In this chapter, the researcher explains about research design, population and sample, instrument of the research, data collecting technique and data analysis
A. Research Design
In this study the researcher used a Descriptive Qualitative Research.
Leedy (1974:79) suggests that a Descriptive Method simply looks with intense accuracy at the phenomena of the moment and then describes precisely what the researcher has seen. In this research, the researcher will try to investigate types of signals in negotiation of meaning that were used by the students. In a research is very important to know research variable. One variable between another variable certainly has a relationship. The variable of the research divided into two, first Variable Y namely Negotiation of Meaning and Variable X namely Speaking. Where all of the processes of variable X is influenced by variable Y in the classroom activity.
X Y
29
B. Population and Sample 1. Population
The population of this research is the Students of Second Grade of SMAN 1 Barru in Semester 1 Academic Year (2019/2020). There are six classes in second grade of SMAN 1 Barru in academic 2019/2020.
Each class consist of 30-35 students, so the total is 198 students.
2. Sample
The sample of this research determined through non Probability Sampling Technique, namely Purposive Sampling Technique of this research. The class was XI Science 1 Class which consist of 30 students. The reasons choose XI Science 1 Class because the class has good enthusiasm in learning English than other classes in the same grade.
C. Instrument of the Research
Instrument of the research is something that will be used to support the ongoing research. There are two instruments used include:
1. Observation Sheet
Observation sheet is a list of things that an observer is going to look at when observing a class. This list may have been prepared by the observer or the teacher or both. Observation checklists not only give an observer a structure and framework for an observation but also serve as a contract of understanding with the teacher, who may as a
result be more comfortable, and will get specific feedback on aspects of the class.
2. Supporting Instrument
Supporting instruments, namely tools intended for research support such as cell phone cameras, recording devices (cell phone).
D. Data Collecting Technique
To obtain data and information needed in this study, researcher use several data collection techniques as follows:
1. Recording
In collecting the data, the researcher record the conversation of participants from beginning until the end. Then, the researcher transcribe the data that she get by recording technique. The recording tools are audio and video recorder. Video recorder and audio recorder are use to record the conversation. The researcher intended to have both video and audio recording to gain the data. Besides that, the researcher use audio recording. Therefore, if there are many unclear taken from the video recording, it could be get from audio recording.
Then the researcher make a kind transcript all dialogue from conversation.By recording the students‟ speaking. The researcher will collect the data with video and audio recording.
31
2. Conducting Classroom Observation
The Classroom obeservation was conducted in SMA 1 Barru. The classroom observation aim to explain all students‟ activities in the process of teaching and learning. The researcher as an observer, directly observed the classroom and fulfill the classroom observation sheet while the teaching and learning process is going on. Classroom observation also note the components in negotiation of meaning is used.The researcher transcribe student‟s interaction then analyze the data by classifying the component of negotiation of meaning.
E. Data Analysis
Miles (1994:246) states that there are three activites in qualitative data analysis. They are reducting the data, data display, and drawing/verification.
The steps are arrange to make the researcher easier in analysing the data. For the explanation they are :
1. Reducting the Data
The researcher make transcript of record data and written data, identify components in Negotiation of Meaning based on the interaction between teacher and students in the classroom.
2. Data Display
The researcher analyze the classification of Negotiation of Meaning and display the data about teacher and students utterances by
using tables, explanation and making pecentage . The table system as follow:
Table 3.1
Negotiation of Meaning produce by the Students Time Negotiation of
Meaning Classification Frequency
1 Trigger
“and I need a very energetic person that uh..can what it can…”
2
The researcher make prentage of the data to know usage of components in Negotiation of Meaning. Sugiyono (2014: 170) states that the analysis is looking presentage. The percentage used formula:
F
P = --- × 100%
N
Notes: P =percentage F = frequency
N = the sum of the frequencies
3. Drawing/verfication
The researcher make conclusion drawing/verfication. Derive from the data display in table, the next is describing and interpreting the data so that the conclusions and verification of the use of Negotiation of Meaning based on the interaction of students in the classroom can be drawn.
CHAPTER IV
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISSCUSION
In this chapter, the researcher explains about the result of the research.
There will be two term namely research findings and discussion of the research.
