ABSTRACT
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). A Study of Interaction in Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL) Classroom Using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
This study is focused on the young learner classroom interaction at Kindergarten school level. The goals of this study are (a) to indentify the predominant interaction patterns and (b) to discover how the interaction happened. Since, the interaction patterns influenced the way the teacher delivers her talk and how the students produce the target language during the interaction.
This study is the classroom-centered research. It concentrates on the classroom interaction, in order to gain insights and increase our understanding of young learner classroom interaction. The classroom-research was done to contribute to the second language teaching field for young learner classroom. The study was conducted at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. It has a unique concept of teaching. They have philosophy to build relationship as mother and children not as a teacher. The point is that create “second home” for students when their mother are working.
The participants in this research were 15 students of class A and B, a non-native classroom teacher and the school principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. An interaction analysis system was applied in this research called Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The data were collected by observing (observational protocol) and video recording the teacher-students interaction during teaching-learning process. The data were confirmed by doing the unstructured interview with a classroom teacher and the school principal.
The finding of this research, teacher’s talk (49.5%) and student’s talk (47.2%) from total utterances found. It was found that there was not so much different percentage between teacher’s and student’s talk. It indicated that the interaction went smoothly and active. The students were active in producing their talk and the teacher delivered the suitable talk to stimulate students. The analysis results show that the most predominant-pattern during the interaction was student participation. It emphasized on the student’s responding talk and the student’s initiating talk. The second predominant pattern was content cross, to show how often the teacher delivered lecturing and questioning talk to the students. The third predominant pattern was teacher support, it consisted of accept or uses student ideas, praising & encouraging and accept feeling. Another finding was the type of teacher talk, indirect talk became the most dominant pattern also 75%. It indicated that, the teacher gave the freedom and applied the flexible pattern for the students to respond and initiate their opinion. Those interaction patterns will help the classroom teacher in promoting and increasing the quality of young learner classroom interaction.
Finally, the young learner classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School as the model for comprehensible interaction. As the researcher found that the interaction pattern was dominated by student participation talk. In addition, the result of this study give guidance on how to build, prepare and manage the school environment. Such as regulation and atmosphere to support teaching and learning process of using English during teaching and learning process.
ABSTRAK
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). Analisis Interaksi Siswa dan Guru di TEYL (Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Siswa Usia Dini) Menggunakan Sistem analisa ineteraksi Flanders’. Program Paska Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.
Penelitian ini difokuskan pada interaksi siswa usia dini pada kelas taman kanak-kanak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pola interaksi dan bagaimana interaksi tersebut berlangsung. Antara siswa dan guru kelas yang terjadi di kelas Taman Kanan-Kanak. Khususnya dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, yang bertempat di TK Ananda Mentari Yogyakarta. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut maka peneliti mengajukan dua pertanyaan untuk di jawab dalam penelitian ini: Pola interaksi apa yang mendominasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa usia dini? Bagaimana interaksi yang terjadi di TK Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta?
Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian-kelas yang banyak berkontribusi dalam peningkatan qualititas pembelajaran. Khususnya yang berkaitan erat dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggris di kelas muris usia dini. Penelitian ini diselenggarakan di TK Ananda Mentari Yogjakarta. Sekolah ini memiliki konsep pembelajaran yang berbeda dari sekolah pada umumnya. Sekolah ini menerapkan philosofi mengenai hubungan yang erat antara ibu dan anak. Latar belakang yang penting adalah menciptakan “rumah ke dua” bagi siswa, di saat ibu mereka pergi bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.
Partisipan penelitian adalah 15 orang siswa dari kelas A dan B, seorang guru Taman kanak- kanak dan kepala sekolah dari Ananda Mentari yang sekaligus sebagai pendiri sekolah. Dalam rangka mengetahui pola interaksi yang terjadi antara siswa dan guru. Sebuah system analisis di aplikasikan dalam penelitian ini yang disebut: Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Data penelitian di peroleh dari pengamatan di kelas dan rekaman video interaksi guru dan siswa saat proses belajar mengajar. Pengamatan di kelas di lakukan empat kali selama 50 menit di setiap pertemuan. Data di dukung dengan hasil wawancara dengan guru pengampu kelas dan kepala sekolah yang sekaligus pendiri sekolah.
siswa usia dini. Hal lain yang di temukan dalam penelitian ini adalah dominan nya pola jenis tuturan guru (teacher talk) di kelas. Indirect talk (tuturan-tidak langusng) menjadi pilihan guru dalam berinteraksi, dibuktikan hasil kuantitative menunjukan 75%. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa guru memberikan keleluasaan pada siswa untuk mengungkapkan pendapat mereka tanpa harus takut di salahkan oleh guru.
Peneliti berharap bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan kesadaran dan kajian tambahan. Mengenai pentingnya pola interaksi yang tepat untuk meningkatkan kualitas interaksi di kelas dengan anak usia dini menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Pada khususnya untuk sekolah tempat di adakan penelitian ini. Hasil dari penelitian ini dapat di gunakan sebagai kajian dan kritik yang membangun untuk meningkatkan dan mempersiapkan guru, siswa dan lingkungan untuk terciptanya interaksi yang harmonis untuk mendapat hasil pembelajaran yang maksimal.
A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO
YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS
’
INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
A THESIS
Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Hummaniora (M.Hum)
in English Language Studies
by
Martha Septiningtyas
Student Number: 146332016
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO
YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS
’
INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
A THESIS
Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)Degree
in English Language Studies
by
Martha Septiningtyas Student Number: 146332016
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
DEDICATION PAGE
This thesis is dedicated to Jesus Christ, my family and friend who always helped me, motivated and inspired me to do my best in order to finish my thesis. My father, Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my mother Prihatin Ekowati, SPd, and my beloved young cute sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I love you all and truly fortune to have you in my life.
HOPE
“There is nothing you can’
t achieve with
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all I would like to express my deepest thanks to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, who has supported, helped and given me a chance to continue my education at The Graduate Program in English Language Studies (ESL) Sanata Dharma University. Only through his blessing and unconditional love, I could complete this thesis.
Secondly, I would like to say my deepest thanks to my thesis advisor Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. for the guidance, support and encouragement. I am really grateful for his suggestions and advices from the beginning when I started write this study. Many thanks are also expressed to F.X Mukarto.Ph.D., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. E.Sunarto, M.Hum as my thesis reviewers for their suggestions to improve this thesis. Furthermore, J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd. M.Hum, for her suggestion to find the topic and school for this research to support this thesis.
Thirdly, I would like to thank the principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School, Mrs. Bernadetta Dwi Retno Aryanti, S.Psi. for her willingness to be interviewed, reliable cooperation and for allowing me to do research in her school. My truly thanks also addressed to all students of Kindergarten A and B as the participants in this research. To Miss. Nining Sumarsih, S,Sos, Miss. Henny Madya Sari, SS as the classroom teachers who really welcomed me and gave good cooperation in her class during observation times and interview.
Prihatin Ekowati.SPd, my lovely sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I would like to thank them for never ending understanding, supporti both financial and spirit, love, pray. All my family for their loves, sympathies and cares so I could complete this study. Since family is a unit of people that loves and supports each other through good times and bad times. They gave wonderful care, attention and understanding during the difficult time in finishing my thesis. The one and only, dear my future-husband abang Aryond Silalahi, S.T. who shared the happiness, sadness togetherness and value advices. Thank you so much for your dedication and valuable supports. Special thank also addressed to my sista Sari who supports both my thesis and my up and down of my challenging life. Adit & Indra as my IT consultant, who helped me to ensure the format. Agnes Mira, my best friend and my private counselor. I wish to thank to my thesis reader for your willingness to read and comments on this thesis. The last but the least, many thanks are dedicated to Marita, the one who help me to ensure the format and grammatical mistake. Finally, I expect that this thesis would be useful for further study and education practitioner.
May God always bless us!
Yogjakarta, August 24th, 2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE………..i
APPROVAL SHEET……….. ..ii
THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE……….……….. iii
DEDICATION PAGE………..iv
STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY………v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN………..……..vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……… vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………. ix
LIST OF TABLES……….. xii
LIST OF FIGURES……… xiii
LIST OF GRAPHS………. xiv
LIST OF APPENDICES………. xv
ABSTRACT………... xvi
ABSTRAK………xviii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study……… 1
1.2. Problem Identification……… 5
1.3. Problem Limitations………. 7
1.4. Statement of Research Questions………... 7
1.5. The Research Goals……… 7
1.6. Research Benefits………... 8
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Theoretical Review………. 10
2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)……….. 10
2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction………. 13
2.1.3 Student Talk and Teacher Talk……… 17
2.1.4 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction…….. 18
2.1.6 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique 25
2.1.7 Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta……….. 28
2.2 Related Studies………. 29
2.3 Theoretical Framework……….. 30
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research Design………... 35
3.2. Research Procedure……….. 36
3.3. Nature of Data……….. 37
3.4. Data Sources………. 38
3.5. Research Instruments……… 40
3.6. Data Collection……… 43
3.7. Data Analysis……… 45
3.8. Trustworthiness……… 49
CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Results………. 58
4.1.1 The general description of teaching and learning process……… 58
4.1.2 Interaction Event……….. 60
4.1.3 The Result of Interview……… 66
4.2. Discussions………... 72
4.2.1 Predominant Patterns of Young Learner Classroom Interaction………….. 73
4.2.1.1 Student Participation……….. 73
4.2.1.2 Content Cross………. 85
4.2.1.3 Teacher Support………. 96
4.2.1.4 Teacher Control……… 106
4.3. Types of Student talk and Teacher Interaction………... 113
4.3.1 Indirect Talk and Direct Talk………... 114
4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction……… 116
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION
5.1. Conclusion……….. 127
5.2. Recommendation……… 129
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………...…135
Appendix 1: Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in four meetings……… 136
Appendix 2: The Overall Result of Classroom Interaction………... 138
Appendix 3: The Comparison of teacher talk and student talk………. 139
Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol……… 140
Appendix 5: Observational Protocol Result of First Meeting………... 143
Appendix 6: Observational Protocol Result of Second Meeting……….. 155
Appendix 7: Observational Protocol Result of Third Meeting………. 167
Appendix 8: Observational Protocol Result of Fourth Meeting……… 180
Appendix 9: Blueprint for Interview guideline………. 196
Appendix 10: Interview result with classroom teacher……… 200
Appendix 11: Interview result with school principle………... 214
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Characteristics of Young Learners………. 11
Table 2.2 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories ……… 25
Table 2.3 Research concept plotting………..…33
Table 3.1 Ten rules for deciding code ………. 41
Table 3.2 Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis……… 42
Table 3.3 How to put a code of classroom verbal interaction………..…… 44
Table 3.4 Observation Data Transcription……… 46
Table 3.5 Guideline for data analysis….……….... 51
Table 3.6.Table qualitative data collection types and sources of data…….. 52
Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization………... 53
Table 3.8 Sample of interview questions with classroom teacher………… 55
Table 3.9 Sample of interview questions with school principle…………... 56
Table 4.1 Classroom interaction pattern in 1st meeting..……….. 62
Table 4.2 Classroom interaction pattern in 2ndmeeting ………... 63
Table 4.3 Classroom interaction pattern in 3rd meeting ……... 63
Table 4.4 Classroom interaction pattern in 4thmeeting …………... 63
Table 4.5 The Results of Student’s Talk and Teacher’s Talk... 65
Table 4.6 Summary Result of Classroom Pattern Interaction... 66
Table 4.7 Sample of interview with the teacher... 68
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acqusition... 19
Figure 2.2 Matrix of Flanders Interaction... 27
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework... 32
Figure 3.1 Research Procedure... 37
LIST OF GRAPHS
Graph 4.1 The Student Participantion Pattern...74
Graph 4.2 The Distribution of Student Talk...75
Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern...85
Graph 4.4 The Distribution of Lecturing and Questioning...86
Graph 4.5 The Teacher Support Pattern...96
Graph 4.6 Accept Feeling, Encouragement& Use Student Idea... ..97
Graph 4.7 The Teacher Control Pattern... 106
Graph 4.8 Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing...107
Graph 4.9 The results of Direct and Indirect Influence in Each Meeting...114
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in Four Meetings ...136
Appendix 2 The Overall Result of Interaction based Flanders Formulas...137
Appendix 3 The Comparison of Teacher Talk and Student Talk...138
Appendix 4 The Blueprint of Observation Protocol……...139
Appendix 5 The Observation Protocol Result in 1st Meeting ...142
Appendix 6 The Observation Protocol Result in 2nd Meeting ...153
Appendix 7 The Observation Protocol Result in 3rd Meeting...164
Appendix 8 The Observation Protocol Result in 4th Meeting...176
Appendix 9 The Blueprint for Interview Guideline...191
Appendix 10 The Interview Result with Classroom Teacher ...195
Appendix 11 The Interview Result with School Principle ...209
ABSTRACT
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). A Study of Interaction in Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL) Classroom Using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.
This study is focused on the young learner classroom interaction at Kindergarten school level. The goals of this study are (a) to indentify the predominant interaction patterns and (b) to discover how the interaction happened. Since, the interaction patterns influenced the way the teacher delivers her talk and how the students produce the target language during the interaction.
This study is the classroom-centered research. It concentrates on the classroom interaction, in order to gain insights and increase our understanding of young learner classroom interaction. The classroom-research was done to contribute to the second language teaching field for young learner classroom. The study was conducted at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. It has a unique concept of teaching. They have philosophy to build relationship as mother and children not as a teacher. The point is that create “second home” for students when their mother are working.
The participants in this research were 15 students of class A and B, a non-native classroom teacher and the school principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. An interaction analysis system was applied in this research called Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The data were collected by observing (observational protocol) and video recording the teacher-students interaction during teaching-learning process. The data were confirmed by doing the unstructured interview with a classroom teacher and the school principal.
The finding of this research, teacher’s talk (49.5%) and student’s talk (47.2%) from total utterances found. It was found that there was not so much different percentage between teacher’s and student’s talk. It indicated that the interaction went smoothly and active. The students were active in producing their talk and the teacher delivered the suitable talk to stimulate students. The analysis results show that the most predominant-pattern during the interaction was student participation. It emphasized on the student’s responding talk and the student’s initiating talk. The second predominant pattern was content cross, to show how often the teacher delivered lecturing and questioning talk to the students. The third predominant pattern was teacher support, it consisted of accept or uses student ideas, praising & encouraging and accept feeling. Another finding was the type of teacher talk, indirect talk became the most dominant pattern also 75%. It indicated that, the teacher gave the freedom and applied the flexible pattern for the students to respond and initiate their opinion. Those interaction patterns will help the classroom teacher in promoting and increasing the quality of young learner classroom interaction.
Finally, the young learner classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School as the model for comprehensible interaction. As the researcher found that the interaction pattern was dominated by student participation talk. In addition, the result of this study give guidance on how to build, prepare and manage the school environment. Such as regulation and atmosphere to support teaching and learning process of using English during teaching and learning process.
ABSTRAK
Martha Septiningtyas (2016). Analisis Interaksi Siswa dan Guru di TEYL (Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Siswa Usia Dini) Menggunakan Sistem analisa ineteraksi Flanders’. Program Paska Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.
Penelitian ini difokuskan pada interaksi siswa usia dini pada kelas taman kanak-kanak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pola interaksi dan bagaimana interaksi tersebut berlangsung. Antara siswa dan guru kelas yang terjadi di kelas Taman Kanan-Kanak. Khususnya dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, yang bertempat di TK Ananda Mentari Yogyakarta. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut maka peneliti mengajukan dua pertanyaan untuk di jawab dalam penelitian ini: Pola interaksi apa yang mendominasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa usia dini? Bagaimana interaksi yang terjadi di TK Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta?
Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian-kelas yang banyak berkontribusi dalam peningkatan qualititas pembelajaran. Khususnya yang berkaitan erat dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggris di kelas muris usia dini. Penelitian ini diselenggarakan di TK Ananda Mentari Yogjakarta. Sekolah ini memiliki konsep pembelajaran yang berbeda dari sekolah pada umumnya. Sekolah ini menerapkan philosofi mengenai hubungan yang erat antara ibu dan anak. Latar belakang yang penting adalah menciptakan “rumah ke dua” bagi siswa, di saat ibu mereka pergi bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.
Partisipan penelitian adalah 15 orang siswa dari kelas A dan B, seorang guru Taman kanak- kanak dan kepala sekolah dari Ananda Mentari yang sekaligus sebagai pendiri sekolah. Dalam rangka mengetahui pola interaksi yang terjadi antara siswa dan guru. Sebuah system analisis di aplikasikan dalam penelitian ini yang disebut: Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Data penelitian di peroleh dari pengamatan di kelas dan rekaman video interaksi guru dan siswa saat proses belajar mengajar. Pengamatan di kelas di lakukan empat kali selama 50 menit di setiap pertemuan. Data di dukung dengan hasil wawancara dengan guru pengampu kelas dan kepala sekolah yang sekaligus pendiri sekolah.
siswa usia dini. Hal lain yang di temukan dalam penelitian ini adalah dominan nya pola jenis tuturan guru (teacher talk) di kelas. Indirect talk (tuturan-tidak langusng) menjadi pilihan guru dalam berinteraksi, dibuktikan hasil kuantitative menunjukan 75%. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa guru memberikan keleluasaan pada siswa untuk mengungkapkan pendapat mereka tanpa harus takut di salahkan oleh guru.
Peneliti berharap bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan kesadaran dan kajian tambahan. Mengenai pentingnya pola interaksi yang tepat untuk meningkatkan kualitas interaksi di kelas dengan anak usia dini menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Pada khususnya untuk sekolah tempat di adakan penelitian ini. Hasil dari penelitian ini dapat di gunakan sebagai kajian dan kritik yang membangun untuk meningkatkan dan mempersiapkan guru, siswa dan lingkungan untuk terciptanya interaksi yang harmonis untuk mendapat hasil pembelajaran yang maksimal.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The study is focused on teacher talk and student talk in young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. It aims at exploring the patterns of interaction and how the interactions happened in kindergarten level. This chapter contains several sections: the background of the study, problem identification, problem limitations, and statement of research questions, research goals and research benefits.
1.1 Background of the Study
In a foreign language situation, the learner depend almost entirely on the school for the language input. The situation is related to the classroom as a crucial place for students to practice the target language. Further, Cameron (2008) said that foreign language learner, a classroom is the basic part for the students to use and to experience the target language. In the classroom, a communication between the teacher and the students is designed to create compressible classroom interaction.
kindergarten school have certain rules as the facilitators (model) to introduce them into the new language and also motivate them to be able to speak up in English.
The kindergarten teachers not only deliver the English course, but also builds enough motivation for young learner to be ready and confident to learn English in the next education levels. Later, students are able to use the target language to support their daily needs such as reading the English book, understanding the teachers’
explanation and interacting in English both with their teachers and friends or peers. In this case, they are motivated to use English in their daily communication naturally.
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogjakarta is the setting of this research. The researcher has at least two reasons in choosing this school. First, the purpose of this study is to investigate the interaction pattern of active classroom interaction in using English. The researcher has already done a pre-observation. The result shows that students talk is more than the teacher (51% is for student’s talk and 49% is teacher’s talk). It means that students are active because the teacher successfully
gives enough comprehension input and lead the interaction. Second, the unique concept of this school in is term of the teacher-student relationship. The philosophy of being second mother. It makes a curiosity how did the interaction happen. In this school, English is not only as a courses but also as the instruction language teaching for the communication during the school time interaction.
supervising the accomplishment of the assigned tasks. The students alternately listen, answer questions and perform the assigned tasks, in order to demonstrate or improve their understanding about the certain topic. The rule of the children is to understand and produce the target language is clearly presenting. This oversimplified the way of talking about what it can be seen in classroom interaction in Ananda Kindergarten School is substantially active.
In the classroom, such elements include the perceived purpose of the interaction both locally (lesson & teacher), institutionally (school regulation) and the students’ background (Lyster, 2007). All of the children that participated in the class have been learnt English since they were young which was around 2-3 years old. According to Lyster (2007) when children come to school at the age of 3, they are still developing the four skills, they have little knowledge of the world. It means that children approach additional language in a natural manner. In this case, a natural interaction in the class when the teacher is delivering the lesson.
As the background of the children, they live with their family which is considered as Indonesia native. They are potentially acquire more than one language. Since, some of the students come from bilingual family, their families have communicated to them in more than one language, although all children speak English in school. According to the school principal, some of students are required to speak Indonesian or even Javanese language when they are at home.
The students’ parent had a middle-high level of literacy. There are ‘special’ rule that student’s mother have to work with stable occupation instead of become a
magazines and a direct satellite television. As the result, the children are used to communicate in English. The reason is mostly because they get many language inputs from those media. After that, they are able to produce meaningful output, during the process teaching and learning interaction both with teachers and their friends.
Teaching English for the kindergarten school student is very different from teaching English in higher level (adult learner). A young learner needs certain technique or method to achieve the target language. Teacher talk is the most common technique to teach a foreign language to young learners rapidly. Walsh (2002), consideres how a teacher through their choice of language, constructs or obstructs the learner participation in face to the face classroom interaction. From his research, it is developed a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk to facilitate and optimize the learners’ contribution.
This study is the classroom-centered research which concentrates on a classroom interaction. The purpose is to gain the awareness and increase the understanding about the young learner is classroom learning. It aims to identify the occurrences that promote learning in the classroom. In this study the researcher uses the Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) to analyze the teacher’s talk and the student’s
Based on the description above, there is a relation between young learners’ classroom interaction and the teacher talk. The teacher delivers their talk during teaching learning activity. To support their teaching performance, motivate student to speak up and do interaction in target language (English). A kindergarten teacher has special or different pattern to interact with kindergarten students. It becomes the basic consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “A Study of Classroom Interaction in TEYL (Teaching English to Young Learner) classroom using Flanders Interaction Analysis System”.
1.2 Problem Identification
Analyzing the patterns through interaction is realized between foreign language learners and the teacher. It has long been a research interest leading to a major in the educational research involves to understand the nature and the implications of classroom interaction. Several studies have been aiming at showing the complexity at foreign language classroom. Flanders (1970) and Coulthard (1985) describe classroom interaction structure; Allwright (1980) analyze patterns of participation-turn, topics, and tasks in language learning and teaching.
Another studies of the language teacher use in class include those of Zhou, X (1999), Zhou, Y (2010) and Nurmacitah (2010). The findings are approved the researchers’ statement before that one-way communication class are lack of real
teacher should try to combine activities and materials which largely promote on the communication between the teacher and students.
The teacher’s talk in English learning is marked as a complicated and a problematic part especially for young learner’s classroom. In one side, the teachers are suggested not to talk too much when they are teaching in classroom. It makes the students become passive in initiating and responding the teacher’s utterances. Since
the student’s opportunities are limited, in this case the teacher dominated the class. In the others hand, the quality is more crucial rather than the quantity. The quality here means that the effectiveness to promote student to be active in class and deliver the material become easy to understand. Realizing that, teacher domination in EFL class is not very beneficial for improving the learners’ ability to talk in target language. The teacher has to manage their talk into appropriate proportion. It means that teachers have to make the learner talk more than teachers do. According to Liu Yanfen & Zhao (2010), when the teacher talk and promote a classroom interaction. It is called a communicative interaction. The example of teacher talk are question, feedback, correct and the speech (explanation).
This study will concern about four patterns suggested by Flanders cited in Hai & Bee (2007). (1) Student participation, (2) Content cross (3) Teacher control and (4) Teacher support. The explanation of each pattern is provided in the chapter 2.
1.3 Problem Limitation
The researcher would like to define the study by providing a problem limitation. This study is concerned on the teacher talk and the student talk in the young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School
Yogyakarta. In this research, the researcher only concerned on investigating verbal interaction only (spoken language) that occurred between the teacher and students by using Flanders’s Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) as an analysis technique.
This study is based on the three months observation at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten, Yogyakarta. The duration for one observation is 60 minutes of the teaching and learning activities. In this kindergarten, the course begin with a discussion about certain topic follow up with the question-answer season. The participants of this research were taken from a classroom teacher and kindergarten student’s class (4-5 years old) of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
1.4 Statement of Research Questions
The research goals of this study are to find out:
(1).What are the predominant patterns of classroom interaction between the teacher and students in young learner classroom interaction? (2). How did the interactions happen in teaching learning at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta?
1.5 The Research Goals
the percentage of each interaction pattern. (3) To discover how the interactions did happen in the classroom at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.
1.6 Research Benefits
The result of the study can be used by the Kindergarten school teachers as a reference to deliver the comprehensible teacher talk in young learners’ classroom interaction. In addition, to manage the verbal interaction in the teaching and learning process. As the result, this study can help students to achieve the target language.
Practically, the benefits of this research for the participant especially for the kindergarten school teacher. First, teachers become more aware of their talk in the process of a teaching and learning. They will be provided the comprehensible understanding and reflecting about their teaching practices. Further, they become more realize about the variety of teacher talk. Second, the teachers are provided a comprehensible model of the teacher talk in the teaching learning process particularly in a young learners’ classroom interaction. At least, the other teachers can apply this
teaching model in their own classroom. Third, the teacher is suggested to increase her teacher talk (TT) productivity to address the target language to learners.
particularly benefit for the school management to provide certain training and mentoring program to support the teacher’s skill in leading the interaction with young learner. The transcriptions can be learnt by teachers of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta to understand and would be more aware of their talk.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter deals with the review of related literature to the present study. The study is designed to find out the interaction pattern and describe the interaction between teacher and students in Kindergarten school level at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School, Yogyakarta.
2.1. Theoretical Review
There are several major issues underline in this study. They are teaching English for Young Learner (TEYL), Teacher talk (TT), Students talk, type of classroom interaction, compressible input hypothesis, comprehensible output hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, adjacency pairs, IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) related studies and school profile of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten school.
2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)
In this part, the researcher gives an overview of several theories and the research relevant to children’s language learning in the field of the teaching young learners’ particular in the teaching English. What is the difference between the
teaching a foreign language to children and to adult learners? According to Cameron (2002), children are often more enthusiastic and lively as learners. In other words, the young learners want to do many classroom activities even they don’t really
interest more quickly and hardly can keep themselves motivated on a tasks they find difficulty.
[image:35.612.97.529.193.600.2]As the general concept of teaching English to young learner’, what and how the teachers teach young learner is different from teenagers and adult learners. It is crucial important to show the differences of these three learner groups keeping in mind the fact that every learner is unique and such lists are able to reflect generalizations (Harmer,2007). Harmer (2007) cited in Ersoz, A (2008) provides the special characteristic of the young learner as seen in table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Characteristics of young learners
Young Learners Characteristics Age : 3-6 years old
Grade : Pre-school Education Language focus/skills used:
Listening & Speaking : Vocabulary items (concrete & familiar objects)
No grammar teaching (exposed to chunks through song and classroom language) No reading & writing
Characteristics:
Low concentration span but easily excited High motivation; active involvement Love talking but problems in sharing Repetition and revision is needed
Limited motor skills (using a pen and scissors) but kinesthetic and energetic Love stories, fantasy, imagination, art drawing and coloring
The general description of teaching English for young learners is related to the teachers’ verbal action behavior during teaching learning process. The following
should have rich repertoire of activities to help young learners receive information from a variety of sources and plan a range of activities for a given time period. (2) Teachers should work with students individually or in group. (3) Teacher need to be aware of the students’ interest to motivate them. Beyond that teachers are better to
link or relate teaching to everyday interests and experiences. 2.1.1.2 Scaffolding
Vygotsky has developed the scaffolding theory that has come about the concept of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD theory suggested that students should be judged on what they can do with the assistance of an expert rather what they are capable of doing on their own (Cameron 2002). According to this theory, teachers are able to deliver the instruction language (new language) that students are not familiar with or beyond their potential. Vygotsky suggests a theory of scaffolding that the language of adult use is mediate the world for children and help them to solve the problem. The teacher leads the student’s intention during the interaction in order
to help children. In completing the task are not yet able to do for themselves (Cameron, 2002). Furthermore, Daniels (2002) concerns that the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) emphasizes on teacher-learners collaboration and negotiation.
the teacher requires to give clear guidance for students to take nature of a conversation. The conversation is not dominated by the teacher, the conversation should base on students’ knowledge, and it has controlled from the teacher to ensure
the topic.
2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction
In order to describe about what happened in the classroom and to know better what exactly happed in a language classroom, in this research, knowledge about the classroom interaction particularly in TEYL (teaching English for young learner) context needs to be increased. Tsui (2008) defines a classroom as a place where more than two people gather together for the purpose of learning, with one having the role of the teacher. It means that the communication between the teacher and students in classroom goes constantly. Another definition is provided by Richard in Ticko (2009) he states that pattern of verbal communication and the type of social, later will be discussed about the classroom verbal interaction, teacher talk and second language acquisition (SLA).
According to Hai & Bee (2006) there are at least four roles that must be done by the teacher in the teaching and learning process particularly in young learner interactions.
1. The teacher as motivator
concern on motivating, stimulating as well as facilitating the learners particularly in teaching young learner.
2. The teacher as facilitator
The teacher facilitates to students in learning foreign language for example the teacher can facilitate the fun condition in teaching and learning process.
3. The teacher as Organization
The teacher can select the material for the classroom use, so that students do not think the process of learning English is difficult and complicated.
4. The teacher as mediator
The Teacher can give stimulant to the student by using media, they can present how to use a media to support learning activity.
In Indonesia context, English is learnt as a foreign language and young learners learn English mostly in a language class with no supportive situation. Therefore TT (teacher talk) is likely to be the major and even the only the one source of the target language input. Several researchers have discussed the relationship between teacher talk and language learning. As Nunan (1991) points out: “Teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for the organization of classroom but also for the processes of acquisition”. In line with this statement, Krashen (1985) states that teacher talk
2.1.3 Types of Classroom Interaction
The type of interaction depends on certain type of the teacher talk and the student talk appears in classroom. According to Krashen (1992) there are at least three types of classroom interaction; teacher-dominated, teacher centered, and student-centered. The definition of each types is provided by Krashen (1992). First, teacher-dominated is when the teacher takes so much time to talk and students only have little opportunity to talk. Second, a teacher-centered is when the teacher takes control of students to be active participate at the classroom interaction. The last type is student-centered. Different from the first type, in this case the teacher is as the facilitator and students are more active rather than the teacher in classroom interaction.
Furthermore, the classroom interaction as a form of the institutional talk is locally managed but cooperative constructed speech exchange systems (Markee and Kasper, 2004). According to them, the composed of interaction between teacher and students and among students, classroom interaction is one of chance where any reality about classroom phenomena is produced and can be observed at the similar time. According to Lyster (2007), a learning languages through an interaction has a pedagogical focus because the interaction provided the teacher and also learners with couple of strategies for facilitating the comprehension, a formal accuracy, an academic achievement and the literacy development.
Dagarin (2004) lists that there are at least three types of interaction frequently occur in classroom, as follows.
The first is student-teacher classroom interaction. This interaction will encourage teacher in way they deliver information and feedback. Asking question is the most frequent activity that the student do with their teacher. The example is when they ask about material they do not understand and ask about the certain procedure such as game and role play.
The second interaction is students-students classroom interaction. According to Ur (2000), there are more than one patterns of classroom interaction, such as group work, closed-ended teacher questioning, individual work, collaboration and teacher talk. In this case, students are given free chance to speak in class since they can talk each other.
2.1.4 Student Talk and Teacher Talk
In the previous part of this study, the researcher have already explained that classroom interaction is cooperative effort from teacher and students in form of talk. The researcher lists several definitions about teacher talk and students talk and how those aspects influence the interaction.
Teacher talk has attracted attention because its potential effect on learners’
comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition (Ellis, 1994:583). Teacher as the one who lead the interaction in class, produce teacher’s talk to input and stimulate students comprehension.
There are several definitions of (teacher talk) TT have been given from different perspective by some experts. Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to allow the various classroom processes to happen, that is the language of organizing the classroom. This includes the teacher’s explanations, responses to questions,
Teacher talk is defined as the kind of modifications in teacher’s speech that can
lead to a certain type of discourse (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Nunan (1991) states that teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for organization of the classroom but also for the process of acquisition. In line with this, Cullen (2002) argues that teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instruction, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities.
Suherdi (2009) divided student talk into four types: (1) asking questions, (2) creating talk exchange, (3) repeating and answering teacher’s or peer’s question. Meanwhile, according, to Moore (2008), creating student talk has a good advantage. The student can acquire the knowledge and exchange information through interaction. For example, a student who is talking with her/his peers can exchange the information about their experience, hobbies, and many more.
2.1.5 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction
Adjacency pairs in conversation exchange during classroom interaction between teacher-learners and learner-learner. Speech acts are clearly related to what conversation analysis is called adjacency pairs or it can be said as utterances that usually occur together (Cook, 1989). In other words, the production of a speech such as an offer will normally be accompanied by a response, the response may be preferred one.
such as Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The specific explanations will be listed below.
2.1.5.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the learners, in the interaction generate, and the kind of learning takes places. The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and effective for language learners in the classroom. Input is defined as language as language which a learner hears or receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). How long has the child been learning the language? The amount of language to which the students has already knew about the language.
[image:43.612.95.528.200.591.2]
Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acquisitions (Adapted from Brown 2007) Krashen’s Input Hypothesis proposes that comprehensible input is essential for
to comprehensible input. According to the input hypothesis explained by Krashen, the input must be comprehensible in that it is near the learner’s current level of
development, called I, and the level that learner will get to next must slightly beyond the level at which he or she has already acquired, called i+1(Krashen, 1982). This argument is in line with Miles (2004) that teacher should use target language in delivering the lesson.
In Krashen’s view, acquisition takes place of a learner’s access to
comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause learning to take place. Teacher talk actually serves as the main source of input of language exposure in classroom learning. According to Krashen (1982), the basic function of language teaching is to deliver compressible input for those who cannot get it from outside the classroom and for the foreign language students who do not have input sources outside the class. It can be argued that the teacher talk, a comprehensible input refers to the utterance that learners understand on the basis of context which they are used to, as well as the language which they have learned.
2.1.5.2 Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
Learners can improve their language level through “forcing” them to produce
output in target language. In the term of to say or write things or through using the target language in meaningful ways. Swain (1985) particularly emphasize that it is only when learners are pushed to use the target language. In other words, it is only when learners think it is necessary to improve and develop the target language level, language output can contribute to language acquisition. Therefore, teacher talk is playing very crucial role during the process of language learning and should manage to push the students to produce the target language. Through giving students more opportunities and much more time to the student to practice beside they offer suitable input.
2.1.5.3 Interaction Hypothesis
result, the essential of classroom interaction has important role in teaching learning process.
Interaction support the student comprehension by assisting learner L2 production (Long, 1996). Long (1993), argue that much second language interaction occur through conversation. Long agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is crucial for language acquisition. According to him, teachers are able to modify the interaction so the learners have more opportunities to practice the target language. In this way teacher can easy check student’s understanding through their ability to
speak target language with other speaker.
Van Lier (1988) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with learner. It is a must to find out what input and interaction of classroom can provide. He also suggests that interaction is essential for language learning which occurs in and trough participation in speech events, that is, talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier. 1988)
The following diagram, Van Lier suggests that interaction mediates between input and intake. Most important and central is the interaction with others in meaningful activities, but as a complement, and partial replacement, the learner’s
cognitive device may also interact directly with the available input.
2.1.6 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)
practice in classroom discourse in IRF sequence (teacher initiation-student response-teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Van Lier (2002) educators who have interest in ‘democratizing’ classroom talk could well their investigations with
strategies for re-organizing any given classroom’s turn taking structures.
Furthermore, Lee (2007) says that the ‘initiation’ turns of IRFs carry out different kinds of actions, and the third turn from the teacher may launch a range of teaching activities.
According to Hale (2011), the IRF pattern is safe and comforting because in many what is expected in classroom interaction by both teacher and students. It can therefore be distressed for them to attempt to move beyond the three-part sequence. In this case, to create more self-directed communicative interaction. Waring (2009) says that the teacher tends to ask questions they typically already knows the answer. 2.1.6.1 The Interaction Pattern
The IRF exchange in language teaching process is referred as turn-taking of teacher-student-teacher in classroom. It is mentioned as (IRE), first (I) ‘Initiation’ phase the teacher usually ask questions, to which the student responds (R) and the end of phase is (F/E) or ‘feedback/evaluation’ (Van Lier, 2002). In this sequence, the
teacher are better to give more referential questions rather than display question to be viewed as more pedagogically interaction (Vygotsky 1978 cited in Van Lier 2002).
In term of interaction pattern, teachers are able to used “zone of proximal
development”. Vygotsky also provides the definition of ZPD, the zone of proximal
(potential development). In other word, Vygotsky suggests that instead of testing what a student knows to make sure her understanding. It is much better to provide someone who has mastered the concept. To guide them to solve the problems with the students’ ability in solving the problems, furthermore, ZPD is focused on the
relation between instruction and development. Where teacher as the one who gives the instruction to the students.
2.1.6.1.1 Questions
Question is commonly classified into two main categories. First, display (closed) questions, in which teachers have already know the answer. The purpose of this type of questions is to check the students’ understanding. Second, referential (open) questions, the teachers want to know about students’ opinions toward certain
topics. Nunan (1998) says that referential questions should be used more often than display questions if it refers to genuine communication in the language classroom. This stance implies that display questions are not suitable with the purpose of communicative competence. According to Brown (2007), he found that referential questions obtained responses of higher quality as well as increased complexity. It emphasizes on elicit language from learners in form of vocabulary, pronunciation and language function to support their own opinion.
2.1.6.1.2 Feedback
In this part, the researcher focuses on feedback from the teachers. According to Richards and Schmitt (2002), feedback is given while someone is speaking and includes ‘comments such as …….“Yeah. You right” and“really? Are you sure about
Helpful interactional which supplies corrective feedback letting learners know their utterance are problematic (Mackey, 2006). Furthermore, Havranek (2002) seems to agree with Mackey that corrective feedback is most likely to be successful if the leaners are able to provide the correct form when they are alerted to the error.
In this research, besides applying IRF theory to discover the interaction pattern. In the next part, it provides an explanation and description about Flanders’ interaction
analysis. Later it will be used to collect the data.
2.1.7 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique
Flanders’ interaction analysis is developed by Flander (1970 cited in Melaysias
2013) that is coding categories of interaction analysis to know the quantity of verbal interaction in the classroom. This technique is one of important techniques to observe classroom interaction systematically. Flanders (1970) noted the famous “two-thirds” rule: two-thirds of classroom time consist of talk, and two-thirds of that talk is teacher talk.
Tichapondwa (2008) argues that Flanders’ interaction Analysis System is for
identifying, classifying, and observing classroom verbal interaction. It means that Flanders’ interaction Analysis help the researcher to identify classroom interaction
during teaching and learning process in classifying the interaction into the teacher talk, student talk and silence. Below is table of classroom interaction pattern by Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006)
Table 2.2: Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories
No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) Teacher Talk
A. Indirect Talk 1. Accept Feelings
In this category, teacher accepts the feeling of the students.
He feels himself that the students should not be punished for exhibiting his feelings.
Feelings may be positive or negative 2. Praise or Encouragement
Teacher praises or encourages student action or behavior.
When a student gives answer to the question asked by the teacher, the teacher gives positives reinforcement by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘better’, ‘correct’, excellent’, ‘carry on’.
3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students
If a student passes on some suggestion, then the teacher may repeat in nutshell in his own style or words.
The teacher can say ‘I understand what you mean’. Or the teacher clarifies builds or develops ideas or suggestion given by a student. 4. Asking Questions
Asking question about content or procedures, based on the teacher ideas and expecting an answer from the students.
Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries on his lecture without receiving any answer.
B Direct Talk
5 Lecturing/Lecture
Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure expression of his own ideas, giving his own explanation, citing an authority other than students, or asking rhetorical questions.
6 Giving Direction
Open your books Stand up on the benches Solve 4th sun of exercise 7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority
When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt with foolish questions, then this behavior is included in this category.
Teachers ask ‘what’ and ‘why’ to the students also come under this category.
Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing Student Talk
8 Student Talk Response
It included the students talk in responses to teacher’s talk Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the question. 9 Student Talk Initiation
Talk by students talk in response to teacher’s talk.
Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions; going beyond the existing structure.
10 Silence or Pause or Confusion
Pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.
Here is Flander’s interaction Matrix to identify the teachers’ and student’s characteristic.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1
TEACHER SUPPORTS STUDENT
2 3
4 CONTENT CROSS
5
6 TEACHER
CONTROL
PARTICI PATION
7 8 9 10
The matrix analysis shows types the interaction characteristics. The types of interaction characteristics are presented as follows.
1. Content Cross
A heavy concentration in a column 4 and 5 and row 4 and 5 indicates teacher dependence on questions and lectures.
2. Teacher Control
A concentration on column and row 6 and 7 indicates extensive commands and reprimands by the teacher.
3. Teacher Support
A heavy concentration of score in column and row 1, 2, and 3 inicates that the teacher is reinforcing and encouraging students’ participation.
4. Student Participation
A concentration of score in column 8 and 9 reflects studen responses to the teacher’s behaviour.
2.1.8. Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta 2.1.8.1 School Profile
Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School is the school which applies English as medium language instruction in teaching learning system. The school use International-based education systems since 2011. The school believes that “A CHILD IS A DISCOVERER”. There are at least three missions that they want to
in this school is full English curriculum that has been already planned to meet the need of living as a global citizen in the 21th century.
2.1.8.2 Teaching and Learning Process
The students enjoy the activities during learning process in classroom. Without being noisy they sit down nicely in the classroom while teacher shows the slide the process of create germ stone. The students are active and noisier in the term of give their opinion and respond to the teacher. The teacher also seems happy to listen to all student’s contribution. The students are much more confident and outspoken. After
the lecturing, teacher ask them to make their own germ stone using stone and water paint. They look happy to do the activities. They practice the language in real situation context with friends and teacher. They experience the language in use by communicating in their own words. In case, the teacher has two different rules. First, teacher is as the role model to give correct example to the students. Second, the teacher also acts as good friend to share. Since, the goal is that students have to communicate naturally in English.
2.2 Related Studies
In this part researcher review some related studies in the same filed concerning teacher talk. It investigated in a variety of subject learned, or in the methodology used.
direction to the students. The suggestions are 1) shifting the teacher-centered classroom into student-centered classroom; 2) Focusing on the quality of teacher talk; 3) improving questioning technique, using proper feedback technique.
Suherdi (2009) conducted study on kindergarten teacher talk to investigate the characteristic of the teacher talk in the kindergarten classroom. The result of analysis revealed that teachers used speech modifications: repetitions, recasting and exaggerated. In term of language used, teacher was more dominantly used Indonesian than English. Teacher talk contains high frequency of repetition to avoid mispronunciation made by the students, to help the student memorize vocabulary and active during classroom interaction.
Maylisias Wan (2013) she is conducting a research to describe and interpreted the function of teacher talk in Elementary school English class. This research used Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Categories. The result shows that the language used
by teacher were classified into two categories namely, indirect and direct influence. The researcher suggests for the teacher to use more target language rather than L1 in classroom interaction. By doing this, it is expected teacher can guide the student to get more exposure of the target language input.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
becomes an essential part in language learning. It helps the learners to comprehend and acquire the target language (English).
Through interactions, the students are able to acquire their communication in the target language. They are required to be active participate in the classroom discussion. When teacher’s talk and student’s talk are exchange continually, interaction occurred (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). It means, communication in form interaction is influenced by teacher and student talk. Later, the interaction will create certain patterns that promote the quality of teacher’s talk and increase the number of
student’s talk.
The teacher will use various type of teacher talk (TT) during interaction in young learner English classroom. In the researcher’s assumptions, at least
questioning, giving information, giving instruction, feedback, lecturing and talk to manage the class such as justifying authority and critique student’s behavior.
The framework established in this research is constructed on the assumption that, the various type of talk between teacher and student. Those will provide the different type of classroom interaction pattern to stimulate comprehensible input and learning outcome (language production) after that generate an active and meaningful learning and process.
later used in description and discussion chapter. The concept of research table was developed from Hartanto (2010) with some additional modification from the researcher. The dominant patterns of classroom interaction in four meetings observed were identified using the concept of research plotting.
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework Classroom Interaction What?
How?
Interaction Types
(Characteristic) Teachers’ Talk Students’ Talk
1. Content Cross 2. Teacher Control 3. Teacher Support 4. Student Participant
1. Accepts Feeling 2. Encouragement 3. Use Students’ Ideas 4. Asking Question 5. Lecturing
6. Giving direction 7. Criticizing
1. Students’ Response 2. Student Initiation 3. Silence or Confusion Adjace
ncy
1. Input Theory 2. Output Hypothesis 3. Interaction Hypothesis Valuable Input & Develop Interaction Correct & Meaningful production Interaction 1. Student-Teacher 2. Student-Student 3. Teacher-whole class
Flanders’s Interaction Analysis (FIA)
Observation Protocol
Table 2.3. Research Concept Plotting Concept Conceptual
Definition
Category Sub
Category
Research Action Analysis
A B C D E
Classroom interaction (Talk)
A kind of communication between
teacher-students in classroom using target language (English) Teacher Talk Accepts Feeling Observation with full of description and interview
In opening and closing
learning process Encourageme
nt
Observation with full of description and interview
The way
teacher support students in producing language Asking
Question
Observation with full of description and interview
Teacher asks questions to the students Lecturing Observation with
full of description and interview
Teacher
delivers the material
Giving direction
Observation with full of description and interview
Teacher asks student to do something Criticizing Observation with
full of description and interview
Criticize students’ behavior in class
Student Talk
Student talk-response
Observation with deep
interpretation and interview.
When student respond to the teacher’s talk.
Student talk-initiation
Observation with deep
interpretation and interview.
When students produce talk by their own though.
Silence or confusion
Observation with deep
interpretation and interview.
