Materials and Media in

English Language Teaching

Editors

Bambang Yudi CahYono

Stote Univers ity of Molong, Eost Java" lndonesio

Fika MegawatilJniversity of Muhammodiyah Molang, Eost tovo' lndonesio

Statc UnlversltY of Mdang Press

All rlghts reservod' No part of thls publlcation may bo reproduced, stora6 i^ a rorrlrlv;rrsystem' or transmitted in any form by any means - erectronlc, mechanicar, photocopying,recording or otherwise, without the written permission of state University of Malang press.

Cahyono, B, Y, & Megawati, EMaterials and Media in Engrish Language'rbaching

- By: Bambang yudi cahyono &Fika Megawati (Editors) -Fi.rt e.iiti,[-m"lang; state University of Marang press.

522, xxii pages, 23 cmISBN: 979-49 5-026-2

@ State University of Malang press, 2013

Cover Design : Nur Aida lkrimaLayout : Yusuf

Printed and published by

State University of Malang pressMember of the rndonesian pubrishers Association (*.opr) No. 0s9dr/g9Jalan Semarang 5 Malang, post Code 65145, iiaonesiaGlephone 62-34 t-55 t312, ext. 453, Fax oi-a+t -SOilOZSE-mail : penerbit@malang.ac.id

First Printing, 201 3

Printed in the Republic of lndonesia

I 17-

| ,t tl erlll i V

F.rl clw(ll tl ..,..,.,.".... "'""""'""'""' iX

hllr urlttr iitltl xi

CONTENTS

MATERTALS IN ENGLISH LANGUAGETEACHI NG ........"..." "

The lmportance of Using Authentic Materials in

lncreasing EFL Learrrers' MotivationSolwo

The Use of Authentic Materials in Teaching Reading

ComprehensionLilis Suryoni, Sisko Rizkioni, & Gusti Panii Sundana """'Lool<ing at ELT Materials from a Linguistic

PerspectiveA. Effendi Kodarismon

Poetry: lntegrating All Language Skilts

Rohmo Arsyod

lntroducing a Classic Short Story for EFL Classroom

Lio Agustina

Meet the Cullens: Bringing Stephenie Meyer's

Twilight into ELT Classrooms

Noverito Wahyuningsih & Yeni lndrarini

Malcing the Most of Humor in Language Classroom

Sri Widayoti .."........""...

Material Development and ESP-based Genre

lnstructionWidyo Coterine krdhoniDeveloping English Teaching Materials through

Project-Based Learni ng

Bombong Yudl Cohyono ........,...."

FA'IT I

I ltalrlt't l

I lralrlt't-2

( lr.rP(nr 3

( lr.rl,ltr:t 4

( lr.rl'rter 5

r lr.tPter 5

t lr.rpter 7

( lr.rpter I

( lr;rpter 9

t3

25

65

77

93

49

t07

Chapter l0

Chapter I I

Chapter I2

PART IIChapter 13

Chapter l4

Chapter 15

Chapter l6

Chapter l7

Chapter l8

Chapter l9

Chapter 20

Reformulating Readlng Materials to Foster Stutlonts,Critical ThinkingRohmani Nur lndah .................. t39I rnplementing Gen re-based Approach to Devetopa Worksheet for lbaching WritingNur Mukminatien

". 153What Can We Learn from the Learning NeedsAnalysis of Pragmatics Course?lve Emaliano ..........,...

"..".."...""." 165

MEDIA IN ENGLISH TANGUAGE TEACHING I83The Potential Use o{,,a Magic Card', in lmprovingPre- and ln-service Teacheri, euestioning Skills

-Tedi Rohodi

".........." t8sUsing Error Analysis Worksheets in GrammarTeaching

suhoryodi .........,..... r9gEmpower Azar's Stides: Contrastive AnalysisApproach for Teaching GrammarElys Rahayu Rohandio Misrohmowaai ......... "................. Z i sMedia Used in the Teaching of English inElementary SchootsShirly Rizki Kusumaningrur?t ............. ..."""."..22gBringing Multipte lnteiligence principles as a Basisof Creating Media in ELT ClassroomGusti Annis o FitrioniBig-Book Enchantins M;;;; ; r"*;;;; C;.,nn,

"""' 247

lka Fitrioni .............263Building the Students, Characters through ReadingBoxRotih Yulionri ..."".........

"..........." ZT7Motivating Young Learners to Communicatethrough the Use of Giant Snakes and Ladders GameTotik & Muholim

".". Zgs

vl

r lr.rl,t rr 2 l

r lrrl,t t,r 22

r lr.rl,t t'r 2J

r lr.rl,lrt 24

r lr,tl,trt ?-5

r lr,rl,trt'26

FART III

( lr.rPit:r 27

( lr.rPlrrr'28

( lr.rPtcr 29

( lr.rptr:r 30

f .lr.rptcr' 3l

Using Visual Arts to Enhance English Poctry

Conrprehension for English Language and

Litcrature Students

lrene Nony Kusumowordoni & Dion Novito Dewi '""""" 313

Educational Games for the Teaching of English as

a Foreign Language

Kortiko Sori Dewi "" 325

The lmplementation of Stick Puppet Role Play to

Enhance the Eight-Grade Students' Speaking Skill

Yuli Astuti Hosanoh """""""""' 339

Supporting a Collaborative Practice in Reading and

Speaking by Using Film StriPPing

Ndo Afrilyosonti.......'. """'""""'"' 357

Scrutinizing Varieties of English Pronunciation

through Movies

Mario Hidayoti """" 371

Using DigitalVideo Recording of Pre-Service EFL

Teachers' Teachi ng Practice for Self- Refl ection

Christino t. T. Ponggabean '.-".""' """"'""""' 385

BLENDED LEARNING IN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE TEACHING "......... '""""""' 40s

Podcast: A Source for Joyful Learning

Fiko Megowoti ............ """"""' 407

Teachint Narratives Using YouTube Reading Aloud

MaterialsFothul Muin ......... "' 427

Using Eyeiot in ESP Class: The Students'

PerspectivesTri Mulyoti """'"""" 439

The Use of Edmodo in Teaching Reading

Azis Nurkh otis Moiid, Fohmi Hidayot, &

Roro LucYo Dewi inggor Doni " 457

Teaching Thcmatic Roles in Visual Expressions via

Blcndcd Learning

Roinerirts I lerrr/ro Prrtse(rtltt{tt "' 469

Chapter 32 Assesslng Learner Autonomy Using AccessibleTechnologiesNurenzio Yonnuor ......"............. 491

Contributors....".......". ..... 503Subject lndex .....""........".." 513

vlll

FOREWORD

llrit e,llterl vrllttltte, Moteriols and Medio in English Longuoge Tboching,

e*rrillrr ll r lr.llrters that were selected from 95 PaPers presented in the

Irfirr Ilrrrirrrr,rl f rrlJlrsh longuog"Tglfers ondLecurers (NELTAL) Conference

i 'rrllu, terl .rt St;rrc University of Malang' EastJava' lndonesia' on March 30'

,nl I tlre tllltr of this edited volume is e*actti tife the-theme of the annual

* r,,rlcrr ett, e, Mtt(( t'inl-J*d Medio in English L-onguage Teach.ing' The theme

,{r r lr,qc'rt rltle to the Sreat interest in the deve"lopinent of various kinds of

ttl+lt=ll'rl:.rrwtlllasapplicationoftow.tecnandhi-techmediainEnglishI =rrr;-,rr.rgtr le.rr ltittg uniiu"ning' With the increasing number of Presenta-

rlrrrrr (/ 1,letr.try;rnJ fl parattetiessions)' selection was a reallytough Pro-

r r:.n I lilwrvt:t', "'; ;i "

n"bu' of criteria determined-PaPer selection'

,l|| ar I r r-lcv.tttce ,o *"ihul.ne" was the first in the rank' For PaPers which

+r e I r, ,i ltr t:lr.rlted in this bool<' we returned the copynight to the authors

.111,1 tlrry .rr e stlggested to send their papers-to other kin-ds of publications'

llrr. NI I IAL conference was initiaied from the awareness that so far

rlrr-r r- lr.rvt.r Irer:n limited opportunities for English language teachers work-

i,,p r, '.,'( ,ttclrry ';;;o;;Present their thJrghts' reflections and experi-

Fn, r:: rt'l,ttt:cl to English language teaching anJlearning" Thus' the confer-

nf r*.! ii r .rtrlttcted ti ""'ponse

to th; ;e'ed to provide an oPPortunity for

rlrr. rr'.tr ltct's to take part in the academic forum as Presenters' The confer-

err, * lr.t! t,""n mtintained with tf'" "t'i"'nic spirit from '^?''

*O for English

l,rrrgrt.tp'r' ,"".h"" "ni lecturers' Hopefully' the NELTAL conference can

l,1r-nrl Pr r><luctive teachers and lectuiers who will continuously write and

rr e:nrrt ttreir academic work in ,ariousiinds of conferences and publica-

ll.lll.,Ilreeffort.nu.nu,beenmadesofarisrelevanttothespiritoflearn-i,g .rr .xpressed';"ar* motto or arl"-iort university, state University of

t i.,t.,,'g, "The Learning Universiry"' , of the conferenceA trttmbcr "f ;;;;"

contributed to the organization

arrrl tlte puuticatiJitr trti' book' nttorJingtx"*" would like to thank the

I tr.rrr (proferro. D"*ud), the Assiro"i o"ri" on Academic Affairs (Dr' Yazid

ll.r',tlrorni), *a In"'HuIa of the Centre for Langua?F and Culture (Dr'

,, r, r, ;, r, 11 a n to1,

"n i'.i u H ead or the

= "g::[1"*iHil:lffifftffj$*:l'r .ryogo) of tne Faculry of Letters of

,rrr gratitudes to all of ifre paper pr"r"niot and especially presenters whose

Empower Azar's Slides:Contrastive Analysis Approach for

Teaching Gramm€r

Elys R, R. MisrohmawatiCollege for Teocher Troining ond Educotion -PGR|,- Ponorogo, Eostlova

Structure I is a course designed to give students of English Educationl)cpartment of College for Teacher Training and Education "PGRI,"l'onorogo, a foundation of the English structure. This course discusses a lotabout English grammar which is claimed to be crucial for improvement ofwriting (Al-Jarf, 2005) and all aspects of English language skill. The textbookrrsed in this course was Betty SchrampferAzar's "Fundamental English Gram-rn;Ir"" -['his book is a grarnmar based book having good exan,ples ofr ontextualization (Petrovitz, 199n. The bool<was the only native speaker'sgrammar book that has been widespread in Ponorogo. So, it was easy forthe learners to find it.

"Fundamental English Grammar" is the book for intermediate Ievel stu-rlents. The book at this level was chosen because it was suitable for thel nglish Department students. Another reason for selecting this bool< was

that it wurs supported by free web materials and media. Power point (ppt)nraterials can be downloaded free from Azar's website(www.azargrammar.com). The ppt materials were developed by Laurette['oulos Simmons"

Something interesting of these slides are the photos presented to visu-

alize the sentences. Pluralism is presented in almost all photos" My hypoth'esis is that Azar is not only developing material for grammar-based teach-lng, but also plural culture-based teaching. This teaching is a means to im-prove cultural awareness and cultural sensitivity in the practice of teaching

.rnd learning a foreign language, especially English (Sugirin, 2009). Tanalca

215

(cltcd ln suglrln, 2009) clalmr thrt tha conccpr of eultural awaronrllderstandlng of dlfferent culturor haE heerr err;rlur.srzecl as an essontldof English learning and teaching. Az:r' rnf(,.gr..rt(!s <:rrlturc uslng lmpllcitby making use of any possible means to rrls(:r t cultur.al aspects in thetion (Sugirin, 2009).

. lnspired by that cross curturar understanding teaching, the proc{classroom learning and teaching utilized the awareness ofihe crammdsimilarities and differences of English and Bahoso lndonesia (lTherefore, contrastive Analysis (cA) which is usuaily used to prodlctcause of error in language acquisition was used to explain theconcept and to overcome the detected problem in the process oftion. The use of cA was also generated from the fact thai the firststudents still had low English proficiency and L I was still needed tothem understand English grammar. To avoid misconception, the expllcltteaching was applied in this grammar teaching.

GRAMMAR TEACHINGln the traditional view, grammar teaching is only carried out from

larrow definition, presenting and practicing grammar (Hedge in Eilis 20Gnarnrnar teaching is rnore than presentinj ind practicrng jnarnmar. rt rrinstructional activity invorving any technique that draws [Jrn"rr, attentlto some specific grammatical form for helping them either to understandmetalinguistically andlor processing it in comprehension and/or productl{so that they can internalize it (Eilis, 2006)"

This instruction has passed the rong historicar approaches. Rodsummarized from Hinkel (Rodriguez, 2009) that some'approaches travi tn-fluenced grammar teaching. The earliest is the Grammor Tionstation Method,It was characterized by rote memorization of rutes and an absence of genu,ine communicative activities. ln the 20th century linguists, ,tru.tr.il dtscriptions of world languages, combined with behavioiist psychorogy, gavrrise to the Direct Method. rn this method, it is betieved thai students shourdlearn a second language in the same way that they rearned their first; g..m.mar was acquired through oral practice, drills, and repetition, not ttrioughmemorization and written manipulation of explicit rules. However, tanguairlearning was still ordered around structural principles"

Audiolinguolrsm was another structural method that shared this implicltorientation toward grammar. By the r960s, inspired by chomsky,s theory

ffir MATERIALSAND MEDIA IN ENGLISH IANGUAGE TEACHINGMtsrohmawoti, Empower kort slides: controstiveAnolysis Approoch for Teaching Grammor

I ffi

gllvclf'cal grammar and tha rartrltlrtg entphasls on syntax, Cognitive Ap-

;a*, lrrr I eprescnted a shlft back to l'llol'e explicit Srammar instruction' lt

t+ 1,.,1< to thc implicit in the 1970s with the advent of Humonistic Ap-

pee, lrr.r, particularly Communicotive Languoge Teoching. These approaches

3rr;,lrartrcd meaningful interaction and authenticity in learning activities and

hel,l tlr.rt communication should be the goal of instruction' Grammar was

;rr ellrlicitly taught. lt was believed that accuracy would be acquired natu-

ially ',vel' time.r orrrmunicative instruction has at times resulted in explicit Srammar

*r.tr 'l( r ton playing a limited role in adult education" The shift from explicit

t+i lnrl'llcit approaches describes the contemPorary approach, called "focus

pl1 f,rr 1r" (FonF). However, to help learners improve their grammatical ac-

G* ar y, instructors should embed explicit focus on form within the context

cf nre.tningful learning activities and tasks that give learners ample oPportu-

aur.,.. for practice (Rodriguez, 2009). Explicit Srammar teaching have been

**,rrllr ntcd by manyteachers (e.g., Borg, cited in Al-Mekhlafi& Nagaratnam,

,ul t ).

ln the context of teaching Structure I course for the first semester stu-

derrtr of English Education Department, which is focused on the English

r.r.rnrnar, the explicit grarnmar teaching was taught contextually. lt is the

E,i3y way to help them acquiring the concept communicatively. English, es-

per t.rlly the grammar, still becomes something difficult and complicated for

rlre lr-.arners in this class. Accordingly, communicative explicit grammarteach'

nr1, ts the solution to keep the motivation in learning English grammar' Re-

lert.r I to the approach to present this explicit grammar, contrastive analysis,

rr rlrscussed in the following section.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSISThe controversial issue in contrastive analysis (CA) is that CA hypoth-

n.,is is believed as the least predictive at the syntactic level and at early

qr.rges of language learning (Brown, 2O0O), but allowed for prediction of the

rlilficulties involved in acquiring a second language (Richards, 1974)' The

l,resent study does not use CAto predict difficulty or explain errors' ln-

ilead, CA is used for the definition of salient input, which might assist L2

It,rrners (Ghabanchi & Vosooghi, 1999).

Most of the scholars in the fields of language learning and teaching state

rhar, when learners are confronted with difficult grammatical forms, they

of English learning and teaching. Azar integr;rtcs r.ultur o using lrnpliclt rnodlby making use of any possible means to insert cultrr .rl ;rspects in the instrucrtion (Sugirin,2009).

lnspired by that cross cultural understanding teaching, the procesr olclassroom learning and teaching utilized the awareness ofihe grammaticdsimilarities and differences of Engrish and gohoso lndonesio (indoneslan),Therefore, contrastive Analysis (cA) which is usually used to predict thrcause of error in language acquisition was used to explain the grammarconcept and to overcome the detected problem in the process oi acqulrl.tion' The use of CA was also generated from the fact thai the first semostarstudents still had low English proficiency and L I was still needed to helpthem understand English grammar. To avoid misconception, the explicit elteaching was applied in this grammar teaching.

GRAMMAR TEACHINGln the traditional view, grammar teaching is only carried out from tho

narrow definition, presenting and practicing grammar (Hedge in Ellis 2006),Gnarnrnar teaching is more than presentinjana practicing gram!.nar. lt is ltinstructional activity involving any technique that draws Lr.n"rr, aftentlonto some specific grammaticalform for helping them eithen to understand ltmetalinguistically and/or processing it in comprehension and/or productlonso that they can internalize it (Eilis, 2006).

This instruction has passed the long historical approaches. Rodriguelsummarized from Hinkel (Rodriguez, 2009) that some'approaches have ln.fluenced Srammar teaching. The earliest is the Grommar Tianstotion Method,It was characterized by rote memorization of rutes and an absence of genu.ine communicative activities. rn the 20th century ringuists' structurar do.scriptions of world languages, combined with behavioiist psychorogy, gavcrise to the Direct Method. rn this method, it is berieved thai students shourdlearn a second language in the same way that they learned their first; gram,mar was acquired through oral practice, drills, and repetition, not thioughmemorization and wriffen manipulation of explicit rules. However, langualrlearning was still ordered around structurat principles.

