ANALYSES OF TEACHER TALK
(An Assignment of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Subject)
ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2010
(An Assignment of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) Subject)
ENGLISH STUDY PROGRAM
ART AND LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF EDUCATION AND PEDAGOGY
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG
BANDAR LAMPUNG
2010
PREFACE
This paper is composed as the requirement of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) subject in the purpose of capturing the real sample of teacher talk occur in the level of pre-school or kindergarten students. The observation is done in an Islamic kindergarten in Kemiling, Bandar Lampung, named TK Islam Alina. This kindergarten consists of three classes, divided by the range of age: lower five (class A), five (class B), and upper five (class C). The researcher then held the observation in class B. This kind of classroom interaction was taken two times of around five minutes for each.
The researcher dedicates this paper for all people involved in this observation and actually for those who have concern toward teaching-learning process.
FRAME OF THEORIES
The teacher plays an important role in helping children learn how to learn. A teacher may well adopt an activity-based or enquiry-based approach actively to involve the children in the learning process. This provides concrete external cues for children and often involves practical demands in their performance. Teacher may also take on a questioning role to encourage pupils to reflect their responses toward the activity of learning. Actually, that process of language learning should appear attractive to children. The objective is to prepare children linguistically, psychologically, and culturally for language learning (BOEN, 1989).
Teacher talk we discuss in this paper is another variation of foreigner talk in an educational setting. It is the way that native speaker talk to non native speaker who lacked full understanding of the target language. However, in this case, the research is done toward teacher who is assumed has better English (not the native speaker) than the students. The modification of input occur in their classroom interactions.
Wong-fillmore (1985) suggests that there are some characteristics of teacher talk that might work as input, they are:
1. the talk has clear separation of language (no alteration or mixing).
2. the talk emphasizes on comprehension, it focuses on communication by:
use of demonstration, enactment to convey meaning
new information presented in context of known information
heavy message redundancy
new information presented in context of known information
heavy message redundancy
3. the language used is entirely grammatical, appropriate to eh activity by:
using simple structure, avoiding complex structure.
repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
4. the talk uses tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation form students.
5. the talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness.
5. the talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness.
OBSERVATION
Classroom Interaction I
Teacher and students interactions occurred in the first hour of study that day. They were talking about numeracy and then continued to the session of English vocabulary. In this following transcription, Teacher is symbolized as (T) and students as (S).
T : Duduk yang rapi dulu. Kalo gak rapi, Bu Desy gak mulai belajarnya. Belajarnya sama kelingking, jadi anak bodoh. Ayo luruskan. Mundur lagi-mundur lagi.
S : Mundur lagi…mundur lagi…
T :Di sini udah Bu Desy tulis. Ada tambah-tambahan kayak tadi yang seperti ini. Bisa ngerjainnya?
S : Bisa!
T : Bisa ngerjainnya?
S : Bisa
T : Ya, tadi Bu Desy buatkan, udah maju satu-satu. Pinter-pinter.
S : Itu ditempel ya bu?
T : Gak, nanti di sini dikerjain. Jangan lupa tulis tanggalnya. Sekarang hari apa ya?
S : Rabu!
T : Hari?
S : Rabu!
T : Hurufnya apa aja Rabu?
S : Eeer…
T : Terus?
S : Aaa…
T : Terus?
S : Bee…uuu…
T : Tanggal berapa sekarang?
S : Dua ribu sepuluh!
T : Tanggalnya? Tanggal berapa sekarang?
S : Sepuluh!
T : Tanggal sepuluh. Sepuluh itu angkanya berapa aja?
S : Satu sama nol!
T : Satu sama nol. Terus bulannya bulan apa?
S : Bulan sebelas!
T : Bulan sebelas. Bulan sebelas angkanya berapa aja?
S : Satu tambah satu!
T : Satu tambah satu. Terus lagi, tahun berapa?
S : Dua ribu sepuluh!
T : Dua ribu sepuluh. Angkanya berapa aja?
S : Dua nol satu nol!
T : Dua. Terus?
S : Nol…satu…nol…
T : Ya, nanti bukunya Bu Desy kasih lagi. Pelajarannya Matematika. Judulnya Penjumlahan. Bisa ngerjainnya?
S : Bisa!
T : Bisa ngerjainnya?
S : Gak…
T : Siapa yang gak bisa? Siapa yang gak bisa ?
S : Bisa…
T : Bisa? Nanti kalo gak bisa kita kerjain lagi ya. Nanti kalo udah selesai jangan lupa tanggalnya.
Terus Bahasa Inggrisnya di sini udah ditulis sama Bu Desy Bahasa Indonesianya. Ada gambar apa ini?
S : Burung…
T : Ada gambar apa ini?
S : Burung!
T : Burung apa Bahasa Inggris-nya?
S : Bird!
T : Bird. Nulisnya kayakmana, dilengkah berapa baris?
S : Satuuu…duaaaa
T : Dilengkah satu baris atau dua baris?
S : Satu baris…
T : Dibuat lagi gambar burungnya. Ditulis lagi. Bird Bahasa Indonesianya apa? Buu…
S : Burung…
T : Ditulis di sini ya tulisannya. Di sini ada gambar.
S : Di kiri ya bu?
T : Hemm?
S : Di kiri?
T : Ya, di sini ada bacaan bird-nya. Di sini ada gambar burungnya. Digambar burungnya. Terus nanti di sini tulis huruf be-u-er-u-eng. Terus lagi gambarnya ini diwar…
S : ...nai...
T : Diwarnai. Ya...bu guru bagiin bukunya.
Classroom Interaction II
The next activity in this following transcription was still about English that was contained also of numeracy in English.
T : Iya. Kalo rambut Bahasa Inggrisnya?
S : Lupa
T : Ooo..lupa lagi. Hair!
S : Hair!
T : Lagi ulang lagi biar inget. Mata Bahasa Inggrisnya?
S : Eye!
T : Hidung Bahasa Inggrisnya?
S : Nose!
T : Kalo bibir?
S : Lip!
T : Kalo mulut?
S : Mouth!
T : Kalo gigi?
S : Tooth!
T : Kalo lidah? Ayo lidah? Lidah apa lidah? Tongue!
S : Tongue!
T : Ya. Kalo telinga?
S : Lip!
T : Lip? Kok lip? Ear!
S : Ear!
T : Iya. Kalo dagu? Ayo dagu? Dagu? Siapa yang tau? Cheek!
S : Cheek!
T : Iya, kalo dagu cheek. Kalo pipi? Pipi? Chin!
S : Chin!
T : Kalo rambut, ayo tadi rambut apa?
S : Hair!
T : Hair. Itu hebat…pinter! Kalo binatang-binatangnya? Kucing?
S : Cat!
T : Anjing?
S : Dog!
T : Pinter. Kalo kupu-kupu?
S : Butterfly!
T : Kalo gajah?
S : Elephant!
T : Iya.. sapi?
S : Cow!
T : Cow. Terus apa lagi? Binatang apa lagi?
S : Ikan!
T : Ikan?
S : Fish!
T : Ayam?
S : Chicken!
T : Pinter...
S : Bu guru!
T : Ya?
S : Angga…
T : Kenapa Angga?
S : Angga dog!Hehehe…
T : Ya, sekarang berhitungya lagi. Tepuk berhitung….
S & T : One…two…three…four…five…six…seven…eight…nine…ten…
T : Ya. Kalo sebelas? Sebelas sampe dua puluh udah diajarain belum sama Bu Desy?
S : Udah…
T : Udah. Sebelas? Apa sebelas Bahasa Inggrisnya? Wah, udah diajarin belum?
S : Belum…
T : Belum? Sebelas eleven…
S : Sebelas eleven
T : Ikutin bu guru. Gak ada yang ngobrol. Ikutin bu guru. Gak bisa ulangin lagi. Sebelas eleven.
S : Sebelas eleven!
T : Dua belas twelve
S : Dua belas twelve!
T : Tiga belas thirteen
S : Tiga belas thirteen!
T : Empat belas fourteen
S : Empat belas fourteen!
T : Lima belas fifteen
S : Lima belas fifteen!
T : Enam belas sixteen
S : Enam belas sixteen!
T : Tujuh belas seventeen
S : Tujuh belas seventeen!
T : Delapan belas eighteen
S : Delapan belas eighteen!
T : Sembilan belas nineteen
S : Sembilan belas nineteen!
