artikel oleh dodi mulyadi, s.pd, mdigilib.unimus.ac.id/./files/disk1/128/jtptunimus-gdl...1 teacher...

1

TEACHER TALK MODES IN ENGLISH AS A FOREIGN LANGUAGE CLASSROOM INTERACTION

(The Case at the English Department of Semarang Muhammadiyah University)

Artikel

oleh

Dodi Mulyadi, S.Pd, M.Pd

PENDIDIKAN BAHASA INGGRIS

FAKULTAS KEGURUAN DAN ILMU PENDIDIKAN

UNIVERSITAS MUHAMMADIYAH SEMARANG

2011

Http://digilib.unimus.ac.id

2

Teacher Talk Modes in English as a Foreign Language Classroom Interaction (The Case at the English Department of Semarang

Muhammadiyah University)

Cara Berbicara Guru/Dosen yang dilakukan dalam Bahasa Inggris sebagai Interaksi Kelas Bahasa Asing (Penelitan pada Kelas Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris di

Universitas Muhammadiyah Semarang)

Dodi Mulyadi, 2011

Abstrak

Pola komunikasi yang ditemukan di kelas bahasa memang istimewa, berbeda dari yang ditemukan pada mata pelajaran berbasis konten. Peneliti menemukan bahwa penelitian sebelumnya yang berkaitan dengan penggunaan Kerangka Penelitian dengan menggunakan kerangka Sett (Evaluasi Diri Talk Guru) diusulkan oleh Walsh (2006), yang dirancang untuk membantu dosen baik menggambarkan interaksi kelas pelajaran mereka dan menumbuhkan pemahaman proses interaksi. Penletian Ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui 1) jenis-jenis classroom mode yang diimplementasikan oleh dosen bahasa Inggris di dalam kelas, 2) jenis classroom mode yang dominan yang digunakan dalam kelas, dan 3) realisasi dari teacher talk mode yang berkaitan dengan pencapaian tujuan pedagogis. Metode yang diterapkan dalam menyajikan temuan adalah pendekatan kualitatif deskriptif. Dari hasil penelitian ini menemukan empat jenis classroom mode yang diterapkan oleh dosen bahasa Inggris. Diantaranya, materials mode, skills and systems, managerial modes, dan classroom contexts. Keempat jenis classroom modes tersebut mempunyai tujuan masing-masing. Pedagogical mode: untuk menyampaikan informasi, mengatur lingkungan belajar, memperkenalkan atau menyimpulkan kegiatan, berubah dari satu modus pembelajaran yang lain. Material mode: untuk memberikan latihan bahasa, memacu tanggapan dalam kaitannya dengan bahan pembelajaran, untuk menilai siswa dengan memeriksa dan menampilkan jawaban, mengklarifikasi, dan mengevaluasi kontribusinya. Skill dan system mode: untuk memungkinkan peserta didik memberikan bentuk bahasa yang benar, memanipulasi bahasa, memberikan umpan balik yang benar dan memberikan siswa latihan-latihan. Classroom context mode: untuk memungkinkan peserta didik untuk mengekspresikan diri dengan jelas, menetapkan konteks, dan kefasihan lisan dalam berkomunikasi.


3

Kata Kunci : Teacher Talk, Classroom Interaction, dan Classroom Modes

INTRODUCTION

The ‘language of the classroom’ has become so a prominent topic of

academic interest that it is difficult to remember how recent that interest is. For a

surprisingly long time, the questions which classroom researchers were most

inclined to ask were about the outcomes of teaching. They rarely enquired into the

complex interactions through which knowledge is transmitted, displayed, impeded

or avoided. When they did so, they even more rarely recorded ‘live’ the verbal

encounters which constitute such a large part of classroom interaction. To get the

best classroom interaction the teacher should have variety of approaches and

techniques. They need to consider the age of the students, their scholastic

backgrounds, their cultures, and their objectives in learning the language.

Furthermore, each teacher has a personality to express. Lecturers are individuals who

teach and interact more effectively when they do it according to their creation.

In the process of teaching English, teacher plays various pivotal roles.

Harmer (2007: 25) states that the roles teacher performs includes: (1) controller to

pupils, especially in grammar exercises and presentation/ explanation, (2)

prompter/motivator who encourages pupils, pushes them to achieve more, feeds in a

bit of information or language to help them proceed, (3) assessor who tells the

pupils how well they have done or gives them grades, etc., (4) resource whom

pupils consult for difficult language items, etc. Therefore, when the teacher is able

to master the roles, the students get success in learning process.

Eggins (1994: 3) states that people use language to communicate or interact

with others by looking at real examples of language in use. It means that to be able to

communicate or negotiate meanings, one should actively engage in the

communication event or interaction in naturally social context. The interaction is done when the information flows from the sources to its

destination. In this sense, Taylor (1987: 49) comments: "real communication is

shared activity which requires the active involvement of its participants who must


4

exercise what we call communicating initiative". It means that the participants in

the interaction should get involved actively in the process. Relating to the acquisition

of the second language, the language learners should not only actively participate in

the interaction but also use ways in which communication leads to acquisition

(Ellis, 1994).

The students still have some troubles in expressing themselves. It is

indicated by their lack of vocabulary, poor communication, and limited grammar. The

main interest in classroom interaction analysis is to encourage lecturers to make

better use of their language and communication skills. The interactive choices made

by lecturers have a strong impact on the type of learning which takes place. In other

words, pedagogy and interaction come together through talk: pedagogic goals are

manifested in the talk- in- interaction. The term mode encompasses the

interrelatedness of language use and teaching purpose. During the process of

teaching and learning, the lecturers are supposed to use English as a medium in

transferring the knowledge to the students.

Meanwhile, in the process of teaching that happened at Universitas

Muhammadiyah Semarang (UNIMUS) English is taught as a Foreign Language.

Many problems appeared in the teaching learning process faced both by students

and lecturers, especially in creating communicative and interactional teaching

process. This is understandable because the teaching learning process at UNIMUS

mostly uses English as a medium of transferring those subjects. In some

considerations, there are significant problems for both students and lecturers

concerning the mastery of English related to the interaction in which lecturers’ talk

play an important role.

This writing presents new understanding of classroom modes in line with

the teacher talk of classroom interaction that discussess the description and

characterization of classroom interaction by using the framework of SETT (Self-

Evaluation of Teacher Talk), designed to help lecturers both describe the classroom

interaction of their lessons and foster an understanding of interactional processes.

Walsh (2006) states that the position adopted is that the single, L2 classroom


5

context does not exist; contexts are locally constructed by participants through and

in their interaction in the light of overall institutional goals and immediate

pedagogic objectives. Students learn not only through 'comprehensible input' but

also their own output. Some lessons may be good if they are carefully structured in

such a way that students do a good deal of the talking and at the same time get a lot

of feedback, both formally and informally, from the teacher about their

performance.

