LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Teaching

2

Authors: Monica Ella Harendita

The ever-changing development of digital technology has become a scapegoat that exacerbates literacy. In scrutinising this issue, this article counters the simplistic view on literacy. Instead, it views literacy as socially, culturally and historically constructed. Therefore, the traditional definition of literacy, which is the ability to read and write, may not fit the digital age. This article discusses how digital technologies have reshaped the nature of literacy. After discussing literacy, and the Internet in general and Web 2.0 in particular, this paper presents some implications for language teachers in dealing with the “altered” literacy practices. First, critical literacy should be embedded in classroom practices so as to make students critically evaluate the free-flowing information on the Internet. Second, language teachers should nurture participatory culture of the students by encouraging collaboration among them.

4

Authors: Concilianus Laos Mbato

Curriculum, and its ensuing syllabus, may reflect various competing ideologies rather than merely being a vehicle to promote quality teaching and education. In practice, English teachers may have to encounter and confront an imposed curriculum, and syllabus, in thier EGP classes. Despite such imposition, this article argues that they can and should adopt a flexible approach to the document in order to cater for learners’ varied and changing learning needs. To achieve the aim, this article draws on theories of curriculum and discusses core issues in the teaching of English for Specific Purposes. A particular focus is then given to teaching practices in EGP classrooms where teachers interpret and implement a curriculum. A flexible model to the syllabus is offered.

6

Authors: Herujiyanto Herujiyanto

Without denying the truth of the so-called silent enim leges inter arma [Law stands mute in the midst of arms], this paper makes use of the analytical perspectives of New Criticism, Russian Formalism and Structuralism to look into Arifin C. Noer’s play named Moths. It is admitted that literary critics often define their assumptions about literary work and the better way to go about reading it (and writing about it). The New Critics, Russian Formalists and the Structuralists are only three of them. According to Ian Ousby, the three groups can be described as formalists; they share a common conception: a work is autotelic, that is, complete in itself, written for its own sake, and unified by its form – that which makes it a work of art.1 Looking closer at the three movements, we would undoubtedly find that they are not exactly the same. The New Critics, for example, explicitly repudiated English Romanticism and its radical tradition while Russian Formalists merely attacked the utilitarian and social tradition.2 Then, Russian Formalists were concerned with the way in which the individual work of art was perceived differently against the background of the literary system as a whole. The Structuralists, however, set themselves the task of describing the organization of the total sign-system itself by dissolving the individual unit back into the langue of which it is a partial articulation.3 The end goal of this study is, thus, to find the possible ways to go about reading the play; to see how the playwright seems to write about his work; and to have a better understanding of the nature of the play.