ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF NEGOTIATION OF MEANING IN STUDENTS’ SPEAKING ACTIVITY IN TASK-BASED LEARNING AT THE SECOND
YEAR OF SMA NEGERI 5 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By:
Ratih Sulistiyani
A large percentage of the world language learners study English in order to be able to communicate fluently. However in SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung was found that speaking skill was still not achieved the learning mastery because the teacher often asked the students to memorize the formula and to do the tasks from English textbook. Task-based learning activity is believed can obstacle the problems in which negotiation of meaning can facilitate the students in the speaking activity. This research was aimed: 1) to find out to what extend negotiation of meaning is used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning, 2) to find out which component of negotiation of meaning is mostly used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning.
This research is a qualitative descriptive in nature. The data was collected by recording, transcribing, and coding the students’ speaking activity. It was also supported by observation and interview. Elicitation was used to gather the data with the main instrument was communicative task. The data shows that the component of negotiation of meaning was mostly used by the students was clarification request which occurred 40 items, equal to 30.53%. It occurred when the listener need further information about the speaker’s utterances to keep the conversation still go on.
It could be concluded that negotiation of meaning could increase the sustainability of the conversation and open more opportunities for the students to provide comprehensible input and produce more comprehensible output.
LIST OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ... i
TITLE ... ii
ADVISORS APPROVAL ... iii
ADMISSION ... iv
CURRICULUM VITAE ... v
DEDICATION ... vi
MOTTO ... vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii
LIST OF CONTENTS ... x
LIST OF TABLES ... xii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ... xiii
I. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of Problem ... 1
1.2. Identification of the Problem ... 4
1.3. Limitation of the Problem... 5
1.4. Formulation of the Problem ... 5
1.5. Objectives of the Research ... 5
1.6. Uses of the Research ... 6
1.7. Scope of the Research ... 6
1.8. Definition of Terms ... 7
II. FRAME OF THEORIES 2.1. Review of Previous Researches ... 9
2.2. Review of Related Literatures 2.2.1 Concept of Speaking ... 14
2.2.2 Speaking Technique ... 21
2.2.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking ... 24
2.2.4 Aspect of Oral Ability ... 25
2.2.5 Concept of Negotiation of Meaning ... 26
2.2.6 The Role of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition ... 33
2.2.7 Negotiation of Meaning in Second and Foreign Language Setting ... 34
2.2.8 Concept of Task Based Learning ... 35
2.2.9 Procedure of Teaching Speaking through Task Based Learning ... 38
2.2.10 The Advantages of Task Based Learning ... 39
III. RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. Research Design ... 42
3.2. Subject of the Research ... 42
3.3. Research Procedure ... 43
3.4 Instrument of the Research ... 44
3.5. Data Collecting Technique ... 45
3.6. Data Analysis ... 46
3.7. Credibility of the Data ... 47
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Results of the Research ... 48
4.1.1 The Result of the Interview ... 53
4.1.2 The Result of the Observation. ... 54
4.2. Discussion ... 54
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1. Conclusions ... 71
5.2. Suggestions ... 72
REFERENCES ... 73
I. INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the following points describes: background of the problems, identification of the problems, limitation of the problems, formulation of the problems, objectives and uses of the research, scope of the research, and definition
of terms.
1.1 Background of the Problem
English is a compulsory subject taught from junior high school to university level. There are four skills that must be acquired by the students, such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The ability to communicate is the primary goal of
foreign language instruction that speaking is put ahead on the other skills. Speaking is communication process between at least two persons. Speaking is a way to express someone’s idea. However, today’s world requires that goal of
teaching speaking should improve the students’ communicative skill. Because it is the way in which the students can express their argument and opinion, and learn
how to follow the appropriate social and cultural rules in communicative circumstances.
world language learners study English in order to be able to communicate
fluently. Speaking skill is considered as the most complex skill, because there are many other skills that should be mastered too. They are pronunciation, intonation,
vocabulary, fluency, grammar, and comprehension. By speaking which is categorized as an active process, people are able to speak. It is two way process
between speaker and listener who involve productive and receptive skills of understanding. In other words, the listener will try to understand the speakers’ ideas through the communication between them.
Based on the researcher’s pre-observation in SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung, it was
found that speaking skill was still not achieved the learning mastery. The English teacher should find an interesting and practical technique which gives challenges and opportunities for the students to practice their English in the classroom.
Especially in speaking skill, the students could not do oral production properly because the teacher only asked the students to memorize the formula and to do the tasks from English textbook. The teacher often focused on grammar or formula of
the sentences and seldom taught the students how to use the language.
If the teacher only focuses on teaching tenses, the teacher will not give much time for the students to speak up by using the target language. Its consequently, the students were only good at mentioning the patterns of the sentences but unable to
use the language for oral communication. Moreover the students lack in speaking ability. The students tend to be reluctant to speak and they tend to keep silent.
teaching, the emphasis is not only in linguistic competence but in the development
of communicative ability. The teacher needs to create a scenario to teach the target language in an active and interesting manner which can stimulate the
students to speak English.
Based on the problems above, the researcher implemented Task-based Learning in students’ speaking activity. Because it is more student-centered, allows for more
meaningful communication. Task is an activity where the target language is used
by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome (Willis, 1996). It means that the learning process is focused on the use of
authentic language and meaning in using the target language. As long as there are any communicative purposes, certainly there are any productive and receptive skills of understanding. Negotiation of meaning appears to be an important
element in facilitating the learners to gain comprehensible input for non-native speaker based responses or signals of understanding. Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addresses to help
themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007). Negotiation of meaning can be function as an indication of pursuit of
communication.
Hopefully, this research can give information for the reader about how the students’ response from the implementation of Task-based Learning in speaking
activity. It also informs how negotiation of meaning facilitates the students in
language acquisitions. It is about how the students develop their competence in
English despite their lack of contact when they have the opportunity to communicate in English with their peers. It is also how the students get the
advantage of getting comprehensible input and producing modification of output, as it should occur if they were interacting with their peers.
1.2 Identification of the Problem
Based on the pre observation, the researcher identified the problems on SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung in XI Science II class as follows:
1. The teacher’s technique in speaking activity was less interesting.
2. The teacher often asked the students to memorize the formula and to do the
task from English textbooks.
3. The teacher often focused on grammar or formula of the sentences than gave much time for the students to practice their speaking in the classroom
4. The students were only good at mentioning the pattern of the sentences but not at using the sentences for oral communication.
5. During the teaching learning process, the students mostly tended to be reluctant to speak English and to keep silent.
6. The students were asked to prepare the dialogue conversation at home and to
1.3 Limitation of the Problem
This research was focused on analyzing the use of negotiation of meaning in students’ speaking, especially in practicing step in Task-based Learning. It was for investigating how the speaking activity in Task-based Learning was facilitated by
negotiation of meaning. The researcher also investigated which component of negotiation of meaning which was mostly used by the students in their
conversation. It was aimed to investigated which the component of negotiation of meaning that can more facilitating the students to keep the sustainability of conversation.
1.4 Formulation of the Problem
Based on the limitation of the problem above, the researcher formulated the
problems as follows:
1. To what extend is negotiation of meaning used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning?
2. Which component of negotiation of meaning is mostly used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning?
1.5 Objective of the Research
Concerning to the problem, the objectives of this research are:
2. To find out which the component of negotiation of meaning is mostly used by
the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning.
1.6 Uses of the Research
This research is useful for both theoretically and practically. 1. Theoretically
This research is to support the existing theory about negotiation of meaning and the implementation of Task-based Learning.
2. Practically
a. This research is expected to contribute to the future research of teaching
speaking as useful information.
b. This research is expected to enrich our understanding about the aspect of oral communication.
c. This research is empirical information for the English teachers about the use of negotiation of meaning in the students speaking activity in Task-based
Learning.
1.7 Scope of the Research
This research was conducted at the second year of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung.
The class was XI Science II class. This research is a qualitative descriptive in nature. It was focused on finding out to what extend negotiation of meaning was
used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning. This research
was also supported by observation and interview.
1.8 Definition of Terms
a. Speaking is oral communication. It is two ways process between speaker and listener and involves productive and receptive skill of understanding
(Byrne, 1984), whereas, spoken languageconsist of succession of sounds produced by the organ of speech, together with certain attributes e.g. intonation, rhythm, and stress (Jones,1983:35).
b. Teaching speaking refers to the ability to propose exercises and activities which allow the students to develop the ability to initiate and sustain
conversation.
c. Task is an activity where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome (Jane
Willis, 1996).
d. Negotiation of Meaning is defined as a series of exchanges conducted by
addressors and addresses to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007).
e. Trigger means the utterances followed by the speaker signal of total or
partial lack of understanding.
f. Signal for negotiation of meaning is an indicator from a listener that
g. Responses are related to the discussing of the repairing, that is, the
corrections made by the speaker as a response to a modification of the input action by the listener.
h. Follow up is the comprehension signal and continuation move.
i. Utterance is the action of expressing the ideas and statement in verbal
II. FRAME OF THEORIES
This chapter discusses concepts covered in this research. The concepts come from the review of related previous researches and related literatures.
2.1. Review of Previous Researches
Concerning formulation of the problem in this research, there are some researches carried out will be discussed below:
1. Yufrizal, Hery (2007) in Negotiation of Meaning by Indonesia EFL Learners states many Indonesians are capable of communicating in English with native speakers or other non-native speakers. Many are able to finish undergraduate
and graduate degrees in universities in English speaking countries with satisfactory results. The basic questions arising from the situations above is
how will the students develop their competence in English despite their lack of contact with native speaker? When the students have the opportunity to
communicate in English with their peers, will they constantly use English or
will they switch to Indonesian when communication breakdown is likely occur? Can the students get the advantage of getting comprehensible input and
From that issues, he investigated 1) the difference between the patterns of
interaction and negotiation of meaning in second language settings and foreign language settings, 2) the type of task and learner arrangements that might
influence the patterns of interaction and negotiation of meaning, 3) the factors that influence the patterns of interaction and negotiation of meaning.
An analysis of the effect of task type shows that Information gap tasks generate more interactions than Jigsaw tasks and Role-play tasks. Information gap tasks
generate longer times of speaking, more turns taken, and more c-units than Jigsaw tasks and Role-play tasks. It was also found that Jigsaws tasks generate
longer times of speaking, more turns taken, and more c-units than Role-play tasks. Information gap tasks generated more negotiations of meaning than Jigsaw tasks and Role-play tasks. Information gap tasks generated more
negotiations of meaning components, more signals, more responses, more modifications of input and more modifications of output than Jigsaw tasks, and Role-play tasks. Additionally, in terms of the number of negotiation of
meaning sequences, Information gap tasks also generated more sequences than Jigsaw tasks and Role-play tasks.
Analysis of the effect of gender showed that male subjects did not produce significantly longer times of speaking or turns taken than female subjects. Male
subjects produced a significantly greater numbers of c-units than female subjects only in Information gap tasks. Male subjects did not produce
and modifications of output across the three task types. However, male subject
were found to produce significantly more negotiation of meaning components in Information gap tasks.
Analysis of the effect of proficiency showed that there was a significant
difference in the length of time speaking, the number turns taken, and the number of c-units by lower and higher proficiency subjects. However it was found that the lower proficiency subjects produced more interaction than the
higher proficiency subjects. Higher proficiency subjects were found to produce significantly more negotiation of meaning components, and more responses
than the lower proficiency subjects. However, lower proficiency subjects produced more modifications of output than higher proficiency subjects. Analysis of the effect of learning style showed that Communicative learners
were found to produce longer times of speaking at least in Jigsaws tasks.
2. Emayuta (2007) from Lampung University compared students’ production of
utterances and negotiation of meaning using information gap task in pair and small group in speaking class in the second grade of SMK Karya Pembangunan
Gajah Mada Metro. She investigated the use of information gap task in pair and small group in speaking class whether they had different effect or not for the students. According to Emayuta (2007) that the students still often found
difficulties in understanding and using spoken language because they mostly could not produce a short dialogue fluently when practicing it. She stated that
was used by the teacher in teaching speaking. Her result shows that
information gap task and two kind of sitting arrangement, pair work and small group work, were able to stimulate the students to speak in the target language.
Based on her research, the number of C-units and negotiation of meaning (trigger, signal, response, and follow up) which were produced in small group
work was higher than in pair work.
