THE EFFECT OF MODIFIED TEACHER’S QUESTION ON DESCRIBING THINGS IN EFL CLASSROOM INTERACTION : an Experimental Study at a State Vocational School in Tasikmalaya.

(1)

The Effect of Modified Teacher’s Question on

Describing Things in EFL Classroom Interaction

(an Experimental Study at a State Vocational School in Tasikmalaya)

A THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master’s Degree in English Education

By

NACEP ASMARA NIM. 0907597

GRADUATE SCHOOL

(2)

The Effect of Modified Teacher’s Question on

Describing Things in EFL Classroom Interaction

Oleh

Nacep Asmara

S.Pd UNSIL Tasikmalaya 1996

Sebuah Tesis yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Magister Pendidikan (M.Pd.) pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni

Nacep Asmara 2013

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia

February 2013

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

Tesis ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian,

(3)

APPROVAL SHEET

The Effect of Modified Teacher’s Question on

Describing Things in EFL Classroom Interaction

is approved by:

Main – Supervisor,

Dr. Dadang Sudana, M.A.

Co – Supervisor,

(4)

(5)

Nacep Asmara, 2014

The Effect of Modified Teacher’s Question on Describing Things in EFL Classroom Interaction

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.3 The objectives of the study ……… 1.4 Scope of study ……… 1.5 Significance of the study ……….. 1.6 Clarification of terms ………

CHAPTER II RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Language Learning, Input and Classroom Interaction ………. 2.2 Teacher’s Questioning and Classroom Interaction ……….. 2.2.1 Definition of Teachers’ Question ………. 2.2.2 Functions of Teachers’ Questions ……….…………... 2.2.3 Types of teacher’s questions……..……….………. 2.2.4 Modification of Question ……….

2.2.4.1Linguistically Modified Question ………... 2.2.4.2Interactionally Modified Question ………. 2.3 Instruction on Language Function ……….

(6)

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.2.4 Recording of Teaching-Learning Process ……….. 3.2.5 Post-test ……….………. 3.3Data Analysis ………. 3.3.1 Test Data ……….………. 3.3.2 Data of Recording ………... ……….……….

CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 The Effect of Modified Question to the Learners’ Ability to Describe Things by the Use of Pre-head Modifier ………..……..……….. 4.1.1 Quantitative findings on the effect of modified question on

learners’ ability to describing things by the use of pre-head modifier……… 4.1.1.1Identification of Data Variances ……… 4.1.1.2Identification of Initial Ability of Experiment and Control

Group in Describing Things by the Use of Pre-head

Modifier………... 4.1.1.3Identification of Final Ability of Experiment and Control

Group in Describing Things by the Use of pre-head modifier ………. 4.1.2 Qualitative Findings on the effect of modified question on learners’

ability to describing things by the use of pre-head modifier……….. 4.2 The Difference of Effect between Upper and Lower Group on

Learners’ Ability to Describe Things by the Use of Pre-head Modifier ……… 4.3 The Implementation of Modified Question in Building up EFL

Classroom Interaction in the Instruction on Describing Things by the Use of pre-head modifier………...………

4.3.1 Kinds of Modification of Question………. 4.3.1.1Linguistically Modified Questions ……….. 4.3.1.2Interactionally Modified Questions……….. 4.3.2 Modification of question in managing EFL Classroom Interaction...

(7)

4.4Discussion ………. 4.5Conclusion ………

80 85

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

5.1Conclusions………. 5.2Recommendation ………...

References ……….. Appendices ………..

87 89

(8)

Abstract

The study investigated the effect of modified teacher’s question on the learners’ ability to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier by considering the effects to upper and lower groups and how modified teacher’s questions are implemented in the instruction. The modified teacher’s questions enhance meaning negotiation in classroom interaction because interaction can result in an abundant and redundant language input which assists and facilitates language learners to comprehend the input (Pica, Doughty and Young 1985: 143). A comparison has been made in this study between exposure of language input with spoken modified input through reciprocal interaction and that of language input by spoken unmodified input through non-reciprocal interaction. It is conducted through quasi experimental design. Data were obtained through test and observation and analyzed statistically and qualitatively. The result shows that the

(9)

Abstraksi

(10)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Abstraksi

Riset ini melaporkan penelitian tentang modifikasi pertanyaan guru, yang bertujuan menginvestigasi efek modifikasi pertanyaan guru terhadap kemampuan siswa dalam mendeskripsikan benda-benda dengan menggunakan pre-head

modifier dengan mempertimbangkan efeknya terhadap kelompok atas dan bawah

(11)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses some aspects related to the background, research questions,

objectives, significance and scope of the study. This chapter ends with

clarification of terms used in this study and chapter summary.

1.1 Background

Language input which is exposed to language learners is classified into artificial

and natural input. They lead to language learning and language acquisition

respectively (Krashen 1981: 30). He clarifies that language acquisition is a

subconscious process of acquiring language, a process which acquires language

naturally. Meanwhile language learning is a conscious process of learning

language; this occurs at a formal context or classroom setting. It can be stated that

language learning may lead learners to know about language explicitly.

Different from Krashen, Ellis (1994: 12) states that both language learning

and language acquisition belong to learning as well. The point that makes a

distinction is whether the language is learnt through a natural interaction in a

social context or through a study guided with reference books or classroom

instruction, which are called naturalistic and instructed language acquisition

respectively.

