Ways to better RI English skills
Ways to better RI English skills
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah
BANDUNG (JP): Success in implementing educational programs
depends on many variables. Mixed in are teachers, student
motivation, textbooks, bureaucrats' attitude and government
policy.
All form a vicious circle when the programs end up as a
failure.
Often we find ourselves in the dilemma of deciding which to
fix first. By focusing attention on a single aspect, we get a
comprehensive description of the issue, and we can immediately
spotlight weaknesses and suggest relevant solutions.
We can address any of the variables mentioned above in
discussing the failure of English education in Indonesia. Such an
approach does not necessarily downplay the other variables in any
way.
In fact, understanding one variable will enhance our
understanding of the others because all of them are mutually
interlinked.
Commenting on my articles in The Jakarta Post editions of Dec.
8 and Dec. 9, Setiono in his article, Flawed system in English
teaching (Dec. 28) listed the chief obstacles in implementing the
communicative approach in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(TEFL) in Indonesia. In general, I agree with him, but feel some
of his perspectives need further clarification.
Communicative language teaching can legitimately be seen to
derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes
linguistics, psychology, educational research and politics.
Central to communicative language teaching is the understanding
of language learning as both an educational and political issue.
It is inextricably tied to language policy, and to a certain
extent its failure is caused by lack of political will on the
part of policymakers.
It is true the EFL curriculum has always emphasized reading,
the classic reason being English is a foreign rather than second
language. One may readily assume that Indonesian students are
good at reading English.
To everybody's dismay, it is not the case. Respondents in my
dissertation survey -- 100 Indonesian graduate students living
across all 50 states in America -- reported scoring highest on
the TOEFL test in structure and written expression and listening
comprehension, and lowest in the reading comprehension and
vocabulary section (Alwasilah: 1991).
In other words, reading, what is called the prioritized
language skill, is, in fact, the least acquired skill. And, in my
assumption, it still holds true. Skill-oriented arguments, as
suggested by Setiono in explaining the failure of teaching
English in the country, are not necessarily relevant.
Research was conducted on English mastery of newly enrolled
Satya Wacana University students. Their average vocabulary was
1,000 words, only a third of the standard set by the national
curriculum, and a tenth of the standard proposed by Thorndike as
the minimum vocabulary necessary to read English textbooks
(Sadtono, 1985). This research testified that our high school
students were weak in vocabulary; in my view, it is still the
case.
One can present abundant findings of TEFL research in
Indonesia, but those cited above are evidence enough to suspect
English teaching in the country has been a failure.
Given this as shared knowledge among TEFL specialists, I was
not interested at all in presenting criteria of relative success
in the implementation of the communicative approach, as Setiono
insisted. It is evident Setiono's approach to the issue is
classroom-based.
Important and insightful though such an approach is, my
approach, in contrast, is based on critical pedagogy, attempting
to explain the social and political aspects of English education.
Therefore the analyses move beyond classroom structures and
processes.
I share Setiono's position on the following issues. The
national testing system (Ebtanas) is contradictory to the
theoretical assumption underlying the communicative approach. The
test does not fully measure learners' productive skills. The
approach entails students' exposure to language use, both written
and spoken. Many teachers and assessment specialists believe that
the approach is only for promoting receptive skills, especially
reading, to the neglect of the productive skills.
Teachers are aware that school settings and large classroom
sizes are not conducive to developing effective communication in
English. However, their awareness is not necessarily synonymous
with understanding the communicative approach.
Such an awareness is an experiential phenomenon, while
understanding of the communicative approach is an epistemic
phenomenon on the construct suggested by experts and specialists
in the field of TEFL. The two do not necessarily parallel.
Setiono's elaboration of the nonlinguistic aspects is
authentic and portrays the ignorance, or at least indifference,
of many teachers and educational bureaucrats.
My assumption holds that their insufficient knowledge of the
issues elaborated above is to a great extent responsible for the
failure in implementing the communicative approach.
In this country, many bureaucrats are assigned jobs related to
TEFL, despite the fact they do not have any professional
background in the field.
To mention just one example, in the 1996 English textbook
competition for national book provisions, dozens of EFL textbooks
were evaluated by the committee of the National Book Center. Many
doubted the credibility of the committee since some, if not most,
of the evaluators did not have any experience in writing
textbooks themselves. How could a non-skater judge a skating
competition impartially and professionally?
With regards to "universal hierarchy of difficulty" as
suggested by Richard and Samson (1974), the hypothesis needs
critical elaboration.
In learning any foreign language, students develop a language
variety commonly called interlanguage. The variety is
characterized by systematicness, approximation, transitional
competence, idiosyncrasy and fossilization (Corder: 1981,
Selinker: 1972, McLaughlin: 1987).
An interlanguage theory assumption is that adult learners will
never acquire native-like proficiency. This suggests that
communicative competence does not require native-like proficiency
at all. That is to say learners with fossilized interlanguage can
develop communicative competence. This is an established
principle, and yet is unknown to most EFL teachers and
practitioners. Many jump to the erroneous conclusion that
communicative competence will never be successfully developed in
Indonesian settings.
On the issue of "frozen phrases", it is important to surmise
that language functions, as originally defined by communicative
approach proponents, do not suggest memorizing chunks of frozen
phrases at all. If that is what happens in the classroom, it is
more telling evidence of the failure in implementing the
communicative approach, resulting from teachers' misconception of
the communicative approach.
At instructional levels, it is common for teachers to initiate
communication engagements by using routines or patterns as a
strategy for developing rapport and comfort, which are essential
for managing conversations.
Setiono's critical accounts on the pragmatic sides of TEFL in
Indonesia have brought to our attention practical aspects that
tend to be taken for granted. What happened in the past was often
piecemeal changes which entail fixing a part but leaving the
other parts unfixed.
For improving TEFL, it is imperative to exercise a paradigm
shift, that is a systematic and massive change. It entails
replacing the whole mechanism in the context of systematic and
well-planned language planning.
The writer is a lecturer at Bandung Teachers Training
Institute, West Java.
Window: Teachers are aware that school settings and large
classroom sizes are not conducive to developing effective
communication in English. However, their awareness is not
necessarily synonymous with understanding the communicative
approach.
By A. Chaedar Alwasilah
BANDUNG (JP): Success in implementing educational programs
depends on many variables. Mixed in are teachers, student
motivation, textbooks, bureaucrats' attitude and government
policy.
All form a vicious circle when the programs end up as a
failure.
Often we find ourselves in the dilemma of deciding which to
fix first. By focusing attention on a single aspect, we get a
comprehensive description of the issue, and we can immediately
spotlight weaknesses and suggest relevant solutions.
We can address any of the variables mentioned above in
discussing the failure of English education in Indonesia. Such an
approach does not necessarily downplay the other variables in any
way.
In fact, understanding one variable will enhance our
understanding of the others because all of them are mutually
interlinked.
Commenting on my articles in The Jakarta Post editions of Dec.
8 and Dec. 9, Setiono in his article, Flawed system in English
teaching (Dec. 28) listed the chief obstacles in implementing the
communicative approach in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
(TEFL) in Indonesia. In general, I agree with him, but feel some
of his perspectives need further clarification.
Communicative language teaching can legitimately be seen to
derive from a multidisciplinary perspective that includes
linguistics, psychology, educational research and politics.
Central to communicative language teaching is the understanding
of language learning as both an educational and political issue.
It is inextricably tied to language policy, and to a certain
extent its failure is caused by lack of political will on the
part of policymakers.
It is true the EFL curriculum has always emphasized reading,
the classic reason being English is a foreign rather than second
language. One may readily assume that Indonesian students are
good at reading English.
To everybody's dismay, it is not the case. Respondents in my
dissertation survey -- 100 Indonesian graduate students living
across all 50 states in America -- reported scoring highest on
the TOEFL test in structure and written expression and listening
comprehension, and lowest in the reading comprehension and
vocabulary section (Alwasilah: 1991).
In other words, reading, what is called the prioritized
language skill, is, in fact, the least acquired skill. And, in my
assumption, it still holds true. Skill-oriented arguments, as
suggested by Setiono in explaining the failure of teaching
English in the country, are not necessarily relevant.
Research was conducted on English mastery of newly enrolled
Satya Wacana University students. Their average vocabulary was
1,000 words, only a third of the standard set by the national
curriculum, and a tenth of the standard proposed by Thorndike as
the minimum vocabulary necessary to read English textbooks
(Sadtono, 1985). This research testified that our high school
students were weak in vocabulary; in my view, it is still the
case.
One can present abundant findings of TEFL research in
Indonesia, but those cited above are evidence enough to suspect
English teaching in the country has been a failure.
Given this as shared knowledge among TEFL specialists, I was
not interested at all in presenting criteria of relative success
in the implementation of the communicative approach, as Setiono
insisted. It is evident Setiono's approach to the issue is
classroom-based.
Important and insightful though such an approach is, my
approach, in contrast, is based on critical pedagogy, attempting
to explain the social and political aspects of English education.
Therefore the analyses move beyond classroom structures and
processes.
I share Setiono's position on the following issues. The
national testing system (Ebtanas) is contradictory to the
theoretical assumption underlying the communicative approach. The
test does not fully measure learners' productive skills. The
approach entails students' exposure to language use, both written
and spoken. Many teachers and assessment specialists believe that
the approach is only for promoting receptive skills, especially
reading, to the neglect of the productive skills.
Teachers are aware that school settings and large classroom
sizes are not conducive to developing effective communication in
English. However, their awareness is not necessarily synonymous
with understanding the communicative approach.
Such an awareness is an experiential phenomenon, while
understanding of the communicative approach is an epistemic
phenomenon on the construct suggested by experts and specialists
in the field of TEFL. The two do not necessarily parallel.
Setiono's elaboration of the nonlinguistic aspects is
authentic and portrays the ignorance, or at least indifference,
of many teachers and educational bureaucrats.
My assumption holds that their insufficient knowledge of the
issues elaborated above is to a great extent responsible for the
failure in implementing the communicative approach.
In this country, many bureaucrats are assigned jobs related to
TEFL, despite the fact they do not have any professional
background in the field.
To mention just one example, in the 1996 English textbook
competition for national book provisions, dozens of EFL textbooks
were evaluated by the committee of the National Book Center. Many
doubted the credibility of the committee since some, if not most,
of the evaluators did not have any experience in writing
textbooks themselves. How could a non-skater judge a skating
competition impartially and professionally?
With regards to "universal hierarchy of difficulty" as
suggested by Richard and Samson (1974), the hypothesis needs
critical elaboration.
In learning any foreign language, students develop a language
variety commonly called interlanguage. The variety is
characterized by systematicness, approximation, transitional
competence, idiosyncrasy and fossilization (Corder: 1981,
Selinker: 1972, McLaughlin: 1987).
An interlanguage theory assumption is that adult learners will
never acquire native-like proficiency. This suggests that
communicative competence does not require native-like proficiency
at all. That is to say learners with fossilized interlanguage can
develop communicative competence. This is an established
principle, and yet is unknown to most EFL teachers and
practitioners. Many jump to the erroneous conclusion that
communicative competence will never be successfully developed in
Indonesian settings.
On the issue of "frozen phrases", it is important to surmise
that language functions, as originally defined by communicative
approach proponents, do not suggest memorizing chunks of frozen
phrases at all. If that is what happens in the classroom, it is
more telling evidence of the failure in implementing the
communicative approach, resulting from teachers' misconception of
the communicative approach.
At instructional levels, it is common for teachers to initiate
communication engagements by using routines or patterns as a
strategy for developing rapport and comfort, which are essential
for managing conversations.
Setiono's critical accounts on the pragmatic sides of TEFL in
Indonesia have brought to our attention practical aspects that
tend to be taken for granted. What happened in the past was often
piecemeal changes which entail fixing a part but leaving the
other parts unfixed.
For improving TEFL, it is imperative to exercise a paradigm
shift, that is a systematic and massive change. It entails
replacing the whole mechanism in the context of systematic and
well-planned language planning.
The writer is a lecturer at Bandung Teachers Training
Institute, West Java.
Window: Teachers are aware that school settings and large
classroom sizes are not conducive to developing effective
communication in English. However, their awareness is not
necessarily synonymous with understanding the communicative
approach.