3. Nurdiana, Novita (2011) from Lampung University analyzed negotiation of
meaning which was used by the students’ interaction in SMAN 4 Bandar Lampung. According to her, the students had difficulties in comprehending the
messages, materials, and improving their English ability well in
communication. It was caused by misunderstanding which occurred in the teaching learning process. She applied jigsaw task and information gap task.
Her result shows that there were two components of negotiation of meaning which were rarely used in the students’ interaction; they were confirmation or negate response and confirmation check through repetition.
4. Irawan, Dian (2012) from Lampung University compared between the students’ production utterances using information gap task and the students’
production utterances using role play task at the second year of SMAN 8 Bandar Lampung. Based on his pre-observation, he found that the students
were often acutely embarrassed if they made mistake and were corrected or laughed at. The students were rarely trained to speak in the target language in
their teacher by using the target language. Based on his research finding, there
was a relatively different result between information gap task and role play task in generating and effecting interaction toward the students’ producing
utterances. His results show that the total number of utterances or C-units which was produced by the students by using information gap task was 848
C-units. The result in role play task shows that the total number of utterances or C-units which was produced by the students was 813 C-units.
The difference of this research from the related previous researches is the implementation of speaking activity. The previous researches implemented the
technique such as information gap task, role play, and jigsaw. In this research, the activity which was implemented was Task-based Learning. It makes the students
are directly and naturally do the conversation. Because it is more student-centered, allows for more meaningful communication. According to Willis (1996), task is an activity where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative
purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.
As long as there are any communicative purposes, certainly there any productive and receptive skill of understanding. Negotiation of meaning appears to be an important element in facilitating the learners to gain comprehensible input for
non-native speaker based responses or signals of understanding. The researcher believes that negotiation of meaning is also one of the important factors which
occurs comprehending meaning in natural communication. Because
for non-native speaker. According to Yufrizal (2007), negotiation of meaning
defines as a series of exchanges conducted by addressor and addresses to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors. Therefore, this
research analyzed negotiation of meaning in the implementing Task-based Learning in speaking which is believed could make the students better in
understanding and comprehending the meaning from the interlocutors.
This research was conducted in the second year of senior high school. Because of
the communication which happens in that grade belong to the first generation of task in Task-based Learning (Ribé and Vidal, 1993). First generation of task tends
to achieve communicative development which often occurs misunderstanding meaning in their conversation. According to Ribé and Vidal (1993), the aim of ‘first generation’ tasks is to develop students’ communicative ability in a specific
type of situation or area of language. The task is often structured around a particular set of functions or a simple problem.
2.2 Review of Related Literature
2.2.1 Concept of Speaking
According to Halliday (1985) as quoted by Thomas and Hawes, spoken language is used to the major functions of language; the ideational function and
interpersonal function. The interpersonal function of language is reflected in the kind of social talk that we participate in throughout the day in conversational
interaction is the use of language to establish and maintain social relationship. The
ideational function corresponds to a function of language quite different from its use for social relations. This is the use of language to express content and to
communicate information.
According to Irawati (2003) in Emayuta (2007), speaking is one of the central elements of communication of an interactive process in which an individual alternately takes the roles of speakers and listeners used to communicate
information, ideas, and emotions to others using oral language. According to Rowiyah (2008) in Nurdiana (2011), speaking is as transferring a messages or
idea to the other persons that need good sentences forms and good speaking ability, so the listener will understand what the speaker means. According to Lado (1961), speaking is described as the ability to express oneself in life situation,
converse, to report acts or situation in precise words or the ability to express a sequence of ideal fluently. It means that in speaking process, there must be at least two people. One is the listener who receives the information.
According to Haris (1974), speaking is encoding process where people can
communicate the ideas, thought and feeling orally. It means that we produce spoken message to someone. Spoken message is our ideas, thinking and feeling about what we want to share, influence, or interact to other people. Therefore
communication. Based on these ideas, speaking can communicate or express what
we want in order to understand one another.
According to Rivers (1978), through speaking, someone can express his ideas, emotions, attentions, reaction, to other person and situation and influence other
people. According to Murcia (1978), speaking is the primary element of language and it can be developed from the beginning when someone was born, from the first contact with the language. It can be concluded that speaking is developed
since people were born even it only occurs the first language.
According to Byrne (1985), speaking or oral communication is as two processes between speaker and listener and involves the productive skills and receptive skills of understanding. It can be inferred that in order to be able to speak, one
should master the productive skills as well as receptive skills. Mastering of
productive skills means that one has ability in speaking, for instance, how to make listener understand what the speaker delivers in communication. Mastering the
receptive skills means that one has ability in listening such as how to catch and understand what the listener listens.
According to Brown (2001), speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning which involves producing, receiving and processing information. In line
with this idea, there are three important points that must occur from the
participants of communication (speakers and listener) to construct the meaning
information. According to Brown (2001) the types of spoken language are
classified as follow: 1. Monologue
In monologue, the speaker uses spoken language like speech, lecture, etc. The hearer must process long stretches of speech without interruption the stream.
The speech will go on whether any or no the listener comprehension. e.g.
Anne : Hello, my name is Anne. I live on Garuntang street no. 10. I am twelve years old. My hobby is singing.
2. Dialogue
Dialogue involves two or more speakers and can be subdivided into
interpersonal and transactional. An interpersonal language is a dialogue with the purpose is to promote social relationship between speakers. A transactional
language is a dialogue which involves two or more speakers and the purpose is to convey propositional or factual information.
e.g.
Jacky : Hello, what is your name? Mary : Hi, my name is Mary. And you?
Jacky : My name is Jacky. What class are you in? Mary : I am in the first class.
Brown (2001) also provides type of classroom speaking activity. They are: 1. Imitative
The imitation is carried out not for the purpose of meaningful interaction, but for focusing on some particular element of language form. Its example is
2. Intensive
Intensive speaking includes any speaking activity which is designed to practice some phonological or grammatical aspect of language. It is goes one-stop
beyond imitative speaking. 3. Responsive
A good deal of student’s speech in the classroom is responsive short replies to teacher or students-initiated questions or comments. These replies are usually sufficient and do not extend into dialogues. The dialogue example is:
T : How are you?
S : Pretty good, thanks, and you? T : What is the main idea in this essay?
S : The United Nations should have more authority. T : So, what did you write for question number one? S : Well, I wasn’t sure, so I left it blank.