The researcher’s reasons for choosing the topic are:

a. Teacher talk has a pivotal function for students' language development. To

learn new things, students need guidance, help or assistance from more

knowledgeable persons, in this case, lecturers. Language, especially spoken

language, is the most important means in learning process. It is through

language that lecturers can verbalize the process of teaching and learning.

b. Many researchers have tried to analyze the teacher talk related to strategy,

question, turn-taking etc. using various devices of analysis in years before

2000s. For example, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

(Flanders: 1970) and Foreign Language INTeraction (FLINT) (Markowitz:

1971). Therefore, in this paper the researcher tries to carry out the SETT (Self-

Evaluation of Teacher Talk) proposed by Walsh (2006) which describes both

the classroom interaction of lessons and foster an understanding of interactional

processes for helping lecturers in improving the quality of teaching.

Research Questions

The problems that will be answered in this writing can be stated as follows:

a. What types of teacher talk modes do the teachers perform in the classroom?

b. What types of teacher talk modes are dominantly used in the classroom

interaction?

c. How does the realization of teacher talk modes relate to the achievement of

pedagogical goals?

d. Why does the dominant mode appear in the classroom interaction?

Significance of the Study


6

The results of this study are expected to have the following advantages:

a. Theoretically, the classroom modes of teacher talk can enrich reference in

the area by providing more empirical evidence.

b. Pedagogically, the result of study can be used by English lecturers to choose

the language use in their teaching practice. Hopefully, the results of this

study promote other researchers in this field to improve the education

process by investigating teacher talk in EFL classroom setting.

c. Practically, it can be used as an encouragement for teacher of English in

order to understand the linguistic features of teacher talk and its pedagogical

goals in their classes.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Definitions of Classroom Interaction

There are many scholars with different perspectives on classroom

interaction. According to Allright (1984) cited by Runmei Yu (2008: 49) classroom

interaction is the process whereby classroom language learning is managed. In the

language classroom the process of negotiation involved in interaction is itself to be

identified with the process of language learning. Interaction facilitates not only

language development but also learners’ development. L2 learners acquire linguistic

knowledge and ability through the interaction. In the classroom interaction, both the

teachers and students can create the learning opportunities, which motivate the

students’ interest and potential to communicate with others.

Classroom interaction refers to the patterns of verbal and non-verbal

communication and the types of social relationships which occur within classrooms

(Richards and Platt: 1992). In short, classroom interaction can be a classroom

process in which lecturers and students negotiate during the class time for specific

purposes. This study focuses on teacher-student classroom interaction because it is

one of the common problems of EFL students who tend not to have interaction

within their classroom.

The Importance of Classroom Interaction in EFL Instruction


7

Classroom interaction is an important feature in EFL instruction for several

reasons. Firstly, it provides specific ways for learners to acquire specific language

usages. Secondly, it provides authentic communication opportunities in the

classroom (Allwright, 1984). Thirdly, an interaction results in collaborative

exchanges of thoughts or negotiation of meaning which is essential for language

development (Brown, 2000; Yules and Tarone, 1991 Quoted by Phillipson,

Kellerman, Selinker, Sharwood Smith, and Swain).

An interaction refers to communication between individuals, particularly

when they are negotiating meaning in order to facilitate communication (Ellis,

1999). Classroom interaction contributes two important things to language

development because firstly, it provides target language practice opportunities.

However, it is important not only it provides non-native speakers with an

opportunity to receive input, made comprehensible through negotiation, but also

because this interaction provides non-native speakers with opportunities to modify

their speech for another learner so that the output is more comprehensible (Long

1983a; Varonis and Gass, 1985).

In short, classroom interaction can help monitor students by interacting with

their teacher and communicating their immediate problems through interaction with

their lecturers or their peers. Interaction in the class time is important because

students can take these opportunities to develop their language ability. Moreover,

students have opportunities to speak as the real life situation in classroom setting

and they can exchange their ideas and negotiate their meaning of speech.

Teacher Talk

Talk has some meanings, they are: a conversation or discussion, a talking

without action, a lecture or speech, formal discussions or negotiations and a way of

speaking (Hornby, 1995: 1220). In the classroom, lecturers make adjustments to

both language form and language function in order to help communication in the

classroom. These adjustments are called ‘teacher talk’

(www.finchpark.com/courses/glossary.htm). Yanfen & Yuqin (2010: 76) states that

Teacher talk is an indispensable part of foreign language teaching in organizing


8

activities, and the way teachers talk not only determines how well they make

their lectures, but also guarantees how well students will learn. The success of

teaching depends to a large extent on the way teachers talk and interactions that

occur between teachers and students. And the happening of interaction is affected

directly by ways of teacher talk. From those meanings, it can be nown that teacher

talk is a major way used by the teacher to convey information, have discussion and

negotiations and motivate his students, so he can give the students knowledge and

control their behavior.

It has been said before that teacher and learner talk are the factors that

establish classroom interaction. Both of them must be in balance. Too much teacher

talk make the students passive and static; they cannot improve their English

acquisition. It be also bad if the teacher has too little talk, the students not get

enough knowledge from him. But it is wrong to judge or assess teacher talk only by

reference to its quantity. It is just as important to assess its quality.

Teacher talk means that lecturers address classroom language learners

differently from the way that they address other kinds of classroom learners

according to Ellis (1994). They make adjustments to both language form and

language function in order to facilitate communication. These adjustments are

referred to as “teacher talk”. Teacher talk is very important for both classroom

teaching organization and students’ language learning in the process of foreign

language learning and second language acquisition, because teacher talk is an

instrument of implementing teaching plan.

Teacher's linguistic input or teacher talk, perhaps the most significant feature

of a teacher, is another issue that has been discussed widely. In the language

classrooms, its functions ranging from classroom management to input in the

process of language acquisition cannot be stressed highly (Wang, 2001). According

to Krashcn's input hypothesis, teacher talk tor the learner is generally recognized as

a potentially valuable source of comprehensible input which is viewed as an

essential part for language acquisition (Cullen, 1998;Wcsche, 1994). Based on the

research on "Limit in English Proficiency" (LEP) education, Wong-Fillmore (1985)


9

pointed that there are six characteristics in teacher talk function as input: emphasis

on communication and comprehension, grammaticality and appropriateness of the

language used in lessons, repeated use of patterns and routines, repetitiveness,

tailoring of student participation, and richness of language. Moreover, a number of

studies have shown that many linguistic input strategies or speech modifications

implemented by lecturers were found in the language classrooms facilitating pupil's

comprehension (Chaudron, 19S5, 1988). Although Long (1985, 1996, cited in

Brown 2000) and Swain (1995, cited in Brown, 2000) proposed interaction

hypothesis and comprehensible output hypothesis respectively to emphasize that

input alone is not enough, input is still an indispensable element in the language

classroom.

Self - Evaluation of Teacher Talk (SETT)

SETT (Self- Evaluation of Teacher Talk) is designed to help lecturers both

describe the classroom interaction of their lessons and foster an understanding of

interactional processes (Walsh, 2006: 62). SETT framework that has been

constructed around three key strands: (1) the argument that L2 classroom

interaction is socially constituted; (2) the proposal that an understanding of

classroom interaction must take account of both pedagogic goals and the language

used to achieve them; (3) the suggestion that any lesson is made up of a series of

locally negotiated microcontexts.

