Teacher-Students’ Interaction in EFL Teaching:
Analyzing Patterns of Classroom Interaction
Sophia Fithri Al-Munawwarah1,2
Universitas Muhammadiyah Lampung, Indonesia1 Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia, Indonesia2 Email: [email protected]
Submitted: 24/03/2021 Revised: 18/05/2021 Accepted: 05/07/2021 E-ISSN : 2579-4574 P-ISSN : 2549-7359
Abstract. Teacher-students’ interaction patterns in EFL teaching can be considered crucial to be investigated. It is due to the reason that interaction in English classroom may facilitate pupils in practicing the language skills they have learnt in a real context. In doing this, Classroom Discourse Analysis (CDA) can be an alternative way in order to seek the level of accuracy in portraying classroom activities. Dealing with this, the present study aimed at analyzing teacher-students’ interaction patterns that occurred in EFL classroom interaction.
This was a descriptive qualitative study. The participants of this study were an English teacher at one vocational school students and 36 students of XII grade. In collecting the data, classroom observation was administered. The data then were transcribed and analyzed by using SMSLEFA (Synergetic Multilayered Students’ Learning Engagement Framework of Analysis) framework as a part of Classroom Discourse Analysis proposed by Suherdi (2010) and Berry’s Exchange System Network (ESN). The data revealed that both non-anomalous exchanges and anomalous exchanges occurred during the teaching and learning process, specifically there were 54 K-oriented exchanges, 36 S-oriented exchanges, and 6 A-oriented exchanges. In addition, Dk1-initiated patterns and Ds1-initiated patterns appeared as the dominant patterns in the corpus. The findings implied that the activities conducted by the teacher focused on checking students’ understanding about the text and developing students’ skill, particularly students’ reading skill and speaking skill. the result of this study can be utilize to investigate the effort that learners devote to the learning process that are linked to their achievement.
Keywords: teacher-students’ interaction, Classroom Discourse Analysis, SMSLEFA https://ojs.unm.ac.id/eralingua
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
INTRODUCTION
Classroom interaction can be seen as an important aspect that gets careful attention in language research. It is as pointed out by Minasyan (2017) that classroom interaction has received rigorous attention and has always been a fruitful subject of study. In relation to this, it is believed that classroom interaction in EFL classes can be used to build knowledge and improve students’ language skills (Adaba, 2017; Brown, 2001). In line with this, Yu (2008: 49) also argues that “interaction facilitates not only language development but also learners’ development.” Moreover, it is also noted by Richards (2011, cited in Rido, Ibrahim & Nambiar, 2013) that classroom interaction in EFL gives opportunity for the students to speak and/or express their voices. In other words, classroom interaction in EFL/ESL teaching and learning process can be seen as a valuable tool to assist students in preparing their skills for real life language interaction.
Concerning the nature of classroom talk, Christie (2002) highlights that it was Flanders (1970) who early began to conceive classroom talk in terms of structure who studied what he terms ‘interaction analysis’ to understand the nature of teachers’
interaction with students. Moreover, in order to examine the teacher and students’
interaction, Classroom Discourse Analysis can be applied to identify the linguistic aspects of teacher and students’ interaction (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975, cited in Shi, 2013). In line with this, Suherdi (2010) affirms that Classroom Discourse Analysis is useful in order to meet the level of accuracy in portraying language classroom activities since it provides the most detail description of the language function.
With regard to discourse analysis, it is noted that the term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zeling Harris in 1952 in order to analyze connected speech and writing (Paltridge, 2006). In relation to this, McCarthy (2008:5) states that discourse analysis “is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the context in which it is used.” In addition, Rogers (2011) adds that critical discourse analysis provides the tools to deal with the complexity of movement across educational sites, practices, and system. The interest of critical discourse analysis is to expose social inequality as expressed through language use in the form of public media, such as newspapers, radio, films; and in particular settings, such as classroom and courtrooms (Celce-Murcia & Olshtain, 2007).
In relation to this, classroom discourse analysis is the language that utilized as a medium of instruction during teaching and learning activities (Suherdi, 2004). In classroom discourse, moreover, there are five ranks of comprehensive system of analysis as proposed by Sinclair and Couldhard (1975, cited in Suherdi, 2010); namely, lesson, transaction, exchange, move, and act. In terms of dynamic moves, Martin (1985) & Ventola (1987) mention three types of dynamic system. Particularly, Martin (1985) mentions two type of dynamic moves; namely, suspending and aborting.
Meanwhile, Ventola (1987) in his seminal book, identifies elucidating moves. In addition, Suherdi (2018) adds a new category which is labeled as sustaining.
Afterwards, further explanation about the types of dynamic moves in the teaching and learning process will be elaborated in the methodology section.
Dealing with this, actually it is noted that since the late 1940’s research on language interaction inside the classroom has been laid strong emphasize (Rashidi &
Rafieerad, 2010). Moreover, in terms of classroom discourse analysis, it is stated that the work of Sinclair and Coulthard (1997) “has been seminal and widely adopted, adapted, and further developed to accommodate various phenomena in a variety of teaching learning situation” (Suherdi, 2010). With the value of classroom research in English as foreign language education, there are numerous studies that focus on classroom discourse. A study conducted by Yan (2012) aimed at understanding EFL classroom discourse through the analytical instruments of Discourse analysis and Conversational analysis. The study revealed that a few conversational skills were utilized in the EFL classroom discourse; namely, turn-taking, conversation repair, interruption and repetition.
Moreover, intended to identify interaction pattern between students and teachers in EFL classroom and to investigate the effect of the gender of the teachers and the students in their interaction patterns, a study carried out by Rashidi &
Rafieerad (2010) showed that the interaction patterns between the participants vary in terms of discourse acts. Besides, with regard to the gender effect, it was found that boys were found to be more willing to interact with their teachers than girls.
Different from the previous research, the present study tried to portray classroom interaction patterns in English classroom within the context of foreign language by applying scientific approach in Indonesia, particularly in one vocational school in Bandung. This study utilized SMSLEFA (Synergetic Multilayered Students’
Learning Engagement Framework of Analysis) and Berry’s Exchange System Network (ESN) as the frameworks in analyzing the data which is designed by Suherdi (2018). It is developed based on SFL principles, particularly according to the concept of language meta-function (Suherdi, 2018) Viewing the explanation above, this study was guided by these questions:
1. What are the patterns of EFL classroom interaction in a class of year twelve students?
2. What patterns are dominant in the EFL classroom interaction?
This study was limited to portray the teacher and students’ interaction patterns appeared in a class of year twelve students in one vocational school in Bandung. This concern was within the context of English as foreign language teaching. This study is expected to provide theoretical, practical and professional benefits. In terms of theoretical benefit, the research findings can be used to enrich theories in Classroom Discourse Analysis and EFL teaching. Besides, in terms of practical benefits, this study is expected to provide advantages to the development of teaching and learning English in Indonesia. These research findings particularly are expected to be useful for teachers and researchers in identifying classroom interaction in English language teaching. Moreover, the analysis of classroom interaction is expected to give valuable input for teaching English within the context of English as a foreign language.
RESEARCH METHOD
This study applied qualitative research design taking on characteristics of descriptive study. It is commonly utilized in order to describe an experience or event that happens in reality as completely as possible (Sandelowski, 2000). Moreover, it was because the data gathered from observation were in the forms of words.
Specifically, the data were analyzed descriptively. This is as affirms by Grimes and Schulz (2002) that a descriptive study is focused on and administered in order to delineate the existing distribution of variables without regards to other hypothesis.
The present study was conducted at one of public vocational school in Bandung, Indonesia. The participants of this study were an English teacher and a class of year twelve students. In addition, 36 students were also involved in the present study in the teaching and learning activities dealing with discussing news item and if clause by using scientific approach. In Indonesian context, scientific approach should be utilized to teach all subjects, in elementary education and secondary education, based on the curriculum 2013. To make it clear, there were five stages of scientific approach in this teaching and learning process, including observing, questioning, associating, experimenting, and networking. The teacher was purposively chosen since she is a certified teacher. In addition, with regard to the sense of collegiality which has developed among the researcher and the teacher as well as the school, as a result, this built a good contribution to this study. It is as proposed by Alwasilah (2011) that establishing rapport with participants and site before conducting the study is crucial.
Observation was conducted in order to answer the research questions. The researcher was a complete observer, meaning that the observer observed the learning activities without becoming the participant of the activities in the classroom being studied. It is as stated by Cresswell (2003) that in qualitative procedure, the researcher can play a role as complete observer in collecting data where the researcher observes particular activity without participating.
The observations were conducted two times. Each meeting was organized 120 minutes. The learning activities were video recorded. Moreover, during the observations, field notes were utilized by the researcher in order to record the clear picture of what happened to the students and the teacher during the learning process.
After all the data were obtained, they were analyzed descriptively. The researcher analyzed the data based on several steps stated by Miles and Huberman (1984), as follows: (1) Transcribing the data; (2) reading through all the data; (3) coding the data; (4) organizing categorization and generating themes; and (5) analyzing and interpreting the data based on certain criteria. Specifically, the teaching and learning process that can be seen from video recorded was analyzed by utilizing SMSLEFA (Suherdi, 2018). Moreover, in order to identify the dynamic moves and the categories of exchanges in the teaching and learning process, Berry’s Exchange System Network (ESN) as elaborated in Suherdi (2010) was used in this study (see Suherdi, 2010). According to Berry’s ESN (Suherdi, 2010), there are some acceptable patterns of exchanges of knowledge in classroom discourse, as follows:
Berry’s Framework of Analysis Dk1-initiated exchanges:
Dk1^ K2^K1^K2f^K1f Dk1^ K2^K1^K2f Dk1^ K2^K1
K2 initiated exchanges:
K2^K1 K2^K1^K2f K2^K1^K2f^K1f
K1-initiated exchanges:
K1^K2f K1^K2f^K1f Note:
K1: For the admission of knowledge of the information by the primary knower and the consequent stamping of the information with primary knower authority.
K2: for the secondary knower’s indication of the state of his own knowledge in relation to the information.
DK1: for delaying K1 K2f: for following up K2
(Taken from Suherdi, 2010: 22) In addition, regarding the dynamic moves, the following are some types of dynamic moves.
Table 1. Types of Dynamic Moves Suspending
Moves
Aborting Moves Elucidating Moves
Sustaining Moves Confirmation
(cf)
Request to confirmation (cfr)
Cf response (rcf)
Check Backchannel
Challage (ch) Ch response (rch)
Clarify (clfy) Clfy resp (rclfy)
Repeat (rp)
Request to rp (rpr) Request to rpr (rrpr) Clue (clue)
No response (ro) Irrelevant resp (irr) Correction (corr) Rephrase (rph)
(Taken from Love and Suherdi, 1996, cited in Suherdi, 2009: 23) Table 2. Types of Dynamic Moves (Suherdi, 2010)
Types of dynamic moves Label Teacher’s moves
Repetition
Exact repetition
Prompt
Loop
Rp
Rephrase Rph
Clue Clue
Correction Corr
Student’s moves
No response Ro
Irrelevant response Iff
Meanwhile, in terms of formal structural patterns, the analysis can be categorized into two parts; namely, non-anomalous and anomalous exchanges. To make it clear, the following are the categories of exchange structure.
Figure 1. Categories of Exchange Structure RESULT AND DISCUSSION
This section provides the findings and discussion of the data. As mentioned previously, in order to answer the research questions, the teacher-students’
interaction patterns including the dynamic moves were analyzed based on SMSLEFA framework designed by Suherdi (2010) and Berry’s Exchange System Network (ESN) framework. In relation to this, in order to make it clear, this section begins with describing the teaching and learning process as recorded in observation session.
Results
The Teaching and Learning Process
It is probably safe to say that both anomalous and non-anomalous exchanges revealed in this study dealt with the way the teacher maintain the interaction during the teaching and learning activities in the classroom. In the present study, the teaching and learning process carried out in the classroom portrayed teacher and students’ interaction in learning news items by using scientific approach. In order to make it clear, this section started with describing the teaching and learning activities conducted by the teacher by utilizing five stages of scientific approach, including observing, questioning, experimenting, associating, and communicating.
The teacher began the lesson with telling the students about the topic. Then, the teacher asked the students to observe two texts entitled “Massachusetts winner of $758m lottery jackpot quits job” and “The woman who Won the Lottery and Used It to Do Good” by reading the text. Specifically, the teacher asked some students to read aloud the text. Meanwhile, other students were asked to listen carefully.
After that, the teacher gave some questions to the students to comprehend the text generated by the teacher related to the texts. In questioning session, there
Exchange Non-
anomalous
Simple Complex
Pre-inf Extend
Post-inf Extend Pre & Post-
inf Extend
Anomalous
Elliptical Defective Broken
were not only students-teacher interactions but also the interaction between some students in order to discuss the meaning of some vocabularies provided in the texts.
besides, there were no other questions delivered by the students which related to the ideas of the text expect in the form of vocabulary mastery. Based on the data, all of the activities in this step were guided by the teacher.
In experimenting stage, the pupils were asked to complete a song lyric entitled “If I had a million dollars” which the content of the song was considered related to the topic being discussed, that was if clause. Afterwards, in associating stage, the students and teacher tried to associate some words provided in the text by utilizing this if clause in other sentences and context. Meanwhile, in the communicating step, the students were asked to express their idea by using if clause.
Teacher-Students Interaction Patterns
During the teaching and learning process as mentioned above, there were 108 exchanges that have been identified. To make it clear, the following were the distribution of non-anomalous and anomalous exchanges of classroom interaction.
Table 3. Data of teacher-students’ interaction patterns Distribution of non-anomalous exchanges
Exchange categories Non-anomalous Simple
F % Note
Knowledge oriented K1-initiated 9 8.33 Dk1-initiated 22 20.37 K2-initiated 5 4.63
Skill oriented S1-initiated 1 0.93 Lowest
Ds1-initiated 26 24.07 Highest S2-initiated - -
Action oriented (verbal)
A1-initiated - - DA1-initiated - -
A2-initiated 1 0.93 Lowest Action oriented non
verbal
A1:NV 3 2.78
A2: NV
initiated
2 1.85
Sub-total 69
Non-anomalous complex
F % Note
Knowledge oriented Pre-inform K1-initiated - - Extended Dk1-initiated 16 14.81 Exchanges K2-initiated -
Skill oriented S1-initiated - -
Ds1-initiated 9 8.33 S2-initiated - -
Action oriented (verbal)
A1-initiated - - DA1-initiated - - A2-initiated - - Knowledge oriented Post-inform K1-initiated - -
Extended Dk1-initiated 2 1.85 Exchanges K2-initiated - -
Skill oriented S1-initiated - -
Ds1-initiated - S2-initiated - - Action oriented
(verbal)
A1-initiated - - DA1-initiated - - A2-initiated - - Pre and post
Informed extended
DK1-initiated 1 0.93
Subtotal 28
Table 4. The distribution of anomalous exchange Exchange categories
Anomalous complex
Exchange F %
Elliptical exchange Dk1^K2 7 6.48
Ds1^S2
Defective exchange DK1^K1 3 2.78
Ds1^iff^S1
Broken exchange K2^ro 1 0.93
Sub-total 11
Based on the table above, almost all of the types of non-anomalous classroom interaction patterns as mentioned in SMSLEFA framework which proposed by Suherdi (2010) occurred in the classroom interaction while discussing news item.
Apart from that, as could be seen from the table, all types of anomalous exchanges appear in the students-teacher classroom interaction. From the table 3, as mentioned earlier, the whole lesson was consisted of 108 exchanges. Furthermore, it could be seen apparently that there were three types of teacher and students’ interaction patterns found based on observation of the lesson, covering covers 54 K-oriented exchanges, 36 S-oriented exchanges, and 6 A-oriented exchanges. To make it clear, the classroom interaction patterns in the teaching and learning process could be drawn as follows:
1. It could be seen clearly from the table that 54 K-oriented exchanges cover 9 simple K1-initiated, 22 simple Dk1-initiated, 5 simple K2-initiated, and 16 complex Dk1-initiated.
2. 36 S-oriented exchanges cover 1 simple S1-initiated, 26 simple Ds1-initiated, and 9 complex Ds1-initiated.
3. 6 A-oriented exchanges cover 1 simple A2-initiated, 3 simple A1: nonverbal initiated, and 2 A2: non-verbal initiated.
Furthermore, the following are the detail description of the classroom interaction patterns occurred in the teaching and learning process.
Simple Exchanges
Knowledge Oriented Exchanges
Based on the data, in terms of simple K-oriented exchanges, there were divided into three types of simple exchanges, which were: K1-initiated patterns, DK1- initiated patterns, and K2-initiated patterns.
1. K1-initiated patterns
This pattern appeared as the realization of non-negotiated A-events, in which the teacher as the primary knower directly present the message or knowledge she required to utter. There were three patterns in K1-initiated exchanges which were found in the corpus, covering K1 only exchanges, K1^K2f, and K1^K2f^K1f. Further description of each pattern is presented below.
a. K1 only exchanges
Based on the data, there was only one K1 only exchange appeared in the classroom interaction. This type of exchange in the learning process is can be seen in the excerpt below.
Table 5. K1-initiated pattern K1
K1 1 +2
T Let’s take a look at the text, there we can find the differences between the two women.
It is clear that the two women won the lottery but they had different ways to spend the money.
The excerpt comprised by a move complex which was consisted of two K1 moves. The second move of this pattern was seen as an extension. In addition, as mentioned above, in this excerpt the teacher as primary knower directly conveyed knowledge to the students.
b. K1^K2f
Five exchanges occurred in the corpus where the K1-move complex is followed by a follow up (K2f) given by the students. It is as can be seen in the example below.
Table 6. k1^K2f K1
K1 K1 K1
1 +2
=3 +4
=5
T So, I will distribute the text. You can share the paper with your friend next to you. Please read the text.
Oke please read the text ya.
The text is.. the tittle…quits job.
Oke please continue to read the given text.
K2f Ss Ya
In the excerpt above, the move complex covers five K1-moves. The third and fifth moves was categorized as the elaborations (=) of “So, I will distribute the text.
You can share the paper with your friend next to you. Please read the text.”
Meanwhile, the second and forth move is the extensions of (1). As can be seen apparently, this type of pattern emerged when the teacher giving instruction for the students.
c. K1^K2f^K1f
Apart from that, K1^K2f^K1f patterns also appear in the learning process.
According to the data, there are two exchanges appear during the learning activities.
For example, it is as can be seen below.
Table 7. K1^K2f^K1f K1
K1
T In our culture, Lottery is illegal. There is the difference between lottery and gift from Griya supermarket.
K2f Ss Ya
K1f T ya beda lagi ya.
2. DK1- initiated patterns
Table 8. DK1^K2^K1
Dk1 T Why? Why she didn’t buy a new car?
K2 Ss because she just bought a new car less than a year ago
K1 T Oke good, because she just bought a new car less than a year ago.
In this pattern, it can be seen clearly that the first interactant/speaker, who is the teacher, ask a question about something to which she already known the answer.
After that, the second interactant (the students) gave the answer. Then, the first interactant gave her judgment to show that the answer was right.
3. K2 initiated patterns
As explained by Suherdi (2009: 100), “this patterns are the realization of B- events, in which the second interactant is the Primary Knower, and the first interactant is the secondary knower.” Dealing with this, the data showed that one pattern; namely, K2^K1, emerged five times in the corpus. To make it clear, the following example describes this pattern.
Table 9. K2-initiated pattern
K2 T Do you have any question related to our topic
“reported speech’? Is anything clear?
K1 Ss Yes, clear.
As can be seen clearly, this pattern appeared in checking whether the students understand their previous learning materials and/or tasks.