T : Dua puluh twenty
S : Dua puluh twenty!
T : Ya, bisa gak? Ingetin ya… Sebelas? Iii…
S : Eleven!
T : Dua belas?
S : Twenty!
T : Tu…twenty dua puluh. Dua belas?
S : Twelve…
T : Wah pinter. Tiga belas?
S : Thirteen!
T : Thirteen. Empat belas?
S : Fourteen!
T : Pinter! Lima belas?
S : Fiveteen!
T : Enam belas? Ayo mana sih…suaranya mana? Enam belas?
S : Sixteen
T : Sixteen. Wah pinter…yang perempuan aja yang pinter, yang laki-laki mana? Tujuh belas?
S : Seventeen.
T : Tuh pinter... Delapan belas?
S : Eighteen…
T : Apa delapan belas?
S : Eighteen!
T : Sembilan belas?
S : Twelve…eight…
T : Salah.. sembilan belas? Ayo, siapa yang bisa? Sembilan belas? Diitung…one…two…three..four…five…six…seven…eight…nine. Berarti kalo sembilan belas nine…
S : …teen…
T : Nineteen. Tambah teen-nya lagi, kalo sembilan aja nine. Kalo sembilan belas? Nine…
S : Nineteen!
T : Dua puluh?
S : Twenty!
T : Twenty. Ingetin ya, kalo misalnya empat belas. Misalnya empat belas ya. Kalo misalnya lupa, itung aja sampe angka empat. Empat apa Bahasa Inggris-nya? One…two…three…four...
S : Four!
T : Kalo empat belas tambah teen-nya, berarti four…
S : …teen…
DISCUSSION
According to the transcriptions above, it can be seen that teacher addressed the similar modification and gestures to ease students to comprehend (Henzl, 1979). The talks itself have clear separation of language, no alteration or mixing. In the first talk, the teacher gives the direct command to the students to arrange their sitting position. While in the second talk, the teacher also gave a direct command when she asked to students not to make noise and to repeat what she said.
The talks emphasized on comprehension. The teacher tried to assure herself that the students have already understood what she wanted them to do. It was done by giving them demonstrations that is an enactment of meaning. In this case the teacher used a picture (of bird) to emphasize the students’ understanding. It can be seen also in the video that teacher made students comprehending what she was said by spelling the letters to write the day of that day “RABU” in white board and drawing it while she explain about “RABU”. She really emphasized on students comprehension.
The language used also entirely grammatical, appropriate to the activity by using simple structure, avoiding complex structures, repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines, and using repetitiveness. It can be seen in the first talk, when the teacher asked the students whether they understand or not. She said, “Bisa ngerjainnya?” two times repetitions. Teacher also used simple structure of sentences. For example, while teacher asked student to spell how to write the date and the year of that day she said “Apa hurufnya?”, “Berapa angkanya?” in repetitions.
The talks used tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation from students. The talks also have richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness. It may be the most typical characteristic of all above. Children tend to be easily learning in fun and enjoying circumstances. The teacher tried to cover this by producing utterances that implied playfulness. It can be identified from almost of the utterances she produced to the students. They obviously contained atmosphere of playfulness in attractive way of mimicking to what they talk about.
Moreover, in the point of view of Input Modification, we can find that the modification of the teacher’s speech occurred at the level of linguistic and interaction. As advocated by Chaudrons, the modifications made by the teacher covers the terms of speech rate, phonology, intonation, articulation and stress, modification of vocabulary, modification of syntax, and modification of discourse.
a. Modification in speech rate¸ intonation, and speech sound articulation.
The speech rate made by the teacher seemed to be slower. The pauses tend to be more frequent and longer. Mostly her utterances, began form the first up to the last utterances are produced in a various intonation, completely from the low until the highest intonation, e.g. the teacher begin her opening utterances in high intonation, then decreased in the middle and increased again in the last utterances. It was done to really get the students’ attention, so that they followed all the direction well.
The last of modification input, the articulation of speech sound was done obviously by the teacher. All of her utterances were clearly articulated to the students. Actually it is aimed to help the students understand what she meant.
