Akhyar Rido, Fatimah Mulya Sari, Ria Augie Mayang Suri, Hady Duantoro


Discourse structure is an important issue in academic spoken discourse in L2 settings. An inability to recognize discourse structure is seen as one of main problems in understanding lecture in L2 as it aids to comprehension. It is therefore imperative to examine how lecturers are helping their students to cope with the lecture and become critical thinking individuals. This study aims at discovering the macro-discourse structure of literature lectures conducted in English in the Indonesian tertiary context. This study was conducted in a private higher learning institution in Lampung province, Indonesia and involved 2 selected literature lecturers. Usinga qualitative research design, observations and video-recordings of prose and drama lectures were carried out for a total of 4 sessions and 8 teaching hours. The findings demonstrate that all lectures were delivered in three phases namely introductory, main, and end parts. The specific episodes used were topic introduction, review, concept introduction and development, discussion, and summarization. Negotiation of meaning also took place during the lectures; in addition, highly interactive lectures were emphasized as both lecturers and students exchanged a large series of open and follow-up questions which indicated that lectures explored critical and logical thinking skills of the students. The results of this study can be used as a platform for lecturers and teachers to organize their literature lecture in a well-structured and an optimally effective way.


discourse structure, literature lecture, negotiation of meaning, interactive lecture

Full Text:



Angrosino, Michael & Rosenberg, Judith.“Observations on Observation, Continues and Challenges.”Collecting and InterpretingQualitativeMaterials, edited byDenzin, Norman K and

Lincoln, Yvonna S, Sage Publications, 2013, pp. 151-176.

Blight, D.A.What’s the Use of Lectures?,Intellect,1998.

Camiciottoli, Crawford B. “Interactive DiscourseStructuring in L2 GuestLectures: SomeInsights from a ComparativeCorpus-based Study.”Journal of English for Academic Purposes, vol.3, no. 1, 2004, pp. 39-54.

Chaudron, C & Richards, J. C. “The Effect of DiscourseMarkers on the Comprehension of Lectures.”Applied Linguistics, vol.7, no. 2, 1986, pp. 113-127.

Diamond, N. A., Sharp, G &Ory, J. C. Improving your Lecturing.Office of Instructional and Management Services, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1983.

Domizio, Paolo. “Giving a GoodLecture.”Diagnostic Histopathology, vol. 14, no. 6, 2008, pp.284-288.

Dufon, Margaret A. “Video-recording in Ethnographic SLA Research: SomeIssues of Validity in DataCollection.”Language Learning and Technology, vol. 6, no.1, 2002, pp. 40-59.

Flowerdew, J & Miller, L. “Lectures in a SecondLanguage: Notes towards a CulturalGrammar.”English for Specific Purposes,vol. 15, no. 2, 1996, pp. 121-140.

Fortuno, Begona Belles.Discourse Markers within the UniversityGenre: A ContrastiveStudy between Spanish and North American Lectures. Dissertation,UniversitatJaume, 2005.

Gomez, InmaculadaFortanet&Fortuno, Begona Belles.“Spoken AcademicDiscourse: An Approach to Research on Lectures. VolumenMonografico, 2005, pp.161-178.

Howard, Amanda. “Is There Such a Thing as a TypicalLanguageLesson?”Classroom Discourse, vol. 1,no.1, 2010, pp. 82-100.

Huang, J. “Challenges of AcademicListening English: Reports by Chinese Students.”College Student Journalvol. 39, no. 2, 2005, pp.513-569.

Jefferson, Gail. “Glossary of Transcript with an Introduction.”Conversation Analysis: Studies from the FirstGeneration, edited by Lerner, G.H, John Benjamin, 2004, pp. 13-31.

Lebauer, R. S. “Using LectureTranscripts in EAP LectureComprehensionCourses.”TESOL Quarterly,vol. 18 no. l, 1984, pp. 41-53.

Marshall, C. &Rossman, G.B. Designing QualitativeResearch, 4thEdition, Sage Publications, 2006.

Morell, T. “InteractiveLectureDiscourse for University ELF Students.”English for Specific Purposes,vol. 23 no. 3, 2004, pp.325-338.

Perry Jr., Fred L. Research in AppliedLinguistics: Becoming a DiscerningConsumer,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2005.

Rido, Akhyar. “Patterns of ScienceLectureDiscourse in L2 Setting.”JurnalTeknosastik,vol. 8,no. 2, 2010a, pp. 1-15.

Rido, Akhyar.“The Use of DiscourseMarkersas an InteractiveFeature in ScienceLectureDiscourse in L2 Setting.”TEFLIN Journal,vol. 21 no. 8, 2010b, pp. 90-106.

Rido, Akhyar. “Questions: Interpersonal InteractiveFeature in ScienceLectureDiscourse in L2 Setting.”Proceeding 2nd International Conference on Foreign Language Learning and Teaching, The Language Institute of Thammasat University, 2011, pp, 171-181

Simpson, R.C., Lee, D.Y.W., &Leicher, S. MICASE Manual, English Language Institute, The University of Michigan, 2002.

Stake, Robert E. Qualitative Research: StudyingHowThingsWork,TheGulforf Press, 2010.

Wong, Jean &Waring, Hansun Zhang.Conversation Analysis and SecondLanguagePedagogy, Routledge,2010.

Young, L. “University LecturesMacro-structure and Micro features.”Academic Listening: ResearchPerspective, edited byFlowerdew,Cambridge University Press,1994, pp. 159-176.

Zarina Othman. “The AcademicLectures of Native English Speakers: ItsComplexities.”JurnalPengajianUmum,vol. 18, 2007, pp. 125-138.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2017 Proceedings of ISELT FBS Universitas Negeri Padang

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

This Proceedings is Currently indexed by:

Google Scholar.

The Proceedings of International Seminar on English Language and Teaching is registered at LIPI