4. Transactional (dialogue)
Transactional dialogue is carried out for the purpose of conveying or exchanging specific information or idea. It is an extended of responsive
language. The dialogue example is: T : What is the main idea in this essay?
S : The United Nations should have more authority. T : More authority than what?
S : Than it does right now. T : What do you mean?
S : Well, for example, the UN should have the power to force country like Iraq to destroy its nuclear weapons.
T : You don’t think the UN has that power now?
S : Obviously not, Iraq is still manufacturing nuclear bombs. 5. Interpersonal
casual register, colloquial language, emotionally, charged language, slag, ellipsis, sarcasm, and convert “agenda”. The dialogue example is:
Amy : Hi, Bob, how’s it going? Bob : Oh, so-so.
Amy : Not a great weekend, huh?
Bob : Well, far be it from me to criticizes, but I’m pretty miffed about last week.
Amy : What are you talking about?
Bob : Oh, that…How come you get so bent out of shape over something like that?
Amy : Well, whose fault was it, huh?
Bob : Oh, wow, this is great. Wonderful! Back to square one. For crying out loud, Amy, I thought we’d settled this before. Well, what more can I say?
6. Extensive
Extensive monologue is extended monologues in the form of oral reports, summaries, or perhaps short speeches. In this case, the register are more formal
and deliberative. This monologue can be planned or impromptu.
According to Welty (1976), speaking is one of four basic skills of language and it
has important role in daily life because it is the main skill in communication. Speaking must fulfill these following criteria:
1. Pronunciation
There are 3 basic which can be involved to assist pupils in learning pronunciation. The first is exhortation. Exhortation is the instruction to imitate and mimic, to
make a sound, without father explanation. The second is speech training. It is the construction of special games and exercises which entail the use of word or
description of the speech organ, description of the sounds articulation, description
of stress, rhythm and intonation.
2. Grammar
The study of how words and their component combine to form sentences,
structural relationship in language or in a language, sometimes including
pronunciation, meaning, and linguistic history. Grammar is the set of logical and structural rules which governs the composition of sentences, phrases, and words
in any given natural language. Grammar is a kind of regularity of sounds structure which nobody could learn language without grammar.
3. Vocabulary
Vocabulary means the appropriate diction which is used in communication
(Syakur, 2011). Vocabulary is divided in to two parts, close class and open class. Close class consist of preposition, pronoun, conjunction, e.g.
And : I like dancing and singing A : I eat a bowl of meatball Your : What is your favorite food? My : my hobby is riding bicycle
But : I do not like meatball but I like noodle
Open class consist of noun, adjective, verb, adverb, e.g Noun
I : I love playing badminton My : My hobby is reading story book Basketball : Basketball is Rahmi’s favorite sport
Verb
Adjective
Good : Markus is a good singer
Bore : I always bore if I stay at home alone
4. Fluency
Fluency is the smoothness of flow in which sounds, syllables, words, and phrases
are joined together in conversation. According to Brumfit (1984) in Nation, fluency is as the maximum affective operation of the language system so far acquired by the students. It refers to the one who express a language quickly and
easily without any difficulty.
5. Comprehension
Comprehension is the language study about how the students understand the message, or helps them to improve their understanding of it; in which they read a
piece of writing or listen to speaking, and then answer the question.
Comprehension is the ability to completely understand and be familiar with a situation, facts, etc. It refers to the ability of understanding of the speakers’
intension and general meaning.
2.2.2 Speaking Technique
Of all the four skill (listening, speaking, reading, and writing), speaking
intuitively as seems the most important; people who know a language are referred
1. Use technique that covers the spectrum of learners needs, from language-based
focused on accuracy of message based on interaction, meaning, and fluency. In our current zeal for interaction language speaking, we can easily slip into a
pattern of providing content-based, interactive activities that do not capitalize on grammatical pointers or pronunciation tips.
2. Provide intrinsically motivating technique.
Try to appeal the student’s ultimate goals, interests, and also their need of
knowledge. It is for status, achieving competency and autonomy, and “being all that they can be”. Even those techniques do not make the students enjoy, help
them to see how the activity benefit them. We ask them to do certain things which can pay to tell them.
3. Encourage the use of authentic language in meaningful context.
It takes energy and creativity to device authentic contexts and meaningful interaction by disconnected little grammar exercises. It can be done also by
teacher resource material.
4. Provide appropriate feedbacks and corrections.
In EFL situation, the students are mostly depended on the teacher for the used of linguistic feedback. In ESL situations, they may get such feedback “out there” beyond the classroom in great benefit position. It is important that we
take advantages of our knowledge of English to inject the kinds of corrective
5. Capitalize on the natural link between speaking and listening.
Many interactive techniques involve speaking and also include listening. When we focused on speaking goals, listening goals may naturally coincide, and the
two skills can reinforce each other. They are often initiated through comprehension in producing language.
6. Give students opportunities to initiate oral communication.
A good deal of typical classroom interaction is characterized by teacher
initiation of language. We ask question, give directions, and provide information, and the students have been conditioned only to speak when
spoken to. Part of oral communication competence is the ability to initiate conversations, to nominate topics, to ask questions, to control conversations, and to changes the subject. When we design and use speaking techniques, we
have allowed students to initiate the language.
7. Encourage the development of speaking strategies.
The concept of strategic competence is one of few beginning language in which students are ware of. They have not simply thought about developing
2.2.3 Concept of Teaching Speaking
Teaching speaking means how to use the language for communication, for transferring idea to other people. According to Rivers (1978), speaking is developed from the first contact with the language that we learn, because by the
speaking we can transfer our ideas or thought to order people. According to Johnson (1983), the essence of human language is human activity on the part of
the individual to make him understand by another and activity on the part of the other understands what was on the first. Then, he adds the languages as an activity which permits people to communicate with each other. Therefore language is very
important. We can not only teach what will be spoken but also the situation what we deal with. The teacher teaches speaking by carrying out the students in certain
situation when the topic is being talked about. The topic must be familiar with the students. What the ideas have an oral command of the language need to describe the topic.
Therefore, if students do not learn how to speak or do not get any opportunity to
speak in the classroom, they may soon lose their motivation and interesting in learning. In the other hand, if the good activities are taught in the right way, speaking in class can be a lot of fun, raise general learner motivation and make the
English language classroom is fun and dynamic place. Teaching speaking is to teach English language learners to:
1. Produce the English speech sounds patterns.
3. Select appropriate words and sentences according to the proper social setting,
audience, situation, and subject matter.
4. Organize their thought in a meaningful and logical sequence.
5. Use language as a mean of expressing values and judgments.
6. Use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which are
called as fluency (Nunnan, 2003).
It can be concluded that speaking is the ability to express one’s thought in form of
oral communication. There are several ways of teaching speaking that can be used during teaching learning process. In order to teach second language learners how
to speak in the best way possible, that teacher must use speaking activities that can be practiced and applied in the classroom.
2.2.4 Aspect of Oral Ability
There are crucial component of this skill: pronunciation, fluency and
comprehensibility. According to Hedge (2000), part of speaking the language
competently is the ability to produce its sounds in ways that are intelligible to other speaker and defines fluency as the ability to link units of speech together with facility and without strain or inappropriate slowness, or undue hesitation.
Much more spontaneity is present in communicative classroom. Meanwhile, comprehensibility focuses on the students’ understanding of the conversation.
2.2.5 Concept of Negotiation of Meaning
Negotiation of meaning is defined as a series of exchanges conducted by addressors and addresses to help themselves understand and be understood by their interlocutors (Yufrizal, 2007). In this case, when native speakers and
non-native speakers are involved in an interaction, both interlocutors work together to solve any potential misunderstanding that occurs, by checking each others’
comprehension, requesting clarification and confirmation and by repairing and adjusting speech (Pica, 1991).
According to Pica et al (1991) there are basically four components in negotiation of meaning, namely:
1. Trigger
Trigger is utterance that contains elements that create communication breakdown. It can also be defined as prime of negotiation of meaning which involves or
stimulate incomplete understanding on the part of the hearer (Varonis and Gass: 1985). A trigger exists when a speaker:
a) Shows uncertainty or hesitation about the expressions going to be used. For example:
A : and I need very energetic person that uh … can what it can …
B : can attract
b) Produces a comprehension check that requires further clarification work from
is produced by a speaker and it causes the listener to produce a confirmation
check or clarification request, then the comprehension check serves as a trigger for a negotiation of meaning.
- The example of the comprehension check is a signal: A : do you see what, what I mean?
B : yes, uh …what time is it…, uh…, what time?
- The examples of comprehension check is a trigger:
1. A : who run in the sand of the beach … You know sand of beach, hu uh
B : no what is the mean sand it the beach
A : you know like uh what we call in Lampung we have uh Pasir Putih or
2. A : and the …, the right cupboard right cupboard is uh…, the first first shelf on the right is a …, uh hmm set up cup setdo you know a cup set?
B : in the right?
A : yes yes three cup set uh …, and the next…, …, there are uh …, three glass
c) Produces an utterance that contains something the interlocutor perceives as a mistake. This perception of a mistake in one of elements of the utterance
causes the listener to correct or to elaborate the utterance. For examples: 1. A : the mouth is like uh the people uh, … when when the people
hungry maybe B : angry you mean?
A : angry oh … I’m sorry angry
2. A : yeah but the man uh … he use glasses wh, uh circlr glasses B : with ehm glasses, with a circle fram? Circle frame? A : circle fram … frame
d) Produces an utterance which contains an unclear word or phrase. For example:
what
That’s knife and knop B : I beg your pardon? … A : knife
e) Produces an utterance which contains an idea that is unclear to the listener. For example:
A : uh how about the what is it the button in this coat there their what how many button in your picture in your picture I think B : pardon me?
A : in his in his coat in your picture the man use coat right?
f) Produces utterances in the speaker’s L1. For example:
A : he has uh … one …, … one [kancing] in Indonesian B : [kancing]? One uh … you mean on the blazer
A : u..hu. B : Oh, I see …
2. Signals
This component refers to an indicator from a listener that understanding is not complete. According to Gass and Varonis (1984), signal as an indicator from a
listener that understanding is not complete. This indication is triggered by the speaker’s previous utterance. In many studies of negotiation of meaning, signals
have been closely linked to two concepts: confirmation checks and clarification of request (Varonis and Gass: 1984).
Signals are divided into confirmation check and clarification request. a. Confirmation check.
It is defined as listener’s inquiry as to whether correct or not their expressed
a) Confirmation check through repetition is the interlocutor repeats all of parts
of the speaker utterance. The dialogue example is: Student A: Café it’s too in South Street
Student B: South Street? Student A: Next to grocers
b) Confirmation check through modification is the interlocutor corrects or completes what the previous speaker has said. The dialogue example is: Student A: Uh the story it tell about the man who wants to…..
Student B: To trip?
Student A: To trap a bear but he…..
c) Confirmation check through completion is the interlocutor elaborates or modifies what the speaker has said in order to confirm whether his/her understanding of what speaker has said is correct. The dialogue example is: Student A: He see a frog is on the water…, yeah, it seems it’s on uh… what is it kind of leafs on the water and then just… she just smile the girl is stand on the left side of the picture.
Student B: Do you mean that she’s watching the frog? Student A: Yeah she was watching the frog
b. Clarification request.
A clarification request is a request for further information from an interlocutor about a previous utterance (Foster: 1998). Unlike confirmation checks where the listener listened to the speaker’s utterance with some degree or non understanding,
in clarification the listener has totally not understood what the speaker has said. A clarification request can be expressed in the form of a wh-question or a yes/no
A : so the title? B : what?
A : so the good title of it?
A clarification request can also be expressed through special expressions such as ‘pardon’, or ‘I beg your pardon?’. For example:
A : uh where is the car park? B : pardon?
A : car park
Sometimes a clarification request is expressed in a back-channel clue. For example:
A : oh, I mean uh … you just move here? B : yeah?
A : where do you come from?
3. Response
It refers to a speakers attempt to clear up what the listener has said (unaccepted input). In many studies of negotiation of meaning, responses were related to the discussion of the repair, that is, corrections, made by non-native speaker as a
response to a modification of input action by native speaker (Foster: 1998). There are six categories of responses. They are:
a. Self-Repetition Response
It refers to a response produced by a speaker in the form of part or all an utterance produced in the trigger (Pica: 1989). The dialogue example is:
b. Other-Repetition Response
It is category, the speaker repeats what the listener says in the signal (Pica: 1989). In the speaker’s response to the signal, we can see that the speaker has changed
his output based on the input from the listener. Since the listener’s signal is
triggered by inability to interpret the speaker’s utterance, the signal always
modifies the trigger toward the listener’s assumed interpretation. Therefore in this
case, the speaker has produced modified output. The dialogue example is: Student A: I think like a suit, us, usual
Student B: Like usual suit Student A: Yes, usual suit
c. Self-Modification Response
This category, the speaker modifies the trigger as a response to the listener’s a signal of negotiation of meaning (Pica: 1991). The modification made by the
speaker can be at level phonology, morphology, or syntax, or at the semantic level. The dialogue example is:
Student A: And then uh… . I think this picture tell tell us about ironic ironic picture.
Student B: Can you spell it.
Student A: Ironic ironic ironic in Indonesia ironi.
d. Other-Modification Response
Other-modification response is a modification by the speaker to reflect the signal given by the listener. The dialogue example is:
Student A: Uh…uh…what they have done? Student B: What has she done…
e. Confirm or Negate Response
It refers to a response in form of confirmation or negotiation. A ‘yes’ confirmation
response is usually short. The dialogue example is:
Student A: Yes I see…what about his hair? Student B: His hair…
Student A: Yes
In cases where the answer is a negation, there might be some modifications by the speaker. For example:
A : uh … you you you have told me that you have a lot of experience in another countries. And may I know your … your reason. Why you leave the comp these company?
B : uh … my reason to join this company?
A : no no no no to join our company but why you leave
4. Follow-Up
It refers to information about whether the modifications have been successful or
not in communication. In a long negotiation of meaning, interlocutors usually repeat the signal-response exchanged until an agreement is achieved. In short negation of meaning sequence, two kinds of follow-up are indentified:
a) Full comprehension of message being confirmed. For example: Student A: On the top of cooker
Student B: Pardon?
Student A: On the top of the cooker Student B: Yes, on the top of the cooker
b) Continuation move
The interlocutors change their topic after a process of trigger-signal-response.
For example:
A : I think like a suit, us, usual suit B : like usual suit?
B : does the man smoke? (follow-up continuation move)
According to Varonis and Gass (1984), a simpler model for exchanges that create negotiation of meaning consists of four primes. They are called:
a) Trigger (T) which invokes or stimulates incomplete understanding on the part
of the hearer.
b) Indicator (I), which is hearer’s signal of incomplete understanding.
c) Response (R) is the original speaker’s attempt to clear up the unaccepted-input.
d) Reaction to the response (RR), which is an element that hearer signal’s acceptance or continued difficulty with the speaker’s repair.
2.2.6 The Role of Negotiation of Meaning in Second Language Acquisition
According to Pica (1996) in Yufrizal (2007) admitted that although there has been empirical evidence of a direct link between negotiation of meaning and
second/foreign language development: research studies in negotiation of meaning
for the last two decades have shown that there are two obvious contributions of negotiation of meaning to second language acquisition. Firstly through negotiation
of meaning (particularly in interaction involving native speakers) non-native speaker obtain comprehensible input necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning (Pica,
Secondly, negotiation of meaning provides opportunities for non-native speaker to
comprehensible output necessary for second language acquisition much more frequently than in interaction without negotiation of meaning (Pica, 1996) in
Yufrizal (2007). Another important role of negotiation of meaning which may not have direct impact on second language acquisition but it is also an important
element for second language learning; through communication is that negotiation of meaning can function as an indication of pursuit of communication.
2.2.7 Negotiation of Meaning in Second and Foreign Language Setting
The majority of interaction studies deals with interaction involving native speakers and non-native speakers have been conducted in the target language
setting. A set of research papers by Pica (1985a; 1985b; Pica and Doughty, 1985, 1986; Pica, young and Doughty, 1987; Pica et al, (1989); Pica et al, 1991 and Pica et al (1996)) has shown that when non-native speakers indicate that they do not understand message, expressed through comments such as ‘pardon me’, ‘uuh?’,
‘what?’, ‘Excuse me?’, ‘I … don’t understand’, the native speaker helps
non-native speakers to comprehend by modifying their utterances.
A communicative interaction in a foreign language setting, in which non-native
speakers interact with other non-native speakers from the same L1 background, might result in different pattern of interaction from those in second language
setting and from interaction which involves a native speaker. In the former setting, the interaction takes place for the sake of language practice rather than for
Language input is usually confined to classroom and communication with foreign
language teachers. The participants usually have a shared L1 knowledge, which some time hinders from negotiating of meaning and/ or permits them to use an
alternative channel of communication. In the latter setting, the participant is usually geared toward purely communicative purpose, i.e. to understand or be
understood by their interlocutors. Language input is not confined to teachers and classroom situation but is abundant from social life outside the classroom. The participants in conversation usually have a gap in linguistic knowledge, the native
speakers being in the position of superior and non-native speakers being in the position of inferior. Consequently, there are some strategies applied by either the
speaker or interlocutor in order to understand or to be understood.
2.2.8 Concept of Task-based Learning
Language-learning is defined task as including almost anything that students are asked (or choose) to do in the classroom, including formal learning activities such
as grammar exercises and controlled practice activities, and providing the objective of the activity is related to learning the language. This is the view, for
example, of Williams and Burden (1997):
“A task is any activity that learners engage in to further the process of learning a
language.”
Many teachers use a more restricted definition. They conduct the activities where
pronunciation or vocabulary) and reserve the term ‘task’ for activities in which the
purpose is related to the communication of meanings (i.e. for what Nunan, 1989, p. 10, calls a “communicative task”). Willis (1996, p. 23) adopts this definition: “Tasks are always activities where the target language is used by the learner for a communicative purpose (goal) in order to achieve an outcome.” It is the
‘communicative’ definition that is used in most public discussions about
Task-based Learning in Hong Kong. Based on the Secondary School Syllabus for English Language referred to earlier, tasks should include these features:
Learning activities in which students focus upon and practise specific elements of knowledge, skills and strategies needed for the task (CDC, 1999). The main
advantages of Task-based Learning are that language is used for a genuine purpose of meaning, real communication should take place. The students are forced to consider language form in general rather than concentrating on a single
form. One of the feature keys from communicative task is that the learners focus on meanings rather than learning or practicing forms.
Further Characteristics of Tasks in the Hong Kong Syllabuses
They involve communicative language use in which the learners’ attention
is focused on meaning rather than linguistic structures.
They should be authentic and as close as possible to the real world and daily
life experience of the learners.
They should involve learners in various activities in which they are required
Problem-based Learning is a student-centered pedagogy in which the students
learn the subject in the context of complex, multifaceted, and realistic problems. The activity reflects the real life. The students are free to use any language they
want. Playing a game, solving a problem or sharing information or experiences, can all be considered as relevant and authentic tasks. Producing an agreement or
finding the right solution can be considered as a genuine task in Task-based Learning.
The major role (task) is that the teacher changes from phase to phase. It also has a different focus in work with beginners than in work with advanced students. The
emphasized meanings are believed being increase, the students pay no more attention to the forms they are producing (and which, indeed, they may just have been taught). This might be the case in this role, if students are asked to perform it
after learning different ways (Harmer, 1991).
The task-based lessons were aimed to create a need to learn and use language. The
tasks will generate their own language and create an opportunity for language acquisition (Krashen, 1996). The students should be given the opportunity to use
English in the classroom as they use their own languages in everyday life.
2.2.9 Procedure of Teaching Speaking through Task-based Learning
In Task-based Learning, the teachers’ role is changed from an instructor and
prosecutor of errors to be a supporter and inventor of tasks. The core of the lesson is, as the name suggests, the task. All parts of the language used are emphasized
during the activity in order to make students focus on the task. Although there may be several effective frameworks for creating a Task-based Learning lesson, here is a rather comprehensive one suggested by Willis (1996).
1. Pre-task
In the pre-task, the teacher would present what would be expected of the students
in the task phase. Additionally, the teacher may primed the students with key vocabulary or grammatical constructs, although, in "pure" Task-based Learning lessons, these would be presented as suggestions. Therefore the students would be
encouraged to use what they were comfortable with in ordered to complete the task.
2. Task
During the task phase, the students discuss the task, typically in small groups,
although it was depended on the type of activity and unless the teacher played a particular role in the task. The teacher's role is typically limited to one of an observer or counselor, thus the reason for it being a more student-centered
3. Planning
Having completed the task, the students prepared either a written or oral report to present to the class. The instructor monitors the students.
4. Report
The teacher may provide written or oral feedback, as appropriate, and the students observing may do the same.
5. Analysis
The teacher reviewed what happened in the task, in regarded to language. It may
include: language form which is used by the students, the students’ problems, and forms which need to be covered more or are not used enough.
6. Practice
Practicing may used to cover material mentioned by the teacher in the analysis stage. It is the teacher’s role to emphasize key of language.
2.2.10 The Advantages of Task-based Learning
Task-based Learning is advantageous to the student because it is more
student-centered, allows for more meaningful communication, and often provides for practical extra-linguistic skill building. As the tasks are likely to be familiar to the
Additionally, tasks promote language acquisition through the types of language
and interaction they require. Although the teacher may present language in the pre-task, the students are ultimately free to use what grammar construction and
vocabulary they want. This allows them to use all the language they know and are learning, rather than just the 'target language' of the lesson. On the other hand,
tasks can also be designed to make certain target forms 'task-essential,' thus making it communicatively necessary for students to practice using them. Learners who are used to a more traditional approach based on a grammatical
syllabus may find it difficult to come to terms with the apparent randomness of Task-based Learning. But if it is integrated with a systematic approach to
grammar and lexis, the outcome can be a comprehensive.
2.2.11 The Disadvantages of Task-based Learning
While task-based language learning is increasingly promoted world-wide and has
the advantages described above, there are trade-offs and pitfalls to be considered in planning instruction around it. These include the risk that students will stay
within the narrow confines of familiar words and forms, just "getting by", so as to avoid the extra effort and risks of error that accompany stretching to use new words and forms. As with all group work, in group tasks, some students can
"hide" and rely on others to do the bulk of the work and learning.
still fresh. The third challenge, one applying to many otherwise valuable language
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter draw conclusions of the research included some suggestions from the
researcher in order to make the script more useful for the readers.
5.1 Conclusions
After discussing the data in the previous chapter, the researcher draws the conclusions as follow:
1. The researcher found that the students used negotiation of meaning in students’
speaking activity in Task-based Learning. It is used to extend the sustainability of the conversation and open more opportunities for participants to provide comprehensible input and produced more comprehensible output. Negotiation
of Meaning can solve obstacles which occurred in the interaction. They also would be more enthusiastic and more motivated for improving their speaking
ability. Because the implementation of Task-based Learning facilitated them free to use what grammar construction and vocabulary they want.
2. The component in negotiation of meaning which was mostly used by the students in their speaking activity in Task-based Learning was Clarification
speaker’s utterances to keep the conversation still go on by giving special
expression and back channel clue to their interlocutors. Clarification request occurred 40 items out of 131 items (30.53%).
5.2 Suggestions
Considering the result of the research, the researcher would like to give some
suggestions as follow:
1. An English teacher should find an interesting and practical technique which give challenge and opportunities for the students to practice English in the
classroom. In which, it can make the students speak up and capture the meaning of message between the speaker and listener.
2. Other researchers should try to analyze in some different techniques or proficiencies about negotiation of meaning. Because the researcher believes
IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This chapter discusses the result after the research was conducted. It includes descriptions and discussions of the research.
4.1 Results of the Research
This research was conducted at the second year of SMAN 5 Bandar Lampung. It
was carried out at class XI Science II which was consisted of 37 participants. The process placed once a week on March 8th 2013 in duration 90 minutes.
The aim of this research was to investigate to what extend negotiation of meaning is used by the students and what component of negotiation of meaning is mostly
used by the students in speaking activity in Task-based Learning. After gathering the data by means of recording, the researcher transcribed and coded the students’
speaking then analyzed by classified it based on Pica’s study (1989) in Yufrizal (2007).
