i
EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN
ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM
THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill Part of Requirements Achieving Master of Education English Education Master Program
By:
MUHAMMAD DHIKA ARIF S891508024
TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY
ii
PRONOUNCEMENT
This is to certify that I myself write this thesis entitled “EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM”. It is not plagiarism or made by others. Anything related to others‟ work is written in the quotations, the source of which is listed on the references.
iii APPROVAL
EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN
ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM
THESIS
By:
Muhammad Dhika Arif S891508024
iv
LEGITIMATION
EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN
ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM
THESIS
Muhammad Dhika Arif S891508024
v MOTTO
vi
Arif, Muhammad Dhika. 2018. Exploring Language Awareness of TEFL Graduate Students: A Case of Explicit Knowledge in Advanced Grammar Exam. Thesis. Consultant: Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum. Co-Consultant: Prof. Sri Samiati Tarjana. Surakarta. English Education Master Program, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta
ABSTRACT
The current study aimed to identify categories of metalanguage were used by the students, describe the students‟ accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar Exam, and explain grammar difficulties were confronted by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam.
This study was classified as the qualitative research which applied a single case study design. The case was the operation of explicit knowledge by TEFL Graduate Students in Advanced Grammar Exam. Advanced Grammar Class of English Education Graduate Program in Sebelas Maret University was selected as the setting. In total, there were 17 students who enrolled voluntarily as the participants. The data collected through documents, interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. As the validation, the researcher applied triangulation, member-checking, and external auditing.
Based on the results, there were some findings which can be drawn. First, the students used technical and non-technical metalanguage. Based on its frequency, technical metalanguage was used more frequently than non-technical metalanguage. Second, the students‟ accuracy in answering the exam was 62.41%. This accuracy was depended on the students‟ analyzed knowledge. Third, there were objective difficulty and subjective difficulty which confronted by the students during the exam. Each of these kinds of difficulty had different sources.
It can be concluded that the frequent use of technical metalanguage in Advanced Grammar Exam did not guarantee that the TEFL graduate students had already gained a comprehensive explicit knowledge which freed from the grammar difficulty. Therefore, to develop their analyzed knowledge, the researcher suggested the lecturer provides more comprehensive exercises for the students. Furthermore, the researcher recommended for future researchers to investigate multiple cases of explicit knowledge in some grammar classes.
vii
Arif, Muhammad Dhika. 2018. Penyelidikan Language Awareness Mahasiswa Magister TEFL: Sebuah Kasus Explicit Knowledge dalam Ujian Advanced Grammar. Tesis. Konsultan: Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum. Ko-Konsultan: Prof. Sri Samiati Tarjana. Surakarta. Program Magister Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sebelas Maret.
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi kategori-kategori metalanguage yang digunakan oleh para mahasiswa, mendeskripsikan keakuratan jawaban mahasiswa dalam mengerjakan ujian Advanced Grammar, dan menjelaskan kesulitan-kesulitan grammar yang dihadapi oleh para mahasiswa dalam ujian Advanced Grammar.
Penelitian ini digolongkan sebagai penelitian kualitatif yang menggunakan rancangan studi kasus tunggal. Kasusnya adalah operasional dari explicit knowledge oleh para mahasiswa magister TEFL dalam ujian Advanced Grammar. Kelas Advanced Grammar dari Program Magister Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sebelas Maret dipilih sebagai lokasi penelitian ini. Secara keseluruhan, sejumlah 17 mahasiswa direkrut secara sukarela sebagai partisipan penelitian ini. Data dikoleksi melalui dokumen, wawancara, observasi, dan kuisioner. Untuk validasi data, peneliti menerapkan triangulasi, member-checking, dan external auditing.
Berdasarkan hasil analisis, sejumlah temuan penting adalah sebagai berikut. Pertama, para partisipan menggunakan technical dan non-technical metalanguage. Menurut jumlahnya, technical metalanguage digunakan jauh lebih sering daripada non-technical metalanguage. Kedua, keakuratan jawaban mahasiswa cenderung kurang mencukupi. Keakuratan ini bergantung pada anlayzed knowledge. Ketiga, adanya kesulitan objekif and subjektif yang dihadapi oleh para partisipan selama berlangsungnya ujian tersebut. Masing-masing ragam kesulitan tersebut memiliki sumber yang berbeda.
Bisa disimpulkan, seringnya penggunaan technical metalanguage dalam ujian Advanced Grammar tidak menjamin bahwa para mahasiswa magister TEFL telah memiliki sebuah explicit knowledge yang komprehensif dan terbebas dari kesulitan grammar. Maka, untuk meningkatkan analyzed knowledge mereka, peneliti menyarankan kepada dosen kelas tersebut untuk menyediakan latihan-latihan soal yang lebih komprehensif bagi para mahasiswa. Untuk penelitian selanjutnya, peneliti merekomendasikan untuk mengembangkannya menjadi studi kasus majemuk explicit knowledge yang terjadi di beberapa kelas grammar.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Special Praise is to Allah SWT, the Sustainer of the creation. Through His blessing and mercy, the researcher is able to complete this thesis. Indeed, this thesis will not be completed without the help and the encouragement from many people. In this opportunity, the researcher would like to express appreciation to: 1. Prof. Dr. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd., as The Dean of Teacher Training and
Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University
2. Dr. Ngadiso, M. Pd., as The Head of English Education Master Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University.
3. Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum, as the consultant who encourages the researcher with precious discussions and advice.
4. Prof. Sri Samiati Tarjana, Dipl. TESOL as the co-consultant who also supports the researcher with her feedback.
5. All lecturers of English Education Master Program.
6. Dr. Sri Marmanto, as the Home-Lecturer of Advanced Grammar Class who provides the opportunity to conduct the study in his class.
7. All students of Advanced Grammar Class year 2016.
8. All of my friends, especially the students of English Education Master Program year 2015.
9. My beloved parents, papa and ibu. Thank you for leading me to this path. The researcher realizes that this thesis needs constructive suggestions for the improvement of the further study. Any sort of criticism is welcomed
.
Surakarta, May 2018
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRONOUNCEMENT ... ii
APPROVAL ... iii
LEGITIMATION ... iv
MOTTO ... v
ABSTRACT ... vi
ABSTRAK ... vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ... ix
LIST OF TABLES ... xii
LIST OF FIGURES ... xiii
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiv
CHAPTER I ... 1
INTRODUCTION ... 1
A. Background ... 1
B. Research Questions ... 5
C. Objectives ... 5
D. Significances ... 5
CHAPTER II ... 7
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 7
A. Underlying Theory ... 7
1. Explicit Knowledge ... 8
2. Metalanguage ... 11
3. Terminology... 13
4. Grammar Difficulty ... 16
B. Theoretical Framework ... 17
C. Previous Relevant Studies... 18
CHAPTER III ... 23
METHODOLOGY ... 23
A. Design ... 23
B. Setting ... 24
1. Location ... 24
x
C. Sources and Data... 25
1. Participants... 25
2. Document ... 26
3. Event ... 26
D. Data Collection Technique ... 26
1. Interviews... 26
2. Questionnaire ... 27
3. Observation ... 28
E. Ethics... 28
F. Credibility ... 29
1. Triangulation ... 29
2. Member Check ... 29
G. Data Analysis Technique ... 30
1. Organizing and Familiarizing ... 30
2. Coding and Reducing... 30
3. Interpreting and Representing ... 32
H. Procedure ... 32
CHAPTER 4 ... 34
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... 34
A. Research Findings ... 34
1. The Categories of Metalanguage Used by the Students ... 34
2. The Students‟ Accuracy in Answering the Exam‟s Items ... 43
3. The Difficulty Confronted by the Students... 52
B. Discussions ... 62
1. The Categories of Metalanguage ... 62
2. The Explicit Knowledge ... 65
3. The Grammar Difficulty ... 67
CHAPTER V ... 72
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... 72
A. Conclusions ... 72
B. Implications... 73
C. Suggestions ... 75
1. The Lecturer ... 75
xi
xii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Metalingual Scale ... 11
Table 2 The Schedule of the Study ... 25
Table 3 Data Collecting Mapping ... 28
Table 4 The Categories of Metalanguage ... 31
Table 5 The Accuracy of Metalingual Answers ... 31
Table 6 The Themes of Grammar Difficulty ... 32
Table 7 The Frequency of Technical Metalanguage ... 41
Table 8 The Frequency of Non-Technical Metalanguage... 42
Table 9 The Frequency of Technical and Non-technical Metalanguage ... 43
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Untimed GJT ... 9
Figure 2 Language Awareness Test ... 10
Figure 3 Verbal Elicitation Test ... 10
Figure 4 Non-Technical Metalanguage ... 11
Figure 5 Technical Metalanguage ... 12
Figure 6 The Features of Language Awareness ... 18
Figure 7 The Procedure of the Study ... 33
Figure 8 The Exam‟s Items Answered by Opaque Terms ... 37
Figure 9 The Student 10‟s Answers ... 37
Figure 10 The Exam‟s Items Answered by Transparent Terms ... 39
Figure 11 The Student 06‟s Answers ... 39
Figure 12 The Exam‟s Item Answered by Iconic Term ... 40
Figure 13 The Student 11‟s Answer... 40
Figure 14 The Exam‟s Items Answered by Non-Technical Metalanguage ... 42
Figure 15 The Student 03‟s Answers ... 42
Figure 16 The Exam‟s Items Answered with Accurate Rules ... 44
Figure 17 Student 10‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ... 45
Figure 18 The Exam‟s Items Answered with Fairly Accurate Rules... 46
Figure 19 Student 04‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ... 46
Figure 20 The Exam‟s Items Answered with Partly Accurate Rules... 47
Figure 21 Student‟s 09 Answers (left) and the Answers‟ Key (right) ... 47
Figure 22 The Items Answered with Inaccurate Rules (Technical Metalanguage) ... 48
Figure 23 Student 12‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ... 49
Figure 24 The Items Answered with Inaccurate Rules (no technical metalanguage) ... 50
Figure 25 Student 03‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ... 50
Figure 26 The Exam‟s Items Answered with Inaccurate Analyses ... 51
xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Interview for the Students ... 82
Appendix 2 Interview for the Lecturer... 83
Appendix 3 Questionnaire... 84
Appendix 4 the Analysis of Metalanguage Categories ... 88
Appendix 5 the Analysis of Metalingual Accuracy ... 95
Appendix 6 the Interview‟s Transcriptions ... 107
Appendix 7 the Result of Questionnaire ... 130
Appendix 8 the Observations‟ Notes ... 144
Appendix 9 the Member Checking ... 147
Appendix 10 the Research Permission ... 148
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
This chapter consists of four subchapters: A. Background, B. Questions, C. Objectives, and D. Significances.
A. Background
The notion of Language Awareness (LA) is not a new issue in language educational field. Eric Hawkins, the father of language awareness, has introduced it for more than three decades ago (Andrews, 2007, p. vi). Uniquely, language awareness has „two sides of a coin‟; as knowledge and also as a method. As knowledge, Bolitho et al. (2003, p. 251) describe it as a mental attribute which develop through paying motivated attention to language in use and which enables language learners to gradually gain insights into how language work. Recently, Association for Language Awareness or ALA (2016) defines it as explicit knowledge about language in language learning. Meanwhile, as a method, Wright & Bolitho (1993, p. 302) explain it as a process of assisting learners to develop their sensitivity towards language, as part of the strategy aimed at enhancing classroom learning. Van Lier (2001 in Bolitho et al, 2003) adds that this explicit teaching entails form, metalinguistic rules, and metalanguage. These notions imply that language awareness has the relationship with grammar, metalanguage, and explicit knowledge.
2
Unfortunately, the term „grammar‟ itself brings unpleasant memories for many EFL learners (DeCapua, 2008, p. 1). In the traditional grammar era, there is a phenomenon „speaker‟s hyper-correct‟ which addressed for any speakers who apply the (prescriptive) grammatical rules in situations where they should not use it (DeCapua, 2008, p. 10). In addition, Larssen-Freeman (1997, pp. 2-5) summarizes some misunderstandings about grammar. First, grammar is a collection of meaningless forms. Second, grammar structures are learned one at a time. Third, grammar has to do with sentence-level and substance-level phenomena. In general, these misunderstandings are related to the learning and teaching. Many students learned grammar by following the various kinds of formulas (e.g. s+v+ …) in a meeting; mostly they practice by drilling and writing sentences in the traditional P-P-P (Presentation-Practice-Production) (Andrews, 1999b, p. 164). Indirectly, these reasons become an anxiety which was confronted by most of EFL learners.
The traditional era passed so does with the traditional grammar. The modern (descriptive) grammar is more stressed to the purpose for which a speaker is using language (DeCapua, 2008, p. 13). Furthermore, grammar books more concern on terminology because grammar becomes the formal study of the structure of a language which describes how words fit together in meaningful construction (Williams, 2005, pp. 2, 17-18). Furthermore, various grammar tests also favored the use of terminology or metalanguage. Some of those tests are Language Awareness test (Andrews, 1999a, pp. 149-150), Grammaticality Judgment Test (R. Ellis, 2004, pp. 253-261), and the Rule Verbalization Task (Hu, 2011a, p. 65). Hence, those circumstances imply the importance of metalanguage for learning and testing purposes.
3
decision whether the use or not use metalanguage in a classroom is the teachers‟ responsibility even though it will quite difficult to avoid it particularly in grammar class.
Some scholars (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002; Berry, 2010) argued that metalanguage is more appropriate for advanced learners. Here, the advanced learners refer to the L2 students who have gained the „understanding‟ to analyze and reflect some aspect of grammatical rules (Schmidt, 1990, p. 133). Indeed, these learners are different from other learners who only have the ability to „notice‟ or „know‟ the grammaticality of sentences. In brief, the levels (beginner -intermediate-advance) are classified based on their knowledge.
In general, L2 learners have two types of knowledge i.e. implicit and explicit. First, implicit knowledge or knowledge „of‟ language is held unconsciously, accessed rapidly and easily in fluent communication (Han & Ellis, 1998, p. 5). This knowledge used to notice and judge whether a sentence is grammatically correct or not in seconds. Second, explicit knowledge or knowledge „about‟ language is held consciously, accessed through controlled processing (Han & Ellis, 1998, p. 5). It means that the demonstration of this knowledge demands longer time than implicit knowledge. Different from implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge may analyze and reflect the reason why a sentence is grammatically correct or incorrect. N. Ellis (2015, pp. 3-4) argued that implicit knowledge gained through natural process i.e. acquiring. Commonly, this process occurred during the critical age of L2 learners. On the contrary, explicit knowledge is gained through control process i.e. learning which is occurred while the L2 learners study language in a classroom setting. Implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge demonstrated alternately and continuously in language learning and language test.
4
R. Ellis, 2008). These notions indicate that the grammar difficulty influenced by two main factors: L2 learners as the subject and grammar rules as the object.
Studies related to language awareness mainly focused on metalanguage, explicit knowledge, and grammar difficulty. Basturkmen, et al. (2002) investigated the use of metalanguage by the teachers and the students in focus-on-form classroom. They found that their subjects more frequently used non-technical terms rather than non-technical terms. Fortune (2005) compared the employment of metalanguage between advanced and intermediate L2 learners. The result showed that advanced learners employed technical metalinguistic terms more frequently than the intermediate learners. Tsang (2011) explored English metalanguage awareness among primary and secondary school teachers. Based on the mean scores, she found that the teachers‟ metalanguage awareness was relatively low. Gutierrez (2016) examined the difference between analyzed knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge of L2 learners. As the result, it revealed that the participants‟ metalinguistic knowledge were higher than their analyzed knowledge. Shiu (2011) investigated the learners‟ grammatical difficulty in relation to their L2 proficiency, performance, and knowledge. According to the interviews, the learners‟ difficulty was mainly influenced by their L2 grammar learning experiences. Graus and Coppen (2015) scrutinized students teacher perspective in defining grammatical difficulty. They found that the learners L1 became the most influential factor which contributed to their difficulty.
By reviewing these previous studies, the researcher found several gaps. First, in recent years, the investigations of the metalanguage categories were still limited (e.g. Fortune, 2005). Second, the recent studies (e.g. Tsang, 2011) were only interested in measuring the participants‟ language awareness. Third, the explorations of the grammar difficulty from the participants‟ perceptions have not provided with sufficient and varied findings (e.g. Saengboon, 2017). Fourth, so
far, there have not a study which inquired this topic (i.e. language awareness) in Indonesia‟ context. Therefore, the researcher proposed to conduct the current study entitled “Exploring Language Awareness of TEFL Graduate Students: A
5
The objective of the study was to explore the students‟ language awareness. This study took the setting in Advanced Grammar Class of English Education Master Program. This objective was represented in the following research questions.
B. Research Questions
1. What categories of metalanguage are used by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam?
2. How is the students‟ accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items?
3. What grammar difficulties are confronted by the students in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items?
C. Objectives
1. To identify the categories of metalanguage used by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam.
2. To describe the students‟ levels of accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items.
3. To explain the grammar difficulties confronted by the students in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items.
D. Significances
6
7 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter discusses the Review of Related Literature which consists of three sub-chapters: A. the Underlying Theory; B. the Theoretical Framework; and C. the Previous Relevant Studies.
A. Underlying Theory
8 1. Explicit Knowledge
R. Ellis (2004, pp. 244-245) defined explicit knowledge as the declarative knowledge of the phonological, lexical, grammatical, pragmatic, and socio-critical features of an L2 together with the metalanguage for labeling this knowledge. It is helped consciously, is learnable and verbalizes and it is typically accessed through controlled processing when learners experience some kind of linguistic difficulty in the use of L2. Furthermore, R. Ellis (2004, 2006) also argued that explicit knowledge is comprised of analyzed and metalinguistic knowledge. Analyzed knowledge is knowledge which is used to judge whether the structure of a clause or a sentence is grammatically correct or not. Meanwhile, metalinguistic knowledge is knowledge of grammatical terminology (metalanguage) for addressing the structure‟s features. These two elements of explicit knowledge are independent each other.
a. Characteristics
9 b. Measurement
To reveal and measure explicit knowledge, kinds of tests were used by language researchers In several studies (R. Ellis, 2005; Ercetin & Alptekin, 2013; Mirzaei, Rahimi, & Shakerian, 2011), the Untimed Grammaticality Judgments Test (UGJT or Untimed GJT) were mostly used as the instruments to measure explicit knowledge of language learners and teachers. As the examples, these following UGJT were constructed by Mirzaei, et al. (2011, pp. 136-143) Meanwhile, the UGJT should be completed by giving the correct form of ungrammatical sentence and explaining the rule. Indeed, the rule contained metalanguage production.
Instruction: 1) Underline the grammatically incorrect word(s) in the mini dialogue, 2) Write its correct form, and 3) State the grammatical rule that has been broken
A. What do you usually do on Fridays? B. I often goes to the cinema
Correct form: go
Rule: the verb must agree with the subject. „I‟ is the first person singular subject, but „goes‟ agree with a 3rd
person singular subject. Figure 1 Untimed GJT
Since the focus of the present study was exploring explicit knowledge, the researcher provided two other examples of tests which were used to examine explicit (metalinguistic) knowledge of test takers. First, measuring and examining explicit knowledge in written form by completing several tasks such as metalanguage recognition, correction, production, and explanation or it can be generalized as the test of grammatical rules. The original test was designed by Andrews (1999b) then adapted by Tsang (2011, p. 5).
Task 1 Metalanguage production
What grammatical terms would you use to describe the item underlined in each of the sentences? WRITE your description in the SPACE provided. NOTE: For each item provide a full description.
For example:
1. He is funniest clown in the circus superlative adjective
Task 3 Grammatical error correction and explanation
10 mistake. For each sentence:
1. Rewrite the faulty part of the sentence correctly. (there is only one part that is wrong) DO NOT rewrite the whole sentence. Underneath each sentence, explain the error.
For example:
1. I often goes to the cinema. Correct version: go
Explanation: the verb must agree with the subject. (DO NOT write: Change ‘goes’to ‘go’)
Figure 2 Language Awareness Test
Second, in order to elicit explicit knowledge in a real time, Hu (2011a, p. 65) administered a rule verbalization task which covers the selection of six target language into two groups: the articles (a/an, the, and Ø) and three tenses (simple present, past, and present perfect). In addition, this kind of test can be used to verify the explicit knowledge when it combined with Andrews‟ (1999b) test.
Instruction: Explain why the underlined structures are used
1) Could you please shut the door? 2) A leopard is a very dangerous animal
3) If he were here, he would be able to help us a lot 4) Who has broken the window?
Figure 3 Verbal Elicitation Test
11
Table 1 Metalingual Scale
Level Description
1 The learner is unable to explain how he/she reaches the judgment
2 The learner is able to identify verbally the element that is the source of the problem, but his/her explanation is incorrect and does not contain even very simple technical metalanguage
3 The learner verbalizes a rule at least some technical metalanguage, but the rule is incorrect
4 The learner states a partly correct rule, or the learner states a correct rule that is imprecise and incomplete
5 The learner states a correct rule fairly precisely using some technical metalanguage
6 The learner states a completely correct rule using appropriate technical metalanguage
2. Metalanguage
Metalanguage is language which is used to analyze or describe language (Johnson & Johnson, 1998, p. 212). Indeed, the word „language‟ contains broad aspects such as words, phrases, sentences, structures, etc. However, for the purpose of the present study, the notion of metalanguage was limited as any words used to explain grammatical rules (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 239).
a. Categories of Metalanguage
Basturkmen et al., (2002, p. 5) distinguished metalanguage into two categories: technical and non-technical. Metalanguage technical terms are items likely to be found in a grammar book or linguistic reference and are more likely to be used by a limited section of the population, such as language teachers or linguists (verb, adverb, past tense, etc.). In contrast, non-technical terms are words that have common usage within a specific context.
Student: excuse me, what‟s spoil means?
Teacher: if you are my child and you keep saying give me sweets … and I say yes all time, I spoil you too much because you always get what you want.
Student: they spoil them, they always get whatever
12 Student 1: PREdiction?
Student 2: I think the second syllable is stressed Student 1: preDICtion
Teacher: prediction
Figure 5 Technical Metalanguage
However, the distinction between technical and non-technical terms was not always straightforward (Basturkmen, et al., 2002, p. 5). As noted, metalanguage does not include evaluative comments on the language use, such as „good‟ or „that‟s right‟.
b. Advantages and Disadvantages
On the one hand, the use of metalanguage in the classroom has several advantages. Hu (2011b, p. 181) mentioned that there are three advantages that he emphasized from his serial works (Hu, 2002, 2010, 2011a). First, in societies where analytical study and metalanguage feature strongly in L1 literacy instruction, the use of metalanguage in the L2 classroom is a useful way to tap rich of metalinguistic awareness that learners have developed in the process L1 literacy. Second, the explanatory precision with which linguistic generalization can be made and the efficient delamination of the contexts to which the generalization applies. Third, it helps the learners to link up newly encountered structures with knowledge of the target system that has already been acquired.
13 3. Terminology
Berry (2010, p. 20) defined that terminology is a collection of terms and it is the meaning of the word that language teachers and learners are familiar with. In addition, terminology is be the most obvious manifestation of metalanguage (Berry, 2004, p. 2).
a. Classification
Berry (2008) distinguished the terminology into 3 types based on its characteristics i.e. transparent, opaque, and iconic term. First, transparency is where the meaning of the term indicates what its referent is about (p. 20). Typically the clue is given by the meaning of the grammatical term („the past tense‟ refers to the event which is occurred in the past). Second, opaqueness is where there is no obvious relationship between the term and its referent; learners have no clue from the term as to what it is about (p. 20). The most common terms in English, those word classes, are opaque such as noun, verb, adjective, etc. The main disadvantage is the learning load they impose on learners. Third, iconicity is the simplification between transparency and opaqueness (p. 21). For instance, a teacher can say “you should use –ing here” or “you should use an –ing form”. However, such iconic terms are limited in their application. For, instance, a teacher cannot use iconicity to express „noun‟. Comparing those three types, iconicity terminology is the most useful one. In addition, there is a sub-class of iconic terms which is called Eponymous. For instance, when speakers or writers refer to used to (as the grammatical item) by saying „used to‟ (as the terminological item); it refers itself. The number of purely iconic terms in English is quite limited, but there are many mixed terms where an iconic element is combined with another such as „third-person‟, „5W+1H question word‟, „to infinitive‟, etc.
b. Implementation
14
knowledge about several terms that they used. 2) There is limited use of terms in any lesson; the high frequency in using terminology requires extra energy and focus to be acquired by students. It is impossible for the students to memorize a lot of terminology from several lessons. 3) There are regular opportunities for using all terms; it is possible if the teacher assesses the students‟ knowledge of terminology in a language test, so it needs higher frequency in discussing all terminology. 4) The terms have been carefully chosen; it is the teacher‟s duty to select kinds and amounts of terminology that will be used in classroom. Furthermore, the teacher should to be more sensitive when the learners feel uncomfortable related to the terms that introduced by the teacher. 5) The terminology use is consistent with a focus on form (grammar); in order to avoid less success in learning, it is important to keep the aim of the learning in line with the terminology that will be used. 6) The learners are of the kind. There will be situations where terminology is not appropriate, as with less advanced, younger or less mature students. 7) The teacher is familiar with the terminology and is confident in using it; indeed, the teacher has fully responsible for the teaching and its materials, that is why it will be less responsible if the teacher has not familiar with the terminology that he/she used. 8) The terminology is integrated into the lesson; there is no need to teach terminology exclusively separated with a lesson because, perhaps, it decreases the understanding in how to use terminology within the lesson. Last, 9) it saves times; it will be meaningless when the teacher uses many terminologies but the learners cannot understand it, as the consequence, the teacher has to explain each of that terminology and it will be time-consume.
c. Selection
15
gradually during the learning process. Accuracy is problematic as a criterion for terms (p. 210). Accuracy does not refer to an absolute rule which leads the terms to become „right‟ or „wrong‟ but it pretends to use it appropriately based on its contexts. Familiarity, it is much better if teachers use general terms in teaching their learners (p. 212). Thus, when the learners‟ knowledge has increased, the teachers may introduce some new terms. In particular occasions, some „old‟ terms are replaced with another „new‟ terms because the „new‟ terms are more well -known for the learners; it cannot be denied that language is the dynamic medium of communication. Theoretical validity means that whether the terminology is consistent with the theories of language and language learning that underlie pedagogic practice (p. 213). Systematicity is that terms cannot always be chosen in isolation; they need to fit in with other terms (as pairs) which belong to the same system. For instance, definite and indefinite article, past and present, singular and plural (p. 215). Utility or usefulness refers to some terms that may be better known than others because the learners frequently use it in many activities (p. 216). Perhaps, there is a belief among the learners that many terms are unusable (yet) because the terms used only in particular circumstances. Productivity, a term is productive if it appears frequently in phrasal terms, so long as its meaning is constant (p. 218). For instance, the term –ing can function as a participle (he is singing), as adjective (it is interesting), as a noun (his breathing continued), and as clause (seeing that all was lost, he decided to escape).
16 4. Grammar Difficulty
In general, DeKeyser (2003, p. 332) mentioned that there are two kinds of grammar difficulty, namely subjective and objective. Also, the grammar difficulty is a natural result in attempt to exploit explicit knowledge (R. Ellis, 2005, p. 239).
a. Subjective Difficulty
Subjective difficulty is a the ratio of the rule‟s inherent linguistic difficulty to the students‟ ability to handle such a rule (DeKeyser, 2003, p. 331). This kind of difficulty is mainly influence by learners‟ individual. A diversion of learner variables (e.g. developmental stage, motivation, intelligence) potentially impact on whether a particular learner at a particular time finds structure x easy or difficult (R. Ellis, 2006, p. 431). Anomalously, it is still questionable on why some certain rules are acquired late by learners in their developmental stage. Based on Pienemann‟s Processability Theory, R. Ellis (R. Ellis, 2008, p. 10) explained that the difficulty of late acquiring is determined by the nature of the processing required to produce particular grammatical rules. Then, numerous of the contextual variables (e.g. explicit or implicit learning) may affect whether rule „A‟ is very easy, easy, moderately difficult, or even very difficult to learn in that situation.
b. Objective Difficulty
17
English based on its time sequences (present-past) are difficult for Indonesia‟ learners who study English as L2. Time sequences do not affect verbs in Bahasa Indonesia. Third, complexity of form-meaning is a difficulty which rises if the link between form and meaning is not transparent. For instance, the case for –s can address to the third-singular of the verb, the plural of the noun, or the genitive of the noun.
In agreement with DeKeyser, Hulstijn & De Graaff (1994, p. 103) described that the degree of complexity is contingent on the number of criteria to be applied in order to arrive at the correct form; not on the number of form in a paradigm. For instance, the verbs in language A have different endings for two aspects (perfect and non-perfect) meanwhile the verbs in language B have different inflections for three aspects (perfective, durative, and procedural). Consequently, language B (which has more complex than language A) is better be taught through explicit learning.
To sum up, two notions above emphasized the differences and complexities of grammar between leaners‟ L1 and L2 as the prime factor in objective difficulty.
B. Theoretical Framework
18
Figure 6 The Features of Language Awareness
C. Previous Relevant Studies
Basturkmen, et al., (2002) investigated the use of metalanguage by the teachers and the students in focus on form classroom. One of their questions was what kind of metalinguistic terms do the students and the teachers use. Their study involved 12 hours of observations in a private English-language school, New Zealand. In total, there were 24 teenagers with mixed nationalities and 2 teachers. Then, the data was analyzed through focus on form episodes (FFEs). The results showed that the most common terms were primarily of a non-technical nature such as mean, word, name, question, say, etc. Precisely, it consisted of 188 terms.
Three years later, Fortune (2005) conducted a similar study. He compared the employments of metalanguage between advanced and intermediate L2 learners. Those 56 learners had mixed L1 (Italia, Arabic, Spanish, Korean, Japanese, Georgian, etc.). The data were gained from 4 meetings of the students‟ group interactions in Dictogloss (a form-focused collaborative writing task). Furthermore, he used Language Related Episodes (LREs) as the analytical framework. As noted, LREs sometimes called as FFEs. For the results, in general, there were 100 technical and 240 non-technical terms which were used by the
Explicit Knowledge
Grammar Difficulty
Metalanguage
19
students. In a comparison, advanced learners employed technical metalinguistic terms more frequently than the intermediate leaners.
Recently, Scheffler (2011) investigated the relationship between the teachers‟ intuitions on grammatical difficulty rule and the learners‟ performances to produce controlled output based on explicit rules. This study involved 20 Polish teachers and 50 Polish learners. Two instruments were applied to elicit the data; a questionnaire for the teachers and a writing test for the students. Obviously, there were two different methods to analyze those data. The results of questionnaire were analyzed statistically; meanwhile, the results of writing test were assessed by two interraters. The results revealed that the three most difficult rules, according to the students‟ test, were third conditional, future perfect, and second conditional. On the other side, from the questionnaire, it showed a similar result to the students‟ test.
Still in a same year, Shiu (2011) reported her study which investigated the learners‟ grammatical difficulty in relation to their L2 proficiency, performance, and knowledge. Totally, there were 277 university-level Chinese EFL learners in Taiwan who enrolled as the subjects. She collected data by using various instruments: a questionnaire, an interview, a proficiency test, and oral production & metalinguistic task. Two of the entire findings as follow. First, from the questionnaire, the learners‟ perceptions of grammatical difficulty were based on whether the rules to describe the formation of language features were easy or difficult to articulate. Second, from the interview, the learners‟ perceptions of grammatical difficulty were influenced by several factors including their L2 knowledge, L2 grammar learning experience, and L1 knowledge.
20
through an English grammar metalanguage test which was modeled by Andrews (1999). There were 20 in-service teachers who participated in this study. The data analyzed at different levels (word, phrasal, and clausal level). The results revealed that 1) the mean score for the production task (51,67%) was the highest score rather than correction (50%), recognition (47,22%), and explanation task (19,17%). 2) The ability of primary teachers seemed to be more competent with the lower level application (recognition & production task) of their metalanguage than the higher level ones (correction & explanation task). However, the secondary teachers could be more competent with error correction, a higher level metalanguage application.
In the United Arab Emirates, Mohamed (2012) conducted the explanatory study related to the belief of Native English Speaker teachers (NESTs) and Non-Native English Speaker Teachers‟ (NNESTs). One of the objectives of his study was how NESTs and NNESTs pedagogical beliefs match their instructional practices. The data were collected by using 2 instruments; interviews and classroom observations to the 2 NNESTs and 2 NESTs. The observational data analyzed by highlighting themes like the grammar teaching and the learning practice, use of grammatical terminology, error correction, and use of students‟ L1. As the results, it stated that for the NESTs‟, employing grammatical terminology was essential in grammar teaching as they helped the students better understand and learn the targeted rules. The use of grammatical terminology should not contradict with the main aim of EFL learning. Meanwhile, in the NNESTs‟ beliefs, some basic knowledge of grammatical terminology was essential, but only for examination purposes. The justification of refusal grammatical terms usage in grammar teaching was to avoid overburden for students.
21
determine how the participants estimated the difficulty of a number of grammar points and which factors contributed to the perceived level of difficulty. The 570 participants in this study were selected from two groups: 483 undergraduate and 85 postgraduate student teachers. The results showed that 1) the overall scores indicate that five most difficult structures were present perfect continuous, future continuous, past perfect, definite article, and present tense. 2) According to the
respondents, the primary reason why grammar is difficult was the learners‟ first language. The number of exception came in second, and motivation in third place. In South-East Asian region, Saengboon (2017) investigated English grammar knowledge of 30 Thai university students. These master students graduated from various fields (e.g. political science, management, engineering, etc.). The data was collected from TOEFL and an online-interview. As the result, most of the students found that the most difficult rule was adjective (modifying a noun). Then, from the interview, most of the students emphasized that a success of English learning was strongly influenced by the language policy in that country. Hence, this responsibility should not be burdened only to the students but also school administrators, teachers and parents.
22
level of analyzed knowledge; however they showed a higher level of metalinguistic knowledge.
The current study contributed to a new research which filled the gaps of
previous studies. The most basic difference between the previous studies and this
study was the application of the recent theories of terminology (i.e. Berry, 2008;
2010) which have not used before. It did not only discuss the dichotomy of terms
but also the consequences of using those terms. These consequences closely
related to learners‟ cognitions and difficulty. Therefore, this study focused on
inquiring three particular topics: metalanguage, explicit knowledge, and grammar
23 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This chapter consists of six sub-chapters: A. Design, B. Setting of the Study, C. Sources and Data, D. Data Collection Technique, E. Ethics, F. Credibility, G. Data Analysis Technique, H. Procedure of the Study.
A. Design
This study aimed to explore the features of students‟ language awareness. To attain this aim, this study applied qualitative approach within post-positivist paradigm to inquire the use and the cause of phenomenon from multiple perspectives (Creswell, 2007, p. 20). A qualitative approach was selected because it allows the researcher to describe a phenomenon in details and depth which was involved interpretation from real-world context. Since it was the under post-positivist paradigm, this approach adapted a series of logically related stages based on theories. Moreover, Creswell (p. 39) stated that the characteristic of qualitative study is emergent design which may be revised or redesign based on needs; therefore the qualitative study may go back and forth during the collecting-designing-analyzing processes.
24 B. Setting
The setting contained descriptions of the location and the time. Some considerations in selecting this setting were also mentioned in these descriptions.
1. Location
This study was conducted at Advanced Grammar Class, TEFL Graduate Program of Sebelas Maret University (UNS) which was located in Central Java region. There were two considerations why the researcher selected this location. First, based on some literature reviews (Andrews, 1999b, 2007; R. Ellis, 2004, 2005), grammar was the ideal course which had the significant relationship with the notion of language awareness. Second, the researcher‟s experience, this class was quite interesting since it encouraged the students to demonstrate their language awareness through the use of metalanguage in the learning process and the mid- and final exam. According to these reasons, Advanced Grammar Class was the ideal context for the purpose of this study.
2. Time
25
Table 2 The Schedule of the Study
2016 2017 2018
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Dec Mar May
1 Pre-observ.
2 Planning &
Designing
3 Collecting
4 Analyzing
5 Reporting
In fact, the study took longer times than the researcher‟s schedule because there were some misanalysis and misinterpretation during the process of analyzing the data. The final analysis was done in December 2017. Furthermore, the analysis was reported and revised until March 2018. Last, the study was examined by the Board of Examiners in May 2018.
C. Sources and Data
There were three sources in this study: participants, document, and event.
1. Participants
26
numbers; Student 01 until Student 17. Meanwhile, the Lecturer of Advanced Grammar Class was mentioned as „the lecturer‟ without given any number since there was only one lecturer.
2. Document
In this study, the document referred to the results of the students‟ Advanced Grammar Exam. This exam entitled TOEFL model examination contains 40 questions which are divided into section A and B. In section A, the students should answer 15 questions of multiple choices which take form of incomplete sentence. Section B contains 25 questions where the students should identify unaccepted word or phrase in a sentence and mention the grammatical rules or errors (e.g. parallel structure, subject-verb agreement) for each sentence. This exam should be finished in 90 minutes. For the purpose of this study, the researcher only used Section B as the data because it contained the students‟ metalanguage. In total, there were 17 exam papers which were collected from 17 students.
3. Event
The event referred to the learning process of Advanced Grammar Class. This process was conducted 100 minutes/ meeting/ week. In total, there were 16 meetings of Advanced Grammar Class in one semester. It divided into 14 meetings for the learning process and 2 meetings for the mid- and final-term exams.
D. Data Collection Technique
To collect the data, the researcher used three techniques: interviews, questionnaire, and observation.
1. Interviews
27
perception and experiences in grammar learning including the exam, the metalanguage, and the terminology. All interview sessions were conducted in Bahasa Indonesia to avoid misunderstanding; especially which were related to the real meaning or essence of the answers. To gain the more comprehensive perspective, the researcher also conducted two interviews (un- and semi-structured) with the lecturer. The researcher estimated 15-30 minutes for each interview session and it was conducted individually and in a group; it depended on the participants‟ agreement. The time and place to conduct the interview, also, were decided based on their agreement. Similar to the observation, the interview sessions were recorded by using the voice recorder (the researcher‟s smartphone). Unfortunately, due to their personal reasons, there were only 8 students who wanted to join in the interview session. Together with the lecturer of this class, totally, there were 9 interviewees (4 females and 5 males).
2. Questionnaire
28
only help the students but also the researcher to collect this questionnaire and keep the privacy of their profiles & answers. The results of the questionnaire were combined with the interview and the observation to enhance the credibility of the study.
3. Observation
Ary, et al (2010, p. 433) mentioned that the researcher may interact with participants to establish cooperation during an observation. Firstly, the researcher introduced himself as a researcher who recorded the students‟ activities in their Advanced Grammar Class. Then, the recruitment process was conducted through spreading letter of agreement to explain the terms and conditions of being the participants of the study. Each of the point in terms and conditions could be replaced or omitted according to an agreement. In total, the researcher conducted the observation for three meetings and all of these observations were recorded by using video recorder (i.e. the researcher‟s smartphone).
Table 3 Data Collecting Mapping
Objectives of the Study Subunits of Analysis
Sources of Data
Data Collection Technique 1 Identifying the categories
of metalanguage
metalanguage document questionnaire
2 Describing the students‟ accuracy
analyzed and metalinguistic knowledge
document questionnaire
3 Explaining the grammar difficulty grammar difficulty participants, event observations, interviews
E. Ethics
29
researcher informed the purposes and the benefits of being the participants of this study. In addition, to keep their privacy, all names which were substituted by some initial numbers. Third, the reciprocity, the researcher prepared rewards for the students and the lecturer to appreciate their kindness in devoting their time, effort, and cooperation towards this study.
F. Credibility
Validating data in a qualitative study cannot be taken for granted because it is relative; relies on the context of the study (Ary, et al., 2010, p. 498). As the replacement, mostly, the qualitative studies use the term „credibility‟ which concern the trustfulness of the findings. To enhance the credibility, this study applied triangulating and member checking.
1. Triangulation
Creswell (2012, p. 259) defines triangulation as the process of verifying evidence from different individuals, types of data, and techniques of data collection in qualitative study. In this study, the researcher applied kinds of techniques (interviews, questionnaire, and observations) and sources (participants, documents, and event) to collect data. Additionally, it also supported by triangulating theories to understand the case from different perspectives (Ary, et al., 2010, p. 500). Precisely, the case of language awareness was analyzed by three different theories such as explicit knowledge, subjective difficulty, and metalanguage (see Chapter II).
2. Member Check
30
G. Data Analysis Technique
Creswell (2007, p. 38) believed that qualitative study applies inductive data analysis which means that the researcher needs to develop tables, categories, and/or themes based on the evidences. Generally, Ary, et al. (2010, pp. 481-491) simplify the inductive analysis of Creswell (2007, pp. 150-154) become three stages: organizing & familiarizing, coding & reducing, and interpreting & representing.
1. Organizing and Familiarizing
This stage began with organizing various data (audio, video, and document) from the sources into one folder (Creswell, 2007, p. 150). For audio and video data, the researcher converted or transcribed it into transcription to capture all words or events. Commonly, the transcribing process took a great deal of time because it should be conducted carefully to ensure the accuracy of transcriptions. When all transcriptions and documents were completed, the researcher continued to read the raw data for several times to familiarize and comprehend the meaning in each description which was mentioned by the students. Meanwhile, notes or memos were also given during these processes.
2. Coding and Reducing
31
Table 4 The Categories of Metalanguage
Category of metalanguage Type of terminology Frequency %
1 Technical
Opaque
Transparent
Iconic
2 Non-technical
Sum
Second, the table of metalingual comment was used to answer question number 2. This table was adapted from Hu (2002, p. 361) and R. Ellis (2004, p. 246). This table was used to identify the students‟ accurate and inaccurate answers. Furthermore, each accurate and inaccurate answer was classified based on the level of its accuracy. The frequencies in each level were multiplied with the scores by the aim to figure out the approximate scale of their accuracy in general.
Table 5 The Accuracy of Metalingual Answers
Answer Levels of Rules‟ Accuracy Frequency Score
1 Accurate Accurate and complete 5 point
Fairly-accurate 4 point
Partly-accurate 3 point
2 Inaccurate Inaccurate with technical
metalanguage
2 point
Inaccurate without technical
metalanguage
1 point
Inaccurate analysis 0 point
Sum
32
in generating or developing themes inductively in a qualitative study as far as it related to data. Last, other irrelevant data were eliminated on order to avoid bias in interpreting.
Table 6 The Themes of Grammar Difficulty Difficulty Source of problem
1 Objective Form
Meaning
Form-meaning
2 Subjective (e.g. experience)
3. Interpreting and Representing
Interpreting qualitative study involves the researcher‟s background, knowledge, perspective, and experiences during collecting data (Ary, et al., 2010, p. 490). The process of interpreting & representing was divided into two phases; writing and interpreting findings. First, the writing of findings was organized based on the research questions and it was supported by several components (e.g. figures, tables, quotes) which represented evidence from the sources. The tables which contained explanations in details were converted into simpler forms without changing its results. As mentioned in the credibility, the participants conducted member checking towards these findings to confirm the accuracy and the appropriateness. Second, in interpreting the findings, the researcher compared it with previous relevant studies. Its similarities and differences were correlated with various theories in this study.
H. Procedure
33
setting and case in general, formulating research questions, preparing to conduct pre-observation and gaining approval from the institution and supervisors. Second, the designing stage began with reviewing related literature and previous studies to select the appropriate approach. Third, in the collecting stage, the researcher conducted pre-observation to verify the current circumstances and record the learning process in the setting. Fourth, the integrating stage aimed to specify & limit the case, and units of analysis; including reformulating research questions. Thus, the researcher collected more data by collecting documents, spreading questionnaire and interviewing the participants. Fifth, the analyzing stage consisted of organizing & familiarizing, coding & reducing, and interpreting & presenting. Sixth, in the present stage, the researcher reported this study and its findings to the Board of Examiners.
Figure 7 The Procedure of the Study Plan
Design
Collect
Present Analyze
72 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter consists of three sub-chapters, namely A. Conclusions, B. Implications, and C. Suggestions. The conclusions are drawn based on the findings and the discussions. Meanwhile, the implications contain the significances for educational fields. Last, the suggestions describe some limitations and recommendations for further studies.
A. Conclusions
Clearly, based on the findings, it revealed that the TEFL graduate students frequently used technical metalanguage rather than non-technical metalanguage because technical metalanguage was more precise and theoretically valid as the answers in Advanced Grammar Exam. In a closer look, their technical metalanguage had three types namely opaque, transparent, and iconic terminologies. Of these three types, opaque terms were the most used by them since most of the grammar terminologies were opaque. Although empirically the students were able to use massive metalanguage terms, they did not realize that each type of term entailed different levels of difficulty.
73
The other finding was that the TEFL graduate students‟ confronted the objective and the subjective grammar difficulties. Some notable sources of their difficulties were the complexity of grammar rules, the pressures of the exam, the familiarity toward the exam, the materials of the exam, and the change of teaching approaches. Although these sources were interlinked each other, in this exam, it seemed that the students many confronted by their subjective difficulties. More importantly, all difficulties should not be viewed as a guilty matter because these were one of the evidence while they were demonstrating their explicit knowledge. In brief, it concluded that the frequent use of technical metalanguage in Advanced Grammar Exam did not guarantee that the TEFL graduate students had already gained a comprehensive explicit knowledge which was freed from the grammar difficulty. Operating explicit knowledge and confronting the grammar difficulty are two sides of a coin which cannot be separated.
B. Implications
The current study elaborates some notable implications for Advanced Grammar Class and other grammar classes (beginner, intermediate) which share similar contexts, especially in Indonesia. The following implications cover the content validity of the test, the importance of analyzed knowledge, the cognitive burden in producing metalanguage, and the different operation of explicit knowledge.
74
avoid the similar disadvantage, the lecturer should teach all materials which are possibly tested in Advanced Grammar Exam.
Secondly, it is important to understand that explicit knowledge emphasizes on analyzing rather than labeling. Initially, the lecturer assumed that the graduate students had already gained a sophisticated ability in analyzing ungrammatical sentences. Based on this assumption, the lecturer aimed to develop the students‟ ability in labeling the error parts of the ungrammatical sentence with metalanguage. However, in fact, the current findings found that the students‟ analyses were different from the lecturer‟s assumption. Developing analyzed knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge simultaneously seems quite difficult for the students. Since the class ended, thus, the students may learn independently or in a pair to improve their analyze knowledge.
Thirdly, producing of any metalanguage is the burden for the lecturer‟s and the students‟ cognitions whether they realize it or not. Perhaps, the major difference in its production located on their fluency and experiences. The lecturer was more fluently because he used to produce metalanguage in his daily teaching. Moreover, he had experienced teaching grammar for decades. In contrast, the students were less fluently because they were only experienced in learning grammar for a few years. During those years, they might rarely use it or even avoid it. According to these circumstances, the lecturer‟s cognitive burden seems lighter than the students‟ burden in producing metalanguage. His fluency gained gradually simultaneously with his experiences. Therefore, it is important for the lecturer to encourage the students to use metalanguage frequently in their daily learning. By gaining more experiences, there is a possibility that the students‟ cognitive burden decrease gradually.
75
knowledge starts to operate differently to adjust the tests‟ types. In Advanced Grammar Exam, the learners‟ analyzed knowledge operated to identify the error part based on the multiple choices. Meanwhile, in Timed GJT, the learners‟ analyzed knowledge operated to identify the error part without any hints. According to these cases, it seems that Advanced Grammar Exam is easier than Timed GJT. Next, the third process is to substitute the error part with the correct form. This process only can be found in Timed GJT but not in Advanced Grammar Exam. For once more, this case also makes Advanced Grammar easier to be completed. Last, the fourth process is to reflect the rule which had been broken based on the error. In this stage, both tests demand the learners‟ metalinguistic knowledge to label the error through the use of metalanguage. By understanding how analyzed knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge operate in these processes, teachers and the learners may choose the preferable test of explicit knowledge which is suitable to their needs.
In sum, these implications above may give another new perspective which benefits for leaners, teachers, and other scholars. Examining and reconstructing learners‟ explicit knowledge requires many considerations. More importantly, there is nothing such one-size-fits-all in learning, examining, and teaching English. Therefore, any decision should be wisely selected based on its contexts.
C. Suggestions
Such any other studies, the current study has limitations. In order to fill the limitation, the researcher provides some suggestions for the lecturer and future researchers.
1. The Lecturer
76
knowledge and their metalinguistic knowledge. Moreover, some of these students admitted that they rarely used grammatical terminology in high school and bachelor degrees. Therefore, to develop their analyzed knowledge, the researcher suggests the lecturer to provide more comprehensive exercises for the students.
The finding of the students‟ accuracy did not consider as a precise result of explicit knowledge. The researcher prefers to address this finding as for „the scale‟ of explicit knowledge. As R. Ellis (2004, p. 267) argued, to provide a valid and comprehensive result, the measurement of explicit knowledge needs more than one instrument. Thus, in the next semester of Advanced Grammar Class, the researcher suggests the lecturer to provide two or more tests.
2. Future Researchers
The current study focused on a single case of explicit knowledge at Advanced Grammar Class in TEFL Graduate Program, Sebelas Maret University. It is quite possible that there are other grammar classes which share the similar contexts related to this study. In many Indonesian universities, the use of TOEFL structure and written expression as a grammar exam is quite common at TEFL bachelor degree. Considering this gap, the researcher recommends for future researchers to investigate multiple cases of explicit knowledge in some grammar classes. For instance, Investigating Explicit Knowledge of TEFL Graduate Students in Surakarta Region: The Multiple Cases Study of Grammar Classes.
This study only did the exploration in the participants‟ explicit knowledge without considering their implicit knowledge. As noted, implicit knowledge is the other important element which constructs the participants‟ cognitions. The researcher recommends future researchers to conduct the quantitative studies which investigate not only explicit knowledge but also implicit knowledge as well. Hopefully, those studies may broaden the field of grammar studies in Indonesia.
77
78 REFERENCES
ALA. (2016). Association for Language Awareness Retrieved June, 2016, from
http://www.languageawareness.org/
Alderson, J. C., & Wall, D. (1993). Does Washback Exist? Applied Linguistic, 14(2), 115--129.
Alipour, S. (2014). Metalinguistic and Linguistic Knowledge in Foreign Language Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 4(12), 2640-2645. Anderson, J. R. (2015). Cognitive Psychology and Its Implication (8th ed.). New
York: Worth Publishers.
Andrews, S. (1999a). 'All These Like Little Name Things': A Comparative Study of Language Teachers' Explicit Knowledge of Grammar and Grammatical Terminology. Language Awareness, 8(3), 143-159.
Andrews, S. (1999b). Why Do L2 Teachers Need to 'Know About Language'? Teacher Metalinguistic Awareness and Inpur for Learning. Language and Education, 13(3).
Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (Vol. 8). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2002). Metalanguage in Focus on Form in the Communicative Classroom. Language Awareness, 11(1), 1-13. Berry, R. (2004). Awareness of Metalanguage. Language Awareness, 13(1), 1-16. Berry, R. (2008). Talking Terms: Choosing and Using Terminology for EFL
classroom. English Language Teaching, 1(1), 19-24.
Berry, R. (2010). Terminology in English Language Teaching: nature and use (Vol. 93). Bern: Peter Lang.
Berry, R. (2014). Investigating Language Awareness: The Role of Terminology. In L. A. & K. Szccesniak (Eds.), Awareness in Action, Second Language Learning and Teaching (pp. 21-33). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
79
Boyne, M. R. (1998). Metalinguistic Behaviour and Its Role in Developing Language Awareness in Second Language Learning. Master of Arts, University of Toronto, Toronto.
Carter, R. (2003). Language awareness. ELT Journal, 57(1), 64-65.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approach (Second ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Fourth ed.). Boston: Pearson.
DeCapua, A. (2008). Grammar for Teachers: A Guide to American English for Native and Non-Native Speakers. New York: Springer.
DeKeyser, R. (2003). Implicit and Explicit Learning. In C. J. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 313-348). Oxford: Blackwell.
DeKeyser, R. (2005). What Makes Learning Second Language Grammar Difficult? A Review of Issues. Language Learning, 55, 1-25.
