T1 112011070 Full text

Strategic Competence to Compensate Students’ Linguistic
Deficiencies: A Case Study in a Christian Primary School in Salatiga
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
SarjanaPendidikan

Dewi Ratoja D.W
112011070

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2016

1

Strategic Competence to Compensate Students’ Linguistic
Deficiencies: A Case Study in a Christian Primary School in Salatiga
THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
SarjanaPendidikan

Dewi Ratoja D.W
112011070

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
SALATIGA
2016

i

ii

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@ 2014. Dewi Ratoja D.W and Joseph Ernest Mambu, S.Pd., M.A, Ph.D.

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

Dewi Ratoja D.W:

iii

iv

TABLE OF CONTENT
COVER PAGE..................................................................................................i
APPROVAL FORM.......................................................................................ii
COPYRIGHT STATEMENT......................................................................iii
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION..................................vi

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................1
I.INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1
II.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................2
CLT in Asean Countries...................................................................................3
Celce Murcia’s Communicative Strategies......................................................4
III.THE STUDY.............................................................................................5
Context of Study..............................................................................................5
Participants.......................................................................................................5
Data Collection Procedure...............................................................................6
Data Analysis Procedure..................................................................................7
IV.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..............................................................7
Translation Strategies.......................................................................................7
Paraphrasing Strategy.....................................................................................12
Meta-Cognitive Strategy................................................................................13
The Precentage of Strategy............................................................................14
Celce Murcia’s Strategy................................................................................14
CLT Implementation in CESS.......................................................................19

v

V.CONCLUSION.........................................................................................20
VI.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................23
VII.REFERENCES......................................................................................24
APPENDIX 1................................................................................................26

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. L1 to L2 Translation Strategy by Teacher
Table 2. Direct Translation Strategy by Teacher
Table 3. L2 to L1 Translation Strategy by Teacher
Table 4. L2 to L1 Translation Strategy by Fellow Student
Table 5. Paraphrasing in L1 Strategy
Table 6. Paraphrasing in L2 Strategy
Table 7. Meta-Cognitive Strategy

vii

Strategic Competence to Compensate Students’ Linguistic
Deficiencies: A Case Study in a Christian Primary School in Salatiga

ABSTRACT
Nowadays English exposure is high especially in school. In Indonesia, the
number of schools that use English as Medium of Instruction(EMI) is increasing.
This condition makes students face several linguistic deficiencies. Some of them
speak English every time and forget how to speak in Bahasa Indonesia. This study
aimed to find the strategic competence that can be used to compensate linguistic gaps
or difficulties at a primary school level. The strategic competence by Celce
Murcia(2007) became the main theoretical framework for this study. The study is
qualitative that used one type of data collection, which is observation. The study
would be held in Christian Elementary School in Salatiga. The researcher would have
eight classroom sessions of observation in Bahasa Indonesia classes. The second until
fourth grade will be the focus of this study. Findings suggest that the teachers and
their studentsused their own strategies to compensate the deficiencies. Those
strategies are translation, paraphrasing and meta-cognitive. Some implications for
pedagogy and further research are suggested.
Key words: L1, Linguistic deficiencies, Strategic competence

INTRODUCTION
Communicative Language Teaching(CLT) is a very popular method in
teaching learning activity. As Jarvis, as cited in Kustati (2013, p. 267), put it: “[The]

current trend in the teaching of EFL in Southeast Asia has given emphasis on
communicative language teaching (CLT) as one of the innovative methods within the
last quarter of a century.” The aim of this language teaching approach is to encourage
learners to communicate effectively in a target language or to achieve communicative
competence, especially in second/foreign language (S/FL). In the current study there
are four existing models of communicative competence (Canale& Swain, 1980, as

1

cited in Celce-Murcia, 2007). The first is Grammaticalcompetence. It isthe
knowledge of the language code. The second is Sociolinguistic competence—the
mastery of the sociocultural code of language use. The third is Discourse
competence—the ability to combine language structures into different types of
cohesive texts. The last is Strategic competence—the knowledge of verbal and nonverbal communication strategies which enhance the efficiency of communication.
The current study will focus on teachers’ strategic competence in addressing
the students’ first language (L1) linguistic deficiencies. In one of Christian
Elementary School in Salatiga (CESS), the Indonesian students have been exposed
with English through the school’s immersion program. Therefore, they tend to master
English, as the second language (L2), rather than Bahasa Indonesia, which is
supposed to be their first language(L1). Some of them have difficulties in L1

structure and expression. That is why in this study that problem will be discussed.
However, the focus of this study is not yet discussed in the CLT literature. Most CLT
studies attempt to answer how the CLT approach is viewed and implemented in
various Asian countries (Kwangsawad, 2007; Mustafa, 2001; Nur, 2003; and Van,
2008) in the context of ELT. These current studies have not discussed much on how
knowledge of components of communicative competence, especially strategic
competence, can be useful for learners, regardless of the teachers’ or schools’
language teaching approach.

