Tulisan dalam Part II ini akan menyajikan analisis berdasarkan data di part I yang terdiri atas analisis interaksi guru dan siswa, pergeseran peran dalam negosiasi pengetahuan, karakteristik bahasa guru, dan karakteristik bahasa murid. Kata siapa analisis bahasa itu gampang? ada matematikanya juga loh hehe
1. Teacher-students Interaction
Interactional
pattern in Junior high school EFL classroom. the data are obtained from the
video of micro teaching at one Junior High School in Semarang . The class consists of six students. The video was
transcribed with the help of field notes.
Results
Exchange
pattern
Distribution
of non-anomalous Exchange in the video of micro teaching
Exchange categories
|
Sub-cycle 1
|
Sub-cycle 2
|
Rehearsal
|
Total
|
||||
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
|
Non-anomalous
|
||||||||
K-Oriented
|
13
|
11.01695
|
25
|
21.18644
|
18
|
15.25424
|
56
|
47.45763
|
A-Oriented
|
15
|
12.71186
|
16
|
13.55932
|
17
|
14.40678
|
48
|
40.67797
|
Sub total
|
28
|
23.72881
|
41
|
34.74576
|
35
|
29.66102
|
104
|
88.13559
|
Anomalous
|
||||||||
K-Oriented
|
2
|
1.694915
|
8
|
6.779661
|
4
|
3.389831
|
14
|
11.86441
|
A-Oriented
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub total
|
2
|
1.694915
|
8
|
6.779661
|
4
|
3.389831
|
14
|
11.86441
|
total
|
30
|
25.42373
|
49
|
41.52542
|
39
|
33.05085
|
118
|
100
|
Across
the three curriculum part, 111 exchanges have been identified. Of these 118
exchange, 56 (47.5%) were non-anomalous
knowledge-oriented exchanges, 48 (40,6%) were Anomalous knowledge-oriented
exchanges and 14 (11%) were anomalous knowledge-oriented.
Non-anomalous exchanges
Non-anomalous
structures have been found in both knowledge-oriented and action-oriented
exchanges. The two categories of two categories of exchange will be presented
below
1. Knowledge-oriented
exchange
Distribution
of non-anomalous Exchange in the video of micro teaching
Exchange
categories
|
Sub-cycle 1
|
Sub-cycle 2
|
Rehearsal
|
Total
|
|||||
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
||
K-1Initiated
|
Simple
|
3
|
2.542373
|
8
|
6.779661
|
9
|
7.627119
|
20
|
16.94915
|
Complex
|
2
|
1.694915
|
7
|
5.932203
|
1
|
0.847458
|
10
|
8.474576
|
|
Sub-total
|
5
|
4.237288
|
15
|
12.71186
|
10
|
8.474576
|
30
|
25.42373
|
|
DK1-initiated
|
Simple
|
1
|
0.847458
|
5
|
4.237288
|
4
|
3.389831
|
10
|
8.474576
|
Complex
|
1
|
0.847458
|
1
|
0.847458
|
2
|
1.694915
|
4
|
3.389831
|
|
Sub-total
|
2
|
1.694915
|
6
|
5.084746
|
6
|
5.084746
|
14
|
11.86441
|
|
K2-initiated
|
Simple
|
2
|
1.694915
|
5
|
4.237288
|
1
|
0.847458
|
8
|
6.779661
|
Complex
|
1
|
0.847458
|
2
|
1.694915
|
1
|
0.847458
|
4
|
3.389831
|
|
Sub-total
|
3
|
2.542373
|
7
|
5.932203
|
2
|
1.694915
|
12
|
10.16949
|
|
total
|
10
|
8.474576
|
28
|
23.72881
|
18
|
15.25424
|
56
|
47.45763
|
|
The
distribution of Knowledge-oriented exchange structure in each cycle. It can be
seen that within each sub-cycle, the knowledge oriented exchanges have been
distributed in two different patterns. The first is the pattern of sub-cycle 1,
whose frequently patterns are as follows:
K1
= 5 (4%) > K2 3 (2.5%) > DK1 = 2 (1,6%)
The
pattern of sub-cycle 2
K1
= 15 (12%) > K2 = 7 (6%) > DK1 = 6 (5%)
The
pattern of Rehearsal
K1
= 10 (8%) > DK1 = 6 (5%) > K2 = 2 (1.5%)
The distribution of Knowledge-oriented exchanges
across the sub-cycle:
1. Action-oriented
exchanges
Distribution
of a-initiated Exchange in the video of micro teaching
Exchange
categories
|
Total
|
||||||||
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
||
A1-Initiated
|
Simple
|
2
|
1.694915
|
1
|
0.847458
|
2
|
1.694915
|
5
|
4.237288
|
Complex
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1.694915
|
2
|
1.694915
|
|
Sub-total
|
2
|
1.694915
|
1
|
0.847458
|
4
|
3.389831
|
7
|
5.932203
