Vol.

21, Nomor 1, Februari 2016

Studi Perkembangan Wilayah Kecamatan Unter Iwes Sebelum dan Setelah
Pemekaran
Ade Sujastiawan
Analisis Faktor Struktural, Akselerator dan Trigger (SAT) Konflik 221 di Kabupaten
Sumbawa
Amrullah & Sri Nurhidayati
Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa SMA Melalui Pembelajaran dengan
Menggunakan Metode Penemuan Terbimbing
Desi Maulidyawati
Pengaruh Segmentasi, Target Pasar, Penetapan Posisi Toko, dan Strategi Pemasaran
Terhadap Minat Beli Konsumen, Guna Mendapatkan Keunggulan Bersaing Alfamart
di Lombok Timur
Didin Hadi Saputra
Pemahaman Masalah-Masalah Utama dalam Pembelajaran Anak Usia Dini
IGA Widari
Analisis Daya Tarik Lokasi Model Gravitasi Kasus Kabupaten Sumbawa Barat
Indra Kusumawati & Sumarlin
A Framework For The Analysis of Second Language Learning In Classrooms
Iwan Jazadi
Pemetaan Kemampuan Manajerial Kepala Sekolah di Daerah Terpencil
Jhon Kenedi & Fatmawati
Keefektifan Metode Peer Teaching Melalui Pendekatan Lesson Study Ditinjau dari
Keterampilan Dasar Mengajar Mahasiswa
Muhammad Iksan & Suharli
Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran Peningkatan Kemampuan Berfikir(SPPKB) Terhadap
Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas VIII Mata Pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS) Terpadu
SMP Negeri 4 Sumbawa Tahun Pelajaran 2014/2015
Nining Andriani & Muizzin
Tuturan Implikatur dalam Novel Saman (Sebuah Kajian Pragmatik)
Siti Hawa, Ana Merdekawati & Ade Asih Susiari Tantri
Analisa Efisiensi Kemampuan Pengurus Terhadap Pengelolaan Modal Kerja Pada
KPRI Bhakti Husada Kabupaten Sumbawa
Sri Rahayu
Teks Pelajaran Siswa Sekolah Dasar (SD) Kelas IV Kurikulum 2013 Kajian
Berdasarkan Linguistik Fungsional Sistemik
Sri Sugiarto
Teaching Reading Comprehension To Non-Native Learner Through Short Story
Suparman
Model Kebijakan Dalam Upaya Mengakomodir Pendidikan Berbasis Kearifan Lokal
Syaifuddin Iskandar & Ade Safitri
The Implementation Of Skimming-Scanning Technique In Teaching Reading
Umar

PENERBIT
PUSAT PELAYANAN PENERBITAN DAN INFORMASI (P3I)
UNIVERSITAS SAMAWA (UNSA)

Vol. Halaman Sumbawa ISSN:

JUP
21 1130 Februari 2016 1412-7652
 Diterbitkan oleh:

PUSAT PELAYANAN PENERBITAN DAN INFORMASI (P3I)

UNIVERSITAS SAMAWA
SUMBAWA BESAR NTB

Vol. 21 Nomor 1, Februari 2016

i
 Penanggung Jawab
Rektor Universitas Samawa
Pemimpin Umum
Dr. Lahmuddin Zuhri, S.H.,M.Hum.
Pemimpin Redaksi
Ilham Handika, M.Pd.

Dewan Redaksi
Endra Syaifuddin, S.H.,M.H.
Iwan Haryanto, S.H.,M.H.
Ade Sujastiawan, M.Si.

Tim Reviewer Ahli

Dr. Dahlil Marjom, M.Hum.
(Universitas Andalas Padang)
Dr. Gunawan
(Universitas Mataram)
Dr. Luh Putu Sudini, S.H.
(Universitas Warmadewa Denpasar)
Dr. Ahmad Dakhoir, S.Hi
(STAIN Palangkaraya)
Dr. I Nyoman Sutama,M.M.
(Universitas Samawa)

Diterbitkan oleh:

PUSAT PELAYANAN PENERBITAN DAN INFORMASI (P31)

