2002. In this perspective, the students take a part in classroom more than the teacher. It is not in line with Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, and Vasama in
Kumpulainen Wray 2002 who promote the teacher’s participation in class. In their research, they identify four modes of teacher’s participation into evocative,
facilitative, collective and appreciative modes Kumpulainen Wray, 2002. By having that teacher’s participation, the students did not see their teacher as the
knowledge- giving authority but instead proudly presented their own ideas and also questioned the assumptions presented by the teacher Kumpulainen Wray,
2002, p.14.
2.1.2.3. The Role of TSs Interaction in Young Learner Classroom
The verbal interaction in class must be exposed by the teachers for certain purposes. Brown T. 1987 argues that it is caused by the teachers’ intention to
influence the actions of the young learners. If the learners react as expected, the teaching and learning process will proceed successfully as planned. In
constructing the interaction, a teacher may fantasize about how her actions will be interpreted. Richard Rodgers 2001 state that interaction aims to specify and
organize the language teaching content so the purpose of communication can be met. Interaction may affect some aspects in teaching and learning.
First, it deals with cognitive aspects. According to Yanfen Yuqin 2010, through interaction with teachers, students can increase their language store and
use all languages they possess. During the interaction, they can acquire the comprehensible input exposed to them. If the input is still incomprehensible, the
teacher can make the use of interaction to do modification if needed to make sure whether the input is understood by the students successfully. The modification can
be done by doing comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests either by encoding or, more frequently, by triggering repetition and
rephrasing of input content. Long 1996 also agrees that interaction facilitates acquisition because of the conversational and linguistic modifications that occur
in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. Pica, Doughty, Young 1987 and Sarab Karimi 2008 find that this interactional
modification facilitates second language comprehension better than pre-modified input. Modification done through the interaction can help the learners to
comprehend the input. The successful interactional modification can accommodate learning and acquisition for young learners. It is confirmed by Pica,
Doughty, Young 1987 who state the interaction of teacher and students in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual
understanding can be an ideal environment for second language acquisition. It is also in line with theories of communicative competence. Due to those theories, the
importance of interaction was emphasized to negotiate meaning Brown, 2000. Second, it deals with affective development of students. By interacting
with young learners in class, teacher can create an interesting atmosphere so the learners can feel motivated and the will not feel bored. It is in line with Nugent
2009 who finds the positive relationship between the teacher and students’ interaction and students’ motivation. Chowdhury Rashid 2014 also agree that
the effective interaction can create a pleasant atmosphere in the classroom with PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
friendly relationships among the participants of the learning process. If the learning is interesting and meaningful to the young learners, the goals of the
teaching and learning process can be accomplished Halliwell, 1992; Moon, 2000; Pinter, 2006. Allwright in Sibley 1999 notices the importance of interaction so
he suggests that the interaction should be inherent in the very notion of classroom pedagogy itself.
On the other hand, Nystrand in Hall Walsh, 2002 argue that TSs interaction was a significant factor ‘in creating inequalities in student
opportunities to develop intellectually complex language knowledge and skills. It is closely related with the dominant power of the teachers in classroom. It will be
discussed further in the section below.
2.1.3 English Learning 2.1.3.1 English Learning in Class
Learning is a process of gaining input. In this research, the object learnt is English which is considered as the foreign language in Indonesia. Ellis 2008
defines learning as conscious study. Perceived from the cognitive theory, English learning has dynamic mechanisms. Anderson 1985 in Ellis 2008 elaborates the
process of learning in which the learners select information, organize it, relate it to what they already know, retain what they consider to be important, use it in
appropriate context, and reflect on the success of their learning effort. Cognitive theory is only an instance of learning perspective. Others perspectives that
influence the way of learning are such as behaviorist theory, communicative PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
competence theory, humanistic perspective, social interactionism. Those perspectives affect the way someone learn a language and construct learning
strategies from it.
2.1.3.2 English Learning in Young Learners Classroom
Compared to language learning in adult classroom, language learning in young learners’ classroom is different in some ways since young learners have
their own characteristics. To make the learning works and meaningful to young learners, the learning should be adapted based on their characteristics.
Moon 2000 states that young learners tend to go for meaning. They are experts on
guessing meaning even if they do not understand individual words. Moreover, they can respond on it once they can grasp the meaning Harmer, 2000.
Unfortunately, teachers often ask their students to make sure that they understand. By doing constant checking in this way the teachers are implying that they expect
the children to understand every little bit they hear. Halliwell, 1992 As the implication, the teaching should be meaningful. If young learners do not find it
meaningful, they will not be active as planned and the goal of teaching and learning may not be accomplished. Besides, young learners have short span of
attention. It is easy for them to get bored and feel demotivated if their learning is difficult, not interesting and not meaningful to them. Moreover, what they learn is
different from their mother tongue. Moon 2000 assures that the bored and demotivated young learners will not success in learning. Moreover, young
learners tend to react based on their feelings Moon, 2000. If they are PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
demotivated because of experiencing difficult situation, they will end up with hating to learn English. It will give bad impact to their English ability in the
future. Thus, the teacher should design the learning that is not burdening for them. On the other hand, if the students experience the meaningful activities, they will
learn from it. Harmer 2000 states that students often learn indirectly rather than directly. Thus, the more meaningful the learning they experience, the more
knowledge they gain. Reflecting to those characteristics, the teachers of young learners should provide physical activities, deal with routines and repetition in
learning, Cameron; 2001, provide full of gesture, intonation, demonstration, action, and facial expressions to convey meaning Pinter; 2006, provide authentic
ready- made bits of language such as songs, rhymes, drama, etc., and do scaffolding Cameron; 2001. According to Brown 2000, English teachers in
young learners classroom should not only providing lot of ‘authentic language tasks’ but also mastering specific skills and intuitions to accommodate those
characteristics.
2.1.3.3 English Learning in Kanisius Elementary Schools
Kanisius Elementary School is a private elementary school that still uses English as subject to study. Since the curriculum for English in Elementary school
is no longer available in the curriculum 2013, the latest curriculum nowadays, this school decides to have KTSP Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan as guidance
to set the goals and objectives for the learning. In KTSP, the core competence 2006 is used in which it is confirmed that “Kemampuan berkomunikasi dalam
