This research was conducted to investigate effectiveness of gesticulated teaching reading in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes in Jakarta. In the investigation two classes were chosen but only one class practiced gesticulated reading. For that purpose, three authentic, narrative texts were carefully selected and used as the material of instruction in both classes. In the end of the study students were tested using the same instrument. Scores of the test were analyzed using independent t-test to verify whether or not student achievements in the two classes differ. The research reveals the following results (1) the students in gesticulated reading class achieve better scores than that in conventional reading class; (2) the class atmosphere in gesticulated reading class is more vivid than that in conventional reading class.

Keywords: gesticulated teaching, reading, whole-brain-based learning INTRODUCTION

Unlike activities of speaking and writing in language learning, reading is a receptive skill in which students receive massages printed in the texts. However, this does not mean that reading is a passive activity but, instead, it is an active or even interactive form of activity (Adler and Doren, 2007). It is the text that is passive but the effort of getting the printed ideas needs internal activities and external interaction. Internal activities refer to the active work of whole brain, the right and left hemispheres.

Researches in this domain conclude that whole-brain-based learning methods creates strong retention and gives better effect to long term memory (Biffle, Vanderfin and Rekstad 1999; Biffle, 2013).

In a broader context, researches in neuroscience prove that human brain works well when facilitated with physical related activates. One of the consistent messages from these varied researches is that speech and gestures are deeply connected systems of communication. Specifically, researchers have demonstrated that gestures: (1) are semantically and temporally linked to the content of the ongoing speech stream, (2) have similar communicative functions as speech, and (3) develop closely with language acquisition in children. Furthermore, in terms of comprehension, listeners seem to pick up meaning of gesture, and do so in ways that are integrated with the speech signals (Goldin-Meadow, 2003;

Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 1992, 2005). A classic theory postulated by Mehrabian claimed that listeners in understanding a speech rely on what they see, not on what they hear. In this context, body language or gestures account for 55%, tone and voice 38% and the actual words 7%. Surprisingly, when verbal and non-verbal communication incongruent people will believe the non-verbal information (Mehrabian, 1967). In a specific term, Bernstein and Bernstein (1999) concluded that gestures, combined with proper imagination, are very powerful to foster creativity which is important in a learning process. This is postulated and termed what the so called “the thirteen thinking tools” that include (1) observing, (2) imaging, (3) abstracting, (4) recognizing patterns, (5) forming patterns, (6) analogizing, (7) body thinking,

(23)

(8) empathizing, (9) dimensional thinking, (10) modeling, (11) playing, (12) transforming, and (13) synthesizing.

With regard to reading, there are ample evidences that gestures play an important role not only to facilitate comprehension but also to enhance creative and critical thinking as well as to improve students’

communication skills. Such is possible because gestures stimulate imagination and, in turn, establish positive attitude toward learning and team working. (Herman, 2015). Similarly, Dougill (1987) argues that gestures, which he calls ‘mimes’, develop students' power of imagination, observation skills, and build up their confidence by encouraging them to get up and do things in front of one another. Thus, mime is a great way of reinforcing memory by means of visual association. Zyoud (2010) concludes that in a language class when a text is properly mimed, gesticulated and dramatized, reading and listening skills can be fostered.

The conceptual references in this context can be synthesized that (1) reading can be delivered in an active and even interactive form of teaching when whole-brain-based learning is applied, (2) gesticulation or physical and body movement facilitate and empower whole brain work. Therefore, based on such synthesis, this research is conducted to promote a technique of teaching reading for comprehension to involve gestures which hence referred to as gesticulated teaching reading.

The term gesticulation was initially popularized by Kendon in 1980 and is defined as motion that embodies a meaning relatable to the accompanying speech. It is chiefly made with the arms and hands but is not restricted to these body parts (McNeil, 1992). In addition, gestures can be performed with or without accompanying speech. The first is called autonomous gestures and the latter is called gesticulation (Kendon in Zhao and Badler, 1998). Such a teaching technique has been practiced by Li Yang in 2005 in which he creatively designed methods which he named gesticulated teaching. He developed it to teach pronunciation and people called it Crazy English (CE) because he shouted and made gestures during the teaching and learning practice. This was applicable, particularly in practicing vowels and consonants as far as teaching pronunciation is concerned. The result was astonishing. Practicing his invention for four months, Li Yang found his language skills improved very much. He passed the exam and more than that he won the second-highest mark in his university (Jing Yan, 2009).

More specifically in CE, Yang demonstrated proper pronunciation of words using approximately twenty hand/arm movements that are supposedly coordinated to specific vowel and consonant sounds.

(Woodward 2008). To clarify it, below is an example of such a gesticulation.

Table 1: Gesticulation in Learning Pronunciation

Sound Hand/Arm Movement

/ a / as in ‘what’ Right hand held above the head to make a hand puppet and opened when

vocalizing the “a” (For the word “what,” slowly open the puppet mouth on “wha”

and close it on the “t”)

/ ai / as in ‘like’ Right hand’s pointer finger draws a small complete clockwise circle

/ o / as in ‘go’ Closed fingers and a cupped palm dip the right hand from the high right down to the center and then up again to the left

Source: Woodward, 2008

(24)

It is apparent that Yang and his CE was implemented in the context of teaching pronunciation embedded in reading activity. It is not specifically related to the teaching of reading comprehension.

However since it relates to whole-brain work, I come up with conviction it may also improve students’

reading comprehension. Such is possible as researches concluded that gesticulated teaching in CE created fun and more importantly tackled problems of anxiety in language learning, increased self-confidence and transformed identities (Adamson, 2004; Gao, 2005). It is under such a circumstance that my conviction might be true.

It is now vital to define gesticulated teaching reading in this research i.e., a way to teach reading in which readers read aloud all words in the text and act out or gesticulate some key words to highlight meanings or messages that the text writer conveys. This is certainly different from miming in storytelling, which is defined as "a non-verbal representation of an idea or story through gestures, bodily movement and expression. In other words mime is acting out an idea or story through gestures, bodily movements and expressions without sounds. Whereas gesticulation, on the other hand, is acting out particular key words in the reading text while reading aloud (Kendon in McNeill, 1992).

There is very little information, or may be none, about a consensus on which and how to gesticulate particular key words in the reading texts. This implies that readers are free to carry out their gesticulated reading. Nevertheless, some categories of gesture types have been identified, such as iconics, metaphoric, deictic, and beats (McNeill, 1992). This may contribute useful and beneficial input as far as gesticulated teaching is concerned.

• Iconics represent some concrete features of the accompanying speech, such as an object’s shape.

• Metaphoric represent an abstract feature concurrently spoken about.

• Deictic indicate a point in space, and may refer to persons, places and other spatializeable discourse entities.

• Beats are small formless waves of the hand that occur with heavily emphasized words.

(Zhao and Badler, 1998).

In a more specific description, Cassell (in Zhao and Badler, 1998) argued that iconic linked to mention specific objects, metaphorics to specific actions and beats to speech intonation. Yet, this does not clarify the prevailing problem on the consensus..

Not to mislead the unresolved problem, I come up with conviction that gesticulating action words, in comparison to other word classes, is more easily done and might facilitate students to comprehend the text when related characters are properly identified. This particularly is applicable to gesticulate narrative texts. Consequently, characters in the narrative texts should be explored and clearly mimed before whole gesticulation begins. To carry out such a mime, it is worth practicing Cassell’s and McNeill’s classification. Below is a sample of miming main characters in the reading text or story entitled

Little Red Riding Hood, retrieved from

http://www.penguinreaders.com/pdf/downloads/pyr/pyrtgdramstories.pdf Table 2: Miming and Gesticulating Characters (Adaptation)

Main Character Mime Gesture Type

Little Red Riding Hood Pointing finger draws an object Iconic & Metaphoric looked like a basket

Arm bent as if holding a basket Metaphoric

The Wolf Hands up as paws and face Metaphoric

(25)

snarl and roar

Grandmother Hands over face in a gesture of fear Metaphoric

Woodcutter Pointing finger draws an object Iconic & Metaphoric looked like an axe

Both hands up as if holding an Metaphoric axe and swing as if swinging

the axe

Adapted from http://www.penguinreaders.com/pdf/downloads/pyr/pyrtgdramstories.pdf

The procedure of implementing gesticulated teaching in this research is arranged as follows:

• Firstly, main as well as supporting characters in the text are identified and mimed.

• Secondly, selected action words are gesticulated.

• Thirdly, other words might be gesticulated when necessary

• In addition, autonomous gestures and gesticulation, as described above, were interchangeably practiced.

METHODOLOGY

This research was conducted using a quasi experimental method involving two classes of a junior secondary school in Jakarta in which one class was designed to be the experiment group where gesticulated teaching was applied and the other was the control group where another methods was used to deliver the teaching. Three narrative reading texts were chosen as the material of instruction with which the reading activities was delivered and data derived.

There is clear consideration to choose narrative texts to gesticulate in this research, such as:

• They are listed as the reading material of instruction in the curriculum applicable to Junior Secondary schools where this research was conducted,

• By definition, narratives are texts that tell stories, events or a series of events and the purpose is to entertain the readers (Abbot, 2002; Anderson, 1997). Thus, students find them amusing when gesticulated reading is implemented.

• Components of narratives are clear, consisting of experience (what characters look like, setting (where the actions take place, and action (how things happen). Such clarity complies with Cassell’s and McNeill’s classification of gestures, including iconic, metaphoric,and deictic by which characters, action words and spatial entities may be gesticulated.

• The structure and pattern of narratives, such as orientation, complication, sequence of events, and resolution, facilitate students to create steps of gesticulation.

To collect the data two instruments were developed. The first was a paper and pencil test to measure student’s achievement in comprehending the reading texts. This was administered in the two classes, the experiment and control groups. The other instrument was an observational sheet to potray the class atmosphere during the processes of teaching in both classes.

The first instrument consisted of thirty multiple-choice items developed from three reading texts.

They covered four areas of content commonly practiced by test developers in reading, such TOEFL tests.

They include (1) asking main idea of the text, (2) asking specific information in the text, (3) asking referential words, and (4) asking word meaning or synonymy. The second instrument was adapted from the observational sheet developed by NET SECTION, EMB, HKSARG (2006). Based on such adaptation two components that support reading in the class were identified, such as (1) class atmosphere consisting

(26)

of students collaboration, creativity, personal differences, (2) speaking and listening activities supportive to reading in three stages; before, while, and post reading activities.

To assure the validity and reliability of the first and second instruments, a tryout and a panel discussion with colleagues were respectively conducted. The tryout involved 15 respondents of a school differed from where the research took place. From the tryout, it is confirmed that the instruments are valid and reliable to collect data. The panel discussion involved two colleagues who shared their expertise and feedbacks to refine the observation sheet, particularly the cultural bias which may occur during the observation.

The qualitative data were analyzed using a dependant t-test formula. This is to confirm if there is significant difference between mean scores of the experiment group and that of the control group. For such confirmation two hypotheses were formulated, i.e. H0, saying there is no difference between mean score of the experiment group and that of the control group and H1 saying there is a difference between mean scores of the experiment group and that of the control group. The confidence levels of statistical significance are based on the following ‘p’ values, such as (1) p < .05 which means significant, (2) p < .01 highly significant, and (3) p < .001 very highly significant.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Findings

The research findings prove that the students in gesticulated reading class achieve better scores than that in conventional reading class. This is veryfied by data that t (observed) is higher that that of t (table) (t = 2.62 >, t-tab = 1.66). This means that the null hypothesis that reads “there is no difference between mean score of the experiment group and that of the control group” could be rejected. In other words it is to say that the scores of achievement between students of experimental group and those of control group were different in the sense that the score of first group is higher than that of second group.

The findings also show that the class atmosphere in gesticulated reading class is more vivid than that in conventional reading class. Based on the observation, it can be reported that collaboration among students in the first group is high. Students in this group are active and creative. Such is supportive to the activities of reading in all three stages, i.e. before, while and post reading activities.

Discussion

The high achievement of students in the first group is not surprising as such is suported by the class atmosphere in the reading activity in which students are active, collaborative and creative. This complies with the theory of whole-brain-based learning (Biffle, 2013) and other similar researches in neoroscience (Goldin-Meadow, 2003; Kendon, 2004; McNeill, 1992, 2005) postulating that gesticulation link to the content of speech stream which, in this context, appears in the reading activities.

A research in such an active learning which employed gesticulation has proved that demonstration followed by teacher’s explanations increased students responses to conceptual questions up to 8 to 12% higher than that who were taught without demonstration. However when studnets are asked to make predictions prior to seeing demonstration, their scores rose between 25 to 35% higher.

Furthermore, when students had the opportunity to make a prediction, discuss it with peers in additon to seeing demonstration, their correct responses was highest, more that 50% of all (Miner Bolotin, et. al., 2007).

(27)

CONCLUSION

Thus, it concludes without doubt that gesticulated teaching is one among other techniques to stimulate active learning in EFL class. It is applicable, particularly, when prediction and imagination is involved in addition to physical movement. Such is supported by research findings reported by Bernstein and Berstein (1999) which concludes that gestures, combined with proper imagination, are very powerful to foster creativity which is important in a learning process.

REFERENCES

Abbott, H. Porter. 2002. The Cambridge Introduction to Narrative. United Kingdom: University Press, Cambridge.

Adamson, B., 2004. Fashions in Language Teaching Methodology, In A. Davies & Elder (Eds.), The Handbook of Applied Linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Adler, Mortimer J. & Charles Van Doren., 2007. How to Read a Book, Jakarta: PT Indonesia Publishing.

Anderson, Mark. 1997. Text Type in English 2. Australia: Mackmillan.

Bernstein, Root, R. and Root Bernstein, M. 1999. Sparks of Genius: The Thirteen Thinking Tools of the World’s Most Creative People. NY: Houghton Mifflin

Biffle, Christ Vanderfin, J., & Rekstad, C. 1999. Whole Brain Teaching

Backgroundhttp://www.wholebrainteaching.com/index.php/wholebrainteachingbackground.

html

Dougill, John. 1987. Drama Activities for Language Learner. London: Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

Gao, Y. H., 2005. Socio-cultural Contexts and English Language Learning in China: Retaining and Reforming the Cultural Habitus. The Journal of Chinese Sociolinguistic, 5(2), 60-83.

Goldin-Meadow, S. 2003. Hearing Gesture: How our hands help us think. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Herman, Gail N. 2015. Storytelling, Mime, and Movement Making Learning Creative and Kinesthetic, Available from http://confratute.uconn.edu/wp-

content/uploads/sites/990/2015/07/33_Intro_Storytelling_Mime_Movement-Herman.pdf Jing Yan, Li. 2009. From classroom to imagined community: A study of three learners of Crazy English

in China, The University of Melbourne/Harbin Institute of Technology, Journal Vol24 No 1 (http://www.ameprc.mq.edu.au/docs/prospect_journal/volume_24_no_1/LiJingyan.pdf).

Kendon, A. 2004. Gesture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Keene, E. Oliver and Susan, Zimmermann. 2007. Mozaic of Thought: The Power of Comprehension Strategy Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

(28)

McNeill, D 1992. Gesture: A Psycholinguistic Approach. Available from

http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/gesture.a_psycholinguistic_approach.cambridge.encycl op.pdf

McNeil, D. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mehrabian, Albert and Wiener, Morton. 1967. Decoding of Inconsistent Communications. Journal of Personality and social Psychology. 6 (1)” : 109 – 114

Miner Bolotin, et. al., 2007 in Jim Eison. Using Active Learning Instructional Strategies to Create

Excitment and Enhance Learning, 2010. Available from

https://www.cte.cornell.edu/documents/presentations/Eisen-Handout.pdf

Woodward, Amber R., 2008. A Survey of Li Yang Crazy English. Sino-Platonic Papers, Number 180.

Zhao, Liwei, and Norman I. Badler. 1998. Gesticulation Behaviors for Virtual Humans. Posted at Scholarly Commons. http://repository.upenn.edu/hms/21

Zyoud, Munther. 2010. Using Drama Activities and Techniques to Foster Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Al Quds Open University.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

... 561

... 561

... 569

... 569

... 574

... 579

... 579

... 584

... 584

... 588

... 588

... 593

... 593

... 599

... 611

... 611

. 617

... 617

... 625

... 625

... 631

... 631

... 644

... 644

... 649

... 649

... 656

... 662

... 622

... 670

... 677

... 677

... 685

... 692

... 699

... 707

... 707

T;

-c

t

Ii

c

T'

H!

FhH

ffi>

l'Ir

l<f, ,-?

-.-{

w

ry

o o

E o

ts\ Ele

C [r

ru ld"

6_E ooc

EF V,

b.s.mr#

t*rffi;l:

ffi;H

LqW

(o rl

o N o

C o o

(J o

C

o

C

o

= =

t!

ro od

.C IlJ

I-

#uJ PZ -o out

Ed ;o. (ol/,

-c(o

EF _V,

#uJ PZ -o _out

Ed ;o. _(ol/,

3E ^E

tu ^g