SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
TEACHER TALK
Eka Dewi Sosilawati
0813042028
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover…………………………………………………………………… 1
Table of contents………………………………………………............. 2
CHPATER I Introduction
1.1 The definition of teacher talk……………………….. 4
1.2 Rational of the paper…………………………………5
1.3 Formulation of the problem………………………… 6
1.4 Objective of the study……………………………….. 7
CHAPTER II Theoretical framework
2.1 Background overview…….…………………………. 8
2.2 Related theories…………………..…………………. 9
2.2.1 Krashen’s input theory………………………9
2.2.2 Swain’s output hypothesis…………………..10
2.2.3 Classroom interaction and SLA…………….12
2.3 Input modification…………………………………...14
CHAPTER III Research and Finding
3.1 Research …...................................................................15
3.1.1 The purpose of the study…………………….15
3.1.2 Place and time of study………………………16
3.2 Research finding…………………………………….. 16
3.2.1 The transcription of the video……………… 16
3.2.2 The analysis of the transcription…………… 20
CHAPTER IV Conclusion…………………………………………… 23
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………….. 24
I. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The definition of teacher talk
For foreign language learners ， classroom is the main place where they are frequently exposed to the target language. The kind of language used by the teacher for instruction in the classroom is known as teacher talk (TT). For this term, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines it as “that variety of language sometimes used by teachers when they are in the process of teaching. In trying to communicate with learners, teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and other simplified styles of speech addressed to language learners” (Richards, 1992: 471).
Having studied the SLA for many years, Rod Ellis (1985) has formulated his own view about teacher talk: “Teacher talk is the special language that teachers use when addressing L2 learners in the classroom. There is systematic simplification of the formal properties of the teacher’s language… studies of teacher talk can be divided into those that investigate the type of language that teachers use in language classrooms and those that investigate in the type of language they use in subject lessons.” He also commented “the language that teachers address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own specific formal and linguistics properties” (Ellis, 1985: 145).
In this research, it is the oral form of teacher talk instead of written form that is under this investigation. It refers to the language that teachers use in language classrooms rather than in other settings.
From the definitions, firstly we can see that teacher talk in English classrooms is regarded as one special variety of the English language, so it has its own specific features which other varieties do not share. Because of the restriction of the physical setting, special participants as well as the goal of teaching, teacher talk has its own special style.
Secondly, we can see that teacher talk is a special communicative activity. Its goal is to communicate with students and develops students’ foreign language proficiency.
Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities (Feng Qican, 1999: 23). Teachers adopt the target language to promote their communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the language by responding to what their teacher says. Besides, teachers use the language to encourage the communication between learners and themselves. Therefore we can say teacher talk is a kind of communication-based or interaction-based talk.
1.2 Rational of the paper
Language teaching is a complex process involving many interrelated factors. Larsen-Freeman points out: language teaching can be summarized into three fields: language learner/learning (How to learn); language/culture (What to Learn); teacher/teaching (How to teach). (Johnson, 2002: F24). Since 1960s, the research on classroom discourse has grown rapidly. Before that, teaching methodology has been explored and an effective teaching method is tried to be found. Since teaching methods don’t play a decisive role in language classrooms, the focus has shifted from teaching methods to teachers’ talk in classroom process. Just as Ellis (1985:143) points out: “Classroom process research, as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken different form. The earliest was interaction analysis… An alternative approach focused only on the language used by the teacher when addressing second language learners. It sought to tabulate the adjustments which occur in teacher talk.”
Teacher talk is particularly important to language teaching.(Cook, 2000:144). According to pedagogical theory, the language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a larger degree whether a class will succeed or not. Many scholars found teacher talk makes up around 70% of classroom language (Cook, 2000; Chaudron, 1988; Zhao Xiaohong, 1998).Teachers pass on knowledge and skills organize teaching activities and help students practice through teacher talk. In English classrooms, teachers’ language is not only the object of the course, but also the medium to achieve the teaching objective. Both the organization of the classroom and the goal of teaching are achieved through teacher talk.
In China, most people learn a foreign language in classrooms. Classroom language is the chief source of foreign language learning and in some places the only source. It functions not only as a major source of language learning but also as a tool by which a foreign language is taught. We have not learnt enough about second language acquisition (SLA), but it is believed that the language that teachers address to L2 learners will to some degree influences language learning, although how and to what degree it influences language learning still remains unclear. Since a better understanding of the use of teachers’ language can undoubtedly help students improve their learning, and students can make a better use of teacher talk to learn the target language, it is necessary to do some research on teacher talk from both theoretical and practical perspective.
1.3 Formulation of the problem
This activity is done in one of the Darma Wanita kindergarten in Bandar Lampung, the writer analyze how the teacher makes interaction to her students. Based on the statement above, the writer formulates the problem: how does the aspect of the teacher talks occur in classroom interaction simulation of kindergarten Unila Bandar Lampung?
1.4 Objective of the study
a. The objective of the study as below:
The writer wants to know how the teacher makes interaction to the students in learning activity.
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Background overview
As a critical part of classroom teaching, teacher talk did not arouse attention of academic field as early as those studies on teaching. A close study on teacher talk owes much to the development of the branch of micro-teaching -- classroom research.
Classroom-centered research or classroom-originated research investigates the process of teaching and learning as they occur in classroom setting. “It simply tries to investigate what happens inside the classroom” (Allwright & Baily, 1991:3). Its aim is to identify the phenomena that promote or hamper learning in the classroom.
The growth of interest in the analysis of teacher language has been stimulated by the rejection of language teaching method as the principal determinant of successful learning. At first, the underlying assumption in teaching had been finding the right method. It was believed that the teaching effect was completely determined by the choice of teaching method. Studies such as those by Scherer and Wertheimer (1964) and Smith (1970) investigated the comparative effectiveness of methods such as grammartranslation, audio-lingualism, and cognitive code, but were not able to demonstrate that one was more successful than another (Ellis, 1985: 143). Despite the apparent differences in methodological principles, the various methods led to very similar patterns of classroom communication, with the result that the language learning outcomes were also similar. Having retreated from focus on method, researchers began to hypothesize that classroom interaction was the major variable affecting SLA. “An offshoot of the comparative method studies, then, was to direct researchers’ attention to the processes of classroom interaction by collecting language data from the classroom itself” (Ellis, 1985:143).
“Classroom process research, as Gaies (1983) calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken different forms: interaction analysis; teacher talk; discourse analysis” (Ellis, 1985:143). All dimensions of classroom process, from giving instruction to questioning or disciplining students, providing the feedback, involve teacher talk. Study on teacher talk has become one of the most important parts of classroom research.
2.2 Related theories
2.2.1 Krashen’s Input Theory
Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the learners, the interaction generated, and hence the kind of learning that takes place. The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and useful for language learners in classrooms.
In Krashen’s view, learning only takes place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input. “Humans acquire language in only one way -- by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input. Learning will occur when unknown items are only just beyond the learner’s level. It is explained in detail “i+1”structure. “i” stands for the learners’ current linguistic competence, and “1” stands for the items the learners intend to learn. The Input Theory also has two corollaries (Krashen, 1985: 2):
Corollary 1: Speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause; it emerges as result of building competence via comprehensible input.
Corollary 2: If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided. The language teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order -- it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviews if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input.
By examining the idea of comprehensible input and the two corollaries, one can find that comprehensive and right quantity input is the central concern with which learners are able to learn language. It is the foundation or premise of the occurrence of learning. This provides implications for language teaching: teacher talk should be comprehensible in different forms and in right quantities. But how could teachers know whether their input is enough or not? How could they make their input comprehensible? Krashen describes two ways: the linguistic resources are insufficient for immediate decoding. Simplified input can be made available to the learner through one-way or twoway interaction, with the former including listening to a lecture, watching television and reading, and the latter occurring in conversations. Krashen stresses that two-way interaction is a particularly good way of providing comprehensible input because it enables the learner to obtain additional contextual information and optimally adjusted input when meaning has to be negotiated because of communication problems.
