independently by referring to the predetermined learning outcomes of the Linguistic Research Method

courses..

1 INTRODUCTION

Linguistic Research Methodology Kenkyu Keikaku

Sakuseiho (LRM) is a compulsory subject in the

Japanese Literature curriculum (Unand, 2014).

Students study various kinds of research

methodologies in the field of Linguistics. The

research method studied when students take this

course are qualitative, quantitative or mixed method

approaches. After learning various research methods

in the field of linguistics, students write the research

proposal which can later be submitted as a thesis

proposal. This course is offered in semester 6 with the

aim that students can write thesis proposals well so

that they can complete the requirements of the

Japanese Department on time.

Linguistic Research Methods can also be

considered the course that prepares students to write

thesis proposals. In this course, students learn how to

write background, formulation of problems, goals,

benefits, previous research, and the theoretical basis

for the research proposal. After attending this course,

students are expected to have the ability to write good

linguistics research proposals that can form the basis

of the thesis that is the requirement to complete the

masters program. Other expected outcomes are that

students develop soft skill competencies both

intrapersonal skills (including independence, critical

and analytical thinking) and interpersonal skills

(including teamwork and oral communication), and

basic student values (including integrity, discipline,

hard work, politeness /ethical values, and

confidence).

Up until now, the teaching materials used were

from the book Metode Penelitian Bahasa, but the use

of the book has not brought encouraging results

because many students who have difficulty compiling

the research proposal. The learning method applied

until now has been the case study. The PowerPoints

shown to students in the class have not been able to

stimulate students to master this course well. The

assessment carried out in measuring student learning

outcomes depended entirely on assignment

assessments, midterm exams, and semester final

exams as well as attendance in lectures. Assessment

has several different purposes such as to measure

achievement (summative assessment/assessment of

learning), to engender learning (formative

assessment/assessment for learning), and to enable

learners to become aware of how they learn

(assessment as learning) (Wride, 2017). When

students are assessed in activities that seen

intrinsically meaningful or useful, they are more

likely to engage and invest in deep learning (Sambell,

et.al., 2013). One of the problems found in this

Linguistic Research Method course is that there are

Idrus, . and Yusri, L.

Self-Assessment Questionnaire Model for Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho (LRM) in the Japanese Department.

DOI: 10.5220/0008679100440047

In Improving Educational Quality Toward International Standard (ICED-QA 2018), pages 44-47

ISBN: 978-989-758-392-6

still some students who obtain D and E grades. This

is due to an assessment process that only refers to

results, not processes. Therefore, in the lecture

semester of the study, new variables were introduced

into the assessment system; a 'self-assessment rubric'.

Self-assessment involves the learners in making

judgments about their achievement and the outcome

of their learning (Boud and Falchikov, 2006). One

helpful definition of self-assessment that focuses on

the formative learning that it can promote: self-

assessment is a process of formative assessment

during which students reflect on and evaluate the

quality of their work and their learning, judge the

degree to which they reflect explicitly stated goals or

criteria, identify strengths, and weaknesses in their

work, and revise accordingly (Andrade, 2007; Spiller,

2012)).

Students were given the opportunity to assess the

achievements they had obtained independently by

referring to the predetermined learning achievements

of the Linguistic Research Methods course. Thus, it

was expected that there would be no more students

obtaining D and E grades. Student assessments were

conducted on the draft of the thesis proposal

submitted by students at the end of the lecture and

also on the process of writing the thesis proposal.

Draft proposal presentations were also included in the

assessment as was the revision of the thesis proposal

draft after input by peers and lecturer. At the end of

the course, the lecturer prepared a self-assessment

rubric which was filled in by each Linguistic

Research Methods student.

The self-assessment rubric provided an overview

of the development of student abilities related to the

process of writing a research proposal. Students

assessed their own achievements after taking this

course. Students assessed their own ability to apply

the material that had been studied in thesis proposal

writing, so that their thesis proposals could be

appropriate for submittion to the thesis proposal

seminar exam. The student's final score was a

combination of self-assessment, independent and

disciplined work, mid semester exam scores, and end

of semester exam scores.

2 QUESTIONNAIRE RESULTS

At the end of the lecture, all students who took the

Linguistic Research Methodology course filled out

the self-assessment questionnaire. The results of

filling out the questionnaire were processed so that

the following graphs were obtained.

2.1 Title Composing

The table below shows that in the selection of titles or

formulating titles, 24% of the students rated

themselves as 'quite good', there is relationship

between the title and the problem and research

objectives. The percentage of students who rated

themselves 'good' was 57% which meant that they

have formulated a title that has a relationship with the

problem and the purpose of the research that is well

illustrated. Next, 19% of the students rated

themselves 'very good', which meant that the

formulation of the title was very good because it was

specific and had an obvious relationship with the

problem and research objectives.

Figure 1: Title Composing.

2.2 Background Exposure

Figure 2: Background Exposure.

Fig. 2 above shows the results of student assessment

of the exposure of the background they obtained.

Only 6% of students who take this course assessed

their background as 'very good'. 57% of students

rated themselves as 'competent' in description of the

background because the background, problem

identification, the research objectives were clear and

the contribution of the study was well arranged.

Finally, 37% of students considered themselves to be

'good enough' in formulating background exposure

because the background, problem identification,

Self-Assessment Questionnaire Model for Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho (LRM) in the Japanese Department

research objectives was quite clear but the research

contribution was not well organized.

