This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Helena I. R. Agustien Universitas Negeri Semarang (UNNES) Introduction The 2004 English curriculum is designed based on the government regulation stating that the level of achievement in every curriculum is stated in terms of competence (Chapter III, Article 8, Point 1); that the learning process is carried out by developing reading and writing culture; and that (Chapter III, Article 21, Point 2); that the competence for language subjects should emphasise the ability to read and write (Chapter III, Article 25, Point 3) suitable for the levels of education; and that the standards of competence for high schools are aimed at increasing / improving the learners’ intelligence, knowledge, personality, integrity, and life skills in order to live independently and to pursue further education (Chapter III, Article 26, point 2). Explicit in the regulation is the government commitment to improve the nation’s literacy level because literacy is the key to learning any other subjects, and language education is supposed to deliver the big expectations. Implicit in the regulations is the expectation that language education, including English education, is expected to develop communicative competence or the ability to communicate in spoken or written language so that learners will possess the so called social skills. Competence in the 2004 English Curriculum The 2004 English curriculum is designed according to the government regulation in the sense that the curriculum has to be competence-based and that at the end of the day learners are expected to be able to communicate in English as one of their life skills and that they are expected to be able to handle written texts not only for pursuing further studies, but also for learning independently in order to be independent members of community. To translate these ideas into an English curriculum, we need to have a clear idea about what language competence is. The definition of language competence needs to be defined by examining the relevant theories. The term “competence” has arrived in the international literature since Chomsky coined it in 1965. Since then, this notion has been used by different authors, some with the original sense as meant by Chomsky, and some others use the term in different sense according to their research or
A plenary paper presented at UPI national seminar, 27 February 2006.
nothing can be done. people participated in the tsunami discourse to solve problems and without the ability to create discourse.writing purposes. to offer help and so on. Discourse is something abstract that comes into being through texts. Drawing on previous communicative competence models developed for language learning purposes. is how all those details contribute to the development of communicative competence or discourse competence. without texts. Thus. in a discourse called Tsunami. the events that happened in contexts. the events that occurred with purposes. Taylor (1988) also suggests that Chomsky is mainly concerned with tacit knowledge. a model of competence which is pedagogically motivated is used as the basis of developing the 2004 curriculum. or “attained state” and not with how that state is attained. People tried to communicate to obtain news. Therefore. Thousands of texts were produced.’s model arrived with highly explicit and specific details covering what language learners need to attain if they want to develop communicative competence. to express condolences. we have been involved. These acts of communication are communicative events. That model is the one developed by Celce-Murcia et al. language education is responsible for creating a . learners need the supporting competence including linguistic competence. teachers need to come to term with discourse. In other words. For example. at the aftermath and these texts created a huge discourse. without communication. How did the discourse emerge? How has it been sustained? Is it dying out? When the December tsunami attacked. The details presented on the lists of “micro” competencies really help the users see what they need to develop when they want to develop learners” communicative competence. to participate in discourse. That is probably why Taylor (1988) says that the word “competence” has been widely used and abused. Clece-Murcia et al. (1995). It can be concluded that the ultimate goal of language education is to communicate. or “ready state”. when people use the term at all. To attain this competence. and probably the most challenging part. including ours. and strategic competence. CelceMurcia et al. socio-cultural competence. Since pedagogy is about how to attain a particular state of language ability. in one way or another.’s model suggests that the ultimate competence is communicative competence (CC) or discourse competence. These communicative events are realised in texts: spoken and written. to create texts. people in the world talked and wrote about it. to develop life skills. However. Bringing discourse into the picture. actional competence. the most important. it is important that the definition be provided so that the readers know exactly whether it is competence in Chomskyan sense (psycholinguistic tradition) or competence in pedagogical sense (sociocultural).
In other words. Thus far. the text types determined for senior high school levels include: descriptive.). a level where the graduates are expected to use English junior high school survival purposes such as carrying out transactional exchanges. In the following . what language / communicative competence is. exposition. greeting cards etc. interpersonal conversations (to establish and maintain social relations). in this way we know which targets to “shoot out”. reading popular science or teenagers’ encyclopaedia. monologues and essays of certain genres. short functional texts (announcements. report. The types of text (genres) developed in the 2004 English curriculum include transactional conversations (to get something done). the junior high school literacy level is the functional level. For this reason. explanation. Senior high school graduates are expected to achieve the informational level where they can carry out more extended and interpersonal conversations. a unit of language that makes sense. they are supposed to be able to access accumulated knowledge typically obtained at higher learning institutions. Therefore. texts are not sporadically addressed. discussion. narrative. A conversation. talk or a piece of writing can be called a text only when it makes sense. language education is responsible for creating learners’ ability to create texts. if our main goal is to develop communicative competence or the ability to communicate. Communication happens only when we make sensible texts. etc. and report. 1992). Based on Well’s taxonomy (1987). and review. it is not a text. it is not communication.literate community where the members are able to participate in the dayto-day activities or social practices in modern societies (Hammond et al. narrative. news item. we need to develop a curriculum or a syllabus that is text-based. and deal with texts to access knowledge at university level and self study. This kind of curriculum states explicitly what kinds of texts are targeted by certain level of schooling based on the learners’ communication needs. In other words. these are the communicative competence to be developed. reading for fun. Along with the competence. The genres for junior high school level include: procedure. This is the overarching concept or the philosophical level of language education. and what literacy levels are set for junior and senior high school levels. why text is central in the curriculum. the literacy levels are also determined based on the government regulation that senior high school graduates are supposed to be ready for handling the kinds of text they face at university level. and in this way we create short-cuts necessary for adjusting the curriculum targets with the time allotment. At the “bottom” or practical level. recount. In this way. our discussion has clarified several issues: why the 2004 English curriculum is competence-based. A text is a semantic unit. descriptive. When it does not make sense.
and is the outcome of collaboration between the teacher and the student and between the student and the other students in the group. Third. … Many educators are proposing more principled approaches to teaching and learning based on a “visible pedagogy” (Bernstein 1990:73) which clearly identifies what is to be learned and what is to be assessed. … The genre approach is concerned with providing students with explicit knowledge about language. … Vygotsky proposed that … each learner has two levels of development: a level of independent performance. learning language is a social activity. … The gap between these two levels Vygotsky called “the zone of proximal development” (ZPD) (Feeze and Joyce 2002: 25-26). language students learn about language. He proposes a language learning model with three outcomes: students learn language…. The methodology applied within the genre approach is based on the work of the Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1934/1978) and the American educational psychologist Bruner (1986). … this model of language learning shows that social interaction enables language students to develop: a resource for making meaning.section we are looking at how a text-based curriculum is implemented through a genre approach. Text-Based Curriculum and Genre Approach Feeze and Joyce (2002) indicate that “Approaching language learning from the perspective of texts requires an accompanying methodology which can enable the students the knowledge and skills to deal with spoken and written texts in social contexts” (Feeze and Joyce 2002:24). knowledge about language. Halliday (1992:19) describes language learning as “learning how to mean and to expand one’s meaning potential”. They also suggest that genre approach is the most effective methodology for implementing a text-based curriculum. . the process of learning is a series of scaffolded development developmental steps which address different aspects of language. a tool for interpreting and organising reality. In Feeze and Joyce’s words: First. and a level of potential performance. students learn through language…. Second. There are three assumptions underlying this method. Vygotsky”s ZPD can be represented as in the following diagram. learning occurs more effectively if teachers are explicit about what is expected of students.
Zone of Proximal Development Teacher Intervention Independen t Learning Zone Peer Intervention Interactive Discourse Diagram 1: Independent and potential learning zones (Corden 2000:9) Obviously. when children do tasks involving speech and hands. . they combine language and thought that lead to their cognitive development. and shared learning. This implies that classroom activities need to be carefully organised in order to provide learning experiences that trigger a child’s development as an individual and social being. Thus. while individual potential is acknowledged. this potential can only develop to its maximum capacity when a child undergo learning processes involving more knowledgeable others that create social interaction. In the process. In classroom context. Corden (2000:8) suggests that “classroom learning can best be seen as an interaction between teacher’s meanings and those of the pupils. negotiation. Vygotsky also provides us with a model of learning “which emphasizes the role of talk and places social discourse at the centre” (Corden 2000). so what they take away is partly shared and partly unique to each of them”. Vygostsky suggests that the presence of more capable others in a child’s learning environments enables a child to be involved in cultural events at social level that eventually develop the child’s individual cultural identity.
Provides the resources for students to understand and challenge valued discourses Consciousness raising. Provides access to the patterns and possibilities of variation in valued texts Critical.The three underlying assumptions regarding what language learning is and how learning languages can best take place materialise in the learning cycles and stages recommended by the 2004 English curriculum in which joint construction and scaffolding talk play important roles. Ensures that course objectives and content are derived from students needs Supportive. Genre teaching is: Explicit. Provides a coherent framework for focusing on both language and contexts Needs-based. Gives teacher a central role in scaffolding student learning and creativity Empowering. Increases teacher awareness of texts and confidently advise students on their writing (Hayland 2004: 10-11) Hayland’s appraisals towards genre-based approach can be understood when one examines the two cycles and four stages suggested by the 2004 English curriculum. Two Cycles and Four Stages To implement the 2004 English curriculum the two cycles and four stages recommended are represented in the following diagram: . Hayland (2004) elaborates the advantages of genre based writing instruction that can be summarised as follows. Makes clear what is to be learned to facilitate the acquisition of writing skills Systematic.
. The second stage is called Modelling of Text (MOT) where students listen to statements of short functional texts. the short functional texts. conversations. In short. and monologues that are geared around a certain communicative purpose. then. conversations. students listen and respond to various texts with similar communicative purposes. and the monologues are developed with one main communicative purpose.Diagram 2: Cycles and Stages of Learning (Hammond et al. students enter the third stage called Joint Construction of Text (JCT). share experiences. After listening. All of these are geared around the types of spoken texts and topics they are going to deal with at the second stage. grammatical patterns and so on. if students are expected to produce procedural texts. For example. conversations on showing how to do things. In the first cycle. they start from the first stage called Building Knowledge of the Field (BKOF) where teachers and students build cultural context. that is. at the second stage. giving instruction or direction. At this stage they try to develop spoken texts with their peers and with the help from the teachers. teachers need to go around the cycle twice. discuss vocabulary. They can create different announcements. 1992:17) In planning the lessons in foreign language education context.
and so on. developed and are transformed for new contexts and purposes (Hayland 2004:81). followed by joint construction in writing texts. Therefore we can say that genre evolution does happen. and then they write texts similar to what they have read. and write what they have read. but in MOT students are exposed to written texts. After having the experience of collaborating with friends. how to make a paper cap. Like the strategies employed in the first cycle. Hayland presents some facts that among “48 different internet genres.000 web pages. activities in this cycle are also geared around the same communicative purpose. classifies by their purposes. the first cycle integrates the development of speaking and listening skills. Those techniques are still needed and relevant to this approach. This is the reason why this fifth stage is optional in foreign language and high school contexts. Students read short functional texts and procedural texts. they enter stage four called Independent Construction of Text (ICT). from a random sample of 1. Feeze and Joyce (2002) also suggests a fifth stage that can be applied in foreign language contexts especially if there are bright students in the class or those who are “born writers” who are able to link related texts together.… 60 percent were directly reproduced from familiar paper formats and another 30 percent simply added technical changes. In this way. If the situation does permit. The second cycle is aimed at developing the ability to use written language. Citing Crowston and Williams. read what they have talked about. explicitly or implicitly” (Bazerman 1994:20). known and used. At this stage. To carry out activities at all stages. They need to demonstrate their speaking ability and to show confidence to speak. Thus. Knowledge on intertextuality can help students understand how genres change. the learning stages can be extended to cover the fifth stage.monologues on how to make something and so on. students are expected to be able to speak spontaneously or to carry our monologues that are aimed at giving directions or showing ways to do things such as how to make a kite. the integration of the four skills is created by the communicative purpose(s) of texts. teachers need to use various teaching techniques they have already learned. The teachers and students go through all the four stages. The pulling together different genres or texts to create a new larger text relates us to the concept of intertextuality which refers to “the web of texts against which each new text is placed or places itself. Students speak what they have heard. and finally they write texts independently. Here students develop reading skills. but it happens slowly. What .
the life in the classroom. Assessment by misconception: Cultural influences and intellectual traditions. Sydney. This model integrates different elements discussed in this paper into a set of learning experiences organised in two cycles and four stages. Swain 1980. . s/he needs to keep in mind that the activity needs to engage students in activities that involve as many of these principles as possible. Theoretical bases of communicative approaches in second language teaching and testing. In W. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press Ballard. E. Hamp-Lyons (Ed. Canale. Portsmouth: NH: Boynton/Cook. cultural knowledge. Communication Strategies in Sustained Casual Conversations. They are: interpretation. thus. Genre and writing: Issues. L. convention. Bachman and Palmer.R. are not unique to literacy. Applied Linguistics 1 : 1 . B. In L. There are some literacy principles offered by the New London Group (Kern 2000) that can be used by in planning language classes. Ostrom (Eds. 1990. Bazerman. Please see the attachment. Bishop & H. 1997. 1997. Teaching Languages to Young Learners. and language use (Kern 2000:16). to achieve communicative competence. Communication Strategies. Kern suggests that “These principles. Oxford : Basil Blackwell Board of Studies. Thesis Ph. reflection and self reflection. M and M. The implication is that when a teacher plans an activity. 2001. and Clanchy. 1994.needs to be remembered when teachers prepare their lessons is that every activity they design has to be aimed at providing learning experiences to use language and. 1996. 1991.47. A Psychological Analysis of SecondLanguage Use. although they are framed in terms of reading and writing. collaboration. Good Luck! Bibliography Agustien. Teaching and Learning Model A model designed to develop students’ competence in creating a ‘review’ text for senior high school is attached. alternatives. pp 19-29. Macquarie University. New South Wales: Board of Studies. Norwood NJ: Ablex.). problem solving. K – 6 English Syllabus and Support Documents. C. Language Testing in Practice. H. UK: Cambridge University Press. but can be applied broadly to human communication in general” (Kern 2000:17).I.D. Cameron. arguments. J. Bialystok. Assessing second language writing in academic contexts. The life of genre.).
K. 2001. Communicative Competence: A Pedagogically Motivated Model with Content Specifications. 1998. 2005. Ellis. Cohesion in English. In W. dan P. Gerot. Grainger. In Richards and Schmidt (eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press. In Language Learning. 1983 Macquarie University. 2000. Goh. Grabe (Ed. E. Buckingham: Oxford University Press. M. Analysing Casual Conversation. L. Literacy and Learning through Talk: Strategies for the Primary Classroom. On Casual Conversation.Canale.) Discourse on Discourse. Thurrell. . 87-112. E. Occasional Papers No 7. Halliday. 2001. Curriculum Planning and Research Division. and Plum. In R. Making Sense of Functional Grammar. and D. thesis. Text-Based Syllabus Design. New York: Cambridge University Press. R. New York: Prentice Hall.). Derewianka. 1994. Olshtain.K. 1995. 6/2. C. Depdiknas. Slade. Dorney. Language Acquisition and Development: A Teacher’s Guide. M. UK: Cambridge University Press. 1983. 1984. 1965. 2004. Understanding Second Language Acquisition.K. and R. London: Cassell. London : Pinter Publishers Eggins S. B. R. Mass: MIT Press Corden. Hasan. Z. Celce-Murcia. Sydney: NCELTR. Williams. From Communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy. C.A. How Texts Work. Cambridge. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics. Carrell. 1983. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. For Primary and Secondary School. M. pp. Celce-Murcia. Peraturan Pemerintah Republik Indonesia Nomor 19 Tahun 2005 tentang Standar Nasional Pendidikan. Language as Social Semiotic. 34. dan H. Conversation and Dialogues in Action. and J. Language as Code and Language as behaviour: A systemicfunctional interpretation of . English Language Syllabus 2001. J. M. London: Longman. Macquarie University. 1976. P. London: Longman. Sydney: Antepodean Educational Enterprises. Gee. Feez. Halliday. M. Chomsky. PhD. Focus on Form in Classroom SLA. Jakarta: Depdiknas Republik Indonesia. G. T. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. N. Keeping the Conversation Going: a systemic functional analysis of conversational structure in casual sustained talk. Silver. London: RoutledgeFalmer. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. Z. R.) 2004. S. M. London: Edward Arnold Halliday. Joyce. 1985.): Language and Communication. Oxford : Oxford University Press. M. Hasan (ed. Sydney: Primary English Teaching Association. 2002. University of Sydney Eggins. 1984. pp. In Issues in Applied Linguistics. Halliday. S. 1992. Singapore: Ministry of Education. 1994. and S. L. dan R. 1992. S. S 1990. Ellis. 1997.K. 1978. Evidence of formal schema in second language comprehension. pp 5-35. (Ed. Dornyei. Wignell. Thurrell 1995.A. Singapore: Longman. 1990. Doughty. The Routledge Falmer Reader in Language and Literacy.A.2-27. Discourse and Context in Language Teaching: a Guide for Language Teachers.A. Socio-cultural approaches to literacy (literacies). Linguistic Department. Eggins.. M. The Study of Second Language Acquisition.
D. Learning to function with the other tongue: A systemic functional perspective on second language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Harmondsworth: Penguin.K. Holmes (eds.A. Martin. and C. Hymes. 2001.) The Semiotics of Language and Culture Vol.): Sociolinguistics. Johnson. 1971. pp 5-26. J. . D. Hayland. Competence and performance in linguistic theory.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford University Press. 1985/1994. Ann Arbor: The university of Michigan Press. Burns. In T. dan R. Odlin (ed. Lamb & A. Matthiessen. England: Language Teaching Publications. R. Halliday. Halliday. Geelong: Deakin University Press.A. A Philosophy of Second Language Acquisition. Kern. Ingram (eds. English Text: System and Structure.A.) Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar. D. Tokyo: International Language Sciences Publishers. M. In Analysing English in a Global Context.). Holme. Hymes. Huxley and E. Conversation Gambits.T. 1985b Spoken and Written Language. In R. M. Pusat Kurikulum.K. Matthiessen. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.) Thirty Years of Linguistic Evolution. Hasan. 2004. Genre and Second Language Writing. The concept of communicative competence revisited. Halliday. D. Literacy and Language Teaching. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. Macquarie University. 2000. 1979. English for Special Purposes: A handbook for teachers of adult literacy. In Brumfit and Johnson (eds. 2004.A. Hymes. D. Kurikulum Bahasa Inggris 2004. H. Burns and Coffin (eds. Halliday. and S. 1992. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. in Martin Putz (ed. pp. Jakarta: Depdiknas. J. Halliday. Pride and J. A. London: Continuum. Journal of Pragmatics 3. Warner. M. London: Pinter. Keller. Hymes. Halliday. 1972.K. 1988. S. New York: Academic Press. K. Gerot. Construing Experience Through Meaning: A language based approach to cognition. and G. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Makkai (eds.M. Martin. In R. 1995.K.) The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching.K. M. 2004. Literacy: An Introduction. 1992. 1992. Keller. Lexicogrammatical Cartography: English Systems. 1979. Sydney: NCELTR. 2000.3-35. Language Acquisition: Models and Methods. pp. E. Rose. Perrett 1994. On communicative competence. B. J. Literacy and Linguistics: Relationships between Spoken and Written Language. In J. and D. London: Routledge. M. Language Context and Text: Aspects of language in a social – semiotic perspective. Brosnan. Fawcett. London: Edward Arnold.A. 2003.179-226. L. 2004. E. Hasan 1985a. London: Yale University Press.). R. R.the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. Hammond. 1: Language as Social Semiotic. Gambits: conversational strategy signals. London: Continuum. C. Joyce. M. M.. Victoria: Deakin University Press. A. On communicative competence.
Carter. What should we teach about the spoken language? Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 17. M. 1987. 2 pp. and L.L.). Strategies and Interactional Skills. 1988. J. NSW: National Curriculum Resource Centre. 4. In Applied Linguistics.148-168. In Atkinson and Heritage (eds. Interactional Skills in Casual Conversation: Discourse Analysis and the Teaching of Conversational Skills to Adult E. Oxford: Blackwell Swales. M. 1994. The Meaning and Use of the Term 'Competence' in Linguistics and Applied Linguistics. L. In J. R. Interlanguage. S. A. 1978. L. Mass: Addison-Wesley. On doing "being ordinary". Rediscovering Interlanguage. and J. 1983. D. Schiffrin. New York : Academic Press.21-27 Sacks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sacks. Notes on Methodology. pp.) Structures of Social Action. McKay and N. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. Gardner 1985. Communicative Competence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Literacy and Literacies. Norris 1986a. O’Malley . No 1 June 1985. In Atkinson and Heritage (eds. London : Longman Slade. Theory and Classroom Practice. D. 2004. Reading. Vol 8. International Review of Applied Linguistics 10: 209-31 Selinker. 1996. 2005. Communicative Syllabus Design. 1990.L.U.C. M. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. L. no 2: Oxford University Press..S. 1972. & Jefferson. H. 1978. J. Curriculum Development in Language Teaching. D. Learners. Vol 9. Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition.. H. Genre Analysis. Mind in Society. Language 50. In Australian Review of Applied Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury. G. S. Genre Analysis of the Reading Texts in BP Textbook for SMA. Rukmini.. S. 104-120. 2001. Slade. J.McCarthy. J. pp.) Studies in the organization of conversational interaction. and R. Hornberger (eds. D.Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Sacks. J. Semarang: Lemlit-UNNES. Taylor. Stubbs. J. New York: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation. & Jefferson. Teaching Casual Conversation. A. UK: Cambridge University Press. Hong Kong: Oxford University Press. Richards. Approaches to Discourse. 1973/1974. McCarthy. 1984. Chamot. Schegloff. R. 1994. D. DeCarrico 1992 Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching. H. Oxford: Blackwell Selinker. J. 105-119. 1984. Educational Linguistics. 1986. D. Schiffrin. Schenkein (ed. Discourse Markers. . L. G. McKay. S. New York: Cambridge University Press. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching. Unpublished research report. Topics. H. 1978. 1992. 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge Language Education. 1994.) Structures of Social Action. In S. Sacks. K. Vygotsky. Sociolinguistics and Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. London: Longman. J.M and A. pp.. Rowling. Cambridge University Press Nattinger. Savignon. H. Munby.
50/1. 1987. . 1980. M. Backlund. In Interchange 18.109-123. B. J. In Review of Educational Research.185-199. Wells.Weinmann. Current Theory and Research in Communicative Competence.1 / 2. P. pp. and P. Apprenticeship in Literacy. pp.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.