Teacher Talk In Two Different Subjects In Junior High School
A THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
For degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By
LICHA ASMAIRA
Registration Number: 2113321027
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS
i
ABSTRACT
Asmaira, Licha. NIM 2113321027. Teacher Talk in Two Different Subjects In
Junior High School. A Thesis Faculty Of Languages and Arts, State University
of Medan. 2017.
The present study focuses on the type of teacher talk used by English Teacher and Indonesian Teacher. This research find out the type of talks each Teacher used in the classroom by applying, the Flanders model. Moreover, this study used descriptive qualitative design. The instruments for collecting the data were observation, video tape recorded and tally sheet. From the data that had been taken, it was obtained that the types of talk by English teacher and Indonesian teacher in the ninth grade of SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan was Direct Talk and Indirect Talk. It was found that both the teachers applied all categories in the teaching learning process. It found from the percentage of English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. And also for the Indonesian teacher total with 62.09% teacher talk. Type of the categories used by English Teacher was Indirect and Direct Talk and Indonesian Teacher was Direct Talk.
Keywords: Classroom Interaction, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, praise and thank for the Merciful Lord. Allah Swt, for the many blessing and strength given to the writer in finishing this Thesis. You are Lord, The answer of all I need.
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. However, the completion of this thesis could not be archieved without assistance of others. In this opportunity, the writer would like to express gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Reactor 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.
4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S., S.Pd., M.Hum., the head of EnglishEducation Study
Program.
5. Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni M.S., her first and
second Thesis Consultants for her suggestions, advices, comments, guidance to complete this Thesis.
6. Prof. Yusmaniar Noor, S.Pd., her Grandmother in order who always
motivated the writer.
7. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., the administration Staff of English
Department.
8. Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd, the Adoptive Mother who is always gives her
Suggestion and Advice.
9. Rosmiati. Rn. the Headmaster of SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan and all
iii
the English Teacher (M. Prihantini .SE.,) and Indonesian Teacher (Heni
Agussusanti .S.Pd.,)
10.Parents H. Abdul Rahman and B. Astuti as well as her beloved siblings M.
Sapri S.Pd., Dewi Ratih Prayuwidya S.Pd., and the last Ade Chepy
Andrean S.Pd., who are always gives support, motivation, and prayer.
11.My beloved close Friends, Nursa’adah, S.Pd., and also others who can not be mentioned one by one, for their affection, support, suggestions, motivation to the writer.
Medan, Maret 2017
Licha Asmaira
Reg. No. 2113321027
v
2. Classroom interaction ... 8
a. Definition ... 8
b. Teaching Process ... 14
c. Characteristics of Interaction ... 14
3. Flanders interaction analysis categories ... 15
a. Meaning of Flanders Interaction Categories ... 17
b. Teacher Talk Percentage ... 17
B. Relevant Study ... 22
v CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Design ... 26
B. The Subject of the study ... 26
C. Instrument for collecting data ... 27
1) Flanders Observation Tally Sheet ... 27
2) Video Recording ... 29
D. The technique of the data analysis ... 30
1. Identification ... 30
2. Classification ... 30
a. Percentage of the first teacher talk ... 31
b. Percentage of the second teacher talk ... 31
3. Descriptive ... 32
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS A. The Data ... 33
B. Research Finding ... 41
C. Discussion ... 45
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. CONCLUSION ... 47
B. SUGGESTION ... 48
vi
LIST OF FIGURE
vii
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.2 Meaning of Various Categories……….16
Table 4.1 Transcript of Interaction Category English Teacher………..34
Table 4.2 Transcript of Interaction Categories Indonesian Teacher….......35
Table 4.3 Percentage of English Teacher ……….36
Table 4.4 Percentage Indonesian Teacher ………37
Table 4.5 Percentage Students of English Teacher ………...39
ix
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendices A Classroom Interaction Tally sheet
Appendices B Transcription
Appendices C Plotting the coded data
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A.
The Background of the StudyIn classroom interaction teaching as an interactive process, interaction means participation of teacher and students in the process of teaching. In this process, teacher influences the students; students also interact with the teacher. Interaction takes place among the students themselves also. In the process of teaching, everybody interacts with each other person involved in the process. Language teaching can be summarized into three fields: language learner/learning (How to learn) language/culture (What to Learn) teacher/teaching (How to teach).
Nunan (1998) says that many language teachers were surprised of the amount of talk they used in classroom. It is for about 70 to 80 percent out of class time was spent mostly by teacher talk. It mean that, the teacher too active in the class, should the student who active more the teacher. The quality and the quantity of teacher talk have many values in Classroom Interaction. Firstly, it provides language input as language model for children (Pinter, 2006). Secondly, teacher talk supports student talk in practicing the language. Thirdly, the appropriateness of teacher talk can result in a warm classroom atmosphere and informal teacher-student relationship.
Failure in the process learn and teach is very generally. Failure, in the activities of learning and teaching on the general cause of factor. Moreover, when the researcher observed some teacher and learning process at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan, the researcher found that the common interaction that occurred in the classroom was the students would participate to talk if the teacher initiated, encouraged, and asked them to talk. In fact, the type of teacher talk had great influence to make the students be active in the classroom. That was the basic reason why the researcher wanted to know learning process what types of teacher talk that used in classroom during teaching and learning process.
As we know, teacher has to give opportunity for students to talk, but the
teacher also don’t know what are the students understanding the teacher’s
language.In addition, Harmer (2001: 4) states that students are the people who need the practice, in other word , not the teacher. In general term, therefore a good teacher maximizes students talking time and minimizes teacher talking. It means that a good teacher will be able to control their talking time in classroom interaction. But the fact, based on the researcher’s observation at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan, the teacher was too dominant in talking than the students, in the case they only had a little chance in talking, as an example they were talking just when teacher asked them the question, Moreover, teacher hold almost the whole roles in the classroom through lecturing, and giving direction. Teacher talk dominates most of the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Interaction analysis has been made to investigate the performance of teacher and students as well as the role of input and interaction (Richard, 2003).
To analysis EFL classroom interaction is appropriate by using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS). Flanders technique is
appropriate for analyzing the students’ and teacher’s talk at EFL context since the
technique is to measure how much the teacher and students take talking during teaching and learning process. In fact, both EFL teachers and students are required to talk in the classroom. Besides that, Flanders (1970) divides teacher talk (accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts or uses ideas of students, asks questions, lectures, gives direction, and criticizes or uses authority), students talk (response and initiation), and silence (period of silence or confusion).
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) is an analysis of teacher and students talk consisting of category system (Tsui, 1995). It show the types and quantity of teacher talk is linked to activities. Further, the teacher talk does not only Organizes classroom activities but also to determined by the activities intended, undertaken, and unfolding. Flanders (1979)who introduced classroom interaction analysis, namely Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS), to study what is happening when teacher teaches in the classroom.This system was designed to define the categories occurs, particularly verbal interaction by deciding the categories and interpret the matrix. He found the dominant talking in the classroom, and also the teacher characteristics. Furthermore this system divided into ten categories, seven categories dedicated to the teacher, two categories dedicated to the students and one is silent and confusion. FIACS is very helpful in evaluating and improving teachersway in
Furthermore, there were two also studies done in classroom interaction by using FIACS. First, research was done by Putri (2014) about the Classroom Interaction by using Flanders Interaction Technique at SMPN 13 Kota Bengkulu in 2013/2014. She found 1) the teacher A at VII C, teacher talk (66,15%), and students talk (33,10%). Besides that, for the teacher B, teacher talk (70,3%), and students talk (28,41%). 2) Both teacher A and B, the content cross was the most dominant characteristics during the observation. The characteristics showed the correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that was the teacher spent talking time more in teaching and learning process to ask questions and lecture. The other study was conducted by Nurmasita (2010) about Classroom Interaction Characteristics in a Geography Class Conducted in English: The Case At Ten Year of an immersion Class In SMA N 2 Semarang. She found that 1) The most dominant characteristics was content cross. It reflected that most of the teaching learning time was devoted to questions and lectures by the teacher. 2) The teacher spent 57,43% and student spent 22,20% in teaching learning time.3) The characteristics showed the correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that was the teacher spent talking time more in teaching and learning process to ask questions and lecture.
The other research was done by Kumpul (2013) about Classroom Interaction in Bilingual classes in SMAN4 Denpasar. He found that in Biology class student talk-response became dominant meants that students active enough in the classroom interaction, and in Chemistry classes, the dominant was teacher talk in giving direction and Physic classes the dominant was accepting feeling.
From explanation above the researcher will focus her study on the types of language and characteristics of teacherused in theclassroom interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan by using Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS).
B.
The Problems of the StudyThe Problems of the Study were formulated as follows:
1. What types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
2. What are the differences of teachers talk used by English and Indonesian teachers at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
C.
The Objectives of the StudyBased on the problem above, the objectives of the study were as follows: 1. To find out types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom. 2. To find out differences of teachers talk used by English and
Indonesian teachers.
D.
The Scope of the StudyThere are many questions can be analyzed by used Flanders Interaction Categories System such as teacher talk, students talk the characteristics of the teachers and the categories of the teacher talk. This studied was limited on the types of the teacher talk in the classroom interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan.
E.
The Significance of the StudyThe finding of the study was expected to be useful for: 1. Theoretically
This study is expected to provide benefit of knowledge, at least can be useful as a reference for further study.
2. From practically view, it also hopefully gives valuable contribution to English teacher and Indonesian teacher in case of they can be better to analyze their own teaching performance, to observe they classroom behavior and then to plan as well as to conduct interactive and child-friendly verbal classroom interaction.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data of teacher percentage, types of both teachers and also the characteristic of teacher, conclusion was drawn on the following.
1. The categories of talk by the English teacher and Indonesian teacher at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan, Both the teachers using all categories of Flanders, The data showed that the type of direct and indirect teacher talk that the types of teacher talk used by the English teacher is indirect and direct talk and then, the Indonesian teacher is direct teacher talk. The teachers focus giving the students direction in teaching learning process.
2. The differences of both teachers talk used in the class the percentage of English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. The highest category was giving direction and followed by asking question. And also for the Indonesian class total teacher talk, with 62.09% teacher talk. The highest category was giving direction and followed by lecturing. In other word that teacher still had too high in talk and student had passive contribution in the classroom.
B. The suggestion
In relation to the conclusion and suggestion are staged as following :
1. The teachers to can improve their teaching interaction on the talk time. And give more chance to practice their language.
2. The students to be active in the class. In addition, this study expected could help and give the more information about classroom interaction, especially for further study.
REFERENCES
Acroksiamy. 2010. Educational Technology. http://staxaviersbedcollege.org viewed. 21March 2016
Amatari, Veronica Odiri. 2015. A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2015, Vol. 3 No.5, pp.43-49.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Fgransisco: Longman.
Babelan, A.Zahed., and Kia M.Moeni, (2010). Study of Teacher-Students Interaction in Teaching Process and its Relation with Students’ Achievement in Primary Schoos. TSS Journal, 5(1), 55-59.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and
Mixed Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.
Cohen et al. 2007. Research Method in Education. Newyork: Routledge.
Cullen, Richard. (1997). Teacher Talk and Classroom context. ELT Journal,
52 (3), 179-187.
Dagarin, M 2004,’Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English as a Foreign Language’,pp.3-4
Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second language development. New York: Prentice Hall.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analysing Teaching Behaviour. Reading; Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Educational.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth Edition. Cambridge: Longman
Koul, L. 1996. Methodology Educational Research, Third revised. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House.
Kumpul. 2013. Classroom Interaction Analysis in Bilingual Science classes in SMAN 4 Denpasar.
Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. New York: Prentice Hall.
Nurmasita, 2010.Classroom Interaction Characteristic in a Geography Class
conducted in EnglishThe Case at ten year of Immersion Class In SMA N
2. Semarang
Pinter, Anamaria. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Putri, F.G. 2014. ‘ An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using Flander Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Technique at SMPN 13
Kota Bengkulu In 2013/2014 Academic Year’, SarjanaEducationThesis, Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia.
Richard. Jack C. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to
Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sita, N 2010. ‘A Study of Classroom Interaction Characteristics In Geography Class Conducted in English: The Case At Year Ten Of An Immersion
Class In SMA N 2 Semarang’, Thesis, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia
Tsui, A.B.M. (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction.London: Penguin.Ur. P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