2.3 Methodology

Table 3 below shows the results of student self-

assessment of their research methodology. Only 4%

of students rated themselves poorly in describing their

research methodology. This meant that, in the

research, the proposal the research method existed but

the procedure for data collection, data analysis and

presentation of the results of data analysis does not

yet exist. Students who rated themselves quite well

amounted to 24% which meant that the research

method was included but the method for data

collection, data analysis and presentation of the

results of data analysis was not descibed. Then, 58%

of the students rated themselves 'good', which meant

the research method and procedures for data

collection, data analysis, and presentation of the

results of data analysis were good. Finally, 14% of the

students considered themselves very good at

formulating research methods which meant that their

thesis proposal research methods and procedures for

data collection, data analysis and presentation of the

results of data analysis were very good so that the

course of the research was clearly illustrated.

Figure 3: Methodology.

2.4 Literature Review

Student self-assessments of their literature reviews

can be seen in table 4 below. A total of 51% of

students considered themselves to have done a good

literature review which meant a literature review

consisting of previous research and the theory used is

complete in the formulation of the problem. The

percentage of students who rated themselves 'pretty

good' was 37%, which meant that they had done a

literature review consisting of previous research and

theories used in the formulation of the problem but it

was not complete. Then, 24% of students considered

themselves 'very good' because the literature review

they made consisted of previous research and

complete theory and the formulation of the problem

in the form of synthesis was accompanied by

examples. Finally, 4% of the students rated

themselves poorly which meant their literature review

consisted of previous research but the theory used is

not related to the formulation of the problem.

Figure4: Literature Review.

2.5 Writing Format

The results of the students' self assessment of the

writing of their thesis proposals can be seen in table 5

below.

Figure 5: Writing Format.

The percentage of students who rated themselves

'pretty good' regarding proposal writing was 32%

which meant the writing format was not consistent,

and there were still Indonesian spelling mistakes.

Then, 62% of the students considered themselves

'good' which meant that the format of the thesis

proposal writing began to be consistent and the use of

Indonesian Spelling was mostly correct. Finally, 6%

of the students rated themselves 'very good' which

meant that the writing format was consistent and the

use of Indonesian Spelling was correct, and the

coherence between paragraphs was well established.

ICED-QA 2018 - International Conference On Education Development And Quality Assurance

2.6 Presentation

Table 6 shows the ability of students to present their

thesis proposals. Firstly, 7% of students assessed

themselves as having been 'very good' at presenting

their proposals, using interesting PowerPoints with

graphs, diagrams, tables that were easy to understand

and the contents of the proposal had been mastered

clearly and coherently. The percentage of students

who rated themselves 'good' in the presentation was

51%, which meant that the PowerPoint was quite

interesting because the slides contained sentences and

paragraphs. The contents of the proposal had been

mastered sufficiently well. Then 38% of students

considered themselves to be 'good enough' in the

presentation of their proposals because their

PowerPoints were quite interesting containing

sentences and paragraphs but the contents of the

proposal were read during the presentation. Finally,

4% of students rated themselves poorly in the

proposal presentation because PowerPoints were not

attractive due to slides containing sentences and

paragraphs and the contents of the proposal were read

during the presentation.

Figure 6: Presentation.

2.7 Originality

Student self-assessment of the originality of their

thesis proposal topic can be seen in table 7 below. A

total of 16% of students rated themselves 'very good'.

This meant that the topic to be studied had never been

studied before. Then 38% of the students rated

themselves 'good', which meant that the topics to be

studied had been discussed before but the theories and

approaches used were different (different theories and

objects). Then, 21% of the students considered the

originality of their thesis proposal topic to be 'good

enough', which meant that the topic to be studied had

already been discussed before with a different theory

(different theories, same objects). Finally, 25% of the

students rated the originality of their thesis topic as

'not good' because the topic to be studied had already

been discussed before with different language objects

(the same theory with different objects).

Figure 7: Originality.

3 CONCLUSION

Self-Assessment is a way for students to assess

themselves. The use of self-assessment method in

Linguistic Research Method courses (Kenkyu

Keikaku Sakuseiho) aimed to enable students to

evaluate themselves by focusing on learning

outcomes. Students could become aware of their own

shortcomings so they could improve their future

performance. This method can also test students'

honesty, because students are given freedom in filling

out questionnaires.

REFERENCES

Andrade H., and Du Y. 2007. “Student Responses to

Criteria-Referenced Self-Assessment,” Assessment and

Evaluation in Higher Education, p. 160.

Boud D., and Falchikov N. 2006. Aligning Assessment with

Long-term Learning: Assessment and Evaluation in

Higher Education. London: Kogan, p. 529.

Sambell K., McDowellL, and Montgomery C. 2013.

Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Oxon:

Routledge.

Spiller Dorothy. 2012. Assessment Matters: Self-

Assessment and Peer Assessment, Teaching

Development Unit. Hamilton: Wahanga Whakapakari

Ako,

Unand. 2014. Ilmu Budaya Fakultas, Buku Panduan.

Padang: FIB Unand,

Wride Michael. 2017. Guide to Self-Assessment. Dublin:

University of Dublin Trinity College, p. 2.

Self-Assessment Questionnaire Model for Kenkyu Keikaku Sakuseiho (LRM) in the Japanese Department