• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH SUBJECT AT SMP NEGERI 1 BERASTAGI.

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH SUBJECT AT SMP NEGERI 1 BERASTAGI."

Copied!
19
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH SUBJECT AT

SMP NEGERI 1 BERASTAGI

A THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree

of Sarjana Pendidikan

By:

STEVEN KARTA GINTING

REG NUMBER: 2123321077

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS

(2)

DECLARATION

Expect where appropriate acknowledged, this thesis is my own work, has been expressed in my own words, and has not previously been submitted for publication.

I understand that this paper may be screened electronically or otherwise for plagiarism.

Medan, September 2016

(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

ABSTRACT

Ginting, Steven Karta. NIM 2123321077.Classroom Interaction in English Subject at SMP Negeri 1 Berastagi. A Thesis. Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan. 2016.

This study was aimed to find out the teacher and students talk percentage, teacher characteristics and the roles of the teacher during classroom interaction classroom interaction at SMPN 1 Berastagi in 2016/2017 academic year. This study used descriptive design. The subjects of this study were 38 students Grade VIII and an English teacher. The data were analyzed by using Flander’s formulates and interaction observation tally sheet. The instrument of collecting data ware observation tally sheet and video recording. The analysis showed that teacher talk percentage was 71,90 % and 28, 09% for students. It was found that teacher was dominant in talking than student. The teacher highest characteristics found were teacher control means dominated by commands or direction and content cross which were dominated by lecturing and questioning. For the roles of teacher, the two highest were teacher as controller and teacher as resource. From the result the writer concludes that the students were passive in the classroom interaction, on the other hand teacher hold almost the whole activities in the classroom.

Keywords: Classroom interaction, Flanders interaction analysis category system.

(8)

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The greatest thankfulness that the writer has is delivered to his Salvation who is a faithful Lord by His unconditionally love. Jesus Christ, the Lord of the lords. By his grace the writer receives more than anything in this world, because nothing more the writer wants except praising His glorious name.

This thesis has been written in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Literatures Department of Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan.

The writer gets a lot of help, monitoring, suggestions, supports and guidance academic from many great people in completing this researh .The special thanks to:

1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Rector of State University of Medan.

2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts State University of Medan

3. Prof.Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department and his first thesis consultant for her brilliat ideas, suggestions, advices, comments, guidance to complete this thesis.

4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S.S., M.Hum.,the head of Education Program of English Department.

5. Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., his second thesis consultant for his advices, comments and guidances to complete this thesis.

6. Drs, Johan Sinulingga, M.Pd., and also Anggraini T. Saragih, S.Pd, M.Hum., his examiners for suggestions, commands and advices to complete this thesis.

7. Drs. ST.Ginting and LR.Sianturi, S.Pd., The most valuable treasure that writer has ever had in this world who are always support by their prayer and also financial. 8. Ester Ginting, Eva Morina Ginting, and Sulastri Ginting., his sisters who are his

best friends to listen carefully his feeling, during the writting this thesis.

9. His Family in UKMKP UNIMED, the unforgettable place, which was the first for him to know the real God, Jehovah jireh small group members, including Bang Bernard, Bang Wilson, Bang Nuel and also Beni, they were amazing, Pengurus UKMKP FBS and tim UKMKP UP FBS.

10.The writer twin Derael on time who introduce him many life lessons and tell what the meaning of friendship is.

11.His friend and his class-mates in Extension 12 C.

(9)

At last, the writer is gratetful for what God has given in his life in every part.

Medan, September 2016 The writer

Steven Karta Ginting Reg.No. 2123321077

(10)
(11)
(12)

LISTS OF TABLES

2.1 Flanders Categories……….... 14

3.1 Flanders Observation Tally Sheet……… 35

4.1. Interaction Categories……….. 42

4.2. Teacher Talk Percentage………. 44

4.3. Student Talk Percentage………. 44

4.4. Teacher Characteristics……….. 45

4.5. Teacher Characteristics Percentage………46 4.6. Teacher Control Statements……… 47

4.7. Content Cross (lecturing and questioning) Statements………... 47

(13)

LISTS OF FIGURES

2.1. The Interaction between Teacher and Learners ………. 10

2.2. The Interaction between Learner and Leaner ……… 13

2.3. Flanders Categories……… 16

2.4. Flanders Observation tally sheet……….…. 23

2.5. Teacher Characteristics………. 25

2.6. Tree Diagram of Conceptual Framework……….... 33

3.2. Teacher Characteristics………. 40

(14)

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 PAIR SYSTEM ……… ………. 57

APPENDIX 2 OBSERVATION TALLY SHEET………61

APPENDIX 2 INTERACTION TRANSCRIPT ………..65

(15)
(16)
(17)

1 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. Conclusion

After analyzing the data of teacher and students talk percentage,

characteristics of teacher and also the roles of teacher, conclusion was drawn on

the following.

1) Teacher or students one of them must be dominant in talking in the

classroom interaction. Teacher has seven categories in talk. There are

accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts and uses ideas of

students, lecturing giving directions and criticizing or justifying

authority. The data showed that teacher spent 71,90% for all

categories. Furthermore, students have two categories, there are

students talk response and student talk response by 28,09 %. The

percentage shows that teacher was dominant in talking than students at

SMP Negeri 1 Berastagi. In other word that teacher still had too high

percentage in talk and students had a passive contribution in the

classroom.

2) The most utterances that teacher said In the classroom interaction

showing his characteristics. There were four characteristic of teacher in

the classroom interaction such as; teacher support, student

(18)

53

participation, content cross, and teacher control. The two highest

dominant characteristics in the classroom interaction at SMP Negeri 1

Berastagi were teacher control and following by content cross. Teacher

control means the activities controlled by teacher in the ways of giving

direction and commands, meanwhile content cross has the meaning the

activities that conducted by teacher dependence by questioning and

lecturing.

3) Teacher may hold some roles in the classroom interaction. The roles of

the teacher in the classroom interaction at SMP Negeri 1 Berastagi

were teacher as controller and teacher as resource.It was shown from

the data teacher roles in the classroom. Teacher as controller because

of command and direction were mostly occurring. Meanwhile,

lecturing and questioning define the role of teacher as resource who

becomes the source of students’ knowledge.

B. Suggestion

In relation to the conclusions, suggestions are staged as follows:

1)The English teacher can improve their teaching ways, especially to the

talk time percentage, by too much talking the students have a little chance

to practice their language, whereas language lesson is needed not just

learnt theoretically but more practically. The various of teacher

(19)

54

students to learn better and avoid boring impression in the classroom

interaction, so that the learning process will be better.

2) The students improve their contribution in the classroom interaction.

Students need to have a good participation by communicate actively in the

classroom interaction, particularly in learning language. It means that they

have a high talk percentage, so that teaching learning language process is

going well.

3) The readers who are interesting in doing related study, know the good

interaction and also the balance teacher and students interaction. In

addition this study expected help and give the more information about

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the types of impoliteness strategies used by teacher and students in classroom interaction, (2) the pattern of

The objectives of this research were to find out the pattern of teacher talk and student talk in English classroom interaction of the second grade students of natural science

This research is aimed at describing teaching reading techniques used by English teacher in the classroom activities, the teacher’s roles in the classroom activities,

They are teaching English for Young Learner (TEYL), Teacher talk (TT), Students talk, type of classroom interaction, compressible input hypothesis, comprehensible

The aims of the study are to investigate (1) the realization of young learner’s classroom interaction, (2) teacher talk categories (3 ) their implication on student’s

Teacher should understand the types that will give to the study, Sofyan and Mahmud (2014), conduct a research related the teacher talk in classroom interaction at a university in

There were two types of classroom interaction types which found by researcher in SMK N 2 Padang at tourism department; teacher student interactions, teacher – students interactions and

To see further how teacher talk L1 functions in the classroom interaction, this study attempts to find out 1 what acts the teachers perform when using L1 in the classroom and 2 in what