strategic competence to compensate students’ linguistic

1

Strategic Competence to Compensate Students’ Linguistic

Deficiencies: A Case Study in a Christian Primary School in Salatiga

THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

SarjanaPendidikan

Dewi Ratoja D.W

112011070

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SALATIGA

2016

i



THESIS

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

SarjanaPendidikan

Dewi Ratoja D.W

112011070

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY

SALATIGA

2016

iii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

This thesis contains no such material as has been submitted for examination in any

course or accepted for the fulfillment of any degree or diploma in any university. To

the best of my knowledge and my belief, this contains no material previously

published or written by any other person except where due reference is made in the

text.

Copyright@ 2014. Dewi Ratoja D.W and Joseph Ernest Mambu, S.Pd., M.A, Ph.D.

All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be produced by any means without the

permission of at least one of the copyright owners or the English Department, Faculty

of Language and Literature, SatyaWacana Christian University, Salatiga.

Dewi Ratoja D.W:

v

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER PAGE..................................................................................................i

APPROVAL FORM.......................................................................................ii

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT......................................................................iii

PUBLICATION AGREEMENT DECLARATION..................................vi

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................1

I.INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................1

II.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK...........................................................2

CLT in Asean Countries...................................................................................3

Celce Murcia’s Communicative Strategies......................................................4

III.THE STUDY.............................................................................................5

Context of Study..............................................................................................5

Participants.......................................................................................................5

Data Collection Procedure...............................................................................6

Data Analysis Procedure..................................................................................7

IV.FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..............................................................7

Translation Strategies.......................................................................................7

Paraphrasing Strategy.....................................................................................12

Meta-Cognitive Strategy................................................................................13

The Precentage of Strategy............................................................................14

Celce Murcia’s Strategy................................................................................14

CLT Implementation in CESS.......................................................................19

vi

V.CONCLUSION.........................................................................................20

VI.ACKNOWLEDGEMENT......................................................................23

VII.REFERENCES......................................................................................24

APPENDIX 1................................................................................................26

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. L1 to L2 Translation Strategy by Teacher

Table 2. Direct Translation Strategy by Teacher

Table 3. L2 to L1 Translation Strategy by Teacher

Table 4. L2 to L1 Translation Strategy by Fellow Student

Table 5. Paraphrasing in L1 Strategy


Table 7. Meta-Cognitive Strategy

1



ABSTRACT

Nowadays English exposure is high especially in school. In Indonesia, the

number of schools that use English as Medium of Instruction(EMI) is increasing.

This condition makes students face several linguistic deficiencies. Some of them

speak English every time and forget how to speak in Bahasa Indonesia. This study

aimed to find the strategic competence that can be used to compensate linguistic gaps

or difficulties at a primary school level. The strategic competence by Celce

Murcia(2007) became the main theoretical framework for this study. The study is

qualitative that used one type of data collection, which is observation. The study

would be held in Christian Elementary School in Salatiga. The researcher would have

eight classroom sessions of observation in Bahasa Indonesia classes. The second until

fourth grade will be the focus of this study. Findings suggest that the teachers and

their studentsused their own strategies to compensate the deficiencies. Those

strategies are translation, paraphrasing and meta-cognitive. Some implications for

pedagogy and further research are suggested.

Key words: L1, Linguistic deficiencies, Strategic competence

INTRODUCTION

Communicative Language Teaching(CLT) is a very popular method in

teaching learning activity. As Jarvis, as cited in Kustati (2013, p. 267), put it: “[The]

current trend in the teaching of EFL in Southeast Asia has given emphasis on

communicative language teaching (CLT) as one of the innovative methods within the

last quarter of a century.” The aim of this language teaching approach is to encourage

learners to communicate effectively in a target language or to achieve communicative

competence, especially in second/foreign language (S/FL). In the current study there

are four existing models of communicative competence (Canale& Swain, 1980, as

2

cited in Celce-Murcia, 2007). The first is Grammaticalcompetence. It isthe

knowledge of the language code. The second is Sociolinguistic competence—the

mastery of the sociocultural code of language use. The third is Discourse

competence—the ability to combine language structures into different types of

cohesive texts. The last is Strategic competence—the knowledge of verbal and non-

verbal communication strategies which enhance the efficiency of communication.

The current study will focus on teachers’ strategic competence in addressing

the students’ first language (L1) linguistic deficiencies. In one of Christian

Elementary School in Salatiga (CESS), the Indonesian students have been exposed

with English through the school’s immersion program. Therefore, they tend to master

English, as the second language (L2), rather than Bahasa Indonesia, which is

supposed to be their first language(L1). Some of them have difficulties in L1

structure and expression. That is why in this study that problem will be discussed.

