AN INVESTIGATION OF THE USE OF ENGLISH AS A MEAN OF COMMUNICATION IN SCIENCE AND MATH CLASSES OF PILOT INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SCHOOL (RSBI) : A case study at one public Islamic senior high school of pilot international standard school in Pekanbaru.

Table of Contents

CHAPTER I ... Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Objectives of study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3 Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Significance of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5 Scope of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6.1 Data Collection Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6.2 Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.7 Clarification of Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER II ... Error! Bookmark not defined. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.1. Introduction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2. Language across curriculum or Content-based curriculumError! Bookmark not defined.

2.3. Bilingualism ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4. The Pilot International Standard School (RSBI/SBI) Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4.1. The history of RSBI ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4.2. The definition of RSBI/SBI ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.4.3. The characteristics or profile of RSBI . Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.5. The Concept of Perception ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.6. Related Previous Research Reported ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.7. Synthesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER III ... Error! Bookmark not defined. METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1 Introduction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Setting and Participants ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3.1 Data Collection Techniques ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER IV ... Error! Bookmark not defined. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1 Introduction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 The Teaching Learning Process in the Sciences and Math Class of Using English ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3 Science and Math Teachers’ Perceptions about Teaching Sciences and Math in English ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.4. The Students’ Perceptions about Teaching Science and Math in EnglishError! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER V ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1 Conclusions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.2 Suggestions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. References ... Error! Bookmark not defined. LISTS OF TABLES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 1. Percentage of observation data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 2. Percentage of teachers’ questionnaire .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 3. Percentage of students’ questionnaire .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 4. The transcript of interview data ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 1 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. OBSERVATION SHEET ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 2 ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANGKET UNTUK GURU-GURU SCIENCE (FISIKA, BIOLOGI, KIMIA) DAN MATEMATIKA ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 3 ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

ANGKET UNTUK SISWA/SISWI KELAS BILINGUALError! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 4 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. INTERVIEW untuk siswa... Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix 5 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Sample of interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Student 2: ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Student 3: ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Student 4 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Appendix 6 ... Error! Bookmark not defined. OBSERVATION SHEET (physic teacher) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. OBSERVATION SHEET (chemistry teacher) .. Error! Bookmark not defined. OBSERVATION SHEET (biology teacher) ... Error! Bookmark not defined. OBSERVATION SHEET (math teacher) ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

English has been taught as a foreign language subject in any educational levels in Indonesia. But most of the students got problem when they learned English. According to Musthafa (2005) the problem appears because of the low intensity of exposure of English in society. It is in accordance with what Hariyanto (2007) and Nunan (1999) said that some students were successful in learning and mastering English when they were still going to school and when they were in English class. Then, when they had graduated, it vanished slowly since they hardly got exposures to English.

Nowadays, the above paradigm has changed into positive paradigm in which English is needed and taken on every occasion. Especially in education system, the Indonesian government has tried to revise the policy and he puts English as a language should be mastered by pupils. The policy of educational system is made to help students be ready to face the globalization era, in which everybody should be ready to compete internationally and to master knowledge and technology.

In line with the statements above, the government has done some improvements to reform the educational system by deciding a policy, namely: the law

of National Educational System (Undang-undang Sistem Pendidikan Nasional/UUSPN no. 20, 2003). One of the sections of the policy is section 50 verse 3 which says that: central and/or district government is suggested to organize at least a unit of education in every level of education, and it should be developed as an international education level (Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Riau, 2007).

It can be seen that the government focuses on the establishment of some international schools called the pilot international standard school that refers to as Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional (RSBI/SBI) to create and gain the global educational system. The establishment of the school is based on the regulation of national education system number 20, 2003 section 50 verses 3 and other policies which support RSBI/SBI program are:

1. The regulation of District Government, number 32, 2004.

2. The regulation of the balancing finance between central government and district government, number 33, 2004.

3. The regulation of National Development Program, number 25, 2000.

4. The governmental regulation of Education National Standard, number 19, 2005. 5. The ministerial education regulation of Content Standard, number 22, 2006. 6. The ministerial education regulation of Graduate Competence Standard, number

7. The planning strategy of educational department of 2005-2009.

8. The ministerial education regulation of the Model of School Based Curriculum, number 6, 2007.

(National Education Department, 2008)

Based on the regulation of national education system number 20, 2003 section 50, verse 3, the school should run some rules and it has some characteristics that will be completely explained in the chapter II. One of the rules is teachers should use English in teaching learning process, especially teaching science and math. This rule is expected that students can acquire English for communication and they also can acquire science and mathematics in English.

In accordance with the above arguments, American Association for the Advancement of science says in Jarret (1999) that the ability to speak English and second language, combined with strong skills in mathematics and science, will provide unlimited opportunities. In addition, Soedibyo (2009) said that to improve our educational system, the government has developed logical educations that include science, math and language.

From the above explanation, it seems that English is important to apply in education especially in teaching and learning science and math in RSBI. The important of English in RSBI become one of the characteristics of RSBI (see chapter II). It might be relevant to what Emmit and Pollock (1991) say that language is central to learning and learning is central to teaching. So, as teachers it is particularly

important that we communicate effectively since communication is a major function of language (Emmitt and Pollock, 1991).

According to Mohan (1986), Krahnke (1987), Richard (2001), and Norland & Said (2006), the use of English in teaching and learning science is called Content-based Second Language Instruction or Content-Content-based Curriculum or Topical Syllabus. It is strengthened by Mohan (1986) that we must look at language and learning across the whole curriculum. It means language and learning in the content class, as well as language and learning in the language class. And Mohan says this is as Language across Curriculum (LAC).

This approach seems to be called as bilingual education in Indonesia because it has the same characteristics with LAC program that includes: ESL instruction, sheltered subject matter teaching, and instruction in the first language (Krashen, 1997).

By running language across curriculum, according to Osborne, et al. (1983), these skills are new for the teachers and the students, unfamiliar and different from the language used in everyday life, and this may cause a problem in understanding of science and mathematics concepts. On one hand we have students who must learn science and mathematics content while they are still learning English (McKeon, 1994 and Slavit & Ernst-Slavit, 2007) and on the other hand, we have teachers, who themselves have proficiency problems with the new medium of instruction. These teachers who are not language specialist will have to cope with the double demand of transmitting content as well as language (Pandian and Ramiah, 2008). In other side,

this sudden change to the current science and mathematics medium of instruction may also cause cultural shock to the students (Aziz, 2008). And there might also be an anxiety of a tendency that the science and math teachers will show off their ability in mastering English (Lengkanawati, 2008) so that the teachers will not focus on explaining the materials but they might be more focus on the use of language or their ability of English.

Even though the teachers have studied English for several years when they were in school, most of them are not able to speak or use English as a tool of communication. So, they might be having problems to cover their subject area in an accurate and effective manner and the students might have difficulties to understand and acquire the subject.

The problems and difficulties appear because the nature of math and science language imposes a heavy burden on all students regardless of the language instruction (Cuevas, 1984; and Mestre, 1981 in George, et al. 1989). Especially for mathematics, it was known from the studies of Aziz (1992) and supported by Ihejieto’s (1995) and Slavit & Ernst-Slavit’s, (2007) that math was one of the interesting and important subject to learn but it was difficult one to learn.

Based on the information and statements above, this thesis wants to investigate of the implementation of RSBI, especially of using English or being bilingual in teaching and learning science and math. It is therefore essential for this research to explore teachers’ and students’ perceptions of using English in teaching

and learning science and mathematics in order to gather information and to get clearer picture on what have happenings in the school.

1.2 Objectives of study

Because the government has built about 200 RSBI in secondary levels since 2006 (Indosiar, 2008) and there is no research about the implementation of RSBI in Indonesia, the researcher wants to investigate whether the policy or the program of RSBI/SBI can be implemented in Indonesian secondary level or not. So, the aims of this study are to find out:

1. the extent of using English in science and math classes;

2. science and math teachers’ perception on the use of English in teaching learning process; and

3. students’ perception on the use of English in learning science and math. In this study, the researcher wants to know whether the teachers and the students have positive or negative perception on the use of English as a mean of communication in teaching and learning science and math.

1.3 Research Questions

In line with the objectives of this study, there are three questions research as the main problem of this study.

1. To what extent do the science and math teachers use English in teaching learning process?

2. What are sciences and math teachers’ perceptions about teaching sciences and math by using English?

3. What are students’ perceptions about learning sciences and math by using English?

1.4 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study are expected to give contribution to the following parties. It is expected to give contribution to sciences and math teachers in preparing themselves to master English for teaching bilingual class in international class. It is also beneficial for the stakeholder, especially headmaster, to help the teachers in solving their problems and finding some ways to master English. And finally, before choosing or selecting a school as a RSBI/SBI, it is better for the government to observe the readiness of the human resources or teachers’ ability, competency, proficiency, knowledge, perceptions, attitudes, and readiness towards the teaching of sciences and math in English or the running of RSBI/SBI. As Pandian (2002) asserts, what teachers know and can do, affect all the core tasks of teaching. In addition, Harmer (2001) states that the teacher can be as a controller, organizer, assessor, prompter, participant, resource, tutor, and observer for the learners. So, the position of teachers is important in running the program.

The respondents of the research will be sciences and math teachers because they have use English in transferring the materials since 2007 and international class of a RSBI/SBI in Pekanbaru. The school has been selected as RSBI/SBI since 2006 academic years. It means that students who are in international class have been already taught sciences and math in English.

Unfortunately, based on the researcher’s small informal survey or preliminary research by interviewing some teachers and doing observation, it seemed that most of teachers felt afraid and they were not confidence to use English when they were teaching. They rarely used English in transferring the materials. Based on the interview, this condition happened because they felt that they lacked vocabularies, self confidence, and effort to learn. And they also did not want to make their students confuse in understanding and acquiring the subjects.

What happened to the teachers did not happen to the students. It seemed that they were enthusiastic about using English. Because of this contradiction, it may indicate that the teachers are not ready while the students are ready. In other words, there will be some weaknesses of the teachers will inhibit the success of the program.

1.6 Research Design

The research design of this study will be discussed clearly in chapter three of this thesis but this chapter informs the design of the study slightly.

1.6.1.1 Participant or Research Object

The respondents of this study are 3 science teachers and 1 math teacher and 76 of students of 2008-2009 academic years at RSBI/SBI.

1.6.1.2 Instrumentation

In order to get the information and data of this research, some data instruments will be used. They are observation, questioner, and interview.

1.6.1.3 Procedure

This study is started by doing observation in the classroom to see the process of using English in teaching and learning science and math. The observation is conducted for several meetings. After doing classroom observation, the questioner is given to the teachers and the students. The next is doing interview. Interview is needed to clarify unquestionable questioner items or to strengthen the questioner items because the questionnaire is the main data of this study.

1.6.2 Data Analysis

The data is analyzed by using qualitative case study. In this case, the data is explained and elaborated descriptively by using words and number. How the data analysis is conducted, it will be detail explained in chapter III of this thesis.

In order to avoid misinterpretation, the terms used in this study are defined as follows:

1. Investigation. In thefreedictionary, it is stated that investigation is the work of inquiring into something thoroughly and systematically. In addition, some similar definition say that investigation is a detailed systematic search and examination to uncover facts and determine the truth of the factors (who, what, when, where, why and how) of accidents ( http://www.chml.ubc.ca and

http://moodle.esp-c.org). This study will try to find out whether the RSBI/SBI

program has been run at the school or not. 2. Implementation. It refers to the process of carrying an undertaking,

agreement, and promise into effect. Teaching and learning process of sciences and math in English at SBI is a kind of program or policy that should be run under control. There should be agreement among sciences and math teachers, English teachers, headmaster, and policy maker in running RSBI program. 3. RSBI or SBI. The terminology of SBI or RSBI has become a hot issue in

Indonesia since 2004. It is an abbreviation of Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf International refers to school preparing to be international school. It is a policy of Indonesian government. This program is quite the same with the program that Malaysia has done since 2003. The focus of this program is to teach and learn science and math in English. It is expected that science and math teacher should acquire and master English in teaching their subjects and students are expected to understand the material of the subjects in English.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

After discussing related theories to this research in chapter II, this chapter will provide the methodology of the research. This chapter will give information about when the researcher collects the data, where the setting takes place, who the participants are, and how the data are collected.

3.2 Setting and Participants

The study was done at one public secondary school in Pekanbaru at the academic year 2007-2008 which has been selected as RSBI for 2006 academic year. Since 2007 until now the school has done some preparations to be a RSBI. And the students in 2007 – 2008 academic years have been considered as an international class.

There were two main reasons why this school was chosen. First, there are four RSBI of secondary level in Pekanbaru. Two of them are public senior high school, one is public Islamic high school, and other is private Islamic high school. At first time, the research would be in a public senior high school and a public Islamic high school. Because of the difficulties in getting research permit letter from Education Department of Riau Province, the research was held in a public Islamic high school

only. Fortunately, the school is the place where the researcher works as a teacher. Second, because the researcher is teacher in the school she has a close relationship to all teaching staffs. This condition was good in creating the smoothness of the research.

This research was done from April 16 to Mei 25, 2009. The headmaster, all teachers, staffs, and students of the school gave much contribution and attention so that the research has been done successfully as expected.

The participants of this research were one mathematics teacher, three science teachers, and three classes of the eleventh year students of science program of public Islamic high school. To focus the research, purpose sampling was done. Purpose sampling allows us to choose a case because it illustrates some feature or process in which we are interesting (Silverman, 2005).

There were 76 students in the three classes and all of them were taken as the participant of this study. These classes had been chosen based on the researcher informal interview with headmaster and vice headmaster. These classes were suggested because they have used English as a medium of instruction in learning science and math since 2007.

3.3 Research Design

The study employed a qualitative descriptive case study design. A case study had been chosen because as this study observed a school and it also found out the teachers’ and students’ perception of using English in teaching learning science,

which is in line with definition of case study that observes the characteristics of an individual unit – a child, a clique, a class, a school or a community and attempts to shed light on a phenomenon by studying in depth a single case example of the phenomena (Cohen and Manion, 1994 and Gay, 1996).

The descriptive method was used to describe the data during research and then tabulate. This method seems suitable to present the result of this study and to interpret the facts that were found in this study (Gay, 1987 in Haris, 2007). As quoted by Haris (2007) from Nasir (1983), he says that the characteristics of descriptive method are focused on the concentration how to solve the actual problems.

1.3.1 Data Collection Techniques

Data collection is as a series of interrelated activities aimed at gathering good information to answer emerging research questions (Creswell, 1998). In order to collect the necessary data, the study used questionnaire, interviews, and classroom observation. According to Cohen and Manion (1994) the use of two or more methods of data collection in the study of some aspect is called multiple technique or triangulation. The reason of using triangulation according to them is the more the methods contrast with each other, the greater the researcher’s confidence.

3.3.1.1 Participants or Research Object

The respondents of this study are three science teachers and one math teacher and 76 of students of 2008-2009 academic years from three different classes at RSBI.

3.3.1.2 Classroom Observation

Classroom observation technique is used to collect the data that are related to human being behavior, working process, natural signs, and the respondents are not too big (Sugiyono, 2006). Observation is a primary source of data in qualitative research (Merriam, 1998; Silverman, 2005) but this research needs observation as supporting data to see whether English is used in science and math class as an instrument of communication. So this technique will answer the first research question and it shall also reflect the honesty of students and teachers in answering the second and the third research questions.

As Nunan (1989) states that if we want to find out about classroom it is very important for us to do direct observation. The researcher needs to spend time looking in classroom. Since this research is trying to investigate the phenomenon of the use of English in teaching science and math in the classroom, then doing classroom observation is appropriate. And non participant observation was employed in this research.

In doing this research, the intensive classroom observation was conducted three times for each class in the third until the fourth week of May 2009. During classroom observation, the researcher sat among the students observing teacher activities, students’ feedback, teaching learning process, and taking notes on teachers’ steps, teachers’ attitude, teachers’ skill, and students’ responds in conducting teaching-learning activities. The purpose of this was to see how the

teachers implement the use of English in teaching sciences and math and the feedback is given by students and this purpose seems related to Alwasilah (2003) and Merriam (1998). They state that detailed descriptions of respondents’ activities, behaviors, and actions will be recorded in observation and classroom observation also see directly interaction process between teachers and students during teaching and learning process.

To do an accurate classroom observation, the classroom or teaching learning process was observed when science and math teacher were teaching their subjects to the students. Checklist and field notes were used in the observation (see appendix 1, p. 78). And this technique was used to answer the first research question.

3.3.1.3 The Questionnaire

In finding the answers of the second and the third research questions, the Likert scale (Dornyei, 2003 and Haryati, 2007) questionnaire utilized in this study comprises eleven questions for the students and ten questions for the teachers. The reason of using Likert scale is because the method is simple, versatile, and reliable (Dornyei, 2003). All of these questions were developed based on the research questions that had been composed based supervisors’ suggestion. Questionnaires were given to the students to know their opinions about the use of English in teaching and learning sciences and math.

Questionnaires were distributed to the students and the teachers after doing classroom observations (see appendix 3, p. 82). This was done to see whether the

teachers and the students had done in teaching learning process reflected in answering the questionnaires and it also reflected the observation result. The questionnaire asked the teachers’ and students’ perception of the use of English in teaching and learning science and math and their perception of their readiness of being part of RSBI program.

And before they were given to the students, the researcher explained to them about the use of the questionnaires that were going to be filled by them. During the activity, the researcher stayed in the classroom to watch the students who were answering the questionnaires. This activity took about 20 minutes in each class.

In other side, the questionnaires for the teachers were given individually outside the classroom (see appendix 2, p. 80). The researcher gave flexible time to the teachers to fill in and then collect the questionnaire sheets. All the students and the teachers did not find difficulties and problems in answering the questionnaires.

3.3.1.4 The Interview

A week after collecting questionnaire data, another method of data collection, Interview, was used. According to Emilia (2008 in class presentation) quoted from Cannell and Kahn in Cohen and Manion (1994) said that research interview is a two-person conversation to obtain research-relevant information and focus on content specified by research objectives and research questions.

Interviews in this study were important means of helping participants articulate their opinions or perceptions about the use of English in teaching and

learning science and math and their feelings being bilingual or international class. Interviews in this study also played an important role to enable the research “to check the honesty and the accuracy of – to verify or refute – the impression from the previous technique (Freakel and Wallen, 2002 and Gendroyono, 2008).

This semi structured and open-ended interviews (see appendix 4, p. 84) were applied in answering the second and the third research questions. The questions were about: students’ and teachers’ opinion of English, students’ English score, the effectiveness of using English as means of instruction in sciences and math class, the frequency of using English by the teachers, the felling of being bilingual class, the important of using English as means of instruction, and the readiness of the school as RSBI. The 7 questions were followed by subsequent questions which were conversational, and they were used to support the question from questionnaires and the result of observation. The interviews were also recorded. Thus, all of the recorded interviewees’ contribution were analyzed and transcribed.

3.3.1.4 Procedure of the Study

The procedure of this study was started by doing class observation. This type conducted twice for each class and each teacher in two weeks before giving questionnaire and interview. During class observation, the researcher sat at the back of the class observing teaching learning process and taking notes on teachers’ mastery of English, students’ attitude or feedback, and teaching learning activities. The purpose of observation is to see how far the teachers and the students play or run the

role of being international class and whether they are serious in using English in teaching learning process.

After collecting data from observation, the following technique was questionnaires that were given to teachers and students. The questionnaires have been developed based on the research questions in order to find out teachers’ perception or opinion of using English in explaining the materials. Next, the questionnaire would give contribution to find out students’ perception or opinion of using English in learning the subject. All questions of questionnaire will be enclosed in appendix pages.

The last, interview was carried out after giving questionnaire. The interview supported the questionnaire. The interviews that had used were semi structured. It was applied to find out students’ perception. Semi structured interview was used because the researcher has general idea where the interview should go and what should come out of it (Nunan, 1992). And besides that, the respondents were 15 students of 76. So, the researcher had enough time to make individual conversation or individual interview with them.

3.3 Data Analysis

The data of this research were analyzed through qualitative data analysis. It was immediately conducted after the data from classroom observation checklist, questionnaire, and interview transcription were available. All data were analyzed based on the research questions stated in chapter one.

In order to protect the identity and confidentiality of the participants, the data were analyzed based on the item of each questions not on the individual of participant, for example, the researcher counted how many respondents answered item number 1, number 2, number 3, and so on. At the last, the percentage of the data was taken based on the standard formula. All data analysis can be seen in chapter IV.

The data from classroom observation was analyzed to figure out whether teachers and students implemented what they knew about bilingual or using English as a medium of instruction in teaching and learning science and math. The data were divided into three phases of teaching learning process: pre-teaching, while teaching, and post teaching. Each phases had different activities that were observed. Some of criteria in observation sheet also supported research question number two and three. And the data will be explained clearly in chapter four.

