ABSTRACT
AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD
INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF
SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
Pribadi Hadhi
Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model is one of the guidelines to analyze the classroom interaction which provides guidance for analyzing spoken language, which is developed from classroom discourse in general secondary classroom. The model provides comprehensive tool which systematically allows teachers to analyze the nature and functions of interactive exchange happening in the classroom.
The objective of this research is to investigate the process of classroom interaction in teaching and learning process as well as the pattern of classroom interaction occurred as suggested by Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model in English speaking class at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. The teaching exchange pattern is focused on six aspects, namely: Teacher Informing, Teacher Directing, Teacher Elicitation, Checking, Student Elicitation and Student Informing. Class XI Science 8 was chosen as the subject of the research because the teacher still dominated the class through lecturing, giving question and instruction. The writer became a non participant observer who observed and focused on the teaching learning process by analyzing the interactional
conversation among teacher-students, students-teacher and students-students in speaking classroom. The data was collected twice by means of classroom observation and video recording.
iii
of Checking (16, 55%) allows the teacher to control how well the students can follow the lesson during the teaching learning process. The low percentages of Teacher Directing (15, 86%), Teacher Elicitation (13, 10%) and Teacher Informing (10%) show that the teacher has managed the whole process of
teaching learning well based on what has been prepared on the lesson plan as she plays the role as an initiator and a facilitator for her students.
Apart of the result from the research, it is suggested that English teachers should bear in mind that it is students who are learning language; therefore maximizing opportunities for students’ participation in form of Student Elicitation and Student
Informing to let them dominate the classroom is very necessary and important. Such target can be reached by such activities as role-play, storytelling, debating, holding seminars and making presentation etc. English teacher should also have a
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Alhamdulillahirabbil’alamin.Praised be merely to Allah SWT, The Most
Merciful, The Most Beneficent for His Blessings and Mercy that the writer is able to accomplish and complete his script: An Analysis of Classroom Interaction Using Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model in English Speaking Class at Class XI Science 8 of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. This script is presented to fulfill one of the requirements in accomplishing the S-1 Degree at the Department of Language and Arts of Teachers Training and Education faculty of Lampung University.
Among many individuals who generously gave suggestion for improving this script, first of all the writer would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge his sincere gratitude and deep respect to Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. as the first advisor, for his willingness to give assistance, ideas, scientific knowledge, and encouragement within his time during the script writing process. Special words of thanks are also addressed to Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A. as the second advisor for her guidance, suggestion and revision which are very beneficial for the
improvement of the script. His deepest gratitude is also extended to
Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. as the examiner for his contribution in improving this script.
The writer wants to extend his appreciation to Drs. Sobirin as the headmaster of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung, for providing the opportunity to conduct the research and Dra. Hj. Zusmizawati as the English teacher in SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung for being so helpful during the research process in her class as well as the students of class XI Science 8 for their willingness to cooperate and participate in this
research.
The greatest honor and appreciation would finally be dedicated to his beloved parents, Dra. Evi Ur Setiawaty and Drs. Sutejo, for their immeasurable love and endless prayers for his success. He is really proud and amazed by their patience and willingness to wait for his graduation as well as for supports given to keep his spirit alive. It is truly undoubted that loves, cares, and timeless prayers days and nights are uncountable gifts for him. His thankfulness is also due to his sister, Puspita Melati for her cheer and encouragement.
Last but not least, the writer would also address his appreciation to his dear
xi
EF Crews at EF English First Lampung, especially for Tissa Zadya, S.E., M.M. as the center manager for her kindness in arranging such a flexible teaching schedule for the writer. Thank you so much for being such a great companion along the way in finishing this script and for the unbreakable friendship.
Hopefully, this writing will be beneficial for its readers.
Bandar Lampung, April 2012 The writer,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ... xiv
LIST OF GRAPHS ... xv
LIST OF APPENDICES ... xvi
I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Problem ... 1
1.2 Formulation of the Problem ... 5
1.3 Objectives of the Research... 5
1.4 Uses of the Research ... 6
1.5 Scope of the Research ... 6
1.6 Definition of Terms... 7
II. FRAME OF THEORIES 2.1 Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in Senior High School ... 9
2.2 Concept of English Speaking ... 12
2.3 Concept of Classroom Interaction... 14
2.4 Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response- Feedback (IRF) Model ... 16
III. RESEACRH METHOD 3.1 Research Design... 22
3.2 Subject of the Research... 23
3.3 Data Collecting Techniques ... 23
3.3.1 Classroom Observation... 23
3.3.2 Recording... 24
3.4 Research Procedure... 24
xiii
IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Research Findings ... 28
4.1.1 Classroom Interaction Process ... 28
4.1.2 Classroom Interaction Pattern………... 36
4.1.2.1 First Observation ... 36
4.1.2.2 Second Observation... 38
4.1.2.3 Average Data ... 41
4.2 Discussions of Findings ... 43
4.2.1 Student Elicitation ... 43
4.2.2 Student Informing ... 46
4.2.3 Checking... 49
4.2.4 Teacher Directing ... 51
4.2.5 Teacher Elicitation ... 54
4.2.6 Teacher Informing... 57
V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS 5.1 Conclusions ... 60
5.2 Suggestions ... 61
REFERENCES... 62
AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD
INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF
SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG
By
PRIBADI HADHI
A Script
Submitted in a partial fulfillment of The requirements for S-1 Degree
In
The Language and Arts Departement of Teacher Training and Education Faculty
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG BANDAR LAMPUNG
AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD
INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF
SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG
(A Script)
By
PRIBADI HADHI
THE UNIVERSITY OF LAMPUNG BANDAR LAMPUNG
CURRICULUM VITAE
The writer’s name is Pribadi Hadhi. He was born in Pringsewu on December 20th 1989. He is the first child of a harmonious couple, Drs. Sutejo and Dra. Evi Ur Setiawaty. He has a younger sister, Puspita Melati.
He joined TK Dharma Wanita Palas, South Lampung in 1994 when he was 4 years old. Then he continued his school at SDN 2 Bangunan, Palas, South Lampung and graduated in 2001. He pursued his study at SMPN 1 Kalianda, South Lampung and graduated in 2004. Then he continued his school at SMAN 1 Kalianda, South Lampung and graduated in 2007. During his senior high school, he actively participated in joining English competitions and won the first winner of speech competition held by the government of South Lampung in 2005 and the second winner of translation competition held by EEC Unila in 2006.
In 2007, he was accepted in Lampung University as a student of English Department at Teacher Training and Education Faculty through SNMPTN program. He accomplished his teaching practice program (PPL) at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung from January to April 2011.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page
1 Lesson Plan 1 …... 65
2 Lesson Plan 2 …... 68
3 Attendance List……….. 71
4 Indonesian Words and Translations……… 72
5 Class of Acts………... 73
6 Conversation Transcript on First Observation……… 74
7 Conversation Transcript on Second Observation……… 87
8 Data Recorded from the Lesson Analyzed using the Sinclair and Coulthard IRF Classroom Analysis Model on First Observation……… 101
9 Data Recorded from the Lesson Analyzed using the Sinclair and Coulthard IRF Classroom Analysis Model on Second Observation……….. 125
10 Class Map on First Observation………. 151
11 Class Map on Second Observation……… 152
LIST OF TABLES
Page
2.1 Predicted Move Sequence for Teaching Exchange Patterns…... 20
2.2 Classes of Acts of the System in Classroom Interaction Analysis….. 21
3.1 Data Recorded from the Lesson Analyzed using Sinclair and Coulthard IRF Model ………. 26
3.2 Total Quantities and Percentage in Teaching Exchange Patterns .. 26
4.1 Quantities and Percentage of the Teaching Exchange Pattern on First Observation……….. 36
4.2 Quantities and Percentage of Teaching Exchange Pattern on Second Observation………. 39
4.3 Total Quantities and Percentage in Teaching Exchange Patterns... 41
4.4 Transcription Example of Student Elicit………. 45
4.5 Transcription Example of Student Inform……….. 48
4.6 Transcription Example of Check………. 50
4.7 Transcription Example of Teacher Direct……… 52
4.8 Transcription Example of Teacher Elicit………. 55
4.9 Transcription example of Teacher Inform (1)………. 57
DEDICATION
This script is dedicated to:
My gorgeous mom, Dra. Evi Ur Setiawaty
And
My outstanding dad, Drs. Sutejo
MOTTO
ADMITTED BY
1. Examination Committee
Chairperson : Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. ...
Examiner : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ...
Secretary : Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A. ...
2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty
Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si.
NIP 19600315 198503 1 003
Research Title : AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD
INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG
Student’s Name : Pribadi Hadhi
Student’s Number : 0713042037
Depatment : Language and Arts
Study Program : English Education
Faculty : Teacher Training and Education
APPROVED BY
Advisory Committee
Advisor I Advisor II
Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.
NIP 19600719 198511 1 001 NIP 19480920 197503 2 001
The Chairperson of
Language and Arts Education Department
Drs. Imam Rejana, M.Si.
I. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discussed certain points; introduction which dealt with background
of the problem, formulation of the problems, objectives of the research, uses of
the research, scope of the research and definition of terms, classified as follows.
1.1 Background of the Problem
Learning other languages has been emphasized because of a general perception
that people who can speak languages other than their first language (L1) have
access to a greater number of career possibilities and can develop a deeper
understanding of their own and other cultures. Due to its widespread use over the
world, English has been considered the most highly regarded other language for
people whose native language is not English (Kim, Lee, Jun & Jin, 1992). When
people from different countries want to communicate with each other, English is
often the language of choice. More than half of the world’s publications are
written in English, and a significant amount of high technology is developed
based on English (Kim Lee, Jun & Jin, 1992). For those reasons, English has
been taught in Indonesia as the first foreign language (Ramelan, 1992: 3).
Since English has become an urgent need in Indonesia as a means to develop
2
schools as a local content up to university level. It is learned formally as a
compulsory subject in schools, such as senior high school, since it plays an
absolutely important role in the world of communication. In guidelines of
educational unit level curriculum (KTSP) for senior high school, English as a
Foreign Language (EFL) learning in Indonesia is aimed at developing of four
major language skills; they are: listening, speaking, reading and writing. The
KTSP also states that senior high school students are expected to be able to
communicate to each other in target language by the end of the course.
According to McCarthy (2002) among of those four skills that make up language
proficiency, speaking is the most observable phenomenon in the classroom.
Obviously, speaking is considered as the major skill to be developed for learning a
second language. In line with this, Cazden (2000) states that the ability to
communicate is the primary goal of foreign language instruction that speaking is
put ahead on the other skills.
Based on the writer’s observation during his teaching practice (PPL) at SMAN 2
Bandar Lampung, he concluded that English speaking was almost neglected since
speaking might not be the primary goal of learning English. Teaching English did
not emphasize on students’ oral capability but it emphasized largely on grammar
rules. As a consequence, when the students were given an oral test, they even
were not be able to speak in English although they have learned English for years.
It goes at the same line as Astuty (2008) in her scriptAn analysis of Classroom
Interaction in Teaching Learning Grammar Lesson at SMA Negeri 2 Bandar
3
respondents. The interaction also showed that that only one source of teaching
occurred that was the teacher herself. The teacher dominated the classroom
interaction with few responds from the students.
Taking a look at the description of the problem of the second grade students in
SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung, it seems necessary to take an action by investigating
the real condition in the classroom, especially the interaction between the teacher
and the students. Classrooms have been considered the main arena where
language learning occurs since the learners learn through interpersonal interaction
with the teacher and peers. This reflects a view that language is not an individual
phenomenon but a social one, comprising of linguistic resources whose meanings
are both reflected in and made up of people’s everyday practices, and, more
generally, their social, cultural and political contexts (Hall, 1995).
It is known that the final result of teaching is affected by some factors, they are:
students, the teacher, time allotment, material, the use of visual aid, methodology,
teaching material and interaction between the teacher and students in the
classroom. Interaction is viewed as significant as it is argued that:
a. Only through interaction can the learners decompose the target language
structures and derive meaning from classroom events.
b. Interaction gives learners the opportunities to incorporate target language
structures to their own speech (the scaffolding principle).
c. The meaningfulness for learners of classroom events of any kinds whether
4
communication has been jointly constructed between the teacher and the
learners (Chaudron, 1998: 10).
From the previous statements it can be inferred that classroom interaction includes
all of the classroom events, both verbal interaction and non-verbal interaction. The
verbal interaction takes place because of the teacher and students talk, while
non-verbal interaction covers gestures or facial expression by the teacher and students
when they communicate without using words. These two kinds of talk are
important; they dominate the classroom events and influence students' foreign
language acquisition.
One of the guidelines to analyze the classroom interaction is Sinclair and
Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model. This model provides
guidance for analyzing spoken language, which was developed from classroom
discourse in general secondary classroom (McCarthy, 2002: 37). Furthermore,
Hannah (2003: 218) has explained that IRF model is an extremely valuable and
comprehensive tool in systematically allowing teachers to analyze the nature and
functions of interactive exchange happening in the classroom. It goes the same
line with White (2003) who states that by examining the individual parts in
classroom using IRF model, teachers can understand about the language as a
medium in interaction. Then, they can have a greater awareness in evaluating the
teaching procedures in the classroom. This advantage is expanded byAtkins
(2001:11);the exercise of analyzing IRF model is a very valuable activity for
5
SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung is one of favorite schools in Lampung, where the
students are interested in entering this school. Furthermore, many researches have
been done in this school but most of them only concern in four major language
skills: listening, reading, speaking and writing. Considering the reason above, the
researcher was eagerly interested in analyzing the classroom interaction using
Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) in English speaking
class at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. Focusing on the analysis could be expected to
show useful findings which would contribute to deeper insights about the ways to
improve English teaching and learning, especially in creating classroom procedure
which meets student goals of secondary language proficiency.
1.2 Formulations of the Problem
In line with the background stated previously, the writer formulated the problem
as follows:
1. How is the process of classroom interaction in English speaking class at
SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung?
2. How is the pattern of classroom interaction suggested by Sinclair and
Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model in English speaking
class at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung?
1.3 Objectives of the Research
By relating to the formulation of the problems, the writer stated the objectives of
6
1. To investigate the process of classroom interaction in teaching and
learning process in English speaking class at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung.
2. To investigate the pattern of classroom interaction suggested by Sinclair
and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model in English
speaking class at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung.
1.4 Uses of the Research
The writer expected the result of this research would be able:
1. Theoretically, to give information to the readers about the analysis of
classroom interaction process includes the pattern and the teaching
learning activity by using the theoretical principles of classroom
interaction suggested by Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model.
2. Practically, to give the school teachers an overview of classroom
interaction at SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung to be taken into
consideration to create and/or develop and implement the method of
teaching learning process leading to the conducive classroom
interaction.
1.5 Scope of the Research
The classroom interaction research was done to know the process of classroom
interaction process occurred in English speaking class and to analyze the
classroom interaction pattern using Sinclair and Coulthard
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model. The subject of the research was the students of class XI
7
non participant observer who observed the classroom interaction process, focusing
on the teaching learning process by analyzing the interactional conversation
among teacher-students, students-teacher and students-students in speaking
classroom.
1.6 Definition of Terms
1 Speaking is the ability to express oneself in life situation or conversation, to
report acts or situation in practice word or the ability to express a sequence of
ideas fluently (Lado, 1976).
2 Classroom interaction is the form and content of behavior or social interaction
in the classroom (Marshall, 1998).
3 Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model is a model of classroom
interaction which provides guidance for analyzing spoken language, which
was developed from classroom discourse in general secondary classroom
(McCarthy, 2002: 36).
4 Initiation is the first part out of three components suggested in
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model which acts as an opening phase where the
participants inform each other that they are in fact going to conduct a lesson
as opposed to some other activities (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1992)
5 Response is the second out of three components suggested in
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model which acts as an instructional phase where
information is exchanged between teacher and students (Sinclair and
8
6 Feedback is the third out of three components suggested in
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model which functions as a closing phase where
participants are reminded of what goes on in the core of a lesson (Sinclair and
II. FRAME OF THEORIES
In this chapter the writer used some concepts to the research, they are: teaching
English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) in senior high school, concept of English
speaking, concept of classroom interaction in language teaching and Sinclair and
Coulthard Initiation Response Feedback (IRF) model, classified as follows.
2.1 Teaching English as a Foreign Language in Senior High School
A lot of people speak more than one language in order to communicate with other
people from different parts of the world. In Indonesia, English has become an
urgent need as a means to develop Indonesian people quality, it is taught earlier at
school beginning from elementary schools as a local content up to university
level. It is learned formally as a compulsory subject in schools, such as senior
high school, since it plays an absolutely important role in the world of
communication.
For Indonesian learners, English is a new language so that they find it difficult to
learn. The other reason is that they have spoken their native language previously
which will interfere with their acquisition of the new language. It can be shown by
10
language they are learning. Considering the differences between the two
languages, it is understandable that the learners always encounter problems
dealing with vocabulary, structure, spelling, pronunciation, and the like.
Between the ages 10 and 18 the range of the middle and secondary-school
years-boys and girls move from childhood to young adulthood. It is no wonder that the
lives of teenagers are full of complexities and enigmas. The business of growing
up is a complicated one. Adolescents are torn by many conflicts and many
moments of indecision, because as Harmer says that adolescent is a period where
someone is searching for individual identity and that this search provides the key
challenge for this age group. Identity has to be forged among classmates and
friends (Harmer, 2001: 39).
Diagnosis of adolescence is complicated by the fact that the characteristics of
secondary school students in general do not necessarily apply to every adolescent
boy or girl. The characteristics of every individual are very heterogeneous.
Harmer also states that adolescents sometimes can cause discipline problems and
be disruptive in class. It because of the boredom they feel and the happiness if
there is challenge found (Harmer, 2001: 39).
However, there is something which is interesting from adolescents. As Penny Ur
in Harmer suggests, teenage learners are in fact overall the best language learners
(Harmer, 2001: 38). Teenagers have a great capacity to learn, a great creativity,
passionate commitment to things which interest them, and a great solidarity
among classmates. Thus, they have unique characteristics. Teacher has to be able
11
constructive way, so that besides achieving the goal of teaching learning process
with enthusiasm the learners morally can be good learners.
Based on the reality above, there must be variety in the classroom, such as variety
of activity and variety of organization. Based on this assumption, during the
teaching-learning process, the teacher should sometimes let the learners work
individually, sometimes in pairs, and sometimes in group.
Brown (1994: 8) suggests that teaching is guiding and facilitating learning,
enabling the learner to learn, setting the condition for learning. The teacher as
facilitator should give the facility to the learners the learning process. He must
select the teaching material related to the learners’ need, and arrange them from
the simple to the complex item. Richards et, al. (1990:7) suggest that the
principles of developing teaching materials are:
a. careful selection of what to be taught, b. improving limits on what is to be taught,
c. arranging what is to be taught in terms of the four skill, and
d. grading materials from simple to complex.
A teacher should be able to choose the effective methods of teaching to expose
every particular material, since all methods have their advantages and
disadvantages. This is in line with Harmer’s (2001: 57) opinion that the teacher
has to be able to perform as controller, organizer, prompter, participant, resource,
tutor, observer and model. Here, the teacher has acquired knowledge about
12
wealth of other particular information resulting from the experience of working
with learners in numerous contexts and different materials.
In the teaching learning process the teacher has to pay attention to the learners’
personalities or individual differences, because learners have different abilities
and points of view, background and experience.
2.2 Concept of English Speaking
Lado (1976: 240) describes speaking as the ability to express oneself in life
situation or conversation, to report acts or situation in practice word or the ability
to express a sequence of ideas fluently. Therefore, speaking emphasizes more to
the ability of an individual to convey something whether it is in the form of
expression, report, etc by using the language he has.
Furthermore, Mehan (1979: 8) mentions that speaking or oral communication is a
two-way process between speaker and listener and involves the productive skills
and the receptive skill of understanding. Therefore, there must be at least two
people: one is a speaker who gives information and the other is the listener who
receives information.
According to Brown (1994) speaking is an interactive process of constructing
meaning that involves producing and receiving and processing information. So,
there is transferring information from the speaker to the listener. In learning
13
communication. Speaking skill believed as important aspect to be success in
English speaking. The success of learning English can be seen and measured from
their performance in speaking and how well they present their English in
communication.
Moreover, Johnson (1995) states that speaking as an activity involving two (or
more) people, in which the participants are both hearers and speakers having to
react to what they hear and make the contributions at high speed. In other word,
each participants has to be able to interpret what is said to him/her, and reply with
the language he/she has which reflects his/her own intention.
Speaking is a productive skill in which the speaker produces and uses the
language by expressing a sequence of ideas and at the time he/she tries to get
ideas or the message across. In this case there is a process of giving message,
which is called as the encoding process. At the same time, there is a process of
understanding the message of the first speaker. Speaking is the instrument of
language and primary aim of speaking is for communication (Ohta, 2001: 15).
This idea means that we learn to speak in order to be able to communicate.
(Ohta, 2001: 15) also says that speaking is encoding process whereby, we
communicate our ideas, thought and feeling through one or the other forms of
language. From this definition, there should be ideas, thought and feeling when
we want to communicate with others.
English as the target language should be mastered well, either its language skill or
14
meaningful interaction of the target language that only found in natural
communication. Learners learn to speak and concerned to the message that they
are conveying and understanding.
2.3 Concept of Classroom Interaction
Classroom interaction is the form and content of behavior or social interaction in
the classroom (Marshall, 1998). Classroom interaction is the social relationship of
teacher and students in the classroom to interact, to express opinions, to share
information and to deliver thought. Interaction in the classroom, students are not
expected only to listen to the teacher but they have to play some important role in
the classroom, such as giving their opinion, sharing information and delivering
their thought so they can practice the language maximally. Classroom interaction
covers classroom behaviors such as turn-taking, questioning and answering,
negotiation of meaning and feedback (Chaudron, 1998: 10).
Interaction between students and teacher is fundamental to the learning process
because without it teaching learning process in the classroom will not exist. A
good interaction will make messages transmission success and create a good
interpersonal relationship between the teacher and students, so the students'
achievement in language acquisition can be increased.
Interaction in language classroom will lead the students to better learning, and will
activate their competence (Malamah &Thomas, 1987:45). As the students’ interest
15
diminish; if not completely disappear, and as a result they will actively involved
in the classroom interaction. Psychologically, students cannot be well motivated
when they are involved in a less interesting language activities or materials, which
will consequently decrease their understanding toward the learning material being
earned.
Interaction is a two-way communication between two people or more. Brown
proposes (2001: 165) that interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts,
feelings or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on
each other. Thus, interaction is an active process in which people try getting their
meaning across to each other by imparting thoughts, feeling or ideas.
Interaction is viewed as significant as it is argued that:
1. only through interaction can the students decompose the target language
structures and derive meaning from classroom events
2. interaction gives students the opportunities to incorporate target language
structures to their own speech (the scaffolding principle)
3. the meaningfulness for students of classroom events of any kinds whether
thought of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to which
communication has been jointly constructed between the teacher and the
students (Chaudron, 1998 : 10)
In interaction, students can use all of their possession of the language-all they
have learned or casually absorbed-in real life exchanged. Interaction involves not
only expression of one’s own ideas but also comprehensions. One listens to other,
16
To promote interaction in another language, the teacher, therefore, must maintain
a lively attention in another language among students in the classroom (Rivers:
1987). It means that the teacher can use nonverbal cues to encourage students’
speaking participation, for example, smile expectantly, and nod as students talk.
2.4 Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) Model
The first language classroom research of Austin (1962) is traditionally considered
as a pioneering study within this tradition. The study offered a simple description
of classroom discourse involving a four-part framework:
a. Structure,
b. Solicit,
c. Respond, and
d. React (Hannah, 2003: 208)
Historically, the British work has principally followed structure-linguistic criteria,
on the basis of the isolation of units, and sets of rules defining well-formed
sequences of discourse (McCarthy, 2002: 6). One important study was carried out
at the University of Birmingham by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), who
developed a model for the description of teacher-pupil talk based on a
hierarchically structured system of ranks by analog with Halliday’s (Chaudron,
1988: 56) ranked scale approach. The discourse level involves five ranks:
a. Lesson,
17
c. Exchange,
d. Move, and
e. Act.
They found in the language of traditional native-speaker school classroom a
pattern of three parts exchange:
a. Teacher elicitation (Initiation),
b. Student response (Response), and
c. Teacher feedback (Feedback) (Yu, 2009: 153)
The following figure shows the basic structure of Sinclair and Coulthard rank
scale approach for classroom.
Graph 2.1Sinclair and Coulthard IRF Model (1975)
Act Act Act Act Act
18
The figure above shows that there are five ranks of Sinclair and Coulthard’s IRF
Model. They are:
1. Lesson
It is the highest unit of classroom discourse, consisting of one or more
transactions.
2. Transaction
It normally begins with a preliminary exchange and end with final
exchange. Within these boundaries a series of medial exchange occurs:
a. Informing transaction: during a lengthy informing exchange from the
teacher, learners do little but acknowledge.
b. Directing transaction: the structure occurs where a Teacher-direct
exchange stands at the head of a transaction, rather than in a
subordinate position.
c. Eliciting transaction: when the teacher is asking the question, the
learners contribute continually to the discourse by making verbal
responses, but they have little opportunity to initiate exchanges.
3. Exchanges
There are two major classes of exchange: Boundary and Teaching.
a. Boundary: Its function is to signal the beginning or end of what the
teacher considers to be a stage in a lesson.
b. Teaching: The individual steps by which the lesson progresses. There
are six subcategories with specific functions and unique structures.
1. Teacher inform: used when the teacher is passing on facts, opinion,
19
2. Teacher direct: cover all exchanges designed to get learners to do
but not to say something.
3. Teacher elicit: includes all exchanges design to obtain verbal
respond or contribution from students.
4. Student elicit: used to elicit a verbal response from both teacher
and students in the class.
5. Student inform: occasionally learners offer information which they
think is relevant or interesting to the class participants.
6. Check: at some time in most lesson teacher feels the need to
discover how well the leaner are getting on and whether they can
follow what is going on.
4. Move
There are five types of move as follows.
a. Framing Move: probably a feature all of spoken discourse, but they
occur more frequently in classroom interaction because it is carefully
structured or designed.
b. Focusing Move: have an optional marker and starter, a compulsory
head, realized by a metastatement or a conclusion, and an optional
comments.
c. Opening Move: functions to cause others to participate in an exchange.
The purpose of giving opening move maybe passing on information or
directing an action or eliciting a fact.
d. Answering Move: Opening and answering move are complementary
20
function is to be an appropriate response in the term laid down by the
opening move.
e. Follow-up Move: Follow up is an interesting categories. Its function is
to let the learners know how well he/she has performed. It is very
significant that follow-up occurs not only after the learners answering
the question, but also after the learners opening move when the head is
realized by an informative. (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1992)
Table 1 below provides a summary of the various initiation exchanges at work in
the classroom and their structure realized by predicted move sequences stipulated
by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975).
Table 2.1Predicted Move Sequence for Teaching Exchange Patterns proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)
Teaching Exchange Patterns
Structure of Predicted
Move Sequence Abbreviations
Teacher Inform Initiation - Response I R
Teacher Direct Initiation–Response–Follow-up IRF Teacher Elicit Initiation–Response–Follow-up IRF
Student Elicit Initiation–Response IR
Student Inform Initiation–Follow-up IF Check Initiation–Response–Follow-up IRF
5. Acts
For the smallest unit, Sinclair et al. originally proposed twenty-two acts. Acts are basically defined according to their interactive function. For
instance, the function of the act “elicitation”would be to request a
linguistic response, while that of an “informative” would be to provide
21
Table 2.2Classes of Acts of the System in Classroom Interaction Analysis Proposed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1992)
No Act Abbr. Function Realization (example)
1 Accept acc Shows the teacher has heard correct information
3 Aside z Shows the teacher is talking to himself/herself
Statement / Question/ Command
4 Bid b Signals a desire to
contribute to the discourse
‘Sir’, ‘Miss’, teacher’s name / raised hand/ heavy breathing.
5 Check ch Enables the teacher to check progress
‘Finished?’, ‘Ready?’/ Question
6 Cue c Evokes an appropriate bid
‘Hands Up’, Don’t call
9 Conclusion con Summaries Anaphoric statement
10 Directive dir Requests a non-linguistic
response Command
11 Elicitation el Request a linguistic
response Question
12 Evaluation e Evaluates a response ‘Good’. ‘Interesting’, ‘Yes’/ Statement /
13 Informative i Provides information Statement
14 Loop l
Returns the discourse to the stage it was at before the student responded
“pardon’, ‘You what’, ‘Eh’, ‘Again’, ‘Pardon’
15 Marker m Marks boundaries in the discourse
‘Well;, ‘Right’, ‘OK’, ‘Now’, ‘Good’,
16 Metastatement ms Refers explicitly to the
development of the lesson Cataphoric statement
17 Nomination n Calls or gives permission to a student to contribute
‘You’, ‘Yes’, ‘Anybody’, John’
18 Prompt p Reinforces an elicitation or directive
‘Go on’, ‘Come on’, ‘Hurry up’
19 React rea Provides a non-linguistic
response to a directive Non–linguistic action
20 Reply rep Provides a linguistic response to an elicitation
Statement / question/ Nod
21 Silent Stress ^ Highlights a marker Pause
22 Starter s Provides information to facilitate a response
III. RESEARCH DESIGN
This chapter discussed about the method of research used in this study, they were:
research design, subject of the research, data collecting technique and research
procedure as well as data analysis, classified as follows.
3.1 Research Design
This research was classroom interaction research. According to Chaudron (1998)
classroom interaction research is an analysis of language phenomena found in the
interaction activities involving two or more participants. In this research, the
writer observed some phenomena which occurred in speaking class during the
teaching learning process. Furthermore, the data was focused on the teaching
learning process by analyzing the interactional conversation among
teacher-students, students-teacher and students-students in speaking class by using
Sinclair and Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model. To describe
the data, the writer used descriptive method. To find out the pattern and the
process of classroom interaction, the writer, here took the position as a non
participant observer. The writer observed the activity in the class using
23
3.2 Subject of the Research
The writer used one class at the second year of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung, which
was class XI Science 8 at odd semester in academic year 2011/2012. The class
consisted of 33 students. The writer chose the class because the teacher still
dominated the class through lecturing, giving question and instruction. Since this
research focused on the analysis of classroom interaction, the teacher and the
students as well as the students’ responsetoward any teaching learning stage
became the source of data.
3.3 Data Collecting Technique
The writer used two methods to gain the data; they are:
1. Classroom Observation
Observation is the act of collecting data about the performance of a subject
through the five senses; sight, smelling, hearing, touching and taste
(Arikunto, 2002:133). In this research, the writer focused on knowing the
patterns and the process in speaking classroom interaction made by the
teacher and the students during the teaching and learning process activity.
The writer acted as non participant observer and took note using
observation sheet form which was developed based on the research
question. What the writer hoped, then, by administering this procedure,
information about the learners’ activities during the lesson could be
gathered specifically to know the pattern and the procedure of classroom
24
2. Recording
The writer recorded the activities and interactions occurred during the
teaching and learning process in speaking class. The recording tool used
was video recorder. It goes the same line with Yu (2009) who said a
choice has to be made of whether to record with video or only audio. The
choice depends very much on the purpose of the research. If turn-taking
mechanism in the interaction is the focus of the research, then many of the
relevant information is lost in an audio recording. The video recorder was
put in front of the class so the teacher and the students were shot.
Then, the writer transcribed the data that he got from recording technique.
Next, the writer made the transcription and categorized the data into kinds
of interaction based on Sinclair and Coulthard
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model.
3.4 Research Procedure
To achieve the best result of the research, the writer planned the procedure of the
research in these following steps:
1. Formulating the research question and determining the research focus
2. Determining the cases, the way of collecting and analyzing data as well as
the way of reaching conclusion.
3. Finding the subject of the research
The writer used one class at the second year of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung,
which was class XI Science 8. Since this research focused on the analysis
25
well as the students’ responsetoward any teaching learning stage became
the source of data.
4. Observing and recording all of the classroom activities
In this research, the writer focused on knowing the pattern and the process
of classroom interaction in the teaching and learning process in speaking
class. The writer observed and recorded the teaching learning process in
the class twice which lasted for 90 minutes per meeting.
5. Transcribing all the conversations
After recording the conversation among teacher and students during
teaching and learning process, the writer made the transcription based on
the video recording that has been taken previously.
6. Coding the transcription
This activity functioned to see what interaction pattern occurred in the
teaching and learning process. In coding the interaction from the class, the
writer used the coding system based on Sinclair and Coulthard
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model.
7. Analyzing the data by using Sinclair and Coulthard
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model.
8. Making report of the research.
3.5 Data Analysis
The analysis of data needs creative and careful thinking. Data analysis is the
26
writer provided analysis of the data by using the steps proposed by Moleong
(1990) as follows:
1. Making the abstraction of the collected data to be treated in one unit. The
data gained from observing and recording was transcribed. The writer
interpreted all data available by selecting them into an abstraction.
2. Identifying the data into a unity meaning that the writer paid attention to
the term the students use to distinct the activities in the process.
3. Categorizing the data by giving a code for each data. The writer classified
the data in speaking class using Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model
and put them into table as follows.
Table 3.1 Data Recorded from the Lesson Analyzed using Sinclair and Coulthard IRF Model
4. In order to see the quantities and percentage in teaching exchange pattern, the following table was used.
Table 3.2 Total Quantities and Percentage in Teaching Exchange Patterns
Teaching
Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
Teacher
Inform Initiation
27
Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %
V. CONCLUSSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on important findings from the previous chapter, the writercomes to the
following conclusions.
1. The process of classroom interaction in English speaking class at class
XI Science 8 of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung reflects the classroom
interaction pattern suggested by Sinclair and Coulthard
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) model. The model consists of six teaching
exchange patterns, namely: Student Elicitation, Student Informing,
Checking, Teacher Directing, Teacher Elicitation and Teacher Informing.
2. The high percentages of Student Elicitation (25, 51%) and Student
Informing (18, 96%) indicate that students have their own awareness to get
involved in the activity and to participate as well as to interact actively
during the teaching learning process. The moderate percentage of
Checking (16, 55%) allows the teacher to control how well the students
can follow the lesson during the teaching learning process. The low
percentages of Teacher Directing (15, 86%), Teacher Elicitation (13, 10%)
and Teacher Informing (10%) show that the teacher has managed the
whole process of teaching learning well based on what has been prepared
on the lesson plan as she plays the role as an initiator and a facilitator for
61
5.2 Suggestions
Apart of the conclusion, the writer would like to propose some considerable
suggestions as follows:
1. English teachers should bear in mind that it is students who are learning
language; therefore maximizing opportunities for students’ participationin
form of Student Elicitation and Student Informing to let them dominate the
classroom is very necessary and important. Such target can be reached by
such activities as role-play, storytelling, debating, holding seminars and
making presentation etc.
2. English teacher should have a greater awareness of teacher’sfeedback,
especially in terms of evaluating students’ errors andproviding
grammatical accuracy and repetition as it can greatly increase teachers’
success in teaching process.
3. In the term of video usage, it is suggested to use more than one video
recorder to observe teaching and learning process in the classroom, so the
researcher can look in detail about the interactions between one student
and other students.
4. For future researchers in the area of classroom interaction, we should keep
in mind that classroom is the place where teacher and students cooperate
and interact with each other in achieving certain instructional goals in the
classroom and even though much investigation has already been done in
the field, there is still room for improvement for both teachers and
REFERENCES
Arikunto. 2002.Prosedur Penelitian Suatu Pendekatan Praktek.Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.
Astuti, W. D. 2008. An Analysis of Classroom Interaction in Teaching Learning Grammar Lesson at SMA Negeri 2 Bandar Lampung. Bandar Lampung: Lampung University (Unpublished Script).
Atkins, A. 2001.Sinclair and Coulthard’s IRF Model in a One-to-One
Classroom.Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.
Austin, J. L. 1962.How to Do Things with Words.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Brown, H. D. 1994.Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy.New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Cazden, C. 2000.Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and
Learning.Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Chaudron, C. 1998. Second Language Classroom–Research on Teaching
and Learning.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, Y. M. 2006.Using Children’s Literature for Reading and WritingStories. Kuala Lumpur: Longman Group English.
Hall, J. K. 2002.Teaching and Researching Language and Culture.London: Longman.
Hannah, C. 2003.A Classroom and Spoken Discourse Analysis Using
Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model. Berlin: Walter De Gruyter.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching.Malaysia: Longman Group.
Johnson, K. E. 1995.Understanding Communication in Second Language
63
Kim, K., Lee, J., Jun, H. and Jin, S. 1992.Language and Language Learning in
English Education. Seoul: Ministry of Education.
Lado, R. 1976.Language Teaching a Scientific Approach.New Delhi: Grow Hill Publishing Company.
Malamah and Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, G. 1998.Classroom Interaction.Oxford: New Oxford Review Inc.
McCarthy, M. 2002.Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehan, H. 1979.Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Moleong, L. J. 1994. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung : Remaja Rosdakarya.
Ohta, A. S. 2001.Second Language Acquisition in the Classroom: Learning
Japanese.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ramelan. 1994. Introduction to Linguistic Analysis. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.
Richards, J. C. and David N. 1990. Second Language Teacher Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. 1987. Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair, J. M., and Coulthard, M. 1975.Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The
English Used by Teachers and Pupils.London, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Sinclair, J.M., and Coulthard, M. 1992.The Advances in Spoken Discourse
Analysis.London: Rutledge.
Wells, G. 2001.Action, Talk, and Text: Learning and Teaching Through
Inquiry. New York: Teachers College Press.
White, A. 2003. The Application of Sinclair and Coulthard’s IRF Structure
to A Classroom Lesson: Analysis and Discussion. Birmingham:
Birmingham University Press.
Yu, W. 2009. An Analysis of College English Classroom Discourse.
