VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF
ENGLISH CLASSROOM
A THESIS
Submitted to English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
BY
DELFINA
Registration Number: 8106112004
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The most sincere gratitude is rendered to Allah SWT for the miracle of live and wonderful love for her in completing the thesis successfully and the rest of her life. This foreword is not intended to be a list of thanking to certain people, but as an indebtedness, as a way to show gratitude to the people involved in the voyage of this study. The debts are varied, some more longstanding than others.
Her endless thanks is directed to the head of education department of Deli Serdang, the head of Deli Serdang government, and Mr. Yusnaldi Yusmansyah, M.Pd, the head of Bina Program of Deli Serdang Education Departement for their support in providing financial aid for her study.
Her deeply thanks is directed to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S as The Head and The Secretary of English Applied Linguistics Study Program and Mr. Farid Ma’ruf as the administration staff for their assistance regarding the official administrative procedures to fulfill the requirements for completing the thesis.
ii
. However, at any case, her foremost gratitude must be shown to the head of SMA CT Foundation, Mr. Daulat, M.Pd, M.Si. the vice, Mr. Erwin Syahputra M.Pd. the English teachers, Mr. Ahmad Nasihin, S.H.I and Mr. M. Guntar , S.Pd, the students of Algoritma class of SMA CT Foundation and the administrators who had faith in her work, and who always supported her with encouragement, and who helped her feel as if she were one of them in the classrooms.
Her special thanks goes to her teaching colleagues, Drs. Suriadi, M.Pd, Amanah, S.Pd. M.Hum, Siti Rahmi, S.Pd, and Hikmalia, S.Pd from whom the idea of the thesis inspired, for their time of reading and discussing her thesis and for their warm support.
Her sincere appreciation is also expressed to all her best friends; Hairani, Luhetri, Nisa, Julia, Hestika, Fitri Ayunisa, Resty, Eka, Trisna, and Tasya for memorable time and motivation provided for the accomplishment of the thesis and with whom the writer struggles together during the academic years.
Lastly, her profound gratitude is given for her beloved parents and brothers, for their endless love, pray and support for whole her life and her special thanks goes to special persons; her husband, Suharmin, and her lovely daughter, Puti Aisyah Naurah, for their patience, motivation, inspiration, and enjoyable time, and love given in her life, this thesis is dedicated for you all.
Medan, February 2016
ABSTRACT
Delfina. Verbal Interaction in Small Class Size of English Classroom. A Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School. State University of Medan. 2016.
iv
ABSTRAK
Delfina. Verbal Interaction in Small Class Size of English Classroom. A Thesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Pasca Sarjana Universitas Negeri Medan 2016.
Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan interaksi bahasa verbal secara rutin terjadi di kelas dengan jumlah siswa sedikit ketika pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMA CT Foundation Medan dengan pendekatan analisa percakapan. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menemukan bentuk interaksi diantara dua orang guru yang mengajar 20 orang siswa di kelas yang sama dan menentukan alasan yang yang mendasari kecendrungan praktik penggunaan bahasa verba yang terjadi. Penelitian menggunakan metode kualitatif deskriptif. Data transkrip percakapan didapat dari satu kelas di SMA CT Foundation, sebuah sekolah yang telah menerapkan kelas kecil selama lima tahun terakhir, melalui observasi, perekaman dan interview langsung. Data transkripsi dari ujaran kemudian dianalisa dengan teori Nasaji dan Wells (2000). Kemudian interview dilakukan terhadap kedua orang guru dan 4 orang siswa laki-laki dan perempuan. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa terdapat empat variasi struktur percakapan yang digunakan. Empat variasi tersebut meliputi IRF, IRE, IRFRFRF, and IRFRFRE. Dari empat belas kategori ujaran guru tiga katagori tidak muncul. Tiga katagori tersebut adalah rejection pada evaluation move, dan confirmation dan reformation pada follow up move.
Katagori yang sering digunakan oleh guru di kelas tersebut adalah introduction
dan information delivery pada preparatory initiation move, information gathering, known answer questions, demanding, authentic questions pada initiation move, acknowledgement, pada evaluation move, and four types of follow up move such as solicitation, clarification, extension, and association. Interaksi bahasa verbal
yang terjadi antara guru dan siswa didominasi oleh known questions and solicitations untuk memancing partisipasi interaksi bahasa siswa dan dijawab dengan jenis information back dan counter inquiry. Yang mendasari
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.5The Significances of the Study... 9
CHAPTER II . REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 The Nature of Verbal Interaction in Classroom ……... 10
2.2 Conversation Analysis ……….. 13
2.3 Patterns of Classroom Verbal interaction …….. 14
2.3.1 The Sequence Types of Verbal interaction ……….………... 15
2.3.2 The Categories of Teacher and Students Talk ………... 18
2.3.2.1 Teacher Talk ………... 18
2.3.2.2 Student’s Talk ………... 22
2.4 Factors Influencing Verbal Interaction ………23
2.5 Forms of Classroom Verbal Interaction ………... 25
vi
2.4.2 Learner – learner interaction ………... 26
2.6 Class Size ………... 27
2.7 Relevant Studies ………... 28
2.8 Conceptual Framewok……… 31
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Design ………... 34
3.2 Data and The Participants of Study ………... 34
3.3 Instrument of Data Collection ………... 35
3.4 Technique of Data Collection ………... 35
3.5 Technique of Data Analysis ………... 37
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ………... 39
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION 4.1 Data Analysis... 40
4.1.2.2 Information Delivery ……….. 47
4.1.2.3 Information Gathering ……… 48
4.1.2.4 Known-answer Question………. 48
4.1.2.5 Demanding ………49
4.2.2.6 Authentic Question ………50
4.1.2.7 Acknowledgment ………50
4.1.2.9 Information Back………. 52
4.1.2.10 Acceptance………52
4.1.2.11 Counter Inquiry……….53
4.1.3 The Reasons why the Participants Interact the Way They Did... 53
4.2 Findings... 56
4.3 Discussion... 57
CHAPTER V . CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions... 62
5.2 Suggestions... 63
REFERENCES.... ……... 64
62 CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing teacher-students verbal interaction in a small class
size of CT Foundation Senior High School, the conclusions are drawn as
the following:
1. The exchange structure of verbal interaction is varied into four
types, namely IRF, IRE, IRFRFRF, and IRFRFRE.
2. There are two talk categories frequently used by the teachers in
teaching small class of CT foundation, known answer questions,
solicitation and two talk categories frequently used by the students,
namely information back and counter inquiry. Thus, the verbal
interaction between the teachers and students was dominated by the
use of questions namely known questions and solicitations to
initiate the students’ talk and responded by information back and
counter inquiry talk categories.
3. The reason for the teacher practiced frequently known questions
and solicitations to initiate the students’ talk is the target of
teaching English while the reasons for dominant used of
information back and counter inquiry are affected by the school
63
5.2 Suggestions
In accordance to the results of the study, the followings are
suggested for further study:
1. The numbers of participants in this study are too small as there are only
one class students in this classroom and 2 teachers so it may be more
valid if there are larger numbers of participants of other schools that
implements classroom size.
2. In order to have the whole picture about the interaction patterns between
teachers and students in a lesson, apart from analyzing the whole class
interactions, the student-student interactions and teacher-student
interactions during group, work pair or work individual tasks should
also be analyzed.
3. Since both the teacher and students benefitted by learning practice in
small classroom size, the small class size should be the best choice of
school management for formal education in the entire of Deli Serdang
REFERENCE
Altrichter, H., et. al. 2008. Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to action research across the professions. Ney York: Routledge
Balitho, R. 2010. Teacher Talk and Learner Talk. European Centre for Modern Language: Council of Europe.
Barnes, D. 1978. The study of classroom communication in teacher education. In M. Gill, &W.J. Crokers, (eds.). English in teacher education. Armidale, NSW: University of New England.
Bogdan and Biklen, 1999, Qualitative Research for Education, London: Allyn and Bacon.
Brown, H.D .2001. Teaching by principles (2nd Ed.). London: Longman.
Cazden, C. (2000). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Porthmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Celce, M and Murcia. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language. United State of America : Heinle & Heinle.
Consolo, D. A. 2000. Teacher’s Action and Student Oral Participation in Classroom Interaction. In J.K. Hall & Verplacte (Eds.). Second and Foreign Language Learning Trough Classroom Interaction (p. 91-108). New York: Lawrence Elrbaum Association.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third Ediciton. USA: Sage Publications Inc.
Dagarin, Mateja. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English As A Foreign Studies In The English Language And
Literature In Slovenia. ELOPE, Volume 1, str 127-139
Denzin, N. K. & Lincon, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of
qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2010. Standard Pelayanan Minimal. Jakarta: Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Dukmak, Samir. 2010. Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special Education
Middle Primary Classroom in the United Arab Emmirates .British
65
Ellis, R. 1994. The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fisher, Douglas, & et. al. 2008. Content Area Conversation: How to Plan Discussion-Based Lessons for Diverse Language learners. Nashville: ASCD.
Francis, Jessica. 2014. Relating Preschool Class Size and Student Achievement. A Dissertation of Program in Child Development.
Gorongna, Pedzisai. 2013. The Nature and Quality of Classroom Verbal Interaction: Implications For Primary School Teachers in Zimbabwe: Savap International Journal. March. 2013. Vol. 4. No. 2
Harvit. G. 2010. Handbook and Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Heritage, John. 1997. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data. In David Silverman (Ed.). Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice (pp161- 182). Sage: London.
Holloman, Y. 2007. The Impact of the Virginia K-3 Primary Class size Reduction Program on Student Achievement in Reading. Unpublished Disertation. Virginia: Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
Javid, S, A. et.al. 2013. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences. Science Explorer Publications. Vol, 4
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., hannum, W.H., 1999, Task Analysis Methods for
Instructional Design, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers,
Kearsley, G. 1976. Questions and Question-Asking in Verbal Discourse: A cross-Disciplinary Review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 355-375.
Krashen, S.D. 1978& 1981. The Monitor Model for Second Language Acquisition
and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lincon, Y. & Guba. 1975. Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage.
Long, M. H. & Sato, C. J. 1983. Classroom foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and functions of teachers’ questions. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
66
McCharty, Michael. 2002. Discourse Analysis for The Language Teacher. Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lesson. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.
Miles, Matthew, B, and Huberman, A. Michael. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Method Sources Book. 3 rd Ed. United States of America: Sage
---. 1994.Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A textbook for teachers. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
O’Donoghue, T. & Punch, K. 2003. Qualitative Educational Research in Action:
Doing and Reflecting. New York. Routledge.
Orellana, A. 2006. Interaction in Online Courses. The quarterly Review of Distance Education. Vol. 7. No 3.Nova: Southtern University.
Ozemir, O. 2009. Three Turn Sequences in Reading Classroom Discourse. Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference. Newcastle University.
Richards, Keith. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. MacMillan: Aston University
Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive Language Teaching. Interaction as the Key to
Teaching Language for Communication. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Ridho, A., et al. 2014. Investigating EFL Master Teacher’ Classroom Interaction Startegies: A Case Study in Indonesian Secondary Vocational School. SoLLs.INTEC.13: International Conference on Knowledge-Innovation-Excellence: Synergy in Language Research and Practice.
Robinson, Helja Antola. 2005. The Ethnography of Empowerment: The
Transformative Power of Classroom interaction. London: The Falmer
Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)
Ryme, Betsi. 2008. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical
67
Saiko, V, 2007, Different Student Strategies for Interactional Power in the IRF Pattern in EFL Classroom, University of Jyvalyska.
Sammons, P and Bakkum, L. 2011. Effective Schools, Equity and Teacher Effectiveness: A Review to the Literature. Vol.15 no 3. December 2011. University of Oxford, Departement of Education.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Language Learning. Language
Teaching. 38 (4), 165-187. Retrieved on February 18th , 2015 at
http://www.novitasroyal.org/ Vol_5_1/sert_seedhouse.pdf
Sheperd, Michael, A. 2010. A Discourse Analysis of Teacher-Students Classroom Interactions. Unpublished Disertation.
Shomoossi, Nematullah. 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Questions Behaviour on EFL Classroom Interaction. The reading Matrix. Vol.4, No.2.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sarosdy, et al. 2006. Applied Linguistics I. Ertekunki az Ember: Unpublished.
Slavin, R. E. (1992). Research methods in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Thapa, C. B. & Lin, A. M. Y. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms
to enhance students’ language learning. Retrieved June 12, 2015 from
http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-in-englishlanguage- classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-language- learning/
Tolson, A. 2006. Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburg: Edinburg University.
Tsui, A.B.M. 1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin.
---. 2011. Ethnography and Classroom Discourse London: Routledge.
Tuan, T. L and Nhu. K. T. N. 2010. Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in
EFL Classrooms. www.csanada.net: Studies in Literature and Language.
