Garuda - Garba Rujukan Digital

Article Per Year (5 Year)

All

RETAIN (RESEARCH ON ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING IN INDONESIA)

retain
Website

Published by Universitas Negeri Surabaya

ISSN : 23562617 EISSN : - DOI : -

Core Subject : Education,

Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media

RETAIN publishes articles within the scope of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. RETAIN publishes articles within the scope of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics.

Arjuna Subject : Seni dan Humaniora - Bahasa dan Linguistik

Articles 44 Documents

1 2 3 4 5

Search results for , issue "Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014" : 44 Documents clear

FOCUS ON FORM IN 2013 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

FOCUS ON FORM IN 2013 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM Windya Firdayani Ariza English Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya Win_dya_chub2y@yahoo.com Ahmad Munir English Education, Faculty of Languages and Art, State University of Surabaya Munstkip@yahoo.com Abstrak Kurikulum 2013 adalah kurikulum yang saat ini dilaksanakan di Indonesia. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menggambarkan fokus guru dalam mengajar tata bahasa apakah itu berfokus pada bentuk atau makna dan menggambarkan perasaan siswa dalam belajar tata bahasa apakah mereka merasa belajar atau tidak. Penelitian ini adalah kualitatif. Para peserta penelitian ini adalah seorang guru bahasa Inggris dan siswa kelas pertama SMPN 1 Gresik. Dua instrumen yang digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data yaitu: observasi dalam bentuk rekaman video guru dan kegiatan siswa di kelas dan merekam video dari diskusi kelompok. Ini digunakan untuk merekam cara guru dalam menggabungkan tata bahasa pada kurikulum 2013 dan kegiatan siswa. Rekaman video dari diskusi kelompok digunakan untuk merekam perasaan siswa. Ditemukan bahwa guru fokus pada bentuk. Dia menekankan pada aturan tata bahasa. Ditemukan pula bahwa siswa merasa belajar tata bahasa oleh guru. Kesimpulannya, guru menerapkan focus pada bentuk di kurikulum 2013. Itu terjadi di kelas dimana peneliti mengamat, bahwa guru menjelaskan materi yang lebih jelas kepada siswa berdasarkan konstruk bahasa dan aturan tata bahasa. Kesimpulan lain adalah bahwa guru tidak mengikuti aturan kurikulum 2013. Pada 2013 kurikulum adalah fokus pada makna. Kata Kunci: Fokus pada bentuk, tata bahasa, kurikulum 2013 Abstract The 2013 curriculum is the current curriculum that was implemented in Indonesia. This study focused its goal to describe the teacher’s focus in teaching grammar whether it focuses on form or on meaning and describe the students’ feeling in learning grammar whether they experienced or not. This study was qualitative. The participants of this study were an English teacher and the first graders of SMPN 1 Gresik. Two instruments were used to collect data namely: Observation in the form of video recording of teacher and students’ activities in classroom and video recording of focused group discussion. It used to record the teacher’s way in incorporating grammar in 2013 curriculum and the students’ activities. Video recording of focused group discussion used to record the feeling of students. It was found that teacher focused on form. She concerned on grammatical rule. It was also found that the student experienced to learn grammar by the teacher. In conclusion, the teacher interpreted grammar in 2013 curriculum by focusing on form. It happened in the classroom which the researcher observed, that the teacher explained the materials more clearly to the students based on the construct of language and grammatical rule. Another conclusion is that the teacher did not follow the rule of 2013 curriculum. In 2013 curriculum is focus on meaning.. Keywords: Focus on Form, grammar, 2013 curriculum INTRODUCTION 2013 Curriculum is the current curriculum that is released on July 13th 2013 by the government in Indonesia. This curriculum is a continuation of KBK (Kurikulum Berbasis Kompetensi) that was released at 2004 that cover attitude, knowledge and skill competence integrated. 2013 curriculum has four Kompetensi Inti. Kompetensi Inti is applicable to all the subjects. It is as the bond of all students’ competencies that are produced in each subject. The contents are the same between English and other subjects, but the differences are on the Kompetensi Dasar for each Kompetensi Inti. For English, especially grammar the point in Kompetensi Dasar is in the third. It is Memahami fungsi social, struktur teks dan unsur kebahasaan (Kemendikbud, 2013a). It means that the students have to achieve those three things to make them competence in English. According to curriculum 2006, there are three important aspects considered when people think of language. They are context, text and language. The purpose of social function is the reason why we speak or write in the context. Organization structure of the text or generic structure is the text organization or text arrangement. Language features or lexical that is such things as the grammar vocabulary and connectors that we use. Social function, organization structure and language feature above are associated with Genre Based Approach. Genre Based Approach is recommended approach that is based on curriculum. Genre Based Approach is used to conduct the classroom activity. According to Yan (2005), this approach has become popular since the 1980s along with the notion that students writers could benefit from studying different types of written text. In Genre Based Approach, teaching and learning focuses on the understanding and production of selected genres of texts (Lin, 2006). Learning around texts genres has been increasingly influential in main stream ELT in a number of situations, including primary, secondary, tertiary, professional and community teaching context involving native speaker of English as well as ESL and EFL learners. It shows that Genre Based Approach is powerful response to the deficit of process models (Gao, 2007). Genre Based Approach starts with the whole text as the unit in focus, rather than the sentence. The focus on the whole implies that there is higher level of order and patterning in language than just in sentence-grammar at the level of discourse organization and meta-patterning of grammatical features. In Indonesia, according to curriculum 2006 Genre Based Approach is conducted in two cycles; they are spoken and written cycle. It is because at the end of spoken cycles, students are expected to be able to produce monologue in the same of genre that they are learning. Similarly, at the end of written cycle every students must be able to produce written text of genre that they are learning (Astaman, 2010). For instance, if the genre is narrative, at the end of written cycle every student must be able to write a narrative text or to tell a narrative story. It is also strengthened by Callaghan(1988), that genre is should be classified to be two aspects. First, genre is classified as spoken genre and the second genre is classified as written genre. It means that genre as spoken has the reason as language is said to be functional, because its organization quite fundamentally reveals the purpose for which any natural language came. Meanwhile genre as written has reason as language is to be understood as text, any meaningful passage of language that serves some social purpose. Grammar commonly taught based on focus on form and focus on meaning. Focus on form means the students have to aware on grammatical form of the language. According to Long (1997) Focus on form is a method for composing sentence based on the right pattern. It promotes the acquisition of specific language form such as grammar and the meaning of words in the meaning-based second language activity. Doughty & Williams (1999) state that state that a focus on the form (FonF) of the language consists of drawing the learner's attention to the linguistic features of the language. Thus, a focus on form approach would allow for the second language (L2) learners to concentrate on the grammatical rules and construct of the language. For example, a student is given a text in the L2. He or she would focus on form if they were asked to analyze the text in terms of how it represents the rules of the language. Other reason, she wants to develop the language knowledge and language acquisition. This condition proves the theory from Long & Robinson (1999) that focus on form as an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features by the teacher and/or one or more students triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production. He also states that Focus on form is a basis of Interaction Hypothesis and it emphases the importance of interaction between learners and other speakers in order to develop their language knowledge. It has to depend on the structure. Focus on meaning would be concerned with getting L2 learner to concentrate solely on understanding the message being conveyed. Focus on meaning means emphasize on the meaning of a language. It is limited to focus on meaning with no attention paid to form at all. It means that it excludes attention to the formal elements of the language (Doughty & Williams, 1999). Thus, focus on meaning would be concerned with getting the L2 learners to concentrate solely on understanding the message being conveyed. It does not allow for any attention whatsoever to the linguistic code of the L2. According to Kemendikbud (2013b), the scientific approach include the finding of meaning, organization and structure of an idea or ideas, so that the student learners gradually learn how to organize and conduct research. Scientific approach emphasizes students' ability in discovering knowledge based on experiential learning, laws, principles and generalizations, so it provides an opportunity for the development of higher order thinking skills. Thus students more empowered learners as a subject of study that should play an active role in hunting down the information from the various sources of learning, and teacher educators more as an organizer and facilitator of learning. As a result, grammar should be taught by focusing on meaning. In the 2013 curriculum, the teaching learning process uses scientific approach which has activities such as observing, questioning, experimenting, associating and communicating. It has connection with Genre Based Approach. The materials in 2013 curriculum use Genre Based Approach as a learning focus through understanding of the social function, the text structure elements - linguistic elements based on the level of difficulty, from the simple to the complex. Text structure refers to the ways that authors organize information in text. It can be descriptive text, narrative text and etc. linguistic elements can be defined as grammatical rule or structure. Grammar here is in the stage of modeling of text. It is included in Based Approach in activity to do presentation and practice activities relating to the grammatical feature of the text. It can be concluded that scientific approach and genre based approach interrelated each other to implement teaching learning process in 2013 curriculum. In 2013 curriculum, people are curious about how the teacher implement grammar teaching in classroom. It is the current curriculum, so people have not understood yet how the rule and the system of the curriculum, whether those are the same or not. So, teacher faces burden to determine when and how grammar will be taught. As there as has been no study on this problem, this study attempts to fill in this gap. It was aimed to investigate and to discover how teacher incorporates grammar in following 2013 Curriculum. Based on the background of the study above, the questions of the problem are formulated as follows: Is this incorporation considered focus on form or focus on meaning? Through this kind of incorporation, do the students feel that they have learned English grammar? METHODS In this research, qualitative design was used for some reasons. First, researcher wanted to describe the research with words than numbers. The researcher wanted to know how the teacher interpreted grammar in 2013 curriculum whether it was focus on form or focus on meaning. The researcher also wanted to investigate the feeling of the students, they experienced to learn grammar or not. The subjects of the research were an English teacher and the first graders of SMPN 1 Gresik. There are six English teachers there. The researcher observed one of them and the teacher that the researcher observed was a female teacher. She was chosen as the reason she teaches in the first grade that implement 2013 curriculum. There, there are eight classes of the first grade. The class that the researcher was observed were G and H class. Each class consist of thirty three students. These subjects were chosen under the consideration that the researcher followed the schedule of the teacher and the materials that were she taught. There was no certain choice of class. The most important was the first graders. In SMPN 1 Gresik, 2013 curriculum is now implemented and the teacher has been trained in facing 2013 curriculum. Therefore, the teacher and the first graders were chosen. The material that was observed was descriptive text about things around. The students had to describe things in the picture. They are instructed to make sentences with the correct grammatical construction. For example, they had to know about introductory ‘there’, present tense and present continuous tense. The teacher did not explain generic structure of descriptive text, but she concerned on making sentences based on grammatical rule. The first data was the teacher and student’s action in the classroom. It was done by using video recording that recorded what the teacher and the students did in the classroom. It recorded teacher and student’s activities, what materials that the teacher taught and how the teacher’s way in teaching grammar to the students whether it is focused on meaning or focused on form. It was held on November, 18, 25 and 27 2013 in SMPN 1 Gresik. The video was taken during an hour. After taking video recording, the data was analysed by transcribing it into the words. The second data were the student’s experience in the classroom whether they feel learned grammar or not. The data was collected by doing focused group discussion. It was taken use video recording. The duration was not more than two minutes. Focused group discussion here means that the researcher divided the students into group. There were thirty students in the classroom. The researcher divided them into four groups and each group consist of eight students. The member of group was taken randomly, which is male and female students were mixed. After dividing groups, the researcher began to ask some questions. The questions were semi structured. There were three questions as a foundation, and there were some complement questions to develop the information from the students. The questions are: (1) Kalian tau apa itu grammar? (2) Selama ini sudah belajar grammar? (3) Grammar apa saja? (4) Menurut kalian grammar itu susah atau gampang? (5) Diterangkan langsung atau diterangkan jika kalian ada kesalahan? After collecting the data, the analysis of the data was carried out. The first data was from teacher and students’ action. The teacher’s way of teaching was identified in this study. It was described in the form of transcribes of observation recording. The thing that will be underline was when she incorporates grammar in the class based on 2013 curriculum. To make the process of identification was easier, the area of shows the teacher incorporates grammar was underlined. First, describing. Here, was describe about what teacher did in the classroom, classified what she did into focus on form and or focus on meaning and described the learners did in the classroom when teacher were explaining the material. Second, analyzing and interpreting. The teacher did in the classroom will be analyzed and interpreted here. Besides, it was also include what the learners experienced in the classroom when the lesson was running. Last, is drawing conclusion. It focuses on teacher’s focus of teaching. Whether focus on for and or focus meaning. Whether or not the learners feel learnt. The second data was student’s feeling of experienced in learning grammar or not. The students’ feeling of learned grammar data which were obtained from focused group discussion were analyzed by some procedures. First, transcribing the video recording. It was from the verbation of the students. In other words, it was from students’ utterances when answer the researcher’s question. Second, is coding the data. Here, the researcher coded the data from the transcription. The thing that was underlined was the student’s answer about their feeling in learning grammar whether they feel learned or not. Last, is interpreting the data. The students’ utterances that shown the student’s feeling were interpreted and those are combined with the result of observation. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION It was found that the teacher interpret teaching grammar in the focus on form. These are the examples of sentences that shows focus on form: “Jadi kalau misalnya eraser, window, book, and other we can call the noun”. “So, in this chapter and meeting we will learn about noun, adjective and verbs”. “So, bagaimana cara bertanya, mendeskripsikan benda itu yang akan kita pelajari. Misalnya, Feli I see you have new watch”. “Ok. Umbrella. I have my colorful umbrella. Satu lagi. I love my pink bag. It has beautiful garden. Bisa dilihat disini bagaimana mendeskripsikan things, bagaimana menempatkan adjective”. “Structurenya masih salah ini. Yang benar adalah I love my full color shoes”. “There are many children in a playground. Ok? And there are many people in the market, but in my house there is one person. Ok ya? Paham?”. From three times observations, the teacher was consistent in focused on form. Focus on form means that the students have to aware on grammatical form of the language. It can be as like composing sentences based on the right pattern. It was proven in the explanation above that the teacher gave more explanations about the pattern of present continuous tense, composing sentence based on the right structure about subject, plural and singular, verb and also noun and introductory there. The teacher gave some example of pattern and structure of some grammar to the students. She repeated several times about what she wanted to explain until she thought that the students understand the materials. It also can be seen from the teacher’s activities in the classroom that she walked around the class to check students’ works and explained something that the students did not understand. It showed that the teacher wanted to make students comprehend the pattern based on the grammatical rule. In other word, the teacher interprets grammar teaching by focusing on form. It is found that what the teacher did in the classroom showed that she was interpreting grammar in classroom by focusing on form. It is proven in the result of observation that the teacher teaches grammar by giving the grammatical rule that contains the structure and pattern to compose a sentence. She explained the grammatical rule to the students. The teacher applied it in the classroom maybe as the reason she wants to make the students focus on grammatical rule that can make them compose the sentences in the right pattern. It is in line with the theory of Long (1997) that Focus on form is a method for composing sentence based on the right pattern. It promotes the acquisition of specific language form such as grammar and the meaning of words in the meaning-based second language activity. Doughty & Williams (1999) state that a focus on the form (FonF) of the language consists of drawing the learner's attention to the linguistic features of the language. Thus, a focus on form approach would allow for the second language (L2) learners to concentrate on the grammatical rules and construct of the language. For example, a student is given a text in the L2. He or she would focus on form if they were asked to analyze the text in terms of how it represents the rules of the language. Other reason, she wants to develop the language knowledge and language acquisition. This condition proves the theory from Long & Robinson (1999) that focus on form as an occasional shift of attention to linguistic code features by the teacher and/or one or more students triggered by perceived problems with comprehension or production. He also states that Focus on form is a basis of Interaction Hypothesis and it emphases the importance of interaction between learners and other speakers in order to develop their language knowledge. In the classroom, the students feel something about what they got. For getting the information about what they feel about what they learnt, the researcher make focused group discussion. In the classroom, there are thirty three students. The researcher divided the students into four groups. Each group consists of about eight students. The members of groups were taken randomly. Male and female students were mixed. It depends on the students itself. After dividing groups, the writer began to ask some questions. The questions were semi structured. There were three questions as a foundation, but there were some complement questions to develop the information from the students. The conversation did not take long time. It was not more than two minutes length. The questions are: (1) Kalian tau apa itu grammar? (2) Selama ini sudah belajar grammar? (3) Grammar apa saja? (4) Menurut kalian grammar itu susah atau gampang? (5) Diterangkan langsung atau diterangkan jika kalian ada kesalahan?. From focused group discussion, it can be concluded that not all of students understand what grammar is. From four groups, two groups showed that the members did not know the meaning of grammar and two groups showed that the members know the meaning of it. It is proven in the answer of the second group “Grammar itu apa bu? ak taunya gamer”. The answer of the fourth group is “Pernah denger grammar, tapi gak tau artinya itu apa”. It showed that they have not understood the meaning of grammar. When researcher asked the second question, which is “Selama ini sudah belajar grammar?” the result showed that almost all of students experienced it. They also said that during this semester, they have been taught grammar by the teacher. It is proven in the discussions. “Jadi pernah diajarkan grammar sama Bu Shofa?” “pernah” “Waktu ngajarnya itu Bu shofa langsung diterangkan di depan papan tulis atau berdasarkan kalian baca-baca buku?” “Langsung diterangkan di papan tulis”. But in the third group, there are different answers from members. Some members said that they have been taught grammar, and some members said that they have not been taught grammar yet by the teacher. When the researcher asked what kind of grammar that they have received in this semester, the result showed that during this semester they got some grammar explanations from the teacher. The first group said that they have been taught adjective, pronoun and verb. The second group said that they have been taught Irregular verb. The third group said that they have been taught present tense and continuous tense. The last group feel be taught subject, verb and object. So, it can be concluded that they have been received simple present tense and present continuous tense. After receiving those kinds of materials, they concluded that grammar is easy. It is proven in the result of discussion that each group felt grammar is easy to be learnt. “Menurut kalian, grammar itu gampang apa susah?” The first group said “Gampang”. The second group goup said “Lumayan gampang”. The third group said “Alhamdulillah gampang. The last group said “gampang-gampang susah”. So, it can be concluded that they feel easy to learn grammar and there is no difficulties to received materials. It was also found from focused group discussion that the students feel learned grammar during this semester. The result showed that almost all of students experienced it. They also said that during this semester, they have been taught grammar by the teacher. It is proven in the discussions. “Jadi pernah diajarkan grammar sama Bu Shofa?” “pernah” The result is in line with the theory of Sinclair (2000)’s statement that grammar is easy to understand. He also affirms that grammar is superficially easy to observe. Collins et.al (2009) argue that grammar can be easy and difficult. It depends on input that is received by students. In summary, the result showed that teacher interpreted grammar teaching by focusing on form. It can be seen from the teacher activities in the classroom when the lesson was running. The teacher explained it clearly and concerned on grammatical rule. Long (1991) strengthens this condition by stating that focus on form concern on structures, notions and lexical items where language is treated primarily as an object to be studied and practiced. By seeing the teacher’s activities, it showed that students experienced learned grammar by the teacher. It also can be seen from focused group discussion result. CONCLUSIONS Based on results and discussion, it can be concluded that the teacher interpreted grammar in 2013 curriculum by focusing on form. Focus on form means the students have to aware on grammatical form of the language. It happened in the classroom which the researcher observed, that the teacher explained the materials more clearly to the students based on the construct of language and grammatical rule. She demanded the students to acquired grammar naturally attention on the specific language. It is based on the theory of Long (1991) that it refers the traditional teaching that concern on structures, notions, and lexical items where language is treated primarily as an object to be studied and practiced. The teacher implemented focus on form in grammar teaching probably as a reason she wanted to make her students can compose the sentences with the right pattern. Besides, by interpreting focus on form she expected that her students can develop language knowledge and language acquisition. Another conclusion is that the teacher did not follow the rule of 2013 curriculum. In 2013 curriculum, the approach of teaching learning process is Communicative Language Teaching. Communicative language teaching is an approach to language teaching that emphasize interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study. It can be focus on form or focus on meaning. But in 2013 curriculum, it is focus on meaning. REFERENCES Astaman, A. (2010). An analysis of Teaching Writing through Genre Based Approach at SMAN 10 Pekan baru. Menulis bersama Aswir. Retrieved from http://menulisbersamaaswir.blogspot.com/2010/03/analysis-of-teaching-writing-trough.html Callaghan, M. a. J. R. (1988). Teaching Factual Writing a Genre Based Approach, Report on the DSP Literacy Project Metropolitan East Region, NSW Departement of EDucation. Sydney: Metropolitan East disadvantage school program. Collins, L., Trofimovich, P., White, J., Cardoso, W., & Horst, M. (2009). Some Input on the Easy/difficult Grammar Question: An Empirical Study. The Modern Language Journal, 93(3), 336-353. Doughty, C., & Williams, J. (1999). Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gao, J. (2007). Teaching Writing in Chinese Universities: Finding an Electric Approach Asian EFL Journal, 20. Kemendikbud. (2013a). Kompetensi Dasar: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. Kemendikbud. (2013b). Pembelajaran Berbasis Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris Melalui Pendekatan Saintifik. Lin, B. (2006). Genre Based Teaching and Principle in EFL: The Case University Writing Course. Asian EFL Journal 8(3), 226-248. Long. (1997). Focus on form in Task Based Language Teaching. The Mac Graw Hill Companies. Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A Design Features in Language Teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Long, M. H., & Robinson, P. (1999). Focus on Form: Theory, Research and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yan, G. (2005). A Process Genre Model for Teaching Writing (Vol. 43): English Teaching Forum.

