TEACHER-INITIATED FOCUS ON FORM (INCIDENTAL GRAMMAR TEACHING) AND LEARNER UPTAKE IN AN EFL COMMUNICATIVE CLASS.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The greatest thank is dedicated to Allah SWT due to His guidance and mercy to help the
writer in writing this thesis in partial fulfillment of the final academic requirements to gain
master degree from English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University ofMedan. The
writer would like to express her gratitude to all those who gave her the possibility to complete
this thesis.
First and foremost, the writer would like to offer her sincerest gratitude to her first
adviser, Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, for his valuable advice and precious time on commenting and
supervising the process of writing until the thesis comes to its present form. The writer is also
highly thankful to her second adviser, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., for further enriching
the thesis and generously offered his
couns~l
on a number of matters in her thesis. He has helped
her see the 'big picture' and put some of the research ideas in the proper context. His timely
comments were much highly appreciated.
Second, the writer would like to express profound gratitude to The Head of English
Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., for his necessary
administrative requirements and her thesis examiners: Prof. Tina Mariany Arifin, M.A., Ph.D.,
Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., as well as The Secretary of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, and Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed., TESP, for their detailed review, constmctive
criticism, correction, revision, excellent advice and suggestion in her thesis.
Then, the writer also expresses her sincere thankfulness to all lectures, for their guidance
and knowledge during the years of her study at English Applied Linguistics Study Program,
State University of Medan. And thanks to the staff members and librarians for making things
happen.
The writer is as ever especially indebted to her beloved and amazing parents;
Alm.Muhammad Ridwan and Aslah for their fascinating love, constant encouragement
throughout her whole life, and also to her wonderful brothers; Muhammad Fadel, S.P, and Fadhli
Hidayat, and lovely sisters; Nur Afifah, S.Pd.I, Nur Laila, S.Pd, and Mahfuzah.
Finally, the writer would like to give her special thank to her dearest and beloved
husband, Ismail Al-Ansyori Harahap, S.Pdl and her cute daughter, Aqila Nafisa Anshori Hrp, for
their love, support, understanding and sacrifice during her thesis.
Last, but not least, she confesses to do her utmost to accomplish the thesis but it is still far
from being perfect. Therefore; constructive ideas, criticism, and suggestion will be highly
appreciated.
Medan, August 2011
The writer,
Siti salmi
Reg.nuDlber:062188330019
ii
ABSTRACT
Salmi, Siti. Teacher.Jnitiated Focus on Form (Incidental Grammar Teaching) and Learner
Uptake at An EFL Communicative Class. A Thesis. Postgraduate School. English Applied
Linguistics Study Program. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2011
This study is attempted to investigate one type of grammar teaching which occurs
incidentally in communicative English classes and the student's responses which come
after the grammar explanation is given by teacher. The objectives of the study are
directed to describe in what context of communicative class the teacher initiated PFF,
how the teacher taught grammar in PFF sessions, and how the learner's uptake in
teacher-initiated PFF sessions was. The participants of the study are one English
teacher and forty students at grade ten from two different English classes at Madrasah
Aliyah Negeri I (MAN I) Medan. Qualitative method was used in this study. The data
were coilected by conducting interview and classroom observation in EFL
communicative English classes. The findings indicated that there are four contexts in
which the teacher initiated PFF, namely; when the teacher wanted to highlight a
particular point of grammar found in the learning material, when there was a need to
expand the student's question about lexical meaning of a word found during a game
activity into grammar explanation, when the teacher found a particular point of
grammar in the student's utterance in student's dialog performance, and when the
student did not understand the teacher's utterance or instruction. The ways the teacher
teaches grammar to the students are both deduct:ve and inductive. In a1dition, the
dimensions of grammar that the teacher focused on were meaning, form, and use. The
learner uptakes resulted in two major points. First, when grammar is presented
deductively, the Ieamer uptakes result in three variants, apply, recognize, and need
application, which go into two categories, successfUl for apply and unsuccessful, for
recognize and need application. Second, when the grammar teaching is explained
inductively, the learner uptake results in two kinds apply (successful) and recognize
(unsuccessful), with the absence of need application. In addition, apply dominated in
the learner uptakes when the grammar teaching was presented in inductive way. In
other words, using inductive approach in teaching grammar during communicative
English classes gives more opportunity for students to get successful uptake rather
than using deductive way.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ......................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study .................................................................. 1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ........................................................................ 5
1.3 The Objective of the Study ...................................................................... 5
1.4 The Scope of the Study ........................................................................... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Study ................................................................. 6
1.6 The Clarification ofTerms ....................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................... 9
2.1 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 9
2.1.1 FocusonForm ........................................................................ 9
2.1.2 Teacher-Initiated Pre-emptive Focus on Form ....................... 11
2.1.3 A Three-Dimensional Framework of Grammar ....................... 15
2.1.4 Inductive and Deductive Approach of Teaching .................... 16
2.1.5 Learner Uptake ......................................................................... 19
2.1.6 An EFL Communicative Class ................................................ 22
iv
2.1.7 Related Studies .......................................................................... 22
2.2 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 23
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD .............................................................. 25
3.1 Research Design ..................................................................................... 25
3.2 Research Location .................................................................................... 25
3.3 Subjects .................................................................................................... 25
3.4 The Technique of Data Collection .......................................................... 26
3.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 27
3.5.1 Transcribing the Data ................................................................ 27
3.5.2 Identifying Sessions of Pre-emptive Focus on Form ................ 27
3.5.3 Identifying and Coding Learner Uptake ................................... 28
3.5.4 Analyzing the Data .................................................................... 29
3.4 Research Validity ..................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER IV : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 31
4.1 The Data of Interview .............................................................................. 31
4.2 The Findings ............................................................................................ 32
4.2.1 The Contexts of Classroom Interaction in which the Teacher
initiates PFF ............................................................................... 32
4.2.2 The Findings of the Way Teacher Teaches in the Sessions of
Pre-emptive Focus on Form ..................................................... 37
4.2.3 The Findings of the Learner Uptake in Teacher-Initiated
v
PFF Sessions ............................................................................ .48
4.3 The Discussions ........................ ,.............................................................. 59
4.3.1 The Discussions ofthe Context of Classroom Interaction in Which
the Teacher Initiates PFF .......................................................... 59
4.3.2 The Discussions of the Way the Teacher Teaches in the Sessions of
Pre-emptive Focus on Form ...................................................... 61
4.3.3 The Discussions of the Learner Uptake in Teacher-Initiated PFF
Sessions ..................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ......................................... 67
5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 67
5.2 Suggestion ................................................................................................ 68
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIXES .......................................................................................................... 72
vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
I. Observation One at Class X U-2 (November 6t\ 20 10) ........................................ 72
2. Observation Two at Class X U-1 (November 9th, 2010) ........................................ 76
3. Observation Three at Class X U-2 (November lith, 2010) .................................... 79
4. Observation Four at Class X U-1 (November 18t\ 2010) ..................................... 84
viii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 A Three-Dimensional Framework of Grammar ................................................... IS
3.1 The Symbols of Transcribing the D:1ta ................................................................ 27
3.2 Sessions of Pre-emptive Focus on Form .............................................................. 29
4.1 The Contexts where Teacher Teaches Grammar ................................................. 37
4.2 The Ways the Teacher Introduces or Explains Grammar .................................... 47
4.3 The Learner Uptake .............................................................................................. 58
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
English language is vitally important because it is spoken in so many parts of the
world. Businesses, educational domains, academic domains, and even realms that deal
with security all use English as a language of communication. In a practical sense, one
could survive without English, but with the globalized nature of the world and commerce,
knowledge of English is quite essential. In terms of the appreciation of language and
literature, knowledge of English is extremely important in understanding some of the best
writings offered. This is not to say that other languages do not possess the same amount
of introspection and talent. Far from it, yet, the knowledge of English could help to open
many professional and literary doors.
In Indonesia English is regarded as an important subject nowadays. This condition
has been caused by the fact that English has become the most used-language in the world.
Graddol's study (as cited in Jarvis: 2005) suggests that in the year 2000 there were about
a billion of English learners - but a decade later, the numbers will have doubled in 20 l 0.
A common goal of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as a
Second Language (ESL) in most schools today is the students' ability to use English for
communication in either written language or spoken language. Books, magazines, and
newspapers written in English are available in many countries around the world, and
English is the most commonly used language in the sciences with Science Citation Index
reporting as early as 1997 that 95% of its articles were written in English, even though
2
only
half
of
them
came
from
authors
in
English-speaking
countries,
(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language). It is also the language of computers that
help to communicate with the people around the world through Internet technology and
e-mail. People who know English can deal with the internet, which regards information
and communications revolution. English operates as the lingua franca of today, the
language that businesspeople around the world use to communicate when they don't
speak the same native languages. Understanding English is necessary to succeed in
international business. According to Global Envision in www.ehow.com/facts, English is
the official language for more than 70 countries, and English is taught in schools around
the world. Knowing English opens new business doors. One has the chance to land jobs
in which English fluency either in written or spoken language is required, he or she can
communicate clearly with contacts and potential clients.
Based on those reasons, consequently, students are required to have competence
in using the target language for communication. This competence is known as
communicative competence (Hymes, 1972 in Richard and Rodgers, 2001; 159).
Communicative competence involves several components. First, based on the work of
Canale and Swain (1983 in Brown 2007), it includes four components: grammatical
competence,
sociolinguistic
competence,
strategic
competence,
and
discourse
competence. Meanwhile, according to Celcee-Murcia, et al (1995 in Fulcher and
Davidson, 2007), it includes five instead of four: discourse competence, linguistic
competence, socio-cultural competence, actional competence, and strategic competence.
Among
other
components
within
both
frameworks
of communicative
competence, grammatical (or linguistic) competence seems to be popular in language
3
pedagogy. Grammatical competence is an aspect of communicative competence that
encompasses "knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentencegrammar semantics, and phonology". It is competence that we associate with mastering
the linguistic code of a language, the "linguistic" competence (Brown: 2007). Grammar is
very important within the English language, since it is, in effect, the glue that holds the
language together. With the use of incorrect grammar, sentences can become meaningless
and the message is unclear. This means that without correct grammar, one is not able to
communicate effectively and the person who is reading the work may well be quite
confused about the meaning.
For a non-fiction writer, proper grammar is always important. With non-fiction,
the writer telling readers facts and information they need to know. The writer is most
likely doing this in some of article format. If the writer's grammar is poor, then the reader
is left with thoughts of whether or not the writer really knows what he or she is talking
about. If the writer cannot write properly, how he or she can really convey the subject
matter he or she is writing about authoritatively. Hence, good grammar usage is
important.
Although having grammatical competence is important and "grammar is too
important to be ignored", how grammar should best be taught is still questioned. In
effect, grammar is the way in which sentences are structured and the language is
formatted, so whilst it may be considered a bit boring to study correct grammar, it really
is worth the time and effort. If one does not know the rules of grammar, then he or she
will never be able to communicate clearly and effectively in the English language.
How to deal with grammar in communicative EFLIESL classes is an issue, which
4
has been investigated under the study of focus on form (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002). The
term focus on form is defined as any attempt of grammar teaching which is employed
incidentally in communicative activities or when the focus of the lesson is not on
studying grammar (Ellis, 2001). According to Long and Robinson (1998) focus-on-form
refers to "how focal attentional resources are allocated" to linguistic forms. For example,
during a meaning-based classroom lesson the teacher or another student may
momentarily shift attention from the content of a lesson or communicative activity to
specific linguistic features (e.g., words, collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic
patterns) in response to problems with comprehension or production.
According to Ellis et al., 2001 there are two types of focus on form, namely
reactive fixus on form and pre-emptive focus on form. Reactive focus on form refers to
the provision of corrective feedbacks towards grammatical errors during communicative
activities, while pre-emptive focus on form refers to initiating grammar discussion when
there is a need to do so; especially, it happens when a student asks question about
grammar or because the teacher feels it is important to highlight a particular point of
grammar.
An important issue involved in the studies of reactive focus on form and preemptive focus on form is learner uptake. Leamer uptake is defined as student's response
after the information or explanation of grammar has been given to students by teacher. In
reactive focus on form, learner uptake is identified after corrective feedbacks, while in
pre-emptive focus on form learner uptake is identified after teacher introduces grammar
to students. Leamer uptake is theoretically believed as to facilitate second language
acquisition (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Ellis et al., 2001). Ellis also added that the factors
5
like the way teacher introduces grammar and the time provided for producing uptake are
considered also affect the quality of uptake.
Considering the above discussion (i.e. grammatical competence, grammar
teaching, and the study of focus on form), this study will focus on investigating the nature
of pre-emptive focus on form which is initiated by teacher and Ieamer uptake in an EFL
communicative class where the primary focus of the lesson is on the use of English for
communication within all classroom activities.
1.2 The Problem of the Study
In line with the background of the study above, this study was concentrated on
finding the answers to the following questions.
I.
In what context of communicative class did the teacher initiate Pre-emptive Focus on
Form (PFF)?
2.
How did the teacher teach grammar in PFF sessions?
3.
How was the learner's uptake in teacher-initiated PFF sessions?
1.3 The Objective of the Study
In line with the research problems, the objectives of the study were to describe:
I. in what context of communicative class the teacher ir.itiated PFF.
2. how the teacher taught grammar in PFF sessions.
3. how the Ieamer's uptake in teacher-initiated PFF sessions was.
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study
Dealing with the teaching of grammar in communicative class, the term focus on
form has been investigated as the best way how to teach or insert grammar in
communicative classes. There are two kinds of focus on form; they are pre-emptive focus
on form and reactive focus on form. Reactive focus on form refers to the provision of
corrective feedbacks towards grammatical errors during communicative activities, while
pre-emptive focus on form refers to initiating grammar discussion when there is a heed to
do so; especially, it happens when a student asks question about grammar or because the
teacher feels it is important to highlight a particular point of grammar.
This study was concentrated on the pre-emptive focus on form.
Pre-emptive
focus on form itself can be initiated by teacher and student. This study was focused on
the focus on form which was pre-emptively initiated by teacher which happens
incidentally during communicative class and Ieamer uptake as the response to the
teacher's grammar explanation.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study were expected to be useful for both theoretical and practical
purposes. For theoretical purpose, it was expected that the findings of the study would
contribute to the theory of learning English as a foreign language, especially in the theory
of focus on form and learner uptake. For the practical purpose, this study was expected to
provide readers especially English teachers the insights of how grammar could be
inserted in an EFL communicative classroom. The findings were also hopefully
beneficial for the following researchers to conduct further research about focus on form.
7
1.6 The Clarification of Terms
To avoid possible confusion arising from the use ofterminology, a brief review or
the definitions oftenns is presented as follows:
a. Teacher-initiated pre-emptive focus-on-fonn.
Teacher-initiated pre-emptive focus on fonn (PFF) is a phenomenon of grammar
teaching in communicative classes by which a teacher initiates to introduce or
explain particular points of grammar to students in the middle of learning activities
(see Ellis, 2001; Ellis et al., 2001). The term 'pre-emptive' is used to show that the
act of giving infonnation of grammar is conducted before an error occurs since there
is another phenomenon of Focus on Form which contradicts PFF: Reactive Focus on
Form (RFF). Unlike PFF, RFF refers to any attempt of giving infonnation of
grammar by which teacher provides corrective feedback towards students' errors in
using the target language.
b. Learner uptake.
The tenn learner uptake in this paper refers to student's utterances in the target
language which serve as a response to the given infonnation of grammar and aims at
incorporating that information into his/her own language production (Ellis et al.,
2001 ). Based on the work of Ellis et al. (200 1), Ieamer uptake in teacher-initiated PFF
might take two forms. First, the student makes a sentence based on the infonnation
given. Second, he/she paraphrases the teacher's explanation or making a conclusion
based on the teacher's inf01mation of grammar. In short, learner uptake shows the
student's understanding about grammar based on the infonnation given; either
through giving examples or through making a conclusion.
8
c. Communicative English class
The term "communicative English classes" in this paper is intended to refer to an
English class in which both teacher and students uses English in classroom interaction
and the primary focus of the lesson is on communicative language use through many
kinds of learning tasks like role plays, interview, and games (Ellis et al., 2001 ).
CHAPTERV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
l. There were four different contexts in which the teacher initiated to teach grammar
to students, namely; when a particular point of grammar in learning material
seems important to be highlighted, when there was a need to expand the student's
question about lexical meaning of a word during a game activity into grammar
explanation, when the teacher found a particular point of grammar in the student's
utterance in student-student interaction, and when the student did not understand
the teacher's utterance or instruction that caused the teacher explain the grammar.
2.
The teacher employed different two approaches in teaching grammar, namely
inductive way and deductive one. The focus of grammar teaching was oc. the
dimensions on form/structure, meaning/semantics, and use/pragmatics.
3. The learner uptake resulted in two main parts, namely, first, when grammar is
presented deductively, the learner uptakes result in three variants, apply,
recognize, and need application, which go into two categories, successful for
apply and unsuccessful, for recognize and need application, and second, when the
grammar teaching is explained inductively, the learner uptake results in two kinds
apply (successful) and recognize (unsuccessful), with the absence of need
application. This indicated that using inductive approach in teaching grammar
during classroom interaction gives more opportunity for students to get successful
uptake rather than using deductive way.
67
68
5.2 Suggestions
1. When the teaching of grammar is needed because of the four contexts found in
this study, it would be better that teachers check the student's knowledge in a
particular point of grammar before introducing it to the students. In this case,
teachers can find out whether there is a gap in the student's proficiency or not.
2. Teachers should be knowledgeable about grammar and skillful in using grammar
for communication.
3. Teachers should examine various efforts of how grammar can be effectively
taught to their students.
69
REFERENCES
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun., Couper, Elise.,& Woerner, Bryan., (2005). The Theoretical
of Efective
Grammar
Instruction.
Retrieved
from
Underpinings
www.American.edu/Tesol
Brown, D H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Creswell, John W. (1994). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. USA. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K, and Yvonna, S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Newyork. Sage Publications, Inc.
Ellis, R. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Leamer Uptake in Communicative ESL
Lessons. Language Learning.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic
Inquiry. In Creswell, John W. (1994). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design.
USA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Fulcher. Glenn. and Davidson, Fred. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment.
Newyork: Routledge.
Hadley, Alice Omagio. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The Push towards Communication.In Richard (1999)
Richard, J C. (1999). Addressing Grammar Gap in Task Work. In Richard, J C &
Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel, Eli. and Fotos, Sandra. (ed.) (2002). New Perspective on Grammar Teaching in
Second Language Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc
Hymes, Dell. (1972). In Richard, J C & Rodgers, T S. (2001). Approaches and Methods
in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70
Jarvis. H, (2005), Technology and Change in English Language Teaching (ELT), Volume
7. Issue 4 Article 13, available online: http//www. Asian journal (January 25 1h,
2010)
Johnson, Keith. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2001). Teaching Grammar. In Celcee-Murcia (ed.) Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. In Nunan,
D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, Shawn. (2004). Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-Focused ESL
Lessons. Language Learning.
Long, M., and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, Research and Practice. In
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed. C. Doughty and
J. Williams, 15-41. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Leamer Uptake: Negotiation
of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Corection in Relation to
Error Types and Learner Repair In immersion Classrooms. Language Learning.
Merriam, B. Sharan. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. California. Josey-Bass Inc.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and Reformulation and Their Relationship with learner
Repair in Dyadic Interaction. Language learning.
Nunan, D. (1989). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Massachusetts: Heinle &
Heinle Peblishers.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NSS Negotiated
Interaction. Language Learning.
Poole, Alex (2005). Focus on Form Instruction: Foundation, application, ad Criticism.
The Reading Matrix.
Richard, J C. (2001). Addressing Grammar Gap in Task Work. In Richard, J C &
Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
71
Schmidt & Frota (1986). Developig Basic-conversatioal Ability in a Second Language: A
Case Study of an Adult Learner. In R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Coversation in
a Second Language. Rowley, MA. Newbury House.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the Relationship between Characteristics of Recasts and
Learner Uptake. Language Teaching Research.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. In
Richard, J C & Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused Instruction and Second Language Acquisition: A Review
of Classroom and Laboratory Research. Language Teaching.
Swan, M. (1996). Seven Bad Reasons for Teaching Grammar-and Two Good Ones. In
Richard, J C & Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, Scott. (1997). About Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi. Accessed on January 24th, 2010
1
www.linguistics-joumal.com/August_2008_ff.php. Accessed on January 24 \ 2010
www.interscience.wiley.com/joumal/118759258/abstract?. Accessed on March 2nd, 2010
www.novitasroyal.org/V ol_4_1/baleghizadeh.pdf. Accessed on June 01 st, 2010
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language. Accessed on October 15th, 2010
www.ehow.com/facts_ 67 46777_importance-english-communication-businessworld.html. Accessed on October 15th, 2010
The greatest thank is dedicated to Allah SWT due to His guidance and mercy to help the
writer in writing this thesis in partial fulfillment of the final academic requirements to gain
master degree from English Applied Linguistics Study Program, State University ofMedan. The
writer would like to express her gratitude to all those who gave her the possibility to complete
this thesis.
First and foremost, the writer would like to offer her sincerest gratitude to her first
adviser, Prof. Dr. Jawasi Naibaho, for his valuable advice and precious time on commenting and
supervising the process of writing until the thesis comes to its present form. The writer is also
highly thankful to her second adviser, Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., for further enriching
the thesis and generously offered his
couns~l
on a number of matters in her thesis. He has helped
her see the 'big picture' and put some of the research ideas in the proper context. His timely
comments were much highly appreciated.
Second, the writer would like to express profound gratitude to The Head of English
Applied Linguistics Study Program, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M. Pd., for his necessary
administrative requirements and her thesis examiners: Prof. Tina Mariany Arifin, M.A., Ph.D.,
Prof. Dr. Lince Sihombing, M. Pd., as well as The Secretary of English Applied Linguistics
Study Program, and Dr. Eddy Setia, M. Ed., TESP, for their detailed review, constmctive
criticism, correction, revision, excellent advice and suggestion in her thesis.