Audiolinguolism was another structural method that shared this implicltorientation toward grammar" By the 1960s, inspired by chomslqy's theory

(cltcd ln Suglrln, 2009) clarms that the conc€pt of .rlrural awaronorderstandlng of dlfferent cultures- has boen errrrPlrastretl .ls :ur essentlal p6tt

yATERt!! lN o v e otA.t r ENGLIsH IANG uAG E rEAcH tN6WI,'/ /

Msrohmowoti, Empower Azort Slides: ControstiveAnolysis Approoch for Teaching Grammor I ffi

nf rnrlversal grammar arrd tlre rertrltlrrg enrphasis on syntax, Cognitive Ap-

I'rurlr lrcs t'epresentecJ a :hlfu b,rr k to nlore explicit grammar instruction. lt+r,r: lr;rcl< to the lmplicit llt the 1970s with the advent of Humanistic Ap-

,,rrr,rr Lcs, particularly Conmtunicotive Longuoge Teoching. These approaches

=rr11,lr;rsized meaningful interaction and authenticity in learning activities andlrol,l that communication should be the goal of instruction. Grammar wasrrur cxplicitly taught. lt was believed that accuracy would be acquired natu-r,rlly over time"

Communicative instruction has at times resulted in explicit grammarrrrcir uction playing a limited role in adult education" The shift from explicitr, , lr rrplicit approaches describes the contemporary approach, called "focus,,n lor"m" (FonF). However, to help learners improve their grammatical ac-r ur,r(i/r instructors should embed explicit focus on form within the context,,1 nrcaniflgful learning activities and tasks that give learners ample opportu-rrtt ir:s for practice (Rodriguez, 2009). Explicit grammar teaching have beenr,rr[irmed by manyteachers (e.g., Borg, cited in Al-Mel<hlafi & Nagaratnam,Jor r ).

ln the context of teaching Structure I course for the first semester stu-rlr.rrts of English Education Department, which is focused on the Englishr rr,rryrfi'raF, the explicit grarnmar teaching was taught contextually" lt is theE,r,y way to help them acquiring the concept communicatively. English, es-

lrt:ciflly the grammar, still becomes something difficult and complicated forrlrt. lcarners in this class. Accordingly, communicative explicitgrammarteach-irr11 rs the solution to keep the motivation in learning English grammar" Re-

l,rtr:d to the approach to present this explicit grammar, contrastive analysis,

t.. r|scussed in the following section.

CONTRASTIVE ANALYSISThe controversial issue in contrastive analysis (CA) is that CA hypoth-

r...is is believed as the least predictive at the syntactic level and at earlyct,rges of language learning (Brown, 2000), but allowed for prediction of the,|fficulties involved in acquiring a second language (Richards, 1974). Thepres€rt study does not use CAto predict difficulty or explain errors. ln-rtead, CA is used for the definition of salient input, which might assist L2

It..rrners (Ghabanchi & Vosooghi, 1999).

Most of the scholars in the fields of language learning and teaching statetlrat, when learners are confronted with difficult grammatical forms, they

often compare thc fir.st l:rrrgrr;rge (L.l).trrrl tlrn...,,.il l.rrr;,rr.r;,t: (l 2). no fcause this comparison is implicit, rt may rc:strlt irr tlrt l,,r1r.rtr()tr of wr.oltg ,,

rules due to an incomplete L2 l<nowledge (serlinkt.r, r rrr.rl rrr Ghabanc6r &vosooghi, l'999)' To avoid misconception, the conrrrsrrvc lrrrguistic fearur.e!should be taught explicirly.A study conducted by Ghabanchi and vosooghi (rgg9) showed thatPersian speakers of Engrish benefited from expricii"rporrr" of cA whichfacilitated the subsequent rearning of the target gr#rnuti.ar forms. Theexperimentalgroups achieved significantly bettir rJsults on all tasks in conrparison with the contror groups who rearnt the same structures impricitryfrom comprehensible input only.ln Ukraine, the use of cA approach was supported by the governmenr.The book of Karamysheva (20r)), "contrastive Grammar of Engrish andUkrainian Languages" is the book that is ,,Recommended

by the Ministry olEducation ond science, youth ond sport of rJkraine os o textbookfor students olhigher educotion institurions. " cAis arso apptied in other tanguage teaching.Radojevi$ (20 r r) appried cA to the teaching of auxiriary serection in L2Italian in serbia. rn Indonesia, sorne research reported the apprication ofthis research in Arabic (Nurbayan et ar., 2009) and Japanese teaching(Febrianty, 2CI l0).The studies above further convince

T", ,, an Engrish grarnmarteachingpractitioner, to appry the cA approach in teachin! gr;rn.,",. using AzorGrammor materiar. The next section discusses this miteriar, especiaily fromthe perspective of the author, Betty Schramfer Azar.

AZAR GRAMMI\Rln grammarteaching, Azar has taken the position as a practitioner ratherthan as an academician. Ail the books she wrote are based on Grammar-Based reaching (GBT), which she sees as an effective, ever-evolving, andwidespread pedagogjlar practice (Azar,2ao7). The description of Gram_mar-Based Teaching (Azar,2OA4 sire applies are as follows:. The Basic Approoch

GBT uses grammar as the base, the starting point and foundation, forthe development of a, ranguage skilrs, i.e. Jpeaking, iirr"n,ng, writing,and reading.

I xplrtt lttltttttttt(lrttt tilrrntt ll,,w I tti'lrrlt Works( ,l] [ tilal<cs ;tv.til.tlrlc t'r1rii, it lrilgr-rtstic information about the structure

iif the Englislr l.rir;1r.ry,,' ur or(lol'to help speed and otherwise facilitate

rlrc developmr:nt ol tlrr.:;trtclents'interlanguage. lt dOes not "teach rules"

lrut describes how Ertglish worl<s. Grammar is not taught as subiect

nratter to be mentorizcd.I'rocticeGBT uses a wide variety of exercise types to encourage and accommo-

rlate a variety of student language-learning strategies. The purposes of

practice are multifaceted, but all lead toward the goal of creating suc-

<-cssful cornmunication experiences.

