AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASS AT THE SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN SMPN 4 BANDAR LAMPUNG

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASS

AT THE SEVENTH GRADE STUDENTS IN SMPN 4 BANDAR

LAMPUNG

By

ECI FEBRIANI

Classroom interaction is a practice that enhance the development of the two very

important language skill which are speaking and listening among the learners. This

device helps the learner to be competent enough to think critically and share their

views among their peers.

Talk is one of the major ways that teachers convey information to the students, and it

is also one of the primary means of controlling students’ behavior. On the other hand,

if the teacher talks too much, he will not give space to students to expose their target

language needed in language learning process.

Based on the FIAC, there are three

categories in the classroom interaction, they are: teacher talk, students talk, and

no/all talk. Teacher talk includes accept feeling, praises, accept/ uses ideas of

students, ask question, lecturing, giving direction and criticizing. Students talk

includes students talk response and students talk initiation. And no/all talk is the

situation which is in silence.

This classroom interaction analysis has been conducted to investigate

Teacher-Student verbal interaction pattern at the second grade of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung.

The research was done started from April 17

th

to April 19

th

2012.

The primary data of this research are

the teacher’s and students’ conversation

gathered from video recording and observation sheet. Then, those data were

transcribed and analyzed in the form of interaction pattern that divided by Edge and

interaction categories proposed by Flanders.

In terms of total number of interactions, Teacher-Students (T-Ss) dominated the

interaction by having 29.1% of interactions (in percentage), followed by

Student-Teacher (S-T) 21.7%. The third position was Students-Student-Teacher (Ss-T) for having 19%

ii

The Teacher-Students verbal interaction showed that percentage of the mean number

of talk toward mean number of interactions is 92.5%. It reflects that the mean number

of talk (in percentage) is more than two-thirds of classroom time is devoted to talking.

Then, the percentage of the mean number of teacher talk toward mean number of talk

is 53.2%. It reflects that the mean number of teacher talk (in percentage) is more than

two-thirds of talking time; the person talking is the teacher. The percentage of the

mean number of teacher talk toward mean number of teacher talk is 48.5%. It reflects

that the mean number of teacher indirect talk (in percentage) is more than two-thirds

of teacher talk.

It’s knowing that interaction

from male students is 38 or 33.9% from total interaction,

female students have 31 interactions or 27.8% and both of students have 43

interactions or 38.3%. Total interaction of the students is 112 interactions. Even

though there were not far enough but there was a difference between male and female

students, it concludes that male students are more interact than female students.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Praise just to Allah SWT for the mercy and the prosperity that enable the researcher to

accomplish the script. This script entitled “An Analysis of Classroom Interaction in English

Class at the Seventh Grade of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung” is submitted as a part

ial fulfillment of

the requirements for S1 Degree in Teacher Training and Education Faculty.

The researcher would like to acknowledge her deep and sincere attitude to Drs. Hery Yufrizal,

M.A., Ph.D. and Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum. for their valuable guidance in improving the form

and content for this paper. Thank you for being patient with me. The researcher would also

express her thanks to her examiner, Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. who was willing to spent his time for

giving valuable supports, assistance, suggestions, comments and ideas to the researcher in

completing this script.

The researcher would like to thank to Dr. Bujang Rahman, M.Si. as the Dean of Teacher

Training and Education Faculty and for Drs. Imam Rejana, M.Si as the Head of Language and

Arts Education Department. The researcher also want to express her thanks to her academic

advisor Prof. Dr. Cucu Sutarsyah, M.A. for his kindness and help. The Researcher would like to

thank to the Headmaster of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung Drs. Edy Supriyono and Martha

Nainggolan, S.Pd. as an English Teacher, who have allowed her to do the research.

The researcher would like to express her gratefulness to her beloved parents ( Ir. Panani and Dra.

Anna Herawati) for their support, love, and prayer to help her finish her study, and for her little

brothers (Egi Pandana and Eqi Ramadhan) for their support and love.

vi

The researcher also like to express her thank to her best partner, best friend, brother or whatever

he wants to be called, M. Daru Wardana, S.Sos. Thank you for supporting her, listening all

complains about the script and staying with her for all these years. It means a lot to her.

