ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Prage
APPROVAL PAGE ... i
DECLARATION ... ii
ABSTRACT ... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ... v
LIST OF TABLES ... viii
CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study... 1
1.2. Research Questions ... 5
1.3. Research Objectives ... 5
1.4. Scope of the Study... 5
1.5. Significance of the Research ... 6
1.6. Clarification of Terms ... 7
1.7. Organization of thesis ... 8
1.8. Conclusion ... 8
CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Meaning Negotiation ... 9
2.1.1 The definition of meaning negotiation ... 9
2.1.2 A brief history of the theory of meaning negotiation ... 12
2.1.3 The process and the strategy of meaning negotiation ... 14
2.1.4 Meaning negotiation and language learning ... 19
2.1.5. Meaning Negotiation Problems in Classroom ... 20
2.2.1 The definition of classroom interaction ... 21
2.2.2 Some types of classroom interaction ... 22
2.2.2.1Teacher and student in classroom interaction ... 22
2.2.2.2Students and students classroom interaction ... 23
2.3. International Standard School ... 24
2.3.1. The definition of International Standard School ... 24
2.3.2. The objectives of Fledgling International Standard School... 25
2.3.3. The Characteristics of Fledgling International Standard School... 26
2.3.4. The differences between Fledgling International Standard School and non Fledgling International Standard School ... 28
2.3.5. Teachers in Fledgling International Standard School ... 29
2.3.6. Students in Fledgling International Standard School ... 31
2.3.7. The recent condition of Fledgling International Standard School in Indonesia ... 32
2.4. Classroom Interaction in Fledgling International Standard School ... 34
2.4.1. Teacher and student interaction... 34
2.4.2. Student and student interaction ... 35
2.5. Previous Research in Meaning Negotiation ... 36
2.6 Conclusion ... 37
CHAPTER THREERESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 38
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
iii
3.3 Data Collection ... 41
3.3.1 Classroom Observation ... 41
3.3.2. Questionnaire ... 42
3.4 Data Analysis ... 43
3.4.1 Observation ... 43
3.4.2 Questionnaire ... 44
3.5 Summary of the research methodology ... 45
3.6 Conclusion ... 45
CHAPTER FOURDATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Meaning Negotiation Strategies ... 46
4.1.1 Clarification Request ... 49
4.1.1.1 Teachers’ Clarification Request ... 49
4.1.1.2 Students’ clarification request ... 51
4.1.2 Confirmation Check ... 53
4.1.2.1 Teachers’ confirmation check ... 53
4.1.2.2 Students confirmation check ... 54
4.1.3 Comprehension check ... 55
4.1.3.1 Teachers’ comprehension check ... 55
4.1.3.2 Students Comprehension Check ... 57
4.1.4 Self Repetition ... 59
4.1.4.1 Teacher Self Repetition ... 59
4.1.4.2 Student Self Repetition ... 60
4.1.5 Other repetition ... 62
4.1.5.1 Teacher’s other repetition ... 62
4.1.5.2 Student’s other repetition ... 63
4.1.6 Self Correction ... 64
4.1.6.1 Teacher’s Self Correction ... 64
4.1.6.2 Students’s Self Correction ... 65
4.1.7 Approximation ... 66
4.1.7.1 Teacher’s Approximation ... 66
4.2 Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 69
4.2.1 Problems in Language Elements ... 70
4.2.2 Pronunciation ... 71
4.2.2.1 Consonant Sound ... 72
4.2.2.2 Vowel Sound ... 74
4.2.2.3 Intonation ... 75
4.2.3 Vocabulary ... 76
4.2.3.1 Science Vocabulary ... 76
4.2.3.2 General Vocabulary ... 78
4.2.4 Grammar ... 79
4.2.4.1 Subject Verb Agreement ... 79
4.2.4.2 Part of Speech ... 81
4.2.4.3 Tenses ... 81
4.3 Conclusion ... 83
CHAPTER FIVECONCLUSION 5.1 Conclusion ... 84
5.2 Recommendation ... 85
BIBLIOGRAPHY ... x
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
v
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 Criteria of Fledgling International Standardized School ... 26
Table2 Differences of Fledgling International Standardized School and Non Fledgling Standardized School ... 27
Table 3 Teacher Characteristics ... 38
Table 4 Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 40
Table 5 Types of Meaning Negotiation Strategy ... 41
Table 6 Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 42
Table 7 Numbers of Times and Percentage of Negotiation Strategies Used .. 45
Table 8 Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 63
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is devoted to delineate briefly the background of the study,
research questions, research objectives, and significance of the research. It also
provides the clarification of terms organization of the thesis.