Through a management of classroom interaction, instructed setting or

(12)

result in an abundant and redundant language input which assists and facilitates

language learners to comprehend the input (Pica, Doughty and Young 1985: 143)

which, in turn, led to naturalistic language acquisition. River (cited in Brown,

2001: 165) asserted that interaction can drag learners to develop their language

repertoire because listening, reading and discussing linguistic material or even

practicing to exploit their repertoire of language give an abundant language input.

Formal input can be provided through classroom interaction. One of the

inputs controlling the elicitation of classroom interaction while negotiating

meaning to make them comprehensible is teachers’ question (Gebhard, 1996: 70).

It is due to the fact that teacher’s question can be used to arouse curiosity,

stimulate interest in the topic, clarify concepts, emphasize key points, enhance

problem-solving ability, encourage students to think at higher cognitive levels,

motivate student to search for new information and ascertain students’ knowledge

level to aid in modifying instruction. Thus a teacher can employ it to drive,

control and direct the teaching-learning process so classroom interaction can be

created as expected.

To make teacher’s question more comprehensible to language learners,

teachers can modify the question linguistically or interactionally. Linguistically

modified question is an effort of a teacher to make his/her question

comprehensible to learners by simplifying his questions adapted to the learners.

Thus meaning can be conveyed and a breakdown of a communication can be

(13)

negotiating a meaning to confirm whether the meaning has been comprehensible

to learners such as by posing confirmation check. The modifications of question

provide opportunity for learners to negotiate meaning, which in turn provide a lot

of comprehensible input and output for learners to improve their language (Hasan,

2008: 49, Kalantari 2009: 432, Owen 1996: 49, Wu 1993: 65 and Azerefegn,

2008: 64).

Studies on the modified input have been conducted through various kinds

of exposure of target language i.e. written modified input on grammar (poniah

2008: 254), reading (Maxwell 2011: 52, Sarab and Karimi, 2008; 186 and Naimat,

2011: 681) and vocabulary (Xiaohui, 2010: 105) and non-reciprocally spoken

modified input on listening (Teng, 2001: 537).

From the elaboration, there are three important points, namely,

input, modification and question. Input is a linguistic stimulus provided by teacher

to learners. Modification is a linguistic or interactional creativity of a language to

make it comprehensible to learners. Question is a part of input, which functions to

build up an interaction in the classroom. Modified questions as input play

important roles in comprehending input. But none concerns with how far their role

in a teacher-students interaction. Therefore, this study has experimented on the

other exposure of language input, that is, the input has been exposed orally

through reciprocal interaction to find out how far the modified question affect the

(14)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1.2 Research Questions

Based on the above elaboration, research questions can be formulated as follow:

a. Does modified question affect on EFL learners’ ability to describe things by

the use of pre-head modifier?

b. Are there significant differences between ability to describe things by the

use of pre-head modifier by upper and lower groups?

c. How are modified questions implemented in building up EFL classroom

interaction in the pre-head modifier instruction?

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

The primary intent of this investigation will be to test the effect of modified

teacher’s question, which is packaged in an instruction at which language input is

exposed through two-way classroom interaction. The objectives will be to

investigate:

a. whether modified question affect on EFL learners’ ability to describe things

by the use of pre-head modifier.

b. whether there are significant differences between ability to describe things

(15)

d. how modified questions are implemented in building up EFL classroom

interaction in the pre-head modifier instruction.

1.4 Scope of Study

This study has covered input exposed through modified questions. It does not

intend to examine a certain kind of modification but it includes all categories,

linguistic and interactional modifications. Their treatment is situational. This

means that which kind of modification used depends on the need of the situation.

In other word, the two may happen interchangeably during the teaching-learning

process.

It has measured the effect of the modified question on the ability of

describing things by the use of pre-head modifier which includes describing

things from certain aspects such as color, age, material, quality, origin, nature,

characteristics, shape, function, activity, events, profession, classification or their

combinations.

The last, the subjects are taken from a government vocational school in

Tasikmalaya. They are the first grade of the office administration program, which

has two classes. 30 from 40 students of each class are taken to be subjects for

experiment and the other for control. All subjects are female.

(16)

The experiment indicates that modification of question in giving exposure of

language input affects students’ ability to describe things by the use of pre-head

modifier acquisition significantly. These findings are mainly hoped to be able to

give contribution either academically or practically. Academically, these findings

will contribute to SLA applied to the development of learning materials and

instructional techniques. Practically, they may enlighten the teachers about the

importance of teachers’ question to elicit students’ engagement in an instruction

by exposing spoken modified input through reciprocal interaction. By realizing

the details behind posing questions, they are hoped to be able to control and direct

students, so they can use questioning in classroom interaction to reach effective

process in an instruction on describing things by the use of pre-head modifier and

get to the intended target, namely that the students can describe things correctly.

Teachers are hoped to be able to create as natural interaction as possible in EFL

classroom so this can create teaching-learning process supporting toward the

natural-like language acquisition.

1.6 Clarification of terms

In this study, there are some operational terms which need defining i.e. question

and questioning, modification of question and classroom interaction. Questioning

is defined as seeking information (Wu, 1993:51). He further stated that, in

English, question can be expressed by the following linguistic forms: in

(17)

And in declarative form e.g. you mean you did not do homework (falling

intonation) the answer is ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Questioning here means that all utterances,

whatever the forms, that is devoted to reveal the students’ talk which constitutes a

manifestation of their understanding toward the meaning negotiated in the

classroom.

Second, questioning modification includes simplification or Linguistic

modification and interactional modification. The former means that, by

simplifying the input or making it simple, we do the ways in which the language

addressed to EFL learners is rendered more comprehensible, for example

shortened utterances, simplified vocabulary, repetition, rephrase, wait time,

additive etc. (Ellis 1994: 248 and Chaudron 1988: 128).

The last is the one which is widely used as negotiation of meaning (Ellis

1994: 257 and Pica, Daughty and Young 1985: 124). Negotiation of meaning is a

restructuring of interaction that occurs when a communication problem arises.

Interactional modification helps the learners to continue the interaction without

interrupting it, and solves the miscommunication problem without using their

mother language, for example, echoic question, repetition of learners’ utterances

and expansion of learners’ utterances.

The classroom interaction in this study is verbal interaction between

teacher and learners while providing input through a reciprocal classroom

interaction during an instruction, which is based on the pattern of classroom

(18)

that, basically, there are three sequences of moves in classroom interaction i.e.

(19)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides an overview of the research methodology, which includes

research design, data collection, data analysis and discussion, in search of the

answer of whether modified question affects EFL learners’ ability on describing

things by the use of pre-head modifier and the ability by upper group differs

significantly from lower groups. In addition, this study also searches for how

modified questions are implemented in building up EFL classroom interaction in

the instruction to give comprehensive understanding.

3.1 Research Design

To tackle the research problems, this study used a mixed method. It is a method

that concentrates on the collection, analysis and mixtures of the both data either in

single or serial study. The point of using the combinational approach is due to that

the approach can give better understanding than the single approach (Creswell and

Clark 2007: 5). It is the definition which becomes a guidance to conduct the

mixed method in this study because the investigator assumes that the use of mixed

method will give comprehensive understanding on the research problems.

This study involved the non-random assignment of subjects of the two

groups because, in a classroom research, it is excessive to ask the headmaster of

(20)

research (see Hatch and Farhady 1982: 22). Therefore, a quasi experimental

design was chosen because participants were not selected randomly (see Creswell

1994:132 and Creswell 2003: 169).

There are 5 types of the mixed methods including triangulation, concurrent

embedded, explanatory, exploratory and sequential embedded methods. The type

of the method that is used to explore the experiment in this study is a concurrent

embedded method. This means that qualitative data are embedded to the

quantitative data to examine the process of a treatment in the experiment and

qualitative data are collected concurrent with the implementation of the treatment

(see Bergman 2008: 68) . The steps of data collection in concurrent embedded

method can be observed in figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1 concurrent embedded design

(figure is adapted from Bergman 2008: 68)

There are three variables in the experiment. First is an independent

variable. It is the technique of instruction i.e. the use of modified questions to

provide students a reciprocal classroom interaction from which they pick up how

(21)

variable or something affected or influenced by the independent variable. It is a

learners’ ability to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier that a teacher

intends to convey (see Hatch and Farhady 1982: 15).

This experiment used Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design. The tests

were administered before and after treatment in the two groups. The experimental

group was treated by a special treatment i.e. the use of spoken modified input

through reciprocal interaction and the control group was treated by spoken

unmodified input through non-reciprocal interaction. The design can be observed

in Figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2 Quasi Experimental Design Group A (not random ) 01 --- X 1 --- 02 Group B (not random ) 01 --- X 2--- 02

(figure is adapted from Creswell 1994:132 and 2003: 170)

O1 = pre-test,

X 1 = special treatment

(spoken modified input through reciprocal interaction) X2 = non-treatment

(spoken unmodified input through non-reciprocal interaction) O2 = post-test.

G. A = experimental group G. B = control group

3.2 Data Collection

There are three research questions. Data which are needed to answer the

first research question is mixed data, the second research questions are

quantitative ones and the data needed to answer the third research question are

(22)

treatment including the material and principles of treatment and procedures of

data collection.

3.2.1 Subjects

The site of research is a state vocational school in Tasikmalaya. This vocational

school has five programs, i.e. hotel accommodation, marketing, office

administration, multi media and accounting programs. The present study focuses

on the first grade of office administration program.

This program has two classes, each consisting of 40 students but only 30

students were included as participants in which all of them are female. The seven

other students were excluded since their data were incomplete in either pre-test or

post-test and three other students were excluded too to make all subjects female.

Based on the result of the entrance test, their English belongs to the

average category. A preliminary observation of the class shows that they generally

have an extrovert personality, namely they like to express their feeling in spoken

form, to talk in front of many people and have high a self confidence.

3.2.2 Pre-test

A pre-test was administered before special treatment to experimental and control

groups. In the test, subjects were asked to describe things by completing

incomplete phrases, which was based on the picture and their linguistic

(23)

description. After that they were asked to complete incomplete phrases indicating

the conclusion of the picture description (see appendix 14).