A STUDY OF TEACHER’S REACTION TO THE STUDENT’S RESPONSES IN TERM OF INITIATING TALK IN THE SPEAKING CLASS AT THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

A STUDY OF TEACHER’S REACTION TO THE STUDENT’S RESPONSES IN TERM OF INITIATING TALK IN THE SPEAKING CLASS AT THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL NORISMA ALIF FUJIYANTI English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya hazuke.fuji@yahoo.com AHMAD MUNIR English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya munstkip@yahoo.com Abstrak Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif tentang reaksi guru yang berfokus pada reaksi guru terhadap respon siswa dan fitur konstruksi atau obstruksi bahasa guru. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan reaksi guru terhadap respon siswa dan mengklasifikasikannya ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru berdasarkan Walsh (2006). Subyek penelitian ini adalah guru bahasa Inggris perempuan dan siswa kelas tujuh dari SMP At- Taqwa Surabaya. Data utama diambil dari pengamatan. Rekaman audio dan wawancara digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data. Berdasarkan transkripsi, peneliti menganalisis interaksi bagaimana guru bereaksi terhadap respon siswa-siswa. Peneliti mengklasifikasikan reaksi – reaksi lisan guru tersebut ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru berdasarkan Walsh (2006) dan menemukan fitur yang membangun dan menghambat siswa untuk berbicara. Studi ini menemukan bahwa guru bereaksi terhadap respon siswa baik secara verbal maupun non-verbal. Guru menggunakan gerak tubuh, ekspresi wajah, kontak mata dan bahasa tubuh ketika melakukan reaksi non-verbal. Reaksi verbal guru dilakukan saat mengucapkan tanggapan guru. Ucapan guru tersebut diklasifikasikan ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru. Guru hanya menggunakan tujuh fitur bahasa guru dari empat belas, antara lain: Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo, Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. Dari tujuh fitur tersebut, satu - satunya fitur yang menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara yaitu Extended Wait-Time. Referential Question, Extended Teacher Turn dan Confirmation Checks membangun siswa untuk berbicara. Sedangkan sisanya, Scaffolding , Extended Teacher Turn dan Teacher Echo dapat membangun dan menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa guru melakukan reaksi baik verbal dan non-verbal guru selama pelajaran. Guru hanya menggunakan tujuh fitur bahasa guru dari empat belas. Dari tujuh fitur, hanya Extended Wait-Time yang menghalangi siswa untuk pembicaraan. Sedangkan enam dari mereka dapat membangun dan menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara. Keywords : Classroom Interaction, Teacher Talk, Teacher Reaction, Features of Teacher Talk Abstract This is a descriptive qualitative study, which focused on the teacher’s reaction to the students’ responses and the construction or obstruction features of teacher talk. This study is aimed to describe the teacher’s reaction to the students’ responses and classified the verbal teacher’s reactions into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006). The subjects of this research are a female English teacher and seventh graders of a Junior High School, At-Taqwa Surabaya. The main data was taken from the observation. The researcher used audio recording and interview to collect the data. The data were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively through certain steps then. The researcher classifies the verbal teacher’s reaction into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006) and finds out the features which construct and obstruct the students to talk. This study found that the teacher conducted both verbal and non-verbal teacher’s reaction. The teacher used gestures, facial expression, eye contact and body language when conducting non-verbal teacher’s reaction. The verbal teacher’s reactions are conducted by uttering the teacher’s responses. Those teacher utterances are classified into 14 features of teacher talk then. The teacher used only seven features of teacher talk out of fourteen. They were Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo, Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. From those seven features, only Extended Wait-Time which obstructed the students to talk. Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and Confirmation Checks constructed the students to talk. While, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn and Teacher Echo constructed and obstructed the students to talk. It can be concluded that the teacher conducts both verbal and non-verbal teacher’s reaction during the lesson. From those seven features of teacher talk used, only Extended Wait Time, which obstructs the student to talk. While the other six features, both construct and obstruct the students to talk. Keywords : Classroom Interaction, Teacher Talk, Teacher Reaction, Features of Teacher Talk INTRODUCTION Teachers need an extra ability to teach English for Junior High School students since they are included in to young learners’ classification. Cameron (2001) defined young learners as those who are less than 14 years old. Unlike adult, young learners are generally conscript into language classes. They often have no obvious reason for learning English. Furthermore, young learners do not always have well developed literacy skills to support their learning English. They are not able to read or write in their own language. They often learn slowly and forget quickly since they are still developing cognitively, linguistically, socially, emotionally and physically. Musthafa (2010:123) mentioned that there are three reasons why teaching young learners becomes quite difficult. The first reason is the limited function in social interaction. The second reason is the short time in teaching English as a local content. The third reason is about teaching English for young learner needs to prepare good ability and good training for the teacher. The teachers need to be competence and confidence in practicing the language target, which is English. Besides, they must be active and creative in demonstrating the language accurately, clearly, fluently in order to scaffold the students in speaking English. The exposure toward English affects the successful of learning English. Hammer (2000:24) stated that, the language learners will be success if they are exposed to language, motivated to learn, and have opportunity to use the language they are learning. Hammer’s statement implies that to get the students succeed in learning English, the teacher should build the students’ exposure to English and give the students opportunities in using English. The teacher has to construct the students become active in the class. However, making the students active in speaking class becomes quite difficult. Most of them have much opinion, yet, they may feel unconfident even shy to speak up in English. Whereas, in the speaking class, the more practice is needed. Therefore, teachers should understand what languages would be more efficient to initiate talk and construct the students in participating and practicing English as the language target in order to create an environment in which the students feel more confident to speak English during the learning process. In a foreign language classroom, in this case an English class, the amount of student talk is expected to be higher than the teacher talk, especially in a speaking class. Walsh (2006) stated that all about language teachers use in order to control, organize, and motivate the class which cause interaction between teacher and students called teacher talk. The success of conducting teacher talk depends on the teacher’s strategies for managing interaction in the classroom. Some teachers give a change for the students to contribute and participate in learning process. According to Bailey (2003: 54 – 56), one of the four principles of teaching speaking is that the teacher should provide opportunities for the students to talk and limit his own talk. However, some teachers deny the students to participate in learning process. They obstruct the students when they seek to involve the lesson. Whereas, the high amount of student talk in the English classroom expands the students’ exposure toward English. Walsh (2002) examined the ways in which teachers construct or obstruct learner participation in classroom interaction, through their choice of language. Construction meant “increasing learning potential” which can be done through activities like, Direct Error Correction, Content Feedback, Checking for Confirmation, Extended Wait Time, and Scaffolding. Obstruction meant “reducing learning potential” which can be done through Turn Completion, Teacher Echo, and Teacher Interruptions. According to Walsh (2006) investigation about the 14 features of teacher talk that can construct and obstruct the students’ participating. The researcher wants to know whether the Walsh’s construction or obstruction of teacher talk are also be applied in Indonesia School contexts or not. This study outlines two research questions, “How does the teacher react to the students’ responses in order to initiate talk in the speaking class?” and “Which features of Teacher Talk do construct and obstruct the students to talk?” A point to be noted is that the way the teacher reacts to the students’ responses. The researcher makes detail about the description of teacher talk in the term of teacher’s reaction. The verbal teacher’s reactions are classified into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006). METHODS This is descriptive qualitative study. The researcher describes the phenomenon happened which has no deal with number. McMillan (1992) explained that a qualitative research stresses on a phenomenological model or focuses on understanding and meaning which has no deal with number. The subjects of the study are a female English teacher and the seventh graders of Junior High School (SMP At-Taqwa Surabaya). The students consist of 38 students, 20 male and 18 female. While the teacher graduated from Surabaya State University in 2010. She has been teaching for 3 years: in MTs Miftahul Huda Pasuruan for a year and At- Taqwa for two years. The main data was taken through the observation. Audio recording and interview were used to collect the data. The data were then transcribed qualitatively. The researcher classified the verbal teacher’s reaction into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006) and found out the features of teacher talk that construct and obstruct the students to talk. The researcher used tables to analyze the data. The tables contain of the analysis of teacher’s reaction, teacher talk and the result of interview between the researcher and the students. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION Interaction has an important relation with communication; if there is no interaction, there cannot be communication (Thomas, 1987:4). Hence, interaction between the teacher and the student during the teaching learning process is needed, especially at the speaking class. There are four principles which need to be applied in teaching speaking (Bailey, 2003: 54 -56). One of them is the teacher should provide opportunities for students to talk and limit the teacher talk. This principle informs that the teacher should not dominate the talk and give the students more opportunity to talk. Rivers (1983:67) stated that to develop communication skill in a foreign language, the students must have continual practice in communicating. The teacher has to respond them back by giving reaction. The teacher’s reaction consists of verbal reaction, which is spoken and non-verbal reaction, which is unspoken such as gesture, touch, eye contact, hand coding, facial expression, body language and so on. The teacher’s utterances are included in the verbal teacher’s reaction. Those utterances can be classified into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006). The researcher found that the teacher used seven features of teacher talk out of fourteen. From those seven features, only Extended Wait-Time which obstructed the student to talk. Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and Confirmation Checks constructed the student to talk. While, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo both constructed and obstructed the student talk. Walsh (2002) examined that construction can be done through activities like, Direct Error Correction, Content Feedback, Checking for Confirmation, Extended Wait Time and Scaffolding. While, obstruction can be done through Turn Completion, Teacher Echo, Teacher Interruptions. The first feature used was Scaffolding. This feature is divided into three categories, they are Reformulation Scaffolding, Extension Scaffolding, and Modeling Scaffolding. The researcher found those categories during the observation. The first feature, Reformulation Scaffolding, shows how the teacher reformulated the student’s utterance in order to make something clearer, for example: Extract 1: S6 : Why the cloth not not…ehm, you know? S9 : Yes, yes,, because usually indie clothing is like that and then they sell like, like jacket and, and, any other cloth but, but I can’t I can’t search it, search it.. T : Search to get the picture? S9 : Yes T : So, you mean that actually you sell many kind of cloths but, but, that is only the picture. Extract 1 shows the Reformulation Scaffolding used when the teacher repharaprased the student’s answer which was unclear. A student asked to her friend, then her friend answered it, however, the answer was unclear. The teacher repeated student’s answer by repharaprased it using her own words. According to the observation, this category constructs the students to talk. The second category is Extension Scaffolding. It showed when the teacher extended the the student’s contribution, for example: Extract 2: S8 : Eighty. T : Eighty. Eighty percent. Okay, sit with your group please. One, two, three.. Extract 2 shows that Extension Scaffolding occurred when the teacher extended the student’s answer. The student answered “eighty”, however, the teacher extended it by saying “Eighty percent”. This category obstructs the students to talk. The last category, modeling scaffolding, used to correct a student’s contribution by giving a model. According to the observation, this category obstructs the students to talk. Extract 3: S9 : Ustadzah, the event will start at 5 until 7 pm. What is the English of ‘akan diadakan’? T : Will be held. S9 : Held, okay. T : held, h-e-l-d (the teacher pronouns and spells it) Extract 3 shows the modeling scaffolding was used by the teacher when a student asked her the English of ‘akan diadakan’. The teacher answered it and modeled it by pronouncing that word. According to Flanders (1970), Scaffolding is included in the fourth category of indirect teacher talk. It provided how the teacher shows his or her agreement toward what the students are saying or doing by rephrasing the student’s idea. It is in the line with Nunan’s (1989) statements that the idea given by the student must be re-paraphrased or spoken differently. The second feature of teacher talk found was referential question. This feature is used to gain the students’ opinion by giving questions in which the teacher does not know the answer. This feature constructs the students to talk since it lets the students to deliver their own thought. Extract 4: S6 : What does it for? T : What do you think? S6 : Ehm, I think for what turn to get. Extract 4 shows the referential question used by the teacher. It showed when a student asked the teacher, and then the teacher answered it by giving the student a question “what do you think”. This question included referential question since it could gain the student ideas. It is important for the teacher to give some questions to the students in order to gain their opinion. Cazden (2001) stated that in classroom interaction, students are involved in two kinds of talks: 1). Talk with experts (teacher), usually the pattern is I-R-E (teacher question, student’s response and teacher evaluation); 2). Talk among peers. Therefore, it was important for teacher to give some questions in order to initiate talk which caused the students’ responses. The teacher used referential question to gain the students to deliver their opinion, their ideas and their thought. The third feature found was Extended Wait-Time. This feature used when the teacher gives the students sufficient time to respond or formulate the responses. According to the observation, this feature obstructs the student to talk. Extract 5: T : You’re welcome. Okay, girls, I give you time five minutes. I’m sorry, because Nabila uses my laptop, so you have to prepare with your laptop. Or one laptop, the other in the flashdisk, but you can use your friend’s laptop. The teacher asked the students to present their presentation in front of the class. However, they had not finished their presentation. Thus, the teacher gave five minutes more for the students to finish their presentation. Giving the students several times to respond or formulate on response is needed. The students are people who learn something. They need sufficient time in their learning process. Therefore, the teacher gave several times for students to answer a question given or finish their work. She gave sufficient times to the student to finish preparing their presentation. The fourth feature found was Extended Teacher-Turn. It is a feature, which gives the teacher time to deliver her contributions for more than one clause. The teacher needs time to explain the lesson. She used more than one clause while explaining the materials. Moreover, this feature could be used to command the students. This feature could construct the students to talk; yet, it could obstruct the students to talk sometimes. Extract 6: T : Okay, other question? Salma gets one point, do you want to keep it as yours or your group? If for your group please write down there 50. S6 : No no no. sorry friends. T : Okay, no other questions? No? S6 : Why the date is 7? From the Extract 6, it shows that the teacher used more than one clause. The teacher invited the students to ask some questions related to their friend’s presentation. In addition, she also commanded a student to write down the point she got because giving a question to her friend. However, this feature obstructs the student to talk, for example: Extract 7: T : Okay, prepare it well and finish your work and the one who is finish, you can give me the file. Prepare for your presentation ya, for your presentation girl. Extract 7 shows that the teacher spoke more than one sentence. However, there was no verbal response from the students. The teacher only commanded the students to prepare their presentations well and finish it. She also asked the student who has finished giving her file to the teacher. The fifth feature found was teacher echo. It shows the repetition of the teacher’s and the students’ utterance that is spoken by the teacher. Those repetitions were used to strengthen the contribution, which has given by the teacher or the student. Extract 8: (1) S4 : Lidya, T : Lidya, okay. Ksenia with? (2) S3 : Ninety. T : Ninety, okay, what about you, Michel? Those two dialogues above were the examples of teacher echo, which were found when the researcher conducted the observation. Both of them showed that the teacher repeated the student’s utterances before giving response to the student. In the first dialogue, the student said “Lidya”, and then the teacher repeated it by saying “Lidya” too before giving her next response, which was “okay. Ksenia with?”. In the line with the first dialogue, the teacher also repeated the student’s utterances by saying what the student has said. The student said “ninety” and the teacher repeated it. She said “ninety” first before giving her next response, which was “okay. What about you, Michell?”. According to Cullen (2002), repetition as a teaching strategy can be evident in both types of moves. Repetition is known as a teacher "echo." It can be used to acknowledge, confirm, question, or express surprise at a student's contribution while ensuring that all listeners have heard it. Cullen (1998) redefines repetition, formerly a feature of non-communicative teacher talk, as communicative within a classroom context for its pedagogic function. According to the observation, Teacher Echo could both construct and obstruct the students to talk. The sixth feature found was confirmation checks feature. This feature was concerned on the way teacher making sure that she understood the student’s contribution. Based on the observation, this feature could both construct and obstruct the students to talk. Extract 9: S9 : Yes, yes,, because usually indie clothing is like that and then they sell like, like jacket and, and, any other cloth but, but I can’t I can’t search it, search it.. T : Search to get the picture? S9 : Yes Extract 9 was the example confirmation check found by the teacher when conducting the observation. The conversation above shows that the teacher made sure that she had understood what the student have said. The way the student delivered her opinion was around the buss. Therefore, the teacher paraphrased the student’s sentences using her own words. The teacher just checked that her thought was same with the student's thought. The last feature of teacher talk found was teacher interruptions. It used to avoid chaos. The researcher found that the teacher interrupted the student’s contribution, whereas, her utterance was not finished. In the line with the previous feature, this feature also could both construct and obstruct the student to talk. Extract 10: S7 : Ustadzah, my memory card is full of virus ustadzah,, T : Oh, like that? S7 : The file is gone. T : Oh, really? S7 : Yes. T : And you don’t have the copy of it? S7 : Ehm, no, T : Really? S7 : He’em. If tomorrow, I … T : Try to finish it now. Okay? S7 : Okay. Extract 10 shows that the teacher interrupted the student utterance. The student told to the teacher that her memory card was full of virus and she did not have its copy. It seemed that the student would bargain the teacher to collect her works tomorrow. However, the teacher interrupted her utterances, which had not finished yet. The teacher asked her to finish the work now. There were five features of teacher talk, which the teacher has not used. They were direct repair, display question, content feedback, form-focused feedback, and seeking clarification. However, these features should be used also to react the students’ responses. Direct repair is used to correct the wrong students’ contribution directly. For example, when the student’s answers are wrong; the teacher should correct it directly so that they do not let the students to make a mistake. Moreover, it is important for the teacher to react the students’ contribution by giving some feedback. Walsh (2006) divided feedback into two kinds, namely, content feedback and form-focused feedback. Content feedback is a feedback, which concerns on the message rather than the words used. The form-focused is a feedback, which concerns on the words used. In addition, seeking clarification can also be used to react to the students’ responses too. It is included how the teacher asks students to clarify something that they have said. Display question also can be used to check the students’ comprehension by giving question related to the lesson. Furthermore, the teacher also gave unspoken reaction using gestures, facial expression, eye contact and body language. She used the non-verbal teacher’s reaction to strengthen her verbal reaction. Gesture showed when she used her hand while she explained and gave directions to the students. There were three gestures conducted, hand pointing, hand coding, and clapping. The researcher divides hand coding into three kinds, namely counting, raising hand and explaining. The teacher used clapping as a reward for the student. Another non-verbal teacher's reaction used are facial expression. The teacher showed two facial expressions which were smiling and laughing. Besides, the teacher always showed eyes contact when interacting with the student. She did not avoid it. In a line with the teacher, the students also did eyes contact when they asked, answered and talked with the teacher. Furthermore, the teacher also conducted body language when she was teaching. Body language is included to the nonverbal reaction too. She moved at one side to the other side of the class the students when she was teaching. She did not stay in one place only. In summary, the teacher used seven features of teacher talk out of fourteen. They were scaffolding, referential question, extended wait-time, extended teacher turn, teacher echo, confirmation checks, and teacher interruption. From those seven features, the only feature, which obstructed the student to talk was Extended wait-time. Three of them which constructed the student to talk were Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and Confirmation Checks, whereas the rest, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo and could both construct and obstruct the student talk. Moreover, both the teacher and the students spoke in English during the teaching and learning process. CONCLUSION From thorough elaboration and discussion upon the data on the fourth chapter, it could be concluded that the teacher reacted the students’ responses both verbally and non-verbally. The verbal reactions could be classified into 14 features of teacher talk, yet, these teacher utterances could be classified into seven features only; they were Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo, Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. From those seven features, the only feature, which obstructed the student to talk was Extended Wait-Time. Three of them which constructed the student to talk were Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and Confirmation Checks, whereas the rest, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo and could both construct and obstruct the student talk. Moreover, the teacher conducted the non-verbal reaction by using gestures, facial expression, eye contact and body language. REFERENCES Bailey, K. M. 2003. Speaking. In David Nunan (ED). Practical English Language Teaching. New York: McGraw Hill Cameron, L. 2001.Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom discourse: the language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52 (3), 179-187 Cullen, R. 2002. Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the f-move. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 117-127 Flanders, N. A. 1970. Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Harmer, J. 2000. The Practice of English Language Teaching. London: Longman McMillan, J. H. 1992. Educational Research: Fundamentals for The consumer. New York: Harper Collins Publisher Musthafa, B. 2010. Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia. Educationist, 10, 120-125 Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. UK: Prentice Hall Rivers, W. M. 1983. Speaking in Many Tounges: Essay in Foreign Language Teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press Thomas, A.M. 1987. Interactice Language Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 61 (1), 3-23 Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge

PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS BY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