1.1. Background of the Study
This study investigates classroom interactions between teachers and
students in a science class as a part of the implementation of fledgling
international standard school. The implementation of the policy on fledgling
international standardized school (henceforth RSBI) in Indonesia has been
officially started by the government since 2006 based on the Law No. 20 year
2003 about national education system. Prior to the establishment of the
International Standard School, the school should set forth an initiation program
(the so called ‘fledgling’ or Rintisan (R)) until it is credible within four years
(Depdiknas, 2007). The implementation of Fledgling International Standard
School program is aimed at improving the quality of education in Indonesia in
order to have the same level as that in developed countries (Depdiknas, 2007).
More specifically, such implementation will enable students to compete in the
global era.
Actually, the implementation of Fledgling International Standard School is
not an easy thing to do. Zaenuri (2007) says that the implementation faces
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
2
infrastructures, and facilities. From all these problems, teachers’ readiness to
teach in the classroom is the most crucial problem, whereas it is one of the
requirements of the Fledgling International Standard School implementation in
science and mathematics classes as required by Indonesian Curriculum Centre
(Puskur). More specifically, the use of English as a medium of instruction in the
teaching learning process has become the most crucial problem concerning the
teachers’ readiness.
From the facts above, it can be concluded that in order to comprehend the
content of the language used, the teacher and the students need to negotiate
meaning. In other words, the success of learning in the classroom can be
determined by meaning negotiation (Stevens, 1999). Thus, to highlight this issue,
this research focuses on meaning negotiation in the classroom interactions
between teachers and students. In meaning negotiation, once meaning is
established, comprehension follows (Long, 1983). Then, Long and Pica (1983)
affirm that the comprehension approach to language learning assumes that
learning can only occur when meaning is involved and meaning must be
negotiated in any teacher-student interaction.
Meaning negotiation as an area of study can be traced through the work of
Long (1983), Pica (1987) and Gass and Veronis (1985). Besides, some research
studies investigating meaning negotiation have also been conducted in various
disciplines. In the field of economy, Chang (2006) states that meaning negotiation
is intended to get better communications in selling product. Then, in politics
communication between parties. In education, Ying and Maria (2010) propose
meaning negotiation as a way to get a better learning process.
Based on the statements above, the results typically show that meaning
negotiation is important in the process of making an outcome to get the goals of
understandable communication. In the context of language learning, it is shown
that meaning negotiation is very important in teaching learning process. It is
because the success of learning also depends on the success of meaning
negotiation (Pica, 1983; Stevens, 1999; Foster and Ohta, 2005).
Pica (1983) investigated meaning negation between NNS (Non Native
Speaker) of English and NS (Native Speaker) of English by formulating a
research question regarding the relationship between interaction and meaning
negotiation. This research aimed to discover the interactions between teacher and
students by employing several strategies as Confirmation Check, Clarification
Request, and Comprehension Check. The result revealed that the students and the
teacher reached mutual understanding by using these strategies. It means that the
teacher was successful in negotiating meaning with the students during the class.
Furthermore, Stevens (1999) investigated meaning negotiation by
analyzing modified interactions such as Trigger, Indicator, Response and Reaction
Response (TIRR) to answer the research question concerning the way the teachers
negotiate meaning in delivering a task. The results revealed that the teacher was
successful in negotiating meaning by using the TIRR strategy.
Differently, Foster and Ohta (2005) investigated the meaning negotiation
and peer assistance in second language classrooms which focused on discovering
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
4
the interaction. In this case, meaning negotiation was conducted between NNS
(non native speaker) and NS (native speaker). The result revealed that meaning
negotiation could be reached by using various activities such as peer assistance,
group work, and discussion.
On the basis of the previous studies, the present study examines meaning
negotiation between teachers and students in science classrooms at a fledgling of
international standardized school on the basis of modified interaction which is
proposed by Long (1983) cited in Abdullah (2011). However, the present study
differs from the previous ones in terms of participants and research questions.