The pre-test was conducted to measure the initial ability of learners on

describing things by the use of pre-head modifier both in experimental and control

groups. Their initial ability needs ensuring whether they are balanced or not. Thus,

if they have the similar initial ability, the differences of the effect between

treatment of the experimental and control groups can be seen from the result of

the post-test. The outline of the test items can be observed in Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 an outline of pre-test and post test item distribution

Theme Complexity of

2. Describing car from age and color; a film from nature and originality

Double descriptors

3, 4

3. Describing someone from profession; a place from function

Single descriptor

5,6

4. Describing a table from shape and material; a chair from color and material

Double descriptors

7, 8

5. Describing people from activity

Single descriptor 9, 10 6. Describing a car from events 11, 12

7. Describing a house from nature Double descriptors 13

8. Describing a person from age and number Triple descriptors 14

9. Describing a sedan from nature and classification

Double descriptors

15

10. Describing animal form nature. Triple descriptors 16

11. Describing tables from Quantity and

number; girls from number and activity _{Double descriptors} 17,18 12. Describing women from quality and

(24)

Figure 3.3 shows the distribution of the test items. The test items consist of

20 completion test items (see appendix 14). Themes of the test were taken from

material which would be taught with a balance distribution. Each theme is

represented with two test items.

To keep a validity and reliability of the result, a study must be measured

with a valid and reliable instrument. Thus the instrument, in this case the set of the

items, is tested in the validity, reliability and test item analysis to measure the

discrimination and difficulty index.

Firstly, to measure validity of the test item, it was consulted to the

supervisors to measure face and construct validity. Meanwhile to measure content

validity, the outline of test items was made as described in Figure 3.3 (see

Sugiyono 2009: 352).

Figure 3.4 the formula of calculating reliability of test items

withspearman Brown’s formula

�

=

₁₊2�_� .

ri = internal reliability of the test items

rb = Pearson Product Moment Correlation between first and second half

Secondly, measurement of a reliability index of the pre-test items was

measured by the use of split-half technique. At first, the scores were split up into

the groups of even and odd numbers. This split techniques was conducted because

the first even number and first odd number are identical and they tested the same

theme and so on. Then the scores of even numbers were correlated to those of odd

(25)

result were entered to spearman Brown’s formula (see Sugiyono 2009: 355) as

indicated on Figure 3.4. The calculation as indicated in table 2 in appendix 1

showed that the reliability index is 0.97. The value of �_� (0.97) is greater than that

of r-table (with n = 34 and df 0.05 is 0.339). This means that pre-test items are

extremely reliable.

Figure 3.5 the formula of calculating discrimination index of test items and the criterion of the interpretation. The formula of the discrimination index:

= �� − �� (�)

D = Discrimination index

n = number of candidate in one group U = Upper half

L = Lower half

Arikunto’s criterion of interpretation on discrimination index

D = 0.00 to 0.20 is ‘poor’ D = 0.20 to 0.40 is ‘fairly good’ D = 0.40 to 0.70 is ‘good’ D = 0.70 to 1.00 is ‘very good’.

The last is test item analysis. The analysis was used to measure the

discrimination and difficulty index. To find out whether the test items discriminate

upper to lower groups, Discrimination index was calculated with the a formula as

written in Figure 3.5 (see Heaton 1988:180). Then the result of the calculation was

interpreted by the use of Arikunto’s criterion (1987: 221). See Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.6 the formula of calculating difficulty index of test items and the criterion of the interpretation.

The formula of the difficulty index

� = �

(26)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu FV = the percentage of the total number of correct response

R = the number of correct responses, and

N = the total number of responses.

The criterions for interpretation are adopted from Arikunto :

FV from 0.10 to 0.30 is very hard

FV from 0.31 to 0.70 is fairly hard

FV from 0.71 to 1.00 is easy

To find out the proportion of examinees who answered the item correctly,

the difficulty index was calculated by the formula as written in Figure 3.6 (see

Heaton 1988: 178). Then it was interpreted by the use of Arikuntos’ criterian

(1987: 210). See Figure 3.6. It refers to the percentage of the total number of

correct responses to the total of students taking the test, which can range between

0.0 and 1.0 (or from 0% to 100%). This indicates that the higher value of the

difficulty index, the greater the proportion of examinees respond to the item

correctly.

Manual calculation of the difficulty and discrimination index of test items

indicates that only number 2 needs revising because it has low discrimination

index (see table 3 in appendix 1). Number 2 was revised because there seemed a

word domestic that was assumed to be unknown by the most of subjects so it does

not discriminate the upper and the lower as shown with following quotation. The

word is replaced with a more familiar word, small.

Previous item: This is a lizard. It is domestic. It is reptile. Lizard is a ___ ___.

Revised item: This is a lizard. It is small. It is reptile. Lizard is a ___ ____.

In conclusion, the pre-test items are valid and reliable and could be used for the

(27)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.2.3 Treatment

Treatment constitutes a process of teaching English with the topic ‘describing

things and people’ at the first grade of a vocational school. The treatment used

pictures that were related to the topic and the pictures were served as medium to

elicit interaction leading to describe pictures by the use of pre-head modifier.

The treatments were applied to experimental and control groups. The

treatment in the experiment group was the exposure of spoken modified input

through reciprocal interaction. This is a teaching-learning process in which a teacher facilitated his students’ language experience by drawing them to involve

into classroom interaction in order that they try to describe the pictures. The

interaction is a process of presenting examples of language rules in direct

language experience (see appendix 4). In other words, language input were

exposed through a direct use of language enhanced in teacher-led classroom

interaction to examine the effect of modified teacher questions in negotiating the

description of pictures by the use of pre-head modifier (see Alwright 1988: 13).

The latter, the treatment in control group was the exposure of spoken

unmodified input through non-reciprocal interaction. This is a teaching-learning

process in which teacher expose the input by describing picture by the use of

pre-head modifier non-reciprocally while Students just listens their teacher’s

presentation (see appendix 4).

Figure 3.7 description of treatment

(28)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Pre-meeting Pre-test

Meeting 1 Describing t-shirts from color;

Describing cars from color and age or quality; Describing jackets from color and material; Describing films from originality and nature; Describing people from profession;

Describe animals from nature.

1

Meeting 2 Describing guitars from the characteristics and color; Describing people from profession;

Describing water from originality; Describing shoes from function;

Describing chairs from color and material; Describing vases from material and shape; Describing people and animal from activity; Describing cars and ships from event; Describing houses and animals from nature;

Describing the other name of military senior officers from nature

2

Meeting 3 Describing people from number and profession, activity and quality ;

Describing jackets from number, color and material; Describing animals from activity;

Describing chair, glasses, table from number, color and material;

Describing house from number and nature;

Describing students from number and classification; Describing money from number and nature;

Describing buses from number and nature; Describing books from number and nature; Describing guitar from number, color and nature; Describing vases from number, material and shape; Describing wall clock from number, color and shape

3

Post-meeting Post-test

Materials in the treatment were based on the syllabus for the 1st grade of

vocational school (SMK) issued by Badan Standar Nasional pendidikan (BSNP).

(29)

must be able to describe things after instruction. These materials are developed as

described in figure 3.7.

3.2.4 Recording of Teaching-Learning Process

A classroom recording is the secondary technique of collecting data to gain a deep

comprehension of the quantitative findings. It is applied to record a verbal

interaction in the experimental and control groups. The verbal data will be

recorded from how the teacher exposed the language input to how learners

described things as language output (see Genesee and Upshur 1996: 77).

Data of recoding were obtained from verbal classroom interaction of the

researcher who was being involved in an experimental and control groups (see

Sugiyono 2007: 64). The recording resulted in raw data i.e. a set of

video-recording which consisted of six folders of video-recording from three sessions of the

classes. Each folder contains some files of recording. Then, the recording was

transcribed. The transcription was divided into six sessions which consisted of

three of experimental and of control groups (see appendices 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and

13).

Social situation belongings to object of observation covers three

components i.e. place, actor and activities (see Sugiyono 2007: 68). The place was

the classroom where the first grade of office administration program in a state

vocational school studied. Actor was teacher and students. Last, activities cover

(30)

modified question and students’ comprehension on lesson which is indicated with

verbal responds.

3.2.5 Post-test

A post-test was administered after treatment in the experimental group and control

groups to measure how long subjects can describe things by the use of pre-head

modifier. The procedure of the preparation of the post-test is like pre-test.

Meanwhile, the items in post-test are different from those in pre-test but they are

identical (see pre-test and appendix 14 & 15). The similarities are in the analysis

of the test item, in which, the post-test items were tried out to be analyzed. The

analysis included validity and reliability test and the analysis of discrimination

and difficulty index. To keep the validity, the test items were consulted to the

supervisors and made the map of the distribution of items as indicated in Figure

3.3. After that reliability of the test was measured by calculating the result of the

try-out through SPSS. 17. Then the results were calculated to find out the

discrimination and difficulty index (for detail, see section pre-test).

Aspect of reliability was measured with a split-half method as conducted

to pre-test items analysis. The calculation as indicated in table 2 of appendix 2

showed that the reliability index is 0.92. The value of �_� (0.92) is greater than that

of r-table (with n = 38 and df 0.05 is 0.320). This means that post-test items are

(31)

The last, based on the manual calculation of the difficulty and

discrimination index of the test item analysis as indicated in Table 3 of appendix

2, only number 2 needs revising because it has low discrimination index. Number

2 was revised because there seemed a word wild that was assumed to be unknown

by the most of subjects so it did not discriminate the upper and the lower as shown

in following quotation. The word was replaced with a more familiar word,

‘dangerous’.

Previous item: This is a crocodile. It is wild. It is reptile. Crocodile is a _ _.

Revised item: This is a crocodile. It is dangerous. It is reptile. Crocodile is a _ _.

In conclusion, the instrument is valid and reliable and can be used for the study.

3.3 Data Analysis

There are two types of data in this study, i.e. quantitative and qualitative

data. The quantitative data were collected through pre-test and post-test, while

qualitative data were collected through video-recorded observation during the

treatments in the two groups. They will be discussed in the following sub-section.

3.3.1 Test Data

Test data include those from pre-test and post-test administered to the two groups

.the data were compared in several ways. Firstly, the scores of all groups were

tested to identify their variances with SPSS 17 through one-sample

(32)

experimental group versus that of the control group was calculated with

independent sample t-test to measure the initial ability of the two groups. Thirdly,

post-test of experimental group versus that of the control group was calculated

with independent sample t-test to measure the final ability of the two groups. The

last, the two sets of post-tests were calculated with Two-way ANOVA to examine

moderator variable, i.e. if the current ability of describing things by the use of

pre-head modifier affects the final ability.

