CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN VERBAL LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCES.

(1)

CLASSROOM INTERACTION

IN VERBAL-LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCES

A Thesis

Submitted to Post-Graduate School English Applied Linguistic Program in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora

By:

ROSY ULIAYU HUTAHAEAN Registration Number: 8136112075

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN 2015

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

INTERAKSI KELAS

PADA KECERDASAN LINGUISTIK VERBAL Rosy Uliayu Hutahaean

8136112075 ABSTRAK

Kajian ini diadakan untuk meneliti interaksi kelas pada kecerdasan linguistik verbal. Lima pertanyaan penelitian yang menuntun kami dalam kajian ini yaitu: a) apa saja level (tingkat) kecerdasan linguistik verbal, b) bagaimana kecerdasan linguistik mahasiswa dicapai secara linguistik pada interaksi kelas, c) bagaimana mahasiswa dengan tingkat keahlian kompleks menerapkan interaksi kelas, d) bagaimana mahasiswa dengan tingkat keahlian koherensi menerapkan interaksi kelas, e) mengapa kecerdasan linguistik verbal dicapai sebagaimana adanya. Kajian ini ditujukan pada lima mahasiswa termasuk seluruh mahasiswa dan para dosen yang terlibat di dalam kelas di Universitas Methodist Medan. Pengamatan, rekaman, pencatatan digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data. Kajian ini menunjukkan hasil yang berbeda dari kajian sebelumnya yang dilakukan oleh Wessman dari karya Gardner, Armstrong, Campbell, dan Lazear. Ada delapan hasil yang ditemukan pada kajian ini. Pertama, terdapat tiga tingkat kecerdasan linguistik verbal yaitu tingkat keahlian dasar, kompleks, dan koherens setelah mendapatkan hasil dari TOEFL iBT meskipun diharapkan terdapat tiga tingkat kecerdasan linguistik verbal pada mahasiswa. Kedua, kecerdasan linguistik direalisasikan tidak berbeda antara tingkat keahlian kompleks dan tingkat keahlian koherensi pada interaksi kelas. Ketiga, mahasiswa dengan tingkat keahlian kompleks cenderung melakukan ko-konstruksi sedangkan mahasiswa dengan tingkat keahlian koherensi cenderung pada dialog kolaboratif dan ko-konstruksi. Hal itu mengindikasikan bahwa mereka menyampaikan pemikiran mereka dengan dialog dan aktifitas yang menunjukkan keahlian. Keempat, mahasiswa yang menerapkan interaksi kelas secara linguistik sekaligus menunjukkan kapasitas mereka. Mereka cenderung memiliki kosa kata yang banyak dalam berbicara dan menulis, memahami informasi, mengekspresikan berbagai bentuk tulisan yang kreatif, menunjukkan berbagai tipe berbicara formal, dan berkaitan dengan analisis metalinguistik dan dialog. Kelima, tidak ditemukan tipe terakhir dari interaksi kelas yaitu kerja kelompok atau pelajar-pelajar. Hal itu menyiratkan bahwa waktu penelitian tidak sesuai dengan waktu proyek kelompok yang diberikan dosen. Keenam, dalam beberapa kasus, mahasiswa dengan level kecerdasan kompleks dan koherensi tidak berinisiatif untuk berinteraksi. Kasus ini terjadi karena kelas berlangsung pada sore hari ketika kebanyakan dari mahasiswa telah bekerja sepanjang hari. Ketujuh, bentuk negosiasi dengan level kecerdasan kompleks cenderung pada teman sebaya sedangkan mahasiswa dengan level kecerdasan koherensi cenderung pada dosen. Hal itu berarti bahwa teman membuat mereka nyaman untuk mengatakan apa saja karena mereka sudah saling mengenal. Kemudian, penting untuk mengetahui pendapat dosen tentang sesuatu. Yang terakhir, ditemukan bentuk ko-konstruksi atas instruksi dosen. Hal itu mengindikasikan bahwa mahasiswa merasa malu dan gugup jika berbuat salah.