PROBLEMS IN UNDERSTANDING IDIOMATIC EXPRESSIONS BY SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS Rosyita Okta Utami English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya Rosyitaitak@ymail.com Ahmad Munir English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya Munstkip@yahoo.com Abstrak Idiom berhubungan dengan ungkapan idiomatik yang sebagian besar sering digunakan dalam bahasa sehari-hari. Tapi ironisnya, sebagian besar siswa mengalami kesulitan dalam memahami arti ungkapan-ungkapan idiomatik. Terkait dengan hal tersebut di atas, penulis tertarik untuk mempelajari masalah dalam memahaminya. Peneliti menggunakan penelitian kuantitatif dengan subjek pengamatan siswa kelas XII SMA Negeri 1 Cerme yang meliputi XII Ipa-1, 3 dan 5. Teknik pengumpulan data yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah skor tes dan respon dari kuesioner yang dianalisis menggunakan SPSS. Berdasarkan hasil tes, penulis menemukan bahwa siswa mendapat kesulitan dalam memahami idiom pada jenis verba phrasal dan penggabungan kata kerja. Di sisi lain, konteks mempunyai hasil yang berbeda dalam membantu siswa memprediksi makna ungkapan-ungkapan idiomatic. Ada 3 konteks yang berbeda di dalam tes, dan hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa TMC mempunyai t-value yang lebih tinggi dibandingkan dengan lainnya, itu berarti TMC mempunyai peran yang baik dalam membantu murid-murid dalam mengeksplorasi makna yang ada. Akhirnya, diharapkan bahwa penyelesaian penelitian ini akan berguna untuk guru bahasa Inggris dan peneliti lain. Kata kunci: masalah, ungkapan-ungkapan idiomatik, konteks, siswa SMA. Abstract Idioms which is related to idiomatic expressions have a great extent use in everyday language. But ironically, most students get difficulty in understanding the meaning of idiomatic expressions. Related to the above matters, the writer was interested in studying the problems in understanding it. The researcher used quantitative research in doing her study with the subject of the research third graders of SMA Negeri 1 Cerme which include XII-Ipa 1, 3 and 5. The data collection technique used for this research were test score and questionnaire responses which was analyzed using SPSS. Based on the test result, she found that the students got difficulty in understanding idioms in phrasal verbs and incorporating verbs type. There were three different contexts of the test, and the result showed that TMC has higher t-value which means TMC has a good assistance to help students in exploring the meaning. Furthermore, context has crucial role in determining the meaning which helps and assists students to explore the meaning of idiomatic expressions. Finally, it is expected that the result of this study will be useful for English teachers and other researchers. Keywords: problem, idiomatic expressions, context, Senior High School Students. INTRODUCTION One of the important aspects in English is idiom. Idioms are frequently used in a wide variety of situations. Cooper (1998) states that idioms are so frequently used in spoken and written language that they require special attention in language teaching. ‘An idiom is an expression whose overall figurative meaning cannot be derived from the meaning of its parts’ (Marlies, 1995; p. 283). Moreover, according to Langasher (1968: 79), “an idiom is a kind of complex lexical item. It is a phrase whose meaning cannot be predicted from the meanngs of the morphemes it comprises”. This definitions showed two basic characteristics of the idiom. First, is that idiom is a complex lexical item, second is that meaning cannot be inferred from it parts. In other words, the meaning of the idiomatic expressions is not the sum of the words taken individually. Since idiom is a part of language, it should also be taught along with learning English. In a second language learning classroom, complete idiomatic teaching will not usually be offered and required; however, all learners must be prepared to meet the challenge of idioms which occurs frequently in spoken and written English (Irujo, 1986b). That is why, it is very important for students to master idiomatic expressions. However, the fact showed that idiomatic expressions always cause a lot of problems to learners. According to Cooper (1999), idiomatic expressions understanding study presents a special language problem for all language learners because the figurative meaning is unpredictable. Students usually find the difficulties in recognizing an expression as idiomatic or not, and then understanding its exact meaning. This showed that idiomatic expressions carry a sense that makes the comprehension of an idiom is difficult. In other words, the meaning of an idiom cannot be deduced from the meaning of its constituent parts. The main problem for students is recognizing an idiom and understanding it at once. According to Cooper (1999), “idiom study presents a special language problem for all language learners because the figurative meaning is unpredictable.The result of another study stated that mastering idioms and the ability to use them in the written and the spoken discourse is considered as a sign towards proficiency.” The researcher finds many colleagues who have discussed about problem in understanding idiomatic expressions. The first researcher is Winis (2013) who focused the study on “Investigating the Difficulties Faced in Understanding, and Strategies Used in Processing, English Idioms by the Libyan Students”. The subject of her study was university Libyan students. Then, the second researcher is Meryem (2010) who conducted an observational study entitled “Problems of Idioms in Translation”. From her observation, she thought that students of English really find considerable difficulties in guessing the appropriate meaning of idiomatic expressions. Subjects of her study were children. Those previous studies above proved that students face the difficulties in understanding idiomatic expressions. Those researchers did an observational study to analyze the problem. But the thing that is differentiated here is the subject. So, in this case what makes the two previous studies and this study different is that the researcher uses test and questionnaire for senior high school students. This means that the difference is the subjects that is combination of Indonesian students that makes it more interesting and meaningful. That is why the researcher wants to know further about problem faced by senior high school students in this study. Moreover, it was noticed that there is not much research done in this respect. In the analysis of the students’ performance, in this study the researcher shall be looking for the specific problems students would have in understanding idioms correctly, how the context of the test would assist them in exploring the meaning of idiomatic expressions. For all the above and taking into consideration of the great importance of idiom, the researcher is interested to examine the type of difficulty for senior high school students in understanding the idiomatic expressions. It is accepted that students have different diffculties in different context. It means that they will use their own knowledge which is suitable for them to convey the word meaning. By knowing their problem in understanding idiomatic expressions, hopefully they can solve their problem especially when they face unfamiliar idiomatic expressions in English lessons. From this present study, it is expected that students will be more aware about themselves. Therefore, a study of problems in understanding idiomatic expressions was conducted in SMAN 1 Cerme with the subjects were three classes of third grader. This study is expected to remind teacher about the importance of caring the students’ difficulties through understanding idiomatic expressions and also to give contribution to know about students experience in understanding idiomatic expressions. Hence, this study was intended to find out what kind of idiomatic expressions which is difficult to understand and also to investigate the role of the context in assisting the students to explore the meaning of idiomatic expressions. METHODS The research design of this research was quantitative. The aims of this research was to find the students problem in understanding idiomatic expressions and to know which kind of idiomatic expressions that they do not understand. Moreover, quantitative research emphasizes on numbers, measurements, deductive logic, controls and experiments (McMillan, 1998: 9). The participant of this research are the students of the third grader who study in SMA Negeri 1 Cerme. The researcher chose the third grade based on purposive sampling. The setting of this study was at SMAN 1 Cerme. The school was chosen because of some considerations. First, SMAN 1 Cerme is a good school in Kabupaten Gresik. Thus, the students who are in the third grade are pupils from various Junior High Schools in Gresik with different degree of mastering English lesson and they have been taught English in first and second grade. The researcher only chose three classes include XII-Ipa 1, XII-Ipa 3 and XII-Ipa 5. The student respondents were considered to represent the understanding of idiomatic expressions of Senior High School students in SMA Negeri 1 Cerme. The data of this research was scoring of idiomatic expressions test which was divided into 3 different contexts; Translation Test (TT) with no context, Test-Multiple Choice (TMC) and Test-Blank Filling (TBF). The data was also taken from students’ responses to questionnaire which was divided in 10 statements. The test have been tried out before the researcher conduct the test in school. In that test, they should read the given text and then answer the questions in the form of determining the meaning of 60 idiomatic expressions words. The test contained of some reading passages which contained of 60 numbers of idiomatic expressions target. In doing this research, the researcher did a content validity process which means that the content of the data are valid if it is suitable with the instruments. The result of reliability statistics showed that all values in inter-item correlations are positive, indicate that the items are measuring the same underlying characteristic. The cronbach’s alpha value is .789 which suggests an acceptable internal consistency reliability. Questionaire is used to get students’ viewpoints and experience in understanding idiomatic expressions.However, every statement in the questionaire, ran from: strongly disagree, disagree, I don’t know, agree and strongly agree. Meanwhile, the reasearcher analyzed the test score by seeing the correlation between them using Paired Samples T-Test in SPSS and also analyzed the test score using descriptive statistics. According to Pallant (2010), a paired-samples t-test (also referred to as repeated measures) is used when the researcher has only one group of people (or companies, or machines etc). and collect data from them on two different occasions or under two different conditions. In descriptive statistics, the researcher saw which idioms have the lowest mean from the test score. Moreover, ANOVA was also used to analyze the data to measure the performance of every class. However, the score of the test was used to answer the first, second and third research questions. The result of the questionaire was analyzed using descriptive statistic which showed the mean of every statement from the questionaire to answer research question number three. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The result shows that many students have difficulties in thedecoding (Non-Identifiable) type of idioms. The findings explained kind of idiomatic expressions which are most difficult to understand and the result data have been ranked from the lowest into the highest mean from the test score. There are 3 points in the first finding. It was found that the lowest mean in Translation Test (TT) score was test number 6 (mean=.14) with idiom “make up”. In other word, idiom of “make up” was type of phrasal verbs idiom. Next point presented that the lowest mean in Test-Multiple Choice (TMC) score was test number 6 (mean=.38) with idiom “make up”. In other word, idiom of “make up” was type of phrasal verbs idiom. Last point showed that the lowest mean in Test-Blank Filling (TBF) score was test number 18 (mean=.07) with idiom “sleep on”. In other word, idiom of “sleep on” was type of phrasal verbs idiom. From the explanation above, it can be concluded that students got phrasal verb idioms as the most difficult type of idioms. However, first finding was related to the type of idioms, each student has different mind in choosing the correct answer of the test. Majority of students get difficulties in answer the idioms in type of phrasal verbs. Makkai (1996: 3) stated that the type of idioms could be classified into lexemic and sememic which includephrasal compounds, incorporating verbs, pseudo-idioms, proverbs and familiar quotations with the most difficulties in phrasal verbs. The next explanation shows different kind of idioms which was stated on the test and also the different types of idioms which was difficult for students to answer it as follows; Lexemic idioms which include phrasal verbs on the test were “make up”, “calls on”, “sleep on”, “give up”, closed up”, “dress up”, catch up”, and “put off”. In the incorporating verbs which was stated on the test were “got away” and “take turns”. Besides that, the type of proverbs is “keep an eye on” and the type of familiar quotation is “in time”. However, half of students in every class got difficulties in answering those types of phrasal verbs idioms. So, the finding was in line with Makkai (1996: 3). Besides that, the researcher also found the role of context to assist the students in exploring the meaning of idiomatic expressions. It can be seen by analyzing it using SPSS in the form of paired samples t-test on Translation Test (TT), Test-Multiple Choice (TMC) and also Test-Blank Filling (TBF). First pair are TT and TMC, there is a statistically significant different in test scores from Translation Test (TT) (M= 61.06, SD= 21.153) with Test- Multiple Choice (TMC) (M= 74.17, SD = 18.876), t (89) = -7.897, p< .0005 (two-tailed). The confidence interval is 95%, ranging from -15.410 to -9.812. The t-value (in this case, -7.89) and the degrees of freedom (df=89), as the Mean difference in the two scores was -13.11, with a 95 per cent confidence interval stretching from a Lower bound of -16.410 to an Upper bound of -9.812. The (p) value is .000, it means that this value is substantially smaller than specified alpha value of .05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the Fear of Statistics Test scores. Moreover, in Translation Test with Test-Multiple Choice, the t-value showed (-7.897) which means the score of Test-Multiple Choice is higher than Translation Test. Second pair are TT and TBF, there is a statistically significant different in test scores from Translation Test (TT) (M= 61.06, SD= 21.153) with Test-Blank Filling (TBF) (M= 48.72, SD = 22.418), t (89) = 5.017, p< .0005 (two-tailed). The confidence interval is 95%, ranging from 21.254 to 29.635. The t-value (in this case, 5.01) and the degrees of freedom (df=89), as the Mean difference in the two scores was 12.33, with a 95 per cent confidence interval stretching from a Lower bound of 7.449 to an Upper bound of 17.218. The (p) value is .000, it means that this value is substantially smaller than specified alpha value of .05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference in the Fear of Statistics Test scores. Moreover, in Translation Test with Test-Blank Filling that showed the t-value is (5.017) which means the score of Translation Test is higher than Test-Blank Filling. Third pair are TMC and TBF, there is a statistically significant different in test scores from Test-Multiple Choice (TMC) (M= 48.72, SD= 22.418) with Test-Blank Filling (TBF) (M= 48.72, SD = 22.418), t(89) = 12.064, p<. 0005 (two-tailed). The confidence interval is 95%, ranging from 21.254 to 29.535. The t-value (in this case, 12.06) and the degrees of freedom (df=89), as the Mean difference in the two scores was 25.44, with a 95 per cent confidence interval stretching from a Lower bound of 21.25 to an Upper bound of 29.63. The (p) value is .000, it means that this value is substantially smaller than specified alpha value of .05. Therefore, it can be conclude that there is a significant difference in the Fear of Statistics Test scores. Moreover, in Test-Multiple Choice with Test-Blank Filling showed the t-value is (12.064) which means the score of Test-Multiple Choice is higher than Test-Blank Filling. Based on the all explanation above, it can be conclude that different context has different result, and it made sense that context played a crucial role in understanding idiomatic expressions. As a result, it was same that the skills used to process and understand language in context are thought to be important for the development of idiom understanding (Levorato & Cacciari, 1995). Furthermore, t-value on the test is different in the use of the different types of context. The first pair is Translation Test with Test-Multiple Choice, the t-value showed (-7.897) which means that the score of Test-Multiple Choice is higher than Translation Test. Besides that, the second pair is Translation Test with Test-Blank Filling that showed the t-value is (5.017) which means the score of Translation Test is higher than Test-Blank Filling. Moreover, the last pair is Test-Multiple Choice with Test-Blank Filling that showed the t-value is (12.064) which means the score of Test-Multiple Choice is higher than Test-Blank Filling. It can be conclude that using the context of Test-Multiple Choice (TMC) is the best way in determining the meaning of idiomatic expressions because the t-value is the highest from Translation Test (TT) and Test-Blank Filling (TBF). It can be concluded that TMC is the easier type of test that can be used to predict the meaning of idiomatic expressions. It also means that the context of TMC (Test Multiple Choice) has a good assistance in helping the students to explore the meaning of idiomatic expressions. Furthermore, past research has shown that L2 learners use context to interpret idioms and are more successful to interpret idioms in context than in isolation (Cooper 1998; Ishida 2008b; Liontas 2002). CONCLUSIONS This study is concerned with investigating the problems of understanding idioms from and into English. Two conclusions can be drawn, first result shows that students of senior high school really find considerable difficulties in guessing the appropriate meaning of idiomatic expressions. This is mainly due to the fact that idioms are colorful and has different types in which the meaning is not obvious from the meaning of the constituent words. The type that they get difficult is in phrasal verbs. Second, context has an important role in facilitating the figurative interpretation of idiomatic expressions, and hence, providing correct answers. Because idioms have strong conventional meaning associated, it is possible that context plays much role in helping the students to guess the meaning. At the same time, context plays a crucial role in getting the students to understand the use of an idiomatic expressions. There are 3 different contexts of the test used in this study, and the result shows that the context of TMC (Test-Multiple Choice) is the most successful type of context which assist the students to determine the meaning of idiomatic expressions. TT (Translation Test) and TBF (Test-Blank Filling) have t-value which is under TMC. So, it has been proved that context has crucial role in assisting students to understand the idiomatic expressions. REFERENCES Cooper, Thomas. 1998. Teaching Idioms. Foreign language annals, 31(2), 255-266. Cooper, Thomas. 1999. Processing of Idioms by L2 Learners of English. TESOL Quartsly, 33(2), 233-262. Irujo, S. 1986b. A piece of cake: learning and teaching idioms. ELT Journal, PP.236-237. Langasher, W.R. 1968. Language and Its Structure: Some Fundamental Linguistic Concepts. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc. Levorato, M. C. 1993. The Acquisition of Idioms and the Development of Figurative Competence. In C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi (eds.), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 101-128. Makkai, A. 1996. Idiom Structure in English. The Hague: Mouton. Marlies, E.C. 1995. You Don’t Die Immediately When You Kick an Empty Bucket: A Processing View on Semantic and Syntactic Characteristics of idioms. McMillan, James H. 1992. Educational Research: Fundamentals for the Consumer. Haper Collins Publishers. Meryem, Mezmas. 2010. Problems of Idioms in Translation. Journal of English Language. 7(2), 16-18. Montouri University-Constantie. Pallant, Julie. 2010. SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS (4th edn). Australia: McGraw-Hill. Winis, Noura. 2013. Investigating the Difficulties Faced in understanding, and Strategies Used in Processing, English Idioms by the Libyan Students. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies vol: 7, Issue: 2, 69-90. University of Sebya, Libyan.

SYMBOLS IN TEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND THEIR MEANINGS
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

SYMBOLS IN TEACHER’S WRITTEN FEEDBACK AND THEIR MEANINGS Ida Apriyanti English Education, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya idaapriyanti26@gmail.com Ahmad Munir English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya munstkip@yahoo.com Abstrak Balikan tertulis dari guru merupakan hal yang penting dalam proses belajar mengajar bahasa. Pendapat mengenai efek dari pemebrian balikan tertulis pada pekerjaan siswa menjadi topik yang banyak dibahas oleh para ahli, telah banyak penetian yang dilakukan terkait dengan topik ini. Sebuah penelitian yang dilaksanakan oleh Rahmawati (2013) menunjukkan bahwa pemberian balikan tertulis dapat menimbulkan kesalahan dalam mengartikan balikan tertulis dalam bentuk simbol. Maka dari itu penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mencari faktor-faktor yang memungkinkan menjadi penyebab salah pengartian atau perbedaan pengartian balikan tertulis dalam bentuk simbol. Penelitian inti merupakan sebuah penelitian deskriptif kualitatif, dengan melibatkan siswa kelas VIII-E di SMPN 2 Kunjang, Kediri and guru bahasa inggris kelas tersebut sebagai partisipan. Penelitian ini menggunakan tiga intrumen penelitian termasuk: dokumentasi, observasi dalam bentuk field notes dan wawancara. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa guru menggunakan tiga jenis balikan tertulis yang berupa simbol antara lain: garis, inisial, dan kata. Meskipun kebanyakan dari simbol-simbol ini berhasil diartikan dengan pengertian yang sama oleh guru dan siswa, namun tetap ada perbedaan pengartian untuk beberapa simbol. Ada tiga factor yang memungkinkan memicu perbedaan pendapat terhadap simbol yaitu: ketidak jelasan arti simbol, ketidak jelasan penulisan simbol, dan ketidak konsistenan dalam memberikan balikan simbol sesuai dengan jenis kesalahan. Kata kunci: Balikan Tertulis, Simbol, dan Perbedaan Makna Abstract Written feedback is a crucial thing in language learning. The argument over the effect of giving written feedback to the students’ performance became an issue among the experts, numerous research had been done to investigate this issue. A result of study done by Rahmawati (2013), showed that the giving of written feedback might lead into students’ misinterpretation toward the written feedback in form of symbols. Thus, this study was aimed to seek the possible factors that lead into misinterpretation, or different interpretations toward written feedback in the form of symbols. This was a descriptive qualitative study, with the students of VIII-E of SMPN 2 Kunjang, Kediri and the teacher as the participants. This study used three instruments to collect the data including: documentation, observation field notes, and interview. It was found that the teacher used three forms of symbols while giving written feedback, namely: lines, initials, and words. Even though in interpreting these symbols the teacher and the students mostly had in the same point of view but, but it was found that sometimes they had different interpretation toward certain symbols. It was found that at least there were three possible factors that triggered the presence of different interpretation between the teacher and the students, including; the unclear meaning of symbols, the unclear drawing of symbols, and the inconsistency in giving symbols feedback based on the type of errors. Key Words: Written Feedback, Symbols, and Different Interpretation INTRODUCTION The attempts to improve students’ writing have been developed by the education practitioners for a long time. One of the strategies to improve student writing performance is by giving feedbacks to the students. The aim of giving feedback is to give the students any kinds of comments which are used to give such valuable guidance, directions or even hints in doing revision in their writing. Keh (1990) defines feedbacks on writing as an input from a reader to a writer with the effect of providing information to the writer for revision. Feedback helps the students and the teacher to match what is still in problem during the teaching learning section. Williams(2003) claims that written feedback is an essential aspect of English language writing activity . The giving of feedback will catch the students’ attention to their performance because of their eagerness to perform better by doing revision in it. This is in line with Hyland and Hyland (2006) who also claim that feedback is commonly seen as crucial for both encouraging and consolidating learning. Hence, the providing of feedback in the students writing will encourage the students to revise the errors and finally have a better writing. The way teachers give feedback to the students work will depend on the type of written work and the respond that is wanted. A basic distinction is needed to make in the teacher feedback, according to Ellis (2009) there are several types of teacher written feedback, including: direct feedback, indirect feedback, metalingusitic feedback, focus feedback, unfocused feedback, electronic feedback and reformulation feedback. Even though feedbacks may provide a good effect to the student’s writing production, the latest issues of giving feedback also reveal another view which found that the activity of giving feedback was a harmful thing to do. An argument coming from Truscott (1996) who claims that giving feedback is both ineffective and harmful and therefore it should be abandoned. Gray (2004) also argued that the use of grammar corrective feedback may be not effective in writing class because it may be harmful, it treats only the surface appearance of grammar and not with the way language development. Hyland (2003) argues that written feedback provided by the teacher is frequently misunderstood, sometimes being too vague prescriptions and inconsistent. There is a possibility that the students having a different interpretation to the feedback given by the teacher and it will be getting worse when there is no attempt between the students and the teacher to have the same interpretation over the feedback. The teacher also has a possibility of wrongly giving feedback to the students unconsciously the teacher might provide vague prescriptions so the feedback will be uneasy to be understood or sometimes the giving of feedback being inconsistent from one student to another student. A result of study done by Rahmawati (2013), dealing with the contra productive effects that teacher’s written feedback has toward the students’ tendency to rewrite error in their revision after the giving of feedback, showed that the giving of written feedback might lead into students’ misinterpretation toward the symbols, thus they rewrote errors in their revision. Symbols are a common tool used by teachers in providing feedback to the students’ work. Symbols as feedback is a kind of codes which are used to indicate that his or her use of target language is incorrect (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Oshima and Hogue (1997) explain that correction symbols refers to the indication of types and locations of students error, it is normally done by underlining, circling, crossing out or any other kinds of symbols to help students focusing their attention to the error types. Symbols as feedback are signs that represent errors, by using symbols the teacher tells the student about the errors they made and direct the students doing revision. There are no fix symbols that should be used by the teacher. The symbols in Table 1 below were suggested by Harmer (2007) that are often used by the teachers to give feedback on the students writing. Table 1 The Symbols in Written Feedback Suggested by Harmer (2007) Symbol Meaning Incorrect Correct P Punctuation I bought (P) clothes, shoes and some trousers. I bought clothes, shoes, and some trousers. l Something has been left He told (l) that he was sorry He told me that he was sorry. WO Wrong order I caught a very fish big. (WO) I caught a very big fish. To avoid such different interpretation toward feedback symbols, according to Weigle’s (2001) suggestions, the teacher and the students should agree first of having certain symbols in written form and the way to interpret them. Thus even though the teacher must not use any certain symbols to give written feedback to the students’ work, still there should be an agreement on the limitation of symbols that are going to used among the teacher and the students and their meanings so that it can ease the students doing revision. The right interpretation of symbols will help the students to perform better in their revised writing but the problem may exist if the symbols are not interpreted in the right way, as the result of Rahmawati’s (2013) study that has been delivered in the previous paragraph. As no studies have explored the problem dealing with the cause of misinterpretation or in this study the researcher defines it as a phenomenon of different interpretation toward symbols as feedback, thus it is important to seek the further information dealing with this issue. By describing the meaning of symbols in the written feedback based on the teacher’s and the students’ view, therefore there could be noticed the possible factors that triggered different interpretation of symbols among them. This study was intended to answer the following questions: What symbols does the teacher use in giving feedback? What do all these symbols mean according to the teacher and the students? What make students have different interpretation on the meaning of symbols in the teacher’s written feedback? RESEARCH METHODS The students of VIII- E SMPN 2 Kunjang and the English teacher of this class were chosen as the participants of this study. This class consisted of 18 male students and 18 female students. The students did the writing activity, they wrote a paragraph of recount. Their works then were given feedback in the written form by the teacher. The writings that were given feedback by the teacher then would be returned to the students to be revised. Trough the result of the students’ revisions to the errors that had been given such a written feedback, the researcher analyzed the possible factors triggering the different interpretation toward symbols in the written feedback. In order to answer the research questions that had been mentioned before, the researcher collected the data trough three instruments, including: documentation, observation, and interview. The documentations in this study were gathered from students’ written work. The students’ written work aided the researcher to collect data about the number of symbols used by the teacher and to help the researcher making analysis to the meaning of symbols according to the students and find the causes of different interpretations to the meaning of symbols in the teacher’s written feedback between the students and the teachers. The observation was conducted in a nonparticipant observation, it was used to record the classroom activity during the implementation of teacher feedback and was used to record all important things that already seen, heard, and happened. The observation was in the form of unstructured field notes. An observation field note was used to aid the researcher during the observation in collecting the data about the teaching and learning process in the classroom, this field notes focused on the activities of the teacher and the students while asking and giving explanation of feedback especially in the form of symbols. This data was important to avoid the unwanted bias that may exist in the result of interview and to determine the objectivity of the result of the present study. The researcher interviewed both teacher and the students. The interview helped the researcher to seek the information of teacher’s and the students’ interpretation of symbols. Generally, these interview questions were focused on the meaning of various symbols in written feedback. Firstly, the documentations of students’ writings were tabled into two. The first table was used to mention all of the feedbacks which ware in the form of symbols and then they would be grouped into their category, then these symbols were given meaning based on the result of interview, researcher’s analysis of students writing, and the facts in the class. In the second table, the researcher used the data from students writing to write the students’ errors in their first essay and the revisions in their revised essay. It gave an opportunity for the researcher to make a possible meaning of symbols according to the students’ result of writing and its revision. Secondly, analyze the result of interview. The interviews which were conducted to the students were transcribed then were qualitatively analyzed to get the data of the students’ interpretation of symbols given by the teacher in their works, and the interview with the teacher was analyzed to seek the information of the teacher’s interpretation of symbols in her written feedback. Then, analysis of the result of the interviews with the researcher would show if there was a different interpretation of symbols between the teacher and students. The last, the observation field notes were analyzed according to the fact and the researcher interpretation. The researcher’s analysis was naturally based on the phenomena during the activity of giving teacher’s written feedback in the class. The analysis was used to strengthen the result of data gained from the table and the interviews, these data were important to avoid the unwanted bias that may exist in the result of interview. This was used to seek the factors triggering different interpretation of symbols between the teacher and the students. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION From the analysis of students writing, it was found that when giving written feedback the teacher used at least three forms of symbols as the written feedback, including: lines, initials, and words. The symbols which were in the form of lines, consisted of: circles, crosses, strikethroughs, arrows, bent arrows, double bent arrows, brackets and underlines (for the drawing of symbols see Table 1). The teacher also used initials to symbolize the errors made by the students, they were: “V1”, “V2”, “V3”, “be”, “be2”, “Obj”. Last, the feedbacks which were in the form of words were: subject, object, and milik (possessive pronoun). The teacher also combined, at least, two symbols to represent one idea such as: “(V2)” or “_______be2 ”. The table 1 showed the symbols used by the teacher. The symbols which were in the form of lines, according to Ellis (2009), it can be included into the indirect feedback because these lines were a kind of mark to sign the errors made by the students in their writing that were aimed to give the students a hint to do revision, these kind of symbols did not provide such a direct correction given by the teacher. The feedbacks which were in the form of initial can be included into metalinguistic feedback, Ellis (2009) confirms that metalinguistic feedback can be in the form of abbreviation or initial of labels for different kinds of errors, these labels of errors signing the students to the type of errors they made in their writing, it was aided the student doing revision based on the feedback symbols they received, while the feedbacks which were in form of words did not become a feedback which were suggested by any experts, because rather than used the full labels of error, most of the teacher prefers using initials or abbreviations as the label of errors. The meaning of symbols according to the teacher’s and the students’ view had the result of interview with the teacher and the result of researcher’s analysis of students’ writing as its sources of the data. By making use the information directly provided by the teacher through the interview and the analysis of the students’ writing, it can be summarized that the teacher gave such a classification for each errors. The teacher gave symbols as a feedback based on the type of errors made by the students and each of these symbols explicitly provided the information for doing revision. Because of there were a number of error types that made by the students, thus there were a number of symbols used by the teacher. In the Table 2 the researcher provided the explanation to the meaning of each symbol according to the teacher. Table 2 The Symbol Meanings According to the Teacher Second, the meaning of symbols according to the students’ view. The students’ revision of their writing gave the researcher such information of their interpretation toward the feedback given by the teacher the result also supported by the interviews with the students. For example, according to the S22’s (Student number 22) first writing (see Figure 1) and its revision (see Figure 2), it can be concluded that she interpreted the circled and the underlined words which were added by the “V2” symbol were the errors that need to be changed into the past participle, they were: look which was changed into looked, get into got, laugh into laughed, and go into went. In accordance with the result of the interview, she did revision to the words that were given double bent arrows symbol by changing the word order, such as experience ashamed which revised into ashamed experience and pants wet revised into wet pants. The following figures were the writings of S22. Figure 1 The S22’s First Writing Figure 2 The S22’s Revision Another analysis coming from S5’s writing (see Figure 3 and 4). From his writing, there could be seen that the S5 did revision to his writing. He got a feedback of “be2” that was given by the teacher, he interpreted it as “bez” thus he directly wrote “bez” in his revision. He had a different interpretation toward this symbol and it was probably caused by the unclear hand writing of the teacher. In the end, his revision gone wrong. Figure 3 The S5’S First Writing Figure 4 The S5’S Revision To ease in comparing the result of the teacher’ and the students’ interpretation of feedback thus, the reseacher made Table 3 below as the media to provide the meaning of symbols acccording to the students. Table 3 The Symbol Meanings According to the Students Generally the teacher’s and the students’ interpretation of symbols were the same, because the symbols used by the teacher were the symbols that quite easy to be understood. But by comparing the Table 2 and the Table 3 and also by looking at the students’ writing, they showed that there were some rewritten errors made by the students in their revision which were caused by the different interpretation over feedback symbols between the students and the teacher. The findings which were related to the meaning of symbols, according the views both teacher and the students, there was found that the teacher definitely had certain meaning for each symbol and obviously the students should follow it in order to revise the errors correctly, thus the meaning of the symbols would be match one another. Following Weigle’s (2001) suggestions, the teacher and the students should agree first to have certain symbols in written form and the way to interpret them, if there is no agreement dealing with the meaning of symbols in the feedback then it makes the meaning of symbols is unclear therefore it leads into misinterpretation of symbols but in contrast to Weigle’s (2001) suggestion, it was found that in the beginning of the lesson the teacher and students having no agreement dealing with the symbols that would be used and the teacher did not brief the students to understand the meaning of symbol in detail. Therefore, it made the students sometimes interpreted the symbols themselves, because not all of the students directly asked about the meaning of the symbols they had got to the teacher, thus the students made their own meaning of symbols. By making analysis to the data coming from the observation (field notes), documentation (students’ written work), and interview, it was found that there were at least three conditions leading to different interpretation toward symbols that happened between the teacher and the students, including: First, unclear meaning of symbols, because there was no fixed agreement dealing with the meaning of symbols they were going to use. Circles and underlines were the symbols that commonly used by the teacher, but the observation in the class showed that the teacher did not explain the meaning of these symbols in the beginning of the lesson. These symbols were frequently asked by the students if they were not added by any other comments and the students’ work showed that the students frequently revised the errors incorrectly for these symbols. Figure 5 The S4’s First Writing The Figure 5 showed that the teacher used some symbols to give feedback. The underlines were not added by any further comment thus the students feeling confused then revised the errors incorrectly. Because there was no agreement dealing with the meaning of symbols, then the students had an opportunity to interpret the symbols based on their own interpretation and it might become one of the factors made students had different interpretation of feedback symbols and finally did revision incorrectly. The second possible factor was the unclear drawing of symbols, the hand writing of the teacher sometimes seemed unclear. Figure 6 below was the S5’s first writing. It can be seen that the teacher circled is then added was the feedback symbol in the form of initial, “be2”. It seemed that S5 misinterpreted the symbol of “be2” because in his revision, he wrote “bez” instead of the form of is in the past tense, he thought that “be2” was “bez”. Figure 6 The S5’s First Writing The Figure 6 above showed the hand drawing of feedback symbols made by the teacher, the teacher drew “be2” (see Figure 6) unclearly, so it seemed like “bez”, thus the S5 interpreted this symbol as “bez”. This condition might lead the students to misinterpret the symbols, because the students might get confused because the drawing of symbols seemed too complex and unclear. The last possible factor was the inconsistency in giving symbol as written feedback. Being inconsistent in giving symbols as feedback to the students writing also became a factor that triggered the different interpretation toward symbols between the teacher and the students. The students might get confused because the teacher gave a different symbol for the same kind of mistakes. There were no fix symbols that should be used by the teacher, thus the teacher sometimes made arbitrary symbols while giving written feedback. This last result of the study strengthened the opinion coming from Hyland (2003) who argues that much written feedback is frequently misunderstood, sometimes being too vague prescriptions and inconsistent thus the symbols in the written feedback could lead the students had different interpretation from the expectation and make the students doing rewritten errors in their revised writing. CONLUSSIONS The research showed that the teacher used various kinds of feedback one of them was symbols. From the data gathered through the students’ writing then it could be seen that the teacher used a number of symbols to mark errors made by the students. They were in the form of lines, initials, and words. Generally the teacher’s and the students’ interpretation of symbols were the same, because the symbols used by the teacher were the symbols that quite easy to be understood. The possible factors leaded into different interpretation of symbols including: unclear meaning of feedback, unclear drawing of feedback, and the inconsistency while giving feedback symbol. REFERENCES Ellis, R. (2009). A Typology of Written Corrective Feedback Types. ELT Journal, 63(2). doi: 10.1093/elt/ccn023 Gray, R. (2004). Grammar correction in ESL/EFL writing classes may not be effective. 5. Retrieved from http://iteslj.org/Technique/Gray-WritingCorrection.html Harmer, J. (2007). How to Teach English. England: Pearson. Hyland, K. (2003). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hyland, K., & Hyland, F. (2006). Feedback on Second Language Students' Writing: Contexts and Issues Applied Linguistics Series. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Keh, C. L. (1990). Feedback in the Writing Process: A Model and Methods for Implementation. ELT Journal, 44. Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (1999). How Language are Learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oshima, A., & Hogue, A. (1997). Introduction to Academic Writing. Addison Wesley: Longman. Rahmawati, E. (2013). Teacher's Written Corrective Feedback and Its Effect on The Students' Rewriting Erros in Writing Products. Post Graduate, State University of Surabaya, Surabaya. Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning, 46(2), 327-369. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-1770.1996.tb01238.x Weigle, S. C. (2001). Assessing writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Williams, J. G. (2003). Providing Feedback on ESL Students' Written Assignment. The Internet TESL Journal, 9(10).

The Use of Word-Processing to Decrease the Students’ Errors in Writing Descriptive Text in SMAN 1 BABAT LAMONGAN
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

The Use of Word-Processing to Decrease the Students’ Errors in Writing Descriptive Text in SMAN 1 BABAT LAMONGAN Farid Fakhrudin English Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya fafa_fakhrudin@yahoo.co.id Ahmad Munir, S.Pd., M.Ed, Ph.D English Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya Abstract The objective of this research is to find out whether there is significant difference in the number of error between handwritten essay and those are written by using word-processing and the students’ view on the advantage of word-processing in their writing. The research is quasi-experimental research and the subject of this research was the tenth grade students of SMA Negeri 1 BabatLamongan. This research consisted of one class of X-6 (37 students). The researcher did the observation and also usedtest and questionnaire as the research instruments. It was found that word-processing was helping the student to decrease their errors. There are 164 errors in the pretest and 168 errors in the posttest, but there is only 60 errors happened when they used word-processing. The students also gave a positive respond in the using of word-processing in the writing class. They felt comfort when they write by using word-processing, they did not nervous and they can more focus when they work with it. The result of this research showed that there is significant difference in the number of grammatical errors in their handwritten essays and those written by using word-processing. In conclusion, the use of word-processing in learning to write can decrease students’ chances to commit errors in their writing. Thus, teachers can apply this in their classes. Abstrak Tujuandaripenelitianiniadalahmenemukanbahwaadaperbedaandalamjumlahkesalahanantara essay yang ditulissecara manual dan essay yang ditulismenggunakan word-processing sertamelihatresponmurid-muriddarikeuntunganmenggunakan word-processing saatmenulis essay.Jenispenelitian in adalah quasi-experimental dansubjekdaripenelitianiniadalahmurid-muridkelas X di SMAN 1 BABAT LAMONGAN.Penelitianiniterdiridari 37 murid di kelas X-6.Penelitimelakukanobservasidanjugamenggunakan test dankuestionairsebagai instrument penelitian. Di dalampenelitianditemukanbahwa word-processing membantumurid-muridmengurangikesalahanmereka. Ada 164 kesalahan di pretest dan 168 kesalahan di posttest, tetapihanyaterjadi60 kesalahanketikamerekamenggunakan word-processing. Murid-muridjugamemberikanresponpositifdalampenggunaan word-processing di dalamkelasmenulis.Merekamerasanyamanketikamerekamenulismenggunakan word-processing, merekatidakmerasagrogidanmerekalebihfokusketikamenulismenggunakan word-processing. Hasildaripenelitianinimenunjukkanbahwaadaperbedaandalamjumlahkesalahanantara essay yang ditulissecara manual dan essay yang ditulismenggunakan word-processing. Kesimpulannya, penggunaan word-processing dalampembelajaranmenulisdapatmengurangikesempatanmuriduntukmelakukankesalahan di essay mereka.Olehkarenaitu, guru dapatmenggunakan word-processing dalamkelasmereka. INTRODUCTION EFL learners face many difficulties in learning language skills such as listening, speaking, reading, and writing (AbuSeileek, 2004). Abu Seileek was conducting a survey to know the most difficult EFL skill to learn. He asked 85 freshmen in the Senior high school in King Saudi about the most difficult EFL skill to learn. More than 67% of them said that it was writing, and most of them (70%) attributed this to using unsuitable methods and techniques for teaching the skill of writing. Writing is a complex skill for the students who want to learn English. It needs long processes and takes more time during the processes. Hulstjin (2000) state that students are often making many mistakes in a structure arrangement, grammar, and sometimes they put wrong article for countable and uncountable noun. As stated by Bram (1995) that writing is one the ways to communicate beside the spoken language. It can be a tool to delivered information, share about everything and ask the reader to communicate as using spoken language. Nunan(2003) pointed out that writing is a mental work of inventing ideas, thinking about how to express and organize them into statements and paragraphs that will be clear to the readers. The grammatical errors made by the students occur mostly because of the students’ lack of competence in internalizing the structure of the foreign language. Brown (2007, p. 226) states that mistake is a performance error that is either a random guess or “slip” in that is a failure to utilize a known system correctly. Sometimes it happened when the students made a sentence, they translate an Indonesia sentence directly into English without knowing that grammar in English are very different to Indonesia, and it cannot be translated directly without knowing the grammatical rules. For example, his hair is long and his skin white, instead of his skin is white. I took this example from the students’ pretest; he wanted to write ”rambutnyapanjangdankulitnyaberwarnaputih” in English, he translated directly from Indonesian language without knowing the grammatical rules. Another example was also taken from the students’ pretest, my father born 19 January 1969, instead of the correct sentence is my father was born on 19 January 1969. As Brown has said that errors cannot be self-corrected, that means, it needs other people to correct it. Teacher cannot always ignore students’ correctness in using English. Correction is used positively to support students’ learning (Edge, 1989). For those reasons, students need to be more careful in producing or writing a composition. It needs more control to make a good writing. The difficulty in producing a good composition related to the criteria must be accounted in writing. Brown (2004, p. 246)states that those criteria that include the content (30 points), organization (20 points), vocabulary (20 points), grammar (25 points) and mechanism (5 points). While grammar takes 25 points of the overall criteria, means that students should give more attention in a grammar when they produce the text. In this case, the researcher will focus on one text type, which is descriptive text. Descriptive text is a text that is aimed to describe a particular person, place, or thing (Depdiknas, 2003, p. 49).It tells the reader about the detail and factual information of the objects described. In fact, the students still make mistakes when they produce descriptive text. It happened continuously when they produce the text, so, here the researcher wants to help the students to decrease their grammar mistakes when they produce a text like descriptive text. This research attempted to apply word-processing technique to decrease student’s errors in writing process. Word processing is the most common computer application, or in general, the people knew that the word-processing is a Microsoft word. It can be used for doing homework, writing reports, letters, brochures, and much more. After you learn the basics, let your imagination soar to construct creative documents. Many studies reported that CALL is useful for EFL learners, and learners generally have a positive attitude towards using technology for learning language skills like writing because technology has a positive impact on the learning or teaching process (Neu, 1991); (Phinney M. , 1991); (Nash & Chen, 1989); (Phinney M. a., 1988); (Herrmann, 1987); (Daiute, 1984). Stevens (1999) Recommended using the computer for learning the skill of writing. He believed that the word processor had a positive effect on the development of students’ achievement in writing. Cochran-Smith (1991)also reports that student makes more revisions when writing with a word-processing. The students made more revisions because the word-processing can facilitated the student to give a direct feedback when they made an error in their writing. Cobine(1997) found that the computer has a good effect on the improvement of the skill of writing. Learners could conceivably experiment with phrase and sentence structure, and practice rhetorical grammar through using computer linguistic functions. Greenfield (2003) reported that students enjoyed the CALL class and made significant progress in writing. Based on those previous studies above, word processing gives a positive effect and can improve the students writing ability. Yet, the improvement is not specific to errors reduction. Therefore, this research has been set to find out whether there is significant difference in the number of grammatical errors in their hand written essays and those are written by using word-processing. The students’ view on the advantage of using word-processing in reducing writing errors were also sought. METHOD This study is a quasi-experimental study because the researcher conducted the research in the classroom without changing their grouping (in tach group) rather than in the laboratory. The researcher used one class to conduct the research, this design is called one group-time series (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007, p. 284). There is no control group and experimental group, because this only one group was given a pretest and posttest. The time series used repeated test both before and after the treatment, which, in effect, enables the participants to become their own control (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007). This subject of this research was X-6 in SMAN 1 BABAT LAMONGAN. These students were chosen because the students are the fresh graduate and they had a little understanding in English grammar. They had an obstacle and made more mistakes in writing. Therefore, here the researcher wanted to help them to decrease their grammar by using the media word-processing and the researcher wanted to know their responses when they used that media in writing class. The researcher hopes that it can help them in decreasing their errors and they give a positive respect. This research used test, questionnaire, and observation. Test was used to find out the number of grammatical errors in both pretest and posttest, while questionnaire was used to see the students’ view when they used word-processing in writing class and observation was used to see the students action when they worked by using word-processing. After collecting the data, both number of grammatical error and the students statement from the questionnaire. The researcher identified the errors on grammatical construction in the students’ descriptive writing. He collected all the error sentences from each subject and put them into checklist. The sentence was considered as an error sentence if there was any deviation in applying the rules of grammatical construction. The researcher underlined the area of errors in each error sentence because it is possible that there were more than one error in one sentence. After being identified, all errors found were categorized into the types of errors. In order to make the classification easier, the researcher compared the sentences contained error with the correct form. The classification was based on surface strategy taxonomy proposed by Dulay(1982). This taxonomy was chosen because it showed the cognitive process that underlined the learners’ reconstructions of the new language learned. There are four types of errors according to this taxonomy; they are omission, addition, misformation, and misordering. The next step in analyzing the data after identifying and classifying the errors was counting the frequency of occurrences of errors on each type of errors. The calculation of the number of errors did not do per wrong sentences but per one type of error. It was done because it was possible that there were more than one error in a sentence. In this study, the researcher presented the frequency of occurrences of errors in the form of percentage in order to make it clearer to the reader. The description of the properties of the variable included means, standard deviation, and t test would be made to find out if there is significant difference in the number of grammatical error in pretest, posttest, and word-processing by using SPSS. After that, the researcher would answer the second research question. The researcher used the second data to answer the second research. The researcher used the second data that was the students’ statement from the questionnaire. The researcher collected the questionnaire and analyzed it and this data would be served at percentage form. The result of this data would show the students’ view when they were given the media. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Based on the students’ essays, there were 37 descriptive text analyzed. There were 164 errors found in the hand written in pre-test (113 errors in mission, 21 errors in addition, 24 errors in misformation, and 6 errors in misordering), 60 errors were found in the written by using word processing (16 errors in omission, 12 errors in addition, 21 errors in misformation, and 11 errors in misordering) and 168 errors in the hand written in posttest (96 errors in omission, 32 errors in addition, 35 errors in misformation, and 5 errors in misordering). After the data was counting by using SPSS, the researcher found that the mean of total error in pretest is 4.4054; the mean of total errorsin computer is 1.6216, and the mean of total errors in posttest is 4.5405.Those results indicate that the students made more errors in pretest and in the posttest than in computer. The t-value between total errors in pretest and total errors in computer is 10.557 and the significant 2-tailed is .000. and the t-value between total errors in computer and total errors in posttest is -1.89614, the minus number showed that after using computer in writing class and the students took a posttest, the number of errors are increasing. The significant 2–tailed is .000, that result showed that there is significant difference in the number of errors between those variables. The students showed positive response in using word processing in the class writing. Based on Greenfield (2003), the researcher found that the students feel comfort and enjoy when they write by computer. From one of the statement above more than 82% students said that work with word-processing in the class writing is interesting. They did not feel nervous when they produced the text. They felt enjoy when write by using word-processing and 81% students said they got more ideas when they produced the text. They also liked to write by using word processing because it can give them directly feedback when they made mistake in grammatically. so, they can change their produce easily than using traditional style. They should not wait for teachers’ feedback and for about 60% students said that they do not need teachers’ feedback when they used word-processing. The researcher found that the students made total 164 errors in pretest and 168 errors in postest. As stated by Hulstjin(2000), students are often making many mistakes in a structure arrangement, grammatically, and sometimes they put wrong article for countable and uncountable noun. As state by Lengo(1995) errors are believed to be an indicator of the learners’ stages in their target language development. When they worked with word-processing, they were so quite. That fact is similar to Greenfield’s (2003) observation that students enjoyed the CALL class and made significant progress in writing. That was so different when they work in class or in handwritten; they were so crowded and going anywhere, they cannot focused on their work. The researcher found 60 errors when they worked by using word-processing. When the student worked by using word-processing, they made more revisions, as stated by Cohran-Smith (1991) that the students make more revisions when writing with a word-processing. It happened because word-processing could give the students feedback directly and it proved that it could decrease the students’ errors significantly. Steven (1999) point out that he believed that the word-processing had a positive effect on the development of the students’ achievement. He also believed that word processing can improve the learners’ ability in writing skill and it can help the learners to overcome their problem in grammatical error. Here, the word-processing proved that it could decrease the students’ error. The total errors were decrease significantly, if in the pretest the students’ made 164 errors and in the posttest they made 168 errors As stated by Cobine(1997) that computer tutorials offered them grammatical choices and then provided immediate feedback on structures. So, the answer for the first question “is there a significant difference in the number of grammatical errors in their handwritten and that written by using word-processing?” is yes, it is. There is a significant difference in the number of grammatical errors in their handwritten and that written by using word-processing. From the data of the questionnaire that was collected in the last meeting by the researcher showed that the students felt enjoy when they worked by word-processing. They feel that deal with computer in the class writing is something interest. Most of them, they ever worked with computer, but, in their English class, they never worked with word-processing. So, when the students deal with the word-processing in their English class, which was something new for them. This view held by my student in my study is similar to Cunningham’s (2000) study. In his study, he found that the computer-based writing class to be challenging and comfortable. After they deal worked with word-processing, they prefer used word-processing in their writing class, because the word-processing can give them a feedback directly, it was so helpful for them. CONCLUSION There are two conclusions for tis research. First, the result of this study showed that by using word-processing the students made improvement in their writing. The improvement is seen from the reduction of the number of errors. This make the alternative hypothesis that said that there is significant difference in the number of grammatical errors in their handwritten essays and those written by using word-processing is acceptable. The second conclusion is that the students get benefits from the use of word-processing in their writing class. It is concluded that the students’ were good, in terms they felt enjoy when they deal with word-processing. They also said that used word-processing in the class writing was interesting. All of them gave a positive respect on the advantage of word-processing. REFERENCES BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY AbuSeileek, A. (2004). Designing a CALL Program for Teaching Writing to Jordanian EFL Learners and Its Effect. Amman: Amman Arab University. Bram. (1995). Problem solving strategies for writing. New york: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment. In Principles and Classroom Practice. San Francisco: Longman. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principle of Language Learning and Teaching, Fifth Edition. New York: A Pearson Education Company. Cobine, G. (1997). studying with the computer. Retrieved december wednesday, 2012, from ERIC Digest: http://www.askeric.org Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to write differently. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cunningham, K. (2000). Integrating CALL into the Writing Curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, 6, No. 5. Daiute, C. (1984). Can the Computer Stimulate Writer’s Inner Dialogues? Urbana: NTCE. Depdiknas. (2003). Standar Kompetensi Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk SMA dan MA. Jakarta: Depdiknas. Dulay, H. (1982). Language Two. New York: Oxford University Press. Edge, J. (1989). Mistakes and Correction. London: Addison Wesley Longman. Greenfield, R. (2003). Collaborative E-mail Exchange for Teaching Secondary ESL. Language Learning and Technology, 7, no. 1(A Case in Hong Kong), 46-70. Herrmann, A. (1987). An Ethnographic Study of a High School Writing Class Using Computers: Marginal,Technically Proficient, and Productive Learners. New York: Random House. Hulstijn, J. (2000). The Use of Computer Technology in Experimental Studies of Second Language Acquisition. Language Learning and Technology, 3, No. 2(A Survey of Some Technique and Ongoing Studies ), 32-43. Lengo, N. (1995). What is an Error? Vol.33, No.3. Nash, T. H., & Chen, S. (1989). An Evaluation of Computer-aided Composition. Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane. Neu, J. a. (1991). Computer-assisted Language Learning and Testing: Research Issues and Practices. New York: Newbury House. Nunan, D. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: The Mc. Graw Hill Companies. Phinney, M. (1991). Computer-assisted Writing and Writing Apprehension in ESL Students. . New York: Newbury House. Phinney, M. a. (1988). ESL Student Responses to Writing with Computers. . New York: Newbury House. Stevens, V. (1999). Language Learning Techniques Implemented through Word Processing. Retrieved december wednesday, 2012, from http://www.netword.com/esl_home

WRITTEN PEER FEEDBACK IN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

WRITTEN PEER FEEDBACK IN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL Hidayatul Muniroh English Department, Language and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya Hidayatulmuniroh4@gmail.com Ahmad Munir English Department, Language and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya Munstkip@yahoo.com Abstract The present study aims to analyze what do the vocational students’ do to give written peer feedback and what they do to respond the peer feedback and the aspect that they evaluate in giving written peer feedback. This study is descriptive qualitative. The eleventh graders of SMK PRAPANCA 2 Surabaya are the subjects of the study. The main data was taken from the students’ writing personal letter. The data was gained through field note and analyzing the students’ writing. It was found that most of the students give feedback by giving signs (circling, underlining, crossing) and symbols without showing what errors made by the writer or giving the correctness. There were 7 students from 30 students who correcting and giving symbols to their peer’s writing. The aspects of writing that evaluated by the students were only the surface aspects of writing, such as; Grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and mechanic. They tended to ignore the content and unity of the sentences. It can be concluded that the implementation of written peer feedback in SMK PRAPANCA2 Surabaya was not applied well, because of the teacher misunderstanding. The teacher still confused about the differences between peer assessment and peer feedback Keywords: written peer feedback, vocational school, and peer assessment. Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menganalisis apa yang dilakukan oleh siswa SMK ketika memberikan respon tertulis dan aspek penulisan apa sajakah yang mereka evaluasi ketika mereka memberikan respon tertulis. Penelitian ini adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Subjek dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas XI SMK2 Prapanca Surabaya. Data utama dari penelitian ini adalah tulisan surat pribadi siswa. Dalam penelitian ini di temukan bahwa sebagian besar siswa memberi respon tertulis dengan memberikan tanda (menggaris bawahi, melingkari, dan mencoret) dan simbol-simbol tanpda menunjukan kesalahan yang dibuat oleh penulis tau memberikan pembenaran pada kesalahan. Dari 30 siswa hanya 7 diantaranya yang membenarkan dan memberikan simbol-simbol kepada tulisan pasangannya. Aspek penulisan yang dievaluasiole siswa hanyalah aspek dasar dari penulisan, antara lain; tata bahasa, kosa kata, pengejaaan, dan tanda baca. Dari penjalasan di atas, dapat disimpulkan bahwa penerapan respon tertulis berpasangan di SMK Prapanca2 tidak teraplikasikan dengan baik, karena salah pemahaman dari guru. Guru yang menerapkan teknik tersebut masih bingung dengan perbedaan antara pemberian nilai berpasangan (peer assessment) dan pemberian respon berpasangan (peer feedback). Kata kunci: Pemberian respon tertulis berpasangan, SMK, dan Pemberian nilai berpasangan. Introduction Byrne (1980) defines writing as a primary means of recording speech, even though it must be acknowledged as a secondary medium of communication. From that statement, it can be concluded that writing is very important as a media of communication that can help to express idea, feeling, and opinion to interact with the society. Specific writing assignment of writing in EFL for senior high school level not only conducted in senior high school (SMA) which learn more about writing some genre of writing, but also in vocational school (SMK). It is stated clearly in one of standard competency for vocational school that is the student must be able to write. One of them is the student should be able to write a personal letter which is telling about past events and planning for the future correctly, so the students should be able to master writing skill for particular purpose. It can be concluded that not only senior high school students that should be master in writing, but also vocational students. Students’ errors in writing cannot be avoided, because they are in progress of learning a foreign language in context. It should be considered as a natural process. The process of becoming a writer is an accumulation of knowledge and experiences that builds over time. To minimalize and improve the errors made by the students, the teacher should has a good way to make the students realize with the errors that they made, that is by letting the students giving and getting feedback in their writing by themselves. McGrath, Taylor, and Pychyl (2011) define feedback as a technique used by course instructors to communicate to students about their writing. Freedman (1987) states that feedback includes all reaction to writing, formal or informal, written or oral, from teacher or peer, to a draft or final version. One kind of feedback that can be used in the writing class is peer feedback. Peer feedback can be defined as an activity frequently used in second/subsequent (L2) writing classrooms to elicit feedback from a sympathetic reader, another student writer, on a draft version of a text. In the process, student writers receive feedback from peer readers, which gives the writers a sense of how readers might react to their texts. Peer written feedback can give advantages to the students. It benefits not only the students who receive suggestions for improving the writing, but also the feedback providers, as they gain a greater awareness of qualities of good writing through assessing and commenting on peers’ writing. Peer feedback also develops students’ self-assessment abilities, as they gain experience in using the criteria to read their own writing (Cho & MacArthur, 2010; Lundstrom & Baker, 2009). A substantial amount of research has been done over the years into the value of different kinds of feedback to student writers. Many studies typically focused either on teacher or peer feedback, or compared both and either looked at their effect on students’ ability in writing. For example, Yanuarseh (2013) reported the implementation of peer response technique in teaching writing on eleventh graders of senior high school was an appropriate technique in teaching and learning especially in writing hortatory exposition, because it can increase the student writing ability. Kilarskah (2008) demonstrated the results of a study involving second-year students of English Philology at The State Higher Vocational School in Nysa, Poland. In their writing class, students accustomed to the product-oriented writing instruction were introduced to the process approach by completing a cycle of three multiple-draft assignments. Students’ drafts in all three assignments were analyzed to determine how their papers changed in quality over time and if the feedback the students received from one another contributed to possible improvement. The result showed that the assignments did not contribute to significant improvement in the students’ composing skills. Yet, there has been no study which examines what vocational school students do to give peer feedback and what they do to respond it and what aspect of writing that they evaluate in giving written peer feedback in vocational school. This study was meant to fill in this gap. Methods This study was descriptive-qualitative. It was designed to know the students attitudes toward written peer feedback during the writing class. Ary, Jacobs, and Sorensen (2010) state qualitative researchers seek to understand a phenomenon by focusing on the total picture rather than breaking it down into variables, so the researcher investigate and observe what really happen in the field and reported what they are. Therefore, it took particular setting under the study and concern with context. Eleventh graders of vocational school of SMK Prapanca 2 Surabaya were the participant of this study. It was based on the consideration that they already have enough comprehensive in writing skills and understanding about peer writing feedback. Moreover, they also need to improve their writing skills because they have in high level of education. For the sample of this study, the researcher took a class which the teacher has implemented peer writing feedback before, that is XI AK-1 (accountant class) but it took only four students as the sample of this inquiry. They were fairly homogenous for the same mother tongue and education level, almost the same age, intelligence according to their teacher and they have learned the same material during their teaching learning process. The data that was used for this inquiry was taken from the students’ writing personal letter. The data was collected through the following steps; the first step was observing what vocational school students’ do to give written peer feedback and what they do to respond the peer feedback. It was gained through observation using field note during the teaching learning process. The second step was reading and analyzing the aspects of writing that the vocational students’ evaluate in giving written peer feedback. It was gained through reading and analyzing their writing personal letter and it was collected by copying their essay (documentary). It was conducted in the second meeting of observation after the essay was given back by the teacher to them. The researcher analyzed the data that was gained through the observation in descriptive qualitative way. The obtained data from the documentary and field note were analyzed based on the fact and interpretation noted down by the researcher during the teaching and learning process. To answer the research questions number one and two, the researcher used the following table: Table. 1 Student’s errors and category of feedback given by the students. Results and Discussion What vocational school students’ do to give written peer feedback and what they do to respond the peer feedback. The students gave feedback to their partners by correcting and giving some signs to the errors, such as; circling, crossing, giving questions mark, and underlining. However, there were only seven students from thirty students who were correcting the errors made by their partner. Table. 1 Student’s errors and category of feedback given by the students. From Table 1 it can be seen that from 30 students only 7 students who were correcting and giving symbols in their partner’s error. Most of students gave feedback to their partners’ writing by giving some signs or symbols without giving the correct one, for example: the students only gave underline in ungrammatical sentence, circle in incorrect spelling, and crossing in the wrong word. Here was a student’s writing personal letter which showed what vocational students did when giving feedback. Figure 1 Student 10’s writing personal letter; correcting and giving sign to the errors. From the Figure 1 it can be seen that the student number 10 gave feedback by correcting and giving signs to the errors. She corrected and circled the errors. She circled the wrong word “said” and gave the correct word “Sad”. After that, she also circled the word “in” because it was not appropriate there. However, she just circled an unclear sentence there without giving the correction. However, there were feedbacks which mean no feedback. It means that, the reviser gave feedback by underlining, crossing, and circling the errors but he/she did not give the feedback or correction to the errors. Here was the example of the student’s writing personal letter which consisted of feedback which means no feedback. Figure 2 the sudent 15’s writing personal letter From the Figure 2 above, student writing personal letter number 15 got feedback from the reviser, but no feedback. It means the reviser did not give the correction. For example in the word “a prolonged state scatheless” the reviser did not know the meaning of the sentence because it was not clear, but the reviser did not give any contribution of the errors. What vocational school students’ do to give written peer feedback and what they do to respond the peer feedback was not in line with Winne and Butler (1994) who provided that feedback is information with which a learner can confirm, add to, overwrite, tune, or restructure information in memory. Feedback is to be written then the extent of oral negotiation to clarify the feedback involve both the reader and writer, and the range of specific and persuasive feedback which given by the student-readers need to be considered (Rollinson, 2005:27). Aspects of writing After analyzing thirty students’ writing personal letter, the researcher found only seven writing personal letter which include the students’ feedback. From Tables 1 above, it could be seen that most of the students did the same errors in writing, such as; grammar, word choices, unclear sentences, and spelling. Here was a students’ writing personal letter which showed the aspects of writing which evaluated by the student. Figure 3 Student 11’s writing personal letter From the Figure 3 above, it could be seen that the student give feedback in some aspects of writing, such as; vocabulary, tenses, spelling, and unclear sentences. Student errors in spelling: in this case, the reviser circled the word “again” then she replaced it with “againd”. Student errors in grammar: in this case, the reviser just underlined the errors without giving the correction. I’m will to see you now à it should be “I will see you soon”, When go to in surabaya with mom and dad you? à it should be “ when will you go to Surabaya with your parents. Student errors in term of unclear sentence: in this case, the reviser gave feedback by giving question marks on the top of the sentence and underlined it. Figure 4 Unclear sentences and student’s error in word choice From the Figure 4 above, the student gave feedback by underlining the unclear sentences and giving question mark; for example; - In the sentence “while up to do for you”, the reviser did not know what the writer was meant. In this case the reviser gave feedback by underlining the sentence and question mark on it. Student’s error in term of word choices: in this case, the reviser gave feedback by giving question marks on the top of the sentence and underlined it. - Me and my family in a prolonged state scatheless à in this case the student choose difficult word and cannot be understood by the reader. From the discussion above, it could be concluded that the reviser looked the surface errors of the writing, because she just looked at the word choice, tenses, spelling, and punctuation. She did not paid attention on the content of the writing, the unity and coherent, and the organization. The aspects of writing which were evaluated by the students was in line with the theory of Brown (2001) which mentions five elements such as; content, organization, punctuation, vocabulary, and language use, but it was not exactly the same because in the content, the students’ just correct the unclear sentence made by the writer without giving correction. Conclusions From the results and discussions, it can be drawn two conclusion of this study. There were only seven students from thirty students who did written peer feedback by correcting and giving signs and symbols in their partners’ writing. Furthermore, most of the students give feedback by giving signs (circling, underlining, and crossing) and symbols without showing what errors made by the writer or giving the correctness. The aspects of grammar that evaluated by the students were only the surface aspects of writing, such as; Grammar, vocabulary, spelling, and mechanic. They tended to ignore the content and unity of the sentences. Overall, written peer feedback in SMK PRAPANCA Surabaya was not implemented well, because of the teacher misunderstanding. The teacher still confused about the differences between peer assessment and peer feedback. References Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8 ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage. Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles. An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Second Edition. White Plain, N.Y: Pearson Education, Inc. Byrne, D. (1988). Teaching Writing Skills. London: Longman. Cho, K. & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328-338. Freedman, S.W. (1987): Recent developments in writing: how teachers manage response. English Journal, 7, 35-40. Kilarska, Magdalen. (2008). Introducing Multiple-Draft Assignments in the Writing Classroom. The State Higher Vocational School, Nysa, Poland, 1-7. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 30–43. McGrath, A. L., Taylor, A., & Pychyl, T. A. (2011). Writing Helpful Feedback: The Influence of Feedback Type on Students’ Perceptions and Writing Performance. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and learning, 2(2), 1-16. Rollinson, P. (2005). Using peer feedback in the ESLwriting class. ELT Journal, 59(1), 23-30. doi: 10.1093/elt/cci003. Winne, P. H., & Butler, D. L. (1994). Student cognition in learning from teaching. In T. Husen & T. Postlewaite (Eds.), International encyclopaedia of education. 2nded. 5738-5745. Oxford, UK: Pergamon. Yanuarseh, Denny. (2013). The Effect of Using Peer Responseto Teach Writing Hortatory Exposition Text in Eleventh Graders of Senior High School (Unpublished S-1 Skripsi). State Universitiy of Surabaya. Advisor: Esti Kurniasih, S.Pd., M.Pd.

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE ROLE-PLAY IN TEACHING SPEAKING TO THE ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF MAN 2 BOJONEGORO
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE ROLE-PLAY IN TEACHING SPEAKING TO THE ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF MAN 2 BOJONEGORO JOURNAL BY DINA ARFIANAH NIM. 102084053 ADVISOR RIRIN PUSPARINI, S.Pd., M.Pd. NIP. 19760521 200312 2 001 SURABAYA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM 2014 THE IMPLEMENTATION OF REPLACEMENT PERFORMANCE ROLE-PLAY IN TEACHING SPEAKING TO THE ELEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS OF MAN 2 BOJONEGORO Dina Arfianah English Study Program FBS Surabaya State University dinaarfianah@gmail.com Ririn Pusparini, S.Pd., M.Pd. Lecturer of English Study Program FBS Surabaya State University rrn.puspa@gmail.com ABSTRACT Speaking is one skill that should be mastered by the language learners. In speaking class, the teacher should give the students a lot opportunity to practice the target language by speaking. In fact, most students are afraid when the teacher asked them to practice their speaking. In order to make the students have a lot oppurtunity to speak English, the researcher suggested the English teacher to use a technique called Replacement Performance Role Play. This study investigated how the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in teaching speaking in lights with the theories of Replacement Performance Role Play.The researcher conducted research to answer these following questions: How is the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in teaching speaking? How does the students’ response toward the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play?. This study used descriptive qualitative research as research design. The data were taken from observation sheet, questionnaire and interview. The data were analyzed qualitatively. The result of this research was the implementation of in teaching speaking was good. The teacher implemented the technique appropriate with the theoris of Replacement Performance Role Play by using three phases speaking activity. Moreover, most of the students were participated a lot in each meeting because every student had same opportunities to develop their idea, expressing their idea and practicing their speaking skill. Besides, the students gave positive response toward the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play. They can learn English easily and enjoyable. Key word : Replacement performance, role play and speaking. ABSTRAK Speaking adalah salah satu kemampuan yang harus dikuasai oleh siswa yang sedang belajar bahasa. Dalam menggajar speaking, guru harus memberikan kesempatan yang sebanyak-banyaknya kepada siwa untuk mempraktikkan bahasa yang mereka pelajari. Kenyataanya, banyak siswa merasa takut untuk berbicara bahasa inggris. Untuk membuat siswa lebih aktif berpartisipasi, peneliti menyarankan untuk menggunakan Replacement Performance Role Play. Penelitian ini menginvestigasi bagaimana penerapan Replacement Performance Role Play dalam mengajar speaking berkaitan dengan teori Replacement Performance Role Play. Peneliti melakukan penelitian untuk menjawab pertanyan berikut in: Bagaimana penerapan Replacement Performance Role Play dalam mengajar speaking? Bagaimana respon siswa terhadan diterapkannya Replacement Performance Role Play ? Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif kualitatif. Data penelitian diiambil dari lembar observasi, kuesioner dan wawancara. Selanjutnya, data tersebut di jelaskan secara deskriptif. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, penerapan Replacement Performance Role Play dalam mengajar speaking sangat bagus. Guru menerapkan teknik tiga tahap speaking yang sesuai teori Replacement Performance Role Play. Apalagi banyak siswa yang berpartisipasi pada tiap-tiap pertemuan karena setiap siswa mempunyai kesempatan yang sama untuk mengembangkan ide mereka, mengungkapkan ide mereka dan mempraktikkan kemampuan speaking mereka. Di samping itu, siswa memberikan respon yang bagus terhadap penerapan Replacement Performance Role Play. Mereka dapat belajar bahasa inggris dengan mudah dan menyenangkan. Key word : Replacement performance, role play and speaking. INTRODUCTION In learning English, there are four skills that should be mastered by students and one of them is speaking. According to Lindsay and Knight (2006 : 57) speaking is a productive skill that involves putting a message together, communicating the message, and interacting with other people. Mastering speaking skill is needed when the students want to communicate well. Moreover, people would like to use the language orally rather than written to communicate with others in daily life. For example, when the teachers want to communicate, ask for something or give explanation to the students, they usually speak up. An English teacher should be able to teach speaking effectively and in appropriate way. Nunan (2003) emphasized that speaking is the most important aspect of learning a second or foreign language and success measured in terms of the acquisition in language. This means that having good qualification in speaking ability is very important. One way that can be used by teacher to develop students speaking ability is by giving students a lot of opportunities to practice the language because the goal of speaking can be reached if all of students participate in speaking class. Nunan (2003) suggested that in speaking classroom, learners should be given the maximum number of opportunities possible to practice the target language in meaningful contexts and situation. The more they practice the target language that they learn, the easier they can acquire the language. In fact, most senior high school students feel afraid when their teacher asks them to practice their speaking. They often feel confused and prefer not to follow the lesson well or they prefer to keep silent. There are some factors that influence the students in participating in speaking class, such as: the student is afraid of making mistakes, the topic is not interesting and the classroom atmosphere is not encouraging. Moreover, teaching English in Indonesia is known as teaching English as a Foreign Language or EFL. Teaching speaking in EFL class is difficult because students lack of opportunity to speak. Brown (2001:117) emphasized that “EFL context is clearly a greater challenge for students and teachers”. The teacher needs to maximize a practice activity in class and makes the student to use the language as much as possible. Therefore, the language that delivered by the teacher in every meeting takes an important impact to the students. It is important to the teacher to provide an effective, enjoyable and interesting material. Teacher needs to prepare good strategies in order to make the speaking lesson run well. An effective speaking lesson can be reached when the students have a lot of opportunities to speak. In communicative classroom; teacher should provide materials that enable the learners to communicate with one another in order to develop their speaking skills. There are various methods that can be used by the teacher to create an effective speaking class. One of them is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). This approach was focus on the communication that the students usually use in their life. Norland and Pruett-Said (2006: 31) pointed out that CLT is viewed as an approach to teaching that focus on fluency and the ability to communicate in a variety of setting and in a variety of way. The focus on CLT is on communication in authentic situations. The strength of this method is that it creates a learning environment that the student can use the target language in real life-situation. The application of this method is role play. Role play enables the student to practice the target language they have acquired. Harmer (2007 : 127) mentioned that role play has some advantages, such as: getting the students to speak in class, improving communicative competence and fluency, promoting cooperative learning and providing practice for real-life experience. Besides, role play is fun and motivating activity for student because it allows them to express themselves. Replacement performance role play is one kind of role play activity. Snarski (2007: 3) points out that replacement performance role play can make the students engaged naturally. It means that the participation of students in speaking will increase because students are practiced the target language naturally or unconsciously. It also has some benefits, such as making whole class participation, promoting pragmatic competence and helping develop critical thinking skills. In implementing Replacement Performance role play. The teacher used three phases speaking activity. a) Pre-Speaking Activity - The teacher asks the students to mention some examples of the expression that they will study and gives more examples. - The teacher explains the material and gives the example of some dialogues. Then, she/he practices the dialogues with the students. - Teacher plays a short scene; it can be a form of video. The students should pay attention to the story line and message in the scene. The teacher might play the scene twice or three times to make the student grasp the scene better b) Whilst-Speaking Activity - Teacher asks some questions to the students about the scene in the video they just viewed. Then, they discussed about the story of the video. - They teacher asks the students to find the expression that they are studying from the video. - Teacher divided the students into group consists of four or five students. - The teacher gives task to the students that are they have to make their own dialogue with the same story as the video. They might use their own words. - The teacher lets the students to discuss the task with their group and rewrites the dialogue for a Replacement Performance. - The teacher monitors the students and makes sure that all of students have participated in speaking. - The students practice their dialogue within their group. - The students perform the Replacement Performance in front of the class. c) Post-Speaking Activity - The teacher gives feedback to the students’ performance and asks the audience student to give comments too. In this study, the researcher found previous study which relate to this study. Based on Wijayanti (2010), the use of role play make the students can improve their ability of speaking. This previous study was different from the researcher study because the subject of the previous study was junior high school students and she used classic role play as a technique. Based on the explanation above, the research conducted to investigate How Replacement Performance Role Play is implemented in teaching speaking for eleventh grade students of senior high school at MAN 2 Bojonegoro and how the students’ response toward the implementation of How Replacement Performance Role Play. METHOD The research design used by the researchers is descriptive qualitative research. According to Ary (2010: 421), if the research is concerned with condition and relationship that exist; practice that prevail; beliefs, point of view, or attitude; or trends that are developing, the study is descriptive. In this research, the researcher took a part as an observer who observed activity of teacher and students during teaching learning process. The teaching learning process was conducted by the English teacher himself. The subjects of this study were the eleventh grade students of MAN 2 Bojonegoro and the English teacher. The researcher conducted the observation in XI Natural Science 3 Skill class which consists of 35 students, 17 male students and 18 female students. The data of this study derived from the result of three times observations which are obtained through observation checklist in three meetings and result of questionnaire and interview which was conducted at third meeting after the observation was over. First, the observation checklist was used to obtain detail information about the process of teaching learning process in speaking by using replacement performance role play. It consisted of several points which are identified the material, the technique and the activities of teacher and students in three phase speaking activities. Second, the questionnaire consists of ten questions in the form of multiple choices. There are two indicators being measured and elaborated in the questionnaire, they are the student’s opinion about speaking and the student’s opinion about the implemented of replacement performance role play. Last, the researcher also conducted little interview to the students in order to strengthen the result of questionnaire. The researcher used semi structured interview, which was the question are structured (almost same with questions in questionnaire) but the researcher may modify the questions during the interview process. In analyzing the data, the researcher used descriptive way. The result of observation checklist had been analyzed descriptively according to the fact and the researcher interpretation. Besides, the data from questionnaire and interview explained or concluded in an essay. RESULT AND DISCUSSION The Implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in Teaching Speaking The observation was done on December 2nd 2013, May 3rd 2014 and May 5th 2014. It was held to gain the information about the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in teaching speaking for eleventh grade of MAN 2 Bojonegoro. The result of the observation was taken from observation checklist. There were three major concerns that observed by the researcher, these are: The material, the technique and teaching learning process. The first was the material. The teacher used the material that relevant with the objective of the study in each meeting. He chose the material that enabled students to have a lot opportunity to speak English more and to develop their idea in speaking. As suggested by Murray and Christison (2011: 91) that the teacher not to use material simply because it is available, but because it really serves the teaching purpose. The Materials were also in line with the students’ level. It was neither too difficult nor too easy for the students. Besides, the teacher gave materials which were familiar with the language used, understandable and interesting. It made the student enjoyed and followed the lesson well. It proved Murray and Christison (2011: 91) statement that the material accompanying the teaching learning process should be an appropriate level of difficulty of the learners, and relevant to the course syllabus. The second was the technique that the teacher used, that is Replacement Performance Role Play. The technique was applicable in the classroom. It was because the facilitation such as projector, LCD and speaker. Besides, the technique was deal with the procedure in the speaking proses as the teacher used three phases of speaking activity in teaching learning process. It helped the teacher to teach speaking affectively. As Nunan (2003) suggested that in speaking classroom, learners should be given the maximum number of opportunities possible to practice the target language in meaningful contexts and situation. For the students, this technique helped them to learn speaking easily. It was because this technique can encourage the students to participate more in speaking. The last was the teaching learning process. In implementing Replacement Performance Role Play to teach speaking, the teacher opened the class first, then, he used three phases speaking as a method in teaching (pre-speaking activities, whilst-speaking activities and post-speaking activities), then he ended the class. It is line with statement by Terry (2008: 5), that teaching stages for a speaking activity divided into three stages, they are pre-communicative stage (In pre-speaking activities), practice stage (In whilst-speaking activities) and communicative interaction or production stage. (In whilst-speaking activities and post-speaking activities). In opening stage, the teacher always greeted and took the students’ attendance list. He also gave brainstorming to the students in order to make the students’ fresh so that they were ready to follow the lesson. The teacher gave brainstorming at the last meeting only. He did not give brainstorming at the first and second meeting. Then, he also explained the objective of the lesson. He did it in each meeting. He told that they were going to use Replacement Performance Role Play. The students were enthusiastic and glad to hear that. In pre-speaking activities, the teacher began to stimulate the students by asking about the expression that they have known. Almost all of the students knew about the expression that they were going to learn. Then, the teacher added some addition expression. As stated by Diaz-Rico (2008: 226) that activate the background knowledge or make associations with similar situation are simple strategies in pre-speaking activity. After that, the teacher explained the material to the students clearly. In order to make the students understood about the lesson, the teacher gave an example of short dialogue and asked the students to find the expression. Then, he gave longer dialogue and practiced it with the students. However, the teacher did not give the longer dialogue at the second meeting. After that, the teacher divided the class into groups and each group consisted of four or five students. There are eight groups in each meeting. At the first meeting, the teacher faced difficulty in making groups because the students prefer to choose the member group by themselves. The teacher spent some minutes only to make groups. At the next meeting the teacher let the students to form a group themselves. It made the lesson run efficiently. Next, the teacher ordered the students to sit with their group to watch the video scene. The teacher gave different video in each meeting. The students watched the video scene quietly. In line with statement by Diaz-Rico (2008: 226) that there are some useful strategies in while speaking, they are monitor speech by paying attention to vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation; try new words; back up and fix mistakes if necessary. In whilst-speaking activities, the teacher led the discussion about the story of the video which have already seen by the students. Some students followed the discussion well, while the rest students listened and paid attention in what their teacher and their classmates talked about. Sometimes, they gave a little addition. After the students knew about the story in the video, the teacher asked them to find the expression that they learned at that time. Then, the teacher shared a worksheet to each group and asked them to make a dialogue based on the video. The teacher explained that the dialogue did not have to be exactly same with the video. The students might use another word or another different expression. While the students were doing their task, the teacher walked around the class to monitor the students. The teacher helped the students to make a good dialogue. Before the representative of each group performed the dialogue in front of class, the teacher asked the groups to practice it with their friend in group. At the first meeting, only four groups performed the dialogue in front of class because the time was not enough. Moreover, at the second and third meeting, all representatives of each group performed their dialogue in front of the class. These are the following dialogue examples that made by the students. First Meeting Second Meeting Third Meeting In post activity, the teacher only gave comment or suggestion to students’ performance at the second and the third meeting. At least, the teacher closed the lesson by reviewing the material that they have been learned. It is also suggested by Diaz-Rico (2008: 226), that the teacher should evaluate accomplishment, reviewing goals and strategies, asking for feedback, and tuning in to the reactions of others in after speaking activity. We can see from the observation that the teacher prepared the lesson plan, the material and the technique well. He also always motivated the students to be active because it was speaking class. He used English as main language in the classroom. The teacher hoped from the students that they would participate more in speaking English through the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play so that the goal of the teaching can be achieved. It proved with statement by Davies and Pearse (2000: 82) that the ability of speaking should be partly be the natural result of using English as the main means of communication in the classroom. Students’ Response toward the Implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in Teaching Speaking Based on the result of questionnaire and interview, it was clear that the most of the students are interested in the teaching and learning speaking by the implementing of Replacement Performance Role Play. Snarski (2007: 3) pointed out that replacement performance role play can make the students engaged naturally. At the first, they felt that speaking English was difficult. They did not speak much at the English lesson because they were shy, afraid of making mistakes or did not know the material well. Although, they realized that learn to speak English is important for this globalization era. However, through the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play, the students can practice and participate more in speaking. Most students said that they felt glad and enthusiastic when the teacher used Replacement Performance Role Play as a technique because they interested in this technique. As proved by Harmer (2007: 125) statement that role play stimulates the students in the real world in the same kind of way, but they are given particular roles. They felt that Replacement Performance Role Play help them in developing or expressing their idea easily. It also helped the students to speak English in appropriate way because the teacher gave some example dialogues and then practiced it with the students in good pronunciation. The teacher gave correction every time the students made mistakes. The video that was given by the teacher also helped the students how to speak English as native-like. It was because the cast in the video were native people. The students enjoyed to watch the video scene and discuss the story in the video together with the teacher. They also enjoyed work together with their friends in making dialogue. They had togetherness with the members of the group so that it motivated them to create a good dialogue. They can share their idea among the group’s member. All members in the group contributed in doing the task. They also tried to give best performance by practicing the dialogue together. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion From the result of three meetings, it can be concluded that the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play as a technique in teaching speaking for transactional and interpersonal to eleventh grade students of senior high school students can help the students to participate more in speaking English. In general, the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play in teaching speaking was good. The teacher did the teaching learning process by three phase of speaking. Diaz-Rico (2008: 226) suggested to use three phase speaking process in teaching as a strategy to make the students participate more in speaking class. Most of the students were participated in each meeting because every student had same opportunities to develop their idea, expressing their idea and practicing their speaking skill. Even the shy students, they can practice their speaking in the small group through practicing the dialogue they have been made. It proved by Terry (2008: 3) statement that speaking exercise or speaking practice through conversation is most reliable technique that makes the student’ ability develops in communicative proficiency. The students’ respond toward the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play was positive. They felt glad when the teacher used this technique. They said that Replacement Performance Role Play was interesting because they did not feel bored while teaching learning process. It was also helped the students to learn English easily. It proven with the statement by Snarski (2007: 3) stated that Replacement Performance Role Play provides valuable real-world practice (watch, discuss and practice) for language developments. They practiced to speak English in an appropriate way and in a good pronunciation. They enjoyed watching the video scene with native people as the character. Moreover, they enjoyed discussed the task together with their friend. They also enjoyed practicing the dialogue in a group. They thought that this technique is needed to be applied because it gave a lot of benefits not only for students in learning English easily and attractively but also for the teacher in making an effective, enjoyable and interesting teaching learning process. Suggestion Based on the result of the study, the researcher wanted to give some suggestion to the teachers who are interesting in implementing this technique and also for the other researchers who are attracting in doing a better research. For the English teacher a) Using the variety techniques, media or method in teaching learning process of a foreign language, such as: English, etc. is important. It will increase students’ interest, motivation, attention and participation in following the lesson that give by the teacher. Therefore, the teacher should be more creative in delivering the material to the students. Using a traditional method, technique or media allowed, but it is better to use the new one. It will make the students enjoy the material well and reduce their boredom. b) The teacher should choose proper materials which are suitable in students’ level. It should be based on Content Standard that has been established in curriculum. The vocabularies should be neither too easy nor too difficult. Besides, the materials should be attracting and interesting the students. It will lead to a successful learning. The goal of the teaching can be achieved by the teacher and the students can receive and understand the material well. c) The teacher should motivate the students to expressing their idea. Further, she or he should build the students’ confidence not shy to speak up. It will make the students not only learn the target language but also enhance their ability in all skill. For the other researchers This research investigated about the implementation of Replacement Performance Role Play as a technique in teaching speaking for transactional and interpersonal to eleventh grade students of senior high school students. For other researcher, they are expected to make better improvement. They can conduct a research in other fields concerning. They also can conduct a research in other subject such as: Replacement Performance Role Play as a technique in teaching speaking narrative, REFERENCES Ary, Donald, Jacobs, Lucy Cheser, Sorensen, Chris, & Razavieh, Asghar. (2001). Introduction to Research in Education. United States: Wadsworth cengage Learning.Brown, Douglas H. (2001). Priciples of language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc. Diaz-Rico, Lynne T. (2008). A course for Teaching English Learners. United States: Pearson Education, Inc. Harmer, Jeremy. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching 3th ad. Malaysia: Pearson Education. Lindsay, Cora, & Knight, Paul. (2006). Learning and Teaching English : A Course for Teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Murray, Denise E., & Christison, Mary Ann. (2011). What English Language Teachers Need to Know Volume II; Facilitating Learning. New York: Routledge. Norland, Deborah L., & Said, Terry Pruett. (2006). Teaching Adult ESL. Singapore: Mc Graw Hill. Nunan, David. (2003). Pratical English Language Teaching. New York: Mc Graw – Hills. Snarski, Maria. (2007). Using Replacement Performance RRole-Plays in the Language Classroom. English Teaching Forum, 4, 9. Terry, Carolina. (2008). How to Teach Speaking in an EFL Class. English Teaching Forum, 2(1).

TAKING BENEFITS FROM USING TRACK CHANGES AS A GRAMMAR CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISER
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

TAKING BENEFITS FROM USING TRACK CHANGES AS A GRAMMAR CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISER Reiza Ayu Puspitasari English Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya Email: ayu_reiza@yahoo.com Ahmad Munir English Education, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Surabaya Abstrak Track Changes telah digunakan dalam pengajaran mata kuliah Advanced English Grammar untuk mahasiswa semester tiga di Kelas A angkatan 2012 Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Surabaya. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini ditujukan untuk mendaftar kesalahan-kesalahan grammar yang disadari mahasiswa pada saat Track Changes digunakan, menjelaskan bagaimana Track Changes meningkatkan kesadaran grammar mahasiswa dan menjelaskan bagaimana mahasiswa menjadi sadar akan kesalahan-kesalahan grammar pada saat Track Changes digunakan. Penelitian studi kasus ini menggunakan analisis dokumen, wawancara dan kuesioner sebagai metode pengumpulan data. Tiga puluh mahasiswa dipilih sebagai subjek penelitian. Meskipun demikian, analisis esai hanya berfokus pada lima esai mahasiswa. Pertimbangan ini didasarkan pada kemauan mahasiswa untuk berpartisipasi dalam wawancara. Hasil menunjukkan bahwa: Pertama, kesalahan-kesalahan grammar yang disadari mahasiswa pada saat Track Changes digunakan tidaklah terbatas, seperti kata kerja akusatif, kata ganti, kata kerja, bentuk jamak, kata benda, klausa adjektiva, gerund dan kata sifat. Kedua, Track Changes telah berhasil meningkatkan kesadaran grammar mahasiswa karena jumlah dan jenis-jenis kesalahan-kesalahan grammar yang ditemukan di esai mahasiswa menurun. Ketiga, mahasiswa menjadi sadar akan kesalahan-kesalahan grammar pada saat Track Changes digunakan dengan melakukan revisi dan mendapat revisi. Kata Kunci: Advanced English Grammar, consciousness-raising, Track Changes Abstract Track Changes has been incorporated in the teaching of Advanced English Grammar unit for the third semester students of Class A 2012 batch of English Education study program in State University of Surabaya. Thus, this study aimed at listing the grammatical errors the students have become conscious when Track Changes used, explaining how Track Changes have raised students’ grammar consciousness and explaining how the students become conscious of grammatical errors when Track Changes used. Document analysis, interview and questionnaire were employed in this case study research. Thirty students were chosen as the participants. However, the analysis of the essay only focused on five essays. The consideration was based on the students’ willingness to participate in the interview. The results showed that: First, the grammatical errors the students have become conscious when Track Changes used were not limited such as accusative verbs, pronoun, verbs, plural forms, noun, adjective clause, gerund, and adjective forms. Second, Track Changes have successfully raised students’ grammar consciousness because the total and variety of grammatical errors found in students’ essays decreased. Third, the students become conscious of grammatical errors when Track Changes used by doing revision and getting revision. Keywords: Advanced English Grammar, consciousness-raising, Track Changes INTRODUCTION In the academic year of 2012/2013, grammar in English Language program of State University of Surabaya was taught through two units; Intermediate English Grammar that should be completed in the second semester and Advanced English Grammar that was taken in the third semester. Before taking these two units, the students had already been taught grammar that was integrated in Intensive Course (IC) unit (Buku Pedoman Universitas Negeri Surabaya 2012/2013, 2012). It was found that in one of the four classes of Advanced English Grammar unit that was Class A, the students of 2012 batch learnt grammar by doing peer editing on writing products using Track Changes technology besides doing exercises on Test of English Proficiency (TEP) samples. Assigning the students to do peer editing in learning Advanced English Grammar is aimed at facilitating the detection and correction of grammatical errors. This activity is associated with an approach to teaching grammar called consciousness-raising. Ellis (2003) points out that consciousness-raising emphasizes the forms more than the meanings, and is directed to make the students aware of how some linguistic features work. Nevertheless, though the students focus on the form of the grammar structure, it does not mean that focus on meaning is totally abandoned. This is because the students are also engaged in meaning-focused use of the target language as they solve the grammar problem (Fotos, 1994). Additionally, studies on the process of teaching grammar show that the creation of systems specifically designed to address students’ need such as clear feedback, and teacher’s needs such as elimination of repetitive tasks, increased learner independence, and identification of error patterns, becomes affordable in this current time due to the availability of advanced technology coupled with recent research dealing with learner texts (Hegelheimer & Fisher, 2006). The available advanced technologies (Kuo et al., 2002, Cowan, Choi, & Kim, 2003, Hegelheimer & Fisher, 2006) provide the facilities such as to detect users’ persistent errors and give adequate help, investigate if persistent errors can be eradicated, and raise learner awareness of troublesome grammatical features. The findings prove that technologies in this recent time have been integrated into teaching English, particularly in teaching grammar. In Indonesia, the use of technology has been implemented, particularly in teaching writing, in which grammar becomes an inseparable part of it. Munir and Nugroho (2008) conducted a study on the use of Track Changes to find out if the students could notice the language errors on their essays, whether they did not make the same errors on their essay revisions, what action they took on the parts of essays revised by the lecturer using Track Changes, whether or not there was different quality on the language use on draft 1, 2, and so forth after given feedbacks by the lecturer using Track Changes. The conclusions were the implementation of Track Changes was interesting in a way of directing the students’ attention on the parts of essays that needed to get revisions. However, this study indicates that the improvement the students made on their essays, particularly on the language use, did not come from the students’ own ability but the lecturer’s correction and comments on the Track Changes. The findings from the previous research about the use of Track Changes play a key role in designing this research. While the previous research focused on the lecturer and students’ interactivity with the technology used in writing unit, this research was conducted to investigate in a greater depth about the students, peers, and the lecturer’s interactivity and to find out how Track Changes was used to raise students’ consciousness on grammatical errors in a university grammar class. Thus, this study investigated the process of teaching grammar on Advanced English Grammar unit taken by the third semester students of Class A 2012 batch in English Education program of State University of Surabaya and the benefits of making use of Track Changes. RESEARCH METHODS This study was a qualitative study aimed at describing social phenomenon of taking benefits from using Track Changes as a consciousness raiser in a university grammar class as they occurred naturally since this took place in the natural setting, without any attempts to manipulate the situation under study (Dornyei, 2007). This was also a case study research since the observation was only done in one of the four grammar classes in English Education Program of State University of Surabaya, as indicated by Ary, et al. (2010). Document analysis, interview and questionnaire were employed in this study to list the grammatical errors detected by peer editors, to explain how students’ grammar awareness improved, and to find out the internal experience of the students regarding the use of Track Changes in peer editing activities. In this study, 30 students from class A Advanced English Grammar 2012 batch of the third semester majoring in English Education program became the participants. They were chosen under the consideration that whilst taking Advanced English Grammar unit, the students were introduced to the use of Track Changes in doing peer editing on writing products while learning grammar. However, the analysis of the essay only focused on five essay drafts. The consideration was based on the students’ willingness to participate in the interview. The first, second, and third version of five female students’ essay drafts were collected by copying the files from the lecturer. The essays collected were read, scrutinized, and searched for the Track Changes which spotted the grammatical errors found by peer editors. Then, the grammatical errors the peer editors detected and marked through Track Changes were classified in three categories. Those were: could spot the errors and could successfully correct them, could spot the errors but could not successfully correct them, and could not spot the errors and could not correct them. The examples of each category were given. Also, interview was constructed in the form of semi-structured interview asking for the students’ opinion on the use of Track Changes, what they have learnt from giving comments and suggestions towards their friends’ essays, and the benefits of Track Changes for spotting grammatical errors. Additional questions were asked depend on the students’ response to each question given. Besides, the questionnaire was constructed in the form of Likert scales in favorable or positively stated items. Strongly agree is scored 5, agree is scored 4, undecided or do not know is scored 3, disagree is scored 2, and strongly disagree is scored 1. The students were directed to select the response category that best represents their reaction to each statement (Ary, et al., 2010). The questionnaire contained 11 statements of the mechanism, the ease and the benefits of using Track Changes. In addition, the 11 Likert-scale items were tested for reliability coefficients using Cronbach’s alpha. According to Sax (1989), a reliability coefficient of more than 0.6 is required for a self-designed text or survey. The all variables scale in this study achieved alpha of 0.69 that was satisfactory. Furthermore, to explain how Track Changes have raised students’ grammar consciousness, the quality of the first essay drafts written by the students were compared to the third essay drafts submitted to the lecturer after being edited by peer editors and the essay’s owners. The quality was judged based on the total and variety of the grammatical errors the students made on the first and third version. Besides, to investigate how the students become conscious of grammatical errors when Track Changes used, interview transcript was searched for the words and phrases which represented the students’ view on the use of Track Changes. These were then interpreted for their meanings. Moreover, to find out the view of the students who were given Track Changes and those who gave Track Changes, responses to the 11 items in the questionnaires were coded and imported into SPSS for descriptive statistics analysis to show the trends of their opinions of the mechanism, the ease, and the benefits of using Track Changes. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION To reveal the benefits of using Track Changes as a grammar consciousness raiser, the results show the grammatical errors detected by peer editors, explain how students’ grammar awareness improved, and elaborate the internal experience of the students regarding the use of Track Changes in Advanced English Grammar unit. The grammatical errors the students have become conscious when Track Changes was used in grammar lesson The first example found showed that student 1 made a sentence “Some of them let the acnes gone by itself” that contain two grammatical errors. First, the word let belongs to accusative verbs that should be followed by infinitives. Therefore, the peer editor revised it to be “Some of them let the acnes go”. Besides, the peer editor edited the pronoun itself to be themselves to represent the plural object acnes. These revisions prove that the peer editor could spot the grammatical errors in student 1’s essay and could successfully correct them. This was also done by the other four peer editors who edited student 2, student 3, student 4, and student 5’ essay. Nevertheless, it was also found that in spotting the grammatical error in student 1’s essay such as “Because exercise can really help relieve stress and acnes”, the peer editor revised it to be “Because exercise can really help relieve stress which causing acnes” which is inappropriate. The object pronoun which of the adjective clause should be followed by third person singular causes because the object stress is in a singular form. Only if which is omitted, the use of the progressive verb causing is acceptable. This phenomenon shows that the peer editor could spot the grammatical error in student 1’s essay but could not successfully correct it. The same phenomena were also found on student 2 and student 4’s essay. The cases for peer editors who could spot the errors and could successfully correct them or could spot the errors but could not successfully correct them using Track Changes prove the finding from Hegelheimer and Fisher (2006) that the availability of the technology increases learner independence and identification of error patterns. This is contradictory with Munir and Nugroho (2008) who indicated that the improvement the students made on their essays when Track Changes was used, particularly on the language use, did not come from the students’ own ability but the lecturer’s corrections and comments in Track Changes. However, the third example shows that the grammatical error found in student 1’ essay could not be spotted by the peer editor. An utterance such as “Take some exercise also a good way to cure acnes” should be revised to be “Taking some exercise is also a good way to cure acnes”. The verb take should be changed into gerund form taking because it becomes the subject of the sentence. In addition, there is also an omission of verb is that was not spotted and thus the peer editor could not correct the errors. The same condition also happens on student 2, student 3, and student 5’s essay. The above explanation shows that the grammatical errors the students have become conscious when Track Changes used were not limited such as accusative verbs, pronoun, verbs, plural forms, noun, adjective clause, gerund, and adjective forms. Thus, it is proven that the favorable results of the pilot study which used only one task dealing with one specific grammatical feature are consistent when the students given a number of tasks dealing with different grammatical structures as found by Fotos (1994). How Track Changes have raised students’ grammar consciousness After getting revision on the second essays, the grammatical errors in student 1’s essay decreased from the total of 17 to be 9 errors in the third essay. Errors in grammatical aspects such as verb tense, accusative verb, object pronoun, parallelism, diction, noun omission, and article in student 1’s first essay were not found in her third essay. This condition also happened on student 2, student 4, and student 5 that showed significant decrease on the total and variety of grammatical errors in their first essays compared to the third version of the essays written. However, the condition happened in student 3 shows that the same grammatical error was found in the first and third essay. This was as a result of the inability of the peer editor in spotting the error on the second essay which was “It is an intelligence snake” (Student 3’s essay) which caused the essay owner did the same error in her third essay. The significant decrease on the total and variety of grammatical errors in students’ first essays compared to the third version of the essays written shows that Track Changes have successfully raised students’ grammar consciousness. Thus, the decision to choose Track Changes may be made on the consideration that the technology has the ability to facilitate acquisition or improvement on grammatical competence as stated by Stockwell (2007) that choosing technology can be based on pedagogical objectives that means particular technology is selected due to specific features it has. Besides, it confirms Granger et al. (2007) who found that the combination of technology is beneficial for raising language awareness. How the students become conscious of grammatical errors when Track Changes was used in Advanced English Grammar unit The results of the descriptive statistics on the students’ view related with the mechanism, the ease, and the benefits of using Track Changes shows that items 1, 2, and 3 have mean scores higher than 4 which mean the students’ stance exists in between scale 4 representing agree and 5 representing strongly agree. This means the students confirm that they understand the mechanism of operating Track Changes. Regarding the ease, the students give quite different responses toward item 4 and item 5. The mean score for item 4 is higher than 4, indicating the students agree that giving comments or suggestions toward their friend’s essay is easier when using Track Changes. This is supported by the student’s opinion given in the interview such as “Because I think it’s easy to use and it’s not much time consuming different with editing on papers” (Student 1). Additionally, Student 5 expresses her preference to use Track Changes in a response such as “It makes me easier to correct my friend’s essay. I prefer using Track Changes for editing my friend’s essay by typing rather than writing the comments”. This is in line with Ho and Savignon (2007) who found that many learners indicated that they preferred typing instead of writing while providing feedback. Furthermore, the mean score of 3.97 which item 5 has, indicates that the students tend to agree that understanding the feedbacks given by peer editor is easier when Track Changes used. It was shown in a response such as “usually, there is a line next to a sentence that is given Track Changes. And we know that the word is wrong, so we can find out what’s wrong with that. And then, we know that there is wrong grammatical construction” (Student 5). However, understanding the feedbacks from peer editor is sometimes confusing, as well. This can be proven from Student 3 saying “I think that’s correct but they said that it’s false, it’s not like that. Sometimes, we make negotiation, and share arguments”. This is contrary to Ho and Savignon (2007) who found that lack of oral discussion during peer review sessions when Track Changes used was found to be an obstacle. Also, when the students felt confuse to accept or reject the revision made by peer editors, the lecturer gave comments that the students perceive as beneficial such as in “Sometimes, my friend corrects sentence that I think is right. If I found something like that, I usually go to the lecturer to consult about that” (Student 1) and “My lecturer usually give feedback and I think it is better comparing to directly accepting my friend’s feedbacks on my essay because I think they are not expert in grammar. Sometimes, it’s hard to know whether my friend’s correction is right or not, so my lecturer’s feedback makes it clear for me” (Student 3). This is as suggested by Fotos and Ellis (1991) who believe that the proficiency gains would have been higher with a more detailed explanation of the requirements of the task, previous experience in pair or group work, and teacher’s feedback on the solution of the task. Besides the mechanism and the ease, the students were also asked about their view on the benefits of Track Changes. It is found that there are two different trends of the mean scores; lower than 4 and higher than 4. Item number 6 has a mean score of 3.97 which mostly reaches 4 indicating that most students tend to agree that using Track Changes to show their friends’ errors makes them aware of grammatical features. This is supported from the responses given during the interview such as “as a peer editor, Track Changes help me to show the grammatical errors in my friend’s essay easily. So, she can know that there is something wrong” (Student 5) and “we (become) more sensitive about error in my friend’s essay” (Student 1). Moreover, the students agree that the errors shown in Track Changes help them aware of grammatical features as stated by Student 2 “(from) the second step, we know that our grammar is not perfect, we still found many grammatical errors but I ask to my friend and lecturer and sometimes I open Betty Azar book and my grammar gets better”. This upholds the findings from Yip (1994) who found that a C-R session class can be effective for directing students’ attention to the ungrammatical constructions, and Munir and Nugroho (2008) who believe that the implementation of Track Changes is interesting in a way of directing students’ attention on the parts of essays that need to get revision. By using Track Changes, the language errors on students’ essays could be directly showed to them. In addition, the students tend to agree (M=3.97, SD= .823) that when Track Changes used, they could detect their friends’ errors and could easily correct them. However, item number 9 has a mean score of 3.14 that means the students’ stance exists in between scale 3 representing undecided or do not know and 4 representing agree. In another word, the students tend to have no idea whether they could detect their friend’s errors but hardly correct them or not when Track Changes used. This means, the students were not so sure if correcting errors in their friend’s essay was hardly done. Moreover, item number 10 shows the students agree that the use of Track Changes helps essay editing activities more efficient. Besides, the mean score of 3.93 which item number 11 has, indicates that the students tend to agree that Track Changes makes grammar learning more engaging as stated by Student 3 “I want to say that grammar is one of my favorite lectures. So, everything new about grammar, I am very interested about it. One of this is Track Changes. So I think Track Changes is something that motivates me in learning grammar”. Furthermore, students’ responses on the semi-structured interview also reveal essential information about the benefits of Track Changes that leads to the explanation of how the students become conscious of grammatical features when Track Changes used in Advanced English Grammar unit. Those were expressed in comments such as “I become more… very aware about the grammar form, function, and meaning. So, for all this time I just consider the form and the meaning, not the function. I become more aware about the function” (Student 1) and in “I learn so much from Track Changes, such as grammar that my friends know but I don’t know, and then the comments from lecturer also help me. Before this, I don’t know, after I use Track Changes and my lecturer gives comments, I become understand fragment, the use of active and passive voice that sometimes confusing” (Student 4). These are in line with Ellis (2003) who stated that C-R is directed to make the students aware of how some linguistic features work and Scott and Fuente (2008) who concluded that the outcome of C-R tasks is awareness and discovery of how a specific structure works. However, opinions such as “sometimes, when my lecturer give us that kind of exercise using Track Changes, it’s quite boring” (Student 3) and “But sometimes I feel bored because Track Changes was used in most of our grammar class” (Student 4) indicate the students found that using Track Changes is sometimes boring. Additionally, Student 4 saying “There are many rules and steps taken for editing the essay. That’s make me bored” explained why the student feels bored sometimes when using Track Changes for peer editing activities. Despite expressing the boredom, the student still emphasizes the use of Track Changes as helpful, as stated by Student 3 “But I think it’s still very useful for us”. CONCLUSIONS The results and discussions presented previously become the sources of drawing the conclusions of this study. First, the grammatical errors the students have become conscious when Track Changes used in grammar lesson were not limited to particular grammatical structure since in peer editing activities the students did not focus on one C-R task dealing with one specific grammatical feature. There were three categories of peer editors’ responses in Track Changes concerning the grammatical errors spotted, those were could spot the errors and could successfully correct them; could spot the errors but could not successfully correct them; and could not spot the errors and could not correct them. This indicates that Track Changes increases students’ independence because the corrections and comments in Track Changes came from the students (peer editors), not the lecturer. Second, Track Changes has successfully raised students’ grammar consciousness. After getting the revision on the second essays from peer editors using Track Changes, the total and variety of grammatical errors in students’ final essays decreased compared to the first essays. Thus, the reason of making use of Track Changes might be pedagogical objective that is facilitating improvement on grammatical competence. Third, the students become conscious of grammatical errors when Track Changes was used in Advanced English Grammar unit as results of doing revision and getting revision. After doing revision, peer editors made negotiation with their friends about the grammatical errors spotted in Track Changes. When there was confusion to accept or reject the revision, they read grammar book and they were also given feedbacks from the lecturer. This makes the students aware of grammatical features that they did not know before. In addition, the students become conscious of grammatical errors because Track Changes directs their attention on parts of the essays that contained errors. REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. K. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (8th Edition ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Buku Pedoman Universitas Negeri Surabaya 2012/2013. (2012). Surabaya: Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni. Cowan, R., Choi, H. E., & Kim, D. H. (2003). Four questions for error diagnosis and correction in CALL. CALICO Journal, 20(3), 451-463. Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (2003). Tasks-Based Language Learning and Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicating about grammar: A task-based approach. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 605-628. Fotos, S. S. (1994). Integrating Grammar Instruction and Communicative Language Use Through Grammar Consciousness-Raising Tasks. TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 323-351. Granger, S., Kraif, O., Ponton, C., Antoniadis, G., & Zampa, V. (2007). Integrating learner corpora and natural language processing: A crucial step towards reconciling technological sophistication and pedagogical effectiveness. ReCALL, 19(3), 252-268. Hegelheimer, V., & Fisher, D. (2006). Grammar, Writing, and Technology: A Sample Technology-supported Approach to Teaching Grammar and Improving Writing for ESL Learners. CALICO Journal, 23 (2), 1-24. Ho, M.-C., & Savignon, S. J. (2007). Face-to-face and Computer-mediated Peer Review in EFL Writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269-290. Kuo, C.-H., Wible, D., Chen, M.-C., Sung, L.-C., Tsao, N.-L., & Chio, C.-L. (2002). The design of an intelligent web-based interactive language learning system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(3), 229-248. Munir, A., & Nugroho, H. m. A. (2008). A Model of Essays Consultation in the Writing Process of Writing III Using Track Changes. State University of Surabaya. Sax, G. (1989). Principles of educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing. Scott, V. M., & Fuente, M. J. d. l. (2008). What's the problem? L2 Learners' Use of the L1 During Consciousness-Raising, Form-Focused Tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 100-113. Stockwell, G. (2007). A review of technology choice for teaching language skills and areas in the CALL literature. ReCALL, 19(2), 105-120. Yip, V. (1994). Grammatical consciousness-raising and learnability. In T. Odlin (Ed.), Perspective on pedagogical grammar (pp. 123-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“DOLL STEPS” AS A BRAINSTORMING GAME TO IMPROVE THE SPEAKING SKILL IN PROCEDURE TEXT OF THE NINTH GRADERS OF SMPN I MOJOKERTO
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