UNIVERSITAS SAMAWA (UNSA)
Sumbawa Besar NTB

Alamat Redaksi:
Kampus Universitas Samawa
Jl. Raya Sering Unter Iwes
Sumbawa Besar NTB
Telp./Faks. (0371) 625848/ 07864427188
e-mail: progress_unsabaru@yahoo.com

ii
 DAFTAR ISI
Daftar Isi iii
Studi Perkembangan Wilayah Kecamatan Unter Iwes Sebelum dan Setelah Pemekaran 1-6
Ade Sujastiawan
Analisis Faktor Struktural, Akselerator dan Trigger (SAT) Konflik 221 di Kabupaten 7-16
Sumbawa
Amrullah & Sri Nurhidayati
Pemecahan Masalah Matematis Siswa SMA Melalui Pembelajaran dengan 17-23
Menggunakan Metode Penemuan Terbimbing
Desi Maulidyawati
Pengaruh Segmentasi, Target Pasar, Penetapan Posisi Toko, dan Strategi Pemasaran 24-28
Terhadap Minat Beli Konsumen, Guna Mendapatkan Keunggulan Bersaing Alfamart di
Lombok Timur
Didin Hadi Saputra
Pemahaman Masalah-Masalah Utama dalam Pembelajaran Anak Usia Dini 29-39
IGA Widari
Analisis Daya Tarik Lokasi Model Gravitasi Kasus Kabupaten Sumbawa Barat 40-49
Indra Kusumawati & Sumarlin
A Framework For The Analysis of Second Language Learning In Classrooms 50-57
Iwan Jazadi
Pemetaan Kemampuan Manajerial Kepala Sekolah di Daerah Terpencil 58-65
Jhon Kenedi & Fatmawati
Keefektifan Metode Peer Teaching Melalui Pendekatan Lesson Study Ditinjau dari 66-74
Keterampilan Dasar Mengajar Mahasiswa
Muhammad Iksan& Suharli
Pengaruh Strategi Pembelajaran Peningkatan Kemampuan Berfikir(SPPKB)Terhadap 75-86
Hasil Belajar Siswa Kelas VIIIMata Pelajaran Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial (IPS) Terpadu SMP
Negeri 4 Sumbawa Tahun Pelajaran 2014/2015
Nining Andriani &Muizzin
Tuturan Implikatur dalam Novel Saman (Sebuah Kajian Pragmatik) 87-92
Siti Hawa, Ana Merdekawati & Ade Asih Susiari Tantri
Analisa Efisiensi KemampuanPengurus Terhadap Pengelolaan Modal Kerja Pada KPRI 93-100
Bhakti Husada Kabupaten Sumbawa
Sri Rahayu
Teks Pelajaran Siswa Sekolah Dasar (SD)Kelas IV Kurikulum 2013Kajian Berdasarkan 101-108
Linguistik Fungsional Sistemik
Sri Sugiarto
Teaching Reading Comprehension ToNon-Native Learner Through Short Story 109-113
Suparman
Model Kebijakan Dalam Upaya Mengakomodir PendidikanBerbasis Kearifan Lokal 114-122
Syaifuddin Iskandar& Ade Safitri
The Implementation Of Skimming-Scanning Technique In Teaching Reading 123-130
Umar

iii
 A FRAMEWORK FOR THE ANALYSIS OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING IN CLASSROOMS

IWAN JAZADI1
1
Dosen Program Studi Bahasa Inggris STKIP Paracendekia NW Sumbawa

Abstract

Understanding the process of second language learning and teaching in an international class
whose students are normally successful 100% is fundamental because generally the instructor is
highly qualified and has strong theoretical foundations. Therefore, this article reports an
observation of one of English for Tertiary Studies (ETS) classes in a language center of a university
in Australia and collates the findings with the theories in the field of second language acquisition
(SLA). The class is taught by an Australian native speaker with classroom teacher
lecturer/researcher background, with 6 international students coming from neighboring Asian
countries. The data was collected through audio and video recording, and note-taking of the
interaction, which was further transcribed for analysis. The data presentation and analysis follow
second language acquisition theoretical frameworks, including the role and characteristics of
input, output, and interactional devices. The findings show that the teacher has a very facilitative
role by providing modified input so the students can follow the lessons easily and by applying
interactional devices that stimulate learner production or output.