This study does not focus on NNS and NS but NSS and NSS namely teachers and
students in the teaching learning process. Besides, the focus of research question
is different from the previous study. The research question in this study deals with
the ways meaning is negotiated between teachers and students in a Fledgling
International Standard School at science classes as well as the problems in
negotiating meaning in classroom interactions. In terms of methodology, this
study uses qualitative approach with some quantification proposed by Long
(1983) in Abdullah (2011). This study uses the analysis of meaning negotiation
strategies namely of Confirmation Check, Clarification Request, Comprehension
Check, Other Repetition, Self Repetition, Approximation, and Self Correction.
Prior to conducting this research, the writer has done a pilot study to
several science and mathematics teachers at the research site in his hometown.
From the observation, he found that teachers used several ways to negotiate
meaning with their students as suggested by Long (1983). Accordingly, the
negotiation to enhance our understanding of what and how teachers should do in
teaching-learning processes in a science class.
1.2. Research Questions
This study is designed to answer the following questions:
1. How is meaning negotiated between teachers and students in a Fledgling
International Standard School at a science class?
2. What are the teachers’ problems in negotiating meaning in the classroom
interactions?
1.3. Research Objectives
With reference to the problems which will be examined, this study is
aimed at:
1. reporting the meaning negotiation that takes place between teachers and
students in a Fledgling International Standard School at science class; and
2. discovering the teachers’ problems encountered in negotiating meaning in the
classroom interaction dealing with the implementation a Fledgling
International Standard School.
1.4 Scope of the Study
This study is aimed at investigating meaning negotiation strategies and the
problems of meaning negotiation in classroom interactions. Meaning negotiation
consists of several strategies namely non verbal and verbal (see Abdullah
2011:109). By using non verbal strategies, meaning negotiation could also run
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
6
by Long in Abdullah (2011). It consists of comprehension check, clarification
request, confirmation check, approximation, self correction, self repetition and
other repetition.
Moreover, there are several problems in meaning negotiation in classroom
interactions namely linguistics and non linguistics problems. However, this study
only discusses some linguistics elements namely pronunciation, vocabulary and
grammar. According to Meshito, et al. (2008), linguistics elements such as
pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar are parts of meaning negotiation
problems.
This study has characteristics of case study because it employs qualitative
data analysis. A case study was chosen because this research was carried out in
“small scale, a single case” (Stake in Emilia, 2005:74), i.e. at four science
classrooms in an International Standard School. These classes were chosen due to
some reasons. First, even though English must be used in all classes in a Fledgling
International Standard School, the preliminary study indicated that the four
science classes used English more frequently than the other classes such as
Mathematics. Secondly, the teachers had already taken a short course of teaching
science in English. Hence, the teachers had more experiences in teaching science
by using English compared with other teachers (see Table 3).
1.5 Significance of the Research
The result of the study will academically have contributions at least in two
ways. First, it is expected to give some information about the actual condition of
policy of education in Fledgling International Standardized School, particularly
junior high school curriculum about teachers and students interaction in a science
class where English is used as a medium of interaction.
Second, even though Fledgling International Standard Schools are no
longer exist in Indonesia, bilingual classes are still found in many schools
nationwide. Therefore, this research expected give significant information for the
teachers to use English more frequently in the classroom as a way of negotiating
meaning. By the success of meaning negotiation, the material can be
comprehended by the students more easily.
Third, it can be useful information for teachers to conduct better teaching
practices and enhance their professionalism. The teachers will be able to get some
teaching techniques and approach that can be implemented to conduct teaching
and learning process in the classroom.
1.6 Clarification of Terms
To avoid readers’ misunderstanding, it is better to define each keyword
which is used frequently in this study as follows:
1. Meaning negotiation is the exchanges between learners and their interlocutors
as they attempt to resolve communication breakdown (Long, 1983, cited in
Shrum & Glisan, 2005:1).
2. Classroom Interaction is a kind of verbal exchanges among students and
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
8
3. International Standard School (SBI) is a school which implements the
National Curriculum based on the Standard Nasional Pendidikan (SNP) and
the international standardized curriculum (Puskur, 2006).
1.7 Organization of thesis
This thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter One gives general
description of the introduction to the topic of the research. Chapter Two presents
relevant theories which underpin this study. The theories deal with meaning
negotiation, strategy of meaning negotiation, principles of fledgling international
standard school and some related research. Chapter Three outlines the
methodology of the study. This includes research design, participants, setting, data
collection and analysis of the conversation. Chapter Four focuses on the findings
and discussion from the observation and conversation analysis. Finally, Chapter
Five provides conclusions drawn from the findings and discussion in the previous
chapter as well as some recommendations for further research.
1.7 Conclusion
After looking at the introduction which provides a basis for the present
study, the forthcoming chapter delineates some underlying theories concerning
meaning negotiation, classroom interaction, fledgling international standard
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
After discussing some related theories on meaning negotiation in
classroom interaction, this chapter presents some methodological aspects of the
present study which attempt to find answer answers to 1) the way of how meaning
is negotiated between teachers and students in a classroom interaction, and 2) the
problems of the teachers in negotiating meaning. Through this chapter, several
points to discuss are research design, research site and participants, as well as
instruments and data collection procedure. To complete the discussion, this
chapter also reviews the technique of data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
This study adopts a qualitative approach as it involved qualitative data
analysis. It also allows the researcher to work with more than one data-collecting
method including observation, interviews and questionnaire as suggested by
McDonough and McDonough (1997 in Ahlsen and Lundh 2007:11). This study
also has a characteristic of case study because it was carried out in “a small scale,
a single case” (Stake, 1985:278 as cited in Emilia, 2005:74).
This research was set out to observe the meaning negotiation strategy
between teachers and students in a classroom interaction where English is used as
a medium of interaction. The data were observed by using the criteria proposed
Pica and Doughty (1985);Tarone (1981); Lyster (2007) cited in Abdullah (2011)
39
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
word coinage, use of approximation, self repetition, other repetition, correction
and non verbal expression.
However, this research was slightly different from Tarone (1981) and
Lyster (2007) which is cited in Abdullah (2011) in terms of the use of the strategy.
This research used only seven strategies namely comprehension check,
clarification request, confirmation check, use of approximation, self repetition,
other repetition and self correction.
Moreover, this research also used to find out the meaning negotiation
problems which are faced by the teachers dealing with the meaning negotiation
strategy. The meaning negotiation strategy was focused on grammar,
pronunciation, scientific concept and general vocabulary developed by Meshito
(2008). Then, to cover these phenomena, this research used some quantification
by using percentage proposed Hatch and Farhadi (1981).
3.2 Research Site and Participants
This study was conducted in four science classes at a Fledgling
International School of a junior high school in West Java, Indonesia. This school
was basically chosen purposively due to the use of English as a medium
interaction in the classroom for whole subjects. Besides that, the familiarity of the
teachers and the students can enhance the feasibility of this study.
In this study, four science teachers in RSBI classes were chosen
purposively because of several considerations. First, they were willing to fully
preliminary study, in these classes English was frequently used as the medium of
interaction in the teaching learning process. Third, the teachers taught science by
using English even though they were not graduates of an English department.
They also attended a one week and one month English short course. The
characteristics of the teachers can be seen in the table below.
Table 3
Teacher Characteristics
Characteristics/ Name of Teachers
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teachers D
Teachers in Biology Biology Biology Physics
Age 44 Years 46 Years 32 Years 50 Years
Gender Female Female Female Female
Graduate S-1
Biology S-1 Biology S1-Biology S1-Physics
English Training Short Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Short Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Score TOEFL or others
language proficiency
330 403 425 -
Length of Teaching 22 Years 23 Years 7 Years 29 Years
In this regard, four classes of the eighth grade were chosen purposively
due to their uniqueness as the pilot study revealed showing the students were very
active and enthusiastic in discussing the topic given by their teachers in English.
Finally, it will potentially lead to a large number of occurrences of meaning
negotiation.
Regarding technical issues in qualitative research, Silverman (2005:257)
said that the researcher should be responsible to the study when studying people’s
41
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
informed consent to address ethical issues. It was given to the teachers and the
students to be filled in and signed prior to collecting the data.
3.3 Data Collection
The data were obtained from several sources including classroom
observation which involved video recording. In addition, questionnaire was also
used to the teachers dealing with meaning negotiations problems in the classroom
interaction.