“DOLL STEPS” AS A BRAINSTORMING GAME TO IMPROVE THE SPEAKING SKILL IN PROCEDURE TEXT OF THE NINTH GRADERS OF SMPN I MOJOKERTO JOURNAL BY ELIASANTI AGUSTINA NIM. 102084007 ADVISOR Dra. THERESIA KUMALARINI, M.Pd. NIP. 19521014 197903 2 001 SURABAYA STATE UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM 2014 “DOLL STEPS” AS A BRAINSTORMING GAME TO IMPROVE THE SPEAKING SKILL IN PROCEDURE TEXT OF THE NINTH GRADERS OF SMPN I MOJOKERTO Eliasanti Agustina English Study Program FBS Surabaya State University elia.englishedu2010@gmail.com Dra.Theresia Kumalarini, M.Pd. Lecturer of English Study Program FBS Surabaya State University kumala_rini52@yahoo.co.id ABSTRAK Pengajaran berbicara bahasa Inggris di banyak sekolah tidak memfasilitasi siswa untuk menjadi terampil. Akibatnya, keterampilan berbicara mereka masih kurang memuaskan. Dengan demikian, guru harus menggunakan cara yang tepat untuk mengajarkan keterampilan berbicara berdasarkan kebutuhan siswa. Di sini peneliti menyarankan guru untuk menerapkan permainan brainstorming bernama “DOLL STEPS” yang bertujuan untuk membantu siswa memiliki kesempatan yang sama untuk menjadi aktif dan kritis, membangun kebiasaan untuk berbicara menggunakann bahasa Inggris, berbagi dan mendapatkan pengetahuan, berbicara dengan fasih dan bebas , berkaitan dengan topik yang diberikan , siap dengan tugas inti dalam pelajaran berbicara, dan belajar untuk memperhatikan pembicara yang lain. Penelitian ini fokus pada berbicara teks prosedur. Penelitian kuantitatif eksperimental ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui bagaimana kemampuan berbicara siswa setelah penerapan "DOLL STEPS". Populasinya adalah siswa kelas Sembilan di SMPN 1 Mojokerto, sedangkan sampelnya adalah IX E sebagai kelompok eksperimen dan IX F sebagai kelompok kontrol. Untuk mendapatkan data, masing-masing kelompok diberi pre-test untuk menemukan kesetaraan kemampuan dan post-test untuk menemukan pencapaian yang berbeda. Peneliti menggunakan rumus t -test untuk menganalisa data. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa skor post-test dari kelompok eksperimen lebih tinggi daripada kelompok kontrol. Kesimpulannya, direkomendasikan kepada guru bahasa Inggris bahwa permainan “Doll Steps” dapat digunakan untuk mengajar keterampilan berbicara sehingga dapat mencapai target belajar bahasa Inggris . Keyword : “Doll Steps”, Keterampilan Berbicara , Teks Prosedur ABSTRACT The teachings of speaking in many schools do not facilitate students to be skillfull in speaking. Consequently, their oral skill is still unsatisfactory. Thus, the teacher has to use an appropriate way to teach speaking based on the students’ need. Here the researcher suggested the teacher to implement brainstorming game namely DOLL STEPS which aims to help students have the same chance to be active and critical, build a habit to speak English, share and get knowledge, speak in fluent and free way, be enganged with the topic given, be ready in the main speaking task, and learn to pay attention to other’s talk. This study focuses on speaking procedure text.This experimental quantitative research aims to know how the students’ speaking skill after the implementation of “DOLL STEPS” is. The population was the ninth graders of SMPN 1 Mojokerto, whose sample was IX E as the experimental group and IX F as the control group. To get the data, each group was given a pre-test to find their equality and post-test to find the different achievement. The researcher used t-test formula to analyze the data. The result of the study showed that the post-test scores of the experimental group were higher than those of the control group. Finally, it is recomended that English teachers use Doll Steps game in teaching speaking skill to meet the target of learning English. Keyword: Doll Steps, Speaking Skill, Procedure Texts INTRODUCTION English proficiency is a must in the era of communication and globalization. English is seriously learned by many people to have a good prospect in the communication and also to get more information of international world. It can be seen in Indonesia that English is learned by children from elementary school to students of higher education. Therefore, our government seriously provides the appropriate curriculum about this subject. English lesson in junior high school function as a tool of self-development of students in science, technology and art. After completing their studies, they are expected to grow and develop into individuals who are intelligent, skilled and personable also ready to take a role in national development. In line with the explanation above is Indonesian law number 20 year 2003 about National Education System Article 37 paragraph 1, one of them states that language study materials include a foreign language with consideration of foreign languages, especially English is an international language which is a very important utility in global society (2006 : 282). Hence, English language become the principle subject which determines student graduation. This is proven by the fact that English is the subjects that is always included in the national examination in accordance with the Regulation of the Minister of National Education Number 78 Year 2008 on National Examination for Secondary level in Article 6 states that the subjects tested in the examination include Indonesian, English, Mathematics, and Science. In the process of learning English, a teacher must be able to master the language pretty well. Moreover she must be able to master how to teach English properly and how to transfer knowledge and experience of the teacher to the learners. Thus, there has to be many efforts to do in order to create an interesting English learning that can motivate students to enhance learners’ capacity in learning English. That is why, it is recommended that the teaching of English, should bring English atmosphere in it. Being a good teacher, she should be able to bring it in teaching and learning process, because if the atmosphere can not be brought into the process, the students will not get a clear purpose, why they have to learn the lesson and what is the importance of learning it for their daily lives. According to Depdiknas (2006:307), the teaching of English consists of four language skills, namely listening, speaking, reading and writing and other three components, pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. Each skill has different purposes to help students master English. The uppermost important language skill in learning English is a skill in oral communication or generally called speaking. As declared by Aliakbar & Jamalvadi, speaking is crucial since it is the vehicle of social solidarity, social rank, the business world and as a medium for learning language. Learning objectives of speaking have been clearly stated in the English curriculum. The goal is students are able to communicate efficiently. "Learning speaking should improve the communication skills of learners to be able to express and learn to follow the appropriate social and cultural development" (Kayi, 2006: 1). Unfortunately the current condition shows that English Foreign Language (EFL) learners, in this term is Indonesian learners, are reluctant to speak English in the classroom. The problem is commonly found in EFL class. It is caused by some factors such as they do not have the confidence to do conversation in English, they are afraid of making mistakes and then laughed by their peers, they have limited vocabulary so that they know what to say in bahasa but not in English and many more. Sometimes the topic given is too high for them so they prefer to be silent. In addition, some students did not get a chance to speak in class because of the domination by particular learners. Consequently, students have fewer opportunities to learn from speaking than the more oral students. For sure it will affect to their ability and their score in speaking skill as well. Students who do not take charge in their learning are unable to take full advantage of learning opportunities. This is a problem that faces many Asian students who are generally more reserved than western students (Tsui , 1996). As teachers, we can try to overcome students’ problem by using suitable warm-up activities, in this case called brainstorming game. Basically the use of brainstorming game in teaching and learning activities is not a must considering the effectiveness and time required. However, occasionally it is necessary to use the game to support the implementation of learning English. Brainstorming game can facilitate and create a strong positive effect on the atmosphere and also relaxed for students in doing classroom learning activities, considering that English is still a scourge for most students. That warm-up activity also helps students to have an overview about the main speaking task. In addition, the nature of game is fun so it can increase students' motivation and able to overcome shyness. Consequently, they will be able to express their ideas freely because through playing the game they may not consider that they are learning. Implementation of learning strategy in SMPN 1 Mojokerto strongly support the achievement of the speaking purpose itself. Learning strategy requires students to be independent, critical, and active in expressing their opinion. However at the presentation time most of the students do not focus in listening to the speaker. Sometimes they are busy with their own tasks even do not appreciate the presenter. Moreover, frequently there are learners who like to cut the talks of presenter with things that are not discussed. This affects condition of other students and causes confussion in the classroom. Teachers will be exhausted to remind them repeatedly. Dealing with the issues above, a teacher needs appropriate strategy and media which can control the class order and boost students’ score in speaking English. There are some alternatives of speaking games that can be used in order to improve the students’ speaking ability. One of the games that can be used is the Doll Steps game. This game is actually taken from the Chain Story ideas that are commonly used in the teaching of narrative text and also Talking Stick, but the writer gives a little modification in the content of the media itself, so that produces a new media that is Doll Steps game. As a result students will pay attention to the presenter when she is speaking. This teaching strategy can be used in teaching any texts. Based on Competence Based Curriculum Issued (KTSP) 2006, there are five genres that are introduced to Junior High school students. Those are procedure, descriptive, recount, narrative and report text. Those kinds of texts are expected to be mastered by the students well. Among those genres, a procedure text is easily understood by the students as it is commonly found in their environment. The text can be found on the sachet of instant foods and beverages also on the box of electronic machine. Additionally, procedure text is a genre which has to be mastered by students, especially the ninth graders as it is already stated in Standar Isi and Standar Kompetensi. In procedure text, students are told the way how something is achieved by doing sequence steps. The text includes set of suggestion on how to do something, how to operate something and how to get to a certain place or direction. To apply Doll Steps for procedure text, the speaker gives direction or step. All students will be treated fairly. They will get same chance to speak, so it is expected by applying this game, students will be able to speak English effortlessly and without hesitant. Doll Steps will be very advantageous for teaching speaking procedure text of the ninth graders in SMPN 1 Mojokerto. This study will discus the activities during the learning process using Doll Steps. The implementation here will be different from the concept in general as it will be modified by the music so that students feel comfortable. Researcher found a previous study on the use of brainstorming carried out in Oral Communication classes at a Japanese senior high school which was observed by Culen (1998) entitled, “Brainstorming Before Speaking Task”. Brainstorming used was Information Gap. The evaluation of the study showed that an increase in speaking time and a more positive atmosphere are two benefits that brainstorming can bring to speaking class. Based on the background and the problems above, the research conducted to investigate how the students’ speaking skill after the implementation of Doll Steps is. METHOD Concerning with the research question in the previous chapter, the writer used experimental quantitative research design. According to Ary, (1985) in Denik lejar (2012) Experimental design refers to the conceptual framework where the experiment is conducted. There were two groups involved in this study, experimental group (class IX E ) and control group (class IX F), which were randomly assigned. The two groups were given a pre-test to examine whether they were in the equal level or not. Then the experimental group was given a treatment by using Doll Steps in their teaching and learning process for several times. On the contrary, the control group was taught conventionally. At the end, both of the groups were given a post-test to measure the effectiveness of Doll Steps for teaching speaking procedure texts to Junior High school. The population used in this research was the ninth graders of SMP Negeri I Mojokerto. The researcher chose two classes randomly as the samples. In this research, the researcher chooses probability sampling, especially cluster random sampling. After getting two classes, the researcher randomly assigned which one was the experimental group and which was the control group. The two chosen classes should be equal, to avoid any unexpected effect. In this study, the sample was class IX E as the experimental group, and class IX F as the control group. Each of them consists of 26 students. This study used test as the instrument. The tests consisted of pre-test and post-test. The items used in the tests were exactly the same. The pre-test and post-test were administered to know whether the model of learning is successful or not. From the two tests, the researcher got scores of speaking tests as the data. Before the tests were administered, a tryout was conducted to analyze the reliability of the test be used for pre-test and post-test also to know the appropriate test items for the students’ level. The try-out test was given to the students who were given neither pre-test nor post-test. The number of the test items was just 2 instructions in the form of oral test. The results showed that the test items had a high validity because all of the components of the test items were according to the standard competency (see table 1) and has been approved by the experts (lecture of UNESA and the English teacher of SMPN I Mojokerto). While to know the reliability, the researcher used interrater reliability method. It means, one test will be administered once, but it is scored by two people. If the result from those two people are same or almost the same, means the test are valid and can be used in collecting data. Therefore, for the results showed that the test items were in high validity and reliability. Table 1 Scale of Validity Test Item Standard Competency Validity How to send a picture through e-mail How to make a glass of iced lemon tea 4.2.1 Mengungkapkan makna dalam monolog pendek sederhana dengan menggunakan ragam bahasa lisan secara akurat, lancar, dan berterima untuk berinteraksi dalam konteks kehidupan sehari-hari dalam teks berbentuk procedure Valid Valid When the students came in front of the class and produced a monologue related to the lesson given, their performance was analyzed and scored based on some aspects. They are pronunciation, grammar, fluency, vocabulary, organization and comprehension. Each aspect has its own point and description. The measurement adopted from Oller (Language Tests at School, 1979, pp. 320-323). A quantitative data analysis was conducted in this study. The scores of students’ speaking tests were analyzed by using t-test formula because the result of the study was determined by the comparison of the post-test scores of the two groups. Moreover it is used to analyze the significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores of the two groups. RESULT AND DISCUSSION Result The Implementation of Doll Steps in Teaching Speaking The research was done on December 9th up to 12th 2014. Furthermore, six meetings were needed to accomplish the research; try-out, pre-test, treatment 1, treatment 2, treatment 3, and post-test. It is held to find out the influence of using brainstorming game called “DOLL STEPS” to improve students’ speaking skill in Procedure text. It was investigated through comparing the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test between the experimental and control group. Below is the statistics table of scores of both groups in pretest and posttest. Table 2 Scores of Pre-test for Experimental and Control Group Based on the calculation of the scores, it was found that the mean of the pretest scores of the experimental group was 70.2 and the control group was 65.4. From the table above, it can be seen that the Tvalue of pretest of the Experimental and control group with the level of significance of .05 and 58 (60) degree of freedom was 1.3 and the Ttable was 2,009. If the T table was higher than the Tvalue . it means that there is no significant difference between Experimental and Control group. Oller’s speaking measurement considers that both of the groups belong to level 3. From those results, the researcher assumed that the members of the two groups had equal level of speaking ability before the treatments were given. Table 3 Scores of Post-test for Experimental and Control Group From the calculation, the Mean of Experimental group was 81.9 which belongs to level 3+ and the Mean of Control group was 66.8 which belongs to level 3. It was clearly seen that the scores of experimental group the Mean of experimental group was much higher than the Mean of control group. Moreover the level of experimental is one level above the control group. The scores also have a better improvement. It can be seen at the pretest, the mean of experimental group was 70.2 and belongs to level 3. It significantly increased at the post-test the mean of which 81.9 and belongs to level 3+. It is because the experimental group was given a treatment by using Doll Steps game. The game was able to help students to produce oral speaking text fluently. The significant difference of the post-test scores of experimental The T value of post-test scores of experimental and control groups with level significance .05 and 58 (60) degree of freedom was 8.9 and the T table was 2.009. From the table above, it can be seen that the result of T table was lower than the T value. Therefore, it shows that there was a significant difference between two groups. In other words, there was a significant improvement between those who were taught by using Doll Steps game. Discussion As stated in chapter II, Kattlen (2005:31) defines that speaking as an interactive process of constructing meaning involves producing, receiving and processing information. However, some teachers and pupils mean every sound which comes out of the mouth is called speaking activity. It is totally wrong since speaking is human daily activity in which human expresses the ideas through the oral words about his need, feelings and thought that he wants other people hear. It must use his oral words not the words from the texts, recorders or other people’s words. In the second chapter, it can be seen that speaking is a productive skill not a receptive skill, so here the speaker must produce meaningful words not copying or imitating. Therefore, it is necessary that students not only be able to pronounce words correctly but also produce oral words fluently in order to improve the speaking skill of the students, in this case is in a procedure text. Then, the researcher favored Doll Steps game as an alternative way to ease students creates a procedure text orally. The oral words should create spontaneously which means that the words must be original words from the learners. Moreover from the contrasting scores of the post-test between two groups, it can be stated that Doll Steps game can be an effective game for teaching speaking procedure texts. The test items consisted of two instructions. In this section, the researcher tried to analyze the findings of the research which was conducted in SMP Negeri I Mojokerto. The first analysis was about the pre-test scores of the experimental and control groups. The result of the pre-test showed that there was no significant difference of both groups. It means that the two groups have equal ability. The second analysis was the post-test scores of Experimental and control groups. Table 3 shows that the mean of post-test scores for Experimental group was higher than that of the control group. Furthermore, the calculation of the t-test showed that there was a significant difference of post-test scores of Experimental and Control group. It seems that the treatments given to experimental group was successful. Table 3 describes clearly that Doll Steps game is effective for teaching speaking procedure texts. It is supported by the result showed that the scores between experimental and control were significantly different. It caused by the treatments given to experimental groups affected the students’ speaking ability. The treatments were given three times. During the treatments, the researcher applied steps of Doll Steps game. At the first treatment, the researcher explained and modeled the steps of Doll Steps first. After the researcher explained the strategy and the material, the students were taught a procedure text by applying Doll Steps game. From several treatments, the researcher was sure that “Doll Steps” is effective as an alternative strategy for teaching speaking procedure texts for the ninth graders in SMP Negeri I Mojokerto. Applying Doll Steps allows the following benefits some of which are stated in the second chapter: It takes students to be a critical learner as they develop independence in practicing speaking. It allows students to practice freely. Here they may speak fearless as no one will cut or correct their says as long as it relates with topic given. All the students will be active speakers for they will get their turn to speak up. It engages students in speaking around the topic. It makes students learn to focus on what his friends’ saying because in this game they should listen to the step mentioned by their friends to continue the next step. It scaffolds speaking with a variety of texts in all curriculum areas. It helps students to have a habit in speaking English. It makes students easy to produce the procedure text orally in the main activity since this game gives them chance to take and share knowledge with each other. It creates good English athmosphere in class which brings fun and purpossive learning activity. 10. Learners learn to appreciate one another. In conclusion, the calculation of the post-test from experimental and control groups using t-test showed that there was significant difference between them. Moreover the scores of Experimental group increased rapidly. It is statistically proved that Doll Steps game is effective for ninth graders in SMP Negeri I Mojokerto to improve their ability to speak the Procedure texts. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION Conclusion According to the findings in this research, in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that the post-test scores of the experimental group, who were taught by using Doll Steps game are higher than those of the control group who was taught as usual. It was proven by comparing the mean of post-test between the experimental (81.9) which is considered as level 3+ and control group (66.8) with just in level 3 which is clearly stated by the statistical computation between those two groups. Moreover, it was found that the t value of the t-test (8.9) was higher than the t table (2.00). The result of speaking ability of the experimental group students showed that most of them are very good in spoken procedure with the 3+ level. Some of them got excellent scores with the level 4 even 4+. It means that most of them were able to speak the language with suffecient structural accuracy and vocabulary to participate effectively in most formal and informal conversation on practical, social, and professional topics. Whereas some of them who got 4 and 4+ level were able to use the language fluently and accurately at all levels normally pertinent to professional needs (Oller:1979). Therefore, the research question of this study has been answered well. From the findings above, it can be stated that the Null hypothesis, which stated that there is no significant difference in the speaking ability of procedure texts between the students who are taught by using Doll Steps game and those who are not is rejected. On the other hand, the alternative hypothesis which stated there is a significant difference in the speaking ability of procedure texts between the students who are taught by using Doll Steps game and those who are not is confirmed. It can be assumed that teaching speaking procedure texts to ninth graders by using Doll Steps game helps the students to create a procedure text orally in a fluent way and reach a higher achievement. If the teacher implements the Doll Steps game to teach speaking of procedure texts, the students will be able to produce oral procedure text not only easily but also well structured and fluently because from the Doll Steps game they will become confident and critical learners, use their previous knowledge for the speaking task, feel free and confident through the game. Through their friends’ sentences they will gain new knowledge such as new vocabulary and how to arrange a good procedure text, so that they can produce the oral text well. In conclusion, it can be said that Doll Steps game is one of the effective teaching speaking games that can be used to teach speaking production of procedure text in the classroom. Suggestion Based on the result of the study, the researcher recommends some advices which are essential. The suggestion may be beneficial for the English teachers and other researchers who conduct a study on speaking skill. For the English teacher Nowadays, when the teaching and learning process is no longer teacher centered but student centered, so the teachers should have some criterion namely: Creative teacher Creative means teachers can do variation in teaching process such as adapting and creating new technique, media, strategy or even game. Good facilitator It means that as a facilitator, teachers should be able to explore students’ ability, for instance courage them to solve their learning problem, produce much ideas, give same chance to each students, and give supportive feedback. Selective teacher Teacher should selective in choosing the media, technique, strategy and game used to teach. The things must be appropriate to the curriculum, need, proficiency, and age of the students so that the learning process can meet the target. From all the characteristics above, students will be excited in practicing English orally Linked to the 2006 curriculum, the objective is to make learners able to express the text orally to be used for communication purpose (BSNP, 2006:24). Accordingly, the teacher should use suitable way, one which is giving Doll Steps game. Doll Steps game can give benefits and be implemented as an appropriate game for the students to produce oral procedure texts.. For the other researchers Relating to the successful usage of brainstorming game called “DOLL STEPS” to boost speaking score of the ninth graders of SMPN 1 Mojokerto, other researchers who are interested in investigating speaking skill are recommended that they look further on other related aspects of this study. Furthermore, it is suggested to develop this study by exploring the use of this game for other kinds of genre, skills, and level of the students REFERENCES Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Razavieh, A. (2010).Introduction to Research in Education (8th Ed). USA: Wadsworth engage Learning. Bartz, A. E. (2001). Basic Statistical Concept i Education and the Behavioral Science. Moorhead, Minesota: Concordia College. Brown, H. D. (2004). Language Assessment Principle ad Classroom Practices. San Francisco: Pearson Education. Cullen, B. (1998). Brainstorming Before Speaking Tasks. The Internet TESL Journal , VOL IV No. 7. Harmer, J. The Practice of English LAnguage TEaching (3rd edition ed.). Cambridge, UK: Longman. Hayriye, K. (2006). Teaching Speaking: Activities to Promote Speaking in a Second Language. The Internet TESL Journal , VOLl XII No. 11. Houston, H. (2006). A Brainstorming Activity for ESL/EFL Students. The Internet TESL Journal , Vol. XII, No. 12. Liu, T.-Y., & Chu, Y.-L. (2010). Using Ubiquitous Games in an English Listening and Speaking Course : Impact on LEarning Outcomes and Motivation. ELSEVIER , 1. Manshouri, F. (2008). Second Language Acquisition Research : Theory - Construction ad testinng. Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Nunn, F., & Nunn, R. (2005). Guiding ESL Students Towards Independent Speech Making. The Internet TESL Journal , Vol. XI, No. 2. Oller, John. W. (1979). Laguage Tests at School : A Pragmatic Approach. Boston, Massachusetts, USA: Longman.

