Background. Self-regulated learning strategies play an essential role in the success of students’ learning of writing. The use of these strategies might be influenced by the student’s individual differences. Purpose. This study was conducted to describe EFL university students’ preferences for self-regulated writing strategies. It also examined the different use of self-regulated writing strategies by considering gender, interest in English writing, and writing achievement. Further, it measured the predictive effects of self-regulated writing strategies on the students’ writing achievement. Methods. This research applied a quantitative approach and involved 58 English students. The students were required to respond to a self-report survey using the Self-Regulated Learning Strategy Questionnaire. The students’ writing achievement was measured based on their scores in writing an argumentative essay. The data were then analyzed using descriptive statistics, an independent sample t-test, One Way Anova, and multiple regression. Results. The results uncovered that the overall use of self-regulated writing strategies was at a high level with the social environment strategy dimension on the top rank and motive on the bottom. Further analysis showed that there is no significant difference in the use of self-regulated writing strategies based on gender, interest in English writing, and writing achievement. Meanwhile, multiple regression analysis indicated the predictive effect of self-regulated writing strategies on writing achievement. To this end, teachers need to encourage students to use self-regulated writing strategies more optimally to enhance their writing quality. Conclusion. EFL students have invested high awareness of using self-regulated writing strategies. Along with this high awareness, students’ individual differences such as gender, interest in English writing, and proficiency level might not strongly influence the use of SRW strategies. Though not strong, the use of self-regulated writing strategies contributes to the students’ writing quality improvement.

In argumentative writing, the presence of logical fallacy, which can be simply defined as error in reasoning, shows either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points that will undermine the strength of a claim. Despite its significant role in determining the quality of an argument, the topic of logical fallacy has not been widely explored in the context of EFL, the possible reason being the fact that there are other aspects that need more immediate intervention, such as grammar, organization, or mechanics. The objective of the current study is to identify and discuss logical fallacies in the argumentative writing of Indonesian EFL learners. For this purpose, 40 argumentative essays written by the students of the English Department of State University of Malang were analyzed. An FGD discussion involving students who participated in the essay writing process was organized following the identification of logical fallacies in their writing. The results of the study showed that students still produced a number of logical fallacies in their work, some of which were very basic they can actually be avoided through simple, explicit instruction.

No abstract

This study aims to explore how, in relation to Indonesia’s Gerakan Literasi Sekolah (GLS – School Literacy Initiative), Indonesian English teachers of secondary schools conceptualize L2 literacy in terms of linguistic and other sign systems, cognitive, sociocultural, and developmental dimensions, a model of literacy beliefs profile by Kucer (2014). The data were collected through a survey questionnaire adapted from Kucer’s model, comprising 37 closed-ended items on conceptual understandings of foreign language literacy, presented in values of 1 to 5 Likert-scale indicating statements from strongly disagree (SD), disagree (D), neutral (N), agree (A), to strongly agree (SA). After being moderated for validity and clarity, the questionnaire was distributed to various groups and forums of English teachers through Google-form. With this convenience sampling procedure, 157 English teachers, mostly from East Java Province, Indonesia, responded to our questionnaire. The results of descriptive analyses in the forms of mean percentages portray how English teachers in our study successfully frame L2 language literacy as reflected in Kucer’s dimensions, which potentially equip them with knowledge about taking part in the success of GLS implementation. They seem to understand that the core of literacy lies in the cognitive dimension, suggesting the use of literacy to express meanings, and that the expressions of meaning require linguistic literacy dimension as the vehicle. These cognitive and linguistic literacy dimensions are affected by the sociocultural literacy dimension, and the employment of the three dimensions tends to continually exist as we are experiencing new and novel events from day to day. Future research might focus on exploring how these understandings about literacy are finally realized in the classroom.

Although recognizing students’ demotivating factors (or demotivators) is as important as acknowledging motivating factors in language learning, only few studies are focused in this area especially in the Indonesian context. More specifically, there are limited studies investigating demotivators in home online English learning as response of social distancing order amid the COVID-19 pandemic. This research employed two kinds of data, quantitative and qualitative. Questionnaire with 27 items was the main instrument used to obtain data about learners’ level of demotivation and demotivators as well as to identify the frequency of each demotivator. An open-ended question was attached at the end of the questionnaire to dig other additional demotivators. An interview was also conducted to gain supporting data for in-depth analysis. The results showed that the level of the 198 students’ demotivation was 2.9, categorized as lowly demotivated. The most-frequently rated demotivators in home online English learning were lack of interaction with 78.9% responses followed by 66.2% for increasing assignments and 62.1% for slow Internet connection. In terms of content and material, expectation to use grammatically correct English was the most demotivating factor with 59.6% responses. The study also revealed additional demotivators namely unsupportive parents, doing house chores, and Wi-fi absence.Keywords:     demotivator, home online English learning, level of demotivation