Moreover, in the point of view of Input Modification, we can find that the modification of the teacher’s speech occurred at the level of linguistic and interaction. As advocated by Chaudrons, the modifications made by the teacher covers the terms of speech rate, phonology, intonation, articulation and stress, modification of vocabulary, modification of syntax, and modification of discourse.
a. Modification in speech rate¸ intonation, and speech sound articulation.
The speech rate made by the teacher seemed to be slower. The pauses tend to be more frequent and longer. Mostly her utterances, began form the first up to the last utterances are produced in a various intonation, completely from the low until the highest intonation, e.g. the teacher begin her opening utterances in high intonation, then decreased in the middle and increased again in the last utterances. It was done to really get the students’ attention, so that they followed all the direction well.
The last of modification input, the articulation of speech sound was done obviously by the teacher. All of her utterances were clearly articulated to the students. Actually it is aimed to help the students understand what she meant.
b. Modification of morphology and syntax
Typically, there are some characteristics covered in the modification of morphology and syntax, they are:
a. there is a shorter average length of T-units on input directed to NNSs than is found in NS-NS interactions, but there is no significant difference in the number of S-nodes per T-unit (Long, 1981). From the talks above it can be seen in all the sentences said by the teacher to the students. They were obviously shorter in length than those if said , for example, by the teacher to other teachers.
b. Modified interaction does not produce syntactically simplified and modified inp0ut described in the earlier descriptive studies of input (e.g. number of S-nodes per T-unit, lexical frequency of nouns and verbs, and higher proportion of copulas in total verbs (Long, 1981a, 1981b, 1983a, 1983b, 1983c; Long and Sato, 1983, Pica and Long, 1986).
c. There is a wide variety of sentence types, (imperatives, e.g. “Tulis di sini.” and questions, e.g. “Sekarang tanggal berapa ya?”), but the sentences are not more or less complex (Long, 1981b, 1983b,; Long and Sato, 1983.
d. Modified interactions may produce syntactically more complex, longer, and more repetitive input than non modified interactions (Pica et al., 1986, 1987). It can be seen that the teacher inputs are more complex, longer and repetitive than in common speech.
c. Modification of vocabulary
According to Chaudron (1988) the most common measure used to investigate vocabulary modification is the ration of number of different words to number of words produced (“type token”, the smaller the ratio the less diverse). Then, Patil (1994)suggested that the vocabulary directed to nonnative speakers was structurally simpler containing practically no phrasal idioms. Form the talks showed above, it can be seen that the words used by the teacher were not varied, yet they were more just repetitions of the previous ones to address the teacher message to the students.
d. Modification of discourse
Pica and Long (1986) in their study of sentence types, revealed a tendency for teachers-particularly more experienced teachers- to use more questions with nonnative speakers and more declaratives with native speakers. In the two talks above, as can be seen, the teachers use more questions (“Kalo Sembilan aja nine, kalo Sembilan belas ditambah nine jadinya?” –second talk-). It is for ensuring themselves that the students catch the point. The modification also includes comprehension check (“Kalo empat four, kalo fourteen? ”), clarification request (“Udah diajarin belum sama Bu Desy?”) for more information or explanation, exact other repetitions, restatement by the speaker, other statement (semantic other—repetition), expansion (of native speakers’ statement), and topic switches.
CONCLUSION
Based on the observation and analysis above, it can be inferred that the relationship between input and interaction in second language learning includes some types of talks. One of them is what we have discussed, teacher talk. Teacher talk is a kind of talk occurred between teacher and students in an educational setting. Wong-Fillmore (1985) advocates that there are some characteristics of teacher talk that might work as input, they are:
1. the talk has clear separation of language (no alteration or mixing).
2. the talk emphasizes on comprehension, it focuses on communication by:
use of demonstration, enactment to convey meaning
new information presented in context of known information
heavy message redundancy
new information presented in context of known information
heavy message redundancy
3. the language used is entirely grammatical, appropriate to eh activity by:
using simple structure, avoiding complex structure.
repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
repeating the use of some sentence patterns or routines
using repetitiveness, using paraphrase for variation.
4. the talk uses tailoring of elicitation questions to allow for different levels of participation form students.
5. the talk has richness of language use, going beyond books, playfulness.
All the action teacher does in teaching learning process are proven as the effort to ease and facilitate the students to understand and acquire the language. Teachers have to be creative and reactive in modifying inputs toward every simple responses students signal to them.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar