T1 112008115 Full text

FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO YOUNG LEARNERS IN
BILINGUAL CLASSROOM

THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan

Eta Sam Kristinasari
112008115

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2013

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION

As a member of the (SWCU) Satya Wacana Christian University academic community,

I verify that:
Name

: Eta Sam Kristinasari

Student ID Number

: 112008115

Study Program

: English Language Teaching Department

Faculty

: Language and Literature

Kind of Work

: Undergraduate Thesis

In developing my knowledge, I agree to provide SWCU with a non-exclusive royalty free
right for my intellectual property and the contents therein entitled:
Factors Affecting the Implementation of Communicative Activities to Young
Learners in Bilingual Classroom
along with any pertinent equipment.
With this non-exclusive royalty free right, SWCU maintains the right to copy, reproduce,
print, publish, post, display, incorporate, store in or scan into a retrieval system or database,
transmit, broadcast, barter or sell my intellectual property, in whole or in part without my
express written permission, as long as my name is still included as the writer.
This declaration is made according to the best of my knowledge.

Made in

: Salatiga

Date

: ________________

Verified by signee,

Approved by

Thesis Supervisor

Anita Kurniawati, M.Hum.

Thesis Examiner

Rindang Widiningrum, M.Hum.

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any course or
accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To the best of my
knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously published or written by any
other person except where due reference is made in the text.

Copyright@ 2013 Eta Sam Kristinasari and Anita Kurniawati, M.Hum.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced by any means without the
permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty of
Language and Literature, Satya Wacana University, Salatiga.

Eta Sam Kristinasari:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COVER PAGE .............................................................................................................. i
APPROVAL PAGE ........................................................................................................ii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION ........................................................ iii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT......................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................... vi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1
LITERATURE REVIEW
Communicative and Non-Communicative Activities ........................................... 3
METHODOLOGY

A. Context of the Study ....................................................................................... 7
B. Participants ..................................................................................................... 8
C. Data Collection Instrument.............................................................................. 9
D. Data Collection Procedures ........................................................................... 10
E. Data Analysis Procedures .............................................................................. 11
DATA ANALYSIS
Findings ............................................................................................................ 12
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................. 21
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................ 23
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................. 25

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The continuum of communicative
and non-communicative activities (Harmer, 1982) ................................. 4

FACTORS AFFECTING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
COMMUNICATIVE ACTIVITIES TO YOUNG LEARNERS IN
BILINGUAL CLASSROOM

Eta Sam Kristinasari

ABSTRACT
This paper aims at investigating the teachers about factors affecting the
implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom. The
context of the study was Bethany Elementary School, Salatiga. The participants of this study
were 20 teachers teaching different subjects. The data were collected through semi-structured
interviews. There are three factors that the findings suggested such as the factor of age, time
constraints, and the nature of subjects. This study is hoped to give insight into teachers who
teach young learners about the application of communicative activities in Indonesia. This
study also proposes several recommendations that may enhance the future application of
communicative activities.
Key words: Communicative Activities, Young Learners, Factors

INTRODUCTION
Some bilingual schools in Indonesia try to implement the Communicative Language
Teaching (CLT) method into their teaching. Richard (2006) defined CLT as a teaching
methodology for improving student’s ability in English contextual communication. The
purpose of CLT is to help students in improving their communicative competence and to
develop their English skills. The students practice speaking and communicating well through

the activities which reflect real-life situations. However, there are many challenges in
implementing this method in the bilingual classroom.
The problem of the implementation of CLT in the classroom is the teachers’
perception of classroom activities to improve students’ communicative abilities. Most of the
teachers do not know how to apply communicative activities in the classroom (Hozzen, 2008,
p.30-34). The classroom activities that teachers used in the classroom sometimes do not

fulfill the basic requirement of communicative activities. Moreover, the challenge to
implement CLT in Indonesia is about the teachers’ views in understanding communicative
classroom activities (Ying, 2010). From the point of view of teacher, Hozzen’s survey noted
that teachers are not aware of using the classroom activities because they are lack of training
to apply communicative activities (Hozzen, 2008, p.30-34). Hozzen (2008) found that there is
an example of some teachers who says, “I tell my students to do some practice in the
classroom according to their syllabus and mostly I teach them using a guide book that was
brought from market so that they will achieve a good result in their exams rather than to
truly communicate.” This contradicts what theorist say about the classroom activities that
“Various kind of activities may be used in classroom such as role play, interviews,
information gap, games, language exchanges, survey and pair work.“ (Barman, Sultana &
Basu, 2006).
This study is inspired by Butler (2005) who conducted a study entitled Comparative

perspectives toward communicative activities among elementary schools teachers in South
Korea, Japan and Taiwan. The finding shows that the teachers did not know how language
can be taught through games, role play and pair work. In addition, Deng and Charles (2006)
found that some teachers have some factors affecting the implementation of communicative
activities to young learners in bilingual classroom. They have some reasons such as defining
motivation and goal, situation and context. Also, Ying (2010) found that the factors to be
considered by teachers in using communicative activities such as linguistic competence,
accuracy and fluency, and using first language in communicative activities. It is believed that
communicative classroom activities will be an effective way both for teachers’
communicative teaching and for students’ communicative learning if they are properly
applied (Gao,2008).

