A TEACHER’S STRATEGIES IN EXPANDING DISCOURSE IN AN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASSROOM: A Case Study at a Primary School in Bandung Affiliated to an Islamic School in Singapore.
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE OF APPROVAL ii
STATEMENT iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
ABSTRACT vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS vii
LIST OF TABLES ix
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
1.1Background 1
1.2The Aims of this Study 6
1.3The Research Questions 6
1.4The Significance of the Present Study 7
1.5The Structure of the Thesis 8
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL REVIEW 10
2.1Principles of Expanding Classroom Discourse 10
2.1.1Reflecting Social Interaction 13
2.1.2Developing Thinking 16
2.2Discourse Strategies 18
2.2.1Good Rapport 18
2.2.2Referential Question in Initiation Moves 20
2.2.3Extended Wait Time 23
2.2.4Uptake Strategy in Feedback Move 25
2.3Expansion System 27
2.3.1Elaboration 29
2.3.2Extension 31
2.3.3Enhancement 33
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 36
3.1Research Design 36
3.2Setting 37
3.3Participants 38
3.4Data Collection 38
3.5Framework of Data analysis 40
CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 48
4.1Discourse Strategies Employed 48
4.1.1Good Rapport 48
4.1.2Referential Question in Initiation Moves 54 4.1.2.1 Teacher’s Referential Questions 55 4.1.2.2 Students’ Referential Questions 58
(2)
ii
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
4.1.4Uptake Strategy in Feedback Moves 66
4.2The Linguistic Realization of the Expanded Discourse 70
4.2.1 Elaboration 70
4.2.2 Extension 74
4.2.3 Enhancement 77
4.3The Application of Expanded Classroom Discourse Principles 80
4.3.1 Reflecting Social interaction 80
4.3.2 Developing Thinking 83
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 87
5.1Conclusion 87
5.2Recommendation 89
BIBLIOGRAPHY x
APPENDIX
Appendix I: Transcription System xx
Appendix II: Analysis of Data 1 xxiv
Appendix III: Analysis of Data 2 xlvi
Appendix IV: Analysis of Data 3 1xviii
(3)
iii
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Speech Function Label for Opening Move 41 Table 3.2: Speech Function Label for Continuing Move 42 Table 3.3: Speech Function Label for Responding Move 43 Table 3.4: Speech Function Label for Rejoinder Move 44
(4)
10
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL REVIEW
In this chapter, three theories that underpin this research are discussed. The first section elaborates the principles of expanding classroom discourse originally derived from Vygotsky‟s view. The second section discusses discourse strategies on expanding classroom discourse. The last section elaborates the expansion system of systemic functional linguistics of Halliday (1994) who has a parallel view to Vygotsky vis-à-vis learning language as social activity (Mercer, 2008: Emilia, 2010).
2.1 Principles of Expanding Classroom Discourse
Expanding classroom discourse rises as a critique to the initiation-respond- feedback pattern that is steadily found in the classroom conversation (Rose, 2005; Gibbons, 2002; 2009; Lipman, 2005; Mercer & Wegerif, 1999; Zhi Tan, 2007; Weihua Yu, 2009; Mauréen, 2009). The term expanding itself is from the concept of logico-semantic in systemic functional linguistics in which the participants of the conversation elaborate, extend and enhance the conversation (Halliday, 1994; Eggins and Slade, 1997; Martin, 1992).
However, it is Gibbons (1991; 2002; 2009) who takes this language concept to the education in which the teacher focuses primary on the meaning of what the students said. On the other hand, she adds the teacher, at the same time,
(5)
11
ought to provide strong support to help their students to make more complete, explicit and grammatical meaning.
The most well-known example of expanding the discourse given by Gibbons (2009) is Nigel and his parent conversation that is taken from Halliday‟s research. It has been described that the father encourages Nigel to tell what he is referring to. Later the mother responds to Nigel‟s extended version by asking a question to extend the story and providing the wordings that the Nigel is attempting. In the end of the dialogue, Nigel does produce a retelling of the event that could be understood by someone although at this point he could not complete the dialogue. Therefore, Gibbons (2009) highlights that in expanding the discourse, the teacher‟s role is crucial in order to encourage the students to elaborate, extend and enhance their conversation. As the results, the way the students elaborate, extend and enhance the conversation is the indication of their language development.
Gibbons (2009), then, concludes that the basic premise of expanding the discourse is external dialogue. She also said that the external dialogue is major source of the development of thinking. Yet, this premise basically is derived from Vygotsky (see Mercer, 2008). Vygotsky believes that the cognitive development of an individual relates to the extent of how language culturally and psychologically is used in social meaningful activities (Riddle & Dabbagh, 1999; Mercer, 2008).
(6)
12
This premise basically underlines two fundamental aspects. The first is social interaction and the second is cognitive development, which are interrelated. The first aspect, social interaction, may develop students‟ voluntary attention, logical memory and concept formation skills (Lawson, 2002). In return, the second aspect, students‟ cognitive development, depends on how the teacher interacts with the students in meaningful social activities.
The interrelation between those aspects may occur in the situation in which the teacher assists the students to develop their potential. In Vygotsky views, the situation is well-known as Zone Proximal Development (henceforth ZPD). ZPD is a point at which the students need the teacher‟s assistance to get the knowledge (Kozulin, 1986; Mooney, 2000). It helps the students to negotiate the knowledge that they have already had and the knowledge that they will get.
The concept of ZPD has underlined the importance of involving the process of negotiation of the students‟ concepts and social life in the classroom interaction. Vygotsky highlights that the process of negotiation needs the development of inquiry process in acquiring the knowledge (Mercer, 2008; Mercer, et al., 1999). Therefore, the teacher ought to create the classroom interaction where the inquiry is highly proposed in the process of social interaction. Gibbons argues
We learn and develop ideas through this collaborative talk. ..it follows, then, that the conversations learners have at school impact on how well they develop the kind of high-quality thinking (2009:15-16).
(7)
13
Therefore, in line with the emphasis of zone proximal development, this study focused on the aspects to enhance students‟ thinking and their involvement in English language learning. This research underlines two principles of teaching in expanding the classroom discourse. These principles are to create classroom that is reflecting social interaction and developing thinking.
2.1.1 Reflecting Social Interaction
The first principle is reflecting social interaction in the classroom. As mentioned earlier, social interaction has been the central of Social Development theory or Socio-cultural theory of Vygotsky. He proposed that cognitive development is engendered through participating in socially meaningful activities that are mediated by language (Mooney, 2000; Tasker et al., 2008). Riddle and Dabbagh (1999: 1) highlight
According to Vygotsky, humans use tools that develop from a culture, such as speech and writing, to mediate their social environments. Initially children develop these tools to serve solely as social functions, ways to communicate needs. Vygotsky believed that the internalization of these tools led to higher thinking skills.
Social interaction is necessary as students are as not only solely individuals but also social human being who needs others to accomplish their life and to share their experiences. Social interaction is defined as a process of sharing experiences among people through their language (Brown & Spang, 2007). In addition, Burns and Myhill (2004:36) define interaction as “to the kinds of exchanges believed to extend thinking and enhance learning”. Therefore,
(8)
14
regarding school as social interaction site means conducting process of sharing experiences between teacher and students in series of exchanges in order to extend thinking and enhance students‟ learning.
In classroom, the social interaction can be seen from two factors. The first is in the way teacher creates the classroom environment which ensure students to share experiences. The second is in the way the teacher builds activities, which give students plenty of opportunities to develop and create their experiences.
In creating environment, the teacher may regard students as interlocutors in conversation. Aziz (2005) argues that successful interaction most likely depends on how the speakers and hearers care of each other‟s feeling. Harmer (2007) argues that this feeling can be created in the way teacher recognizes students‟ names and listening their comments and questions. He also argued that teachers also need to show that they are interested in what students say. Moreover, the teacher also has to pay attention not only through listening but also through approaching them and making eye contact. Lipman adds,
To appreciate is to pay attention to what matters, to what is of importance. Never mind the seeming circularity: that what matters is of importance precisely because we pay attention to it. It is only partially true. Things in nature are neither better nor worse than other things, but when we compare and contrast them in particular perspective, we pay attention to and, therefore, values their similarities and differences (2003:265).
Furthermore, in developing social activities, the teacher may involve students‟ previous experiences and base activities on problems. Emmitt & Pullock (1991) said that learning occurs when teachers and students change or elaborate
(9)
15
what is already known. Teachers may bridge and connect students‟ knowledge by moving their discourse from everyday to subject discussion. Edwards and Westgate said:
Knowledge is constructed by the individual knower, through an interaction between what is already known and new experiences…talk is central to this view of learning and knowing…because it helps learners to make explicit to themselves and others what they know, understand and can do (as cited in Burns and Myhill, 2004: 36).
In addition, to develop social interaction, the teacher may base his activities on problems (Wilks, 1995). Facing problems can encourage the students to solve and discuss solutions. Meyers (1986:8) says “students must actively struggle with real problems”. In other words, the students will involve and stay focus to the discussion if the discussion aims to uncover the problems that may appear in real social interaction. Meyers (1986:61) also argues “beginning a class with a problem or question related to the topic for that day also helps students settle down and focus their attention”. Therefore challenging students with question or problem not only can reduce inattention and in return involve them in active discussion but also it is as indication that the teacher has reflected his classroom as social interaction site.
Therefore, in this research the characteristic of classroom that reflects social interactions are, first, the teacher recognize the students‟ name. Second, the teacher uses the students‟ name to call, invite and reduce the students‟ off-task behavior. Third, the teacher listens and responds to the students‟ command and
(10)
16
question. Fourth, the teacher involves the students‟ experiences in classroom discussion. Fifth, the teacher begins the classroom interaction with the problems.
2.1.2 Developing Thinking
The other principles of expanding classroom discourse are development of students thinking ability. The development of thinking has been the central aims of acquiring knowledge (Lipman, 2003). Dewey (as cited in Hill, 2006:2) argues “the process of inquiry as the way by which we attain knowledge, whether it be the commonsense knowledge that guides the ordinary affairs of our lives, or the sophisticated knowledge arising from scientific inquiry”.
The term of thinking literarily means to use the mind to consider ideas and make judgments, to believe something or have something as an opinion (Oxford Dictionary, 1999: 539). This term has triggered some education experts, who believe the important of thinking in education, to develop the term of thinking in education. Some definitions of thinking that are adopted in this research are first, critical thinking is thinking that helps us to solve problems and make decision (Sternberg in Hay, 1987). Seconds, critical thinking is thinking that helps students understand the logical connectives of English (Adler in Hay, 1987). 2002). Last, thinking is reasonable reflective thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or to do (Ennis, 1996).
Moreover, some research on thinking in education has underlines some characteristic of the development of the students‟ thinking. First, the students ask
(11)
17
the questions (Meyers, 1986; Brown & Hirst, 2007). Moreover, Morgan and Saxton argues
The classic concept of learning is that it occurs when the teacher asks the questions and the students can answer them, but the reality is that learning does not occur until the learner needs to know and can formulate the questions for himself (Bolitho, 2008: 2).
Second, the students‟ thinking is developed when they actively articulate their thought (Fawcett & Garton, 2005). Moreover, they add that the number of utterances used in interaction between participants indicate the cognitive development. Third, the development is characterized by the use of clause complex produced by the students (Punchard, 2002).
Basically, this principle is influenced by the first principle. Developing the students‟ thinking ability depends on the way the teacher creates the classroom environment and builds the classroom activities. The student‟s thinking mainly requires the use of particular strategies in regarding the students as individuals who have experiences. In other words, the teacher‟s strategy in respecting the students and involving them in the classroom discussion impacts the development of the students‟ thinking.
Therefore, in this research, the teacher‟s discourse strategy places crucial roles in applying both principles. As mentioned in the background of the chapter I, the teacher‟s strategy in expanding the discourse has been the trend topic of the latest research. The strategies that have been found can be categorized into four. The first relates to the way the teacher creates rapport with the students. The
(12)
18
second strategy is in connection with the way the teacher uses referential question. The third strategy is concerned with the importance of teacher‟s silence and pauses. The last strategy deals with uptake in feedback.
2.2 Discourse Strategies
Discourse strategy refers to verbal strategies that people employ to understand each other within the context of a particular conversation (Gumperz, 1982). In classroom context, discourse strategy is used by the teacher to ask students particular questions and to respond their statements and questions in classroom discussion. This study focused on four discourse strategies. Those are good rapport, referential questions, extended wait time and uptake strategy.
2.2.1 Good Rapport
Harmer (2007) argued that rapport is an appropriate relationship between students and teacher in order to create a supportive learning environment. The rapport depends on the way the teacher uses the verbal and nonverbal messages in his or her classroom. Kostelnik et al. said that “how much the teachers say, what they say, how they speak, to whom they talk, and how well they listen, all influence the students‟ estimation of self-worth” (as cited in Stanulis & Manning, 2002: 5).
The good rapport in this study is associated with the way the teacher regards and respects the students as active interlocutors in the classroom activities.
(13)
19
The good rapport is established with calling students by their name or proper noun and employing direct and indirect responses to the students‟ questions and statements.
The use of proper noun indicates that the teacher recognizes the students. Students want their teacher knows who they are. They want their teacher know their names. They will feel excited if their teacher knows them and has some understanding of their characters (Harmer, 2007). The use of proper noun in also functions to monitor the students‟ off-task and to involve all students in classroom activities. Bishop said:
Teachers should invest some class time in learning students' names, asking about other classes, inquiring about students' lives outside college, or sharing something about their own. These informal interactions offer a chance to use facilitative responses. It may seem like schmoozing, but studies indicate that this kind of hospitality pays off in higher student achievement (2000:1).
The use of direct and indirect responses to the students‟ questions and statements indicates that the teacher listens to the students attentively. The form of these responses depends on the degree of the students‟ questions and statements. The direct response, which is in the form of simple answer, is most likely for the type of questions and statements that needs confirmation or agreement. Moreover, the indirect response is likely in the form of uptake in which the teacher feels that the students‟ questions and statements need further enhancement. Chaudron (1988), van Lier, (1996), Gibbons (2002; 2009), Hanrahan (2005), Zhi (2007), Mercer (2004), and Yani (2008) agree that listening to the students and
(14)
20
responding their statements appropriately encourage students to participate and extend their talk.
The example of establishing good rapport in this study is shown in the following excerpt.
No. Turn Participants Talks
65 S4 Can I write with this?
66 T Yes,
67 S4 Thank you
68 T You are welcome
69 S8 Sir, What is this?
70 T I don't know, what is that?
NV SS [noisy]
72 S8 Mr. Look!
73 T I don't know, what is that?
74 S7 Mr. Lupa!
75 T How can?
78 T [name 5], [name 4], [name 3], Where is your note book?...Eh, [name 7] Taken from data 1 with some modification
The italic words in the transcription above are the examples of good rapport. There are three strategies. The first is the use of direct response as indicated in turn 61 and 68, which is used to give permission and accepting gratitude. The second is the use of indirect response as indicated in turn 70, 73 and 75, which is used to develop students thinking. The third is the use of proper noun as indicated in turn 78, which is functioned to and the teacher uses the direct response to the students‟ question and statement. All strategies show that the students have established good rapport to their students.
2.2.2 Referential Question in Initiation Moves
Referential question is a type of questions that is used to seek new information (Nunan, 1998; Richard & Lockhart, 1995; Nunan and Bailey, 2009).
(15)
21
In this study, this question is categorized into the teacher‟s and the students‟ questions. The teacher‟s referential question functions to acknowledge what students think and know, to challenge and develop students‟ knowledge, and to bridge the students‟ real world with their lesson (Meyers, 1986; Brown & Freeman, 2000; Groenke & Paulus, 2007; Myhill, 2006; Burns & Myhill, 2004; Mercer, 2008). It also indicates the students have developed their thinking ability (Nystard, 2006).
The referential question usually appears in initiation move (Brown, 1994). The default clause is full open interrogative (Zhi, 2007). However, in the conversation the clause usually is in the form elliptical, closed interrogative and open interrogative (Eggins and Slade, 1997).
The significant contribution of this question to classroom interaction has been proved in previous research. First, the students who are taught with more referential questions give longer and more syntactically complex responses (Brock in Nunan and Bailey, 2009). Second, this question can help establish a climate of equal participation between students and teacher. It also can promote and sustain discussion (Groenke & Paulus, 2007; Apleebee et al., 2003). Third, teacher‟s referential question can encourage collaborative and student-centered dialogue (Nystard & Gamora in Groenke & Paulus, 2007).
The various contributions of the referential question above show that the referential question can initiate students to expand the classroom discourse. This
(16)
22
question not only generates the discussion (Groenker & Paulus, 2007; Apleebee et al., 2003) but also create „disequilibrium‟ condition in which the students are provoked to involve in the discussion (Meyers, 1986). As this research‟s concern on the expanded IRF pattern, therefore the referential question holds significance role in this research to initiate students to involve and contribute actively on expanding the classroom discourse.
The example of the use of referential question in initiation move is shown in the following excerpt.
No. turn Participants Talks
67 T Repeat. Number one, It is market day.==. It is market day. Number
two...still number one It is market day. Number two, What does farmer Brown sell? Who can tell me what the difference? [Name 2]?
68 S2 ==Yes, I know
12 (NV) [Pauses three seconds]
69 S2 The sounds
70 T The sounds? What‟s the difference about the sound, [name 2]?
Source: data 3 with modification
In the transcription above, the underlined phrase indicates the referential questions. It is in the form of wh-question with who as the question mark. This question allows the range of the responses. It can signal the students to choose and give the reasons. It also can allow the students to contribute the discussion. This type of questions is referred to as higher cognitive questions. Cotton says that with this type of question, the students can manipulate information (Zhi, 2007). Applebee et al. (2003) add the referential question is functioned to explore differing understanding rather than to test what the students might already known.
(17)
23
2.2.3 Extended Wait Time
Extended wait time is two seconds or more of pauses provided by the teacher after explaining and or questioning (Nunan, 1998; Richad & Lockhart, 1995; Gibbons, 2009). The extended of wait time is to provide students a thinking time (Gibbons, 2009). It also provides the students a period of “private thought” (Moriber in Olajide & Adeoye, 2010).
Research on wait time shows that two or three second extra wait time for students can lead to more extended, complex, and better answers (Dillon as cited by Gibbons, 2009). Increasing wait time also makes students able to say much, clearly and demonstrate their understanding (Gibbons, 1990). Moreover, the extended wait time after teacher‟s explanation most likely enhances students‟ achievement (Olajide & Adeoye, 2010). It also increases not only the number of students‟ response and more complex answer, but also student interaction (Walsh, 2005). However, another research shows that the number of pauses provided by the teacher much more relates to the type of questions the teacher asked. The higher-cognitive challenged questions need more than two or three wait time (Duell, 1992; Henning et al., 2008).
The numerous contributions of the study of extended wait time to this research reveals that the teacher needs providing sufficient wait time after explaining and asking question. The wait time also reflects that the teacher does not dominate the classroom (Bolitho, 2008). As this research focuses on the way
(18)
24
teacher shares control of the classroom with his students and the improvement of students‟ contribution on expanding classroom discourse, then providing extended wait time is importance in giving students‟ time to think and articulate their thought, as Meyers (1986) says “thinking demands periods of silence, reflection, and incubation that are uninterrupted by any words”.
The example of extended wait time is shown in the following transcriptions.
No. turn participants Talks
67 T Repeat. Number one, It is market day.==. It is market day. Number
two...still number one It is market day. Number two, What does farmer Brown sell? Who can tell me what the difference? [Name 2]?
68 S2 ==Yes, I know
12 (NV) [Pauses three seconds]
69 S2 The sounds
70 T The sounds? What‟s the difference about the sound, [name 2]?
Source: data 3 with modification
In 12 non verbal (henceforth NV) turn, the student pauses for three seconds. The student takes some times to think the reasons of the answer. Meanwhile, when the student thinks, the teacher does not interfere and interrupt the students. This condition is called extended wait time. Walsh (2002) says that for many teachers silence is threatening because it may be as sign of weakness. However, he adds, it increases oral fluency. Moreover research conducted by Rowe and Tobin show that when the teacher extends the pauses until 5 seconds, it gives certain positive behavior including the length of responses, offering alternative responses, asking more questions and interacting more with other students (cited in Olajide & Adeoye, 2010).
(19)
25
2.2.4 Uptake Strategy in Feedback Moves
Uptake is a strategy used by the teacher in following up move in the form of restating students‟ response or turning students‟ response into questions in order to encourage further elaboration (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005). It comes from the work of Marshall, Smagorinsky, and Smith and Nystrad (Nystard, 2006). Uptake involves restating students‟ response or turning it into questions in order to encourage further elaboration (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005).
In using uptake, teachers do not judge or evaluate students‟ responses by saying “good”, “right” or “that‟s it”. Evaluative comments of this type tend to imply closure and shut down further discussion (Cullen, 2005). Uptake is also the most effective when it is used with the strategy of asking broader, more open-ended questions that focus on a key issues or interpretive problems (Johannessen & Kahn, 2005).
The crucial contributions of the uptake strategy have been verified with a numbers of research. The uptake can create an environment in which is conducive to learning and is to promote students‟ involvement (Walsh, 2005; Dashwood, 2005). The uptake develops students‟ comment and sustains their discourse (Applebee et al., 2003; Hellermann, 2003; Richards, 2006). Moreover, through eliciting students‟ thought, the uptake may extend the discourse (Wolf et al., 2005).
(20)
26
The contribution of previous research mentioned above shows that the use of uptake strategy is necessary in promoting discussion. The uptake probes students‟ thought and belief. As this research concerning to the way teacher expands the classroom discourse, then the uptake strategy is most likely crucial on expanding the classroom discourse, as Cullen (Harmer, 2007) says that giving feedback to the students‟ responses plays a crucial part in clarifying and building students‟ knowledge.
The example of uptake in this research is shown in the following transcription.
No. turn participants Speech Function Talk
42 T Continuing (I) Ok, good. Next We see two birds sleeping beside
the window
43 S R. Dev. Elaborate There is much is two
44 T F: uptake There are two birds, right?
45 S R. Answer Yes
46 T F: uptake Are you sure they are sleeping?
47 Ss R. Answer Yes
48 T F: Uptake Yes?
Source: data 2
The italic phrases are the example of feedback in the form of uptake. In the turn 44, the teacher gives feedback to the student‟s response that states that the birds are more than two. The teacher‟s feedback, which is in the form of question tag, is intended to ask the student‟s clarification. Moreover, in turn 46, the teacher gives feedback to the student‟s response by asking certainty. Although both feedbacks are in the form of yes/no question or interrogative, it does not mean that this type of questions requires a simple replay of yes or not. The students need to think to
(21)
27
respond the question (Groenke, 2007:43) as the question is took up and built on their previous comments (Applebee et al., 2003).
2.3 Expansion System
Expansion system is a type of clause complex in logico-semantic relation of Systemic Functional Linguistics (see Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004; Eggins, 2004). Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) is developed by Halliday who got influenced from Firtht‟s system-structure theory, from Prague Linguistics, from the glossomatic theory of Hjelmslev and from British and American anthropology linguistic tradition, i.e Malinoswki, Sapir and Whorf (see Halliday, 1994; Painter, 1999; Christie, 2005; Emilia, 2005; 2009).
SFL also has similar view with socio constructivism‟s Vygotsky that believes that the cognitive development of individual much more relates to the extent of how language culturally and psychologically used in social meaningful activities. In SFL, learning and cognitive process are same things. Both are semiotic process, process of making meaning (Painter, 1999; Christie, 2005; Emmit & Pullock, 1995). The process of making meaning will be happen in the present of mediums or resources for making meaning, which is language (Halliday, 1994). Painter says
[Cognitive and linguistic processes] are two different ways of looking at the same thing. We can interpret such process cognitively, as thought, or semantically, as meaning – as one aspect of the total phenomenon we call „language‟ (1999:62).
(22)
28
Both Vyostky and Halliday place language in the highest level of hierarchy in social context. They believe that language is very important in developing human capacity to live the life. Language is not passive resources. Similar with cognitive process, the language develops dynamically, independently and interactively in conscious way (Painter, 1999). This view directly contradicts with the concept of acquisition in which language is much more effective acquired in subconscious matter (Krashen, 1981). In other word, both Vygotsky and Halliday see through language, the cognitive development of individuals is brought about into conscious process (Jones, 2007).
The expansion system is one of indicators that language needs logic process in conscious way. Expansion builds up logic of natural language (Halliday, 1994). It consists of group of clauses in which one clause is expanded by other clauses (Halliday, 1994). The clause can be in the form of paratactic, independent clause, or hypotactic, dependent clauses (Halliday, 1994).
Moreover, the expansion would not work without the present of conjunction. Inserting conjunctions to each move of talk in the transcription can be used as test to know whether the subsequent moves elaborate, extend or enhance the previous ones (Martin, 1992; Eggins and Slade, 1997).
Meanwhile, using basic conjunction for the lower primary students can be so complicated. Cameron (2001) says that in the age of 7 until 10, the children still have problems in relating using basic conjunctions as: because, so, and and
(23)
29
but. The conjunctions of because and so are used to give the detail of reasons and
condition (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992; Eggins, 2004). Both are the conjunction that are used to link idea in the enhancement relationship. Moreover, the conjunctions of but and and are used to add or contrast the information in the extension relationship (Halliday, 1994; Martin, 1992; Eggins, 2004).
Therefore, this research is focused on how the students uses because, so,
and, but in extending and enhancing their classroom discourse. This study also
focuses on how the students elaborate the talk of previous contributions by giving the example and clarification. Moreover, in this study, the expansion systems are used as theoretical bases for finding out the linguistic features of how the classroom discourse has been elaborated, extended and enhanced.
2.3.1 Elaboration
The main premise of elaboration is explaining on the meaning of another by further specifying or describing the primary clause meaning (Halliday, 1994). Giving specification or describing the meaning can be in the form restating, clarifying or giving the examples (Halliday & Mattheissen, 2004). In this research context, the lower primary students may be able restating, clarifying and giving the example in different words, or using different form of clauses, or using their native language, Bahasa Indonesia in paratactic relation.
(24)
30
The elaboration relationship in this context may be in the explicit form by using the word means or for example. The use of explicit mean is exemplified in the following excerpt:
No. turn Participants Speech Functions Talk
13 T Continuing: (I) So that‟s why you are sweaty
14 S1 R: Question (R) Sweaty?
15 T Res: probe (F: uptake) Sweaty?==
16 S1 Pro: Elaborate (R) ==I mean What in Bahasa ==sweaty?
17 S2 Res: answer (F) ==Berkeringat
Sources: Data 1 with modification
The italic turn above is the example of elaboration relation. This exchange begins with the teacher reinitiates his talk by continuing his previous move (turn 13). The student responds by asking the word of sweaty in elliptical question (turn 14). In return, the teacher gives feedback by turning the student‟s response into question/uptake (turn 15). The student, then, takes his teacher‟s turn (signified with ==). The student elaborates his 14 turn by restating his question using explicit I mean (turn 16).
Moreover, the clause in the turn 14 is as primary clause and the clause in turn 16 is as secondary one. The secondary elaborates the primary with using explicit
means, as indication of apposition (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen,
2004). Both clauses are paratactic relation or independent clauses.
However, the implicit relation mostly appears in the conversation as shown by Eggins and Slade (1997). The example of this relation is shown in the following excerpts:
(25)
31
No. turn Participants Speech Functions Talk
40 T C: question (I) Where do you live? And the answer of
question?
41 S Res: Answer (R) I live in
42 T Rej: Probe (F) I live at
43 S Res:Dev. Elaborate (R) I live at Jalan Jingga No. 10 Padalarang
Indonesia
Sources: Data 1
In the excerpt above, the student elaborates his own previous move. In the turn 41, the student answers the question. However, the answer uses inappropriate preposition, as the teacher directly corrects the error. In return, the student restates his move using implicit conjunction, as indicated in turn 43. The student‟ clause in turn 41 is as primary clause, and his clause in turn 43 is as secondary clause. The secondary restates the information in the turn 41. Both clauses are paratactic in relation using implicit conjunction mean that indicates apposition (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004).
2.3.2 Extension
Extension basically indicates that one clause extends another by giving additional information (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004). In extending, secondary clause can add the information, contrast the information and give alternative to the primary clause by using coordinate conjunction as or, and and but (Halliday, 1994: Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004; Martin, 1994; Eggins, 2004).
The conjunction or indicates that the secondary clause gives alternative to the primary one (Halliday, 1994; Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004; Eggins, 2004).
(26)
32
Conjunction and indicates the secondary clause add the information to primary one (Halliday, 1994). It does not implicate clausal or temporal relationship between them (Halliday and Mattheissen, 2004). The last, but indicates the contrasting additives (Halliday, 1994). These three conjunctions presents implicitly and explicitly in paratactic form. However, the other additive conjunction comprising like, so, and also are usually indicated in non-symmetrical relation, hypotactic.
The example of extension relation is shown in the following excerpt.
No. turn Participants Speech Functions Talk
15 T C:P:elaborate (I) Please, open your text book at….
16 S Res:D:extend (R) twenty three
17 T Rej:clarify (F) Twenty two
18 S Res:D:acknowledge (R) Ada
19 T Rej:resolve (F) Good. Let me check one by one. Twenty
two….ok...twenty two. 20 S Res:D:extend (R) The title is "Grandpa's house" Sources: Data 2 with modification
The italic turns above shows how the students extend the discourse. In this exchange, the teacher reinitiates his previous move by prolonging his talk (turn 15). The student responds the teacher‟s move by adding the information (turn 16). In return, the teacher gives feedback by clarifying his student‟s move (turn 17). The student, then, responds by giving the acknowledgement (turn 18). The students, finally, extends the information by giving additional information of the title of story in the book (turn 20). The students‟ extensions as shown in turn 16 and 20 use the implicit conjunction. By testing the conjunctions, we can see that the most suitable conjunction that links the previous and the subsequence turn is
(27)
33
and. Therefore, this exchange has been extended in paratactic or independent
relation.
2.3.3 Enhancement
The basic premise of enhancement is that one clause enhances the meaning of another by giving additional information which relates to the time, place, manner and cause or condition of the information that happened (Halliday, 1994). The conjunctions that are used to link this relation are because and so.
Both because and so are for causal conjunction (Halliday, 1994; Eggins, 2004; Halliday & Mattheissein, 2004). They can be indicated in the form explicit and implicit (Martin, 1994; Halliday, 1994). Because indicates effect and cause relation, whereas so shows cause and effect relation (Halliday, 1994: 234). However, because is usually in hypotactic relation and so is in paratactic relation (Martin, 1994). The use of these conjunctions is exemplified in the following excerpt:
a) [4:56] Why did you win?
-because we trained hard (Taken from Martin, 1994: 193).
b) ///In her books, Tove Jansson spoke initially to children// so the hero is himself quite young/// (Taken from Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 414).
Both examples above show the use of because and so in the clauses. In the example (a) above, „because we trained hard‟ is dependent clause. It will be
(28)
34
is called hypotactic in which the dependent clause depends on the presence of dominant one (Halliday, 1994). In contrast, in the example (b) above, both clauses are independent. „In her books, Tove Jansson spoke initially to children‟ is primary clause. „So the hero is himself quite young‟ is secondary clause. The
secondary enhances the primary one by giving the detail of reasons of something happened in particular information.
Therefore, in conjunction with this research, the expansion system is as a basic foundation of how the discourse is expanded. The expansion system may indicate the pattern of most exchanges that is more than Initiation-Response-Feedback pattern. The pattern characterizes the students‟ ability in elaborating, extending and enhancing the discourse. These three relations are featured with the use of implicit and explicit conjunction. Therefore, the use of conjunctions can be seen as the students‟ ability to link some clauses in previous moves to other clauses in subsequent turns.
The students‟ ability in linking the clauses may implicate two important aspects. First, it may indicate that the strategies employed by the teacher are expected to enable the students to connect their world to other world, to link their ideas to the topic discussion and to compound their new knowledge based on their own previous knowledge. In other words, through the strategies, the teacher most likely involves the students‟ social world to the classroom.
(29)
35
Second, it may indicate that the students optimize their higher thinking capacity. In the developing the discourse, as mentioned previously, the students most likely clarify their idea, add the information that they thought, and contrast their friends‟ or their teacher‟s idea that opposite with their own belief. The students may also give conditional and causal reasons of how the information is important as part of the topic discussion. Clarifying, adding, contrasting, and giving reasons are some indicators of critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1996; Fisher, 2001).
However, clause complexes developed by the students may not necessarily show that the students‟ thought have reached critical thinking. The critical thinking capacity needs the presence of arguments that fulfils all criteria in critical thinking disposition (see Emilia, 2005). In this study, the students‟ arguments are not analyzed and become the basis of the students‟ thinking capacity. This study only touches superficial facts that by using the conjunctions, the students may develop their thinking capacity. In other words, this study does not focus on whether or not the students‟ arguments are right. It only focuses on the presence of the arguments‟ indicators that may be used by the students in expanding the classroom discourse.
(30)
36
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
In this chapter, the research method is presented. It begins with the elaboration of the research design. The setting and participants are also discussed in line with the limitation of the study. Moreover, the techniques of data collection with the strength and the weakness of the technique are elaborated. In the final section, the data analysis is discussed in conjunction with the research questions.
3.1 Research Design
This research employs a descriptive-qualitative design that describes and interprets settings as they are (Patton, 1990 in Hoepfl, 1997). This research also adopts the case study for some reasons. First, since this research focuses on a particular classroom in a particular school with a particular teacher and students, case study is suitable because one of its characteristics is bound system and contextualization (Punch, 1998 as cited by Silverman, 2005; Nunan & Bailey, 2009; Hood in Heigham & Crocker, 2009). Duff (2008) emphasizes the importance of bound system and contextualization as follows:
…the data reflect natural changes in the learners’ behavior and knowledge, influenced by numerous possible factors, such as the environment, physical maturation, cognitive development, and schooling, which the researcher must also take into account in order to arrive at valid conclusion concerning learning processes and outcomes (p.41 as cited by Nunan and Bailey, 2009: 158).
Second, this research captures how a teacher uses some strategies in expanding classroom discourse. A good teacher may able to provoke students’ noticing (Bastone, cited in Harmer, 2007: 57). He may also be able to encourage
(31)
37
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
the students to participate in the classroom and then extend the classroom conversation. These jobs are not easy because teacher-talks-students-listen has been the commonest characteristic of classrooms in Indonesia. Therefore, involving and learning deeply the way teacher initiates students to expand classroom communication has been valuable resources.
Last, Hood (in Heigham & Crocker, 2009) elaborates that the results of qualitative case study do not prove anything in positivist sense rather they are used in two ways. First, it is used to improve the conditions or practice for the particular case in which the research is conducted. Second, it is used to widen the case to other settings that have similar characteristics (Connole, Smith, & Wiseman, 1993; Hancook, 1998; Johnson 1992; Hakim 1987). Therefore, by using a case study design, this research is expected to give some reflective sense to the teacher that is involved as a participant because sense of reflective is important in improving the practice of teaching. Moreover, the results of this research can be used as a model of how a teacher in Indonesia expands the classroom conversation because Indonesia has different culture with Western countries. Furthermore, the findings of this research may invite further research in this area in Indonesia so that the research on expanding the classroom discourse in Indonesia is developed.
3.2 Setting
This research is conducted in a lower primary class in one school in Bandung. This school is an Islamic private school which is affiliated to one Islamic school in Singapore. This school is established in 2007. In 2009, it is
(32)
38
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
declared to be an international school adopting Cambridge curriculum without neglecting national curriculum.
This research site is chosen for several reasons. First, the researcher has been familiar with the setting because it has been occurred a discussion about teaching English language for two years. Last, a lower primary class is chosen as participants in this research because the participants have their first encounter learning English language. Therefore, the findings of this research will be useful for teaching English language in both elementary and junior high of public school in Indonesia.
3.3 Participants
The participants of this study are an English teacher and his 9 students in academic term 2009/2010. The reason choosing the teacher is that the teacher has five years teaching English for young children in various contexts. His first experience was teaching English to primary students in public school, then continued in national plus school and finally in the school where the research setting is conducted. He also has developed speaking environment in his classroom for more than three years.
3.4 Data Collection
This study uses audio tape recording for collecting data for two reasons. First, audio recording is a data collection technique that is usually used in analyzing classroom interaction (Zhang, 2008; Wang & Hyun, 2009; Vine, 2008; Taker et al., 2008; McNaughton, 2005; Blantol et al., 2001; Myhill, 2006; Burns
(33)
39
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
& Myhill, 2004; Mercer et al., 1999; Walsh, 2002; Nakamura, 2008; Chavez, 2007; Todd et al., 2008).
Second, using audio recording may give natural data. The audio recording device is usually small, so that it can be hidden. The hidden tape will not disturb the process of interaction. The students will participate in the classroom naturally. Therefore, the use of audio recording is suitable to reduce level of intrusiveness although it will not capture visual evidence that may contribute to the naturalness of the data (Walsh, 2002; Allwright & Bailly, 1991; Lazaraton, in Heighman and Crocker, 2009; Eggins and Slade, 1997).
The audio recording process is also conducted in several times to avoid the failure of electronic devices. In the final step, three recordings are chosen as the data of this research. Data 1 and data 2 were recorded on February the 2nd and 3rd. The last data was taken at April 29th, 2010. The three sets of data are chosen to provide comprehensive resource of the development of how the teacher and the students expand the discourse in the progress of time as the students’ ability in English language is improving.
The three sets of data gained from audio recordings are transcribed using transcription convention developed by Eggins and Slade (1997). This system of transcription is developed in conjunction with the system of intonation and rhythm in systemic functional linguistics (see system of transcription in appendix 1). It is also used to ease the system of coding and naming as Eggins and Slade
(34)
40
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
(1997) use intelligible abbreviation. Moreover, this system is able to capture authentic setting of the talk as proposed in naturalistic qualitative design.
3.5 Framework of Data Analysis
After transcription process, the data are categorized in conjunction with discourse units. One of the obvious discourse units is turn. Eggins and Slade (1997) define turn as all the talk that is produced by a participant before another participant gets it. The turn is coded in Arabic numeral such as 1, 2, 3…. For non verbal turn including pauses, the Arabic numeral is also used together with the abbreviation ‘NV’ (stands for nonverbal). The numbering process is shown in the following sample.
No. turn participants Talk
1 T Good Morning, students
2 Ss Good morning, sir
I NV T [pauses 3 seconds]
3 T Well, How are you?
In the above exchange, participant T (a teacher) talks for the first time. In turn 2, Ss respond verbally. Then, the teacher responds nonverbally by pausing for 3 seconds. After that, in turn 3, the teacher continues the conversation.
Another discourse unit that is very important is speech function. Eggins and Slade (1997) uses speech function to code talk by showing the distribution of initiation to responses. They divide speech function into two categories. The first is opening and the second is sustaining.
The opening move functions to initiate negotiation. It is categorized into nine functions. The first is attending that is used to seek attention. The attending is usually in the form of minor clause. The second is offering that is used to indicate
(35)
41
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
that the participants give goods and services. The grammatical realization of this function is modulated interrogative. The second is command that is used to demand goods and services. This function is usually in imperative forms.
The other opening functions are statement. The statement is categorized into two functions. They are the statement of fact and the statement of opinion. Both functions use full declarative. However, the statement of fact usually includes modality or appraising lexis.
The question is also categorized as opening. There are two types of questions i.e. questions of demanding fact in open and closed question and questions of demanding opinion in open and closed question. The open question is in the wh-interrogative form and the closed question is in the form of polar interrogative. The summary of the opening move is shown in the table 1.
Table 3.1: Speech Function Label for Opening Move (Eggins and Slade, 1997:194). No
.
Speech function and its
abbreviation Discourse purposes Grammatical realization
1 Attending (O:Atten) attention seeking Minor; formulaic
2 Offer (O:Offer) give goods and services modulated interrogative
3 Command (O:Comma) demand goods and services Imperative
4 Statement: fact (O:S:Fact) give factual information full declarative; no modality; no appraisal 5 statement: opinion (O:S:Opini) give attitudinal/evaluative information full declarative; modality and or appraising lexis 6 Question: open: fact (O:Q:O:fact) demand factual information wh-interrogative; no modality; no appraisal
7
Question: closed: fact (O:Q:C:fact)
demand
confirmation/agreement with factual information
polar interrogative; no modality; no appraisal
8 Question: open: opinion (O: Q: O: O) demand opinion information wh-interrogative; modality/ appraisal 9 Question: closed: opinion (O: Q: O: c) demand agreement with opinion information polar interrogative; modality/appraisal
(36)
42
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
Moreover, the sustaining move is used to maintain negotiation. There are two categories of the sustaining move. The first is continuing and the second is reacting. The continuing is used by the participants who have been talking to re-initiate or clarify their previous move. The continuing comprises into monitoring, prolonging and appending. The monitoring is used to check the engagement of participants. This function is usually in the form of elliptical interrogative or minor clause.
The other continuing functions are prolonging and appending. In the prolonging, the participants add to their contribution by providing further information. However, in appending move, the participants add the information after other participants have interrupted. Both are categorized based on the expansion system i.e. elaboration, extension and enhancement.
In elaborating, the participants clarify, exemplify or restate the information using full declarative using for example, I mean and like. In extension, the participants offer additional or constructing information using full declarative that is linked with and, but, except and on the other hand. In enhancement, the participants qualify previous move by giving details of time, place, cause and condition using full declarative that is linked with then, so and because. The further information of the continuing moves is summarized in the table 2.
Table 3.2: Speech Function Label for Continuing Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997:201)
No.
Speech function and its abbreviation
Discourse purposes Grammatical realization
(37)
43
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
2 prolong: elaborate (C:Pro:ela) clarify, exemplify or restate full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: for example, I mean, like
3
prolong: extend (C:Pro:ext)
offer additional or constructing information
full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: and, but, except, on the other hand
4
prolong: enhance (C:Pro:enh)
qualify previous move by giving details of time, place, cause, condition, etc
full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: then, so, because
5
append: elaborate (C:App:enh)
clarify, exemplify or restate previous move after intervention by another speaker
elaborating nominal group
6
append: extend (C:App:ext)
offer additional or constructing information to previous move after intervention by another speaker
extending nominal group
7
append: enhance (C:App:enh)
qualify previous move after intervention by another speaker
enhancing prepositional/adverbial phrase
The reacting move is categorized into two groups. They are responding and rejoining. The responding move is grouped into two, i.e. supporting and confronting. The supporting move consists of developing, accepting, complying, agreeing, answering and acknowledging. The confronting includes affirming, declining, disagreeing, withholding, disavowing and contradicting. The summary of the responding move is shown in table 3.
Table 3.3: Speech Function Label for Responding Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997) No
.
Speech function and its abbreviation
Discourse purposes Grammatical realization
1
develop: elaborate (Res: Dev: ela)
expands on a previous speaker's contribution by restating, clarifying or exemplifying what has been said
full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: for example, I mean, like
2
develop: extend (Res: Dev: ext)
expands on a prior speaker's move by adding further supporting or contrasting details
full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: and, but, except, on the other hand
3
develop: enhance (Res: Dev: enh)
enhance on a prior speaker's move by providing a temporal, causal or conditional qualification
full declarative, linked (or linkable) by: then, so, because
(38)
44
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
5
Register (Res: reg)
display attention to the speaker repetition of speaker's word(s);
paralinguistic expression such as Mmm, Uh huh; ritual exclamations; minor clause
6 Comply (Res:
comp)
to carry out demand for goods and services
non-verbal; expressions of undertaking (e.g. OK)
7 Accept (Res: acc) to accept proffered goods and services non-verbal; expressions of thanking
8 Agree (Res:
agr)
to indicate support of information given
yes; positively polarity
9 Acknowledge (Res: ack) to indicate knowledge of information given expression of knowing
10 Answer (Res:
ans)
to provide information demanded complete missing structural elements
11 Affirm (Res: aff) to provide positive response to question yes; positively polarity
12 Disagree
(Res: disag)
to provide negative response to question
negation of proposition
13
non-comply (Res: non-co)
to indicate inability to comply with prior command
non-verbal; no expression of undertaking; negation of verbal command
14 Withhold (Res: with) to indicate inability to provide demanded information negative elliptical declarative 15 Disavow (Res: Dis) to deny acknowledgment of information expression of disclaiming knowledge
16 Contradict
(Res: Cont)
to negate prior information No; switched polarity
The other reacting move is rejoinder. In this move, the participants give feedback to the previous response. The rejoinder includes the demanding of further details or offering alternative explanation. The further information of the rejoinder is shown in the table 4.
Table 3.4: Speech Function Label for Rejoinder Move (Eggins & Slade, 1997: 213). No. Speech function and
its abbreviation Discourse purposes Grammatical realization
1 Check (Rej: chk) to elicit repetition of a misheard element or move Elliptical polar interrogative
2 Confirm (Rej: conf) to verify information heard elliptical interrogative; wh/new
element from prior move 3
Clarify (Rej: Cla) to get additional information
needed to understand prior move
elliptical interrogative; wh/new element (not in prior move)
(39)
45
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
4
Probe (Rej: prob) to volunteer further
details/implications for confirmation
full clause, new subject, etc. but in logico-semantic relation with the moves it's tracking or tagged declarative
5 Resolve (Res: res) to provide clarification, acquiesce with information elliptical declarative; mood adjunct of polarity or modality
6 Detach (Res: det) to terminate the interaction silence; expression of termination
7
Rebound (Res: reb) to question relevance,
legitimacy, veracity of prior knowledge
wh-interrogative, elliptical
8 Counter (Res: cou) to dismiss addressee's right to
his/her position
non-elliptical declarative; negation of understanding/
9 Refute (Res: ref) to contradict import of
challenge
elliptical declarative; negation
10 re-challenge (Res:
re-ch)
to offer alternative position elliptical interrogative
After the process of transcription, data is analyzed in conjunction with the discourse strategies employed by the teacher and the expansion system that is developed by the students in responding moves. The analysis of discourse strategies consists of the analysis of the good rapport, the use of referential question, the extended wait time and the use of uptake in feedback. Moreover, the analysis of expansion system includes the analysis of elaboration, extension and enhancement.
Rapport is indicated by the use of name or proper noun. The proper noun is placed in bracket [ ]. This strategy also is shown in the way the teacher responds to the students’ questions and statements. The example of this strategy is shown in the italic form in the following excerpt.
Moves Turn Ptcpn Talk Strategies
O:Q:O:O 1 T What do you think the movie,
[name 1]?
The teacher uses proper noun to
call the students’ identity.
Rej:Clarf 2 S Well…sir, what is baik sekali?
Res:answ 3 T Very good The teacher uses direct response
to the students
Res: answ 4 S I think the movie is very good
Referential question is indicated in the teacher’s opening moves particularly in question of fact (O:Q:O:F) and question of opinion (O:Q:O:O).
(40)
46
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
This question is also signified by the use of wh-interrogative. The use of this strategy is shown in the following example.
Moves Turn Prtcpn Talk Strategies
O:Q:O:O 1 T what do you think the movie, [name
1]?
The teacher uses question of opinion in the form of wh-interrogative
Rej:Clarf 2 S Well…sir, what is baik sekali?
Res:answ 3 T Very good
Res: answ
4 S I think the movie is very good
Wait time is indicated by the way the teacher pauses his talk in order to provide time for the students to answer the question. This pause is coded in bracket [ ]. This strategy is shown in the following example.
Moves Turn Prtcpn Talk Strategies
O:Q:O:O 1 T What do you think the movie, [name
1]?
1 (NV) [pauses 3 seconds] The teacher employs the extended wait time
Res:answ 3 S I think the story is very good
Uptake strategy is found in the rejoinder or feedback moves. This strategy is used to probe, clarify, confirm, re-bound and re-challenge. This strategy is shown in the following example.
Turn Prtcpn Moves Talk Strategies
1 T O:Q:O:O What do you think the movie,
[name 1]?
1 (NV) [pauses 3 seconds]
3 S Res: answ I think the story is very good
4 T Rej: re-chal Are you sure? The teacher re-challenges
the students’ response.
Moreover, the analysis of elaboration focuses on the way the students clarify, restate, and give example in continuing and developing moves. The elaboration is indicated by the use of implicit and explicit conjunction that represents the process of elaboration.
(41)
47
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
Turn Prtcpn Moves Talk Strategies
1 S1 O:S:fact Sir, my head is sakit.
1 (NV) [pauses 1 second]
2 S1 C:Pro:elab I mean my head is hurt The student prolongs the discourse
by elaborating using explicit I
mean.
3 T Rej:
rebound
Do you want to go home?
The analysis of extension involves the way the students add or contrast the previous turns in continuing and developing moves. The extension is signaled with the use of implicit and explicit conjunctions that represents the extension as
or, and, also, too and but.
Turn Prtcpn Moves Talk Strategies
1 S1 O:S:fact Sir, my head is sakit.
2 S2 C:Pro:ext Sir, my head is hurt too The student prolongs the
discourse by extending the
discourse using explicit too
3 T Rej: rebound Do you want to go home?
The analysis of enhancement encompasses the way the students qualify the information in previous moves. The enhancement is marked by the use of implicit and explicit conjunctions that shows the enhancement as because and so.
Turn Prtcpn Moves Talk Strategies
1 S1 O:S:fact Sir, my head is sakit.
2 S2 C:Pro:ext Sir, my head is hurt too
3 T Rej: rebound Why?
4 S2 Res: Dev.
Enh
Because we bumped our head
The student develops the discourse by enhancing the discourse using explicit because
In the final steps, the results of the analysis are interpreted to find out to what extent the teacher applies the principles of extended classroom discourse. The results of the analysis of the discourse strategy is interpreted to find out to what extent the teacher reflects classroom as social interaction. The results of the analysis of expansion system is described to what extent the teacher has developed the students’ thinking capacity.
(42)
87
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
In this chapter, the conclusion of the research is drawn. It focuses on three issues that underpin this study. In the end of this chapter, the recommendation in conjunction with the further research in the area of expanding classroom discourse is presented.
5.1 Conclusion
This present study examines three research problems, i.e. the strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse, the linguistics features of the expanded discourse, and the extent to which the teacher applies the principles of expanded classroom discourse. It is firstly found that the strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse include good rapport with the students, referential questions in initiation moves, extended wait time and uptake strategy in feedback.
The teacher creates good rapport by using the students’ name, the discourse marker ‘please’, and direct and indirect responses. The teacher uses
referential question in the form of closed interrogative and open interrogative with
question marker ’what’ and ‘who’. The teacher also provides more than two
seconds of wait time after questioning and arguing. Moreover, the teacher uses uptake strategy in the form of open interrogative, closed interrogative and tag-questions.
(43)
88
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
It is secondly discovered that the strategies adopted by the teacher have expanded the classroom discourse by the way the students elaborate, extend and enhance the information. The linguistic features of elaboration are the implicit
conjunction ‘I mean’ and the use of Indonesian language. The extension is
signaled by the use of explicit conjunctions ‘and’, ‘also’, ‘too’ and implicit conjunction ‘but’. The enhancement is featured by the use of explicit conjunctions ‘because’, ‘so’ and implicit ‘therefore’.
It is thirdly found that for some extent the teacher applies the two principles of expanded classroom discourse, i.e. reflecting classroom as social
interaction and developing the students’ thinking. The application of the first
principle is seen from the use of the discourse strategies in the classroom. Furthermore, the application of the second principle is shown from the expansion and the use of referential question by the students.
Based on the findings above, it can be said that the way the teacher communicates to his students, i.e. the way they use discourse strategies influence
the classroom’s situation especially the students’ involvement in the classroom
discussion. This can be identified that the application of the discourse strategies
has changed the students’ self esteem and curiosity. The rapport and wait time
have developed the students’ self esteem whereas the referential question and uptake have developed the students’ curiosity.
(44)
89
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
5.2 Recommendation
The present study offers some methodologies and practical suggestions.
The methodologies’ recommendations are based on the aspects of the present
study that can be explored in further research. The practical suggestions are based on the findings of the present study that can be applied in the classroom.
This research uses descriptive qualitative design to analyze some strategies adopted by the teacher in expanding classroom discourse. Further research on this area is suggested to equip with quantification to analyze the students’ arguments
and the proportion of teacher’s domination. Moreover, this research found that the
teacher’s language influences the students’ self esteem and curiosity. Therefore,
for further research, it is recommended to analyze the influence of the teacher’s discourse strategies to these two aspects.
Furthermore, some practical suggestions are offered to teacher and school principles. First, this research recommends teachers to carefully use their language in communication with their students because their choice of language will construct or obstruct their learning potential. Moreover, their discourse strategies may also develop or lessen the students’ involvement. Therefore, having self-aware of the language use is important for teachers.
Second, this research recommends school principals to develop teacher’s language evaluation. The teacher’s discourse strategy can be one of indicators to
(45)
90
ENENG ELIS AISAH, 2011
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu
determine the successful of teaching and learning. Moreover, the teacher’s choice
(1)
xvii
Mercer, N., Wegerif, R., & Dawes, L. (1999). Children's Talk and the Developments of Reasoning in the Classroom. British Educational
Research Journal, Vol. 25, No. 1 , 95-111.
Meyers, C. (1986). Teaching Students to Think Critically. San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publisher.
Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of Childhood. St. Paul: Redleaf Press.
Mulyani, M. (2009). The Effects of Teacher's Feedback on Students' Oral
Presentation (A Case Study at an English Course in Bandung). Bandung:
Unpublished Thesis.
Myhill, D. (March 2006). Talk, Talk, Talk: Teaching and Learning in whole Class Discourse. Research Papers in Education, Vol. 21, No.1 , 19-41.
Myhill, D., & Warren, P. (February 2005). Scafolds or Straitjackets? Critical Moments in Classroom Discourse. Educational Review, Vol.57, No. 1 , 55-69.
Nakamura, I. (2008). Understanding How Teacher and student talk with each other: An Exploration of How 'repair' displays the co-management of talk-in-interaction. Language Teaching Research, No. 12 , 265.
Neal, M. (2008). Look Who's Talking: Discourse Analysis, Discussion, and Initiation-Response-Evaluation Pateerens in the College Classroom.
Teaching English in the Two Year College, Vol. 35 No. 3 , 272-281.
Newstreet, C. (2008). Paul Revere Rides through High School Government Class: Teacher Research and the Power of Discussion to Motivate Thinking. The
Social Studies , 9-12.
Nunan, D. (. (2003). Practical English Language Teaching. Mac Graw-Hill: Mac Graw-Hill Company.
Nunan, D. (1998). Language Teaching Methodology. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited.
Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language Classrooms: a Guide for
Teacher-Initiated Action. Hemel Hempstead: Prantice Hall International.
Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring Second Language Classroom
Research: A Comprehensible Guide. Boston: Heinle Cengange Learning.
Nunn, R. (2007). Competence and Teaching English as an International Language. The Journal of English as an International Language, Volume
(2)
xviii
Nunn, R. (2006). The Pragmatics of Cooperation and Relevance for Teaching and Learning. The Linguistics Journal, Volume 1. , 5-16.
Nurrizal, M. (2011). Classroom Interaction Patterns in Team Teaching Model in
an EFL Classroom (A Qualitative Study at an Integrated Islamic Elementary School). Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.
Nystrad, M. (2006). Research on the Role of Classroom Discourse as It Affects Reading Comprehension. Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 40 , 394-412.
Oh, P. S. (2005). Discursive Roles of the Teacher during Class Sessions for Students Presenting their Science Investigations. International Journal of
Science Education, Vol. 27, No. 15 , 1825–1851.
Olajide, J. O., & Adeoye, F. A. (2010). The Effect of Analogical Reasoning and Extended Wait Time on Achievement in Biology. International Journal
Education Science, Vol. 2, No. 1 , 21-28.
Özcan, S. (2010). The Effects of Asking Referential Questions on The
Participations and Oral Production of Lower Level Language Learners in Reading Class. Turky: Unpublished Thesis .
Painter, C. (1999). Learning through Language in Early Childhood. London: Continuum.
Park, H.-Y. (2008). "You are Confusing": Tension between Teacher's and Students' Discourses in the Classroom. The Journal of Classroom
Interaction, Vol. 43 No. 1 , 4-13.
Peets, K. F. (Jan 2009). The Effects of Context on the Classroom Discourse Skills of Children with Language Impairment. Language, Speech & Hearing
Services in Schools; 40, 1; ProQuest Education Journals , 5-16.
Punchard, I. (November 2002). Improving Immerson Student Oral Proficiecy by Fostering the Use of Extended Discourse. ACIE Newsletter: The Bridge , 1-8.
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing Noun Phrase Complexity at School Age: A Text-Embedded Cross-Linguistic Analysis. First
Language, 30 (1) , 3-26.
Review, H. E. (2007). Classroom Discourse The Language of Learning and Teaching. Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 73, No. 4 , 603.
Richard, K. (2006). Being the Teacher: Identity and Classroom. Applied
(3)
xix
Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Riddle, E. M., & Dabbagh, N. (1999). Lev Vygotsky's Social Development Theory. Retrieved March 24, 2011, from BalancedReading.com: www.balancedreading.com/vygotsky.html
Riwayat, Y. S. (2009). Teacher Talk in EFL Classroom (A Functional Grammar
Analysis of Mood). Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.
Rogers, R., Berkes, E. M., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Joseph, G. O. (Fall 2005). Critical Discourse in Education: A review of the Literature. Review of
Educational Research, Vol. 75 , 365-416.
Rose, D. (2005). Learning to Read Reading to Learn. Sydney: Faculty of Education and Social Work and the Koori Centre University of Sydney. Ryder, J., & Leach, J. (2008). Teaching about the Epistimology of science in
Upper Secondary School: An Analysis of Tecahers' Classroom Talk.
Science and Education, No. 17 , 289-315.
Sandoval, W. A., Daniszewski, K., Spillane, J. P., & Reiser, B. J. (1999). Teacher's Discourse Strategies for Supporting Learning Through Inquiry.
The Annual Meeting of American Educational Research Assosiation (pp.
1-33). Montreal: -.
Seixas, P. (1999). Beyond `Content’ and `Pedagogy’: in Search of a Way to Talk about History Education. Journal of Curriculum Studies , 317-337.
Silverman, D. (2005). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publication, Ltd.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Toward an Analysis of Discourse. In M. Coulthard, Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-34). London: Routlege.
Siswayani, P. (2009). Teacher's Strategies in Managing EFL Classroom (A Case
Study of EFL Large Classes in one of Private University in Bandung).
Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.
Speaker, K. M., Taylor, D., & Kamen, R. (Fall 2004). Storytelling: Enhancing Language Acquisition in Young Children. EBSCOhost: Education Vol.
125. Iss. 1 , -.
Stanulis, R. N., & Manning, B. H. (Fall 2002). The Teacher's Role in Creating a Positive Verbal and Nonverbal Environment in the early Childhood Classroom. Early Childhood Education Journal, Vol. 30, No. 1 , 3-8.
(4)
xx
Stroud, C., & Wee, L. (2006). Anxiety and Identity in the Language Classroom.
Regional Language Centre Journal, Vol. 37, No. 3 , 299-307.
Stuber, J. M. (2006). Talk of Class : The Discursive Repertoires of White Working- and Upper-Middle-Class College Students. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 35 No. 3 , 285-318.
Sunderland, J. (2000). New understandings of gender and language classroom research: texts,teacher talk and student talk. Language Teaching Research,
Vol. 4, No. 2 , 149–173.
Suzhi, L. (2007). A comparative study of the Classroom Discourse Structures in the College English Classes in China. CELEA Journal Bimontly, Vol. 30
No. 4 , 36-41.
Syafrizal. (2009). Teacher Questions in Reading Activity at Senior High School (A
Case Study at one Senior High School in Bintan Kepulauan Riau).
Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.
Tasker, T., Davis, T., & Johnson, K. E. (2008). A Sociocultural Analysis of Teacher Talk in Inquiry-Based Professional Development. The Sociocultural Perspectives on Teacher Education and Development’
Conference (pp. 1-17). Oxford: retrieved from
www.ltr.sagepub.com/reports/129.full.pdf at 19 September 2009.
Thwaite, A., & Rivalland, A. (2008 ). How Can Analysis of Classroom Talk Help Teachers Reflect on their Practices? Australian Journal of Language and
Literacy, Vol. 32, No. 1 , 38–54.
Torr, J., & Scott, C. (2006). Learning 'Special Words': Technical Vocabulary in the talk of adults and Preschoolers during Shared Reading. Journal of
Early Childhood Research, Vol. 4, No. 2 , 153-167.
Travers, M. (2001). Qualitative Research Through case Studies. London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the Language Curriculum. New York: Longman .
van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner: Ethnography and
Second-Language Classroom Research . New York : Longman.
Wallace, C. (2003). Critical Reading in Language Education. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner Involvment in the EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, Vol. 6,
(5)
xxi
Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the Talk of the TESOL Classroom. ELT Journal, Vol.
60 No. 2 , 113-141.
Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The Teacher’s Role in Classroom Discourse: A Review of Recent Research Into Mathematics Classrooms.
Review of Educational Research Vol. 78, No. 3 , 516–551.
Weihua, Y. (July 2009). An Analysis of College English Classroom Discourse.
Asian Social Science, Vol.5. No. 7 , 152-159.
Wilkins, C. (2003). Teachers and Young Citizens: Teachers Talk about their Role as Social Educators. Westminster Studies in Education, Vol. 26, No. 1 , 63-75.
Wilks, S. (1995). Critical and Creative Thinking: Strategies for Classroom
Inquiry. Australia: Eleanor Curtain Publishing.
Williams, M., & Watson, A. (July 2004). Post-Lesson Debriefing: Delayed or Imidiate? An Investigation of Student Teacher Talk. Journal of Education
for Teaching, Vo. 30 No. 2 , 87-96.
Williams, W. (2001). Pupil Role and Verbal "Following Behavious". The Journal
of Education Research , 326-335.
Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2005). Classroom Talk for Rigorous Reading Comprehension Instruction. Reading Psychology, Vol.
26 , 27-53.
Wolfe, J. (2000). Gender, Ethnicity and Classroom Discourse: Communication Patterns of Hispanic and White Students in Networked Classrooms.
Written Communication, Vol. 17 No. 4 , 491-519.
Xiao-Yan. (2006). Teacher talk and EFL in University Classroom. China: School of Foreign Language and Literature Chongqing Normal University 7 Yangtze Normal University.
Xuesong, W. (2008). A Few Thoughts on Teacher Talk. English Language
Teaching Vo. 1, No. 2 at www.ccsenet.org/journal.html , 49-53.
Yani, Z. (September 2008). Classroom Discourse and student Learning. Asian
Social Science, Vol.4, No.9 , 80-83.
Yifat, R., & Zadunaiskt-Ehrlich, S. (2008). Metapragmatic Comments Indexing Conversational Practices of Preschool Children in Institutional Discourse.
First Language, Vol 28(3) , 329-347.
Zhi, T. (2007). Questioning in Chinese University EL Classrooms: What Lies beyond it? RELC Journal, Vol. 38 , 87-103.
(6)