Keywords: second language, learning, acquisition, input, interaction, output

INTRODUCTION
An enormous number of research
projects with various methodologies in
second language (SL/L2) classrooms have
been done in spite of the relatively young
age of the field of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA), and despite its previous
attention to SLs in natural settings (Pica,
2003; Savielle-Troike, 2012). These studies
have focused on the role of such elements as
input, interaction and also output in
learning, specifically on how input is made
comprehensible to the non-native speaker
(NNS) or the learner by examining native
speaker (NS) speech or teacher talk in the
classrooms; what devices employed to
modify the input and interaction; and how
output plays a role in facilitating acquisition.
The ultimate aim of all such research
has been really uniform: to see how and
under what conditions acquisition can
optimally take place, which is a key to a
learners success in learning an L2. Although,
in fact, the studies, including the theories
underlying them, have not been regarded
satisfactory to achieve the goal (Lightbown,
1985; Ellis, 1991, 2005), this paper is of the
same endeavor. It is written by a practicing
teacher and so it has a special value. The
study in SLA can help teachers build their
awareness about the process of acquisition
in their classrooms, give them
methodological framework for investigating
learners learning of a second language, and
provide possible clarifications of the
language learning processes (Larsen-
Freeman & Long, 1991; Clennell et al., 1997).
In this connection, I have collected SL
data from an SL classroom through
observation and audio-recording. In the next
section, I provide a general impression of the
classroom which I draw from the
observational data. Further, I will discuss and
analyze the nature and the role of input and
interaction to SLA by collating the theories in
SLA and the transcribed data from the
classroom.
DATA COLLECTION:
Non-Transcript Observational Data
Entering an SL classroom, doing a
classroom observation (etic perspective) or
being a teacher-researcher (emic
perspective) by focusing on how the learners
learn or acquire a second language and how
50
the teacher strives to provide an
environment which enables effective
learning and acquisition on the part of the
learners is a particular experience although
teaching itself is what makes a teacher.
More interesting is when such a researcher
analyses the data collected, the note-
takings, audio-recording or video-recording
although it is a tiring task when dealing with
transcribing.
My small classroom research which this
paper reports is a two hour-lesson in one of
advanced English for Tertiary Studies (EST)
classes in a language center of a university in
Australia. The teacher (T) is very
experienced, both as a classroom teacher
and expert/researcher in the field. It seems
that his teaching has been informed and
shaped by his theoretical expertise
supplemented by his field experience. The
learners are six non-native speakers from
various Asian countries, 3 from Thailand, the
others from Indonesia, Vietnam and South
Korea. They have been in Australia and
studying at the language center for more
than six months and are prepared shortly to
start their university studies.
My position in the classroom is as an
observer, a passive participant, together
with another colleague of the same purpose.
The class has been laid out in a U-form
whereby all participants sit side by side and
face the teacher. The recorder is put in the
middle of the classroom and so it can record
the whole classroom equally. The teaching
material adopted is an authentic one, taken
from that days news and concerns an issue
of Southeast Asian countries.
What are the features of input and how
it is made comprehensible by both the
teacher and the learners and what devices
are used in negotiating meaning are very
intriguing to see. In the following sections, I
will first discuss the theoretical positions of
the elements in SLA mainstream theories
and further will focus on their grounded
positions by using both previous studies and
the current data.
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
This section discusses the transcribed
classroom data in light of SLA theories. Thus,
it covers the role of input and interaction in
second language acquisition.
The Role of Input in SLA
The role of input in SLA has been the
first and most attention-taking, as well as
most debatable topic. Input can be defined
as the language addressed to the learner
either by a native speaker (foreigner
talk/FT)/teacher (teacher talk/foreigner
discourse/FD) or another SL learner
(interlanguage/IL) (Ellis 1985: 127). It may
also refer to the samples of language that
the learners are exposed to, including
unmodified input such as unmodified talk
and authentic written texts (Ellis 1990: 96;
Wesche 1994). It includes a wide range of SL
data, such as metalinguistic information,
discourse, structures and lexis.
Specifically, what is done in
investigating input is in how it is made
comprehensible to L2 learners. Krashens
five linked hypotheses, one of which
particularly given attention the input