Considering such an issue, I would like to conduct a similar study about factors
affecting the implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual
classroom in subjects such as Civic, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, etc. The exact
reason of this paper is to figure out the teachers’ challenge in implementing communicative
activities in primary level. English education for primary level is generally known as
Teaching English to Young Learners (TEYL). So, my research question for this study is:
What are the factors affecting the implementation of communicative activities to young
learners in bilingual classroom? The aim of this study is to find out the factors that may

appear by implementing communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom.
Furthermore, the significance of the study is to give insight into teachers to teach young
learners and to overcome the challenge in implementing communicative activities in
Indonesia. The findings from this study hopefully can help teachers from all subjects to know
the factors affecting the implementation of communicative activities to young learners in the
English primary classroom.
Communicative and Non-communicative activities
There are many arguments occur related to the application of communicative
activities. Concerning on that arguments, the study on factors affecting the implementation of
communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom provides some definition
and characteristics of communicative activities in English Language Teaching. To ease the
understanding of communicative ideas, Richard (2006) separated the definition between
communicative and non-communicative activities.
According to Richard (2006), communicative activities refer to the tasks or activities
that encourage the students to speak to each other. It gives the students opportunities to be
able speak communicatively through the activities that are given in a classroom activity. It is

generally known as the real-communication activities to learn to use their ideas, share and
receive ideas in order to acquire the language (Ying, 2010). Meanwhile, non-communicative
activities are distinct from natural communication. This activity does not give opportunities

to students to explore in more communicative ways.
Based on the definition as it stated in the previous paragraphs, the characteristic of
communicative ideas is also separated to some criteria in communicative and noncommunicative activities. The teachers bring the communicative ideas in the English
classroom activities as their primary aim for teaching English for communication (Bilash,
2009). To find out the nature of the term of communicative itself, Harmer (1892) study
entitled ”What is communicative?” distinguishes between communicative and noncommunicative activities. The characteristics of communicative and non-communicative
activities can be seen at the end of continuum as follows:

Figure 1. The continuum of communicative and non-communicative activities
(in Harmer, 1982)
Harmer (1982) characterizes communicative activities when the students have desire
to communicate in order to have a communicative purpose while doing the activity. This is to
imply that when students practice speaking, they are concerned with the content of language
rather than the form. It will use a variety of language and the teacher will not intervene in the
communication. In here, it means that the teacher will not correct the pronunciation when the

students make mistakes in their English speaking. In communicative activities, we have no
materials control. So the materials given do not limit the use of grammatical forms.
Meanwhile, in non-communicative activities, the students have no desire to
communicate or even have communicative purpose. The students are involved in repetition or

substitution drills. The goal is not to achieve communication but to achieve accuracy. So,
they will concern on the form of language rather than the content. The teacher will intervene
or correct the mistakes to ensure accuracy. This means that the materials are designed to
focus on the particular item of language or grammar only.

Besides that, Ellis (1990) has further explanation of the list of six criteria for
communicative activities. First, the activity must involve the students to perform a real
communicative purpose rather than practice language for its own sake. The teacher creates
information gaps or an opinion gap through giving different information to pairs of students
so that they can have reason to exchange information. The activity can be done in pairs or
group work by categorizing the partners. Games, role-play, simulations and puzzles make
good contexts for communicative activities (Hadfield, 1999). This is emphasized by Green
(1993) who stated that role-play can be an effective tool for creating communication between
the students.
Second, the activity must create a desire to communicate for students. The students
have to feel a real need to communicate (Qiang, 2000). So, the students have reason to
communicate so that it will make interaction in communication. The activities help to create
an interaction in classroom between teachers and students or between student and student
(Oradee, 2012). This is also echoed by Wilson (2002) who argued that an emphasis on
practicing and learning communicative through interaction can establish the class
participation.