Blending Approoches

GBT blends a gramrnar syllabus and explicit grammar teaching with

communicative methods, using grammar as a springboard for interac-

rive, communicative practice oPPortunities.

Co m m u ni cative lV1 e thods

GBT seeks to engage students in communicative Practice that ideally

provides ample opportunity for creative use of target structures. In

GBT, communicative practice means that real people are communicat-

ing in real time about real things in a real place for a real PurPose.

Usoge Ability Gools

tre immediate goal is to help students develop an interlanguage suffi-

cient to their needs and PurPoses'Structure Aworeness

GBT seel<s to create awareness and understanding of English structures,

i.e., awareness of the form, meaning, and appropriate use of structures'

It helps many students formulate how to say what they mean and helps

lead to successful communication experiences, the building blocks of

second-language acq uisition.

Buitding Familiority and Comfort Level

GBT seeks to build familiarity through rePetition and variety in practice

modes and promote the students' comfort level in using their new lan-

gua8e.

Error Correction

GBT, viewed ntist;rl<r:s ;r.s op1;ortunities for learning' Corrective feed-

bacl< is a natural alrrl .rr r t.Pt('rl P.u t <;f e Erammar-based class.

WI MATERIALS AND MEDTA tN ENGLtSt-t I AN( ,r rn ( ,l l t ACutNG Mtvolttttttwolt. I tttlxtwetAlrtt r \llrlct { irl,}'rrlii' 11't'rl1 rrr Al11ri'r'rt lr lrtr lrttr lttttl' (itttrttttXtt I fifi!

. Grammor ConceptsGBT teaches grammar conceptuaily wrtrrerut ever. a.fining those termt,By teaching grammar conceptuaily, GBT herps ttucrcnrs gain a betterconception of ranguage itserl that is, that ranguage ..nr,r,, of intrreatt

GBT assumes that students naturaily utirize their cognitive skirts in punsuing second-ranguage acquisition. GBT suppries in?ormation and an.swers as weil as rots of practice in a comfortabre environment that an"courages cognitive exploration of both the particutars of grammatlcalusage and the underrying organizationar principres of Engrish.. lnductive vs. DeductiveStudents are encouraged to figure grammar patterns out for themservet(inductive), and are arso giveriexpricit information about grammar (de.ductive).

. Exomples vs. ExplonationsExplanations of grammar are keyed to exampres, not vice-versa. Stu.dents learn from understanding what is t,"ppening in

"*"rprus of ur.age, not from knowing "rures"; For exampre, ;n ?he" Azar series, th€grannmar charts are set up so that students rook at exampres first* _

t"n at an expranation if necessary not the other way around". Descriptiye ys. prescriptive

GBT provides descriptive information about how Engrish works. rt doernot take a prescriptive approach to ranguag",""Ji;s, but it does giveusage guidance, especiaily as to registur, ".g.,

inforilar vs. formar orspoken vs. wriffen.. Terminology

Terminology is seen as just a rittte herp arong the way as students begrnto grasp grammar concepts and understandings or r.,o* Engrish works.It is a temporary toot to faciritate teachur-rtrJunt communication andas a later toor for those students who choose to use reference textg. ;;;jrn fl||:#ff#nd

grammar handbooks arter leaving crass study,

The syllabus and sequence of presentation are principarty based on:- the grammar information needs of second ;"il;; rearners

ff"":::l::::T:,:l.t1.?:gh sound or writrng ro crcate meanrns. trhas structure and predictability"Use of Cogniave Skills

ffit MATERIALSAND MEDIA IN ENGLISH I.ANGUAGE TEACHING Mlttohmowott, Empowar Aror'r Sltrlrl Controstive Anolysis Approoch for Teoching Grommor I f

- the pr4gmatlcs of or g,rrrtztrrg a complex subject for pedagogical pur-

Poses- frequency vs. nonflrequency of usage- simplicity vs. complexity of structure

usefulness to students' interlanguage

areas of difficulty for students- appropriate spiraling, adjusting depth and breadth according to levelRecycling and SpirolingGBT gives repeated exposure to and practice with structures through-out a unit and a series. Through spiraling, grammar concepts are ex-plored more deeply and expanded upon;tasks require more complexlanguage use; students experience more variety in the linguistic con-texts and collocations associated with a structure.ContextsGBT uses both sentence-level and extended contexts. Sentence-levelexercises can help clarify form and meaning, expose students to a vari-ety oftypical usages ofthe target structure, and allow students to focuson grammar in uncomplicated contexts. GBT also employs shortcontextualized passages. lt is assumed students will have access to lenghyextended discourse contexts fron'l other sources.Spo nta neou s Commu ni cotive I nte r acti o n

Spontaneous give-and-take generated by interesting and informativeitems is central, not peripheral, to the intended use of GBT materialsand is a prime language-teaching opportunity teachers are expected toexploit. Much of GBT exercise content is selected for the purpose ofsparl<ing communicative interactions among students and between stu-dents and teacher.Authentic vs. Adapted Languoge

The exercise content in most GBT materials is often based on authenticsources that have been adapted for pedagogical PurPoses. Adapted ma-

terial allows for a streamlined focus in the classroom at times that au-

thentic materials might lead to digressions from the main teaching pointsor confusion about unfamiliar names, references, and the like.Vocobulary

New vocabulary is not introduced at the same time a new structure is

introduced. After the structure is well understood and practiced, newvocabulary is brought in, especially in contextualized exercises.

Grommor os ContelltThose of us who engaSe in GB-l- oftclt rrotit r. rlr.rr ..rrrrlr.ntr, cnjoy t;rll<rrrgabout grammar; they become meaningfully (:t rg. r[,r .( l i n r l rc content. Conl _

municative interaction with grammar ias the tol)rc rs scen as a valuabl.language-learning experience in GBr equally as valuable as tall<ing aborrany other academic subject that requires negotiation of nneaning andcognitive understanding of information and ideas.Laying FoundotionsPerceive that with appropriate instruction those errors are less lil<ely tcrbecome fossilized and more likely to be replaced by accurate languageuse over time. Longitudinal GBT studies are needed. I believe tnri ontythrough longitudinal studies are we going to find unequivocar, repl:cable, data-supported evidence for the overall effectiveness of GBT rnterms of learner outcomes.

(Azar; 2007)

The description about Grammar-Based reaching above shows us howteaching grarmar is wisely developed for both fluenly and accuracy, taughrinductively and deductively, used authentic and adapted language. tt workrwith sentence-levei and connected-discourse rnateria!, anci is engaged irropen-ended communicative interaction and controtled response exercises.'Do both'is what Auar (2007) taught to all practitioners because the lan.guage learners need both. lt is also what is implemented in all material as=sisting her book, like her ppt series.

EMPO\ryEruNG AZAR'S SLIDESMy structure r crass foilowed Azar's srides organization. simmo.c

(2010a), the slides maker, states that the presentations in her srides provicrevisual aids for teachers to use in class. T'h"r" is one presentation for carlrchapter in the textbook" Each chapter contains new content for every grarr.mar chart, including an array of exampres, images, and exercise types designed to further illustrate each grammar point. pnesentations, sections, arrrlindividual slides give the autonomy to the teacher to present it sequenriallyor in any order desired. within every presentation, the contents slide scrvoras a menu qlstem to provide quick movement from one section of the chaptorto another. A hop back to the contents slide from any orhcr slide is accor,plished with the'menu, button (Simmons, 2010b).

Sirrrrrrolrs (20 l0lr) r.x1,l.ri1r-. tlr.rt tlir: ptt:st)t)t;ltiotl cotrtcnt contains aset,,1 .,lrrlcs for cu<-lt 1(.(lton,,l tlrc tlr.tlrit:r'. EaCh SCt Of SlideS iS made Up Of

r I rr <rc cJiffcrent tyl)os of ',1i, l,'., t lr.rr t lc.rl with the Srammar point in that Sec-

rrrrrr, i.c. SeCtion Opcrtcr rlt<lt', (-lrar-t slides, and Let's PraCtice slideS. Sev-

,.r,rl chapt€rs also conr;Irr arr additional type of slide that is Preview slides.

Some case studies of the applications CA is discussed below following

r tir. order of each set of slide. Because the language learners are lndonesians

.rrr<l the malority areJavanese, the language Srammar contrasted are Bohasa

ln,k)nesio or Basa lowo and English.

I'review slidesNot all chapters contain these slides. They provide introductory mate-

r i.rl and give students informal Practice with the chapter target structure

{'ru11n1ot'ls1 20 l0b). The first chapter has this preview. See Figure I "

Figure l. Preview of chapter l: Present Tense (Simmons, 2010c)

lrr this preview, before going to main discussion, Present Tense, I guided

rlrt. lcarners to discuss the concept of English sentence. I started by asking

rtr{.student to pay attention to the sentence'l'm glad to meet you','l'mlr ,,rn Czech Republic' and 'l live in Mexico City'. Then I aslced the learners

!,r.,.1y those sentences in lndonesian. The learners stated, "Saya senong

t,('r lumpo dengon Anda," "Soyo dori Republik Ceko," and"soyo tinggal di Kota

Al,,ksiko. " I wrote all the sentences in both languages in the whiteboard'

I asked the learners to analyze the part of speech of the lndonesian

..('rrtences. The parts of speech were written below each word. The next

..r (.1) rs analyzing the difference of the lndonesian and English sentences' Part,,1 .,[rccch. The result of the analysis was 'l live in Mexico City' and 'Soyo

tutt1\)l di KotoMeksiko' ltavc tltc silmc part of speech. 'l'm glad tO meet you'

.,,,,i ,snyo senong berjuu4to tlrrt!,rut Anrlrl' and .l'm from czech Republic'and

I r t're,,I tle^lru: ,,,,,,, ,',,i1rw / ,yrr*".=o ) ffimcwii{ssd,r'- cn!'

ffirwl MATERIALSAND Mt t)tn tN ttJr.l 1.,1 lln il(,r tA(,t Il,A( lilN(. hlt..r,lnttowttll. I rrtltrtwt:tAl,tl'r \li,ler I rrrrll'rtlrtt' Atr'tly:lr A1'1'r"'rr lt lirr Iett<lltttg('trtnutxtt I J!l!

'Soyo dori Repubtik Ceko' have diffcrcnt part of s;rt.r., lr I lr.- , lif lr.r r.r rr-e rs clr rr.tothe existence of 'to be' in English sentence.

The next discussion was answering why in thosc. s(!rr.r(.cs ,to be,rsused. The discussion was guided into the concept that English sentenc(:smust have at least 'subject' and 'verb'. lf there is no ,verb,

in the sentenccexpressed, 'to be' as the helping verb must be used. The discussion of .t<r

be' in Present Tense was not continued in this discussion because ,to be,

discussion would appear in the main discussion. The point is that the students have learnt the concept of English sentence.

Section Opener SlidePreceded in each grammar point, this sride offers an exampre of use of

Srammar in the sentence. lt focuses attention and encourages discussion ofthe grammar point (simmons, 2010b). See Figure 2 for the-example of scc_tion opener slide.

Figure 2. section opener sride of chapter 5: Asking euestions(Simmons,20l0d)

The figure presented herwas the stides about the concept that for sorncstudents' it was stiil confusing, especiarty when spontaneousry they try roacquire by translating into lndonesian. ln this case, the contrastive analysiswas utilized to solve this problem.

When translated into tndonesian 'what broke?,and ,what do you do in

the classroom?' in the figure above became 'Apo yang pecoh?, andiApo yongkomu lokukon di kelas lpA?'. ln this case, students tend to say ,What

dicibreak?' because the analogy of the word 'yang' in lndonesian is .do, or ,dicl,in this context.

