36
COMPREHENSIBLE INPUT PRODUCTION OF SECOND LANGUAGE
LEARNER THROUGH INFORMAL FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION
Putu Ngurah Rusmawan
afatah72@gmail.com
STKIP PGRI PASURUAN
Abstract: This research aims to describe basic concept of Form-Focused Instruction (FFI) and try to explain further that the use of FFI in producing comprehensible input for second language learner. The interactional process can be obtained from SLL (second language learner) while doing the assignment in narrative reading text. The teacher let them discus the assignment about narrative text reading. The students are going to contribute knowledge, discuss, and give the correction each other. This study uses descriptive qualitative in nature because in this research describes and shows several type of FFI which is used by the students. The researcher tries to use an audio recorder to obtain voices of students’ interaction. To be more specific, the audio recorder tool refers to cell phone recorder. The researcher will analyze the conversation then interpret based on FFI theory The FFI will not be treated by the teacher but the advance students will give the corrective feedback because in discussion the teacher just plays role as facilitator and the teacher may not interrupt and intervene to the students’ discussion. In this research, the students can interact well. Their interaction produces negotiate meaning, recast, and feedback that construct comprehensible input. In this study, the researcher classifies the students’ interaction pattern SLL interaction based on those three components of interaction. The students to interact, share, learn, and contribute knowledge each other. Therefore, it produces comprehensible input from the interaction.
Keyword: FFI, interaction, ZPD, input
FFI (FORM-FOCUSED INSTRUCTION) can be defined as any pedagogical effort which is used to draw the learners' attention to language form either implicitly or explicitly (Spada in brown, 2007). It becomes once aspect of error treatment for second language learner. The FFI features can be spontaneous or planned. It can also produce input for learners who get FFI treatment.
37
between learners, teacher, family and others are the focus of observation and explanation. The various modifications interaction between students and other advance interlocutors is created in order to make their input comprehensible to learners.
Basic Concept of FFI
Social constructivist emphasizes on the functional perspective and the importance
of social interaction. Cooperative learning can construct both cognitive and emotional images of reality. The dynamic interaction naturally of the interplay between learners and their peers and their teachers and others with whom they interact can produce input for the students. The teachers are expected to organize the students in order to form the cooperative group learning therefore the students can often do interaction with another. They will discuss, share, contribute knowledge each other therefore they get a lot of input from their cooperative group. According to Vygotsky's in Brown (2007) zone of proximal development (ZPD) learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction. Every learner can reach their potential development. It is through social interaction with advance interlocutor. Learners cannot do alone but could do with the assistance of more competent peers or adults, in addition Piaget in Brown, (2007) described overall development as the result of children's interaction with their environment, with an interaction between their developing perceptual cognitive capacities and their linguistic experience.
Lightbown and Spada N. (1999:43) argue that modified interaction conversation make input comprehensible. Interaction involves a number of components including negotiation, recasts, and feedback. All of that component can get special attention of learning process
(Adopted from Gass and Selinker, 2008)
38
If advance input is not available, learners do not have the opportunity to obtain validate or non validate confirmation
Recasts are another form of feedback, though they are less direct, more slight than other forms of feedback, and as implicit feedback. A recast is a reformulation of an incorrect utterance that maintains the original meaning of the utterance, where the teacher reformulates the student’s incorrect question (Philp in Tatawy, 2006:7). Long in Tatawy (2006:8) defines recasts as “utterances which rephrase a student’s utterance by changing one or more sentence components (subject, verb, or object) while still referring to its central meanings”. This definition is in accordance with Lyster and Ranta in Tatawy (2006:7) definition, in which a recast is defined as “the teacher’s reformulation of all or part of a student’s utterance minus the error”.
Below are the examples of recast: Recast with opportunity to respond.
Learner: I lost my road.
Teacher: Oh, yeah, I see, you lost your way. And then what happened?
(Brown, 2007) Recast with no opportunity to respond,
Learner : How many sister you have?
