TABLE OF CONTENT
Declaration page ……… i
Abstract ……….. ii
Preface ……… iii
Acknowledgement ... iv
Table of Content ... vi
List of Figures ... viii
List of Tables ... ix
Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background ……… 1
1.2.The Objectives of the Study .………. 6
1.3. The Scope of The Study ………. 6
1.4. Significance of the Study ..………. 6
1.5. Clarification of a Term ……….. 7
Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Interaction …...………..………. 8
2.2. Patterns of Classroom Interaction ……….. 10
2.3. Classroom Interaction in Elementary School ………. 19
2.4. Analyzing Classroom Interaction Patterns .……… 20
2.5. Team Teaching ………. 24
2.6. Designing Team Teaching ……… 28
2.7. Classroom Interaction in Team Teaching Model …………. 30
2.8. Conclusion of Chapter II ……….. 31
Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research Questions.……….. 32
3.2. Research Design ………. 33
3.3. Site and Participants ……… 33
3.4. Data Collection Method……….. 33
3.4.1. Observation ………... 34
3.4.2. Interview ………..………. 35
3.5. Data Analysis Method ..………... 36
3.5.1. Data form Observation ……….. 36
3.5.2. Data form Interview .………. 40
Chapter IV DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Data Presentation from Observation
4.1.1. Patterns of Classroom Interaction ………. 41
4.1.1.1. Preparation Phase ……… 41
4.1.1.2. Apperception Phase ………. 42
4.1.1.3. Main Activity Phase ………. 45
4.1.1.4. Evaluation and Closing Phase ……….. 47
4.1.2. Team Teaching Model ……….. 53
4.2. Data Presentation from Interview 4.2.1. Patterns of Classroom Interaction ………. 54
4.2.2. Team Teaching Model ……….. 56
4.3. Discussion 4.3.1. Patterns of Classroom Interaction ……… 59
4.3.2. Occurrence of Classroom Interaction Patterns in Team Teaching Model ……… 61
4.5. Summary of Chapter IV ……….. 63
Chapter V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION 5.1. Conclussion ………..………... 64
5.2. Suggestion ..………..………... 65
REFERENCES ……….. 67
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background to the study dealing with classroom
interaction patterns in team teaching model in an EFL classroom. Following the
background’s section is the statements of the problem addressed in this study to
define the purpose of the study. The next section is the objectives of the study
followed by the scope of the study, significance of the study and ended by
clarification of terms.
1.1. Background
English has been included in Indonesian’s school curriculum for so many
years. The practice of English language teaching in this country has also
experienced continuous developments in terms of teaching methods and
evaluation. The development can be seen from the fact that today English is
taught as a compulsory subject at secondary school and as local content subject
(optional) at kindergarten and primary school.
On the contrary, though the government and other related educational
stakeholders have claimed that development of English teaching and learning
offer all the language learners a better language achievement, year by year, formal
school graduates gain quite poor English (Listia and Kamal, 2009:1). Worst, in
the national final examination which considered as the national standard of
evaluation, it has been found that English score has been manipulated in any ways
Indeed, language teaching cannot be separated from its curriculum
development. As Richard (2002:2) has stated, the focus of curriculum
development is estimating the cognitive value, competence and also norms that
will be experienced by students at school, determining the atmosphere that is
needed in creating good output and preparing the teaching and learning methods.
Language curriculum, which has been developed since 1960s (Richard, 2002:2),
has proven its engagement in series of revolution, most of which were in the effort
to reveal the best way to teach English (Hadley, 2001:86).
In order to support the language curriculum development in which it is to
guarantee the quality of language teaching and learning process, the process of
language teaching and learning should be well prepared and well planned. The
process of language curriculum development is not focusing on one element of
language teaching only. Richard (2002:2) stated that in the development of
language curriculum, it consists of determining the learner needs, developing the
course’s goals, determining a suitable syllabus, designing course model, teaching
methods and material and evaluating the language program.
The goal of English curriculum in Indonesia is to success in the
international communication which also could be means to success in achieving
the goals of trading, world-wide relationship, education and carrier development
(Suprijadi, 2007:1). Many strategies could be designed to cope with the goal, for
example by preparing professional human resources for teachers’ position and
probably by designing the best teaching methods to be implemented in the
However, teaching methods can’t be claimed as the only factors that
influence the success of language teaching. Tudor (1996b:276-7 cited in Tanaka)
stated that:
… teaching method, although important, is just one aspect of language teaching. Every teaching situation involves the interaction between a given teaching method, the students, and the wider socio-cultural context of learning. If this interaction is not a happy one, learning is unlikely to be effective, no matter how good the credentials of the teaching method may be in theoretical terms. Teaching method needs therefore to be chosen not only on the basis of what seems theoretically plausible, but also in the light of the experience, personality, and expectations of the students involved. (Tudor, 1996b, p. 276-7).
It is obvious that in order to be successful in achieving the goal of English
curriculum in Indonesia, all elements of language teaching and learning should be
involved. Thus, better connection among teaching method, students, teachers and
socio cultural context will be emerging better language teaching and learning.
In relation with achieving the goal of language curriculum in Indonesia
and also to avoid more cheating chances in the evaluation process, learners should
have self confident in the language learnt. Lubis (2009) stated that English
mastery in every school level from play group to university level is a need that
will provide students the necessary tools to cope with the goal of the language
curriculum and the demand of the real world. Thus, English mastery might be one
of many ways in achieving the goal of English curriculum.
“Teaching is a process, learning is its goal. When teaching is most
successful, both students and teachers learn.” (Buckley, 1999:3). Teachers
language teaching programs should enable students to learn a language in a way
which they fond of it, they motivated in it and they interact with it.
However, language teaching and learning problems are felt and
experienced by both sides; teachers and students. For teachers, most of the
problems in teaching English come from the lack of students’ motivation. While
for students, English learning problems caused by several factors, namely; (a)
rarely, English teachers speak English in front of the class so students aren’t
getting used to in listening English, (b) to much focus on teaching grammar
without explaining on when the students use it in daily communication, (c), the
vocabulary given is too technical, not much for daily communication, (d) the
substances of the English material is not simultaneously continued from junior to
senior high school but what is taught in junior high school is being repeatedly
taught in senior high school which make student easily get bored (Putri, 2002).
The notion of teaching and learning problems mentioned in the previous
paragraph demand further research in finding the best strategies or the best
language teaching method. In relation to that, recent studies of classroom
interaction had shown enormous result in maximizing the learning process
especially in stimulating teachers to improve their teaching behavior in order to
optimize their student learning (Inamullah, 2005). Another study reported that
classroom interaction encouraged student’s motivation in the classroom (Chiang,
2001). One’s research stated that through classroom interaction which consistently
occurred whether among teacher and students or among students themselves, the
Other issue of study that assumed to cope with the above-mentioned
problems is through team teaching. Team teaching assumes that “by working
together, it will make a greater contribution than working alone” (Davis, 1996:2
cited in Buckley, 1999:4). Thus, it will be emerging higher quantity of classroom
interaction. The recent study on team teaching revealed that “it is a good way to
keep the children's attention and interest level up” (Goetz, 2000). Other study has
revealed the benefits of team teaching were with regard to teacher
professionalism, student attitudes and discipline, instructional creativity, teacher
satisfaction and role. (Northern Nevada Writing Project Teacher-Researcher
groups, 1996).
Both of the previous researches on EFL classroom interaction and team
teaching have provided lots of data on how if the design of teaching method
intertwined them. Moreover those data will be prominent data in studying the
patterns of classroom interaction in team teaching model in an EFL classroom.
The study will reveal the patterns of classroom interaction in team teaching model
in an EFL classroom of elementary level. Elementary is chosen for the limited of
schools amount in the region that has implemented team teaching.
Thus, it becomes the researcher’s concern to fill in the gap that there is a
chance of making EFL classroom interaction better by implementing team
teaching model and designing classroom interaction patterns. For that reason
present study will conduct a research on “Classroom Interaction Patterns in Team
Teaching Model in an EFL Classroom” a qualitative study at a private elementary
1.2. The objectives of the Study
The study explores classroom interaction patterns in team teaching model
in an EFL classroom, in line with that the study objectives are:
1. to find out the patterns of classroom interaction that appear in team
teaching model in an EFL classroom.
2. to find out the model of team teaching in which the interaction
patterns appear.
1.3. The Scope of the Study
The study dealt with classroom interaction patterns in an EFL classroom
that has adopted team teaching model. It is much more concerning with observing
and finding out the interaction patterns that occur in an EFL classroom that has
adopted a team teaching model. The analysis used in finding out the patterns is
pedagogical microscope study.
1.4. Significances of the Study
The result of the study is expected to give a valuable contribution for
English teacher in designing any teaching strategy which is based on team
teaching. It also expected that this study to be one of the inspirations especially for
English teachers who teach in big classes (more than 40 students in each class) to
conduct a team teaching model in improving classroom interaction, and the last
but not least, it is expected to give English teachers a practical and theoretical
1.5. Clarification of terms
In making the terms used in the study clearer, the following is the
clarification of the terms:
- classroom interaction patterns are patterns of interaction occur in the
classroom.
- team teaching is defined as a group of two or more teachers working together
to plan, conduct and evaluate the learning activities for the same group of
learners (Quinn and Kanter, 1984 cited in Goetz, 2000, p.2)
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates the methodology of the research. This chapter
consists of the research design, research question, research instruments and data
collection methods which consist of observation and interview. This chapter also
elaborates data analysis methods.
3.1. Research Question
The study attempted to provide an answer toward the needs of various
interaction patterns in EFL classroom. It was delineated further into the following
research questions.
1. What are the patterns of EFL classroom interaction that appear in Team
Teaching model?
2. To what category of team teaching model do the classroom interaction
patterns appear?
3.2. Research Design
In relevant with the research questions, this study was guided by
pedagogical microscope in systemiotic approach. Since this study was aimed to
reveal the patterns of classroom interaction, pedagogical microscope instrument
was an ideal guiding framework as it was defined as ‘systemiotic approach toward
classroom discourse analysis’ (Suherdi, 2009:5).
assign utterance to predetermined categories (Ellis, 197:566). One of qualitative
method characters is exploring people’s life histories or everyday behavior
(Silverman, 2005:6) which suited with the nature of this study. Allwright and
Bailey (1991:2) stated that the only object worthy of investigation inside the
classroom is classroom interaction.
3.3. Site and Participants
The participants of this study were the second graders of Ar-Rafi Islamic
Elementary School and two classroom teachers, teacher number one had diploma
one degree from UHAMKA majoring kindergarten education and teacher number
two had S1 degree from UNINUS majoring math. The second grade was chosen
based on the policy of the school official after hearing brief information on the
research’s purposes. Moreover, after trying to propose in conducting the same
study in other several schools, Ar-Rafi was the one and only institution that
willing to participate at that time. This institution have implemented team
teaching model in regard to the institution policy in grouping their students for
each fourteen students guided by a teacher whereas a class consists of twenty four
students and also a teacher to take care of the multimedia equipments. Thus, the
school was chosen due to it was the only one that has been consistently
implementing team teaching and the only one which was willing to be observed.
3.4. Data Collection Method
In order to gain the necessary data in answering the research questions, the
techniques, they were observation, which consist of video recording and
classroom observation, and guided interview. While the guideline for analyzing
the patterns of classroom was pedagogical microscope instrument (Suherdi, 2009)
and the guideline in finding out the team teaching model were the categories of
team teaching by Goetz (2000)
3.4.1. Observation
Observation is an action derives based on one’s understanding on theories
related to the research (Syamsuddin & Damaianti, 2007:237). Classroom
observation research could be simply understood as the study of investigating
what was happening inside the classroom (Allwright and Bailey 1991:2).
Allwright and Bailey (1991) also stated that “classroom interaction was the only
object that worthy of investigation”.
The importance of doing observation in this research is due to observe tacit
understanding, theory in use and participant view point of which is not reveal
during interview (Al Wasilah, 2006:155). Since the researcher acts as a direct
observer, his job is just watching rather than taking part.
Observation was conducted in the two different second graders classrooms
to observe the patterns of classroom interaction and Team Teaching model. The
data gained through video recording. Video recording is a type of data collection
method in qualitative research. Although in this research video data was very
attractive, it was very complex since both transcription and analysis were difficult
analyzing video came from the nature of video recorded data which was taking the
researcher into accessing so many cues (Silverman 2005:57).
However, as the main focus of the video recording in this research was to
find out the patterns of classroom interaction in team teaching model and the type
of team teaching model used by the teachers, the cues was narrowed to it. Thus,
video recording was the instrument to answer both research questions in this
research which was finding out what patterns of classroom interaction occurred in
the team teaching classroom and also to find out which team teaching model
which was adapted by the classroom’s teachers.
The recording was done two times, the first recording was done on 13th
March 2010 and the second recording was done on 29th April 2010. There wasn’t
any time limitation in the recording; it was mainly on the basis of complete
recording from the beginning of the activity until the end. This observation was
done to answer both research questions
3.4.2. Interview
Interview was done in gaining the necessary data dealing with the research
(Alwasilah, 2006:191). Alwasilah (2006:154) also stated that interview was done
to gain in-depth information that couldn’t be accessed through observation. Indeed
in this research, interview was the research instrument that convincing the
researcher on the validity of classroom observation.
Interview used in this study did not only gain information but also to
verify the impressions the researcher gained in observation. The interview was
classroom interaction patterns from observation and to find out the category of
team teaching model that appear in particular the classroom interaction patterns.
In answering the first research question, the interview was guided by the
principle of classroom interaction patterns provided by Ellis (1997) and Rahayu
(2007) (see chapter II) added with the categories of interaction analysis provided
by Flanders cited in Inamullah (2005) while in answering the second research
question, The questions were designed based on the characters of team teaching
provided by Goets (2000) . The interview was tape recorded and transcribed. It
was done to make ease the process of data analysis. The interview was done two
times, the first was done on the 29th April 2010 and the second was done on the 8th
of June 2010. The first and the second interview were done in form audio tape
format.
3.5. Data Analysis Method
The data analysis was conducted to get the answers of the research
questions. It is in the form of research finding. In this study, all the gained data
from the three data collection instruments were analyzed gradually by using
pedagogical microscopic as the analysis instrument.
3.5.1. Data from observation
Data from observation is in form of recorded activity. The recorded data
was gained through filming the teaching and learning process from preparation
recorded data, it was transcribed in form of transcription to make ease the next
analysis.
The transcription was analyzed in pedagogical microscope analysis
(Suherdi, 2009) through categorizing the exchanges and counting the percentage
of the emergence of every category. The instruments used in the process of
analyzing the patterns of classroom interaction were the categories of exchanges
from Suherdi (2009) as follow;
1. Knowledge discourse
2. Action Discourse
3. Skill Discourse
All of the categories followed by at least six more sub categories as shown in the
following table.
No New
Code Meaning
K n o w le d g e E xc h a n g e
1 JL Teacher gives explaination/student answer the teacher actual question
2 TB T gives actual question
3 TU T gives display question
4 KaJ Teacher/student comments on JL
5 Kak Teacher/student comments on KaJ
A ct io n E xc h a n g
7 MA
Teacher asks students do a non scored action/student do action based on teacher instruction/student asks teacher to give example of an action
A ct io n E xc h a n g
e 8 SA Teacher asks student to do an action
9 KaA Teacher/student comment on TA
10 KaKa Coments on action comment
S k il l E xc h a n g e
11 TK
Teacher gives example of language
communication/student do language communication based in teacher’s request.
12 MK
Teacher asks student do non scored language
communication/student do language communication on teacher instruction/student asks teacher to give an example of language communication
[image:17.595.117.508.99.595.2]13 SK Teacher asks student to do action 14 KaTk Teacher/students comment on TK 15 KaKtk Commnet on comment on KaTK
Figure 3.1
The categories of utterance in classroom interaction analysis (from Suherdi, 2009 : 35 - 75)
All of the categories above are used to symbolize the utterances or
exchanges from the video transcription. The symbols were counted and
percentage to find out the tendency of particular exchanges. It was done due to
find out the teachers’ belief to the classroom in relevance with the implementation
of certain patterns of classroom interaction. After gaining the percentage, the final
conclusion of what were the patterns of classroom interaction was drawn based on
theories provided in chapter II.
The recorded classroom activity also answered the second research
lead to the conclusion of what model of team teaching used in the classroom. The
instruments in finding out the team teaching model are provided by Goetz (2000)
in two categories, the first category of team teaching model which involve more
than one teacher in the classroom are ;
• Traditional Team Teaching,
• Collaborative Teaching
• Complimentary / Supportive Team Teaching
• Parallel Instruction
• Differentiated Split Class
• Monitoring Teacher
While for the second category of team teaching in which the instructors work
together but do not necessarily neither teach the same groups of students nor
necessarily teach at the same time consist of five different forms, according to
Goetz (2000) they are;
• The team members meet to share ideas and resources but they function
independently.
• The teams of teachers sharing a common resource center. In this form,
teachers instruct classes independently, but share resource materials
such as lesson plans, supplementary textbooks and exercise problems.
• The team in which members share a common group of students and
plans for instruction but teach different sub-groups within the whole
group.
• The team members share planning, but each instructor teaches his/her
own specialized skills area to the whole group of students.
3.5.2. Data from interview
Interview used to gain information on the patterns of classroom interaction
and team teaching model. Interview was done through voice recording by using
hand phone as the media. After gaining the recorded data, it was then transcribed
into written form and then categorized them by using pedagogical microscope
analysis in finding out the classroom interaction patterns and team teaching
categories in finding the team teaching model.
3.6. Summary of Chapter III
This chapter discussed how the researcher conducted the research in order
to answer the research questions which consist of research design that explain on
what method that appropriate with the research and on what basis, the site and the
participants involving in the research and how the data was collected and
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents the conclusion of the present research and also
recommendation that resulted from the research findings and for further
development of the study or other relevant studies.
5.1. Conclusion
This thesis reported the study of classroom interaction patterns in team
teaching model through pedagogical microscope in sistemiotic approach. The
purpose of the research was to find out the patterns of classroom interaction that
occur in a team teaching model of an EFL classroom and also to find out the
model of team teaching that occurred in particular patterns of classroom
interaction. The purpose of the latest was to discover the model of team teaching
that was matched with the most preferred classroom interaction patterns.
The research finding stated that there are at least four interaction patterns
which have been introduced in the previous research and one interaction pattern
which is new from the present research. The interactions that have been
introduced before are, students teacher interaction, teacher students
interaction, students interface interaction, and students students interaction.
While the new classroom interaction that exist in team teaching model classroom
is teacher teacher interaction.
The research revealed that interaction of teacher students was the most
classroom interaction pattern. According to Suherdi (2009:78) it happens because
teachers thought the classroom as a place of knowledge transfer.
The research also discovered that the classroom interaction is less
interactive. It was seen from the big percentage of non negotiation exchanges
occurred in the classroom (Suherdi 2009:115). The research also found that the
patterns of classroom interaction mentioned in the previous paragraph occurred in
monitoring model of team teaching.
As the final conclussion, the present researh has revealed that not all team
teaching model emerging positive traits in teaching and learning process. The
students’ interactivity in the particular team teaching model tends to be low. Thus,
the research suggest to develop team teaching model that is relevant with the
needs of teaching and learning process.
5.2. Recommendations
Based on the finding in this research, it is recommended to do further
research in different model of team teaching in finding out the suitable patterns of
classroom interaction that fit with the goal of teaching and learning process.
Through continuous and simultanuous research, it is hoped that in the future, team
teaching will become the role model in designing the classroom especially in
improving students’ interaction, for the interactivity itself that will lead students to
the success of learning. Other studies also urgently needed to reveal the influence
of non English teacher in English teaching toward their students’ English
proficiency. It is due to so many schools prefer to take advantages in using class’s
The research also suggested that pedagogical microscope used by English
teachers as one of research instrument in finding out our own characters in
English teaching. It is considered as the easiest instrument for all teachers to be
conducted in order to self-evaluated the teaching and learning process.
The finding in this present study could not be generalized. Meaning that
other further research in relation to the study is recommended for there are still
possibilities in revealing more prominent research finding.
The study clearly reveals one new interaction pattern, which is teacher
teacher interaction, but clear implication of the pattern toward classroom
interaction has not been revealed yet. Further research is absolutely recommended
to reveal the implication of the pattern and also the used of appropriate approach
REFERENCES
,2008, Instrumen Penilaian Praktik Mengajar Peserta PLPG, Departemen Pendidikan Nasional
Alwasilah, A. Chaedar. 2006. Pokoknoa Kualitatif, Dasar-dasar Merancang dan
Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
Allwright, Dick and Bailey Kathleen M, 1991, Focus on The Language Classroom:
an Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Ney York,
Cambridge University Press.
Antonilamini, 2009, Peningkatan Interaksi Pembelajaran dengan Tehnik Pembelajaran Everoone is a Teacher Here dalam Pembelajaran Ekonomi di KelasXII IPSSMA YKP Monamas Kota Bontangi, infodiknas.com
Atherton, J S, 2010, Learning and Teaching; What is learning? , UK,
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/whatlearn.htm
Bishop, Philip. E. 2000. Classroom Interaction. Valencia Community College:
www.geocities.com/meitzu 2002/paper.html
Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching bo Principles, an Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogo. New York. A Pearson Education Company.
Buckley, Francis J. 2000. Team Teaching, What, Who and How?. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Cameron, Lynne. 2003. Teaching Language to Young Learners. UK: Cambridge University Press.
Chiang, Mei-Tzu, 2001, Classroom Interaction,
www.geocities.com/meitzu2002/paper.html
Ellis, Rod. 1994. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1997. The Studo of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Falvey, Margaret, 1986. Classroom Interaction Research and The Foreign
Language Classroom. Sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo
Fulford, Catherine P., and Greg Sakaguchi, 2010 Developing a taxonomo of interaction
strategies for two-wao interactive distance education television, International Journal of Instructional Media 28.4 (2001): 375+. InfoTrac Humanities & Education Collection. Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=ptn071
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scafolding Language, Scafolding Learning. Teaching
Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth:
Heinemann.
Goetz, Karin. 2000. Perspective on Team Teaching. www.ucalgary.ca/~egallery
Granfield, James M, 2001, Teaching Individuals with Phosical Disabilities and
Other Health Impairments, www.southernct.edu/~granfiel/ASD
Hadley, Alice Omaggio. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc.
Haryono, Akhmad. 2001. Interaksi Sosial dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Asing. Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra Vol. 1/Nomor 1/Januari-Juni 2001.
Hurlock, Elizabeth. B. 1980. Psikologi Perkembangan, Suatu Pendekatan
Sepanjang Rentang Kehidupan. Jakarta: Erlangga.
Inamullah, Muhammad, 2005, Patterns of classroom Interaction at Different
educational level in the Light of Planders’ Interaction Analosis, Rawalpindi,
University of Arid Agriculture, www.eprints.hec.pk/99/
Listia, Rina and Kamal, Sirajuddin, 2009, Kendala Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris di
Sekolah Dasar,
Lubis, Hevy Anna, 2009, Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris Bagi Siswa Sekolah Dasar,
www.hariansumutpos.com
Moore, Michael Graham, 1989, Three Topes of Interaction, the American Journal
of Distance Education, www.elearning-reviews.org/publication/272
Nisriyana, Ela, 2007, A Skripsi “Hubungan Interaksi Sosial dalam kelompok Teman Sebaoa Dengan Motivasi Belajar SIswa Kelas IX di SMPN 1
Pegandon”, digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/collect/skripsi
Northern Nevada Writing Project Teacher-Researcher Group. 1996. Team
Teaching, Nevada, Stenhouse Publishers.
Peets, Kathleen F. 2010, The effects of context on the classroom discourse skills of
children with language impairment. InfoTrac Humanities & Education Collection.
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?prodId=IPS&userGroupName=ptn071
Pinter, Annamaria. 2006. Teaching Young Language Learners. New York: Oxford University Press.
Putri, Diba Artsiyanti Adiyana, 2002, Bagaimana Meningkatkan Mutu Hasil
Pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris Di Sekolah, Pendidikan Nertwork,
re-searchengines.com/artsiyanti.html
Rahayu, Nunik (2007), A thesis “A Descriptive Studo on Classroom Interaction of English Teaching-Learning Process in Large Classes of the First Year
Students in SMA N I Gemolong”, Surakarta, Sebelas Maret University.
Richard, Jack, 2002, Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, UK, Cambridge University Press.
Silverman, David, 2005, Doing Qualitative Research, A practical Handbook. New Delhi, Sage Publication.
Snell, Jonathan, 1999, Improving Teacher-Students Interaction in the EFL
Classroom: the Action Research Report, http://itselj.org//
Syamsuddin., Damaianti, Vismaia. 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa. Bandung: SPS UPI dan PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
Suherdi, Didi. 2007, Menakar Kualitas Proses BelajarMengajar, Bandung, UPI PRES
Suherdi, Didi. 2009, Classroom Discourse Analosis “A Sostemiotic Approach” revised edition, Bandung, CELTICS
Suherdi, Didi. 2009, Mikroskop Pedagogik, Alat Analisis Proses Belajar Mengajar, Edisi Revisi, Bandung, CELTICS
Suprijadi, Dasep. 2007. A Thesis ”The Implementation of School Based Curriculum (KTSP) in the Teaching of English” a case studo at a Madrasah Aliooah in
Kab. Bandung. Bandung: UPI.
Sutton, Leah. A. 1999. Interaction. Arizona State University: http//iteslj.org/
Tanaka, Takoko, , Communicative Language Teaching and its Cultural
Appropriateness in Japan,
elib.doshisha.ac.jp/cgi-bin/retrieve/sr...cgi/.../020000840005.pdf
Trianto, 2007, Model-model Pembelajaran Inovatif Berorientasi Konstruktivistik,
konsep, landasan Teoritis-Praktis dan Implementasinoa. Jakarta. Prestasi
Pustaka Pubisher.
Valerio, 1996, Patterns of Classroom Interaction Activito,
www.lhup.edu/evalerio/
Yanamandram, Venkata and Noble, Gary, 2005, Students Experiences and
Perception of Team-Teaching in a Large Undergraduate Class, Journal of
University Teaching and Learning Prcatice,
http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2005/refereed/yanamandram1.html