2

LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Framework
CLT in ASEAN Countries
In several of Asian countries such as China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand
and Indonesia, the reasons of difficultiesin CLT implementation are similar. The first
difficulty is misconception of CLT implementation. The second difficulty is teachers’
lack of teaching repertoire. In Vietnam, Van (2008 as cited in Kustati, 2013) “states
that the implementation of CLT faces three challenges in Vietnamese schools: the
Vietnamese

traditional

culture

of

learning;

teachers’

limited

professional

development and the constraints ofthe curriculum”(p.271).
Kwangsawad (2007) found that CLT has been unsuccessfully implemented in
Thailand, because the students did not show any progress on L2 acquisition. The third
difficulty is strong first language and environment influence. In Thailand, The
Ministry of education made a Project for Improving Secondary English Teacher

(PISET) to support CLT but the students seemunable to depart from overreliance to
their first language. In Indonesia, Nur (2003) stated that the Indonesian government
mandates foreign language to be included in national schools’ curriculum. However,
Mustafa (2001) argued that CLT implementation has failed in Indonesia because
Indonesia focuses on standardized national exam. The fourth difficulty is class
situation. In Vietnam, class conditions do not allow students to have plenty speaking
opportunities. Moreover, the class size is typically large, as there are 30-40 students

3

in a class. Lewis(1996) said that most learners are passive in classes that attempt to
utilize CLT. The fifth, in certain condition like what happen in Christian Elementary
School in SalatigaCESS, the L1 deficiencies became the main reason of difficulty in
CLT implementation. However, there is no study that focuses on that particular
difficulty. That is why in this study, the researcher want to make a case for studies in
the use of strategic competence to learn L1 since this case is not yet explored in the
literature. The current study from Szulc-Kurpaska(2000) explain about English as
Foreign Language(EFL) learners that have difficulties in speaking English. Another
study is from McGrath (2013). His research participants are English Language
Learner(ELL) in Kindergarten. However in his study, the difficulty is second

language acquisition.
Celce-Murcia’s Communicative Strategies
Actually there are several strategies that can be used to compensate students
learning deficiencies through strategic competence. Strategic competence is one of
the components of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia,Dörnyei, &Turrel,
1995, as cited in Soler&Jordà, 2007).
Some applied linguists have been working on conceptualizing teacher’s
strategic competence. The crucial strategies, which are the ones we highlighted in
Celce-Murcia(2007, pp.26–29), are communication strategies; they include
thefollowing:

4



Achievement:strategiesof

approximation,

circumlocution,

codeswitching,miming, etc.


Stalling or time gaining: using phrases like Where was I? Could yourepeat
that?



Self-monitoring: using phrases that allow for self-repair like I mean….



Interacting: these are strategies that include appeals forhelp/clarification, that
involve meaning negotiation, or that involvecomprehension and confirmation
checks, etc.



Social: these strategies involve seeking out native speakers to practicewith,
actively looking for opportunities to use the target language.

THE STUDY
Context of the study
The study will be specified in one Christian elementary school in Salatiga
(CESS).That school has been using English for the medium of instruction(EMI) for
about 4 years. The entire subjectsare taught in English, except Bahasa Indonesia and
BahasaJawa. Actually, there is no problem with EMI in that schools, since the
English teachers in CESS have a relatively good command of English. However, the
problem comes up when some of the studentslearn in Bahasa Indonesia classes. Some
of them do notknow some of Indonesian expression and structures. They do not really
communicate well in Bahasa Indonesia, especially in Indonesian lessons.
Consequently, the Bahasa Indonesiateacher should explain the lesson in English

5

instead of Bahasa Indonesia. Ironically, BahasaIndonesia is the first language for all
of the students but some of them have better acquisition in English.
Participants
The study will analyze on how the teachers compensate the gaps or
deficienciesof students’ L1. The participantsincluded English teachers, Bahasa
Indonesia teachers and students in the second until the fourth grade (each grade has
two classes).The researcher only observedIndonesian language teachers in Bahasa
Indonesia classes because the problems appear in this course. The researcher
interviewed the teachers if necessary, but not the students.However, the researcher
still documented the students’ language use. There are three Bahasa Indonesia.
Teacher 1 for second graded, Teacher 2 for third graded and Teacher 3 for fourth
graded.
Data Collection Procedure
The only data collection method used in this study is observation. The aim is
to find out the difficulties faced by the students and the strategy used by the teachers.I
did the observation in each class of Christian Elementary School in Salatiga (CESS).
The observation was done in Indonesian classes from second grade until fourth grade.
There were eight sessions of observation. The observation was in Bahasa Indonesia
classes. The researcher would listen and watch the teaching-learning activities of the
teacher and students and took notes at important part. There is no recording or video
of teaching-learning activity because the school did not allow me to record classroom
interactions with any electronic device. The observation was done from September 30
6

to October 6, 2015. The observation was hold three times in second grade, two times
in third grade and three times in fourh grade.

