Building authentic English communication through cooperative learning in a non-classroom setting.

xv ABSTRACT

Cicilia Setyorini Dwi. 2014. Building Authentic English Communication through Cooperative Learning in a Non-Classroom Setting. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University.

The research was carried out to solve a problem on the absence of authentic communication experienced by many English learners in the country. As a result many of them are not able to use the language although they have learned it for years. The research in specific addresses to students who have limited practices in English communication both inside and outside school context. It is conducted to provide practices to interact in an authentic English communication in a non-classroom setting. They practice authentic communication using cooperative learning (CL) activities like tea party, STAD (Student Team Achievement Division), writing around, and play pretend activity like role playing.

The research aims to answer two research questions. The first is whether cooperative learning is effective to improve communicative competence and the second is how effective it is to improve the participants’ learning empowerment. To serve the purpose, the data are collected from nine elementary students ranging from 8 – 11 years. The method used is action research.

Non-classroom learning was selected as the setting. There were two reasons for choosing the setting. Firstly, it was a community that the researcher established to help children in the neighborhood who have insufficient opportunities to learn English both inside and outside the school setting. It means that it is accessible to collect the data. Secondly, there were few researches conducted in a non-classroom setting since many of the researches were done in formal settings like schools and colleges. In order to answer the questions, the data are collected from the participants’ reflective writing, video recording on their authentic tasks which include oral interview and writing project and observations from the multiple observers.

The findings reveal that they did communicate using the target language through the learning using cooperative learning. More than 80% of the research participants communicate using English with more than half of the total number of students through the activities. They are also able to use English expressions like how to thank, how to ask for something, how to give something, and how to express their like and dislike even when they are not part of the learning materials. The learning strategy is also able to boost their interest in learning. When learning about vegetables, many of them bring more things than required simply because they want to use more English expressions in their role playing activities. All of them also enthusiastically participate in conducting the oral test through STAD because every member has equal opportunity to contribute to the group success. Another finding is that they did use the English expressions they learn through the program. More than 50% of them practice using most of the language expressions being introduced. They practice both listening and speaking as they become both buyers and sellers. The learning strategy is also able to improve their confidence

xvi

in using the language. More than 70% of them affirm that they feel more comfortable to use the language through CL activities. In addition, they state that they seldom have such group work activities in their formal schools and prefer to have collaborative actions which demand them to interact with their friends to reduce their anxiety to use English.

All in all, the findings revealed that CL is logically good and effective to improve their English communicative competence as well as their learning empowerment. Practically, similar environment or context may also adopt the action that the participants have done.

Keywords: authentic communication, cooperative learning, English in non-English speaking countries, non-school setting, teaching non-English for young learners, and action research

xvii ABSTRAK

Cicilia Setyorini Dwi, 2014. Mengembangkan Komunikasi Bahasa Inggris yang Authentic melalui Pembelajaran Kooperatif di Komunitas Belajar Non- Kelas Formal. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Magister, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjawab masalah ketiadaan komunikasi otentik yang banyak dialami pembelajar bahasa Inggris di negeri ini. Sebagai akibatnya, banyak dari mereka tidak mampu menggunakan bahasa Inggris walaupun mereka telah mempelajarinya selama beberapa tahun. Penelitian tersebut secara khusus ditujukan untuk para siswa sekolah dasar yang tidak mendapatkan kesempatan untuk berlatih berkomunikasi dalam bahasa Inggris baik di dalam maupun di luar lingkungan sekolah. Penelitian tersebut memberikan kesempatan latihan berinteraksi dalam bahasa Inggris yang otentik khususnya di lingkungan belajar luar kelas formal untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berkomunikas dalam bahasa Inggris dan untuk memberdayakan para pembelajar bahasa. Mereka berlatih berinteraksi menggunakan pembelajaran kooperatif. Beberapa aktivitas yang dilakukan adalah STAD, Tea Party, dan permainan peran seperti drama.

Penelitian tersebut bertujuan untuk menjawab dua pertanyaan. Pertama apakah pembelajaran kooperatif efektif untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris dan yang kedua seberapa efektif strategi pembelajaran tersebut dalam memberdayakan para peserta. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, data telah dikumpulkan dari sembilan siswa sekolah dasar yang berumur 8 – 10 tahun melalui penelitian tindakan.

Sebuah komunitas belajar luar kelas sekolah dipilih sebagai tempat penelitian. Ada dua alasan pemilihan tempat tersebut. Pertama karena komunitas tersebut didirikan sendiri oleh peneliti sehingga mempermudah proses pengambilan data. Alasan yang kedua adalah sedikitnya penelitian yang dilakukan di lingkungan luar sekolah karena banyak dari penelitian dilakukan di lingkungan formal seperti sekolah formal maupun perguruan tinggi. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan dari penelitian tersebut, data dikumpulkan dari tulisan refleksi para peserta, rekaman video tanya jawab dan hasil karya tulisan para peserta dan dari observasi yang dilakukan oleh dua orang guru.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa para peserta penelitian benar-benar berkomunikasi menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Lebih dari 80% peserta berinteraksi menggunakan bahasa Inggris dengan lebih dari setengah jumlah total siswa di kelas. Mereka juga mampu menggunakan bahasa Inggris untuk berterima kasih, untuk meminta dan memberikan sesuatu, dan untuk menyatakan rasa suka dan tidak suka bahkan di luar waktu belajar seperti sebelum kelas dimulai. Pembelajaran kooperatif juga mampu meningkatkan ketertarikan mereka dalam belajar. Sebagai contoh, ketika belajar tentang sayuran, banyak dari mereka membawa lebih banyak sayuran dari yang diminta hanya karena mereka ingin menggunakan expresi bahasa Inggris lebih sering lagi dengan teman-teman

xviii

mereka. Semua peserta juga antusias untuk mengikuti test melalui kegiatan STAD karena setiap peserta mendapat kesempatan yang sama dalam mendukung kesuksesan group mereka. Penemuan yang lain adalah para peserta dapat benar-benar menggunakan ekspresi bahasa Inggris yang dikenalkan melalui pembelajaran kooperatif. Lebih dari 50% peserta berlatih menggunakan hampir seluruh ungkapan yang diajarkan. Mereka juga berlatih keterampilan mendengarkan dan berbicara melalui kegiatan peran dimana mereka berperan sebagai penjual dan pembeli secara bergantian. Pembelajaran yang dilakukan dalam penelitian tersebut juga mampu meningkatkan rasa percaya diri peserta untuk menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Faktanya adalah lebih dari 70% peserta menyatakan bahwa mereka merasa lebih nyaman menggunakan bahasa Inggris melalui pembelajaran kelompok terlebih lagi mereka juga menyatakan bahwa mereka hampir tidak pernah belajar dengan metode tersebut di sekolah formal dimana mereka belajar setiap hari.

Bisa disimpulkan bahwa pembelajaran kooperatif terbukti baik dan efektif dalam meningkatkan kemampuan komunikasi dan dalam memberdayakan peserta untuk mampu menyelesaikan masalah yang berhubungan dengan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris. Secara praktis, lingkungan belajar serupa dapat mengadopsi tindakan yang telah dilakukan peserta penelitian.

.

Kata Kunci: komunikasi authentic, pembelajaran kooperatif, , pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk anak, Bahasa Inggris di Negara non-English, komunitas belajar luar sekolah, dan penelitian tindakan.

