xiii
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The fact that there are many educational researches concerning on TSs interaction has reflected how significant TSs interaction for English learning is. TSs interaction plays role for the success of learning by accomodating learning for the students before they are demanded to construct language individually. As what has been found by the researchers in EYL class, a teacher plays more dominant role in TSs interaction. Consequently, how the interaction goes may depend on the teacher. At the same time, what the teacher does is commonly affected by his/ her belief. On the other words, the study on TSs interaction in class can be done by investigating the teachers’belief.
Thus, the goal of this research is to find out the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in English learning in class. This is a qualitative research. Here, the techniques used in this research were doing a direct observation in the English learning class and an in-depth interview with two English teachers. These two participants were selected using purposeful sampling. The observation aimed to find out how the process of TSs interaction runs in English learning class. Then it was followed by in-depth interview to find out the reasons of having such TSs interaction. The investigation resulted into texts as the data for this research namely observation notes and transcripts and also interview transcripts.
The results of this research consist of the teachers’ belief about goals, process, and source of TSs interaction. It can give conceptual insight about how the system of TSs interaction in English learning process in Elementary schools through recognizing the teachers’ belief. Then, it may be beneficial for the teachers as a means supporting self- reflection, schools’ evaluation and also for the educational practitioners who want to investigate the TSs interaction in more details.
xiv
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Banyaknya penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa menunjukan bahwa interaksi guru dan siswa berperan secara signifikan bagi suksesnya pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Interaksi guru dan siswa berperan penting bagi pembelajaran karena mengakomodasi pembelajaran bagi siswa sebelum mereka mampu berbicara Bahasa Inggris secara mandiri. Seperti yang ditemukan oleh para peneliti pendidikan yang berfokus pada pembelajaran di usia dini, guru memiiki peran yang dominan saat membangun interaksi dengan siswanya. Oleh karena itu, guru sangat berperan dalam berlangsungnya interaksi antara guru dan siswa. Padahal, apapun yang dilakukan oleh guru dipengaruhi oleh apa yang dia percaya. Dengan kata lain, penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa dapat dilakukan dengan menginvestigasi kepercayaan guru tentang interaksi tersebut.
Maka dari itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru yang berhubungan dengan interaksi antara guru dan siswanya di kelas. Dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif, penelitian ini menganalisa hasil observasi dan interview pada dua guru Bahasa Inggris. Dua guru Bahasa Inggris ini dipilih dengan menggunakan teknik purposeful sampling. Observasi dilakukan untuk menemukan bagaimana proses interaksi guru dan siswa berlangsung di dalam kelas. Kemudian, teknik selanjutnya adalah interview. Melalui intervie, peneliti dapat menggali kepercayaan guru yang mempengaruhi keputusannya dalam mengatur interaksiny dengan siswa. Data dari penelitian ini berbentuk teks, seperti catatan dan traksrip selama observasi kelas, dan juga traksrip interview. Data tersebut dianalisis untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru.
INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS
A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.) in
English Language Studies
by
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere Student Number: 146332043
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
i
INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS
A Thesis Presented to
The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.) in
English Language Studies
by
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere Student Number: 146332043
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
vi
I do praise the Lord for kindly giving me chance so I can go through this path.
Certainly, I can not finish this thesis without others’ help. First, I want to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D., for his enlightment, big patience and supports for me during the process of writing. My gratitude also goes my thesis reviewers, Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. Sunarto, M.Hum, for their sharing and great advices. Besides, I also thanks Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Paulus Sarwoto, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Dr. Novita Dewi, M.S.,M.A.(Hons), J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd., M.Hum., Widya Kiswara, S.Pd.,M.Hum., and other great lectures in English Language Studies in Sanata Dharma University for the sharing and inspiration. I also thank my nice friends whom I meet in ELS Sanata Dharma University for their care and support.
My gratitude also goes to my beautiful participants, Susana Raheni, S.Pd. and Christina Maryeni, S.Pd. for letting me learn a lot from their sharing. Besides, I thank the supporting teachers and lovely students in SD Kanisius Wates and SD Kanisius Kotabaru. I also thank my students and colleagues in SD Kanisius Bonoharjo for inspiring me to write this thesis.
I am also grateful for having Rini, Awang and Hehen as my true friends, ever. Last but not least, thanks to Bapa, Mama, Sawe, Ngare, Pae, Bue, Galuh, Vian, and Putri for the abundant love, forgiveness, and support. Hi love, thanks.
vii
TITLE PAGE ... i
APPROVAL PAGE ... ii
DEFENCE APPROVAL PAGE ... iii
STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY... iv
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ... v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ... x
LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS ... xi
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii
ABSTRACT... xiii
ABSTRAK ... xiv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 1
1.1 Place of the Current Research ... 1
1.2 Scope and Limitation of the Current Research ... 5
1.3 Problem Formulation ... 5
1.4 Goal of the Current Research ... 5
1.5 Significances of the Current Research ... 6
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW... 7
2.1 Theoretical Review ... 7
2.1.1 Teachers’Belief ... 7
2.1.1.1Definition of Teachers’ Belief... 7
2.1.1.2 Sources of Teachers’ Belief... 9
2.1.1.3 The Role of Teachers’ Belief... 10
2.1.2 Teacher-Students Interaction ... 11
2.1.2.1 Definition of TSs Interaction ... 12
2.1.2.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction... 13
2.1.2.3 The Role of TSs Interactionin Young Learners’ Classroom ... 17
viii
2.1.3.2 English Learning inYoung Learners’ Classroom... 20
2.1.3.3 English Learning in Kanisius Elementary School ... 21
2.2 Theoretical Framework ... 22
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 24
3.1 Research Design... 24
3.2 Nature of Data ... 24
3.3 Research Instruments ... 25
3.3.1 Observation Notes... 25
3.3.2 Interview Guideline... 25
3.4 Source of Data... 26
3.5 Data Collecting Techniques ... 28
3.6 Data Analysis ... 29
3.7 Trustworthiness ... 30
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 31
4.1 RESULTS ... 31
4.1.1 Types of TSs Interaction ... 31
4.1.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction ... 49
4.2 DISCUSSION ... 62
4.2.1 Goals of TSs Interaction ... 62
4.2.2 Process of TSs Interaction ... 69
4.2.3 Sources of TSs Interaction ... 74
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ... 75
5.1 CONCLUSIONS... 75
5.1.1 Teachers’ Belief in the Goals of TSs Interaction... 75
5.1.2 Teachers’ Belief in the Process of TSs Interaction... 76
5.1.3 Teachers’ Belief in the Sources of TSs Interaction... 78
5.2 IMPLICATIONS ... 79
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 80
x
Figure 2.1. Theoretical Framework ... 22
Figure 3.1. The concept of English- English TSs Interaction ... 38
Figure 3.2. The concept of English- Indonesia TSs Interaction ... 42
Figure 3.3. The concept of Indonesia- Indonesia TSs Interaction ... 46
xi
LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS
EFL : English as a Foreign Language ELS : English Language Studies EYL : English for Young Learners IRE : Initiation- Response- Evaluation IRF : Initiation- Response- Follow up
KTSP : Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (Curriculum 2009)
T : Teacher
TS : Teacher-Student
TSs : Teacher-Students
Ss : Students
SS : Student-Student
ask inf : asking information giv inf : giving information giv inst : giving instruction
xii
xiii
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
The fact that there are many educational researches concerning on TSs interaction has reflected how significant TSs interaction for English learning is. TSs interaction plays role for the success of learning by accomodating learning for the students before they are demanded to construct language individually. As what has been found by the researchers in EYL class, a teacher plays more dominant role in TSs interaction. Consequently, how the interaction goes may depend on the teacher. At the same time, what the teacher does is commonly affected by his/ her belief. On the other words, the study on TSs interaction in class can be done by investigating the teachers’belief.
Thus, the goal of this research is to find out the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in English learning in class. This is a qualitative research. Here, the techniques used in this research were doing a direct observation in the English learning class and an in-depth interview with two English teachers. These two participants were selected using purposeful sampling. The observation aimed to find out how the process of TSs interaction runs in English learning class. Then it was followed by in-depth interview to find out the reasons of having such TSs interaction. The investigation resulted into texts as the data for this research namely observation notes and transcripts and also interview transcripts.
The results of this research consist of the teachers’ belief about goals, process, and source of TSs interaction. It can give conceptual insight about how the system of TSs interaction in English learning process in Elementary schools through recognizing the teachers’ belief. Then, it may be beneficial for the teachers as a means supporting self- reflection, schools’ evaluation and also for the educational practitioners who want to investigate the TSs interaction in more details.
xiv
Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sanata Dharma.
Banyaknya penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa menunjukan bahwa interaksi guru dan siswa berperan secara signifikan bagi suksesnya pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Interaksi guru dan siswa berperan penting bagi pembelajaran karena mengakomodasi pembelajaran bagi siswa sebelum mereka mampu berbicara Bahasa Inggris secara mandiri. Seperti yang ditemukan oleh para peneliti pendidikan yang berfokus pada pembelajaran di usia dini, guru memiiki peran yang dominan saat membangun interaksi dengan siswanya. Oleh karena itu, guru sangat berperan dalam berlangsungnya interaksi antara guru dan siswa. Padahal, apapun yang dilakukan oleh guru dipengaruhi oleh apa yang dia percaya. Dengan kata lain, penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa dapat dilakukan dengan menginvestigasi kepercayaan guru tentang interaksi tersebut.
Maka dari itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru yang berhubungan dengan interaksi antara guru dan siswanya di kelas. Dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif, penelitian ini menganalisa hasil observasi dan interview pada dua guru Bahasa Inggris. Dua guru Bahasa Inggris ini dipilih dengan menggunakan teknik purposeful sampling. Observasi dilakukan untuk menemukan bagaimana proses interaksi guru dan siswa berlangsung di dalam kelas. Kemudian, teknik selanjutnya adalah interview. Melalui intervie, peneliti dapat menggali kepercayaan guru yang mempengaruhi keputusannya dalam mengatur interaksiny dengan siswa. Data dari penelitian ini berbentuk teks, seperti catatan dan traksrip selama observasi kelas, dan juga traksrip interview. Data tersebut dianalisis untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru.
1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
The current research is aimed to find out the teachers’ belief in teacher-students interaction in English learning. This is a worth- doing research since it is useful for reflecting how the teachers quality of interaction in young learners’ English class. This chapter discusses the place of current research in the area of TSs interaction and the urgency beyond this research. Then, one research question is formulated. Besides, the theoretical and practical benefits of this research are stated.
1.1 Place of the Current Research
Inspired by Vygotzki’s theory on the role of social interaction for the students’ development, there have been many researchers who have concerned on
investigates classroom interaction in Junior High School. He finds out the four categories in interaction namely teacher talk, student talk, non- verbal interaction and related factors. Many research concerning on classroom interaction have shown the importance of interaction for learning.
Classroom interaction consists of teacher- students (TSs) interaction, teacher- student (TS) interaction, and student- student (SS) interaction. Each pattern plays its own role for the success of learning. Due to Hammond’s model of language teaching, TSs interaction plays big role during the process of teaching learning before the students produce the text independently. Concerning on the importance of TSs interaction, Sibley (1990) investigated three-part exchanges, teacher feedback, and the role of gender in it. Nugent (2009) finds that TSs interaction has bigger role for the success of learning since it affects the students’ motivation and finally affects their achievement. Besides, Hong, et al (2011) believe that TSs interaction facilitates scaffolding for learning. Recognizing the importance of TSs interaction for learning, Nassaji & Wells (2000) research on the use of triadic dialogue in TSs interaction that depends on the teachers’ goals. McClowry et al (2013) also investigate factors affecting TSs interaction. Recently, Makasau (2015) goes into details by researching the adjacency pairs occuring in the TSs interaction.
compulsory subject to learn, some schools in Yogyakarta still have English for their students. The truth is that in elementary school, TSs interaction plays dominant role in the success of language learning. Many researchers concerning on teaching English to young learners such as Pinter (2006), Cameron (2001), Moon (2000), and Halliwell (1992) agree that young learners are willing to engage in learning only if the teaching and learning process is meaningful to them. Here is the role of TSs interaction. Ellis (2008) states that everything happens through a process of live interaction in a classroom. How the interaction can accomodate meaningful learning is very important in primary language classroom. Young learners do not directly learn from textbooks but they practice and tend to learn indirectly through the interaction that they experience in classroom. Hall & Walsh (2002) also state that most learning opportunities are accomplished through face-to-face interaction. Thus, interaction has role for effectual learning environments and in shaping of individual learners’ development.
their knowledge and belief. Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968 in Pajares (1992) state that belief is the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives. In classroom setting, belief affects the teachers’ decision on holding the teaching and learning process. Richards & Lockhart (1996) also support the influence of belief in the real class by stating that what the teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe. Considering the important of belief, Puspitasari (2013) and Liao (2007) investigatethe teachers’belief in English teaching in Elementary stage to find out how the teaching goes.
in elementary schools can be illustrated especially related to the system of TSs interaction consisting of the goals, process, and its sources.
1.2 Scope and Limitation of the Current Research
Classroom interaction consists of TSs interaction, TS interaction, and SS interaction. In this research, the focus is only on TSs (teacher- class) interaction. Here, TSs interaction refers to the interaction between teacher and his/ her students during the English learning. Learning can happen anywhere but in this research, the investigation will be focused in learning happening in the classroom. Interaction can be in the form of verbal and non- verbal. This current research focuses more on the verbal one. The interaction can be initiated either by the teacher or the students. Since the initiator of the interaction is the teacher while the teacher’s decision may be influenced by belief, this research focuses on investigating the belief of English primary teachers about the TSs interaction. The participants are specified from Kanisius Elementary Schools.
1.3 Problem Formulation
Based on the background of the research, the problem of this research, as follows:
1.4 Goal of the Current Research
In relation to the research question, the main goal of this research is to find out the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in English learning in class. The investigation of this current research will deal with the goals, process, and the source of TSs interaction.
1.5 Significances of the Current Research
7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
This section reviews the theories related to this current research. The theories are about teachers’ belief, TSs interaction, and English learning. Besides, the relation between those construct are presented in the theoretical framework.
2.1 Theoretical Review
In this research, there are three constructs namely teachers’ belief, teacher-students interaction, and English learning class. Here, the theories about those constructs are reviewed.
2.1.1 Teachers’Belief
There are three theories reviewed in this part. They are the definition, sources, and the role of teachers’ belief in language teaching and learning.
2.1.1.1Definition of Teachers’Belief
Due to the finding of the ELT practitioners’ research about belief, there is no clear explicit meaning for belief. This is why Pajares (1992) considers belief as a messy construct. Many researchers such as what Brown and Cooney (1982), Sigel (1985), Harvey (1986) in Pajares (1992) agree that belief is the major determinant of behavior. Belief that someone holds guide how he/ she acts. Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968 in Pajares (1992,p.2) support it because they agree that ‘belief is the best indicators of the
8
she believes on is true so what he/ she decides to do in his/ her life often be affected by his/ her belief.
In classroom setting, teacher may act according to what he/ she believes on. Borg (2003,p.2)defines teacher as an ‘active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and belief. It means that teachers’ belief play a role in the teachers’ decision- making. Pajares (1992), Richardson (1996), Richards, Gallo, & Renandya (2001), and Phipps (2009) find on the influence of teachers’ belief on classroom decision making. Compared to teachers’ knowledge, Pajares (1992) and Marion Williams et al. (1997) in Xu (2012) noted that teachers‘belief have a greater influence on the way they plan their lessons, on the kinds of decisions they make, and on their general classroom practice. The teaching method, materials, tasks and activities a teacher designs and uses in class may be affected by his/ her belief. Thus, compared to knowledge, teachers’belief was the better predictor of how teachers behave in the classroom (Marion Williams et al., 1997 in Xu, 2012).
Unfortunately,there is often a ‘discrepancy’ between what the teachers say about their belief and the way they act (Marion Williams et al., 1997 in Xu, 2012). Therefore, investigating belief is not merely done by interviewing the doers. Not all teachers are aware of their belief. Besides, Pajares (1992) also states that understanding belief is not an easy thing to do since people tend to reluctant on representing their belief accurately. Therefore, it is better done through a ‘direct observation or measurement such a survey’ than inferring from “what people say,
intend, and do- fundamental prerequisites. Technically, White (1999) in Liao (2007) claimed that:
“(1) Belief has an adaptive function to help individuals define and understand the world and themselves, and (2) belief is instrumental in defining tasks and behaviors. Thus, the belief systems that teachers develop are often held to be true and can guide their teaching behaviors.”
2.1.1.2 Sourcesof Teachers’Belief
Belief is not created incidentally. It exists through process in which it is affected by various factors. Belief systems are dynamic and permeable mental structures, susceptible to change in light of experience (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002 in Liao, 2007). On the other words, belief is affected by experiences and vice versa. Richards (1998) and Borg (2003) agree that teachers’ belief are significantly affected by experiences in their prior learning and teaching practices, classroom observations that they were exposed to, their previous training courses, and other contextual factors. The same finding is also proved by Liao (2007) supported by Johnson, 1992; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Smith, 1996 who state that English teachers may have belief about the ideal approaches in teaching which are affected by their previous educational experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social interaction, which may further shape their belief about English teaching.
change any time as any experiences the teacher finds as truth can influence it. Though, Marion Williams et al. (1997) argue that belief tends to be culturally bound, to be formed early in life and to be resistant to change.
Reviewing to the theories above, it is concluded that belief are values hold by someone, influenced by experiences of prior learning, practice, training or other related meaningful events that considered to be true by the person. Those values affect the person in his/ her action. Thus, belief can be observed through their action.
2.1.1.3 The Role of Teachers’Belief in Language Teaching and Learning
Second, teachers’ belief affect the process of teaching, started from the planning up to the making it to be real in class. Xu (2012) states that teachers' belief shape in determining what should be taught and what path of instruction should be followed. It continues to affect the interactions with students.
Third, what teachers hold as their belief influences their decision-making related to the components of teaching. What the teachers do in class whether it is about teaching methodology, language use, classroom management or other aspects in the teaching process is affected by their belief. Richards, Gallo, & Renandya (2001) confirm that teachers’ belief strongly affect the materials and activities they choose for the classroom. Besides, teachers’ belief also influences the teachers’ development (Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001). In fact, those findings are not absolutely true. Phipps (2009) finds that considering on the practical classroom circumtances, the teachers’ belief are not always reflected on the classroom practice. Thus, teachers’ belief can be affected by the teachers’ practices, experiences or other external factors. Clark and Peterson (1986) in Richards, et al. (2001).