(6)

CLASSROOM INTERACTION

IN VERBAL LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCES Rosy Uliayu Hutahaean

8136112075 ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to investigate classroom interaction in verbal linguistic intelligences. Five research questions guided this study are: a) what are the levels of verbal-linguistics intelligence, b) how are the students’ linguistic intelligences realized linguistically in classroom interaction, c) how do students with complex skill levels apply classroom interaction, d) how do students with coherence skill levels apply classroom interaction, e) why are the verbal linguistic intelligences realized in the way they are. The subjects of this study were five students included all students and lecturers who involved in the classroom of Methodist University Medan. Observation, recordings, and taking notes were used to collect the data. This study showed different result from the previous study done by Wessman from the work of Gardner, Armstrong, Campbell, and Lazear. There were eight results found in this study. First, there are three levels of verbal linguistic intelligences namely basic, complex, and coherence skill level after having the result of TOEFL iBT though university students are supposed to have two levels: complex and coherence skill level. Second, the way the students’ linguistic intelligences realized linguistically in classroom interaction is not different between complex skill level and coherence skill level due to their interaction in class. Third, the way the students with complex and coherence skill levels applied classroom interaction is different since students with complex skill level mostly realized in collaborative dialogue while student with coherence skill level realized in collaborative dialogue and co-construction. It indicated that they deliver their thought using dialogue and activity of skill. Fourth, the students applying classroom interaction linguistically referred to their capacities. They tended to have expanded vocabulary in speaking and writing, to comprehend of information, to express various creative writing forms, to execute various types of formal speaking, and to engage in metalinguistic analysis and dialogue. Fifth, the last type of classroom interaction which is called ‘group work or learners –learners’ is not found. It implied that the time of the research is not suitable with the time of the students’ group project. Sixth, in some cases, the students with complex and coherence skill level are not found to initiate interactions. These cases occur because the class is in the evening when most of the students have worked for a whole day. Seventh, the forms of negotiation with complex skill level tended to peers while student with coherence skill level tended to lecturer. It meant that friends make them comfort to say everything since they know each other well. Then, lecturer’s opinion about something is important for the student to know. The last, the forms of co-construction are found by lecturers’ instructions. It indicated that the students felt shy and nervous if it is wrong.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to the Heavenly Father, Son of God Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit for His amazing grace so that this thesis could be completed and to obtain a Master Degree in Applied Linguistics.

The writer would also like to convey the greatest thanks to Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Dr. T. Thyrhaya Zein, M.A., as her consultants for their great ideas, guidance and patience that lead the writer to the end of completion of this thesis.

The writer also would like to extend her sincere gratitude to the Head of LTBI, UNIMED, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd and his staff, Farid for their assistance regarding the administrative procedures. In addition, the writer would like to thank to all lecturers for their knowledge and character building during the process of teaching and learning either at classes or outside.

At this opportunity, the writer as well would like to express her thanks to the angels of her life. The first is her beloved brother, Iwan Hutahaean (and family), and then her dearest sister, Della Hutahaean (and family) for their praying, support, and motivation. The credit also goes to Hutahaean’s family, for support and praying.

The writer also must express her thanks to the big family of SMP SUTOMO 2 Medan for their support and praying. Big thanks are also expressed to the lecturers and students in the fourth semester of English Literature of Methodist University who had been involved during finishing this thesis.

(8)

Her huge thanks are also dedicated to her great family of God: UP-FBS, IKAPEL, CHADASH, EFRAIM, and ABODA for their big supports.

Thank you so much is also addressed to her cousin, Anderee, and others who are too numerous to mention for your helps and supports.

Eventually, the writer expects that this thesis would be useful for further study.