Her thanks also addressed to her best friends Meri Noviani, S.Pd., Lidya Ayuni, S.Pd., Raynald

Agus Setiawan, S.Ked., Reza Putra Perdana, S.Ip., Roni Saputra, S.Kom., Briptu. Alan Fitri, Rio

Alamanda, SE., Syaifulah Noer, S.Ip., Ami Somala, SE., Rama Manggala, SH., and Citria

Anggraini, S.Pd. Thank you so much for making her laugh and coloring her world, life is good

mates!.

The last but not least her ppl’s group ( Dian Novita

, S.Pd., Diah Arum, Astuti Riyanti, S.Pd.,

Destri Aryani, S.Pd., Agus Munib S.Pd., Ewintri, S.Pd., Arif Atmunandar, Susi Sulistyawati,

Winanda, Galih Sumanjaya, and Anasrin). Also her English Department friends Lidya Shinta

Mutiara, Delia Elmanisya, Nanda Futia, Myra Desmayani, Dicky Kurniawan, Ayu Lestari,

Rizka, Ervina, Rudy, Hadhi, Kiky, Hesti,

and all of ED 06’s friends that she

can’t mention one

by one, Thank you very much.

Bandar Lampung, September 2012

The Researcher,

ADMITTED BY

1. Examination Committee

Chairperson :Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. ………

Examiner : Drs. Sudirman, M.Pd. ………

Secretary :Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum. ………

2. The Dean of Teacher Training and Education Faculty

Dr. H. Bujang Rahman, M.Si. NIP 19600315 198503 1 003

Research Title : AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASS ATHE SEVENTH GRADE OF SMPN 4 BANDAR LAMPUNG

Student’s Name : ECI FEBRIANI Student’s Number : 0613042021

Department : Language and Arts Education Study Program : English Education

Faculty : Teacher Training and Education Faculty

APPROVED BY Advisory Committee

Advisor Co-Advisor

Drs. Hery Yufrizal, M.A., Ph.D. Dra. Hartati Hasan, M.Hum. NIP 19600719 198511 1 001 NIP 19480928 197603 2 001

The Head of Language and Art Education Department

Drs. Imam Rejana, M.Si. NIP 19480421 197803 1 004

I. INTRODUCTION

This chapter discusses certain points; introduction deals with background of the problem, research problems, objectives of the research, uses of the research, scope of the research and definitions of term.

1.1Background of the Problem

As one of international languages, English plays great role in all human activities. Many people use this language in their daily life, work and many kinds of activities. English is so widely used in international communication. That is important for us to learn English in order to communicate and interact with other people in other part of the world.

Realizing the importance of English as mention above, English becomes the first foreign language taught at schools in Indonesia beginning from elementary school to university. The aim of teaching English at school as stated in the KTSP curriculum is enable the students to communicate in English both spoken and written form.

Despite of the fact that English has been taught for years, the capability of listening, speaking, reading and writing English for Indonesian students are still unsatisfactory. They often acutely embarrassed if they make mistakes and are corrected or laughed at. Learners are rarely trained to speak target language in class. They still look prude and

hesitate to interact with their friends and their teacher by using target language. Based on my experience in PPL programme, Students are afraid and feel not insecure to speak English. Actually, they understand the meaning of the lesson but they are too shy to interact with the teacher and they just tell their friends if they know something or find some difficulties. These situations tend to happen because their teacher almost never gives them various communicative activities that can trig them to speak and to interact to each other (Tarigan, 1989:24).

In KTSP for junior high school, the EFL learning at SMP in Indonesia is aimed at developing four major language skills, which are; listening, speaking, reading, and writing. The KTSP also states that SMP students are expected to be able to communicate to each other in target language fluently by the end of the course.

There are so many factors influencing the students’ achievement in English. One of them is a technique used by the teacher in English class. Alexander (1998) in Subaikan (1995) states that the teaching qualities, particularly the approach, method and techniques used in teaching process are important. It is the teacher’s responsibility to improve and determine techniques that may provoke the students to keep learning. Based on the writer’s observation during her PPL program in SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung, where the researcher taught in bilingual class and regular class, bilingual class that have more facilities such as the number of students is smaller than other classes, each subject consist of 2 teachers, Every student in the bilingual class has their own laptops, unfortunately these facilities are not utilized properly. It was found that the teachers dominated the class through lecturing, giving question, instruction and tended

to use direct influence rather than indirect influence. However, In my opinion, bilingual class has a good interaction than another regular class, because the students always interest in learning English. The situation was quite different with regular class, the students seemed not really get into the lesson . It is known that final result of teaching is affected by some factors, they are: learners, the teacher, time allocation, the use of visual aid, methodology, teaching material, interaction between the teacher and students, and interaction between student-student in the classroom.

Pica, Kanagy and Falodun (1993:10) state that language is best learned and taught through interaction. It is stated by Rivers (1987:3) that the interaction is the key to teach language communication. Interaction here involves not just expressions of one’s idea, but comprehension of those to other. Thus, these can be drawn as conclusion that in interaction, one listens to other, one respond, other listens and responds.

From the statements above it can be inferred that classroom interaction includes all of the classroom events, both verbal interaction and non-verbal interaction. The verbal interaction takes place because of the teacher and learners talk, including the influence of gender while non-verbal interaction covers gestures or facial expression and by the teacher and learners and learners and learners when they communicate without using words. These two kinds of talk are important; they dominate the classroom events and influence students' foreign language acquisition. Learners learn not only through comprehensible input but also their own output. But a good lesson is not one in which students do all or even most of the talking. Some lessons may be good if they are carefully structured in such away that students do a good deal of talking and at the same time get a lot of feedback from the teacher, both formally and informally.

One of the guidelines to analyze the interaction activities is by using Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). FIAC is a concept which states that teaching will be effective depending to a large degree on how directly and indirectly teachers influence the learners' behaviours.

Based on the FIAC, there are three categories in the classroom interaction, they are: teacher talk, students talk, and no/all talk. Teacher talk includes accept feeling, praises, accept/ uses ideas of students, ask question, lecturing, giving direction and criticizing. Student talk includes student talk response and student talk initiation. And no/all talk is the situation which is in silence (Allwright and Bailey, 1991: 202).

It is clear that the active role of both the teacher and learners is absolutely needed to create a good interaction because everyone will learn something better if he experiences it by himself. The learners have to learn the knowledge about English from the teacher, be active in responding the teacher's questions, and introducing their own ideas. Besides, the teacher must be creative in using teaching methods and techniques to support his talk in order to be interesting to be learned by the learners. Those are not easy tasks for many teachers, because as Goodman said that language appears sometimes to be so easy to learn and at other times so hard (Goodman, 1986:39). If the teacher fails, he cannot achieve the teaching-learning objectives.

Classroom interaction itself always related with gender. The effect of gender in interaction has a part which is influencing successful interaction between teacher-students and student-student. Gender in here related to the teacher-students in the classroom, as a teacher, we can see the differences between male and female students in learning

English. Everyone always think that female students is more interact than male students, In fact, based on Dukmak’s research in UAE countries, female student were not really “live” in the classroom. They don’t have a gut to express their feelings, maybe it’s related with the custom on their country. But in Indonesia and Taiwan for example, female students always dominated the situation.

By replicating of Dukmak’s classroom interaction in regular and special education in the primary classroom in the UAE, The writer is going to do a research with the titled An analysis of classroom interaction in English class at the 7th _{grade of SMPN 4} Bandar Lampung.

1.2Formulation of the Problem

Based on the limitation of the problem above, research problem is formulated bellow: 1) What is the pattern of classroom interaction in English class at the seventh grade

of SMP Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung?

2) How is the process of classroom interaction in English class at the seventh grade of SMP Negeri 4 Bandarlampung, does it reflect the interactive classroom interaction suggested by Flanders?

3) Is there any difference in classroom interaction between male and female students in English class at the seventh grade of SMP Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung?

1.3Objective of the research

Relating to the research problem, the objective of the research are:

1) To find out the pattern of classroom interaction in English class that taking place in the seventh grade of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung

2) To investigate the classroom interaction process in English class at the seventh grade of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung, whether or not it reflects the interactive classroom interaction proposed by Flanders

3) To find out the differences in classroom interaction between male and female students in English class at the seventh grade of SMP Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung

1.4Uses of the Research

In accordance with the objective, this research could have the following uses: 1) Practically

To give the school teacher an overview of classroom interaction in SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung to be taken into consideration to create and/or develop and implement the method of teaching and learning process leading to the conducive classroom interaction.

2) Theoretically,

To give information to the reader the analysis of the process of classroom interaction including pattern and teaching learning activity and the interaction between student-student by using the theoretical principles of classroom interaction proposed by Flanders.

1.5 Scope of The Research

The research will be conducted in the seventh grade of SMP Negeri 4 Bandar Lampung. The focus of this research is to analyze the process of classroom interaction between teacher-student and student-student. The writer will become an observer who observes the classroom interaction in the process of teaching English. The theory made as the classification base by Flander. The subject of this research will be the students at 7A (Bilingual class) students of SMP Negeri 4 Bandarlampung.

1.6 Definition of Terms

1. Interaction is an active process in which people try to get their meaning across to each other by imparting thoughts, feelings or ideas. Interaction refers to any sort of interaction, student-students or teacher-student discussion, group discussions and any type of classroom participation (Long and Sato, 1983)

2. Classroom interaction is a practice that enhance the development of the two very important language skill which are speaking and listening among the

learners. This device helps the learner to be competent enough to think critically and share their views among their peers.

3. Teacher-student interaction is one of the patterns of classroom interaction, out of two patterns, occurred between the teacher and the students which is initiated and dominated by the teacher as the source of teaching learning process.

4. Student-student interaction is another pattern of classroom interaction occurred among the students which is initiated and dominated by the students themselves to seek on the knowledge they want to get with little help of the teacher as the facilitator of teaching learning process.

learners. This device helps the learner to be competent enough to think critically and share their views among their peers.

3. Teacher-student interaction is one of the patterns of classroom interaction, out of two patterns, occurred between the teacher and the students which is initiated and dominated by the teacher as the source of teaching learning process.

4. Student-student interaction is another pattern of classroom interaction occurred among the students which is initiated and dominated by the students themselves to seek on the knowledge they want to get with little help of the teacher as the facilitator of teaching learning process.

II. FRAME OF THEORIES

In this chapter the researcher uses some concepts to this research. They are concept of language learning, concept of classroom interaction, teacher talk,learner talk, classroom interaction in language teaching, pattern of classroom interaction, classroom interaction analysis, and supporting factors in classroom interaction including the effect of gender. Classified like the following.

2.1 Concept of Language Learning

Language learning is a process. A child learns his first language step by step. Since he does not go to school at his age, he does not learn his first language by studying the rules formally, but through experience. Concept development of language goes along with the experience.

Brown (1980:8) states that learning is acquiring or getting of knowledge of a subject or skill by study, experience, or instruction. According to this definition, knowledge or skill about language use can be gained by the learners through the study in the classroom or through experience in his life. During the process of learning, there are changes of learners' behavior. They will get the knowledge or skill that they have not had before as the result of learning. Kimbley and Garmezy, as quoted by Brown (1980:7), states that learning is a continually change in a behavioral tendency and is the result of reinforced practice. The changing of learners' behavior and knowledge will

depend on the effort as of changing both the teacher and the learners. If the teacher uses appropriate methods in teaching, it will be easier for the learners to study the materials. In this case of learning, the learners study the material consciously and practice it in order to get good results.

From the explanation above, it can be inferred that learning: 1. is acquiring or getting knowledge;

2. is getting information or skill;

3. involves active and conscious efforts, inside or outside of the classroom; 4. is relatively permanent, but subject to forgetting;

5. involves some form of practice, perhaps reinforced practice; 6. is a change in behavior.

2.2 Teacher Talk

Hornby has written that 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, teachers make adjustments to both language form and language function in order to help communication in the classroom. These adjustments are called 'teacher talk' (www.fiiichpark.coi-n/courses/glossaty.litiii). From those meanings, it can be known 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.

Observation of many different classes, both in content area subjects and in language instruction, consistently shows that teachers typically do between one half and three quarters of the talking done in classrooms. Talk is one of the major ways that teachers convey information to learners, and it is also one of the primary means of it will be useful to ask what our talk is like.

It has been said before that teacher and learner talks are the factors that establish classroom interaction. Both of them must be in balance. Too much teacher talk will make the students passive and static; they cannot improve their English acquisition. It will be also bad if the teacher has too little talk, the students will 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.

There are three major aspect of teacher talk, they are:

1. Physiological aspect

This aspect related to the voice produced by the teacher. The teacher has to be able to control his voice during, he speaks in the classroom.

2. Interpersonal aspect

This aspect related to how the teacher speaks with utterances which is structured appropriately with the situation to the students so it can make a classroom climate.

