AN ANALYSIS OF INITIATION - RESPONSE - FEEDBACK (IRF) INTERACTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

(1)

i AN ANALYSIS OF INITIATION - RESPONSE - FEEDBACK (IRF)

INTERACTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION AT ENGLISH

DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

THESIS

By:

RIKMA LATRI

201210100311049

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

(2)

ii AN ANALYSIS OF INITIATION - RESPONSE - FEEDBACK (IRF)

INTERACTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION AT ENGLISH

DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

THESIS

This thesis is submitted to meet one of the requirements to achieve

Sarjana Degree in English Education

By:

RIKMA LATRI

201210100311049

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

(3)

iii This thesis was written by Rikma Latri and was approved on 28th July, 2016

By:

Advisor II, Advisor I,

(4)

iv This thesis was defended in front of the examiners of the Faculty of Teacher

Training and Education of University of Muhammadiyah Malang and accepted as one of the requirements to achieve

Sarjana Degree in English Education On 9thAugust, 2016

Approved by:

Faculty of Teacher Training and Education University of Muhammadiyah Malang

(5)

v

Letter of Authenticity

The undersigned below:

Name : Rikma Latri

NIM : 201210100311049

Department : English Department

Faculty : Faculty of Teacher Training and Education

(6)

vi

MOTTO & DEDICATION

“Certainly, after every difficulty there comes relief.”

(Q.S. Ash-Sharh: 6)

“It’s possible to go on, no matter how impossible it seems.”

(Nicholas Sparks)

“Life has two major points, the first is alteration and second is striving.”

(Rikma Latri)

I dedicated this thesis to:

My Dearest Lord, Allah SWT

My beloved parents

My grandpa (R.I.P) and grandma

My lovely Nda and others family members

My inspiring lecturer, Tee

(7)

vii AN ANALYSIS OF INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) INTERACTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

ABSTRACT

Classroom interactions, which refer to three-turn sequence, have been known as Initiation – Response – Feedback (IRF). The patterns of IRF are insightful in terms of giving pedagogical implications upon the classroom interaction. This particular interaction plays a significant role in teaching and learning process for many aspects. In this study, reading comprehension class was chosen because the teacher-student talks were likely to be found in most occurrences during teaching and learning process. Further, the researcher, here, was concerned to investigate types of IRF interactions and to probe the lecturer’s motives during the IRF interaction in Reading Comprehension 4 at English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang.

The purposes of this study were to investigate types of IRF interactions and to probe the lecturer’s motives during the IRF interaction in Reading Comprehension 4 at English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang. The design of this study employed Conversation Analysis (CA) method to discover the patterns and lecturer’s motives in the classroom. The data were collected from the students of English Department who were in their fourth semester. The instruments of this study comprised video recording, field notes, and interview guideline. Video recording was employed as the main instrument in this study because it could capture teacher-and-student talks moment by moment according to the IRF patterns.

The findings of this study revealed that the types of IRF consisted of five types; those were (1) parsing; (2) steering the sequence; (3) intimating answers; (4) discovering language learner in actions; and (5) class management. Each type of the IRF was completed by CA categories comprising four aspects; those were (1) turn-taking; (2) overlap; (3) adjacency Pairs; and (4) repair. The lecturer’s motive indicated that all of the types were used based on several purposes. They are helping students give more response, checking students’ understanding in terms of giving answers, asking the students to elaborate more on their answers, enlarging students’ vocabulary and handling the class.

Keywords: initiation-response-feedback, conversation analysis, reading comprehension, motive

Advisor I, Writer,

(8)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Give thankful to Allah SWT who has given His blessing to us. I am really thankful to Him, because of His blessing, so as to this study can be accomplished well. The research would not have been possible without the inspiration, the immense encouragement, and the support that I received from many people. Particularly, I am gratitude to my advisors Teguh Hadi Saputro, M.A. and Drs. Mas’udi, M.Ed. I am particularly indebted to the members of the Examiners: Dr. Hartono, M.Pd. and Rina Wahyu Setyaningrum, S.Pd., M.Ed. who accepted to devote their precious time to read and evaluate this study.

For their continued assistance, I am also very grateful to all my beloved family members and my great friends. I really appreciate their patience and high encouragement.

Special thanks to Ms. Rosalin Gusdian and all of students at 4 I of English Department who participated this study.

May Allah give His mercy and guidance to all people who are involve in this study. Expectations from the writer of this thesis may be useful and valuable to forthcoming teachers and students, the department, the faculty and university, and for the further research.

Malang, 9th August 2016

(9)

ix

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Transcription Convention Appendix 2 Consent Form

Appendix 3 Reading TOEFL ETS Practice

(13)

xiii REFERENCES

Asma, A. (2011). Raising Teachers’ Interactional Awareness of Their Teacher Talk

with a View To Facilitating Learning Opportunities (Magister Dissertation,

University of Ferhat Abbas-Setif, Republic of Algeria). Retrieved from www.univ-setif2.dz/images/PDF/magister/MLA16.pdf

Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C., & Razavieh, A. (2010). Introduction to

research in education (8th ed.). Canada: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language

pedagogy (2nd ed.). White Plains, New York: Pearson Education.

Chambliss, D. F. & Schutt, R. K. (2013). Making sense of the social world (4th ed.). USA: SAGE Publication, Inc.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed

methods approaches (3rd_{ed.). USA: SAGE Publication, Inc.}

Duff, P. A. (2002). The Discursive Co-construction of Knowledge, Identity, and Difference: An Ethnography of Communication in the High School Mainstream. Applied Linguistics, 23(3),289-322.

Duncan, (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 283-292.

Fox tree, J. E. (2007). Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like*. Text & Talk, 27(3), 297–314.

Hall, J. K. (2001). Classroom interaction and language learning. 41, 017-039. Hall, J. K. & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning.

Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 186-203.

Hutchby, I. & Wooffitt, R. (2008). Conversation analysis. (2nd ed.). UK: Polity Press.

Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp 13-31). Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Lambertz, K. (2011).Back‐channelling: The use of yeah and mm to portray engaged listenership. Griffith Working Papers in Pragmatics and Intercultural

Communication 4, 1/2, 11‐18.

Lee, Y. (2006). Respecifying display questions: interactional resources for language teaching. Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages,

(14)

xiv Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: contingency and the work of

teaching. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 1204-1230.

Lin, A.Y. (2000). Lively children trapped in an island of disadvantage: Verbal play of Cantonese working-class schoolboys in Hong Kong. International

Journal of The Sociology of Language, 143, 63-83.

McNamara, D. S. (2007). Reading comprehension strategies. Theories,

interventions, and technologies. Los Angeles: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Mehan, H. (2001). ‘What timeis it, Denise?’: Asking known information questions in classroom discourse. Theory into Practice 28(4), 285-94.

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What’s the use of ‘triadic dialogue’? An investigation of teacher–student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376–406.

Nation, I.S.P. (2009). Teaching ESL/EFL Reading and Writing. ESL & Applied Linguistics Professional Series. New York: Routledge.

Ozemir, O. (2009). Three turn sequences in reading classroom discourse.

Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference (pp. 117-122). UK: Newcastle

University.

Pomerantz, A.M. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In J. M. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.)., Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp.57-101). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Poole, D. (2005). Cross-cultural Variation in Classroom Turn-Taking Practices. In P. Bruthiaux, D. Atkison, W. G. Eggington, W. Grabe and V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Directions in Applied Linguistics (pp. 201-219). England: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Sacks, H. (2004). An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation. In G.H. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation Analysis: Studies

from the first generation (pp 35-42). Philadelphia, USA: John Benjamins

Publishing Company.

Saputro, T.H. (2015). The Relevance of Turn-Taking to EFL Teaching and Learning: An Awareness Raising and Practice Model. CELTIC, 2(3), 1-90. Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for

self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53,

(15)

xv Seedhouse, P. (2004). The interactional architecture of the language classroom: a

conversation analysis perspective. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom Interaction Strategies Employed By English Teachers at Lower Secondary Schools. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 247-264. Waring, H. Z. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom:

(16)

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents background of the study, statement of the problems, purpose of the study, significance of the study, scope and limitation, and definition of the key terms.

1.1 Background of the Study

Classroom interactions which refer to three-turn sequence have been known as Initiation – Response – Feedback (IRF). This particular pattern commonly starts with an initiation or question by a teacher as the first turn. The second turn is student’s answer or response to the teacher’s initiation. While, afterwards, feedback is given to provide evaluation or a mere response to the students’ second turn (Lee,

2007). IRF appears to be the most familiar or spot-on organization of teacher-student talks within classroom interaction.

Some studies have been conducted to explore IRF in the classroom. Poole (2005), for example, has attempted to investigate the IRF in various subjects in US, Taiwan, and South Africa. It shows that IRF pattern varies across the subjects, countries and cultures as the variables of the study. The patterns are insightful and important in terms of giving pedagogical implications toward classroom interaction. Further, the pedagogical implications offer a way to facilitate learning or acquisition through possibility of repair and common feedback in IRF (Seedhouse, 2004).

(17)

2 more on teachers’ role or control rather than students’ participation in the teaching

and learning process. Teacher’s role can be clearly seen from initiation and feedback. Teachers’ initiation is often considered not natural in ways that questions

or statements require particular answer or response based on teacher’s expectation. As a result, when students’ response in the second turn goes beyond the expectation,

the teachers’ feedback will somehow impose in expected direction (Lee, 2007 as

cited in Dinsmore, 1985) and he also gives the following example in page 1209. 102. T: What are we going to look for, in terms of doing this peer review, 111. ((Writing on the board ‘‘thesis statement’’)).

He also gives example in page 1219.

438. T: Let’s try everyone, I bought all my textbooks, (.) a time clause. 439. S7: Yesterday

440. T: Let’s make it a time:: clau::se, now, Bernage just said yes::terday, 441. [what is it- 450. make a clause I bought all my textbooks?

These examples suggest that the imposing teachers’ expectation through initiation

and feedback might limit students’ creativity and, further, learning process (Hall &

(18)

3 On the other hand, IRF has significant role in promoting studentslearning. It can be seen from the teachers’ question as the initiation. Lee (2006) as cited in Long

& Sato (1985) states there are two types of questions, namely display questions and referential questions. Although they are different in a sense of students’ expected

response or answer, but they can contribute to students’ engagement in the teaching and learning process. Students will be encouraged to speak up after the teacher’s initiation. In some cases in which students are reluctant to participate, either display or referential questions could promote students’ participation.

In addition, it is also can be seen from the teachers’ follow up as the feedback.

Hall (2001) stated that IRF, particularly feedback, accommodates learning in terms of the cognitive and affective aspects. The cognitive aspect can be argued when the feedback requires more students’ elaboration on the particular subject. The

elaborations, such as reasoning, help students become more critical. For the affective aspect, it can be observed when teachers use encouraging words like “That’s right” or “Good”. They increase students’ motivation during the teaching

and learning process. Hence, the usefulness of IRF cannot be simply ignored in promoting students’ learning.

Some studies on IRF, mostly in the third turn, can raise the teachers’

awareness. For instance, language use by the teacher for feedback to the students’

answer will influence classroom interaction. Teachers should be aware of how to use the appropriate language during the interaction (Walsh, 2011). In addition, teachers’ feedback has an important role in increasing students’ motivation.

(19)

4 response, it will allow more response as their participations during classroom interaction (Asma, 2011).

Quite similar, Suryati (2015) shows that, in most occurrence of IRF, teachers apparently dominate the talk in the classroom. Teacher dominance is indicated by 93% of teacher-students interaction over 7% of student-student interaction. This number suggests that the teachers steer students to the interaction in most of the conversation. The strategies seem to be the case due to the teacher’s dominance. In

a long term, it might negatively affects the teaching and learning process.

Despite dissenting voices about IRF, this particular interaction is inevitable and plays a significant role in teaching and learning process in many aspects. In this regard, IRF cannot be viewed within positive or negative distinction. Rather, the motivation and purpose of IRF should have a larger attention (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). As previously mentioned, IRF, particularly the first and third turn, offers a way to facilitate learning or acquisition and raises teachers’ awareness in teaching

and learning process.

In order to elicit IRF in the classroom, Conversation Analysis (CA) serves as an appropriate method. CA, particularly concerning with how people interact with each other (Sacks, 2004), provides a methodology to investigate the pattern and motivation of teacher-and-student talk in the classroom (Hutchby & Wooffitt, 2008). Among of all concepts of CA, turn-taking concept will be used as a major framework to analyze IRF.

(20)

5 comprehension class for this research is that the lecturer -student talks are likely to be found in most of occurrence of the class. Reading comprehension requires learners to interact more with the lecturers in effort to comprehend reading texts. This study would be the initial study of IRF in this particular context.

1.2 Research Questions

Based on the background above, the questions for this study are as follows: 1) What types of IRF interaction are identified in Reading Comprehension at

English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang?

2) What are lecturer’s motives during the IRF interactions in Reading Comprehension at English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang?

1.3 Purposes of the Study

The objectives of this study are as follows:

1) To investigate types of IRF interaction in Reading Comprehension at English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang.

(21)

6 1.4 Significance of the Study

The result of this study is expected to give benefits to:

1) English lecturers. This study is expected to raise the lecturer awareness of

IRF interactions, in terms of their types and effectiveness in teaching and learning process. It is also expected the awareness will be realized in the lecturers’ implementation in order to create the most effective learning opportunity.

2) English Language Teaching (ELT) research. This study will contribute to the

research development in the relevant field, namely IRF and discourse analysis, with a very specific and unique context. In addition, the study is expected to introduce and initiate this particular IRF at the English Department in University of Muhammadiyah Malang.

1.5 Scope and Limitation

The study focuses on types of the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) interactions and lecturer’s motive during the IRF interactions. The limitation of this study are the students of Reading Comprehension 4 at section I of English Department, University of Muhammadiyah Malang in academic year 2016.

1.6 Definition of the Key Terms

There are definitions of terms of this study:

1) Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) is a sequence of interaction which is

(22)

7

Initiation is the first turn of the interaction in which teachers can commonly

give questions, requests, or commands.

Response is students’ answers or response to teachers’ initiation.

Feedback is the third turn of interaction which is yielded from students’

previous response, such as comment, evaluation, or reformulation.

2) Interaction is communication among people which gives feedback each other.

In this case, the people mean teachers and students which communicate each other by delivering their thoughts or feelings. Further, it suggests that interaction is the most important thing in a communicative competence (Brown, 2001).

3) Reading Comprehension is an ability to define and understand meaning by

AN ANALYSIS OF INITIATION - RESPONSE - FEEDBACK (IRF) INTERACTIONS IN READING COMPREHENSION AT ENGLISH DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

THESIS

By:

RIKMA LATRI

201210100311049

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

THESIS

This thesis is submitted to meet one of the requirements to achieve

Sarjana Degree in English Education

By:

RIKMA LATRI

201210100311049

ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF TEACHER TRAINING AND EDUCATION

UNIVERSITY OF MUHAMMADIYAH MALANG

Letter of Authenticity

MOTTO & DEDICATION

I dedicated this thesis to:

ABSTRACT

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION