Classroom Discourse of Malay Language Lessona Critical Analysis
Classroom Discourse of Malay Language Lessona Critical Analysis
Classroom Discourse of Malay Language Lessona Critical Analysis
Abstract
Research on the teaching and learning process of the Malay language in the
classroom usually focuses on the method, content, strategy and teaching aids.
Moving away from this norm, this research article examines the process from the
discourse analysis perspective called pedagogic discourse analysis, with an
adaptation of Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis Framework (1992; 1995).
The discussion is based on several hours of teaching-learning case study
conducted in a secondary school classroom, which emphasizes integrated
curriculum in an attempt to understand the unseen social processes, i.e. teacher
dominance in discourse. The research findings indicate that teacher dominance is
concealed in turn-taking system, types of questions posed by the teacher,
discourse control and the overall structure of the discourse, which have their
implications on the implementation of the National Education Philosophy.
Contrary to the emphasis on student centredness and thinking skills as laid out by
the Integrated Curriculum for Secondary School, it is found that the nature of the
learning process in the classroom hardly focused on students’ thinking skills. This
article argues that students should be given the opportunity to exercise their
critical and creative potentials.
Abstrak
1
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
berlaku dalam bilik darjah jarang memberi penekanan kepada kemahiran berfikir
pelajar. Ini bertentangan dengan matlamat pengajaran dan pembelajaran Bahasa
Melayu dalam kurikulum bersepadu untuk sekolah menengah yang berpusat pada
pelajar dan menerapkan kemahiran berfikir dalam kurikulum. Dalam hal ini,
pelajar patut diberi peluang untuk mempraktik potensi kritis dan kreatif mereka.
INTRODUCTION
2
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
The integrative curriculum of the Malaysian education system (in both primary
and secondary levels)3 is implemented to improve the quality of education by
putting emphasis on holistic and integrative individual potentials. It is the
objective of this curriculum that students’ intellectual, spiritual, emotional and
physical potentials are developed so as to produce well-balanced individuals who
can, not only adapt themselves in, but also contribute towards a harmonious and
3
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
prosperous society and country (see Shahril@Charil & Habib 1999, 83). To
achieve this philosophical objective, planning for Malay language education in
the contexts of this integrative curriculum, is motivated by the following needs:
improving of language skills for effective communication; improving as well as
expanding of the proficiency and practice of Malay language as the country’s
official language; developing and enhancing of intellectual as well as rational,
critical and creative thinking; procuring of knowledge and developing as well as
applying these skills in daily lives; possessing self-confidence that can contribute
towards self and society (see Shahril@Charil & Habib 1999; Mok 1996). In view
of contemporary developments and challenges, for instance the current surge of
information, rapid progress of science and technology as well as the effects of
globalisation, the Malaysian Education Ministry has been hard pressed to review
the Malay language subject within the Integrative Curriculum for Primary Schools
(KBSR) and Integrative Curriculum for Secondary Schools (KBSM). As a result
of revisions, adaptations are made to the aims of the syllabus, namely to produce
individuals who are literate in Information and Communicative Technology,
capable of exploring new knowledge and possessing the ability to communicate
effectively in multiple socio-cultural conditions (Zahirah 2001, 12).
In this context, the concept of classroom discourse in the integrative
curriculum Malay language subject deals with discourse that emphasises student-
centred teaching and learning or in other words, students play active roles in a
variety of activities. This means teachers are encouraged to plan numerous
activities and teaching aids suitable for student ability and interest
(Shahril@Charil & Habib 1999, 72-73).
While executing a Malay language lesson, a crucial component for teacher
to give emphasis to is thinking skills; this is in addition to the incorporation of the
skills of other core subject’s literary elements, reading and also the concept of
Malay language across disciplines. To achieve high level thinking skills, teaching
and learning activities need to stimulate students into thinking and discussing
logically, rationally and objectively (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 1992, 6).
