Techniques of Using Intertextuality and Lecturer-Students’ Power Relation when Communicating Learning Tasks

Yelfiza Yelfiza, Yulmiati Yulmiati, Rika Afriyanti, Syayid Sandi Sukandi

Abstract


Considering the students’ emotion is essential in having the students to learn. Most Minangkabaunese students do not like being dictated for any activities with a thousand words. This paper is aimed at finding out some techniques of using intertextuality to balance lecturer-students’ power relations when communicating learning tasks. This research is qualitative with content analysis. Data were collected from six lecturers, teaching at Sekolah Tinggi Keguruandan Ilmu Pendidikan, Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia (STKIP PGRI), selected purposively. Techniques of observation and video recording were used in collecting data. The discourse was transcribed and categorized into some techniques of using examples based on the content called content analysis.A contextual analysis was used to show lecturer-students’ power relations and formulated proposition.   Findings show that the techniques of using intertextuality includeShowing Techniques of Doing Tasks (STDT), Giving Example of the Task Topic (GETT), and UERS. Using STDT  had an impact on students’ readiness to learn. Meanwhile, Using GETT enhances students’ language development. Finally, Using Example of Real Situations (UERS)  gives students’ opportunity to have a learning experience. Moreover, the techniquescause the lecturer and students to have a balanced power relation. The findings are significant for teachers or lecturers as guidance to communicate with students efficiently and effectively. They are expected not to dominate communication when interacting with them, especially to those who have excessive individualism. Other researchers who are interested in studying this topic are expected to be inspired to research this area viewed from other viewpoints.

Keywords


Example; intertextuality: power relation; communication; learning task.

10.15548/jt.v27i1.605 Abstract view : 1193 times PDF : 868 times

Full Text:

PDF

References


Amir, M. S. (2011). Adat minangkabau; pola dan tujuan hidup orang Minang. Jakarta: Citra Harta Prima.

Baker, P., & Sibonile, E. (2011). Key terms in discourse analysis. New York: Continuum. New York: Continuum.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265–299. DOI: 10.1207/S1532785XMEP0303_03.

---. (2002). Social cognitive theory in the cultural context.Applied Psychology: an International Review, 51(2), 269–290. DOI: 10.1111/1464-0597.00092.

Bondareva, T.O., Khan, N.N., Pristupa, E.N., Dossanova, A.Z.,

Kremneva, T.L & and Rakymzhan Turysbek, R. (2017). The social and pedagogical characteristics of the future teacher’s readiness for developing the intellectual and creative potential of a junior schoolchild in the heterogeneous ethnicenvironment. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25 (S): 195 - 210.

Clare, S., Krogman, N., & Caine, K. J. (2013). Geoforum the “ balance discourse â€â€™: A case study of power and wetland management, 49, 40–49. Doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.05.007

Cole, D. R., & Graham, L. J. (2012). The power in/of language. Chichester: Blackwell.

Fixsen, A., & Ridge, D. (2012). Performance, emotional work, and transition: challenging experiences of complementary therapy student practitioners commencing clinical practice. Qualitative Health Research, 22(9) 1163–1175. DOI: 10.1177/1049732312449213.

Gasparov, B. (2010). Speech, memory, and meaning intertextuality in everyday language. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Graham, J., & Dornan, D. (2013). Power in clinical teachers’ discourses of curriculum-inaction-Critical discourse analysis. Adv in Health Sci Educ, 18975–985. DOI:10.1007/s10459-012-9437-1

Harman, R. (2013). Literary intertextuality in genre-based pedagogies: Building lexical cohesion in fifth-grade L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, Vol. 22 (2) 125-140. DOI:

1016/j.jslw.2013.03.006.

Hudson, R. A. (1985). Sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Hussein, J. Q., & Abdullah, I. H. (2016). The role of cognitive context in the interpretation of riddles: A relevance theory perspective. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24 (February),

–20.

Jarvela, S., Malmberg, J., & Isoh, J. I. (2016). How do types of interaction and phases of self-regulated learning set a stage for collaborative engagement? Learning and Instruction XXX 1-13. DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.01.005

Karpudewan, M., & Meng, C. K. (2017). The effects of the classroom learning environment and laboratory learning environment on the attitude towards learning science in the 21st-century science lessons. Malaysian Journal of Learning and Instruction, 272.

Keramati, A., Afshari-Mofrad, M., & Kamrani, A. (2011). The role of readiness factors in E-learning outcomes: An empirical study. Computers and Education, 57 (3), 1919–1929.

DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2011.04.005

Khalidah K. A., Rohani, S.,& Mashitah, S. (2014) Ethical values and commitment towards achieving excellence: a study on public boarding school students in Malaysia. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 22 (S): 33 - 50.

Krapp, K. (2005). Psychologists and their theories for students. New York: Thomson Gale.

Learner-Centered Work Group of the American Psychological Association’s Board of Education Affairs. Learner-centered psychological principles. A framework for school reform. November 1997.

Maeda, M. (2008). Power relations among actors in development cooperation: patterns, concepts, and approaches in a Japanese-assisted teacher training project in Canada. International Journal of Educational Development. Vol. 28 (5). DOI:

1016/j.ijedudev.2007.05.005.

Manak, J. (2011). The social construction of intertextuality and literary understanding : the impact of interactive read-aloud during writing workshop. Reading Research Quarterly, 46 (4), 309–311. DOI:

1002/RRQ.001

Masuda, K., Arnett, C.,&Labarca, A. (2015). Cognitive linguistics and sociocultural theory (applications for second and foreign language teaching). 3. A cognitive linguistic approach to teaching Chinese spatial particles: From contrastive constructional analysis to material design. Walter de Gruyter: DOI:10.1515/9781614514442.

Mayring, P. (2014). Quantitative content analysis. theoretical foundation: basic procedures and software solutions.

Metsärinne, M., Kallio, M., & Virta, K. (2014). Pupils’ readiness for self-regulated learning in the forethought phase of Exploratory Production. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 85–108. DOI: 10.1007/s10798-014-9273-0

Mizokawa, A. (2014). Theory of mind and sensitivity to teacher and peer criticism among Japanese children. Infant and Child Development. Vol. 4 (3). Doi: 10.1002/icd.1877

Myers, S. A. (2017). A longitudinal analysis of students’ motives for communicating with their instructors. Communication Education, 66(4), 467–473. DOI: 10.1080/03634523.2017.1313437

---. The instructor-student relationship as an alternative form of a superior-subordinate relationship. Communication Education, 66(1), 110–112. DOI: 03634523.2016.1221513

Myers, S. A., & Claus, C. J. (2012). The relationship between students’ motives to communicate with their instructors and classroom environment. Communication Quarterly, 60(3), 386–402. DOI: 10.1080/01463373.2012.688672

Myrahil. (2013, March 2). Mengintip rahasia sukses orang minang.

Nassaji, H. (2007). Schema theory and knowledge-based processes in second language reading comprehension: a need for alternative perspectives. Language Learning, Vol. 57 (1) 79-133. DOI: 10.1111/2Fj.1467-9922.2007.00413.x.

Navis, A. A. (1984).Alam takambang jadi guru. Jakarta: Grafiti Pers.

Nevins, M. E. (2010). Nevins, M.Eleanor. 2010. “Intertextuality and misunderstanding. language and communication, Vol. 30 1-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2009.10.001

Perumal, J. (2008). Student resistance and teacher authority: the demands and dynamics of collaborative learning. Journal of Curriculum Studies, Vol. 40 No 3 381-398. Doi: 10.1080/ 00220270701724570?.

Pol, J. V., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2011). A pattern of contingent teaching in teacher-student interaction. learning and instruction, 21 46-57. DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.

Ruiz, J. R. (Volume 10.No.2 Art.26.May 2009, May 26). Sociological discourse analysis: methods and logic.†forum qualitative social research.

Shalihin, N. (2014). Demokrasi di nagarinya para tuan. Lubuk Lintah: Imam Bonjol Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Williams, W. M. (2010). Educational psychology (2nd ed.). Upper saddle river, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Strauman, T. J., & Wilson, W. A. (2010). Individual differences in approach and avoidance; behavioral activation/inhibition and regulatory focus as distinct levels of analysis. In R. H. (ed), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (p. 447). Blackwell Publishing.

Syuhendri. (2012, February 14). Adat basandi syarak, syarak basandi kitabullah.

Tan, S. K., Armum, P., Chokkalingam, A. I., Meerah, T. S. M., Halim, L., Osman, K. and Chellappan, K. Communication: uses and influence of employment among youths: the role of formal education.Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. & Hum. 25 (S): 21 - 34 (2017).

Van-Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse Power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Varelas, M., Pappas, C. C., & Rife, R. (2006). Exploring the role of intertextuality in concept construction: urban second graders make sense of evaporation, boiling, and condensation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 43, No. 7. 637–666. DOI: 10.1002/tea.20100.

Vollmeyer, R., & Rheinberg. , F. (2006). Motivational effects on self-regulated learning with different tasks. Educ Psychol Rev, 239–253. DOI:10.1007/s10648-006-9017-0

Warren, M. (2013). ‘‘Just spoke to . . .’’: The types and directionality of intertextuality in professional discourse. Martin Warren. The types and directionality of intertextuality in English for Specific Purposes, Vol 32 (1) 1-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2012.07.001.

Weibell, C. J. Principles of learning: A conceptual framework for domain-specific theories of learning.

Yasnitsky, A. (2007). Vygotsky circle as a personal network of scholars:restoring connections between people and ideas. Integr

Psych Behav (2011) 45:422–457. DOI: 10.1007/s12124-011-9168-5.

Yelfiza. (2016, February 5). Ideology and power of the lecturers' classroom discourse in communicating learning tasks at the university level. unpublished Dissertation.UNP (State University of Padang): Padang, Sumatera Barat, Indonesia.

Yelfiza., Yulmiati., & Sukandi, S.S. (2016). English lecturers’ thematic intertextuality in communicating learning tasks to Minangkabaunese students.5 ICLLCE 2016 (pp. 64-77). Singapore: icsai.org.

Zhang, Z., & Verhaeghen, P. (2009). Glimpses of a one-speed mind: Focus-switching and search for verbal and visual, and easy and difficult items in working memory. Acta Psychologica, Vol. 13 (1 235-244. DOI: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.05.009.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.15548/jt.v27i1.605

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Al-Ta lim Journal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

View Stats
Al-Ta'lim Journal published by Faculty of Islamic Education and Teacher Training UIN Imam Bonjol Padang

Al-Ta'lim Online Journal
Print ISSN 1410-7546 Online ISSN 2355-7893


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.