Skill Oriented Exchanges 1. S1-initiated pattern
Actually, there are two possible two possible patterns of S1-initiated pattern according to ESN (Suherdi, 2009). However, based on the data, interestingly, there was only one exchange; namely, S1-only exchanges, that found during the learning process as could be seen in the video recorded. To be specific, this type of exchange emerged two times. It is as can be seen in the example below.
Table 10. S1-initiated pattern
S1 T T: Mother-of-two Mavis Wanczyk, 53, bought the ticket at a Chicopee, Massachusetts, petrol station…….Massachusetts State Lottery told reporters the ticket in Wednesday night's draw had been validated.
"The first thing I want to do is just sit back and relax," said Ms Wanczyk, chewing gum.
"I had a pipe dream.. and it came true." She told journalists she had picked her lucky numbers based on relatives' birthdays. Ms Wanczyk said of her 32-year job at a medical centre: "I've called them and told them I will not be going back." She added that she was "going to go hide in my bed".
Reporters asked if she had plans to treat herself to something nice, such as a fancy new car.
But Ms Wanczyk replied she just bought a new car less than a year ago, and now plans to pay it off in full. One lottery official described the woman as "your prototypical Massachusetts resident".
He added that she seems like "a hard-working individual" and
"clearly she's excited".
(Guru membacakan teks).
This pattern was the portrayal of non-negotiated A-events, in which the teacher as the primary knower directly presents the message she wanted to convey (Suherdi, 2009). The teacher was giving an example of how to read the text. She read the whole paragraph after asking some students to read the text in turns.
2. DS1-initiated pattern
It can be seen from the table above that 26 exchanges are simple DS1-initiated exchanges (23.63%). This type of exchange appeared as the highest exchanges during
the teaching and learning process. There were two patterns that had been observed in the corpus, which were: Ds1^S2^S1 and Ds1^S2^S1^S2f. Specifically, 25 out of 26 exchanges were realized in the pattern of Ds1^S2^S1. Dealing with this, excerpt below is one of the examples of the pattern.
Table 11. Ds1^S2^S1 Ds1 T Nur please continue
S2 S3 Massachusetts State Lottery told reporters the ticket in Wednesday night's draw had been validated.
"The first thing I want to do is just sit back and relax," said Ms Wanczyk, chewing gum.
"I had a pipe dream. and it came true." She told journalists she had picked her lucky numbers based on relatives' birthdays. Ms Wanczyk said of her 32-year job at a medical centre: "I've called them and told them I will not be going back." She added that she was "going to?”
go hide in my bed". (continue to read the text) S1 T very good. Stop.
a. Ds1^S2^S1^S2f
There was an instance in the corpus in which the pupils showed their reaction to the second interactant; namely, a student. It is as can be seen in the excerpt, as follows:
Table 12. Ds1^S2^S1^S2f
Ds1 T what would you do if you’re a teacher S2 S17 a teacher.. there’re no holiday
S1 T oke if she’s a teacher there will be no holiday.
S2f Ss Huuu
Students’ contribution in the last slot serves as an acknowledgement.
Therefore, it was categorized as a follow up. It is in line with the statement Tsui (1994, cited in Rashidi and Rafieerad, 2010) that follow up in an exchange appears when the students acknowledged the teacher’s correction of the student’s incomplete answer or error.
Action Oriented Exchanges
These patterns were used to show action oriented exchanges.
1. A1-initiated patterns a. A1: NV
Based on the data, this pattern appeared three times. The following example illustrated the pattern.
Table 13. A1: NV
A1: NV T (Teacher is preparing power point presentation and the focus of OHP).
This pattern appeared in the beginning of the lesson. In this pattern, the first interactant performed non-verbal action. Unfortunately, there was no feedback from the students while the teacher was preparing the learning materials and adjusting the focus of OHP. This finding is in line with the statement proposed by Suherdi (2009:
103) that this pattern “may or may not be followed by the second interactant’s contributions.”
2. A2-initiated pattern a. A2: V
One verbal action-oriented exchange had been observed to be realized by A2- initiated pattern, as follows:
Table 14. A2: V A2 Ss Ss: sing a song again ms
A1 T T: oke we are going to listen the song again and sing along.
A2f Ss The students listening to the music.
In this example, it is probably safe to say that the focus of the activity portrayed in this exchange was not listening skill, but it is only for pleasure.
b. A2: NV
Two exchanges occurred in the corpus where the A2 is followed by a non- verbal A1. The instance of this pattern can be seen in the following excerpt.
Table 15. A2: NV
A2 T If there’s no question, please back to your own seat.
A1: NV S (All of the students back to their seats.)
In this pattern, it was apparent that the teacher asks the pupils to do something.
Complex Exchanges
Apart from the data above, some exchanges in the corpus were constitutes by some dynamic moves or moves complexes. Therefore, some exchanges that had been observed during the teaching and learning process could be categorized as complex exchanges. In relation to this, according to Ventola (1987, cited in Suherdi, 2009), complex non-anomalous exchanges could be subdivided into three subcategories, which were: Pre-informed extended, post-informed extended, and pre-and post-informed extended exchanges. Dealing with this, further explanation of complex exchanges based on the data from observation is presented below.
1. Knowledge-Oriented Exchanges a. DK1-initiated pattern
DK1^K2^K1
There were 16 pre-informed extended patterns found in the corpus in the form of DK1-initiated pattern. To make it clear, the following example describes the pattern.
Table 16. DK1^K2^K1
DK1 T What else? What did she do after winning the lottery?
Ro Ss ……
Rph T Does she keep working? Or does she quit the job?
K2 Ss She quit the job K1 T She quit the job.
Seeing the excerpt above, it can be said that the teacher uses some strategies in order to get appropriate response from the pupils. Specifically, viewing there was no response (ro) from the students, she tries to rephrase the question. After rephrasing the question, fortunately the students showed appropriate response. And then, the teacher gave her judgment by restating the answer.
2. Skill-Oriented Exchanges Ds1^S2^S1
In terms of skill-oriented exchanges, nine exchanges were observed in Ds1^S2^S1. To illustrate, see the following example.
Table 17. Ds1^S2^S1 Ds1 T Oke, Atria please read the text
S2 S1 Mother-of-two Mavis Wanczyk, 53, bought the ticket at a Chicopee, Massachusetts, petrol station. ….."The first thing I want to do is just sit back and relax," said Ms Wanczyk, chewing gum. "I had a pipe dream.. and it came true." She told journalists she had picked her lucky numbers based on relatives' birthdays. Ms Wanczyk said of her 32-year job at a medical centre: "I've called them and told them I will not be going back." She added that she was "going to go hide in my bed".Reporters asked if she had plans to treat herself to something nice, such as a fancy new car.But Ms……
Rpr T But… repeat
Rrpr S1 But Ms Wanczyk replied she just bought a new car less than a year ago, and now plans to pay it off in full. One lottery official described the woman as "your prototypical Massachusetts resident".He added that she seems like "a hard-working individual" and "clearly she's excited"…One lottery official described the woman as "your prototypical Massachusetts
resident". He added that she seems like "a hard-working individual" and "clearly she's excited".
Rpr T Massachusettes…
Rrpr S1 Massachusetts resident". He added that she seems like "a hard- working individual" and "clearly she's excited".
S1 T Oke.
In the excerpt, it was apparent that student 1 was trying to read the text given by the teacher. While reading the text, the she seemed to unsure in pronouncing the two words; namely, “Ms Wanczyk” and “Massachusettes”. Hence, the teacher asked the student to repeat pronouncing these words.
Pre- and Post-informed extended exchanges
There was only one pre- and post-informed extended exchange found in the corpus. In detail, the following example illustrates the pattern.
Table 18. Dk1^K2^K1^K2f
DK1 And then, what does the second woman do after receiving the lottery?
Ro Ss silent
Clue K2
T S18
You can see from the tittle. What does the second woman do after receiving the lottery?
Use the money from something good.
K1 Check
T Use the money from something good. Oke.
What something good exactly?
Rcheck S19 ee the money to the charity
K2f T Ya oke.
In this exchange, it was apparent that that dynamic moves in the form of no response (ro), clue, clarifying (clyfr) and response to clarifying (rclyfr), were incorporated in order to help the students in finding the appropriate answer and to confirm that student 18 and student 19 had given the right answer.
Anomalous Exchanges
In terms of anomalous exchange as proposed by Suherdi (2009), there are three categories, which are: elliptical, defective and broken exchanges. With regard to this, based on the data, all categories of anomalous exchanges occurred in teacher- students’ interaction during the learning process.
1. Elliptical exchanges
As could be seen from the table, there were seven elliptical exchanges in the corpus. The occurrence of this type of exchange could be seen as the reflection of the students’ familiarity with the topics that being discussed during the learning process, specifically about the two texts entitled Massachusetts winner of $758m lottery jackpot quits job and The woman who Won the Lottery and Used It to Do Good and if clause. These patterns appeared in situations when the teacher elicited
students’ knowledge of topic related to the given texts. Dealing with this, the following example illustrates the pattern.
Table 19. Elliptical exchanges
DK1 T Can you imagine how much money is it?
And what did she do with the money? Mega (bertanya kepada seorang siswa)
K2 S11 Yes, buy a car
From the excerpt, it could be seen that the teacher did not give feedback to the student’s response. As a result, the K1-element which was compulsory was not there.
2. Defective exchanges
Based on the data, there were three defective exchanges in the corpus. To get clearer description about this type of anomalous exchange, the pattern could be seen in this following example:
Table 20. Defective exchanges
This pattern appeared when there was no contribution from the secondary knower (Suherdi, 2009). It was probably because the students did not understand comprehensively about the given text. As a result, the teacher provided the answer by herself.
3. Broken exchange
In the corpus, it was found that there was one exchange that categorized as broken exchange. In the example below, it was seen apparently that viewing there was no student who answered the question, the teacher halted the negotiation.
Table 21. Broken exchange.
K2 T What is the meaning of ‘park’ in Bahasa Indonesia?
Please open your dictionary.
Ro Ss ….. (no one answer the question)
Halt T Ok
The broken exchange occurred when the teacher asked the meaning of a vocabulary that can be considered new for the students. In relation to this, broken exchanges can be defined as the exchanges which for particular reasons are abandoned (Suherdi, 2009). Furthermore, just like affirmed by Suherdi (2009), these patterns commonly emerge in K2-initiated exchanges.
DK1 T Who won the lottery? Who?
Irr Ss Unclear
Rp T who? pelase. Oke who won the lottery
Irr Ss Ms… (unclear)
K1 T Ms. Wanczyk.
The Dominant Patterns in the Teaching and Learning Process
According to the data, Dk1-initiated patterns and Ds1-initiated patterns appeared as the dominant patterns. In terms of Dk1-initiated patterns, there were 38 (35.18%) exchanges, consisting of 22 (20.37%) were simple DK1-initiated and 16 (14.81%) were in the form of complex Dk1-initiated exchanges. Apart from that, Ds1 initiated patterns appeared as the second dominant patterns in the corpus. Particularly, there were 35 (32.4%) Ds1-oriented exchanges in the whole lesson. Out of 35 Ds1-oriented exchanges, 26 (24.07%) were simple ds1-initiated. In addition, 9 (8.33%) Ds1-initiated exchanges were in the form of complex Ds1-initiated patterns.
Discussion
In language classroom, it is noted that investigating classroom discourses and the ways they affect students and the learning process can be considered crucial (Ong, 2017). Hence, the present study tried to portray the teacher and students’
interaction patterns appeared in English language classroom in a class of year twelve students in one vocational school in Bandung. Given the data above, it’s probably fair to say that the dominance of Dk1-initiated exchanges in the whole lesson indicated that the teacher focused on checking or testing students’ understanding or knowledge of the topic being discussed; namely news item and if clause. This finding is actually in line with the statement proposed by Liu & Hong (2009) that the dominant teacher’s talk covers elicitation of students’ knowledge and helping students’ to develop their idea related to the given text. Similarly, Safriani (2017) also argues that eliciting students’ prior knowledge commonly appears in students’- teacher interaction during reading lesson, particularly in pre-reading session.
Furthermore, based on the data, during the lessons, the teacher as primary knower directly conveyed knowledge to the students. this finding is actually in line with Brown (2001) that during the teaching and learning process the teacher often plays the role as facilitator by informing particular message or knowledge related the topic being discussed in order to make learning easier for the pupils. In terms of K2 initiated patterns that appeared in the data, it showed that in reading activity, sometimes, teacher should check whether the students understand their previous learning materials and/or tasks. It is actually in line with Sofyan & Mahmud (2014) that this pattern commonly occurs in order to ensure whether the pupils understand or finish their particular learning exercises or not. In accordance with this, Amin (2015) also affirms that in teacher-students’ interaction, the occurrence of K2 initiated pattern indicates that teacher check students’ understanding related to the given task.
In addition, it was apparent that Ds1-oriented exchanges emerged as the second dominant exchanges during the lessons. it showed that the teacher also concerned about the students’ skill in talking about news items, especially in terms of reading comprehension skill. Dealing with this, the findings of this study actually confirms the statement proposed by Suherdi (2018) that the dominance of Dk1- initiated exchanges in the teaching and learning process in which the teacher as the primary knower are predictable as far as Berry’s is concerned.
Moreover, seeing the data above, teacher-students’ interaction in this present study is actually in line with the curriculum of English language teaching and learning in Indonesia. That is to say that for English as foreign language in senior high school and vocational school in Indonesia, English subject is commonly focused on developing students’ skills, covering listening, speaking, reading and writing (Kemendikbud, 2014). In doing this, teacher commonly applies scientific approach and text based teaching. These activities are different from other subjects that only focus on the content area (Cahyono & Widiati, 2006).
Given the data above, it is apparent that the activities conducted by the teacher focused on checking students’ understanding about the text and developing students’ skill, particularly students’ reading skill and speaking skill. To make it clear, seeing the teacher-students’ interaction in this research, it represented the effort that learners devoted to the learning process that were linked to their achievement to meet the expected learning outcomes.
CONCLUSION
Referring to the findings and discussion that have been elaborated in the previous section, there are at least two conclusions that can be drawn. First, it is found that both non-anomalous and anomalous exchanges found in the corpus. In terms of non-anomalous exchanges, there were 54 K-oriented exchanges, 36 S- oriented exchanges, and 6 A-oriented exchanges. Meanwhile, in anomalous exchanges, all categories of anomalous exchanges occurred in teacher-students’
interaction during the learning process covering seven elliptical exchanges, three defective exchanges, and one broken exchange. Given this, the occurrence of both non-anomalous and anomalous exchanges dealt with teacher strategies in maintaining classroom interaction during the teaching and learning process.
Second, Dk1-initiated patterns and Ds1-initiated patterns appeared as the dominant patterns. It actually confirms the statement proposed by Suherdi (2018) that the dominance of Dk1-initiated exchanges in the teaching and learning process in which the teacher as the primary knower are predictable. Viewing the dominance patterns in the corpus, it is safe to say that the activities conducted by the teacher focused on checking students’ understanding about the text and developing students’ skill, particularly students’ reading skill and speaking skill. Given this, by using classroom discourse analysis, it can be an alternative way especially for researcher to examine student-teacher interaction during the learning process in order to obtain detail data that can be used to investigate students’ engagement during the lessons. In this study, the effectiveness of scientific approach in English as foreign language is clearly evident in the data.
REFERENCES
Adaba H.W. (2017) Exploring the Practice of Teacher-Student Classroom Interaction in EFL to Develop the Learners’ Speaking Skills in Tullu Sangota Primary School Grade Eight Students in Focus. Arts and Social Sciences Journal, 8(4), 2-18. doi:
10.4172/2151-6200.1000295
Alwasilah, A. C. (2011) Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Jakarta: Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Amin, A. R. (2015). Patterns of teacher-students’ interaction: a case study of classroom interaction in eleventh grade of senior high school in cimahi.
Journal of English and Education 2015, 3(1), 14-29.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education Company.
Cahyono, B. Y. & Widiati, U. (2006). The teaching of efl reading in the Indonesian context: the state of the art. TEFLIN Journal, 17 (1), 36-58.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15639/teflinjournal.v17i1/37-60
Celce-Murcia, M & Olshtain, E. (2007). Discourse and context in language teaching: a guide for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Christie. F. (2002). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional Perspective. London:
Continuum.
Cresswell, J. W. (2003). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approches. USA: Sage Publication.
Flanders, N. (1970). Analysis teacher behaviour. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Grimes, D. A. and Schulz, K. F. (2002) Descriptive Studies: what they can and cannot do.
Lancet vol.359, retrieved from: pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/pnacp947.pdf.
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan (2014). Dokumen Kurikulum 2013. Retrieved from: muna.staff.stainsalatiga.ac.id.
Liu Y & Hong H (2009) Regulative discourse in Singapore primary English classrooms:
teachers’ choices of directives. Language and Education 23(1): 1–
13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500780802152812
Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects Human Semiosis. In Benson, James D., and Greaves, William S. (eds). 1985. Systemic Perspectives on Discourse, Volume 1. New Jersey: Alex Publishing Corporation.
McCarthy, M. (2008). Discourse analysis for language teachers. New York: Cambridge university Press.
Miles, M. B. and Huberman, A. M. (1985). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Source of New Methods. England: Sage Publications.
Minasyan, S. (2017). Gendered Patterns in Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Classroom: The Greek Context. Journal of Language and Education, 3(3), 89-98.
doi:10.17323/2411-7390-2017-3-3-89-98.
Ong, J. (2017). A Case Study of Classroom Discourse Analysis of Teacher’s Fronted Reading Comprehension Lessons for Vocabulary Learning Opportunities. RELC Journal, 003368821773013. doi:10.1177/0033688217730138
Paltridge, B. (2006). Discourse analysis: an introduction. London: Contonuum.
Rashidi, N. & Rafieerad, M. (2010) Analyzing Patterns of Classroom Interaction in EFL Classrooms in Iran. The Journal of AsiaTEFL, 7 (3), 93-120.
Rido, A., Ibrahim, N & Nambiar, R. M. K (2013) Investigating EFL master teacher’s classroom interaction strategies: A case study in Indonesian Secondary Vocational School. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 118, 420 – 424.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.057
Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Safriyani, R. (2017). Classroom Interaction in English Reading Class. Proceedings of the International Conference on English Language Teaching (ICONELT 2017).
Atlantis Press 145, 291-295. https://doi.org/10.2991/iconelt-17.2018.60
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on Research Methods Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? A journal. Research in Nursing & Health,23, 334-340.
Retrieved from: www.wou.edu.
Shi, D. (2013). Teacher-student interaction in novel and poetry classrooms in the Hong Kong tertiary setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 1975–1982.
Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards and analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Sofyan, R.R. & Mahmud, M. (2014). Teacher talk in classroom interaction: A study at an english department in indonesia. ELT Worldwide, 1 (1), 45-58.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.26858/eltww.v1i1.841
Suherdi, D. (2009). Mikroskop pedagogic: Alat analisis proses belajar mengajar.
Bandung: Celtic Press.
Suherdi, D. (2010). Classroom discourse analysis: “A Systemiotic Approach” (Revised Edition). Bandung: Celtics Press.
Suherdi, D. (2018). SMSLEFA: An alternative synergistic multilayered analysis of students‘ learning engagement in EFL context. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(1), 11-20. doi: 10.17509/ijal.v8i1.1145
Ventola, E. (1987). The structure of social interaction. London: Frances Pinter.
Yan, C. (2012). A Study of EFL Classroom Discourse from the Perspectives of both DA and CA. A journal of Higher Education of Social Science, 2 (1), 17-23.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/j.hess.1927024020120301.Z0515
Yu, R. (2008). Interaction in EFL classes. Asian Social Science Journal, 4 (4). retrieved from:https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c1da/426f946e0d36b0d113f297c2f6318b9 59bb8.pdf.