• Tidak ada hasil yang ditemukan

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

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2017

Membagikan "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"

Copied!
52
0
0

Teks penuh

(1)

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.

(2)

iii

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 s

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

(3)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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.

(4)

xi

Hopefully, this writing will be beneficial for its readers.

Bandar Lampung, April 2012 The writer,

(5)

APPROVAL FOR FINAL EXAMINATION

Research Title AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD

INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG

: Pribadi Hadhi : 0713042037

Department : Language and Arts Education Study Program : English Education

Faculty : Teacher Training and Education

Approved by, Advisory Committee

Advisor 1, Advisor 2,

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,

(6)

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

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).

(7)

2

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.

(8)

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

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 thought of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to which

(9)

4

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 teachers who wish to gain a greater understanding of the classroom they teach in.

(10)

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 the research as follows:

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

(11)

6

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 Science 8 SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. In this research, the researcher became a 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.

(12)

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

Coulthard, 1992).

(13)

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.

(14)

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 to use these characteristics and dig their potency through a supportive and

(15)

11

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

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

(16)

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 English, the main goal is to able to speak well so they can use it in

(17)

13

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 language area. In acquiring second language, learners should be involved into a meaningful interaction of the target language that only found in natural

(18)

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

(19)

15

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

one responds (either directly or indirectly), other listen and respond.

To promote interaction in another language, the teacher, therefore, must maintain a lively attention in another language among students in the classroom (Rivers:

(20)

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

1988: 56) ranked scale approach. The discourse level involves five ranks: a. Lesson,

b. Transaction, c. Exchange, d. Move, and e. Act.

(21)

17

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)

s IRF Model. They are:

1. Lesson

It is the highest unit of classroom discourse, consisting of one or more transactions.

2. Transaction

Act Act Act Act Act

(22)

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, ideas, and new information to students.

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.

(23)

19

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 moves. The type of answering move is predetermined because its function is to be an appropriate response in the term laid down by the opening move.

(24)

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

elicitation linguistic response, while that of an informative

information. A detailed description of each act is in Table 2.2 below which shows us how each category of the acts is structured, and it is completed also by the example from each moves.

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

2 Acknowledge ack

Shows the students has heard and understood the initiation

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 name / raised hand/ heavy breathing.

5 Check ch Enables the teacher to

check progress Question

(25)

21

the only one?

7 Clue cl

Provides additional information to facilitate a correct response

Statement / Tag question

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

13 Informative i Provides information Statement

14 Loop l

Returns the discourse to the stage it was at before the student responded

15 Marker m Marks boundaries in the discourse

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

18 Prompt p Reinforces an elicitation or directive

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

(26)

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 observation sheet and video recorder to collect the data.

(27)

23

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 a toward 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,

ould be gathered specifically to know the pattern and the procedure of classroom interaction.

(28)

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 of classroom interaction in speaking class, the teacher and the students as

(29)

25

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

(30)

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

Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

(31)

27

Direct Response Feedback (IRF)

Teacher Elicit

Initiation Response Feedback (IRF)

Student Elicit

Initiation Response

(IR)

Student Inform

Initiation Feedback

(IF)

Check

Initiation

Response

Feedback (IRF)

(32)

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 her students.

(33)

61

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

l 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.

2. English teacher should have a greater awareness of teacher feedback, especially in terms of evaluating stude

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.

(34)

Page

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

3.5 Data Analysis ... 25

(35)

xiii

4.1.1 Classroom Interaction Process ... 28

... 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

(36)

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

(37)

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

(38)

MODEL IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG

:Pribadi Hadhi : 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

(39)

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

(40)

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.

(41)

DEDICATION

This script is dedicated to:

My gorgeous mom, Dra. Evi Ur Setiawaty

And

My outstanding dad, Drs. Sutejo

(42)

RENCANA JUDUL KAJI TINDAKAN/SKRIPSI MAKALAH

Nama : PRIBADI HADHI

Nomor Pokok Mahasiswa : 0713042037

Jurusan : Bahasa dan Seni

Program Studi : Bahasa Inggris

ALTERNATIF I

1. Judul : A Classroom and Spoken Discourse Analysis Using the Sinclair and Coulthard

2. Masalah : Exploring the Sinclair and Coulthard model of classroom discourse and finding out how the model will fare when it is applied to a classroom interaction

ALTERNATIF II

1. Judul :

-Questioning 2. Masalah :

Pre-CALON PEMBIMBING

1. Pembimbing Utama : Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. 2. Pembimbing Pembantu : Dra. Rosita SP, M.A.

Disetujui judul I, II

Bandar Lampung, 1 Desember 2010 Mahasiswa,

Pribadi Hadhi NPM 0713042037

Ketua Program Studi, Pembimbing Akademik,

Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarsyah, M.A. Drs. Ujang Suparman, M.A., Ph.D.

(43)

KEMENTERIAN PENDIDIKAN DAN KEBUDAYAAN

UNIVERSITAS LAMPUNG

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung Telp. (0721) 704624 Fax. (0721) 704624

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR HASIL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari, tanggal Seminar : Rabu, 21 Maret 2012

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 21 Maret 2012 Pembahas

Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd.

NIP.19550712 1986031 003

(44)

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung Telp. (0721) 704624 Fax. (0721) 704624

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR HASIL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari, tanggal Seminar : Rabu, 21 Maret 2012

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 21 Maret 2012 Pembimbing I

Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. NIP. 19600719 198511 1 001

(45)

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung Telp. (0721) 704624 Fax. (0721) 704624

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR HASIL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari, tanggal Seminar : Rabu, 21 Maret 2012

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 21 Maret 2012 Pembimbing II

Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

(46)

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung Telp. (0721) 704624 Fax. (0721) 704624

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR PROPOSAL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari/Tanggal Seminar : Jumat, 9 September 2011

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 9 September 2011 Pembahas

Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd.

NIP.19550712 1986031 003

(47)

UNIVERSITAS LAMPUNG

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

Jl. Sumantri Brojonegoro No. 1 Kampus Gedung Meneng Bandar Lampung Telp. (0721) 704624 Fax. (0721) 704624

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR PROPOSAL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari/Tanggal Seminar : Jumat, 9 September 2011

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 9 September 2011 Pembimbing I

Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. NIP. 19600719 198511 1 001

(48)

LEMBAR PENILAIAN SEMINAR PROPOSAL PENELITIAN

Nama : Pribadi Hadhi NPM : 0713042037

Program Studi : Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris

Pembimbing I :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D.

Pembimbing II :Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

Pembahas Utama : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. Hari/Tanggal Seminar : Jumat, 9 September 2011

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

A Naskah 1. Kelengkapan 1

2. Kebakuan 1

3. Kelayakan 1

4. Keaslian 1

Sub- total Aspek Naskah (0-40)

No Aspek Komponen Skor (1-10)

Bobot Skor X Bobot

B Penyajian 1. Kejelasan 1 2. Penguasaan Materi 2 3. Penguasaan Metodologi 2 4. Kemampuan Argumentasi 1 Sub-total Aspek Penyajian (0-60)

Nilai Akhir (0-100)

Bandar Lampung, 9 September 2011 Pembimbing II

Dra. Rosita Simbolon, M.A.

(49)

MOTTO

(50)

Research Title AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION USING THE SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD

INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK (IRF) MODEL IN SPEAKING CLASS AT CLASS XI SCIENCE 8 OF SMAN 2 BANDAR LAMPUNG

: Pribadi Hadhi

: 0713042037

Study Program : S1 English Education

Department : Language and Art

Faculty : Teacher Training and Education

Bandar Lampung, March 2012 Approved by,

Advisor 1 Advisor 2

(51)

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. -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. Stories.

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 Classrooms.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

(52)

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.

to A Classroom Lesson: Analysis and Discussion. Birmingham: Birmingham University Press.

Yu, W. 2009. An Analysis of College English Classroom Discourse.

Gambar

Table 2.1 Predicted Move Sequence for Teaching Exchange Patterns proposed bySinclair and Coulthard (1975)
Table 3.1 Data Recorded from the Lesson Analyzed using Sinclair andCoulthard IRF Model

Referensi

Dokumen terkait

Hasil penelitian menunjukkan variabel resiko kredit pengaruhnya sedang terhadap tingkat profitabilitas dan besarnya pengaruh terhadap profitabilitas adalah sebesar

Public Entities with decentralized competences for procurement purposes may request information regarding the vendors and contracting parties related to the public works sector,

Pengaruh Adaptasi Pembelajaran Kodaly Terhadap Literasi Ritmik Siswa Di SMPN 15 Bandung Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu |

Terdapat perubahan dan penyempurnaan tentang ketentuan–ketentuan memiliki NPWP bagi Wajib Pajak suami istri dalam PER- 20/PJ/2013 tersebut.. Metode penelitian Tugas Akhir

dari suatu permukiman yang utuh, fungsi rumah memiliki fungsi yang kompleks,. tidak hanya melindungi penghuninya dari segala bahaya gangguan

Segala puji hanya milik Sang Pencipta tiada lain hanyalah Allah SWT, yang telah melimpahkan rahmat dan hidayah-Nya, sehingga penulis dapat menyelesaikan penyusunan

The study is aimed at observing the teaching learning process of writing II at English department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta.. The objective of the study is to

Stephen Penman’s paper sets out how alternative approaches to measurement are rooted in the needs of users and how they actually use financial re- porting information