hypothesis (Krashen & Terrell 1983; Krashen
1980, 1985, 2009) is a leading theory, having
stimulated many research agendas and
theoretical evaluation.
According to the theoretical framework,
anyone acquires, but not learns, language by
understanding input that is little beyond
her/his current acquired level of
competence (Krashen & Terrell 1983: 32).
That is, to be useful to the learner, the input
must be neither too difficult to understand
nor too easy. Krashen conceptualizes this in
terms of the learners current level, called i,
and the level the learner will achieve, called
i+1. The gap between the learners i and the
stage i+1 is mediated by information drawn
from the situation and the learners previous
experience. By using such information, the
incomprehensible linguistic input (White
1987) turns out to be comprehensible and
this is hypothesized to effect acquisition
(Krashen & Terrell 1983: 21).
In the practical level, hundreds of
studies have been carried out, describing
51
and comparing NS-NNS, NS-NS, and NNS-
NNS discourse in a variety of situations that
have indicated both qualitative and
quantitative differences between the
language addressed to the learners (FD) and
that addressed to NS (reviewed in Wesche
1994: 225). Below we will see particularly
the nature of the teacher (T)s talk; i.e., how
this speech is made comprehensible to his
learners.
1) Prosodic features
The speech rate of T tends to be
slower and pauses are apparently more
frequent and longer. His slower delivery
results in his careful articulation,
provision of full underlying vowel forms
and consonant clusters and very
minimum contractions. Consequently,
the word boundaries are very clearly
delineated. His pauses indicate
processing time and tone groupings,
signified by a single (+) pause in the
transcript; longer pauses seem to
indicate Ts planning time, indicated by
double (++) pause and his much longer
pauses (triple +++) seem to indicate his
expectation to be interrupted or
backchannelled by his learners. Single
and double (+) are found elsewhere in
the transcript as they are ostensibly
natural of speech of such a sort, but the
triple (+) one is unique as it serves a
particular purpose. This triple (+)
symbols are found for example in turns
57,101, 103, 111 and 163. Let us see
some of these:
57 T: /\yes +++ any other /words +
/phrases + /examples +++
101 T: anything /else ++ /\okay + just
look at the board + for + fifteen
seconds + look at the board for
fifteen seconds and read these
and see if you can memorize
\them +++ /\okay + look away +
write down as many as those
words that you can think + as you
can remember + just + without
looking at the board + write them
\down +
It is quite transparent from the triple
(+) symbols (the ones printed bigger) in
the two turns that P expects his learners
to interrupt or to confirm him that they
understand what he is saying (cf.
Wesche 1994; Chaudron 1998).
Moreover, exaggerated intonation,
including frequent stress on topic nouns,
is found in Ps talk, particularly when
dealing with words or phrases which the
learners are still unfamiliar with, or
words or phrases the learners cannot
pronounce properly. We can find this
sort of stress for example in turns 173,
181, 193, 195 and in many others. Let us
observe one of these below:
169 S3: ex ex +
170 S1: ex ex +
171 S2: e x a c e r b a t e d +
172 S6: e x a c e r b a t e d +
173 T: exacerbated + exacerbated
+ a problem exacerbated +
exacerbated makes made
worst + exacerbated + is
made worse + or it is
increased ++ increased +++
As the learners (S3, S1, S2, and S6)
have indicated even their difficulty in
pronouncing the word, in addition to the
fact that they are unaware of its
meaning, T has given particular stress to
it. Usually special exaggeration of this
kind is addressed to a lower-proficiency
learner (Lynch 1998).
2) Morphological and syntactical features
There are two kinds of Ts utterances
in terms of morphological and
syntactical points of view. The first is the
ones which are grammatically well-
formed. These utterances are usually
expressed under normal circumstances,
that is, when the teacher conveys
certain message (e.g. giving explanation,
managing the classroom, etc.) within
which there is no particular interest on
its linguistic forms; this sort of teacher
speech is made of complete, even
complex sentences and may make long
turns. This is quite reasonable because
Ts students are at advanced level. The
examples of this are found elsewhere,
turns 33, 34, 67, 101, 111, 113, 115, 119
52
 and still many others. Second, sentence
fragments are also characteristic of
teacher talk which usually contain
didactic or problem-solving purposes
such as stimuli to the learners to give
response by using rising intonation, as
found in turns 5, 38, 40, 52, etc. Let us
observe one of them:
37 S2: like the /material + that
material cause air pollution +
38 T: /material
T has preferred using a sentence
fragment /material in a rising tone
instead of a complete sentence to
trigger further response from his learner
(S2) (cf. Bygate 1988). Moreover, T
evidently relies on present tense verbs
and tends to avoid certain tense such as
the conditional.
3) Lexical features
In terms of lexical preferences, there
are two salient features. First, the
vocabulary items have been around a
particular topic air pollution, derived
from both learners experience/output
and the written text. Second, more
frequent, neutral and concrete words
are used by T to manage the class, clarify
topics as well as explain specific/difficult
words from the text. Let us see one
example from the transcript:
173 T: exacerbated + exacerbated
+ a problem exacerbated +
exacerbated makes made
worst + exacerbated + is
made worse + or it is
increased ++ increased +++
The word exacerbated here is
found difficult by the learners and
therefore T has explained it using more
common vocabulary items.
4) Discourse features
Discourse-level features here are
related to how T deals with initiating and
developing topics, as well as managing
the classroom. As the transcript shows, T
has dealt with these two types of
discourse by setting up the class agenda
(turn 33), as the following:
33 T: were just waiting for [?] +
and the topic for today is +
air \pollution ++ just so that
we can capture + when you
say something + can you just
speak + maybe little bit
more clearly + that +
normally + our topic is air
\pollution + and the need
today + is plus + like many
other pluses + um + with + a
discussion to begin with +
just to brainstorm on the
topic + air pollution + them
weve got the \text + we
read the \text + well explain
\it + and then there are
some + topics and some
tasks + related to the \text
++ you will understand what
air pollution is + dont /you +
there is no need any
explanation ++ what is ++ [?]
okay + ee + what I would like
us to do first + um ..
All further activities by both T and
his learners have generally followed this
designing while any deviant activities are
controlled by T as a sort of classroom
management, such as in turn 67 and the
last part of turn 119. Another
characteristic of Ts discourse is that he
has always attempted to manage more
personal relation with the learners by
providing some kind of joke as evident in
the transcript, for example in turn 7, the
last part of turn 33 and the last part of
turn 119.
The role of interaction in SLA
Krashens hypothesis is, in fact, found
hard to prove or to be tested empirically
with any particular methodological
designing. Many SLA experts have not been
satisfied with this hypothesis (e.g. see Cook
1993; Ellis 1991; Swain 1985). Pieces of
evidence Krashen has used to support his
theory are somewhat irrelevant to SLA, as
taken from first language acquisition, and
some conceptually weak (Cook 1993).
Consequently, two other hypotheses have
emerged: the interaction hypothesis and the
output hypotheses.
53
 The interaction hypothesis (Long 1980,
1983) originally combines Krashens input
hypothesis (Krashen 1977, 1980) that
comprehensible input is necessary for SLA
and Hatchs (1978) interactional studies
using discourse analysis stating that
modifications to the interactional structure
of conversation that occur in the process of
negotiating a communication problem help
to make input comprehensible to the
learner.
On the other hand, Swain states that
although comprehensible input and the
concomitant emphasis on interaction in
which meaning is negotiated (e.g. Long
1983; Varonis and Gass 1985) is essential, its
impact on grammatical development has
been overstated (Swain 1985: 236). It is
stated that the significance of interaction in
SLA to comprehensible input is just as much
as that to comprehensible output (ibid).
This output hypothesis advances that output
is functional in making the learners notice a
gap between what they want to say and
what they can say while producing the
language. In this case, noticing leads them to
be aware of what they do not know and
therefore triggers cognitive processes which
enable acquisition to take place. Output is
also seen as one way of hypothesis-testing,
prompting the provision of feedback and
leading to modifications.
Additionally, Ellis (1991) has done a
critical evaluation Longs interactional
hypothesis and has produced its revised
version, as the following:
1. Comprehensible input facilitates L2
acquisition but is neither necessary nor
sufficient.
2. Modifications to input, especially those
which take place in the process of
negotiation a communication problem
make acquisition possible providing the
learners comprehend the input and
notice new features in it and compare
what is noticed with their own output.
3. Interaction that requires learners to
modify their initial output facilitates the
process of integration. (Ellis 1991: 203)
I would argue that Ellis version of
interaction hypothesis is, to a significant
extent, compatible with Swains output
hypothesis as indicated in how he weakens
the role of comprehensible input (point 1),
include the condition of learners noticing
and comparing new features to her/his
output (point 2), along with the importance
of output in facilitating the process of
integration (point 3) which is a determinant
stage of acquisition. The three elements
input, interaction and output which
constitute acquisition can be seen as a
continuum:
L2
input
|
interaction in L2
|
output
(Clennell et al. 1997: 39)