Then, the writer also expresses her sincere thankfulness to all lectures, for their guidance
and knowledge during the years of her study at English Applied Linguistics Study Program,
State University of Medan. And thanks to the staff members and librarians for making things
happen.
The writer is as ever especially indebted to her beloved and amazing parents;
Alm.Muhammad Ridwan and Aslah for their fascinating love, constant encouragement
throughout her whole life, and also to her wonderful brothers; Muhammad Fadel, S.P, and Fadhli
Hidayat, and lovely sisters; Nur Afifah, S.Pd.I, Nur Laila, S.Pd, and Mahfuzah.
Finally, the writer would like to give her special thank to her dearest and beloved
husband, Ismail Al-Ansyori Harahap, S.Pdl and her cute daughter, Aqila Nafisa Anshori Hrp, for
their love, support, understanding and sacrifice during her thesis.
Last, but not least, she confesses to do her utmost to accomplish the thesis but it is still far
from being perfect. Therefore; constructive ideas, criticism, and suggestion will be highly
appreciated.
Medan, August 2011
The writer,
Siti salmi
Reg.nuDlber:062188330019
ii
ABSTRACT
Salmi, Siti. Teacher.Jnitiated Focus on Form (Incidental Grammar Teaching) and Learner
Uptake at An EFL Communicative Class. A Thesis. Postgraduate School. English Applied
Linguistics Study Program. Universitas Negeri Medan. 2011
This study is attempted to investigate one type of grammar teaching which occurs
incidentally in communicative English classes and the student's responses which come
after the grammar explanation is given by teacher. The objectives of the study are
directed to describe in what context of communicative class the teacher initiated PFF,
how the teacher taught grammar in PFF sessions, and how the learner's uptake in
teacher-initiated PFF sessions was. The participants of the study are one English
teacher and forty students at grade ten from two different English classes at Madrasah
Aliyah Negeri I (MAN I) Medan. Qualitative method was used in this study. The data
were coilected by conducting interview and classroom observation in EFL
communicative English classes. The findings indicated that there are four contexts in
which the teacher initiated PFF, namely; when the teacher wanted to highlight a
particular point of grammar found in the learning material, when there was a need to
expand the student's question about lexical meaning of a word found during a game
activity into grammar explanation, when the teacher found a particular point of
grammar in the student's utterance in student's dialog performance, and when the
student did not understand the teacher's utterance or instruction. The ways the teacher
teaches grammar to the students are both deduct:ve and inductive. In a1dition, the
dimensions of grammar that the teacher focused on were meaning, form, and use. The
learner uptakes resulted in two major points. First, when grammar is presented
deductively, the Ieamer uptakes result in three variants, apply, recognize, and need
application, which go into two categories, successfUl for apply and unsuccessful, for
recognize and need application. Second, when the grammar teaching is explained
inductively, the learner uptake results in two kinds apply (successful) and recognize
(unsuccessful), with the absence of need application. In addition, apply dominated in
the learner uptakes when the grammar teaching was presented in inductive way. In
other words, using inductive approach in teaching grammar during communicative
English classes gives more opportunity for students to get successful uptake rather
than using deductive way.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................... i
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ......................................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 1
1.1 The Background of the Study .................................................................. 1
1.2 The Problem of the Study ........................................................................ 5
1.3 The Objective of the Study ...................................................................... 5
1.4 The Scope of the Study ........................................................................... 6
1.5 The Significance of the Study ................................................................. 6
1.6 The Clarification ofTerms ....................................................................... 7
CHAPTER II : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................................................... 9
2.1 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................... 9
2.1.1 FocusonForm ........................................................................ 9
2.1.2 Teacher-Initiated Pre-emptive Focus on Form ....................... 11
2.1.3 A Three-Dimensional Framework of Grammar ....................... 15
2.1.4 Inductive and Deductive Approach of Teaching .................... 16
2.1.5 Learner Uptake ......................................................................... 19
2.1.6 An EFL Communicative Class ................................................ 22
iv
2.1.7 Related Studies .......................................................................... 22
2.2 Conceptual Framework .......................................................................... 23
CHAPTER III: RESEARCH METHOD .............................................................. 25
3.1 Research Design ..................................................................................... 25
3.2 Research Location .................................................................................... 25
3.3 Subjects .................................................................................................... 25
3.4 The Technique of Data Collection .......................................................... 26
3.5 Data Analysis ........................................................................................... 27
3.5.1 Transcribing the Data ................................................................ 27
3.5.2 Identifying Sessions of Pre-emptive Focus on Form ................ 27
3.5.3 Identifying and Coding Learner Uptake ................................... 28
3.5.4 Analyzing the Data .................................................................... 29
3.4 Research Validity ..................................................................................... 29
CHAPTER IV : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ................................................. 31
4.1 The Data of Interview .............................................................................. 31
4.2 The Findings ............................................................................................ 32
4.2.1 The Contexts of Classroom Interaction in which the Teacher
initiates PFF ............................................................................... 32
4.2.2 The Findings of the Way Teacher Teaches in the Sessions of
Pre-emptive Focus on Form ..................................................... 37
4.2.3 The Findings of the Learner Uptake in Teacher-Initiated
v
PFF Sessions ............................................................................ .48
4.3 The Discussions ........................ ,.............................................................. 59
4.3.1 The Discussions ofthe Context of Classroom Interaction in Which
the Teacher Initiates PFF .......................................................... 59
4.3.2 The Discussions of the Way the Teacher Teaches in the Sessions of
Pre-emptive Focus on Form ...................................................... 61
4.3.3 The Discussions of the Learner Uptake in Teacher-Initiated PFF
Sessions ..................................................................................... 64
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ......................................... 67
5.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 67
5.2 Suggestion ................................................................................................ 68
REFERENCES ......................................................................................................... 69
APPENDIXES .......................................................................................................... 72
vi
LIST OF APPENDIXES
I. Observation One at Class X U-2 (November 6t\ 20 10) ........................................ 72
2. Observation Two at Class X U-1 (November 9th, 2010) ........................................ 76
3. Observation Three at Class X U-2 (November lith, 2010) .................................... 79
4. Observation Four at Class X U-1 (November 18t\ 2010) ..................................... 84
viii
LIST OF TABLES
2.1 A Three-Dimensional Framework of Grammar ................................................... IS
3.1 The Symbols of Transcribing the D:1ta ................................................................ 27
3.2 Sessions of Pre-emptive Focus on Form .............................................................. 29
4.1 The Contexts where Teacher Teaches Grammar ................................................. 37
4.2 The Ways the Teacher Introduces or Explains Grammar .................................... 47
4.3 The Learner Uptake .............................................................................................. 58
vii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
English language is vitally important because it is spoken in so many parts of the
world. Businesses, educational domains, academic domains, and even realms that deal
with security all use English as a language of communication. In a practical sense, one
could survive without English, but with the globalized nature of the world and commerce,
knowledge of English is quite essential. In terms of the appreciation of language and
literature, knowledge of English is extremely important in understanding some of the best
writings offered. This is not to say that other languages do not possess the same amount
of introspection and talent. Far from it, yet, the knowledge of English could help to open
many professional and literary doors.
In Indonesia English is regarded as an important subject nowadays. This condition
has been caused by the fact that English has become the most used-language in the world.
Graddol's study (as cited in Jarvis: 2005) suggests that in the year 2000 there were about
a billion of English learners - but a decade later, the numbers will have doubled in 20 l 0.
A common goal of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) or English as a
Second Language (ESL) in most schools today is the students' ability to use English for
communication in either written language or spoken language. Books, magazines, and
newspapers written in English are available in many countries around the world, and
English is the most commonly used language in the sciences with Science Citation Index
reporting as early as 1997 that 95% of its articles were written in English, even though
2
only
half
of
them
came
from
authors
in
English-speaking
countries,
(www.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language). It is also the language of computers that
help to communicate with the people around the world through Internet technology and
e-mail. People who know English can deal with the internet, which regards information
and communications revolution. English operates as the lingua franca of today, the
language that businesspeople around the world use to communicate when they don't
speak the same native languages. Understanding English is necessary to succeed in
international business. According to Global Envision in www.ehow.com/facts, English is
the official language for more than 70 countries, and English is taught in schools around
the world. Knowing English opens new business doors. One has the chance to land jobs
in which English fluency either in written or spoken language is required, he or she can
communicate clearly with contacts and potential clients.
Based on those reasons, consequently, students are required to have competence
in using the target language for communication. This competence is known as
communicative competence (Hymes, 1972 in Richard and Rodgers, 2001; 159).
Communicative competence involves several components. First, based on the work of
Canale and Swain (1983 in Brown 2007), it includes four components: grammatical
competence,
sociolinguistic
competence,
strategic
competence,
and
discourse
competence. Meanwhile, according to Celcee-Murcia, et al (1995 in Fulcher and
Davidson, 2007), it includes five instead of four: discourse competence, linguistic
competence, socio-cultural competence, actional competence, and strategic competence.
Among
other
components
within
both
frameworks
of communicative
competence, grammatical (or linguistic) competence seems to be popular in language
3
pedagogy. Grammatical competence is an aspect of communicative competence that
encompasses "knowledge of lexical items and rules of morphology, syntax, sentencegrammar semantics, and phonology". It is competence that we associate with mastering
the linguistic code of a language, the "linguistic" competence (Brown: 2007). Grammar is
very important within the English language, since it is, in effect, the glue that holds the
language together. With the use of incorrect grammar, sentences can become meaningless
and the message is unclear. This means that without correct grammar, one is not able to
communicate effectively and the person who is reading the work may well be quite
confused about the meaning.
For a non-fiction writer, proper grammar is always important. With non-fiction,
the writer telling readers facts and information they need to know. The writer is most
likely doing this in some of article format. If the writer's grammar is poor, then the reader
is left with thoughts of whether or not the writer really knows what he or she is talking
about. If the writer cannot write properly, how he or she can really convey the subject
matter he or she is writing about authoritatively. Hence, good grammar usage is
important.
Although having grammatical competence is important and "grammar is too
important to be ignored", how grammar should best be taught is still questioned. In
effect, grammar is the way in which sentences are structured and the language is
formatted, so whilst it may be considered a bit boring to study correct grammar, it really
is worth the time and effort. If one does not know the rules of grammar, then he or she
will never be able to communicate clearly and effectively in the English language.
How to deal with grammar in communicative EFLIESL classes is an issue, which
4
has been investigated under the study of focus on form (Hinkel and Fotos, 2002). The
term focus on form is defined as any attempt of grammar teaching which is employed
incidentally in communicative activities or when the focus of the lesson is not on
studying grammar (Ellis, 2001). According to Long and Robinson (1998) focus-on-form
refers to "how focal attentional resources are allocated" to linguistic forms. For example,
during a meaning-based classroom lesson the teacher or another student may
momentarily shift attention from the content of a lesson or communicative activity to
specific linguistic features (e.g., words, collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic
patterns) in response to problems with comprehension or production.
According to Ellis et al., 2001 there are two types of focus on form, namely
reactive fixus on form and pre-emptive focus on form. Reactive focus on form refers to
the provision of corrective feedbacks towards grammatical errors during communicative
activities, while pre-emptive focus on form refers to initiating grammar discussion when
there is a need to do so; especially, it happens when a student asks question about
grammar or because the teacher feels it is important to highlight a particular point of
grammar.
An important issue involved in the studies of reactive focus on form and preemptive focus on form is learner uptake. Leamer uptake is defined as student's response
after the information or explanation of grammar has been given to students by teacher. In
reactive focus on form, learner uptake is identified after corrective feedbacks, while in
pre-emptive focus on form learner uptake is identified after teacher introduces grammar
to students. Leamer uptake is theoretically believed as to facilitate second language
acquisition (Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Ellis et al., 2001). Ellis also added that the factors
5
like the way teacher introduces grammar and the time provided for producing uptake are
considered also affect the quality of uptake.
Considering the above discussion (i.e. grammatical competence, grammar
teaching, and the study of focus on form), this study will focus on investigating the nature
of pre-emptive focus on form which is initiated by teacher and Ieamer uptake in an EFL
communicative class where the primary focus of the lesson is on the use of English for
communication within all classroom activities.
1.2 The Problem of the Study
In line with the background of the study above, this study was concentrated on
finding the answers to the following questions.
I.
In what context of communicative class did the teacher initiate Pre-emptive Focus on
Form (PFF)?
2.
How did the teacher teach grammar in PFF sessions?
3.
How was the learner's uptake in teacher-initiated PFF sessions?
1.3 The Objective of the Study
In line with the research problems, the objectives of the study were to describe:
I. in what context of communicative class the teacher ir.itiated PFF.
2. how the teacher taught grammar in PFF sessions.
3. how the Ieamer's uptake in teacher-initiated PFF sessions was.
6
1.4 The Scope of the Study
Dealing with the teaching of grammar in communicative class, the term focus on
form has been investigated as the best way how to teach or insert grammar in
communicative classes. There are two kinds of focus on form; they are pre-emptive focus
on form and reactive focus on form. Reactive focus on form refers to the provision of
corrective feedbacks towards grammatical errors during communicative activities, while
pre-emptive focus on form refers to initiating grammar discussion when there is a heed to
do so; especially, it happens when a student asks question about grammar or because the
teacher feels it is important to highlight a particular point of grammar.
This study was concentrated on the pre-emptive focus on form.
Pre-emptive
focus on form itself can be initiated by teacher and student. This study was focused on
the focus on form which was pre-emptively initiated by teacher which happens
incidentally during communicative class and Ieamer uptake as the response to the
teacher's grammar explanation.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study were expected to be useful for both theoretical and practical
purposes. For theoretical purpose, it was expected that the findings of the study would
contribute to the theory of learning English as a foreign language, especially in the theory
of focus on form and learner uptake. For the practical purpose, this study was expected to
provide readers especially English teachers the insights of how grammar could be
inserted in an EFL communicative classroom. The findings were also hopefully
beneficial for the following researchers to conduct further research about focus on form.
7
1.6 The Clarification of Terms
To avoid possible confusion arising from the use ofterminology, a brief review or
the definitions oftenns is presented as follows:
a. Teacher-initiated pre-emptive focus-on-fonn.
Teacher-initiated pre-emptive focus on fonn (PFF) is a phenomenon of grammar
teaching in communicative classes by which a teacher initiates to introduce or
explain particular points of grammar to students in the middle of learning activities
(see Ellis, 2001; Ellis et al., 2001). The term 'pre-emptive' is used to show that the
act of giving infonnation of grammar is conducted before an error occurs since there
is another phenomenon of Focus on Form which contradicts PFF: Reactive Focus on
Form (RFF). Unlike PFF, RFF refers to any attempt of giving infonnation of
grammar by which teacher provides corrective feedback towards students' errors in
using the target language.
b. Learner uptake.
The tenn learner uptake in this paper refers to student's utterances in the target
language which serve as a response to the given infonnation of grammar and aims at
incorporating that information into his/her own language production (Ellis et al.,
2001 ). Based on the work of Ellis et al. (200 1), Ieamer uptake in teacher-initiated PFF
might take two forms. First, the student makes a sentence based on the infonnation
given. Second, he/she paraphrases the teacher's explanation or making a conclusion
based on the teacher's inf01mation of grammar. In short, learner uptake shows the
student's understanding about grammar based on the infonnation given; either
through giving examples or through making a conclusion.
8
c. Communicative English class
The term "communicative English classes" in this paper is intended to refer to an
English class in which both teacher and students uses English in classroom interaction
and the primary focus of the lesson is on communicative language use through many
kinds of learning tasks like role plays, interview, and games (Ellis et al., 2001 ).
CHAPTERV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1. Conclusion
l. There were four different contexts in which the teacher initiated to teach grammar
to students, namely; when a particular point of grammar in learning material
seems important to be highlighted, when there was a need to expand the student's
question about lexical meaning of a word during a game activity into grammar
explanation, when the teacher found a particular point of grammar in the student's
utterance in student-student interaction, and when the student did not understand
the teacher's utterance or instruction that caused the teacher explain the grammar.
2.
The teacher employed different two approaches in teaching grammar, namely
inductive way and deductive one. The focus of grammar teaching was oc. the
dimensions on form/structure, meaning/semantics, and use/pragmatics.
3. The learner uptake resulted in two main parts, namely, first, when grammar is
presented deductively, the learner uptakes result in three variants, apply,
recognize, and need application, which go into two categories, successful for
apply and unsuccessful, for recognize and need application, and second, when the
grammar teaching is explained inductively, the learner uptake results in two kinds
apply (successful) and recognize (unsuccessful), with the absence of need
application. This indicated that using inductive approach in teaching grammar
during classroom interaction gives more opportunity for students to get successful
uptake rather than using deductive way.
67
68
5.2 Suggestions
1. When the teaching of grammar is needed because of the four contexts found in
this study, it would be better that teachers check the student's knowledge in a
particular point of grammar before introducing it to the students. In this case,
teachers can find out whether there is a gap in the student's proficiency or not.
2. Teachers should be knowledgeable about grammar and skillful in using grammar
for communication.
3. Teachers should examine various efforts of how grammar can be effectively
taught to their students.
69
REFERENCES
Biesenbach-Lucas, Sigrun., Couper, Elise.,& Woerner, Bryan., (2005). The Theoretical
of Efective
Grammar
Instruction.
Retrieved
from
Underpinings
www.American.edu/Tesol
Brown, D H. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Creswell, John W. (1994). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. USA. Sage
Publications, Inc.
Denzin, N. K, and Yvonna, S. Lincoln. (1994). Handbook of Qualitative Research.
Newyork. Sage Publications, Inc.
Ellis, R. Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Leamer Uptake in Communicative ESL
Lessons. Language Learning.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating Form-Focused Instruction. Language Learning.
Erlandson, D. A., Harris, E. L., Skipper, B. L., & Allen, S. D. (1993). Doing Naturalistic
Inquiry. In Creswell, John W. (1994). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design.
USA. Sage Publications, Inc.
Fulcher. Glenn. and Davidson, Fred. (2007). Language Testing and Assessment.
Newyork: Routledge.
Hadley, Alice Omagio. (2001). Teaching Language in Context. Boston: Heinle & Heinle
Publishers.
Harmer, Jeremy. (2007). How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Higgs, T., & Clifford, R. (1982). The Push towards Communication.In Richard (1999)
Richard, J C. (1999). Addressing Grammar Gap in Task Work. In Richard, J C &
Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Hinkel, Eli. and Fotos, Sandra. (ed.) (2002). New Perspective on Grammar Teaching in
Second Language Classrooms. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc
Hymes, Dell. (1972). In Richard, J C & Rodgers, T S. (2001). Approaches and Methods
in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
70
Jarvis. H, (2005), Technology and Change in English Language Teaching (ELT), Volume
7. Issue 4 Article 13, available online: http//www. Asian journal (January 25 1h,
2010)
Johnson, Keith. (2001). An Introduction to Foreign Language Learning and Teaching.
Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2001). Teaching Grammar. In Celcee-Murcia (ed.) Teaching
English as a Second or Foreign Language. Boston: Thomson Learning, Inc.
Littlewood, W. (1981). Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. In Nunan,
D. (1989). Designing Tasks for the Communicative Classroom. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Loewen, Shawn. (2004). Uptake in Incidental Focus on Form in Meaning-Focused ESL
Lessons. Language Learning.
Long, M., and P. Robinson. 1998. Focus on form: Theory, Research and Practice. In
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition, ed. C. Doughty and
J. Williams, 15-41. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R., and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective Feedback and Leamer Uptake: Negotiation
of Form in Communicative Classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition.
Lyster, R. (2001). Negotiation of Form, Recasts, and Explicit Corection in Relation to
Error Types and Learner Repair In immersion Classrooms. Language Learning.
Merriam, B. Sharan. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in
Education. California. Josey-Bass Inc.
Nassaji, H. (2007). Elicitation and Reformulation and Their Relationship with learner
Repair in Dyadic Interaction. Language learning.
Nunan, D. (1989). Second Language Teaching and Learning. Massachusetts: Heinle &
Heinle Peblishers.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage Adjustments as an Outcome of NS-NSS Negotiated
Interaction. Language Learning.
Poole, Alex (2005). Focus on Form Instruction: Foundation, application, ad Criticism.
The Reading Matrix.
Richard, J C. (2001). Addressing Grammar Gap in Task Work. In Richard, J C &
Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
71
Schmidt & Frota (1986). Developig Basic-conversatioal Ability in a Second Language: A
Case Study of an Adult Learner. In R. Day (Ed.). Talking to Learn: Coversation in
a Second Language. Rowley, MA. Newbury House.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the Relationship between Characteristics of Recasts and
Learner Uptake. Language Teaching Research.
Skehan, P. (1996). A framework for the Implementation of Task-based Instruction. In
Richard, J C & Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Spada, N. (1997). Form-focused Instruction and Second Language Acquisition: A Review
of Classroom and Laboratory Research. Language Teaching.
Swan, M. (1996). Seven Bad Reasons for Teaching Grammar-and Two Good Ones. In
Richard, J C & Renandya, W A. (2000) (eds). Methodology in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thornbury, Scott. (1997). About Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi. Accessed on January 24th, 2010
1
www.linguistics-joumal.com/August_2008_ff.php. Accessed on January 24 \ 2010
www.interscience.wiley.com/joumal/118759258/abstract?. Accessed on March 2nd, 2010
www.novitasroyal.org/V ol_4_1/baleghizadeh.pdf. Accessed on June 01 st, 2010
www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language. Accessed on October 15th, 2010
www.ehow.com/facts_ 67 46777_importance-english-communication-businessworld.html. Accessed on October 15th, 2010