A. Research Findings
The data findings are related to components in negotiation of meaning used by students on teaching learning process. This research was conducted at the second grade of SMAN 1 Barru class sciece 1. The researcher found fourcomponents in negotiation of meaning according to Pica et.altheory in the process of students‟ conversation happened smootly and naturally. Those are trigger, signals, response, and follow up. The observation was conducted by the researcher on October. The researcher found 20 utterances in two meetings which contain negotiation of meaning. The researcher presents the detail information as bellow:
The Components in Negotiation of Meaning that is Mostly used by the Students
1. Trigger
The researchers founds 7 utterances of trigger produced by the students in the conversation. In the first meeting, the students produced 4 utterances and the second meeting 2 utterances. The detail data are:
A: My criteria are faithfull, responsible, and uh… can uh..
B: Can guide?
This utterance is categorizedtrigger. Student A is stimulate student B to continue incomplete sentence about boyfriend criteria. The other utterances that clasified trigger can be found in the data transcript.
A: where is bank?
B: bank?
A: bank yes bank.
This utterance is categorizedtrigger. Student A is stimulate student B to answer the question about bank. The other utterances that clasified trigger can be found in the data transcript.
Based on data above, the researcher can concluded that the students is mostly used trigger than the other component. Because it create many confusion and question. In trigger the students produced 7 utterances.
2. Signals
The researchers founds 5 utterances of signal produced by the students in the conversation. In the first meeting, the students produced 2 utterances and the second meeting 3 utterances. The detail data are:
A: where is the school?
B: what?
A: where is the school?
This utterance is categorizedsignal. Student B is give a signal to emphasize question from speaker A. The other utterances that clasified signals can be found in the data transcript.
35
A: where is the school?
B: soory? What school, senior high school?
This utterance is categorizedsignal. Student B is give a signal to emphasize question from speaker A. The other utterances that clasified signals can be found in the data transcript.
Based on data above, the researcher can concluded that signals is in second place from trigger that used by the students in their conversation. Because signals confirm and clarifying previous utterances. In signals the students produced 5 utterances.
3. Response
The researchers founds 3 utterances of response produced by the students in the conversation. In the first meeting, the students produced 1 utterances and the second meeting 2 utterances. The detail data are:
A: My criteria are faithfull, responsible, and uh… can uh..
B: Can guide?
A: Yes, can guide
This utterance is categorizedresponse. Student A is justify the signals about boyfriend criteria. The other utterances that clasified response can be found in the data transcript.
A: where is bank?
B: bank?
A: bank yes bank.
This utterance is categorizedsignal. Student A is justify the signals about bank. The other utterances that clasified trigger can be found in the data transcript.
Based on data above, the researcher can concluded that response is in the last place from all of components. Because response is only justify or blame statement about previous utterances. In response the students produced 3 utterances.
4. Follow-up
The researchers founds 5 utterances of follow up produced by the students in the conversation. In the first meeting, the students produced 3 utterances and the second meeting 2 utterances. The detail data are:
A: Where is the mall?
B: mall is in pahlawan street across gas station
This utterance is categorizedfollow-up. Student Btry to respond the statement from student A to make the disscussion clearly or succesfull. The other utterances that clasified trigger can be found in the data transcript.
A: Bank ?
B: Bank yes bank.
A: Bank is merdeka street near from east road
This utterance is categorizedsignal. Student Atry to respond the statement from student B to make the disscussion clearly or succesfull. The other utterances that clasified trigger can be found in the data transcript.
37
Based on data above, the researcher can concluded that follow-up is same with signals that produced 5 utterances. Because follow up is the result of discussion about succes or not of the conversation, it can be as the combination of signals and response.
Table 4.1
Percentages of Negotiation of Meaning Used by the Students No Negotiation of Meaning Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Trigger 7 35 %
2 Signals 5 25 %
3 Response 3 15 %
4 Follow-up 5 25 %
Total 20 100 %
The researcher found 20 utterances are identified as negotiation of meaning, 7 trigger utterance, 5 signals utterances, 3 response utterances, and 5 follow-up utterances. It meant that 35% of them are trigger, 25% are signals, 15%
are response,and 25% are follow-up. Based on explain above, it can be concluded that the dominant of component innegotiation of meaning used by the students at SMAN 1 Barru during teaching learning process in the classroom is trigger.
B. Discussion
This section presents the discussion of the research findings. There is problem statements proposed in this study and the discussion only focus on it. As mentioned in the previous chapter, the objective of the research to find out
components in negotiation of meaning that is mostly used by the students at the second grade of SMAN 1 Barru.
The Components in Negotiation of Meaning that is Mostly used by the Students
In analyzing the data, the researcher used Pica, Grass and Varonis. Pica divides the components in negotiation of meaning that are: trigger, signals, response, and follow-up. After conducting the research, the researcher found four components in nengotiation of meaning used by the students in the classroom XII MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru based on the observation on November 2019. They were trigger, signals, response, and follow-up.
1. Trigger
The students produced an utterance which contained unclear word or phrase and produce a comprehension check that required further clarification work from the listener. The participants used trigger because they still confused to answer or ask the question. So in their conversation still contained uncler word or phrase. When speaker say “My sriteria are faithfull, responsible and uhh… can uah…” the speaker stimulate other students to continue incomplete sentence about boyfriend criteria. It is in line with the theory that produced by (Grass and Varonis :1984). It can also be defined as prime of negotiation of meaning which invokes or stimulate incomplete understanding on the part of the listener.
2. Signals
39
During observation, the teacher ask the students to make conversation about negotiation of meaning. The students put the signals sentences to give signal to confirm or clarify incomplete sentences from other speaker. When speaker say “sorry ?what school, senior high school?” the speaker give a signal tho emphasize question from other students. It in line with the theory by Grass ana Varonis (1985) this component refers to an indicator from a listener that understanding is not complete.
3. Response
During observation, the teacher ask the students to make conversation about negotiation of meaning. The students put the response sentences to give respond about the sentences that speaker‟s disscus before. When speaker say
“yes, can guide” the speaker justify the signsl about boyfriend criteria that theay are discuss before in trigger. In line with the theory by Pica (1989) it refers to a response produced by a speaker in the form of part or all an utterance produce in the trigger.
4. Follow-up
During observation, the teacher ask the students to make conversation about negotiation of meaning. The students put the follow-up sentences to give respond to make the disccusion clearly or succesful and usually repeat the signal- response. When speaker say “mall is in pahlawan street across gas station” the speaker respond the statement from other students to make the disscussion clearly or succesfull and repeat the signal-respond. It in In line with the theory by
Varonis and Grass (1985) follow up is the information about whether the communication modifications have been sucessful or not.
Based on data finding, the researcher can concluded that the component in negotiation of meaning that is mostly used by the students at the Second Grade of SMAN 1 Barru is trigger. from 20 utterances trigger is mostly usedby the students that produced 7 utterances. Then signals 5 utterances, response 3 utterances and follow-up same with signals that produced 5 utterances.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
In this chapter, the researcher divided into two points. They are conclusion and suggestion.
A. Conclusion
Based on the findings and discussion, a few students at the second grade of SMAN 1 Barru apply negotiation of meaning in their conversation. the researcher can concluded that the component in negotiation of meaning that is mostly used by the students at the Second Grade of SMAN 1 Barru is trigger.
from 20 utterances trigger is mostly used by the students that produced 7 utterances. Then signals 5 utterances, response 3 utterances and follow-up same with signals that produced 5 utterances.
B. Suggestion
Based on the conclusion and implications that have been explained above, some suggestions will be directed toward the students, English teacher and the other researchers.
1. For Students
The students are expected to learn and explore more about negotiation of meaning. By understanding negotiation of meaning, the students at class XI MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru would be more aware of how the language is actually being
used. Thus, the students can avoid misunderstanding or misconception or misconceptions in interpreting the speakers‟ intended messages.
2. For English Teacher
When the researcher collected the data, the researcher found that students do not knowabout negotiation of meaning, they confused how they used negotiation of meaning intheir conversation. Thus, it is important to give information and comprehending about negotiation of meaning. When students already know about negotiation of meaning and they know how and when they use negotiation of meaning. Therefore, the English teacher at class XI MIPA 1 SMAN 1 Barru, it is important to give knowledge about negotiation of meaning first before start collects thedata.
3. To other researcher
The researcher expected that the limitation of this research will encourage other researchers who wish to carry out similar study to investigate more about negotiation of meaning. It is also suggested to enlarge the study by investigating the students‟ negotiation of meaning since the present study has not explored it yet. Moreover, could make some progress of this study.
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bialystok, Ellen. 1990. Communication Strategies: a Psychological Analysis of Second Language Use. London: T.J. Press. Ltd.
Branden K. 1997. Effects of Negotiation of Language Learner’s Output. Language Learning. Vol 47. No 4. Pp 589-636.
Brown , D. H., & Yule, G. 1983. Teaching Sspoken Language: Approach Based on the Analysis of Conversational English. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Brown H, Douglas. 1994. Teaching by Principles. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Regent
Brown, H. Douglass. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Aproach to Language Pedadogy. San Fransisco: State University.
