English for young learners ( created by : Lily Hayati )

“ IMPRoving speaking skills through instruction in oral classromm participation”

lilyhayati7@gmail.com / @LAbbyasha
Teacher Training and Education Faculty , English Study Program of Islamic University of Riau , Pekanbaru

Abstract                                                                                   
          This papers  addresses the various difficulties encountered when delivering oral classroom instruction to EFL Young learners . however, getting  students to respond in a language classroom- especially in a foreign language class, is a problems is most language teacher face. it is essential for teachers to develop an awareness of the importance of oral instruction for good class management. And talking how the teachers gives a directions to their students in young learners based on their experiences in classes . supporting with  data and theories from expert to do this journal .

       We examine teacher talk, important features for classroom management  some developmental characteristic of children. We support our viewpoints with data obtained from an action research study that consisted of classroom observations of  EFL Young learners. In this journal its using observations and experiment in classroom , because to found the character of children and get their natural abilities . for this journal was made to improved students especially in learning process earlier for a foreign language , likes giving instruction and  gives some oral instruction between their range ages.

Background
           The Linkage between student’s participation and their academic achievement is undeniable ( Lim, 1992 ; Wudong , 1994 ; Zhou, 1991 ). Studies  have shown  that when students participate actively in class, their academic achievement seems to be higher than that of those who are passive in class. Krupa - kwiatkowski (1998) summarized in her study that “interaction involves participations, personal engagement , and taking initiative in some way, activities that in turn are hypothesized to trigger cognitive process conducive to  language learning” (p. 133 ). Although studies indicate some language learner undergo a “silent period “ (Hanania & Gradman , 1977 ; krasen, 1982;Rodriguezt 1982 ) it is considered to be a natural part of second language acquisition (SLA) And may be beneficial to the second language (L2) learning process (Dulay, Burt, & Krasen 1982 ). Since oral participation is the most observable behavior, studies in the field of language learning have focused on the significance of student’s oral participation .

          As part of our task as methodology teachers we are in charge of the the supervision of students – teachers in their practicum. People who enroll in our program are non-native speakers of English that spend five years at university to graduated as EFL teachers . The practicum covers two academic  years . having spent many hours observing classes and collecting data on observation schedule with different categories, we were able to identify several problems related to class management we decide to focus on one particular area ; giving instructions to young learners.

             As Wallace ( 1998 ) points out deciding exactly what is to be observed is very important. At first the idea of making an instrument was not very clear but we had observe many instances in which unplanned and unstructured oral classroom instructions were very  ineffective. We though, then, that by making a list of  the most common problems encountered we could be able to prepare an observations schedule to collect samples.

Teachers Talk
            Teachers talk is central in language class not only for classroom organizations and for the process of acquisitions ( nunan. 1991 ) but also as a mean for controlling students behaviors
( Allwright & Bailey, 1991 ). Researches has shown that teachers tend only sources of comprehensible input and live target language model. Several aspect of teachers talk have been the focused of researches ; amount of teachers talk as compared to that of students , code switching, speech modifications , types of questions used ( Nunan, 1991 ) , error treatment ,and the function distributes of teachers talk in relation to pedagogical and functional moves
 ( chaudron, 1988 ) ; however , to our knowledge , scarce attentions has been paid to the delivery of oral instructions specially on second or foreign language contexts.

             Studies of classroom interactions have shown that it has a well-defined structure ( coulthard, 1997 ) and that pedagogical discourse differ from natural discourse. Teachers modify their speech during instructional in a way that resemble caregiver talk but with some peculiar and distinct features at the level of phonology , lexis, syntax, and discourse.

              Many  researchers have tried to demonstrated the benefits of simplified input. Input may be made comprehensible by the use of verbal and nonverbal clues. ( 1983 as cited in scarcella and oxford , 1992 ) mentions some of the characteristic of simplified input  at the different linguistic level ; pronunciations, vocabulary, grammar.( Enright ,1991 ) explains that teachers adapt their language in different ways to address children ; non-verbal adaptations through gestures ,mimes, etc ; contextual ( visual and auditory aids ) ; para-verbal ( speaking, clearly slowing pace, using pauses ) and discover  ( rephrasing , repetitions ).