Data Analysis Procedure
I analyzed the teaching learning activity using Celce Murcia’s Strategic
Competence as a reference. I categorized eachevidence of students’ deficiencies and
teachers’ strategies used during the observation. The data will be discussed in the
next section of the study.

FINDINGS AND DICUSSION
The study on how the teachers compensate the gap or deficiencies of students’
L1
In the data collection there are three strategic competence used. The first one
is translation strategy. This strategy is divided into four parts such as L1 to L2
translation by teacher (i.e., the teacher translated L1 to L2), L2 to L1 translation by
teacher(i.e., the teacher translated L2 to L1), L2 to L1 translation by fellow student
(i.e., the other student who knows Bahasa Indonesia better tried to help their friends
with translating from L2 to L1), and direct translation (i.e., the teacher gave direct
evaluation while the student was speaking). The second strategy used is paraphrasing.
It means that the teacher explained something in different words. It is divided into
two parts such as paraphrasing into L1(i.e., the teacher explained something in L2
using L1) and paraphrasing into L2 (i.e., the teacher explain something in L2 using

7

L1). The last strategy is meta-cognitive strategy (it is shown on how the teacher tries
to explain grammatical functions of words using students’ L1 and L2. In the data
collection of this study,Ifound that in the first day (in the 4th grade)the teacher used
three communicative strategies.
Translation strategy
Translation strategy is divided into four. The first strategy is L1 to L2
translation by the teacher. This strategy appears nine times during eight sessions of
observation. The first evidence is in the first day of observation, in the fourth grade.
The teacher translated “Kontakmata! Mana penontonnya?” (Eye contact! Where is
the audience!)into “Where is your audience?”. The second evidence is when the
teacher asked new words to check students’ understanding. The teacher translated
“Saran” into “critics” [sic]. The third evidence is while the teacher explained a
lesson.The teacher translated “Jadititikdigunakanuntukmengakhirikalimat” (So,
period is used to end asentence)into “Dot digunakan at the end of the sentence.”The
fourth evidence is similar with the third evidence. The teachers translated
“Komadigunakanuntukmenyambungduakalimatmenjadisatu” into “Comma is used to
connect between sentences” The fifth evidence is when the teacher gave
instructions.The teacher translated “Sekarang, ceritakantentangliburankemarin” into
“Tell about your last holiday.” The sixth evidence is similar with the fifth evidence.
The

teacher

translated

“Hubungkankalimat-kalimat

di

halaman

5

menjadisatuparagraf” into “Arrange the sentences into paragraph.” The seventh,

8

eighth and ninth evidences happened during teacher explanation. Seventh, when the
teacher translates “Ituterbalik!” into “It shuffled!” Eighth, when the teacher translate
“....yang pentingpercayadiri” into “Be confident.” The last, when the teacher
translated “Liatmatatemannya!” into “Look at your friends’ eyes!”(see Table 1).
Table 1. L1 to L2 Translation Strategy by Teachers
L1 to L2
by
Teacher

L1 to L2
by
Teacher

L1 to L2
by
Teacher

L1 to L2 by Teacher

L1 to L2 by
Teacher

L1 to L2 by
Teacher

Instruction
(During
student’s
presentatio
n, the
teacher
gives
direct
evaluation
)

Asking
new words
(In the end
of the
explanatio
n, the
teacher
check the
students’
undestandi
ng)

Explanatio
n (The
teacher still
using L2 to
help the
students get
better
understandi
ng)

Instruction (The teacher translate
L1 explanation into L2 to help
the student get better
understanding)

Instruction
(The teacher
translate L1
explanation
into L2 to help
the student get
better
understanding)

Instruction
(The teacher
translate L1
explanation
into L2 to help
the student get
better
understanding)

T : Jadi
titik
digunakan
untuk
mengakhiri
kalimat.
Dot
digunakan
at the end
of the
sentence
Explanatio
n (The
teacher
translate L1
explanation
into L2 to
help the
student get
better
understandi
ng)
T: Koma
digunakan
untuk
menyambu
ng dua
kalimat
menjadi

T
:Sekarangceritakantentangliburan
kemarin.

T:
Hubungkankali
mat-kalimat di
halaman 5
menjadisatu
paragraph

T: ...yang
pentingpercaya
diri

S: Pardon, miss?

S: Pardon,
miss?

S: apa , Miss?

T:Tell about your last holiday

T : Arrange the
sentence into
paragraph

T: Be
Confidence

T: Kontak
Mata!
Mana
penontonn
ya?