Third, when the students are doing the activity, they must concentrate on what they
are saying, not how they say it. It means that a focus is on language content not language
form. By focusing on meaning, they will have meaningful practice in practicing speaking
skill (Rao, 2002). The students must have a message in what they are saying for example in
real life, people do not ask about our friends’ family in order to practice the language forms.
Though, people ask the questions because they are interested in the information. It means that
they are interested in the language content and not in the language forms (Qiang, 2000). The
assessment is on the ‘product’ or on communicative purpose rather than just on one language
form.
Fourth, the activity must involve the students to use a variety of language. It means
that it is not one specific language form. The students are free to improvise by using
resources they choose (Qiang, 2000). The students should create improvisation on language
form to avoid repetition. The students do not use the same language form repeatedly but use
the number of language patterns.
Next, the activity must be done by the students working by themselves rather than by
the teacher (Qiang, 2000). The teacher’s role is that of a facilitator in the communicative
activity. Mihaela (2011) stated that teachers should not play dominant role in the activities.
The teachers should not help or correct the students’ English during communicative activities.
However, they should plan, structure, and guide communicative activities. Teacher
intervention in classroom should be reduced. Teacher should give students’ opportunity to
speak. So, the teacher should not evaluate how their students do it (Oradee, 2012).
The last is that the activity should not be designed to control what language the
students should use (Belsey, 2009). Controlled material means the language use in the topic is
controlled by the task (Yule, 1997, p. 30-31). The teacher uses the graded or simplified

material for communicative activities. So, Wilson (2002) emphasized that the students have
to choose what language to use in doing the activity rather than merely mechanical practice
of language pattern.
By implementing communicative activities, the students can absorb the language and
train their speaking abilities. It helps the students to practice in real-life situations (Ying,
2010). Sun and Cheng (2000) as cited by Ying (2010) summarized three common features of
communicative activities. First, communicative activities are task-based. The task-based
requires students to involve in activity the classroom. Second, communicative activities are
learner-centered. The activity focuses on students’ initiative and interaction. It means that
students’ participation and responsibility is also needed in classroom activity (Eslami &
Valizadeh, 2004). Third, communicative activities emphasize the use of language input that
means the teacher is also needed to help practicing communication in classroom environment.

THE STUDY
This section discusses about context of the study, participants, data collection
instrument, data collection procedures, and data analysis procedures.
Context of the study
To find out the factors affecting the implementation of communicative activities to
young learners in bilingual classroom, I conducted this study in primary level of Bethany
School in Salatiga, Central Java Indonesia. I chose Bethany Elementary School because of
two reasons. First, Bethany school is a bilingual school that adopted the methodology of
Communicative Language Teaching in the teaching and learning process. Second, it is a

bilingual- elementary school which used English and Indonesian as the medium of teaching
instruction.
Participants
This research used criterion-based sampling which chose twenty Bethany Elementary
School’s teachers, both males and females. I used that sampling procedure because there
were only twenty teachers who taught in Bethany Elementary School in second semester of
year 2012-2013. The participants consisted of English teachers and non-English teachers who
taught from the first to the sixth graders of Bethany Elementary School. The non-English
teacher taught the subjects that used English such as Social Studies, Civic, Mathematics,
Christian Education, Science, Art, Information Communication Technology and Physical
Education. One teacher could also teach more than one subject lesson. The reason I chose the
participants were because they had carried out the various activities in primary level.
Furthermore, all of the participants’ names stated in the data were pseudonym (e.g: T1=
Teacher 1). The list of participants’ personal information was presented in the table as
follows:
Pseudonym
T1
T2
T3
T4
T5
T6
T7

T8
T9

Subject
Physical Education
English
Christian Education
Bahasa Indonesia
Science
Civic
Art
Bahasa Indonesia
Christian Education
Mathematics
Bahasa Indonesia
Javanese Language
Mathematics
Social Studies

Grade
2 to 6
1 and 5
1
3,5 and 6
4
4 to 6
3 to 6
2
3 and 6
1
1
6
4
3

Date

Length of
interview
th
10:45
Mon, Feb 25 , 2013
th
Tue, Feb 26 ,2013
10:15
Wed, Feb 27th , 2013
Thurs, Feb 28th , 2013
Fri, March 1st, 2013

5:38
14:22
7:13

Mon, March 4th, 2013

8:52

Mon, March 4th, 2013

6:51

Tue, March 5th, 2013
Wed, March 6th, 2013

6:49
10:57

T10
T11

English
Social Studies

4 and 6
4 to 6

T12

Science

1 to 3

T13
T14

Mathematics
Music

5
1 to 3, 5

T15

Mathematics
3
Bahasa Indonesia
1
Science
5 and 6
IT Information and 1 to 6
Communication
Technology
Civic
1
Mathematics
2
Mandarin
3 to 5
Mathematics
6

