Am I getting my point across? Microstructure of English classroom discourses by Acehnese teachers

Meta Keumala, Dohra Fitrisia, Iskandar Abdul Samad, Sofyan Abdul Gani

Abstract


For English teaching practice, productive talks that spur students’ comprehension, creativity, and problem-solving ability are vital. This research aimed at finding out the spoken discourse based on six phases of microstructure in English classrooms. The data were obtained recordings and observations of two English teachers, chosen through purposive sampling, from Islamic senior high schools in Aceh. The data were concerned with the lexical density or the ratio of content to grammatical or function words within a clause. They were analyzed through thematic analysis which consists of five steps: data familiarization, code generation, theme search, themes revision, and theme definition. It was found that the total lexical density obtained by the first teacher in Class A was 63.66% and in class, B was 66.52%, while the second teacher in Class A was 71. 74% and in Class B was 68.12%. The second teacher 2 in Class A had a higher lexical density than the first teacher even though both of them are considered to produce a high lexical density of around 60-70%. The formality of spoken discourse of the two teachers shows that the first teacher produced 172.5 while the second teacher produced 184. It means that the second teacher's spoken discourse was more formal than the first teacher’s discourse. To analyze the utterances of teachers and to find the density of language used in the classrooms during the teaching and learning process is important because they implicitly inform whether the language used is understandable for the students or not.


Keywords


classroom spoken discourse; critical discourse analysis (CDA); microstructure; non-native English teachers

Full Text:

PDF

References


Azar, B. A. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar (3rd ed.). Pearson Education

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Casan-Pitarch, R. (2017). A proposal for genre analysis: The AMS Model. EPIC Series in Language and Linguistics, 12, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.29007/hbg9

Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Heinemann.

Cots, J. (2006). Teaching ‘with an attitude’: Critical discourse analysis in EFL teaching. ELT Journal, 60(4), 336-345. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccl024

Demo, D. A. (2001). Discourse analysis for language teachers. ERIC Digest (ED456672). ERIC Development Team. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED456672.pdf

Downing, A. (2014). A university course in English grammar. Routledge.

Eggins, S. (1994). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Pinter Publisher Ltd.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman

Garton, S. (2012). Speaking out of turn? Taking the initiative in teacher-fronted classroom interaction. Classroom Discourse, 3(1), 29-45. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2012.666022

Glowalla, U & Colonius, H. (1982). Toward a model of macrostructure search. Advances in Psychology, 8, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62685-0

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.

Hanafiah, R. & Yusuf, M. (2016). Lexical density and grammatical Intricacy in linguistic thesis abstract: A qualitative content analysis. Proceedings of the 1st English Education International Conference (EEIC), 1(2), 43-46.

Hatch, E. (1992). Discourse and language education. Cambridge University Press.

Heylighen, F. & Dewaele, J. M. (1999). Formality of language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Free University of Brussels.

Jeffries, L. (2006). Discovering language: The structure of modern English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Johansson, V. (2008). Lexical diversity and lexical density in speech and writing: A developmental perspective. Working Press, 53, 61-79.

Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.

Jorgensen, M. & Phillips, L. (2002). Discourse analysis as theory and method. SAGE Publications Ltd.

Maldonado, M. R. (2015). Communication strategies used by different level L2 English learners in oral interaction. Revista Signos Estudios de Linguistica, 49(90), 71-93. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342016000100004

McCarthy, M. (1992). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.

Moattarian, A. & Tahririan, M. H. (2013). Communication strategies used in oral and written. Sheikhbahaee EFL Journal, 2(1), 21-37. https://doi.org/10.22034/efl.2013.79179

Nesia, B. H. & Ginting, S. A. (2014). Lexical density of English reading texts for senior high school. TRANSFORM: Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning of FBS Umimed, 3(2), 1-14

O’Hair, D., Rubenstein H., & Stewart, R. (2004). Speaker’s guidebook: Text and reference. Bedford/St Martin’s Press.

Oh, Y, M. (2015). Linguistics complexity and information: Quantitative approach [Doctoral dissertation, The University of Lyon]. Dynamique Du Langage. http://www.ddl.cnrs.fr/fulltext/Yoonmi/Oh_2015_1.pdf

Rahmansyah, H. (2012). Grammatical intricacy and lexical density of the SMA student’s textbooks [Master’s thesis, Universitas Negeri Medan]. Digital Repository Universitas Negeri Medan. http://digilib.unimed.ac.id/3632/

Rao, A. P., Reddy, M. B., & Narayanan, S. (2017). Micro and macrostructure discourse analysis in persons with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. Speech, Language and Hearing, 20(4), 196-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/2050571X.2017.1303026

Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse analysis in the language classroom: Volume 1, The spoken language. University of Michigan Press.

Rosidi, S. (2007, December 15). Analisis wacana kritis sebagai ragam paradigma kajian wacana [Critical discourse analysis as variance of paradigm inquiry on discourse]. Malang: Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim.

Saragih, A. (2006). Metaphorical representations and scientific texts. Englonesia: An Indonesian Scientific Journal on Linguistics and Literature, 2(1), 1-11.

Schneider, K. P., & Barron, A. (2014). Pragmatics of discourse. de Gruyter Mouton.

Sholichatun, S. (2011). Content analysis of reading materials in English on sky textbook for junior high school [Bachelor’s thesis, IAIN Walisongo]. Walisongo Institutional Repository. http://eprints.walisongo.ac.id/id/eprint/1968/

Shore, R., Ray, J., & Goolkasian, P. (2013). Too close for (brain) comfort: Improving science vocabulary learning in the middle grades. Researchers take a multidisciplinary approach to investigating how middle grades students learn science vocabulary. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 16-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00940771.2013.11461868

Skidmore, D. (2000). From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and Education, 14(4), 283-296. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780008666794

Surjowati, R. (2021). Exploring interpersonal meanings on the discourse of Indonesian national anthem from the CDA perspectives. Studies in English Language and Education, 8(1), 360-380. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v8i1.17439

Thomson, A. J., & Martinet, A. V. (1980). A practical English grammar. Oxford University Press.

Thornbury, S., & Slade, D. (2006). Conversation: From description. Cambridge University Press.

Ur, P. (2000). A course in language teaching practice and theory. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

van Dijk, T. A. (1989). Structure of discourse and structure of power. Annals of the International Communication Association, 12(1), 18-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1989.11678711

Wharton, S. (2011). Critical text analysis: Linking language and cultural studies. ELT Journal, 65(3), 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccq068

Young, R., & He, A. (1998). Talking and testing: Discourse approaches to the assessment of oral proficiency. John Benjamins.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v9i1.20954

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.