BUILDING AUTHENTIC ENGLISH COMMUNICATION THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CLASSROOM SETTING

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) Degree

in English Language Studies

by

Cicilia Dwi Setyorini Student Number: 12 6332 009

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2014

i

BUILDING AUTHENTIC ENGLISH COMMUNICATION THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CLASSROOM SETTING

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum) Degree

in English Language Studies

by

Cicilia Dwi Setyorini Student Number: 12 6332 009

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2014

ii A THESIS

BUILDING AUTHENTIC ENGLISH COMMUNICATION THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CLASSROOM SETTING

by

Cicilia Dwi Setyorini Student Number: 126332009

Approved by

Dr. J. Bismoko

iii A THESIS

BUILDING AUTHENTIC ENGLISH COMMUNICATION THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CLASSROOM SETTING

Presented by Cicilia Dwi Setyorini Student Number: 126332009

Defended before the Thesis Committee and Declared acceptable

THESIS COMMITTEE

Chairperson : Dr. J. Bismoko _______________

Secretary : Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. _______________

Members : 1. F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D. _______________

2. Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd., M.A. _______________

Yogyakarta, February 27, 2015 The Graduate Program Director Sanata Dharma University

iv

Knowledge emerges only through

invention and re-invention, through the

restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful

inquiry human beings pursue in the world,

with the world, and with each other.

(Freire, Paulo)

This thesis is dedicated for:

Anyone who seeks for equality in education, who is against

oppression, and who has concern to the humanistic education

in which the only goal of education is to bring about

improvement for the human kind.

v

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

This is to certify that all ideas, phrases, sentences, unless otherwise stated, are the ideas, phrases, and sentences of the thesis writer. The writer understands the full consequences including degree cancellation if she took somebody else’s ideas, phrases, or sentences without proper references.

Yogyakarta, February 27, 2015

vi

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Cicilia Dwi Setyorini

Nomor Mahasiswa : 12 6332 009

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

BUILDING AUTHENTIC ENGLISH COMMUNICATION THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN A NON-CLASSROOM SETTING beserta perangkat yang diperlukan. Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpan, mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikan secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di Internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal : 27 February 2015 Yang menyatakan

vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

My deepest gratitude goes to the owner of my life, my Jesus Christ, who keeps blessing me with his love. The more I keep the faith on Him, the merrier I am. His continuous loves should always be shared for the humanity. I also would like to show my being gratified to the following people who makes it happen.

Firstly, to my thesis advisor, Dr. J. Bismoko, from whom I learned that having great concepts leaded to excellent understanding toward things. I also learned that knowledge should be meaningful not only for oneself but also for others. He has been one of the greatest teachers with great knowledge and experiences that everyone acknowledge.

Secondly, I thank my lectures: F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D, from whom all the thesis ideas came from. I thanked him for the sharing which always equipped my better understanding particularly on action research. I also learned to be sincere in sharing knowledge so that it encourages others to do the same thing. Prof. Dr. C. Bakdi Soemanto, from whom I learned that great people with great ability and knowledge should maintain their being humble and being able to be good listeners for others. Dr. Patrisius Mutiara Andalas, SJ, who always accepted differences wisely so that it encouraged students to be more active and to understand better because of the respect he shares. Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd, from whom I learned that learning should be maintained continuously. Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A, who supported me to be more computer-literate so that it would be beneficial for my students. My deepest gratitude also go to Fransiscus Widya Kiswara, S.Pd., M.Hum and Yosephin, S.Pd., M.Hum, who have helped me with my research

viii

project. Their role as my multiple observers had added my better understanding toward the study I do. All in all, I am blessed for being involved in the English language study of Sanata Dharma University in which I obtained knowledge, respect, and humanity values. May God bless all the teachers who continuously dedicate their life for better education.

Thirdly, my greatest appreciation goes to the loves of my life: Suitbertus Fajar Nugraha for his understanding of my role as a wife, Mom, student, and employee. I thanked him for his great support which makes things uncomplicated to finish. He has always become a partner in life and a great best friend I can always count on. I also thanked my Elisabeth Keyla Putri Nugraha. She has been more than just a daughter but a best friend who kept cheering me up when things did not work the way they were. She is the reason for always doing the best in life. They both are the greatest blessings in my life.

Fourthly, it goes to my parents and parents-in-law. It is a blessing to know that I always have a huge support through their continuous prayers and help. My deepest appreciation goes to my father-in-law, Bapak Yosep Sumartono, who made it possible to happen. I do hope that God always bless them with great health and life.

Fifthly, it goes to my classmates: Calvin, Delfin, Botty, Rina, Indri, Karman, Sofie, Leony, Deny, Putri, Mayang, Indes, Dinar, Lesly, Wendy, Pak Yulianus, Pak Yoseph, Mas Wawan, Paulina, Pepi, Yustin, and Ades. They had made the study really fun to go through. The laughter, the love, and the friendship we share must last for good. My special thanks go to Calvin and Delfin who had

ix

always been with me undergoing the thesis project. I would not be able to complete it without your help. I also thanked Mbak Lely for her being friendly and helpful which made this project seems easier to complete.

Sixthly, I thanked the children who became the research participants of my study. They are the reason why I have to contribute something to my community. Seeing their spirits in learning is the only motivation why I have to keep making progress for them particularly in the English education.

Finally, I would like to express my gratefulness to anybody whose names I cannot mention here. I do appreciate their supports and prayers which again make it possible to happen. May God bless everyone who sincerely shares their kindness and love for others.

x

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE... ... i

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE ... iii

DEDICATION PAGE ... iv

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY... v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF TABLES ... xii

LIST OF FIGURE ... xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ... xiv

ABSTRACT... . xv

ABSTRAK... ... xvii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ... 1

A.Background ... 1

B.Problem Identification ... 6

C.Problem Limitation ... 7

D.Research Questions ... 8

E. Research Goal ... 8

F. Research Benefits ... 9

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ... 10

A.Theoretical Review ... 10

1. Authentic Communication ... 11

a. Authenticity... 11

b. Authenticity in Language Learning ... 12

c. Authentic Tasks ... 14

d. English Communication... 16

2. Cooperative Learning (CL)... 17

a. Cooperative Learning... 18

b. Principles of CL ... 18

3. Non-classroom Learning Environment... 21

4. English for Young Learners ... 24

5. Reflective Thinking ... 28

6. Empowerment ... 30

a. Principles of Empowerment ... 30

b. Learning Empowerment... 32

7. Action Research ... 34

a. Action Research in Education ... 37

B.Review of Related Research Report ... 39

xi

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 44

A.Research Method ... 44

B.Nature of Data ... 47

C.Research Setting and Participants ... 47

D.Research Blueprints ... 48

1. Concept Operationalization Blueprint ... 49

2. Research Blueprint for Multiple Observers ... 50

3. Research Blueprint for Students’ Reflective Writing ... 51

4. Concept Operationalization Blueprint for Authentic Tasks ... 52

5. Research Blueprint for Video Recording ... 53

E. Research Instruments ... 53

F. Research Design ... 56

1. Research Design for the Logical Truth ... 56

2. Research Design for the Empirial Truth ... 59

G.Research Procedure ... 60

H.Data Collection and Analysis ... 68

CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ... 71

A.Findings ... 71

1. Students’ Reflective Writing ... 71

2. Students’ Authentic Tasks ... 78

a. Wall Magazine ... 79

b. Oral Interview ... 79

3. Multiple Observers ... 84

B.Discussions ... 83

1. Students’ Reflective Writing ... 86

2. Students’ Authentic Tasks ... 99

a. Wall Magazine ... 99

b. Oral Interview ... 100

3. Multiple Observers ... 103

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION ... 107

A.Conclusion... 107

B.Suggestions... 113

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 116

APPENDICES ... 121

Appendix A. Students’ Written Reflections... 121

Appendix B. Transcripts of Students’ Oral Interview ... 127

Appendix C. Multiple Observers’ Notes ... 136

Appendix D. Samples of Students’ Writing Projects ... 137

Appendix E. Pictures of the Research Participants ... 139

Appendix F. Samples of Lesson Plans ... 140

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Research Operationalization Blueprints ... 49

Table 3.2 Research Blueprints for Multiple Observers ... 50

Table 3.3 Research Blueprints for Students’ Reflective Writing ... 51

Table 3.4 Concept Operationalization Blueprints for Authentic Tasks ... 52

Table 3.5 Research Blueprints for Video Recording ... 53

Table 4.1 Students’ Real Communication on Thanking ... 80

Table 4.2 Students’ Expressions on Answering Like and Dislike Questions .... 80

Table 4.3 Students’ Expressions on Like and Dislike Statements ... 82

Table 4.4 Students’ Comprehension on the Questions ... 83

xiii

LIST OF FIGURE

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CL : Cooperative Learning

STAD : Student Team Achievement Division TGT : Team Group Tournament

YL : Young Learners

CD : Compact Disc

ELT : English Language Teaching

EFLPS : English as a Foreign Language at Primary Schools AR : Action Research

xv ABSTRACT

Cicilia Setyorini Dwi. 2014. Building Authentic English Communication through Cooperative Learning in a Non-Classroom Setting. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies, Graduate Program, Sanata Dharma University.

The research was carried out to solve a problem on the absence of authentic communication experienced by many English learners in the country. As a result many of them are not able to use the language although they have learned it for years. The research in specific addresses to students who have limited practices in English communication both inside and outside school context. It is conducted to provide practices to interact in an authentic English communication in a non-classroom setting. They practice authentic communication using cooperative learning (CL) activities like tea party, STAD (Student Team Achievement Division), writing around, and play pretend activity like role playing.

The research aims to answer two research questions. The first is whether cooperative learning is effective to improve communicative competence and the second is how effective it is to improve the participants’ learning empowerment. To serve the purpose, the data are collected from nine elementary students ranging from 8 – 11 years. The method used is action research.

Non-classroom learning was selected as the setting. There were two reasons for choosing the setting. Firstly, it was a community that the researcher established to help children in the neighborhood who have insufficient opportunities to learn English both inside and outside the school setting. It means that it is accessible to collect the data. Secondly, there were few researches conducted in a non-classroom setting since many of the researches were done in formal settings like schools and colleges. In order to answer the questions, the data are collected from the participants’ reflective writing, video recording on their authentic tasks which include oral interview and writing project and observations from the multiple observers.

The findings reveal that they did communicate using the target language through the learning using cooperative learning. More than 80% of the research participants communicate using English with more than half of the total number of students through the activities. They are also able to use English expressions like how to thank, how to ask for something, how to give something, and how to express their like and dislike even when they are not part of the learning materials. The learning strategy is also able to boost their interest in learning. When learning about vegetables, many of them bring more things than required simply because they want to use more English expressions in their role playing activities. All of them also enthusiastically participate in conducting the oral test through STAD because every member has equal opportunity to contribute to the group success. Another finding is that they did use the English expressions they learn through the program. More than 50% of them practice using most of the language expressions being introduced. They practice both listening and speaking as they become both buyers and sellers. The learning strategy is also able to improve their confidence

xvi

in using the language. More than 70% of them affirm that they feel more comfortable to use the language through CL activities. In addition, they state that they seldom have such group work activities in their formal schools and prefer to have collaborative actions which demand them to interact with their friends to reduce their anxiety to use English.

All in all, the findings revealed that CL is logically good and effective to improve their English communicative competence as well as their learning empowerment. Practically, similar environment or context may also adopt the action that the participants have done.

Keywords: authentic communication, cooperative learning, English in non-English speaking countries, non-school setting, teaching non-English for young learners, and action research

xvii ABSTRAK

Cicilia Setyorini Dwi, 2014. Mengembangkan Komunikasi Bahasa Inggris yang Authentic melalui Pembelajaran Kooperatif di Komunitas Belajar Non- Kelas Formal. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Magister, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Penelitian ini dilakukan untuk menjawab masalah ketiadaan komunikasi otentik yang banyak dialami pembelajar bahasa Inggris di negeri ini. Sebagai akibatnya, banyak dari mereka tidak mampu menggunakan bahasa Inggris walaupun mereka telah mempelajarinya selama beberapa tahun. Penelitian tersebut secara khusus ditujukan untuk para siswa sekolah dasar yang tidak mendapatkan kesempatan untuk berlatih berkomunikasi dalam bahasa Inggris baik di dalam maupun di luar lingkungan sekolah. Penelitian tersebut memberikan kesempatan latihan berinteraksi dalam bahasa Inggris yang otentik khususnya di lingkungan belajar luar kelas formal untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berkomunikas dalam bahasa Inggris dan untuk memberdayakan para pembelajar bahasa. Mereka berlatih berinteraksi menggunakan pembelajaran kooperatif. Beberapa aktivitas yang dilakukan adalah STAD, Tea Party, dan permainan peran seperti drama.

Penelitian tersebut bertujuan untuk menjawab dua pertanyaan. Pertama apakah pembelajaran kooperatif efektif untuk meningkatkan kemampuan berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris dan yang kedua seberapa efektif strategi pembelajaran tersebut dalam memberdayakan para peserta. Untuk mencapai tujuan tersebut, data telah dikumpulkan dari sembilan siswa sekolah dasar yang berumur 8 – 10 tahun melalui penelitian tindakan.

Sebuah komunitas belajar luar kelas sekolah dipilih sebagai tempat penelitian. Ada dua alasan pemilihan tempat tersebut. Pertama karena komunitas tersebut didirikan sendiri oleh peneliti sehingga mempermudah proses pengambilan data. Alasan yang kedua adalah sedikitnya penelitian yang dilakukan di lingkungan luar sekolah karena banyak dari penelitian dilakukan di lingkungan formal seperti sekolah formal maupun perguruan tinggi. Untuk menjawab pertanyaan dari penelitian tersebut, data dikumpulkan dari tulisan refleksi para peserta, rekaman video tanya jawab dan hasil karya tulisan para peserta dan dari observasi yang dilakukan oleh dua orang guru.

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa para peserta penelitian benar-benar berkomunikasi menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Lebih dari 80% peserta berinteraksi menggunakan bahasa Inggris dengan lebih dari setengah jumlah total siswa di kelas. Mereka juga mampu menggunakan bahasa Inggris untuk berterima kasih, untuk meminta dan memberikan sesuatu, dan untuk menyatakan rasa suka dan tidak suka bahkan di luar waktu belajar seperti sebelum kelas dimulai. Pembelajaran kooperatif juga mampu meningkatkan ketertarikan mereka dalam belajar. Sebagai contoh, ketika belajar tentang sayuran, banyak dari mereka membawa lebih banyak sayuran dari yang diminta hanya karena mereka ingin menggunakan expresi bahasa Inggris lebih sering lagi dengan teman-teman

xviii

mereka. Semua peserta juga antusias untuk mengikuti test melalui kegiatan STAD karena setiap peserta mendapat kesempatan yang sama dalam mendukung kesuksesan group mereka. Penemuan yang lain adalah para peserta dapat benar-benar menggunakan ekspresi bahasa Inggris yang dikenalkan melalui pembelajaran kooperatif. Lebih dari 50% peserta berlatih menggunakan hampir seluruh ungkapan yang diajarkan. Mereka juga berlatih keterampilan mendengarkan dan berbicara melalui kegiatan peran dimana mereka berperan sebagai penjual dan pembeli secara bergantian. Pembelajaran yang dilakukan dalam penelitian tersebut juga mampu meningkatkan rasa percaya diri peserta untuk menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Faktanya adalah lebih dari 70% peserta menyatakan bahwa mereka merasa lebih nyaman menggunakan bahasa Inggris melalui pembelajaran kelompok terlebih lagi mereka juga menyatakan bahwa mereka hampir tidak pernah belajar dengan metode tersebut di sekolah formal dimana mereka belajar setiap hari.

Bisa disimpulkan bahwa pembelajaran kooperatif terbukti baik dan efektif dalam meningkatkan kemampuan komunikasi dan dalam memberdayakan peserta untuk mampu menyelesaikan masalah yang berhubungan dengan pembelajaran bahasa Inggris. Secara praktis, lingkungan belajar serupa dapat mengadopsi tindakan yang telah dilakukan peserta penelitian.

.

Kata Kunci: komunikasi authentic, pembelajaran kooperatif, , pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris untuk anak, Bahasa Inggris di Negara non-English, komunitas belajar luar sekolah, dan penelitian tindakan.

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

To elaborate the research problems, this chapter covers (1) background of the study (2) problem identification (3) problem limitation (4) research questions (5) research goals and (6) research benefits.

A. BACKGROUND

Students in Indonesia deal with the fact that their English remains low despite a great number of methodological innovations and state-of-the-art equipment. The learning of English has minimum achievement although it is the first foreign language learned in schools (Dardjowidjojo, 2000 as in Kirkpatrick, 2010). One of the reasons is the method of learning which is grammar oriented. Students mostly deal with rules of language without really learn how to use them in communication. The method of English learning in Indonesia lies on grammar orientation without giving attention to using the language communicatively so that the students find it hard to understand despite the fact that they have started learning it in middle school (Wallach, 2003).

Despite being the first foreign language taught in schools, the accomplishment of English learning is not as expected. Teachers and their methods of teaching have often been blamed for the failure due to their inadequate competence. ―For primary and junior secondary levels, only about 55 and about 73 percent of the teachers have the minimum qualifications required by the

Ministry of National Education (MoNE) (Granado, et al., 2007: 4). The phenomenon has contributed to the ineffectiveness of English learning. However, there is another problem which is more crucial than just teachers‘ lack of competence.

The problem underlying the phenomenon on the learners‘ low English competence lies on their lack of motivation. Sadtono (1976 as in Corson, 1997: 183) stated that ―lack of motivation to learn English would be the prime cause, but he also reasoned that ‗sociologically speaking the Indonesian people at the moment …do not perceive any immediate use or benefit from learning English‖ (p.10). Both students and their parents think that there is no importance or relevance of learning the language for their life as witnessed by teachers in the country. The perception is mostly argued by those living in the countryside areas. ―Motivation may also play a key role, as there can be a perceived lack of relevance of English in many of the rural areas‖ (Lowenberg 1991, Sadtono 1997 as in Kaplan &Baldauf, 2003:98).

The low motivation has resulted to the low English competence. The study therefore addresses one of the possible root causes of those factual problems that is lack of practices on authentic communication. As mentioned, students are mostly exposed to simply learn the forms of language without really using them. In addition, students do not have enough time to practice. They only learn English once a week which lasts at about one and a half hour. Unfortunately, the issue on time is non-negotiable because students have to spend their time to learn other subjects in school. The need to have more practices outside the classroom setting

is essentially needed to deal with the problems in learning the language. A real action needs to be done by either individual or communities outside the classroom environment to help school teachers to deal with English problems. Therefore, the study also aims to see how a learning strategy applied in a non-classroom setting provides practices for the participants interact in an authentic English communication.

English learning should provide opportunities to practice communicating in the target language. Learning language should enable learners to be able to communicate in the real world setting. The main purpose is to enable the learners to interact with others in the world outside their classroom where they will have to independently survive (Yang, 2010). Yang and Cheung in addition stated that ―communicative language teaching requires authentic communication, which includes a believable setting, a normal speed in speaking, a range of lexical items suitable for the students‘ ages, and an overall promotion of learning‖ (Yang & Cheung, 2003: 17).

Responding to the phenomenon of learners‘ limited practices in English communication, setting up a non-classroom environment setting and applying a particular learning strategy are definitely helpful to solve problem related with the limited time students have in learning the language. The study was conducted in order to take real action to the problems mentioned above. In addition, it was related with the social phenomenon that most young learners in the researcher‘s neighborhood have inadequacy to practice English in schools. To add, they are not able to join any private English courses outside their schools due to their financial

incapability. The result of the factual problem is the lack of English competence especially their incapability to use the target language. Therefore, in order to reduce the time wasted for nothing after their school activities, it is necessary to do something useful by meeting them together to learn English as a way to deal with their inability to use English and to spend their time more meaningfully.

The action of setting up non-classroom setting learning supports the current issue in education in the country which is the development of the new curriculum. One of the reasons is to respond to the negative phenomena such as student brawl, drugs, corruption, plagiarism, and cheating (The Minister of Education and Culture, 2013:17). Gathering learners to do meaningful activity through English learning is expected to avoid them to such negative things. In addition, it supports the attitude domain of the graduate competence of elementary students. They are expected to have attitudes reflecting their being religious, confident, and responsible in interacting effectively with the social environment both inside and outside school settings (Ibid).

In carrying the practices to build authentic communication, the researcher applied cooperative learning activities which were believed to bring more maximum results in enhancing the learners‘ communicative competence. There are evidences about the advantages of the technique. Willis found evidence of brain and neurochemical activity that supported the positive results she was having with the cooperative approach to middle school teaching (Willis, 2007:5). The outcomes of cooperative learning techniques fall mainly into two categories: academic achievement and group cohesiveness. The effects of the techniques on

the group cohesiveness variables, such as mutual concern and race relations, are un-questionably positive (Slavin, 1980:333). Cooperative learning was successfully used with a class of 52 first-year tertiary students in China in 2008 (Ning: 2011). In the motivational dimension, Peterson and Miller obtained statistically significant result that participants reported higher levels of degree of engagement (Peterson and Miller, 2004:129). Vaughan in his research found that cooperative learning had positive effects on the achievement and attitude levels in mathematics for the students of color (Vaughan, 2002:362). It can be concluded that CL brings the spirit of the new curriculum philosophy in which the main focus of learning is on competence – based. Learning English through CL helps students acquire not only the knowledge of English but also the positive attitude of respecting others in real life communication and to appreciate differences among others. In addition, CL also assists students to be more skillful in their English skills such as the ability to communicate using the target language.

The study therefore addresses the need to provide practices for authentic communication by gathering participants outside their school hours to boost their English competence especially their skill on using the language communicatively. In specific, it presents how activities using cooperative learning conducted in the research are able to build their authentic communication, at the same time spend their time more productively and assist them to be more respectful and understanding to different views, and eventually empower learners. The study also encourages similar environment to adopt the action the researcher did. It is

believed that real actions should be encouraged to solve problems of English learning in the country. Therefore, action research is selected to use in the study.

Besides providing opportunities to practice English in a non-classroom setting, gathering the participants to learn English in the program aims to empower them in which they are able to have power to make progress both in their learning and the others‘. As known, the highest need of becoming a human being is to self-actualize oneself in the real world challenges. Therefore, the most effective learning should support learning empowerment in which every individual is able to motivate himself to keep making improvement in his life. The program as a result should accommodate the need and should be able to create a learning situation which both provides opportunities to practice English authentically and empowers the participants.

B.PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION

The study addresses one of the root cause problems of the learners‘ incapability to use English which is due to lack of authentic communication practices. It is true that they have learned English but it is generally agreed that their English achievement remains low. The study therefore stresses on how the action of applying cooperative learning in a non-classroom setting is able to improve the participants‘ communicative competence and their learning empowerment.

From the definitions of authenticity, it can be inferred that authentic communication has various meanings. Firstly, it refers to the society speaking

English as their language. Secondly, it refers to communicating with people who do not speak Bahasa Indonesia such as Japanese, Chinese, etc. Thirdly, it refers to potential real communication in which people learn English to be able to communicate like how the language is used in real communication.

Besides focusing on practices on authentic communication, the study also highlights the use of cooperative learning activities. They promote equal participation and collaboration in the learning process. Some of them are jigsaw, STAD (Student Team Achievement Division), Tea party, small group teaching, role playing, etc.

C.PROBLEM LIMITATION

The study in specific focuses on authentic communication which refers to potential real communication. It means that all the communicative activities conducted by the research participants are intended to assist them to communicate like in the way the language is used in real communication. Specifically, the study highlights the use of CL activities on tea party, writing around, running dictation, and play pretend activities through role playing.

The facts that many English learners in the country are not able to use the language despite learning it for years and that many of them have limited exposure to communicative activities have become the reasons of focusing on authentic communication. It is believed that it assists the learners to practice the language like how it is used.

D.RESEARCH QUESTIONS

Since the study uses action research which focuses on both process and result, it aims at answering the following research questions:

1. Is cooperative learning (CL) effective in improving the participants‘ communicative competence?

2. How effective is CL in improving the participants‘ learning empowerment?

E.RESEARCH GOALS

Referring to the research questions, the goals of the study is to find out the effectiveness of cooperative learning to improve the participants‘ communicative competence and to improve their learning empowerment. It is expected that CL improves the participants‘ English competence particularly their communicative skills through practices to interact in an authentic English communication. Another goal of the study is to describe how effective the learning strategy is able to empower the participants in which they understand their problems in English and they are willing to solve the problem through gathering English in a non-classroom setting.

In short, the goals of the study are to discover that cooperative learning is useful both to improve communicative competence and to improve learning empowerment. The use of authentic communication to practice English is intended to support the goals. The research participants eventually are expected to have the capability not only to communicate in English more confidently but also to understand their problems in learning the language and to encourage

themselves to keep making progress in studying it through non-classroom activities.

F. RESEARCH BENEFITS

Three research benefits are involved in the study. They are scientific, practical and humanistic benefits. Those three are essential to be obtained in the study since a study should not only bring meaning to the knowledge of the study but also bring meaning to humankind which makes it useful.

The benefit of the research is to describe the value of the action (Cooperative Learning) to address the root causes of incapability to use English namely the inadequacy of authentic communication and practice. Scientifically, it is to discover that CL is logically good and effective to provide authentic communication and more practice in a non-classroom setting. Practically, similar environment may adopt the action the participants have done. Humanistically, it aids the participants to see their own problems in English learning and agree to solve the way it is agreed. In other words, it encourages learning empowerment of the participants who have inadequate opportunities to English practices and lack of financial support to participate in any non classroom learning activities. In short, it helps the participants to motivate themselves and others in order to make progress in their learning both inside and outside the classroom setting.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The theoretical review presents the theories to clarify concepts to discover the logical truth on which the current study is constructed. It consists of theoretical review and theoretical framework. The theoretical review includes the theories that are relevant to answer to the research problems. These consist of theories on authentic communication, cooperative learning, non-classroom learning environment, English for young learners, reflective thinking, and learning empowerment. The theoretical framework links the theoretical review with the assumptions to determine the type of data and to decide how to analyze them.

A. THEORETICAL REVIEW

The study emphasizes on solving problem of the learners‘ English which remains low especially their skill to communicate in the target language despite the fact that they learn English in school with various teaching techniques and methods. It tries to provide participants with practices on authentic communication in a non-classroom learning environment in order to empower them. It stresses on CL activities to build and to provide practices for authentic communication. Accordingly, the chapter describes the key points related to the problem in the study. The theories include authentic communication, cooperative learning, non-classroom learning environment, English for young learners, reflective thinking, and learning empowerment.

1. Authentic Communication

Authentic communication becomes the main priority in the study since it relates with one of the possible root causes of the low English achievement. This section elaborates essential things in the authentic communication such as the meanings, authenticity in language learning, authentic tasks, and English communication.

a. Authenticity

This section starts with elaborating the definitions of authenticity as the main priority in the study to lead into good comprehension of the topic. The followings are definitions of authenticity from various experts in language learning as stated in Taylor, 1994:2.

An authentic text is a stretch of real language, produced by a real speaker or writer for a real audience and designed to convey a real message of some sort. (Morrow, 1977, p. 13).

Authentic texts (either written or spoken) are those which are designed for native speakers: they are real texts designed not for language students, but for the speakers of the language in question (Harmer, 1983, p. 146)

A rule of thumb for authentic here is any material which has not been specifically produced for the purposes of language teaching. (Nunan, 1989, p. 54)

Wilkins (1976, p. 79) talks in similar vein about authentic materials as being materials which were originally directed at a native-speaking audience.

It is perceived that authenticity refers to text which is not intended for language learning. It is something like using newspaper, radio program, CD, etc in learning a language. Nevertheless, the issue of authenticity has developed throughout the history of teaching and learning. It is no longer seen from the materials only but also from the learning tasks which are highlighted in the study. Although classroom setting does not offer students with authentic context, it is

important for teachers to make the students feel like they are doing tasks the way they should be used (Yang, 2010). Authentic communication therefore refers to performing language the way it is used in a real world setting.

Authenticity should be comprehended from both the materials and other aspects of learning such as students and setting. ―Authenticity is a function not only of the language but also of the participants, the use to which language is put, the setting, the nature of the interaction, and the interpretation the participants bring to both the setting and the activity‖ (Taylor, 1994:6). Therefore, it should also be connected with the learning tasks or activities as stated by Gatbonton and Gu, 1994:24 ―Because of the different meanings of authenticity, the issue becomes subjective to individual interpretation‖(Taylor, 1994:3)

In order to create an authentic learning, teachers should create activities that allow students to use the language.

Teachers should design tasks that allow learners to practice identifying the key grammar and vocabulary in real-world texts and to develop the skills of speaking and listening in an integrated way, just as in authentic communicative situations (Yang, 2010: 341).

In addition, teachers should also adapt the learning to the students‘ context. Materials which are based on the relevant environment are expected to boost the learners‘ motivation which results to more effective learning (Nguyen, 2005).

b. Authenticity in Language Learning

Most students in Indonesia have started learning English since they are in their elementary level of education. Nevertheless, their English remains low. They

keep considering themselves as poor English learners and being incapable to involve in communicative activities like dialogues, presentation, role playing, drama and others. This has been resulted from the lack of practices in authentic communication. ―Many foreign language learners experience limited exposure to authentic discourse in the target language‖ (Oxford & Lin, 2011:163). School teachers unfortunately give little or no activities that provide students with authentic communication practices. This might be caused by their lack of time to provide such activities. There are three approaches that become the standards for authenticity in language learning (Mishan, 2005: 1):

The precedent for authenticity in language learning can be seen to fall into three groups: ‗communicative approaches‘ in which communication is both the objective of language learning and the means through which the language is thought, ‗materials-focused‘ approaches, in which learning is centered principally round the text, and ‗humanistic approaches‘ which address the ‗whole‘ learner and emphasize the value of human development.

It can be understood that authenticity should not only refer to a text as in the ‗materials-focused approach‘ but also to communication in the target language in order to guarantee the learners‘ progress. Unfortunately, most teachers do not put enough appreciation to the communicative and humanistic approaches. It eventually contributes to the learners‘ low competence in learning. ―Although a lot of effort has been put into the development of ELT programs, they have been largely unsuccessful in meeting even their limited goals‖ (Kaplan and Baldauf, 2003:97).

Indonesia as one of the expanding countries considers English simply as a foreign language which is only taught in school (Kirkpatrick, 2010). The lack attention on communicative approach in which students should experience using

English as a mean to learn the language is one main reason of the learners‘ incapability of using the language. To be authentic, the learning materials should always provide practices for using the language (Tomlinson and Masuhara, 2010:400). Teachers therefore should create authentic learning activities which enable the learners to really use the language for the learning to be more humanistic in which improvement becomes the base of learning.

c. Authentic Tasks

This section emphasizes on the importance of authentic tasks in language learning. Gatbonton and Gu (1994) stated that there are two criteria to meet authentic tasks:

1. The participants themselves have real control of the flow, direction, and nature of the conversations; create their own intentions; and select the means with which to express them.

2. The participants experience the tensions and pressures of real communication such as those arising from not knowing what their interlocutors would say or from having to make sense of their interlocutor‘s utterances under time pressure.

Task refers to ―learner undertaking in which the target language is comprehended and used for a communicative purpose in order to achieve a particular outcome‖ (Mishan, 2005: xiii). Since authentic tasks concerns with participants who are students, it is understood that authentic tasks relate with learning activities. It links the theories of language they learn with the learning practices. It should also be meaningful and consist of information gap which integrates four different language skills.

Authentic tasks are needed to create authentic assessment. They should integrate the goals of learning, the curriculum underlying them, and the practices related with their real-life communication. The issue of authentic tasks however should not only be viewed as real or not real. One example of ‗real‘ and ‗not real‘ is when two children pretend to be pirates and boarding an enemy ship in the playground. Two immediate relationships occur in the play. On one side they are courageous villains, on another side they are obedient children when the teacher asks them not to climb onto the roof of the bicycle shed (Cook, 2000:171). ―Authentic assessment refers to the procedures for evaluating learner progress using activities and tasks that integrate classroom goals, curricular, and instruction and real-life performance‖.

The following are outlines of authentic assessment in language learning (O‘Malley and Valdez Pierce 1996:12 as in Arnold, 1999:284):

 Oral interviews (of learner by the teacher)

 Story or text retelling (with listening or reading inputs)  Writing samples (with a variety of topics and registers)

 Projects and exhibitions (presentation of a collaborative effort)  Experiments and demonstrations (with oral or written reports)  Constructed-response items (to open-ended questions)  Teacher observation (of learners‘ work in class, making notes)  Portfolios (focused collection of learner‘s work to show progress)

In short, authenticity for effective communication should fulfill three essential items; it is somewhat spontaneous; it requires language that is relevant to the topic, relationship and type of the communication; and it is influenced by the culture in which language is used (Rothwell, 2012:55).

It can be summarized that authentic tasks should meet at least three criteria. The first is that it should give opportunities for the students to practice using the language through the integration of speaking and listening. The second is that it provides chances for the students to experience real English communication in which they are able to understand and to respond what their interlocutors are saying. The third is that it is relevant to the students‘ background or culture in which the language is used.

d. English Communication

In relation with authenticity in language learning, the value of communication or interaction with others is highly appreciated to be able to create authentic learning. There are three main definitions of communication as stated in Keeble, 2005:179:

a. Watzlawick et al. (1967: 22), …all behavior, not only speech, is communication, and all communication – even the communicational cues in an impersonal context – affects behavior.

b. Athanassiades (1974: 195): Verbal and non-verbal communication, i.e. the flow of information, impressions, and understandings from one individual to others.

c. Communication is used as synonymous to interaction. (Spitzber, 1998: 68) stated that Taken very broadly, communicative competence is the ability to interact well with others.

It can be perceived that communication refers not only to speech or verbal message but also to behaviors or attitude in the way people interact with others. In the context of English learning, the students and their interlocutors should comprehend the goal of the communication so that the message will be effectively understood (Viviers and Schalkwyk, 1992).

Communication consists of four essential parts (Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver as in Wrench 2013:11). They are ―sender, receiver, message, and channel‖. These four elements influence the goal of learning a language which is to help the learners to communicate meaningfully and to understand others better. Language learning as a consequence should always be related with communication. ―Language is communication. And communication both determines and is determined by social meaning‖ (Savignon, 104).

It can be summarized in the study that authentic communication relates with the English learning. It refers to interaction in which the participants and their friends they are talking to are able to understand the goal of communication. They are able to perform language tasks which give them opportunities to apply the English knowledge they have obtained like vocabulary and grammar into communicative practices. To add, it also gives them experience to real English communication which is spontaneous and affected by the culture where the language is used.

2. Cooperative Learning (CL)

The second crucial thing to elaborate in the study is cooperative learning. It is a learning strategy that encourages equal participation and collaboration among learners. It is suitable for the Indonesian learners who are often treated as passive learners. This part involves the understanding on cooperative learning and principles of CL.

a. Cooperative Learning

CL refers to a technique which puts students in small groups to solve problems together and to get reward for their achievement and cooperation (Slavin, 1980). In addition, Vaughan stated that CL refers to the use of mixed small group works to support and to enhance each other‘s comprehension in learning (Vaughan, 2002). The idea of CL is that it helps students to benefit from collaboration with peers in their learning (Jacobs and Hannah, 2004). In short, CL is a learning strategy in which students learn through collaboration with their friends to support each other‘s maximum comprehension in their learning.

b. Principles of CL

In applying CL, there are some principles that need to be acknowledged by the teachers before conducting it in their classes. There are six essential elements of CL recommended by the experts in the field (Kagan 1994; Slavin 1995; Johnson et al., op. cit. as in Ning, 2011: 61). They are ―positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive interaction, equal participation, equal opportunity for success, and group processing‖ Hertz-Lazarowitz, Kirkus, and Miller (1992 as cited in Peterson and Miller, 2004:124) noted, CL is not only "as a means of reaching end goals such as enhancing academic achievement and increasing positive interpersonal and intergroup relations," but also "as an end product that is valuable in and of itself‖ (p. 253). In other words, CL should go beyond only boosting interpersonal relationship. It should assist learners to develop high appreciation of collaborating with others.

The principles of CL are in line with four of hypotheses, theories, and perspectives on language pedagogy. The first is the individual differences domain which strongly matches with CL as: (Jacobs and Hannah, 2004:103).

a. Group activities provide a different mode of learning rather than a steady diet of teacher-fronted instruction

b. Within groups, students can develop more fully as they can play a wider range of roles than are normally available via teacher-fronted instruction. c. The CL principle heterogeneous grouping encourages students to interact

with peers different from themselves, providing students opportunities to benefit from this diversity and to learn to work with people different from themselves.

d. When groups are working on their own, teachers have more time to spend with students who may need individual attention.

It is implied that collaborative learning supports the students‘ active involvement and their being respectful toward differences with their friends. Teachers as a result are able to manage their time more productively to focus on students‘ learning activities and to assist the ones who need special attention.

Beside the perspective on individual differences, CL also fits with affective factors in language learning. Affective factors like motivation and attitudes are crucial for the success of learning beside the cognitive factors.

The following are examples of how CL increases the affective factors (Jacobs and Hannah, 2004:104).

a. When working in supportive CL groups, students may feel less anxious and more willing to take risks.

b. When students feel that group mates are relying in them, they may feel more motivated to make the effort needed to maximize learning (Dornyei, 1997).

It can be interpreted from the above examples that affective factors play important roles in the success of learning. Through cooperative learning, students‘ affective needs are fulfilled in which they feel more comfortable and more

appreciated with the learning activities and they become more encouraged to make progress since every student in the group has the same opportunity to make progress in their learning.

CL therefore is selected as the learning strategy to help learners not only to practice authentic communication but also to respect differences and to boost the learners‘ affective domain to accomplish progress in learning.

The third relates with the input hypothesis. The interaction using English through cooperative learning activities supports the participants‘ English acquisition because they are able to use the target language without really learning the language patterns. The input hypothesis relates only with acquisition in which it refers to subconscious process and is reflected in natural setting. The following are claims about the input hypothesis (Krashen 1985, 1994 as in Ellis, 2008: 246):

1. Learners progress along the natural order by understanding input that contains structures a little bit beyond their current level of competence (i+I).

2. Although comprehensible input is necessary for acquisition to take place, it is not sufficient, as learners also need to be effectively disposed to ‗let in‘ the input they comprehend.

3. Input becomes comprehensible as a result of simplification and with the help of contextual and extra linguistic clues; ‗fine-tuning‘ (i.e. ensuring that learners receive input rich in the specific linguistic property they are due to acquire next) is not necessary.

4. Speaking is the result of acquisition, not its cause; learner production does not contribute directly to acquisition. (However, Krashen (1989) did allow for speaking to have an indirect effect by assisting the learner‘s conversational partner to make input comprehensible.)

The forth relates with the interaction hypothesis. Hatch (1978b: 404 as in Ellis, 2008: 252) claimed ―One learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact verbally, and out of this interaction syntactic structures are developed‖. The interactions in which the participants do the conversations using the target

language with their peers using cooperative learning activities support the hypothesis. Through communicative activities, they are able to interact and build their English competence. Hatch (1978b: 407 as in Ellis, 2008: 252) provided an example in an interaction involving Paul, Huang‘s (1970) subject:

PAUL Oh-oh!

J What?

PAUL This (Points at an ant)

J It‘s an ant.

PAUL ant

In his initial formulation of the IH, however, Long (1983a) emphasized the role played by interaction in making input comprehensible (Ellis, 2008: 252). Through interaction, it is believed that acquisition takes place. The general claim of both early and late versions of the IH is that engaging in interpersonal oral interaction in which communication problems arise and are negotiated facilitates incidental language acquisition (Ellis, 2008: 253).

3. Non-Classroom Learning Environment

The tendency that few researches have been conducted in a non-classroom setting has triggered the researcher to highlight the importance of carrying out the research in out-of classroom situation. This part in specific consists of knowledge and principles on the topic. In addition, it explores the differences between classroom learning and non-classroom learning to provide better understanding on how learning outside school assists students‘ achievement and self-esteem.

Non-classroom learning refers to learning in a society with group of people outside the classroom setting. ―Learning by using the community resources is called non-classroom learning. The non-classroom learning is based on the

practical method of learning acquired from outside the school‖ (Ravi, 2011: 374). It takes place when students interact with the surroundings. ―Non-classroom learning occurs when the students come into contact with environment through travel, training, service, self-experience and experience gained from others‖ (Ravi, 2011: 374). It can be concluded that non-classroom learning is a setting where the students learn through interaction with the environment using a pragmatic method in which they are able to share experiences with one another to enhance their understanding toward things. Therefore, non-classroom learning is considered more genuine than the classroom one because the students interact more spontaneously with the society without being limited with the classroom‘s rules. Waite and Pratt, 2011: 3 stated that:

Experiences outside the classroom may therefore seem more ‗authentic‘ and grounded in ‗reality‘ and certainly some of the children in our own research (Waite, 2011) have talked of knowing that something is ‘real‘ in the sense of ‗believable‘ through first-hand experience rather than just being told. Perhaps then, reference to ‗reality‘ and ‗authenticity‘ is understood in relation to life beyond the educational setting.

Classroom learning is different from the non-classroom learning. This part in particular describes the differences between the two different learning settings which are classroom and out of classroom setting. The former one is strongly related with the formal learning context. It mostly focuses on the cognitive domain in which students are exposed to gain good scores as expected by the teachers and the institution. As a result, being good students simply means that they have to acquire good academic performance as demanded. Therefore, those who are successful in school learning may not be successful in out of school

context. ―Students are often unable to apply their in-school learning to real-world problems‖ (Pugh and Bergin, 2005: 16). The latter one on the other hand offers more connections among individuals. It represents more free-choice condition in which students with their awareness participate in the learning process. ―Informal environments may afford the application of learning, but they generally do not require it. That is, they represent free-choice transfer situations‖ (Pugh and Bergin, 2005: 18). Consequently, they are more motivated to boost not only their understanding toward school subjects but also toward other individuals in the same community outside the classroom setting. The understanding eventually leads to appreciation and collaboration which are essentially needed in solve real world problems.

―The difference is that within school this is a formally set up time for play and interaction with language and it is worth reflecting on how this situation varies in quality from the informal re-enactments that take place in the playground, the street or at home‖ (Cotton, 2011: 69)

It can be concluded that school learning is not able to guarantee the students to play role effectively outside school learning setting (Spaulding and Gentile, 1990). The true learning however should help the learners to survive in their life experiences. ―Dewey as stated in Pugh and Bergin, 2005: 15 believed that ―education should have an immediate influence on everyday experience through the learning of subject matter‖. The need for the establishment of non-classroom learning environment consequently is essential particularly to help those with learning disabilities. Those are the ones who usually come from low social class. ―Individuals with learning disabilities usually have low income

levels‖ (Mellard and Hazel, 1992: 255). When the two different learning situations work together to enhance academic performance and self-esteem, learning is truly taking place. Learning which brings benefits to assist the students to go through the life challenges.

4. English for Young Learners

In Indonesia, like in many other countries, English has been taught in the elementary schools. ―There has been the introduction of English as a foreign language at Primary schools (referred to as EFLPS hereafter) as English has spread as a means of wider communication‖ (Butler, 2009: 23). Some schools have started teaching their students English since they enter the elementary school while some others begin when the students are in their fourth grades when they are ten years old. Despite the fact that English is taught early in the elementary level, the success of its learning is not as expected. ―English is the first foreign language taught in schools, but often with only limited success‖ (Dardjowidjojo, 2000 as in Kirkpatrick, 2010:10)

English teachers especially those who deal with young learners therefore need to comprehend many essential things to reach the success of learning the language because it will influence their further learning. There are some essential things to consider when teaching English to young learners (As in Sukarno, 2008: 60):

a. Children learn through experiences by manipulating surrounding objects. Piaget in Hudelson (1991: 256) states that children in primary or elementary school are usual in what is called the concrete operational stage of cognitive development. This means that they learn through hands – on experiences and through manipulation of objects in the environment. Accordingly, it is important that the

English teachers use media or realia in delivering the materials in order that the students are able to understand easily.

b. Children learn through social context, in groups in which they know with one another. Vygotsky in Hudelson (1991: 257) states that children learn in social contexts, in groups where some group members know more than others. Therefore, the English teachers should make their teaching situations similar to social contexts.

c. Acquisition takes place when learners comprehend how the language is used. Vygotsky in Hudelson (1991: 257) states that acquisition occurs through learners figuring out how the language works, through learners making and testing out hypotheses about language. In this case, the English teacher should use English correctly although they employ short sentences.

d. Acquisition takes place in social interaction. Vygotsky in Hudelson (1991: 257) states that language acquisition occurs through social interaction. It means that the teacher should use English in the classroom naturally as if they were in their society.

In dealing with children, it is important to provide opportunities for them to experience working with real objects and experience real communication when learning a language. It should not be in the abstract domain where they learn something without knowing what it is for. The experiences accordingly assist them to comprehend the lesson. It is due to their concrete-operational stage in which a child ranging from seven to eleven starts to develop his logical thinking, breaking up the self from the environment (Nunan, 2011). The ability should also be supported by the social context because children learn better through collaboration with others. The implementation can be done through the group work activities in which students work together, assisting one to another with people they have already known. Another important point to consider when dealing with children is that they should be more exposed to acquiring the language instead of learning the language. In order to do so, the teacher should be able to create activities in which the students use English naturally as if they were used in their society through practices, repetition, and social interaction.

Step 2: ask each member to write on animal name on a piece of paper.

Step 3: ask them to exchange paper and to add writing another name of animals. Step 4: do the same activity for some rounds to practice writing animal names.

Add the total number of correct words from all the members. The number becomes

the group‟s scores. In order to get the maximum number, give the groups time to

discuss and evaluate each other spellings. Teacher can do similar activity with different topics such as things at school, occupations, flowers, places, etc.

