EXAMPLE OF MINI RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR TBI OR ENGLISH EDU DEPT STUDENTS

 EXAMPLE OF MINI RESEARCH PROPOSAL FOR TBI OR ENGLISH EDU DEPT STUDENTS

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

THE USE OF DICTOGLOSS IN IMPROVING STUDENTS’ LISTENING AND WRITING SKILLS

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Listening and writing are two essential skills in English language learning, yet many students continue to face challenges in comprehending spoken texts and expressing ideas coherently in written form. Limited vocabulary, low concentration during listening, and insufficient awareness of text organization frequently hinder learners’ performance in both skills (Brown, 2004). Dictogloss, introduced by Wajnryb (1990), is a pedagogical technique that integrates listening and writing through note-taking, collaborative reconstruction, and grammar awareness activities. Previous studies have shown that dictogloss can improve language comprehension, vocabulary retention, and writing coherence (Jacobs & Small, 2003; Kowal & Swain, 1994).

Although dictogloss has been widely studied, several gaps in our understanding remain. First, many previous studies focus primarily on grammar improvement or general writing performance (Kowal & Swain, 1994), while fewer investigate its dual impact on both listening and writing skills simultaneously. Second, research in Asian EFL contexts often examines dictogloss in higher education settings (Hanafi, 2014), leaving limited evidence from secondary school learners whose linguistic and cognitive characteristics differ significantly. Third, little attention has been given to students’ perceptions of dictogloss as a skill-integration technique, despite evidence that learner attitudes influence task effectiveness and learning outcomes (Nunan, 2004). These gaps suggest the need for empirical research that examines the effectiveness of dictogloss in enhancing both listening and writing skills among secondary-level EFL students, and explores their responses to the technique.

The novelty of the present study lies in its integrated focus on listening and writing skills within a single instructional intervention. Unlike previous research that tends to isolate the effects of dictogloss on either listening or writing, this study investigates how the technique simultaneously enhances both receptive and productive skills. Additionally, the study incorporates learners’ perceptions, offering insight into the motivational and affective dimensions of using dictogloss in the classroom. This combination of skill integration and perceptual analysis provides a more comprehensive understanding of how dictogloss functions in real classroom contexts, particularly at the secondary school level—an area that has been underrepresented in previous studies.

Theoretically, this study contributes to the literature on integrated-skills instruction by demonstrating how dictogloss facilitates cognitive processes that connect listening input with written output. Through collaborative reconstruction, students engage in noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic reflection, which are core components of Swain’s (1995) Output Hypothesis. By demonstrating how dictogloss facilitates these processes across both listening and writing modes, the study provides empirical support for task-based learning theories and reinforces the argument for using collaborative reconstruction tasks to enhance multiple language skills simultaneously. The findings may also refine existing models of dictogloss by highlighting its role not only as a grammar-awareness task but as a comprehensive skill-integration tool in EFL contexts.

B. Research Questions

Does dictogloss improve students’ listening skills?

Does dictogloss improve students’ writing skills?

What are students’ perceptions of using dictogloss?

C. Objectives of the Study

To determine whether dictogloss improves students’ listening skills.

To determine whether dictogloss improves students’ writing skills.

To describe students’ perceptions toward dictogloss.

D. Significance of the Study

For Students: Helps improve listening comprehension and writing organization.

For Teachers: Provides an interactive technique to integrate skills.

For Schools: Supports the improvement of English teaching quality.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

A. Listening Skill

Listening is a complex receptive skill that involves receiving, processing, and interpreting spoken language in real time. According to Brown (2004), effective listening involves the integration of both bottom-up processes, such as recognizing sounds, words, and grammatical structures, and top-down processes, including the use of prior knowledge, context, and expectations to interpret meaning. Similarly, Nunan (2015) explains that listening comprehension is an active process in which learners construct meaning by interacting with linguistic input and their prior knowledge. In the EFL context, learners often struggle with listening due to unfamiliar vocabulary, fast speech rates, and limited exposure to authentic spoken texts.

B. Writing Skill

Writing is a productive skill that involves generating and organizing ideas into coherent texts. Harmer (2007) describes writing as a multistage process that includes planning, drafting, revising, and editing, allowing learners to refine their ideas and language use. In addition, Richards and Renandya (2002) note that writing requires mastery of vocabulary, grammar, spelling, and discourse structures, making it one of the most demanding skills for language learners. In the EFL classroom, students often face challenges such as limited vocabulary, difficulty organizing ideas, and a lack of awareness of text cohesion and coherence.

C. Dictogloss

Dictogloss is a reconstruction-based learning task in which learners listen to a short text, take notes, and collaboratively reconstruct the text as accurately as possible (Wajnryb, 1990). The activity combines listening comprehension, note-taking, grammar awareness, and collaborative writing. According to Swain (2005), reconstruction tasks like dictogloss promote “pushed output,” encouraging learners to produce more accurate and coherent language. Furthermore, Vasiljevic (2010) argues that dictogloss supports both meaning-focused listening and form-focused instruction, making it an effective tool for integrated-skills learning.

