SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION
TEACHER TALK
Vivi Evayanti
0853042044
ENGLISH EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM
ARTS AND LANGUAGE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
2012
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
What is teacher talk? The definition is
very simple and self-evident. Teacher talk means that teachers address
classroom language learners differently from the way that they address other
kinds of classroom learners according to Ellis (1994). They make adjustments to
both language form and language function in order to facilitate communication.
These adjustments are referred to as “teacher talk”. Teacher talk is very
important for both classroom teaching organization and students’ language
learning in the process of foreign language learning and second language
acquisition, because teacher talk is an instrument of implementing teaching
plan.
There have been a number of observational studies of
the language addressed to small children by mothers, other adults or older
children. These studies have shown that this so – called ‘caretaker speech’ has
a number of characteristics which distinguish it from typical speech between
adult.
Caretaker speech seems particularly well suited to
helping the child to learn the rules and meanings of the language.
Krashen (1980) input hypothesis has inspired a large
amount of research that attempt to find out the relationship between input and
interaction in second/ foreign language learning. Studies that attempt to prove
the influence of comprehensible input in first language acquisition have
resulted in terms such as baby talk, motherese, caregiver speech, and caretaker
speech. Those terms refer to the speech of adult to children in first language
learning. In second language learning such research has resulted in some terms
such as foreigner talk, foreigner discourse, teacher talk, and peer talk.
Teacher talk means that teachers address classroom
language learners differently from the way that they address other kinds of
classroom learners according to Ellis (1994). They make an adjustments to both
language form and language function in order to facilitate communication. These
adjustments are referred to as “teacher talk”. Teacher talk is very important
for both classroom teaching organization and students’ language learning in the
process of foreign language learning and second language acquisition, because
teacher talk is an instrument of implementing teaching plan.
In this observation, the writer observed the activity
of teaching learning in Al- Khairiah kindergarten. The focus of this activity
is to observe the ‘teacher talk’ (how a teacher communicate to the students)
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 Aisyah kindergarten
in Metro, the writer analyze how the teacher makes interaction to her students.
Based on the statement above, the writer formulates the problem: how does teacher
talks occur in classroom interaction simulation?
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.
|
|
So the present study is conducted
with a purpose to investigate how TT in foreign language classrooms in our
country affects foreign language learning (the language is mainly English
language) from a different perspective--comparing the students’ preferences
towards the ideal teacher with the real TT. The specific purpose is to provide
empirical evidence to the suggestion that the appropriate use of teacher talk
would enhance foreign language teaching and learning, and teachers should talk
consciously in classrooms. In this way, teachers can improve their language
quality consciously so that English language teaching and learning can be
facilitated. Although TT involves many aspects, this research just focuses on
three aspects which are related closely to language learning, that is: the
amount of teacher talk; teachers’ questioning; teachers’ assessment.
3.1.2
Place and
time of study
This research was conducted in Aisyah kindergarten in
Metro.
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.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar