Abstract
English for Specific Purposes (ESP) secara umum dimaknai sebagaisebuah pendekatan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris yang berbasis pada tujuan/kebutuhan si pembelajar. Dalam konteks pembelajaran bahasa Inggris di Indonesia baik pada sekolah menengah maupun perguruan tinggi, terutama bagi peserta didik di luar jurusan bahasa Inggris, pendekatan ESP merupakan pilihan populer. Aplikasi pendekatan ini senada pula dengan kebijakan pemerintah bidang pendidikan yang menitikberatkan tujuan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris yakni untuk meningkatkan kemampuan peserta didik menggunakan bahasa Inggris khususnya bagi kebutuhan akademis dan karir professional dengan penekanan pada kemampuan membaca yang memungkinkan peserta didik memahami topik-topik materi autentik sesuai jurusan mereka secara efektif. Artikel ini mengedepankan kajian teoritis menyangkut konsep dasar ESP meliputi definisi dan perannya sebagai sebuah pendekatan pembelajaran, berikut isu terkait diantaranya analisis kebutuhan sebagai ciri utama ESP, silabus, tujuan pembelajaran, materi, metodologi, dan evaluasi pembelajaran bahasa Inggris berbasis ESP.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Amran, H. 1976. “Decision-making in Language Course Design ´in Wilson, G. H. (ed.) Curriculum Development and Syllabus Design for English Teaching Singapore. SEAMEO Regional English Language Center
Barber, C.L. (1985). Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific proses. In J. Swales (Ed.), Episodes in ESP (pp. 1–16) Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Basturkmen, H. 2006. Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Jew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
Chaput, P.P. 1993. “Revitalizing the Traditional Program.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Crandall, J. & Richard, G.T. 1990.“Content-Based Instruction in Second and Foreign Languages.” In: Amado Padilla, Hatford H. Fairchild and Concepcion Valadez (eds.) Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001).Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach.In J. Flowerdew& M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for AcademicPurposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, page 225–238
Dudley-Evans, T & St John, M J. 1998.Development in English for Specific Purposes.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, page 1; Smoak, R. 2003. What is English for Specific Purposes.English Teaching Forum.Vol. 41, No: 2 April 2003
Douglas, D. 2000. Assessing Language for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001a). The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods and challenges. In J. Flowerdew& M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes.(pp. 177–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eskey, D. 1997. “Syllabus Design in Content-Based Instruction.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Findley, C. A. & L. A. Nathan. 1980. Functional Language Objectives in a Competency-based ESL Curriculum. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.14 No 2 June 1980.
Genesee, F. 1994. Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning,
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1993.English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T & Waters, A. 1987.English for Specific Purposes, A Learning-centered Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Krahnke, K. 1987. Approach to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey
Mackay, R., &Mountford, A. (Eds.). (1978). English for Specific Purposes: A case study approach. London: Longman.
Met (ed.). 1998. Critical Issues in Early Second Language Learning. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman-Addison Wesley
Mulyasa, E. 2004.KurikulumBerbasisKompetensi: Konsep, Karakteristik, danImplementasi. Bandung: RemajaRosdakarya
Munby, J. 1987. Communicative Syllabus Design.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards. J. C. &Renandya, W. A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: an Anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Richards, J.C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J.C & Rodger, S.T. 2001.Approach and Methods in Language Teaching.USA. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
Richards, J.C. 1996. Teachers as Course Developers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richterich, A. 1972.A Model for the Definition of Adult Language Needs. CCC/EES (72) 49. Strasbourg: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Robinson, P.C. 1991. ESP Today: Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Prentice Hall
Strevens, P. 1988. ESP after twenty years are appraisal in ESP State of the Art. SEAMEO Regional Language Center
Stern in Basturkmen, H. 2006.Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Jew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Sujana, I.M. 2005.Establishing English Competencies for Students of Tourism Department.http://www.geocities.com/nuesp/paper_10.htm. Retrieved on August 13, 2012
Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum Development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World
Todd, W. R. 2003. EAP or TEAP? In English for Academic Purposes vol 2 no. 2. Page 157
Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1990. Aspect of Language Teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalden, J. 1987. Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching Implementation. London: Prentice-Hall.
Barber, C.L. (1985). Some measurable characteristics of modern scientific proses. In J. Swales (Ed.), Episodes in ESP (pp. 1–16) Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Basturkmen, H. 2006. Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Jew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers
Chaput, P.P. 1993. “Revitalizing the Traditional Program.” In: Kreuger and Ryan (eds.) Language and Content: Discipline- and Content-Based Approaches to Language Study. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
Crandall, J. & Richard, G.T. 1990.“Content-Based Instruction in Second and Foreign Languages.” In: Amado Padilla, Hatford H. Fairchild and Concepcion Valadez (eds.) Foreign Language Education: Issues and Strategies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dudley-Evans, T. (2001).Team-teaching in EAP: Changes and adaptations in the Birmingham approach.In J. Flowerdew& M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for AcademicPurposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, page 225–238
Dudley-Evans, T & St John, M J. 1998.Development in English for Specific Purposes.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, page 1; Smoak, R. 2003. What is English for Specific Purposes.English Teaching Forum.Vol. 41, No: 2 April 2003
Douglas, D. 2000. Assessing Language for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Flowerdew, J., & Peacock, M. (2001a). The EAP curriculum: Issues, methods and challenges. In J. Flowerdew& M. Peacock (Eds.), Research perspectives on English for Academic Purposes.(pp. 177–194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eskey, D. 1997. “Syllabus Design in Content-Based Instruction.” In: Snow and Brinton (eds.) The Content-Based Classroom. New York: Longman.
Findley, C. A. & L. A. Nathan. 1980. Functional Language Objectives in a Competency-based ESL Curriculum. TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.14 No 2 June 1980.
Genesee, F. 1994. Integrating Language and Content: Lessons from Immersion. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning,
Hutchinson, T. & Waters, A. 1993.English for Specific Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hutchinson, T & Waters, A. 1987.English for Specific Purposes, A Learning-centered Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Krahnke, K. 1987. Approach to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language Teaching. Prentice-Hall. New Jersey
Mackay, R., &Mountford, A. (Eds.). (1978). English for Specific Purposes: A case study approach. London: Longman.
Met (ed.). 1998. Critical Issues in Early Second Language Learning. Glenview, IL: Scott-Foresman-Addison Wesley
Mulyasa, E. 2004.KurikulumBerbasisKompetensi: Konsep, Karakteristik, danImplementasi. Bandung: RemajaRosdakarya
Munby, J. 1987. Communicative Syllabus Design.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, D. 1988. Syllabus Design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Richards. J. C. &Renandya, W. A. 2002. Methodology in Language Teaching: an Anthology of current practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Richards, J.C. 2001. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richards, J.C & Rodger, S.T. 2001.Approach and Methods in Language Teaching.USA. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press
Richards, J.C. 1996. Teachers as Course Developers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Richterich, A. 1972.A Model for the Definition of Adult Language Needs. CCC/EES (72) 49. Strasbourg: Pergamon Press Ltd.
Robinson, P.C. 1991. ESP Today: Practitioner’s Guide. New York: Prentice Hall
Strevens, P. 1988. ESP after twenty years are appraisal in ESP State of the Art. SEAMEO Regional Language Center
Stern in Basturkmen, H. 2006.Ideas and options in English for specific purposes. Jew Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Sujana, I.M. 2005.Establishing English Competencies for Students of Tourism Department.http://www.geocities.com/nuesp/paper_10.htm. Retrieved on August 13, 2012
Taba, H. 1962. Curriculum Development: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World
Todd, W. R. 2003. EAP or TEAP? In English for Academic Purposes vol 2 no. 2. Page 157
Ur, P. 1996. A Course in Language Teaching.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Widdowson, H.G. 1990. Aspect of Language Teaching.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Yalden, J. 1987. Principles of Course Design for Language Teaching Implementation. London: Prentice-Hall.