However, the focus of this study is not yet discussed in the CLT literature. Most CLT

studies attempt to answer how the CLT approach is viewed and implemented in

various Asian countries (Kwangsawad, 2007; Mustafa, 2001; Nur, 2003; and Van,

2008) in the context of ELT. These current studies have not discussed much on how

knowledge of components of communicative competence, especially strategic

competence, can be useful for learners, regardless of the teachers’ or schools’

language teaching approach.

3

LITERATURE REVIEW

Theoretical Framework

CLT in ASEAN Countries

In several of Asian countries such as China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand

and Indonesia, the reasons of difficultiesin CLT implementation are similar. The first

difficulty is misconception of CLT implementation. The second difficulty is teachers’

lack of teaching repertoire. In Vietnam, Van (2008 as cited in Kustati, 2013) “states

that the implementation of CLT faces three challenges in Vietnamese schools: the

Vietnamese traditional culture of learning; teachers’ limited professional

development and the constraints ofthe curriculum”(p.271).

Kwangsawad (2007) found that CLT has been unsuccessfully implemented in

Thailand, because the students did not show any progress on L2 acquisition. The third

difficulty is strong first language and environment influence. In Thailand, The

Ministry of education made a Project for Improving Secondary English Teacher

(PISET) to support CLT but the students seemunable to depart from overreliance to

their first language. In Indonesia, Nur (2003) stated that the Indonesian government

mandates foreign language to be included in national schools’ curriculum. However,

Mustafa (2001) argued that CLT implementation has failed in Indonesia because

Indonesia focuses on standardized national exam. The fourth difficulty is class

situation. In Vietnam, class conditions do not allow students to have plenty speaking

opportunities. Moreover, the class size is typically large, as there are 30-40 students

4

in a class. Lewis(1996) said that most learners are passive in classes that attempt to

utilize CLT. The fifth, in certain condition like what happen in Christian Elementary

School in SalatigaCESS, the L1 deficiencies became the main reason of difficulty in

CLT implementation. However, there is no study that focuses on that particular

difficulty. That is why in this study, the researcher want to make a case for studies in

the use of strategic competence to learn L1 since this case is not yet explored in the

literature. The current study from Szulc-Kurpaska(2000) explain about English as

Foreign Language(EFL) learners that have difficulties in speaking English. Another

study is from McGrath (2013). His research participants are English Language

Learner(ELL) in Kindergarten. However in his study, the difficulty is second

language acquisition.

Celce-Murcia’s Communicative Strategies

Actually there are several strategies that can be used to compensate students

learning deficiencies through strategic competence. Strategic competence is one of

the components of communicative competence (Celce-Murcia,Dörnyei, &Turrel,

1995, as cited in Soler&Jordà, 2007).

Some applied linguists have been working on conceptualizing teacher’s

strategic competence. The crucial strategies, which are the ones we highlighted in

Celce-Murcia(2007, pp.26–29), are communication strategies; they include

thefollowing:

5

Achievement:strategiesof approximation, circumlocution,

codeswitching,miming, etc.

Stalling or time gaining: using phrases like Where was I? Could yourepeat

that?

Self-monitoring: using phrases that allow for self-repair like I mean….

Interacting: these are strategies that include appeals forhelp/clarification, that

involve meaning negotiation, or that involvecomprehension and confirmation

checks, etc.

Social: these strategies involve seeking out native speakers to practicewith,

actively looking for opportunities to use the target language.

THE STUDY

Context of the study

The study will be specified in one Christian elementary school in Salatiga

(CESS).That school has been using English for the medium of instruction(EMI) for

about 4 years. The entire subjectsare taught in English, except Bahasa Indonesia and

BahasaJawa. Actually, there is no problem with EMI in that schools, since the

English teachers in CESS have a relatively good command of English. However, the

problem comes up when some of the studentslearn in Bahasa Indonesia classes. Some

of them do notknow some of Indonesian expression and structures. They do not really

communicate well in Bahasa Indonesia, especially in Indonesian lessons.

Consequently, the Bahasa Indonesiateacher should explain the lesson in English

6

instead of Bahasa Indonesia. Ironically, BahasaIndonesia is the first language for all

of the students but some of them have better acquisition in English.

Participants

The study will analyze on how the teachers compensate the gaps or

deficienciesof students’ L1. The participantsincluded English teachers, Bahasa

Indonesia teachers and students in the second until the fourth grade (each grade has

two classes).The researcher only observedIndonesian language teachers in Bahasa

Indonesia classes because the problems appear in this course. The researcher

interviewed the teachers if necessary, but not the students.However, the researcher

still documented the students’ language use. There are three Bahasa Indonesia.

Teacher 1 for second graded, Teacher 2 for third graded and Teacher 3 for fourth

graded.

Data Collection Procedure

The only data collection method used in this study is observation. The aim is

to find out the difficulties faced by the students and the strategy used by the teachers.I

did the observation in each class of Christian Elementary School in Salatiga (CESS).

The observation was done in Indonesian classes from second grade until fourth grade.

There were eight sessions of observation. The observation was in Bahasa Indonesia

classes. The researcher would listen and watch the teaching-learning activities of the

teacher and students and took notes at important part. There is no recording or video

of teaching-learning activity because the school did not allow me to record classroom

interactions with any electronic device. The observation was done from September 30

7

to October 6, 2015. The observation was hold three times in second grade, two times

in third grade and three times in fourh grade.

Data Analysis Procedure

I analyzed the teaching learning activity using Celce Murcia’s Strategic

Competence as a reference. I categorized eachevidence of students’ deficiencies and

teachers’ strategies used during the observation. The data will be discussed in the

next section of the study.

FINDINGS AND DICUSSION

The study on how the teachers compensate the gap or deficiencies of students’

L1

In the data collection there are three strategic competence used. The first one

is translation strategy. This strategy is divided into four parts such as L1 to L2

translation by teacher (i.e., the teacher translated L1 to L2), L2 to L1 translation by

teacher(i.e., the teacher translated L2 to L1), L2 to L1 translation by fellow student

(i.e., the other student who knows Bahasa Indonesia better tried to help their friends

with translating from L2 to L1), and direct translation (i.e., the teacher gave direct

evaluation while the student was speaking). The second strategy used is paraphrasing.

It means that the teacher explained something in different words. It is divided into

two parts such as paraphrasing into L1(i.e., the teacher explained something in L2

using L1) and paraphrasing into L2 (i.e., the teacher explain something in L2 using

8

L1). The last strategy is meta-cognitive strategy (it is shown on how the teacher tries

to explain grammatical functions of words using students’ L1 and L2. In the data

collection of this study,Ifound that in the first day (in the 4th grade)the teacher used

three communicative strategies.

Translation strategy

Translation strategy is divided into four. The first strategy is L1 to L2

translation by the teacher. This strategy appears nine times during eight sessions of

observation. The first evidence is in the first day of observation, in the fourth grade.

The teacher translated “Kontakmata! Mana penontonnya?” (Eye contact! Where is

the audience!)into “Where is your audience?”. The second evidence is when the

teacher asked new words to check students’ understanding. The teacher translated

“Saran” into “critics” [sic]. The third evidence is while the teacher explained a

lesson.The teacher translated “Jadititikdigunakanuntukmengakhirikalimat” (So,

period is used to end asentence)into “Dot digunakan at the end of the sentence.”The

fourth evidence is similar with the third evidence. The teachers translated

“Komadigunakanuntukmenyambungduakalimatmenjadisatu” into “Comma is used to

connect between sentences” The fifth evidence is when the teacher gave

instructions.The teacher translated “Sekarang, ceritakantentangliburankemarin” into

“Tell about your last holiday.” The sixth evidence is similar with the fifth evidence.

The teacher translated “Hubungkankalimat-kalimat di halaman 5

menjadisatuparagraf” into “Arrange the sentences into paragraph.” The seventh,

9

eighth and ninth evidences happened during teacher explanation. Seventh, when the

teacher translates “Ituterbalik!” into “It shuffled!” Eighth, when the teacher translate

“....yang pentingpercayadiri” into “Be confident.” The last, when the teacher

translated “Liatmatatemannya!” into “Look at your friends’ eyes!”(see Table 1).

Table 1. L1 to L2 Translation Strategy by Teachers

L1 to L2

by

Teacher

L1 to L2

by

Teacher

L1 to L2

by

Teacher

L1 to L2 by Teacher L1 to L2 by

Teacher

L1 to L2 by

Teacher

Instruction (During

student’s presentation, the teacher gives direct evaluation)

Asking new words

(In the end of the explanation, the teacher check the students’ undestandi

ng)

Explanation (The

teacher still using L2 to help the students get better understanding)

Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2 to help

the student get better understanding)

Instruction (The teacher

translate L1 explanation into L2 to help the student get better understanding)

Instruction (The teacher


T: Kontak Mata! Mana penontonnya?

T : Jadi titik digunakan untuk mengakhiri kalimat.

Dot digunakan at the end of the sentence

T :Sekarangceritakantentangliburankemarin.

T: Hubungkankalimat-kalimat di halaman 5 menjadisatu paragraph

T: ...yang pentingpercayadiri

S: (*no response)

T: Apakah ada kata- kata yang

susah?

Explanation (The teacher


S: Pardon, miss? S: Pardon, miss?

S: apa , Miss?

T: Where is your audience?

S: Saran, Miss

T: Koma digunakan untuk menyambung dua kalimat menjadi

T:Tell about your last holiday T : Arrange the sentence into paragraph

T: Be Confidence

10

satu

T: Saran itu "critics"

S: Miss, I don't understand

S: Okay, miss S: okay Miss During Lesson (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2 to help the student get

better understanding)

T : Comma is used to connect between sentences

During Lesson (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2 to help the student get


T: Lihatmatatemannya

T: Ituterbalik S: (*still didn't understand)

S: Apamiss? T: Look at your friends' eyes!

T: It shuffled S: *Look at his friends' eyes

S: okay, Miss

The second strategy in translation is direct translation by teacher. There are

two evidences of this strategy in the observation. The first evidence is when the

teacher giving command. The teacher directly changed his/her command from

“Affan, don’t play! Tadikatanyamaukekamarmandi?” into “You say to me to go to

bathroom. Don’t play!” The second evidence happened while the teacher was giving

instruction. The teacher translates “Bukabukuhalamanenam!” into “Open your book

at page six!”(see Table 2).

Table 2. Direct Translation Strategy

Direct translation by Teacher Direct translation by Teacher

Command (while the teacher explaining the lesson, one of students playing outside the

class)

Instruction

T :Bukabukuhalamanenam!

11

T :Affan, don't play! Tadikatanyamaukekamarmandi?

S : (*some of students start to open their book and some of them still confuse)

(*student still confuse with L1 instruction)

T: Open your book at page six! S : Pardon, miss?

T : You say to me to go to bathroom. Don't

play!

S : Okay, miss

The third strategy in translation is L2 to L1 translation by teacher. There are

five evidences in this strategy. The first evidence happened at the last of student’s

presentation. The teacher translate “Lastly, thank you for watching” into “Dan yang

terakhir, terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. The second evidence is during the

explanation. The teacher asked the students to translate “characters’ name.” The

students translate it into “namatokoh.” The third evidence happened while the teacher

evaluated his/her student’s presentation. The teacher translateda student’s sentence

“Thank you for your attention” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. The fourth

evidence happened during the lesson. The teacher translated the student’s sentence

“Her name is Sarah.” into “Namanya Sarah.” The last evidence happenedwhen the

teacher assisted the students. The teacher translated “...very kind...” into

“sangatbaik”(see Table 3).

Table 3. L2 to L1 Strategy by Teacher

L2 to L1 by Teacher L2 to L1

by

Teacher

L2 to L1 by Teacher L2 to L1 by Teacher

The last part of students

presentation

Explanatio

n

During Lesson (The

teacher directly evaluate

the children presentation with L1 translation)

During Lesson (The

teacher try to translate L2

to L1 directly to get better acquirement)

12

S : Lastly, thank you for watching

S: Thank You for your attention

S: Her name is Sarah

T: Dan yang terakhir,

terimakasihatasperhatiannya

T: Ada

character's name.

Bahasa

Indonesianya

character's

name apa?

T:

Terimakasihatasperhatiannya

T: Namanya Sarah

S: Nama tokoh,

Miss

S: Terima kasihatasperhatiannya

(*repeat the teacher)

S: Namanya Sarah (*repeat the teacher)

During Lesson (The

teacher assist the student

to get better language expression in L1)

S:

Diasangatcantikdan....hmm... Miss, what is very

kind in Indonesia?

T: Sangatbaik

S: Diasangatcantikdansanga

tbaik

The fourth strategy in translation is L2 to L1 translation by fellow student.

There are two evidences in this strategy. The first evidence happened in the middle of

teacher’s explanation. A student(S2), who is better at Bahasa Indonesia, corrected the

student that had a language deficiency(S1) with translating “miss, Denis is playing.”

into “miss, Denisbermain.”.The second evidence is also during the lesson. Fellow

student help S1 to compensate language deficiency by translating “Miss, I’m

finished” into “Miss, sayasudahselesai.”(see Table 4).

13

Table 4. L2 to L1 Translation by a Fellow Student

L2 to L1 by Fellow Student L2 to L1 by Fellow Student

In the middle of explanation (One of students

playing and didn’t pay attention. Other student

tell the teacher in L2)

During Lesson (After finish the task

given, the student tell the teacher using

L2)

S1: Miss, aku finished.

Student 1: Miss, Denis playing. S2: In Indonesia,please. Miss,

sudahselesai.

Student 2: In Indonesia, please. Miss, Denis

bermain.

T :Oke, semuanya finished?

Sudahselesai?

All Students: Sudahselesai.

Paraphrasing Strategy

Paraphrasing strategy is divided into two. The first strategy is paraphrasing in

L1. There is one of evidence of this strategy in a whole observation. The evidence

happened during a teacher’s explanation. The teacher paraphrase “meneliti” into

“mempelajari”(see Table 5).


