Towards More Efficient
Classroom Instruction

Introduction

In spite of the increasing demand for working knowledge of English in various fields of Indonesian society, the present English teaching situation in Indonesia such as in junior and senior high schools as well as in higher education still cannot meet the expectation of society at large. Of course there are a few enthusiastic teachers who are struggling to help their students achieve a harmonious development and mastery of the four language skills in English. However, the result is still a lot to be desired.

Efforts to change the present situation are still being done. A great deal of discussion has been taking place; new English teaching methods and techniques are continually being developed and teachers training and in-service training such as up-grading and workshops have occasionally been carried out. Yet it seems that their efforts have not yet substantially yielded better and desired results. Many scholars in national seminars on Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Indonesia (TEFLIN) and even educated ordinary men criticize our English classes in junior and high schools as well as in higher education for being unable to produce graduates competent in speaking and writing English.

In this paper the writer would like to put forward some ideas to be reconsidered in order to improve classroom instruction so that the English education program can somehow be improved and gives way to the invention of new methods and techniques of teaching English as a foreign language in Indonesia.

Scientific vs. Educational Theories

There have been a lot of teaching methods that have been developed so far, such as Grammar Translation Methods, Direct Methods, Audio Lingual Methods and Oral Approach, Eclectic Method, Natural Method, Total-Physical-Response Method, Natural Approach, Communicative Approach and many others. Most of these methods are scientific-finding based and have been tried out "Successfully" at least by those who claimed to have developed the methods. However, it seems that there are no flawless methods: they have been criticized and, therefore, "new" methods have been developed and used in our schools.

The methods which are still in vogue now in Indonesia is the Communicative Approach and the Natural Approach. It seems foolproof to say that since these methods are based on scientific findings through long painstaking and laborious researches they are the best methods and can be imported to Indonesian schools to produce better and desired results of English classroom instruction.

In her paper presented at the SEAMEO Seminar (1981), Dr. G.P. Sampson argues whether the teaching methods belong to the social dimension of the technological dimension. She claims that "any teaching methods is necessarily based on educational theory rather than on scientific theory; it is logically impossible to have simply scientific approach to a subject such as a foreign language." She further puts forward that "a scientific theory is either correct or incorrect. These terms are neutral and value-free terms. On the other hand, an educational theory is judged as good or bad. These terms are value-laden terms. Therefore, imported methods of teaching should never be used without modification that suits Indonesian situation and condition. Besides, teaching methods based on scientific researches, need justification from social and pedagogical aspects. A method that has provide to be successful in certain society may yield different result due to different social and cultural environment: the method applied in a certain school should not contradict the social and cultural values of the learners and the teaching materials need to be taken from the cultures of the learners too, so that they are not deprived from their own culture.

Speaking vs. Silence

Howatt quoted by Richards et al (1986) distinguishes between "strong" and "weak" version of Communicative Language Teaching. The strong version advances the claim that 'language is acquired through communication' i.e. using language to learn it. The weak version stresses the importance of providing learners with opportunities to use language for communicative purposes, i.e. learning to use the language. In both versions it is claimed that the learner uses language in communication. This claim is supported by interlanguage theory that regards mistakes as developmental mastery of the language. Therefore, the learners are facilitated and encouraged to use language in communication as soon as possible because they learn by doing.

Dulay et al (1982:23), however, cited some results of studies conducted by Huang (1970), Erving-Tripp (1974), Hakuta (1974) and Hatch (1972) that children acquiring a second language typically exhibit a silent period for one to three months or so. It can be concluded that in our teaching we have to allow learners a silent period before they are required to produce language in communication. This period is needed by learners to internalize and form internal rules out of the language materials they have been exposed to. Therefore, there is no hurry to make the learners produce and manipulate language materials they have just listened to in order to communicate in the language. The students should be allowed some period of silence and within this time they may be required to show their understanding by using physical responses.

Oral production in foreign language situation is one of the most difficult aspect, even more difficult that writing, in a sense, because the speaker is required to plan promptly what he want to say, how to say it right away in actual situation, so that he may change the mental state of his listener. This is even more difficult for adult learners who are accustomed to using compound and complex sentences in their native language: they may find it difficult to simplify and use simple easy sentences in the target language to express their ideas or opinions, which are sometimes very complex. Therefore, it seems reasonable to believe that the teaching approach is from listening to writing practice especially copying in the first stage, in the process of writing they have time to think and re-think or adjust their ideas to be expressed and moulded to suit the level of their knowledge of the language. This may be very effective for adult learners who might develop lathophobic aphasia, that is, unwillingness to speak for fear of making mistakes.

Speaking vs. Reading

A child learning his language to communicate, can speak the language before he writes it. Therefore, it is assumed that language primarily spoken . Based on this assumption it is taken for granted that learning a second or a foreign language is to speak it, and that speaking should come before reading.

West (1960) said, "There are many thousands of words in the Bible which we have never spoken, and never will speak, yet we read it ...". This statement seems to mean that reading and speaking can be taught separately. In my everyday life, I have some colleagues who can read textbooks well, especially the ones in their own field of study, but they find it difficult to speak it.