L2 classroom context does not exist; contexts are locally constructed by

participants through and in their interaction in the light of overall institutional goals

and immediate pedagogic objectives. The notion of ‘the L2 lesson context’ is too

broad brushed; ‘contexts are locally produced and transformable at any moment’

(Drew and Heritage, 1992: 19). According to Seedhouse (1996: 118) quated by

Walsh (2006) states that Contexts should be seen as the interface between

pedagogy and interaction and thus as the environments through which the

institutional business is accomplished (my emphasis). In other words, pedagogy and

interaction come together through talk: pedagogic goals are manifested in the talk-

in- interaction. Using the term mode encompasses the interrelatedness of language


10

use and teaching purpose. In this book, we define mode as an L2 classroom

microcontext that has a clearly defi ned pedagogic goal and distinctive interactional

features determined largely by a teacher’s use of language. The defi nition is

intended to portray the ‘interface’ (Seedhouse, ibid.) between the actions and words,

behaviour and discourse that are the very essence of classroom interaction. It is used

to embrace the idea that interaction and classroom activity are inextricably linked,

and to acknowledge that as the focus of a lesson changes, interaction patterns and

pedagogic goals change too. A modes analysis recognizes that understanding and

meaning are jointly constructed, but that the prime responsibility for their

construction lies with the teacher.

Classroom Modes

Classroom modes comprise managerial mode, material mode, skill and

system mode, and classroom context mode.

2.7.1. Managerial mode

Walsh (2006) points out the pedagogical goals relevant to the managerial

mode. They are as follows:

a. to transmit information related to the management of learningb. to organize the physical conditions for learning to take placec. to refer learners to specific materialsd. to introduce or conclude an activitye. to move to and from alternative forms of learning: lockstep (whole class), pair- and group- work, or individual.

The interactional features that characterize managerial mode are:

a. a single, extended teacher turn, frequently in the form of an explanation or instructionb. the use of transitional markers (all right, now, look, OK, etc.) to focus attention or indicate the beginning or end of a lesson stage


11

c. confirmation checks (Is that clear? Do you understand? Have you got that? Does everyone know what to do?)d. the absence of learner contributions.

Managerial mode occurs most often at the beginning of lessons, as

illustrated in extracts 2.1 and 2.2 below, characterized in the fi rst instance by an

extended teacher turn of more than one clause and a complete absence of learner

turns. In each extract, the focus is on the ‘institutional business’ of the moment, the

core activity, what Jarvis and Robinson (1997) cited by Walsh (2006: 68) call the ‘focus’

in a three- part exchange structure (focus, build, summarize). Note too the

considerable amount of repetition in Extract 2.1 and the ‘handing over’ to the learners

which occurs at the end of each sequence. At this point, there is a movement to

another mode: in Extract 2.1, for example, the pedagogic focus is realigned away

from directing learning (managerial mode) to analysing errors (skills and systems

mode).

Extract 2.1

1 Teacher Ok we’re going to look today at ways to improve your writing and atways which can be more effective for you and if you look at the writing which I gave you back you see that I’ve marked any little mistakes and eh I’ve also marked places where I think the writing is good and I haven’t corrected your mistakes because the best way in writing is for you to correct your mistakes so what I have done I have put little circles and inside the circles there is something which tells you what kind of mistake it is so Miguel would you like to tell me one of the mistakes that you made (3)

Extract 2.21 Teacher now could you turn to page … 59 page 59 at the top of the book

` (students find place in book)

When managerial mode occurs at the beginning of a lesson, the teacher’s main

concern is to ‘locate’ the learning temporally and pedagogically (Extract 2.1), or

spatially (Extract 2.2). Once learning has been located, learners are invited to

participate: so Miguel, would you like to tell me one of the mistakes that you made. Locating


12

learning is an important first step in building a main context; consequently, in many

respects, managerial mode functions as a support to the other three modes. We can

say that it is an ‘enabling’ mode.

Material mode

In this mode, pedagogic goals and language use centre on the materials

being used. From the corpus, the principal pedagogic goals identified are:

a. to provide language practice around a specific piece of materialb. to elicit learner responses in relation to the materialc. to check and display answersd. to clarify as and when necessarye. to evaluate learner contributionsf. to extend learner contributions.

The principal interactional features of this mode are:

a. the IRF sequence typically predominates and is closely managed by the teacher

b. display questions are used to check understanding and elicit responsesc. teacher feedback is form- focused, attending to ‘correctness’ rather than

contentd. repair is used to correct errors and give further examplese. the teacher may scaffold learner contributionsf. learners may be afforded more or less interactional space according to the

type of activity. (Walsh, 2006: 70)In materials mode, then, patterns of interaction evolve from the material that

largely determines who may speak, when and what they may say; the interaction may

or may not be managed exclusively by the teacher. Though learners have varying

degrees of interactional space, depending on the nature of the activity, their

contributions are still bounded by the constraints imposed by the task in hand.

Skill and system mode

In skills and systems mode, pedagogic goals are closely related to providing

language practice in relation to a particular language system phonology, grammar,


13

vocabulary, discourse) or language skill (reading, listening, writing, and speaking).

Teaching objectives may also relate to the development of specific learner

strategies.

The key pedagogic goals are:

a. to enable learners to produce strings of correct utterancesb. to enable learners to manipulate the target languagec. to provide corrective feedbackd. to provide learners with practice in essential sub- skills (e.g. skimming,

listening for gist)e. to display correct answers.

The principal interactional features associated with skills and systems mode are:

a. the use of direct repairb. the use of scaffoldingc. extended teacher turnsd. display questions used for eliciting target languagee. teacher echo used to display responsesf. clarification requestsg. Form- focused feedback.

The type of teacher- initiated practice witnessed in Extract 2.4 is typical of

skills and systems mode. Unlike materials mode, where language practice evolves

around a piece of material, in skills and systems mode, it evolves from teacher

prompts and is managed by the teacher. Indeed, learner contributions typically go

through the teacher for evaluation, confi rmation or repair.

Classroom context mode

The principal pedagogic goals in this mode can be summarized as follows:

a. to enable learners to talk about feelings, emotions, experience, attitudes, b. reactions, personal relationshipsc. to establish a contextd. to activate mental schemata (McCarthy, 1992)

e. to promote oral fluency practice.


14

In one of the micro contexts identified by Seedhouse (1996: 125), the

teacher’s aim is ‘to maximize opportunities for interaction presented by the

classroom itself’. In classroom context mode in an EFL setting, the interaction is

initiated and sustained from the interactional opportunities that emerge from the

complex and diverse range of experiences and cultural backgrounds that the

learners themselves bring to the classroom.

In light of the pedagogic goals listed, the principal interactional features that

can be identified in this mode are:

a. extended learner turns; the speech exchange system is frequently managed by learners themselves with little or no teacher involvement

b. relatively short teacher turnsc. direct repair; repair is only used to ‘fi x’ a breakdown in the interactiond. content feedback, focusing on message not forme. extended use of referential questions, rather than display questionsf. scaffolding may be used to help learners express their ideasg. requests for clarification and confirmation checks.

