i ABSTRACT
Rosmayasinta Makasau (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. English Language Studies. Sanata Dharma University.
This study focused on the adjacency pairs in teacher-students interactions in an English Day Program. The aims of this study are to find out the language functions and the types of adjacency pairs which dominantly occured in teacher-students interaction in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada elementary school. The research addressed a research question: What types of adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interaction in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta?
The study was conducted at Mutiara Persada Elementary school Yogyakarta. Unlike most other elementary schools in Indonesia, this school has an English Day Program on Saturdays. During the program, all students and teachers are required to speak English in all occassions. The participants in this research were the 23 students of grade IV – Pegasus which consisted of 10 girls and 13 boys and a non-native English teacher (a homeroom teacher who conducted English Day program). In order to investigate the kinds of interactions that occurred in teacher-student interaction, a discourse study was applied in this research where texts are the sources of the data. The data were collected by observing and recording the teacher-students interactions which occurred both in indoors and outdoors activities of English Day program in four 50-minutes sessions.
The analysis results show that the greatest amount of teacher talk in indoor and outdoor category is primarily due to an emphasis on giving information and giving instructions. In contrast, student talk in indoor and outdoor categories are largely in the functions of responding physicallyand acknowledging.
ii ABSTRAK
Rosmayasinta Makasau (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. English Language Studies. Sanata Dharma University.
Penelitian ini difokuskan pada adjacency pairs yang terkandung dalam interaksi guru dan siswa dalam program English Day. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi ragam bahasa dan jenis-jenis adjacency pairs yang dominan ditemukan dalam interaksi guru dan siswa dalam program English Day. Permasalahan yang timbul dirumuskan sebagai berikut “Jenis adjacency pairs apa yang dominan ditemukan dalam interaksi guru dan siswa pada program English Day di sekolah dasar Mutiara Persada Yogyakarta?”
Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di SD Mutiara Persada Yogyakarta. Sekolah ini berbeda dengan sekolah-sekolah dasar lain yang ada di Indonesia karena sekolah ini menerapkan program English Day pada setiap hari Sabtu. Dalam program ini, semua siswa dan guru diwajibkan untuk menggunakan bahasa Inggris dalam bentuk komunikasi verbal. Partisipan penelitian ini adalah 23 murid kelas IV-Pegasus yang terdiri dari 10 perempuan dan 13 laki-laki dan seorang guru (guru wali kelas yang menerapkan program English Day). Untuk menginvestigasi ragam bahasa dan jenis-jenis adjacency pairs yang muncul dalam interaksi guru dan murid, maka discourse study diterapkan dalam penelitian ini dimana teks adalah sumber datanya. Data diambil dengan cara mengobservasi dan merekam segala jenis interaksi guru dan siswa yang muncul baik verbal maupun non-verbal dalam kegiatan English Day indoor maupun outdoor selama 4 kali 50 menit.
ii i
E
G
A
P
N
O
I
T
A
C
I
D
E
D
S K R O W N A
M – MANWORKS ,BUT S
Y A R P N A
ix S
N O I T A I V E R B B A F O T S I L
P
A s :AdjacencyParis L
F
E :Englsiha saForeignLanguage L
S
E :Englsiha saSecondLanguage T
T :Teache rTalk T
S :Studen tTalk P
D
E :EnglsihDayProgram L
F :ForeignLanguage L
S :SecondLanguage 1
1 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This study is concerned with adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction
in English Day program of elementary school. It aims to find out the various
language functions and the types of adjacency pairs found in teacher-student
interaction occurred in indoor and outdoor activities of English Day Program.
This chapter consists of background of the study, problem identification, problem
limitation, research question, research goal, research benefits, and definition of
terms.
A. Background
Age and language learning have become the main consideration to achieve
the goal of learning. The content, method, and approach in learning should be
matched with the psychology aspect of children based on their age level. Hence,
the students in elementary school level have different characteristics, abilities, and
needs from the students in higher level of education. They are natural learners and
very enthusiastic in learning (Cameron, 2001). They learn the target language
faster than adults. In line with that, Krashen, Long and Scarcella (1979), in their
research concluded that language acquirers who begin natural exposure to a
second language during childhood achieve higher second-language proficiency
than those beginning as adults (cited in Ellis, 2008:20).
Since, English is learnt as either second or foreign language in Indonesia,
Stern (1983:400) states that “If the second language is learnt as a foreign language
in a language class in a non-supportive environment, like in Indonesia, instruction
2
input”. In this concept, the controls of the teacher over the classroom activities are
still high. Thus, students got the input of English mostly from their teacher, it
makes the teacher plays a vital role in English language learning. They talk in
front of the class in order to give directions, explain activities, clarify the
procedures students should use on an activity, and check students‟ understanding
on lessons (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). Therefore, they added, teacher is the
one who become the major portion of class time.
According to Amidon and Hough (1967) teaching is more than talking,
however the fact shows that the predominant instructional behavior of teacher is
talk. He added, 70% of classroom instructional time is spent in talk by either the
teacher or students. Thus, learning a language in the classroom is a consequence
of the exposure of the learner to the linguistic environment that manifested in the
interaction between the participants in that context (Mehrdadand Farahian, 2012).
This exposure occurs in form of a casual conversation or dialogue, asking and
answering questions, clarifying some procedures of an activity or any other forms
of two ways communication which occurred among students and teachers.
The common problem faces by the EFL classroom is that an EFL teacher
usually is faced with a non-interactive classroom where students are frequently
unresponsive and avoid interacting with their teacher. Most of students keep quiet
and do not respond to the teacher‟s questions. Where according to Watson (1980,
cited in McNamara, 1994), teachers tend to focus on the book/handout, and give
little opportunity for students to talk. He added, students hardly express their
opinion, and are reluctant to ask questions. They just listen to the teachers‟
3
less of participation in the classroom. It is a kind of reflection for teachers that
they are the one who should motivate, encourage, and able to maintain students‟
participation in teaching and learning process in the classroom.
When the teacher talks, he may present the information which becomes the
target language input for students. When the students received the input from the
teacher, by the time and of repetition, they will produce the target language which
is called as output. Students‟ production could be triggered by enriching the
classroom activities which involves students‟ participation. It is good for the
teacher if they know how to design interactive activities in the classroom. When
the students enjoy the activities, such games, songs, crafts, etc, they will be
encouragedbeing more enthusiastic in learning. They will be encouraged to ask
some questions for example to clarify the information that they really eager to
know related to the activities. When the students are involved in classroom
interaction, there will be more opportunities for them to talk.
Hence, interactions between the teacher and student in the classroom are
very important for language learning and teaching, because it leads to language
acquisition and learning (Ellis, 1998). Interaction can build positive atmosphere in
the classroom because students will feel that they are as an important part in the
teaching and learning process. It helps students to be able to express their feelings,
ideas, opinions, or to ask questions for something they do not know about the
lesson or even for clarifying. In an effort to provide two ways interaction, actually
teachers unconsciously have organized turn-taking with their students. What is
closely related with the turn-taking system is automatic paired utterances called
4
utterances within a predictable interactional context. Rymes (2008) says most of
the teachers‟ everyday communication with students and how students response
them is predictable, for example when the teacher says „Good morning!‟ Students
will also answer „Good morning!‟ “Without this kind of predictability, it would
be difficult to conduct class at all – or a simple conversation for that matter”
(Rymes, 2008:54).
Adjacency pairs are an integral part of classroom interaction because it
occurs in the structure of conversation (Xian Yan, et al. 2010). It happens when
two or more people give response to one another. For example, when the teacher
says how are you? the students usually answered fine, thank you! In this simple
interaction, a type of adjacency pair occurred was „greeting/ greeting‟. Moreover,
when a teacher invites one of astudent to come in front of the class and then the
student accepts it by saying yes sir!It means that adjacency pairs type „invite/
acceptance‟ category occurred. This process of two ways interaction occurs if the
teacher can maintain the flow of interaction with their students.
Therefore, classroom interaction is needed in teaching and learning process,
because it contributes to the development of learning by providing target language
practice opportunities (Hatch, 1978). In this study, the typical adjacency pairs are
seen as an important part in teacher-student interaction. It is important to select
and to decide which types of adjacency pairs that seems can trigger student‟s
individual response. It is started from the teacher‟s first pair part and the expected
of second pair part from students. So, the teacher here is the one who decide what
5
control their use of language is considered to as important as their ability to select
appropriate methodologies.
Betsy Rymes (2008) provides 6 (six) typical of adjacency pairs in her book
entitled „Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection‟. The
typical adjacency pairs she provide are greeting/ greeting, question/ answer,
invitation/acceptance, assessment/ disagreement, appology/ acknowledgement,
and summons/ acknowledgement. According to her, those kinds of typical
adjacency pairs are usually found in classroom interactions. But then, the contexts
of those types are found in the U.S. classroom settings. So, the researcher tries to
conform these 6 typical adjacency pairs into different contexts of students.
Considering thestudents who studying English as their first language will be
different from those who studying it as their foreign language. Therefore, the
students in U.S. will be different from students in Asia in the way they learn and
achieve English. These differences influence the dynamic of classroom
interactions. Logically, the types of adjacency pairs selected might also be
different, it depends on how they interact each other. A question raised up in the
researcher‟s mind, „Are those typical adjacency pairs proposed by Rymes (2008)
will also be found in Indonesian classroom contexts orare therestill any other
different types will be found?‟.
The focus of this study is on the adjacency pairs in teacher-student
interaction in English Day program in elementary school level. The English Day
program is a school‟s program in which all the elements in that school (teachers,
students, and other staff) should use full English in their communication
6
researcher due to some reasons: first, the position of English subject in elementary
school level is still debatable. In the new curriculum of 2013, English subject is
erased from the lists of elementary school curriculum. Therefore, many schools
did not provide English subject for students. However, some schools stipulated
English as a local content on their school‟s programs. They even stipulated
English as one of the major programs to enhance students‟ English proficiency
such as in English Day program. Second, even though English Day program is not
a new and a rare thing in Indonesian context, not many schools apply it. Through
this program, students could have more opportunities to drill and to practice their
language ability by interacting with their friends and the teacher.
Unlike other school, Mutiara Persada has an English Day Program. The
curriculum of this school is based on the National-Plus Curriculum. It means that
the curriculum is based on the international perspective of life under the wisdom
of local and national socio-cultural framework (the school‟s profile). The context
of this study is in Mutiara Persada elementary schoolin Yogyakarta. The majority
of the students are from Java and they use Javanese as their first language,
Indonesian as their second language, and they learn English as a foreign language.
The English Day program in this school becomes the local content program
which conducted in every Saturday. The program is aimed to improve students‟
English skills and become more proficient in this subject. The activities in this
program are various; for example, in indoor activities they have like playing
games, role play, telling stories, making handcrafts, etc. Thus, in the outdoor
7
communication like visiting the museum, airport, post office, zoo, bakery shop,
etc.
This program could run well since almost all the teachers in this school
(especially home room teachers) are from English department alumnus. They
could speak English fluently all the time during the program, and are proficient in
English since some of them had joined the international teacher training.
Moreover, teachers and students used to speak English not only every Saturday in
English Day program, but also in their daily teaching and learning process in the
classroom.
Based on the description above, there is a relation among the English Day
program, teacher-student interaction, and adjacency pairs. The language that
teacher and students use mostly contains with adjacency pairs. It occurs in the
interactions both indoor and outdoor programs in English Day. It becomes the
basic consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “Adjacency
Pairs in Teacher – Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada
Elementary School Yogyakarta”.
B.Problem Identification
Learning a language is not only to know the concept or the structure but also
to know how to use the language itself. English language learning in Indonesian
context is still in a non-supportive environment. The use of English is mostly in
the classroom settings where the controls of teachers over the classroom activities
are still high. Moreover, many scholars have pointed out that the range of
discourse that the student can be exposed to in a second language classroom is
8
Language learning in the classroom, especially for foreign language
learners, even provides not enough exposure for students. One way to overcome
the limitations of the classroom is to bring the students to the point where they can
begin to understand and to use the language in the real life situation. Thus, they
can experience how to encounter with such situations in the real life. It is
supported by Long (1996, cited in Ellis, 2008:256), „nonclass-room studies are
more revealing because spontaneous conversation with no metalinguistic focus is
provided‟.
Students (for beginners and for foreign language learners) who have low
access to get input outside the class should be supply with more exposure of target
language in the classroom (Krashen, 1982). Consequently it creates more
opportunity for students and teachers to use the target language in their
communication.
When there are communications between the teacher and student,
interaction occurs. Teacher-student interaction is needed in language learning. It
can help students to acquire the target language (Ellis, 2008). To help students
acquire the target language, it is important for the teachers to understand what
languages would be more efficient to be presented to the learners especially in
provoking interactions in the classroom. In this study, the typical adjacency pairs
are seen as an important part in teacher-student interaction. It is important to
select and to decide which types of adjacency pairs that seems can trigger
9 C.Problem Limitation
In order to avoid misperception from the readers, the researcher would like
to determine the study by providing problem limitation. This study is focused on
the adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction in English Day program of
Mutiara Persada elementary school Yogyakarta. The aim of this study are to find
out the various language functions in teacher-student interactions and to find out
the types of adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interactions in
the English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.
The U.S. adjacency pairs typology provided by Betsy Rymes (2008) will be
marked as the consideration in this study. The study will conform whether the 6
(six) types of adjacency pairs in the U.S. classroom interactions provide by Rymes
will exactly the same as found in Indonesian context or even more than six types
will be found. The assumptions that there will be different in types or even in the
total number of adjacency pair types. The differences might be influenced by the
contexts of learning and the classroom dynamic. Hence, the foreign language
learners will not the same as the second language learners especially in the
dynamic of teacher-student interactions. The participapnts of this research were
taken from a home room teacher (who conducted English Day Program) and
fourth graders of Mutiara Persada Elementary school Yogyakarta.
D.Research Question
The research question of this study is “What types of adjacency pairs
dominantly occur in teacher-student interaction in English Day program at
10 E.Research Goals
The research goals of this study are to find out the various language
functions in teacher-student interactions and to find out the typical adjacency pairs
dominantly occur in teacher-student interactions in the English Day program at
Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.
F. Research Benefits
This research will be benefits for the readers especially for teachers as the
educators who are expected to be able to improve the quality of teaching and
learning English in primary classroom. Theoretically, the results of this research
provide scientific information and multiple advantages in teaching and learning
English in primary classroom, especially in motivating teachers to provoke
effective interactions with students. The effective interaction in the classroom
promotes the verbal behavior of teachers and students that isrelated to the socio
emotional climate of the classroom. It helps students to be more enthusiastic in
learning and acquiring the target language.
This research provides the readers with the transcriptions of various
language functions spoken by the teacher and students. These transcriptions can
be studied by the teachers especially the English teachers of Mutiara Persada
elementary school Yogyakarta, to understand what languages would be more
efficient to be presented to the learners. In other words, it can be used as the
reflection of classroom interactions to improve teachers‟ performance.
Types of adjacency pairs found in the results will be benefit for teachers in
provoking interactions in the classroom. Teachers can be more creative in creating
11
interactive activities. By doing so, mutual understanding between the teacher and
12 CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
There are two parts in this chapter. The first part is theoretical review and
the second one is theoretical framework. This study is designed to identify the
typical adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions found in English Day
program of Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.
A.Theoretical Review
In this part, the researcher will present the related theory about the topic.
The discussion is based on the theories of adjacency pairs and teacher-student
interactions. Thus, the researcher will present the pre-understanding of the study
in theoretical framework.
1. Teacher-Student Interaction
There are three sections in this part; definition of teacher-student interaction, the
importance of interaction in EFL classroom, and the role of teacher-student
interaction in EFL class.
a. Definitions of Teacher-Student Interaction
Classroom interaction between EFL and ESL learners and their teachers
have been the most discussed topics in both classroom research and second
language acquisition research (Ellis, 2008). There are many scholars with
different perspectives on classroom interaction. According to Wagner (1994),
interaction is reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions.
Interaction occurs when these objects and events naturally influence one another.
In a classroom interaction there is “Exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas
13
with the teacher, students can increase their language storage and so; improve
their knowledge of language as much as possible” (Yanfen and Yuqin, 2010:76).
According to Brown, (1997:212-213) “Interaction is the collaborative exchange of
thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal
effect on each other“. Theories of communicative competence emphasize on the
importance of interaction as human beings use language in various contexts to
“negotiate” meaning, or to get an idea out of one person‟s head and into the head
of another person and vice versa.
Through interaction, students can increase their language storage as they
listen to or read authentic linguistic material, or even the output of their fellow
students in discussions, skits, joint problem-solving tasks, or in other dialogue
tasks. In interaction, students can use all they possess of the language, all they
learned or casually absorbed in real life exchanges. Even at an elementary stage,
they learn in this way to exploit the elasticity of language (Brown, 2007).