3.3.2 Data of Recording

Recording data were obtained from transcription of interaction in both

experimental and control groups. The data have been analyzed in two categories.

Former is the analysis for uncovering the effect of modified questions on the

learners’ ability to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier from

qualitative aspect to support quantitative findings. The analysis were conducted by

comparing the success of teacher leading learners to describing things through

reciprocal interaction or not in the treatment process and comparing the learners’

performances in describing thing by the use of pre-head modifier in the

experimental group to those in the control group (see tables 3.1 and 3.2). The

latter is to uncover the implementation of modified teacher’s question in

treatment.

(33)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Successful meaning negotiation

transcribed and analyzed to measure the strength of questions in leading learners’

to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier. The data consisted of some

transactions which were categorized into successful and unsuccessful meaning

negotiations or transactions. Then, they were quantified in a table as illustrated in

Table 3.1. The quantification was conducted to reveal their frequency of the

succeeded during the special treatment. The frequency was slotted per session so

the table showed it in detail apart from the total. Then, they were described

qualitatively.

Table 3.2 the summary of the comparison learners’ description in

experimental group to those in control group

(34)

modified questions in leading learners’ to describe things. The data were

categorized into describing things by the use of pre-head modifier and without

pre-head modifier. Then, they were quantified in a table as illustrated in Table 3.2.

The quantification was conducted to reveal the frequency of the use of pre-head

modifier in describing things during the special treatment compared to

non-treatment. They were described qualitatively.

The last analysis is to uncover the implementation of modified teacher’s

question in the treatment. The data which is needed is the transcribed verbal data

which was treated in three steps. Firstly, the transcription was identified about the

things belonging to the types of modified questions (see table 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5) and

their use in managing classroom interaction (see table 3.6) by highlighting.

Table 3.3 Descriptive Quantification of Linguistically Modified Question

Linguistic

modification Session 1 Session 2 Session 3

Total F % 1. Self repetition

2. Self rephrasing 3. Self decomposition

Total

Secondly, the modified questions were sub-categorized into linguistically

modified questions including rephrase, self-repetition (see Chaudron 1988: 128)

and decomposition (see Wu, 1993: 56). The sub-category of linguistic

modification was quantified in a table as illustrated in Table 3.3. The

(35)

treatment. The frequency was slotted per session so the table showed it in detail

apart from the total. Then, they were described qualitatively.

Table 3.4 Descriptive Quantification of Interactionally Modified Question

Interactional modification Session

Thirdly, the modified question was sub-categorized into interactionally

modified questions including comprehension checks, clarification requests,

confirmation checks (see Pica et.al. 1985: 125) and probing question (see Pollard

2005: 302). The sub-category was quantified in a table as illustrated in Table 3.4.

The quantification was conducted to reveal their frequency during the special

Table 3.5 Descriptive Quantification of modified Questions

Modification of Question Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Total

F %

1. Linguistic modification

(36)

Fourthly, the modified question was categorized into linguistic and

interactional modification. The category was quantified in a table as illustrated in

Table 3.5. The quantification was conducted to reveal their frequency during

Table 3.6 Descriptive Quantification of Classroom Interaction Management

Management of Classroom interaction

Session 1 Session 2 Session 3 Total

F %

3. Discourse Management

4. Repair Management Total

Then, the pattern of the use of modified question in managing classroom

interaction was classified into repair and discourse management (see Ellis, 1994:

257). The classifications were quantified in a table as illustrated in Figure 3.6. The

quantification was conducted to reveal their frequency during treatment. The

frequency was slotted per session so the table showed it in detail apart from the

(37)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides the conclusion which elaborates the findings and analysis of

the study and the recommendation for the next study. It consists of two sections.

The first section presents the conclusion drawn from the findings and analysis.

The second section deals with several recommendations addressed to teacher and

students in particular and other researcher in general.

5.1 Conclusions

The recent study investigates (1) the effect of modified question to EFL learners’

ability to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier (2) the difference effect

between upper and lower groups and (3) how the modified questions are

implemented to build up EFL classroom interaction in the instruction on

describing things by the use of pre-head modifier.

Firstly, it is found that the modified teacher’s question affect

significantly to EFL learners’ ability to describe things by the use of pre-head

modifier. The result of the study indicates that exposing language input by

modified teacher’s question through a reciprocal interactiongave more acquisition

of the language function in describing things by the use of pre-head modifier to

the learners than a non-reciprocal interaction. It is revealed through a series of

statistical test: the independent t-test to check the initial ability of the experiment

(38)

post-Nacep Asmara, 2014

test indicates that experimental group differs from a control one significantly as

indicated by the value of significance ‘0.005’ being less than 0.05. In addition to,

qualitative findings show that modified questions affect learners’ comprehension

on input and their way of describing things.

Secondly, it is found that the current knowledge of the learners affects

significantly to the increase of their ability in describing things by the use

pre-head modifier but there is not interaction between the type of treatment and the

level of subjects’ current knowledge to the final comprehension of subjects on

pre-head modifier. This means that giving input with the modified teacher

question in the classroom instruction works better than their current knowledge on

pre-head modifier. It is revealed through a two-way ANNOVA test as indicated

by the value of significance ‘0.697’ being greater than 0.05.

Thirdly, based on the observation carried out in the experimental group,

the types of modified teacher’s questions tended to be implemented to build up a

strategy of classroom interaction into repair and discourse managements. This

means that the teacher used the types of modified questions to lead classroom

interaction in meaning negotiation through the managements.

Modified teacher’s questions by giving input through a reciprocal

interaction has indicated a tendency of ability to promote meaning negotiation and

ability to describe things by the use of pre-head modifier correctly. The questions

have built up a classroom interaction and triggered the learners to increase their

(39)

learning process directs students to language acquisition on language function.

However, this study only investigated a certain language function. Thus, it needs

the other study on another language function to ensure the reliability of the result.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusion above, some methodologies and practical

purposes are recommended. The methodological suggestions concern the

delimitation of the recent study and its possible enhancement study for further

research. The research investigated one aspect of language function in describing

things in certain subject and situation. Thus, it needs further research in other

aspects of language function because different function might need a different

treatment or the same function in other subjects and situation to make sure the

reliability of the result.

Practical purposes recommended are intended to teachers. They need to

know and believe that the modified input through reciprocal interaction is

important in EFL classroom especially in teaching language function because this

will trigger learner to use their language repertoire so they will be accustomed to

apply their English. Furthermore, language should be acquired from real

communication, not taught by their teacher. Thus, teachers are suggested to

master and be able use the technique of questioning in their classroom to create

classroom interaction in exposing spoken input. Next, the findings show that

current ability of the learners did not interact with the treatment in the instruction.

(40)

modifier is greater than the level of their current ability. Thus, the strategy can be

(41)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu References

Agustina S. M. (2010), Seri Belajar Kilat SPSS 17, ANDI @ COM

Allwright, D. (1988), Applied Linguistics and Language Study; Observation in the Language Classroom.Longman, Londo and New York

Anderson, L. W. (1991). Increasing teacher Effectiveness. Paris, UNESCO: International Institute for Educational Planning.

Arikunto, S (1987) Prosedure Penelitian; Suatu Pendekatan Praktis. Jakarta, Rineka Cipta.

Azerefegn, kifle (2008). A Study on the Types of Teacher Questions and Questioning Strategies: the Case of Two Private Secondary Schools in

Addis Ababa, an master thesis, the department of foreign languages and

literature, Addis Ababa University, retrieved in march 2012 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:dDhjp3k9kGwJ:etd.aau.edu

Bergman,M.M. (2009), Advances in Mixed Methods Research. SAGE-Los angles, London,New Delhi, Singapore, Washington DC.

BNSP. Silabus Mata Pelajaran Sekolah Menengah Kejuruan Bahasa Ingris. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional, Direktorat Jenderal manajemen Pendidikan Dasar dan Menengah.

Borjars, K. and Burridge, K. 2001. Introduction English Grammar. Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Brown H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles; An Interactive Aproach to language

(42)

Brualdi, A.C. (1998). Classroom questions; Practical Assessment, Research and

Evaluation, 6(6), retrieved in June, 2010, from, http://pareonline.net/getvn.

asp?v=6&n=6

Capel, S., Leask M., & Turner, T. (1996). Learning to teach in the secondary

school. London & New York: Routledge.

Celce, M.– Murcia (2001). Teaching English as a Second language or foreign

Language, 3rd edition. Heinle & Heinle, Thomson Learning, USA.

Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Clasrooms; Research on Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Cooper, J. M. (1990). Classroom Teaching Skills, 4th edition. D.C. Heath and Company, Lexington, Massacussetts, Toronto.

Cotton, K. (19880. Classroom Questioning. North West Regional Educational

Laboratory, retrieved in July on http://www.learner.org/workshops/

socialstudies/pdf/session6/6. ClassroomQuestioning.pdf

Creswel, J.W. and Clark, V.L.P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed

Methods rsearch, Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W. (1994), Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches. Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003), Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

methods Approaches, second edition. Sage Publications-International and

Professional Publisher London-NewDelhi.

De bot K., Lowie W. and verspoor M. (2005). Second Language acquisition: an

advanced resource book. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

(43)

Gabrielatos, C. (1997). A question of function: Teacher questions in the EFL classroom. Papers given at 18th Annual TESOL Greece Convention,

National Bank of Greece Training Centre, Glyfada, Greece, 12-13 April

1997. Retrieved in June 2010 on http://www.gabrielatos.com/TQ.pdf

Gebhard, J. G. (1996) Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. ann arbor, the university of Michigan Press.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice Of English Language Teaching, 3rd edition.Person Education Limited, Longman.

Hasan, A.S. (2008), Making Input Comprehensible for Foreign Language Acquisition, Faculty of Education Damascus University, Damascus

University Journal, Vol.24,No2,2008, http://www.damascusuniversity.

edu.sy/mag/edu/images/stories/399000.pdf

Hatch, E and Farhady, H. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied

linguistics. Nebury House publisher, INC. Rowley, Massachussetts 01969.

Heaton, J.B. (1988), Longman Hanbooks – for – Langugae Teachers; Writing

English Language Tests. Longman.

Herrel, A and Jordan, M. (2004) Fifty Strategies for Teaching English Language

Learners. Pearson,Longman

Huddleston, R. & Pullum, G. K. (2005). A Student’s Introduction to English

Grammar. Cambridge University Press.

Kalantari, R. (2009). Techniques for Classroom Interaction. Research Institute for Education, Iran International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 | 43, 1 retrieved in March 2012 on http://www.ijls. net/volumes/volume3issue4/kalantari1.pdf

Kinnear, P. R. and Gray, Collin D (1994), SPSS for Windows Made Simple, Pschology Press,Taylor and Francis.

Krahnke, K. (1987) Approaches to Syllabus Design for Foreign Language

Teaching, Prentice-Hall, INC. Englewood Cliffs.

Krashen, S.D. (1981) Second Language Acquisition and Second Language

(44)

Leech, G., Deuchar, M. and Hoogenraad, R. 1982. English Grammar for Today; A

New Introduction. MacMilan.

Ma, X. (2008). The Skills of Teacher’s Questioning in English Classes. School of

Foreign Languages, Yangtze Normal University retrived in july 2010 on

http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/viewFile/627/6022.

Maxwell, S. (2011), the effects of two types of text modification on english language learners’ reading comprehension: simplification versus

elaboration. An unpuplished thesis, Hamline University, Saint Paul,

Minnesota.

Naimat, Gh. (2011), Influence of Teacher-Students Interaction on EFL Reading Comprehension, European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 23,

Number 4 (2011), Language Center, Al-Hussein Bin Talal University

Ma'an, Jordan, retrieved in March 2012 on http://www.eurojournals. com/EJSS_23_4_15.pdf

Nunan, D. (2000). Language Teaching Methodology; A textbook for Teachers.

National Centre for English Laguage Teaching and Research, Maccuarie

University, sydney. Longman.

Owen, D. (1996). Do teachers modify their speech according to the proficiency of their students? ELTED Vol.2 Issue 1 Autumn 1996, p 31-51, retrieved in july 2010 onhttp://www.elted.net/issues/volume-2/owen.pdf.

Pica, T., Doughty, C. and Young, R. (1985), making input comprehensible; Do interactional modification help? TESOL Summer Meeting, Georgetown

University, Washington D.C., July 13-14 1985, retrieved in March 2012 on

http://www.gse.upenn.edu/wpel/sites/gse.upenn.edu.wpel/files/archives/v2 /v2n1Pica.pdf

Pollard, A. (2005). Reflective Teaching, 2nd edition. Continuum, London-New York.

Ponniah, R.J. (2008), Acquisition of grammar through comprehensible input versus explicit instruction, Iranian Journal of Language Studies (IJLS),

Vol. 2(2), 2008 (pp. 249-255), Mepco Schlenk Engineering College, India,

(45)

Prabawati, A (2010), Mengolah Data Statistik Hasil Penelitian dengan SPSS 17. Panduan Aplikasi & Solusi (PAS).

Quirk, R. 1985. A University Grammar of English, Sidney Greenbaum.

Riduwan, Rusyana A. & Enas (2011), Cara Mudah Belajar SPSS 17.0 dan

Aplikasi Statistik Penelitian. Afabeta

Sarab, M. R. A and Karimi M. (2008), The Impact of Simplified and Interactionally Modified Input on Reading Comprehension of Iranian EFL Learners, Human Sciences: No. 56‚ Winter 2008 «29 - 42», Shahid Beheshti University Shahid Beheshti University, retrieved in March 2012 on http://www.sid.ir/en/VEWSSID/J_pdf/94420075602.pdf

Sharpe, P.J. 2005. Barron’s How to prepare for the TOEFL Test of English as a

Foreign Language. the Ohio University.

Sugiyono (2007), Statistik untuk Penelitian. CV. Alfabeta, Bandung.

Suter, C. (2001). Exploring Teachers' Questions and Feedback, Module One

Assessment Task LT/00/05, University of Birmingham retrieved in July

2010 on http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/suter1.pdf.

Teng, H. (2001). Impact of Speech Modification on EFL Listening, JALT

November 22-25, 2001, Conference Proceedings International

Conference, Centre Kitakyushu JAPAN, National Yunlin University of

Science & Technology, Taiwan retrieved in March 2012 on http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/2001/532.pdf

Tuan, L.T. and Nhu, N. T. k. (2010) Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFLClassrooms, Studies in Literature and Language Vol. 1, No. 4, 2010, pp. 29-48 retrieved in May 2012 on www.cscanada.net

Walsh, S (2006) Investigating Classroom Discourse. Routledge, London and New York.

Wilen, W. W. (1987), Questions, Questioning techniques and effective Teaching, National Education Association of the United States.

Wu, K. (1993). Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC

Journal 1993; 24; 49, Published by: SAGE Journals Online and HighWire

(46)

/Public/RELC%20journal/Kamyin%20Wu,%201993.Classroom%20Interac tion%20and%20Teacher%20Questions%0Revisited.pdf

Xiaohui, H. (2010), An Empirical Study on the Effects of Comprehensible Input on Incidental English Vocabulary Recognition, Chinese Journal of Applied

Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 6 Dec. 2010, Harbin Institute of