In classroom context mode, the management of turns and topics is determined

by the local context, ‘the communication potential of the L2 classroom itself, and the

authentic resources for interaction it has to offer’ (van Lier, 1988a: 30) cited by Walsh

(2006: 79). Opportunities for genuine communication are frequent and the teacher plays

a less prominent role, taking more of a ‘back seat’ and allowing learners all the

interactional space they need. The principal role of the teacher is to listen and support

the interaction, which frequently takes on the appearance of a naturally occurring

conversation.

The predominant interactional feature of Extract 2.5 is the local

management of the speech exchange system; learners have considerable freedom as

to what to say and when. This process of ‘topicalisation’ (Slimani, 1989, 1992), where

learners select and develop a topic, is signifi cant in maximizing learning potential since

‘whatever is topicalised by the learners rather than the teacher has a better chance of

being claimed to have been learnt’ (Ellis, 1998: 159). In Extract 4.11, the academic

task structure and social participation structure (Johnson, 1995) are clearly more


15

relaxed and opportunities for learning are increased. In the data, however, it is not

uncommon for teachers to retain control of the interaction, ‘interrupting the fl ow of

the discourse’ (van Lier, 1988b: 275) and preventing interlanguage development.

Relinquishing control of turn- taking and topic choice are fundamental interactional

strategies in classroom context mode, which are essential to successful learning.

Learners need to become more proactive and less reactive (van Lier, 1988a: 279),

taking control of both topic and turn- taking. In the words of Ellis (1998: 154): ‘when

students are in control of the topic, the quality of the discourse is markedly richer than

when the teacher is in control.’

The Approach

The goal of the study is to get a clear description of the evaluation of teacher

talk used by a teacher which constitutes the teaching-learning process in an English

classroom. Since the speech strategy is a process which involves human behavior in

its natural setting, the researcher decides to make use of the descriptive qualitative

approach to the study. As Nunan (1992:4) suggests, qualitative method concerns

with the understanding of human behavior from the actor’s own frame of reference,

exploratory, descriptive and process-oriented.

Research Design

A descriptive qualitative approach was employed in this study which tries

to describe all phenomena that occurred in the classroom. McKay (2006: 6) points

out that qualitative research typically starts with the assumption that classroom

learning must be studied holistically, taking into account a variety of factors in a

specific classroom.

The present study presents qualitatively the new understanding of

classroom modes in line with the teacher talk of classroom interaction that discusses

the description and characterization of classroom interaction by using the

framework of SETT (Self- Evaluation of Teacher Talk) proposed by Walsh (2006),

designed to help lecturers both describe the classroom interaction of their lessons

and foster an understanding of interactional processes.


16

He states that the position adopted is that the single, L2 classroom context

does not exist; contexts are locally constructed by participants through and in their

interaction in the light of overall institutional goals and immediate pedagogic

objectives. Students learn not only through 'comprehensible input' but also their

own output. Some lessons may be good if they are carefully structured in such a

way that students do a good deal of the talking and at the same time get a lot of

feedback, both formally and informally, from the teacher about their performance

(2006: 62). The subject of the study was an English teacher in an English

department classroom at UNIMUS (Universitas Muhammadiyah Semarang) /

Semarang Muhammadiyah University.

Technique of Data Collection

Data for the present study are in the forms of teacher talk related to

classroom modes in line with the teacher talk of classroom interaction. To collect

such data, the researcher used recording technique. The video recording was meant

to catch or record real and more complete language used by teacher and students to

describe the teacher talk modes.

The researcher used classroom observation method to collect the data. The

observation was conducted by recording the classroom activities. The researcher

became an observer and a technician recording the data in the classroom during

teaching learning process so that the data were not biased. We recorded teaching

learning process from opening until closing activities. During the recording, we

were not allowed to make conversation in the classroom.

Instruments

The process of English teaching learning in the classroom interaction was

analyzed based on the teacher talk that happened. The researcher used audio visual

recording as the main instrument for data collection.

Audio visual recording, here, was used to record the classroom atmosphere

and instruction. After recording the data is transferred into computer. The researcher

played the computer to find out the types of teacher talk dealing with classroom


17

modes that the lecturers perform in the classroom, the types of classroom modes

which are dominantly used in the classroom interaction, and explain how the

realization of classroom modes relate to achievement of pedagogical goals.

Therefore, having a look at the purpose of this study, it is decided to use

SETT proposed by Steve Walsh (2006: 66 – 67) as the instrument to gather and

analyzed the data since this is a standardized check list type instrument through

audio recording.

Techniques of Data Analysis

a. The spoken interaction between teacher and students recorded by using an

audio visual recorder was first transcribed into written form. This study focused

on the teacher talk modes that is analyzed in details from the interactional

features and pedagogical goals. The researcher invited the lecturer as the

subject of research to conduct analysis of her teaching observed.

b. Using the SETT instrument to keep a tally of the different features of the

teacher talk. The researcher wrote examples of the features he identified. The

SETT instrument is as follows:

Findings

Throughout section 4.1, the researcher presents four types of classroom

modes performed by the teacher at English Education Department of

Muhammadiyah University of Semarang (UNIMUS). The four modes are

managerial modes, materials mode, skills and systems modes, and classroom

context modes.

The types of classroom modes teacher performed in the classroom.

On the first place, the researcher would like to present classroom modes

relating to managerial modes encountered during teaching learning process based on

the Appendix 3.

Table 4.1

Managerial Modes

No Interactional Features Frequency Percentage1. Confirmation Checks 10 41.7 %


18

2.3.

4.

Transitional markerA single, extended teacher turn, frequently in the form of an explanation or instructionAn absences of learner contribution

85

1

33.3 %20.8 %

4.2 %

Total 24 100 %

The above table demonstrates that there were 15 times of teacher talk

dealing with managerial modes was performed by the teacher. There were 10 (41.7

%) appeared on confirmation checks, followed by transitional marker of 8 (33.3%).

The evidence also reported that there were 5 (20.8 %) of the managerial modes

occurred on extended teacher turn frequently in the form of an explanation or

instruction and 1 (4.2%) appeared on the absences of learner contribution.

Table 4.2

Material Modes

No Interactional Features Frequency Percentage1.2.3.4.5.

Extensive use of display questionsCorrective repair Predominance of IRF pattern The use of scaffoldingForm-focused feedback

118754

31.4 %22.9 %20 %

14.3 %11.4 %

Total 35 100 %

Data reported on the above table that there were 35 times from five

interactional features related to materials modes appearing in the classroom

interaction. There were 11 (31.4 %) appeared on Extensive use of display questions,

followed by corrective repair 8 (22.9 %). The evidence also reported that there were

7 (20 %) of the materials modes occurred on Predominance of IRF pattern and 5

(10.3 %) and 4 (11.4 %) are for a sing the use of scaffolding and form focused

feedback.

Table 4.3

Skill and system Modes


19

No Interactional Features Frequency Percentage1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

Display questionsTeacher EchoForm Focused feedback Clarification RequestThe use of direct repairThe use of scaffolding Extended teacher turn

9542520

33.3 %18.5 %14.8 %7.4 %18.5 %7.4 %0 %

Total 27 100 %

From the table above, it can be seen that display questions were the most

frequent appeared among seven interactional features related to skills and systems

mode. It appeared 9 (37.5 %) times. Teacher Echo happened 5 times with the

percentage of 18.5 %. Clarification request, the use of scaffolding and the use of

direct repair happened 4 times (8.3 %) for each. In contrast, extended teacher turn

and form focused feedback did not occur in the classroom interaction.

Table 4.4

Classroom Context Modes

No Interactional Features Frequency Percentage 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.

Extended learner turnsClarification requests Content feedbackReferential questionScaffolding Short teacher turnsMinimal repair

6110000

75 %12.5 %12.5 %

0 %0 %0 %0 %

Total 8 100 %

The data reported on table 4.4 shows that there were 10 times from seven

interactional features related to classroom context modes appearing in the classroom

interaction. There were 6 (75 %) appeared on Extended learner turns, followed by

clarification requests and content feedback has the same frequency 1 (11.1 %).

Otherwise, there was no any classroom context modes related to referential question,

scaffolding, short teacher turns and minimal repair.

The types of classroom modes are dominantly used in the classroom interaction.


20

Types of classroom modes performed dominantly by the teacher at English

Education Department of Muhammadiyah University of Semarang (UNIMUS) can

be seen on the table below.

Table 4.5

Classroom Modes of teacher talk at UNIMUS

No Modes Frequency Percentage 1. Material 35 37.6 %2. Skill and system 24 25.8 %3. Managerial 24 25.8 %4. Classroom Context 8 10.8 %

Total 93 100 %

In the table 4.5 declares that of 93 times of interactional features used by

teacher in teaching speaking, materials has the most dominant mode occurred in

the classroom interaction than managerial and classroom context. The data

demonstrates that for materials mode are 35 times (37.6 %) happened during

teaching and learning process. Meanwhile, skills and systems and managerial

appeared 24 times or 25.8 % and the rest 10 times (10.8 %) fell as classroom

context.

Discussion and Interpretation

Based on the findings, the researcher found the four types of classroom

modes occurred in the process of teaching learning process in English education

department at UNIMUS. They were managerial modes, materials modes, skills and

systems, and classroom context. These classroom modes will be discussed bellow.

The researcher found three types of interactional features during the process of

teaching and learning. They are a single extended teacher turns frequently in the

form of an explanation or instruction, the use of confirmation checks, and the

transition markers.

The interactional features dealing with a single, extended teacher turn,

frequently in the form of an explanation or instruction, extended of managerial

modes used by the teacher. This implies that the teacher wanted to enhance the

content of materials to students. Based on findings, there were 5 (20.8 %) of the


21

managerial modes occurred on extended teacher turn frequently in the form of an

explanation or instruction.

Walsh states that managerial mode often occurred in the beginning of the

lessons (2006: 68). However, the finding runs counter to what has been stated by

him. The example of dialogue occurred at the last of the lessons as seen in sentence

173 bellow (Extract 4.1):

Extract 4.1

173). T : = that is the last sentence, I hope this will give you spirit to read the

resources, and I will give you warming that the book that is not read so

judulnyapun akan lupa. Thank your smile, your words, your manner,

Thank you see you, Assalamualaikum wr.wb.

The teacher used this managerial mode characterized by a single, extended

teacher turn which uses explanations as interactional feature of Classroom mode.

Pedagogically, it is useful to transmit information and conclude an activity in the end

of learning process.

Meanwhile, when managerial mode occurred in the link of learning process

characterized by the sentence 81, 86, 91, and 149 such as “… pay attention… “the

lecturer’s aim is to refer the learners to material discussed in the class. These extracts

(extract 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, and 4.5) still was indicated by the interactional feature ‘a

single, extended teacher turn which uses explanations’ in which the teacher still use

the long explanation to manage classroom.

Extract 4.281). T : OK guys, any differences between Hikmah and Hasrian? just pay

attention, Husnul?82). L14 : the professor who teaches chemistry 101 is very good=

Extract 4.386). T : = yes good, if you want to say teach and teaches, so they are totally

different in pronouncing them. the first one is " teach " and the second one is teaches"=

Extract 4.4


22

91). T : please everyone pay attention to the question, then answer it, don’t forget help her or commend if you have the different answer and disagree with Ari,

Extract 4.5149). T2 : please pay attention to her, I want you to make a sentence using that

relative pronoun based on this your friend!

The interactional features dealing with the use of confirmation checks could

be indicated by short phrases or sentences such as in underlined sentences no 111 in

extract 4.6, 32 in extract 4.9 and 44 in extract 4.10. This interaction pedagogically

means that the teacher intended to confirm and know students understanding about

material conveyed in the class. This lends strong support to Trisanti’s (2004) that in

the teaching and learning English, the use confirmation checks is very important due

to know the learners’ understanding and achievement.

Extract 4.6111). T : who is interesting, the people or party?112). LL ; the people!

Extract 4.932). T : who stand or who stands? =33). L1 : =who stands miss=

Extract 4.1043). T ; then, it means, you have used relative pronoun or not?44). L7 : yes, I have =

The transition markers all right, okay, so signal the end of one part of the

lesson and alert learners to the fact that the lesson has moved on, were 6 (40%)

appeared on transitional marker,that pedagogic goals have been realigned with a shift

in focus to a new activity. Breen (1998) in Walsh (2006: 69) states that discourse

markers are essential for learners to follow the unravelling interaction and ‘navigate

their way’ through the classroom discourse. The following extracts are among the

examples:

Extract 4.13

147). T2 : Alright, Diah Maulina, can you please stand up in the middle of the

circle? you look so beautiful


23

148). LL : (students give applause) (the students who is ordered to stands

come forward)

Extract 4.14

4). T : ok, now we are going to start, well do you know relative pronoun?

Extract 4.15

113). T : = then, the second clause?

114). LL : I met the people at the party last night =

Extract 4.17

141). T : = Ok very good. now please help me, Dewi Rizky the first clause

and second clause

142). L20 : the bicycle was stolen and second, the man was very angry =

Extract 4.18

115). T : so the first clause is?

116). T : ok. if we translate into Bahasa Indonesia, so what is that?

117). L12 : orang-orang yang saya temui di parti

Material Modes

Based on the findings, there are five interactional features related to the

material modes. They are corrective repair, extensive of display question, display

question, form focus feedback, and the use of scaffolding.

In extract 4.22, pedagogically, the teacher gave correction to students’

contribution and evaluated it. It is relevant to the interactional features (corrective

repair) of materials mode, for example in teacher talk (86) and (89) in extract 4.22.

She corrected pronunciation practice of one student in order that other students could

follow to produce the correct one. This evidence imply that the more the teacher

uses the corrective repair, the more the students get improving their speaking skills

and have high motivation to learn the materials, particularly English. Huang (2009)

asserted that one of various factors may affect the quality of students’ learning is the

frequency of corrective repair teachers use during classroom interaction.

Extract 4.22


24

86) T : = yes good, if you want to say teach and teaches, so they are totally

different in pronouncing them. the first one is " teach " and the second one

is teaches"=

89). T : so, Hikmah, the way to pronounce "teaches" is teaches not teaches

Meanwhile, another example of corrective repair occurred in extract 4.23

(103) and extract 4.24 (109), the teacher intended to make correction by inviting

some students to check and evaluate their friends ‘contribution. This is relevant to

Walsh’s statement that in materials mode the teacher could elicit learner responses

in relation to the materials to appear corrective repair during the process of teaching

and learning. This finding means that corrective repair is an instrument of language

assessment in EFL classroom.

Extract 4.23

103). T : Hikmah, please help Solihatun to answer what the first clause is ?

104). L12 : the people at the party last night were interesting=

Extract 4.24

109). T : Ana please help Hikmah?

110). L17 : orang yang saya jumpai di pesta malam lalu sangat menarik

The interactional features dealing with extensive use of display question

extended of materials mode used by teacher are useful to elicit learner responses in

relation to the materials. Based on findings, there were 11 (31.4 %) of the materials

mode occurred on it. For instances, the teacher talk encountered in sentence (129) in

extract 4.26, (161) in extract 4.27, and (97) in extract 4.30, (133) in extract 4.31. In

my point of view, the point worth making in this interactional feature means that the

lecturer aimed at inviting students to participate in the classroom interaction. Allright

(1991) stressed that extensive use of display question makes worth to the classroom

atmosphere alive.

Extract 4.26

129). T : Juharto, what Novi said, is that right? Do you agree with her?130). L18 : that is right,

Extract 4.27


25

161). T2 : any comment? No, ok what is first clause?162). LL : (4) the lady sits and holds the camera the lady likes to do sport

Extract 4.31

133). T : Ya.., that sentence is not right yet, please try to correct it? What do you think Nurhamdiyah, if we translate into B. Indonesia?

134). L19 : Laki-laki sangat marah yang sepedanya dicuri

Meanwhile, display questions that existed in extract 4.28 and extract 4.30

especially in numbers (8, 12, 45, and 47), the teacher wanted to dig out students’

understanding and memorization in order to participate in class. Questions such as

‘what is relative pronoun?’, ‘what are the sentences before combining?’, and the

like, are of course a strategy used by the lecturer to evaluate the two aims above.

Nugroho (2010) stated that teachers are expected to offer questions during the EFL

class because it could help students to remember the materials being discussed.

Paying close attention to Nugrohos’ and the finding of this study, the researcher

may argue that displaying questions in EFL class holds key role for the

effectiveness and successfulness of teaching learning process, especially in English

language class.

Extract 4.28

8). T: what is relative pronoun? Novi!

12). T : now if I ask you, from the word "relative" what is the meaning of it?

Extract 4.34

45). T : =yes, you have, now what are the sentences before

combining? the first sentence is ?=

46). LL : =I bought a book at the bookstore=

47). T : what is the relative pronoun?

48). L16 : whom

The findings of materials mode related to form focused feedback shows that

pedagogically the teacher intended to focus on errors related to linguistic forms

produced by the students within the context of a certain communicative learning


26

situation. In this mode, the teacher tried to correct errors encountered by students by

giving comments such: very good guys, good job boy, etc. This findings are relevant

to Long (1991) that focus on form is the overt drawing of students’ attention to

erroneous linguistic elements as they occur incidentally in learning activities in

which the overriding focus is on meaning or communication. As shown in extract

4.35, as the student answered correctly to questions number seven, the teacher

responded by saying’ good job boy’ (99) and ‘ Ok, very good’

Extract 4.3599). T : =good job boy, ok now no 8, Mrs. Solih?100). L3 : (2) the people whom I met at the party last night were interesting

Extract 4.36143). T : = Ok very good. now please help me, Dewi Rizky the first clause

and second clause144). L20 : the bicycle was stolen and second, the man was very angry =

The underlying structure of second language lessons is typically represented

by sequences of discourse ‘moves’ IRF, where I is teacher initiation, R is learner

response and F is an optional evaluation or feedback by the teacher (Sinclair and

Coulthard, 1975). In later versions of the model, F became follow- up. Throughout the

remainder of this book, the model is referred to as the IRF sequence. The evidence

reported that the sentence in’ I need your words’ of extract 4.37, means that the teacher

was trying to initiate the interaction in the classroom. While, the teacher’s sentences in

extract 4.38 and 4.39, she intended to extend student’s contributions during the

teaching and learning process; it was to develop student’s participation. This indicates

that teachers in teaching English as a foreign language should not only focus on the

meaning but also forms, structure or patterns of the language.

Extract 4.37

10). T : I need your words,

11). L3 : =I ever heard but forget=

Extract 4.38

79). T : Nurhikmah said, the professor chemistry who teaches 101 is very good,

any comment? Rita

Extract 4.39


27

73). L1 : No comment=

74). T := ok, Hasrian what is your comment please?=

75). L13 := no comment

Scaffolding holds a very important key in teaching activities especially

English Foreign language. It is aimed at describing the ways in which teacher

provides learners with ‘props’ to assist self–expression. As stated by Walsh

(2006:120) that the use of scaffolding is to provide learners with cognitive support

through dialogue as they engage in tasks that may lie outside their capabilities.

The evidence of this study reported that the scaffolding could be determined

into the form of words, phrase, and clauses. The examples noticeable are found in

extract 4.43(71), 4.44(83), and 4.45 (155). The scaffoldings used by the teacher were

to invite learner’s contribution in which, the learner was enhanced to rework using

language which is more appropriate. It also indicated that the teacher wanted her

student to modeling, where they have to simply restate with appropriate

pronunciation, stress or intonation. the researcher could say that this is as a

conscious strategy rather than passive features of teacher’s talk.

Extract 4.43

71). T : = what about you, Nurhikmah, could you repeat Ihda’s statement

72). L12 : the professor who teach chemistry 101 is very good

Extract 4.44

83). T : =I'm not asking about that, ok anyone of you who knows the

differences between Hasrian's answer and Hikmah's?

84). L14 : (2) in subject perhaps.=

Extract 4.45

155). T2 ": make a sentence using the mbk Solih object? ok you can make it in

Bahasa Indonesia first

156). L 3 : Cewek yang duduk ditengah memegang kamera =

157). T : = wanita yang memegang kamera dan duduk ditengah suka sekali

158). berolah raga, ok make it into English?=

Skill and System Mode


28

According to Walsh (2006:67), display question is a strategy applied by

teacher to ask questions which the teacher knows the answer. Based on the findings,

the researcher found out interactions used by the English teacher of UNIMUS to ask

question even she knows the answer. It was aimed at facilitating the recall of

information rather than to generate theses ideas and classroom communications. The

display questions used by the teacher were as reported in extract 4.47 (137), 4.48

(165) and extract 4.49 (79). In this activity, the students were expected to give short

answers or provide limited opportunities for students to produce and practice in

English. This finding lent strong support to Richards and Lockhart (1994:187) in

Murdoch (1999:9). Murdoch asserted that in English language teaching students

should be more often asked to demonstrate their knowledge of the target language to

produce ‘real’ communication as most of the display questions generated short

responses. The researcher may say that it was an appropriate strategy used by the

teacher because through it, students of learners of English language in UNIMUS

could improve their speaking skills.

Extract 4.47

137). T : SO if the correct sentence is?

138). L19 : the man whose bicycle was stolen was very angry

Extract 4.48

165). T : how if we translate into Bahasa Indonesia?

170). LL : dua laki-laki yang bergandengan tangan di tengah kelas

Extract 4.49

79). T : what is the answer?

80). L13 : the professor who teaches chemistry 101 is very good

Extract 4.50

49). T : the second one is?

50). LL : (3) a book was very expensive =

Theoretically, teacher echo has several functions. They are: amplifying a

learners’ contribution for the rest of the class, confirming correctness, and

acknowledging the relevance of an utterance. The data of this study declared that


29

teacher echo occurred more often during the teaching and learning process,

comparing to other interactional features. The teacher did not only repeat his

previous utterances but also the student’s contribution.

These activities reported in extract 4.54 (25), 4.55 (51), and extract 4.56

(94). In the researcher’s point of view, the teacher echo could assist and facilitate the

students to improve their knowledge and understandings towards the materials being

discussed and developing students’ speaking ability. This finding gave strong

contributions to Walsh (2006:123). He asserted that once teachers become aware of

the function of echo and of the ‘dangers’ of overusing it, it is clear that reduce echo

is regarded as a as an important role to play in facilitating learning opportunities

across all modes. In contrast, this strategy may bring negative effect in the teaching

and learning process. When it was overused by the teacher, it could disrupt the flow

of the discourse and reduce learners’ interactional space.

Extract 4.54

25). T : if I have a sentence, "I see a beautiful girl" what is the translation?

26). LL : = Saya melihat gadis cantik

Extract 4.55

51). T : =just now your friends said, No " the book I bought" but " I bought

the book" no 2, suyanti=

52). L8 : (4) the woman whom I met at the party last night was nice

Extract 4.56

93). L3 : (2) I wrote a thank you note to the people who visited their house

on thanks giving day

94). T : so, I wrote a thank you note to the people whom I visited their

house on thanks giving day, any comment? Solikh?

Another pedagogic goal of skills and system modes is to get learners to

manipulate target forms. The data confirmed that the teacher of UNIMUS applied

form focus feed back to her students when the teaching and learning activities was

going on. When teacher was displaying questions and were correctly answer by her

students, she responding by giving feedback such as: Good job boy, ok, very good,


30

excellent, etc. Of the feedback delivered by the teacher, they are identified in the

extract 4.59 (101), 4.60 (145).

According the researcher, it was a positive manner, because the students

could be highly motivated to have self confidence in expressing their ideas during

the teaching and learning process. As asserted by Allright (1991) in applying this

interaction, lecturers could use cued drills to practice a particular form. The

researcher could also assert that the lecturer prompted her students to produce

accuracy forms. Little attention was paid to meaning and the teacher pedagogic goal

was to prompt, repair, and display correct forms.

Extract 4.59

101). T : =good job boy, ok now no 8, Mrs. Solih?

102). L3 : (2) the people whom I met at the party last night were interesting

Extract 4.60

145). T : = Ok very good. now please help me, Dewi Rizky the first clause

and second clause

146). L20 : the bicycle was stolen and second, the man was very angry =

Another pedagogic skills system mode is Clarification Request. It is

valuable in promoting opportunities for learning, since it ‘compel’ learners to

reformulate their contribution, by rephrasing or paraphrasing which makes

something clear or easier to understand. As reported in the finding, teacher of

English language at UNIMUS also applied this strategy to her students. The

students were given more explanation and additional information to help them

understand the materials delivered more easily. The clarifications requests are

reported in extract 4.61 in sentence no 49.

Extract 4.61

49). T : =remember! “The “refers to the definite noun, so you can say” I bought a book in the bookstore, the book was very expensive. Could you repeat once again?=

It is undeniable that in teaching and learning process, teachers often give

direct repair to the errors or mistakes encountered by their students. It is considered


31

as a useful interactional strategy to involve students’ understanding of the subject

matter. Direct repair that is usually applied by teachers is quick correction. This

strategy, Allright (1991:85) and Walsh (2006:74) has a minimal impact on the

exchange structure.

This pedagogic direct repair was also found in the teaching of English

language at UNIMUS. During the teaching and learning process, she directly

repaired students’ responds as they made errors or mistakes. The strategy was found

in extract 4.62 (89) and 4.63 (77). This finding was in line with the previous study

such as Yu (2008). She stated that the use of direct repair could advocate learners’s

self and cognitive development.

Extract 4.6289). T : so, Hikmah, the way to pronounce "teaches" is teaches not teaches

Extract 4.6377). T ; you don’t need to read "w" just say "who" ok Hasrian, please repeat

up to me, "who"78). L13 : who

Classroom Context Mode

The researcher found linguistics features dealing with classroom context

mode. They are extended learner turns and clarification requests.

In the process of teaching learning, teachers are expected to give more

opportunities to their students to be more active in classroom interaction. According

to Walsh (2006:67), extending learner turns is determined by giving students chance

to speak more than one clause.

The evidences show that the lecturer at English language program of

UNIMUS applied this strategy to assist her students’ participation during the

teaching and learning process. She gave more opportunities to her students to extend

their sentences as seen in extract 4. 67 (57 and 59), and 4.68 (30), 4.69 (41), and 4.70

(27). This strategy was valuable enough for the students to express their ideas but in

fact, of the chances given to them, other students did not say any things; in contrast,

they only laughed. Pedagogically, the more the students talk, the more they


32

understand the materials. Thus, lecturers should try to create the classroom

atmosphere to have student’s interest in such the interaction.

Extract 4.6757). T : = ok, No 3, Prihatmono?58). L6 : (2) the people live next to me and the people are friendly =59). T : = Good, no 4 Silviana?60). L9 : I met a woman whom her husband is famous lawyer =

Extract 4.6830). T : =ok if I say “which one?" for example "yang tengah gimana?=31). L1 : she came forward to write the example in the white board. She

write " I see the beautiful girl who stand in the right side"

Clarification request is also identified as a pedagogic goal in the teaching

of English language. It is not only happed in skills and system modes but also in

classroom context. The findings of the present study reported that during the

teaching learning process, the lecturer of English language at UNIMUS applied this

to her students. The students were given more explanation and additional

information to help them understand the materials delivered more easily. This

interactional feature could be seen in extract 4.73 (36).

Dealing with classroom context modes, in the researcher’s opinion, it is

useful to give more chance to the learners to reformulate their contribution. The

learners’ contribution could be rephrasing or paraphrasing to make something clear

and easier to be understood. This statement was strongly supported by Kamwan’s

(2007). He declared that clarification request could develop students’ understanding

and enrich their knowledge towards English language.

Extract 4.73

36). T : =no, if so, we can use "and" will be like that, ok any else who wants

to clarify what is the function of relative pronoun?=

37). L 6 : =menggabungkan 2 kalimat menjadi satu kalimat atau satu

subject,=

CONCLUSION

The data revealed that every single mode had its typical pedagogical goals.

They were: 1) Managerial. Within this mode, the teacher tried to transmit


33

information to her students, organize the physical learning environment, introduce

or conclude an activity. It was also found that another pedagogical goal of this mode

changed from one mode of learning to another. 2) Materials. Dealing with the

second mode of the classroom interaction, the teacher provided language practice

around a piece of material and elicited responses in relation to the materials. The

investigation also found out that in materials mode, the teacher assessed the

students by checking and displaying answers, clarifying, and evaluating

contributions. 3) Skills and Systems. The researcher found out five pedagogical

goals during the classroom interaction. They were enabling learners to produce

correct forms, manipulating the target language, and providing correct feedback.

Providing learners with practice in sub-skills and displaying correct answers were

also the two other pedagogical goals of the teacher’s talk. And 4) classroom context.

The researcher found out three typical pedagogical goals of classroom modes. They

were enabling learners to express themselves clearly, establishing a context, and

promoting oral fluency.

Based on the findings and discussion, the realization of teacher’s talk

occurred at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the class. The teacher

seems to dominate the discourse. Vice versa, students were less enthusiasm taking

part during the class. Based on the findings, material mode is the dominant one used

by the lecturer during the teaching and learning process. The findings shows the

reasons why the material mode is dominant one appeared in the classroom

interaction. They are 1) the lecturer wanted to give correction to students’

contribution and evaluated it. It is relevant to the interactional features as a

corrective repair of materials mode. She corrected pronunciation practice of one

student in order that other students could follow to produce the correct one. 2) The

interactional features dealing with extensive use of display question extended of

materials mode used by teacher are useful to elicit learner responses in relation to

the materials. the lecturer aimed at inviting students to participate in the classroom

interaction. 3) The scaffoldings used by the teacher were to invite learner’s

contribution in which, the learner was enhanced to rework using language which is


34

more appropriate. It also indicated that the teacher wanted her student to modeling,

where they have to simply restate with appropriate pronunciation, stress or

intonation. the researcher could say that this is as a conscious strategy rather than

passive features of teacher’s talk.

REFERENCE

Allwright, R.L. and Bailey, K. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Lecturers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Al-Otaibi, Sarah Sharea Hithlan. 2004. The Effect Of "Positive Teacher Talk" On Students' performance, Interaction & Attitudes. Riyadh: King Saud University

Altamiro & Rio Preto. 2006. Classroom oral interaction in foreign language lessons and implications for teacher development. Linguagem & Ensino Journal,v.9,n.2,p.33-55,jul./dez. 2006.

Broughton, at al. 2003. Teaching English as a Foreign Language (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge

Brown, H. Douglas. 2000. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (4th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2007. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, Inc.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. 2007. Research Methods in Education (6th ed.). London: Routledge-Falmer

Edwards A.D. and Westgate D.P.G. 1994. Investigating Classroom Talk. Second edition 1994. London and Washington D.C.: The Falmer Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)

Falvey, Margaret. 2000. Classroom Interaction Research and the Foreign Language Classroom. www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=10096931

Harmer, J. 2007. How to Teach English (New ed.) England: Person Education Limited

Hinkel, Eli. 2005. Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New Jersey : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Publishers.

HUANG Chao-heng, ZHENG Qiao-ying. 2009. Analysis of factors affecting Teacher Talk in ELT classroom the success or failure of Foreign Language Teaching in the classroom to a large extent depends on the quantity and quality of Teacher Talk. Oct. 2009, Volume 6, No.10 (Serial No.70) Sino-US English Teaching.USA

Icbay, Mehmet Ali. 2008. The Role Of Classroom Interaction In The Construction Of Classroom Order: A Conversation Analytic Study. Dissertation. The Department Of Educational Sciences middle East Technical University


http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&se=gglsc&d=10096931

35

Inamullah, Hafiz Muhammad. 2008. Teacher-Students Verbal Interaction at The Secondary Level study was to explore teacher-student verbal interaction in the secondary level classes. Pakistan Contemporary Issues In Education Research –First Quarter 2008 Volume 1, Number 1 . Kohat University

Is, Jane. 1981. Spoken Discourse in The E.L.T. Classroom: A System of Analysis. A Description. Birmingham: University of Birmingham

Khamwan, Tanaporn. 2007. The Effects of Interactional Strategy Training on Teacher-Student Interaction in An EFL Classroom. Thesis. Suranaree: Suranaree University of Technology

Kumpulainen, Kristiina and Wray, David. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Social Learning from Theory to Practice (2nd ed.). New York and London: Roultledge Falmer

Lei, Xuelian. 2009. Communicative Teacher Talk in the English Classroom. English Language Teaching Journal. Vol.02, No.1 March 2009. Hangzhou Normal University-China. www.ccesenet.org/journal.html

Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.Doughty and J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom SLA, (pp. 15- 41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

McKay, Sandra. 2008. Researching second language classrooms. New Jersey and London : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers & Taylor & Francis e-Library

Murdoch, Yvette. 1999. Classroom Interaction in a Korean University English Language Class. Journal of MA TEFL / TESL (ODL) Centre for English Language Studies. Birmingham B15 2TT UK: University of Birmingham

Nugroho, Kurniawan Yudhi. 2010. Interaction in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Classrooms. Thesis. Semarang: Semarang State University

Robinson, Heljä Antola. 2005. The Ethnography of Empowerment: The Transformative Power of Classroom Interaction. Washington, D.C. • London: The Falmer Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)

Runmei Yu. 2008. Interaction in EFL Classes. Asian Social Science Journal vol.4, no.4 April 2008. Qingdao University of Science and Technology: www.ccesenet.org/journal.html

Shomoosi, Nematullah. 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Questioning Behavior on EFL Classroom Interaction: A Classroom Research Study. Journal of The Reading Matrix Vol. 4 No. 2, September 2004

Trisanti, Novia. 2004. Interactional Analysis on the Types of Repair in an English Speaking Class. thesis. Semarang: Semarang State University

Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research. Vol. 6 Issue 1, p3-23, 21p

Walsh, Steve. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New York: Routledge

Walsh, Steve. 2006 Talking the talk of the TESOL Classroom. ELT Journal Volume 60/2 .; doi:10.1093/elt/cci100 : Oxford University Press


http://www.ccesenet.org/journal.html

http://www.ccesenet.org/journal.html

36

Wang. WC. 2001., 4n analysis of' teacher talk in child EFL classroom. Unpublished M.A. thesis. National Chengchi University, Taiwan.

Xiao-Yan. 2006. Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classroom, a Dissertation. China: Chongqing Normal University & Yangtze Normal University at www.asian-efl-journal.com/thesis

Yanfen, Liu & Yuqin, Zhao.2010. A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English Classes.Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly) Vol. 33 No. 2 2010. China: Harbin Institute of Technology`


artikel oleh dodi mulyadi, s.pd, mdigilib.unimus.ac.id/./files/disk1/128/jtptunimus-gdl...1 teacher...

Documents