Use of Indonesian Language in Bilingual Science Classes
at SMA RSBI in Central Java
Radita Linggar Safitri
Abstract
This study examined the use of L1 in Bilingual Science classes at SMA RSBI in Central Java. The participants in this study were science Teachers in SMA RSBI in Central Java. This research used observation technique to collect the data. Observations were done by recording teaching learning processes that were used in class. This study was descriptive research. For data analysis, the data were analyzed to identify the purposes of teacher talk based on Moskovitz (1971) classification. The findings show that the main aims from teachers’ direct and indirect talks were to make students understand about the explanation and help the students to think critically. Teachers’ talks also played important roles in stimulating interaction between the teachers and students.
Key words
: Bilingual class, Teachers talk, L1 use.
Introduction
Nowadays, the use of L1 in bilingual classes becomes a controversial issue. The
controversy concerns not so much the value of using the Target Language (TL) since, as
‘there is near consensus that the teachers should aim to make maximum use of the TL’
(Turnbull & Arnett, 2002:211), Atkinson (1993), Cook (2001), Nation (2001) and Turnbull
(2001) all agree that the maximum use of the target language is necessary to serve as a good
model and exposure for the students who have a little opportunity to listen and make use of
the language.
In Indonesia, some educational institutions still prefer to adopt the monolingual
approach. This is likely motivated by the government in positive attitude towards the
globalization era in which English plays in important role in the science and technology,
Manara (2007). The policy, therefore, may have influenced and shaped teachers’ and
students’ attitudes towards the use of English for the whole lesson in class.
Although the monolingual approach is still preserved by some institutions in
Indonesia, teachers and students have their own individual beliefs and attitudes towards how
the language of communication should be used in the classroom which, as Johnson (1995)
points out, is a vital aspect that mediates teaching, learning, and second language acquisition.
The emphasis on monolingual teaching of English also implies that the native speaker is the
ideal teacher. Atkinson (1993) also cautions the danger of the overuse of the mother tongue
in the classroom. He said that the mother tongue should be used to make meaningful
communication and should also be used as a technique to encourage the learners to be able to
find a way of expressing their meaning in the target language (TL).
Cianflone (2009), in his experiment, shows that the teacher prefers to use L1 in
explaining grammar, vocabulary items, difficult concepts and for general comprehension. He
agrees to avoid the use of mother tongue in testing but seems better disposes to its use in
building a relaxed environment and for contrastive analysis in linguistic/cultural matters. The
aim is to make students become proficient language users
According to Dharma (2007), the use of L1 in bilingual classes is done several steps.
In the first year, use language of instruction in English 25 percent and 75 percent of the
Indonesian language. In second grade, English use in 50 percent and 50 percent for
Indonesian language. In the third grade will be use 75 percent of English and 25 percent of
Indonesian. However, it is still unclear how much mother tongue can be used or allowed in
the bilingual class so as to draw the line between the use and overuse of the mother tongue.
Some studies have been done on the use of L1 in Indonesia schools. For example;
Setiawan, (2010) analyzed English communication skills of RSBI teachers in SMPN 1
study by Nugroho (2010), showed that the teachers used Indonesian language in EFL class in
70% of the class time. A study by Yulianti (2007) discussed the use of Indonesian in the
English classrooms. She found two general purposes of the teachers using Indonesian
language in English class to help the students understand materials and to manage the
classroom.
Based on the discussion above there has been a movement promoting the use of
mother tongue (L1) in the language classroom. There are several justifications for its use.
Firstly, the mother tongue is a resource for the learners to draw their existing knowledge from
and perceive the new language. L2 learners refer to their knowledge of L1 in order to help
them to learn the L2. Their L1 is the resource in understanding the target language. Auerbach
(1993, p. 7) asserts that students’ L2, linguistic resources can be beneficial for learners at all
levels of proficiency. So, we can say that the mother tongue is useful in the procedural stages
of classes, for example: setting up pair and group work, sorting out an activity which is
clearly not working and checking comprehension.
Secondly, L1 use is a preferred learning strategy. Atkinson (1987, p. 42) states that
the mother tongue used in the form of translation technique is a preferred learning strategy
for most learners. This idea has been expressed earlier by Danchev (1982), who states that
“translation is a natural phenomenon and an inevitable part of second language acquisition
even where no formal classroom learning occurs”. However, L1 is particularly effective at
beginner level to check the instructions and to ensure that concepts have been correctly
understandable for general classroom management.
Thirdly, L1 use reduces the affective barriers to L2 acquisition. According to Manara
(2007) some researcher said that the use of L1 lowers students’ language anxiety and
enhances positive affective environment for the students to make a progress in their L2
language to be used as a meaning-making tool and for language learning becoming a means
of communicating ideas rather than an end in itself” (Auerbach, 1993, pp. 10-11). In other
words, using a mother tongue is an efficient way of arriving at meanings.
Furthermore, L1 can be used as a tool for thought. Quoted in Manara (2007),
Vygotsky (1986) asserts that “L1 would quite naturally serve as a tool to help students
thinking about and making sense of (i.e., mediate their thinking about) the structures, content
and meaning of the L2 texts they read”, Upton and Lee-Thompson’s (2001, p. 491) argue that
the use of L1 to mediate L2 reading comprehension is not only for reading strategy
(translation) but also a tool for creating a cognitive space in which the readers can facilitate
their own understanding of the text. Therefore, to ban the use of L1 in the classrooms
removes two important and powerful tools for learning, i.e. the L1 as a tool to mediate the
learners’ thinking about a subject and effective collaboration among the learners. Particularly,
the biggest potential advantage of having a knowledge of the learner’s mother tongue is that
it enables the teacher to contrast the language with English and to know which structures are
difficult and, possibly even more importantly, which structures are easy and need little more
attention. Therefore, teachers with knowledge of the mother tongue are in a good situation to
know potential problems in students learning.
The use of L1 in learning foreign language is influenced by some factors. There are
three factors that are important in learning process: the learner, the teacher and the
environment where the learning process take place (Ellis, 1987). The level of successful
learning process is determined by judging the learners’ performance in performing TL.
Motivation from the learners is another influence that supports learners to learn TL.
According to Krashen (2005), the learners who are highly motivated in learning English are
supposed to be better prepared and be successful in the new language learning. Another
difficulties in comprehending the new language. It’s clear enough that students’ motivation
has a role in learning. Students who have low motivation usually do not take the risk. They
prefer using L1 to taking any risk by using L2 that they are not sure about.
The second aspect that influences students’ use of L1 is the language teacher. English
teachers in Indonesian public schools are non-English speakers and they prefer L1 in
classroom to L2 in order to avoid the risk, because they feel comfortable using their mother
tongue. They are not confident enough to teach using English. Moreover, they use L1 to
reduce the mistakes in teaching.
In bilingual classes, teacher talk is so important that affects students’ understanding
and language skill development. The classroom is the main place where they frequently
practice the target language. The language type used to teach in the classroom is called
Teacher Talk.
Teacher talk in bilingual classrooms can be regarded as one special variety of the
English language use. It has its own specific features which other varieties do not share.
What is more, teacher talk is a special communicative activity. Its goal is communicating
with students and developing students’ language proficiency. As a result, learners practice the
language by responding to what their teacher says. Besides, teachers use the language in
order to encourage the communication between learners and themselves. Therefore we can
say that teacher talk is a kind of communication or interaction that is based on talking.
According to Parrish (2004) teacher language or “teacher talk” falls into these categories:
Warm-up chats, Direct Instruction, Giving Directions, Giving Feedback, Making Transitions
and checking understanding. According to Moskowitz (1971) as it is applied in bilingual
classroom, teacher talk is divided into two categories: direct and indirect teacher talk. Those
Figure 1 : Foreign Language Interaction Analysis (FLINT) System
1. Dealing with feeling: in a nonthreatening way, accepting, discussing, referring to, or
communicating understanding of past, present, or future feelings of students.
2. Praises or encourages: Praising, complimenting, telling students that what they
have said or done is valued. Encouraging students to continue, trying to give them confidence, confirming answer are correct.
2a. Jokes: Intentional joking, kidding, making puns, attempting to be humorous,
providing the joking is not at anyone’s expense. Unintentional humor is not included in this category.
3. Use ideas of students: Clarifying, using, interpreting, and summarizing the ideas of
students. The ideas must be rephrased by the teacher but still recognized as being
5. Giving information: Giving information, facts, own opinions or ideas, lecturing or
asking rhetorical questions
5a. Correcting without rejection: Telling students who have made a mistake the
correct response without using words or intonations, which communicating criticism.
6. Gives directions: Giving directions, request, or command which students are
expected to follow; directing various drills, facilitating whole-class and small-group activity.
7. Criticizes students’ behavior: Rejecting the behavior of students; trying to change
the non-acceptable behavior; communicating anger, displeasure, annoyance, dissatisfaction with what students are doing.
7a. Criticizing student’s responses: Telling the students about their response that is
not correct or acceptable and communicating by words or intonation criticism, displeasure, annoyance, rejection by word or intonation.
8. St udent response, specific: responding t o t he t eacher w it hin a specific and limit ed range of available or previously pract iced answ er. Reading a loud, dict at ion, drills.
9. St udent response open-ended or students-initiated: Responding t o t he t eacher equipm ent , e.g. a t ape recorder, filmst rip pr oject or, record player, et c., is being use t o com municat e.
11. Confusion, w ork-oriented: M or e t han one person at a t ime t alking, so t he int eract ion cannot be recorded, St udent s calling out excit edly, eager t o part icipat e or respond, concern w it h t he t ask at hand.
11a. Confusion, work-oriented: M ore t han one person at a t ime t alking, so t he int eract ion cannot be recor ded. St udent s out of order, not behaving as t he t eacher w ishes, not concer ned w it h t he t ask at hand.
12. Laught er: Laughing and giggling by t he class, individual, and/ or t he t eacher .
This study identified the purpose of using Indonesian in bilingual science classes by
the teachers. Hopefully, this research would bring benefits for English Department teachers
and students. The practical benefits of this study would be for Science teachers’ who could
identify language problems in bilingual classes. They could find ways to improve their
teaching. They also could learn deeper about using English while teaching, so the students
can adapt to minimize using Indonesian during teaching learning process. Then, the
theoretical benefit from this study is for other researchers who would use the result of this
research as a model in conducting other research and provide useful information on the same
topic.
The Study
This study was a descriptive research. It described the use of L1 in bilingual science
classes. This study analyzed the use of L1 in bilingual classes by the teachers in SMA RSBI
at central java. The participants of this research were Science Teachers at SMA RSBI in
Central Java. They have been teaching in for around 10 years. They started teaching Science
in bilingual classes from around 2007.
The data were collected by using a tape recorder during the classroom observation.
The teachers’ language was recorded during teaching.
The data were first transcribed and labeled based on direct and indirect strategies
using Moskovitz (1971) classification. The second step was classifying the coded data in the
transcript according to the similar strategies of teachers talk. The next step was analyzing and
Discussion
This part presents the analysis of the purpose of the use of Indonesian language by the
teachers in bilingual science classes. First, it explains the teachers’ purposes for using L1 in
bilingual science classes through direct teacher talk. Then, continues by explaining the
teachers’ purposes in using L1 through indirect teacher talk.
Direct teachers talk
1. Giving information
Giving information refers to teachers’ explanation of the material. Giving
information by the teachers according to Moskovitz (1971) includes giving
information, facts, opinions or ideas, lecturing or asking rhetorical questions. In this
study the teacher tried to explain the lesson using information and facts about how to
study or do an assignment. It aimed to make students understand the explanation and
also teachers tried to explain the lesson using their own opinions to improve their
ideas. Not only lecturing, the teachers also gave the students some rhetorical
questions. The rhetorical questions aimed to guide the students when the teachers
explained the exercise. This can be seen in the 3 excerpts below. Excerpt 1 discusses
about giving information which uses facts that are related to the materials.
1. T : Jadi untuk besarnya gaya columb or a electric force secara qualitative kita bisa melihat, if double 1 of the chart, jadi kalau muatan itu kita dua kalikan, maka akan menghasilkan gaya dua kalinya….
In this excerpt, the teacher used Indonesian language to explain that Columbs
energy (Physics terms) can make double energy. According to Mozkowitz (1971), the
statements belongs giving information, fact, opinion or idea, lecturing or asking a
rhetorical question. The first example above shows that the teacher gave factual
the students. This aimed to make the students believe the explanation by the teacher
and students could understand the material. It is shown by the teacher by saying
“secara qualitative…” (Physics formula) in the excerpt above.
Another example showing the teacher’s explanation is presented in excerpt 2 below:
2. T :….jika q+ (q positive) mengganti eee…salah satu muatan. Jenisnya, salah satu jenis muatan. So, the force changes direction. Maka pasti arah gayanya akan berubah. Kemudian if change side of both chart jika kita mengganti kedua jenis muatan yang diganti jenisnya maka, e…. gayanya akan tetap sama, ya…
The example above shows the Physics terms about the force changing
direction. So the position of the force would also change. The teacher pointed out to
the students about “q+ influence toward the force” (q+ (q positive) mengganti salah
satu muatan.). The teacher used Indonesian language to explain the force in Physics
class. The teacher tried to explain the Physics term in Indonesian language to the
students in order to make them understand the topic.
Another form of giving information can be seen in excerpt 3 below.
3. T : Jadi 60% nya dari 0,2, 0,berapa, inikan 6 10 x 2 10 ya to? 12 100,
masuk berumus lajunya… rumusnya tadi apa? K…a…b ber-orde 2… gitu to? Nah laju ini kan tadi kata-kata itu ternyata a telah bereaksi sebanyak 60% telah bereaksi. Berarti bukan saat bereakasi tapi setelah bereaksi 60% berarti pada saat sisa laju reaksinya berapa? Jadi kita masukkan kesini harga tetapan 0,01 konsentrasi anak ini yang masuk, 0(nol)? e… ini kali ya 0,08 lalu 0,12 kuadrat
The explanation above has a lot of rhetorical questions used by the teacher, for
example; “reactanya mana? a sama b to?”. It shows that the teacher wanted to make
the students participate while doing the exercise. Although all questions didn’t have to
be answered by the students, the teacher continued explaining. The teachers’ purpose
was involving the students in teaching learning process.
The excerpts above are different in the way the teacher used explanation:
using information related to materials, giving some explanation to make students
understand, giving some rhetorical questions to make students involved in the class.
2. Correcting without rejection
According to Moskovitz’s (1971) statement, correcting without rejection is
telling students who have made a mistake the correct response without using words or
intonations when communicating criticism. Based on his statement, he said that if the
students made mistakes, it was easier for the teacher to identify their mistakes when
the teacher articulated their first language in explaining. The teacher’s goal was to
make learners understand the teacher’s’ points. Sometimes the students
misunderstood the teacher’s explanation. As a result, the teacher should correct the
student’s answer. This way was done by using Indonesian to make the students aware
T : kalau dalam fisika ini yang kita melihat kelebihannya itu apa, nah kalau kelebihan electron berarti kita katakanlah dia bermuatan negative, ya?
S : Na+
T :e… bukan-bukan… kalau mungkin di kimia Na+ Positif itu pasti ya. Tapi ini kita hanya mau lihat jumlah proton jadi ketika saya menyebutkan bahwa dia bermuatan itu berarti dia sebenarnya kelebihan kelebihan salah satu jenis muatan gitu tu artinya fisika.
Based on the data above the teacher tried to explain about an electron that has
Na- but the students’ answered with Na+. Teacher said “bukan…bukan…” which
aimed to correct the students’ mistake. The data above shows that the teacher
explained the students’ mistake without making a rejection. The teacher said “kalau
mungkin di kimia Na+ Positif itu pasti ya. Tapi ini kita hanya mau lihat jumlah
proton jadi ketika saya menyebutkan bahwa dia bermuatan itu berarti dia
sebenarnya kelebihan kelebihan salah satu jenis muatan gitu tu artinya fisika.” It is
indicated that the explanation is not a rejection sentence because that sentence are
explanation to correct the students’ mistake.
3. Giving direction
In giving direction, the teacher gave routine classroom directions or directions
for students to be understood. Giving direction, according to Moskovitz (1971),
covers things like a request or command which students are expected to follow;
directing various drills and facilitating whole-class and small-group activities. In the
excerpt below, the teacher explains the direction step by step. Excerpt 1 below is
1. T : Jadi setelah anda eeeeeeh… menumbuk tadi, silahkan anda eeeeeeh… perhatikan disitu akan terjadi pelepasan isinya jadi ada cairannya begitu eeeeeeh… kemudian nanti kamu tuangkan 2cc larutan berocsida dalam gelas, dalam apa… tabung reaksi itu.
The illustration above shows that the teacher gave directions to the students
using Indonesian in order to make it clear what the students had to do. The teacher
told the students to follow the direction, “Jadi setelah anda eeeeeeh… menumbuk
tadi”. After that, the teacher continued the direction by saying, “silahkan anda
eeeeeeh… perhatikan disitu akan terjadi pelepasan isinya jadi ada cairannya begitu
eeeeeeh…”. Then the teacher continued giving direction by asking the students to do
something by saying, “kemudian nanti kamu tuangkan 2cc larutan berocsida dalam
gelas, dalam apa… tabung reaksi itu”. After that, the teachers asked the students to
do the second steps, like excerpt 2 below.
2. T : Di perhatikan ya, jadi kalian teteskan hati-hati kemudian ditutup ya, ditutup kemudian diuji pake lidi membara, ya…silahkan di…..ya! two drops or three. notice the glow, dimasukkan …ia…test true, oke. Oke The example above shows the direction to continue the first direction above
that the teacher gave. The teacher said, “Di perhatikan ya, jadi kalian teteskan
hati-hati kemudian ditutup ya, ditutup kemudian diuji pake lidi membara, ya”. It shows
that after the teacher had done the first direction, it was continued in excerpt 2 to give
another direction. The teacher gave the instruction in Indonesian language as a goal to
make the direction clearer and helped the students to successfully comprehend the
After giving some directions, the teacher also gave some commands. Giving
command is a part of giving direction. Giving a command is asking to the students to
do something in class. The teacher asks the students do the exercises in group. It is
shown in the third excerpt below.
T : Yuk candra…bergabung…bergabung disini….gabung dengan yang dua itu. Ayo gabung. Iya…sana…yo sek gabung sek. Sekarang gabung sana. Ya…. Oke…sudah ya…oh…sini aja mas ….ya…empat…empat…ya….
S : Ya Bu….
The example above indicates that the teacher’s purpose was to give a
command to the students to make groups of four to discuss the exercise. The teacher
used Indonesian language to ask the students to follow the teachers’ command by
saying, “Yuk candra…bergabung”. Here, the teacher decided to use Indonesian
language to give a guide instruction. This shows that after the teacher used
Indonesian to give a command, the students’ should follow the instructions.
4. Criticizing students’ behavior
Criticizing students’ behavior refers to the students when they do something
wrong in class. According to Moskovits (1971), rejecting the behavior of students is
trying to change the non-acceptable behavior; communicating with anger, displeasure,
annoyance, and dissatisfaction with what students are doing. From the data, criticizing
students’ behavior is shown in the excerpt below:
The excerpt above shows that the teacher was dissatisfied with the test. The
teacher told the students that they were careless when they did the test. It indicates
that the teacher was disappointed with the test results. The teacher asked the students
to be aware of their bad test results. The teacher said, “kalian ceroboh ya ?”. After
teacher used English, he switched to Indonesian to make students’ aware. The purpose
was to make the students fix the test results by studying hard to improve their test
results.
Indirect teacher talk
According to Wragg (2005), on the negative side of Moskovitz’s FLINT System
could be said to have ideological components in that it looks specifically for “Indirect”
teacher talk which it would be easy to associated value terms. It showed that the research
findings point in the direction of indirect teaching being associate with various measures of
effectiveness as the review of this data showed. Indirect teacher talked will be explained in
the discussion below.
1. Using student ideas
Using students’ ideas means the teachers use the students’ perception to
develop the idea. It is followed by an explanation in Indonesian. According to
Moskovitz (1971), using student ideas could be clarified by using the students’
perception or using interpretation from the students to develop new idea. The teacher
can also make the summary by using ideas from students. The idea is rephrased by the
teacher but it is still recognized as the students’ contributions. It means that after the
teacher gave some explanation, the teacher asks question to the students and then
students answer the teacher’s question. After that, teachers use students’ answer as
ideas to explain the correct answer. On some occasion, the teacher articulated and
1. T :…. kalau q + punya dua muatan positive itu kan tolak menolak kalau kita ganti dua-duanya dengan muatan negative maka juga akan
menghasilkan gaya yang arahnya sama itukan kemudian e…. if double
distance between chart jika jarak kita dua kalikan, what happened ? if
double distance between chart ? ya jadi empat kali lebih lemah atau
lebih kecil empat kali?
S : seperempat kalinya nya bu
T : seperempat kalinya iya … itu lebih mudah mem… mengistilahkan
lainya ya…times…. And the last double both chart kita buat muatanya
menjadi dua kali masing – masing. e…. we have force four times
stronger, stronger jadi kita akan mendapatkan gaya empat kali lebih
kuat.
Based on the data, the teacher used the student’s ideas and elaborated on them.
Rephrasing data was shown in words “seperempat kalinya”. When the teacher
rephrased the students’ ideas, he repeated the students’ answer and elaborated on it by
saying “ seperempat kalinya iya … itu lebih mudah mem… mengistilahkan
lainya ya…times…. And the last double both chart kita buat muatanya menjadi
dua kali masing – masing. e…. we have force four times stronger, stronger jadi
kita akan mendapatkan gaya empat kali lebih kuat”. The teacher still recognized
them as the student’s ideas. It shows that the teacher developed the idea to give
explanation for the students’ by using Indonesian to make the material clearer. It is
because too much explanation in Physics terms which is difficult to be explained in
English by the teacher. The purpose is to make students understand with the
2. Praising or encouraging
Praising and encouraging refers to the teacher praises students’ performance,
encourages and reassures students in their efforts. Students should be told what they
do is praiseworthy. According to Moskovitz (1971), praising and complimenting is
telling the students about what they have said or done is valued. Encouraging students
is to make the students to continue the lessons, trying to give them confidence and
confirming their answers are correct.
An example of praising is shown in the excerpt below:
T : Yak oke, we will check your answer from numb one Ardian please read the problems … for us a… your answer.
S : (students answer in Physics terms) T : Yak…ya…bagus sekali!Oke thank you.
Based on the excerpt above, the teacher provided positive encouragement as a
means of praising the students in Indonesian language. The teacher said,
“Yak…ya…bagus sekali!Oke thank you”, after the students answered the question.
The teacher used Indonesian and English because it may be easier to speak using
mixed languages.
3. Joking
According to Moskovitz (1971), joking includes: intentional joking, kidding,
making puns and attempting to be humorous. Joking would probably happen in which
the teachers want to apply the jokes as a way of making students interested in the
topic of instructional plan. The excerpt below shows that joking was used in the class.
The teachers made a joke, and the joke was done in the Indonesian that was mixed
T :… with the gravitational field near earth gravitational forced equal M cross G ya? And not OMG lho ya…a…for electric…
This data shows that the teacher tried to make a joke with the students by
saying “OMG lo ya” which is in English means “Oh My God” but the ending uses
Indonesian by saying “lho ya…”, It was the teacher’s attempt to have a sense of
humor with the students, so the students were not sleepy during learning. When the
teacher said the word “OMG” and ended with “lho ya…”, then, the students laughed.
The purpose was probably to make students refresh their mind for a while before
going back to the lessons.
4. Asking questions
Asking a question refers to the teacher asks a question while drilling, quizzing
or in conversation to the students which he expects a response. According to
Moskovitz (1971), a question should have an answer. In this study, sometimes, the
teacher asked questions using Indonesian or English. The teacher used a different
language in different situations to make students understand. Excerpt 1 below shows
that the teacher asked a question to the students.
1. T : Mungkin kalau dalam kimia anda menyebutnya bermuatan Ion Positif artinya dia kelebihan muatan apa?
The excerpt above is the teacher’s question for the students. The teacher asked
question by saying, ”Ion Positif artinya dia kelebihan muatan apa?” in Indonesian to
make it easier to understand and get the students’ attention from the topic discussed in
the class. As a result, the teacher and students were involved in the teaching learning
process. Then, the students should think critically about the answer to the question
material. The teachers used Indonesian to make students understand the question
above.
Conclusion
According to the research result, teachers’ direct and indirect talk’s categories
influence the teacher to use Indonesian. Teachers’ direct and indirect talks that are used as
data in this research are divided into several types based on FLINT system by Moskovitz
(1971). Based on the data, it can be seen that the teachers in SMA RSBI at Central Java used
Indonesian in direct talk to give information, correct without rejection, give direction, and
criticize students’ behavior. The main aim is to make students understand the explanation. It
is easier for the teachers to identify the students’ mistakes by correcting the students. The
teachers also give directions to the students using Indonesian in order to make it clear what
the students had to do.
Other categories that influence the use of Indonesian by the teachers are indirect
teacher talk. Teachers’ indirect talk’s categories found in this data are used to explain a lesson
by using student ideas, ask questions, joke and praise or encourage. The teachers use
Indonesian in their indirect talks because it may be easier to speak using Indonesian than
English. The point is that the teachers focus on explanation and give some jokes to make the
students refresh their mind for a while before going back to the lessons. Besides that, the
reason why the teachers ask questions using Indonesian is to get the students’ attention on the
topic discussed in the class. As a result, the teachers and students were involved in the
teaching learning process. It also helps the students to think critically.
As a conclusion, it can be said that teachers’ talks played important role in stimulating
interactions between teachers and students for that reason, teachers should try to understand
feel more comfortable and confident and become more involved in interactive activities in the
classroom. Teachers in Indonesia especially, in SMA RSBI at Central Java pointed out that
the use of Indonesian was dependent on the goal of the task. The goal of the task could be
better achieved by the learners by using Indonesian in their discussion to completing the task.
This is because students will absorb the knowledge easier without having a wrong perception
about the teacher’s explanation. It means that the teachers should use Indonesian wisely
because, the maximum use of Indonesian isn’t perceived as a chance to give students
References
Allwright, D. & Bailey, K.M. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Atkinson, D. (1987). The Mother Tongue in the Classroom: A Neglected Resource?. In ELT
Journal, Vol. 41:4, pp. 241-247.
Atkinson, D. (1993). Teaching Monolingual Classes: Using L1 in the Classroom. Harlow:
Longman Group Limited.
Auerbach, E. R. (1993). Re-examining English only in the ESL classroom, TESOL Quarterly,
27(1), 9-32.
Brownlie, S. (2002). La traduction de la terminologie philosophique. Meta 47:3, pp. 295-310.
Cianflone, E. ( 2009). A Survey of Literature on Students and Teachers’ Perspectives. L1 use
in English Courses at University Level, Vol. 8 Issue 1 (22).
Cook, V. (2001a). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd ed.). New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Cook, V. (2001b). Using the first language in the classroom. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 57(3), 402-423.
Danchev, A. 1982. Transfer and translation. Finnlance, 2, pp. 39–61.
Dharma, S. (2007). Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional. Accessed: 19 June 2009: Quo Vadiz?.
Retrieved from Http://www.ask.com
Ellis, R. (1985) Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shangai: Shangai Foreign
Language Education Press.
Ellis, R. (1987). Classroom Second Language Development. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall
International (U.K) Ltd.
Setiawan, H. (2010) English Communication Skills of RSBI Teachers in SMPN 1 Salatiga.
Koleksi Tugas Akhir Digital:Perpustakaan UKSW. Retrive from:
http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2637.
Johnson, K.(1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (2005). Reading experts question efficacy of DIBELS test: Letter to the editor.
Education Week, 25(7) 32.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
Manara, C. (2007 ). The Use of L1 Support. Teachers’ and Students’ Opinions and Practices
in an Indonesian Context, Vol. 4(1), pp. 145-178.
Moskovitz, G. (1971) Interaction Analysis New York Modern Language for Supervisor.
Foreign Language Annals, Vol. 5, pp. 211-212.
Nugroho, A. (2010), A Case Study on Teacher Talkin a Bilingual Class. Koleksi Tugas Akhir
Digital:Perpustakaan UKSW. Retrive from: http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/2648.
Parrish, B. (2004) Teaching Adult ESL A Practical Introduction. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill
Schultz, D. P., & Schultz, S. E.,(2005), Theories of Personality (8th ed.), Personality
Psychology Textbooks. Wesleyan University: Belmont, CA.
Turnbull, M. (2001). There is a role for the L1 in second and foreign language teaching. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, Vol. 54(4), pp. 531-540.
Turnbull,M. & K. Arnett (2002). Teachers’ Uses of the Target and First Languages in Second
and Foreign Language Classrooms. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 22, pp.
204–218.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wargg, E. (2005). The Art and Science of Teaching and Learning:The Selected Works of Ted
Wragg. USA and Canada: Routledge.
Yulianti, R. (2007) The Use of Indonesian in the English Classrooms at SMA 3 Salatiga.
Koleksi Tugas Akhir Digital:Perpustakaan UKSW. Retrive from:
