TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES IN

MULTILINGUAL CONTEXT
(A Detailed Picture of two different English Classrooms
in Urban Elementary Schools)

Didi Suherdi
Eri Kurniawan

presented at
THE 53 TEFLIN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
RD

SAHID RAYA HOTEL, 6-8 DESEMBER 2005

1
 TEACHING-LEARNING PROCESSES IN MULTILINGUAL CONTEXT
(A Detailed Picture of two different English Classrooms in Urban Elementary Schools)

Didi Suherdi1
Eri Kurniawan2

The teaching of English in elementary schools has been serious concerns of many
educational stakeholders, particularly in terms of the lack of quality assurance apparatus.
Hence, studies that ascertain the validity of teaching English in this context and detailed
explication of its strengths and weaknesses are of primary importance. For that purpose,
this paper will be written to present the result of such study.
For the purpose of the study, two classrooms will be selected on the basis of its teaching-
learning supporting factors quality, i.e. a classroom with an English teacher with
appropriate English educational background with the students of an upper-level socio-
economic background and one with an English teacher without English education
background with students from lower level socio-economic background. The teaching-
learning processes will be recorded and the recorded data will then be transcribed and
analyzed. The result is hoped to highlight essential factors that are imperative for
successful English teaching in multilingual contexts. The findings are expected to be
useful for those responsible in the teaching of English in this context in their role as
decision-makers.

Introduction
The introduction of teaching English in elementary school & its possible problems
The global development in the 21st century is largely marked by the extensive use of a
particular language—that is English—as lingua franca amongst most people across the
globe. This very phenomenon has, in fact, promoted the significance of English as a
means of communication in almost all countries, including Indonesia. English is then
assumed as being an important subject that must be taught at schools.
In the context of Indonesia, English as a foreign language is a compulsory subject
to be taught in all schools from junior high to senior high schools (with being offered as a
general course in universities). Even in a number of elementary schools, English is
offered as an elective subject or local curricular content. We have seen, however, that the
proficiency in English of secondary school graduates still creates disappointment among

1 Didi Suherdi is Senior Lecturer at English Education Department, Indonesia University of Education. He
is now serving as Head of English Education Study Program at Indonesia University of Education. He has
undertaken a wide variety of research on education.
2 Eri Kurniawan is Assistant Lecturer at English Education Department, Indonesia University of Education.
teachers themselves as well as parents. The unsatisfying quality of English in Indonesia
of course is related to various different variables (Lengkanawati 2004).
Besides, it has become public knowledge that some measurements have been
taken by the Indonesian government to improve the quality of English teaching in
secondary schools, irrespective of their effectiveness in actuality. Take for example the
appearance of prescribed curriculum for English. Unfortunately, those are not prevalent
in the English teaching for elementary schools. One of the possible reasons is that
English is an elective subject, not a compulsory one. That is why its handling is not as
serious as that for secondary schools. Until presently, for instance, there has been no any
prescribed curriculum for the conduct of English teaching in elementary schools. This, to
some extent, signifies the fact that English teaching and learning for elementary school
has been somewhat ignored.
In addition, the English teaching for elementary schools has encountered
numerous problems. One of which is the issue of exposure to English use in everyday
life, which has been serious concerns of many people. This is one of the challenges that
children learning English at elementary schools may come across with. Here in
Indonesia, as an implication of positioning English as a foreign language, English is just
learned in classrooms, not widely used as a means of communication by people across
the regions. This lack of exposure makes children difficult to see English learning as
being functional and useful for them.
A second challenge has to do with the English writing system. Words in English
are written differently as opposed to the way they are pronounced. Unlike English,
Indonesia has phonetic writing system wherein the writings clearly reflect consistently
the sounds. Children learning English would find English writing system confusing
considering the fact that there is no direct one-to-one correspondence between the
pronunciation of a word and its spelling.
Additionally, there has been a misleading misconception about how children learn
language. Children have been wrongly assumed as being “a miniature of adults”, in
which the way they learn a foreign language (including English) exactly the same as the
way adults do. It resulted in a far-reaching problem. That is, teachers tend to approach the
teaching-learning process in the same way as they would teach adults. This will impact

3
what methods and techniques they use in the classroom.
In actuality, children have their own world, which is far different from that of
adults. Specifically, children have their own culture and learning preferences. That is,
they generally learn by way of physical activities (i.e. hands on experiences). Besides,
they have a relatively short attention span and they learn with the motive of meeting
immediate goals (i.e. here and now principle). This uniquely child-like ways of doing
things call for a certain methodological style, which emphasizes concrete activities, social
interactions and series of little bits of action-based learning sessions packaged in various
modes of delivery (Musthafa 2003).

Effective English teaching

It is overwhelmingly apparent that there is a wide array of research studies as regards
approaches, methods, and techniques on how to teach English effectively to children. It is
due to the fact that teaching children is not merely a matter of setting them on a set of
authentic language tasks in the classroom. Rather, it requires specific skills and intuitions
that differ from those for adult teaching. Brown (1994) recommended five categories on
which any teaching methods and techniques should be based. They are intellectual
development, attention span, sensory input, affective factors, and authentic, meaningful
language.
Moreover, whatever method and technique employed will not be effective or
usable without any well-prepared lesson plan. A five-step lesson plan developed by
Hunter (1982) in Musthafa (2003) is proposed as an alternative. They are as follows:
1. Anticipatory set, in which you design activities to engage students in the topic by
relating it to own real life experiences and background knowledge; the activities
should also help organize the content by focusing on major concepts to be
learned.
2. Presentation, in which you proceed step by step to ensure children engagement
with the English language and learn the targeted concepts, vocabulary items,
expressions, and ways of using the language in a particular context as per you
teaching goals foe the session.
3. Guided practice, where you see the vocabularies and concepts in many examples
 to get children exposed to the lesson and provide them with practice the uses of
language required for learners to perform on their own. This stage also gives
teacher opportunities to assess learners’ initial comprehension of concepts to be
learned and vocabulary items to be used.
4. Independent practice, in which you structure the “manipulation” and application
of language and concepts in talking, reading, and writing activities. This stage
represents a “center piece” activity that integrates the language skills in context.
5. Closure, the stage where you bring the lesson full circle by summarizing and
repeating what has been learned. This stage also provides opportunities for
teacher to have learners perform orally to demonstrate or present what they have
learned and written.
With regard to methodology, Nunan (1999) proposed a number of principles:
1. Focus on the learner, in which learners are involved in their own learning
processes. This can be done in two ways. One is the involvement of learners in
making decisions what and how to learn. And another is in maximizing the class
time in which the learners do the work.
2. Develop your own personal methodology, in which teacher should seek for his/her
own personal method pointing to the fact that the search for “the best method”
was elusive and ultimately proved to be futile.
3. Build instructional sequences based on a pretask, task, and follow-up cycle.

The purpose of this paper

This paper is written to give a detailed picture of two different English classrooms by
unpacking the strengths and the weaknesses of the processes. Two different classrooms
are picked out on the basis of teacher’s educational background and students’ socio-
economic background. Also, the comparison is made to draw distinctions on teaching-
learning processes as a result of different teacher’s and students’ background.
The result is hoped to highlight essential factors that are imperative for successful
English teaching in multilingual contexts. The findings are expected to be useful for those
responsible in the teaching of English, in this context in their role as decision-makers.
The result can expectedly serve as an input for decision maker in formulating the

5
appropriate decision for English teaching in elementary schools.

Method
For the purpose of the study, two classrooms will be selected on the basis of its teaching-
learning supporting factors quality, i.e. a classroom with an English teacher with
appropriate English educational background with the students of an upper-level socio-
economic background and one with an English teacher without English education
background with students from lower level socio-economic background. The teaching-
learning processes will be recorded and the recorded data will then be transcribed and
analyzed.

Result
This part will spell out the comparison of teaching-learning process in two different
elementary schools, i.e. Darul Hikam Elementary school (DH) and Ciwaruga 1 State-
owned Elementary school (CW). The comparison is made to make clear the strengths and
weaknesses of teaching-learning processes in both schools. It is exemplified as follow:

Aspects Measures
DH
1. Objective for the The teaching objective of the session is
quite visible in the teacher’s opening
session
remarks and questions. The teacher opens
the class with greeting and asking the sts
the questions related to the topic, that is
means of public transport. This helps sts
know what they are learning and be
motivated to learn that. As a result, they,
in overall, can achieve the objective
2. Modeling of The language modeling by teacher is
effective. Teacher provides correct
language by the
pronunciation of the vocabulary being
teacher
learned. The words are kept repeating by
both teacher and students. So, the sts are
exposed to pronounce the target words
correctly and repeatedly.
CW
The teaching objective of the
session is not visible. Though, he
tries to relate the present topic to
the previous lesson, he does not
make clear what sts are learning.
Since the objective is not visible,
the sts don’t know what they have
to achieve.
The language modeling by teacher
is not effective. Teacher’s first
language (mother tongue)
occasionally interferes the
modeling. So, modeling in target
language is then so little. Sts,
consequently, are stimulated to use
 their mother tongue, i.e. Sundanese
3. Drilling & Teacher provides sts with many various Teacher provides a modeling only
once. Repeated practices are not
activities to get them exercise the
Exercises given. So, sts mostly use their
vocabulary. Sts are conditioned to repeat mother tongue.
after the teacher’s modeling. Teacher
gives repeated practices on pronunciation
and spelling.
4. Checking sts Sts’ understanding is checked or Sts’ understanding on the subject is
checked by asking sts the
evaluated during the process by either
understanding meanings of particular expressions.
matching the words with the pictures or Some sts are invited to get
involved. And a competitive game
matching the words with the spellings.
is employed in this case.
Various games are used as tools for this
evaluation and most sts are taking part
along the process.
5. Instruction for The instruction by teacher in facilitating The instruction by teacher is not
really clear. It is mostly given in
learning activities is clear. It is given in
task accomplishment Indonesian and even Sundanese.
two languages, i.e. English and
Indonesian.
6. Correction of Some mistakes or mispronunciations of During the teaching-leaning
process, correction of sts’ errors is
the words learned by sts are constantly
learners’ errors not there.
corrected giving the correct examples and
having them repeated.
7. Proportion of The percentage of target language use The percentage of target language
use during the process is around 10
during the process is around 90 %.
content/target %.

language
8. Proportion of The percentage of sts’ target language use The percentage of sts’ target
during the process is around 90 %. language use during the process is
students using the
around 10 %.
target language

Analysis
Viewed from eight aspects of language teaching, the result reveals significant differences
as regards teaching-learning processes in two different classrooms. The process
happening in DH is, to a large extent, more effective than that of happening in CW. In the
first aspect, for instance, teacher in DH opens the class by first addressing and greeting
the students. She then introduced the subject by asking students some questions related to
the words to be learned. The students, therefore, know what they are learning and what

7
objective is to be achieved. It is evident in the following exchanges.
T Ayo kesini lihat Ibu, kebetulan hari ini Ibu bawa teman, omnya mau apa yah?
Ss Merekam
T Merekam, tapi janji lho jangan lihat ke omnya aja, lihatnya ke ibu, kalau yang lihat ke ibu,
tidak jadi, nanti nggak ada, eh kalau lihat ke omnya nanti tidak ada di rekaman yah,
makanya lihat ke Ibu. Ibu mau nanya nih, siapa yang ke sekolah jalan kaki?
S2 Saya
T Jalan kaki? Siapa yang ke sekolahnya naik angkot?
S2 Saya

In contrast, teacher in CW opens the session by first checking the students’ attendance.
He then told the students that the session would continue the previous lesson without
reviewing it.
T Eva Wardani
Ada
T Kami panggil Iis
Nggak ada pak ngga sekolah. Pak ulangan pak?
T Tulis! Tulis! Engke kerjaken eta mah.
S8 Kan lagi Agama
T Ya, ya nanti. Perlombaan yang kemarin. Satu dua. Ini sama ini. Temenan. Itu sama itu.
S10 Pak nyatet pak?
S8 Bapak difoto pak?
T Yang kaya kemaren. Inget enggak? Tanya jawab. Ini lanjutannya. Lanjutannya. Tulis dulu. Tulis!

In terms of modeling of language, teacher in DH has been successful in providing

correct pronunciation of the vocabulary learned. She kept repeating it and exposed
students to repeat after her. Teacher in CW, on the contrary, is interfered by his first
language, i.e. Sundanese. Much of his talk is presented in his first language. This makes
the students do the same. They mostly speak in Sundanese. So, in this regard, teacher in
CW lacks providing the modeling of target language.
Many practices are given during English teaching-learning process in DH.
Teacher gets the students to repeat the words in correct pronunciation many times.
Practices, in this case, are realized in the form of various games that are fun. Students
seem to enjoy taking part in the games whilst repeating the words. However, these
practices are not found in CW class. Teacher does not provide any activities, which
engage the students to practice in the target language.
Game is selected as a medium to check students’ understanding on the subject
given by both teachers (teacher in DH and CW). In both classrooms, students are
engaged. Yet, the game offered is different. In DH classroom, the games are varied
through which the attainment of the objective can be measured. One of which is matching
the words with the pictures. Through this game, teacher can find out how well the
students master the number of vocabulary given. Likewise, teacher in CW employs a
game as a medium to check students’ understanding. He divides the class into two big
groups and asks the representatives from each group a question about the meaning of
certain expressions. Once their answer is correct, they will get 100 point. This is good to
a certain extent. However, given the fact that he is teaching some expressions through
dialogue, he should have provided any other games that are more functional.
In addition, as previously put forward, first language interference experienced by
teacher in CW leads to the extensive use of first language in giving instruction for task
accomplishment. He largely mixes the languages, Indonesian and Sundanese and speaks a
little English. The students, as a result, are prompted to do as such. It is evidenced in the
following.
S10 Pak itu teh nomor hiji pak?
T Heueuh. Sekarang kan ini teh si Budi nanya ke si Yusuf What is your favourite food and drink? Apa
makanan dan minuman kesukaanmu? Aduh mani gereran kieu difilm the. Biasa-biasa atuh. Duduk
ah. Ikutin. I
Ss I

Unlike him, teacher in DH, though gives instruction mostly in Indonesian, can give so
clear and straightforward instruction to the students that they know what to do.
T Yang duduk rapi dan tersenyum, meskipun lagi shaum, kosong perutnya tetap tersenyum,
yah, begitu dong. Kita ucapkan dulu. Motorcycle
Ss Motorcycle

In correcting the students’ errors specifically in pronunciation, teacher in DH has

the students repeat the word(s) over and over in correct pronunciation. It is certainly
initiated with some examples from her as evidenced below.
T Gedi, kamu ucapkan aero plane sebanyak sepuluh, yang kesepuluhnya kamu berteriak
yah. Aero plane. Ayo
S15 Aero plane, Aero plane
T Oh I love you
Ss He he he
S15 Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero plane, Aero
plane, Aero plane, Aero plane
It is totally different from teacher in CW who does not give any feedback or input to any
students’ errors.
Another significant difference is evident in percentage of proportion of target

9
language and proportion of students in using it. The data show that in DH classroom, the
use of target language and proportion of students in using it reaches 90 % in percentage,
which differs much from those of in CW classroom that just reaches 10 %. In DH
classroom, much of the time is allotted for the students to be exposed to target language
by repeated practices, which is different from CW classroom that lacks target language
exposure.

Discussion
This part is to elaborate the result and analysis, which will lay emphasis on the
description of English teaching-learning processes in multicultural context and detailed
explication of their strengths and weaknesses. The data clearly show that there are
significant differences as to how teaching-learning process is going on in each setting.
Though many variables are involved in the process, it is justifiable to claim that such
variables as teacher’s educational background and students’ socio-economic background
do matter in affecting a successful English teaching-learning process.
Teacher in DH elementary school has a relevant educational background to the
subject she is now teaching, which is contradictory with teacher in CW who is not an
English department graduate. DH teacher is quite fluent in English and has a clear
articulation. Whilst, CW teacher speaks English in a fragmented manner and his
articulation is not clear. This is essential particularly in providing the students with a good
modeling in target language.
Students in DH elementary school mostly come from wealthy family. This
assumption appears pointing to the fact that DH is a private school, which is known with
its relatively expensive tuition. They tend to be more actively participating during the
class. Students in CW elementary school, on the other hand, come from middle-to-low
socio-economic class considering the fact that CW is a state owned school that is known
with its cheap and affordable tuition.
In light of strength and weakness, teaching-learning process in DH has more
strength than that of in CW. Using Hunter’s model, we can have justification on this
assumption. Hunter (1982) proposed five steps of lesson preparation, which are
anticipatory set, presentation, guided practice, independent practice, and closure.
1. Anticipatory Set
Teacher in DH, after greeting the class, introduces the topic by relating to
students’ real life experience and background knowledge. On that occasion, she is
teaching students several words about means of public transport and this topic is
introduced by asking the students’ experiences and knowledge about public transport.
Meanwhile, teacher in CW, after checking students’ attendance, tells the students
that the topic is a continuation of the previous lesson—that is, a dialogue on one’s
favorite food and drink. He then instructs the students to write down a dialogue. So, there
is no effort made to relate the topic to the students’ experience and background
knowledge.
2. Presentation
Teacher in DH undertakes all stages of teaching step by step. She starts the class
with pretask through greeting and questioning students. Tasks are preoccupied with
various activities that engage many practices. And follow-up is realized by checking
students’ comprehension.
Teacher in CW in overall follows stages of teaching. He opens the class by
checking students’ attendance. The he briefly explains the topic and checks the students’
understanding through a game.
3. Guided Practice
Teacher in DH presents several new vocabularies through many repetitions and
through exposing the students to practices. She spends most of the time to do all this. He
makes use of sensory aids in the form of pictures to help internalize the words. It is in
line with Brown’s approach of Sensory Input. Teacher in CW; however, does not do the
same thing. He merely presents the topic and gets the students to write it down. He less
frequently gives examples and repetitions.

11
4. Independent Practice
Teacher in DH integrates the language skills; much emphasis is laid on speaking
though. After the students internalize the words given, she presents their writing form.
She then proceeds to giving exercises, which integrate speaking and writing skills.
Teacher in CW, on the contrary, also integrates the language skills particularly
speaking and writing but unfortunately he oftentimes breaks up the language into bits and
pieces. It contradicts with one of the approaches recommended by Brown (1994) about
whole language approach.
5. Closure
Teacher in HD wraps up the class by summarizing and repeating the words that
have been learned. She gives ample opportunities to students to practice pronouncing the
words repeatedly. In contrast, rather than summarizes and repeats what has been learned,
teacher in CW concludes the class by suggesting the students buy the textbook.
In a word, the differences are evident in the teaching-learning processes in two
different classrooms whose teacher has different educational background and whose
students come from different socio-economic background. In view of Hunter’s model, it
is found that teaching-learning process in DH is more effective than that of in CW.

Suggestion
Upon completing this research, a few points are recommended to the following
stakeholders.
a. Decision makers are recommended to take into account such factors as teachers’
availability at school and teachers’ educational background when making decision as
regards English teaching in elementary schools.
b. Researchers are encouraged to investigate any other variables that affect the
effectiveness of foreign language learning in multicultural context.
c. Teachers are suggested to internalize children’s psychology of learning and theories as
well as principles on effective English teaching for children before deciding to teach
English for children.
Reference

Rewster, Jean, et. al. 2000. The Primary English Teacher’s Guide: New Edition. London:
Penguin Books Ltd.
Brown, Douglas H. 1980. Principles of Languages Learning and Teaching. America:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, Douglas H. 1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. America: Prentice Hall.
Littewood, William. 1990. Communicative Language Teaching: An Introduction Great
Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Musthafa, Bachrudin, M.A., Ph.D. 2003. EFL for Young Learners: Course Materials.
Unpublished textbook. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching: First Edition. Singapore:
Mc. Graw-Hill.
Suherdi, Didi. 2004. Discourse Analysis in Classroom Research: A Systemiotic
Approach. Unpublished textbook. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

13