S: (*no
response)

T: Apakah
ada katakata yang
susah?

T: Where
is your
audience?

S: Saran,
Miss

9

T: Saran
itu
"critics"

satu
S: Miss, I
don't
understand

S: Okay, miss

T : Comma
is used to
connect
between
sentences

S: okay Miss

During Lesson
(The teacher
translate L1
explanation
into L2 to help
the student get
better
understanding)
T: Ituterbalik
S: Apamiss?
T: It shuffled

During Lesson
(The teacher
translate L1
explanation
into L2 to help
the student get
better
understanding)
T:
Lihatmatatema
nnya

S: (*still didn't
understand)
T: Look at your
friends' eyes!
S: *Look at his
friends' eyes

S: okay, Miss

The second strategy in translation is direct translation by teacher. There are
two evidences of this strategy in the observation. The first evidence is when the
teacher giving command. The teacher directly changed his/her command from
“Affan, don’t play! Tadikatanyamaukekamarmandi?” into “You say to me to go to
bathroom. Don’t play!” The second evidence happened while the teacher was giving
instruction. The teacher translates “Bukabukuhalamanenam!” into “Open your book
at page six!”(see Table 2).
Table 2. Direct Translation Strategy
Direct translation by Teacher
Command (while the teacher explaining the
lesson, one of students playing outside the
class)

Direct translation by Teacher
Instruction

T :Bukabukuhalamanenam!

10

T :Affan, don't play!
Tadikatanyamaukekamarmandi?

S : (*some of students start to open their
book and some of them still confuse)
(*student still confuse with L1 instruction)
T: Open your book at page six!

S : Pardon, miss?
T : You say to me to go to bathroom. Don't
play!
S : Okay, miss

The third strategy in translation is L2 to L1 translation by teacher. There are
five evidences in this strategy. The first evidence happened at the last of student’s
presentation. The teacher translate “Lastly, thank you for watching” into “Dan yang
terakhir, terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. The second evidence is during the
explanation. The teacher asked the students to translate “characters’ name.” The
students translate it into “namatokoh.” The third evidence happened while the teacher
evaluated his/her student’s presentation. The teacher translateda student’s sentence
“Thank you for your attention” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. The fourth
evidence happened during the lesson. The teacher translated the student’s sentence
“Her name is Sarah.” into “Namanya Sarah.” The last evidence happenedwhen the
teacher assisted the students. The teacher translated “...very kind...” into
“sangatbaik”(see Table 3).
Table 3. L2 to L1 Strategy by Teacher
L2 to L1 by Teacher

The last part of students
presentation

L2 to L1
by
Teacher
Explanatio
n

L2 to L1 by Teacher

L2 to L1 by Teacher

During Lesson (The
teacher directly evaluate
the children presentation
with L1 translation)

During Lesson (The
teacher try to translate L2
to L1 directly to get
better acquirement)

11

S : Lastly, thank you
for watching
T: Dan yang terakhir,
terimakasihatasperhatia
nnya

T: Ada
character's
name.
Bahasa
Indonesian
ya
character's
name apa?
S: Nama
tokoh,
Miss

S: Thank You for your
attention

S: Her name is Sarah

T:
Terimakasihatasperhatia
nnya

T: Namanya Sarah

S: Terima
kasihatasperhatiannya
(*repeat the teacher)

S: Namanya Sarah
(*repeat the teacher)
During Lesson (The
teacher assist the student
to get better language
expression in L1)
S:
Diasangatcantikdan....hm
m... Miss, what is very
kind in Indonesia?
T: Sangatbaik
S:
Diasangatcantikdansanga
tbaik

The fourth strategy in translation is L2 to L1 translation by fellow student.
There are two evidences in this strategy. The first evidence happened in the middle of
teacher’s explanation. A student(S2), who is better at Bahasa Indonesia, corrected the
student that had a language deficiency(S1) with translating “miss, Denis is playing.”
into “miss, Denisbermain.”.The second evidence is also during the lesson. Fellow
student help S1 to compensate language deficiency by translating “Miss, I’m
finished” into “Miss, sayasudahselesai.”(see Table 4).

12

Table 4. L2 to L1 Translation by a Fellow Student
L2 to L1 by Fellow Student
In the middle of explanation (One of students
playing and didn’t pay attention. Other student
tell the teacher in L2)

L2 to L1 by Fellow Student
During Lesson (After finish the task
given, the student tell the teacher using
L2)
S1: Miss, aku finished.

Student 1: Miss, Denis playing.

S2: In Indonesia,please. Miss,
sudahselesai.

Student 2: In Indonesia, please. Miss, Denis
bermain.

T :Oke, semuanya finished?
Sudahselesai?
All Students: Sudahselesai.