In the following, I need to look at how
interaction occurs between T and his
learners in which meaning is negotiated by
focusing on some of the modification
devices such as comprehension check,
clarification request, confirmation check,
repetition and decomposition (Long 1983)
which T and his learners use. In other words,
through looking at the interaction, I also
automatically pay attention to the learners.
In fact, there is a great variety of
modification devices used by T as well as his
learners during the classroom interaction.
These modification devices result in
changing the interactional structure of the
two parties. There are some reasons why
interactants use the modification devices; 1)
the difficulty of maintaining conversations
with the learners; 2) the attempts of
teacher/NS to provide scaffolding to the
learners to avoid a communication problem;
T has seemed to use the devices for these
reasons; and 3) to repair communication
when it breaks down (cf. Wesche 1994: 229).
More specifically, let us observe some of the
devices T has applied.
1) Comprehension check: to make sure that
the interlocutor has understood,
requiring a yes/no answer; we can find
this device for example in turns 34, 35,
111, 130, 152 of the transcript; look at
the following:
54
 34 T: /\now + (laugh) + um + what we
are going to do ee + first + is
what what concept would
worth do we associate with air
\pollution + two minutes + how
many ideas + words + concepts
+ do you connect with air
/pollution + do you understand
air /pollution +
35 S1: /\yeap +
36 T: do you understand /pollution +
In turn 33, T has attempted to
instruct what the class would do in
developing the topic, but he seems to
feel unsure whether the learners have
understood the concept to be developed
or not and so he has preferred to check
that. Again, although S1 has responded
yeap in the next turn (35), he still seems
uncertain at least to the rest of class who
have responded nothing so he checks it
by using a simplified form, pollution is
used instead of air pollution which may
be the one some of the class can
comprehend clearly.
2) Confirmation check: to make sure that
the speakers has understood what the
previous speaker has understood, usually
realized by repeating part or all of what
the previous speaker has said with rising
intonation. We find this device elsewhere
in the transcript; some are in turns 38,
40, 53, 45, 48, 52, 78, etc.
37 S2: like the /material + that
material cause air pollution
+ sort of waste) that helps S2 produce a
38 T: /material
39 S2: /\yea + material that + that
+ that only to cause by air
\pollution + like the + the +
harm + like the ++ the waste
+ waste
40 T: /waste
41 S2: /\yea + \waste +
As S2 has used the word material to
be associated with air pollution,
particularly in a causal relation which is
not quite distinct yet, T, by repeating the
selected key word material in rising
intonation, indicates some further
confirmation from S2 about his meaning
of that word in more appropriate relation
to the focus, air pollution. This has
enabled S2 to produce more (turn 39)
and some closer vocabulary items are
introduced harm and waste. More
interesting is Ts choosing the word
waste, not harm as a better word
associated with the focus, yet it still
needs to be checked for confirmation
from B.
3) Clarification request: to ask for
clarification; this sort of device may
trigger the learner to generate more
output; in the transcript, we find it
elsewhere, some are in turns 42, 50, 147,
175, 186, etc. Let us see one example
below:
41 S2: /\yea + \waste +
42 T: what sort of /waste +
43 S2: +++ what sort of /waste + any
\waste +
(laughs)
44 S2: like the + the waste + because
the waste come from + ee + the
burning of fuel + fuel + oil + and
come from the + the
domestic++
Following from the previous extract
(in confirmation check), as T checks for
further confirmation, S2 (turn 41) has
only responded briefly. T seems to
understand S2s difficulty in trying to find
out what to explain. Therefore, he has
created a scaffolding clarification request
(added with additional emphasis on the
quite accurate explanation to be
associated with the topic air pollution.
Looking more deeply from the three
successive extracts of the interactional
devices above (which I intentionally
select in such a way), evidently, T has
really play a very significant role in
facilitating his learners, particularly S2 to
come to understand the concept of air
pollution from his own perspective and
output, that is, from his producing a very
general item to a specific explanation
which indicates a learning success to a
significant extent. Moreover, by applying
interactional devices which are conducive
55
 for learners more active involvement
and for generating more output such
confirmation checks and clarification
request above, the learners tendency to
success in learning and acquiring the
language can be evident (Long 1983; Tsui
1991).
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
I have discussed and analyzed so far the
nature and the role of input and interaction
in SL classroom by referring to both
theoretical bases and actual classroom data.
It is quite evident from the classroom input,
particularly the teacher talk, how it is
different from the normal NS talk. Such
modified input has really been helpful to
facilitate comprehension on the part of the
learners which is basic to further stages of
learning leading to acquisition.
Moreover, the interactional devices
which are used by the teacher have also
been very facilitative to learners in achieving
their intended degree of understanding.
Interactional devices which allow learners to
engage more actively in conversational turn-
takings such as the ones P has always used
during the classroom interaction can better
serve and stimulate learners production
leading them to integrate or internalize
more input (intake).
In short, the role of teacher as in the
observed classroom has been very essential
to learners development of their L2
language, especially related how the teacher
designs the classroom activities along with
his expertise in producing modified input
and interactional devices. Although this
research is very small in scope, it is very
useful in sharing and strengthening a
teachers about the process of ESL learning
and acquisition. Therefore, it is expected
that this research can serve as a framework
for further investigation by practicing
teachers and teacher trainees.
REFERENCES
Brown, G. And Yule, G. 1983. Teaching the
spoken language. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M. 1988. Unit of oral expression and
language learning in small group
interaction. Applied Linguistics. Vol.
9, pp. 59-82.
Chaudron, Craig. 1988. Second language
classrooms: research on teaching
and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Clennell, C., Mickan, P. and Burton, J. 1997.
Second language learning-TESOL,
study guide. Adelaide: FLC-Uni-SA.
Cook, Vivian. 1993. Linguistics and second
language acquisition. London:
Macmillan.
Ellis, Rod. 1985. Understanding second
language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1991. The interaction hypothesis:
a critical evaluation. In E. Sadtono,
Language acquisition and the
second/foreign language classroom.
Singapore: SEAMEO RELC, pp.179-
211.
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of second language
acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. 2005. Instructed second language
learning: a literature review. New
Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Gass, Susan. 1988. Integrating research
areas: a framework for second
language studies. Applied
Linguistics, vol. 9, pp. 198-217.
Gass, Susan and Varonis, Evangeline. 1994.
Input, interaction, and second
language production. Studies in
second language acquisition, volume
16, pp. 283-302.
Hatch, Evelyn. 1978. Discourse analysis and
second language acquisition. In E.
Hatch, Second language acquisition.
Rowley, Mass: Newbury House.
Kam-yin, Wu. 1993. Classroom interaction
and teacher questions revisited.
RELC journal, vol. 24/2, pp. 49-68.
Krashen, Stephen. 1977. Some issues
relating to the monitor model. In H.
Brown et al. (eds.), On TESOL 77.
Washington DC: TESOL.
Krashen, Stephen. 1980. The theoretical and
practical relevance of simple codes
56
 in second language acquisition. In R. language acquisition. Mass:
Scarcela and S. Krashen (eds.), Newbury House, pp. 235-253.
Research in second language Tsui, ABM. 1991. Learner involvement and
acquisition. Rwley Mass: Newbury comprehensible input. RELC journal,
House. vol. 22/2, pp. 44-60.
Krashen, Stephen and Terrell, Tracy. 1983. Varonis, E. and Gass, S. 1985. Non-
The natural approach: language native/non-native conversations: a
acquisition in the classroom. Oxford: model for negotiation of meaning.
Pergamon Press. Applied Linguistics, vol. 6 pp. 71-90.
Krashen, Stephen. 1985. The input Wesche, Marjorie. 1994. Input and
hypothesis: issues and implications. interaction in second language
London: Longman. acquisition. In C. Gallaway and B.
Krashen, Stephen. 2009. Principles in second Richards (eds.), Input and interaction
language acquisition, 1st internet in language acquisition. Cambridge:
edition. University of Southern Cambridge University Press, pp. 219-
California. 249.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, Michael. 1991.
An introduction to second language
acquisition research. London:
Longman.
Lightbown, P. 1985. Great expectations:
second language acquisition
research and classroom teaching
Applied Linguistics 6, pp. 173-89.
Long, Michael. 1983. Native speaker/non-
native speaker conversation and the
negotiation of comprehensible
input. Applied Linguistics, vol. 4, pp.
126-41.
Long, Michael. 1989. Task, group, and task-
group interactions. University of
Hawaii working papers in ESL, vol.
8/2, pp. 1-26.
Lynch, A. 1988. Speaking up or talking
down: foreign learners reactions to
teacher talk. ELT Journal. Vol.42, pp.
109-16.
Pica, T. 2003. Second language acquisition
research and applied linguistics.
Working Papers in Educational
Linguistics, 18.
Savielle-Troike, M. 2012. Introducing second
language acquisition (2nd edition).
Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Swain, Merrill. 1985. Communicative
competence: some role of
comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its
development. In S. Gass and C.
Madden (eds.), Input in second

57