In Krashen’s view, acquisition takes place by means of a learner’s access to comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause learning to tack place. Teacher talk, actually serves as main sources of input of language exposure in classroom learning, is more important for foreign language learning, so teachers should make their input comprehensible and in right quantities.
2.2.2 Swain’s Output Hypothesis
Krashen’s Input Theory and its key notion of ‘comprehensible input’ have been criticized. One major objection relates to the fact that, though comprehensible input may play an important role, it is not in itself enough: understanding is not quite the same as acquiring. One argument along these lines is put forward by Swain (1985). Hypothesis emphasizes the role of outcome in SLA. She argued that comprehensible input is not a sufficient condition for SLA, it is only when input becomes intake that SLA takes place. Learners can improve their language level through pushing them to produce output -- actually to say and write things, or through using the language exposed to them in meaningful ways. Swain concludes the role of output in three points.
The need to produce output in the process of negotiating meaning that is precise, coherent and appropriate encourages the learner to develop the necessary grammatical resources, which are referred to as “pushed language use”.
Output provides the learner with the opportunity to try out hypothesis to see if they work. Production, as opposed to comprehension, may help to force the learner to move from semantic to syntactic processing. It is possible to comprehend a message without any syntactic analysis of the input it contains. Production is the trigger that forces learners to pay attention to the means of expression. Swain (1985) particularly emphasizes that it is only when learners are pushed to use the target language, in other words, it is only when learners think it necessary to improve and develop the target language level, and language output can contribute to language acquisition. Besides “pushed” language use, Swain (1985) reports two other additional functions of output in L2 acquisition. The first one is supposed to provide learners the opportunity to test their hypothesis about the language, or “to try out means of expression and see if they work”. The second function is that actually using the language “may force the learner to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing” (Swain, 1985:249). In short, the argument put forward by Swain is that immersion students do not achieve native like productive competence “not because their comprehensible input is limited but because their comprehensible output is limited”. On the one hand, students are simply not provided with adequate opportunities to use the target language in the classroom. On the other hand, “they are not being ‘pushed’ in their output” (Swain, 1985: 249).
Other studies conducted by researchers such as Naiman (1978), Strong (1983) and Peck (1985) provide evidences that more production and more correct production go hand in hand with target language proficiency, which gives support to Swain’s (1985) comprehensible Output Hypothesis.
Swain’s Output Hypothesis also emphasizes the importance of feedback. She believes that learners can improve the accuracy of output if they receive feedback from their teachers.
So language teachers, playing very important role during the process of language learning, should manage to push the students to produce the target language, give more opportunities and much more time to the students to practice besides they offer adequate input.
2.2.3 Classroom interaction and SLA
A common theme underlying different methods of language teaching is that second language learning is a highly interactive process (Richards & Lockhart, 2000:138). In recent years, a great deal of researches (Allwright, 1984; Ellis 1990; Long, 1983; Swain,1985) in the field of L2 acquisition reveals to a great extent the importance of classroom interaction that involves both input and output. The Interaction Hypothesis claims that it is in the interaction process that acquisition occurs: learners acquire through talking with others (Johnson, 2002: 95). According to Allwright and Ellis, classroom teaching should be treated as interaction. Now it is clear that the language used in classroom affects the nature of the interaction, which in turn affects the opportunities available for learning, the study of interaction is therefore critical to the study of language classroom learning.
Van Lier (1988) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with other speakers, we must find out what input and interaction the classroom can provide… we must study in detail the use of language in the classroom in order to see if and how learning comes about through the different ways of interaction in the classroom.
He also pointed out that interaction is essential for language learning which occurs in and through participation in speech events, that is, talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier, 1988:77-78).
In the following diagram, he suggests that interaction mediates between input and intake. Most important and central is the interaction with others in meaningful activities, but as a complement, and perhaps partial replacement, the learner’s cognitive apparatus may also interact directly with the available input or sections.
Ellis (1985) points out: classroom instruction, both in the form of meaningful interaction, and in the form of linguistic rules, may influence the rate of acquisition. Teachers can influence the kind of interaction that occurs in their own classrooms. Successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used by the teacher and the type of interactions occurring in the classroom.
Fillmore (Ellis, 1985:160) is one of the researches to have investigated how classroom interaction affects the rate of SLA. Fillmore compared the progress of the sixty L2 learners in different classrooms. She found that neither the difference in Input Cognitive interaction A social interaction (Existing knowledge system) B (interaction with other(s)) Intake classroom composition (mixed English-speaking and no-English speaking only) nor the difference in the type of teaching offered (‘open’ or ‘teacher-directed’) influences the success of language learning when considered separately. The availability of facilitative discourse types is not entirely dependent on the type of classroom organization adopted by the teacher. Pupils will learn most successfully when they are given ample opportunities to interact in conversation. So in this sense, we can say how a lesson progresses and whether it is successful largely depend on the interaction between the students and the teacher.
Classroom interaction is mainly realized by IRF (teachers’ initiate-students’ respond-teachers’ feedback) structure. In this model, teachers often initiate interaction by asking questions. Teachers’ questions not only can create more interaction activities, but can prompt students to participate in all kinds of negotiation of meaning. Negotiation makes input comprehensible and promotes SLA. The result of the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction result (Ellis, 1985:142). Teachers carry out all his teaching tasks by teacher talk, an understanding of the aspects of teacher talk and their functions in the classroom interaction is, therefore, very important.
2.3 Input Modification
Modifications by native speakers occur at the level of linguistic and interaction. Chaudron (1988) has outlined the modification made by the teachers in terms of: speech rate, phonology, intonation, articulation of vocabulary, modification of syntax, and modification of discourse. Wensche (1944), summarizes the modification in term of speech rate, phonology and prosody, vocabulary, and modification in vocabulary. Pica (1994) also summarizes modification in speech rate, intonation, and speech sound articulation; modification in word choice and frequency of use, modification of utterance length and structural complexity, modification in organization and elaboration of information; modification in proportions of questions, statement, and imperatives.
Types of modification:
1. Modification in speech rate, intonation, and speech sound articulation.
2. Modification of morphology and syntax
3. Modifications in vocabulary
4. Modifications in discourse
CHAPTER III
Research and Finding
3.1 Research
3.1.1 The purpose of study
In recent years, studies on the language that teachers use in language classroom has gradually drawn people’s attention, the attention paid to it has become gradually increasing both abroad and in Indonesia.
In the past years, most of the researches on teacher talk have only devoted to the analysis of various phenomena about teacher talk and the objective description on teacher talk such as its characters and structure. However, few researches have explored the effects of TT on second language acquisition (SLA). TT, as a vital aspect of classroom-based language learning, is influenced by many factors. Students, though, count a significant part of teaching and learning in classrooms, have not been considered in the previous studies. It is clear that TT is influenced by many factors. As one of the important factors in language classrooms, the students, to be more exact, the students’ learning needs and language proficiency can not be neglected. However, so far all the researches on TT have not taken the factor of students into consideration. After a long time classroom observation, the author found that quite a few teachers talk in classrooms according to the teaching contents or examinations, and completely neglect the students’ learning needs.
|
|
3.1.2 Place and time of study
This research was conducted in Darma Wanita kindergarten in Bandar Lampung.
3.2 Research Finding
3.2.1 The transcription of the video
Guru 1 : Tepuk sunyi… Rukun islam ada lima…
Murid : 1. Mengucapkan kalimat sahadat.
2. Mengerjakan shalat.
3. Berpuasa di bulan Ramadhan.
4. Mengerjakan shalat.
5. Menunaikan ibadah haji jika mampu.
Guru 1 : Pinter… Itu rukun is…
Murid : Lam…
Guru 1 : Semuanya…
Murid : Bersiap…
Guru 1 : Kakinya…
Murid : Rapat…
Guru 1 : Multnya…
Murid : Tutup.