Appendix G. Teacher’s Diary

(Before the application of cooperative learning to build the students‟ authentic communication)

Lesson Objectives:

 Did the students understand what we did in the lesson?

When a learning activity was done for the first time, the participants tended to look confused about what to do. They tended to ask a lot of questions even when the teacher had not finished explaining the instructions. They were actually enthusiastic about conducting the program but they were too worried about making mistakes. The action of asking questions was a reflection of their being nervous if they were not able to do the activities as expected. At first, I tended to simply repeat the instructions although it is in their first language without modifying them into simpler ones that are more comprehensible.

 Was what they did too easy or too difficult?

What they did was both easy and difficult. The participants were heterogeneous in terms of age, grade, and level of understanding so that what was easy for some of them were not easy for others. For example, when I introduced specific vocabularies and asked them to memorize the words for a quiz, the fifth and sixth graders could do it much better than those in the lower grades. One reason was because those in the higher levels have learned the topic in schools so that it is easy for them to memorize the words. On the other hand, those in the lower grades probably have not learned the words or at the moment of learning them in schools. Therefore, they have bigger challenges to deal with the topic. Consequently, they became less confident and had no courage to express themselves using English. I was aware that this might result to their being not motivated to participate in the learning. In addition, if I keep doing this, the higher graders would tend to dominate the class. I realized that I need to improve the learning process so that every learner has equal chance to succeed in their learning.

 What problems did the students have (if any)?

Due to my observation, there were four main problems that the students had. Firstly, it was related with their confidence. They came only when their friends were present. In other words, they would be absent when the friends did not come. When put in groups, they also tended to work only with the friends they were familiar with. The reason was because those joining the program were from various areas and schools. In addition, the program was a voluntary one in which there would be no consequences or penalty for not coming to the program.

Secondly, it was related with their limited exposure to English. When asked to use English such as answering questions in English, they chose to be quiet even when

the questions were simple like “What is your name?” or “Are you happy?”. In short, they avoided using English since they thought they were not able to do so. They always thought that they were incapable of speaking English. Thirdly, it was related with their limited encouragement from their parents. When they forgot that they had an English class in the community, their parents unfortunately did not remind their children to come. Fourthly, it was related with their different school schedules. Since they came from different schools, they sometimes had different extracurricular schedules which were not regular. As a consequence, there were days when only few of them were present.

 Was there a clear outcome for the students?

The first clear outcome was that the students spent their time more meaningfully on their Saturday afternoon. Instead of doing nothing or simply watching TV at home, they preferred to participate in the program. The second outcome was that some parents started to encourage and remind their kids to come to the English program. It means that they had better awareness toward their kids‟ education. They also witnessed that their kids started to show their interest in English by singing some English songs at home and by memorizing them. The third outcome was that they started to have closer relationship with the teacher which was seen from their courage to talk with the teacher even though it is in their first language. In short, there was improvement that the students started to trust and to feel comfortable with their teacher.

 What did they learn or practice in the lesson? Was it useful for them?

They basically learned English vocabularies through interesting activities like games and songs. Some of the games they did were bingo, snake and ladder, guessing games, scrabble, and hang-man. At that moment, I thought that the games would make them like and enjoy the English learning which eventually boosts their confidence to use the target language. The activities were useful for them since they were able to encourage the students to know and memorize more English words which would benefit their communicative skills.

Activities and materials:

 What different materials and activities did I use?

The materials and activities mostly highlighted the students‟ vocabulary mastery. I

simply varied the topics with other vocabularies that are related with their school topics. However, I have not been able to provide opportunities for every student to really use the vocabularies into communicative activities.

 Did the materials and activities keep the students interested?

In general, it attracted the students‟ interest. The female students stated that they

seldom sing English songs in schools. Therefore, the songs are able to make them interested and keep their interest. The vocabulary games in addition pleased them because they felt the sense of competition which made them enthusiastic to win the games. However, I realized that those with the highest ability tended to dominate the class. I was also aware that it was not positive for the others for it can reduce their enthusiasm in learning when they realized that they were less capable than the higher learners.

 Could I have done any parts of the lesson differently?

Yes, innovations should be made to make improvements. I mostly focused on only making the students liked English through songs and vocabulary games. It was good indeed. Nevertheless, I did not stress on their more crucial problem that was incapability to use the target language as a result of their lack of English communicative practices. Though they enjoyed the learning, they had not been able to solve their problem which was the inability to speak English. I simply taught vocabularies without really equipping them with adequate practices to use the words. I should provide and focus on such activities which demanded them to use the language instead of only learning the language.

Students:

 Were all the students on task (i.e. doing what they were supposed to be doing?) Since the songs and games were mostly new for them, they needed clear instructions and examples to do the activities as expected. The problem was that there were always some new comers who joined the program so that they needed more extra times to be able to conduct the activities like the other students. To solve the problem, I provided the students with copies of English songs so that they could bring it home for their own practices.

 If not, when was that and why did it happen?

Students did not do things as expected when they missed the class which meant that they missed the learning activities. Those who were left behind tended to keep quiet and passive during the learning activities.

 Which part of the lesson did the students seem to enjoy the most? And least? They seemed to feel comfortable to work on writing activities or any other activities which required minimum or no speaking activities. Some of them (the higher graders) enjoyed the vocabulary quizzes because they would get some rewards both in the forms of scores and some small gifts like stationeries from the teacher. On the other hand, they always tried to avoid any activities that demanded them to speak such as performing dialogues or doing role play.

 How much English did the students use?

Not much. My priority at the moment was simply to make them like and enjoy learning English in the community. However, I have started exposing them to simple expressions like “Good afternoon’, “Thank you”, “You’re welcome”, and “See you next week”.

Classroom management

 Did activities last the right length of time?

Truly, I didn‟t pay attention to limit the learning activities. I basically saw how they reacted to the activities. If they were interested then I kept doing the activities. I simply modified the topics to avoid boredom. When I taught them a topic on names of fruits, I used to start with guessing games to start the meeting. Then, I drilled them by introducing how to pronounce the words. After that, I asked them to translate the words from Bahasa to English. It looked interesting when I used the activities as a group competition. However, I realized that it was not effective for two reasons. First, I had misinterpretation that fun meant games. Second, the competition or the learning activities did not really provide opportunities for everyone to be involved actively in the learning process. Only those who have higher abilities were able to do so. As a result, they dominated the class, leaving the others to stay being passive.

 Was the pace of the lesson right?

It was not really effective in the beginning. The first reason was because some students came regularly while the others did not so that it influenced their speed in understanding the lesson. The second was because of their mixed abilities, various ages and school grades which made it not easy for the teacher to adapt with the topics, activities, and speed of learning.

 Did I use whole class work, group work, pair work or individual work?

I used whole class work the way most school teachers did and some group works through group competitions.

 What did I use it for? Did it work?

I used the activities only for creating interest among the students. However, It was not really effective to increase their English and their main problem with speaking or using the language.

 Did the students understand what to do in the lesson?

Overall, those higher graders were able to understand better than the lower ones

who usually only copied the seniors‟ work or asked using their first language.

 Were my instructions clear?

They were not really clear for I had to repeat and use the first language when giving instructions. I should have used simpler language or showed them more clear examples to help them understand the instructions.

 Did I provide opportunities for all the students to participate?

As mentioned in the previous questions, I did not maximally provide equal participation for every student to participate actively in the learning activities.  Was I aware of how all the students were progressing?

I saw it from their vocabulary test scores that the students did every week.

Overall

 If I taught the lesson again, what would I do differently?

Considering the students who were various in ages, grade, level of understanding and the fact that they avoided using English, I should provide different activities which supported their active involvement and which gave equal opportunity for every student to participate in the learning activities.