The data from questionnaire and interview were analyzed to answer the research questions concerning teachers’ and students’ perception of using English as a medium of instruction in teaching and learning science and math. The questionnaires were distributed to the teachers and the students but the interview was distributed to the students formally not for the teachers. This was happened because the researcher felt that the students who answered the questionnaire was little beat not fear. So, the researcher gave additional technique of data collection to see the fairness of the students and interview was organized. Meanwhile, the interview was not addressed formally to the teachers because they had much informal talks with the researcher during the school have been chosen as RSBI. Some participants’ responses

in questionnaire supported the first research question. And all data from questionnaire and interview will be clarified in chapter four.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions

This study was supposed to find out the students’ and the sciences and math teachers’ perception on the use of English as a medium of instruction in teaching and learning sciences and math, and the running of learning process in sciences and math class of using English. From the results and findings in chapter IV, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, regarding the running of teaching and learning process in sciences and math using English, three of the teachers always used English in greeting and opening the meeting without translate the English. In reviewing the previous materials or before entering and explaining new topic, they also used English but they sometimes mixed English and Indonesia or they translated their English. There was only one teacher who never used English in greeting and opening the class, and reviewing the last materials.

In while-phase teaching the three teachers still mixed English and Indonesia but the one teacher never used it. In last phase of teaching all teachers wrote the test in English. From the teaching and learning in the sciences and math class, it can be concluded that teachers were really being the language models of the students. It was

shown that students used English when the teachers used it and students used Indonesia when teachers used it.

Second, concerning science and math teachers’ perception on the use of English as a medium of instruction, most of the teachers had positive perception. From the questionnaire, it can be concluded that all teachers had known the rule of RSBI well. They also had spirit to motivate their students to use English. And they had a will to improve and develop their ability in mastering English. The last, they believed that their school can run the RSBI program successfully.

Third, related to students’ perception on the use of English as a medium of instruction, the students also had positive perception toward the bilingual program in their school. It seemed that they realized of their position as bilingual students. They respected their teacher and they were also enthusiastic of using English in sciences and math class. And from the interview, the students also gave positive responses. And the interview supported the questionnaire data.

Fourth, from the researcher’s survey on the facilities that the school has, it can be said that it has complete facilities and all the facilities are almost suitable with the characteristic of RSBI that have been created by the government.

Next, Tucker (1999) concludes that individuals most easily develop literacy skills, cognitive skills and master content material when they are taught in a familiar language.

In conclusion, the effects of bilingual education depend very much on the type of bilingualism that is developed (Cummins, 1981). In detail, Cummins states:

where children or students develop low levels of proficiency – for example, small vocabulary, incomplete grammatical knowledge, low levels of reading and writing skills – in both languages, educational and intellectual progress will be slowed down. However, where children’s abilities in both languages are relatively well developed (not necessarily equal), then there is evidence that bilingualism can enhance intellectual functioning (Cummins, 1981:24).

From Cummins’ statements, it can be concluded that teachers have important rule in motivating and developing students’ ability in understanding and mastering language and content.

5.2 Suggestions

Since this study has some weaknesses in collecting the data, presenting the data, finding related theory of the study, and organizing the thesis, the researcher needs corrections and suggestions from her beloved supervisors, colleague, and readers to make this thesis acceptable.

Beside the researcher wants to share some suggestions to the decision makers of the policy as the followings:

1. As a RSBI that implemented Content-Based Curriculum, Stryker (1997) suggests that the stakeholders or the school must consider:

a. How they can build the necessary interdisciplinary foundation b. How they achieve the desired balance between language and content c. How they select the subject and how they sequence them

d. Who will teach the course, a language teacher, a content specialist, or both e. How they define and evaluate student learning outcomes.

2. All the elements of the school must support each other. It is better for the teachers to work in team so that they will know each other about their weaknesses and their capability. And they will help and share each other in developing their ability to run the bilingual program.

3. Avoiding teacher’s shocks as teachers in RSBI, it is better to the government to see the readiness of human resources of the school before guarantying the school as RSBI or SBI

References

Alwasilah, A.C. 2003. Pokoknya Kualitatif. Jakarta: Pustaka Jaya.

Aziz bin Nordin. 2004. Students’ Perception on Teaching and Learning Mathemaics

in English. [Online]. Available at:

http://kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/search/label/teaching. [24 April

2008]

Beardsmore, B. H. 1982. Bilingualism: Basic Principles. Bank House 8a Hill Road: Tieto Ltd.

Bigelow, M. 2006. Keeping the Language Focus in Content-based ESL Instruction Through Proactive Curriculum-Planing. The Internet TESL Canada Journal, Vol. 24, 2006. Available at http://www.teslcanadajournal.ca. [June 2009] Brown, C.L. 2004. Content Based ESL Curriculum and Academic Language

Profiency. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. X, No. 2, February 2004. Available at: http://iteslj.org. [ 29 June 2009]

Brown, H.D. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Brown University. 2002. Declaration of Principles and Practises. [Online]. Available at: www.language.brown.edu/LAC/. [ August 2009]

Cameron, L. 2001. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cohen, L., & Manion, L. 1994. Research Methods in Education. London and New York: Routledge.

Crandal, J., & Tucker, G.R. 1990. Content-based Instruction in Second and Foreign Languages. [Online]. Available at: http://www.carla.umn.edu University of Minnesota. [March 2009]

Crandal, J. 1994. Content-Centered Language Learning. In ERIC Digests. [Online]. Available at: http://www.cal.org. [21 February 2009]. University of Maryland Baltimore.

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California: SAGE Publication.

Cummins, J. 1981. Bilingualism and Minority Language Children. Ontario: OISE Press.

---. 2000. Language, Power and Pedagogy. Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

---. Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and

Possibility. [Online]. Available at:

www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/billinguale. [24 February 2009]

Cummins, J., & Corson, D. 1997. Encyclopedia of Language and Education:Bilingual Education in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, vii-ix. Available at: www.books.google.co.id. [August 2009]. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Diebold, A. R. 1964. Incipient Bilingualism. In Hymes, D. ed. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Riau, 2007.

Dornyei, Z. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Driskill, L., Lewis, K., et. Al. 1998. Students’ Reasoning and Rhetorical Knowledge in First-Year Chemistry. Journal of Archieves vol. 2 number 3: April 1998. Available at: www.wac.colostate.edu/atd/archieves. [August 2009]

Emilia, E. 2008. Qualitative Classroom Presentation. Bandung: UPI

Emmit, M. & Pollock, J. 1995. An Introduction for Teaching: Language and Learning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Forgus, R. H. 1966. Perception: The Basic Process in Cognitive Development. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Fraenkle, J.R., and Wallen, N.E. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 2nd edition. Boston: Mcgraw Hill.

Fransiska, S. 2000. Students’ Perception on EBE. UPI Bandung: Unpublished Thesis. Gay. 1996. Qualitative. Available at:

http://wilderdom.com/OEcourses/PROFLIT/Class6Qualitative1.htm#Types.

Retrieved: March 4, 2008.

Gebhard, J. G. 1996. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: the university of Michigan.

Genroyono. 2008. A Case Study on the Teachers’ Perceptions on the Materials of Speech Making in Advanced Level of English II in the Language Training Center Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta. UPI Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.

Harmer, J. 2002. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition Completely Revised and Updated. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Harianto, S. 1997. Achieving a Good Communicative Performance with Better Grammatical Mastery Using Bridge Technique. In Sadtono, E. 1997. The Development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Haris, H. 2007. Students’ Perception On the Use of English as a Medium of Instruction. UPI Bandung: Unpublished thesis.

Harris, V. 2006. Language Learning Strategies across the Curriculum: Government Policy and School Practice. Journal presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents . [ August 2009]

Haryati, M. 2007. Model dan Teknik Penilaian Pada Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Gaung Persada Press.

Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Hybels, S. and Richard L. W. 2004. Self, Perception, and Communication. [Online].

Available at: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com. [17 June 2009]

Jamison, R. E. 2000. Learning the Language of Mathematics. Journal of Archieves

vol. 4 number 1: May 2000. Available at:

Jarret, D. 1999. Teaching Mathemathics and Science to English-Language Learners. Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. 1996. Surveys of Opinions on Bilingual Education: Some Current Issues. The Bilingual Research Journal, Summer/Fall 1996, Vol. 20, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 411-431. Available at: http://www.ncela.gwu. [26 March 2009]

Krashen, S. 1997. Why Bilingual Education?. ERIC Digest. Available at:

http://www.nabe.org/education/index.html. [21 February 2009]

Kristanti, A. 2007. The Students’ and Teachers’ Perception on the Use of Computer in EFL Classrooms. UPI Bandung: Unpublished thesis.

Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. USA: Sage Publication.

Labaw, P.J. 1980. Advanced Questionnaire Design. USA: Abt Books Massachusetts. Lengkanawati, S.N. 2008. Curriculum Analysis Classroom Presentation. Bandung:

UPI

Mar’at. 1982. Sikap Manusia Perubahan serta Pengukurannya. Jakarta: Ghdia. Marootians, J. 1997. Language for Understanding across the Curriculum: Strategies

Handbook Studies Section. Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training. Available at: http://www.det.act.giv.au/_data/assets. [ August 2009]

Merriem, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Mohamed, M., and Nordin, A. 2005. Impact on the Implementation of Bilingualism in Science and Mathematics Teaching in Malaysia School System. [Online].

Avalaible at:

http://kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/search/label/teaching. [24 April

2008]

Moore, A. 1999. Teaching Multicultured Students: Culturism and Anti-culturism in School Classrooms. London: Falmer Press.

Morioka, A. Content-based Instruction (CBI) Curriculum. Av from ailable at:

www.hnet.uci.edu. [21 February 2009].

Musa, M. B. 2008. Continue Teaching Science and Mathemathic in English. [Online]. Available at: http://blog.limkitsiang.com. [ 13 February 2009 ] Musthafa, B. 2005. English for Young Learners. Unpublished Module. Bandung: PPs

UPI.

Norland & Said. 2006. A Kaleidoskop of Models and Strategies for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. London: an imprint of Libraries Unlimited Westpot,Connecticut.

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Ltd.

---. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Oller & Eilers. 2002. Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Pandian, A., and Ramiah, R. 2005. Mathematics and Science in English: Teacher

Voice. [Online]. Available at:

http://kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/search/label/teaching. [24 April

2008]

Pedoman Penjaminan Mutu Sekolah/Madrasah Bertaraf Internasional Pada Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah. 2008. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Pinter, A. 2006. Teaching English for Young Learners.

Priyanto, T. 2007. Memandang dari Balik Pagar Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional. Antara News. [Online]. Avalaible at: http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2008. [23 December 2008]

Ramli, M. 2007. Sekilah Nasional Bertaraf Internasional. [Online]. Avalaible at:

Republika online news. 2008. Keberadaan sekolah bertaraf internasional (SBI) menjadi bukti respons dari kesadaran masyarakat terhadap pentingnya sekolah berkualitas. [Online]. Avalaible at:

http://www.sfeduresearch.org/content/view. [23 December 2008]

Richards, J.C., and Rodgers, S.T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Second Edition. London: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Ryan, F. 2002. Foreign Language Across the Curriculum. Director Center for Language Studies, Brown University. [Online]. Avalaible at:

www.language.brown.edu/LAC/. [ August 2009]

Shang, Hui-fang. 2006. Content-based Instruction in the EFL Literature Curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 11, November 2006. Available at:

http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Shang-CBI [29 June 2009]

Short, D. J., and Spanos, G. 1989. Teaching Mathematics to Limited English Proficient Students. ERIC Digest. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/English.htm. [21 February 2009]

Silverman, D. 2005. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Slavit, D., and Ernst-Slavit, G. 2007. Teaching Mathematics and English to English

Language Learners Simultaneously. Middle School ajournal. November 2007. Volume 39. Number 2. Pages 4 -11. Available at:

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal. [3 July 2009]

Soedibyo, B. 2009. Pariwara: TV One Talk Show on July 11.

Sperling, A.P. 1982. Psychology. London: Made Simple Books, Heineman.

Stryker, S.B., and Leaver, B.L. 1997. Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Georgetown University Press.

Sugiyono. 2006. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Suryatmana, G., and Priyana, J. 2009. 4th Annual International Seminar and

Workshop: English as Part of the Internationalisation of Secondary Schools in Indonesia. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Tucker, G. R. 1999. A Global Perspective on Bilingual and Bilingual Education. ERIC Digest. [Online]. Avalaible at: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest [25 March 2009]

US History Encyclopedia. Bilingual Education. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.answers.com/topic [March 2009]

Wardhough, R. 1969. Reading: A Linguistic Perspective. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Wei, Li. 2000. The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge.

Wittig, A. 1977. Introduction to Psychology: A Psychological Approach. Johannesburg: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

What is Bilingual Education?. 2004. Avalaible at:

http://www.nabe.org/education/index.html. [21February 2009]

What is Bilingual Education?. Avalaible at: http://www.proenglish.org/issue. [3July 2009]

Creswell, J.W. 1998. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. California: SAGE Publication.

Cummins, J. 1981. Bilingualism and Minority Language Children. Ontario: OISE Press.

---. 2000. Language, Power and Pedagogy. Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

---. Bilingual Education in the United States: Power, Pedagogy, and

Possibility. [Online]. Available at:

www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/billinguale. [24 February 2009]

Cummins, J., & Corson, D. 1997. Encyclopedia of Language and Education:Bilingual Education in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia, Volume 5: Bilingual Education, vii-ix. Available at: www.books.google.co.id. [August 2009]. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.

Diebold, A. R. 1964. Incipient Bilingualism. In Hymes, D. ed. Language in Culture and Society. New York: Harper and Row.

Dinas Pendidikan Provinsi Riau, 2007.

Dornyei, Z. 2003. Questionnaires in Second Language Research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Driskill, L., Lewis, K., et. Al. 1998. Students’ Reasoning and Rhetorical Knowledge in First-Year Chemistry. Journal of Archieves vol. 2 number 3: April 1998. Available at: www.wac.colostate.edu/atd/archieves. [August 2009]

Emilia, E. 2008. Qualitative Classroom Presentation. Bandung: UPI

Emmit, M. & Pollock, J. 1995. An Introduction for Teaching: Language and Learning. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

Forgus, R. H. 1966. Perception: The Basic Process in Cognitive Development. McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Fraenkle, J.R., and Wallen, N.E. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. 2nd edition. Boston: Mcgraw Hill.

Fransiska, S. 2000. Students’ Perception on EBE. UPI Bandung: Unpublished Thesis. Gay. 1996. Qualitative. Available at:

http://wilderdom.com/OEcourses/PROFLIT/Class6Qualitative1.htm#Types. Retrieved: March 4, 2008.

Gebhard, J. G. 1996. Teaching English as a Foreign or Second Language. Michigan: the university of Michigan.

Genroyono. 2008. A Case Study on the Teachers’ Perceptions on the Materials of Speech Making in Advanced Level of English II in the Language Training Center Muhammadiyah University of Yogyakarta. UPI Bandung: Unpublished Thesis.

Harmer, J. 2002. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition Completely Revised and Updated. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Harianto, S. 1997. Achieving a Good Communicative Performance with Better Grammatical Mastery Using Bridge Technique. In Sadtono, E. 1997. The Development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Haris, H. 2007. Students’ Perception On the Use of English as a Medium of Instruction. UPI Bandung: Unpublished thesis.

Harris, V. 2006. Language Learning Strategies across the Curriculum: Government Policy and School Practice. Journal presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Warwick, 6-9 September 2006. Available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents . [ August 2009]

Haryati, M. 2007. Model dan Teknik Penilaian Pada Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan. Jakarta: Gaung Persada Press.

Hornby, AS. 1974. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Hybels, S. and Richard L. W. 2004. Self, Perception, and Communication. [Online].

Available at: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com. [17 June 2009]

Jamison, R. E. 2000. Learning the Language of Mathematics. Journal of Archieves

vol. 4 number 1: May 2000. Available at:

Jarret, D. 1999. Teaching Mathemathics and Science to English-Language Learners. Oregon: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Krashen, S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York: Longman.

Krashen, S. 1996. Surveys of Opinions on Bilingual Education: Some Current Issues. The Bilingual Research Journal, Summer/Fall 1996, Vol. 20, Nos. 3 & 4, pp. 411-431. Available at: http://www.ncela.gwu. [26 March 2009]

Krashen, S. 1997. Why Bilingual Education?. ERIC Digest. Available at: http://www.nabe.org/education/index.html. [21 February 2009]

Kristanti, A. 2007. The Students’ and Teachers’ Perception on the Use of Computer in EFL Classrooms. UPI Bandung: Unpublished thesis.

Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: an Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. USA: Sage Publication.

Labaw, P.J. 1980. Advanced Questionnaire Design. USA: Abt Books Massachusetts. Lengkanawati, S.N. 2008. Curriculum Analysis Classroom Presentation. Bandung:

UPI

Mar’at. 1982. Sikap Manusia Perubahan serta Pengukurannya. Jakarta: Ghdia. Marootians, J. 1997. Language for Understanding across the Curriculum: Strategies

Handbook Studies Section. Australian Capital Territory, Department of Education and Training. Available at: http://www.det.act.giv.au/_data/assets. [ August 2009]

Merriem, S. 1998. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass.

Mohamed, M., and Nordin, A. 2005. Impact on the Implementation of Bilingualism in Science and Mathematics Teaching in Malaysia School System. [Online].

Avalaible at:

http://kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/search/label/teaching. [24 April 2008]

Moore, A. 1999. Teaching Multicultured Students: Culturism and Anti-culturism in School Classrooms. London: Falmer Press.

Morioka, A. Content-based Instruction (CBI) Curriculum. Av from ailable at: www.hnet.uci.edu. [21 February 2009].

Musa, M. B. 2008. Continue Teaching Science and Mathemathic in English. [Online]. Available at: http://blog.limkitsiang.com. [ 13 February 2009 ] Musthafa, B. 2005. English for Young Learners. Unpublished Module. Bandung: PPs

UPI.

Norland & Said. 2006. A Kaleidoskop of Models and Strategies for Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages. London: an imprint of Libraries Unlimited Westpot,Connecticut.

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Ltd.

---. 1992. Research Methods in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press.

Oller & Eilers. 2002. Language and Literacy in Bilingual Children. Sydney: Multilingual Matters LTD.

Pandian, A., and Ramiah, R. 2005. Mathematics and Science in English: Teacher

Voice. [Online]. Available at:

http://kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/search/label/teaching. [24 April 2008]

Pedoman Penjaminan Mutu Sekolah/Madrasah Bertaraf Internasional Pada Jenjang Pendidikan Dasar Dan Menengah. 2008. Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. Pinter, A. 2006. Teaching English for Young Learners.

Priyanto, T. 2007. Memandang dari Balik Pagar Sekolah Bertaraf Internasional. Antara News. [Online]. Avalaible at: http://www.antara.co.id/arc/2008. [23 December 2008]

Ramli, M. 2007. Sekilah Nasional Bertaraf Internasional. [Online]. Avalaible at: http://murniramli.wordpress.com/2009/01/02. [16 Februari 2009]

Republika online news. 2008. Keberadaan sekolah bertaraf internasional (SBI) menjadi bukti respons dari kesadaran masyarakat terhadap pentingnya sekolah berkualitas. [Online]. Avalaible at:

http://www.sfeduresearch.org/content/view. [23 December 2008] Richards, J.C., and Rodgers, S.T. 2001. Approaches and Methods in Language

Teaching. Second Edition. London: Cambridge University Press. Romaine, S. 1989. Bilingualism. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

Ryan, F. 2002. Foreign Language Across the Curriculum. Director Center for Language Studies, Brown University. [Online]. Avalaible at:

www.language.brown.edu/LAC/. [ August 2009]

Shang, Hui-fang. 2006. Content-based Instruction in the EFL Literature Curriculum. The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. XII, No. 11, November 2006. Available at: http://iteslj.org/Techniques/Shang-CBI [29 June 2009]

Short, D. J., and Spanos, G. 1989. Teaching Mathematics to Limited English Proficient Students. ERIC Digest. [Online]. Available at:

http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9214/English.htm. [21 February 2009] Silverman, D. 2005. Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Slavit, D., and Ernst-Slavit, G. 2007. Teaching Mathematics and English to English

Language Learners Simultaneously. Middle School ajournal. November 2007. Volume 39. Number 2. Pages 4 -11. Available at:

http://www.nmsa.org/Publications/MiddleSchoolJournal. [3 July 2009] Soedibyo, B. 2009. Pariwara: TV One Talk Show on July 11.

Sperling, A.P. 1982. Psychology. London: Made Simple Books, Heineman.

Stryker, S.B., and Leaver, B.L. 1997. Content-based Instruction in Foreign Language Education: Models and Methods. Georgetown University Press.

Sugiyono. 2006. Metode Penelitian Kuantitatif Kualitatif dan R&D. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Suryatmana, G., and Priyana, J. 2009. 4th Annual International Seminar and

Workshop: English as Part of the Internationalisation of Secondary Schools in Indonesia. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

Tucker, G. R. 1999. A Global Perspective on Bilingual and Bilingual Education. ERIC Digest. [Online]. Avalaible at: http://www.cal.org/resources/digest [25 March 2009]

US History Encyclopedia. Bilingual Education. [Online]. Available at: http://www.answers.com/topic [March 2009]

Wardhough, R. 1969. Reading: A Linguistic Perspective. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Wei, Li. 2000. The Bilingualism Reader. London: Routledge.

Wittig, A. 1977. Introduction to Psychology: A Psychological Approach. Johannesburg: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

What is Bilingual Education?. 2004. Avalaible at: http://www.nabe.org/education/index.html. [21February 2009]

What is Bilingual Education?. Avalaible at: http://www.proenglish.org/issue. [3July 2009]