DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v12i1.103-118

Realities and Impacts of Teaching Approach and Method in Bilingual Classroom in Indonesia

University of Massachusetts Amherst, United States

Received: 22 Jan 2022; Published: 30 Apr 2022.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2022 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Pedagogical approach and methods are prominent in students’ engagement in second language learning. Strategies and scaffolds are two other interconnected issues that matter in bilingual classrooms.  This study crafted some findings of pedagogical practices performed by bilingual teachers which may fall into accommodating or dumbing down bilingual learners’ needs. It is an ethnographic study which used class observations as data to find the realities of practices that teachers used for English language learners at the Indonesian college level. It revealed how a teacher stood for a certain method and pedagogical approach to negotiate instructional strategies within a bilingual classroom. Further, this study picturized challenges, upsides, and downsides of using the approach and method in the bilingual classroom which needs further balance of two language acquisitions. This study implicates principles of second language teaching and learning and most importantly bilingual teaching resources are required to improve the effectiveness of bilingual teaching.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Most cited articles
COMPLAINING IN EFL LEARNERS: DIFFERENCES OF REALIZATIONS BETWEEN MEN AND WOMEN (A CASE STUDY OF INDONESIAN EFL LEARNERS AT THE ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF THE INDONESIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION) EFL Prospective Teacher Educators’ Beliefs towards the Use of WhatsApp in English Learning and Teaching Interpersonal Metadiscourse pada Tagline Iklan Poster World Wildlife Fund (WWF) A Critical Evaluation of Qualitative Reports and Their Contributions to Educational Research Frontmatter More cited articles
  1. Alptekin, C. (2006). Cultural familiarity in inferential and literal comprehension in L2 reading. System, 34, 494–508
  2. Apel, K., Fowler, E., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25, 1283–1305
  3. Baker, C. (2011). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters
  4. Beeman, K., & Urow, C. (2013). Teaching for biliteracy : strengthening bridges between languages. Philadelphia: Caslon
  5. Bialystok, E., & Ryan, E. (1985). Toward a definition of metalinguistic skill. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31(3), 229–251
  6. Bikmaz, F. H., Çelebi, Ö., Ata, A., Özer, E., Soyak, Ö., & Reçber, H. (2010). Scaffolding Strategies Applied by Student Teachers to Teach Mathematics. Educational Research Association The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education The International Journal of Research in Teacher Education, 1(1), 25–36
  7. Bing-Jie, G. (2016). Is Recast the Most Effective Type of Corrective Feedback?—Under Cognitive and Sociolinguistic Approach. Sino-US English Teaching, 13(4), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8072/2016.04.006
  8. Block, E. (1986). The comprehension strategies of second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 463– 494
  9. Cambridge English Language Assessment. (2016). English at Work: global analysis of language skills in the workplace. United Kingdom. Retrieved from http://englishatwork.cambridgeenglish.org/%0Awww.cambridgeenglish.org/images/english-at-work-full-report.pdf
  10. Chapin, S., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. (2009). Classroom Discussions: Using Math Talk to Help Students Learn, Grades 1-6. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publication
  11. Chomsky, N. (1968). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origins and use. New York: Praeger
  12. Cleave, P. L., Becker, S. D., Curran, M. K., Van Horne, A. J. O., & Fey, M. E. (2015). The efficacy of recasts in language intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24(2), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_AJSLP-14-0105
  13. East Java Provincial Statistics. (2020). IPM 2018-2020. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from Badan Pusat Statistik Provinsi Jawa Timur website: https://jatim.bps.go.id/indicator/26/36/1/ipm.html
  14. English First. (2021). The world’s largest ranking of countries and regions by English skills. Retrieved November 25, 2021, from English Profiency Index website: https://www.ef.com/wwen/epi/
  15. Garcia, O. (2009). Emergent bilinguals and TESOL: What’s in a name? TESOL Quarterly, 43(2), 322–326
  16. Gilakjani, A. P., & Sabouri, N. B. (2017). Teachers’ Beliefs in English Language Teaching and Learning: A Review of the Literature. English Language Teaching, 10(4), 78. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n4p78
  17. Herrera, S. G., & Kevin G., M. (2016). Masterng ESL/EFL Methods: Differentiated Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc
  18. Jamali Kivi, P., Namaziandost, E., Fakhri Alamdari, E., Ryafikovna Saenko, N., Inga-Arias, M., Fuster-Guillén, D., … Nasirin, C. (2021). The Comparative Effects of Teacher Versus Peer-Scaffolding on EFL Learners’ Incidental Vocabulary Learning and Reading Comprehension: A Socio-Cultural Perspective. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 50(5), 1031–1047. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-021-09800-4
  19. Kong, A. (2006). Connections between L1 and L2 readings: Reading strategies used by four Chinese adult readers. The Reading Matrix, 6(2), 19–45. Retrieved from http://www.readingmatrix.com/articles/kong/ article.pdf
  20. Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principle and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press Inc
  21. Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London: Longman
  22. Kubota, R. (2011). Questioning linguistic instrumentalism: English, neoliberalism, and language tests in Japan. Linguistics and Education, 22(3), 248–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2011.02.002
  23. Kumar, R., Rosé, C., Wang, Y., Joshi, M., & Robinson, A. (2007). Tutorial Dialogue as Adaptive Collaborative Learning Support. Artific. Intell. Educat., 158, 383–390
  24. Kuteeva, M. (2020). Revisiting the ‘E’ in EMI: students’ perceptions of standard English, lingua franca and translingual practices. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 23(3), 287–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2019.1637395
  25. Lago, S., Mosca, M., & Stutter Garcia, A. (2021). The Role of Crosslinguistic Influence in Multilingual Processing: Lexicon Versus Syntax. Language Learning, 71(March), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12412
  26. Lantolf, J., & Pavlenko, A. (2001). Second language activity theory: Understanding second language learners as people. In Thought and actions in second language learning: research on learner contributions (M. Breen, pp. 141–158). London: Longman
  27. Lawrence, J. F., White., C., & Snow, C. E. (2011). Improving reading across subject areas with Word Generation (CREATE Brief). Washington, DC.: Center for Research on the Educational Achievement and Teaching of English Language Learners
  28. Lee, S. K. (2007). Effects of textual enhancement and topic familiarity on Korean EFL students’ reading comprehension and learning of passive form. Language Learning, 57(1), 87–118
  29. Legarreta, D. (1977). Language Choice in Bilingual Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 11(1), 9–16
  30. Lemhöfer, K., Schriefers, H., & Indefrey, P. (2011). Cognitive mechanisms of L2 errors and “fossilization”: An ERP study. The 17th Annual Conference on Architectures and Mechanisms for Language Processing. Paris, France
  31. Li, X. (2012). The Role of Teachers’ Beliefs in the Language Teaching-Learning Process. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1397–1402
  32. Lin, L. C., & Yu, W. Y. (2015). A think-aloud study of strategy use by EFL college readers reading Chinese and English texts. Journal of Research in Reading, 38(3), 286–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12012
  33. Little, D. (2009). Language learner autonomy and the European LanguagePortfolio: Two L2 English examples. Language Teaching, 42(2), 222–233
  34. Long, M. H. (2015). Second language acquisition and task-based language teaching. Malden, MA: Wiley-blackwell
  35. Lorence, J. A. (2015). The Effectiveness of Direct Instruction in Increasing English Reading Fluency for Arabic Speaking English Language Learner Students in Qatar: A Research Case Study. Hamline University Saint
  36. Lowenfeld, B. (1963). Chapter III: The Visually Handicapped. In Review of Educational Research (Vol. 33). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543033001038
  37. Matamoros-González, J. A., Rojas, M. A., Romero, J. P., Vera-Quiñonez, S., & Soto, S. T. (2017). English language teaching approaches: A comparison of the grammar-translation, audiolingual, communicative, and natural approaches. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 7(11), 965–973. https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0711.04
  38. McNeil, L. (2011). Investigating the contributions of background knowledge and reading comprehension strategies to L2 reading comprehension: an exploratory study. Reading and Writing, 24(8), 883–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9230-6
  39. Myhill, D., Jones, S. M., & Watson, A. (2013). Grammar matters: How teachers’ grammatical knowledge impacts on the teaching of writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77–91
  40. National Institute for Direct Instruction. (2015). Intro to DI Video Series
  41. Nilsen, A. P., & Nilsen, D. L. F. (2004). Vocabulary plus high school and up: A source-based approach. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc
  42. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221
  43. Schmidt, R. (2012). Attention, awareness, and individual differences in languages learning. In Perspectives on individual characteristics and foreign language education (W. M. Chan, pp. 27–50). Boston: de Gruyter
  44. Schoonmaker, A. (2015). Increasing Metalinguistics Awareness as a Necessary Precursor for Preservice Teachers. University of Central Florida
  45. Seltzer, K., & Celic, C. (2012). Translanguaging: a Cuny-Nysieb Guide for Educators About the Authors. New York: The City University of New York
  46. Serquina, E. A., & Batang, B. L. (2018). Demographic, Psychological Factors and English Proficiency of ESL Students. TESOL International Journal, 13(4), 182–191
  47. Smith, A. F. V., & Strong, G. (2009). Adult Language Learners : an Overview. In Adult Language Learners: Context and Innovation. Alexandria: TESOL International Association
  48. Tanjung, F. Z. (2018). Then and Now: Review on Language Policy and Practices in Japan and Korea. Eleventh Conference on Applied Linguistics (CONAPLIN 2018), 254, 46–50. Bandung: Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)76571-8
  49. Tasikmalaya City Statistics. (2020). Indeks Pembangunan Manusia. Retrieved November 12, 2021, from Badan Pusat Statistik Kota Tasikmalaya website: https://tasikmalayakota.bps.go.id/subject/26/indeks-pembangunan-manusia.html#subjekViewTab5
  50. Tegegne, W. (2015). The Use of Dialects in Education and Its Impacts on Students’ Learning and Achievements. Education Journal, 4(5), 263–269. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20150405.22
  51. Thirunavukarasu, I., & Harun, R. N. S. R. (2020). The Implementation of EMI in Teaching Indonesian Language for Foreigners. International Journal for Educational Sciences and Language Arts, 1(2), 42–61
  52. Tsvetkova, M. (2016). The cognitive approach as a challenge in foreign language teaching. Studies in Linguistics, Culture, and FLT, 1, 125–135. https://doi.org/10.46687/silc.2016.v01.012
  53. Tunmer, W. E., Pratt, C., & Herriman, M. H. (1984). Metalinguistic Awareness in Children. Berlin: Springer
  54. Ulanoff, S., & Pucci, S. (1993). Is Concurrent-Translation or Preview-Review MoreEffective in Promoting Second Language Vocabulary Acquisition? Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Atlanta, Georgia
  55. Vega, O. (2018). An Analysis of the Most Common Methods Used to Teach English as a Second and Foreign Language. MEX TESOL Journal, 42(3)
  56. Viel-Ruma, K. A. (2009). The effects of direct instruction in writing on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. (Georgia State University). Georgia State University. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2009-99011-048&site=ehost-live
  57. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  58. Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2018). Why Wait? The Importance of Wait Time in Developing Young Students’ Language and Vocabulary Skills. Reading Teacher, 72(3), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1730
  59. Wright, W. E. (2005). The political spectacle of Arizona’s Proposition 203. Educational Policy, 19(5), 662–700
  60. Wright, Wayne E. (2015). Foundations for Teaching English Language Learners: Research, Theory, Policy, and Practice. Philadelphia: Caslon, Inc
  61. Yildiz, Y., & Celik, B. (2020). The Use of Scaffolding Techniques in Language Learning: Extending the Level of Understanding. International Journal of Social Sciences and Educational Studies, 7(3), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.23918/ijsses.v7i3p148
  62. Young, E. (2005). The Language of Science, The Language of Students: Bridging the Gap with Engaged Learning Vocabulary Strategies. Science Activities: Classroom Projects and Curriculum Ideas, 42(2), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.3200/sats.42.2.12-17
  63. Zhang, L. J., Gu, P. Y., & Hu, G. (2008). A cognitive perspective on Singaporean primary school pupils’ use of reading strategies in learning to read in English. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709907X218179

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-15 06:34:47

No citation recorded.