Guru 1 : Siapa yang masih ingat surat pendeknya…? Surat ”An-Nas”…
Murrid : Bismilah hirrahman nirahim… Qul a… u… dzu birabinnas… mallikinnas… illahinnas… minsariwaswas sirkhannas.. alladzi yuwaswisufi sudurinnas… minaljinati wannas…
Guru 1 : Surat ”Al-Ikhlas”…
Murid : Bismillahirrahmanirahim… kulhuAllah huahad… Allahusomad… lamyalid walam yulad… walamyakulahu kufuan ahad…
Guru 1 : Surat “Al-Lahab”.
Murid : Bismillahirrahmanirahim… Tabad yada habilahabi watab… maaghna anhuma luhuwamakasab… sayaslana ronzatallahab.. wamroatuhu… hammalatalhatob… fijidihahablummimmasad…
Guru 1 : Yuk,,, kita panggil Ipah… Ipah bias enggak…?? Dari tadi diem aja sama Jipana? Ayo,,, Jipana, Iben, boleh sini Ben…
Yuk,,, surat “Al-Lahab”.
Murid : Bismillahirrahmanirahim… Tabad yada habilahabi watab… maaghna anhuma luhuwamakasab… sayaslana ronzatallahab.. wamroatuhu… hammalatalhatob… fijidihahablummimmasad…
Guru 1 : Yuk,,, siapa yang berani lagi…? Fasha maju Fasha…
Mrid : Saya… saya…
Guru 1 : Tepuk sunyi. Ayo tangannya dilipat…
Surat Al-Lahab.
Murid : Bismillahirrahmanirahim… Tabad yada habilahabi watab… maaghna anhuma luhuwamakasab… sayaslana ronzatallahab.. wamroatuhu… hammalatalhatob… fijidihahablummimmasad…
Guru 1 : Siapa lagi yang mau…?? Duduk yang manis… Ca, maju Ca…, Nabila…
Murid : Bismillahirrahmanirahim… Tabad yada habilahabi watab… maaghna anhuma luhuwamakasab… sayaslana ronzatallahab.. wamroatuhu… hammalatalhatob… fijidihahablummimmasad…
Guru 1 : Semuanya…
Murid : Bersiap…
Guru 1 : Kakinya…
Murid : Rapat…
Guru 1 : Multnya…
Murid : Tutup.
Guru 1 : Pinter… Tadi kita belajar apa…?? Membaca “iqra”.
Doa mau masuk rumah, doa keluar rumah, doa naik kendara…
Murid : an…
Guru 1 : Besok kita belajar doa memakai pakaian. Siapa yang bisa…??
Kalau kalian memakai pakaian,,, baca doa enggak…??
Baca doa enggak kalau kalian pakai baju…??
Besok ya minggu depan kita belajar membaca doa berpakaian…
Sudah dulu dari ibunya….
Wassalamualaikum Wr. Wb.
Murid : Waalaikumsalam Wr. Wb.
Guru 2 : Sudah… sudah selesai belajar ngajinya…?
Murid : Sudah…
Guru 2 : Bisa tidak belajar ngajinya…?
Murid : Bisa…
Guru 2 : Siapa yang bisa ngaji?
Murid : Saya…
Guru 2 : Siapa tadi yang kawan nya maju,,, anak-anak ngobrol…?
Anak-anak yang ngobrol tadi dicatat sama siapa…?
Malaikat. Malaikat ada dimana…?
Jadi kalau ibunya ngajar, kalian ngobrol, dicatat sama malaikat,,, kamu anak ban…
Murid : del…
Guru 2 : Berdo…
Murid : sa…
Guru 2 : Kalau berdosa masuk neraka… neraka isinya apa…?? A…
Murid : pi…
Guru 2 : A… pi…
Jadi mau kamu dimasukkan kedalam api…??
Murid : Enggak…
Guru 2 : Jangan jadi anak na…
Murid : kal…
Guru 2 : Dan anak ban…
Murid : del…
Guru 2 : Karena anak bandel banyak dosanya…. Sama dengan melawan ayah dan i…
Murid : bu…
Guru 2 : Sekarang anak-anak mau apa…? Mau makan apa main…?
Murid : Main…
Guru 2 : Tapi ingat cuaca diluar mendung,,, kalau kena ujan setetespun langsung masuk ya… Diluar sudah ada teman-teman main komedi putar jadi kalian jangan main komedi putar ya… Nanti takut ja…
Murid : tuh…
Guru 2 : Main yang lain aja ya…
Sekarang putrid duluan…
Murid : Hore… hore… horeeeee…
3.2.2 The Analysis of the transcription
a. Modification in speech rate, intonation, and speech sound articulation.
In this modification Pica states two features had been of special interest in search on rate of speech: reduces number of word per minute and increased length of pauses. From the teacher interaction to the students, the teacher reduced number of word. For example, “Yuk,,, kita panggil Ipah… Ipah bias enggak…?? Dari tadi diem aja sama Jipana? Ayo,,, Jipana, Iben, boleh sini Ben… Yuk,,, surat “Al-Lahab” the teacher also uses pauses in every word. She does it more frequently. Her intonation is good. She gives the stress for the important words, so the students understand what she means. Like in this conversation, “Siapa yang masih ingat surat pendeknya…? Surat ”An-Nas”…”
b. Modification of morphology and syntax
From the complexity of syntax, the following characteristics of modification were indentified:
1. There is a shorter average length of T-unit: in this interaction teacher just use simple word. So, the student can understand it easily. “Karena anak bandel banyak dosanya…. Sama dengan melawan ayah dan i…”
2. Modification interaction does not produce the syntactically. In this interaction the writer also does not find it.
3. There is a wide variety of sentences:
Statement: Besok ya minggu depan kita belajar membaca doa berpakaian.
Imperatives: Yuk,,, kita panggil Ipah… Ipah bias enggak…?? Dari tadi diem aja sama Jipana? Ayo,,, Jipana, Iben, boleh sini Ben…
Yuk,,, surat “Al-Lahab”.
Question: Siapa yang masih ingat surat pendeknya…?
c. Modifications in vocabulary
The most common measure used investigate vocabulary modifications is the ratio of number different words to number of words produced (type-token, smaller the ratio, the less diverse). In this interaction the teacher just uses the simple vocabulary. There is no phrasal idiom.
d. Modification of discourse
This modification is usually called interactional modification. It means using the consistent and rhetorical pattern in introducing, defining, and illustrating new topics. Like in this interaction, the teacher introducing new topic about “pray how to wear clothes”. The teacher gives the that topics to the students and she tells the students that the topic will be discussed next meeting, like in this conversation “Besok kita belajar doa memakai pakaian. Siapa yang bisa…??
Kalau kalian memakai pakaian,,, baca doa enggak…??
Baca doa enggak kalau kalian pakai baju…??
Besok ya minggu depan kita belajar membaca doa berpakaian…”
CHAPTER IV
Conclusion
A. Conclusion
Based on the data above, we can see how the teacher makes her interaction to the students. There is some of the input modification that does not occur in that interaction. But, it is enough because the interaction is just occurred in kindergarten students. And from that research the writer has know the interaction between the teachers to the students. The teacher has used clear separation of languages, so the students can understand it easily. In this learning activity the teacher also demonstrate the”qur’an” to the students. So, they don’t confuse about the “qur’an”. They has been clear the form of every “qur’an”. Although it just from “An-Nas” until “Al-Lahab” it will become the first information for the students so it belong to comprehension. The teacher also uses simple structure, and avoiding the complex structure. And the last, the talk is richness of language use. So, it will add student’s knowledge.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|
Yufrizal, Hery, M.A.,Ph.D. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition, Bandung: Pustaka Reka Cipta.
 |
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar