47 their lack of English pronunciation proficiency. Subconsciously, the problems
experienced by the teachers in their pronunciation, might be dangerous for the students. The students would tend to imitate the wrong examples given by the
teachers and bring them to the incorrect English pronunciation. Moreover, the use of incorrect grammar and careless code switching to Indonesian by the teachers
was seen as evidence that the teachers did not have enough competence in the target language. This insufficient competence made the teachers unable to play as
good role models.
4. Comprehensible Input and Material Design
Several types of input were utilized in the teaching-learning activities in the international class of SMAN 3 Yogyakarta. In this section, the researcher
explains them one after another by considering the nature of comprehensible input or Content-Based Instruction and international class. The section contains the
lecture within the teacher’s class, the modules, the lecture within the lecturer’s class, and the handouts given within the lecturer’s class. This explanation is hoped
to provide a clear description of the input within the material designed by the international class of SMAN 3 Yogyakarta.
a. The Lecture within the Teacher’s Class
In this international class, most of the classroom activities took place in the form of lecture in the teacher’s class. In Krashen’s theory of comprehensible
input 1985, in Nunan, 2003: 201, it is said that the speech takes place around the students is considered as the comprehensible input for the students. The students
48 in the teacher’s class were fully involved and understood the material since it was
fully conducted in Indonesian. But, in relevance with Krashen’s comprehensible input theory, the material delivery was not considered as comprehensible. It is
because not only the material delivery that used fully Indonesian, the notes were also delivered in Indonesian.
The lecture within the teacher’s class in SMAN 3 Yogyakarta had not executed the theory of comprehensible input as a challenging language that is
slightly above the current linguistic level of the students or i + 1, which supplies the foundation for successful language acquisition Brinton, in Nunan 2003: 201.
This is because the lecture or material delivery within the teacher’s class was done fully in Indonesian and had not facilitate students with the subconscious challenge
which is needed to achieve higher level of English proficiency.
b. The Modules in the Teacher’s Class
The modules that were used for lecturing in the international class of SMAN 3 Yogyakarta
were compiled by the teaching team and used in the classroom. The teaching team compiled the modules according to the materials
needed from different sources, mostly written in English. The students did not find difficulties in comprehending the materials because the modules used the
vocabulary which were not too different from the Indonesian vocabulary. The researcher still found that some sentences in the modules were
difficult to understand because of their grammar and sentence structure. There were many incorrect and unacceptable sentence structures which were very
49 dangerous for the students because they might have misunderstood the sentence
meaning. The problems were found in the modules which were compiled by the individual subject teacher and not by the teaching team. The researcher found one
example of the incorrect sentence structure which was “Note that the axis about which the torques must equal zero was not specified. This is because the sum of
the torques must be zero about any axis ” Physics, Appendix E page 87.
Apparently, the teacher’s first language interfered with the translation process and there were incorrectness in the conjunction and the sentence structure.
Hence, the researcher saw the evidence that the modules made and compiled for the international class in SMAN 3 Yogyakarta could not be
considered as a good and reliable comprehensible input because the students did not get advantageous challenges that they needed to get into the higher linguistic
level they had to acquire. Furthermore, the modules did not apply the i + 1 principle because the linguistic level applied in the modules were not higher than
the students’ linguistic level.
c. The Lecture within the Lecturer’s Class