Paraphrasing Strategy
Paraphrasing strategy is divided into two. The first strategy is paraphrasing in
L1. There is one of evidence of this strategy in a whole observation. The evidence
happened during a teacher’s explanation. The teacher paraphrase “meneliti” into
“mempelajari”(see Table 5).
Table 5. Paraphrasing in L1 Strategy
Paraprasing in L1
Explanation (The teacher explain how to get the best score in exam)
T: Ketikakamusudahmeneliti
S : Miss, what is meneliti?
T: Artinyamempelajari

The second strategy is paraphrasing in L2. There are two evidences appear
during the observation. The first evidence happenedat the end of the lesson. The
13

teacher paraphrased “apakahadapertanyaan?” into “is that clear?” The second
evidence happened while the teacher tried to explain “Janganlupanamanamatokohnya. Janganterbalikya!” in L2, “Don’t forget each character’s name.”(see
Table 6).
Table 6. Paraphrasing in L2 Strategy
Paraphrasing in L2
At the end of the lesson

Paraphrasing in L2
Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation
into L2 to help the student get better
understanding)
T: Janganlupanama-namatokohnya.
Janganterbalikya!

T: Apakahadapertanyaan? Is
that clear?
S: Clear, Miss

S: Pardon, miss?
T: Don't forget each character's name
S: Okay, Miss

Meta-Cognitive Strategy
The last strategy that the researcher found is meta-cognitive. There is one of
evidence in a whole observation session. The evidence happened while the teacher
explained about presentation and a student asked the difference between “Presenter”
in Bahasa Indonesia and English. Then, the teacher explained about the different
pronunciation of “Presenter (pri’zentə(r))” and “Presenter (presentər)”(seeTable 7).

14

Table 7. Meta-Cognitive Strategy
Meta- Cognitive
Explanation (In the middle of the lesson. The teacher explain about
presenter).
T: Presenter(in Indonesia) or Presenter (in English) adalah orang yang
menyampaikanpresentasi.

The percentage of strategies
Strategies Used

Amount of Evidence Appear

The Precentage

L1 to L2 translation strategy

9

40.91%

Direct translation strategy

2

9.08%

L2 to L1 translation by teacher

5

22.71%

L2 to L1 translation by fellow

2

9.08%

Paraphrasing strategy in L1

1

4.54%

Paraphrasing strategy in L2

2

9.08%

Meta-cognitive strategy

1

4.54%

student

I also put the observation data on percentage. The total evidence that have
been noted by the researcher is 22 evidences (100%). L1 to L2 translation strategy by
teacher appears 9 times in the observation (40.91%). Direct translation strategy by
teacher appears 2 times in the observation (9.08%). L2 to L1 translation by teacher
appears 5 times in the observation (22.71%). L2 to L1 translation by fellow student
appears 2 times in the observation (9.08%). Paraphrasing strategy in L1 appears once

15

in the observation (4.54%). Paraphrasing strategy in L2 appears 2 times in the
observation (9.08%). Meta-cognitive strategy appears once in the observation
(4.54%).

Findings in View of Celce-Murcia’s Theoretical Framework
Interaction strategy
As the findings above suggest, translation was the most widely used strategy
in class, especially, translation strategy from L1 to L2 by the teacher. This strategy
was used in seven of eight sessions of observation. This strategy was used in giving
instructions, giving explanation and asking new words. This strategy is therefore in
line with interaction strategy by Celce Murcia(2007). It involves meaning negotiation
when a student askedhis/her teacher about the words he/she did not understand and
the teacher translated it into English (see Tables1, 2,3 and 4). Direct translation
strategy also related to interaction strategy. This strategy demands comprehension
from the students. The teacher will directly use this strategy to avoid students’
language misunderstanding. In Table 2 we can see that the students did not
understand what his/her teacher said in Bahasa Indonesia. After the teacher translated
it into L2, they say “Okay, miss.”. This expression shows that the student achieved a
language comprehension through direct translation strategy.
Another translation strategy similar to interaction strategy is L2 to L1
translation by the teacher. This strategy contains information checks. For example in

16

Table 3, a student asked the teacher “...Miss, what is very kind in Indonesia?”. This
expression demands a confirmation from the teacher. Interaction strategy contains
point of clarification. It is similar to L2 to L1 translation by fellow student. In Table
4, a student said, “Miss, aku finished.”. Another student answer that student by
saying, “In Indonesia, please. Miss, sudahselesai.”.In this part we can see that point
of clarification appear, on how another student try to clarify the student that facing
language deficiency.
The importance of interaction
Another important thing the researcher found is concerned with the interaction
between teacher and learner in class, which is necessary for improving the first
language (L1). It is similar with Brown (2001,as cited in Dagarin, n.d.) statements.
He relates interaction to communication. He said, “…interaction is, in fact, the heart
of communication: it is what communication is all about”(p.128). In all of the
observation sessions, the researcher found that the teacher tries to remove the gap
between language that faced by their students through communication. The
interaction is shown in L1 to L2 translation strategy by teacher. In Table 1 the teacher
translated “...mana penontonnya?” into “where is your audience?” to get better
understanding and interaction with their students. The effort of communication not
only in L1 to L2 translation strategy but also in direct translation strategy, L2 to L1
strategy by the teacher, L2 to L1 strategy by fellow student, paraphrasing in L1,
paraphrasing L2 and meta-cognitive strategy.
17

The

study of Szulc-Kurpaska

(2000,

as

cited

in Dagarin,

n.d.)

discussescommunication strategies of 35 eleven-year old children. In his study,
communication strategies mainly used when interacting were the use of the mother
tongue and body language. Some of the student repeated after the teacher (p.138).
That condition is similar to findings in this study.The teacher helped students who
face language deficiencies using the language they acquire better. The concrete
example is shown in Table 3. The teacher translated their student’s statement “Thank
you for your attention.” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. After that the student
repeated after the teacher.
Translation strategy might be the best way for building languagein CESS.
However, this finding is similar to that of McGrath (2013). In this article, the student
said something in L1(the language that they better acquire) and the teachers asked the
learner to repeat after them in L2(target language). The different is that English (the
L2 of students) in this study act as the L1 and Bahasa Indonesia (L1 of the student)
act as the target language or L2. The example is shown in Table 3. During the lesson
the teacher evaluated student’s presentation. The teacher translated “Thank you for
your attention.” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.” and the student repeated after
the teacher.

18

Self-monitoring strategy
Another Celce-Murcia’s strategy appearing in this study is self monitoring
strategy. The students in CESS seem to be active to repair themselves. The example
is shown in Table number 3. The student said “Diasangatcantikdan....hmm... Miss, what
is very kind in Indonesia?” and the teacher answer “Sangatbaik.”, then the student

repeated after the teacher. In the middle of students’ explanation, they asked the
teacher about some words in Bahasa Indonesia that they do not understand.
Teacher as monitor
Beside self-monitoring strategy, the teacher also acts as a monitoring tool for
the students. Flanders (1970, in Malamah-Thomas (1987, as cited in Dagarin, n.d.)
stated that teacher roles are to monitor and clarify students’ language use by
communicative competence (p.131). This statement is in line with the findings in
CESS classroom. The teacher seems to monitor the student and directly clarify them
by translation and paraphrasing strategy. In Table 1 the researcher found that the
teacher tried to monitor their students through checking student’s understanding. The
teacher asked a difficult word. Then, he/she translate “Saran” into “critics.” In
paraphrasing in L2 strategy (see Table 6), the teacher tried to check students
understanding by asking a question in two language. The teacher asked
“Apakahadapertanyaan?”, because there is no response from the students the teacher
asked “Is that clear?”.

19

CLT implementation in CESS
Mustafa(2001) argued that CLT has failed in Indonesia for several reasons.
However in CESS, there is no problem with CLT implementation. The first reason
why CLT can be implemented in CESS, even though there are still lack of teachers’
explanation, on how they translated “saran” into “critics” (see Table 1) and another
imperfect translation, but the students seems to achieved a better understanding after
those explanation. However, the researcher found that the teachers’ quality is not
really important in CESS. Even if there are several mistakes of explanation happened,
the students still got the meaning. Another reason is because the number of students
in class. In CESS classes, there are only 15-20 students in a class. This condition
might be the factor of CLT good implementation. The class condition is not too
crowded and the teacher also gives enough attention for each student.
The researcher believes that the teachers are able to implement another
strategic competence. However, in the whole observation, I only found three
strategies:translation, paraphrasing and meta-cognitive. The first reason is the
student’s ability. The student in this observation is still included in primary learner.
The teacher may think that the students are not ready yet to receive other strategies.
They may think that those three strategies are the easiest strategy and the most
suitable strategy for learner in primary school. Another reasonis the data collection.
The school only allowed the researcher toobserve and collect the data using note
taking. The video and audio recording are not allowed in this research. This condition

20

creates a limitation for the researcher to look for the strategies used by the teacher
because her focus is divided between listening to teaching-learning activity and note
taking.

CONCLUSION
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a popular method in education.
The aim of this language teaching approach is to encourage the learners to
communicate effectively in a target language. The study aimed to investigate how the
teachers compensate the linguistic gap or deficienciesof students’ L1 in CESS.The
participants are Bahasa Indonesia teacher and students in second grade to fourth
grade.
The current studies around ASEAN countries have similar difficulties such as
CLT misconception, the teachers’ quality, the first language effect, the class situation,
etc. This reason is the key of CLT failure in several countries. However, Celce
Murcia (2007) has found several strategies that can compensate the teacher or learner
difficulties. These strategies might be used by teacher and learner to gain CLT
successful implementation.
After the observation, the researcher found that Indonesian Lesson Teachersin
CESS like to use translation method than other method. In the data collection, the
teachers used four different type of translation such as L1 to L2 translation by
teacher, direct translation by teacher, L2 to L1 translation by teacher and L2 to L1 by
fellow teacher. The translation strategy is not only used in teacher-student interaction,

21

but also in student-teacher interaction and student-student interaction. Besides that,
the researcher found that paraphrasing and meta- cognitive strategy is also used in
CESS, but not as much as translation strategy. In paraphrasing strategy, the
interaction only happen in one way which is teacher-student interaction. It means that
there is no active interaction in this strategy. The same case happens in metacognitive strategy.
However, this study is still has several limitations. First, CESS did not allow
me to use video and audio recording in class observation. As a result, I only relied on
note taking data in data analyze process.From this research, it can be seen that
translation, paraphrasing, and meta-cognitive are good strategies to implement in
Elementary or Primary Level. However, those three strategies can be explored more
following the students’ need, the teachers’ ability and the class condition.
In future studies, the issue of L1 loss in secondary school might be an
interesting issue to discuss. I only found three strategy used in CESS. Other
researchers can go to strategic competence implementation in secondary school. At
the end, the researcher can conclude that translation is the mostly used strategy to
compensate student’s language deficiencies in Christian Primary School in Salatiga.

22

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First I would like to thank to God for the grant and the strength to finish this
study. I am also very thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Joseph Ernest Mambu, and the
examiner, Ms. Anita Kurniawati, for their guidance, suggestions, and the feedback
during the completion of this thesis. I also thank to my friendswho gave me
suggestion to search and access the participants for this study. Finally, I would like to
thank to my parents for supporting and inspiring me during the making of this study.

23

References
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language
pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.
Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language
pedagogy. In J. C. Rithards&Schimdt, R. W. (Eds.). Language and
communication. New York: Longman.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative Competence in language
teaching. In E. A. Soler & Jorda, M. P. S. (Eds.), Intercultural language use and
language learning (pp. 41-58). Dordrecht: Springer.
Murcia, M. C., Dornyei, Z., &Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A
pedadogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied
Linguistic, 6, 5-35.
Dagarin, M. (n.d.). Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning
English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 128.
Dagarin, M. (n.d.). Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning
English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 131
Dagarin, M. (n.d.). Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning
English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 138
Jarvis, H. &Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shiftingparadigms: from a communicative to a
context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal.
Kwangsawad, T. (2007). Bridging the gapbetween CLT and CBI theories and
practices in Thai small rural schools. Paper presented at the International
Conferences onEducational Reform 2001.
Kurpaska, M. S. (2000). Communication Strategies in 11-Years-Old. In Moon and
Nikolov, 60, 345).
Kustati, M. (2013). The shifting paradigms in the implementation of CLTin Southeast
Asia countries. Jurnal Al-Ta’lim, 1(4), 267-277.
Lewis, R. (1996). Indonesian students’ learning style. EA Journal,27-32.
Malamah, A. T. (1987). Classroom interaction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
McGrath, K. (2013). English Language Learners in Kindergarten: A resource to help
teachers understand how young children develop a 2nd language over the

24

course of a year, from
http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/curriculumelem/kinder/approaches/SecL
ang/esl.Html
Mustafha, B. (2001). Communicative language teaching in Indonesia: issues of
theoretical assumptions and challengesin the classroom. Journal of Southeast
Asian Education,2, 19.
Nur, C. (2003). English language teaching in Indonesia: changing policies and
practices. In H.W. Kam, and Wong, R. (eds.). English language teaching inEast
Asia today: changing policiesand practices. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

25

APPENDIX 1
Observation Fieldnotesin Eight Meetings at the Christian Elementary School in
Salatiga
Meeting #1
N
o

1.

Date/Grade

Strategy Used
Translation

30.09.2015/ 4
Glowing

L1 to L2 by
Teacher
Instruction (During
student’s
presentation, the
teacher gives direct
evaluation)
T: Kontak Mata!
Mana
penontonnya?
S: (*no response)
T: Where is your
audience?

L2 to L1 by Teacher

Meta- Cognitive

The last part of students
presentation

Explanation (In the
middle of the lesson.
The teacher explain
about presenter)

S : Lastly, thank you for
watching

T: Presenter(in
Indonesia) or
Presenter (in English)
adalah orang yang
menyampaikanpresent
asi

T: Dan yang terakhir,
terimakasihatasperhatian
nya

Meeting #2

2 30.09.2015/ 3
Sparkling

L1 to L2 by
Teacher

Direct
translation by
Teacher

L2 to L1 by
Teacher

Asking new
words (In
the end of
the
explanation,
the teacher
check the
students’
undestandin
g)

Command (while
the teacher
explaining the
lesson, one of
students playing
outside the class)

Explanation

26

L2 to
L1 by
Fello
w
Stude
nt
In the
middl
e of
explan
ation
(One
of
studen
ts
playin
g and
didn’t
pay
attenti
on.
Other
studen

Paraprasing
in L1

Paraphrasin
g in L2

Explanation
(The teacher
explain how to
get the best
score in exam)

At the end of
the lesson

t tell
the
teache
r in
L2)
T:
Apakahada
kata- kata
yang susah?

T :Affan, don't
play!
Tadikatanyamauk
ekamarmandi?

S: Saran,
Miss

S : Pardon, miss?

T: Saran itu
"critics"

T : You say to me
to go to bathroom.
Don't play!
S : Okay, miss

T: Ada
character's
name.
Bahasa
Indonesiany
a character's
name apa?
S: Nama
tokoh, Miss

Stude
nt 1:
Miss,
Denis
playin
g.

T:
Ketikakamusu
dahmeneliti

T:
Apakahadap
ertanyaan? Is
that clear?

Stude
nt 2:
In
Indon
esia,
please
.
Miss,
Denis
berma
in.

S : Miss, what
is meneliti?

S: Clear,
Miss

T:
Artinyamempe
lajari

Meeting #3
Direct translation by Teacher
3 01.10.2015/2 sparkling Instruction

L2 to L1 by Fellow Student
During Lesson (After finish
the task given, the student tell
the teacher using L2)

T :Bukabukuhalamanenam!

S1: Miss, aku finished

S : (*some of students start to
open their book and some of
them still confuse) (*student
still confuse with L1
instruction)

S2: In Indonesia,please. Miss,
sudahselesai

T: Open your book at page six!

T :Oke, semuanya finished?
Sudahselesai?

27

All Students: Sudahselesai

Meeting #4

4

02.10.2015/2 glowing

L1 to L2 by Teacher
Explanation (The teacher still using L2 to help the students
get better understanding)
T :Jadititikdigunakanuntukmengakhirikalimat. Dot
digunakan at the end of the sentence
Explanation (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2
to help the student get better understanding)
T:
Komadigunakanuntukmenyambungduakalimatmenjadisatu
S: Miss, I don't understand
T : Comma is used to connect between sentences

Meeting #5

5

05.10.2015/ 2 sparkling

L1 to L2 by Teacher
Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2
to help the student get better understanding)
T :Sekarangceritakantentangliburankemarin.
S: Pardon, miss?
T:Tell about your last holiday
S: Okay, miss

28

Meeting #6

6

05.10.2015/ 3 sparkling

L1 to L2 by Teacher
Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2
to help the student get better understanding)
T: Hubungkankalimat-kalimat di halaman 5 menjadisatu
paragraph
S: Pardon, miss?
T : Arrange the sentence into paragraph
S: okay Miss
During Lesson (The teacher translate L1 explanation into
L2 to help the student get better understanding)

T: Ituterbalik
S: Apamiss?
T: It shuffled
S: okay, Miss

Meeting #7

7 06.10.2015/ 4 sparkling

L1 to L2 by Teacher
Instruction (The
teacher translate L1
explanation into L2
to help the student
get better
understanding)
T: ...yang
pentingpercayadiri
S: apa , Miss?
T: Be Confidence

29

L2 to L1 by Teacher
During Lesson (The teacher
directly evaluate the children
presentation with L1
translation)

S: Thank You for your
attention
T:
Terimakasihatasperhatiannya
S:
Terimakasihatasperhatiannya
(*repeat the teacher)

During Lesson (The
teacher translate L1
explanation into L2
to help the student
get better
understanding)
T:
Lihatmatatemannya
S: (*still didn't
understand)
T: Look at your
friends' eyes!
S: *Look at his
friends' eyes

Meeting #8
L1 to L2 by
Teacher
8 06.10.2015/ 4
glowing

L2 to L1 by Teacher
During Lesson (The
teacher try to translate L2
to L1 directly to get better
acquirement)

Paraphrasing in
L2
Instruction (The
teacher translate
L1 explanation
into L2 to help
the student get
better
understanding)

S: Her name is Sarah

T:
Janganlupanamanamatokohnya.
Janganterbalikya!

T: Namanya Sarah
S: Namanya Sarah
(*repeat the teacher)

S: Pardon, miss?
T: Don't forget
each character's
name

During Lesson (The
teacher assist the student
to get better language
expression in L1)
S:
Diasangatcantikdan....hm
m... Miss, what is very
kind in Indonesia?

S: Okay, Miss

30

T: Sangatbaik.
S:
Diasangatcantikdansangat
baik.

31