The researcher used inter-rater to make the analysis of the components of negotiation of meaning becomes valid. They were 11 components which were
A.Trigger
B.Signals
1. Confirmation check
a. Confirmation check through repetition b. Confirmation check through modification
c. Confirmation check through completion 2. Clarification request
C.Responses
1. Self-Repetition Response 2. Other-Repetition Response
3. Self-Modification Response 4. Other-Modification Response 5. Confirm or Negate Response
6. Follow-up
The inter-raters were 2 persons who have the same field with the researcher in the
research about negotiation of meaning. They were Meilia Rachmawati and Dian Pratiwi. The researcher was also followed as the first inter-rater. The result of
[image:51.595.114.503.635.758.2]inter-raters’ analysis can be seen on table below:
Table 4.1 Inter-raters’ Frequency Analysis of the Components of Negotiation of Meaning
No. Component of Negotiation of Meaning
Raters
R1 R2 R3
1 Trigger (T) 24 27 24
2 Confirmation Check through
Repetition (CCR) 2 2 2
3 Confirmation Check through
Modification (CCM) 4 4 4
5 Clarification of Request (CR) 40 40 40 6 Response Self-Repetition (RSR) 3 3 3 7 Response Other-Repetition (ROP) 3 4 3 8 Response Self-Modification (RSM) - - - 9 Response Other-Modification (ROM) - - - 10 Confirm or Negate Response (RCoN) 17 17 17
11 Follow-up (F) 33 26 33
Total 131 128 131
Based on the table above, the 3 raters agreed with all item numbers of students’
negotiation of meaning. Though one of the raters disagreed with some item numbers, such as in item number 1, 7, and 11; but since the 2 other raters agreed
with those number items; thus, they were taken and considered valid. The differences analysis between R2 and the other raters are:
1. Trigger
The difference of total number in trigger component was caused by R2’s analysis. For example:
AF : “So do I.”(T)
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
AF : “Yes(RCoN)……yes, I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.”(ROP)
(Transcription 1 in R2’ analysis) The comparison from the others rater’ analysis:
AF : “So do I.”
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
AF : “Yes(RCoN)……yes. I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.”(F)
(Transcription 1)
R2 states that the phenomenon which is occurring signal is called trigger. The utterances are “So do I.” In the other side, R1 and R3 disagreed with that
analysis. This utterance which produced comprehension check is “Any way, I heard that your father was sick,” which occurred the clarification request from
intonation. Its form is question tag such “wasn’t he?”. The speaker gives
confirmation response from the listener’s utterance such “Yes……yes.”
2. Response Other-Repetition (ROP)
The difference of total number in response other-repetition was caused by R2’s analysis. For example:
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
AF : “Yes(RCoN)……yes,I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.”(ROP) MA : “What kind of sick does he suffer from?”
(Transcription 1 in R2’s analysis) The comparison from the others rater’ analysis:
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
AF : “Yes(RCoN)……yes,I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.”(F) MA : “What kind of sick does he suffer from?”
(Transcription 1)
In the analysis above, the R2 analyzed utterances as ROPsuch “I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.” The others rater disagreed with the analysis. It is not called as
ROP because of the signal from the speaker (the student MA) was already responded by the listener (the students AF) by RCoN. There is also no repetition from the speaker about what the listener said in the signal. R1 and R3 analyzed it as follow-up. It is because of the utterances above comprehended the message/information from the speaker.
3. Follow-up
The difference of total number in response other-repetition was caused by R2’s analysis. For example:
AF : “So do I.”(T)
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
The comparison from the others rater’ analysis:
AF : “So do I.”(T)
MA : “Any way, I heard that your father was sick, wasn’t he?”(CR)
AF : “Yes(RCoN)……yes,I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.”(F)
(Transcription 1)
In the analysis above, the rater 2 analyzed the utterances such “I’m so sad, because he was …. I’m so sad.” as ROP. The others rater disagreed with the analysis. It is not
called as ROP because of the signal from the speaker (the student MA) was already responded by the listener (the student AF) by RCoN. There is also no repetition from the speaker about what the listener said in the signal. R1 and R3 analyzed it as follow-up. It is because of the utterances above comprehended the message/information from the speaker.
The differences in the total number of negotiation of meaning in the students’ speaking activity are caused by some of differences in analysis between the R2 and the others rater. It does not influence the validity of the data because of the analysis between R1 and R3 is mostly the same. The result of the frequency and percentage of students’
[image:54.595.116.515.558.758.2]negotiation of meaning can be seen on table 3 below:
Table 4.2 Frequency and Percentage of the Students’ Negotiation of Meaning based on Yufrizal’s study (2007)
No. Component of Negotiation of
Meaning Frequency Percentage
1 Trigger (T) 24 18.32%
2 Confirmation Check through
Repetition (CCR) 2 1.53%
3 Confirmation Check through Modification (CCM) 4 3.10% 4 Confirmation Check through
Completion (CCC) 5 3.82%
5 Clarification of Request (CR) 40 30.53% 6 Response Self-Repetition (RSR) 3 2.30% 7 Response Other-Repetition (ROP) 3 2.30% 8 Response Self-Modification (RSM) - -
10 Confirm or Negate Response
(RCoN) 17 12.98%
11 Follow-up (F) 33 25.20%
Total 131 100%
The table above shows the distribution frequency of the students’ negotiation of meaning in their speaking activity after Task-based Learning was implemented.
The total number of negotiation of meaning was 131 items based on the 2 raters’ agreement in the analysis.
4.1.1 Results of the Interview
The interview was conducted to investigate the students to know about their comments why clarification request was mostly used by them in conversation. It is hoped that the participants tend to become involved in the subject matter of the
conversation and consequently produce more spontaneous speech (Johnston, 1985) in Suparman (2009). 9 representatives of the students as the interviewees
were chosen from the class. The interview was in the form of open and formal questions (the questions must be in the form of explanation or description rather than “yes” or “no” answers, to avoid the students from being reluctant to answer
[image:55.595.120.511.85.139.2]the questions given).
Table 4.3. Result of Interview
The Interviewees The Problems
The Student 1 To make the conversation more interesting.
The Student 2 To certain the truth of previous utterances.
The Student 3 Need some further information from the interlocutors.
The Student 4 The activity was more active because they practice directly.
The Student 5 Need some further information from the interlocutors.
The Student 6 Need some further information from the interlocutors.
The Student 7 To avoid the conversation breakdown, therefore need some further
information from interlocutors.
Based on the result of the interview, it could be concluded that clarification request appeared in the students’ conversations because the listener need further
information about the interlocutors’ utterances. The listener produced clarification
request to avoid