2.1.2 Teacher- Students Interaction
Due to the Hammond’s model of language teaching, the classroom
2.1.2.1 Definition of TSs Interaction
There have been many researchers who concern on classroom interaction and ended with synthesizing the meaning of interaction. Basically, interaction happens between two parties. In the interaction, Brown (2000, 165) considers that there is“an exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas resulting in reciprocal effect on each other”. Those two or more parties communicate each other based on their portion. Due to the interaction hypothesis proposed by Long, in interaction, there is a modification that may facilitate acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways (Ellis R. , 2008). As its name, TSs interaction is an interaction involved teacher and students in class. TSs interaction belongs to types of interaction in a classroom (Brown, 1987). This interaction dominantly happens on the stages of language teaching, started from building knowledge of field, up to joint construction of text as apparent in the Hammond’s model of language teaching. It happens between teacher and students during the course.
According to Pica, et al. (1987), TSs interaction is kind of environment for second language acquisition in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding. The interaction ends when the messages are understood well. The understanding is related to what the teachers want to accomplish as planned. In this case, the planning is suited to the goals of English learning in Elementary school which have been created in the curriculum. While, TSs interaction also becomes a focuse in social perspective, in which,
shaping of individual learners’ development. Specifically, through interaction, students ‘are socialized into particular understanding of what counts as the official curriculum and of themselves as learners of that subject matter’ (Hall & Walsh, 2002,p.187).
A can be seen in Hammond’s model of language teaching, TSs interaction
involves bigger participation in which all the students in class are invited to interact.
Therefore, it is decided that TSs interaction is an interaction between a teacher and his/ her students during the learning in which they modify and restructure the interaction to achieve mutual understanding affecting students’ development. TSs interaction here can be initiated either by the teacher or the student. Then, it continues to build communication between the teacher and his/ her students in class.
2.1.2.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction
the activity. The goals themselves are influenced by how the teachers view their teaching.
As the consequences, different view of teaching will lead into different of communicative function of IRF structure as agreed by Kumpulainen & Wray (2002). According to Brown (2000), there are twelve principles covered in three main principles namely cognitive, affective, and linguistic principles that become the foundation for interaction. Then, it will lead into different language learning environment (Hall & Walsh, 2002).
In fact, teacher plays a dominant role during the interaction. How they act in class is reflected from their ideal perception about teacher’s role in classroom (Hong et al, 2011). Richard & Rodgers (2001) also agree that the learning approach defines the teachers’ role that creates specific patterns of interaction
between teachers and learners in classroom. For instance, if they think that a class needs a controller, they will controls the content of interaction and the distribution of speaking turn (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002).
According to Brown (2000), teacher may have five roles in the classroom namely as a controller, director, manager, facilitator and resource. Every role plays different actions during interaction.
Commonly, there are two pattern often used in the interaction. First is IRE in which the teachers play the role as an expert and tend to evaluate to respond the students’ answer (Hall & Walsh, 2002). In this case, they consider themselves as the first knower (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). This pattern may limit the students’ learning opportunity to express their ideas. On the other hand, the second pattern involves a range of functions on the third moves. According to Hall & Walsh (2002), this pattern can lead into effective teaching since it promotes students participation, highlight key concepts and ideas, build a shared base of knowledge,and evoke feeling of inclusivity. Rashidi & Rafieerad (2010) draw the pattern into this detail:
Table 2.1 Pattern of Classroom Interaction Initiating Acts
a. Requestive b. Directives c. Elicitation d. Informative
Responding Acts a. Positive response b. Negative response c. Temporization
Follow- up acts a. endorsement b. concession c. acknowledgment
than two thirds of all teacher questions…are concerned with narrow lines of
interrogation which stimulate an expected response’.
Barnes (1979) in Moyles,et al. (2003) recognizes that teacher’s dominance in interaction exists as the teacher has a conflict between the need to promote learning and the need to maintain control. Unfortunately, this condition can ‘devalue both the knowledge the students have and their capacity to use speech to
apply the knowledge to a new task’. Thus, it is better to “engage students in active
ways rather than sitting passively listening to the teacher” (Barnes, 1979 in Moyles et al.2003,p.17). It will be different if the joint negotiation and meaning-making are emphasized in learning and teaching. There will be wider communicative strategies and the nature of social interaction will be changed into more dynamic teaching and learning conversation (Orsolini & Pontecorvo,1992 in Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). In this pattern, the communicative strategies used consist of repetition and rephrashing of students’ contribution instead of mere
questioning and evaluation activity (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002).
Another perspective for classroom interaction is called collective argumentation developed by Brown & Renshaw in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002). In this pattern, the communicative strategies used are sharing or interpreting, comparing, explaning, justifying, establishing joint agreement and presenting for a validation to coordinate different perspective in classroom. Then, the teacher’s
(2002). In this perspective, the students take a part in classroom more than the teacher. It is not in line with Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, and Vasama in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002) who promote the teacher’s participation in class. In their research, they identify four modes of teacher’s participation into evocative, facilitative, collective and appreciative modes (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). By having that teacher’s participation, the students did not see their teacher as the
knowledge- giving authority but instead proudly presented their own ideas and also questioned the assumptions presented by the teacher (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002, p.14).
2.1.2.3. The Role of TSs Interaction in Young Learner Classroom
The verbal interaction in class must be exposed by the teachers for certain purposes. Brown T. (1987) argues that it is caused by the teachers’ intention to influence the actions of the young learners. If the learners react as expected, the teaching and learning process will proceed successfully as planned. In constructing the interaction, a teacher may fantasize about how her actions will be interpreted. Richard & Rodgers (2001) state that interaction aims to specify and organize the language teaching content so the purpose of communication can be met. Interaction may affect some aspects in teaching and learning.
teacher can make the use of interaction to do modification if needed to make sure whether the input is understood by the students successfully. The modification can be done by doing comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests either by encoding or, more frequently, by triggering repetition and rephrasing of input content. Long (1996) also agrees that interaction facilitates acquisition because of the conversational and linguistic modifications that occur in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. Pica, Doughty, & Young (1987) and Sarab & Karimi (2008) find that this interactional modification facilitates second language comprehension better than pre-modified input. Modification done through the interaction can help the learners to comprehend the input. The successful interactional modification can accommodate learning and acquisition for young learners. It is confirmed by Pica, Doughty, & Young (1987) who state the interaction of teacher and students in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding can be an ideal environment for second language acquisition. It is also in line with theories of communicative competence. Due to those theories, the importance of interaction was emphasized to negotiate meaning (Brown, 2000).
friendly relationships among the participants of the learning process. If the learning is interesting and meaningful to the young learners, the goals of the teaching and learning process can be accomplished (Halliwell, 1992; Moon, 2000; Pinter, 2006). Allwright in Sibley (1999) notices the importance of interaction so he suggests that the interaction should be inherent in the very notion of classroom pedagogy itself.
On the other hand, Nystrand in (Hall & Walsh, 2002) argue that TSs interaction was a significant factor ‘in creating inequalities in student
opportunities to develop intellectually complex language knowledge and skills. It is closely related with the dominant power of the teachers in classroom. It will be discussed further in the section below.
2.1.3 English Learning
2.1.3.1 English Learning in Class
competence theory, humanistic perspective, social interactionism. Those perspectives affect the way someone learn a language and construct learning strategies from it.
2.1.3.2 English Learning in Young Learners Classroom
Compared to language learning in adult classroom, language learning in young learners’ classroom is different in some ways since young learners have
demotivated because of experiencing difficult situation, they will end up with hating to learn English. It will give bad impact to their English ability in the future. Thus, the teacher should design the learning that is not burdening for them. On the other hand, if the students experience the meaningful activities, they will learn from it. Harmer (2000) states that students often learn indirectly rather than directly. Thus, the more meaningful the learning they experience, the more knowledge they gain. Reflecting to those characteristics, the teachers of young learners should provide physical activities, deal with routines and repetition in learning, (Cameron; 2001), provide full of gesture, intonation, demonstration, action, and facial expressions to convey meaning (Pinter; 2006), provide authentic ready- made bits of language such as songs, rhymes, drama, etc., and do scaffolding (Cameron; 2001). According to Brown (2000), English teachers in young learners classroom should not only providing lot of ‘authentic language
tasks’ but also mastering specific skills and intuitions to accommodate those
characteristics.
2.1.3.3 English Learning in Kanisius Elementary Schools
pengertian yang utuh adalah kemampuan berwacana, yakni kemampuan memahami dan/atau menghasilkan teks lisan dan/atau tulis yang direalisasikan dalam empat keterampilan berbahasa, yaitu mendengarkan, berbicara, membaca dan menulis.” Thus, the interaction exists in listening, speaking, reading, and writing activity. Yet, the goal of English learning due to the core competence 2006 is dealing with spoken language. In KTSP, it is stated that ‘ tujuan belajar
bahasa Inggris di tingkat SD adalah untuk mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara secara terbatas yang disertai dengan tindakan’. It means that the goal of English learning in Elementary school is to develop speaking skill facilitated with the action.
2.2 Theoretical Framework
From the reviewed literature, it is inferred that teacher- students interaction is influential for language learning. It facilitates the teacher and his/ her students to construct a mutual meaning. During this process, the acquisition process happens. In fact, may educational practitioners have confirmed that the teacher plays dominant role in TSs interaction in young learners’ classroom. Meanwhile, the teachers’ action in classroom, including in managing TSs interaction is
Belief here is not learnt. It does not exist by themselves. They are born through processes that are affected by the experiences in their previous schooling, schools, or training (Borg, 2003). Those belief are used in decision making. Different belief towards learning will produce different interaction. The framework of the teachers’belief is illustrated in this figure:
notes:
affected by consists of
Figure 2.1. Theoretical Framework adapted from Borg (2003)
TEACHERS’ BELIEF
in TSs interaction Schooling:
learning experience (education), TEYL training
Professional Coursework: teaching experiences, KTSP,
school policy & values
Contextual Factors:
T/ Ss Motivation Classroom Practice:Class size, duration
Process of TSs interaction
Pattern& Types Goals of TSs
interaction 1. Ss’ cognition 2. Ss’ affective
24 CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section describes the methodology used in this research. It consists of research design, nature of data, research instruments, sources of data, data collecting technique, and data analysis. Besides, there is a trustworthiness section describing how the validity and reliability of this research are gained.
3.1 Research Design
Considering belief as a value, qualitative research methodology was chosen to be applied in this research. Creswell (2012) states that qualitative research is best suited to address a research problem which its variables are needed to explore.
3.2 Nature of Data
was in the form of written one as the result of transcribing the interviews done with the participants.
3.3 Research Instruments 3.3.1 Observation Notes
To find out the teachers’ belief, what actually occurred during the gathering data would be written on the observation notes. According to Ary et al (2010), observation notes would cover the comprehensive picture of a situation which was observed. The setting, any behavior and interaction during the observation were recorded in written. To gather the data during the observation, the researcher did not use video recording. It was purposefully done to keep the naturalness of the learning. Thus, this instrument was effective to investigate how the TSs interaction went.
3.3.2 Interview Guideline
Since the focus on this research was on verbal interaction, this research would use audio recorder to collect data. It aimed to support the data obtained during the observation and the interview. It helped to make sure that all the data was obtained. It eased the process of analysis since it could be played many times as needed. Audio recording was the ideal instrument to record the data during the observation. It would not disturb the teacher and the students so the observed one was the natural one.
3.4 Source of Data
about teaching English to young learners. Besides, they should have experienced a lot in teaching so that they had evaluated their theories and had some judgments to believe on. The more experience the teachers had, the more reliant on their “core” principles they had become (Gallo et al, 2001).In this research, it was decided to choose participants who had experienced teaching English in Elementary school for more than 10 years.
In this research, the chosen participants who were considered as rich informants were two Elementary School teachers of English who were experienced and having background knowledge about teaching English to Young Learners. They were English teachers in Kanisius elementary schools. Both were from two different Kanisius Elementary schools. In this research, the participants were one English teacher from SD Kanisius Wates and another one from SD Kanisius Kotabaru. Both of them had learnt about English teaching in their English language Education study program. They also had taught for more than 10 years.
3.5 Data Collecting Techniques
As stated in the literature review above, teachers’ belief could be obtained from what the teachers did during the TSs interaction. Therefore, investigating teachers’ belief was better done through a ‘direct observation’ as suggested by Pajares (1992). Besides, Watson-Gegeo in Sibley (1990,p.6) also agreed on the use of observation to investigate classroom interaction. They stated that interaction could be investigated through observation but it must be ‘systematic, intensive, and detailed’.
In this research, the observation was done for many times as needed. The first participant was observed for three times. It was on April 13, 2016, April 20, 2016, and May 25, 2016. While, the second participant was observed twice. It was on April 11, 2016 and April 18, 2016. Direct observation was done to obtain how the interaction went through between the teacher and the students. It was done more than once to make sure that the data obtained can give information to the real pattern of the interaction in that class.
The observation took places in English classes of fourth graders and fifth graders. Which classes to observe were decided by the teachers. During the observation, taking notes and recording the audio were done to get the data. The recording was transcribed to ease the analysis. After those data were prepared and analyzed, some important points that were considered as important themes were investigated more in the interview.
interviews with the first participants were done on April 13, 2016, April 20, 2016, May 11, 2016, and June 6, 2016. While, the interview with the second participants were done on April 11, 2016, April 18, 2016, May 23, 2016, and June 17, 2016. By having interview as the data collection technique, useful information that could not be directly observed could be gained. Besides, the interviewer also had better control over the types of information received, because the interviewer could ask specific questions to elicit this information (Ary, et al, 2010). Both participants would be interviewed to clarify things and ask for clearer explanation for what had happen during the TSs interaction in class. As the last technique, the teachers were interviewed again to cross- check the result of data analysis.
3.6 Data Analysis
In this research, the process of analyzing data was adopted from Creswell (2012). It consists of collecting data, preparing data for analysis, reading through data, coding the data, and coding the text for themes and description to be used in the research report. After the observation notes and interview transcript have been ready to a, the process of reading, coding, and describing will be done.
Table 3.1 Procedures of Data Analysis
Process Results
collecting data observation notes, audio files of observation and interview
preparing data for analysis observation notes, transcripts of classroom observation and interview reading through data notes of important understanding
coding data coded data
coding the text for description to be used in the research report
description coding the text for themes to be used
in the research report
3.7 Trustworthiness
To keep the trustworthiness for this research, the data and the analysis should be trustworthy. The instruments as well as the finding should be valid and reliable. In this research, the trustworthiness of the data was achieved by doing cross- checking. It is done by having multiple data instrumentation namely direct observation and interview. According to Ary et al. (2010), if multiple data sources result in similar findings, the reliability of the research is improved. The data was compared whether they supported each other. What was found during the observation was discussed and investigated further during the interview. This was why the interviews were done right after the observation. It aimed to know the teachers’ consideration affecting their actions during TSs interactionat that time.
31 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the research results and the discussion. The results consist of two big lines namely types of interaction and pattern of interaction. Then, the analysis of the results is presented in a discussion. It covers the teachers’ belief on three parts of interaction system namely goals of TSs
interaction, process of TSs interaction and the components of TSs interaction.
4.1 RESULTS
In this section, the results of collecting data are presented. Some samples of data obtained from the observation notes and transcripts and the interview transcripts are provided. The coding above the data is the number of sample which is written in ‘< >’ and the coding below the sample is the locator for the source presented in appendices.
4.1.1 Types of TSs Interaction
Bahasa Indonesia, English, and Javanese language. In this case, the use of English depended on the students’ language proficiency and students’ motivation. The
correlation was positive. The higher the students’ language proficiency or/ and the
higher the students’ motivation to use English was, the larger the English portion
would be. Commonly, English was used for simple interaction such as greeting and classroom instruction. When it came to discussion, teachers would guide and explain in Bahasa Indonesia. At the other time, Javanese language was only used if the teachers wanted to warn or make jokes to the students. Here is the detail for each type of interaction.
4.1.1.1 English- English TSs Interaction
During the observation, English-English interaction was promoted more in the first participant’s class. She expected that in English learning, the students were able to communicate using simple expressions. To achieve that goal, she often initiated TSs interaction in English. Thus, the students would be accustomed to such expressions and be able to respond them in English. The teacher wanted their students to practice communicating in English started in a classroom. Realizing that the students were still in a basic level, the teacher only applied English interaction for simple communication such as greeting, discussing things using display questions, giving classroom instruction, and closing. For instance, here was the dialogue for the greeting.
<1>
T : Attentions please, get set. Ss : Get set (stand up).
Ss : Good afternoon, Ms Nana. T : How is everything with you? Ss : I am fine, thank you, and you?
T : I am fine too, thank you. Sit down, please. Ss : Thank you.
(obsN1_1-8)
It seemed that the students had been familiar with the greeting since they did it as a routine for the students. They were familiar with the teacher’s initiation and the
interaction went smoothly. The students responded their teacher without any doubt. As seen in the sample data <1>, teacher used English for giving classroom instruction. It was simple so the teacher was confidently speaking without translating it into Bahasa Indonesia.
Based on the observations in the first participant’s class, the teacher varied the expressions for greeting. Sometimes, she said ‘how are you?’. At other chances, she said ‘how is everything with you?’. She expected that the students
were able to be familiar with the varied expressions and able to notice the function. Later on, they could use those expressions to communicate (intN2_10).
rule. She used the fixed expressions to interact with her students (intY3_118-130). Besides for greeting, the students also experienced having English- English interaction for discussing things which they were familiar with, e.g interaction to discuss day and date for that day.
<2>
T : What date is today?
Ss : Today is Wednesday, April, thirteen, two thousand and sixteen (unclear) T : Nah, March, first, two thousand and?
Ss : Sixteen (obsN1_9-12)
The teacher intentionally asked about day and date to her students after greeting in every meeting. She assumed that this kind of interaction could improve the students’ vocabularies and pronunciation skill. Since it was done as
habit, the students would notice and be accustomed to days and date. The teacher stated that this kind of interaction encouraged the students to rich their memory about days and date. They should know the vocabulary first if they wanted to involve actively on the interaction. Based on the illustration <2> above, it was seen that the teacher asked the students to repeat their answer. She wanted to make sure that the students’ responses were correctly spoken. Sometimes the
students only imitated other students’ answers.
Besides for greeting and initial questions in the beginning of the class, English interaction was also built in a usual activity. In the first participant’s class, there is a habit to play lottery for choosing students to perform in class. First, she chose four small papers in random for having four students to come in front of the class. There was student’s personal information written on each paper. Later on,
students should guess whose paper it was. The information was spoken in English. The dialogue below was the illustration.
<3>
T : Okay, first student. Ss : Boy
Girl T : Boy Ss : Boy!
T : His hobbies are playing soccer and drawing. Ss : Iwan?
Fidel?
T : He was born on May. Ss : Fidel
T : Yes, Fidel Ss : Yeay! (obsN1_36-45)
Here the interaction began. The students were so enthusiastic and willing to respond the teacher. They considered it as a game so it was free for them to express themselves. By having clues, the students were encouraged to think. They competed to guess the meaning so they could guess whose personal information it was. This kind of activity was engaging for the students. It made the TSs interaction went successfully.
The other example was the interaction initiated by the teacher using simple question. First, the teacher drew a picture on the blackboard. Then, she asked questions based on what the students saw on the drawing.
<4>
T : Nah, ms Nana want to… (drawing a figure on the blackboard)
T : Nah, coba(“well, see.”), is the eye big? Ss : Yes
T : Is the nose big? Ss : Yes
T : Kalo headnya bagaimana ini?(“How about the head?”) Ss : big
Ss : one big head (obsN1_78-92)
She asked about some characteristics drawn on the face. The students responded directly. It seemed easy for the students since they only had to describe what the saw. Through having the interaction, they constructed the language to describe the drawing. First, the teacher guided them through giving question. They created the language together as a model. Surprisingly, the students could construct the language by themselves at the end. It seemed that the students understood on what they should do. Thus, when the teacher asked about the head, some of them directly said “one big nose”.
Based on the observation, sometimes the students gave responses that are grammatically incorrect. The teachers stated that it was acceptable as long as the students could understand the teacher’s intention. However, the responses might
be various either in English or Bahasa Indonesia. Actually, the teacher would be happier if the students could respond in English too. However, responding in Bahasa Indonesia was also appreciated as long as the students understood. The teacher stated that if they found such this case, they would inform the students about how to respond in English. They expected that the students could answer in English in the future. Unfortunately, this case was not found during the observation.
<5>
T : I have? (touching eyes) Ss : Two eyes (mispronounced) T : Two eyes (correct pronunciation) (obsN1_25-27)
Fixing mispronounced words was often done by the teachers. This kind of interaction often happened in the reading aloud activity. Teacher said that students should know the right pronunciation. In Elementary school, the early stage in education, students should be taught the right one. It would be for the sake of their future. If they still made mistake, it would not be a matter. At least, the teacher had informed the right one. Thus, the teacher also makes the use of interaction to communicate the right pronunciation.
Based on the interview, the teachers used English only for simple conversation that the students had been familiar with. Moreover, she would expose more English to the students once they showed their interest to English. In fact, in the first participant’s class, the students made rule not to speak using Bahasa Indonesia during the English class. Thus, English- English interaction was promoted.
During this interaction, teachers has bigger portion for speaking, since they often dominate the initiation and give the follow- up to the students’ responses. The initiation can be in the form of asking question or giving incomplete information. Then, the students’ response can be in the form of giving
feedback as the follow-up. Once the students responded using Bahasa Indonesia, the teacher would give follow- up by informing how to respond in English. Unfortunately, this kind of interaction was not found during the observation. As what has been stated above, the teachers interacted with their students in English since they wanted their students to learn. Later on, they would use it to communicate. Here is the figure:
T
S
enhancing language proficiency/ language acquisition (implicit knowledge)
fluency
Figure 4.1. Concept in English- English TSs Interaction
4.1.1.2 English- Indonesia TSs Interaction
In fact, English- English interaction did not always go smoothly. Sometimes, the students did not respond what the teacher said. They ended up either with silent or showing confusion. Consequently, teachers would modify their talk. Thus, sometimes the teacher decided to translate their talk (code switching).
<6>
T : Yes, she does. Ini pertanyaan nomer satu, kalo nomer dua(“Thisis number one, how about number two?”). Does she have a flat nose? Ss : (silent)
T : Punya flat nose nggak?(“Does she have a flat nose?”) Ss : No, she does not. (unclear)
T : no, no?
T & Ss : She does not. (obsN1_247-251)
Based on the dialogue above, although the teacher has switched her talk in Indonesia, she still expected the students to answer in English correctly. Thus, she asked for clarification. By emphasizing the answer, the students could know how to respond correctly and the others could notice and learn it too.
Once the students found difficulty to respond, the teacher would translate it. Teacher realized that English was not used as a means of communication in students’ daily life. Thus, they did not want to burden the students to understand
difficult one. She did not want to take the risk if the students became confused in the future. It would make the class messy and the learning would not go effectively. Here is the illustration.
<7>
T : Have you finished? sudah selesai? 5 menit lagi yaa(“have you finished? 5 minutes more.)
Ss : Ayo bu, istirahat bu, laper e.(Comeon ms, let’s have a break, I am hungry.”)
T : Ayok(“Come on.”), 5 minutes. (obsY1_384-386)
Based on the illustration above, the teacher directly translated her saying. She assumed that her habit in translating was not done every time. It depended on the students’ proficiency. Sometimes, she only translated the difficult word. It was
shown when the teacher asked her students to open the textbook. She gave instruction in English but she directly translated the page number. The teacher though that students were not familiar with the numbers. Thus, she would translate it into Bahasa Indonesia. Thus, code switching and code mixing were commonly found in the classroom.
Besides that, building TSs interaction using English and Bahasa Indonesia also happened when the teacher wanted to discuss about meaning of vocabulary. It was often done during the learning. Here was the illustration.
<8>
T : Sekarang kita liat(“Now, let’s see.”), ssst, yang(“for”)Art, what is art?
art itu apa(“what is art”)? Ss : SBK (art)
T : Ya, SBK ato pelajaran seni (Yes, you can call it art science). Go home? Ss : Pulang (go home)
Based on the teacher’s experiences, exposing language to students was not
enough for the students to learn. She thought that her students had mastered some vocabularies since they were mentioned and discussed many times during the classroom interaction. Unfortunately, when the students were having a test, some students questioned the meaning of those vocabularies. It meant that things did not work as she thought. Thus, starting from that time, she decided to check whether her students understand the meaning of the important words or expressions. This decision was also applied by another teacher. TSs interaction in her class was dominantly aimed on discussing meaning of words which were in Bahasa Indonesia. She wanted to make sure that the students had understood the input in their own language. If it was not done such a way, the students would ask a lot about the meaning of certain vocabularies during the exercise time.
<9>
Students should know the meaning in Bahasa Indonesia to help themselves doing the task. Once they could understand the reading in Bahasa Indonesia, they must be know how to do the task. If they do not know, but it does not always happen. Elementary students tend to need support in learning. If we directly give a text and we ask them to do a task, they will be confused. (intY2_14)
Teachers assumed that through the interaction that helped students to understand in their own language, they could understand better so later on they could perform better. However, the teacher did not always discuss the meaning of vocabularies. It depended on the difficulty level.
<10>
T : Kalo beautiful dress? Gaun yang? (How about beautiful dress? Dress which is?)
Ss : cantik (beautiful)
T : Big dictionary? kamus yang? (dictionary which is?) Ss : besar (big)
T : Coba..kalo, buku…buku…besar. Besar itu apa kemaren?(Try, if book…book…big. What is the English of ‘besar’?)
Ss : big
T : buku? (book?) Ss : book
T : Brarti, a? (“so, a?”) Ss : big book
T : big? Ss : book (obsY1_82-93)
First, the students were guided to understand the English exposure in Bahasa Indonesia. Then, the teacher gave another example in Bahasa Indonesia and asked the students to construct it into English.
T
Ss
enhancing language proficiency/ language acquisition (implicit knowledge)
fluency
Figure 3.2. Concepts in English- Indonesia TSs interaction
Here, Bahasa Indonesia and English were used by the teachers. The proportion for each language depended on the students’ proficiency. Once it seemed that the
students did not understand, the teacher would directly modify their talk in Bahasa Indonesia. They only spoke English that was easy and the students were familiar with. These code switching and code mixing were done to gain comprehension. The teacher stated that comprehension was the first priority on the interaction. Later on, the teachers could give follow up so the students could understand and
respond it in English too. Thus, English- Indonesia TSs interaction was still focused to enhance English Language acquisition.
4.1.1.3 Indonesia- Indonesia TSs Interaction
The teachers stated that if they could make their talk simple, they would build the interaction in English. On the other hand, if the discussion was too complicated to be applied in English, the teachers would prefer to use Bahasa Indonesia. The use of Bahasa Indonesia dominantly appeared when the teacher wanted to discuss materials. Here was the illustration for using Bahasa Indonesia in TSs interaction.
<11>
T : Hhmmm, ssttt, ada penggabungan dua kata, kata sifat dan kata
benda, ya.(“There is a combination of two words, adjective and noun.”)
Yang ditulis dulu apanya? kata sifat atau kata benda? (“Which one is written first? adjective or noun?”)
Ss : sifat(“adjective”)
T : Naaa, kata sifatnya dulu.(“Right, adjective comes first.”) (obsY1_78-80)
<12>
Full English, only at English teachers meeting, we teach the English teachers so they must understand. It will be different for Elementary students, I mean their daily language. In school, the language used is not English. If I use English all the time in class, the students may find difficulties. If I force to have full English in class, I’m afraid that they will not understand the material. It must be different if it is in other school, such as SD Tumbuh. There must be full English in class, if the teacher uses Bahasa Indonesia, there may be some students who do not understand. I teach in Elementary school, so it is still the basic. If I have high demand, they may hate English. What is important is that they understand and happy.
(intY1_22)
Bahasa Indonesia was also used when the teachers connected the discussion with the students’ real experiences. Besides using media as a topic to discuss, teacher also related what they were discussing about with the students’ reality.
Here is the illustration. <13>
T : Coba, nih, gambarnya siapa ini?(“Well, try, whose picture it is?”) Ss : Alana? Oliv? Aji? Valen
T : Knapa kok kalian bisa nebak? (“How could you guess that way?”) Ss : Karena rambutnya curly(“because the hair is curly”)
T : Rambutnya curly, sekarang kalo ini cewe, berarti ini apa disini kalo
diberi nama?(“The hair is curly, now, if this is a girl, what should be written here?”)
(obs1N_97-101)
She asked whose face it was. The students guessed it. They were enthusiastic on defending their answers. The teacher responded it by asking why they have such guesses and the students mention the characteristic of the drawing together. They mentioned ‘curly hair’. The teacher expected that relating the learning with the
students’ reality could ease the students to acquire the language.
<14>
yes ms, I expect that by relating the learning with the students’ reality and funny things around them, it will be easy for them to remember the vocabulary that they learnt. Thus, they could still remember.
Besides, Bahasa Indonesia was also used when the teachers gave direction to the students.
<15>
T: Oke ya, temen- temen ya, ssssst. Kan disitu sudah ada apa namanya
sudah ada contoh gambarnya, kalo lebih bagus lagi, kamu gambar, ya.
(“Okay, friends, ssssst. There has been, I mean, there is a picture as the example. It will be better if you draw it.”)
Ss: waaaa
T: Yo rapopo to, kan hanya simple, itu balonnya. (“That’s okay. It’s simple, the balooon”)
Ss: halaaahhh, haaaa, huuu.
T: Yo, yo, tidak usah persis nggak papa. Balon kan tinggal bulet- bullet aja (“Okay, it doesn’t have to be similar. Just make some circles.”)
Ss: Yaah… (obsY1_137-142)
Based on the illustration above, the teacher negotiated with the students about the task. The students respond naturally in Bahasa Indonesia. They complaint since the task was too demanding. The teacher did not want to make her students feel demotivated. Thus, she tried to explain that it was not that hard. She interacted with their students to soothe her students. Based on the observation, it seemed that the teachers cared about the students’ condition. They
interacted with their students to talk about thestudents’ experiences and feeling. It was found that the teachers wanted to make sure that the students did not feel burden during the learning.
If it seemed that their students were demotivated, they would motivate their students. As the example, the teacher also motivated the students before they did an exercise. She did not want her students stop learning because afraid of making mistakes.
<16>
