Exploring Language Awareness of TEFL Graduate Students: A Case of Explicit Knowledge in Advanced Grammar Exam - UNS Institutional Repository

  

EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE

STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN

ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM

THESIS

  Submitted to Fulfill Part of Requirements Achieving Master of Education English Education Master Program

  

By:

MUHAMMAD DHIKA ARIF

S891508024

TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION FACULTY

SEBELAS MARET UNIVERSITY

SURAKARTA

  

2018

  

PRONOUNCEMENT

  This is to certify that I myself write this thesis entitled “EXPLORING

  LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM

  ”. It is not plagiarism or made by others. A nything related to others‟ work is written in the quotations, the source of which is listed on the references.

  If then this pronouncement proves wrong, I am ready to accept any academic consequences, including the withdrawal or cancellation of my academic degree.

  

APPROVAL

EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE

STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN

ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM

  

THESIS

By:

Muhammad Dhika Arif

S891508024

  This thesis has been approved by the Consultants on May 2018

  

LEGITIMATION

EXPLORING LANGUAGE AWARENESS OF TEFL GRADUATE

STUDENTS: A CASE OF EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE IN

ADVANCED GRAMMAR EXAM

  

THESIS

Muhammad Dhika Arif

S891508024

  This thesis has been approved by the Board of Examiners on May 2018

  

MOTTO

  Be honest, Be focus Who you are, What your aim is Arif, Muhammad Dhika. 2018. Exploring Language Awareness of TEFL

  

Graduate Students: A Case of Explicit Knowledge in Advanced Grammar

Thesis. Consultant: Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum. Co-Consultant: Prof. Exam.

  Sri Samiati Tarjana. Surakarta. English Education Master Program, Sebelas Maret University of Surakarta

  

ABSTRACT

  The current study aimed to identify categories of metalanguage were used by the students, describe the students‟ accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar

  Exam, and explain grammar difficulties were confronted by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam.

  This study was classified as the qualitative research which applied a single case study design. The case was the operation of explicit knowledge by TEFL Graduate Students in Advanced Grammar Exam. Advanced Grammar Class of English Education Graduate Program in Sebelas Maret University was selected as the setting. In total, there were 17 students who enrolled voluntarily as the participants. The data collected through documents, interviews, observations, and a questionnaire. As the validation, the researcher applied triangulation, member- checking, and external auditing.

  Based on the results, there were some findings which can be drawn. First, the students used technical and non-technical metalanguage. Based on its frequency, technical metalanguage was used more frequently than non-technical metalanguage. Second, the students‟ accuracy in answering the exam was 62.41%. This accuracy was depended on the students‟ analyzed knowledge. Third, there were objective difficulty and subjective difficulty which confronted by the students during the exam. Each of these kinds of difficulty had different sources.

  It can be concluded that the frequent use of technical metalanguage in Advanced Grammar Exam did not guarantee that the TEFL graduate students had already gained a comprehensive explicit knowledge which freed from the grammar difficulty. Therefore, to develop their analyzed knowledge, the researcher suggested the lecturer provides more comprehensive exercises for the students. Furthermore, the researcher recommended for future researchers to investigate multiple cases of explicit knowledge in some grammar classes.

  

Keywords: Language Awareness, Explicit Knowledge, Metalanguage, Grammar

  Difficulty

  Arif, Muhammad Dhika. 2018. Penyelidikan Language Awareness Mahasiswa

  

Magister TEFL: Sebuah Kasus Explicit Knowledge dalam Ujian Advanced

Grammar. Tesis. Konsultan: Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum. Ko-Konsultan:

  Prof. Sri Samiati Tarjana. Surakarta. Program Magister Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Sebelas Maret.

  

ABSTRAK

  Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengidentifikasi kategori-kategori

  

metalanguage yang digunakan oleh para mahasiswa, mendeskripsikan keakuratan

  jawaban mahasiswa dalam mengerjakan ujian Advanced Grammar, dan menjelaskan kesulitan-kesulitan grammar yang dihadapi oleh para mahasiswa dalam ujian Advanced Grammar.

  Penelitian ini digolongkan sebagai penelitian kualitatif yang menggunakan rancangan studi kasus tunggal. Kasusnya adalah operasional dari explicit oleh para mahasiswa magister TEFL dalam ujian Advanced Grammar.

  knowledge

  Kelas Advanced Grammar dari Program Magister Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di Universitas Sebelas Maret dipilih sebagai lokasi penelitian ini. Secara keseluruhan, sejumlah 17 mahasiswa direkrut secara sukarela sebagai partisipan penelitian ini. Data dikoleksi melalui dokumen, wawancara, observasi, dan kuisioner. Untuk validasi data, peneliti menerapkan triangulasi, member-checking, dan external auditing.

  Berdasarkan hasil analisis, sejumlah temuan penting adalah sebagai berikut. Pertama, para partisipan menggunakan technical dan non-technical

  

metalanguage . Menurut jumlahnya, technical metalanguage digunakan jauh lebih

  sering daripada non-technical metalanguage. Kedua, keakuratan jawaban mahasiswa cenderung kurang mencukupi. Keakuratan ini bergantung pada . Ketiga, adanya kesulitan objekif and subjektif yang dihadapi

  anlayzed knowledge

  oleh para partisipan selama berlangsungnya ujian tersebut. Masing-masing ragam kesulitan tersebut memiliki sumber yang berbeda.

  Bisa disimpulkan, seringnya penggunaan technical metalanguage dalam ujian Advanced Grammar tidak menjamin bahwa para mahasiswa magister TEFL telah memiliki sebuah explicit knowledge yang komprehensif dan terbebas dari kesulitan grammar. Maka, untuk meningkatkan analyzed knowledge mereka, peneliti menyarankan kepada dosen kelas tersebut untuk menyediakan latihan- latihan soal yang lebih komprehensif bagi para mahasiswa. Untuk penelitian selanjutnya, peneliti merekomendasikan untuk mengembangkannya menjadi studi kasus majemuk explicit knowledge yang terjadi di beberapa kelas grammar.

  

Keywords: Language Awareness, Explicit Knowledge, Metalanguage, Grammar

  Difficulty

  

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

  Special Praise is to Allah SWT, the Sustainer of the creation. Through His blessing and mercy, the researcher is able to complete this thesis. Indeed, this thesis will not be completed without the help and the encouragement from many people. In this opportunity, the researcher would like to express appreciation to:

  1. Prof. Dr. Joko Nurkamto, M.Pd., as The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University 2. Dr. Ngadiso, M. Pd., as The Head of English Education Master Program, Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Sebelas Maret University.

  3. Prof. Endang Fauziati, M. Hum, as the consultant who encourages the researcher with precious discussions and advice.

  4. Prof. Sri Samiati Tarjana, Dipl. TESOL as the co-consultant who also supports the researcher with her feedback.

  5. All lecturers of English Education Master Program.

  6. Dr. Sri Marmanto, as the Home-Lecturer of Advanced Grammar Class who provides the opportunity to conduct the study in his class.

  7. All students of Advanced Grammar Class year 2016.

  8. All of my friends, especially the students of English Education Master Program year 2015.

  9. My beloved parents, papa and ibu. Thank you for leading me to this path.

  The researcher realizes that this thesis needs constructive suggestions for the improvement of the further study. Any sort of criticism is welcomed .

  Surakarta, May 2018 Muhammad Dhika Arif

  

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRONOUNCEMENT ........................................................................................... ii

APPROVAL ......................................................................................................... iii

LEGITIMATION ................................................................................................. iv

MOTTO ................................................................................................................. v

ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... vi

ABSTRAK ........................................................................................................... vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ................................................................................... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... ix

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. xii

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES ................................................................................... xiv

  

CHAPTER I ........................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1 A. Background ............................................................................................... 1 B. Research Questions ................................................................................... 5 C. Objectives ................................................................................................. 5 D. Significances ............................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER II ......................................................................................................... 7

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .......................................................... 7 A. Underlying Theory .................................................................................... 7

  1. Explicit Knowledge .............................................................................. 8

  2. Metalanguage ...................................................................................... 11

  3. Terminology........................................................................................ 13

  4. Grammar Difficulty ............................................................................ 16

  B. Theoretical Framework ........................................................................... 17

  C. Previous Relevant Studies....................................................................... 18

  

CHAPTER III ..................................................................................................... 23

METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 23 A. Design ..................................................................................................... 23 B. Setting ..................................................................................................... 24

  1. Location .............................................................................................. 24

  2. Time .................................................................................................... 24

  C. Sources and Data..................................................................................... 25

  3. Interpreting and Representing ............................................................. 32

  1. The Lecturer ........................................................................................ 75

  

CHAPTER V ....................................................................................................... 72

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS .......................................................... 72 A. Conclusions ............................................................................................. 72 B. Implications............................................................................................. 73 C. Suggestions ............................................................................................. 75

  3. The Grammar Difficulty ..................................................................... 67

  2. The Explicit Knowledge ..................................................................... 65

  1. The Categories of Metalanguage ........................................................ 62

  B. Discussions ............................................................................................. 62

  3. The Difficulty Confronted by the Students......................................... 52

  The Students‟ Accuracy in Answering the Exam‟s Items .................. 43

  1. The Categories of Metalanguage Used by the Students ..................... 34 2.

  

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................ 34

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ............................................... 34 A. Research Findings ................................................................................... 34

  H. Procedure ................................................................................................ 32

  2. Coding and Reducing.......................................................................... 30

  1. Participants.......................................................................................... 25

  1. Organizing and Familiarizing ............................................................. 30

  G. Data Analysis Technique ........................................................................ 30

  2. Member Check .................................................................................... 29

  1. Triangulation ....................................................................................... 29

  F. Credibility ............................................................................................... 29

  E. Ethics....................................................................................................... 28

  3. Observation ......................................................................................... 28

  2. Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 27

  1. Interviews............................................................................................ 26

  D. Data Collection Technique ..................................................................... 26

  3. Event ................................................................................................... 26

  2. Document ............................................................................................ 26

  2. Future Researchers .............................................................................. 76

  

REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 78

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................... 82

  

LIST OF TABLES

  Table 1 Metalingual Scale ..................................................................................... 11 Table 2 The Schedule of the Study ....................................................................... 25 Table 3 Data Collecting Mapping ......................................................................... 28 Table 4 The Categories of Metalanguage ............................................................. 31 Table 5 The Accuracy of Metalingual Answers ................................................... 31 Table 6 The Themes of Grammar Difficulty ........................................................ 32 Table 7 The Frequency of Technical Metalanguage ............................................. 41 Table 8 The Frequency of Non-Technical Metalanguage..................................... 42 Table 9 The Frequency of Technical and Non-technical Metalanguage .............. 43 Table 10 The Result of the Accuracy .................................................................... 52

  

LIST OF FIGURES

  Figure 1 Untimed GJT ............................................................................................ 9 Figure 2 Language Awareness Test ...................................................................... 10 Figure 3 Verbal Elicitation Test ............................................................................ 10 Figure 4 Non-Technical Metalanguage ................................................................. 11 Figure 5 Technical Metalanguage ......................................................................... 12 Figure 6 The Features of Language Awareness .................................................... 18 Figure 7 The Procedure of the Study .................................................................... 33 Figure 8

  The Exam‟s Items Answered by Opaque Terms .................................... 37 Figure 9

  The Student 10‟s Answers ...................................................................... 37 Figure 10

  The Exam‟s Items Answered by Transparent Terms ........................... 39 Figure 11

  The Student 06‟s Answers .................................................................... 39 Figure 12

  The Exam‟s Item Answered by Iconic Term ........................................ 40 Figure 13

  The Student 11‟s Answer...................................................................... 40 Figure 14

  The Exam‟s Items Answered by Non-Technical Metalanguage .......... 42 Figure 15

  The Student 03‟s Answers .................................................................... 42 Figure 16

  The Exam‟s Items Answered with Accurate Rules .............................. 44 Figure 17

  Student 10‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ................. 45 Figure 18

  The Exam‟s Items Answered with Fairly Accurate Rules.................... 46 Figure 19

  Student 04‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ................. 46 Figure 20

  The Exam‟s Items Answered with Partly Accurate Rules.................... 47 Figure 21

  Student‟s 09 Answers (left) and the Answers‟ Key (right) .................. 47 Figure 22 The Items Answered with Inaccurate Rules (Technical Metalanguage) ............................................................................................................................... 48 Figure 23

  Student 12‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ................. 49 Figure 24 The Items Answered with Inaccurate Rules (no technical metalanguage) ............................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 25

  Student 03‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ................. 50 Figure 26

  The Exam‟s Items Answered with Inaccurate Analyses ...................... 51 Figure 27

  Student 01‟s Answers (left) and The Answers‟ Key (right) ................. 51

  

LIST OF APPENDICES

  Appendix 1 Interview for the Students ................................................................. 82 Appendix 2 Interview for the Lecturer.................................................................. 83 Appendix 3 Questionnaire..................................................................................... 84 Appendix 4 the Analysis of Metalanguage Categories ......................................... 88 Appendix 5 the Analysis of Metalingual Accuracy .............................................. 95 Appendix 6 the Interview‟s Transcriptions ......................................................... 107 Appendix 7 the Result of Questionnaire ............................................................. 130 Appendix 8 the Observations‟ Notes .................................................................. 144 Appendix 9 the Member Checking ..................................................................... 147 Appendix 10 the Research Permission ................................................................ 148 Appendix 11 the Students‟ Exam Papers ............................................................ 149

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This chapter consists of four subchapters: A. Background, B. Questions, C. Objectives, and D. Significances. A. Background The notion of Language Awareness (LA) is not a new issue in language

  educational field. Eric Hawkins, the father of language awareness, has introduced it for more than three decades ago (Andrews, 2007, p. vi). Uniquely, language awareness has „two sides of a coin‟; as knowledge and also as a method. As knowledge, Bolitho et al. (2003, p. 251) describe it as a mental attribute which develop through paying motivated attention to language in use and which enables language learners to gradually gain insights into how language work. Recently, Association for Language Awareness or ALA (2016) defines it as explicit knowledge about language in language learning. Meanwhile, as a method, Wright & Bolitho (1993, p. 302) explain it as a process of assisting learners to develop their sensitivity towards language, as part of the strategy aimed at enhancing classroom learning. Van Lier (2001 in Bolitho et al, 2003) adds that this explicit teaching entails form, metalinguistic rules, and metalanguage. These notions imply that language awareness has the relationship with grammar, metalanguage, and explicit knowledge.

  In the broadest view, grammar can be seen as a holistic practical and human tool for communication (Payne, 2011, p. 20). Larssen-Freeman (1991) believes that it used to express meaning (semantic) in context use (pragmatic). In other words, grammar is the language itself and it cannot be separated from the language because there are rules which relied on a sentence; even for the simplest sentence and that is why a communication which conveys meanings always need grammar.

  Unfortunately, the term „grammar‟ itself brings unpleasant memories for many EFL learners (DeCapua, 2008, p. 1). In the traditional grammar era, there is a phenomenon

  „speaker‟s hyper-correct‟ which addressed for any speakers who apply the (prescriptive) grammatical rules in situations where they should not use it (DeCapua, 2008, p. 10). In addition, Larssen-Freeman (1997, pp. 2-5) summarizes some misunderstandings about grammar. First, grammar is a collection of meaningless forms. Second, grammar structures are learned one at a time. Third, grammar has to do with sentence-level and substance-level phenomena. In general, these misunderstandings are related to the learning and teaching. Many students learned grammar by following the various kinds of formulas (e.g.

  s+v+ …) in a meeting; mostly they practice by drilling and writing

  sentences in the traditional P-P-P (Presentation-Practice-Production) (Andrews, 1999b, p. 164). Indirectly, these reasons become an anxiety which was confronted by most of EFL learners.

  The traditional era passed so does with the traditional grammar. The modern (descriptive) grammar is more stressed to the purpose for which a speaker is using language (DeCapua, 2008, p. 13). Furthermore, grammar books more concern on terminology because grammar becomes the formal study of the structure of a language which describes how words fit together in meaningful construction (Williams, 2005, pp. 2, 17-18). Furthermore, various grammar tests also favored the use of terminology or metalanguage. Some of those tests are Language Awareness test (Andrews, 1999a, pp. 149-150), Grammaticality Judgment Test (R. Ellis, 2004, pp. 253-261), and the Rule Verbalization Task (Hu, 2011a, p. 65). Hence, those circumstances imply the importance of metalanguage for learning and testing purposes.

  However, the use of metalanguage is still debatable among scholars. On the one side, metalanguage is needed by learners while they conduct the explicit discussion of the structural and the functional features of highly complex structures even in a Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) classroom (Hu, 2011b, p. 181). On the other side, either producing or learning metalanguage adds an extra cognitive burden for learners (Mohamed, 2012, p. 50). Hence, the decision whether the use or not use metalanguage in a classroom is the teachers‟ responsibility even though it will quite difficult to avoid it particularly in grammar class.

  Some scholars (Basturkmen, Loewen, & Ellis, 2002; Berry, 2010) argued that metalanguage is more appropriate for advanced learners. Here, the advanced learners refer to the L2 students who have gained the „understanding‟ to analyze and reflect some aspect of grammatical rules (Schmidt, 1990, p. 133). Indeed, these learners are different from other learners who only have the ability to „notice‟ or „know‟ the grammaticality of sentences. In brief, the levels (beginner- intermediate-advance) are classified based on their knowledge.

  In general, L2 learners have two types of knowledge i.e. implicit and explicit. First, implicit knowledge or know ledge „of‟ language is held unconsciously, accessed rapidly and easily in fluent communication (Han & Ellis,

  1998, p. 5). This knowledge used to notice and judge whether a sentence is grammatically correct or not in seconds. Second, explicit knowledge or knowledge „about‟ language is held consciously, accessed through controlled processing (Han & Ellis, 1998, p. 5). It means that the demonstration of this knowledge demands longer time than implicit knowledge. Different from implicit knowledge, explicit knowledge may analyze and reflect the reason why a sentence is grammatically correct or incorrect. N. Ellis (2015, pp. 3-4) argued that implicit knowledge gained through natural process i.e. acquiring. Commonly, this process occurred during the critical age of L2 learners. On the contrary, explicit knowledge is gained through control process i.e. learning which is occurred while the L2 learners study language in a classroom setting. Implicit knowledge and explicit knowledge demonstrated alternately and continuously in language learning and language test.

  R. Ellis (2004, p. 239) stated that demonstrating explicit knowledge may produce a side effect i.e. grammar difficulty. Here, the term „difficulty‟ or

  „complexity‟ refers to the form, function, and meaning of grammatical rules (DeKeyser, 2005; Hulstijn & Graaff, 1994). However, in the broader sense, it also refers to the L2 lear ners‟ proficiency and developmental stage (DeKeyser, 2003;

  R. Ellis, 2008). These notions indicate that the grammar difficulty influenced by two main factors: L2 learners as the subject and grammar rules as the object.

  Studies related to language awareness mainly focused on metalanguage, explicit knowledge, and grammar difficulty. Basturkmen, et al. (2002) investigated the use of metalanguage by the teachers and the students in focus-on- form classroom. They found that their subjects more frequently used non- technical terms rather than technical terms. Fortune (2005) compared the employment of metalanguage between advanced and intermediate L2 learners. The result showed that advanced learners employed technical metalinguistic terms more frequently than the intermediate learners. Tsang (2011) explored English metalanguage awareness among primary and secondary school teachers. Based on the mean scores, she found that the teachers‟ metalanguage awareness was relatively low. Gutierrez (2016) examined the difference between analyzed knowledge and metalinguistic knowledge of L2 learners. As the result, it revealed that the participants‟ metalinguistic knowledge were higher than their analyzed knowledge. Shiu (2011) investigated the learners‟ grammatical difficulty in relation to their L2 proficiency, performance, and knowledge. According to the interviews, the learners‟ difficulty was mainly influenced by their L2 grammar learning experiences. Graus and Coppen (2015) scrutinized students teacher perspective in defining grammatical difficulty. They found that the learners L1 became the most influential factor which contributed to their difficulty.

  By reviewing these previous studies, the researcher found several gaps. First, in recent years, the investigations of the metalanguage categories were still limited (e.g. Fortune, 2005). Second, the recent studies (e.g. Tsang, 2011) were

  

only interested in measuring the participants‟ language awareness. Third, the

explorations of the grammar difficulty from the participants‟ perceptions have not

provided with sufficient and varied findings (e.g. Saengboon, 2017). Fourth, so

far, there have not a study which inquired this topic (i.e. language awareness) in

Indonesia‟ context. Therefore, the researcher proposed to conduct the current

study entitled “Exploring Language Awareness of TEFL Graduate Students: A

  Case of Explicit Knowledge in Advanced Grammar Exam ”.

  The objective of the study was to explore the students‟ language awareness. This study took the setting in Advanced Grammar Class of English Education Master Program. This objective was represented in the following research questions.

B. Research Questions 1.

  What categories of metalanguage are used by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam? 2. How is the students‟ accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items?

  3. What grammar difficulties are confronted by the students in answering Advanced Grammar

  Exam‟s items? C.

   Objectives 1.

  To identify the categories of metalanguage used by the students in Advanced Grammar Exam.

  2. To describe the students‟ levels of accuracy in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items.

  3. To explain the grammar difficulties confronted by the students in answering Advanced Grammar Exam‟s items.

D. Significances

  The current study is expected to provide theoretical and practical contributions to the development of language knowledge in educational fields. Theoretically, the current study may become one of the pioneers which investigate language awareness in Indonesia. To the best the researcher‟s knowledge, in

  Indonesia, many studies focus on the experiment to improve students‟ abilities. Indeed, improving the students‟ abilities is important however there are others topics which worth to be investigated as well.

  In the practical field, particularly for the lecturers and teachers, this study may provide a new perspective related to the students‟ cognitions and how it works. Indeed, language teachers and lecturers have gained various experiences in teaching and examining the students‟ cognitions. However, there is a possibility that some of them do not realize how the students‟ cognitions work. From this refection, the teachers and the lecturers are able to formulate the better learning for their students. On the other side, for the students, this study gives an opportunity to reflect insight their cognitions. Understanding the cognition is not only about strength but also weaknesses. It is quite possible that there are many students who cannot reconstruct their knowledge since they do not aware of their weaknesses. By involving in this study, the students are expected to reconstruct the cognitions based on their weaknesses.

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter discusses the Review of Related Literature which consists of

  three sub-chapters: A. the Underlying Theory; B. the Theoretical Framework; and C. the Previous Relevant Studies.

A. Underlying Theory In recent decades, there were some definitions of Language Awareness.

  First, Nagy & Anderson (1995, p. 2) explained it as the ability to reflect on and manipulate the structural features of language. Second, Boyne (1998, p. 32) argued that it comprised of explicit and implicit knowledge that learners have language as a phenomenon of grammatical and structural knowledge. Third, Carter (2003, p. 64) viewed it as the cognition development in learners‟ consciousness of and sensitivity to the forms and functions of language. Fourth, Bolitho et al. (2003, pp. 251-252) described it as a mental attribute which develops through paying motivated attention to language in use, and which enables language learners to gradually gain insights into how language work including metalinguistic rules and terminology. Fifth, Roehr (2006, p. 42) believed that it is the learners‟ language-analytical ability to correct, describe, and explain faulty sentences. Sixth, Association for Language Awareness (2016) stated that it is explicit knowledge about language, and consciousness perception and sensitivity in language learning, language teaching, and language use. As the synthesize of these notions, the researcher defined language awareness as explicit knowledge about grammatical forms and rules which is demonstrated consciously through the use of metalanguage in order to analyze, explain, and even manipulate language in the learning and teaching contexts. Then, for the purpose of this study, the researcher focused the discussions on explicit knowledge, metalanguage, terminology, and grammar difficulty.

1. Explicit Knowledge

  R. Ellis (2004, pp. 244-245) defined explicit knowledge as the declarative knowledge of the phonological, lexical, grammatical, pragmatic, and socio-critical features of an L2 together with the metalanguage for labeling this knowledge. It is helped consciously, is learnable and verbalizes and it is typically accessed through controlled processing when learners experience some kind of linguistic difficulty in the use of L2. Furthermore, R. Ellis (2004, 2006) also argued that explicit knowledge is comprised of analyzed and metalinguistic knowledge. Analyzed knowledge is knowledge which is used to judge whether the structure of a clause or a sentence is grammatically correct or not. Meanwhile, metalinguistic knowledge is knowledge of grammatical terminology (metalanguage) for addressing the structure‟s features. These two elements of explicit knowledge are independent each other.

a. Characteristics

  R. Ellis (2004, pp. 235-240) described some key characteristics of explicit knowledge: 1) explicit knowledge is conscious. It means that the learners know what they know; they are able to reflect upon their own cognitions. 2) L2 learners‟ declarative rules are often imprecise. The learners may able to explain correct answers in an exam, but they cannot do the same explanation in another exam. 3) Explicit knowledge is generally accessible through controlled processing. The learners are able to access their own cognitions they are willing to. 4) Any language task that a learner finds difficulty may naturally result in an attempt to exploit explicit knowledge. When the learners occasionally access their explicit knowledge, there is possibility that they may lose it or difficult to re-access it. 5) Explicit knowledge is potentially verbalizable. The learners are able to deliver it not only in written but also in spoken exam. 7) Explicit knowledge is learnable.

  The mature learners (i.e. after passing the adolescence) in any ages have similar possibility to learn it.

b. Measurement

  To reveal and measure explicit knowledge, kinds of tests were used by language researchers In several studies (R. Ellis, 2005; Ercetin & Alptekin, 2013; Mirzaei, Rahimi, & Shakerian, 2011), the Untimed Grammaticality Judgments Test (UGJT or Untimed GJT) were mostly used as the instruments to measure explicit knowledge of language learners and teachers. As the examples, these following UGJT were constructed by Mirzaei, et al. (2011, pp. 136-143) Meanwhile, the UGJT should be completed by giving the correct form of ungrammatical sentence and explaining the rule. Indeed, the rule contained metalanguage production.

  Instruction : 1) Underline the grammatically incorrect word(s) in the mini dialogue, 2) Write its correct form, and 3) State the grammatical rule that has been broken

  A.

  What do you usually do on Fridays? B. I often goes to the cinema Correct form: go

  Rule: the verb must agree with the subject. „I‟ is the first person singular subject, _rd person singular subject. but „goes‟ agree with a 3

  

Figure 1 Untimed GJT

  Since the focus of the present study was exploring explicit knowledge, the researcher provided two other examples of tests which were used to examine explicit (metalinguistic) knowledge of test takers. First, measuring and examining explicit knowledge in written form by completing several tasks such as metalanguage recognition, correction, production, and explanation or it can be generalized as the test of grammatical rules. The original test was designed by Andrews (1999b) then adapted by Tsang (2011, p. 5).

  Task 1 Metalanguage production What grammatical terms would you use to describe the item underlined in each of the sentences? WRITE your description in the SPACE provided. NOTE: For each item provide a full description. For example:

1. He is funniest clown in the circus superlative adjective

  Task 3 Grammatical error correction and explanation

This section consists of fifteen English sentences, each of which contains a grammatical mistake. For each sentence: 1.

  Rewrite the faulty part of the sentence correctly. (there is only one part that is wrong) DO NOT rewrite the whole sentence. Underneath each sentence, explain the error. For example: 1.

  I often goes to the cinema. Correct version: go Explanation: the verb must agree with the subject.

  (DO NOT write: Change ‘goes’ to ‘go’)

Figure 2 Language Awareness Test

Second, in order to elicit explicit knowledge in a real time, Hu (2011a, p.

  65) administered a rule verbalization task which covers the selection of six target language into two groups: the articles (a/an, the, and Ø) and three tenses (simple present, past, and present perfect). In addition, this kind of test can be used to verify the explicit knowledge when it combined with Andrews‟ (1999b) test.

  Instruction : Explain why the underlined structures are used 1) Could you please shut the door? 2)

  A leopard is a very dangerous animal 3) If he were here, he would be able to help us a lot 4) Who has broken the window?

  

Figure 3 Verbal Elicitation Test

There are 2 methods which can be used to measure the core of this test.

  First, Hu (2002, p. 361) stated that a verbalization was accepted as correct if it expressed the essential information. Noted, there is a possibility that the accepted rule does not contain technical metalanguage (e.g. verb, article). To enhance the reliability of the results, he cooperates with interraters. Second, different form Hu, R. Ellis (2004, p. 246) used a scale for rating metalingual comments. While Hu‟s focuses on the correctness of the rule, R. Ellis focuses on the level of accuracy of the rule. The metalingual rating scale has 6 levels; level 0 to level 5. Moreover, the use of technical and non-technical metalanguage is influenced the score.

  

Table 1 Metalingual Scale

Level Description

1 The learner is unable to explain how he/she reaches the judgment

  

2 The learner is able to identify verbally the element that is the source of the

problem, but his/her explanation is incorrect and does not contain even very simple technical metalanguage

  

3 The learner verbalizes a rule at least some technical metalanguage, but the rule

is incorrect

  

4 The learner states a partly correct rule, or the learner states a correct rule that is

imprecise and incomplete

  

5 The learner states a correct rule fairly precisely using some technical

metalanguage

  

6 The learner states a completely correct rule using appropriate technical

metalanguage

2. Metalanguage

  Metalanguage is language which is used to analyze or describe language (Johnson & Johnson, 1998, p. 212). Indeed, the word

  „language‟ contains broad aspects such as words, phrases, sentences, structures, etc. However, for the purpose of the present study, the notion of metalanguage was limited as any words used to explain grammatical rules (R. Ellis, 2004, p. 239).

a. Categories of Metalanguage

  Basturkmen et al., (2002, p. 5) distinguished metalanguage into two categories: technical and non-technical. Metalanguage technical terms are items likely to be found in a grammar book or linguistic reference and are more likely to be used by a limited section of the population, such as language teachers or linguists (verb, adverb, past tense, etc.). In contrast, non-technical terms are words that have common usage within a specific context.

  Student: excuse me, what‟s spoil means? Teacher: if you are my child and you keep saying give me sweets … and I say yes all time, I spoil you too much because you always get what you want. Student: they spoil them, they always get whatever

Figure 4 Non-Technical Metalanguage

  Student 1: PREdiction? Student 2: I think the second syllable is stressed Student 1: preDICtion Teacher: prediction

  

Figure 5 Technical Metalanguage