D. Previous Studies

Several studies have demonstrated the benefits of dictogloss for language learning. Jacobs and Small (2003) found that dictogloss improved students’ grammatical accuracy and enhanced their ability to produce coherent written texts. Vasiljevic (2010) reported that students improved their listening comprehension through focused attention and collaborative meaning negotiation during dictogloss activities. Additionally, Kim (2013) noted that dictogloss helped learners enhance vocabulary retention and develop greater awareness of language structures. These studies indicate that dictogloss is effective for improving both receptive and productive language skills.

E. Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework of this study is based on the integration of listening and writing through the dictogloss method. When students listen to a text, they engage in focused attention, bottom-up decoding, and top-down interpretation, which contribute to improved listening comprehension (Brown, 2004). During note-taking and text reconstruction, students activate their writing processes, including organizing ideas, selecting appropriate vocabulary, and applying grammar structures (Harmer, 2007). Collaborative reconstruction allows learners to compare ideas, discuss linguistic forms, and refine their written output, leading to improved coherence and accuracy (Swain, 2005). Thus, dictogloss functions as a bridge that strengthens both listening and writing skills through integrated, meaningful, and interactive language use.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A. Research Design

This study employs a quasi-experimental design, utilizing a pre-test and post-test format, to measure the effectiveness of dictogloss in improving students’ listening and writing skills. A quasi-experimental design is suitable for classroom research where random assignment is often not possible (Creswell, 2012). The pre-test is used to measure students’ initial language ability before the treatment, while the post-test measures the improvement after the intervention. According to Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010), this design is effective for identifying causal relationships between instructional interventions and learning outcomes.

B. Participants

The participants of this study will be approximately 25–35 students from Grade X or XI at SMART Creative High School Salatiga. Purposive sampling is used to select intact classes based on accessibility and relevance to the research purpose (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016). The students share similar academic backgrounds and English proficiency levels, which supports the validity of the comparison between pre-test and post-test results.

C. Research Location and Time

The research will be conducted at a senior high school in Salatiga during the even semester of the academic year. Conducting the study in a natural classroom environment maintains ecological validity, allowing the dictogloss intervention to be integrated into regular English lessons (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2018).

D. Research Instruments

To collect data, three instruments will be used:

Listening Test

The listening test measures students’ comprehension of spoken texts. Brown (2004) states that structured listening tests are essential for assessing both bottom-up and top-down comprehension skills.

Writing Test and Scoring Rubric

A writing test is administered to evaluate students’ ability to reconstruct information and express ideas coherently. A scoring rubric will be used to measure aspects such as content, organization, grammar, vocabulary, and mechanics, following the guidelines suggested by Weigle (2002).

Student Perception Questionnaire

A questionnaire is used to explore students’ attitudes toward the dictogloss activity. Dornyei and Taguchi (2010) highlight that questionnaires are effective for gathering large amounts of data on learners' perceptions.

E. Data Collection Procedures

The study follows several systematic steps:

Administering Pre-Tests

Listening and writing pre-tests are given to measure initial performance levels.

Implementing Dictogloss-Based Lessons

Students participate in dictogloss activities, which include listening to a short text, taking notes, and collaboratively reconstructing the text. Wajnryb (1990) emphasizes that these stages promote integrated listening and writing practice.

Administering Post-Tests

After the intervention, post-tests are administered to determine improvement in students’ listening and writing skills.

Distributing Questionnaires

Students complete a questionnaire to provide feedback on their learning experience and perceptions of the dictogloss technique.

F. Data Analysis Techniques

Quantitative data from the listening and writing tests will be analyzed using descriptive statistics (mean, percentage, and standard deviation) to describe students’ performance. Additionally, a paired sample t-test will be used to determine whether there is a statistically significant improvement following the dictogloss intervention. The paired t-test is appropriate for comparing pre-test and post-test scores of the same group (Pallant, 2020). Questionnaire data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics to summarize students’ perceptions.

 REFERENCES 

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education (8th ed.). Wadsworth.

Brown, H. D. (2004). Language assessment: Principles and classroom practices. Pearson Education.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Pearson.

Dornyei, Z., & Taguchi, T. (2010). Questionnaires in second language research (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4.

Hanafi, A. (2014). The effectiveness of dictogloss in developing EFL learners’ writing skills. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 3(3), 41–47.

Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching (4th ed.). Longman.

Jacobs, G., & Small, J. (2003). Combining dictogloss and cooperative learning to promote language learning. The Reading Matrix, 3(1), 1–15.

Kim, Y. (2013). Effects of the dictogloss task on vocabulary learning and language awareness. ELT Journal, 67(1), 86–95.

Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1994). Using collaborative language production tasks to promote students’ language awareness. Language Awareness, 3(2), 73–93.

Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (2015). Teaching English to speakers of other languages: An introduction. Routledge.

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual (7th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Richards, J. C., & Renandya, W. A. (2002). Methodology in language teaching: An anthology of current practice. Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning (pp. 471–483). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Vasiljevic, Z. (2010). Dictogloss as an interactive method of teaching listening comprehension to L2 learners. English Language Teaching, 3(1), 41–52.

Wajnryb, R. (1990). Grammar dictation. Oxford University Press.

Weigle, S. C. (2002). Assessing writing. Cambridge University Press.