T16
T17

T18
T19
T20

Wed, March 6th, 2013
Thurs, March 7th,
2013
Thurs, March 7th,
2013
th
Fri, March 8 , 2013
Mon, March 11th,
2013
Wed, March 13, 2013

9:15
6:15
7:30
7:29
15:01
4:49

Wed, March 13, 2013
Thurs, March
14th,2013

11:39
13:52

Fri, March 15th, 2013

9:54

Fri, March 15th, 2013
Mon, March
18th ,2013

10:12
6:40

Data Collection Instrument
In attempting to answer the research question considering factors affecting the
implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom, the
methodology used one instrument for qualitative research that was semi-structured interviews.
I used semi-structured interviews because I wanted to explore in-depth information from the
participants’ answers. The semi-structured interviews were conducted by using questions to
interview the participants. The open-ended question interviews contained the main question
such as the questions about their personal information and the factors affecting the
implementation of communicative activities in their classroom. So, I could create the relaxed
atmosphere which led the participants to give in depth information and free responses
(Seliger & Shohamy, 1989). In this interview, the participants were asked some questions
about their opinions. The interview questions were to examine the factors affecting the

implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom (See
Appendix 1).

Data Collection Procedures
To gather the data, the interview started from Feb 25th, 2013 to Mon, March 18th,
2013. Firstly, the data collection procedure was begun by getting permission from the
headmaster of Bethany Elementary School. It was to make sure that I can collect data by
interviewing the teachers from the school. Before I did the real interview with the participants,
I asked one teacher to be the participant of a pilot interview. The purpose of pilot interview
was to check whether the interview questions were understandable or not. From the teacher’s
answer in the pilot interview, I got more ideas and was able to revise the questions and give
the additional questions.
After the interview questions developed, it had been measured several times to
develop the questions. Then, I made an appointment with the participant. There was a
schedule involved to set the time for interview. I met every participant individually to hold an
intensive interview. I used cellular phone-recorder to record the conversation during the
interview. All the interviews were recorded. Each interview lasted around 10-15 minutes. The
participant was allowed to use Bahasa Indonesia during the interview. I conducted interviews
with the 20 participants for 1 month. It took 1 month to accomplish the data collection. Each
day, I did 1 to 2 interviews. Through these interviews, I expected that the participants would
give clear explanations since I did follow-up on the participant’s saying.
Then, after all the data recorded, they were transcribed verbatim. I had done
transcription on the day after I did the interviewing. I directly transcribed on the day after I

finished interviewing the participant. I transcribed the recording by using Express Scribe.
Express Scribe was a software program to ease the recording transcription process. Then, I
transferred the recording file from the format of .amr to .wav by using Format Factory
because Express Scribe only detected the wav file. I re-listened to the recording to analyze
the data. Then, I needed 2 weeks to analyze the data.
Data Analysis Procedures
The type of research in this study was qualitative research. The qualitative data were
taken from the semi-structured interview. The data were analyzed qualitatively by using
descriptive study, where all the data were presented using descriptive written explanation
(Lynch, 1996). The expected data were the written opinions from those teachers from
Bethany School.
After the data were gathered and transcribed, I studied the data in order to find the
answer of the research question. I read carefully the verbatim transcription. Then, I
categorized the subjects from the first grader to sixth grader. I chose the best answer from the
participants.
To conclude the findings, I made a generalization based on the facts. To specify, I
analyzed the answer from the teachers in interview. Then, I classified the participants’ ideas
into several substantial categories. I reread the data several times to comprehend the
information which participant uttered. In this data analysis, I would present each of the
opinion or statement surrounding communicative activities. I described all the reasons,
covering and concluding the similar ideas. To make the analysis brief and clear, I would
combine several statements under one theme.
The first step in the analysis was coding. The data were checked by color coding. The
next step was classifying the coded data from the interview transcription. The data were

color-coded based on the subject lessons and similar ideas related to the factors affecting the
implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom. Finally,
the classified data were interpreted and elaborated on based on my interpretation and related
to the literature review on the characteristic of communicative activities. All in all, I drew a
conclusion toward the study that I had done.

FINDINGS
After collecting and analyzing all of the required data, preliminary analysis of the
semi-structured interview has led the exploration of some factors affecting the
implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom to
several substantial categories. These substantial categories included the factor of age, time
constraints and the nature of subjects. Each of these themes was presented and discussed
below.

1.

The factor of age
Based on the interview to the teachers, the findings showed that the majority of the

teachers perceived the factor of age as their first factor to be considered in implementing
communicative activities in the classroom. The extracts were represented from Grade 1 to
Grade 6 in some subjects’ lesson. Below were some of the teachers’ statements:
Extract 1:
“I think activity that use communicative approach is happen when the teacher did
question and answer to the students. In Civic, I teach about ‘hak dan kewajiban’. When I
asked them, the students give their answer and opinion about what the meaning of what ‘hak
dan kewajiban’ is. The purpose is to make the students understand about the meaning of ‘hak

dan kewajiban’. They automatically have some variety of answers. I did not use role-play
because it is difficult for them” (T18, Civic Grade 1 March 15th, 2013)

T18 stated that the teachers created questions and answers to discuss about ‘hak dan
kewajiban’ in Civic. In this activity, the teachers aimed to make students understand about
the topic rather than to achieve students’ communicative abilities. It could be seen that the
activities had no communicative purpose. Then, the activity had no desire to communicate
because the teacher emphasized on the students’ understanding on the material. In the
classroom, there was only some students answered the teachers’ question about “hak dan
kewajiban” so that some students did not have interaction in communicating. The teacher
focused on form while students answered because the students should repeat the same
grammatical mistake on that language form. The students used a variety of language in
answering the teacher’s question such as “hak is something that we should accept, hak means
our mine”. Since the teacher focused on students’ language form, the teacher directly
corrected students’ grammatical mistakes. The material did not control the language use. So,
the students could answer by using some language patterns.
Next, the second extract was shown in the T18’s answer, for examples:
Extract 2:
“In Mathematics Grade 1 and 2, I used games which is called speak number game.
Speak number is when I said 1, they should say sparkling and when I said 2, they should say
glowing. So, they can say agree or disagree if the game will be played again. One student also
gives the idea for the rule of game. Actually, this game is not related to the material but the
purpose of this game is to practice the students to think faster and keep concentrating. It helps
the students to calculate the number accurately. I think mathematics is not be solved by
discussion or role-play, they need focusing on the material itself which is calculating number
logically. So, I give games to make them fun in learning mathematics.” (T18, Mathematics
Grade 2 March 15th, 2013)

T18 also taught Mathematics Grade 2. T18 argued that teacher carried out activity
named “speak number” game. This game was not related to the materials in mathematics

because the teacher’s purpose was to practice memorizing the number so that the students
were able to think faster and keep concentrating. So, it had no communicative purpose in this
game. Then, this game did not create desire to communicate for students. In this game, the
teacher paid attention on how students’ saying rather than what students saying for example
the correct pronunciation sparkling and glowing. This game allowed the students to use some
variety of language form such as agree or disagree and giving idea for the rules of games.
Since the teacher focus on language form, the teacher directly corrected students’
grammatical error in order to help their pronunciation. So, the teacher always did intervention
while doing the game. The language used in this activity was not control by the task. So, the
students could choose what language to use while doing the activity rather than merely
mechanical practice of language pattern.
Then, the third extract was shown in the T19’s answer, for examples:
Extract 3:
“The students in Grade 3 are difficult to handle in a group because they are still
young children, still like playing with their friends. So, I used whispering games. It is to
remind them about some words in Mandarin. The students should remember this word for
instance ‘y zi, piaò liang’. I also teach them to use some pattern of language such as ‘Lao zhi
shaoshang hao, Lao shi, wo xiang he shui ma, Lao shi wo xiang shang xishoujian ma’ It is a
kind of repetition. It is to make them understand about the words because children absorb
word better. I directly correct them if they make grammatical error.” (T19, Mandarin Grade
3, March 15th, 2013)

Based on that statement, T19 argued that the teacher used whispering game as the
activity to teach students about some words in Mandarin. The activity had no communicative
purpose because the teacher only asked the students to memorize words through whispering
game. The teacher absolutely did not help students to get interaction in communication. The
teacher also directly corrected students’ grammatical error. It was to make students remember
the correct form of language so that they did not repeat the same mistaken. During this game,
the teacher allowed the students to use some language patterns such as “L o shi, z oshang

h o(

✂✁ ✄✆☎✞✝

) (Good Morning), “L o-shi, wo keyi he shui ma?

drink?), “Lao shi, wo keyi shang cesuo ma?”

✟✡✠☞☛✡✌✎✍✑✏✓✒

✔✂✕ ✟✡✠✖☛✡✗✙✘✞✚✂✏✛✒

(Can I

(May I go to the

toilet?). So, the students did not use the same language form repeatedly. Since the teacher
focus on language forms, there was teacher’s intervention to correct student’s English
pronunciation during the activities. The material was not designed to control the language
used so students could practice some language forms.
Next, the fourth extract was shown in the T4’s answer, for examples:
Extract 4:
“I invited my students Grade 4 to discuss about electric parallel. The topic is about
lights that consist of translucent, opaque, and transparent. The purpose is to invite them in
debating about the correct organization of electric parallel. The reason is because they have
understood on how to discuss. I teach them to be able utter their ideas in the classroom
activities. I motivate them in asking question. The question is emphasized about what the
components of lights are. I evaluate their mistakes in the confirmation because the
arrangement is Exploration-Elaboration and Confirmation Procedures.”(T4, Science Grade 4,
Feb 28th, 2013)

T4 stated that the activity used in the Science classroom was discussion about electric
parallel of lights. The teacher’s purpose was to improve students’ speaking ability through
inviting them in debating about correct organization of electric parallel. To improve students’
speaking ability, the teacher focused on language content rather than language form through
discussion in the classroom. The teacher taught the students to be able to utter their ideas so
students must had a message in what they were saying. In this activity, the teacher also used
one item of language for instance ‘what is the component of lights’. It was only one specific
of language that was WH-question. Then, the teacher evaluated students’ performance in the
confirmation procedure because the teacher used the arrangement of ExplorationElaboration-and Confirmation procedures. So, the material used was still controlled by the
teacher about the pattern of WH-question for instance ‘what is the component of lights’.

Next, the fifth extract was shown in the T11’s answer, for examples:
Extract 5:
“I use pair-work in my class. The topic is about the history of ‘koperasi’ in Social
Studies. The purpose is to achieve communication in class. So, the students should mention
and identify the symbol of ‘koperasi Indonesia’, for example, the grains means prosperity, the
tree means togetherness and etc. I give them visualization by showing the symbol of ‘koperasi
Indonesia’. I ask them to practice giving question-answer with their partners. They are
enthusiastic because they are able to do it. I evaluate their performance in the confirmation
because I do not want to limit their time to speak. I encourage their speaking abilities even
though they still make grammatical error in pronunciation. (T11, Social Studies, Grade 5,
March, 7th, 2013)

T11 answered that the teachers’ carried out the activity which was pair-work about
‘koperasi Indonesia’. From the activity, the teacher created an activity to achieve the
communicative purpose by practicing question and answer with the partners. The activity
also made the students to have a desire to communicate. Furthermore, the teacher encourages
student’s skill in speaking in their content speaking not from. In this activity, there was only
one language item because the teacher asked the students to practice by using the word
‘means’ for example the grains means prosperity, the tree means togetherness and etc .
Moreover, the teacher did not do intervention to the students while doing the activity so that
the teacher evaluated students’ pronunciation in the confirmation. Also, the material was used
to control the language used about the words ‘means’ only. The language used in the topic
was controlled by the material itself.
Last, the sixth extract was shown in the T5’s answer, for examples:
Extract 6:
“I often use simulations in my class. The topic is about party election. This material
is for students Grade 6 so they are able to do the simulation. The students learn to make small
party election. Then, they practice the procedures on how the party election process such as
first, you should register yourself, etc. The purpose is to make the students understand the
real condition of party election in their environment. I focus on student-centered so they find
the source of party election by themselves. In the end of simulations, there is always the
evaluation on student’s pronunciation. For me, the content and language exposure should be
balanced to encourage their skills.” (T5, Civic Grade 6, March 1st, 2013)

Based on that statement, T5 stated that the teachers’ carried out the activity which was
simulations about party election. From the activity, it could be seen that the teacher created a
simulation to achieve the communicative purpose by practicing the real condition of a party
election. The activity also made the students to have desire to communicate with their friends
through practicing language about procedures. Then, the teacher assessed students’ content of
speaking rather than on grammatical form in order to encourage student’s skill in speaking. In
this activity, there was only one language item because the teacher asked the students to
practice about the procedures in party election by using first, second, third, etc. Moreover, the
teacher did not do intervention to the students while doing the activity. The teacher did the
evaluation in the end of activity in order to evaluate students’ performance in their
pronunciation. Also, the material was used to control the language used about procedure only.
The language used in the topic was controlled by the material itself. Therefore, it limited the
students to use some language patterns in simulations. So, the activities that teachers used in
Grade 1-6 were question and answer, speak and number game, whispering game, discussion,
pair-work, and simulation.
2. Time Constraints
The second consideration that the majority of the teachers had was due to time
constraints. The findings were shown in the teachers’ answers:
“To achieve the teaching objective goal by using role-play, drama, and simulation activity,
it is slightly wasting time. So, I directly teach on how the students understand about
phenomenon by demonstrate things.” (T16, Science Grade 5, March 13, 2013)

The example above was one of the Science teacher’s answers when I asked about the
factors affecting the implementation of communicative activities to young learners. Based on
that statement, the teacher perceived that communicative activities would spend more time in

class. There was not enough time to use communicative activities such as drama, role-play,
and simulation due to time constraint. The teacher needed more time to apply some
communicative activities. The findings were also supported by other teachers’ answer:
“If there were enough time, I would use drama, discussion and simulation. In here,
time means the material given to the students. If in one semester there were 3 units of lesson, it
would be possible using role-play or fun class. But in this case, there are 7 units of lesson in
one semester that contained many grammars. Since role-play uses a lot of time, I think there is
impossible to teach seven kinds of grammar in one semester by using role-play. The problem is
in the time. So, I should manage the time well.
Moreover, there are many holiday in Indonesia so it seizes the time from the teacher. So, I
teach on their material about grammar function will, present tense, if conditional, be going to.
In one meeting is one material only. I usually use games such as repeating sentence, guessing
gestures, spelling, whispering, dialog games so that I can reach the goal. In teaching about
grammars, I asked them to make a poem individually because it is difficult to make poem in
group because the ideas of each student will be different. At that time I ask them to read in
front of class. I teach their communicativeness through this way. Sometimes I directly correct
their mispronunciation. (T10, English Grade 3, Wed, March 6th, 2013)

The finding above displayed that the teachers dealt with the time when they delivered
the materials by using communicative activities. There were some reasons from the teachers
which were gained by the teacher’s sentences that showed many materials in one semester. If
in one semester there were only few materials or 3 units to be taught, it would be possible to
apply communicative activities. So, the teacher would have longer time to do the
communicative activities. In this case, there should be 7 unit of material in each semester. So,
there is very limited time if the teacher designed materials using the communicative activities.
The teacher focused on the seven kinds of grammars in one semester. Moreover, there was
many occasion that caused holiday in Indonesia so that it would make the teacher lack time.
3.

The nature of subjects
By teaching using communicative activities, the teacher had some considerations about

the application of communicative activities in their classroom. The third consideration was
the nature of subjects. It means that the subject could not apply communicative activities

because the subject was naturally taught by using Education Software. The subject was
Information and Communication Technology which used Games Education Software in the
classroom activities. So, all the materials were delivered by using Games Education Software.
The idea below was also represented by the teachers while delivering activity in the
classroom. The teacher stated as follows:
“In IT, I used Games Education Software to deliver the material Microsoft Paint for IT. It
is about the rule and reward how to play. Then the students play it in the group work. In my
opinion, some students who have good socialization will prefer doing activities in group to
individual. They are more enthusiastic in teamwork when they play from Software Education. Also,
they showed their solidarity in doing group activity to other friends. During the activities, I
monitor them in speaking and also, in my opinion, grammar in language is not the main thing but
the main thing is the content speaking itself. Don’t laugh at them if they make grammatical mistake
as long as they know the vocabulary, word choice in their communication. It made them afraid to
speak English. Correcting the language is the job of English teacher. But I still evaluate their
mispronunciation. “(T17, IT Information and Communication Technology Grade 1-6, March 14th,
2013)

In the subject of IT, the teacher taught about Microsoft Paint by using Games
Education Software. It indicated that the activities used had no communicative purpose
because it invited the students operating Microsoft paint. The teacher also stated that students
may do the task in group or individually. It showed children characteristic when students had
good socialization in doing activity in group. But, there was no desire to communicate
because between the students played with their own computer. The teacher monitored
students’ speaking while doing the activity so that the teachers focus on content speaking.
The teacher also believed that grammar was the job for English teacher to teach the correct
grammar. So, it allowed the students using variety of language during playing Software
Education in group. Even though the teacher focused on content, sometimes the teacher still
corrected students’ mispronunciation. The material did not control students’ language use so
that students could use some language pattern during the activities. Next, the nature of
mathematic was calculating. However, Mathematics’ teacher could apply communicative

activities because the materials were naturally delivered by using problem-solving activity.
The teacher stated as follows:
“I have used role-play to deliver the material about fraction and denominator. My role play
is student-centered by dividing them into groups. It means, I ask the students to be the active
participant in doing the activities. So, students are more cooperative. The purpose is to make them
understand more about what fractions are. I divide them into groups and I ask then to solve the
problem about “soal cerita” in mathematics. Point C will be used to problem-solve. So, when they
have grammatical mistakes in role-play, I automatically correct them. The important thing is that
the students will have interaction in understanding the concept.” (T15, Mathematic Grade 3, Wed,
March 13, 2013)

