Communicative Language Teaching And Its Achievements: A Study Of In-Country Program In Indonesia From 2013-2015
Abstract
This paper aims to discuss the result of the study on the implementation of communicative language teaching and its impact on the language achievements of the students. In this study, the data is collected from classroom observation, interview, and examination of various Indonesian curricula, syllabi, and teaching materials. The subjects of the study are students, peer tutors, and instructors involving in the CLS Malang programs in the summers of 2013–2015 at Indonesian for foreign speakers (or locally known as Bahasa Indonesia bagi Penutur Asing (BIPA)), State University of Malang. The result of the study shows that the implementation of communicative language teaching approach is very effective when it is combined with extracurricular activities. The combination of these two can significantly increase students’ skills in Indonesian language as the students are able to use it effectively and meaningfully in “real-world” contexts afterwards. Moreover, based on the results of OPI (Oral Proficiency Interview), this approach enables students to practice Indonesian language through real-life interactions. Higher levels of students’ achievement are predicted to result from this approach because the OPI interviews emphasize oral proficiency based on communicative and cultural skills in real-life settings. The limitation and suggestion for further research will also be discussed.
Keywords: communicative language teaching, achievement, Bahasa Indonesia, in-country program, Indonesia
References
[1] H. D. Brown, Principles of language learning and teaching, Pearson Education, Inc, New York, 2007.
[2] C. J. Brumfit and K. Johnson, (1979): The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] A. Chaney, Teaching Oral Communication in Grades K-8, A Viacom Company, USA,1998.
[4] S. Ash, “The handbook of sociolinguistics, Ed. by Florian Coulmas,” Language, vol. 74, no. 2, pp. 379 382, 1998.
[5] F. Genesee, “Second Language Learning Through Immersion: A Review of U.S. Programs,” Review of Educational Research, vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 541–561, 1985.
[6] E. Geva, “Second-language oral proficiency and second-language literacy,” in Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth, D. August and T. Sha- nahan, Eds., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006.
[7] P. H. Hiep, “Communicative language teaching: unity within diversity,” ELT Journal, vol. 61, no. 3, pp. 193–201, 2007.
[8] W. Littlewood, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1981.
[9] J. C. Richards, Communicative language teaching today, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[10] S. J. Savignon, Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice, Addison-Wesley, Massachusetts, 1983.
[11] M. A. Snow, “Language immersion: An overview and comparison,” in Foreign language education: Issues and strategies, A. M. Padilla, H. H. Fairchild, and C. M. Valadez, Eds., pp. 109–126, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
[12] P. Suwarno, “Teaching Descriptive Language for Communicative and Cultural Competence: Learning from CLS Malang In-Country Program 2010-2012,” Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, vol. 10, pp. 264–275, 2013, http://eflt. nus.edu.sg/.