Medan, June 2015

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ... ……… i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... ……… iii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... ……… v

LIST OF TABLES ……… viii

LIST OF FIGURES ……….. viii

LIST OF APEENDICES ………. viii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... ……… 1

1.1.The Background of the Study ... ……... 1

1.2.The Problems of the Study ... ……… 5

1.3.The Objectives of the Study ... ……… 5

1.4.The Scope of the Study ... ……… 6

1.5.The Significance of the Study ... ……… 7

CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... ……… 9

2.1. Classroom Interaction ... ……… 9

2.2. The Components of Classroom Interaction ... ……… 11

2.2.1. Collaborative Dialogue ……….. 11

2.2.2. Negotiation ……….……… 11

2.2.3. Co-Construction ……… 13

2.3. The Participants in Classroom Interaction ... ……… 13

2.4. The Verbal Linguistic Intelligences in the Classroom ... ……… 15

2.5. The Levels of Linguistic Intelligence or Word Smart ……….…..….. 16

2.6. The Linguistics Realizations of Verbal Linguistics Intelligences …….. 18

2.7. Forms of Classroom interaction can booster verbal- linguist Intelligences ……… 18

(10)

2.7.1. Teacher-learner Interaction ……….… 19

2.7.2. Learner-learner Interaction ……….. 21

2.8. Related Studies ... ………. 23

2.9. Conceptual Framework ………... 24

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ... ……… 26

3.1. Research Design... ……… 26

3.2. Source of Data ... ……… 26

3.2.1. Data ………... 27

3.3. Instrument of Data Collection ……….. 28

3.4. Technique of Data Collection ……….. 28

3.5. Technique of Data Analysis ………. 29

3.6. Trustworthiness of Data ………... 29

3.6.1. Credibility ………. 29

3.6.2. Transferability ……… 30

3.6.3. Dependability ………. 30

3.6.4. Confirmability ………. 30

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS ... ……… 32

4.1. Data Analysis ... ……… 32

4.1.1. The Levels of Verbal-Linguistic Intelligences ……….……. 34

4.1.2 The Way The Students’ Linguistic Intelligences Realized Linguistically in Classroom Interaction ………..……….. 35

4.1.2.1 Pronouncing the words ……… 36

4.1.2.2 Showing good comprehension in the meanings of words ………… 37

(11)

4.1.3. The Way The Students with Complex Skill Levels applied

Classroom Interaction ……….. 42

4.1.3.1 Showing good comprehension in language use and language learning through dialogue ………. 42

4.1.3.2 Acquiring new language by solving communicative problems… 45

4.1.3.3 Participating in joint creation of a form ………... 47

4.1.4 The Reasons The Realization of Verbal Linguistic Intelligences Linguistically in The Way They Are ………. 52

4.1.4.1 To expand vocabulary in speaking and writing ……….. 53

4.1.4.2 To comprehend of information presented in a written format ….... 54

4.1.4.3 To express various creative writing forms ……….…….. 54

4.1.4.4 To execute various types of formal speaking ………... 55

4.1.4.5 To engage in metalinguistic analysis and dialogue .,………….…… 55

4.2. Research Findings ……….. 56

4.3. Discussion ……….. 57

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION ... ……… 59

5.1. Conclusions ... ……… 59

5.2. Implications ... ……… 60

5.3. Suggestions ……….……….. 60

(12)

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

(13)

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1. The official score range of TOEFL iBT ……….... ... ………. 34 Table 4.2 The Result of Verbal Linguistic Intelligences

for Reading Skill ……… ... ………. 35 Table 4.3 The Linguistic Realization by Complex and

Coherence Skill Level ……… ... ………. 41 Table 4.4 The Classroom Interaction by Complex and

Coherence Skill Level ………... ... ……….. 51 Table 4.5 The Percentage of Classroom Interaction for Complex

(14)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Data Transcription

Appendix 2 Transcription of Interview : The Reasons The Realization of Verbal Linguistic Intelligences Linguistically

Appendix 3 TOEFL iBT Preparation Appendix 4 Observation Tally Sheet

Appendix 5 Observation Sheet: Observation of Verbal Linguistic Capacities

(15)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1. The Background of the Study

Language is primarily an instrument of communication among human being in a community. Larsen (2003: 2) states that language is a means of interaction between and among people. Here, it has function as a tool which connects them in their surrounding. People realize that without language they cannot interact to each other. Language can become a bridge to connect one another that live in different places and cultures, gain information, knowledge, and express one‘s feeling, and emotions.

In a practical sense, using language, both written and verbal, to achieve goals can be viewed from individual‘s verbal linguistic intelligence. The verbal linguistic intelligence is the intelligence of language and communication. It is the ability to use language masterfully to express oneself rhetorically or poetically. It also allows one to use language as a means to remember information.

The intelligence includes the ability to speak, articulate, and express, and convey one‘s thoughts and feelings to the outside world in one or more languages. This can be at oral and written level. It also includes the ability to listen and to understand other people.

Those people who harness the strength of words give themselves the power to persuade, to inspire, to memorize, and to influence in all manner of ways the human brain since the words have tremendous power. It is not surprising, then, that words and their power have become one of the most important currencies in the ‗Knowledge Revolution‘ of the 21st century. In other words, the bigger and better your vocabulary and your Verbal Intelligence, the more successful and confident you will be in your life in general – in your work, in your social and personal life, and in your studies.

(16)

Individuals who have a strong verbal- linguistic intelligence enjoy playing with rhymes, always have a story to tell and quickly acquire other languages—including sign language—all exhibit linguistic intelligence. Verbal linguistic intelligence is involved in storytelling and creating, in all forms of humor that involve such things as plays on words, in the unexpected ending in a joke, and in various funny twists of the language. This intelligence is involved in any use of metaphors, similes, and analogies, and, of course, in learning proper grammar and syntax in speaking and writing. Lunenburgs (2014) stated that everyone is thought to possess this intelligence at some level.

However, according to Wessman from the work of Gardner, Armstrong, Campbell, and Lazear (2010) there are three levels of verbal linguistic capacities such as basic, complex, and coherence skill level. The levels are different since there are some factors play a great role in shaping individual‘s intelligence such as the environment where the individual lives, the culture which she or he acquires, and the surrounding communities, with whom she or he interacts (Gardner, 1983).

In Indonesian context, the purpose of learning English in the university level especially in English Literature is to graduate qualified English bachelors. Hence, they study language, culture, and improve English skills while interacting with materials, tasks, lecturers, etc. English in universities is as an academic success since the university students are required to reach an adequate English language level. In enhancing students‘ linguistic resources (semantics, phonology, syntax, and praxis), interaction in English language classroom has been considered one of the most important pedagogical research topics in recent decades (Thapa & Lin: 2013).

The use of interaction in language classrooms in recent years has become the norm and the benchmark for ‗successful‘ lessons at least for language teachers. Therefore, it is

(17)

needed to develop classroom interaction to the verbal- linguistic intelligence students. Since this intelligence is vital to good school performance.

Classroom interaction is important in the teaching learning process because interaction is a bridge for the pupils to understand the lesson that is delivered by the teachers (Paramita, 2011). In addition, students benefit from this interaction at both the social and academic level (Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005) in Dukmak (2010). It is also a key to reach the goal of language learning in exchanging of thoughts, feelings or ideas between two or more people, leading to a mutual effect on each other (Rivers, 1987: 4-5) in Tuan, T. L and Nhu. K. T. N (2010)

According to Beyazkurk and Kesner (2005) in Dukmak (2010), elementary school students benefit from encouraging relationships and positive interaction with their teachers. Also, students in early childhood educational settings are more socially competent and do better in their classes as a result of positive interactions with their teachers (Egeland & Hiester, 1995; Pianta, Stuhlman & Hamre, 2002) in Dukmak (2010).

Professionals in the field of education consider teacher– student interaction fundamental to the learning process. Student involvement in classroom discussions can be a major element in effective instruction. Verbally active students are more likely to be high achievers, and student–teacher interaction can help students develop their cognitive skills.

Various studies on classroom interaction revealed that these students control interaction because they are more active in the learning process and participate more willingly than others (Willson, 1999) in Dukmak (2010).

After having preliminary research by observing 10 students who were learning advanced reading of retelling the story ―Oliver Twist‖ in the fourth semester of class B in Methodist University in Medan, it was found: (1) There were only 2 ways of organizing classroom interaction from 4 ways such as learner-learner and learners-learners since the

(18)

learners do not response to the lecture (2) There were only 6 students who were retelling the story from 10 students. Though, the lecture has called them many times to perform (3) There was only 1 student who was retelling the story well from 6 students based on the lecture‘s admiration: good. (4) There were 3 students who were weak in linguistic realization especially phonology from 6 students. It can be seen from the conversation below.

L : Who wants to retell the story firstly, come on… (The students are silent and do not give any response. Finally, the lecture calls the students‘ names for many times, and then she takes the attendance list. After that, the student comes based on the list)

NW : Oliver Twist was born to the drunken nurse. She was a poor boy. (the linguistics realization is wrong)

L : She was a poor boy?

NW : He was a poor boy

AN : Oliver grew up small and malnourished (the pronunciation is wrong)

L : Malnourish / mælnʌriʃ /. Who came to get the money offered?

VV : Mr. Gamfield (Coherence Skill Levels)

L : Good

In conclusion, classroom interaction is basically affected by verbal linguistic capacities. They will show different classroom interaction because of their different capacities.

The pre- research conclusion above also convinced by Willson‘s (1999) and Younger and Warrington‘s (1996) in Dukmak (2010: 3) who found regarding the relationship between interaction and achievement revealed that high-achieving students initiated more interactions than low-achieving ones. The study also found that the nature of interactions among high

(19)

achievers differed from those of low achievers. High achievers initiated interactions to volunteer answers, whereas low achievers interacted primarily to seek help.

In conclusion, the above research done is to find out the relationship between interaction and achievement in students in general while in this study, the research focuses to intelligence, especially to the verbal linguistics in university students.

In line with this background, this study was conducted to describe classroom interaction occurs in terms of specific intelligence that is verbal-linguistic intelligence of the students in university classrooms in Methodist University in Medan.

2. The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study are: 1. What are the levels of verbal-linguistics intelligence?

2. How are the students‘ linguistic intelligences realized linguistically in classroom interaction?

3. How do students with complex skill levels apply classroom interaction?

4. How do students with coherence skill levels apply classroom interaction?

5. Why are the verbal linguistic intelligences realized in the way they are?

3. The Objectives of the Study

As generally assumed, any scientific study is intended to solve the research problems under study, the results of which are expected to bear great significance to the principles as well as practices of classroom interaction.

(20)

In congruent with the discussions of the nature and theory of classroom interaction underpinning the present study, as highlighted in the background and in the formulations of the research problems, the undertaking of the present investigation has both general and specific objectives.

The general objective of this study is to shed further insights and more scientific evidences concerning effective and efficient classroom interaction either from teacher to learner or learner to learner.

Specifically, the undertaking of this study aims at:

1. Finding and revealing the levels of verbal linguistics intelligence occurring when accommodating classroom interaction.

2. Finding and analyzing the way the students‘ intelligences realized linguistically in classroom interaction.

3. Finding and analyzing the application of classroom interaction currently in language teaching aligned with the complex skill level

4. Finding and analyzing the application of classroom interaction currently in language teaching aligned with the coherence skill level

5. Analyzing and revealing the reasons of the degree of naturalness in accommodating classroom interaction.

4. The Scope of the Study

Due to the fact, there are some verbal linguistic intelligences and classroom interaction dimensions such as proposed by Buzan, Brown, Wessman, etc. This study is limited to the verbal linguistic intelligences as classified by Wessman and to the classroom interaction as categorized by Vygotsky.

(21)

The study is also limited to the verbal linguistic intelligences, their linguistic realization and classroom interaction preferred by the fourth semester of academic year 2015/2016 at English Literature of Faculty of Letters of Methodist University in Medan. There is one class registered on English Literature, namely class A. The researcher will observe 5 class sessions by considering that the amount of observation is enough to portray the classroom interaction.

5. Significance of the Study

It is suggested that there are three significances of this study, among which are as follows:

1. Theoretical Significance

The research findings enrich the previous theories about interaction analysis and will contribute new knowledge from different perspective in addition to providing a better understanding about the importance of conducting the study.

2. Practical Significance

The findings of the present study are expected to be great practical significance to the English lecturers, especially to those who are interested in and concerned with classroom interaction work. Further, the analysis of interaction can be also applied as a productive teaching technique in facilitating students‘ language development and communicative competence. Language teaching over the last few decades is marked by the rapidly increasing rapid development of different sciences and sophisticated telecommunication technology; it is obvious to say that more and more abundant classroom interaction work either from teacher to learner or learner to learner is urgently needed.

(22)

8 3. Pedagogical Significance

More and more classroom studies in Indonesian are still expected now and in the future. The results achieved through classroom interaction studies are expected to inspire people and language teachers in particular to apply classroom interaction. Nowadays there are indications that interest in and research on classroom interaction will be continued into the future. Interdisciplinary barriers across specialties are breaking down, encouraging collaboration among linguists, psychologists, humanists, educators, anthropologists, and representatives of other disciplines.

(23)

59 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

5.1Conclusions

After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following:

1) There are three levels of verbal linguistic intelligence namely basic skill level, complex skill level intelligence, and coherence skill level intelligence. It means that the university students of English literature still have low or basic skill level.

2) The students with complex skill level and coherence skill level used syntax as the linguistic realization in order to have good comprehension of language use

3) The students with complex skill level used collaborative dialogue by making dialogue effectively. The student with coherence skill level used collaborative dialogue and co-construction by making dialogue and participating the joint creation of various forms. The use of classroom interaction in verbal linguistic intelligences was perceptive. 4) The reasons the realization of verbal linguistic intelligences linguistically in the way

they are to have expanded vocabulary in speaking and writing, to comprehend of information, to express various creative writing forms, to execute various types of formal speaking, to engage in metalinguistic analysis and dialogue.

(24)

60 5.2Implications

Concerning with the theoretical review and the result of this study, some implications are presented as below.

1) The result of this study showed that the linguistic realization among high achievers is similar from those of medium achievers.

2) The result of this study showed that the nature of interactions among high achievers is different from those of medium achievers.

3) The result of this study also implied that classroom interaction is very crucial to help students develop their cognitive skills. The more active students the more likely to be high achievers

5.3Suggestions

Due to the previous conclusion, suggestions are stated as the following:

1) It is suggested to next researcher who interested to reveal the classroom interaction elaborated with multiple intelligences to facilitate and encourage students’ language development.

2) It is expected to lecturers and university students to pay attention the importance of classroom interaction as the benchmark for ‘successful’ lessons at least for language lecturers.

3) However, it is hard to avoid the students prefer keeping silent, it is suggested that the lecturers keep facilitating the classroom interaction in order to avoid failure of language learning.

(25)

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. 1984. The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied Linguistics 5/2:156-171

Bogdan, R.C and Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd_Edition)_{. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.}

Dagarin, Mateja. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English As A Foreign Studies In The English Language And Literature In Slovenia. ELOPE, Volume 1, str 127-139

Dukmak, Samir. 2010. Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special Education Middle Primary Classroom in the United Arab Emmirates .British Journal of Special Education. Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 39-48

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Kafanabo, J. E. 2006. An Investigation into the interaction between multiple intelligences and the performance of learners’ in open ended digital learning tasks. University of Pretoira (Dissertation)

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2003) Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring.

