CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S LANGUAGE CHOICE OF L1 AND TL IN EFL CLASSROOM.
CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S LANGUAGE CHOICE OF L1 AND TL IN EFL CLASSROOM
(A Descriptive Study of an English Language Teacher in One of Junior High Schools in Majalengka)
A RESEARCH PAPER
Submitted to English Education Department of Indonesia University of Education as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of Sarjana Pendidikan Degree
By: Fitri Aprianti
1006636
ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
(2)
LEMBAR HAK CIPTA
CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S LANGUAGE CHOICE OF L1 AND TL IN EFL CLASSROOM
(A Descriptive Study of an English Language Teacher in One of Junior High Schools in Majalengka)
Oleh Fitri Aprianti
Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Ilmu Pendidikan
© Fitri Aprianti 2014 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia
September 2014
Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.
Skripsi ini tidak boleh diperbanyak seluruhya atau sebagian, dengan dicetak ulang, difoto kopi, atau cara lainnya tanpa ijin dari penulis.
(3)
(4)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu DECLARATION
I declare that this research paper entitled “CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER’S LANGUAGE CHOICE OF L1 AND TL IN EFL CLASSROOM” (A Descriptive Study of an English Language Teacher in One of Junior High Schools in Majalengka) submitted for Sarjana Pendidikan degree is entirely the result of my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources. All quotations are already properly acknowledgement
Bandung, August 2014
(5)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu PREFACE
Bismillahirrohmanirrohim…
Alhamdulillahirobbil’alamin, on behalf of the kindness of Allah SWT, this paper finally can be accomplished, blessing and peace also be offered upon Muhammad SAW, the greatest messenger and noblest leader.
This research paper, which is basically arranged for the purpose of partially fulfilling requirements of Sarjana Pendidikan degree, has actually prompted lots of valuable lessons. As the process of completing the research requires me to understand concept, methodology and step thus it could also being able to lead me to be more critical, patience and even work harder in order to accomplish this work.
However, I do realize that this paper still has limitations. Therefore, constructive suggestion and critiques toward this paper will be beneficial for my improvement. Finally, I do also hope that this research paper may become an advantageous contribution for the readers.
Bandung, August 2014
(6)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I realize that the competition of this research paper will not happen without contribution and support from many people. Therefore, I would like to firstly express my sincerely gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr. H. Didi Suherdi, M.Ed., Rojab Siti Rodliyah, S.Pd., M.Ed. and Iyen Nurlelawati, M.Pd. for their insightful guidance, numerous encouragement and suggestion which made the accomplishment of this research paper possible.
My grates grattitude will also be delivered to none other than my beloved parents, Bapak H. Rohman and Ibu Hj. Titin Sultini, who always call my name in every single prayer they made, for their constantly love, trust and also endless support.
I also would like to thank for my brother Iim Abdurochim S.Pd and Sivlia Hendriani S.pd who always give support and encouragement in various ways. The greatest thanks will also goes to my adorable nephew Kaka Evareta Calya Atallah and my beloved cousin Elvaro Azzam Attalah (Dede Elvar) who have became the source of inspiration for me. A special thanks also goes to Bambang Setiawan S.Pd. who especially helped me in finding some literature from various sources and also for giving encouragement in various ways.
I would also like to take this opportunity to express my thank to my dearest friends Annisa Syamrotul P., Debi, Indar, Neni, Novi, Nur, Raita and all of the people who are joined together in class B3 and all students in English Edu B and A as well. My thanks are also delivered to Teti, Mey, Orin and Lian who together from the beginning of our high school graduation we keep supporting to each other in order to reach our dream.
Last but not least, I also own my gratitude to the teacher participant and her students as well as the school board. Without their participation this research paper would never have been possible.
(7)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION....……… i
PREFACE …..……… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT …………...………. iii
ABSTRACT ………... iv
TABLE OF CONTENT ……… v
LIST OF FIGURE ……… ix
LIST OF TABLE ……….. x
LIST OF CHART ………. xi
LIST OF APPENDICIES ……… xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ………. 1
1.1 Background ………... 1
1.2 Research Questions ………... 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study ………. 4
1.4 Scope of the Study ……….... 4
1.5 Significance of the Study ……….. 5
1.6 Research Methodology ………. 5
1.6.1 Research Design ………... 5
1.6.2 Site and Participant of the Study ……….. 6
1.6.3 Data collection ……….. 6
1.6.4 Data Analysis ……… 6
1.7 Clarification of Terms ………... 7
1.7.1 Classroom Interaction ………... 7
(8)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
1.7.3 TL and L1 ………. 7
1.7.3 English as Foreign Language (EFL) Classroom ………... 8
1.8 Organization of the Paper ………. 8
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ………. 9
2.1 Language Choice ……….. 9
2.1.1 Definition of Language Choice ……… 9
2.1.2 Language Choice in the Classroom Interaction ……… 10
2.2 Classroom Interaction ………... 13
2.3 Discourse …………...……… 15
2.4 Discourse Analysis and Classroom Discourse Analysis …………... 16
2.4.1 A Brief over View on Discourse Analysis ………... 16
2.4.2 Classroom Discourse Analysis ………. 16
2.4.2.1 Discourse Structure ………... 17
2.4.2.2 Move Categories ………... 19
a. Synoptic Moves in Exchange Categories …………..……... 19
b. Dynamic Moves ……….……….. 21
1) Suspending System …………..……… 21
2) Aborting System ………...………… 22
3) Elucidating System ………...………… 22
4) Sustaining System ………. 22
2.4.2.2 Exchange Categories ………. 22
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ……….. 24
3.1 Research Design ………... 24
3.2 Participant of the Research ………... 25
3.3 Data Collection ………. 25
3.3.1 Classroom observation ………. 25
(9)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.4 Data Analysis ……… 27
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ……… 29
4.1 Findings ………...………. 29
4.1.1 Teacher’s Language Choice ………. 29
4.1.1.1 English Lessons and Teacher’s Language Choice.……… 30
a. The Division Labor of L1 and TL Based on Word Count System …………..………... 30
b. The Division Labor of L1 and TL Based on the Distribution of the Exchange Categories ……….. 32
1) Non-Anomalous Exchanges ……… 33
a) Knowledge Oriented Exchanges ……….… 33
b) Action Oriented Exchanges ……… 36
2) Anomalous Exchanges ……… 38
4.1.1.2 Pedagogical Events and Teacher’s Language Choice ….. 40
a. Pre Activity ………...………... 41
b. Whilst Activity ………...……….. 44
c. Post Activity ………...……….. 45
4.1.2 The Function of Teacher’s L1 use….……… 46
4.1.2.1 The Distribution of Synoptic Moves Percentage in Relation to the Teacher’s L1 Function ………. 46
a. K1 Moves ………... 47
b. DK1 Moves ………... 49
c. K2 Moves ………. 49
4.1.2.2 The Distribution of Dynamic Moves Percentage in Relation to the Teacher’s L1 Function ………. 49
(10)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
a. Suspending Systems ………. 52
b. Aborting and Elucidating Systems………... 54
c. Sustaining Systems …...……… 54
4.2 Discussion ……… 58
4.2.1 Teacher’s Language Choice ………. 58
4.2.2 Teacher’s L1 Function ……….. 59
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ……… 61
5.1 Conclusion ……… 61
5.1.1 Teacher’s Language Choice ………. 61
5.1.2 The Functions of the Teacher’s L1 Use……… 62
5.2 Suggestion ………. 63
REFFERENCES ………... 65
APPENDICES ………...……… 69
(11)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF FIGURE
Figure 2.1 Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) Framework Analysis…………. 19 Figure 2.2 Categories of Exchange Structure……….… 23 Figure 2.3 Interval Scaled of the Teacher’s L1 Percentage……… 27 Figure 2.4 Representation of the scale of the L1 percentage……….. 28
(12)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF TABLE
Table 4.1 The Proportion of the Teacher’s Language Choice from Four Meetings Based on Word Count System which was adapted from Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002) and Shimura (2007)... 31 Table 4.2 The Distribution of Exchange Categories in Relation to the
Teacher’s Language Choice... 32 Table 4.3 The Distribution of Knowledge Oriented Exchanges in Relation
to the Pattern of Teacher’s Language Choice (Between TL and L1)... 34 Table 4.4 The Distribution of Knowledge Oriented Exchanges in Relation
to the Pattern of Teacher’s Language Choice (between TL and L1)... 36 Table 4.5 The Distribution of Anomalous Exchange Categories in Relation
to the Pattern of Teacher’s Language Choice (Between TL and L1)... 38 Table 4.6 The Distribution of the Teacher’s Language Choice in Each of
the Teaching Stages Based on Word Count Analysis... 40 Table 4.7 The Distribution of Synoptic Move Percentage in Relation to the
Teacher’s L1 Function………... 47 Table 4.8 The Distribution of Dynamic Move Percentage in Relation to the
Teacher’s Language Choice………... 50 Table 4.9 The Distribution of Dynamic Move Percentage in Relation to the
(13)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF CHART
Diagram 4.1 The Distribution of Suspending Move Percentage in Relation to the Teacher’s L1 Function………. 52 Diagram 4.2 The Distribution of Suspending Move Percentage in
Relation to the Teacher’s L1 Function………. 52 Diagram 4.3 The Distribution of Aborting and Elucidating Move
Percentage in Relation to the Teacher’s L1 Function………. 54 Diagram 4.4 The Distribution of Sustaining Move Percentage in Relation
to the Teacher’s L1 Function……….. 55
(14)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Video Recording Transcriptions Appendix B Calculation of Exchange Categories Appendix C Interview Transcription
(15)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu ABSTRAK
Fitri Aprianti 2014: Interaksi Kelas: Analisis Penggunaan Bahasa Guru antara L1 dan TL di Kelas EFL (Deskriptif Studi di Salah Satu Sekolah Menengah Pertama di Majalengka)
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menunjukan hasil investigasi atas pemilihan bahasa yang ditampilkan oleh guru dalam kelas Bahasa Inggris disalah satu sekolah menengah pertama di Majalengka. Dalam kata lain, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk memaparkan pembagian tugas (division labor) serta fungsi dari penggunaan Bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa target (Target Language/TL) dan Bahasa Indonesia sebagai bahasa pertama (L1) siswa maupun guru. Data yang berupa rekaman video yang berisikan segala tutur serta pemilihan bahasa yang digunakan oleh guru ketika mengajar Bahasa Inggris dianalisis dengan menggunakan CLDA atau Classroom Discourse Analysis. Hasil analisis tersebut menunjukan bahwa terdapat pola yang cukup berbeda antara penggunaan Bahasa Inggris serta Bahasa Indonesia didalam kelas terutama jika ditinjau dari persebaran kategori exchange yang ditemukan didalamnya.
Bahasa target yakni Bahasa Inggris umumnya mendominasi hampir keseluruhan dari persebaran kategori exchange sederhana maupun yang kompleks. Sebalikanya, Bahasa Indonesia cenderung untuk muncul didalam kategori kompleks exchange saja, hal tersebut menunjukan bahwa Bahasa Indonesia cenderung muncul ketika terjadi masalah dalam suatu segmen percakapan. Maka, dapat disimpulkan bahwa Bahasa Inggris selalu menjadi bagian dari setiap percakapan atau setiap kategori exchange. Dalam hal ini, guru pada umumnya menggunakan Bahasa Inggris sebagai pengawal dari setiap percakapan, namun ketika terjadi kesalah pahaman atau masalah maka guru akan memakai Bahasa Inggris untuk mengantisipasi masalah tersebut. Penggunaan Bahasa Indonesia dalam bentuk dynamic dan synoptic moves tersebut bertujuan untuk membuka lajur pertukan informasi tetap terbuka.
(16)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu ABSTRACT
Fitri Aprianti (2014): Classroom Interaction: An Analysis Of Teacher’s Language Choice of L1 and TL In EFL Classroom (A Descriptive Study of an English Language Teacher in One of Junior High Schools in Majalengka)
This paper presents the results of an investigation of the teacher’s language choice that was performed in English as foreign language classroom in one of junior high school in Majalengka. Specifically, the present study is aimed in exploring the division labor between English as the target language (TL) and Bahasa Indonesia as the learners’ and the teacher’s native language or L1 and the functions of the teacher’s L1 use. The available data which consist of transcription of video recordings of the teachers’ language choice which were collected during classroom observations were analyzed by using classroom discourse analysis (CLDA). The findings suggest that there is a distinctive pattern of the teacher’s language choice in relation to the distribution of the exchange categories.
The result shows the target language dominated all of the simple and complex exchange categories. In contrast, the student’s first language mainly occurred in complex exchange categories. It signals that the students’ first language commonly occurred whenever problem or trouble happen. Thus, it can be concluded that English has always been a part of the exchange categories. Teacher mainly used the target language as the initiation in every exchange, however whenever trouble occur it was the students first language or that was used, in the other word, the students first language mainly used as the evaluative turn of the exchange itself. The use of L1 in a form of both synoptic and dynamic moves was employed in order to keep the flow of information channel open. Key Words: language choice, target language (TL), first language (L1).
(17)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter presents the general outline of the study as it is divided into several parts namely background of the study, research questions, aims and significance, clarification of key terms as well as the paper organization. 1.1 Background of the Study
Foreign language teaching and learning environments are potentially multilingual (Brown, 2001), therefore, even though it is found that teacher may have prepared the lesson and specifically what language to be used in classroom even since the lesson plan making, but then, the realization in the classroom may be truly different. In addition to the target language or TL, usually, there is also another language which is presented in the language classroom and mostly, the language itself is in a form of the native language of the learners and the teacher which is also known as L1 (Freeman, 2005: Sellinker, 1999).
That particular condition also seems to be in line with Verschueren who states that “using language consists of continuously making of choices.” (1999: 55). Thus, according to Zou (2010) “whenever a language user enters the dynamic process of verbal communication, he or she is under an obligation to make choices”. The choice that the participant made itself, to some extends, could be in a form of what language to use; which is also known as language choice. Verschueren (1999) also further clarifies that the term language choice could also refer as general choice of code for a particular form of communication.
Canagarajah (2007) supports Verschueren’s point of view regarding to the area of language choice by adding that the language choice of the speaker may be affected by the context of situation that she/he is encountered with. Here, the teachers’ preference or choice of the language usage in the classroom interaction,
(18)
2
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
for example, may finally be affected not only by the other participants that are involved in the conversation but also by the pedagogical purposes that they have set for the students. Therefore, Canagarajah (2007) further states that the context of situation may greatly contribute to give certain characteristics, in this case institutional character especially in terms of the variation of using two languages or more.
The institutional character of the teacher’s language choice may vary, to some extends, it can be in a term of language pattern. Canagarajah (1995) states that we may be able to get a clear cut between the actual function or the division labor of each of the language through deep analysis of the classroom interaction itself. However, it is important to be highlighted that the spoken interactions even in the classroom may be anything but predictable and unproblematic even though it is also found that there will be a particular pattern following it (Macaro, 2001).
That particular condition is also supported by Burns et. al. (1996) who state that “spoken interactions between people are not always as static as it is expected”. It naturally may due to the fact that in spoken mode, for example, the participants are actually being engaged in a dynamic and unfolding use of language(s). Therefore, depending on the factors that are influencing the teaching practice, the division labor between TL and L1 may goes beyond what had been predicted before; as it is only viewed to have functions in giving instruction or managing classroom situation (Prahbu, 2000).
There are some approaches that are often used by the researchers in studying the pattern of the language choice performed by the teacher in the classroom interaction. Some of the research studies, for example, tend to be focused on examining the language choice in the area of sociolinguistic. While on the other hand, it seems that only a few of them which are focused on examining the language choice in the area of discourse level. Classroom discourse analysis (CLDA), interestingly, can also be employed as one of the approaches to this field as the outcomes of the study itself can be very promising (Suherdi, 2009). As clarified by Chaudron, (1988 as cited in Suherdi, 2009), there are some
(19)
3
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
advantages in using classroom discourse analysis for analysing language in the classroom, one of the advantages themselves is that it is able to gain more comprehensive view in describing classroom interaction. He also adds that this framework analysis could also give more empirical evidence to the study (Suherdi, 2008).
Thus, with this in mind, CLDA can be used to determine the extent to which the use of two languages in the same conversation follows a predictable pattern, or only as a random behaviour. In this case, CLDA is also attempted in finding out the function of the teacher’s L1 use as the result of the teacher’s language choice which could be achieved by examining the exchange systems and also types of moves found in the classroom interactions.
Some studies had been conducted to explore the division labor between L1 and TL in the classroom interaction; however, they mainly concentrate only on depicting the views of either the teacher or the students without observing the actual classroom interaction (Temmerman, 2009). In contrast, some other studies are only focused to examine the pattern of one of the languages use such as L1, while the pattern of the occurrence of the TL seems to be abandoned (Shimura, 2007). The research has not been conducted in depth on how the possibility of the teacher’s use of both the teacher’s and the students’ native or first language (L1) could determine the division labor of both of the languages in a lesson as a whole. Several other research studies have also been developed to compare the actual function of L1 and TL (Target Language), however, the research studies themselves were mainly conducted in classroom where English, particularly, is viewed as Second Language use (ESL) (Ford, 2009; Hiller, 2008; Luk& Wong, 2010; Temmerman, 2009), while only few of them who concern in investigating the L1 use in the classroom practice in EFL context.
Thus, the issue regarding to the teachers’ language choices was selected as it is has not being found to be taken place in EFL classroom in Indonesia as the setting of the research in depth. This study is expected to be able to depict the pattern of the language choice, particularly, the division labor of each of the
(20)
4
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
language use. In addition, as the L1 use is considered as the marked language use or the language that would not be normally expected in a certain context (Fishman, 1965), thus, it seems essential to also examine the discourse function of L1 in teaching TL.
1.2 Research Questions
The research questions assist the researcher to focus on investigating the questions which then need to be answered; moreover, the research questions that have been formulated also become one of the essential elements of the research process itself (Fraenkel et al., 2012). Therefore, the research questions that are posed here are as follows:
1. What kind of division labor is there between L1 and TL in the foreign language classroom?
2. Does the teacher have preference for using both L1 and TL in teaching English?
3. What discourse functions does the teacher’s use of L1 serve in the classroom?
1.3 Purpose of the Study
Regarding to the research questions above, there is one main purpose of the study that is to explore the language choice of the teacher in teaching English as a foreign language. This purpose is then broken down into three more specific purposes as follows:
1. To find out the division labor between L1 and TL in the foreign language classroom.
2. To find out the teacher’s preference of using both L1 and TL in teaching English.
3. To find out the discourse functions of the teacher’s use of L1 in the classroom.
(21)
5
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
This study is limited to study the pattern of the language choice and L1 function(s) which were performed by the teacher participant in English as Foreign Language (EFL) classroom interaction. In addition, the research also is also limited to find out the perspective of the teacher participant regarding to the use of the target and first language in the classroom interaction especially in terms of her purpose and belief of implementing it.
1.5 Significance of the Study
The research is aimed to explore the area of language teaching specifically in terms of the language choice performed by the teacher in teaching English as Foreign Language (EFL) which can be improved or developed to enhance the quality of practice. Therefore, it is hoped that the outcome of the study itself could contribute to a better understanding of actual classroom language usage.
In addition, through an analysis of situation in which the L1 and TL are used in classroom interaction, it is also hoped, that the result could give a new insight for English teachers regarding the awareness of actual language use in terms of their purpose and belief of implementing it. Finally, it is also expected that the result could give valuable contributions in raising teachers’ consciousness to match the classroom language usage to pedagogical goals that they have set for their students.
1.6 Research Methodology
This section will highlight and discuss the most appropriate research design, sample selection, data collection and data analysis.
1.6.1 Research Design
According to Fraenkel et al. (2012) the research design which is selected for the research studies should be the one which is most suited to the research topic, as the method design itself is aimed to gain the answer of the proposed research questions. Therefore, here, the descriptive qualitative research method was chosen in order to fulfill the purpose of the research questions. The
(22)
6
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
descriptive qualitative design was expected to be able to explore the division labor of the teachers’ language choice in teaching English in EFL classroom. In this case, it is also supported by Holloway and Wheeler (as cited in Fraenkel et al., 2012) that basically the qualitative study allows in exploring; behaviors, perspectives, feelings, and experiences in depth.
1.6.2 Site and Participant of the Study
The study was conducted in one of the junior high schools in Majalengka. The participant in this research was an English teacher who has been teaching English for eighteen years in grade seven. The quantity of the students in the classroom which was observed basically reaches up to 35 students.
1.6.3 Data Collection
This study employed two instruments which those are classroom observation and interview. These instruments were used to get ageneral description about the teacher’s language choice in EFL classroom. Each of the instruments will be explained as follow:
1.6.3.1 Classroom Observation
The classroom observation which was equipped by camera recorder was used to get general description about the teacher’s language choice in EFL classroom especially in terms of the frequency and function of both the target (TL) and the first language (L1) use in different part of the lesson.
1.6.3.2 Interview
The interview section was aimed to validate the data which was gained from classroom observation (Fraenkel et. al., 2012). In addition, at this point the teacher was asked to reflect her preferences on language(s) that was chosen to be used in the classroom (L1 and TL). At this stage, the queries arising from classroom observations was also clarified and considered.
(23)
7
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
In the process of data analysis, the data which were taken from observation consisted of the transcription of the language use of the teacher in whole lessons. The transcription has been categorized and synthesized by using Classroom Discourse Analysis (CLDA) in order to find out the pattern of the teacher’s language choice and the function of the L1 use in the classroom interaction itself (Suherdi, 2008). In addition, the data which was gained from interview was an interview transcription. The transcription has been explored and coded to get the teacher’s inner thought towards the language use in the classroom interaction.
1.7 Clarification of the Key Terms
The title of the research is “Classroom Interaction: An Analysis of Teachers’ Language Choices of L1 and TL in EFL Classroom”. In order to avoid the ambiguity and misinterpretation of the key terms in the title above, the clarification and specification of the key terms will be depicted as follow:
1.7.1 Classroom Interaction
In this study, classroom interaction refers as a form of institutional interaction. In the classroom discourse, the nature of the interaction itself will be likely affected by the need of fulfilling the institutional goal. Therefore, some of the experts determine the classroom interaction as a form of institutional interaction, an institutional form of discourse (Merritt et al., 1992)
1.7.2 Teachers’ Language Choice
Teacher’s Language Choice is described as general choice of language code for the classroom activity (Verschueren, 1999). This study is expected to be able to depict the pattern of the teacher’s language choice particularly to the division labor of each of the language use. Furthermore, as the L1 use is considered as the marked language use or the language that would not be normally expected in a certain context (Fishman, 1965) thus the discourse function of L1 in teaching TL will also be higlighted.
(24)
8
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 1.7.3 L1 and TL
Here, L1 and TL refer to the language preference that is used by the teacher in different parts of classroom interaction. The L1 stands for the learner’s first language which is used by the teacher during the English lesson, while the TL (Target Language) refers to the language that is learned by the students during the lesson (Freeman, 2005: Selinker, 1999) but also used by the teacher in teaching English.
1.7.4 EFL Classroom
EFL (English as Foreign Language) Classroom refers to English language classroom in junior high school. In this study, the classroom which was observed was grade seven. EFL classroom could also be interpreted as the area of English language teaching and learning where, here, English is viewed as the language that is not widely used by the learners in immediate context (Savile, 2006). It also means that learner may not get a high exposure of English in and out of the classroom context since “..the language itself is not official or societally dominant language needed.” (Saville, 2006).
1.8 Paper Organizations
This paper is presented into five chapters as follow: CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter presents the general issue of the study which is divided into background of the study, research questions, aims and significance, clarification of terms as well as the paper organization.
CHAPTER 2: THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
Chapter two presents the foundation of relevant theories as a basis for discussing the research problems.
(25)
9
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Chapter three provides the explanation of the procedures in collecting and analyzing the data gained from both observation and interview.
CHAPTER 4: FINDING AND DISCUSSION
Chapter four present the finding of this study along with the discussion through relevant theories.
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
Chapter five covers the conclusion and suggestion which are relevant to this study.
(26)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter will highlight and discuss the most appropriate methods of design, sample selection, data collection and analysis.
3.1 Research Design
According to Fraenkel et al. (2012) the method design which is selected for research studies should be the one which most suited to the research topic, as the method design itself is aimed to gain the answer of the proposed research question. Therefore, here, the descriptive qualitative research method was chosen in order to fulfill the purpose of the research questions. The descriptive qualitative design is expected to be able explore teacher’s language choice in teaching English in EFL classroom interaction. Furthermore, it is also found that basically the qualitative study allows in exploring: behaviors, perspectives, feelings, and experiences in depth as it is stated by Holloway and Wheeler as cited in Fraenkel et al., (2012).
It is also clarified by Fraenkel et al. (2012) that in the qualitative method, the data was collected, coded and classified into some categories so that the main issue of the study can be revealed successfully. The classroom observation and also interview of the selected participant are two main aspects that were conducted in order to gain the data which is needed (Burns et. al., 1996). It is also in line with Fraenkel et al., (2012) who state that the nature of the qualitative study itself is intended to seek for information from naturally occurring data, thus, to some extends, observing and interviewing the participant will essentially be needed. The analysis of language choices includes description on how the pattern of the teacher’s language usage in the lessons was presented. Lastly, the results were combined together and discussed from the point of view of the teacher so that implications that can be made.
(27)
25
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.2 Participant of the Research
The participant in this research was an English teacher from one of the junior high schools in Majalengka. The reason of choosing the school and the teacher is because first of all the school is accessible, moreover, the school characteristic as well as the teacher’s had already been known. Therefore, the feasibility of the study was supported (Emilia, 2008).
The English teacher that was chosen has been teaching English for more than eighteen years. The selected teacher teaches English in grade seven. The selected teacher has Sundanese and Bahasa Indonesian as her first and dominant language use, however, the dominant language that is used to interact with the students in school area is Bahasa Indonesia. Therefore, the native language was investigated was limited to Bahasa Indonesia only. This particular condition is also in line with the students’ background who basically have both Sundanese and Indonesian as their first and dominant language use. The quantity of the students reaches up to 35 student per-class. The selected teacher teaches English in a same class twice a week and each of the section last for about 80 minutes (2x40 minutes). The study was conducted four times during the English lesson itself.
3.3 Data Collection
This research employs two instruments, they are classroom observation and interview. These instruments were used to get ageneral description about the teacher instructional language choice in EFL classroom. Each of the instruments will be explained as follow:
3.3.1 Classroom Observation
Classroom observation was conducted in this study since it enabled the researcher to record behavior as it is happening (Merriam, 1991). In this study, the classroom observation was conducted in order to get general description about the teacher’s language choice in English for Foreign Language (EFL) classroom
(28)
26
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
interaction. The classroom observation was equipped by a camera recorder so that all of the teacher’s utterances or verbal performances in the classroom interaction could be transcribed. The transcription was analyzed in order to find out the teacher’s language choice which also include frequency and function of L1 use in different parts of the lessons such as pre, whilst, up to post activity. Note taking was also conducted whenever there was any marked pedagogical aspect that related with the teacher’s language choice occurred during the teaching section itself. The notes were copied after each meeting in order to keep the fresh memory of the observation (Van Lier, 1998 as cited in Emilia, 2008)
In addition, in order to get the clear picture of the pattern of teacher’s language choice performed in the classroom interaction, the teacher’s teaching section was recorded for about four times or four meetings within 80 minutes (2 x 40 minutes) for each of the teaching performance.
3.3.2 Interview
Interview was also conducted in this study in order to validate the data that was gained from classroom observation. Interview section could also enable researcher to gain specific information that was required from the participant in depth (Fraenkel et, al., 2012). Moreover, it can increase confidence in research findings (Glesne and Peshkire, 2004) In addition, at this point the teacher was asked to reflect her preferences regarding to the language that was used in the
classroom (L1 or TL). The teacher’s point of view regarding to the
implementation and also the benefit of the L1 use was also clarified. The queries arising from classroom observations was clarified and considered as well.
The semi-structured interview was conducted in the language of the teacher’s choice (Bahasa Indonesia). The interview was recorded by audio-recorder to create an interview transcription. In order to get general description of the language choice that was employed by the teacher in teaching English, the interview was conducted after the observation sections.
(29)
27
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.4 Data Analysis
The data which were taken from the observation was consisted of the transcription of the teacher’s language usage in the classrooms. The data was further analyzed in order to find out the frequency of the L1 and TL use or language choice that was used by the teacher during the lesson. The transcription was explored and coded by focusing on the aspect that might cause the existence of the L1 during the lesson. Basically the analysis of the collected data was conducted as follows:
1. Firstly, this paper used the word count method in order to compare the use of L1 and TL from overall classroom language use that was performed by the teacher in teaching English to EFL learners. At this stage all of the intelligible words of English and Indonesia that was used by the teacher were counted. This included grammatical word such as articles and prepositions. This leads to an obvious problem due to the different nature of the two languages. However, since this is not the main focus of this study it seems accurate enough to give an image of the approximate proportion of each of the language use. The system of counting words used in this paper was drawn from Rolin-Ianziti and Brownlie (2002), and Liu et al. (2004). To count English words, this article used the word count function of a word processor. The amount of the L1 was placed in a certain position which was arranged start from 0 to 100%. The L1 use was put in an interval scaled from 1 up to 5 in which one interval to another was ranged for about 20 per cent (i.e. 1 = 20%; 2 = 40%; 3 = 60%; 4 = 80%; 5 = 100% L1 use). The illustration of the scale percentage could be seen on the table as follow:
(30)
28
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Interval (%) Scale Categories
>80 5 Very high
60 – 79 4 High
40 – 59 3 The use of L1=TL
20 – 39 2 Low
<19 1 Very low
*representation of the scale of the L1 percentage
The scale that has been mentioned before leaded the researcher to put the teacher on the scale at the level that matched the degree of her L1 use. This method has actually been used by Crawford (2004) and Lourie & Inbar (2010), however a particular change has been made in order to meet the needs of the research.
2. Secondly, the transcription of the observation was analyzed by using the Classroom Discourse Analysis (CLDA) (Suherdi, 2006). Then, the result of the classification was further classified based on its discourse function. Basically there were two major categories those are anomalous and non anomalous exchange categories. Each of the categories of the function has its own specific categories and types as well.
3. Then the remaining L1 use (based on its discourse functional categories) was counted to see the proportion L1 function itself. The function of the L1 use was classified based on it moves categories whether it is in a form of synoptic or dynamic moves and clarified the aspect that may cause the occurrence of the student’s first language itself.
4. Finally, the data which was gained from interview was an interview transcription. The transcription was explored and coded to get teacher’s inner thought towards the use of English language use in the classrooms,
1 2 3 4 5
20% 40% 60 80% 100%
(31)
29
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
how the teacher/learners native language was used and in what extend it was used. The data which was gained would validate the previous data from the classroom observation.
(32)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
This chapter presents the conclusion and suggestion. In conclusion, all of the previous findings and discussions are drawn together to get the summary of the study. In suggestion all implications and suggestions for the further research will be depicted.
5.1 Conclusion
This study focuses on finding out the pattern of the teacher’s language use and also the L1 function as the result of the teacher’s language use in the classroom interaction. The participant of the study was an English teacher who teaches English in one of junior high school in Majalengka. The aim of the study was answered by listing and describing the data which was gained from the classroom observation and interview to the teacher participant by using the word count system and also classroom discourse analysis (Suherdi, 2009). Thus, based on the data in the previous chapter it can be concluded that:
5.1.1 Teacher’s Language Choice
From the word count system, it was revealed that basically teacher had performed the language choice stable on 84.93% for the use of English as the target language and 15.05% for the use of Indonesia as the students’ first language (L1). Therefore the L1 use can be determined as the marked language use as it is in line with Fishman (1965) who clarifies that the more English is used the more marked the students’ first language become, vice versa.
In addition, the result from the classroom discourse analysis shows that there is a distinctive pattern of the teacher’s language choice in relation to the distribution of the exchange categories. The results depict that the spread of the exchanges which are constructed by Target Language (TL)-only dominate all of
(33)
62
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
the complex exchange categories. It is then followed by the number of exchanges that are constructed by moves which contain more than one language (Mix Language). While the L1-only exchange only found in a small amount of the exchange categories. Therefore, it can be concluded that this finding may finally able to confirm the previous finding from the word count system that the L1 use can be determined as the marked language use (Verschueren, 1999).
The division labor of both languages that are found in knowledge-oriented exchanges shows that the exchanges which are constructed by the target language (TL)-only mainly dominate all of the simple exchanges. In contrast, the complex exchanges are dominated by both of the languages (Mix). It signals that the students’ first language commonly occur whenever problem or trouble happen (Baker and Jones 1998:53).
Unlike the knowledge-oriented exchanges, in action-oriented exchange categories, the exchange which is constructed by TL only dominates both simple and complex exchanges.
From the analysis of the exchange categories and also from the interview that has been conducted to the teacher participant it is found that English has always been a part of the exchange categories. Teacher mainly used the target language as the initiation in every exchange whether it is in a form of question, statement or instruction, however, whenever trouble occur it was the students first language or Bahasa Indonesia that was used, in the other word, the students first language mainly used as the evaluative turn of the exchange itself.
5.1.2 The Function of Teacher’s L1 Use
In order to give a clear picture of the exact function of L1, a closer examination based on its move categories was conducted and through this study it is found that the teacher’s L1 use could be laden with a variety of purposes and functions.
The first one, L1 occur in a form of synoptic move. The reasonable number of K1 moves that contain L1 may reflect the nature of the classroom
(34)
63
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
discourse as stated by Suherdi (2008:153) that in the classroom discourse teacher is in a position where she/he has to finally wrap up the information chuck in order to accomplish predetermined objectives.
The second one, L1 were also generally found in a form of dynamic moves. In dynamic moves it has several functions. The first function is that the L1 was used as a kind of tracking devise as in suspending systems. L1 use is also further aimed to check to make sure that the message has been heard correctly, as some of the occurrences of the L1 use were in a form of aborting and elucidating systems and most of all, the L1 use has mostly been found in a form of sustaining system, repetition, rephrase, clue, request to repeat and request to response.
That particular condition clarifies that the classroom interaction does not always flow in a predicted, synoptic ways, therefore, as stated by Burns et. al. (1996) the speaker may be using a particular discourse strategy, in this study the use of L1 in a form of both synoptic and dynamic moves were mostly employed in order to keep the flow of information channel open.
5.2 Suggestion
Several suggestions are given for both English teachers and further researchers. The suggestions are expected to give some ideas for better educational life.
For English teachers which are related to this field, it is recommended that the teachers should raise their awareness regarding to the use of the available languages in the classroom. It is also expected that teacher should be able to match the classroom language usage to pedagogical goals that they have set for their students as it may have a significant effect on the flow of the information channel in the classroom interaction.
In conducting this study, the researcher notes that there are some limitations which are faced. First of all, in this research study, the researcher was only able to observe one teacher as the participant of the study. Thus, for the
(35)
64
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
further research it is recommended to expand the scope of the participant so that better result can be gained.
Next, the researcher was only able to interview the teacher regarding to the aspects of the language choice in the classroom interaction. For the further research, interviewing the students regarding to their view about the classroom language use may also be considered to be conducted so that the perspective regarding to the classroom language use may come both from the teacher and the student.
Finally, as this study only take four meetings of the teacher’s teaching
performance to gain the data analysis it may seem better for the further study to allocate more time to observe the classroom interaction so that the researcher may be able to give a more precise pattern of the language choice itself.
(36)
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babativa E. L., (2012). Asking about content and adding content: two patterns of classroom interaction. ISSN 14, (1), 28-44.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principle; An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 2nd Ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Baker, C. and S. Prys Jones 1998. Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Burns, A., Joyce, H., Gollin, S. (1996). I see what you mean: Using spoken discourse in the classroom: a handbook for teachers. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquaire University. Canagarajah, A. S. 1995. Functions of codes-witching in ESL classrooms: Socialising bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (3), 173-195.
Clapham, J. J., (2011). An analysis of trainee teachers’ use of code-switching in the bilingual secondary classroom: a case from Wales. E-journal of the British Education Studies Association, 3(1), 20-38.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the Foreign Language classroom: Target
languageor the learners’ first language?.RELC Journal, 35,(1), 5–20.
Cromdal, J. 2005. Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: on creating an English text in Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (3), 329-353.
Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis thesis dan disertasi. Bandung: CV Afabeta.
Duff, P. and Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom?. The Modern Language Journal, 74.
(37)
66
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Dick, W. & Reiser, R.A. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teacher. Masacusset: Florida State University
Fägersten, K. B. & Högskola, S. (2006) Teacher discourse and code choice in a Swedish EFL classroom. JLLT. 1-6.
Fishman. J. (1965). Yiddish in America: Sociolinguistic description an analysis. Bloomingtoon: Indiana University Press
Freeman, D. L. (2005).Teaching and principles in language teaching: Teaching techniques in english as a second language. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese University EFL classroom. JAL, 31 (1), 63-80.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Ghazali, F. A., (2007). Critical discourse analysis: How can awareness of CDA influence teaching techniques?. The University of Birmingham / The Centre for English Language Studies (CELS). (2007). 1-19.
Gulzar, M. A., (2010). Issues of language(s) choice and use: A Pakistani perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS). 30, (2), 413-424. Harmer, J. (2007).The practice of english language teaching. 2nd Ed. United
Kingdom: Longman Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. B., (2011) The conversation analytic approach to transcription. Linguistics and Education 21, (2011), 1–21.
Hiller, Stephanie. (2008). Language choice in the classroom: The instructor’s voice. Educational Studies 52.207-215.
(38)
67
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Krashen, Stephen D. (1999). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. California: Pergamon Press Inc.
Li Wei 2002. ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the Conversation Analysis
approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society 31 (2), 159–180. Lourie & Inbar, O. (2010). English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of
young EFL learners. International Journal of Bilingualism,14, (3), 351–367. Luk, J.C.M., & Wong, R.M.H. (2010). Sociocultural perspectives on teacher language awareness inform-focused EFL classroom instruction. Linguistics and Education 21, (2010), 29–43.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4).
Meyer, H., (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 Use in the L2 classroom, JALT, 147-158.
Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-examining the role of L1 in the EFL classroom. UGRU Journal8, 1-18.
Sandelowski, M.& Barroso, J. (2003).Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qualitative Health Research. 13,(6), 781-820.
Saville, M. (2006) Introducing second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press..
Seedhouse, P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom : a Conversation Analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Shimura, A. (2007). Teacher use of L1: Different class situations. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings.1. 579-590.
(39)
68
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Sert, O. & Seedhouse, P., (2011). Introduction: Conversation Analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language). 5, (1), 1-14.
Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A Systematic Approach. Bandung: Celtics.
Rezaee, M. & Farahian, M., (2012). An exploration of Discourse in an EFL Classroom: Teacher Talk. 47, ( 2012 ), 1237 – 1241.
Riegelhaupt, F., (2000). Code-switching and language choice in the classroom. Research on Spanish in the U.S. ed. (2000), 204-217.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. and Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3).
Temmerman, Martina. (2009).Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. Linguistics and Education20,(2009), 126–144.
Thornbury, S., (1996). Teachers research: Teacher talk. ELT Journal. 50, (4), 279-289.
Pan, Y., Pan, Y. C., (2010). The use of L1 in the Foreign Language Classroom. Colombia Applied Linguistic. J. 12, (2), 87-96.
Prahbu, N S (1992) ‘The dynamics of the language lesson.’. TESOL Quarterly. 26, (2), 225-241.
Van Dijk, T. A., (1997). New(S) Racism: A Discourse Analytical Approach. Multidiciplinary Introduction. 2, (1997), 33-49.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London and New York: Arnold.
(40)
69
Fitri Aprianti,2014
Classroominteraction: An analysis of teachers language choise of L1 and TL in EFL classroom,
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Wei, J. M., (2013). Perspectives on Marked language choices and uses in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. 11, (2), 67-82.
Wu, Y., (2013), Conversation Analysis -- A Discourse Approach to teaching oral English skills. International Education Studies Canadian Center of Science and Education. 6, (5), 87-91.
(1)
further research it is recommended to expand the scope of the participant so that better result can be gained.
Next, the researcher was only able to interview the teacher regarding to the aspects of the language choice in the classroom interaction. For the further research, interviewing the students regarding to their view about the classroom language use may also be considered to be conducted so that the perspective regarding to the classroom language use may come both from the teacher and the student.