In short, the form of classroom discourse to be utilised so as to achieve the above
objectives is one that is student-centred or one in which each student takes part
actively in the teaching and learning. In such a context, a teacher becomes a
4
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) provides the theoretical framework for this
study. In this theory, analysis of discourse is not merely transparent;4 it is instead
a perceptive and committed approach that includes examining the web of social
processes implicated in the discourse. According to Fairclough & Wodak (1997,
258), “CDA sees itself not as dispassionate and objective social science, but as
engaged and committed”. In other words, the theory considers discourse as a
social process. Language, or discourse, which is inclusive of its own as well as
representational nature, is an aspect of social process (Chouliaraki 2000, 297).
Accepting discourse as a social practice means having to reveal the covert
nature of social process embedded in discourse. Discourse is not merely a
5
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
6
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
7
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
DISCOURSE DATA
The discourse used as samples in this article is part of the data collected through
case and preliminary studies on 10 classroom discourses (or 10 texts) on the
Malay Language subject in a secondary school in Selangor Darul Ehsan.9
Discourse was collected through direct audio recording while the teacher was
8
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
teaching in the classroom. Recordings were transcribed into texts. To simplify the
analysis, each utterance is given a number according to clauses. On the whole, the
discourse implicates 5 graduate teachers (1 male and 4 female) with at least 5
years of teaching experience. The students involved were the KBSM Forms One
and Two students, male and female, in the 13-14 age category.10
The social practice embedded in classroom discourse, which the speakers may not
be aware of (and that include many of us), that is the concern here is teacher
domination. Teacher domination, as used in the context of this study, refers to the
more prominent teacher role and action in a classroom teaching and learning
process than those of the main targets or subjects – i.e. the students. Such
pedagogical practice can be illustrated by its dialectical relationship with several
textual elements and relevant classroom discourse practices. The following are
qualitative illustrations on the ways teacher domination take place in teacher-
student discourse. Discussions begin with textual analysis, followed by those on
discourse practice.
9
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
Domination in turn-taking means the system is not necessarily based upon the
equal rights and obligation of all speakers in discourse. This dominating
phenomenon in turn-taking is normally found in institutions that involve the
professional, the ‘insider’, or ‘gatekeeper’ interacting with the ‘public’, ‘client’,
‘outsider’ or student (Fairclough 1992, 153).
Domination in turn-taking is obvious in the classroom discourse analysed.
It happened when most interactions were initiated by the teacher, either through
extraction, instruction or information by way of questions, statements or requests.
A teacher-initiated utterance received response from the student, and was
followed by an acceptance or acknowledgement by the teacher. In other words,
the teacher-student interaction was organised according to the teacher-initiated
‘move’ (using Sinclair & Coulthard’s concepts), followed by student
response/reaction and teacher acceptance. Thus, the interactive movement of this
classroom discourse can be structured into 3 parts, Teacher initial-move – Student
response – Teacher acceptance (explicit or implicit), or alternatively T-S-T. This
structure is reflected in example (1).
(1)
…………………………………………………………………………
T (teacher) : [061] O.K.berapakah jumlah pekerja pada tahun 1985?
(O.K. What is the total number of workers in 1985?)
S (student) : [062] (Buzzing-tak jelas)
(Buzzing – unclear)
T : [063] O.K. 5 juta 6 ratus orang,manakala tahun 1990,1990,aa6
(O.K. 5 million 6 hundred people, meanwhile in 1990, 1990, aa 6)
S : [064] juta 500 ribu
( million 500 thousand.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [065] Jadi, adakah berkurang atau meningkat?
(So, is there an increase or decrease?)
S : [066] Meningkat
(Increase.)
T : [067] Meningkat
(Increase.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [068] Sebanyak
(How much.)
S : [069] Smbilan ratus ribu
(Nine hundred thousand.)
T : [070] O.K. Sembilan ratus ribu
(O.K. Nine hundred thousand.)
