MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL (A CASE STUDY AT SCIENCE CLASSROOMS).

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Prage

APPROVAL PAGE ... i

DECLARATION ... ii

ABSTRACT ... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... iv

TABLE OF CONTENT ... v

LIST OF TABLES ... viii

CHAPTER ONEINTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study... 1

1.2. Research Questions ... 5

1.3. Research Objectives ... 5

1.4. Scope of the Study... 5

1.5. Significance of the Research ... 6

1.6. Clarification of Terms ... 7

1.7. Organization of thesis ... 8

1.8. Conclusion ... 8

CHAPTER TWOLITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Meaning Negotiation ... 9

2.1.1 The definition of meaning negotiation ... 9

2.1.2 A brief history of the theory of meaning negotiation ... 12

2.1.3 The process and the strategy of meaning negotiation ... 14

2.1.4 Meaning negotiation and language learning ... 19

2.1.5. Meaning Negotiation Problems in Classroom ... 20

2.2.1 The definition of classroom interaction ... 21

2.2.2 Some types of classroom interaction ... 22

2.2.2.1Teacher and student in classroom interaction ... 22

2.2.2.2Students and students classroom interaction ... 23

2.3. International Standard School ... 24

2.3.1. The definition of International Standard School ... 24

2.3.2. The objectives of Fledgling International Standard School... 25

2.3.3. The Characteristics of Fledgling International Standard School... 26

2.3.4. The differences between Fledgling International Standard School and non Fledgling International Standard School ... 28

2.3.5. Teachers in Fledgling International Standard School ... 29

2.3.6. Students in Fledgling International Standard School ... 31

2.3.7. The recent condition of Fledgling International Standard School in Indonesia ... 32

2.4. Classroom Interaction in Fledgling International Standard School ... 34

2.4.1. Teacher and student interaction... 34

2.4.2. Student and student interaction ... 35

2.5. Previous Research in Meaning Negotiation ... 36

2.6 Conclusion ... 37

CHAPTER THREERESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ... 38

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

iii

3.3 Data Collection ... 41

3.3.1 Classroom Observation ... 41

3.3.2. Questionnaire ... 42

3.4 Data Analysis ... 43

3.4.1 Observation ... 43

3.4.2 Questionnaire ... 44

3.5 Summary of the research methodology ... 45

3.6 Conclusion ... 45

CHAPTER FOURDATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Meaning Negotiation Strategies ... 46

4.1.1 Clarification Request ... 49

4.1.1.1 Teachers’ Clarification Request ... 49

4.1.1.2 Students’ clarification request ... 51

4.1.2 Confirmation Check ... 53

4.1.2.1 Teachers’ confirmation check ... 53

4.1.2.2 Students confirmation check ... 54

4.1.3 Comprehension check ... 55

4.1.3.1 Teachers’ comprehension check ... 55

4.1.3.2 Students Comprehension Check ... 57

4.1.4 Self Repetition ... 59

4.1.4.1 Teacher Self Repetition ... 59

4.1.4.2 Student Self Repetition ... 60

4.1.5 Other repetition ... 62

4.1.5.1 Teacher’s other repetition ... 62

4.1.5.2 Student’s other repetition ... 63

4.1.6 Self Correction ... 64

4.1.6.1 Teacher’s Self Correction ... 64

4.1.6.2 Students’s Self Correction ... 65

4.1.7 Approximation ... 66

4.1.7.1 Teacher’s Approximation ... 66

4.2 Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 69

4.2.1 Problems in Language Elements ... 70

4.2.2 Pronunciation ... 71

4.2.2.1 Consonant Sound ... 72

4.2.2.2 Vowel Sound ... 74

4.2.2.3 Intonation ... 75

4.2.3 Vocabulary ... 76

4.2.3.1 Science Vocabulary ... 76

4.2.3.2 General Vocabulary ... 78

4.2.4 Grammar ... 79

4.2.4.1 Subject Verb Agreement ... 79

4.2.4.2 Part of Speech ... 81

4.2.4.3 Tenses ... 81

4.3 Conclusion ... 83

CHAPTER FIVECONCLUSION 5.1 Conclusion ... 84

5.2 Recommendation ... 85

BIBLIOGRAPHY ... x APPENDICES

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

v

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Criteria of Fledgling International Standardized School ... 26

Table2 Differences of Fledgling International Standardized School and Non Fledgling Standardized School ... 27

Table 3 Teacher Characteristics ... 38

Table 4 Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 40

Table 5 Types of Meaning Negotiation Strategy ... 41

Table 6 Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 42

Table 7 Numbers of Times and Percentage of Negotiation Strategies Used .. 45

Table 8 Meaning Negotiation Problems ... 63

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

This chapter is devoted to delineate briefly the background of the study, research questions, research objectives, and significance of the research. It also provides the clarification of terms organization of the thesis.

1.1. Background of the Study

This study investigates classroom interactions between teachers and students in a science class as a part of the implementation of fledgling international standard school. The implementation of the policy on fledgling international standardized school (henceforth RSBI) in Indonesia has been officially started by the government since 2006 based on the Law No. 20 year 2003 about national education system. Prior to the establishment of the International Standard School, the school should set forth an initiation program (the so called ‘fledgling’ or Rintisan (R)) until it is credible within four years (Depdiknas, 2007). The implementation of Fledgling International Standard School program is aimed at improving the quality of education in Indonesia in order to have the same level as that in developed countries (Depdiknas, 2007). More specifically, such implementation will enable students to compete in the global era.

Actually, the implementation of Fledgling International Standard School is not an easy thing to do. Zaenuri (2007) says that the implementation faces numerous problems such as teachers’ readiness, learning resources,

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

2

infrastructures, and facilities. From all these problems, teachers’ readiness to teach in the classroom is the most crucial problem, whereas it is one of the requirements of the Fledgling International Standard School implementation in science and mathematics classes as required by Indonesian Curriculum Centre (Puskur). More specifically, the use of English as a medium of instruction in the teaching learning process has become the most crucial problem concerning the

teachers’ readiness.

From the facts above, it can be concluded that in order to comprehend the content of the language used, the teacher and the students need to negotiate meaning. In other words, the success of learning in the classroom can be determined by meaning negotiation (Stevens, 1999). Thus, to highlight this issue, this research focuses on meaning negotiation in the classroom interactions between teachers and students. In meaning negotiation, once meaning is established, comprehension follows (Long, 1983). Then, Long and Pica (1983) affirm that the comprehension approach to language learning assumes that learning can only occur when meaning is involved and meaning must be negotiated in any teacher-student interaction.

Meaning negotiation as an area of study can be traced through the work of Long (1983), Pica (1987) and Gass and Veronis (1985). Besides, some research studies investigating meaning negotiation have also been conducted in various disciplines. In the field of economy, Chang (2006) states that meaning negotiation is intended to get better communications in selling product. Then, in politics Meadow (2010) asserts that meaning negotiation aims to get better

communication between parties. In education, Ying and Maria (2010) propose meaning negotiation as a way to get a better learning process.

Based on the statements above, the results typically show that meaning negotiation is important in the process of making an outcome to get the goals of understandable communication. In the context of language learning, it is shown that meaning negotiation is very important in teaching learning process. It is because the success of learning also depends on the success of meaning negotiation (Pica, 1983; Stevens, 1999; Foster and Ohta, 2005).

Pica (1983) investigated meaning negation between NNS (Non Native Speaker) of English and NS (Native Speaker) of English by formulating a research question regarding the relationship between interaction and meaning negotiation. This research aimed to discover the interactions between teacher and students by employing several strategies as Confirmation Check, Clarification Request, and Comprehension Check. The result revealed that the students and the teacher reached mutual understanding by using these strategies. It means that the teacher was successful in negotiating meaning with the students during the class.

Furthermore, Stevens (1999) investigated meaning negotiation by analyzing modified interactions such as Trigger, Indicator, Response and Reaction Response (TIRR) to answer the research question concerning the way the teachers negotiate meaning in delivering a task. The results revealed that the teacher was successful in negotiating meaning by using the TIRR strategy.

Differently, Foster and Ohta (2005) investigated the meaning negotiation and peer assistance in second language classrooms which focused on discovering the kinds of classroom activities that gave the learners the greatest benefits from

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

4

the interaction. In this case, meaning negotiation was conducted between NNS (non native speaker) and NS (native speaker). The result revealed that meaning negotiation could be reached by using various activities such as peer assistance, group work, and discussion.

On the basis of the previous studies, the present study examines meaning negotiation between teachers and students in science classrooms at a fledgling of international standardized school on the basis of modified interaction which is proposed by Long (1983) cited in Abdullah (2011). However, the present study differs from the previous ones in terms of participants and research questions. This study does not focus on NNS and NS but NSS and NSS namely teachers and students in the teaching learning process. Besides, the focus of research question is different from the previous study. The research question in this study deals with the ways meaning is negotiated between teachers and students in a Fledgling International Standard School at science classes as well as the problems in negotiating meaning in classroom interactions. In terms of methodology, this study uses qualitative approach with some quantification proposed by Long (1983) in Abdullah (2011). This study uses the analysis of meaning negotiation strategies namely of Confirmation Check, Clarification Request, Comprehension Check, Other Repetition, Self Repetition, Approximation, and Self Correction.

Prior to conducting this research, the writer has done a pilot study to several science and mathematics teachers at the research site in his hometown. From the observation, he found that teachers used several ways to negotiate meaning with their students as suggested by Long (1983). Accordingly, the present study was conducted to discover more about the real process of meaning

negotiation to enhance our understanding of what and how teachers should do in teaching-learning processes in a science class.

1.2. Research Questions

This study is designed to answer the following questions:

1. How is meaning negotiated between teachers and students in a Fledgling International Standard School at a science class?

2. What are the teachers’ problems in negotiating meaning in the classroom interactions?

1.3. Research Objectives

With reference to the problems which will be examined, this study is aimed at:

1. reporting the meaning negotiation that takes place between teachers and students in a Fledgling International Standard School at science class; and 2. discovering the teachers’ problems encountered in negotiating meaning in the

classroom interaction dealing with the implementation a Fledgling International Standard School.

1.4 Scope of the Study

This study is aimed at investigating meaning negotiation strategies and the problems of meaning negotiation in classroom interactions. Meaning negotiation consists of several strategies namely non verbal and verbal (see Abdullah 2011:109). By using non verbal strategies, meaning negotiation could also run successfully. To avoid ambiguity, this study only deals with verbal strategy stated

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

6

by Long in Abdullah (2011). It consists of comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation check, approximation, self correction, self repetition and other repetition.

Moreover, there are several problems in meaning negotiation in classroom interactions namely linguistics and non linguistics problems. However, this study only discusses some linguistics elements namely pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar. According to Meshito, et al. (2008), linguistics elements such as pronunciation, vocabulary and grammar are parts of meaning negotiation problems.

This study has characteristics of case study because it employs qualitative data analysis. A case study was chosen because this research was carried out in

“small scale, a single case” (Stake in Emilia, 2005:74), i.e. at four science classrooms in an International Standard School. These classes were chosen due to some reasons. First, even though English must be used in all classes in a Fledgling International Standard School, the preliminary study indicated that the four science classes used English more frequently than the other classes such as Mathematics. Secondly, the teachers had already taken a short course of teaching science in English. Hence, the teachers had more experiences in teaching science by using English compared with other teachers (see Table 3).

1.5 Significance of the Research

The result of the study will academically have contributions at least in two ways. First, it is expected to give some information about the actual condition of teaching learning process that in turn will become an informative input for the

policy of education in Fledgling International Standardized School, particularly junior high school curriculum about teachers and students interaction in a science class where English is used as a medium of interaction.

Second, even though Fledgling International Standard Schools are no longer exist in Indonesia, bilingual classes are still found in many schools nationwide. Therefore, this research expected give significant information for the teachers to use English more frequently in the classroom as a way of negotiating meaning. By the success of meaning negotiation, the material can be comprehended by the students more easily.

Third, it can be useful information for teachers to conduct better teaching practices and enhance their professionalism. The teachers will be able to get some teaching techniques and approach that can be implemented to conduct teaching and learning process in the classroom.

1.6 Clarification of Terms

To avoid readers’ misunderstanding, it is better to define each keyword which is used frequently in this study as follows:

1. Meaning negotiation is the exchanges between learners and their interlocutors as they attempt to resolve communication breakdown (Long, 1983, cited in Shrum & Glisan, 2005:1).

2. Classroom Interaction is a kind of verbal exchanges among students and between students and teachers (Whitmer, 2011).

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

8

3. International Standard School (SBI) is a school which implements the National Curriculum based on the Standard Nasional Pendidikan (SNP) and the international standardized curriculum (Puskur, 2006).

1.7 Organization of thesis

This thesis is divided into five chapters. Chapter One gives general description of the introduction to the topic of the research. Chapter Two presents relevant theories which underpin this study. The theories deal with meaning negotiation, strategy of meaning negotiation, principles of fledgling international standard school and some related research. Chapter Three outlines the methodology of the study. This includes research design, participants, setting, data collection and analysis of the conversation. Chapter Four focuses on the findings and discussion from the observation and conversation analysis. Finally, Chapter Five provides conclusions drawn from the findings and discussion in the previous chapter as well as some recommendations for further research.

1.7 Conclusion

After looking at the introduction which provides a basis for the present study, the forthcoming chapter delineates some underlying theories concerning meaning negotiation, classroom interaction, fledgling international standard school and some previous related research.

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

After discussing some related theories on meaning negotiation in classroom interaction, this chapter presents some methodological aspects of the present study which attempt to find answer answers to 1) the way of how meaning is negotiated between teachers and students in a classroom interaction, and 2) the problems of the teachers in negotiating meaning. Through this chapter, several points to discuss are research design, research site and participants, as well as instruments and data collection procedure. To complete the discussion, this chapter also reviews the technique of data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative approach as it involved qualitative data analysis. It also allows the researcher to work with more than one data-collecting method including observation, interviews and questionnaire as suggested by McDonough and McDonough (1997 in Ahlsen and Lundh 2007:11). This study also has a characteristic of case study because it was carried out in “a small scale, a single case” (Stake, 1985:278 as cited in Emilia, 2005:74).

This research was set out to observe the meaning negotiation strategy between teachers and students in a classroom interaction where English is used as a medium of interaction. The data were observed by using the criteria proposed Pica and Doughty (1985);Tarone (1981); Lyster (2007) cited in Abdullah (2011) which consist of comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation checks,

39

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

word coinage, use of approximation, self repetition, other repetition, correction and non verbal expression.

However, this research was slightly different from Tarone (1981) and Lyster (2007) which is cited in Abdullah (2011) in terms of the use of the strategy. This research used only seven strategies namely comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation check, use of approximation, self repetition, other repetition and self correction.

Moreover, this research also used to find out the meaning negotiation problems which are faced by the teachers dealing with the meaning negotiation strategy. The meaning negotiation strategy was focused on grammar, pronunciation, scientific concept and general vocabulary developed by Meshito (2008). Then, to cover these phenomena, this research used some quantification by using percentage proposed Hatch and Farhadi (1981).

3.2 Research Site and Participants

This study was conducted in four science classes at a Fledgling International School of a junior high school in West Java, Indonesia. This school was basically chosen purposively due to the use of English as a medium interaction in the classroom for whole subjects. Besides that, the familiarity of the teachers and the students can enhance the feasibility of this study.

In this study, four science teachers in RSBI classes were chosen purposively because of several considerations. First, they were willing to fully participate in this study. Second, different from other classes, through the

preliminary study, in these classes English was frequently used as the medium of interaction in the teaching learning process. Third, the teachers taught science by using English even though they were not graduates of an English department. They also attended a one week and one month English short course. The characteristics of the teachers can be seen in the table below.

Table 3

Teacher Characteristics Characteristics/

Name of Teachers

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teachers D

Teachers in Biology Biology Biology Physics

Age 44 Years 46 Years 32 Years 50 Years

Gender Female Female Female Female

Graduate S-1

Biology S-1 Biology S1-Biology S1-Physics English Training Short

Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Short Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Score TOEFL or others

language proficiency

330 403 425 -

Length of Teaching 22 Years 23 Years 7 Years 29 Years

In this regard, four classes of the eighth grade were chosen purposively due to their uniqueness as the pilot study revealed showing the students were very active and enthusiastic in discussing the topic given by their teachers in English. Finally, it will potentially lead to a large number of occurrences of meaning negotiation.

Regarding technical issues in qualitative research, Silverman (2005:257) said that the researcher should be responsible to the study when studying people’s behavior or asking them questions. Accordingly, the present study used an

41

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

informed consent to address ethical issues. It was given to the teachers and the students to be filled in and signed prior to collecting the data.

3.3 Data Collection

The data were obtained from several sources including classroom observation which involved video recording. In addition, questionnaire was also used to the teachers dealing with meaning negotiations problems in the classroom interaction.

3.3.1 Classroom Observation

Classroom observation and video recording ware conducted as the main procedure for collecting data. In the view of Frankael and Wallen (1993:384), observation is a kind of research that observes of how people act and how thinks look. It is in line with the general aims of this study, that is to examine how the participants (the teachers and the students) negotiated meaning in the classroom interaction.

This study employed non participant observation to gain the data. As outlined by Fraenkel and Wallen (2007:450), in this kind of observation researcher did not participate in the activity being observed but rather watched the classroom interaction. Since the researcher’s presence was realized by the participants, a problem might occur during the classroom observation, i.e. what Labov (1972 in Bailey 2001) has called ‘the observer’s paradox’ or Hawthorne effect’, i.e. that by observing people’s behaviour we often alter behavioural pattern we wish to observe. In this study, to overcome such a problem, the video

was placed at the back side of the classroom. In addition, the researcher firstly introduced himself and his reason for visiting their lessons and made sure to explain the purpose of the observation in general terms as suggested by Bailey (2001:188). It included a confirmation that trough the observation, students and the teachers were not observed for supervisory purposes.

Four classroom activities were observed. Each observation lasted for about seventy minutes in one session. The recorded video was replayed and transcribed to discover the meaning negotiation strategy used by the teachers and the students in the classroom interaction.

3.3.2. Questionnaire

To gain more accurate data, open-ended questionnaires were given to the teachers to find out the data of meaning negotiation problems. The questionnaire consisted of three categories of teachers and students problems in negotiating meaning. The three categories are as follows:

Table 4

Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems Language Elements a. Pronunciation

- Vocal sound - Vowel sound - Intonation b. Vocabulary

- Science vocabulary - General Vocabulary c. Grammar

- Subject verb agreement - Part of speech

43

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

3.4 Data Analysis

In this part, some techniques for analyzing transcribed data from observation and interview will be described. In addition, some tables are also included to give more illustrations.

3.4.1 Observation

The videotaped data from observation were then transcribed. The transcriptions were read repeatedly to identify some utterances related to the way of the teachers and students negotiate meaning. After that, the data were then classified into several categories suggested by Long at al (1983 in Abdullah 2011), which consist of comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation check, self repetition, other repetition, use approximation, self correction.

After identifying and classifying data, quantification was also used to find the total number of the students’ and the teacher’s utterances in the meaning negotiation, which is later presented in the table as follows.

Table 5

Types of Meaning Negotiation Strategy

Types of Strategy Frequency Percentage

Comprehension checks Confirmation checks Clarification requests Self correction Self repetition Other repetition Use approximation

To get more comprehension, the categorizations of videotaped data were analyzed descriptively to gain clear occurrences of each strategy employed by both teachers and students in meaning negotiation process. It is in line with the

reason stated by Creswell (1994:162) that the data that immerge from qualitative study are descriptive, that is, data are reported in words.

This descriptive report was to give more explanation about the seven strategies of the strategy used by the teachers and the students in the classroom in. meaning negotiation which was supported by the data from transcription of the video recording. In addition, the descriptive report supports the second research questions covering the meaning negotiation problems. The problems identified from the observation were used to validate the problems found in the questionnaire.

3.4.2 Questionnaire

In this research, questionnaire adopted from Meshito et al (2008) was analyzed quantitatively by using the formula presented by Hatch and Farhadi (1981) to find out the perception of the teachers problems and negotiating meaning. The categories are as follows:

Table 6

Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems

Meaning Negotiation Problems

Language Elements Frequency

a.Pronunciation Consonant sound Vowel sound Intonation

b.Vocabulary Scientific vocabulary General Vocabulary c.Grammar Subject verb agreement

Part of speech Tenses

45

ANDI RUSTANDI, 2015

MEANING NEGOTIATION IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION BETWEEN TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN FLEDGLING INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL

3.5 Summary of the Research Methodology

In summary, this research was undertaken under a case study methodology in one of the fledgling international standard school involving four teachers and students. To collect the data, observation and interview were used to keep the validity of the research. The data from all instruments were then analyzed by comparing them to result of the final conclusion. Using the framework of meaning negotiation strategy, the teachers and the students were analyzed to discover the problems of meaning negotiation in science classroom.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed a concise account of the methodology underpinning the present study, including research design, site and participants, instruments and data collection procedure, data analysis as well. The next chapter will be concerned with data analysis and discussion based on the video records from each instrument.

preliminary study, in these classes English was frequently used as the medium of interaction in the teaching learning process. Third, the teachers taught science by using English even though they were not graduates of an English department. They also attended a one week and one month English short course. The characteristics of the teachers can be seen in the table below.

Table 3

Teacher Characteristics Characteristics/

Name of Teachers

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Teachers D

Teachers in Biology Biology Biology Physics

Age 44 Years 46 Years 32 Years 50 Years

Gender Female Female Female Female

Graduate S-1

Biology S-1 Biology S1-Biology S1-Physics English Training Short

Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Short Course a month Short Course 2 times a week Score TOEFL or others

language proficiency

330 403 425 -

Length of Teaching 22 Years 23 Years 7 Years 29 Years

In this regard, four classes of the eighth grade were chosen purposively due to their uniqueness as the pilot study revealed showing the students were very active and enthusiastic in discussing the topic given by their teachers in English. Finally, it will potentially lead to a large number of occurrences of meaning negotiation.

Regarding technical issues in qualitative research, Silverman (2005:257) said that the researcher should be responsible to the study when studying people’s behavior or asking them questions. Accordingly, the present study used an

informed consent to address ethical issues. It was given to the teachers and the students to be filled in and signed prior to collecting the data.

3.3 Data Collection

The data were obtained from several sources including classroom observation which involved video recording. In addition, questionnaire was also used to the teachers dealing with meaning negotiations problems in the classroom interaction.

3.3.1 Classroom Observation

Classroom observation and video recording ware conducted as the main procedure for collecting data. In the view of Frankael and Wallen (1993:384), observation is a kind of research that observes of how people act and how thinks look. It is in line with the general aims of this study, that is to examine how the participants (the teachers and the students) negotiated meaning in the classroom interaction.

This study employed non participant observation to gain the data. As outlined by Fraenkel and Wallen (2007:450), in this kind of observation researcher did not participate in the activity being observed but rather watched the classroom interaction. Since the researcher’s presence was realized by the participants, a problem might occur during the classroom observation, i.e. what Labov (1972 in Bailey 2001) has called ‘the observer’s paradox’ or Hawthorne effect’, i.e. that by observing people’s behaviour we often alter behavioural pattern we wish to observe. In this study, to overcome such a problem, the video

was placed at the back side of the classroom. In addition, the researcher firstly introduced himself and his reason for visiting their lessons and made sure to explain the purpose of the observation in general terms as suggested by Bailey (2001:188). It included a confirmation that trough the observation, students and the teachers were not observed for supervisory purposes.

Four classroom activities were observed. Each observation lasted for about seventy minutes in one session. The recorded video was replayed and transcribed to discover the meaning negotiation strategy used by the teachers and the students in the classroom interaction.

3.3.2. Questionnaire

To gain more accurate data, open-ended questionnaires were given to the teachers to find out the data of meaning negotiation problems. The questionnaire consisted of three categories of teachers and students problems in negotiating meaning. The three categories are as follows:

Table 4

Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems Language Elements a. Pronunciation

- Vocal sound - Vowel sound - Intonation b. Vocabulary

- Science vocabulary - General Vocabulary c. Grammar

- Subject verb agreement - Part of speech

3.4 Data Analysis

In this part, some techniques for analyzing transcribed data from observation and interview will be described. In addition, some tables are also included to give more illustrations.

3.4.1 Observation

The videotaped data from observation were then transcribed. The transcriptions were read repeatedly to identify some utterances related to the way of the teachers and students negotiate meaning. After that, the data were then classified into several categories suggested by Long at al (1983 in Abdullah 2011), which consist of comprehension check, clarification request, confirmation

check, self repetition, other repetition, use approximation, self correction.

After identifying and classifying data, quantification was also used to find the total number of the students’ and the teacher’s utterances in the meaning negotiation, which is later presented in the table as follows.

Table 5

Types of Meaning Negotiation Strategy

Types of Strategy Frequency Percentage

Comprehension checks Confirmation checks Clarification requests Self correction Self repetition Other repetition Use approximation

To get more comprehension, the categorizations of videotaped data were analyzed descriptively to gain clear occurrences of each strategy employed by

reason stated by Creswell (1994:162) that the data that immerge from qualitative study are descriptive, that is, data are reported in words.

This descriptive report was to give more explanation about the seven strategies of the strategy used by the teachers and the students in the classroom in. meaning negotiation which was supported by the data from transcription of the video recording. In addition, the descriptive report supports the second research questions covering the meaning negotiation problems. The problems identified from the observation were used to validate the problems found in the questionnaire.

3.4.2 Questionnaire

In this research, questionnaire adopted from Meshito et al (2008) was analyzed quantitatively by using the formula presented by Hatch and Farhadi (1981) to find out the perception of the teachers problems and negotiating meaning. The categories are as follows:

Table 6

Categories of Meaning Negotiation Problems

Meaning Negotiation Problems

Language Elements Frequency

a.Pronunciation Consonant sound Vowel sound Intonation

b.Vocabulary Scientific vocabulary General Vocabulary c.Grammar Subject verb agreement

Part of speech Tenses

3.5 Summary of the Research Methodology

In summary, this research was undertaken under a case study methodology in one of the fledgling international standard school involving four teachers and students. To collect the data, observation and interview were used to keep the validity of the research. The data from all instruments were then analyzed by comparing them to result of the final conclusion. Using the framework of meaning negotiation strategy, the teachers and the students were analyzed to discover the problems of meaning negotiation in science classroom.

3.6 Conclusion

This chapter has reviewed a concise account of the methodology underpinning the present study, including research design, site and participants, instruments and data collection procedure, data analysis as well. The next chapter will be concerned with data analysis and discussion based on the video records from each instrument.