Thomson Heinle

Lazear, G.D. 1993. Teaching for Multiple Intelligences. Indiana : The Phi Delta Kapa Educational Foundation Blomington

Leslie Wessman from the work of Howard Gardner, Thomas Armstrong, Linda Campbell, and

David Lazear in http://www.verbal-linguisticintelligence capacities.com/

articles/multiple-intelligences/html. Accessed on 2010

Lunenburg, C. Fred and Lunenburg, R. Melody. 2014. Applying Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom: A Fresh Look at Teaching Writing. International Journal Of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity Volume 16, Number 1

Lincoln. Y.S., & Guba.E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mardhatillah, Wahyu. 2013. Coherence and Cohesion in the Background Section. Bandung:

Indonesia Education University.

Murdoch, Y. 1999. Classroom Interaction in a Korean University English Language Class. United Kingdom: Birmingham

(26)

Nurmasitah, Sita. 2010. A Study Of Classroom Interaction Characteristics In A Geography Class

Conducted In English: The Case At Year Ten Of An Immersion Class In Sma N 2 Semarang. Diponegoro University: Semarang

Paramita, Elsa. 2011. Different Activity Frames and Teachers’ Other Initiations as Scaffolding in The Process of Meaning Negotiation in The Classroom Interaction at The Immersion Classes of Theresiana Elementary School. Soegijapranata Catholic University: Semarang.

Richards, J.Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1987): Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Hong Kong: Longman, 2deg.edition

Robinson, Helja Antola. 2005. The Ethnography of Empowerment: The Transformative Power of Classroom interaction. London: The Falmer Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)

SPARKed. Multiple Intelligence Theory.

http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed410226.html.

Thapa & Lin. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms to enhance students’ language learning.https://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-in-english-language-classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-language-learning/

Tuan, T. L and Nhu. K. T. N. 2010. Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFL Classrooms. www.csanada.net: Studies in Literature and Language. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 29-48

Walsh, M. and hall, K, J. 2002. Teacher- Student Interaction and Learning. USA : Cambridge University Press. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 186-203

Yanfen, Liu & Yuqin, Zhao. 2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes : Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 2. Harbin Institute of Technology

Yu, Runmei. 2008. Interaction in EFL Classes. China: Qingdao University of Science and Technology. www.ccsenet.org/journal.html.

Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching Metalinguistic Awareness and Reading Comprehension With Riddles. USA: Rhode Island

_______ ABC Linguistic Intelligence Z. International Montessori Schools and Child Development Centres Brussels: Belgium

________ Verbal Linguistic: ways of knowing. Adapted by Leslie Wessman from the work of Howard Gardner, Thomas Armstrong, Linda Campbell, and David Lazear.

(27)

http://www.hope.edu/academic/education/wessman/2block/ArticlesAssignments/VER BAL.pdf

Website materials:

(http://www.linguisticintelligence.com/articles/multiple-intelligences/ html). (http://www.verbal-linguistic-intelligencecapacities.com/ articles/multiple-intelligences/html).

(1)

8 3. Pedagogical Significance

(2)

59 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION & SUGGESTION

5.1Conclusions

After analyzing the data, conclusions are drawn as the following:

2) The students with complex skill level and coherence skill level used syntax as the linguistic realization in order to have good comprehension of language use

(3)

60 5.2Implications

Concerning with the theoretical review and the result of this study, some implications are presented as below.

1) The result of this study showed that the linguistic realization among high achievers is similar from those of medium achievers.

2) The result of this study showed that the nature of interactions among high achievers is different from those of medium achievers.

3) The result of this study also implied that classroom interaction is very crucial to help students develop their cognitive skills. The more active students the more likely to be high achievers

5.3Suggestions

Due to the previous conclusion, suggestions are stated as the following:

1) It is suggested to next researcher who interested to reveal the classroom interaction elaborated with multiple intelligences to facilitate and encourage students’ language development.

2) It is expected to lecturers and university students to pay attention the importance of classroom interaction as the benchmark for ‘successful’ lessons at least for language lecturers.

3) However, it is hard to avoid the students prefer keeping silent, it is suggested that the lecturers keep facilitating the classroom interaction in order to avoid failure of language learning.

(4)

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. 1984. The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied Linguistics 5/2:156-171

Bogdan, R.C and Biklen, S.K. 1982. Qualitative Research for Education: An Introduction to Theory and Methods (3rd_{Edition). Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.}

Dagarin, Mateja. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English As A Foreign Studies In The English Language And Literature In Slovenia. ELOPE, Volume 1, str 127-139

Dukmak, Samir. 2010. Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special Education Middle Primary Classroom in the United Arab Emmirates .British Journal of Special Education. Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 39-48

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.

Kafanabo, J. E. 2006. An Investigation into the interaction between multiple intelligences and the performance of learners’ in open ended digital learning tasks. University of Pretoira (Dissertation)

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. (2003) Teaching Language: From Grammar to Grammaring. Thomson Heinle

Lazear, G.D. 1993. Teaching for Multiple Intelligences. Indiana : The Phi Delta Kapa Educational Foundation Blomington

Leslie Wessman from the work of Howard Gardner, Thomas Armstrong, Linda Campbell, and David Lazear in http://www.verbal-linguisticintelligence capacities.com/ articles/multiple-intelligences/html. Accessed on 2010

Lunenburg, C. Fred and Lunenburg, R. Melody. 2014. Applying Multiple Intelligences in the Classroom: A Fresh Look at Teaching Writing. International Journal Of Scholarly Academic Intellectual Diversity Volume 16, Number 1

Lincoln. Y.S., & Guba.E.G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Mardhatillah, Wahyu. 2013. Coherence and Cohesion in the Background Section. Bandung: Indonesia Education University.

Murdoch, Y. 1999. Classroom Interaction in a Korean University English Language Class. United Kingdom: Birmingham

(5)

Nurmasitah, Sita. 2010. A Study Of Classroom Interaction Characteristics In A Geography Class

Conducted In English: The Case At Year Ten Of An Immersion Class In Sma N 2 Semarang. Diponegoro University: Semarang

Richards, J.Platt, J. & Weber, H. (1987): Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics. Hong Kong: Longman, 2deg.edition

Robinson, Helja Antola. 2005. The Ethnography of Empowerment: The Transformative Power of Classroom interaction. London: The Falmer Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)

SPARKed. Multiple Intelligence Theory.

http://www.ericfacility.net/ericdigests/ed410226.html.

Tuan, T. L and Nhu. K. T. N. 2010. Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFL Classrooms. www.csanada.net: Studies in Literature and Language. Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 29-48

Walsh, M. and hall, K, J. 2002. Teacher- Student Interaction and Learning. USA : Cambridge University Press. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 186-203

Yanfen, Liu & Yuqin, Zhao. 2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes : Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 2. Harbin Institute of Technology

Yu, Runmei. 2008. Interaction in EFL Classes. China: Qingdao University of Science and Technology. www.ccsenet.org/journal.html.

Zipke, M. (2008). Teaching Metalinguistic Awareness and Reading Comprehension With Riddles. USA: Rhode Island

_______ ABC Linguistic Intelligence Z. International Montessori Schools and Child Development Centres Brussels: Belgium

________ Verbal Linguistic: ways of knowing. Adapted by Leslie Wessman from the work of Howard Gardner, Thomas Armstrong, Linda Campbell, and David Lazear.

(6)

http://www.hope.edu/academic/education/wessman/2block/ArticlesAssignments/VER BAL.pdf

Website materials:

(http://www.linguisticintelligence.com/articles/multiple-intelligences/ html). (http://www.verbal-linguistic-intelligencecapacities.com/ articles/multiple-intelligences/html).

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN VERBAL LINGUISTIC INTELLIGENCES.