Teacher: How many sisters do I have? I have one sister. Learner : Why he want this house?
Teacher : Why does he want this house? (McDonough and Mackey in Gass and Selinker, 2008:338)
Because recasts are an indirect form of correction, there are 4 kinds of recasts according to lyster (a) declarative; (b) interrogative; (c) confirmation of the original utterance; (d) additional information. He argued that recasts may not be particularly useful in terms of corrective feedback, but they allow teachers to move a lesson forward by focusing attention on lesson content rather than on language form.
Feedback has also suggested that feedback obtained through negotiation serves a corrective function. Lightbown and Spada (1999:171-172) define corrective feedback as: Any indication to the learners that their use of the target language is incorrect. This includes various responses that the learners receive. When a language learner says, ‘He go to school everyday’, corrective feedback can be explicit, for example, ‘no, you should say goes, not go’ or implicit ‘yes he goes to school every day’, and may or may not include metalinguistic information, for example, ‘Don’t forget to make the verb agree with the subject’.
39
home from school. She was walking home from school. She got lost.) Lightbown and Spada (1999:43). Below are further example and the definitions:
1. Confirmation checks native speaker attempt to ensure the learner understanding for example:
Learner: I was born in Nagasaki. Do you know Nagasaki? (Gass and Selinker, 2008:319)
2. Clarification is the learner attempt to check or clarify to native about their understanding which gives the learner an opportunity to modify his or her
output
a. Opportunity to modify
Learner: what happen for the boat? Teacher: what?
Learner: what’s wrong with the boat? (Gass and Selinker, 2008:329) Here, there is a request for clarification but no improvement or drawing attention to the problematic part of the utterance.
b. No opportunity to modify Learner: What we do with it?
Teacher: What we do? Uh, let’s see well we could talk about the purpose if you want (Gass and Selinker, 2008:329)
The leaner in the example points to the problem through the response that learner makes the error salient but continues without giving the learner an opportunity to modify her language.
c. No feedback
Learner: where you going the last holiday?
Teacher: to Laos (Gass and Selinker, 2008:329)
Despite the error, teacher ignores student’s error. Teacher’s feedback is not corrective feedback, because it does not serve the correction function teacher’s feedback just simply information. Teacher directly gives response without any correction. It is included implicit feedback.
3. Self repetition or paraphrasing the native repeat his sentence either partially or entirety
Learner : What do you think of Michigan?
Teacher : It’s nice, but I haven’t gotten used to the cold Weather, there yet.
Teacher : Do you like California Learner : Huh?
Teacher : Do you like Los Angeles? Learner : Uhm . . .
40
Learner : Yeah, I like it (Gass and Selinker, 2008:320) In the previous conversation, taking in step wise manner, there is an indication of no understanding (Huh?) which causes learner confuse to give response, as the result being a narrowing down of the topic (California Los Angeles) followed by a final repetition of the original question.
The explicit corrective feedback involves explicit correction, elicitation, and, metalinguistic explaination, below is further definition, and the examples:
explicit correction refers to explicit provision of the correct form Learner: I have a good news yesterday.
Teacher: oh you mean you had a good news yesterday, you should say I had a good news yesterday (Tatawy, 2006:152)
Metalinguistic feedback: Provides "comments, information, or questions related to the well-formedness of the student's utterance" (Lyster in Brown, 2007).
Student: I am here since January,
Teacher: Well, okay, but remember we talked about the present perfect tense?
Elicitation refer to repetition of error
Teacher: “Where does a pet live? Where does it live?” Student: “In a (M) house.”
Teacher:Attention. “In . . .? Careful.”
Student: “In a (F) house.” (Gass and Selinker, 2008:336)
Both metalinguistic explanation and elicitation are focus in grammatical gender teacher correction to the student. All the components above can increase special attention in learning, so, it can give input comprehensible like long summary
Below are interactionist theories and the relationship is summarized: 1 interactional modification makes input comprehensible
2 comprehensible promotes acquisition
3 interactional modifications promote acquisition.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
41
the task. The qualitative research design is descriptive in that the researcher is interested in process, meaning and understanding gained through words or pictures. After those theories of FFI are explained above, the researcher tries to use an audio recorder to obtain voices of students’ interaction. To be more specific, the audio recorder tool refers to cell phone recorder. The researcher will analyze the conversation then interpret based on FFI theory. The audio recorder was used to record the conversation of the students. The students were going to form their group. The teacher has known well the students of IX-3 class because he has taught them since two years, known better to form groups, and has a lot of experience in collaborates learning. He knew who were higher achievers and lower achievers. He had determined to divide the group diversely, in order to each students could fulfill the others. The higher achievers students were in the lower achievers students and conversely. Therefore, by choosing merely one group to be recorded their voice; it means represented of all groups.
The instrument was ‘hidden’ under students’ table of the chosen group. First of all, the researcher made sure the ‘hidden’ audio recorder worked well, then he
covered his cell phone with thin plastic, and cellophane tape. He sets his cell phone to be
ready recording. And finally, he put it under the students’ table without knowing by the
students.
On November 20th, 2014, he recorded the discussion of the chosen group. The audio recorder was set to record the students’ discussion. While they were trying to discuss the segment given by the teacher, the writer collected the data by using an audio recording. Audio recorder recorded their conversation and the researcher merely watched from far away to avoid the students’ suspicious. If it has been found out that the expected subjects the voice was too much disturbed by the other noise, from the whole big class, the other students who were also working or discussing their task in their groups or expert group. If the noisy voice problem occurred, the researcher would try hard to find a solution to this problem. He eventually made up his mind to do the recording outside the classroom. When the chosen groups were formed, the group was asked to go outside the classroom to do the assigned task. The assignment here refers to several question of narrative text reading. The students should discuss each other in order to can solve the question. They did it outside not too far away from the classroom door.
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
42
subjects to begin, to respond the discussion, and to evaluate the responses and initiations suitable with interactionism theory. Then, the data collection was made a conclusion. Here the following data transcriptions
3.1 Negotiate Meaning
In the students’ interaction pattern above, the students discussed the question number two. Modified interaction emerged among Dm, Gl, Rk, Gn, and Ad. They seemed to interact together and to corporate well. However, Pn and Gd chose to be silent. Pn and Gd were unskilled students. In each team, there was always a free rider because each group determined by teacher in diversely.
Gl took a role as the reader, then Rk, Gl, Dm, and Ad interacted to find the answer number two. Rk tried to answer a giant and Ad was not sure about Rk answer. Ad tried to confirm to other Friends. Dm found the answer. Dm straightened and validated Ad’s and Rk’s statement. Gn also helped Dm’s validation of the answer, and then Ad wrote it. Modified interaction occurred, each member team tried to confirm each other, therefore, each member could receive comprehensible input except Pn and Gd.
Recast
Dm : Nomer loro Lang! Gl : What was kebo Iwo? Rk : Emm, giant yo? Ad : Giant ta?
Dm : Koyoe, eeeeeem aha iki lo ketemu, it was a giant destroyer as well as creator, bener ta?
Gn : Yo bener kebo iwo iku lak yo raksasa pengacau se?
Ad : Yo wes tulis ae opo mas giant destroyer , se balenono maneh ? Dm : It was a giant destroyer as well as creator
Translated into English Dm : Number two, Lang! Gl : What was kebo Iwo? Rk : Emmm, it is giant isn’t it? Ad : Is it giant?
Dm : It looks like, eeeeeem, aha it is found, it was a giant destroyer as well,as Creator , is it right? Gn : Yes it is, kebo Iwo is giant destroyer, isn’t it ?