Phillip G. Hamerton, author of "The Intellectual Life" (1983) told about an Italian who came to France as a young man who learned his profession there, as follows:

His French was so perfect that it was quite impossible for any one to detect the usual Italian accents. I used to count him as a remarkable and almost solitary instance of a man speaking two languages in their perfection, but I learned since then that his French had displaced his Italian so completely that he was wuite unable to speak Italian correctly and made use of Frenceh invariable when in Italy.

The risk of this displacement is always greatest in cases where the native tongue is not kept up by means of literature. Bron and Shelley, or our contemporary Charles Lever, would run little risk of losing English by continental residence, but people can be accustomed to reading and writing often forge the mother tongue in a few years, even when the foreign one which has displaced it is still in a state of imperfection.

From the above story we see that reading and writing are very important and they can be used to learn the language and to maintain the mastery of the language we have learned. Therefore reading and writing should be maintained in the teaching and learning process because reading and writing maintain the language we have learned.

There are many language specialists who claim that reading aloud is a necessary evil and suggest that we do away with it quickly, favoring the skill of silent reading as soon as possible, since it is very useful to our pupils throughout their lives. They believe that reading aloud is 'parrot reading' and it is used for pronunciation practice; besides the students cannot afford to grasp the meaning of what they are reading aloud. I think, however, that asking a student to read aloud is to find out whether he can vocalize the contents of the reading materials to the degree that the rest of the class can comprehend him without looking at the printed pages. Reading aloud with good sense groups and breath groups can show if the reader understands what he is reading. In this sense, oral reading may well be called a communication skill. In this way it is a teaching and learning strategy.

Learning for Examination vs. for Profession

In the syllabi of the Indonesian schools, the objective of learning English is the four language skills, i.e. listening, speaking, reading and writing, with the emphasis on reading. This is meant to enable the Indonesian school graduates to read scientific books written in English. This is important for Indonesian especially in our efforts to develop tourism industries and foreign trades.

Theoretically the objective of teaching and learning English in our Indonesian schools is all right. In practice, however, it is different. The teachers teach English, and the students learn it in order to pass the examination. In addition big classes, large numbers of students, fewer contact hours for English classes do not facilitate learning to achieve the stipulated objectives. This is intensified by the fact that students have far less motivation and limited facilities.

One possible way out is to use modules which requires the students to work individually at home and in class. They have to read the theory and do the exercises. The results of the exercises can be checked in class together. The teacher walks round to find out if each student has done the assignment. The student who has not done the assignment should rewrite the exercises. By rewriting them, he or she is forced to use his hands and other senses to pick up the language item being taught. The more senses she or he uses in learning some skills or knowledge, the better he learns and the longer he can retain it.

Another way is mimicry and memorization as well as pattern practice. By pattern practice the students learn the sentence pattern, practice them, and manipulate them. These activities make the learners internalize the pattern. Besides, this can be done in groups, unison or individual. So it can be used for big classes. Through mimicry and memorization the students internalize the patterns. Psychologists, such as George Miller, and Benton Underwood, view rote learning as more complex. They regard it as similar to concept formation. W. Weaver asserts that "such views reflect the idea that rote learning is more complex than previously thought."

In learning language, one should not only understand and internalize the rules governing the language system, but he or she also has to practice to coordinate his or her brains and organs of speech, and at the same time to synthesize his or her background knowledge, new ideas, feeling and perception in order to enable him or her to express meanings in that language in a good, well-formed discourse. Pattern practice and rote learning can become means to achieve those various skills.

Conclusion

Teaching methods should not only be viewed from the scientific theories they are based upon but they should also be viewed from the social and pedagogical theories. Theoretically, scientific teaching methods may work well, but in practice they should be modified to include social and pedagogical aspects. Therefore, new theories, new methods and approaches should be tried out and experimented to find out the value they contribute to the success of teaching and learning. What was once rejected on the base of scientific theory may work well socially and pedagogically. Since teaching and learning process is social and pedagogical interaction, the teaching methods and the material used for instruction should not contradict the social cultural values of the learners.

References

Allen and Campbell. 1972. Teaching English as a Second Language: A Book of Reading. USA: McGraw-Hill International Book Company.

Brown, D.H. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Diller, K.C. 1971. Generative Grammar, Structural Linguistics and Language Teaching. USA: Newbury House Publishers.

Dulay, H, Burt, M, and Krashen, S. 1982. Language Two. New York: Oxford Unvierstiy Press.

Krashen, S and Terrel, T. 1983. The Natural Approach Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.

Logan, G.E. 1973. Individualized Foreign Language Learning: An Organic Process. USA: Newbury House Publishers.

Musgrave, G.R. 1975. Individualized Instruction. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Richards, J.C. and Rogers, T.S. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J.C. 1985. The Context of Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rivers, W.M. 1968. Teaching Foreign Language Skills. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

________________________
J. Marcus Daely, lecturer at the Faculty of Letters, Universitas 17 Agustus 1945 Surabaya.