A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE SHIFT OF ROLES BETWEEN A TEACHER AND STUDENTS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM DISCOURSE.

(1)

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY OF THE SHIFT OF ROLES BETWEEN A TEACHER AND STUDENTS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM DISCOURSE

A Research Paper

Submitted to the English Education Department of Faculty of Language and Literature Education of Indonesia University of Education

as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

By

Doni Ramdhani Suwandi 1002777

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE EDUCATION INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION

(2)

PAGE OF APPROVAL

A Descriptive Study of the Shift of Roles between a Teacher and Students in English Classroom Discourse

A Research Paper By

Doni Ramdhani Suwandi 1002777

Approved by

Supervisor

Dra. Hj. Sri Setyarini, M.A.,Ling. NIP. 196312291990022001

Head of English Education Department Faculty of Language Education and Literature

Indonesia University of Education

(3)

A Descriptive Study of the Shift of Roles

between a Teacher and Students in English

Classroom Discourse

Oleh

Doni Ramdhani Suwandi

Sebuah skripsi yang diajukan untuk memenuhi salah satu syarat memperoleh gelar Sarjana pada Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra

Januari 2015

Hak Cipta dilindungi undang-undang.

(4)

Doni Ramdhani Suwandi, 2015

A descriptive study of the shift of roles between a feacher and students in english classroom discourse Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

A Descriptive Study of the Shift of Roles between A Teacher and Students in English Classroom Discourse

Doni Ramdhani Suwandi doni.suwandi@gmail.com

Supervisor:

Dra. Hj. Sri Setyarini, M.A.,Ling.

Department of English Education, Faculty of Language and Arts Education, Indonesia University of Education

Abstract: This study was aimed to figure out the exchange patterns during classroom interaction and its relation to the shift of roles of serving primary knower between a teacher and students. Thirty nine students of twelfth grade and an English teacher in a public senior high school in Bandung were involved as the participants. This study employed a descriptive-qualitative method, and the main data were classroom observation transcript and teacher’s interview transcript. The data analysis was done by applying classroom discourse analysis through coding and categorizing utterances of teacher and students into exchange categories proposed by Suherdi (2009). The findings reveal that both Non-Anomalous (Knowledge-Oriented and Action-(Knowledge-Oriented) and Anomalous Exchanges (Elliptical, Defective, and Broken) were found in the interaction between the teacher and the students, therefore the exchange categories affect the shift of roles of serving primary knower between teacher and students. With regard to the findings, two exchanges were likely to be dominant among other exchanges throughout four meetings of the lesson; those are DK1-initiated exchanges (30.19%) and A1-initiated exchanges (34.57%).

Keywords: Classroom discourse analysis, Classroom Interaction, Shift of Roles

Abstrak: Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui pola baku tutur di dalam interaksi kelas,

dan hubungannya dengan pergantian peran antara guru dan siswa dalam hal sumber utama pengetahuan. Tiga puluh sembilan siswa kelas 12 dan seorang guru Bahasa Inggris di sebuah sekolah menengah atas negeri di Bandung terlibat sebagai partisipan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif-kualitatif, dan data utama yang digunakan adalah transkrip observasi kelas dan transkrip wawancara guru. Analisis data dilakukan dengan menggunakan analisis wacana kelas dengan memberi kode dan mengkategorikan ujaran guru dan siswa ke dalam kategori baku tutur yang dikembangkan oleh Suherdi (2009). Temuan menunjukan bahwa baku tutur non-anomalous (knowledge-oriented and action-oriented) dan baku tutur

anomalous (elliptical, defective, and broken) ditemukan di dalam interaksi guru dan siswa.

(5)

A descriptive study of the shift of roles between a feacher and students in english classroom discourse Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

dominan di antara baku tutur yang lain di seluruh empat pertemuan pelajaran, yaitu baku tutur

DK1-initiated (30.19%) and baku tutur A1-initiated (34.57%).

(6)

A descriptive study of the shift of roles between a feacher and students in english classroom discourse

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF AUTHORIZATION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. PREFACE ... Error! Bookmark not defined. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... Error! Bookmark not defined. Abstract ... Error! Bookmark not defined. TABLE OF CONTENTS ... 1 LIST OF TABLES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. LIST OF FIGURES ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER I ... Error! Bookmark not defined. INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.1. Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.2. Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.3. Purpose of the Research ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.4. Scope of the Research ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.5. Significance of the Research ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.6. Clarification of Related Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.7. Paper Organization ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1.8. Concluding Remark ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER II ... Error! Bookmark not defined. LITERATURE REVIEW ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1. Discourse ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.1. Classroom Discourse ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.1.1. Classroom Discourse AnalysisError! Bookmark not defined.

2.1.2. Structure of Classroom Discourse . Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2. Categories of Exchanges ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

(7)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu

2.2.2. Anomalous Exchanges ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3. Classroom Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3.1. Shift of Roles in Classroom ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER III ... Error! Bookmark not defined. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1. Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2. Site and Participants ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3. Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3.1. Classroom Observation ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3.2. Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.4. Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER IV ... Error! Bookmark not defined. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1. Analysis and Discussion of Classroom Observation ... Error! Bookmark not

defined.

4.1.1. Exchange Pattern in the First Meeting ... Error! Bookmark not

defined.

4.1.1.1. Non-Anomalous ExchangesError! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.1.2. Anomalous Exchanges .... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.1.3. Summary of Analysis and Discussion of Classroom Observation in the First MeetingError! Bookmark not

defined.

4.1.2. Analysis and Discussion of Other Meetings . Error! Bookmark not

defined.

4.1.2.1. Discussion of the Second MeetingError! Bookmark not

defined.

4.1.2.2. Discussion of the Third and Fourth Meeting ... Error!

(8)

4.1.3. Analysis and Discussion of Shift of Roles between Teacher and Students ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2. Analysis and Discussion of Interview Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

CHAPTER V ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1. Conclusions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2. Recommendations ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

(9)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This chapter covers the background of the study, research questions, purpose of the

research, clarification of key terms, and organization of the paper.

1.1. Background

Language is produced in various ways according to the purpose of the language users

and that different purpose will require kinds of language use. Language in discourse

is employed to interact and communicate the same things with interlocutors such as

thoughts, beliefs, and feelings (Suherdi, 2009). In other words, language in discourse

must be the original one and should not be a made-up language. Rymes (2008) and

Cook (1989, cited in Jiang, 2012) simply define discourse as the language in use. In

this context, the use of language is analyzed by using discourse analysis. Suherdi

(2009, p. 6) asserts that discourse analysis as a way of approaching and thinking

about a problem, however, discourse cannot be used to solve or answer a specific

problem. Furthermore, Demo (2001, cited in Suherdi, 2009) adds that discourse

analysis does not only involve spoken language, but also involve written texts

without ignoring the function of language itself. Relating to discourse as the

language in use, Paaso, Uusiautti, and Määttä (2013) say that thing outside the

language usage is not the focus of discourse analysis.

People use language to communicate and interact the same things with each

other, whether in form of spoken language or written texts. Considering the

explanation of language in discourse, teacher-students interaction which occurs in a

classroom can be considered as classroom discourse. Furthermore, Allwright and

Bailey (1991, cited in Suherdi, 2009) say that a complex concept of interaction has

(10)

defined as a two-way contact resulting action and reaction which may occur between

individuals or between an individual and a group (Biddle, 1967, cited in S. Sadeghi,

Ketabi, Tavakoli, & Sadeghi, 2012). Describing certain verbal behaviors of teachers

and students as they interact in the classroom is needed when analysing classroom

interaction (Sadeghi et al., 2012). When interacting in the classroom, there should be

a shift of roles between the teacher and the students, in order to see the shift of roles,

the teacher-students interaction must be observed and analyzed.

Analysing classroom discourse is important because it provides accuracy in

describing classroom activity and it can significantly contribute to the improvement

of teacher‟s strategy for teaching in the classroom as well as the learning outcomes

(McCarthy, 1991; Suherdi, 2009). However, in the classroom, the teacher is not the

one who is in charge of teaching-learning process, but also the students. This can be

realized by putting forward question and answer method in the classroom in order to

provide students more opportunities to participate in the teaching and learning

process (Suherdi, 2009). Furthermore, through classroom interaction, students can

increase their language store as they listen or read materials. Their ability in

producing the language will also develop as they interact with each other during the

lesson. In addition, Liberante (2012) asserts that turn taking is one of some aspects

that influences students‟ outcomes and behaviour in teacher-students interaction.

Andrews (2001, cited in Sert, 2010) professes the enhancement of teacher‟s

competence in L2 leads to interactional process which provides improvement of

learner involvement and opportunities for learning. Providing students opportunities

to participate in the classroom can create a good social relationship among teacher

and students. The teacher must give chances to students to talk because the students

can improve their profiency in mastering English. Furthermore, Sert (2010) affirms

that the quality of teaching can be enhanced by developing teachers„ language

awareness and improving their classroom interaction. That statement shows one of

the benefits of a good classroom interaction for the teacher; the teacher can create

(11)

Considering the scholars claim about classroom discourse analysis and

classroom interaction, when teacher negotiates the information and exchanges roles

with students, together they will accomplish the lesson objectives. Therefore, based

on explanation above, this study is specifically designed to investigate the relation of

shift of roles of serving the primary knower between teacher and students in English

classroom context.

1.2. Research Questions

This study is designed to answer these following questions:

1. What are the exchange structures found in the shift of roles between teacher

and students in English lesson?

2. How do the exchange structures affect the shift of roles between teacher and

students in English lesson?

1.3. Purpose of the Research

The purposes of the study are as follows:

1. To figure out the exchange structures that occur in the shift of roles between

teacher and students in English lesson.

2. To find out the effect of exchange structures on the shift of roles between

teacher and students in English lesson.

1.4. Scope of the Research

Analyzing classroom interaction between a teacher and twelfth grade students that

occurs in English classroom in one of public schools in Bandung becomes the focus

(12)

serving the primary knower between teacher and students by using Categories of

Exchanges developed by Suherdi (2009).

1.5. Significance of the Research

This study is expected to give a significant contribution in English language

teaching. The exchange patterns in shift of roles between teacher and students which

are found in this study can help the teachers in teaching English and managing

classroom interaction in the classroom. Furthermore, the result of this study is

expected to contribute for teachers in improving teaching strategies and choosing

classroom language in the teaching and learning process.

1.6. Clarification of Related Terms

This section presents the technical terms that occur in the study in order to avoid the

ambiguity, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation toward the concept presented.

Those are:

1. Classroom Interaction

Classroom interaction seen as the most important element in the curriculum

(van Lier, 1996, cited in Sert, 2010). Interaction is defined as the

collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more

people (Brown, 2001), classroom interaction includes verbal interaction and

non-verbal performance.

2. Classroom Discourse Analysis

Classroom discourse analysis is used to observe activities that occur in the

classroom and it involves the analysis of the learning process in the

(13)

brings benefits to the evaluation of teacher‟s and students‟ learning output

(McCarthy, 1991).

3. Shift of Roles Between Teacher and Students

Teaching and learning process is dominated by asking and answering method

(Suherdi, 2009). Both teacher and students can initiate information and serve

as primary knower. The relation between status and power in the classroom

interaction especially with the shift of roles of the Primary Knower is defined

as shift of roles (Suherdi, 2009).

1.7. Paper Organization

This paper will be presented into five chapters, as follows:

Chapter I: Introduction

This chapter presents the introduction of the paper. This chapter introduces the

background of the study, research questions, purpose of the research, clarification of

related terms, and the organization of the paper.

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter discusses some theories about Classroom Discourse, Systemic

Approach in Classroom Discourse, Categories of Exchanges, and Shift of Roles in

knowledge negotiation.

Chapter III: Research Methodology

This chapter gives clear explanation about how the study is conducted and analyzed.

This chapter focuses on the methodology used in this study: research design, research

site and participants, data collection, and data analysis.

(14)

This chapter presents the analysis and discussion of the findings thoroughly. The

interpretation of the result will be further explained and elaborated in this chapter.

Chapter V: Conclusion and Suggestion

This chapter covers the conclusion of the study and the recommendation for further

research on such analysis.

1.8. Concluding Remark

(15)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter provides and elaborates the methodology employed in this study. It

covers research design, site and participants of the study, data collection, and data

analysis techniques. The research design explains the method employed in this study.

The research site and participants discuss where the study was conducted and the

participants involved. The data collection presents the data type and the data

collection technique. The data analysis elaborates the procedures of analyzing the

data.

3.1. Research Design

Qualitative study is employed in this study to gather a clearer picture and deeper

understanding of the shift of roles of serving primary knower between teacher and

students. Qualitative study, as stated by Creswell (2012), refers to the study of a

problem and its understanding of a central phenomenon. Moreover, the researcher

intended to analyze, describe, categorize, and interpret the data (Creswell, 2012) in

investigating the shift of roles between teacher and students.

In addition, descriptive case study is used in this study, Yin (2003, cited in

Baxter & Jack, 2008) defines case study as a type of study used to describe a

phenomenon and the occurrence of the real-life context. This study is suited with

qualitative study because according to Creswell (2012) and Yin (2003, cited in

Baxter & Jack, 2008), qualitative study focuses on a program or phenomenon.

Moreover, according to Nisbet and Watt (1984, cited in Cohen, Manion, & Morrison,

2007) case study has several strengths as follows: 1) it can be undertaken by a single

researcher; 2) it is strong on reality; 3) it is intelligible and the results are easily

understood by the reader; 4) it provides insight into similar situations and cases; and

(16)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 3.2. Site and Participants

A public senior high school in Bandung, West Java, became the site of this study.

The school has been chosen because of the accessibility and familiarity since the

researcher is an alumnus of the school. Hence, the researcher has been familiar with

the teacher and the environment. Then it was expected that there will occur natural

performance during this study.

An English teacher and 39 students of twelfth grade were involved as the

participants. Twelfth grade students were selected because the higher of proficiency

level of the students, the more questions and instructions can be undertaken during

the lesson (Brown, 2001). In addition, in a week, the twelfth grade students have

more lessons hour on English subject than other grades in the school. Hence the

teaching and learning process will be more intensive.

3.3. Data Collection

The data were collected through classroom observations and an interview. Classroom

observations were done in four meetings, and were conducted to get information

about the real classroom situation of the selected site which capturing the exchanges

patterns in the classroom interaction during the English teaching-learning process. Then teacher’s perspective towards classroom interaction was gathered through an interview to the teacher itself. Each technique of the data collection is described

below.

3.3.1. Classroom Observation

Classroom observation was done in order to gain natural interaction between teacher

and students in the classroom. This classroom observation is the main technique to

collect the data. The observations aim to gather open-ended, direct information by

(17)

were done in the observations; those are video-taping verbal interactions, and field

noting some features of non-verbal interactions. The video was used to get through

comprehension of classroom interaction. Audiovisual is good for classroom

observation because it provides extensive data about real life situation as people

visualize it, and it can help researchers understand the central phenomenon under the

study (Creswell, 2012). The video-tapes were then transcribed with the help of field

notes.

The classroom observations and videotaping itself were conducted on 22nd

August 2014, 3rd September 2014, 5th September 2014, and 10th September 2014.

Each lesson was recorded for two hour lessons (90 minutes). Video recorders were

used to record the interaction and there were no involvements from the researcher in

terms of the classroom interaction during the observation.

3.3.2. Interview

Interview was conducted in order to crosscheck the data from the classroom

observation. Interview is a specific purposed conversation of two-person initiated by

the interviewer (Cohen et al., 2007), it provides detail information from the

participants (Creswell, 2012) in which the information contains their experience

derived from their stream of consciousness (Seidman, 2006). Some questions were

designed to be asked to the teacher in order to gain further information about some

issues that occurred during observations which cannot be directly observed by

researcher. The interview intended to obtain the data regarding teacher’s way in

managing classroom interaction.

The interview was conducted by interviewing the teacher face-to-face and via

instant messenger. The researcher asked several questions related to the teacher’s

way in managing classroom interaction. The interview was conducted in English;

(18)

were copied and moved into the transcribed document. The data of the interview also

analyzed in this study.

3.4. Data Analysis

The data collected from classroom observations were analyzed by using categories of

exchanges theory developed by Suherdi (2009) which includes the analysis of

anomalous exchanges (simple and complex exchanges) and non-anomalous

exchanges (elliptical, defective, and broken) (see Figure 2.5).

The data from the videos were watched and transcribed. To find out the

exchanges patterns in relation to shift or roles between teacher and students, the

transcriptions were analyzed by segmenting the utterances into some exchanges.

After that, each exchange is labelled and categorized based on the categories of

exchanges proposed by Suherdi (2009).

The interview data was categorized and interpreted to find out the teacher’s way in managing classroom interaction. Next, the researcher categorized the

response from the respondents according to the interview questions. The, the data

was interpreted and presented qualitatively. The result of the analysis is described

comprehensively and thoroughly in Chapter IV.

3.5. Concluding Remark

This chapter has presented and elaborated the methodological aspects applied in this

study covering research design, research site, participants, data collection technique,

(19)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The previous chapter has presented the analysis and discussion regarding the

exchange patterns including non-anomalous exchanges and anomalous exchanges, its

relation to the shift of roles of serving primary knower between teacher and students,

and ways of managing classroom interaction reflected in teacher’s interview. This

chapter presents the conclusions derived from the findings and discussions on the

data analysis. Whereas the suggestions are going to be drawn to give some inputs for

the readers in conducting further studies in this field.

5.1. Conclusions

This study is focused on analysing classroom interaction especially in the terms of

exchange patterns of non-anomalous and anomalous exchanges. As stated in Chapter

I, this study is aimed at figuring out the exchange patterns during classroom

interaction and its relation to the shift of roles of serving primary knower between

teacher and students. In order to reach the aims, a descriptive-qualitative case study

was employed and conducted at one public school in Bandung, West Java.

After analysing the data, some conclusions should be drawn in this section.

The findings reveal that all exchange categories proposed by Suherdi (2009)

appeared during the classroom interaction. Non-anomalous Exchanges

(knowledge-oriented exchanges and action-(knowledge-oriented exchanges) and Anomalous Exchanges

(elliptical, defective, and broken) were both found in the interaction between teacher

and students. However, the distribution of each exchange in every meeting is

different.

Considering the detail of the findings, DK1-initiated exchanges seem to be

dominant among knowledge-oriented exchanges with total appearance 30.19%. In

the meantime, A1-initiated exchanges seem to be dominant with 34.57% out of all

total appearance of non-anomalous exchanges throughout four meetings. In terms of

(20)

complex non-anomalous exchanges is not too significant. This shows that a long

conversation in one exchange between teacher and students did not occur very often.

In terms of anomalous exchanges, the findings show that elliptical exchanges are

dominant with total appearance 83.03%. Overall, based on the findings, it can be

concluded that action-oriented exchanges are the most dominant among other

anomalous exchanges and anomalous exchanges. It shows that there were many

non-verbal performances performed by both teacher and students such as raising hands,

writing on whiteboard, numbering pictures, etc. especially when the students

working in groups.

Considering the result of the analysis, therefore, it can be concluded that there

is a shift of roles of serving primary knower between teacher and students. It can be

seen from the pattern of K2-initiated exchanges which is dominant in the first and the

second meeting where the students served as the primary knower. It can be seen when the teacher asked students’ prior knowledge about narrative text. The students were the ones who knew the information; therefore, they served as the primary

knower and supplied information to the teacher. This pattern then followed by

K1-initiated exchanges in which the teacher served as the primary knower. The teacher

supplied correct information and wrapped up all rough information supplied by the

students as suggested by Suherdi (2009).

Moreover, considering the percentage of knowledge-oriented exchanges,

DK1-initiated exchanges seem to be dominant in the third and the fourth meeting. In

delivering the information, testing or display questions as suggested by Long and

Sato (1983, cited in Suherdi, 2009) and Suherdi (2009) were employed by the teacher in order to check the students’ comprehension towards the lesson. The decision of choosing exchange patterns such as K1-initiated, K2-initiated, and DK1-initiated

exchanges has affected the shift of roles between teacher and students. Considering

the findings, therefore, it can be concluded that there is a shift of roles of serving

primary knower between teacher and students indicated by the occurrence of various

(21)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu 5.2. Recommendations

Considering the findings, discussions, and conclusions of research results, the

researcher suggests some recommendations for English teachers and further

researchers regarding classroom discourse analysis.

For English teachers, it is hoped that classroom discourse analysis can be

considered beneficial to choose appropriate strategy in managing classroom

interaction and wisely choose appropriate classroom language. It would be better if

the teachers can choose appropriate teaching strategy and appropriate questioning

strategy because it can maintain interaction in the classroom in order to invite

students to contribute and participate more in the teaching-learning process.

However, this study has a limitation as well. Those teacher-students

interactions were analyzed by only one theory of classroom discourse analysis which

is exchange categories. For further researchers, it is suggested to analyze the

interactions by using other classroom discourse theories. Additionally, it is suggested to analyze teacher’s and students’ language characteristics in order to reveal more detailed information about interaction between teacher and students, in which the

finding is expected to be beneficial to manage classroom interaction and choose

(22)

Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American

Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington DC: American

Psychological Association.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study sesign and implementation for novice researchers. The qualitative report , 13, 544-559.

Bednarek, M., & Martin, J. R. (2010). New discourse on language: Functional

perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation. New York:

Continuum.

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

pedadogy (2nd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Christie, F. (2002). Classroom discourse analysis: A functional analysis. London: Cintunuum.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th Edition ed.). New York: Routledge.

Cook, G. (1989). Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: planning, conducting and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research (4th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.

Davies, A., & Elder, C. (2004). The handbook of applied linguistics. Malden: Blackwell.

Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology and discourse: A multidisciplinary introduction. Barcelona.

Fraenkel, J. R., & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design and evaluate research in

education (7nd ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.

Gibbons, P. (2006). Bridging discourses in the ESL Classroom. London: Continuum.

Hall, J. K., & Walsh, M. (2002). Teacher-student interaction and language learning.

Annual review of applied linguistics , 22, 186-203.

Jiang, X. (2012). A study of college English classroom discourse. Theory and

(23)

Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris. (2010). Pedoman penyusunan skripsi (2nd ed.). Bandung: Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris Fakultas Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.

Kelly, S. (2007). Classroom discourse and the distribution of student engagement.

Social psychology of education , 10, 331-352.

Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly

, 33, 453-484.

Liberante, L. (2012). The importance of teacher–student relationships, as explored through the llens of the NSW quality teaching model. Journal of student

engagement: Education Matters , 2-9.

Maroni, B., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2008). Turn-taking in classroom interactions: Overlapping, interruptions, and pauses in primary school.

European journal of psychology of education , 23, 59-76.

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Moguel, D. (2004). What does it Mean to participate in class?: Integrity and inconsistency in classroom interaction. The journal of classroom interaction , 19-29.

Paaso, E., Uusiautti, S., & Määttä, K. (2013). ―Peace to learn‖— A discourse

analysis of pupils’ perceptions. Journal of classroom interaction , 16-27.

Raux, A., & Eskenazi, M. (2012). Optimizing the turn-taking behavior of task-oriented spoken dialog systems. ACM transactions on speech and language

processing , 9, 1-23.

Rymes, B. (2008). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Sadeghi, S., Ketabi, S., Tavakoli, M., & Sadeghi, M. (2012). Application of critical classroom discourse analysis (CCDA) in analyzing classroom interaction.

English language teaching , 5, 166-173.

Seidman, I. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College

Press.

(24)

Sert, O., & Seedhouse, P. (2005). Introduction: Conversation analysis in applied linguistics. Novitas royal , 1-14.

Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom discourse analysis: A systemiotic approach. Bandung: CELTICS Press.

Suherdi, D. (2009). Mikroskop pedagogik: Alat analisis proses belajar-mengajar. Bandung: CELTICS Press.

Wang, Q., & Castro, C. D. (2010). Classroom interaction and language output.