: [071] Enam dengan lima di situ.
(Six and five there.)
10
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
The example (1) has five exchanges (each marked with dotted lines).
Move in each exchange is initiated by the teacher, followed by response from the
student and then acknowledgement/comment from the teacher. For example, in
the first exchange, teacher began move by asking a question in [061], and this was
followed by student’s move [062] as response to teacher’s question, even though
in the form of buzzing. In [063], teacher made acknowledgement move by re-
emphasising the answer given by the student in the previous move. A similar
pattern was repeated in other exchanges. In exchange three, teacher began move
by extracting answer from student with a request (068], and not by questioning.
Such interaction structure leads to teacher control of the basic organisation
of interaction by opening as well as closing every move and accepting student
response/answer. This reflects the existence of control or domination in turn-
taking, whereby the student seldom has or even has no chance at all of getting a
turn to speak unless given by the teacher through the given questions or requests.
Though in one aspect, this turn-taking system is one method of controlling the
flow of discourse, but in another, is unfortunately reflects teacher domination in
discourse.
11
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
Topic control means the main participant – in this case, the teacher – usually
controls topics in discourse, interaction or move. In other words, the main
participant makes change to a new topic.
In the classroom discourse analysed, this textual feature is identified.
Topic control takes place when a new topic is proposed as a result of teacher
question or statement, teacher disregard for student response/answer and also
teacher selection in accepting student response. These phenomena are reflected in
example (2).
In (2), which had three exchanges, the teacher determined the topic in
every exchange. All three topics were decided through the questions in the
teacher’s initial moves, namely [164], [168] and [174]. In the first exchange, the
topic concerned occupational sector that was on the increase. In the second, it was
concerning the reasons for the increase of manufacturing sector and in the third
exchange was on the number of factories in Bandar Baru Bangi.
(2)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [164] Sektor mana yang nampak sangat meningkat di situ?
(Which sector seems to be on the increase there?)
S : [165] Perkilangan.
(Manufacturing.)
T : [166] Sektor per-
(Which sector? Manu-?)
S : [167] kilangan
(facturing)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [168] Kenapa agaknya sector perkilangan makin meningkat?
(Why do you think the manufacturing sector is on the increase?)
S : [169] Aa..kerna (tak jelas-buzzing)
(Aa.. because (unclear – buzzing)).
T : [170] Aa, negara kita menuju ke arah negara perindus-
(Aa, our country is becoming indus-
S : [171] trian
(–trial)
: [172] (Tak jelas)
(Unclear)
T : [173] Banyak, contohnya kilang-kilang banyak dibuka,kan?
(Many, for example many factories have been built, right?)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [174] Di Bandar Baru Bangi ini saja, ada berapa buah kilang, siapa tahu?
(In Bandar Baru Bangi, how many factories are there, anybody
knows?)
S : [175] 10 kot
(Maybe 10.)
12
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
T : [176] 10!
(10!)
S : [177] Lebih
(More.)
T : [178] Lebih daripada itu
(More than that.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 4)
Teacher disregard for student response can also be detected in (3) below.
The student provided response [186] by completing teacher statement [185], but
the teacher disregarded the response when the teacher instead gave a set answer
followed by a tag question [187]. The student was undeterred and continued
giving responses, [188] to [191], i.e. three times, including making repeated
interruptions marked by vertical lines in the data) as in [188]. The actions were
disregarded by the teacher.11
(3)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [183] O.K.Mungkin jalan raya itu jalan raya apa?
(O.K. maybe it’s the road, the road is -)
S : [184] (tak jelas/buzzing)
(Unclear/buzzing)
T : [185] Sempit, jalan raya yang sempit atau yang jalan raya yang tak ada tanda,
(Narrow, narrow roads or streets without road-signs,)
S : [186] lampu
(lights)
T : [187] Papan tanda tertentu, ya tak?
Tak ada lampu boleh juga!
( Proper road-signs, right?)
S : [188] (No lights, it’s still possible.)
[189] Gelap cikgu!
(Darkness, teacher!)
[190] (buzzing)
(buzzing)
[191] Tak ada lampu gelap, cikgu.
( It’s dark without lights, teacher.)
T : [192] Awak punya takrif kebanyakan,aa kemalangan ini kalau awak tengok
lapuran dari aa, cawangan trafik polis diraja itu, awak tengok,
kemalangan ini berlaku di jalan apa?
(Your understanding of, most, aa, accidents, if you check
the report from aa, that royal police traffic branch, you see, accidents
happen on which type of roads?)
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 3, Discussion on Road Accidents)
13
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
(4)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [210] O.K .Selain SPBT apa?
( O.K. what else besides SPBT?)
S : [211] Biasiswa.
( Scholarship.)
T : [212] Biasiswa, betul?
(Scholarship, right?)
S : [213] Betul.
(Right.)
T : [214] Biasiswa untuk orang-orang yang berkelayakan sahaja
(Scholarships are only for the deserving.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [215] Kemudian, rayuan apa, sekarang ni,kamu nak adakan kem atau pun kita
nak bina surau?
(Then, what kind of appeal, now, you want to have a camp or do
we build a surau?)
S : [216] (Buzzing- tak jelas)
(Buzzing-unclear)
T : [217] Betul?
(Is it correct?)
S : [218] Betul.
(Correct)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [219] Kita perlukan apa?
(What do we need?)
S : [220] Duit
(Money.)
T : [221] Duit derma
(Money from donation)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [222] Derma kita mesti mohon melalui surat,
(For donations, we must request through what letters,)
S : [223] rasmi
(official)
T : [224] Surat rayuan, rayuan der,
(Letter of appeal, appeal for don-)
S : [225] ma.
( –nation)
T : [226] ma.
( –nation)
14
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 7, Discussion on Letter Writing)
(5)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [172] Saya nampak acara Hari Guru ini, ramai yang terlibat ialah
pelajar- pelajar.
(I noticed in this Teachers’ Day event, there are many students
involved.)
[173] Betul tak?
(Is that right?)
S : [174] Betul
(Right.)
T : [175] Cikgu buat kerja…
(Teachers do some work…(unclear).)
[176] Cikgu buat dek.
(Teachers made don’t know.)
S : [177] Betul,betul
(Right, right.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [178] Ada point lagi?
(Any more points?)
(Text 1)
15
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
(6)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [125] Negara kita masih negara pertanian, faham?.
(Our country is still an agricultural country, understand?.)
[126] Itu sebab, pertanian lebih tinggi, faham?
(That is reason why agriculture is higher, understand.?)
[127] Barulah sekarang negara kita maju dalam bidang perindus-
(Only now, our country is developed in terms of ind-)
S : [128] - trian
( -dustry).
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [129] Negara kita terkenal dengan apa?
( Our country is famous for?)
S : [130] (tak jelas)
(Unclear)
T : [131] Pengeluar kelapa sawit, dan juga..
(Producer of palm, and also..)
S : [132] getah
(rubber)
T : [133] Getah
(Rubber.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 4)
(7)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [090] Pengeboman apa?
(What was bombed?)
S : [091] WTC
(WTC.)
T : [092] Aa, WTC di New York
(Aa, WTC in New York.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
: [093] Jadi,aa,mereka ,aa pelancong-pelancong takut untuk menaiki kapal,
( So, aa, they, aa, tourists are afraid to fly on the air, )
S : [094] terbang
(plane,)
T [095] terbang
(plane).
[096] Takut kapal terbang diram-
(The fear planes will be hij-)
S : [097] -pas.
( –jacked)
16
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
T : [098] -pas
(–jacked)
[099] Aa, itu sebabnya
(Aa, that is why).
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 4)
(8)
. ……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [308] Baik,sebagai penutup,penutup apa nak tulis?
(Right, as conclusion, what do you write as conclusion?)
S : [309] (Buzzing)
(Buzzing)
[310] Ingatkan pemandu (tak jelas)
(Remind drivers (unclear))
T :[311] Awak boleh kata sebagai penutup, banyak, O.K. banyak
kemalangan jalan raya berlaku di Malaysia pada setiap tahun dan
ini memerlukan langkah-langkah apa,
(You can say as conclusion, many, O.K. many road accidents
happen in Malaysia every year and what kind of measures are
required, )
S : [312] Langkah-langkah keselamatan
(Safety measures.)
T : [313] Langkah-langkah keselamatan dari semua pihak ya,termasuk
pengguna jalan raya itu sendiri dan siapa,
( Safety measures from all those concerned, yes, including road
users and who, )
: [314] Pihak,
(which body,)
S : [315] berkuasa
(government.)
T : [316] Pihak berkuasa atau pihak kerajaan, ya tak.
(Governing body or the government, right,)
: [317] Maksudnya, pengguna jalan raya itu perlu berhati-hati di jalan
raya, mematuhi peraturan-peraturan di jalan raya,O.K.
(This means road users have to be cautious on the road, follow
all the traffic rules, O.K?)
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 3)
17
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
(9)
. ……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 3)
Discourse practice analysis involves a macro-level interpretation of, not only the
production of discourse, but also its producers (Fairclough 1992, 65 & 134).
Analysis reveals the pedagogic discourse examined in this study has been
produced conventionally, in which conventional practice indicates the act of
production has centred on the teacher, and not student. A teacher-centred practice
reflects, among others, a more dominant teacher-role as compared to student,
interrupted-responses and the approach to question-making by teacher.
The following sections discuss the aforementioned practices identified in
this study.
18
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
In this situation, teacher answers own question rather than allowing student to
answer. This practice is identified in (10) and (11). In (10), the teacher provided
questions in [143] and [144] but proceeded to answer them himself/herself in
[145]. Teacher-question in [146] was again self-answered in [147]. In (11),
teacher-question in [294] was self-answered in [295]. Student responses in [296]
and [297] were repeatedly ignored by the teacher before proceeding to the next
move.
(10)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [143] Dalam ucapan itu, apa lagi ada?
(What else is there in that speech?)
[144] Ucapan siapa?
(Whose speech?)
[145] Ucapan..Kadang-kadang Pengetua.
( Speech…sometimes by the Principal.)
[146] Kadang-kadang cikgu lain membaca ucapan oleh siapa?
( Sometimes other teachers will read whose speech text?)
[146] Menteri Pendidikan.
(The Minister of Education.)
[147] Lagi satu ucapan Pengarah Pendidikan.
(Another speech, the Director of Education.)
[148] Betul tak?
( Is that right?)
[149] Ucapan teks yang disediakan, cikgu yang baca.
( The teacher read the speech text that was prepared.)
……………………………………………………………………………………
(Text 1)
(11)
……………………………………………………………………………………
19
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
In contrast to the above discussion (b), the discourse analysed in this study
reflects prominently the teacher’s role and teaching profession. For example, this
practice happens when the teacher prefers to offer explanations, descriptions or
answers to students rather than allow them to discuss, analyse or summarise in
order to seek for their own answers. In other words, the teacher speaks more than
the student. Discourse is thus centred on the teacher. This practice can be detected
in (12).
(12)
……………………………………………………………………………………
T : [35] Baik, dekat sini cuba kamu tengok.
(Right, over here, check and see.)
[36] Yang pertama, tujuan dia, dia nak cerita fasal kematian sepupu dia.
(The first, his reason, he wants to inform the death of his cousin.)
[37] Yang kedua, dia pergi kepada penerangan, bagaimana kejadian itu
berlaku.
(Secondly, he proceeds to the description, how the accident happened.
[38] Jadi, kalau kamu tulis surat, yang pertama tujuan kamu tulis surat
(So, if you write a letter, firstly, you a reason for writing.)
[39] Yang kedua, kamu pergi kepada isi kedua, apa lagi yang berkaitan dengan
yang tadi.
(Secondly, you proceed to your second point, other issues related
to the previous one.)
[40] Selalunya dalam surat kiriman ke, apa-apa, kita akan letakkan isi, yang
pertama isi penting.
(Usually in letter writing, we put the main point as the first)
[41] Yang kedua isi yang kurang penting.
20
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
CONCLUSION
21
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
analytical skills and objectivity, classroom teaching and learning activities have to
be geared to encourage students towards those ends. In other words, a pedagogic
discourse that is suitably practiced is one that has to be student-centred, and every
student needs to be actively and effectively involved in the teaching and learning
process. Among the practices that should be utilised are making students offer
their opinions, summarise, analyse, reason as well as suggest ideas through
speaking and writing. The teacher/educator must be sensitive to students – they
are not dense. Students have skills and talents that need to be recognised and
polished by their teachers (Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia 1992, 17-19). The
discussions on the negative practices found to be embedded in this example of
classroom discourse have good intentions and should be regarded as a
contribution from the linguistics discipline, especially discourse analysis towards
the teaching of Malay language.
Notes
*
This is a revised article based on a paper presented at the International Conference on Critical
Discourse Analysis, University of Tasmania, Australia, 15th–18th November 2005 and published
in refereed proceedings entitled A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Teaching and Learning of L1
in Malaysia.
1
They discovered that the structure of classroom discourse consisted of 5 descending units
beginning with lesson, transaction, exchange, move and act. An upper unit is built upon a lower
one, for instance a lesson is built upon several transactions, which in turn are the product of
several exchanges. The exchange unit is usually marked by an informative, imperative or enquiry
where in every element a statement and request or command is made and a question asked, usually
by the teacher.
2
Critical discourse analysis, popularly abbreviated to CDA.
3
The New Curriculum for Primary Schools was first implemented in 1983 and was revised in
1988 as the Integrative Curriculum for Primary Schools (KBSR). Integrative Curriculum for
Secondary Schools (KBSM) was implemented on 1989 (see Mok 1996, 147-8).
4
In this context, transparent refers to an examination of the nature of linguistic discourse merely
through its textual and/or discursive features without considering other underlying features
inherent in discourse, namely practice, process and social issues.
5
Education is a social process too.
6
There are other discourse analysts who have proposed other theoretical frameworks in critical
discourse analysis with different approaches to and methods for analysis, namely van Dijk (1991),
Wodak (1996), etc.
7
Basically, Fairclough’s discourse/language functions share similar features with Halliday’s
language functions (1985), namely textual, interpersonal and ideational. Fairclough separates
interpersonal functions into two - identity and relationship - even though in his writings he usually
draws upon Halliday’s three language functions.
8
For more details refer to Fairclough (1992; 1995a; 1995b; 2000) and Fairclough & Wodak
(1997).
9
The writers believe this number (10) is adequate for case and preliminary studies since for the
purpose of critical discourse analysis specifically, it is the discourse that is of concern. Fairclough
(1995a) only analysed three texts on university advertisements in his discussion on ‘Marketization
of public discourse’.
22
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
10
It has to be stressed here that the elaborations in this study and article are not references to any
individual specifically, but they are to be regarded as institutional discourse.
11
For interaction interruption or turn-taking, refer (3).
12
The group response is produced due to the nature of the teacher’s questioning; the teacher
opened the question to the whole class instead of identifying individual students to answer. This
phenomenon is discussed below. Individuality in pedagogic discourse has its own benefits;
Chouliaraki (1998) had addressed this issue.
References
23
Jilid 1, Bilangan 1, Julai - Disember 2006
24