3.3.1 Classroom Observation
Classroom observation and video recording ware conducted as the main
procedure for collecting data. In the view of Frankael and Wallen (1993:384),
observation is a kind of research that observes of how people act and how thinks
look. It is in line with the general aims of this study, that is to examine how the
participants (the teachers and the students) negotiated meaning in the classroom
interaction.
This study employed non participant observation to gain the data. As
outlined by Fraenkel and Wallen (2007:450), in this kind of observation
researcher did not participate in the activity being observed but rather watched the
classroom interaction. Since the researcher’s presence was realized by the
participants, a problem might occur during the classroom observation, i.e. what
Labov (1972 in Bailey 2001) has called ‘the observer’s paradox’ or Hawthorne
effect’, i.e. that by observing people’s behaviour we often alter behavioural
was placed at the back side of the classroom. In addition, the researcher firstly
introduced himself and his reason for visiting their lessons and made sure to
explain the purpose of the observation in general terms as suggested by Bailey
(2001:188). It included a confirmation that trough the observation, students and
the teachers were not observed for supervisory purposes.
Four classroom activities were observed. Each observation lasted for about
seventy minutes in one session. The recorded video was replayed and transcribed
to discover the meaning negotiation strategy used by the teachers and the students
in the classroom interaction.
3.3.2. Questionnaire
To gain more accurate data, open-ended questionnaires were given to the
teachers to find out the data of meaning negotiation problems. The questionnaire
consisted of three categories of teachers and students problems in negotiating
meaning. The three categories are as follows:
Table 4
Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems
Language Elements a. Pronunciation - Vocal sound - Vowel sound - Intonation b. Vocabulary
- Science vocabulary - General Vocabulary
c. Grammar
- Subject verb agreement - Part of speech
43
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
3.4 Data Analysis
In this part, some techniques for analyzing transcribed data from
observation and interview will be described. In addition, some tables are also
included to give more illustrations.
3.4.1 Observation
The videotaped data from observation were then transcribed. The
transcriptions were read repeatedly to identify some utterances related to the way
of the teachers and students negotiate meaning. After that, the data were then
classified into several categories suggested by Long at al (1983 in Abdullah
2011), which consist of comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation
check, self repetition, other repetition, use approximation, self correction.
After identifying and classifying data, quantification was also used to find
the total number of the students’ and the teacher’s utterances in the meaning
negotiation, which is later presented in the table as follows.
Table 5
Types of Meaning Negotiation Strategy
Types of Strategy Frequency Percentage
Comprehension checks Confirmation checks Clarification requests Self correction Self repetition Other repetition Use approximation
To get more comprehension, the categorizations of videotaped data were
analyzed descriptively to gain clear occurrences of each strategy employed by
reason stated by Creswell (1994:162) that the data that immerge from qualitative
study are descriptive, that is, data are reported in words.
This descriptive report was to give more explanation about the seven
strategies of the strategy used by the teachers and the students in the classroom in.
meaning negotiation which was supported by the data from transcription of the
video recording. In addition, the descriptive report supports the second research
questions covering the meaning negotiation problems. The problems identified
from the observation were used to validate the problems found in the
questionnaire.
3.4.2 Questionnaire
In this research, questionnaire adopted from Meshito et al (2008) was
analyzed quantitatively by using the formula presented by Hatch and Farhadi
(1981) to find out the perception of the teachers problems and negotiating
meaning. The categories are as follows:
Table 6
Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems
Meaning Negotiation Problems
Language Elements Frequency
a.Pronunciation Consonant sound Vowel sound Intonation
b.Vocabulary Scientific vocabulary General Vocabulary c.Grammar Subject verb agreement
45
ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015
MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL
3.5 Summary of the Research Methodology
In summary, this research was undertaken under a case study methodology
in one of the fledgling international standard school involving four teachers and
students. To collect the data, observation and interview were used to keep the
validity of the research. The data from all instruments were then analyzed by
comparing them to result of the final conclusion. Using the framework of meaning
negotiation strategy, the teachers and the students were analyzed to discover the
problems of meaning negotiation in science classroom.
3.6 Conclusion
This chapter has reviewed a concise account of the methodology
underpinning the present study, including research design, site and participants,
instruments and data collection procedure, data analysis as well. The next chapter
will be concerned with data analysis and discussion based on the video records