|
|
A2-initiated
|
Simple
|
7
|
5.932203
|
13
|
11.01695
|
12
|
10.16949
|
32
|
27.11864
|
Complex
|
1
|
0.847458
|
5
|
4.237288
|
3
|
2.542373
|
9
|
7.627119
|
|
Sub-total
|
8
|
6.779661
|
18
|
15.25424
|
15
|
12.71186
|
41
|
34.74576
|
|
total
|
10
|
8.474576
|
19
|
16.10169
|
19
|
16.10169
|
48
|
40.67797
|
|
2. Anomalous
Exchanges
In
anomalous Exchanges, the patterns are depicted in the following table
Exchange
categories
|
Total
|
|||||||
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
|
Elliptical
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1.694915
|
3
|
2.542373
|
5
|
4.237288
|
Defective
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
4.237288
|
1
|
0.847458
|
6
|
5.084746
|
Broken
|
3
|
2.542373
|
7
|
5.932203
|
4
|
3.389831
|
14
|
11.86441
|
Total
|
3
|
2.542373
|
14
|
11.86441
|
8
|
6.779661
|
25
|
21.18644
|
2. Shift of Roles in Knowledge Negotiation.
The
interchange of the roles accomplished by teacher and students may influence
teachers’ choice of the types of events for instance, A event and B event in
negotiating the information necessary to accomplish the lesson. It is revealed
that based on the video we have analyzed, there are 118 exchanges and these
exchanges comprise 46 dynamic moves. In line with the occurrence of the dynamic
moves, the moves happen when there are some problems in negotiating the
information such as getting no response, irrelevant response, and so on.
Regarding
this, here are 5 figure that have been presented in this essay. These figure
have been made based on the data obtained from the video we have watched.
Results:
No
|
Teaching stages
|
Exchange
|
Dominant interactant
|
1
|
Show a video about daily activity
|
1-9
|
Teacher
|
2
|
Checking students understanding
|
10-21
|
Teacher
|
3
|
Talking about students’ daily activity
|
22-58
|
Teacher
|
4
|
Speaking the words that related to daily activity
aloud
|
30-60
|
Teacher
|
Figure 1 teaching stages and dominant interactants in
sub-cycle 1
No
|
Teaching stages
|
Exchange
|
Dominant interactant
|
1
|
Arranging students’ seats and distribute the picture
card
|
59-61
|
Teacher
|
2
|
Teacher eliciting students’ knowledge about elements
of simple present tense
|
27-29
|
Teacher
|
3
|
Teacher asking the student to act based on the
picture about daily activity and asking words that usually use in daily
activity
|
62-77
|
Teacher
|
Figure 2 Teaching stages and dominant interactants in
sub-cycle 2
No
|
Teaching stages
|
Exchange
|
Dominant interactant
|
1
|
Checking students understanding of the lesson
|
89-92
|
Teacher
|
2
|
Students’ informing about what they do in daily
activity
|
21-24
|
Teacher
|
Figure 3 Teaching stages and dominant interactants in
rehearsal sub-cycle
Exchange
Categories
Teaching cycle Total
Sub cycle 1 sub cycle 2 rehearsal
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
F
|
%
|
||
a1-Initiated
|
Simple
|
2
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.8
|
2
|
1.6
|
5
|
4.2
|
Complex
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1.6
|
2
|
1.6
|
|
Sub-total
|
2
|
1.6
|
1
|
0.8
|
4
|
3.3
|
7
|
5.9
|
|
a2-initiated
|
Simple
|
7
|
5.9
|
13
|
11
|
12
|
10.1
|
32
|
27.1
|
Complex
|
1
|
0.8
|
5
|
4.2
|
3
|
2.5
|
9
|
7.6
|
|
Sub-total
|
8
|
6.7
|
18
|
15.2
|
15
|
12.7
|
41
|
34.7
|
|
Total
|
10
|
8.4
|
19
|
16.1
|
19
|
16.1
|
48
|
40.6
|
|
Figure 4 Distribution of Action-oriented exchanges
in relation to the shifts of roles of serving the
primary
knower between
the teacher and the students
Exchange
Categories
Teaching cycle Total
Sub cycle 1 sub cycle 2 rehearsal
F % F % F % F %
Elliptical
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1.6
|
3
|
2.5
|
5
|
4.2
|
Defective
|
0
|
0
|
5
|
4.2
|
1
|
0.8
|
6
|
5
|
Broken
|
3
|
2.5
|
7
|
5.9
|
4
|
3.3
|
14
|
11.8
|
Total
|
3
|
2.5
|
14
|
11.8
|
8
|
6.7
|
25
|
21.1
|
Figure 5 Distribution of Anomalous exchanges
in relation to the shifts of roles of serving the
primary
knower between
the teacher and the students
3. Teacher's Language Characteristics
Before analysing
teacher’s language characteristics, One thing that analysist should bear in
mind is related to the pattern of dynamic moves, namely “the less specific and
less assisted the language use, the more frequent the occurrence of the dynamic
moves” (Suherdi, 2009). It is revealed that based on the video we have
analysed, there are 111 exchanges and these exchanges comprise 46 dynamic
moves. In line with the occurrence of the dynamic moves, the moves happen when
there are some problems in negotiating the information such as getting no
response, irrelevant response, and so on. At that time, teachers attempt to
sustain the process of negotiating information by using repetition, rephrases,
giving clue, check, confirmation, and clarification.
Regarding this, here
are 4 tables and 1 figure that have been presented in this essay. These tables
and figure have been made based on the data obtained from the video we have
watched. The data being presented actually are in favour of the pattern of
dynamic moves that has been mentioned above, “the less specific and less
assisted the language use, the more frequent the occurrence of the dynamic
moves”. In other words, when language use is less specific and assisted, then
the number of dynamic moves is higher.
Dynamic Moves (S*. A*) + VS (S***, A***) +
(S**, A**) (S****, A****)
F
% F % F %
F %
No
Response
|
14
|
30
|
11
|
24
|
>
|
7
|
15.2
|
3
|
6.5
|
Irrelevant
Response
|
1
|
2.1
|
4
|
8.7
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
15
|
32.1
|
15
|
32.7
|
>
|
7
|
15.2
|
3
|
6.5
|
Repetitions
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
21.7
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Rephrase
|
1
|
2.1
|
4
|
8.7
|
>
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Backchannel
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
11
|
2.1
|
14
|
30.4
|
3
|
6.4
|
1
|
2.1
|
|
Total
|
26
|
34.2
|
29
|
63.1
|
10
|
31.6
|
4
|
8.6
|
Confirmation
|
3
|
6.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Clarification
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
3
|
6.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Correction
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
15.2
|
>
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Check
|
0
|
0
|
14
|
30.4
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
0
|
0
|
21
|
45.6
|
3
|
6.5
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
3
|
6.5
|
22
|
47.7
|
5
|
10.8
|
1
|
2.1
|
Table
7.1 Distribution of Dynamic Move
Percentage in Each of the Different Bands of Variability of Language Use in
Junior High School of IT Insan Cendikia
Sc- 3: Sc- R:
S*** 78-111 78-111
S** Sc-
2: Sc- R:
27-77 59-77
Sc- R:
27-59
Sc- 1:
1-26
S* Sc-R: 6-12
A* A** A*** A****
FIGURE
7.2 Distribution of Exchange Structure
across the Different Bands of the Variability of Language Use in Junior High
School of IT Insan Cendikia
For clarity purpose,
Sub-cycle 1 (Sc- 1) involves showing a video about daily activity, checking
students’ understanding, talking about students’ daily activities, and speaking
aloud the words that are related to daily activities. In addition, Sc- 2 includes
arranging students’ seats and distributing the picture card, eliciting
students’ knowledge about elements of simple present tense, and asking one
student to act accordingly based on the picture card being given by the
teacher. Furthermore, Sc- 3 entais talking about daily activities (some common
expressions), checking students’ understanding of the lesson, telling the
students about whay they do in daily activities.
Moreover, the vertical
axis represents the specificity of the information gained from learning
activity and the horizontal axis shows the level of assistance in which
teachers help students to succeed academically.
Dynamic Moves (S*,
A*) + VS (S***, A***) +
(S**, A**)
(S****, A****)
F %
F % F %
F %
No
Response
|
14
|
30
|
11
|
24
|
>
|
7
|
15.2
|
3
|
6.5
|
Irrelevant
response
|
1
|
2.1
|
4
|
8.7
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
15
|
32.1
|
15
|
32.7
|
>
|
7
|
15.2
|
3
|
6.5
|
Repetitions
|
0
|
0
|
10
|
21.7
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Rephrase
|
1
|
2.1
|
4
|
8.7
|
>
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Backchannel
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
11
|
2.1
|
14
|
30.4
|
3
|
6.4
|
1
|
2.1
|
|
Total
|
26
|
34.2
|
29
|
63.1
|
10
|
31.6
|
4
|
8.6
|
Table
7.2 Distribution of Pre-Extended Move
Percentage in Each of the Different Bands of Variability of Language Use in
Junior High School of IT Insan Cendekia
Dynamic Moves (S*, A*) + VS (S***, A***) +
(S**, A**) (S****, A****)
F
% F
% F %
F %
Confirmation
|
3
|
6.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Clarification
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
>
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
3
|
6.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
|
Total
|
3
|
6.5
|
1
|
2.1
|
2
|
4.3
|
1
|
2.1
|
Table
7.3 Distribution of Post – Extended Move Percentage in Each of the Different
Bands of Variability of Language Use in Junior High School of IT Insan Cendekia
Dynamic Moves (S*, A*) + VS (S***,
A***) +
(S**,
A**) (S****, A****)
F
% F % F % F
%
Correction
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
15.2
|
>
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Check
|
0
|
0
|
14
|
30.4
|
>
|
2
|
4.3
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
0
|
0
|
21
|
45.6
|
3
|
6.5
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
21
|
45.6
|
3
|
6.5
|
0
|
0
|
Table
7.4 Distribution of Specific Classroom type Dynamic Move Percentage in Each of
the Different Bands of Variability of Language Use in Junior High School of IT Insan
Cendekia
Dynamic Moves (S*,
A*) + VS (S***, A***) +
(S**, A**) (S****, A****)
F %
F % F
% F %
Correction
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
15.2
|
>
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Sub-total
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
15.2
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
|
Total
|
0
|
0
|
7
|
15.2
|
1
|
2.1
|
0
|
0
|
Table
7.5 Distribution of Challenge Across the Bands of the Variability of Language
Use
4. Student's Language Characteristics
Learner Language Analysis
1.
Framework
Theory
From Chapter eight, it
is the students’ language that is taken as the focus. It is evident in the
sample that the use of systemic functional approach to students’ language
analysis allows for detailed investigation of students’ interlanguage.
Students’ language development which is right at the heart of language
teacher’s attention is revealed. Besides input, successful language learning
requires students to produce ample output (Swain, 1985) for the teachers to see
if they have already achieved the communicative competence in an acceptable
competence.
One of the most valuable contributions
of linguistic studies to educational practices is learner language analysis
(hence L2A). L2A is of great value in helping educators reveal the meaning
hidden behind every educational practice. Through L2A, an educator can easily
see if a teaching learning process gives reasonable room for the students to
contribute to the negotiation of meaning in that process, or if students
contribute significantly in terms of their language quality, and if the
students get high quality cognitive, affective, or psychomotor stuff during
their learning. In other words, L2A may provide a microscopic map of students’
engagement, teachers’ support, and the interaction among the teaching-learning
components.
Learner language has been revolving
since 1970s in the realm of second language acquisition (SLA) theory under the
umbrella of interlanguage, a concept that has well sustained SLA theory
development (Selinker, 1972). This concept mention that, learner language
display systematicity and opportunity for intelligent intervention rather than
random error.
Studies on L2A
tended to have dealt with discrete linguistic components such as word
pronounciation, morphological or syntactic components, and very few with discourse
level components.
There are three layers analysis of students’ spoken
discourse in an easily-identifiable way.
1.
Identifying the roles the students’
language plays in classroom discourse, expecially in each exchange.
2.
Analyzing the content or the message of
students’ language.
3.
Analyzing students’ language in
representation or the text of the language they use.
In identifying the roles of the
students’ language plays in the exchange structure or in classroom discourse,
there are five steps to be considered:
1).
An analyst
should see whether the student is receiving or producing messages.
In this stage, when students are
listening to teacher’s explanation or being asked questions, they are in the
position of receiving messages while, as they are telling or answering
regarding the questions, they are in the position of producing messages.
See
to the corpus below.
223
|
Exchange
59
|
DK1
|
T
|
Now
the next activity will do a game. Are you happy with a game? You like game?
|
|
224
|
K2
|
S
|
Yes
|
||
225
|
Exchange
60
|
DK1
|
1
+2
|
T
|
I
have some picture cards. Have you played a card?
Pernahkah
kalian bermain kartu? Have you played card?
|
226
|
K2
|
S
|
Yes
|
||
227
|
Exchange
61
|
DK1
|
1
+2
|
T
|
What
did you have played the card?
Poker
maybe
|
228
|
K2
|
S
|
Remi
|
||
229
|
K1
|
1
+1
+2
+3
X4
check
|
T
|
Remi,
ya okay.
I
have some cards. This.
The
card is picture cards.
Eeerr
you have to do this game I choose one person to come forward, and then I
show.
I’ll
show this card to the person and she or he will act same like this card.
Okay?
Do
you understand?
|
|
229
|
Rcheck
|
S
|
No
|
In this exchange, it shows that there are responses from
students for the teacher’s questions. In this case, the responses are
indicating that the students are receiving messages conveyed by their teacher
as in the move 224, 226, and so on. In relation with the understanding of the
messages delivered, there are some responses from the students as the result of
producing messages as in move 228. .
2). If the students are in receiving position,
identifying whether they are reacting to the messages they receive.
If the students in producing position, the analyst should identify whether they
are expressing or articulating their ideas or only repeating what the teacher
is saying.
From the corpus above, it can be
seen that in the move 228 there is an expression when the teacher is asking a
question about the card. Then it is replied by a student who says ‘remi’. For
this position, the student has expressed or articulated his notion. In this
stage, in identifying the roles of the students’ language plays
in the exchange structure,
the repetition is approximately 23.8 percent in the dynamic movements for the
one hour class. It is when the teacher asks students to repeat the words she
pronounces. For clarity purposes, see the slot 39, 40, 41.
|
3). In the receiving position, an analyst should identify
whether the students are reacting verbally or non-verbally. This is because
both choices are frequently evident in classroom discourse. In producing
messages, a speaker has two choices: responding to or initiating an expression
or even a conversation.
In the corpus as presented on the
front of the paper, it is obvious that the verbal reactions takes place the
most. It happens when the teacher asks students to respond directly towards the
teacher’s instruction. In that context, the teacher is trying to boost
appropriate pronunciation of some words regarding the materials. It is intended
to train and check whether the students are able to pronounce the words correctly.
While it will be the best choice when the teacher asks a student to act that
display a daily activity (acting for being guessed) for a students in response
of non-verbal reaction. Departing from the notion upheld by Kraschen (1981),
the time when the teacher asks some question and it remains no response (Ro),
it is considered the non-verbal reaction. It is found in the corpus that there
are some Ro in moves. For instance, it places in slots 3 and slot 27.
4). The analyst should see the forms of the reactions.
Verbal reaction can be manifested in two forms: it can be answer or a
challenge. Challenge is also possible in classroom discourse, particularly in
relation to unappropriate initation. Non-verbal reaction also has two possible
forms: indicating refusal and doing something. In the data, the verbal reaction is manifested in the forms
of both answer and challenge. The form of answer can be found in most slots of
the corpus. It represents about 84% of the verbal reactions in in form of the
answer of the students towards the teacher’s questions. While the challenge is
found on the exchange 27, move 108.
108
|
Exc.
27
|
K2
|
S
|
Apa
itu tenses?
|
This verbal reaction rises when it comes to the teacher
question on the prior move, tensis
apa yang digunakan dalam video tersebut? It becomes the student’s confusion, and directly shows his
verbal reaction in the form of challenge with the high expectation that the
teacher will explain in further about the material discussed or being asked.
5). The analyst should identify whether the questions are
relevant or not; while in initiating statements, whether they are satisfying or
not. In the case that the reaction is an answer, there are two possibilities as
well: it may be satisfying or non-satisfying. In case of non-satisying answer,
there are two possible steps taken by teacher: asking for cofirmation or
clarification. It is
found in the move 42 the irrelevant answer when the teacher asks for name. The
teacher then does a repetition for the questions in hope of the relevant answer
will arise. In the classroom discourse, it is not rare found some jokes made by
the students that lead to the irrelevant answer. It is estimated the repetition
from the corpus is as many as 2.1 %.
Analyzing the content or messages of
students’ language in the exchange structure has concerned to whether the
message is in the forms of simple proportions or complex ones. It is also
important to get the elaborate picture of the way the messages are organized
and put into the structure of the interactional exchanges. In term of rhetoric
feature, it must be identified whether the message is put in a straightforward
form or take any metaphorical devices. Straightforward message is to be
considered unmarked, while metaphorical one is to be taken as marked message.
Unmarked messages are normally conveyed to state general ideas in a neutral
ways. Marked message are frequently utilized to mean something ‘special’ in
many senses. In the
corpus it is not found any metaphorical or rhetoric expressions. She uses the
straightforward language without remaining any kinds of something special that
leads many kinds of interpretations among students. The teacher goes with her
language as the way she is.
In analyzing the representation of
students’ language, there
are some rules. First, it should be analyzed whether the text production is
driven by outside stimuli such as teacher’s prompts or questions, or voluntary
produced by the students. As the data portrayed, there is no
evidence that the learner initiates the exchange. It always begins with the
teacher’s initiation for some contribution for the exchanges. Second is to identify if the
expression used by the students are well-formed or, otherwise, ill-formed. Since the students tend to answer
the questions from the teacher merely without any further talk, there is just
little kind of ill-formed sentences made by the students. It is seemly because
the students seem lack of vocabulary mastery. For instance, in the move 264
when a student utters “sweep the lantai…”
is then directly corrected by the teacher.
Demikianlah sekilas analisis amatir dari kami. Intinya dalam pembahasan diatas setiap elemen memiliki perannya masing-masing. pelajaran ini juga sangat berguna untuk memahami kita sebagai guru yang memiliki pengetahuan lebih awal juga siswa sebagai objek pembelajarannya. Jadi dalam mengajar juga tidak hanya sekedar transfer ilmu yang dilakukan oleh guru terhadap siswa, namun seorang pengajar juga harus memahami interaksi yang sedang berlangsung, pergeseran peran dan negosiasi pengetahuan, karakteristik bahasa seorang guru, serta karakteristik bahasa siswanya. Dan yang terpenting juga, guru dapat memahami cultural background setiap peserta didiknya. Selamat mengajar! :)
No comments:
Post a Comment