Interaction in the classroom occured when there is communication between
the teacher and students. The exchanges of teacher talk and student talk occured in
various kinds of occassions. Teacher talk influences student talk.
b. Interaction in EFL Classroom
Interaction is the fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy. “Everything that
happens in the classroom happens through a process of live person – to – person
interaction (Allwright, 1984:156)”. Classroom interaction is an important concept
for English language teachers, because through interaction teachers provide
language input for students. It is supported by Long (1996) that interaction
14
that occur in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need.
The relationship between teacher‟s plans and the output in classroom interaction
can be seen in figure 1 below:
Syllabus Input
Method Practice Opportunities
Atmosphere Receptivity
Figure 1. The relationship between plans and outcomes (from Allwright and Bailey 1991, cited in Ellis, 2008:784)
To facilitate classroom interaction, the teacher plans their lessons activities by
making selections of what to teach (syllabus), how to teach (method), and how to
create such classroom atmosphere that the teacher willing to be (Ellis, 2008).
When the teacher acted on, their plans result in „classroom interaction‟. The
interaction provides learners with opportunities to encounter input or to practice
the L2. There is also a state of „receptivity‟ which defined as „an active openness‟
a willingness to encounter the language and the culture. In traditional language
classroom settings, teacher is the one who becomes the major portion of class time
(Richards and Lockhart, 1996). They provide learners with instruction and explain
activities; clarify the procedures that the students should use on an activity and
check students‟ understanding on lessons. Through the interaction, learners have
opportunities to understand and use the language they comprehend.
1. Teacher Talk
Talk mediates learning because we learn in and through language
(Vygotsky, 1994). Since any classroom interaction consists of „Teacher talk‟ and
„Student talk‟, and because “A major portion of class time is imployed by the Classroom
15
teacher (Yanfen and Yuqin, 2010:77)”, we realize that the important role of
„Teacher talk‟ has in classroom interactions.
Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to allow the various classroom
processes to happen that is the language of organizing the classroom (Johnson,
1995). This includes the teacher‟s explanations, responses to questions,
instructions, praises, corrections, etc. Teacher talk is defined as the kind of
modifications in teacher‟s speech that can lead to a special type of discourse
(Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Richards and Lockhart (1996) argued that when teachers
use teacher talk, they are trying to make students as easy as possible to
understand; and effective teacher talk may provide essential support to facilitate
both language comprehension and learner production. In other words, teacher talk
contributes to the successful in learning since it provides input in target language
for learners. Learners‟ production is the consequence from the input they got.
In line with this, Nunan (1991) argues that „teacher talk is of crucial
importance, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the process
of acquisition‟. Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting
instruction, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities
(Cullen, 2002). It is also a kind of communication-based or interaction-based talk,
because teachers use language to encourage communication between learners and
themselves. Teachers adopt the target language to promote their communication
with learners.
In a nut shell, teacher talk can be described as the target language used by
16
develop students‟ language proficiency. Not only as the input for students but also
as a bridge to stimulate students‟ language production.
Teacher talk plays a very important role in the teaching process as an
interactive device. Teachers may use a lot of interactive devices such as
questioning, giving directions; explain activities, or checking students‟
understanding. Considering English is learnt as either second or foreign language
in Indonesia where the students have low access to English exposure, the
language teacher uses in the classroom is likely to be the primary source or even
the only source of English exposure. As stated in the previous chapter that “If the
second language is learnt as a foreign language in a language class in a
non-supportive environment, like in Indonesia, instruction (teacher talk) is likely to be
the major or even the only source of target language input” Stern (1983:400). It
can be sum up, teacher talk is the main element of students‟ English language
input. Betsy Rymes (2008), says that words function in different contexts, it
affects teachers and students more control over the classroom discourse. The
interactional context affects teacher‟s language in use.
Figure 2. Rymes’ (2008) dimension of interactional context.
Teacher talk is the most important means to control the classroom; it is not only a
tool to convey knowledge for students (Xiao-yan, 2006). It is important in
classroom management because through language teachers know whether they are
fail or success in teaching.
17 2. Student Talk
Student talk is the language produced by the learners in communication with
teachers or peers. According to Johnson (1995), students talk uphold inquiry,
collaborative learning, and making knowledge personally meaningful. He added,
the students will lose the component of interaction if they cannot voice out their
mind at school. Student talk can be as a vehicle for developing communicative
practices (Hymes, 1972). Many theories, research and practice seem to conclude
that, elaborated students talk in the classroom foster learning. Student production
which is called student talk is used to interact with teacher and their peers or
other friends in the classroom. Those interactions may lead to increasingly
comprehensible input, and thus greater levels of understanding (Krashen, 1982).
Student talk comprises two categories; student talk-response and student talk-
initiation. Student talk-initiation is the statement or a question asked by a student
when he or she has not been prompted to do so by the teacher. Student
talk-response is talk by students in response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or
asks student statement and when the student answers a question asked by the
teacher, or when he responds verbally to the teacher‟s instruction. It is almost
difficult to differenciate between student‟s response and student‟s initiation. But
then, it can be distinguished from the student‟s answer whether the types of
answer is a predicted by the teacher or not. When in response to a teacher‟s
question the student gives an answer which is expected for that particular
question, the statment is student‟s response. Conversly, when the response to
18
expectation for that particular question, the statement is categorized as student‟s
initiation.
c. The Role of Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Class
Since Indonesian learners learn English as either second or foreign language
in the classroom, teacher talk plays an important role in their target language
development. The use of target language as the means of communication in the
classroom can improve students‟ language input (Nunan, 1991). In terms of
acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is probably the major source of
comprehensible target language input where the learner can receive and even
produce the target language. Therefore, more positive commenting and
encouraging languages should be employed by teachers.
2. Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interactions
There are some important points that will be discussed in this part, they are:
definition of adjacency pairs, definition of teacher-student interactions, the role
and the function of adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions, the
significance of adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions, and theoretical
basis of adjacency pairs and teacher-student interactions.
a. Definitions of Adjacency Pairs
According to Sacks and Schegloff (1979), adjacency pair is a sequence of
two utterances that follow one another. It is „adjacent‟, and has two parts first pair
part and second pair part. In line with that, Rymes (2008:55) states that adjacency
pair is a two part interactional sequence in which the first part (e.g., a question)
19
also reflect how ordered speech is, regardless of the number of people that are in
the conversation, and how this is achieved through turn-taking. Jovanovic, et al.,
(2006:11) also state that “Adjacency pairs are minimal dialogic units which
consist of paired utterances such as question-answer or statement/ agreement”.
The paired utterances are produced by different speakers. Utterances in an
adjacency pair are ordered with the first part (A-part, the initiative) and the second
part (B-part, the response). Overall, Wood and Kroger (2000) argued that, there
are two types of possible responses to the first parts of adjacency pairs: preferred
and dispreferred. Preferred responses are those that are expected or conventional;
and dispreferred responses are those that are not. They added, preferred refers to
the design features of utterances, not to individual dispositions (e.g. personal
wishes or expectations). For example, the preferred response to a question is an
answer, to an invitation an acceptance, and so on. Yet, dispreferred responses
include excuses or justifications. For example, the refusal of an invitation for
dinner by saying “(paused) well, it‟d be great but we already promised to have
dinner with the children”. In terms of classroom discourse, these two types of
possible responses might also occur in the conversation between a teacher and
students. A student might express his disagreement on teacher‟s assessment. He
even might refuse teacher‟s invitation to take turn to read a text.
Another definition comes from Thornburry and Slade (2006), they say that
adjacency pair is composed of two turns produced by different speakers which are
placed adjacently and where the second utterance is identified as related to the
20
complaint/ denial; offer/ accept; request/ grant; compliment/ rejection; challenge/
rejection, and instruct/ receipt.
In multiparty conversations, adjacency pairs do not impose a strict
adjacency requirement, since a speaker has more opportunities to insert utterances
between two elements of an adjacency pair. For example, a suggestion can be
followed by agreements or disagreements from multiple speakers.
Some typical adjacency pairs in English in U.S. proposed by Rymes (2008)
are: Greeting/ Greeting; Question/ Answer; Invitation/ Acceptance; Assessment/
Disagreement; Apology/ Acceptance; and Summons/ Acknowledgement. Thus,
according to Rymes, all of these typical adjacency pairs take place in
teacher-student interactions in the classrooms day after day in predictable ways.
The figure below will lead us to the example of the adjacency pairs:
Adjacency Pairs Type Example
Greeting/Greeting Teacher : Good morning!
Students : Good morning!
Question/Answer Teacher : Is today Friday?
Students : Yes!
Invitation/Acceptance Teacher : Would you like to read next?
Students : Sure.
Assessment/Disagreement Teacher : This is beautiful short today.
Students : I thought it was creepy, actually.
Apology/Acknowledgement Student : I am sorry I‟m late.
Teacher : That‟s okay – we started late
today anyway.
Summons/Acknowledgement Teacher : John?
John : Yes?
21
Figure 3 above presents the examples of how adjacency pairs occur in the
classroom interaction between teacher and student in U.S. context. The first part
of each utterance is followed by the second part in sequences. Richards and
Schmidt (1983:131) define greeting/ greeting in adjacency pairs as “closed sets,
formulaic, and easily learned”. They also argue that these typical adjacency pair
forms are normally found in second language classroom instruction. Adjacency
pairs typically have three characteristics (Sacks and Schegloff, 1973): they consist
of two utterances; the utterances are adjacent, that is the first immediately follows
the second; and different speakers produce each utterance.
According to Sacks and Schegloff (1973), the basic rule of adjacency pairs
operation is to give the recognizable production of a first pair part. In addition,
Renkema (2004) considers adjacency pair as an important building block of
conversation. She developed the sequence of the adjacency pair not only limited
on the two adjacent sequences of utterances. There are also other sequences that
often occur and need to be acknowledged as important as well, such as three-part
sequences. The three-part structure can be seen in the example, „Can you open
the door please?‟, „Sure!‟, „Thank you‟. The three-part structure is the response
from the first speaker as a result of the act of the second speaker. The generosity
of the second speaker is appreciated. In here, the chains of adjacency pairs
occurred.
From the above definitions, it can be concluded that adjacency pair is the
sequence of utterances which can be formulated by teacher to manage the
students‟ response. It can help teacher to control over the classroom interaction
22
automatically will be response by the student he addressed. It is also important to
point out that adjacency pairs are not only focus on the first and second pair part;
the three parts should also be considered.
b. The Role and Function of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction
Considering interaction as a vital aspect of communicative-based language
learning, adjacency pair is one of the main aspects implied in teacher-student
interaction. Adjacency pairs have an important part of the teacher-student
interaction which cannot be neglected. As teachers, the language we choose, and
the way we choose to understand the language used by our students, significantly
shapes what kinds of people show up in our classroom (Rymes, 2008). Adjacency
pairs help teacher to predict what comes next in the conversation or in the
interactional context with students. To be able to control the classroom or the
situational context, adjacency pairs should be established in teacher talk. Thus,
Rymes (2008) states the function and the role of adjacency pairs in
teacher-student interactionare as provoking questions, discussion-starters questions, and
thought-provoking. Rymes (2008) provides the examples of praise statements
below which do not probe for more:
Teacher: I liked your demonstration. or
You listened well today. or
Your pictures are great.
When teacher uses the statements above for giving praise to students‟ project,
students might only response by saying „thank you‟ or even they just show
23
(2002:52), alternative forms of praise can change into compliments by using
thought-provoking questions. The table below shows the examples:
I liked your demonstration.
could be... what kind of practice did it take to get ready for this demonstration?
You listened well today. could be... You seemed very interested today. What caught your interest?
Your pictures are great. could be... Your pictures helped me enjoy your story. How did you think to include the little anchor?
Figure 4. The example of teacher talk with and without considering of adjacency pairs (Owocki and Goodman, 2002:52 cited in Rymes, 2008:69).
The table above provides the alternative choice for teacher about the follow up
questions when giving praise for students. Whether the teacher expects students‟
further response or just to let the students acknowledge the praise by giving
simple word like „thank you‟ or even just smile.
By carefully design the first pair part of adjacency pair, teachers have a
great power to shape what comes next or to predict how students will participate
in a classroom talk (Rymes, 2008). Teachers can provoke students to give
response by creatively design the first part of adjacency pairs. It means that
teacher provides and facilitates students to engage in the conversation.
c. The Significance of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interactions
One of the primary tools driving interaction is the adjacency pair (Tsui,
1989). The concept of adjacency pairs was developed by Sacks and Schegloff
(1979), they stated that this is one of the most basic forms of speech that is used to
produce conversation. In other words, adjacency pairs become the basic unit of
conversational interaction (Tsui, 1989:546). Much of what teacher says/ talks
everyday to students and how students answer back is predictable for example,
24
summon requires a response. Adjacency pair is a predictable interactional context
in which these sequences occurred in a classroom-talk every day. Without this
kind of predictability, it would be difficult to conduct class at all (Rymes,
2008:54). Since adjacency pairs consist of two or more sequences, teacher may
choose the first part of the adjacency pairs to predict the students‟ response will
be. Thus, this first part of the adjacency pairs could be as a trigger of students‟
response to interact. As Wood and Kroger (2000) state that, there are two types of
possible responses to the first parts of adjacency pairs they are preferred and
dispreferred. Preferred responses are those that are expected or conventional and
dispreferred responses are those that are not.
d. Theoretical Basis of Adjacency pairs and Teacher-student interaction
There are three major basis theories will be discuss in this part, they are
comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional hypothesis.
1. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis
Input is used to refer to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner
either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. Input is defined as language
which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn (Ellis, 2008).
The input hypothesis theory is introduced by Krashen (1982: 22); he emphasizes
on the process of increasing ones‟ competence in acquiring language. In his
theory, Krashen posted a question of „how do we acquire language?‟ this question
leads us to the process of how acquirers acquire a language, includes a target
language. We acquire language by understanding language that contains structure
which beyond our current level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help
25
says, in order to maximize the exposure, L2 lesson should be taught in L2 (Miles,
2004). In terms of language learning, teacher talk is important because it is
probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is
likely to receive.
Language is not acquired in a short time. It needs a long process.
Throughout this process learner become familiarized of the encounter words.
What makes them familiar with words for acquisition is the frequency of their
usage and the number of encounters in different forms and contexts (Nation,
1990; Schmidt, 2001). Learners should be provided with much natural input,
especially extensive listening opportunities and particularly in the early stages of
learning. Krashen provides the requirements for optimal input they are 1) should
be comprehensible. It can be maintained that teacher talk does provide
comprehensible input. 2) Interesting/ relevant. While Lado (1964) advises that the
dialogue contain „useful‟ language, that it be age-appropriate and natural, most
dialogues fall far short of the mark of true interest and relevance.
According to Krashen (1982), the primary function of language teaching is
to supply comprehensible 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. The classroom can be benefit when it provides an important
contribution and becomes the major source of comprehensible input for students.
It can be argued that the class was the primary source of comprehensible input for
students, considering Indonesian students learn English in a non-supportive
26
Krashen argued that the value of second language classes lies not only in
the grammar instruction, but in the simpler “teacher talk”, that is the
comprehensible input. It can be an efficient place to achieve at least for the
intermediate levels, as long as the focus of the class is on providing input for
acquisition” (Krashen, 1982). Krashen claimed that simplified input and context
can play a role in making input comprehensible.
2. Interaction Hypothesis
Interaction can facilitate acquisition by assisting learner‟s L2 production
(Long, 1996). Long (1983) argued that much second language acquisition takes
place through conversational interaction. He agrees with Krashen that
comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition. However, he is more
concerned with the question of how input is made comprehensible. According to
him modified interaction as the necessary mechanism for this to take place. The
learners‟ need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic forms but rather an
opportunity to interact with other speakers, in ways which lead them to adapt what
they are saying until the learner shows signs of understandings.
The general claim of interaction hypothesis is that engaging in interpersonal oral
interaction in which communication problems arise and are negotiated facilitates
incidental language acquisition. Interactive input is more important than
non-interactive input because it supplied learners with information relating to
linguistic forms that were problematic to them. Interactional modifications may
remove the need for learners to develop their linguistic competence and thus have
27
utterances need not be confirmation checks; they might simply function as
conversational continuants (Ellis, 2008:451).
...negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways.
Internationally modified input works for acquisition when: (1) it assists learners to
notice linguistic forms in the input, and (2) the forms that are noticed lie within
the learner‟s processing capacity (Long, 1996). In their research results, Polio and
Gass (1998) suggested that learners comprehend better when they have control
over the content and form of the discourse.
3. Comprehensible Output Hypothesis
Output indicates the outcome of what the student has learned.
Comprehensible output hypothesis constructs by Swain (1985) as the complement
to Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis. She argued that comprehensible input alone was
insufficient to ensure that learners achieved high levels of grammatical and
sociolinguistic competence. Based on her research, she found that the learners fail
to develop marked grammatical distinctions in French. She speculated that it
might be because the learners had limited opportunity to talk in the classroom and
were not „pushed‟ in the output they produced.
Swain proposed that production (especially pushed output) may encourage
learners to move from semantic (top-down) to take place with little syntactic
analysis of the input. Production forces learners to pay attention to the mean of
expression especially if they are „pushed‟ to produce messages that are concise
28
requires learners to process syntactically; they have to pay some attention to the
form of language (Swain, 1995 cited in Ellis, 2008:261).
Production has six roles: 1) It serves to generate better input through the
feedback that learner‟s efforts at production elicit, 2) It forces syntactic processing
(i.e. it obliges learners to pay attention to grammar), 3) It allows learners to test
out hypotheses about the target language grammar, 4) It helps to automotive
existing L2 knowledge, 5) It provides opportunities for learners to develop
discourse skills, for example by producing „long turns‟, 6) It is important for
helping learners to develop a „personal voice‟ by steering conversations onto
topics they are interested in contributing to.
Swain claimed that the basic instructional pattern in class was one in which
teachers talked a great deal and students got to say very little. It means that
teacher needs to provide much exposure through their talk. This exposure will
equip the students for their language production. On her observations, Swain
formulated an alternative hypothesis of „comprehensible output‟ hypothesis. She
suggests that the opportunities to produce language were important for acquisition
(Swain, 1995 cited in Nunan, 2001:90). She added, „Being pushed to produce
output obliges learners to test hypotheses and refine their developing knowledge
of the language system‟. Learners not only need to practice the language, but also
to test their hypothesis through practicing whether the language they used is
appropriate in the certain context.
It has also being claimed that being pushed to produce output obliges
learners to cope with their lack of language knowledge by struggling to make
29
their ideas through rephrasing (Hedge, 2000:13). It can maximize the opportunity
of students to talk. „Getting students to speak – to use the language they are
learning – is a vital part of a teacher„s job‟ (Harmer, 2000:4). Thus the quality of
the input to the learner was seen as a central variable in second language outcome.
Swain argued that pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output
may have a long-term effect. One way in which output may promote acquisition is
by priming learners to attend to linguistic features in the input.
3. Elementary School Students
The definitions and the characteristics of elementary school students will be
provided in this section.
a. Definition of Elementary School Students
Elementary school in Indonesia is called Sekolah Dasar (SD). It is the basic
of formal education under the responsibility of the Ministery of Education and
Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan or Kemendikbud) and the
Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kementerian Agama or Kemenag). Students who
are studying in this level should spend 6 years started from grade 1 up to 6 to
graduate from this stage. The gradutates students from elementary schools level
can continue their education to junior high school or Sekolah Menengah Pertama
(SMP). Generally, elementary school students are the children who are age about
7 – 12 years old who studying in between grade 1 up to 6 in elementary level.
The education system in Indonesia required all citizens to undertake the
compulsary education for nine years. It consists of 6 years in the elementary level
and three years in junior high school or secondary level. Schools in Indonesia are
30
some of the private schools adopted “national plus curriculum” which means that
they intend to go beyond the minimum government requirements, especially with
the use of English as medium of instruction or having and international-based
curriculum instead of the national one. (Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.).
The teachers who teach in elementary level are expected to help students to
develop their potentials not only in religious and spiritual aspects but also in
actualizing their learning potential.
b. Characteristics of Elementary School Students
In general, children who are still in the elementary school level ages about
7-11 years old. They used to be called as young learners. Generally, they are
natural learners, they are curious about the world around them. They learn by
doing; they learn most efficiently when all of their senses are involved. They are
active but have short attention spans (Costa and Kallick, 2000; Shin, 2006).
Children in age 7-11 years develop their ability to apply logical thought to
concrete problem. In this stage, they are able to improve their ability to think more
logically. They are already very good at interpreting meaning without necessarily
understanding the individual words. They are already having great skills in using
limited language creatively. And they also love talking. They learn more through
holistic context, not part by part (Costa and Kallick, 2000; Shin, 2006). Therefore,
the context in which children carry out activities in the primary classroom needs
to be natural, real and understandable (Paul, 2003). Teachers need to encourage
them to use language as a vehicle to do things which have a real purpose.
Children bring to language learning their curiosity and eagerness to make
31
able to think in a more advanced way, and even abstractly, in contexts where she
has had a lot of experience (Cameron, 2001). This means that if teacher provides
children with a rich learning environment in his English class, he may be
pleasantly suprised at how much their students can learn. So, teachers are not only
as the facilitator for them but also to be able to stimulate and challenge their
students.
According to Santrock (2008), students of Asia (including Indonesia) have a
collective culture and they tend to work in group. They used to obey the rules of
traditional games, they like to compare themselves with other, and a bit shy to
perform in front of the class (Mustaqim, 2001). They also realistics and curious to
know something new. They paid attention to their favorite subject and love to
work in group or with their peer. For teachers, to understand their students‟
characteristics help them to provide supportive academic achievement.
4. MutiaraPersadaElementarySchool Yogyakarta
In this section, the profile, the curriculum, and the English Day Program will be
defined in detailed.
a. The Profile
Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta is the school which applied
four language systems. English and Mandarin have been promoted as the
international languages, Indonesian as the national language, and Javanese as the
local language. This international-based education system has just applied since
February 2009. Thus, the curriculum is the combination of national-plus and
international curriculum. The school‟s vision and mission have a strong
32
–Mandarin and Indonesian – Javanese. As stated in the school‟s profile, the vision
of this school is „Excellent in achievement, mastery in English and Mandarin,
having good morals and cultures, and have a global conception of faith and piety
and information-technology. One of the points in school‟s mission also supported
the vission that is “To develop technology-based learning and to improve
students‟ achievement in English and Mandarin”.
Most teachers in this school seemed to encourage an informal relationship
with their students, that the relationship between students and teachers was much
less formal. They tried to create specific conditions in the classroom in order to
avoid monotonous atmosphere and able to accommodate the students‟ different
characteristics. They also promote student-student interaction.
b. The Curriculum
The curricullum of Mutiara Persada is based on the National-Plus
Curriculum under the wisdom of local and national socio-cultural framework. It is
enriched by the international perspective of life. It means that the school applied
the combination of national and international curriculum. Where, the school keeps
maintaining the local or national curriculum from the Indonesian government but
also applied international currillum to enrich the students with international
perspectives.
The teaching and learning process applied through professional educational
approaches, enriched by personal care and touch (taken from school‟s profile).
The school also applies the culture of struggle, freedom, enjoyment, fun,
respect, and optimum learning. Mutiara Persada is one of the education centers
33
sort of learning subjects are Religious education, Mathematics (bilingual),
Indonesian language, Natural science (Bilingual), Social science, Civics, Physical
education, Cultures and arts, Information and Communication Technology, Java
language, Batik, Mandarin (Chinese), and English.
The subjects of study above are believed could boost the students‟ knowledge and
skills to face the global era.
c. The English Day Program
English Day program is the program run by the school where all the
students should use English in their oral or written communication during the
school time. It runs every Saturday as indoor/ outdoor learning and training
program. This extra program purposes to be as a trigger to encourage students to
improve their English speaking ability. They could express their idea or opinion,
ask questions, and give comments, exchange opinions or even telling jokes using
the target language during the activities.
The activities are various; for indoor activities, teacher usually uses games,
role play, or doing handcrafts. The students were active and noisier in the sense
that they volunteered to give contributions in the activities. They looked happy
and enjoy what they did. The teacher was also quite happy to accept whatever
contributions they made. The students were much more confident and outspoken.
Thus, the outdoor activities, students are brought to the real life situation where
they can learn and practice their oral skill based on the situational context.
According to Terrel, explanation and practice with linguistic forms should be
done outside of class for the most part. He states that, „this outside work must be
34
activities provide many opportunities for learning and development (Henniger,
2009). With careful planning and preparation of the activities, children have rich
and memorable experience there.
Through the outdoor activities, students can use real communication and
spontaneous speech; one of the examplesis going to the Perjuangan museum. The
spoken language in this activity was all around the history of Indonesian heroes,
how they were struggling for freedom. In line with this, students could learn
history integrated with speaking and listening. They listened to the teacher‟s
explanation about the history and discussed the tasks given in their groups. In this
case, teacher controls the topic but not the activity; it occurs when the teacher
gave them tasks to be discussed in groups. They didn‟t discuss it by sitting in a
circle like formal discussion; instead they could go all around the museum to find
the answer of the questions.
The students looked relax and enjoy the activities during the indoor and
outdoor program. They did not have to sit down nicely in the classroom while
listening to the teacher‟s lecturing, and they did not have to write and memorize
any formulaic tenses of language structures in the monotonous classroom
atmosphere. Yet, they practiced the language in the situational context. They
experienced the language in use. They were communicating rather than practicing
language.
Here, the teacher had a role as a model and as the source of language
exposure. Beside teacher, they also learnt from other friends since they were
35 B.Theoretical Framework
During the interaction, teacher provides information, giving instructions,
and asks questions to students. When students receive the information, they may
ask for clarification. These facilitate student‟s production through their verbal
communications. In interaction, students communicate their opinion, knowledge,
feeling, or comments. Through interactions, students can develop their
communicative practice and are trained to socialize with their surroundings.
Students need to voice out their mind at school because it foster learning
(Johnson, 1995). When the talk of the teacher and the students are exchange
continuously, interaction occurred.
Adjacency pairs have a role as the stimulus for interaction. Since these are
predictable interactional contexts, the nature of adjacency pairs lead the
interaction between teacher and students. The concept of as „predictable context‟
does not solely to predict and expects the exact pairs from students, but then how
the learning process happen in students‟ mind or brain. How the students process
the question given by teacher to flash back and recall their unconscious
knowledge or even to process the new knowledge they got from the answer. In
other words, learning experiences are emphasized in this concept.
Teacher and student talk in English Day program will be varied depends on
the context or the topic where they are should encounter with. Indoor activities
provide many games and other interesting occasions. Thus, Outdoor activities
provide a situational context for students to talk in the real contexts. As they
36
with others. The students can practice their verbal communication with peers and
teachers. The students are practicing and communicate the target language. In
other words, both indoor and outdoor activities provide valuable opportunities for
developing cognitive and social interaction skills.
It is mention in the literary review that, adjacency pairs are the basic unit of
conversational interactions or as the basic forms of speech that is used to produce
conversation. That is why it has a powerful to force the interactional context. If
the teacher says something, students must respond. Even when the students do not
give respond, their silence indicates some kind of response, simply because they
have been addressed (Rymes, 2008). Silence may also indicate disagreement.
According to Gallas (1995, cited in Ellis, 2008:59), „carefully considering
the kinds of questions we ask can facilitate learning‟. For example, teacher gives
the question and predicts the answer that might be contributed by the students.
When there is a student answer, whether it is right or wrong, teacher does not give
the direct answer. A teacher could select the adjacency pairs to be used as a
trigger to stimulate other students to give responds. Teacher could give the next
opportunity to other students to answer by creatively design the first type of
adjacency pairs.
As mention in the previous section, there are 6 (six) typical adjacency pairs
provide by Rymes (2008), they are: Greeting/ greeting, question/ answer,
invitation/ acceptance, assessment/ disagreement, apology/ acknowledgement, and
summon/ acknowledgement. It becomes interesting to investigate what other
typical adjacency pairs that facilitate interactions especially for EFL learners.