Finally, as this study only take four meetings of the teacher’s teaching
performance to gain the data analysis it may seem better for the further study to allocate more time to observe the classroom interaction so that the researcher may be able to give a more precise pattern of the language choice itself.
(2)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Babativa E. L., (2012). Asking about content and adding content: two patterns of classroom interaction. ISSN 14, (1), 28-44.
Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principle; An interactive approach to language pedagogy. 2nd Ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Baker, C. and S. Prys Jones 1998. Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual education. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Burns, A., Joyce, H., Gollin, S. (1996). I see what you mean: Using spoken discourse in the classroom: a handbook for teachers. Sydney: National Center for English Language Teaching and Research, Macquaire University.
Canagarajah, A. S. 1995. Functions of codes-witching in ESL classrooms: Socialising bilingualism in Jaffna. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 16 (3), 173-195.
Clapham, J. J., (2011). An analysis of trainee teachers’ use of code-switching in the bilingual secondary classroom: a case from Wales. E-journal of the British Education Studies Association, 3(1), 20-38.
Crawford, J. (2004). Language choices in the Foreign Language classroom: Target
languageor the learners’ first language?.RELC Journal, 35,(1), 5–20.
Cromdal, J. 2005. Bilingual order in collaborative word processing: on creating an English text in Swedish. Journal of Pragmatics, 37 (3), 329-353.
Emilia, E. (2008). Menulis thesis dan disertasi. Bandung: CV Afabeta.
Duff, P. and Polio, C. (1990). How much foreign language is there in the foreign language classroom?. The Modern Language Journal, 74.
(3)
Dick, W. & Reiser, R.A. (1996). Instructional planning: A guide for teacher. Masacusset: Florida State University
Fägersten, K. B. & Högskola, S. (2006) Teacher discourse and code choice in a Swedish EFL classroom. JLLT. 1-6.
Fishman. J. (1965). Yiddish in America: Sociolinguistic description an analysis. Bloomingtoon: Indiana University Press
Freeman, D. L. (2005).Teaching and principles in language teaching: Teaching techniques in english as a second language. 2nd Ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ford, K. (2009). Principles and practices of L1/L2 use in the Japanese University EFL classroom. JAL, 31 (1), 63-80.
Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Ghazali, F. A., (2007). Critical discourse analysis: How can awareness of CDA influence teaching techniques?. The University of Birmingham / The Centre for English Language Studies (CELS). (2007). 1-19.
Gulzar, M. A., (2010). Issues of language(s) choice and use: A Pakistani perspective. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS). 30, (2), 413-424.
Harmer, J. (2007).The practice of english language teaching. 2nd Ed. United Kingdom: Longman Ashford Colour Press Ltd.
Hepburn, A. & Bolden, G. B., (2011) The conversation analytic approach to transcription. Linguistics and Education 21, (2011), 1–21.
Hiller, Stephanie. (2008). Language choice in the classroom: The instructor’s voice. Educational Studies 52.207-215.
(4)
Krashen, Stephen D. (1999). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. California: Pergamon Press Inc.
Li Wei 2002. ‘What do you want me to say?’ On the Conversation Analysis approach to bilingual interaction. Language in Society 31 (2), 159–180. Lourie & Inbar, O. (2010). English only? The linguistic choices of teachers of
young EFL learners. International Journal of Bilingualism,14, (3), 351–367. Luk, J.C.M., & Wong, R.M.H. (2010). Sociocultural perspectives on teacher language awareness inform-focused EFL classroom instruction. Linguistics and Education 21, (2010), 29–43.
Macaro, E. (2001). Analysing student teachers’ codeswitching in foreign language classrooms: Theories and decision making. The Modern Language Journal, 85(4).
Meyer, H., (2008). The pedagogical implications of L1 Use in the L2 classroom, JALT, 147-158.
Mouhanna, M. (2009). Re-examining the role of L1 in the EFL classroom. UGRU Journal8, 1-18.
Sandelowski, M.& Barroso, J. (2003).Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qualitative Health Research. 13,(6), 781-820.
Saville, M. (2006) Introducing second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press..
Seedhouse, P. 2004. The interactional architecture of the language classroom : a Conversation Analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
Shimura, A. (2007). Teacher use of L1: Different class situations. In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed.), JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings.1. 579-590.
(5)
Sert, O. & Seedhouse, P., (2011). Introduction: Conversation Analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and Language). 5, (1), 1-14.
Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A Systematic Approach. Bandung: Celtics.
Rezaee, M. & Farahian, M., (2012). An exploration of Discourse in an EFL Classroom: Teacher Talk. 47, ( 2012 ), 1237 – 1241.
Riegelhaupt, F., (2000). Code-switching and language choice in the classroom. Research on Spanish in the U.S. ed. (2000), 204-217.
Rolin-Ianziti, J. and Brownlie, S. (2002). Teacher use of learners’ native language in the foreign language classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(3).
Temmerman, Martina. (2009).Communicative aspects of definitions in classroom interaction: Learning to define in class for first and second language learners. Linguistics and Education20,(2009), 126–144.
Thornbury, S., (1996). Teachers research: Teacher talk. ELT Journal. 50, (4), 279-289.
Pan, Y., Pan, Y. C., (2010). The use of L1 in the Foreign Language Classroom. Colombia Applied Linguistic. J. 12, (2), 87-96.
Prahbu, N S (1992) ‘The dynamics of the language lesson.’. TESOL Quarterly.
26, (2), 225-241.
Van Dijk, T. A., (1997). New(S) Racism: A Discourse Analytical Approach. Multidiciplinary Introduction. 2, (1997), 33-49.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding Pragmatics. London and New York: Arnold.
(6)
Wei, J. M., (2013). Perspectives on Marked language choices and uses in Taiwan. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. 11, (2), 67-82.
Wu, Y., (2013), Conversation Analysis -- A Discourse Approach to teaching oral English skills. International Education Studies Canadian Center of Science and Education. 6, (5), 87-91.