Ad : Yes , write it down , what mas giant destroyer, can you repeat it ! Dm : It was a giant destroyer as well as creator
Ad : Yo, narrative Dm : It is narrative text
Ad : O, yo cek lengkap jawabane
Translated into English Ad : Yes, narrative Dm : It is narrative
43
Above interaction pattern, the students discussed question number one. Ad tried to answer narrative but Dm reformulated Ad’s narrative utterance into complete answer it was narrative text. Therefore indirectly Ad received input from Dm to get complete answer. Ad seemed to get comprehensible input from Dm.
Above interaction pattern, the students discussed question number four. Gn played role as a reader. Rk’s tongue looked like to be slipped, he attempted to answer, but he was difficult to say the answer due to slipped tongue. Dm helped him to reformulate directly the incorrect utterance from Rk. Ad’s answer was not clear with Dm’s reformulation of Rk’s answer. He needed to confirm Dm’s reformulation once again about the answer. Dm repeated merely the last part of his reformulation, and then Ad could receive that.
Feedback
Gn : Ok, what was made him satisfied? Rk : Huh, Angele rek, him statisfieeeeeddddd. Dm : He satisfied with meal
Ad : Opo Mas, he satisfied with……. Dm : Meal
Translated into English
Gn : Ok, what was made him satisfied?
Rk : Huh, it is diFFIcult, friend, him statisfieeeeeeedddd Dm : What mas, He statisfied with……..
Dm : Meal
Ad : Kalem boz sek tak tulise, ayo lang nomer telu Gl : What is meant by a destroyer as well as creator ? Rk : Opo jawabane cepetan ?
Gn : Iki lo enough food for a thousand men
Dm : Complete answer nang! a destroyer as well as creator mean enough food for thousand men
Gn : Meane kurang s nang, iku lo wonge siji Dm : Emmmmmm, mean ta ?
Gn : Means
Dm : O yo se lali, yo yo ngerti
Translated into English
Ad : Slow down boz, still write, come on Lang number three Gl : What is meant by a destroyer as well as creator? Rk : What is the answer, hurry up?
Gn : This, enough food for a thousand men
Dm : Complete answer nang! a destroyer as well as creator mean enough food for Thousand men
Gn : Mean lack of s nang, that is a single person Dm : Emmmmmm, is it mean?
Gn : Means
44
Above interaction pattern, the students discussed the question number three. Gl played role as the reader. Rk did not help them to solve this question. He merely wanted the answer soon. Gn tried to answer however, Gl’s answer seems to be false. Modified interaction occurred between Gn and Dm. Dm gave explicit correction feedback to Gn. Dm explained to Gn the complete answer and Dm answered to the question number three completely. Unfortunately, Dm’s complete answer, there was one grammatical error about subject and verb agreement. His answer was lack of s letter, because single person. And Gn tried to give explicit correction feedback to Dm. He pointed and explained clearly Dm’s mistake. Therefore, both of them Dm and Gn received comprehensible input each other because both explicit correction feedback could get special attention in learning and further more could promote the acquisition
Conclusion
From the previous finding the students interact seriously. They students exchange and contribute the knowledge each other. The students negotiate, clarify, and confirm their knowledge each other with their friends. It requires extra attention to the teacher in monitoring them. The students interact, share, contribute the knowledge each other well as the result; the three components of interaction patterns; negotiate meaning, recast, and feedback, those three components are emerged that can cause special attention to learning process. Those negotiate meaning, recast, and feedback that serve correction function and constructed comprehensible input therefore, students’ interaction promoted acquisition. The students’ interactions produce conversational modification that can aid comprehension. The students get more comprehension and are able to socialize with surrounding environment
References
Brown, H. 2001. Teaching by principle. New York: Pearson Education, Inc
Brown, H. 2007. Principle Language Teaching and learning. New York:Pearson Education
Gass, S & Selinker, 2008. Second Language Acquisition Lawrence
Essex : Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Johnson et al. 2007. Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. New York: Sage Publication
Lightbown,P.M dan Spada, N, 1999. How Language Are Learned (revised). Essex: Oxford
