Implementing Schoology in Blended Learning Environment and Its Relation to Creativity in Writing

Ketrin Viollita, Patuan Raja, Ari Nurweni


Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui 1)apakah ada perbedaan yang signifikan terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam menulis sebelum dan sesudah diajar melalui Schoology dalam lingkungan blended learning, 2) apakah ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara siswa yang memiliki kreatifitas tinggi dan kreatifitas rendah dalam menulis. Penelitian ini menerapkan desain kuantitatif dengan pretest posttest. Instrumen yang digunakan adalah tes menulis dan tes kreatifitas. Penelitian ini menggunakan Paired samples t-test dan ANOVA untuk menganalisis data. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa 1) ada perbedaan yang signifikan terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam menulis sebelum /dan sesudah diajar melalui Schoology dalam lingkungan blended learning karena t-value (9.029)> t-table (2.069)dengan sig. level<0.05, 2) ada perbedaan yang signifikan antara siswa yang memiliki kreatifitas tinggi dan kreatifitas rendah dalam menulis. Jadi, dapat disimpulkan bahwa Schoology merupakan cara yang efektif untuk mengajar menulis.

This research was done to find out 1) whether there is any significant difference in the students' writing achievement before and after the implementation of Schoology in blended learning environment and 2) the difference of students’ writing achievement between students who have high creativity low creativity.. Quantitative design was done with one group pre-test and post-test design. The instruments used were the creativity and writing test. Paired samples t-test and ANOVA were used to analyze the data. The results showed that 1) there is a significant difference of students' writing achievement since t-value (9.029)> t-table (2.069) with sig. level<0.05 and 2) There is a significant difference in writing achievement between students who have high creativity and low creativity. Thus, it can be concluded that the implementation of Schoology is an effective way to teach writing and it gives an impact to the students in constructing and showing their best ideas in written form.

Keywords: Blended learning environment, creativity, high creativity, low creativity, schoology , writing.


Full Text:



Akkoyunlu, Soylu. Y. 2008. A Study Of Student’s Perceptions In A Blended Learning Enviroment Based On Different Learning Styles. International Forum Of Educational Technology & Society. Vol. 11, No. 1, P. 183-193.

Ardi, P. 2017. Promoting Learner Autonomy Through Schoology M-Learning Platform In An Eap Class At An Indonesian University Teaching English With Technology

Asmara. 2013. POW+C-Space: A Strategy To Teach Writing Viewed From Students’ Creativity. Solo. UNS. Published Thesis.

Challob. 2016. Collaborative Blended Learning Writing Environment: Effects on EFL Students’ Writing Apprehension and Writing Performance. English Language Teaching;Vol.9,No.6.

Davis, H. C., & Fill, K. (2007). Embedding Blended Learning In Auniversity's TeachingCulture: Experiences And Reflections. BritishJournal of Educational

Dornyei, Zoltan. 2005. The Psychology Of The Language Learner: Individual Differences In Second Language Acquisition. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Febrijanto, Y. 2016. Promoting Mind Mapping Technique to Improve Nursing Students’ Writing Skill. Vol1 No2. October.

Hamad. 2015. Blended Learning Outcome Vs. Traditional Learning Outcome. International Journal On Studies In English Language And Literature (IJSELL) Volume 3, Issue 4, April Www.Arcjournals.Org.

Keshta, A.S., Harb. I. I. 2013. The Effectiveness Of A Blended Learning Program On Developing Palestinian Tenth Graders' English Writing Skills. Education Journal.(

Kidwell. 2010. The Impact of Student Engagement on Learning: The Critical 10th EPC for California. Leadership Magazine, Journal of the Association of California School Administrators (ACSA).

Lau, J.Y.F. 2011. An Introduction to Critical Thinking and Creativity: Think More, Think Better. John Wiley and Sons Incorporation, Hoboken, 26.

Low P. 2017. E-Learning Implementation In Foundation English Class: Learners’ Perspectives And Learning Achievement. International Journal Of Computer Theory And Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 4, August 2017.

Manktelow, James.2004. Mind Tools: Essential Skills for an Excellent Carrier. West Sussex: Minds Tools Ltd.

Oktarin, I. 2015. The Effectiveness Of Blended Learning To Teach Writing Viewed From Students’ Creativity (An Experimental Study At The English Education Department Of Slamet Riyadi University). Sebelas Maret University. Surakarta. A Published Thesis.

Pudin. 2014. Making the Most of Web 2.0 Tools in Teaching Writing: Teachers’ Perceptions on the Basic Guidelines for Facebook, Schoology, Wiki, Weblog, and, Glogster. International Journal on E-Learning Practices (IJELP) Volume 1(2) July 2014. Universiti Malaysia Sabah.

Schuetz. 2015. How Discussion Boost Engagement. (Online) Accessed on August2017.Availableat:

Shakhroni. 2013. Learning Processes in Blended Language Learning: A Mixed-­‐Methods Approach. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language. TESL-­‐EJ Vol.17 No.3, Nov. 2013.

Sicat. 2015. Enhancing College Students’ Proficiency in Business Writing Via Schoology. International Journal of Education and Research. Vol. 3 No. 1 January 2015. ISSN: 2201-6333 (Print) ISSN: 2201-6740 (Online)

Villalba, E. 2008. On Creativity. Towards an Understanding of Creativity and Its Measurement. JRC Scientific and Technical Report. EUR 23561. European Communities.Luxembourg.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2018 U-JET

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.