USING ROLE PLAY TO PORTRAIT THE LEARNING ENGAGEMENT OF THE ELEVENTH GRADERS IN SPEAKING CLASS
RETAIN Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014
Publisher : RETAIN

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

USING ROLE PLAY TO PORTRAIT THE LEARNING ENGAGEMENT OF THE ELEVENTH GRADERS IN SPEAKING CLASS Irma Deviana English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya dephy.sasoka@gmail.com Dra. Theresia Kumalarini, M.Pd. English Department, Languages and Arts Faculty, State University of Surabaya kumala_rini52@yahoo.co.id Abstrak Berlatih adalah kunci menjadi pembicara yang baik. Faktanya, beberapa siswa tidak berlatih untuk berbicara dalam bahasa inggris pada kegiatan berbicara. Akibatnya, mereka takut untuk mengekspresikan diri dan cenderung tidak berpartisipasi di kegiatan berbicara. Kearsley dan Shneiderman (1999) menyatakan bahwa siswa dengan penuh arti harus terikat dalam kegiatan belajar melalui interaksi dengan yang lain dan tugas yang berguna. Dengan mempertimbangkan hal ini, penelitian kualitatif ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan bagaimana partisipasi siswa dalam kegiatan role play pada kemampuan berbicara. Subjek dari penelitian ini adalah siswa kelas sebelas di SMAN 13 Surabaya. Peneliti memilih 10 siswa sebagai sampel yang diperoleh dari informasi dari guru matapelajaran bahasa Inggris dan mewawancarai mereka kemudian menilainya. Setelah itu, mereka dibagi menjadi dua kategori, proficient dan less proficient. Peneliti mengumpulkan data melalui observation checklist. Kemudian, 10 siswa tersebut diwawancarai untuk memperkuat hasil observasi. Hasil dari penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa siswa pada kedua kategori sama-sama berpartisipasi dalam kegiatan role play. Hasil dari wawancara menunjukkan bahwa hubungan antar teman menjadi kuat karena mereka bekerja sama selama role play. Oleh karena itu, peneliti menyarankan kepala guru pelajaran bahasa Inggris untuk menggunakan role play sebagai kegiatan berbicara untuk meningkatkan partisipasi siswa dan melatih siswa berbicara bahasa Inggris (Ladousse, 1987). Kata Kunci: Role Play, Partisipasi Siswa, Kegiatan Berbicara Abstract Keep practicing is the key to be a good speaker. In reality, some students do not practice to speak English in their speaking class. Consequently, they are afraid of speaking out and incline not to get involved in speaking class activity. Kearsley and Shneiderman (1999) stated that “students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks.” Considering this, this qualitative study aims to describe how the students’ engagement is in the implementation of Role Play in speaking class. The subject of this study was the eleventh graders of SMAN 13 Surabaya. The researcher selected ten students as the sample by describing the documentary information from the English teacher and interviewing the students then scoring them using speaking rubric. Afterwards, they were divided into two categories, i.e proficient and less proficient. In conducting the study, the researcher collected the data through observation checklist. Then, she interviewed the ten selected students to confirm the observation. The result showed that both proficient and less proficient students were all engaged in a role play activity. The result of the interview revealed that the relationship among friends was stronger as they worked in a team during the role play. Therefore, the researcher recommends that English teachers use role play as an activity in the speaking class to enhance the students’ engagement and train the students to say the right expression in the right place and at the right time (Ladousse, 1987). Keywords: Role Play, Students’ engagement, Speaking Class Activity INTRODUCTION A wise man ever said, “The more often you speak, the easier it becomes.” It simply means that practice often is the key to be a good speaker. In reality, there are some students especially EFL students who are still afraid of speaking English. Some of them worry to express what is in their mind or always keep thinking that people will not understand them when they are speaking. The reason is because they do not practice to speak English even in their oral class. This happens to students from lowest till highest levels. They get the same treatment where they just have little chance to speak. Besides, when the students get that little chance to speak, they incline not to get involved in speaking activity. Some of them are shy, not willing to share their ideas, and feel unprepared. This occurs due to lack of practice in speaking class. In addition, the condition of education in Indonesia is similar to that of China. Most students’ speaking skill is in the second-rate than other skills such as listening, reading and grammar. It results from getting high scores in the Higher Education Exam as the only purpose of the high school students. There is no speaking English test that is why speaking skill is often ignored. Besides, the students do not have more chance to speak because there are usually over 50 students per class (Jianing, 2007). Since this situation also occurs in Indonesia, the teachers should concern with this phenomenon. In reality, students do not have enough opportunity to practice speaking in class and the speaking skill itself is not taken any notice. It gives a big impact on the students. It makes them unwilling to participate in the activity, which is called the student’s engagement, when it really comes to speaking time. Dealing with the student’s engagement, the idea of engagement is that “students must be meaningfully engaged in learning activities through interaction with others and worthwhile tasks” (Kearsley & Shneiderman, 1999). It simply means that the students must actively get involved in the activity given. By doing so, the students will automatically communicate with other students. This shows that the students have a willing to study, in this case practicing speaking. Therefore, the point of the material will be easily understood by the students. On the contrary, if the students are unwilling to study, they will not have intention to participate in speaking activity. Some of them will just prefer to listen and keep silent or incline to be passive. That condition may prevent learners to have a good speaking performance. Dealing with it, role play is chosen to be a good practicing way in boosting student’s engagement in a speaking class. According to Brown cited by Huang (2008), "role-play minimally involves (a) giving a role to one or more members of a group and (b) assigning an objective or purpose that participants must accomplish." These simply mean that the students will get a role or character or position based on the topic given in a certain situation. They have to present it in the form of a dialogue or conversation in front of the class. This activity is done in order to enhance students’ ability in using English. Since it is conducted in a group, each student will get involved in the activity practicing their communicative skill. Besides, as students will have their own role in the activity, they can learn more how to interact with other students using English. Concerning the ideas above, the study of “Using Role Play to Portrait the Learning Engagement of The Eleventh Graders in Speaking Class” is conducted. It aims to know how the learning engagement of the tenth grader students is in speaking class through role playing activity. This study simply captures the engagement of students in such fun learning. Hopefully, this study can give big contribution to our education especially for speaking skill in English subject. METHODOLOGY To conduct this research, the writer selected the eleventh graders of SMA Negeri 13 Surabaya as the subject of this study. The researcher chose one class and selected ten students purposively as the samples. Then, they were divided into two categories, proficient and less proficient. In order to know which category each student belonged to, the researcher gave such kind of speaking test to them. The test was only about general conversation. Besides, the researcher also got the documentary information given by English teacher. This study used two instruments; observation checklist and interview. The researcher used observation checklist to observe directly the atmosphere of the class and student’s involvement during the teaching and learning process. Here is the form of the observation checklist: Aspects Rating Yes No 1. The students know the topic given The students respond to other student’s points/opinion in preparing role play The student support suggestions that may be counter to the majority opinion The students interact each other The students demonstrate the role playing performance consistently The students demonstrate active involvement in class The students demonstrate adequate preparation The students engage in the activity The students respond very thoughtfully to other student’s comments The students help other students to reduce anxiety in performing role play The students pay attention to the teacher The students are noisy and disruptive The students interact with teacher The students ask questions The situation of the class is crowded (Adapted from, Martha L. Maznevski, 1996) . The second instrument was the interview. This instrument aimed to obtain data about how the students’ feeling toward role playing. The students were asked about their feeling and the changes that affected them. Therefore, the interview could also be used to confirm the observation. In addition, the researcher listened to what they said by providing a recording so that all the students’ talk could be heard. The data from observing the class participation was described qualitatively. The researcher narrated the activities that both teacher and students did in the class during the teaching and learning process. The researcher analyzed the result of the interview given after the implementation of role playing. As the researcher used recorder, what the student say was listened repeatedly and transcribed. Then, the data was ready to be analyzed. As the transcript was made, the researcher organized all the data and analyzed it without changing the words or phrases that the students made. RESULTS Observation Here is the detail description of each student’s participation during the implementation of role play: Proficient Students Student 1 She is very smart in her age. She seemed interested in English. This was seen when the teacher spoke in English, she could respond with a long answer. She was like a talkative student. She always paid attention to the teacher and kept listening. During the activity, this student was kind of a leader in her group. Since she was the one who was good in English, she led the other members of the group to discuss the topic in the role card. She helped the other students to understand their character, things to do, and what should they say. She also responded to other’s opinion in making the dialog. Besides, she supported her friend’s suggestion in order to make their role play interesting. Student 2 She did not try to answer some of the teacher’s question. She was just listening to the teacher. Although this student had capability in English, she did not take control of her group. She was just like the other members whom they just supported each other to understand the topic. She and her friend in the group helped each other to make the dialog based on the situation given on the card. In addition, she shared some ideas related to the topic. If her advice was out of topic, her friend would tell her to be in line again with the topic. Student 3 She is a clever student. She liked talking to her friends. However, she always tried to answer the teacher’s question. When the teacher addressed a question about the function of narrative, student 3 raised her hand and tried to answer the question. When the teacher asked the same question again to the other students, student 3 still wanted to answer the question. This shows that she kept answering the teacher’s question. Furthermore, during the activity, this student helped other members of the group to practice the role play. She and her friends were trying again and again to demonstrate their role play. Sometimes, in the middle of their practice, they were laughing to each other. It was because their acting was a kind of funny. Student 4 She was little bit quiet. However, she also answered the teacher’s question. When the teacher asked the students to make a sentence using Past Tense, student 4 raised her hand and answered the question. She could make a correct sentence using Past Tense. In the group, she was given a task to write the dialog. Therefore, she just listened to other student’s opinion. She did not contribute any idea toward the topic. However, she helped others practice the dialog Student 5 She showed enthusiasm when the teacher gave some questions. However, she did not raise her hands. She answered the question by grumbling with her friends. Unlike student 4, during the discussion, she responded to other student’s suggestion. Sometimes, she also gave opinion so that their performance would be acceptable. Less Proficient Students Student 6 This student was one of shy students in the class. However, student 6 tried to raise her hand and answered the teacher’s question. During the activity, she inclined to be silent in the group. Still, she could interact with other members of the group. She asked about what she had to do and helped her friend to make the dialog. She was not disruptive during preparing the role play. Although she did not give many ideas, she kept trying to get involved in the activity. Student 7 Student 7 was little bit quite in the class. However, he tried to answer the question by opening the book. He tried to find the answer on the book. During the discussion, student 7 interacted with other students. He worked together with his friend in making the dialog. He contributed an idea so that the role play would be attractive and funny. He was the one in the group who were creative. He made such a joke in the role play. Student 8 She answered the first question that was given by the teacher in early hour. The teacher asked about what narrative text is. Student 8 directly raised her hand and answered the question by looking at the book. This showed that student 8 was eager to participate in the lesson. In addition, she shared some ideas with her friend during the role play. She gave opinion toward the story. She was also helped by other member of how to do with the role card, how she should be, and what should she say. She always tried to practice their part with her friend. d. Student 9 She did not try to answer the teacher’s question. However, she was not disruptive. She still paid attention to the teacher explanation and kept listening to the other students who tried to answer the question. During the role play, she helped each other to make a good ending of the story. She also worked in a team and tried to correct her friend’s mistakes. She was also active in the group during the discussion. e. Student 10 Student 10 was pointed by the teacher. He tried to answer the question with the help of his seatmate. When the teacher asked him about the example of narrative text, he asked his friend. After that he answered the question. During preparation of the role play, student 10 gave his opinion and shared what he knew about the topic. He also supported his friend’s advice. Although he was not pretty good in English, he was not afraid to deliver his idea. He really worked together with his friends in order to make the dialog. Result of the Interview The interview was given to the students in order to know their feeling and opinion about taking part in role playing. The researcher only interviewed the ten selected students. The researcher provided five indicators in the interview. They are: The student’s feelings about taking part in role playing during the teaching and learning process. The student’s opinion about the change (different atmosphere) they had after taking part in role playing. The student’s opinion about the difference between role play and last activity in speaking class. The student’s opinion about the role play. The student’s feeling about the changes they had for their speaking ability. Concerning the data, for the first indicator, all of the students said that they were happy in taking part in the role play activity. 8 out of 10 students felt happy because they could play a “role” and act like the character on the card. Therefore, the students were laughing whenever their friend performed the role play. Others said that it was because a role play was shorter than a drama. They believed that a role play could stimulate them to think faster since they were given 30 minutes to prepare the role play. For the second indicator, 7 students admitted that there was the change (a different atmosphere) they had after taking part in role playing. 3 of them said that they got closer to their friend since the member of each group was chosen by the teacher. They believed that taking part in role playing could strengthen the relationship among friends. 2 of them said that they could think faster because role play stimulates them to do so. Furthermore, 1 of them said that they finally could learn about the character that they played. The last but not the least, 1 student said that she could know the difference between role play and drama. For the third indicator, 5 students said that the difference between a role play and the previous activity was about the time. Role play took a short time for the preparation. It was about 30 minutes while the last activity (drama) took a week to prepare everything. They believed that if they were given a short time to prepare, it would stimulate their brain to think faster. They also said that a role play was more manageable since they could directly perform the role play in a short time. 2 students said that role play simpler than drama since it did not need many properties like costume, light, and make up. 2 students said that role play helped them reduce their anxiety because they could laugh with their friends. However, 1 of the ten students preferred the last activity (drama) because since they were given a week to prepare, meaning that they felt more ready to have the performance. For the fourth indicator, all of the students said some good things about role play. First of all, role play was not complicated. It did not take a long time to prepare. The topic was easy to understand. Besides, each student got the role in random so that they had the same chance to explore their ability. Second, the students could work together to share some ideas with friends through role play activity. Therefore, it strengthened the relationship among friends. Third, role play was fun because it was such a refreshing activity. Fourth, role play stimulated the students to create imagination. The last is role play was a challenging activity because the characters and the topic were chosen by the teacher at the beginning of the meeting. For the last indicator, each of the students answered the question differently. Some said that role play effected their speaking ability and some said it was just usual, no improvement can be made. 2 students said that there were no changes in their speaking ability. 2 students said that they were more confident and not afraid of speaking in front of the class. This is because they thought that role play helped them to practice speaking. Besides, their friends also helped them during the preparation. 5 students said that they knew more about grammar. Therefore, they could speak English more accurately. DISCUSSION The Implementation of Role Play as Speaking Activity Based on the result above, all students were attracted to the role play. As stated by Ladousse (1987), role play means the students play a part (either their own or somebody else’s) in a specific situation and the role is taken on in a safe environment in which students are as inventive and playful as possible. Therefore, the students were enthusiastic about the activity since they were asked to play a role based on the situation written on the card. Besides, they never had such an activity before. In consequence, although they kept questioning about the role play, they showed their willingness towards the role play. Furthermore, role play as, an activity that promotes speaking, gave some advantages during the teaching and learning process. As explained by Ladousse (1987), role play can train the students in speaking skill in any situation. Since the students were asked to pretend to be someone else in a specific situation, they automatically learnt how to use or say the right expression in the right place and at the right time. Another benefit was that role play is a fun activity. The ten selected students agreed about this. They believed that role play was fun because they were acting to be someone else. Therefore, when one of the groups had to perform the role play, the class was all laughing. It was funny to see their friend acting as a robber or police. They played a role that they never play in real life. In addition, role play helped more in building students’ confidence. The proficient students helped shy students to reduce their anxiety when it came to speaking. The interaction created among the students was really helpful because those shy students could rehearse in a safe environment where there was just their friend. Consequently, this also can strengthen the relationship among the students since they helped each other. Finally, since role play demand students to act like different people, they do not feel afraid of committing mistakes. They do not worry if their grammar is incorrect or their pronunciation is wrong. This is because they are asked to be someone else. This makes them feeling free to express anything. Thus, they concentrate more on the fluency aspect. The Student’s Engagement in the Implementation of Role Play From the result of the observation in the previous part, it can be seen that both proficient and less proficient students were engaged in the activity, in this case role play activity. They interacted and shared what they knew during the discussion. Besides, they were given a task to perform the role play in front of the class. This shows that the activity led the students to work in a team. Furthermore, both proficient and less proficient students who were engaged in the activity exhibited three characteristics as stated by Schlechty (1994). Firstly, they are attracted to their work. Since the students never had a role play before, they were curious about the activity. Besides, they were interested in a part written on the role card. They found it fun to act to be someone else. Second, they persist in their work despite challenges and obstacles. Although role play was something new for the students, they kept doing their work. They helped each other in a group if there was something they did not know. The last, they take visible delight in accomplishing their work. This could be seen when they were preparing role play. They enjoyed the learning by laughing within the group. Referring to the engagement theory, the activity and materials in this study contained the three principles mentioned, namely collaboration, project-oriented learning, and authentic focus. Firstly, role play is an activity where the students worked in a group of 4. This is in line with the first principle, collaboration emphasizes team effort that involves communication, planning, management and social skill. Through role play, the students communicate with other students, planned to have a good performance, and unconsciously developed interaction with other students in the group. As stated before in the result of the interview, the students admitted that the relationship among friends was stronger since they worked together during the role play. Second, role play is also a kind of project-oriented learning. The students were given a project where they had to perform the role play in front of the class. They were given a role card but they had to make their own dialogue. By doing so, it stimulated the students to be creative since they were given a chance to make their own ending. Besides, the students could develop their imagination but still this role play was a purposeful activity. Finally, the role play activity had an authentic focus. In engagement theory, authentic focus means doing projects with a realistic focus. As this material was narrative, the teacher gave different materials. She gave a realistic story and characters which mean the role that the students played was not about beautiful princess or handsome prince. It was all about something that might happen to the students. Being a teller of a Bank, policeman, or eyewitness are the examples of a character that they may have in the future. Therefore, the students could learn how to be someone like them and what to say if they were in that position. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS Conclusions Based on the discussion in the previous chapter, it can be concluded that Role playing as speaking activity was beneficial for some reasons. Firstly, it could give the students practicing speaking skill in any situation. As they played a role in a certain circumstance, they learnt how to use some phrases in the right place and time. Second, role play was a fun activity since each student acted to be someone else. It was such a challenge for them to behave like a robber or a policeman. Next, role play built students’ confidence. Since the students rehearsed with their friends whom they usually met, each of whom within a group would help each other to reduce anxiety. Finally, role play was a spontaneous talk which led the students to focus more on the fluency aspect. As they were asked to pretend to be somebody else, they were not afraid of making mistakes. Therefore, they paid attention more on using English in a smooth way. Furthermore, in the implementation of role play, both proficient and less proficient students were engaged in the activity. They actively got involved during the teaching and learning process. Since they were given a project to perform a role play, they created an interaction among the members of the group during the discussion. Besides, they planned to have a good performance and divided a job desk. This showed that they worked cooperatively in a team. In addition, based on the result of the interview, the students believed that role play was an acceptable activity in stimulating their brain to think faster. As they were given a short time to prepare the role play, they had to manage the time for making the dialogue and having rehearsal in a group. Therefore, they had to carefully organize it in order to make a good performance. Suggestions After doing the observation and analyzing the data, the writer would like to give some suggestions. First of all, the topic of the role play should be different from one group to another. This aims to avoid the boredom during the performances. The students would keep their attention if other groups do not have the same play. Secondly, while one group is presenting the role play in front of the class, the teacher should arrange the class in a way that all students can pay attention on their friend performance and are not busy with their own business. Finally, for other researchers who are interested in investigating students’ engagement, it is recommended that they look further on the other related aspects of this study. REFERENCES Huang, I. Y. (2008). Role Play for ESL/EFL Children in the English Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal , XIV (2). Jianing, X. (2007). Storytelling in the EFL Speaking Classroom. The Internet TESL Journal , XIII (11). Kearsley, G & Shneiderman,B. (1999). Engagement Theory: A Framework for Technology-Based Learning and Teaching. Originally at http://home.sprynet.com. Retrieved 13 February 2014 from google ache. Ladousse, G. P. (1987). Role Play: Resource Books for Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Maznevski, M. L. (1996). Grading Class Participation . Teaching Resource Center . Schlechty, P. (2000). Shaking up the Schoolhouse: How to Support and Sustain Educational Innovation. Jossey Bass Education.

Page 1 of 5 | Total Record : 44

1 2 3 4 5

Filter by Year

2014 2014

Filter By Issues

All Issue Vol. 13 No. 03 (2025) Vol. 13 No. 02 (2025) Vol. 13 No. 01 (2025) Vol. 12 No. 03 (2024) Vol. 12 No. 02 (2024) Vol. 12 No. 01 (2024) Vol. 11 No. 03 (2023) Vol 11 No 02 (2023) Vol 11 No 01 (2023) Vol. 11 No. 01 (2023) Vol 10 No 02 (2022) Vol. 10 No. 02 (2022) Vol 10 No 01 (2022) Vol. 10 No. 01 (2022) Vol 9 No 03 (2021) Vol 9 No 2 (2021) Vol 9 No 1 (2021) Vol 8 No 4 (2020) Vol 8 No 3 (2020) Vol 8 No 2 (2020) Vol 8 No 1 (2020) Vol 7 No 4 (2019) Vol 7 No 3 (2019) Vol 7 No 2 (2019) Vol 7 No 1 (2019) Vol 6 No 3 (2018) Vol 6 No 2 (2018) Vol 5 No 3 (2017): Volume 5 nomor 3 (2017) Vol 5 No 2 (2017): Volume 5 nomor 2 (2017) Vol 6 No 1 (2018) Vol 5 No 1 (2017): Volume 5 nomor 1 (2017) Vol 4 No 3 (2016): Vol 4 Nomer 3 (2016) Vol 4 No 2 (2016): Vol 4 Nomer 2 (2016 Vol 4 No 1 (2016) Vol 1 No 1 (2016): jan-april Vol 3 No 2 (2015): Volume 3, nomor 2, Mei-Agustus 2015 Vol 3 No 1 (2015): Volume 3, Nomor 1, Januari-April 2015 Vol 3 No 3 (2015) Vol 2 No 3 (2014): volume 2, Nomor 3, September-Desember 2014 Vol 2 No 2 (2014): Volume 2 No 2 2014 Vol 2 No 3 (2014): Volume 2 edisi Yudisium Agustus 2014 Vol 2 No 1 (2014): Volume 2, Nomor1, Januari - April 2014 Vol 1 No 3 (2013): Volume 1, nomor 3, September-Desember 2013 Vol 1 No 2 (2013): Volume 1, Nomor 2, Mei-Agustus 2013 Vol 1 No 1 (2013) More Issue

Home Page

OAI Link

Editorial Team

Contact

Reviewer

Google Scholar

Contact Name
Him'mawan Adi Nugroho

Contact Email
himmwannugroho@unesa.ac.id

Phone
+6281334244887

Journal Mail Official
evarahmawati@unesa.ac.id

Editorial Address
English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya Building T4, 2nd floor, Kampus Lidah Wetan, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Location
Kota surabaya,

Jawa timur

INDONESIA

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Home Page

OAI Link

Editorial Team

Contact

Reviewer

Google Scholar

Contact Name Him'mawan Adi Nugroho

Contact Email himmwannugroho@unesa.ac.id

Phone +6281334244887

Journal Mail Official evarahmawati@unesa.ac.id

Editorial Address English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya Building T4, 2nd floor, Kampus Lidah Wetan, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Location Kota surabaya, Jawa timur INDONESIA

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Contact Name
Him'mawan Adi Nugroho

Contact Email
himmwannugroho@unesa.ac.id

Phone
+6281334244887

Journal Mail Official
evarahmawati@unesa.ac.id

Editorial Address
English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Surabaya Building T4, 2nd floor, Kampus Lidah Wetan, Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya, Indonesia

Location
Kota surabaya,

Jawa timur

INDONESIA