The Analysis of Teacher Talk and Learner Talk in the Classroom Interaction (A Descriptive Study at 1st Grade Islamic Senior High School in Margahayu)

The Analysis of Teacher Talk and Learner Talk in the Classroom Interaction

(A Descriptive Study at 1^st Grade Islamic Senior High School in Margahayu)

A Research Based Paper

 

Submitted as the Requirement to Fulfill an Assignment of

English as Foreign Language Methodology Course

Under the Direction of Prof. Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M. Pd

 

Written by:

Rezki Firdaus

1407335

 

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

SCHOOL OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES

INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

2016

Abstract

Poor interaction between teacher and learner in classroom activities made class become uninteresting. The teacher only focusing on the theories without any complete exposition. The more teacher talk, the less opportunities for learners. This study aims to describe types of teacher talk and learner talk occurs in classroom interaction. This study used descriptive qualitative design. It was in the first grade of Islamic senior high school in Margahayu. The study involves one class of first grade students of an Islamic senior high school in Margahayu as participants. The data were obtained through video recorded and interview. The data were analyzed by applying Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) focusing on types of teacher talk and learner talk. Finding were descriptive analyses with transcribing, coding, and analyzing. The result shows that all the teacher talk categories revealed that asking questions and lecturing was found as the most frequently used. In terms of learner talk, learner talk response and initiation were revealed in this research. According to the results, it can be concluded that teacher talk and learner talk categories are an important part in classroom interaction. In addition, the factor that influenced types of teacher talk and learner talk was also supported by students’ response in the interview. This study expected to give a contribution to the teaching English, especially in classroom interaction. By applying various kinds of teaching strategy, games, methods will encourage students knowledge.

Key words: Teacher talk, learner talk, classroom interaction, teacher’s role, interaction analysis.

A.1.   Background of the study

One of the most important parts in teaching and learning process in the class is classroom interaction. Classroom interaction is essential for the success of teaching and learning process. Classroom interactions analysis refers to a technique consisting of objective and systematic observation of the classroom events (Anand, 2011:03).

Based on the researcher previous experience as a learner in senior high school, the researcher found that teacher talk and learner talk in classroom interaction is very poor. The teacher gave many theories to learners, without complete exposition. That why many classroom interaction failed in conducting learner behavior to learn English. Poor interaction between teacher and learners is a common failure in learning English. Brock (1986, cited in Shomoossi, 2008) states that an increase in the amount of classroom interaction will help (foreign) language learner to learn the target language easily and quickly.

It is also supported by Ellis and Yamazaki (1994) who mentions that teacher’s talk, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition, has drawn much attention from many researchers because it affects learners, comprehension. Therefore, the teacher has the important role in building successful classroom interaction.

Interaction is a collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas between a teacher and learners or a learner and other learners, resulting in reciprocal effect on each other (Brown, 1994:159). Thus, interaction in a language classroom is a process of learning language.

Learning is the ability of using English (Aziez and Alwasilah, 1996). While, the objective of language teaching is not limited to ability in producing grammatical sentences, but also in terms of communicative function (Huda, 1999:41). As the result, the teacher as a manager in the class should be imperative to motivate learners to get involved in the classroom interaction.

In a classroom interaction, talk serves many important functions. By using oral language, the teacher and learners can exchange knowledge, feelings, attitudes, and maintain social relationships. Beside, talk gives the advantage for the teacher in gaining deeper understanding of pupils’ skills and motivation. In addition, talk also enables the teacher to investigate the learning environment itself, for example, what kind of talk it fosters in the pupils.

Talk has different types; Teacher Talking Time (TTT) and Student Talking Time (STT). The more teacher talks; the less opportunity is for learners. It means that TTT can decrease opportunities for Student Talking Time (STT).

According to the Allwright and Baileys ‟observations of many different classes, both in content subject and in language instruction consistently show that teachers typically do between one half and three quarters of the talking in the classrooms” (Allwright and Bailey, 1991). In addition, Gibb (1999) says that teacher’s talk is often viewed suspiciously as Teacher Talking Time (TTT), rather than as valuable “language modelling”.

To respond the teacher talk, the student talk is stimulated. The term ‘student talk’ refers to the students’ various expressions in learning process. Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities (Feng Qican, 1999: 23 cited in Xiao-Yan, 2006). It ranges from the talk among the teacher and other peers in conducting learning activity and various interactions (Johnson, 1995 cited in Amin, 2014). The talks between the teacher and the students have to be clear, specific, and meaningful. Teachers adopt the target language to promote their communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the language by responding to what their teacher says. This kind of talks is, thus, transactional or of which the language is message-oriented where teacher and students share clear and accurate information in their conversation (Brown & Yule, 1987 cited in Amin, 2014).

Teacher Talk gives many inputs which play very important role in language learning. There is no learning without input. This statement is strengthened by Long (1981) cited in Nata & Taloko (2014) who claims that input shaped through interaction contributes directly and powerfully to acquisition. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the learners, the interaction generated, and hence the kind of learning that takes place.

For the reasons above, the researcher is interested to find out the interactions, which take place between teacher and learners in a classroom for getting real evidence about teacher’s talk and learner’s talk. In conducting the observation, the researcher uses an observational instrument that is called as interaction analysis. As Hitchcock and Hughes (1984: 134) states that, “Interaction analysis as a technique used to investigate classroom interaction grew up out of a concern with the improvement of classroom teaching”. The best-known example of interaction analysis is contained Ned Flanders’ coding scheme known as FIAC, the Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories.

This study is concerned with the analysis of classroom interaction, focusing on the analysis of teacher talk and learner talk in classroom interaction. Thus, the present study focuses on finding what types of teacher talk occur in classroom interaction, and what types of learner talk occur in classsroom interaction. the finding are hoped to be great contribution to the enlightenment of practical value for teachers, teacher-trainees and learners as well.

A.2.   Research Questions

This research is conducted to answer the following questions:

1.    What types of teacher talk occur in classroom interactions?

2.    What types of learner talk occur in classroom interactions?

A.3.   Objectives of the study

Considering the background and the statements of the problem above, the aims of this research are:

1.    To describe what types of teacher talk occur in the classroom.

2.    To describe what types of learner talk occur in the classroom.

A.4.   Significance of the study

With its central focus on teacher-talk and learner talk in classroom interaction, this study has significance for a number of areas including theory, practice, and profession.

For Theory, this study has significance theories concerning between teacher-talk, learner-talk and classroom interaction (Ellis, 1994; Brown; 2001). The result of this study is expected to provide information about kinds of teacher talk and learner talk occur in classroom interaction, so that this study will gain many insights into relationship, whish in turn will contribute, even in small scale,to theories of language education, teaching and learning English as a foreign language (Ellis, 1988; Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Huda, 1999).

For Practice, this study may provide the insight gained from the investigation from the investigation will inform future decision regarding effectiveness and appropriatenes classroom pedagogy for teaching English practice in EFL classroom. This study of Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) system is also hope to enrich research on investigating classroom behavior which is so central to improve effective teaching-learning practice. The findings and conclusion of this study, practically may stimulate teacher to improve their teaching behaviour in order to maximize students’ learning.

For profession, the result of this study is probably attracting further research for those who interested in conducting classroom research. It is hoped that this study will provide information about the role and communicative functions of teachers in English classroom and also will provide information about features of classroom life for students and teachers. More studies on classrooom interaction willl course enrich insights of teacher and learners, EFL teacher in particluar, to have more awareness and options to teach their students effectively and constructively.

A.5.   Definition of terms

In order to give a comprehensive understanding about this research, the researcher tries to clarify the terms which are used in this research, as follows:

!  Teacher Talk

Teacher talk is the kind of language used by teachers for instruction in the classroom.

!  Learner Talk

Learner talk is sort of talk that exists besides teacher talk. There are two categories of learner talk, which are responsive and initiation.

!  Classroom Interaction

Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in reciprocal effect on each other.

!  Interaction Analysis

Interaction analysis is a process of encoding and decoding the steady pattern of teaching and learning.

!  Teachers’ role

The teacher’s role is the important part of the effectiveness and efficiency of individual learning in school.

!  Learner

The learner is someone who learns (as from a teacher) or takes up knowledge or beliefs especially in the school.

B.      Literature Review

B.1.   Classroom Interaction

School and classrooms are complex social environments. They consist of different groups of people interacting with each other in various ways. Identities, perception and values of these groups are made up by the individuals. Teaching and learning will naturally be affected by these features. The most obvious situations where the influence of these factors can be observed were the interactions of communication patterns between a teacher with learners and learners with other learners (Hitchcock and Hughes, 1989). Philips (1987), quoted by Ellis (1988:102) says that:

The interacting participants can have one of four identities: teacher (T), pupil (P), class (C), i.e. When all the pupil is addressed as single identity, and group (G). i.e. When any number of pupils less than the whole class are addressed. Interacting participants can adopt different interactive roles such as; speaker, addressee (i.e. The person to whom the message is addressed) and hearer (i.e. A person other than the addressee who hear the message).

The study of classroom interactions is the study of communication system. In the case of classroom research, interaction analysis usually involves the analysis of spoken language as it is used in a classroom between teacher and learners. Spoken language is also an important part of the identities of all participant Allwright and Bailey (1991).

Moreover, Allwright and Bailey (1991) argue that research in classroom interaction is distinct, for example, research that concentrates on the classroom inputs such as the syllabus, the teaching materials, or on the outputs from the classroom (learner test scores).

B.2.   Teacher Talk

The teacher talk is the kind of language used by the teacher for instruction in the classroom. In a specific way, Ellis (1994) defines teacher talk as the important that teachers use when addressing L2 learners in the classroom.

In trying to communicate with learners, the teacher usually simplifies their speech. It gives many characteristics of foreigner and other simplified style of speech addressed to language learners (Richards cited in Xiao-Yan, 2006). Ellis (1985) cited in Xiao-Yan (2006) supports this statement through his comment that “the language that teacher addresses to L2 learner is treated as register, with its own specific formal and linguistic properties.”

Based on the definition above, or can be concluded that teacher talk is a special language used in the classroom, which has its own characteristic and treated as register with its specific formal and linguistic properties.

Teacher talk is an important input in teaching and learning process. It is because teacher who have two tasks in the language classroom (Allwright and Bailey, 1991). The first task is to offer enough high-quality English language input and the second task is to offer more opportunities for students to use the target language (Xiao-Yan, 2006).

In addition, Allwright and Bailey (1991) quoted in Blake (1990) reveal the for class discourse moves, there are usually restricted to the teacher: structuring, soliciting, and reacting. The last one is responding, which is typically students’ progress.

Talk is one of the major ways for the teachers convey information to the learners, and it’s also one of the primary means of controlling the learners’ behavior. Since the teacher does too much talking, it will be useful for the teacher study their own talk. Sinclair and Brazil in Mat Daud (2001) stated that in order to monitor their own talk performance, teacher should study their talk.

Furthermore, Lynch quoted by Mat Daud (2001), mention that there are at least three main reasons for the growing interest in ways of teachers talk to the language learners:

1.    People have recognized the vital link between comprehension and progress in the foreign language.

2.    The studies of classroom language have shown that certain aspects of teacher talk such as: the way we ask the question; the influence way the learners use the language.

3.    The relation that it is not easy for the learners to understand what the teacher do is currently trying to focus on their attention.

Each of these three reasons related to a different role played by the teacher: a provider of input, facilitation of communication and instructor.

Flanders’ system is an observational tool used to clarify the verbal behavior of teacher and pupils as they interact in the classroom. Flanders’ instrument was designed to observe only the verbal communication in the classroom and non-verbal gestures are not taken into account.

This research refers to Flanders’ Interaction Analysis, which categorized teacher talk that takes place in the classroom setting in seven. These seven categorizations are divided into two main categories: response and initiation Flanders (1989). It will showed in a table

Table B.2

Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

Teacher

Talk

Teacher Talk	Indirect Influence	1.       Accepts Feeling: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. 2.       Praises or Encourages: praises or encourages student action or behavior. Joke that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, “um hm?” or “go on” are included. 3.       Accepts or uses the ideas of student: clarifying, building or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. 4.       Asks the questions: asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answers.
	Direct Influence	5.       Lecturing: giving facts or opinions about content or procedure expressing own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. 6.       Giving direction: directions, commands or orders to which a student is expected to comply. 7.       Criticizing or justifying authority: statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher’s doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference.

a)    Response

This category is subcategorizing into four: accepting feeling, encouragement, accepting or using the ideas of learners, and asking questions. These subcategories are described as follows:

1.    Accepts feeling. Accepts and clarifies are attitudes or feeling tones of a learner in a non-threatening manner. It may be positive or negative feelings. Predicting and recalling feeling is included

2.    Praises or encourage. Praise or encourages learner action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual: nodding head, or saying ‘um hm?’ or ‘go on’ are included.

3.    Accepts or uses the idea of learners. Clarifying, building or developing ideas is suggested by a learner. Teacher extensions of learner’s ideas are included, but the teacher brings more of his own idea.

4.    Asks questions. Asking a question about content or procedure based on teacher ideas, with an intent that a learner will answer.

b)   Initiation

Initiation is another sort of teacher talk, which is categorized into three classifications: lecturing, giving directions, and criticizing or justifying authority

1.    Lecturing. Giving facts or opinions about the content or procedures: expressing teacher’s own ideas, giving a teacher’s own explanation or citing an authority other than a learner.

2.    Giving direction. Direction, commands or orders to which a learner is expected to comply.

3.    Criticizing or justifying authority. Statements intended to change learner behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-defense.

B.3.   Learner talk

FIAC (1987) classifies learner talk into two categories; they are responding to the teacher and initiating talks. The description is as follow:

1.    Learner talk-response. Talk by learners in response to teacher. The teacher initiates the contact or solicits learner statement or structures the situation. Freedom to express own ideas is limited.

2.    Learner talk-initiation. Talk with learners which they initiate. Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop opinions and a line of thought, like asking thoughtful questions: going beyond the existing structure.

Table B.3

Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

Learner Talk	1.       Student talks-response: a student makes a predictable response to the teacher. The teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement and sets limits to what the students say. 2.       Student talk-initiation: talk by students, which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. A shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas.
	3.        Silence or confusion: pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.

B.4.   Teacher Talking Time (TTT) and Student Talking Time (STT)

Teachers spend a lot of time at school, both inside and outside of the classroom, engage in talking (Allwright and Bailey, 1991). Talking is a tool for teaching. There are many forms of language that teachers usually use in school such as greeting, gaining students’ attention, encouraging, reassuring, asking questions, reminding, recounting, events, tell a story, negotiating, explaining, summarizing, persuading, directing, answering, describing, reporting, commenting, and many others. Ernest (1998) quoted by Gibb (1999) reveals that through lecturing, explaining a grammatical rule, leading drill work, or asking questions to the whole class, teachers do most of the talking, as much as 75 % of the talking time. Therefore, teacher talk is vied as Teacher Talking Time (TTT).

Many TEFL articles and journals suggest reducing TTT and increasing opportunities for STT. Dellar (2011) in his article says that potential teachers are told to ask questions rather than give explanations in order to increase opportunities for Student Talking Time (STT), and to use gestures to replace unnecessary TTT.

Furthermore, Hubbard (1998) as quoted by Gibb (1999) suggests that by using various stages of language instruction as a guide, teachers can anticipate the level of TTT a follow:

1.    At the presentation stages, the teacher is firmly in control and going most (if not all) of the talking.

2.    At controlled practice stage, the teacher remains in control. At this stage, STT is equal to or greater than TTT.

3.    At free practice, the teacher relaxes control. STT will be much greater than TTT, and the teacher will only intervene if a serious problem arises.

In addition, Walsh (2006) proposes in his article that the notion of high and low TTT are far too simplistic: instead of getting trainees to reduce their teacher talk. Teacher trainers should be concerned to make teacher trainees more aware of the effect of teacher talk on opportunities for learning and encourage Quality Teacher Talk (QTT). Thus, reducing TTT is not only the way to get students talking.

Peltzman (2010) reveals that by dividing up the class into small group discussion, the teacher can greatly maximize STT in the classroom and minimize TTT. For example, if the teacher gives each student equal opportunity to speak during a 60-minute class, each student will actually speak English in four minutes (60 minutes divided by 15 students). It is in line with Hidalgo (2003) who argues that the classroom time should be broken down into the following proportion: 90 % for students talking, 8 % of teacher talking, and 2 % for students writing in a notebook. Meanwhile, based on Gibbs methods (1999) an ideal proportion of teacher talking time is 30 %, while the proportion of students talking time is 70 %.

B.5.   Teachers’ role

Oxford et al (1998) cited in Brown (2001: 166-167) point out that some of the teacher’s role which is more conducive to create an interactive classroom than others. In this research, the teacher does a planning and managing classroom interaction. Based on the reason above, the most important of the teacher’s role in this research is the teacher as a resource.

B.5.1 Teacher as resource

The teacher is available for providing advice and counseling when the student seeks it. Some degree of control, of planning, of managing the classroom is essential, but there are appropriate times when the teacher can literally take a back seat and follow the students to proceed with their own linguistic development.

B.6.   Review of related research

Another research related to the teachers’ talk and students’ talk has been conducted other scholars. In China, Liu Yanfen and Zhao Yuqin (2010) conducted a research about a teachers’ talk in English class in university level. This research investigated the ways of the teacher’s talk preferred respectively by teachers and students. The result of the research revealed that in initiating an interaction, the question was more preferred by teachers and the least preferred by students, but it is the most used one. Direction is not preferred by teachers, but more used, and students prefer them to questioned.

The result of this research questionnaire is analyzed by using percentage. The percentage worked out based on the class notes and records of what they did and the frequencies of each act, then the average number of each teacher and all the teachers were calculated.

The interaction becomes alive quickly and heatedly by asking students some questions. Basically, asking questions is a traditional method which is used frequently to build the interactions between students and teachers in the class during the teaching learning process. Furthermore, the teachers are better to ask the question in a more direct way rather than in an indirect way. The teacher could make their questions gentler just by adding a few auxiliary words. Therefore, the questions would be more welcomed by the students. In terms of question types, it was found in the observation that referential questions can motivate students’ interest to talk more effectively.

Even though in the language class, there is a little need for the teacher to be indirect for social reasons because the teacher is in a position of authority and can exercise it overtly (Sinclair & Brazil, 1982), it is suggested that teachers should use more language of invitation in interaction during the learning activity because it is believed that invitation language is more humanistic, inspiring, and gentle and respecting than others, since it makes the students become more focused, feel more respected, more confident and more active in participating during-learning process.

Another research related to the teacher talk and students talk was conducted by other scholars. In Singapore, Rita Silver and Galyna Kogut (2009) conducted a research about teacher-students’ interaction in the Singapore English language classroom at primary level. They did the research to investigate teacher talk during various types of activities occurring not only in whole class teaching but also in peer work within primary English language lessons in Singapore. In the data of this research, classroom talk tends to be determined by the activities teachers introduce in order to achieve their pedagogical goals.

Findings for the analysis on the teacher talk type, participation pattern, and activities are presented below. An exploratory analysis on a subset of the data – transcripts of the first lesson for all seven teachers – was also undertaken. The exploratory analysis examined teacher talk for evidence of purported learning through teacher talk various ways, including encouraging collaborative learning, setting goals, encouraging creative thinking and problem solving.

Another research related to the teachers’ talk and students talk was also conducted by other scholars. Setiawati (2012) conducted a research about a teacher’s talk in English class primary level. This descriptive study is conducted to find out how teachers make use of their teacher talk naturally in classroom settings. To gain deeper insight and understanding, both qualitative and quantitative research designs were employed. The qualitative data were obtained through direct observation and teachers – students’ interview.

The result of this research that the teacher talks serve not only as a medium to achieve young learner objectives, but also as a tool to build better dynamic interaction between teacher and students in a classroom setting, it is advisable for EFL teachers to improve their effective constructive talk towards their students. The teachers investigated were quite creative in using many kinds of TT features, that is: warm up chats, direct instructions, and indirect instructions, direction for activities, transitions, giving feedback and checking understanding. The findings revealed that all the teachers investigate always tried to give positive assessments, but unfortunately, they never used short phrases followed by appraisals. This method is believed to be able to create more active and autonomous students.

Another research related to the teacher talk and learner talk was also conducted by other scholars. Suherdi (2009) has written a research-based book on Classroom Discourse Analysis. According to Suherdi (2009), in analyzing classroom teaching activities, especially the language used in the teacher-learner interaction, cannot go beyond statements of statistical significance or extensive wording. This phenomenon happens mostly because the lack of appropriate and accurate, sufficient understanding of foci analysis. He further added that in analyzing a classroom discourse, a framework of lesson transaction, exchange, move, and act should be implemented.

Based on the previous research stated above, most of them focused on teacher talk One of the researcher was focused on the teacher talk in university level, and two of them were investigate about teacher talk uses in primary level. The other one is about classroom discourse. To fill the gap, the researcher then decided to analyze both the teacher talk and the learner talk in Islamic Senior High School level, due to fact, there are more complex interaction in Senior High School. Different from the research above, the research chooses Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorization (FIAC) to analyze the data.

C.      Research Methodology

This section elaborates the matters related to research methodology arranging how the study is conducted by exploring its discussion into research problems, research design, research sites and participants, data collection, and data analysis.

C.1.   Research Problems

This research is conducted to answer the following questions:

1.             What types of teacher talk occur in classroom interactions?

2.             What types of learner talk occur in classroom interactions?

C.2.   Research Design

Descriptive research provides an answer to the questions of how something happened and who was involved, but not to answer the question why something happened or why someone was involved (explanatory research). Descriptive research provides a detailed profile of an event, condition or situation using either quantitative, qualitative or a combination of methods (Hatch and Farhady, 1982). Data gathering techniques such as field research and case studies are for qualitative descriptive research (Strider, 2001).

Qualitative method in the form of descriptive design was employed in this study. The design was used to describe the characteristics of object-study (Alwasilah, 2002). In this case to describe, what types of teacher talk and learner talk occur in classroom interaction. In order to achieve these goals, the research was conducted in some stages: transcribing, coding, categorizing, comparing and analyzing.

C.3.   Research Sites and Participants of the Research

The research site of this study is an Islamic Senior High School in Margahayu, Bandung. The school is chosen as the research site since an issues stated that teacher who teach there known as a good teacher model. So, that’s choose as a research site. Sugiyono (2012:61) stated, “the population is generalization area comprising: an object/subject that have certain qualities and characteristics that was determined by the researchers to be learned and then drawn conclusion.”

From the three grades at the school, there are three classes of the first grade of Islamic senior high school in Margahayu Bandung Regency. The students are not assigned into parallel classes of science and social major since they were still at the first year academic. Based on initial information, there are 23 students in a class that were teach by him. The researcher chose only one class as a participant, namely X-3. Because, he only teach two classes in the first grade and his schedule was only available on Friday and Saturday. When the research began, the class was on the first semester in the academic year 2015-2016.

C.4.   Data Collection Method

This research method made interaction analysis technique. In the interaction analysis, the researcher adopted Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). This system involves the identification of talk analysis in the classroom in terms of the coding and categorizing the utterances into nine pre-arranged categories as stated previously. It enables the researcher to characterizing kinds of communicative events in the classroom.

C.5.   Instruments

The data for this research was gathered through several instruments. They were: video recording and interview.

C.5.1 Video recording

In gaining the natural interaction between teacher and learners in the classroom, the researcher used video recording as a technique. The researcher considered this technique as a valuable source of accurate information on patterns of turn-taking, in this case, teacher-student interaction. The reason of using this technique is in line with Burns (1999) who says that recording can be valuable in furnishing researchers with objective, first-hand data for analyzing data of teacher and students’ behavior in the classroom.

Videotaping was conducted three times, on October 30^th 2015, October 31^st 2015, and November 06^th 2015. Each lesson was recorded in 2-hour lessons (90 minutes).

Nunan (1992) supports the use of recorded data that allows for the preservation of the primary data, for example in the form of audio or video recordings. This study used video recording as a technique for capturing natural interaction used in classroom in detail. The researcher recorded the process of teaching and learning English in gathering accurate information about what the teacher’s talk and learner’s talk constitutes in the classroom. The presence of the observer in the class did not bother the students. They naturally talked to each other, although they noticed that the observer was recording their activities.

C.5.2.  Interviews

Besides collecting data through recording and observing the classroom interaction, the researcher used interview to support both. Alwasilah (2002) states that by interviewing the respondent, a researcher can get in-depth information because of the following reasons:

1.    The researcher can explain and paraphrase the questions which cannot be understood by the respondent.

2.    The researcher can give follow-up of questions.

3.    Respondents tend to answer the questions when they are asked.

4.    Respondents can say something in the past and the future.

According to Nunan (1989), the interview can be relatively structured and unstructured. A structured interview is orchestrated around a set of predetermined questions, while an unstructured interview is more like a free following conversation between the interviewer and interviewee.

The researcher prepared ten questions for interview about teaching and learning process in classroom interaction. For the reason above, the researcher used structure interview.

In this research, the researcher applied an interview with the teacher. The interview posed some questions concerning the following reasons:

1.    The classroom activities

2.    The teaching methods

3.    The teacher talks in classrooms (how to accept the feeling, praises or encourages, ask question, lecturing, giving directions, and criticizing students)

4.    The learner talks in the classroom (how the students’ response and ask questions)

5.    The teacher’s efforts encouraging students’ communicative competence

In addition, the researcher also conducted an interview to the five low achieving students and five high achieving students. The researcher chose those ten students, because they have different comprehension of what the teacher conveyed in the classroom and have different comprehension in learning and understanding of the lesson.

The interview posed some questions concerning with the following reasons:

1.    The classroom activities

2.    The teacher talks in classroom

3.    The learner talks in classroom

4.    Their comments about their teacher performance, and the used data methodology

5.    Their difficulties in doing the interaction

C.6.   Data Analysis

This research focuses on what the teacher and learner talks occur in the classroom. In order to answer these questions, the researcher used some steps as follows:

C.6.1.  Transcribing

One way of handling data collected through the recording is to transcribe the result of recorded classroom interaction. This was done as pre-analysis. The researcher used the transcriptions since those were the main written source to be analyzed.

In transcribing the data, the researcher used some strategies from Burns (1999), such as keeping the transcription as simple as possible, labelling the speakers using the letters, numbering the lines or clauses, inserting contextual information to explain essential aspects, e.g. non-verbal interaction and using ordinary orthographic transcription, with conventional punctuation when appropriate. Moreover, the researcher labeled each utterance with ‘T’, ‘S’, and ‘Ss’. T refers to utterance expressed by teacher; S refers to those from individual learner, and Ss refer to a group of learners.

C.6.2.  Coding

The interaction analysis system involves the identification of analysis of talk in the classroom in terms of the coding and categorization of utterances according to nine pre-arranged categories. After completing the transcription, the observer coded each number of utterances into the category based on Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). As mentioned before, the coding process involved two coders besides the observer. Each coder then independently coded the transcripts based on the following procedures.

Table C.6.2

Coding Procedure Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

Category
G: General	a.      Whenever there is an element of doubt code to the prevailing balance of teacher ·       Initiation and response ·       Rare events should be coded whenever possible ·       Categories 1, 2, 3 & 9 are expected much less than 5, 6, 7 & 8.
1: Accept Feelings	This is a rare event the teacher must actually label the feeling to obtain this code.
2: Praises or Encourages	·     Avoid using the code habitually routine superficial exclamations of praise ·     Code more than once if extended praise is given
3: Accepts or Uses Idea of Student	·     Teacher can respond to pupil’s ideas in a number of ways: -     Acknowledge-creating a number of ways -     Modify, rephrase -     Apply it to solve a problem or make inferences -     Compare it with other ideas -     Summarize what is said ·     Code 3 more than once if extended responses given ·     Restrained use in coding 3 appears to enhance its diagnostic utility ·     Beware of a teacher making too bigger abstraction from pupil’s statement (code 5) ·     Beware of teacher ignoring pupils’ suggestion and asking for another (code 4)
4: Asks A Question	·     Teacher must act as if expecting an answer (not a rhetorical question) ·     If teacher talk brings others into the discussion
5: Lecture	·     Lecturing, expressing opinion, giving facts, interjecting thoughts and off handed comments included ·     In traditional teaching approaches category 5 will be most common catchall category and incorrect tally for this category unlikely to distort the teacher’s profile
6&7: Gives direction & Criticized or Justifying Authority	·     Used to indicate close supervision and direction of the teacher ·     Used for statements intended to produce compliance. To recognize during coding ask whether compliance will be result of the statement ·     Avoid confusion with announcements (code 5) ·     Questions during teacher directed drill can be coded 6
8&9: Student Response & Student Initiated	·     Making a choice between code 8 & 9 should relate to the teachers preceding question ·     Pupil response to a closed teacher question ·     Pupil response to open teacher question ·     Students' response 8 can turn into 9 if the students embellish or adds voluntary information or made and independent judgment ·     Used 8 in all cases where there is doubt about 9 ·     Category 9 also used for students making target remarks (resistance to compliance)
10: Silence or Confusion	·     Pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the researcher.

Taken from: (http://www.hebes.mdx.ac.uk/teaching/Research/PEBL/methpap6.pdf)

C.6.3 Analyzing

Finally, the results of coding or categorization were analyzed based on the research questions. The coding was divided into main data, while data from interviews was used as additional data.

D.           Findings and Discussions

This part presents the research findings and discussion deal with the data has been investigated and taken from video recording and the interviews. The finding and discussions is to answer the research questions, as follows; 1) what types of teacher talk occur in classroom interaction, and 2) what types of learner talk occur in classroom interaction. To answer the research questions the data gather from video recording and interviews, then coding, and after that discussed by using Flander Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). The interpretation will be explain further, as follows;

D.1.   Data from video recording

D.1.1.  Types of teacher talk in classroom interaction

Teacher talk in this research is categorized according to Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categorizes (FIAC). Based on FIAC system, teacher talk is categorized into seven steps as follows: accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts or uses the ideas of students, asks questions, lecturer, gives instruction and criticizing or justifying authority.

D.1.1.1 Accept feeling

   Accepting feeling was the first of responding learner talk in FIAC system. By this method the teacher accepts and clarifies an attitude or the feeling of learner in non-threatening manner. During the observation and video recorded. The teacher never mocks or refuses the learners’ unacceptable behaviors in threatening manner. As an example, in the transcript, when a learner could not answer the given question, he accepted it by humorous way (see in appendix of trancript)

These findings are in line with Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Accepts feeling is accepting and clarifying attitudes or feeling tones of a learner in a non-threatening manner. It may be positives or negative feelings. Predicting and recalling are included.

D.1.1.2 Praises and encourages

   Human being are universally driven to act, or behave, by the anticipation of some sort of reward-tangible or intangible, short term or long term- that will ensure as a result of the behavior (Skinner, cited in Brown, 1994). There are many ways in giving the rewards for learners. As an example by saying ‘good’, ‘that’s right’, ‘great’, etc. Those are categorized as immediate reward. In this case, teacher like to give immediate verbal praise to learner after they answer the teacher’s question (see in appendix of trancript)

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Praises and encourages is praises or encourages learner action or behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual: nodding head, or saying ‘um, hm?’ or ‘go on’ are included.

D.1.1.3 Accepts and uses idea of students

   The third method of responding learner talk is accepted or using the ideas of eared. By this way, the teacher clarifies, builds, interprets, summarizes and develops ideas suggested by a learner. The ideas must be rephrased by the teacher, but still recognized as being learner contribution.

In this context, the teacher is rarely used this category. He only attempts to develop questions from learners (see in appendix of trancript). This condition is caused by the learner’s competence to express their ideas. They are still afraid to speak.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which say that Accepts and uses the ideas of students is clarifying, building or developing ideas is suggested by a learner’s ideas are included but the teacher brings more of his own ideas.

D.1.1.4 Asks questions

According to Long and Sato (cited in Chaudron, 1988), there are two types of the teachers’ questions. The first type is referential or genuine question. It is aimed at searching the genuine information. The teacher really does not know the fixed information he wants. The second type is display question. It is bringing learner think about the subject under discussion. Display questions are commonly used by the teacher. They mostly exist in the transcript on the appendix.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Ask questions is asking a question about content or procedure is based on teacher ideas, with an intent that the learner will answer.

D.1.1.5 Lecturing

   The fifth category of teacher talk is lecturing. This is a way of teacher giving facts, information, or opinions about the content or procedures, expressing his own ideas and giving own explanation. In this context, lecturing is often used by the teacher. It occurs when the teacher gives information or explanation about something that related to the content of the lesson. (see appendix transcript)

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Lecturing is giving facts or opinions about context or procedures: expressing teachers’ own ideas, giving teachers’ own explanations or citing an authority other than a learner.

D.1.1.6 Giving direction

   The teacher plays many roles in the class. The first role is director. In the classroom setting, teacher directions are very important to keep the process of teaching and learning flowing smoothly and efficiently.

Mostly the teacher gives direction or command in directive sentences. In this case, the teacher orders each learners to answer the questions from “LKS” (Students’ Work Book) and then they discuss together to find out the right answer.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Giving directions is directions, commands or orders to which a learner is expected to comply.

D.1.1.7 Criticizing or justifying authority

   The last category of learner talk is criticizing. There are two types of criticizing: first, the teacher criticizes learner behavior such as; rejecting the behavior of learners, trying to change the non-acceptable behavior, communicating anger, displeasure, and annoyance with what the learner is doing. The second type, the teacher criticizes learner response like; telling the learner his response is not correct or acceptable. In the transcript, the teacher uses both of them. The teacher tries to change the non-acceptable behavior of the learner (see appendix transcript).

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Criticizing or justifying authority is statements intended to change learner behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-defense.

D.1.2.  Types of learner talk in classroom interaction

The analysis of learner talk is focused on two categories such as, learner talk response and learner talk initiation. The model of analysis applied in analyzing these categories is based on Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). The description as follows:

D1.2.1 Learner – response

   The first category of learner talk is responding. It is used in responding to the teacher within a specific and limited range of available or previously shape answer. Reading aloud is also included.

   After the observation, the researcher found that learners always response the teachers’ statement. Most of them are answering the question and reading aloud. (see appendix, transcript).

   These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that learner talk – response is talk by learners in response to teacher. The teacher initiates the contact or solicits learner statement or structure the situation. Freedom to express own idea is limited.

D.1.2.2 Learner – initiation

   Another kind of learner talk is initiated. It appears in responding to the teacher with learner’s own ideas, opinions, reaction, and feelings. In the transcript, there is only one learner initiation exists (see appendix transcript). This condition is caused by the teachers’ initiation. The more teachers initiate the conservation the less learners initiate the interaction.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (1989), which says that learner talk – initiation is a talk by learner which they initiate. Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop opinions and a line of thought, like asking thoughtful question; going beyond the existing structure.

D.2.   Data from interviews

D.2.1 Types of teacher talk in classroom interaction

Teacher talk in this research is categorized according to Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). Based on FIAC system, teacher talk is categorized into seven steps as follows; accepts feelings, praise or encourages, accepts or uses the ideas of students, ask questions, lecturing, giving direction, and criticizing or justifying authority. The description below is included with those that exist in the transcript of the interviews.

D.2.1.1 Accepts feeling

The data findings also gather from the interview with the learner. The researcher represents L1-L5 for learners as an interviewee. It can be drawn as follows:

Interviewer   : How is the teacher’s response, if your friend cannot answer the questions?

Learner         : The teacher didn’t give a punishment to the students; he is just smiling to the student (L5).

            These findings are in line with Flanders Interaction Analysis categorizing (1898), which says that Accept feeling is accepting and clarifying attitudes or the feeling tone of a learner in a non-threatening manner. It may be positives or negative feelings. Predicting and recalling feelings are included. It is also supported by his humorous way in response the learner’s statement.

D.2.1.2 Praises and encouragement

The data, finding is also gathered from an interview with the teacher and learners. It can be drawn as follows:

Interview with learner

Interviewer   : How is the teacher’s response, if your friend cannot answer the questions?

Learner         : The teacher always gave verbal rewards, such as: ‘good’, that’s right’, ‘great’, or ‘very good’. But, sometimes. If we make him happy he will give us a reward like watch a movie.

Interview with teacher

Interviewer   : Do you also give rewards to the students?

Teacher        : I prefer and used to give verbal rewards to the students such as: ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘that’s right’, ‘great’, and ‘thank you’ for those who can answer questions. But, sometimes. I will give them a reward to watch a movie if they make me happy during the class interaction.

            These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Praises or encourage is praises or encourages the learner action behavior. Jokes that release tension, but not at the expense of another individual: nodding head, or saying ‘Um hm?’ or ‘Go on’ are included.

D.2.1.3 Accepting or using ideas of students

The data, finding is also gathered from the interview with the teacher. It can be drawn as follows:

Interview with teacher:

Interviewer   : How far the effectiveness of your learners in the classroom?

Teacher        : The effectiveness of students is good enough, but it is only a specific student who participates in asking questions, they are still afraid to speak.

This condition is caused by the learner’s competence to express their ideas. They are still afraid to speak.

These findings are not related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Accepts or uses the ideas of students is clarifying, building or developing ideas are included but the teacher brings more of his own ideas.

D.2.1.4 Asks questions

The data, finding is also gathered from the interview with the teacher. It can be drawn as follows:

Interview with teacher:

Interviewer   : How far the effectiveness of your learners in asking questions?

Teacher        : The effectiveness of students in asking is not really good; there are only certain learner in asking questions. Most of them are afraid to speak or they do not understand about the materials.

            This condition is caused by the learner’s competence and learner comprehension to express their ideas. They are still afraid to speak or less comprehensive.

            These findings are not related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Ask Questions is asking a question about content or procedure is based on teacher ideas, with as intent that a learner will answer.

D.2.1.5 Lecturing

The data, finding is also gathered from the interview with the teacher and learners. It can be drawn as follows:

Interview with teacher:

Interviewer   : Do you often use a lecturer method in the classroom?

Teacher        : Sometimes, I often use a lecturer method, for example, in explaining the thing that has not understood by the students.

Interview with learner:

Interviewer   : According to your opinion, how much your teacher talks in the classroom?

Learner         : The teacher talks a lot in the classroom and the percentage 80% to the teacher and only 20% to us. (L4).

In this context, lecturing is often used by the teacher. It occurs when the teacher gives information or explanation about something that related to the content of the lesson.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Lecturing is giving facts or opinions about the content or procedures.

D.2.1.6 Giving direction

The data findings also gather from the interview with the teacher. It can be drawn as follows:

Interviewer   : What is the students’ response when you’re giving a direction?

Teacher        : They are listened the direction carefully and I always repeat the direction to make them understand.

            In this context, the teacher gives direction or command carefully in directive sentences to the learners.

            These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Giving direction is directions, commands or orders to which a learner is expected to comply.

D.2.1.7 Criticizing or justifying authority

The data findings are also gathered from the interview with the teacher and learners. It can be drawn as follows:

Interview with teacher:

Interviewer   : What is your response to the students who cannot answer your question?

Teacher        : I didn’t give a punishment to them. Sometime a clever student answers my question.

            Interview with learner:

Interviewer   : What is your teacher’s response, if your friend cannot answer the questions?

Learner         : He didn’t angry to the learners. Sometime he asks to learner’s who can answer the question. (L3&L5)

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Criticizing or Justifying authority is statements intended to change learner behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-defense.

D.2.2 Types of learner talk in classroom interaction

D.2.2.1 Learner - response

The data findings also gather from the interview with the teacher. It can be drawn as follows:

Interviewer   : How is the learner-response in the classroom?

Teacher        : The learner – response is very good, their response every sentence that I speak.

These findings are related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (1989), which says that Learner talk – response is talk by learners in response to teacher. The teacher initiates the contact or solicits learner statement or structure the situation.

D.2.2.2 Learner - initiation

The data findings are also gathered from the interview with the teacher and learners. It can be drawn as follows:

Interviewer   : How far the effectiveness of students in the classroom?

Teacher        : The effectiveness of students is good enough, but it’s only a specific student who participates in asking questions. Most of them are still afraid to initiate in speaking.

Interviewer   : According to your opinion, how much your teacher talks in the classroom?

Learner         : The teacher talks a lot in the classroom and the percentage 80% to the teacher and only 20% to us. (L4)

Based on the interview to the learner, it is revealed that the teacher talks too much. Sometimes, there is no chance for learner to talk. Learners never initiate to speak in classroom interaction.

These findings are not related to Flanders Interaction Analysis Categorize (1989), which says that Learner talk – initiation is a talk by learners which they initiate. Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop opinions and line of thought, like asking thoughtful questions: going beyond the existing structure.

E.            Conclusion and recommendation

This part elaborates the research conclusions and recommendation based on the research investigation. Basically, this part is divided into two sections, first is a conclusion of teacher talk and learner talk in classroom interaction and the second is suggested of teacher talk and learner talk in classroom interaction.

E.1. Conclusion

This study seek to examine the teacher talk and learner talk in the classroom interaction at senior high school in Margahayu. The report is aimed to describe (1) what types of teacher talk occur in classroom interaction, and (2) what types of learner talk occur in classroom interaction, then analyze the teacher talk and learner talk occur in classroom interaction with Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). The types of teacher talk in classroom interaction divided into seven categories, i.e., 1) accepts feeling, 2) praises or encourages, 3) accepts or uses the ideas of student, 4) asks the questions, 5) lecturing, 6) giving direction, 7) criticizing or justifying authority. The types of learner talk in classroom interaction divided into three categories, i.e., student talks-response, student talks-initiation, and silence or confusion.

It is found that types of teacher talk in classroom interaction, 1) teacher accepts and clarifies an attitude or the feeling tone of the learners in non-threatening manner. 2) Teachers realize that praises are powerful determinant behavior. Therefore, along the teaching and learning activities he provides reward to encourage learners verbally and non-verbally. 3) Accepting and using the ideas of the students rarely used by teachers. On this occasion, the learners were less initiated in asking the question. 4) In asking questions, the teacher uses both referential and display questions. Anyway, display questions are dominant used by the teacher. This pattern is intended to make the learners attentive to the subject of discussion. 5) The teacher usually uses lecturing as a method to deliver lessons. He realized that the concept of communicative approach requires the teacher as a negotiator rather than as a transmitter of knowledge. 6) A teacher usually gives direction in every period of the lesson. They exist in form of directive sentences. In the beginning period, it is done to inform what the learners will do with the lesson. Whereas, in whilst activities directions are performed to fulfil the teacher’s intention. 7) Criticizing the behavior and response of learners is performed in a humorous way. The teacher’s intention is to make learners comfortable in learning English. This way is sustained to make the classroom atmosphere as friendly as possible.

Furthermore, as the conclusion for answering the second questions in finding types of learner talk in classroom interaction; 1) The students always give response to every question or directions from the teacher. The learner’s response can give a good contribution in building the classroom interactions. The quantity of learner-response is in proportion of the teacher’s questions. The more the teacher asks questions the more the learners will responses. 2) The learners seldom initiate to talk during the classroom interactions. The more the teacher’s initiates the talk, the less learners initiate the interaction.

E.3.   Recommendation

In line with the conclusions stated above, some suggestions are proposed for further research and for better practical teaching and learning in classroom interaction.

This study investigates types of teacher talk and learner talk in classroom interaction. Further research is recommended to investigate another aspect on how to set the classroom interaction become more attractive. It will be better if the study is conducted in longger time in order to give contributuion in other context. Utilizing other research instruments such as questionnaire and documents analysis will provide more detailed data since this stusy only utilized observation and interview to get the data. This study only took one classroom observation. Other phenomenon could be found if the classroom observation were done more than three meetings. In relation to the number of students and classes involved in this study, it would be better if the class used as the samples more than one teacher and 30 students in one class. therefore, the finding could be more various.

Related to the teacher talk in classroom interaction in senior high school level, it will be better if the next researcher compare it with another teacher based on gender, educational background, teaching experience, or cultural background. By conducting this, it can be found that whether it is found different result from one another because it is assume that different person has different characteristics and personality. The last, in order to encourage learner initiation, the teacher should give rewards for them who ask questions. The teacher should be creative. Textbook and lesson plans are basically just a blueprint or a building frame. Applying games, method, teaching model, strategy and so on that related to the lesson is suggested.

REFERENCES

Allwright., D. and Bailey. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Alwasilah, C. (2002). Research methodology. [online]. Available at: www.repository.upi.edu/operator/uploads/chapter3.pdf. Accessed on September 9^th, 2015.

Amin, Fatimah. H. (2014). The Transactional Expressions of the Teachers and the Students in Target Language Class. The 61^st TEFLIN International Conference Book 3. ISBN 978-602-14018-1-1, pp. 1043-1045. Proceedings: English Language Curriculum Development: Implication for Innovations in Language Policy and Planning, Pedagogical Practices, and Teacher Professional Development. Solo: Sebelas Maret University.

Anand, (2011). [online]. Available at: http://www.anandkab.blogspot.com/2011/03/flanders-interaction-analysis.html. Accessed on September 25^th, 2015.

Anonymous. In the Classroom. [online]. Available at: http://www.jobsinjapan.com/book/classroom.html. Accessed on October 1^st, 2015.

Anonymous. PEBL: Methodology working paper 6: Flanders Interaction Analysis. [online]. Available at: http://www.hebes.mdx.ac.uk/teaching/Research/PEBL/methpap6.pdf     . Accessed on October 15^th, 2015.

Aziez, Furqanul and Alwasilah. C. (1996). Learning ability of using English. Bandung: Remaja Rosda.

Blake, A. (1990). The language of the classroom. New York: Teacher College Press.

Brown, H. Douglas. (1994). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey: Prentice Hail Regents.

Brown, H. Douglas. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Intearctive Approach to Language Pedagogy (2^nd Eds). New York: Addision Wesleys Longman Inc.

Burns. (1999). Investigating Global Practice in TEYL. London: British Council Brand and Design.

Chaudron. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dellar, Hugh. (2011). Putting our words to work: Rethinking Teacher Talking Time. [online]. Available at: http://eltbakery.edublogs.org/2011/08/15/putting-our-words-to-work-rethinking-ttt/. Accessed on November 5^th, 2015.

Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second Language Development. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd.

Ellis., R. and Yamazaki. (1994). Classroom Interaction, Comprehension, and L2 Acquisition. Language Learning Research Club: University of Michigan

Ellis, R. (1994). The Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Flanders, N. A. (1989). Teacher Influence, Pupil Attitudes and Achievement’. US. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Flanders, N. A. (1989). Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Gibb, Michael. (1999). Using Classroom English. [online]. Available at: http://www.kotesol.org/publications/journal/1999/. Accessed on October 23^th, 2015.

Hitchcock and Hughes. (1989). Research and Teacher: A Qualitative Introduction to School- Based Research. London: Routledge.

Hatch and Farhady. (1982). Research Design and Statistics for Applied Linguistics. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

Hidalgo. (2003). Multicultural teacher. [online]. Available at: www.sidorkin.com/40/hidalgo.pdf. Accessed on October 23^th, 2015.

Huda, Nuril. (1999). Language Learning and Teaching Issues and Trends. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Mat Daud, N. (2001). Observing C.A.L.L. [online]. Available at: http://www.please.unimo.it/paper_01 pdf Accessed on September 15^th, 2015.

Nata., W. A & Taloko., J. L. (2014). Students Talk Encountered in Intensive Course Classes of an English Department in a University in Surabaya. The 61^st TEFLIN International Conference Book 3. ISBN 978-602-14018-1-1, pp. 1072-1075. Proceedings: English Language Curriculum Development: Implication for Innovations in Language Policy and Planning, Pedagogical Practices, and Teacher Professional Development. Solo: Sebelas Maret University.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, D. (1989). Understanding Language Classrooms: A Guide for Teacher Initiated Actions. London: Prentice Hall International (UK) Ltd

Peltzman, R. (2010). Ms. Rocky Rocks Peltzman. [Online]. Retrieved January 03^rd, 2016 at 16:45 from http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Rocky-Peltzman/-502183

Setiawati, Liani. (2012). A Descriptive Study on the Teacher Talk at EYL Classroom. [online]. Available at: http://jurnal.upi.edu/file/Liani_final_33-48.pdf Accessed on September 15^th, 2015.

Silver, Rita and Kolgut. G. (2009). Teacher Talk, Pedagogical Talk, and Classroom Activities: Another Look. [online]. Available at: www.eras.org.sg/papers/2-3-11.pdf. Accessed on October 25^th, 2015.

Sinclair., and Brazil. (1982). Towards an Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford University Press.

Shomoossi. (2008). Classroom Interaction Mediated by Gender and Technology. [online].       Available at: www.novitasroyal.org/shomoossi.pdf. Accessed on October 20^th, 2015.

Strider, C. (2001). Qualitative Descriptive Research Method. [online]. Available at: www.ehow.co.uk. Accessed on October 25^th, 2015.

Suherdi, Didi. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach. Bandung: CELTICS.

Sugiyono. (2012). Statistik Untuk Penelitian. Bandung: Alfabeta.

Walsh. (2006). Talking the Talk of the TESOL classroom. [online]. Available                                        at: www.eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/2/133.abstract. Accessed on November 4^th, 2015.

Xiao-yan, Ma. (2006). A Dissertation; Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. The Asian EFL Journal. Retrieved on November 4^th, 2015 from http://journal.upi.edu/file/lianifinal.33-48.pdf

Yanfen, Liu & Yuqin, Zhao. (2010). A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes. Chinese Journals of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) (Online). Vol. 33. No.2. Retrieved on November 4^th, 2015 from www.celea.org.cn/teic/90/10060806.pdf.

Research-based Paper Scoring Rubric

Student’s Name          : Rezki Firdaus

Student’s Number      : 1407335

Topic                           : Teachers: Who are and what task?

Title                            : The analysis of Teacher talk and learner talk in the classroom interaction

ASPECTS	CONTENTS	SCORE	YOURS
Abstract should not more than 150 words	Burning issues Objectives Methodology Findings Conclusion & Recommendation Sub Total	1 1 2 2 1 7
A.    Introduction	Burning issues Objectives of the research A brief theoretical foundation Relevant previous research Thesis statement Statement of the problem/research questions Significant of the study Sub Total	1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
B.    Literature Review	Recent publication Journal and book Theories relevant to the objectives Related previous research from journals Synthesis or concluding remarks Sub Total	1 2 1 1 5
C.    Research Methodology	1.    Design 2.    Data collection (sample, instrumentation, procedure) a.       Sample b.       Instrumentation c.       Data collection procedure 3.    Data analysis Sub Total	1 3 2 6
D.    Findings and Discussion	1.    Data presentation to answer research questions 2.    Interpretation to the findings 3.    Conclusion 4.    Recommendations Sub Total	2 2 1 1 6
Citation and Mechanic	Appropriate of quotation and mechanic	5
Language	Grammar Coherence Sub Total	2 2 4
TOTAL SCORE		40

Research-Based Paper Presentation Scoring Rubric

Student’s Name          : Rezki Firdaus

Student’s ID               : 1407335

Topic                           : Teachers: Who are and what task?

Title                            : The analysis of Teacher talk and learner talk in the classroom interaction

The Grading Criteria

Knowledge about the topic of the research	Language Use: Pronunciation	Language Use: Grammar	Presentations: The Effectiveness of using media and communicativeness	Total
20	5	5	10

APPENDIX

Transcript

Date   : October 31^st, 2015

Time   : 07.15

         

1.        Ss    :   Lets start to study and pray together, begin. (After a few second). Finish

2.        T      :   Page 247. (all of students’ read Al – Qur’an together about 7 minutes. After that, teacher start the class activities). Assalamualaikum warohmatullah wabarokatuh. How are you?

3.        Ss    :   Fine, thank you. And you?

4.        T      :   Very well. Thank you. Although, we are under contruct the structure of the building. But, I hope you still have a big passion to study.

5.        Ss    :   Yes.

6.        T      :   Have you take a breakfast?

7.        Ss    :   No... Yes... (some students answered)

8.        T      :   So do I. I lost my board marker...

9.        Ss1   :   Warna apa pak?

10.      Ss2   :   Black?

11.      T      :   Blue...

12.      Ss1   :   Bentar...

13.      Ss2   :   Snowman?

14.      T      :   Yes...

15.      Ss1   :   This one... Gue yg ngambil... (then some students take a small talk in sundanesee)

16.      T      :   Aaa Ehmm. Alright, when I call your name please say something? Abu daud, Aji, Ayu, Ayu Nurlaila, Dea, Dian, Dini, ... and so on.

17.      Ss    :   Yes. Sir.

18.      T      :   Juan Veron? Say something juan... (He is one of the silent students in the class)

19.      Ss    :   I am here. (Some students answered) (another student who has been called, doing a small talk)

20.      T      :   Ok. Alright. Let’s begin with say basmallah together...

21.      Ss    :   Bismillahirrohmannirrohim.

22.      T      :   Ok. Ammm... Last meeting, yesterday. We already discussed about story. The beautiful story I think. You have a good imagination. You have aaa... good motivation and Lets summary our material that what we have discussed together. Ooo. Ok... (he write something in a board)

23.      T      :   Ok. Look at me here. I have divide this board into two part. To retell the event and to entertain the reader. To retell it means?

24.      Ss1   :   Menceritakan kembali.

25.      T      :   Retell..., event?

26.      Ss2   :   Kejadian.

27.      T      :   Entertain; to make the reader aaa... yes, feel interested with your text. Yeah, we have discussed about two kind of text. First, What? Recount? And the second narrative. You will write recount in here or here. (the teacher ask the student to choose which part of what he already write become a part of recount and narrative). Recount? Here or here? Recount? recount

28.      Ss2   :   Retell the event...

29.      T      :   and so in here off course? Yeah...

30.      Ss    :   Narrative...

31.      T      :   Event? Event here what you have done. The event. Only event. Your experience, recount... but, the legend, the story, the folk story, narrative... Ok. Now, how to make recount and how to make narrative? Let’s begin from recount. So, when you will write recount? You will write? The steps...

32.      Ss1   :   Owh, yeah the steps...

33.      Ss2   :   Orientation, the event...

34.      T      :   Orientation. Its includes; name, who? when, the place... itu orientation. After that, for example, the first paragraph, siapa namanya, kapan kejadiannya, dimana itu, and then after the orientation – event – and the last?

35.      Ss    :   re - orientation...

36.      T      :   Yeah, re – orientation. Ok. And Narrative?

37.      T      :   Ok. as same as the recount. Orientation. After that?

38.      Ss    :   Complication...

39.      T      :   Good... conflictions. After that?

40.      Ss    :   Re – orientation.

41.      T      :   So, we have already discussed two kinds of text. Recount and narrative. Understand?

42.      Ss    :   Yes...

43.      T      :   Ok. Now. I will aaa... ask you to come forward. One of you or two of you. To summary, to tell to your friends the summary. Jelasin lagi ringkasnya. Procedure stages seperti apa. Ok. Use English, but, I still give you a chance to use pure exhange or you can say it in English. Ok. I will give you a score. Explain? Jelasin? Ok. Yuuk... come forward, come on...

44.      Ss    :   (Some students discussed each other and read their written books to make a summary of the previous study)

45.      T      :   In English, but, if you can’t. You can say in Bahasa Indonesia. Ok. I will give you a score again. Semakin banyak score semakin happy.

46.      Ss    :   (Ss keep discussed to their seate mates to make the summary of the material)

47.      Ss2   :   Sir, In English or Bahasa Indonesia.

48.      T      :   English Please. But, if you can’t, you can use Bahasa Indonesia. But, not at all.

49.      Ss    :   Fifty-fifty la sir.

50.      T      :   Yeah. Fifty-fifty I mean.

51.      Ss    :   Fifty-fifty

52.      T      :   I give you a chance 50 – 50. Let’s summary. Come on guys. Come one, yuk... I will tell you big five who get the big score. The big five, dini maryanti, dah banyak tuh. Intan, dini maryanti, ridwan, intan, dini novita. Ada 16 lagi yang belum. Come on guys. Inget... inget moto kita ya. If you make me happy. I will tell you a movie. Itu moto kita nih. If you make me happy. I will show you the movie.

53.      Ss2   :   Come on. Come on. Din...

54.      T      :   Ok. Dini Maryanti...

55.      Ss1   :   Dua-duanya ya pak...

56.      T      :   Ia. Dua-duanya. Biar ada compare-nya... dalam konteks apa, tempatnya, terserah...

57.      Ss1   :   Ehmm...

58.      T      :   Say it in English.

59.      Ss1   :   Assalamualaikum warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

60.      Ss    :   Waalaikumsalam warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

61.      Ss1   :   Ehmm... I am here to... eee

62.      Ss2   :   Tell about...

63.      Ss1   :   Tell about how to make a recount text and narrative text. The first is recount text. Recount text is to retell the even.

64.      T      :   Event...

65.      Ss1   :   Event. Pengalaman. So, like our experience to somewhere. Like pangandaran beach or anything and to make recount text is orientation. Orientation is includes who is in the story, like, who are they friends, and so on. And next is a...

66.      T      :   The event…

67.      Ss1   :   The event. Event is file or moment in your experience. And next is re-orientation. Like ending in the experience like how. Next is narrative text. Narrative text is to interpret the reader. Story like Danau toba. Toba lake. And...

68.      T      :   Toba lake?...

69.      Ss1   :   Wuahaha... Danau toba and takuban perahu. The step to make the narrative text. Like, orientation. To see the story conflict in a story like apaa gitu... and the last is re-orientation atau ending of the story. Saya harap semuanya mengerti. Kalo nggak juga nggak apa-apa.

70.      Ss    :   Mengerti...

71.      Ss1   :   Alhamdulilah. Wasalamualikum warohmatullahi wabarokatu.

72.      Ss    :   Waalaikumsalam warohmatullahi wabarokatu.

73.      T      :   Give applause for Dini Maryanti. Thank you. Good. Good explaination and one more. Yuk... terakhir. Please come forward. Atau ada yang mau?

74.      Ss5   :   Sok ridwan. Maju kamu ridwan (said by one of his friend who sat behind him).

75.      T      :   Ayuk, ridwan... cewe/cowo. Boleh... atau ada yang mau mewakili cowok iya atau cewek iya... Ok. Azril, Iwan...

76.      Ss2   :   Azril pak...

77.      Ss    :   Azril...

78.      T      :   Ok... Fajar. Bisa Fajar? Come on...

79.      Ss7   :   Bahasa Inggris gitu pak?

80.      T      :   Sebisanya aja, pake bahasa inggrisnya. Salamnya atau apanya. Yang penting ada bahasa inggrisnya... coba yuk... Assalamualikum, kemudian thank you juga boleh.

81.      Ss7   :   Moh... aku mah pak...

82.      T      :   Hhahha... come on guys. Ayo, mewakili anak cowo. Masa ngggak ada yang berani. Ini kelas nggak ada cowoknya ya disini.

83.      Ss    :   Nggak ada pak... cewek semua disini... (hahaha) (students do their own talk with their friend... bla... bla... bla...)

84.      T      :   Guys... come one, guys. Ok... Ridwan...

85.      Ss2   :   Assalamualikum warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

86.      Ss    :   Waalaikumsalam warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

87.      Ss2   :   Hi, friends. And i am tell about recount text and narrative text to you. Recount text is retell the event. Includes: pengalaman. The first step from the three area. First, orientation. Orientation includes how, when anything. The second, the event, kejadian yang kita alami. Contohnya: yang pertama itu kapan kejadiannya... I go to jogjakarta last year. Lalu yang ketiga itu re-orientation. Yaitu menceritakan kembali kejadian yang kita alami. Then, narrative text adalah to entertain the reader. The first story of ceritanya adalah menarik. Biasanya orientation itu seperti cerita sangkuriang, story of... (all of another students answer it together so the sound is unclear enaugh plus the sounds of workers also annoying the researcher to get the words)... I am sorry. Orientation first, conflication, itu conflict di dalam sebuah story. Lalu yang terakhir, sama seperti recount text yaitu re-orientation. Ok... assalamualikum warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

88.      Ss    :   Waalaikumsalam warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

89.      T      :   Thank you, good... yeah. Ok. You have already get finished with our material.

90.      T      :   Ok. Good. Because the time is up.

91.      Ss    :   Aaaaaaa...

92.      T      :   I am greatful to you. I am happy because you... have a good imagination, to make a story.

93.      Ss    :   Haaha... yes sir.

94.      T      :   Ok. Time is up. Let’s close by saying hamdalah together.

95.      Ss    :   Alhamdulilah hirabbilalamin...

96.      T      :   See you next meeting and Assalamualikum warohmatuullahi wabarokatuh.

97.      Ss    :   Waalikumsalm warohmatullahi wabarokatuh.

The Result of Final Coding

No	Categories	No	Categories	No	Categories
1	1, 8	34	2, 2, 2, 4	67	8, 9, 9, 9, 8, 8, 8, 9
2	1, 1, 1	35	8	68	7
3	8, 9	36	2, 4	69	1, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9
4	3, 3, 2, 2	37	2, 2, 4	70	8
5	8	38	8	71	8, 1
6	1	39	3, 4	72	8
7	8, 10	40	8	73	3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 7, 4
8	2, 2	41	2, 2, 4	74	8, 8
9	8	42	8	75	2, 2
10	9	43	3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 4, 2, 2	76	9
11	1	44	9	77	8
12	8	45	6, 6, 6, 2, 6	78	7, 4, 2
13	9	46	9	79	8
14	1	47	8	80	6, 6, 6
15	8, 9	48	2, 2, 2	81	8
16	1, 4, 2	49	9	82	1, 2, 2, 2
17	8	50	7	83	8
18	4, 4	51	8	84	2, 2
19	8	52	5, 5, 6	85	1
20	1, 1	53	6, 1, 1, 1, 6, 2, 1, 1, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7	86	8
21	8	54	8	87	1, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, , 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9,9, 1
22	2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2	55	2	88	8
23	2, 2, 2, 4	56	6, 7	89	2, 3, 3
24	8	57	10	90	3, 1
25	4	58	7	91	8
26	8	59	1	92	1, 1, 2, 3, 5
27	2, 3,2, 4, 4, 2, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4	60	8	93	8
28	8	61	6	94	2, 1
29	4, 2	62	8	95	8
30	8	63	9, 9, 9	96	2, 1
31	4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 2, 4, 4, 2	64	7	97	8
32	8	65	8, 8, 9, 9, 9	98
33	8	66	7	99

Interviewing with the students

Time     :       

Place    :       

1.  Do you like learning English?

2.  How is the teacher teaching in the class?

3.  Based on your opinion, how much your teacher speaks in the class?

4.  What kind of language that your teacher uses in the class?

5.  What kinds of questions do you like, open question or close question?

6.  What is your teacher response, if you cannot answer the questions?

7.  What do you think about the effectiveness in teaching?

8.  Does your teacher give rewards?

       

Interviewing with the teacher

Interviewiee    :

Time               :       

Place              :       

1.     Can you explain what activities that you always do in the classroom interaction?

2.     What is the method that you always use in classroom interaction?

3.     Do you always using lecturer method in classroom interaction?

4.     Do you always translate into Bahasa Indonesia?

5.     How far the efectiveness of your learners in the classroom?

6.     What kinds of question that you always gave to your learners, close or open questions? 

7.     How far the effectiveness of your learners in asking question?

8.     How many percent do you speak in the classroom?

9.     What is your response to the students who cannot answer your question?

10.  Do you always give reward to your learners?

       

Interviewing with high achiever learners

Time     :        October 31^st, 2015

Place    :        In a Head master office

1.  Do you like learning English?

L1    : Yes, I love English. Because, English is uniques, and make me currious to learning English more.

L2    : I like learning English since in the junior high school.

L3    : I loved learning English, I want speak English well.

L4    : I like learning English, cause of English as an international language.

L5    : I like learning English, because English is unique.

2.  How is the teacher teaching in the class?

L1          : I feel bored, cause of the teacher speak more.

L2          : Me too, I feel bored in learning English in the class. The teacher speaks lonely.

L3&L4    : The teacher give lecturer more, he never gave games.

L5          : I feel bored in the class.

3.  Based on your opinion, how much your teacher speaks in the class?

L1          : The teacher speaks a lot in the class; it’s about 80% for the teacher and only 20% for us.

L2 & L3  : Yes, the teacher speaks alot in the class.

L4 & L5  : It’s about 80% for the teacher and 20% for us.

4.  What kind of language that your teacher uses in the class?

L1         : The teacher speak more in English.

L2         : Sometimes he is using Bahasa Indonesia.

L3         : He speak more in English.

L4 & L5 : He rarely speak in Bahasa Indonesia.

5.  What kinds of questions do you like, open question or close question?

L1         : Close question.

L2 & L3 : Yes-no question, close question.

L4         : The question that didn’t make me think hard.

L5         : Close questions.

6.  What is your teacher response, if you cannot answer the questions?

L1         : He didn’t angry to the learners.

L2         : Sometimes he ask to the learner’s who can answer the question.

L3         : He just smile to the learner.

L4         : The teacher didn’t angry to the learner.

L5         : He just smiles and ask again to the learner who can answers it.

7.  What do you think about the effectiveness in teaching?

L1         : Not really effective, cause he speaks lonely.

L2 & L3 : Not really effective, he speaks lonely.

L4 & L5 : Not really effective.

8.  Does your teacher give rewards?

L1 & L2 : The teacher’s usually give rewards in verbally. But, sometimes. If we make him happy he will give us a reward like watch a movie.

L3 & L4 : The teacher’s usually give rewards in verbally, such as good or alright.

L5         : The teacher always gives a real rewards.

Interviewing with the teacher

Interviewiee    : M. A. N

Time              : October 30^th, 2015

Place              : In an head master office

1.        Can you explain what activities that you always do in the classroom interaction?

I usually gave explanation about the materials and giving opportunity to the students to be active.

2.        What is the method that you always use in classroom interaction?

I usually use explaination method; I always gave opportunity to the students to be active in asking a questions.

3.        Do you always using lecturer method in classroom interaction?

I often use lecturer method in explaining the things that hav not been understood by the students.

4.        Do you always translate into Bahasa Indonesia?

I often use bahasa to explain materials that didn’t understand by students.

5.        How far the efectiveness of your learners in the classroom?

The effectiveness of students is good enough, but it’s only for a specific students who participates in asking a question. Most of them are still afraid to initiate in speaking.

6.        What kinds of question that you always gave to your learners, close or open questions?   

I usually use open question, because it can help students’ skills and to increase students knowledge about asking something

7.        How far the effectiveness of your learners in asking question?

The effectiveness of students in asking is not only really good; there are only certain learners asking questions. Most of them are affraid to speak or they do not understand about the lesson.

8.        How many percent do you speak in the classroom?

For the precentage, it’s about 60% and 40% for learner.

9.        What is your response to the students who cannot answer your question?

I didn’t give a punishment to them. Sometimes a clever student answered my question.

10.      Do you always give reward to your learners?

I prefer and used to give verbal reward to students such as: ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘that’s right’ and ‘thank you’ for those who can aswer questions. But, sometimes. I will give them a reward to watch a movie if they make me happy during the class interaction.