Article Sidebar

Download
pdf
Statistic
Read Counter : 389 Download : 479

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

The study discusses the effectiveness of Conventional Teaching Method utilizing whole-class member group and an Interactive-based Teaching Method employing small group works for improving both learners’ Grammar and Speaking competences in English Grammar classrooms. Data were taken from 68 first-year students of English Education Department of UNIDAYAN University, Bau-Bau, South-East Sulawesi province, who sit in a pre-test and post-test of two English competences; Grammar and Speaking in English. The research design is quasi experimental assigning 5 group works as the independent variables and 2 English competences; Grammar and Speaking in English as the dependent variables. The group works consist of various number of students. The treatment of all group works were reduplicated twice. The study reveals that the interactive-based teaching method utilizing small group works is far more effective for improving both learners’ Grammar and Speaking competences compared to those of conventional teaching method employing whole-class member group work in English Grammar classroom. The learners’ mean achievement is 25.04 points and 8.8 points respectively. The t-test confirms that there is a significant difference between the two methods. Moreover, the less the number of group members the more effective to the achievement of the learning target of the classrooms.

Keywords

Conventional teaching, Interactive teaching, Grammar and Speaking Competences, Group works, and Learners’ Achievement

Article Details

Creative Commons License

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

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.

How to Cite
Waode Hanafiah. (2022). Conventional Teaching and an Interactive-Based Teaching Methods to adjust Learners’ Grammar and Speaking Competence in English Classrooms: A Comparative Study for effectiveness methods in learning. Eduvelop: Journal of English Education and Development , 6(1), 79-92. https://doi.org/10.31605/eduvelop.v6i1.1957

References

  1. Beaumont, D. & Granger, C. 1992 (3rd ed.). English Grammar. Heinemann.
  2. Blommaert, J. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
  3. Bolitho, R. And B. Tomlinson. 1995. Discover English.
  4. Oxford:Heinemann
  5. Bourke, J. 1996. ‘In Praise of Linguistic Problem Solving’.
  6. RELC Journal 27/2:12-29
  7. Celce-Murcia, M. and D. Larsen-Freeman. 1999. The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course. 2nd edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle
  8. Celce-Murcia, M. Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In E. Hinkel and
  9. S. Fotos (Eds.)
  10. Daniyani, D. 2010. Correlation Between The Learner’s Working Knowledge of Grammar and Their Productive Skills. Unpublished MasterThesis. English Language Studies. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.
  11. Dharmojo. 2007. Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) sebagai Model Pembelajaran Sastra. Cakrawala Sastra Indonesia.
  12. Dirks, U. 2006. ‘How Critical Discourse Analysis Faces the Challenge of Interpretive Explanation from a Micro-and Macro-theoretical Perspectives’. Forum: Qualitative Social Reserach. Vol. 7(2):
  13. Ellis, R. 1995. ‘Interpretation tasks for grammar teaching’.
  14. TESOL Quarterly, 29,87-105
  15. Ellis, R. 1997. SLA Research and Language Teaching.
  16. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  17. Ellis, R. 2002. ‘The Place of Grammar Instruction in the Second/Foreign Language Curriculum’. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (eds.).
  18. Emmaratna. 2010. Correlation Between Learner’s working knowledge of grammar and their receptive skills. Unpublished Thesis. English Language Studies. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.
  19. Fotos, S. 2001. Cognitive Approaches to Grammar Instruction. In M. Celce-Murcia (Ed.)
  20. Fotos, S. 2002. Structured-Based Interactive Tasks for the EFL Grammar Learner. In E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (Eds.)
  21. Grow, Janice. 1987. ‘A communicative approach to language teaching for lecturersin Indonesia preparing to study abroad’. Guidelines, Vol 9, No 2.
  22. Hanafiah, Waode. 2011. A Model Of English Grammar Teaching Through Learner-Learner Interaction in Pair Activities and Its Contributions to Learners’ English Proficincy: A Quasi Experimental Research. Unpbulished Disertation. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.
  23. Harmer, J. 1994. The Practice of English Teaching. New York: Longman Group
  24. Huda, N. 1988. “Cuplikan Hasil Survey Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMP dan SMA Tahap 1 di delapan Provinsi”. Seminar Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. FPBS. IKIP Malang.
  25. Krashen, S. D. 1982. Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
  26. Karshen, S. D. 1983. Principles in Second Language Acquisition. London : A Wheaten & Co. Ltd.
  27. Kettle, Margareth. 2005. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis and Hybrid texts: Analysing English as a Second Language (ESL).’ Melbourne Studies in Education 46(2): 87-105
  28. Laksmana et al. 2006. ‘Makna Interpersonal Interaksi antara Guru dan Murid : Suatu Kajian Analisis Wacana Kritis’. Linguistik Indonesia. Vol.
  29. Larsen-Freeman, D. 1995. ‘On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In Eackman et al. (eds.)
  30. Larsen-Freeman, D. 2001. 2nd. ed. Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
  31. Littlewood, W. 1983. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Manurung, Konder. 2006. ‘Budaya belajar mandiri dan pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris’. Linguistik Indonesia. 24/2, 193-200.
  33. McDevitt, Barbara. 1997. ‘Learner autonomy and the need for learner training’. Language Learning Journal, 16: 34-9
  34. Mohamed, N. 2004. ‘Consciousness-raising tasks: a learner perspective’. In ELT Journal. Vol. 58/3 :228-
  35. 237. Oxford University Press
  36. Nitta, R and Gardner, S. 2005. Consciousness-raising and practice in ELT coursebooks. ELT Journal. Vol 59,1:3-13
  37. Nunan, D. 1991. “Communicative Tasks and The Language Curriculum”. TESOL. Quarterly 25/2: 279-295.
  38. Nur, H.A. 1994. Communicative Strategies of Indonesian Interlanguage Speakers of English. Unpublished Dissertation. Ujung Pandang. PPS Universitas Hasanuddin.
  39. Orpin, Derby. 2005. ‘Corpus Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis” International Journal of Corpus Linguistik. Vol 10(1): 37-61.
  40. Richard-Amato, P.A. 1988. Making It Happen: Interaction in the Second Language Classroom. New York: Longman
  41. Rogers, R. 2003. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Family Literacy Practices: Power in and out of Print. Mahwa,
  42. N.J. : Earlbaum.
  43. Rogers, R. 2004. An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis in Education. Marwah, N.J.: Earlbaum.
  44. Rutherford, W. And M. Sharwood Smith. 1985. ‘Conscious Raising and Universal Grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6, 274-28.
  45. Said, R. Natzir., 2012. Monolingual and Bilingual Approaches in the English Classrooms. Unpublished Dissertation. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.
  46. Senior, R. 2002. ‘A Class-Centered Approach to language teaching’. ELT Journal. Vol 56,4:397-403
  47. Sheen, R. 1992. ‘Problem solving brought to task’. RELC Journal 23/2: 44-59
  48. Sugiharto, S. 2006. ‘Initiating EFL Learners Into Discourse Grammar: How Far Should We Go?’ Linguistik Indonesia. Vol 24, 2:209-220.
  49. Suhartina,. 2012. Varied Classroom Interaction of English Grammar Teaching: A Comparative Study.
  50. Unpublished Dissertation. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.
  51. Syarif, H. dan Amir, Z. 2003. Tinjauan Pelaksanaan Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris dengan Pendekatan Kebermaknaan di SMU KotaMadya Padang. Linguistik Indonesia. Vol.21, 1:55-72.
  52. Tomlinson, B. 1990. ‘Managing change in Indonesian high scholls’. ELT Journal 44/1:25-37
  53. Van Pattern, B. 1996. Input Processing and Grammar Instruction in Second Language Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  54. Weda, S. 2005. English Learning Strategies Employed by Senior Secondary High School Students. Unpublished Dissertation. Ujung Pandang. PPS. Hasanuddin University.
  55. White, L. 1987. ‘Against comprehensible input: the input hypothesis and the development of second language competence’. Applied Linguistics. 8/2: 95-110
  56. Wuryanto, E.W. 2006. ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’.
  57. Melek Media.
  58. Yassi, A.H. 2000. Korelasi antara Pengetahuan Gramatika dan Struktur Mahasiswa dan Kompetensi Keempat Keterampilan Berbahasa Mereka. Laporan Hasil Penelitian. Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Hasanuddin.
  59. Yassi, A. H. 2003. ‘Some pronunciation difficulties experienced by Indonesian learners learning English’. FORA Forum Akademik. Vol 1. NO 5. 82-98.
  60. Yassi, A. H. 2004. ‘The teaching of English in elementary schools in Indonesia’. FORA Forum Akademik. Vol 1 No. 6, 37-45. .
  61. Yassi, A.H. 2007. Towards a Learning-Centered Approach: Some Accounts for its Appropriateness. Orasi Ilmiah Pengukuhan Guru Besar Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar.
  62. Yassi, A. H. 2008. Transformasi Paradigma Analisis Teks Kearah Analisis yang lebih Beorientasi Sosial dan Kritis: Dari Analsis Wacana ke Analisi Wacana Kritis. Proceeding Bulan Bahasa. Fakultas Ilmu Budaya. Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar.
  63. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2009. Model pembelajaran Gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis interaktif, “Paired Interaction”, dalam rangka meningkatkan Kompetensi Bahasa Inggris Mahasiswa: Kajian quasi eksperimental. Bulletin Penelitian. Vol 7 No.2 Hal. 388-547
  64. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2010a. Model pembelajaran Gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis interaktif, “Paired Interaction”, dalam rangka meningkatkan Kompetensi Bahasa Inggris Mahasiswa: Kajian quasi eksperimental. Lensa Budaya. Vol 5 No. 2, Agustus 2010. Hal 80-90.
  65. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2010b. Ancangan model interaksi kelas terhadap pembelajaran gramatika Bahasa Inggris dalam rangka meningkatkan kompetensi Bahasa Inggris mahasiswa: Kajian Eksperimental. Laporan Kemajuan Penelitian Hibah Penelitian Pascasarjana (HPPT). Lembaga Penelitian Universitas Hasanuddin.
  66. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2012. “Uji Efektifitas dan Pengembangan Model Pembelajaran Gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis Interaktif ”Paired Interaction Model” dalam rangka meningkatkan kompetensi Bahasa Inggris Mahasiswa”. Laporan Penelitian Hibah Penelitian Berbasis Program Studi (BOPTN). LP2M, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar
  67. Yassi, A. Hakim and Suhartina. 2012. Grammatically Speaking. Unpublished Teaching Material. Hasanuddin University of Makassar. Indonesia.
  68. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2013. “Uji Efektifitas dan Pengembangan “Paired Interaction Model” pada Kelompok Small Group Work yang jumlah anggotanya bervariasi”. Laporan Penelitian Hibah Penelitian Berbasis Program Studi (BOPTN). LP2M, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar
  69. Yassi, A. Hakim. 2014. “Uji Efektifitas dan Pengembangan “Paired Interaction Model” terhadap dua pendekatan pembelajaran bahasa; Indultif dan Deduktif. Laporan Penelitian Hibah Penelitian Berbasis Program Studi (BOPTN). LP2M, Universitas Hasanuddin, Makassar
  70. Young, L. and Harrison, C. (eds). 2004. Systemic- Functional Linguistics Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum
  71. Zaid, Rosmawaty, N. 2012. Monolingual and Bilingual Approaches in English Classroms: A Comparative Study. Unpublished Dissertation. Hasanuddin University of Makassar.