            In our observations , we have detected an oversimplification and over modification of teachers speech that result in phonological distortion and unidiomatic . we consider that teachers could instead use more contextual aids or discourse strategies such as rephrasing or repetition .

 Instructions
              As regards the functional allocations of teachers talk, J.D Ramirez et al ( 1986  as cited in chaudron, 1998 ) found that two – thirds of teachers explanations  in elementary bilingual programs are procedural ones (i.ee. ways of structuring lessons activities ). Soliciting moves, in others words those intended to elicit a ) a verbal response b ) a cognitive or c ) a physical response are an essential element of classroom discourse ( Bellack et. al.,1996 ass cited in coulthard,1997 ).

             children do not have difficulties in recognizing the controlling role of the teacher in the classroom . They “seems to learn to scan all teacher’s utterances for potential directive function “ ( Holmes, 1983, 112 ) identifying those that have the force of commands and that it other context may be interpreted as suggestions or advice. Willes ( 1975 as cited in Holmes, 1983 ) explain  that students are moved by a strong desire to please their teachers.

           Holmes groups teacher directive into three main categories ; imperative , interrogatives and declaratives.

Speech function directives
1.      imperatives	form	example
	a.       Based form on verb	-          Speak louder
	b.      You + imp.	-          You go on with the work
	c.       Pres. Part.	-          Looking at me
	d.      Verb ellipsis	-          Hands  up
	e.       Imp + modifier	-          Turn around , please go
	f.       Let + 1st pers. Prop.	-          Let’s try
2.      interrogatives	a.       Modals	-          Will you read this page for me
	b.      Non – modals	-          People at the back are you listening
3.      declaratives	a.       Embedded agent	-          I want you to draw a pictures
	b.      Hints	-          Sally, you are not saying much.

          It is evident that teachers directives may be realizes in a wide array of forms. Holmes found in her data that imperative were the most frequent type in all its variants and these were explicit not to cause any misunderstanding expect for those that contained elliptical forms. Indirect forms did not cause much trouble either specially if they referred  to required or proscribe activities. Most of the interpretative problems she found were related to contextual factors or behavior expectations of the teachers.

           Instructional Principle: When teachers explain exactly what students are expected to learn, and demonstrate the steps needed to accomplish a particular academic task, students learn more. Direct instruction rejects (or at least sets aside) the assumption that students will spontaneously develop insights on their own. Rather, direct instruction takes learners through the steps of learning systematically, helping them see both the purpose and the result of each step. The basic components of direct instruction are:

1. Setting clear goals for students and making sure they understand these goals.
2. Presenting a sequence of well-organized assignments.
3. Giving students clear, concise explanations and illustrations of the subject matter.
4. Asking frequent questions to see if the students understand the work.
5. Giving students frequent opportunities to practice what they have learned.

                Note that Direct Instruction (spelled with capital letters) often refers to a specific system for implementing direct instruction, developed by Siegfried Engelmann and others. (See the link to the Association for Direct Instruction.)

               Direct instruction does not contradict the notion of constructivist learning, which maintains that learners must construct meaning for themselves with regard to any topic. A constructivist would simply say that with direct instruction learners receive assistance in developing meaning for themselves. That is, learners are more likely to develop insightful understandings about relatively "objective" topics if they receive expert guidance. The function of the teacher is to maximize the learner's active thinking about the topic. The learners still actively construct their own knowledge.

               Not all topics are amenable to direct instruction. Direct instruction has proved especially effective in teaching basic skills (such as how to use a microscope or the definitions of important terms in biology) and skills that are fundamental to more complex activities (such as basic study skills or the prerequisite skills for long division).

              Direct instruction is not as likely to be useful for teaching less structured topics, such as English composition or the analysis of social issues. However, research has shown (e.g., Cotton, 1991) that as long as teachers also employ other effective pedagogical principles, direct instruction works in a surprisingly wide range of situations. An excellent discussion of direct instruction can be found in Rosenshine (1986).  Direct instruction is one of the activities that the computer performs especially well.

Some examples to children to increase their ability in speaking skills :
(giving command):

1. Please, go to school.
   Pergilah ke sekolah.
2. Please, help me.
   Tolonglah saya.
3. Please, study hard.
   Belajarlah dengan keras.
4. Please, write down the sentence.
   Catatlah kalimat tersebut.
5. Please, read the letter.
   Bacalah surat tersebut.
6. Please, do the homework.
   Kerjakanlah latihan tersebut.
7. Please, come early.
   Datanglah pagi-pagi/awal.
8. Please, catch the rabbit.
   Tangkaplah kelinci tersebut.
9. Please, smile.
   Senyumlah.
10. Please, open the door.
    Bukalah pintu.
11. Please, close the window.
    Tutuplah jendela.
12. Please, tell about it.
    Ceritakanlah tentang benda.

children’s characteristic
            we will now consider  some of the natural abilities and character of children have since by trying to understand better how children  learn we will learn from them. The problems teachers showed when giving instructions might be taken as an evidence of an overlook  of the forces that drive children between 9 and 11 years old. following piaget ( 1967 )we can say these children are at the concrete stage where experience plays a major role in all learning.

            when witness teacher talking without engaging students attention , about their problems:
1. Students interruption impatiently
2. Ignore the fact that children have a good instinct to get the “ sense or meaning of a situation “.
    They work out the meaning, they interpret clues provide by the context or situation more
    quickly than words.
3.  We have to remember children learning by doing ( Holdrerness, 1991 )
4. Is very important if teacher want to capitalize the fact that children are curious and active and
   that they engage in physical activities as much as they learn through interactions with others
   people.
5. Checking understanding is also important, specially understanding of the whole message.
    As ( Halliwel,1991 ) observe this can be done by being alert and watching faces, movement
    and attitude.

Effective Instructions
            in our observations of young learner classes , the various difficulties encountered by teacher when delivering oral classroom .

1. Blackboard Activities

• Odd one out. Draw a circle, a square, the number 3 and a triangle on the board. Encourage the children to identify the image that does not belong (the number 3). Repeat this with new drawings or using flashcards/activity cards.
• What’s missing? Write 4 or 5 numbers on the board. Tell the children ‘Close your eyes’ and rub out one of the numbers. Children open their eyes and must say the number that is missing. Once they have played a few times, encourage children to come to the front of the class and rub out the numbers. This can also be done with pictures or flashcards.
• What is number three? Draw 3 or 4 classroom objects or animals on the board. Write random numbers (from 1-10) next to the pictures. Ask questions such as “What is number 7?” Ss: It’s a cat! “What number is monkey?” Ss: Three!! Point to pictures and ask: Is it a (mouse)?
• What is it? Begin drawing a picture on the board (for example, a mouse) but draw it very, very slowly stopping every once in a while for students to guess what you are going to draw. Ask ‘What is it?’

2. Physical Response Activities

• Please... Tell the children that they are going to play a game. They must only do the actions if the teacher says the word ‘please’. For example, say Please stand up (children stand up), please jump (children jump), close your eyes (children shouldn’t close their eyes as the word please was not said).
• Human numbers. Encourage the children to make numbers with their body. Say a number, the children try to form the number. Once they have done this a few times, they can try to form numbers with other members of the class.
• Mime and guess. Encourage different children to come to the front of the class and mime an emotion (bored, happy, sad, frightened). The other children guess the emotion then act out the emotion.
• Back drawing. Encourage the children to draw a number from 1-20 on their partner’s back. Their partner tries to guess the number then draws a number on the other child’s back.
• Count around the room. Tell the children to count from 1-20 taking turns saying the numbers. Establish the order in which the children will count before they begin. When the children reach 20 see if they can count backwards (20,19,18...).
• Body Connectors. Place the children in pairs or groups of 3. Give commands such as ‘Hand to hand’ (children put their hands together). Later, add commands such as Hand to arm, Arm to foot. Option: When the children have played a few rounds tell them that when you call out “body connectors” that they should change partners.

When working with large groups of young learners it is important to be prepared for the unexpected. Children, like adults, are unpredictable hence, as teachers, we should always be ready to change the pace of the class and channel the children’s energy.

Result
             in this sections we will discuss the result obtained after collecting data in primary classes with the observations tool designed by us. Problems by percentage as ; speech modifications 28 %, no demonstrations 24 %, no organizations of pair / group 16 %, no engagement of attention 12 %, no checking understanding 12 %, asking for classifications before hearing whole instruction 8 %.

            The most conflict categories was speech modifications, mainly un-English discourse . in a context like ours where English is taught as a foreign language , teacher language learning concentrates mainly on academic aspect , at the expense of others aspect equally important. For example in a class teacher need to demonstrate adequate English competence . several studies have show that classroom interactions .

            In short, our research study reveals, as Ur  ( 1991 ) very well states, that teacher must plan the deliver of instructions beforehand , thinking not only of the words to be used but also the gesture and aids to demonstrated meaning. And also from Wright ( 2003 ) the characteristic of effective teachers commands . must refers one of task , used specific language , objective on time, are stated as directives rather than questions ,not included negative emotions .

References

Allwright , D. & K. Bailey . 1991. Focus on the language classroom . Cambridge : Cambridge
      university press.
Brumfit, C. 1991. Teaching English to Children. (eds. C. Brumfit , J, Moon and R .Tongue ).  
      London , U.K : Harper Collins publisher.
Chaudron , C. 1988. Second language classrooms : research on teaching and learning . USA ;
     Cambridge University press.
Coulthard. M. 1977 .An Introductions to Discourse Analysis . London : Longman.
Enright, S. 1991 . Supporting children’s English Language Development in Grade Level and 
     language classroom . in celce-Murcia (ed. ) Teaching English as a foreign language , USA :
     Heinle & Heinle.
Holderness, J. 1991. Activity –based teaching : approached to topic – central work. In Teaching
     English to Children .( eds. C. Brumfit , J.Moon and R. Tongue ). London, U.K : Harper
     Collins publisher .
Holmes, J. 1983. The structure of teacher directives. In Richards , J. and schmidth , R ( eds. )
     Language and Communications , England : Longman .

Krashen, S. D . 1985. The input Hypothesis : issues and implications . New York : Longman.
Moon, j. 2000. Children learning English . oxford : macmillan Heinemann.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language teaching methodology. Great Britain ; prentice hall.
piaget , J. 1967. Six psychological studies. London : London University press.
Scarcella. R, and R. Oxford . 1992 The tapestry of Language learning. USA ; Heinle & Heinle
      publisher.
Sinclair , J. M. and Coulthard, R. M. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse. Oxford :
     University press.
Ur. P. 1991 . A course in language teaching: practice and theory . Cambridge : Cambridge
     university press.
Wallace, M. 1998. Action research for language teacher . Cambridge : Cambridge University
     press.
Wright, J. Effective teacher commands : establishing classroom control . in the savvy teacher’s
     guide : selected ideas selected ideas for behavioral interventions . www. Interventional.org.
     Retrived  May 10, 2003.

SYNTAX ( Created by : Lily Haytai )

Syntax :

The analysis of sentences structure

Ø  Introduction

sounds and organize them into meaningful units (called morphemes) and words. The study of this level of language is called morphology. Next you organize the words into phrases and sentences. Syntax is the cover term for studies of this level of language. Finally, you takes the sentences and phrases you hear and translate them into thoughts and ideas. This last step is what we refer to as the semantic level of language. Syntax, then, studies the level of language that lies between words and the meaning of utterances: sentences. It is the level that mediates between sounds that someone produces (organized into words) and what they intended to say. Perhaps one of the truly amazing aspect of the study of Language is not the origins of the word demerit, or how to properly punctuate a quote inside parentheses, or how kids have, like, destroyed the English language, eh? Instead it’s the question of how we subconsciously get from sounds to meaning. This is the study of syntax.

The History of Syntax1 (8823/8000 words)

Peter W. Culicover

The history of thinking about and describing syntax goes back thousands of years. But from the perspective of theorizing about syntax, which is our concern here, a critical point of departure is Chomsky’s Syntactic Structures (Chomsky, 1957) henceforth SS.2 I begin with some general observations about the goals of contemporary syntactic theory. Then, after briefly summarizing the main ideas of SS, and discussing methodology, I review some of the more important extensions, with an eye towards understanding where we are today, and how we got here. I touch on some of the more prominent branch points later in the chapter, in order to preserve as much as possible a sense the historical flow. For convenience, I refer to the direct line of development from SS as ‘mainstream’ generative grammar (MGG). This term reflects the dominant role that the Chomsky program has played in the field, both in terms of the development of his proposals and alternatives to them.

Ø  Literature  review

Syntax is one of  branch Linguistics  which study of  logical relation. Category grammar is an approach that attributes the syntactic structure not to rules of grammar, but to the properties of the syntactic categories themselves. For example, rather than asserting that sentences are constructed by a rule that combines a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP) (e.g. the phrase structure rule S → NP VP), in category grammar, such principles are embedded in the category of the head word itself. So the syntactic category for an intransitive verb is a complex formula representing the fact that the verb acts as a function word requiring an NP as an input and produces a sentence level structure as an output. This complex category is notated as (NP\S) instead of V. NP\S is read as "a category that searches to the left (indicated by \) for an NP (the element on the left) and outputs a sentence (the element on the right)." The category of transitive verb is defined as an element that requires two NPs (its subject and its direct object) to form a sentence. This is notated as (NP/(NP\S)) which means "a category that searches to the right (indicated by /) for an NP (the object), and generates a function (equivalent to the VP) which is (NP\S), which in turn represents a function that searches to the left for an NP and produces a sentence.

            Lucien Tesnière (1893–1954) is widely seen as the father of modern dependency-based theories of syntax and grammar. He argued vehemently against the binary division of the clause into subject and predicate that is associated with the grammars of his day (S → NP VP) and which remains at the core of all phrase structure grammars.

Ø  Theories of Syntax

The linguistic landscape is littered with literally hundreds  if not thousands of theories of syntax , many with no more than a handful of  adherents. Syntactic theories are commonly  grouped into two broad types , formal and functional.

a.       Formal theory of syntax focus on linguistic form, relegating meaning to peripheral position .

b.      Functional theories by contras tend to focus on the function language serves, and the way that syntax is organized to serve these function like meaning plays and central role.

At the same times it is heavily functional not only are grammatical relation ( sometimes are also called function ) recognized, but they are linked to general functions uses of language, in term of  there types of meaning, experiential, interpersonal, and textural.

This semiotic perspective of syntax is share by a small but, growing group of grammatical theories including : cognitive grammar , applicative grammar, systemic functional grammar, and construction grammar. The theories is differ, however in what they take to be syntactic sign.

Syntactic theories and theorists differ on the other dimension as well. These day, most syntacticians  agree that there are limits on the range of syntactic variations possible among language. Some take a strong universalist stance, arguing that there as a single abstract as a universal system  underlying the syntax of all language. Opinion differ on  the nature of this universal grammar. Even the idea that there is structure above the word and below the clause is not universally accepted. A smallish group of theories including word grammar.

To many people the study of language properly  belongs in the domain of the humanities. That is, the study of language is all about the beauty of its usage in fine (and not so fine) literature. However, there is no particular reason, other than our biases, that the study of language should be confined to a humanistic approach. It is also possible to approach the study of language from a scientific perspective; this is the domain of linguistics. People who study literature often accuse linguists of abstracting away from the richness of good prose and obscuring the beauty of language. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most linguists, including the present author, enjoy nothing more than reading a finely crafted piece of fiction, and many linguists often study, as a sideline, the more humanistic aspects of language. This doesn’t mean, however, that one can’t appreciate and study the mathematics (or rules) of language and do it from a scientific perspective. The two approaches to language are both valid, and neither takes away from the other.

Many of us learned in school that words are grouped into categories like nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. There is actually a good solid scientific basis for this categorization. Ideally, we want to be able to talk about what kinds of words appear in different positions in a sentence. One can only do this if we have ways of talking about what the “kinds of words” are. For this, we are going to borrow a set of names from traditional grammars. These are the parts of speech (also called syntactic categories). The most important of these are the noun, verb, preposition, and adverb/ adjective.

      for example :

a.                NP

                         D                  AP            AP                N

                                              A               A

                      The       big         yellow       book

Ø  Finding Discussions

                                We identify three activities for this stage:

             preliminary problem description, preliminary

            mental model, and structured problem     

             representation. Domain knowledge, problem

             modeling and communication. skills are required  

             to carry out these activities.

                        We identify three activities for this stage:

            strategy discovery, goal decomposition, and data 

            modeling. Domain, problem, and strategic

            knowledge are required to carry out these

 activities. From a process viewpoint, the major

cognitive activities at this stage are the

 application of knowledge, and problem analysis

and decomposition. Understanding of knowledge

is demonstrated by the appropriate application of

that knowledge. The use of knowledge, facts, and

the application of concepts, theories or principles

to plan a solution are in turn demonstrated by

outlining the steps necessary to reach a solution

by solving simpler, related problem, or by drawing charts and graphs which visually depict a solution.

            In syntactic problems were beginning from what have they ability to know in each part of sentences starts from adjective, auxiliary, noun , modals, adverb, preposition, conjunction, phrase, and so on. They have to find out in each words by words. So that, they have to study more and more until they know and differ in sentences.

For example :

The italicized words in the examples below are called auxiliaries.

(1) Sheila might reconsider.

(2) Your coffee grinder will last longer if you  

                  follow these simple instructions.

(3) I have spoken.

(4) Somebody is sleeping in my bed.

(5) No intelligent person could have made such a

                  statement.

(6) Their behavior has been puzzling me.

The following sentences illustrate so-called yes-no questions in English. (Yes-no because they elicit one of these answers.)

(1) Has she declined the offer?

(2) Will the budget have passed by Tuesday?

(3) Has the earth been getting warmer?

Here are some ungrammatical yes-no questions. You should be able to construct others.

(4) *Will have the budget passed by Tuesday?

(5) *Has been the earth getting warmer?

(6) *Has she might decline the job?

(7) *Passed the budget last week?

(8) *Is the earth has/have gotten warmer?

                     For this assignment it can developed  of children skills in syntactic category based on their ability, they can found something interest from this subject and know how to use a good sentences based from grammatically.

Ø  Conclusions

The “syntax error analysis” concept has been proposed to develop student skills in critically reviewing and checking calculations. Incorporating this type of problem solving technique into the undergraduate curriculum can help students develop the basic skills necessary to solve these types of problems in industry.

Research into teaching and learning programming, as well as the development of computing systems which assist novice programmers, underscores the need for a comprehensive framework for programming which includes not only programming language skills but also problem solving, software engineering concepts, and cognitive skills. The tasks of problem solving and program development form an interdependent process, each stage requiring specific knowledge and cognitive skills. Problem solving skills are essential to understanding the fundamentals of computing, and should be learned while studying programming. Problem formulation, planning and design are essential prerequisite tasks to coding and testing because any difficulties or errors at these earlier stages lead to errors in the final stages.

Ø  References

Bloom, B.S., (Ed.), Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Handbook I: Cognitive Domain, New York,

New York: McKay, 1956.

Deek, F.P., An Integrated Environment for Problem Solving and Program Development, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 1997.

Dewey, J., How We Think, Boston, Massachusetts: Heath, 1910. Ebrahimi, A., “Novice programmer error: language constructs and plan composition” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, pp. 457-480, 1994.

Ennis, D., “Combining problem solving and programming instruction to increase the problem solving abilities in high school students”, Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26 (4), pp. 488- 496, 1994.

Etter, D.M., “Engineering Problem Solving with ANSI C: Fundamental Concepts”, Englewood Cliffs,

New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1995.

Gagne, R.M., The Conditions of Learning, Fourth edition, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1985.

Hartman, H., Intelligent Tutoring, preliminary edition, Clearwater, Florida: H&H Publishing

Company, 1996.