,J

lsolvcd thrs;rrolrlr.rrr lry r.xpl.rirring that in lndoncsian, all thc questionw,rrds contairrrrrg tlrr. wor d'yurtg'that cannot be translated literally into',lo'. "Do' is ar.rxili.rr y v<:r b having no meaning. After this, the lecturer startedrr:rninding the studcnts that in using question word, we should pay atten-ri( )r! to the purpose of question. lf asl<ing the subject, so no need to use.rirxiliary verb.

solving the grammar problem raising from interlingual transfer was ef-l,'< tive by starting it from the cause. lt means, the students must have the, lt:ar understanding about the similarities and differences of those languages"lr lrclped them to build a new different construction of the new languagerlrcy learn.

Clrart slidesThese slides follow the content of the charts in the student Bool<. They

,'rplore chart component and break the grammar point into manageable, lrunl<s" ln these slides, there are boxes containing the grammar explanation(',irnmons, 20l0b)"

One case study in applying CA in this chart slides was when discussingtlrc FrequencyAdverb in Present Tense. See Figure 3.

Figure 3. Chart Slides of Chapter l: Present Tense (Simmons, 2010c)

When discussing the adverb 'ever', before coming to Slide 36 havingi'xPlanation that'ever' is not used in statement, the lecturer asked the learn-,'r s, "Do you ride horses?" Majority answer was 'no', but the minority'yes'.ur\wcr was trapped in the answer, "Yes, I ever ride horses." When the Slidel(, was presented, what happened was lil<e most of the scholars in the fields

,,1 l.urguage learning and teaching state that, when learners are confrontedwrtlr clifficult grarnrn;rtic.rl forrrrs, thcy often conduct an Ll-L2 comparison.rrrrl sirtcc this corttll.u irorr t', irrrlrlicit, it may result in the formation of wrong

WI MATERIAL.S AND Mt Dtn tN I lJr.t t,.t I I Ar lr ,r lA( ,r l I A( I ilN(, Mt"r,ltttxtwttlt, I ttrlx,wet Atrtr :'Jt,ln* t ,,ttt'tt\ttvt Atr,tlyrtt Alrlrrott<lr lor It'orltinly Grdtrrnror I ff,

rules due to an incomplete L2 l<nowlcdge (Rolritt:on, r ilrrl rrr (ilrltl.tlr< lrl IlVosooghi, 1999). The students automatically tr:rrrrl.rtt'rl rrr ln<lorrt:siAlt, "Soyrt

pernoh naikkuda"" To avoid the wrong concept, I t'espontk:rl ttrat tn lndortt:

sian, it is okay to say 'soyo pernoh,' but in English 'ever' thrt they translatatl

into pernoh'is positive adverb. I showed the previous slide Presenting tlre

FrequencyAdverb partitioned into positive and negative. ln this case stu(ly,

I empowered learner spontaneity in contrasting the L I and L2 as the anr.ltot

of their acquisition of the concept of 'ever' use in Present Tense posittve

statement"

Let's Practice SlidesThese slides provide a wide range of exercise tyPes. lt can be dotta

orally or in writing; alone, in pairs, small groups, or as a wholc cl'tsr

(Simmons, 2010b). The example of this kind of slide is presented in Figtu e

4.

Figure 4. Let's Fractice Slide Chapter l: Present Tense(Simmons,20l0c)

Figure 4 can be used as a basis to use CA approach in teaching. Marry

students were not eiry to accept the concept of non-action verb in tha

word 'having' in this exercise. ln lndonesian, this sentence is translated Into'Apakoh komu punyo omasoloh dengan PR-mu?' So the word 'having' tranllated into 'sedangpunya' was accepted as the progressive form.

The explanation in this chapter about'have' is only 'when hovc "'owrt(can be progressive)' and there is no clear definitiorr ebout it. ln thls serr

tence, 'have' is the condition of subject, so if irr lrr<lorresian, the leanrerr

wr.r't-. helpecJ by thc 1(rlllerlr c, Alr,rl rilt l,rtttttt sr:r/rttlg <tdct rnosctlah?'ln the Case

,,1 rroun after tlre wpr tl 'lr.rvt- . 'tr oulrlr.' is situation faced the subiect, so the'li.rvr,:' is not 'puny<t';rrrrl it rrrrt.,l Irt' ,rrr action verb. This shOws that addreSS-

irrli rhe difficulty in langu;r1it: tx:<-;use of the transfer Process problem should

lrr. solved from thc vicw of CA.

CONCLUSIONcommunicative explicit Srammar teachinS is the solution to keep the

rrrotivatien in learning English grammar. ln teaching this explicit grammar'

,tr..rting with difficurclrarma. form of L2 and the learner incomplete L2

t, ,,<rwLdge, CA analysis is taught explicitly to avoid misconception of gram-

rrr,rr A set of Azar materials is a good alternative to use in this teaching

lrr.CZUS€ it is grammar-based material developed for both, fluency and accu-

I .r( y. ln usint these materials, the case studies in this chapter show that

,,,|<iressing tfie difficulty in language because of the transfer Process Prob-

l,'rn should be solved from the view of CA of those languages' Last but not

Ir..rsr, supported learners'spontaneity in contrasting the Ll and L2 is an

,'lIr:ctive anchor in grammar acquisition.

REFERENCESnr l;rrf, M. 2O05.The Role of Grammar in Developing EFL. Freshman students'

Writing Skills. Reodin g Motrix online conference" Retrieved February 26,7013,

from http://faculty.l<su.edu'sa/aliarf/Publications/at Mel<hlafi, A. M., & Nagaratnam, R. P 201 I . Difficulties in Teaching and Learning

Grammar in an EFL Context. lnternotionol Journol of lnstruction' 4(2): 69-92'

A.,,rr, B. 2007. Grammar-Based Teaching: A Practitioner's PerspeAive' TESL-EJ'

I I (2). Retrieved January 8, 20 I 3, from http://tesl-ei.org/ej42lal .pdf

llr r rwn, H. D. 20OO .'Principles of Longuage Learning ond Teaching (4'h ed.). New

Yorl<: Addison WesleY Longman.

I ilr,.. R. 2006. Current lsiues in the Teaching of Grammar: An Sl3 Perspective'

IESOL Quarterly, a0( l): 83- 107'

I cl,r ianr/, F. 2010. Pendekoton Anolisis Kontrostif dolarn Pengoiaron Sakubun Level

Dosor. Presented in ASPBJI natinal seminar conducted by universitas Bina

Nusantara. Retrieved Januury g, 201 3

' from http://elib.unikom'ac'id/files/disk l/

ss6li ,lr,rlxrnchi, 2., & vosooghi, M. 1999. The Role of Explicit contrastive lnstruction

irr Learning Difficuli [,2 Grammatical Forms: A Crosslinguistic Approach to

I ;rnguage Awarertcss I lr" Rerrrlir4; Motrix' 6( l): l2l - I 30'

EilI MATERIALS AND MEDIA IN I I'II .I I',I I I AN(,i ,lN (,t I LA( } IIN(i^1I..|(,llll|.lw(,f

/. l ttt|towar Asttt l \ll.lel I tifll,l,tllvl Atr.rlyrtt A1,,,,.,.,. lt Iot le<l<ltitlg Gr<tmnxlr l f!!|

Karamysheva, I L0l2. Controstive (,rottrrnttt ol I rryh..lt ,t,,,1Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha Publishers. Retricverl J.rrrrr.rr ynovaknyh a.com. ualdown loads/pdf/504. pd f

I ll. r,ttrttrttt I tttt1rt1111,1,5

ll, /(l I l. 1r <.rnr liltp'll

Nurbayan" Y., Abdurahman, M., Zaenudin, M", Ramdlr:rrr, A. Novranti, N., &lskandar, D" 2009. Pengembangan MateriAjar Balaghah Bcrbasis Pendel<atarrKontrastif untul< Meningkatkan Kualitas Mahasiswa Bahasa Arab FPBS UplJurnol Penelitian, l0(2). Retrieved January B, 2013, from http:/ljurnal.upi.eclrr/filelfayan_N urbayan. pdf

Petrovitz, w. 1997. The Role of context in the presentation of Grammar, EUJournol, -51(3), 201-207. Retrieved March r9,20r3, frorn hrtpt?a3.l2"l4s.t66lE[T/files/S1-3- l.pdf

Richards, ). 1974. A Non-Contrastive Approach to Error Analysis. ln.f . Richarcls(Ed.), Error Analysis; Perspecrives on second Languoge Acquisition (pp. iz2- lBB)Essex: Longman"

Radoievi$, D. 201 L A Contrastive Analysis Approach to the Teaching of AuxiliarySelection in L2 ltalian. lst lnternotional Conference on Foreign Laiguoge Teoc)iingond Appliedlinguistics, (pp. 377-3az). sarajevo. RetrievedJanuaryg, 2013,from http:/ieprints.ibu.e du.bal 57 I

Rodriguez, A. G. 2009. Teoching Grammor to Adult Engtish Language Leorners: Focu5on Form. center for Adult English Language Acquisition (CAELA) of the center for Applied Linguistics. Retrieved February 26, zol3, from http:llwww.cal.orfcaelanetwori<lpdfsf!-eachingGram marFinalweb.pdf

Simmons, L' 2010a. Teocher Resources Disc. Pearson Education, lnc. RetrieverlAugust I 9, 20 I 0, from http:l/www.azargrammar.com/materials/feg/FEG03_PowerPoint. htm I

Simmons, L. 2010b. FEG Teacher Nores. FEG powerpoint supplements (3rd ed.).Pearson Education, lnc. Retrieved August 19, 2010, fnom http:llwww.azargrammar. com/assetsfegpowerpoint_031FEG_GacherN otes. ppt

simmons, L. 201 0c. Chapter I: Presenr rime. FEG plwerpoint supplement, i:.,red.). Pearson Education, Inc. Retrieved August lg, zol0, from htip://www.ivargrammar.comlassets/fegpowerpoint*O3/FEG_Chapter_0

I .ppssimmons, L. 201 0d. chapter 5: Asking euestions" FEG powerpoint supplements

(3rd ed.). Pearson Education, lnc. Retrieved August 19,2010, from http:llwwwazargram mar"com/assets/fegpowerpoint_o3/FEG_chapter_0s. pps

Sugirin. 2009. Cross-culturol Understonding: What Every EFL Teacher Should Know.[short Lecture]. MGMP Bahasa lnggris sMA Kabupaten purworejo. Retrieve<lJanuary 3, 20 I 3, from http://staff.uny.ac.idlsites/default/files/perrgabdian/drssugirin

Media Used in the Teaching of English inElementary Schools

Shirly Rizki KusumaningrumDoctorote Progrom in E[f Stote University of Malong, East Jovo

lcaching media plays an imPortant role in the process of teaching and

lr-.rr rriflg English for Indonesian EFL learners, especially for those in elemen-

r.rr y schools. ln line with the nature of English as a foreign language' it is not

,r..r.rl os a medium for daily communication. Therefore, English is consid-

,'r,.<l as a difficult subiect to master. According to Kasbolah (1993' cited in',,,y,rnto, 2007: 100), the use of media can ease the learners in learning En-

r,lr.,lr and can make the learning atmosPhere more interestinS.

The word medio is derived from the Latin medium, meaning "bewveen"

,, r wlrich it refers to anything that carries information between a source and

r I (.Leiver. Thus, teaching media can be simply defined as teaching aids uscd

l,y tlre teacher to deliver the materials to the learners. Teaching media can

1,,. 111 15U fOfm Of newspapers, SOngS, flaShCards, comPuters, crossword

1,'rzzlc, paint application, and so on (see Figure l).

i:

I

I'igure l. Teaching Media (pictures are taken from www.google'com)

WI MATIRIAI".SANDMl I)ln tr.J Ittr.t t.,l IIAJ ]i,r,A(,t IIn( IilN(, 279