Email this article Exploring the effects of Pair-Interaction Model on improving Indonesian adult learners’ English proficiency
Abstract
The phenomenon of poor English language proficiency among Indonesian students suggests revisiting the instructional methods that have long been commonly used in English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms. This long-lasting problem makes it essential for English practitioners to seek alternative approaches paving the ground for the EFL learners to reach more promising achievements. One of the approaches that may fill in this lacuna is Pair-Interaction Model (PIM). Therefore, the present study was an attempt to disclose the effects of PIM on fostering Indonesian EFL learners’ proficiency compared to the Grammar-Translation Method (GTM). For this purpose, a total of 90 first-year English students from three renowned universities in South Sulawesi, i.e. Hasanuddin University, Indonesian Moslem University situated in Makassar, and the Muhammadiyah University of Pare-Pare, were selected using a purposive sampling technique. The participants went through a pre-test, an intervention, and a post-test procedures. Findings revealed that the English proficiency of the participants who received instructions based on the principles and procedures of PIM significantly improved at the end of the interventions. This improvement was particularly seen in the participants’ grammar knowledge and speaking skills. The findings offered strong evidence that PIM can be implemented in the Indonesian classes to foster EFL learners’ proficiency. The study concludes by offering some implications for relevant stakeholders and opening up some avenues for further research.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Amineh, R. J., & Asl, H. D. (2015). Review of constructivism and social constructivism. Journal of Social Sciences, Literature and Languages, 1(1), 9-16.
An, J., Macaro, E., & Childs, A. (2021). Classroom interaction in EMI high schools: Do teachers who are native speakers of English make a difference? System, 98, 1-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102482
An, J., & Thomas, N. (2021). Students’ beliefs about the role of interaction for science learning and language learning in EMI science classes: Evidence from high schools in China. Linguistics and Education, 65, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2021.100972
Arlin, P. K. (1981). Piagetian tasks as predictors of reading and math readiness in grades K–2. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 712-724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.73.5.712
Azizi, Z., & Rezai, A. (2022). Improving Iranian high school students’ writing skills through online dialogic interactions: A microgenetic analysis. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 23(2), 76-92.
Bada, S. O., & Olusegun, S. (2015). Constructivism learning theory: A paradigm for teaching and learning. Journal of Research & Method in Education, 5(6), 66-70.
British Council (2006). British Council survey of policy and practice in primary English language teaching worldwide. Cambridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching.
Longman.
Bruner, J. S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press.
Celce-Murcia, M. (2001). Why it makes sense to teach grammar in context and through discourse. In E. Hinkel & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 131-146). Routledge.
Chin, C. (2006). Classroom interaction in science: Teacher questioning and feedback to students’ responses. International Journal of Science Education, 28(11), 1315–1346. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690600621100
Crosthwaite, P., de Souza, N., & Loewenthal, M. (2017). Mindset for IELTS: Student book 2. Cambridge University Press.
Dirkx, J. M., & Prenger, S. M. (1997). A guide for planning and implementing instruction for adults: A theme-based approach. Jossey-Bass Inc.
Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University
Press.
Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2007). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In B. VanPatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction (pp. 175-199). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gear, J., & Gear, R. (2002). Cambridge preparation for the TOEFL® test book with CD-ROM (Vol. 1). Cambridge University Press.
Goodman, K. S. (1989). The whole language evaluation book. Heinemann Educational Books, Inc.
Hanafiah, W. (2011). A model of English grammar teaching through learner-learner interaction in pair activities and its contributions to learners’ English proficiency: A quasi-experimental research [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
Harmer, J. (1994). The practice of English teaching. Longman Group.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.), Sociolinguistics (pp. 269–293). Penguin
Jiang, A. L., & Zhang, L. J. (2019). Chinese students’ perceptions of English learning affordances and their agency in an English-medium instruction classroom context. Language and Education, 33(4), 322-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2019.1578789
Joe, Y. J., & Lee, H. K. (2013). Does English-medium instruction benefit students in EFL contexts? A case study of medical students in Korea. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22(2), 201-207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-012-0003-7
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Pergamon.
Krashen, S. D. (1991). The input hypothesis: An update. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.),
Georgetown University round table on languages and linguistics: Language pedagogy: The state of the art (pp. 409–431). Georgetown University Press.
Krashen, S. D. (1997). The comprehension hypothesis: Recent evidence. English Teachers’ Journal, 51, 17-29.
Kyriacou, C., & Zhu, D. (2008). Shanghai pupils’ motivation towards learning English and the perceived influence of important others. Educational Studies, 34(2), 97-104. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701811099
Lantolf, J. P., Xi, J., & Minakova, V. (2021). Sociocultural theory and concept-based language instruction. Language Teaching, 54(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000348
Latham-Koenig, C., Oxenden, C., & Lambert, J. (2020). American English file: Level 4 student book (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Littlewood, W. (1983). Communicative language teaching: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Lo, Y. Y., & Macaro, E. (2012). The medium of instruction and classroom interaction: Evidence from Hong Kong secondary schools. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 15(1), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2011.588307
Long, M. H. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24(4), 649-666. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587113
Long, M. H. (1996). The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 413-468). Academic Press.
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. In S. Loewen & M. Sato (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 87-107). Routledge.
Masrizal, M. (2014). The role of negotiation of meaning in L2 interactions: An analysis from the perspective of Long’s Interaction Hypothesis. Studies in English Language and Education, 1(2), 96-105. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v1i2.1829
Mirhosseini, S. A., & Sharif, N. (2022). Phonics vs. whole language in teaching EFL to young learners: A micro-ethnographic study. Interdisciplinary Studies in English Language Teaching, 12(4), 1-25.
Muho, A., & Kurani, A. (2011). The role of interaction in second language acquisition. European Scientific Journal, 16, 44-54.
Namaziandost, E., & Çakmak, F. (2020). An account of EFL learners’ self-efficacy and gender in the Flipped Classroom Model. Education and Information Technologies, 25(2), 4041-4055. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10167-7
Namaziandost, E., Razmi, M. H., Hernández, R. M., Ocaña-Fernández, Y., & Khabir, M. (2021). Synchronous CMC text chat versus synchronous CMC voice chat: Impacts on EFL learners’ oral proficiency and anxiety. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 4, 599-616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2021.1906362
Novera, I. A. (2004). Indonesian postgraduate students studying in Australia: An examination of their academic, social, and cultural experiences. International Education Journal, 5(4), 475-487.
Nunan, D. (1991). Communicative tasks and the language curriculum. TESOL Quarterly, 25(2), 279-295. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587464
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Piaget, J. (1981). Intelligence and affectivity: Their relationship during child development. Annual Reviews.
Poehner, M. E., & Wang, Z. (2021). Dynamic assessment and second language development. Language Teaching, 54(4), 472-490. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000555
Rahayu, D. (2020). Interaction in collaborative writing between international and domestic students in an Indonesian university. Studies in English Language and Education, 7(1), 113-128. https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v7i1.15773
Rezai, A. (2022). Cultivating Iranian IELTS candidates’ writing skills through online peer feedback: A mixed-methods inquiry. Education Research International, 22, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6577979
Riazi, A. M. (2016). The Routledge encyclopedia of research methods in applied linguistics. Routledge.
Richard-Amato, P. A. (1988). Making it happen: Interaction in the second language classroom. Longman.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Rutherford, W. E., & Smith, M. S. (1985). Consciousness-raising and universal grammar. Applied Linguistics, 6(3), 274-282. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/6.3.274
Saito, K., Suzuki, S., Oyama, T., & Akiyama, Y. (2021). How does longitudinal interaction promote second language speech learning? Roles of learner experience and proficiency levels. Second Language Research, 37(4), 547-571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267658319884981
Senior, R. (2002). A class-centered approach to language teaching. ELT Journal, 56(4), 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/56.4.397
Shabani, E. A., & Panahi, J. (2020). Examining consistency among different rubrics for assessing writing. Language Testing in Asia, 10, 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40468-020-00111-4
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in desegregated schools. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01128.x
Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. Academic Press.
Sugiharto, S. (2006). Initiating EFL learners into discourse grammar: How far should we go? Linguistik Indonesia, 24(2), 209-220.
Suhartina, M. (2012). Varied classroom interaction of English grammar teaching: A comparative study [Upublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis: Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language learning and teaching (pp. 124-145). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomlinson, B. (1990). Managing change in Indonesian high schools. ELT Journal, 44(1), 25-37. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/44.1.25
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). The collected work of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1: Thinking and speaking). Plenum.
Yang, G., Quanjiang, G., Michael, L., Chun, L., & Chuang, W. (2021). Developing literacy or focusing on interaction: New Zealand students’ strategic efforts related to Chinese language learning during study abroad in China. System, 98, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102462
Yassi, A. H. (2008). Transformasi paradigma analisis teks kearah analisis yang lebih beorientasi sosial dan kritis: Dari analisis wacana ke analisis wacana kritis [Transformation of the text analysis paradigm towards a more socially oriented and critical analysis: From discourse analysis to critical discourse analysis]. Proceeding Bulan Bahasa. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
Yassi, A. H. (2009). Model pembelajaran gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis interaktif, “Paired Interaction”, dalam rangka meningkatkan kompetensi Bahasa Inggris mahasiswa: Kajian quasi eksperimental [An interactive-based English grammar learning model, “Paired Interaction”, in order to improve students’ English competence: A quasi-experimental study]. Bulletin Penelitian, 7(2), 388-547.
Yassi, A. H. (2012). Uji efektifitas dan pengembangan model pembelajaran gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis “Interaktif Paired Interaction Model” dalam rangka meningkatkan kompetensi bahasa inggris mahasiswa [Test the effectiveness and development of an English grammar learning model based on the “Interactive Paired Interaction Model” in order to improve students’ English competence] [Reserach report]. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
Yassi, A. H. (2014). Uji efektifitas dan pengembangan model pembelajaran gramatika Bahasa Inggris berbasis interaktif, “Paired Interaction Model”, terhadap dua pendekatan pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris; deduktif dan induktif dalam rangka meningkatkan kompetensi bahasa Inggris mahasiswa [Test the effectiveness and development of an interactive-based English grammar learning model, “Paired Interaction Model”, for two approaches to learning English; deductive and inductive in order to improve students’ English competence] [Research report]. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
Yassi, A. H. (2020). Effective numbers of small group work members in improving learners’ grammar and speaking competence in English grammar classrooms: Interactive vs conventional teaching method. Asian ESP Journal, 16(1.2), 94-116.
Zaid, R., N. (2012). Monolingual and bilingual approaches in English classrooms: A comparative study [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universitas Hasanuddin Makassar.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v10i1.27406
Article Metrics
Abstract view : 0 timesPDF - 0 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.