In this subject, the teacher purpose was to make students understand the material
about fractions. So, it would be conclude that the activity had no communicative purpose.
Also, the students had desire to communicative through problem-solving in this activity. So,
they could communicate each other to solve a problem in mathematics exercises. The teacher
perceived that role-play could be used in Mathematic by dividing students’ into group.
Teacher thought that role-play was same with group work. While doing the problem-solving
discussion, the teacher assessed on students’ speaking on language forms. Then, it allowed
students to use a variety of language while interaction with their friends. There was still
teacher intervention while doing the problem-solving. The teacher directly corrected
students’ grammatical mistake. The activity was not designed to control what language
students’ use.
The finding above displayed that in this problem solving, the teacher did the activity
in between of the communicative and non-communicative activities characteristics. That was
no communicative purpose, focus on forms, and teacher intervention which were noncommunicative activities characteristics. Also, desire to communicate, variety of language,
and no materials control were communicative activities characteristics. As Oradee (2012)
stated that problem-solving was an effective activity to teach communicative ideas.

CONCLUSION
The study set out to find out the factors affecting the implementation of
communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom so that teachers would
have insight to teach them about the application of communicative activities in Indonesia.
From the result above, it implied that there were some factors in applying communicative
activities in the classroom. The study has found three factors such as factor of students’ age,
time constraints, and the nature of the subject to be considered when conducting teaching
using communicative activities. From all the analysis presented above, I could say that
generally some activities only used several characteristics of communicative activities. The
teacher did not implement all the characteristics of communicative activities such as
communicative purpose, desire to communicate, focus on content, variety of language, no
teacher intervention, and no materials control.
In addition to that explanation, these results suggested that some communicative
activities could apply in bilingual school in order to get successful teaching–learning activity,
especially in Bethany Elementary School. Knowing the application of communicative
activities gave positive contribution to the development of teaching because all the findings
guided the teacher to have insight into the application of communicative activities in the
English classroom. Generally, the result supported that the teacher have consideration in
implementing communicative activities in some subject such as Social Studies, Civic,
Science, Mathematics, and etc. From the study, I hope that the study on the factors affecting
the implementation of communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom
would give general overview about the application of communicative activities to teach in the
Bilingual Elementary classroom.

Based on the findings, I would suggest that more training on implementing
communicative activities needs to be provided. It is expected that by providing enough
training, the teacher could overcome the factor that may affect by implementing
communicative activities to young learners in bilingual classroom
Overall, the limitation of study is on the context of the study. The setting of this study
is only on one particular bilingual-primary school. Therefore, this study cannot be
generalized. For further research, it would be better if there are more participants from
different school contexts. Since this study only involves one bilingual-primary school, it is
yet unknown that there would be different findings in the setting and participants enlarged.
Besides that, it will be better if teachers’ belief on communicative activities can also be
investigated.

Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like praise my deepest gratitude to my amazing Lord, Jesus Christ,
for his blessing and thankful guidance until the end of my study. Also, this thesis would not
have been possible without the support of many people. The first wonderful person I grant
my gratitude is to my supervisor, Anita Kurniawati, M.Hum. for her support, help, guidance,
and patience. I remember clearly every suggestion she showed to excel my work. Next person,
my gratitude goes to my examiner, Rindang Widiningrum, M.Hum. She kindly advised
several meaningful revisions to make this thesis complete. Special thanks also go to my
participants, Bethany Elementary School’s teachers in Salatiga for their sincerely
contribution for this study. My simple but lovely gratitude goes to all of my beloved friends,
Voice of Satya Wacana Christian University & EDers angkatan 2008 who are always
supporting me to finish my thesis. I would also wish to express my love and gratitude to my
beloved family (Iyut Murtini, Yona Sam, Jeslyn Wilona, Andika Santo), Mami & Papi (Hari
Sulisyowati & Tenang Sam) for their support, care and endless love in motivating me to
finish this thesis.

REFERENCES
Barman, B. Sultana, Z. and Basu, B.L. (2006). ELT Theory and Practice. Dhaka: Friends’
Book Corner. Retrieved January 12, 2013 from https://google.scholar.com//
Belsey, N. (2009). Communicative Activity in the English Classroom. A Study of Spoken
English in Year 5. Malmohogskola: Retrieved November 29, 2012 from
https://google.scholar.com//
Bilash, O. (2009). Communicative Activities. What counts as Speaking? Web. November 21,
2011 from https://sites.google.com/site/communicativeactivities.olenka/
Butler, Y. G. (2005). Comparative perspectives toward communicative activities among
elementary school teachers in South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. Language Teaching
Research 9 (4), 423-446. University of Pennsylvania.
Deng, C. R. & Carless, D. (2009). The communicativeness of activities i