Byrne, Don. 1984. Teaching Oral English. New Jersey: Lingman Group Ltd.
Chaney, A.L., and T.L. Burk. 1998. Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K- 8. Boston: Allyn&Bacon.
Duff, P. (1986). Another Look at Interlanguage Talk; Taking Task to Task.
Rowley Mass: New Burry House Publisher.
Foster, P. 1998. A Classroom Prespective on the Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistic. Vol 19. No 1. Pp 1-23.
Grass, S.M. and Varonis, E.M. 1984. The Effect of Familiarity on the Comprehensibility of Non-Native Speech. Language Learning. Vol. 34. No 1.Pp 65-89.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2007. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow:
Pearson Education Limited
Harris, David. 1974. English as Second Language. New York: Mc, Graw Mill.
Husni, Na‟imatul (2015). Techniques of Negotiation of Meaning Used by English Departement Students in Speaking Activity. Thesis. Universitas Negeri Padang.
Lado, Robert. 1961. Language Teaching a Scientific Approach. New York:
Mc.GrewHill Inc.
Lado, Robert. 1977. Language Testing. Tata Mc. Gorw. New Dehli: Hill Publishing Co. Ltd.
Leedy, Paul.1974. Practical Research Planning and Design. New Jersey: Mac Millan Publishing Company Co. Inc.
Miles, M.B. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Murcia, M. C. (1978). Teaching English as Second or Foreign Language. (2nd ed.).New York: Harper Collins Ltd.
Nunan, D., 2003. Practical English Language Teaching. NY:McGraw-Hill.
Pica, T. 1987. Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NNS Negotiated Interaction. Language Learning.Vol. 38. No 1.Pp 45-73.
Pica, T. and Doughty, C.1985. The Role of Group Work in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Studies in Second language acquisition.Vol. 7.Pp 233-248.
Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. Berducci, D. And Newman, J. 1991. Language Learning through Interaction: What Roles does Gender Play? Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Vol. 11.Pp 63-90.
Pica, T. Holliday, L. Lewis, N. and Morgenthaler, L. 1989. Comprehensible Output as an Outcome of Linguistic Demands on the learner. Studies in Second Laqnguage Acquisition. Vol. 11. Pp 63-90.
Pica, T. Lincoln-Parker, F. Paninos, D. and Linnel, J. 1996. Language Learner’s Interaction: How does it Address the Input, Output, and Feed Back Need of L2 learners? TESOL Quarterly. Vol 30.Pp 59-84.
Pica, T. and Young, R. 1986. Making Input Comprehensible. Do Interactional Modifications Help ? I.T.L. Review of Applied Linguistics. Vol 72.Pp 1-25 Rivers. W.M. 1978. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: University
Press.
Sarah. 2016. Exploring Critical Thinking and Negotiation of Meaning Through MinecraftEDU: A Case Study of Elementary Language Learners. Thesis.
Boise State University.
Setiawati, N. (2017). An Analysis of Negotiation of Meaning in Speaking Class at the Second Grade of SMAN 1 Pasir Sakti. Bandar Lampung: University of Lampung.
Setiyadi, A. B. (2006). Teaching English as a Foreign Language. Yogyakarta:
Graha Ilmu
Sugiono. 2014. Metode Penelitian Management. Bandung: Alfabeta
45
Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar. 2018. Pedoman Penulisan Skripsi.
Makassar: Universitas Muhammadiyah Makassar.
Varonis, E.M. and Gass, S. M. 1985. Non-native/ Non-native conversations: A Model for Negotiation of Meaning. Applied Linguistics. Vol 6. No.1. Pp 71-90.
Welty, D. A., & Dorothy, R. W. (1976). The Teacher Aids in the Interlocutor Team. New York: Mc Grew Hill.
Yufrizal, Hery. 2001. Language Acquisition Student Text Book. Bandar Lampung:
Lampung University
Yufrizal, Hery. 2007. Negotiation of Meaning by Indonesian EFL Learners.
Bandung. Pustaka Reka Cipta.
Yufrizal, Hery. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition ( A Text Book for ESL Learners and ESL Teachers). Bandung: Pustaka Reika Cipta.
47
INSTRUMENTS
CLASS : MEETING:
OBSERVATION SHEETS Time Negotiation of
Meaning
The Result of Negotiation of Meaning
Frequency 1 Trigger
Signals
Response
Follow-up
2 Trigger
Signals
Response
Follow-up
Adapted from : Pica et.al (1991)