Paraprasing in L1

Explanation (The teacher explain how to get the best score in exam)

T: Ketikakamusudahmeneliti

S : Miss, what is meneliti?

T: Artinyamempelajari

The second strategy is paraphrasing in L2. There are two evidences appear

during the observation. The first evidence happenedat the end of the lesson. The

14

teacher paraphrased “apakahadapertanyaan?” into “is that clear?” The second

evidence happened while the teacher tried to explain “Janganlupanama-

namatokohnya. Janganterbalikya!” in L2, “Don’t forget each character’s name.”(see

Table 6).


Paraphrasing in L2 Paraphrasing in L2

At the end of the lesson Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation

into L2 to help the student get better understanding)

T: Janganlupanama-namatokohnya.

Janganterbalikya!

T: Apakahadapertanyaan? Is

that clear?

S: Pardon, miss?

S: Clear, Miss T: Don't forget each character's name

S: Okay, Miss

Meta-Cognitive Strategy

The last strategy that the researcher found is meta-cognitive. There is one of

evidence in a whole observation session. The evidence happened while the teacher

explained about presentation and a student asked the difference between “Presenter”

in Bahasa Indonesia and English. Then, the teacher explained about the different

pronunciation of “Presenter (pri’zentə(r))” and “Presenter (presentər)”(seeTable 7).

15

Table 7. Meta-Cognitive Strategy

Meta- Cognitive

Explanation (In the middle of the lesson. The teacher explain about

presenter).

T: Presenter(in Indonesia) or Presenter (in English) adalah orang yang

menyampaikanpresentasi.

The percentage of strategies

Strategies Used Amount of Evidence Appear The Precentage

L1 to L2 translation strategy 9 40.91%

Direct translation strategy 2 9.08%

L2 to L1 translation by teacher 5 22.71%

L2 to L1 translation by fellow

student

2 9.08%

Paraphrasing strategy in L1 1 4.54%

Paraphrasing strategy in L2 2 9.08%

Meta-cognitive strategy 1 4.54%

I also put the observation data on percentage. The total evidence that have

been noted by the researcher is 22 evidences (100%). L1 to L2 translation strategy by

teacher appears 9 times in the observation (40.91%). Direct translation strategy by

teacher appears 2 times in the observation (9.08%). L2 to L1 translation by teacher

appears 5 times in the observation (22.71%). L2 to L1 translation by fellow student

appears 2 times in the observation (9.08%). Paraphrasing strategy in L1 appears once

16

in the observation (4.54%). Paraphrasing strategy in L2 appears 2 times in the

observation (9.08%). Meta-cognitive strategy appears once in the observation

(4.54%).

Findings in View of Celce-Murcia’s Theoretical Framework

Interaction strategy

As the findings above suggest, translation was the most widely used strategy

in class, especially, translation strategy from L1 to L2 by the teacher. This strategy

was used in seven of eight sessions of observation. This strategy was used in giving

instructions, giving explanation and asking new words. This strategy is therefore in

line with interaction strategy by Celce Murcia(2007). It involves meaning negotiation

when a student askedhis/her teacher about the words he/she did not understand and

the teacher translated it into English (see Tables1, 2,3 and 4). Direct translation

strategy also related to interaction strategy. This strategy demands comprehension

from the students. The teacher will directly use this strategy to avoid students’

language misunderstanding. In Table 2 we can see that the students did not

understand what his/her teacher said in Bahasa Indonesia. After the teacher translated

it into L2, they say “Okay, miss.”. This expression shows that the student achieved a

language comprehension through direct translation strategy.

Another translation strategy similar to interaction strategy is L2 to L1

translation by the teacher. This strategy contains information checks. For example in

17

Table 3, a student asked the teacher “...Miss, what is very kind in Indonesia?”. This

expression demands a confirmation from the teacher. Interaction strategy contains

point of clarification. It is similar to L2 to L1 translation by fellow student. In Table

4, a student said, “Miss, aku finished.”. Another student answer that student by

saying, “In Indonesia, please. Miss, sudahselesai.”.In this part we can see that point

of clarification appear, on how another student try to clarify the student that facing

language deficiency.

The importance of interaction

Another important thing the researcher found is concerned with the interaction

between teacher and learner in class, which is necessary for improving the first

language (L1). It is similar with Brown (2001,as cited in Dagarin, n.d.) statements.

He relates interaction to communication. He said, “…interaction is, in fact, the heart

of communication: it is what communication is all about”(p.128). In all of the

observation sessions, the researcher found that the teacher tries to remove the gap

between language that faced by their students through communication. The

interaction is shown in L1 to L2 translation strategy by teacher. In Table 1 the teacher

translated “...mana penontonnya?” into “where is your audience?” to get better

understanding and interaction with their students. The effort of communication not

only in L1 to L2 translation strategy but also in direct translation strategy, L2 to L1

strategy by the teacher, L2 to L1 strategy by fellow student, paraphrasing in L1,

paraphrasing L2 and meta-cognitive strategy.

18

The study of Szulc-Kurpaska (2000, as cited in Dagarin, n.d.)

discussescommunication strategies of 35 eleven-year old children. In his study,

communication strategies mainly used when interacting were the use of the mother

tongue and body language. Some of the student repeated after the teacher (p.138).

That condition is similar to findings in this study.The teacher helped students who

face language deficiencies using the language they acquire better. The concrete

example is shown in Table 3. The teacher translated their student’s statement “Thank

you for your attention.” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.”. After that the student

repeated after the teacher.

Translation strategy might be the best way for building languagein CESS.

However, this finding is similar to that of McGrath (2013). In this article, the student

said something in L1(the language that they better acquire) and the teachers asked the

learner to repeat after them in L2(target language). The different is that English (the

L2 of students) in this study act as the L1 and Bahasa Indonesia (L1 of the student)

act as the target language or L2. The example is shown in Table 3. During the lesson

the teacher evaluated student’s presentation. The teacher translated “Thank you for

your attention.” into “Terimakasihatasperhatiannya.” and the student repeated after

the teacher.

19

Self-monitoring strategy

Another Celce-Murcia’s strategy appearing in this study is self monitoring

strategy. The students in CESS seem to be active to repair themselves. The example

is shown in Table number 3. The student said “Diasangatcantikdan....hmm... Miss, what

is very kind in Indonesia?” and the teacher answer “Sangatbaik.”, then the student

repeated after the teacher. In the middle of students’ explanation, they asked the

teacher about some words in Bahasa Indonesia that they do not understand.

Teacher as monitor

Beside self-monitoring strategy, the teacher also acts as a monitoring tool for

the students. Flanders (1970, in Malamah-Thomas (1987, as cited in Dagarin, n.d.)

stated that teacher roles are to monitor and clarify students’ language use by

communicative competence (p.131). This statement is in line with the findings in

CESS classroom. The teacher seems to monitor the student and directly clarify them

by translation and paraphrasing strategy. In Table 1 the researcher found that the

teacher tried to monitor their students through checking student’s understanding. The

teacher asked a difficult word. Then, he/she translate “Saran” into “critics.” In

paraphrasing in L2 strategy (see Table 6), the teacher tried to check students

understanding by asking a question in two language. The teacher asked

“Apakahadapertanyaan?”, because there is no response from the students the teacher

asked “Is that clear?”.

20

CLT implementation in CESS

Mustafa(2001) argued that CLT has failed in Indonesia for several reasons.

However in CESS, there is no problem with CLT implementation. The first reason

why CLT can be implemented in CESS, even though there are still lack of teachers’

explanation, on how they translated “saran” into “critics” (see Table 1) and another

imperfect translation, but the students seems to achieved a better understanding after

those explanation. However, the researcher found that the teachers’ quality is not

really important in CESS. Even if there are several mistakes of explanation happened,

the students still got the meaning. Another reason is because the number of students

in class. In CESS classes, there are only 15-20 students in a class. This condition

might be the factor of CLT good implementation. The class condition is not too

crowded and the teacher also gives enough attention for each student.

The researcher believes that the teachers are able to implement another

strategic competence. However, in the whole observation, I only found three

strategies:translation, paraphrasing and meta-cognitive. The first reason is the

student’s ability. The student in this observation is still included in primary learner.

The teacher may think that the students are not ready yet to receive other strategies.

They may think that those three strategies are the easiest strategy and the most

suitable strategy for learner in primary school. Another reasonis the data collection.

The school only allowed the researcher toobserve and collect the data using note

taking. The video and audio recording are not allowed in this research. This condition

21

creates a limitation for the researcher to look for the strategies used by the teacher

because her focus is divided between listening to teaching-learning activity and note

taking.

CONCLUSION

Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is a popular method in education.

The aim of this language teaching approach is to encourage the learners to

communicate effectively in a target language. The study aimed to investigate how the

teachers compensate the linguistic gap or deficienciesof students’ L1 in CESS.The

participants are Bahasa Indonesia teacher and students in second grade to fourth

grade.

The current studies around ASEAN countries have similar difficulties such as

CLT misconception, the teachers’ quality, the first language effect, the class situation,

etc. This reason is the key of CLT failure in several countries. However, Celce

Murcia (2007) has found several strategies that can compensate the teacher or learner

difficulties. These strategies might be used by teacher and learner to gain CLT

successful implementation.

After the observation, the researcher found that Indonesian Lesson Teachersin

CESS like to use translation method than other method. In the data collection, the

teachers used four different type of translation such as L1 to L2 translation by

teacher, direct translation by teacher, L2 to L1 translation by teacher and L2 to L1 by

fellow teacher. The translation strategy is not only used in teacher-student interaction,

22

but also in student-teacher interaction and student-student interaction. Besides that,

the researcher found that paraphrasing and meta- cognitive strategy is also used in

CESS, but not as much as translation strategy. In paraphrasing strategy, the

interaction only happen in one way which is teacher-student interaction. It means that

there is no active interaction in this strategy. The same case happens in meta-

cognitive strategy.

However, this study is still has several limitations. First, CESS did not allow

me to use video and audio recording in class observation. As a result, I only relied on

note taking data in data analyze process.From this research, it can be seen that

translation, paraphrasing, and meta-cognitive are good strategies to implement in

Elementary or Primary Level. However, those three strategies can be explored more

following the students’ need, the teachers’ ability and the class condition.

In future studies, the issue of L1 loss in secondary school might be an

interesting issue to discuss. I only found three strategy used in CESS. Other

researchers can go to strategic competence implementation in secondary school. At

the end, the researcher can conclude that translation is the mostly used strategy to

compensate student’s language deficiencies in Christian Primary School in Salatiga.

23

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First I would like to thank to God for the grant and the strength to finish this

study. I am also very thankful to my supervisor, Dr. Joseph Ernest Mambu, and the

examiner, Ms. Anita Kurniawati, for their guidance, suggestions, and the feedback

during the completion of this thesis. I also thank to my friendswho gave me

suggestion to search and access the participants for this study. Finally, I would like to

thank to my parents for supporting and inspiring me during the making of this study.

24

References

Brown, D. H. (2001). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language

pedagogy. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language

pedagogy. In J. C. Rithards&Schimdt, R. W. (Eds.). Language and

communication. New York: Longman.

Celce-Murcia, M. (2007). Rethinking the role of communicative Competence in language

teaching. In E. A. Soler & Jorda, M. P. S. (Eds.), Intercultural language use and

language learning (pp. 41-58). Dordrecht: Springer.

Murcia, M. C., Dornyei, Z., &Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A

pedadogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied

Linguistic, 6, 5-35.

Dagarin, M. (n.d.). Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning

English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 128.


English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 131


English as Foreign Language. English Language and Literature Teaching, 138

Jarvis, H. &Atsilarat, S. (2004). Shiftingparadigms: from a communicative to a

context-based approach. Asian EFL Journal.

Kwangsawad, T. (2007). Bridging the gapbetween CLT and CBI theories and

practices in Thai small rural schools. Paper presented at the International

Conferences onEducational Reform 2001.

Kurpaska, M. S. (2000). Communication Strategies in 11-Years-Old. In Moon and

Nikolov, 60, 345).

Kustati, M. (2013). The shifting paradigms in the implementation of CLTin Southeast

Asia countries. Jurnal Al-Ta’lim, 1(4), 267-277.

Lewis, R. (1996). Indonesian students’ learning style. EA Journal,27-32.

Malamah, A. T. (1987). Classroom interaction.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGrath, K. (2013). English Language Learners in Kindergarten: A resource to help

teachers understand how young children develop a 2nd language over the

25

course of a year, from

http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/curriculumelem/kinder/approaches/SecL

ang/esl.Html

Mustafha, B. (2001). Communicative language teaching in Indonesia: issues of

theoretical assumptions and challengesin the classroom. Journal of Southeast

Asian Education,2, 19.

Nur, C. (2003). English language teaching in Indonesia: changing policies and

practices. In H.W. Kam, and Wong, R. (eds.). English language teaching inEast

Asia today: changing policiesand practices. Singapore: Times Academic Press.

http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/curriculumelem/kinder/approaches/SecLang/esl.Html

http://www.learnquebec.ca/en/content/curriculumelem/kinder/approaches/SecLang/esl.Html

26

APPENDIX 1

Observation Fieldnotesin Eight Meetings at the Christian Elementary School in

Salatiga

Meeting #1

N

o

Date/Grade Strategy Used

Translation

L1 to L2 by

Teacher

L2 to L1 by Teacher Meta- Cognitive

1. 30.09.2015/ 4

Glowing

Instruction (During

student’s

presentation, the

teacher gives direct

evaluation)

The last part of students

presentation

Explanation (In the

middle of the lesson.

The teacher explain

about presenter)

T: Kontak Mata!

Mana

penontonnya?

S : Lastly, thank you for

watching

T: Presenter(in

Indonesia) or

Presenter (in English)

adalah orang yang

menyampaikanpresent

asi

S: (*no response) T: Dan yang terakhir,

terimakasihatasperhatian

nya

T: Where is your

audience?

Meeting #2

L1 to L2 by

Teacher

Direct

translation by

Teacher

L2 to L1 by

Teacher

L2 to

L1 by

Fello

w

Stude

nt

Paraprasing

in L1

Paraphrasin

g in L2

2 30.09.2015/ 3 Sparkling

Asking new words (In the end of

the explanation, the teacher check the students’ undestanding)

Command (while the teacher explaining the

lesson, one of students playing outside the class)

Explanation In the middle of

explanation (One of students playing and didn’t

pay attention. Other studen

Explanation (The teacher explain how to

get the best score in exam)

At the end of the lesson

27

t tell the teacher in L2)

T: Apakahada kata- kata

yang susah?

T :Affan, don't play! Tadikatanyamauk

ekamarmandi?

T: Ada character's name.

Bahasa Indonesianya character's name apa?

Student 1: Miss,

Denis playing.

T: Ketikakamusudahmeneliti

T: Apakahadapertanyaan? Is

that clear?

S: Saran, Miss

S : Pardon, miss? S: Nama tokoh, Miss

Student 2: In Indon

esia, please. Miss, Denis bermain.

S : Miss, what is meneliti?

S: Clear, Miss

T: Saran itu "critics"

T : You say to me to go to bathroom. Don't play!

T: Artinyamempelajari

S : Okay, miss

Meeting #3

Direct translation by Teacher L2 to L1 by Fellow Student

3 01.10.2015/2 sparkling Instruction During Lesson (After finish

the task given, the student tell

the teacher using L2)

T :Bukabukuhalamanenam! S1: Miss, aku finished

S : (*some of students start to open their book and some of

them still confuse) (*student

still confuse with L1

instruction)

S2: In Indonesia,please. Miss, sudahselesai

T: Open your book at page six!

T :Oke, semuanya finished?

Sudahselesai?

28

All Students: Sudahselesai

Meeting #4

L1 to L2 by Teacher

4 02.10.2015/2 glowing Explanation (The teacher still using L2 to help the students

get better understanding)

T :Jadititikdigunakanuntukmengakhirikalimat. Dot

digunakan at the end of the sentence

Explanation (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2 to help the student get better understanding)

T:

Komadigunakanuntukmenyambungduakalimatmenjadisatu

S: Miss, I don't understand

T : Comma is used to connect between sentences

Meeting #5

L1 to L2 by Teacher

5 05.10.2015/ 2 sparkling Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2

to help the student get better understanding)

T :Sekarangceritakantentangliburankemarin.

S: Pardon, miss?

T:Tell about your last holiday

S: Okay, miss

29

Meeting #6

L1 to L2 by Teacher

6 05.10.2015/ 3 sparkling Instruction (The teacher translate L1 explanation into L2

to help the student get better understanding)

T: Hubungkankalimat-kalimat di halaman 5 menjadisatu

paragraph

S: Pardon, miss?

T : Arrange the sentence into paragraph

S: okay Miss

During Lesson (The teacher translate L1 explanation into

L2 to help the student get better understanding)

T: Ituterbalik

S: Apamiss?

T: It shuffled

S: okay, Miss

Meeting #7

L1 to L2 by Teacher L2 to L1 by Teacher

7 06.10.2015/ 4 sparkling Instruction (The

teacher translate L1

explanation into L2 to help the student

get better

understanding)

During Lesson (The teacher

directly evaluate the children

presentation with L1 translation)

T: ...yang pentingpercayadiri

S: Thank You for your attention

S: apa , Miss? T:

Terimakasihatasperhatiannya

T: Be Confidence S: Terimakasihatasperhatiannya


30

During Lesson (The teacher translate L1

explanation into L2

to help the student get better

understanding)

T:

Lihatmatatemannya

S: (*still didn't

understand)

T: Look at your

friends' eyes!

S: *Look at his

friends' eyes

Meeting #8

L1 to L2 by

Teacher

L2 to L1 by Teacher Paraphrasing in

L2

8 06.10.2015/ 4

glowing

During Lesson (The

teacher try to translate L2

to L1 directly to get better acquirement)

Instruction (The

teacher translate

L1 explanation into L2 to help

the student get


S: Her name is Sarah T:

Janganlupanama-namatokohnya.

Janganterbalikya!

T: Namanya Sarah S: Pardon, miss?

S: Namanya Sarah


T: Don't forget

each character's

name

During Lesson (The

teacher assist the student

to get better language

expression in L1)

S: Okay, Miss

S:

Diasangatcantikdan....hm

m... Miss, what is very kind in Indonesia?

31

T: Sangatbaik.

S:

Diasangatcantikdansangat

baik.

strategic competence to compensate students’ linguistic

Documents