3. Pedagogical aspect

This aspect related to how teacher organize the lesson, so it can create a good interaction (Johnson, et. al., 1986: 70-72).

From the statement above, it can be known that the teacher have to be able to make his talk balance with students talk, situation and context because it can affect students' language acquisition. As William Ayers says that the focus of teacher talk is curriculum, instruction and evaluation-the content of conduct of teaching, so that the teacher's ability to combine and apply the three aspects in his talk is really needed.

2.3 Learner Talk

According to Halliday, children have language development when they learn language (Halliday, 1986:16). It is the same with when they learn foreign language in the classroom. Firstly they imitate the teacher talk and they need more time to record every teacher's talk that it's called 'silent period', then start to express their own idea, having discussion, and finally can get their communicative competence.

Student talk can be said as student's speech when he imitates his teacher's examples, expresses his idea or gives comments and criticism about something in the classroom, because Prabhu said that learners have effort in the language classroom (Prabhu, 1991: 49), but teacher's role cannot be separated from their effort. A good classroom climate will support the students' effort.

Student talk can be said as student’s speech when he imitates his teacher’s examples, expresses his idea or gives comments and criticism about something in the classroom. Student talk involves the following categories:

Talk by students in response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement.

2. Student talk-initiation

Talk by students which they initiate. If 'calling on' student is only to indicate who may talk next, observer must decide whether student wanted to talk. If he did, use this category.

3. Silence or confusion

Pauses, short periods of silence and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.

Iffah (2010) had done the research about the classroom interaction in speaking class. The findings of the study in general can be stated that the teacher and the students interacted in the classroom interactively and communicatively. The teacher employed most aspects of existing theories proposed by Flanders in the teaching learning process. By applying the various interactions, the teacher can stimulate and encourage the students to interact in the speaking class. It also created a good atmosphere in the classroom in order that the students were not bored and finally they did not hesitate to deliver their idea. Meanwhile, the patterns that occurred during the classroom interaction are 1) the teacher to whole class, 2) the individual student to the individual student, and 3) the teacher to the individual student. The first pattern always happened in the beginning as an opening and as the giving feedback in the teaching learning process. The second pattern mostly occurred whenever the students were in a small group discussion. The last pattern was employed by the teacher when she gave further questions to the students who delivered their opinion in the free Speaking activity.

2.4 Concept of Classroom Interaction

Classroom interaction is the action performed by the teacher and the students during instruction interrelated. They interact with one another for a number of different reason and on a continued basis throughout the school day. Classroom interaction covers classroom behaviours such as turn-taking, questioning and answering, negotiation of meaning and feedback (Chaudron, 1988: 10)

“Interaction between students and teacher is fundamental to the learning process”. (Willson, http:// www.aare.edu.au/ ggpap/ will99741. htm)

Interaction in language classroom will lead the learners to better learning, and will activate their competence (Malamah-Thomas,1987:45). As the students’ interest is aroused, their anxiety, fear or even fatigue in the classroom will gradually diminish; if not completely disappear, and as a result they will actively involve in the classroom interaction.

Psychologically, students cannot be well motivated when they are involved in a less interesting language activities or materials, which will consequently decrease their understanding toward the learning material being learnt. Likewise, when they have intrinsic, motivation increasingly driven, it will be easier for them to comprehend the material gradually.

Interaction is a two-way communication between two people or more. Brown proposed (2001:165) that interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other. Thus, interaction is an active process in which people try getting their meaning across to each

other by imparting thoughts, feelings, or ideas. The interaction should be a communication should be meaningful enough for the concerned people, if it is not, there could be a communication barrier. In a classroom interaction, therefore, it is important that meaningful communication be created and fostered.

River (1970:4-5) states through interaction students can increase their language store as they listen to or read authentic linguistic material. In interaction, students can use all of their possession of the language-all they have learned or casually absorbed-in real life exchanges. Interaction involves not only expression of one’s own ideas but also comprehensions. One listens to other, one responds (either directly or indirectly), other listen and respond.

2.5 Classroom Interaction in Language Teaching

Bishop (2000) stated that students will not get enough practice just by talking to the instructor, and very little by just listening to the instructor. Furthermore he said that students develop competency and become critical thinkers in classroom that provides opportunities for intensive, structured interaction among students.

Malamah in Rowiyah (2007) stated that the teacher must engage in the sort of interaction with the learner, in which the communication is able to take place. She also adds that communication is achieved by mean of variety of resources. In the classroom interaction communication among the students and teacher-students take place. Interaction in the classroom take place when the students interest in presented. To promote interaction on other language, the teacher therefore must maintain a lively attention in another language among students in the classroom (Rivers in Rowiyah,

1987) it means that the teacher can use non verbal cues to encourage students speaking interaction, for example, smile expectantly and nod as students talk.

When we talk about different interaction in class, we mean the issue of who is speaking to whom. Edge (2001:69) divided classroom interaction into 6 types of interaction:

1. Teacher – students interaction where teacher gives obstruction to the whole class (T-Ss)

2. Teacher-students interaction where there is an exchange between the teacher and the whole class such as question and answer (Ss-T)

3. Teacher-student interaction where teacher initiates the interaction with an individual of students. The teacher asks a student to answer question, repetition, confirmation and so on (T-S)

4. Student-teacher interaction where the communication with the teacher stated by student. The student initiated himself to question the teacher, giving opinion, complaining, eliciting in form of information and many others (S-T).

5. Teacher-student-student interaction where the teacher tells one student to say something to another (T-S-S).

6. Student-student interaction where students communicate directly with each other in form of discussion, asking for the correct term, confirmation of an information, giving opinion and so on (S-S).

2.6 Pattern of Classroom Interaction

Interaction refers to any sort of interaction, student-students or teacher student discussion, group discussion, and any type of classroom participation (Long and Sato, 1983). The proportion of student-student interaction in classroom ideally should be larger than teacher-student interaction that is student-centeredness’. The longer students interact with each other, the better they understand what they experience and learn something in the classroom.

In order to gain meaningful learning activity, there should be classroom interaction. According Sardiman (1987:204-205), there are two pattern of interaction in the teaching and learning process, namely an interaction between teacher and students, and interaction among students. He further points out four advantages of the classroom interaction as described below:

1. Classroom interaction makes the teaching learning process more alive

2. The teacher would able to know his students’ wants, interest, attention, behaviors, weakness, and faults.

3. The teacher would be able to recognize his own weakness and fault based on the teaching and learning process that has taken place.

4. The teacher would be able to develop the students’ ability by making contact with his students.

It can be concluded that a teacher should put an effort to lead the students into an interesting and conducive classroom interaction for themselves, most importantly, not for the teacher. Here the teacher not restricted with one method or technique of

teaching. The method or technique can be applied in a more or less flexible way. If any inappropriateness caused by the method or technique being applied may distort the classroom interaction, the teacher obliged to modify or change it abruptly. Since a teacher’s major duty is how to make the students learn, not merely to teach them. And this idea is often, commonly, neglected by most of the teachers at the moment.

The current theories of communicative competence are essentially interactive nature of communication. Most meaning, in semantic sense, is a product of negotiation, of give and take, as interlocutor attempt to communicate. Thus, the communicative purpose of language compels us to create opportunities for genuine interaction in the classroom. Interactive classes will most likely be found:

1. Doing a significant amount of pair work or group work. 2. Receiving authentic language input in real-world contexts. 3. Producing language for genuine, meaningful communication.

4. Performing classroom tasks that prepare them for actual communication.

5. Practicing oral communication through the give and take and spontaneity of actual conversation

6. Writing to and for real audiences, not contrived ones.

It can be inferred that interaction is the key in the teaching learning process in the classroom. It suggests that teachers maintain a lively attention and active participation among our students so that the interactive occurs. Teachers are supposed to create such an interesting learning atmosphere to keep them actively involved. As it is suggested by

Brown (2001:165), that from the very beginning of the language study, classroom should be interactive.

2.7 Classroom Interaction Analysis

Flanders' Interaction Analysis is a system of classroom interaction analysis. The Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) consists of ten categories of communication which are said to be inclusive of all communication possibilities. There are seven categories used when the teacher is talking and two categories when the learner is talking. In his pioneering work, Flanders used the term Interaction Analysis for his ten-category observation schedule that he had designed for general educational purposes, to be relevant to a variety of lessons rather than for any subject in particular. In his work, he combined a politically powerful idea with a very practical simplicity. The powerful idea was that the teaching was more or less effective depending on how “directly” or “indirectly” teachers influence learner behaviour.

TEACHER TALK

INDIRECT INFLUENCE

1. ACCEPTS FEELING: accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included.

2. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES: praises or encourages

students’ action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, “um hm?” or “go on” are included.

3. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENT: clarifying,

building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into a play, shift a category five.

4. ASKS QUESTIONS: asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answers. DIRECT 5. LECTURING: giving facts or opinions about content or _{procedure: expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical}

INFLUENE questions.

6. GIVING DIRECTIONS: directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply.

7. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY: statements

intended to change student behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why is the teacher doing what he is doing; extremely self-reference.

8. STUDENTS TALK-RESPONSE: a student makes a

predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement and sets limits to what the student says.

9. STUDENT TAK-INITIATION: talk by students which they

initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as students introduces own ideas. 10. SILENCE OR CONFUSION: pauses, short periods of

silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by observer.

To obtain a complete descriptive picture of what behaviours are used during a lesson, a trained observer tallies every time a different category is used and when the same category is repeated for a consecutive period of time, he records this category every three seconds. The tallies are entered into a ten by ten matrix, resulting in a graphic picture of the lesson. The matrix preserves the general time sequence of interaction by illustrating which behaviours immediately preceded or followed others. By studying the matrix, teaching patterns can be discovered and analyzed.

The following is an example of how an observation is tallied and entered into a matrix: The teacher begins by saying, “Open your books to page 160 and answer the first question, Bill” (category 6). Three seconds pass while the students get out their books and open them (category 10). Bill response to the teacher’s directions: “Spain and

Portugal is from Iberian Peninsula” (category 2). “Who has the answer to the next question?” (category 4). A pupil raises his hand and says, “I don’t where we are” (category 9). The teacher remarks, “We are on page 160, the second question under exercise I (category 5), and if you had been paying attention, you would have known where we are” (category 7). ‘Martha, continue by reading your answer to the second question and be very careful to watch your pronunciation as you read” (The observer records two 6’s in a row because the length of the statement is longer then 3 seconds). But Martha asks the teacher a question instead: “They don’t pronounce the ‘h’ in Spanish or in French, do they?” (category 9), and the teacher responses, “That’s right, Marta (category 2), ‘h’ is a silent letter in both of those languages” (category 3).

Observations automatically begin and end with category 10. An observer, therefore, would have tallied the above interaction in a column in the following way: 10-6-10-8-2-4-9-5-7-6-6-9-2-3-10.

Every number except the first and last 10 is then entered into the matrix twice, which is how the sequence of even is preserved. Each of the 100 cells in the matrix contains an event and what happen directly afterwards. If the behaviours just described are entered into a matrix, they would be paired in this way first:

1st _{pair (}10

6_{) 2}nd _pair

3rd _{pair (}10

8_{) 4}th _pair

5th _{pair (}2

7th _{pair (}9

5_{) etc.}

7

The rows in the matrix designate the first event; the columns are the second event. A tally is placed for each pair of numbers in the corresponding cell at the intersection of the appropriate column and row. The first pair above to be entered will go in the 10-6 (read “ten-six”) cell. The second will be placed in the 6-10 cell; the third, in the 10-8 cell; the fourth in the 8-2 cell; and so on. When all of the tallies for an observation are entered into the matrix the columns and the rows are each totalled. The totals for the columns and the rows are identical, i.e., the total for column 1 will be the same as the total for row 1. Figure 2 illustrates where the above tallies will be placed on a matrix; the totals for the columns and the rows are also indicated.

When the matrix is complete, percentages for each category are calculated as well as the percentages of teacher talk, student talk and silence or confusion. Ratios of the amount of indirect to direct behaviours the teachers used are also determined. There are 9 of these ratios, which are referred to as I.D. ratios, each focusing on a different relationship.

Figure 2

Sample Matrix for Recording Interaction Analysis Second event

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

1 0

2 1 1 2

3 1 1

4 1 1

First 5 1 1

Event 6 1 1 1 3

7 1 1

8 1 1

9 1 1 2

10 1 1 2

Total 0 2 1 1 1 3 1 1 2 2 14

(Moskowitz 1968: 219-22, quoting Flanders 1960)

From the matrix a teacher may find out many specific things about his teaching. A few of these are:

1. What percentage of the class time does the teacher talk? 2. What percentage of the class time do the pupils talk?

3. Does the teacher use more indirect or direct influence during a lesson?

4. Is the teacher more indirect or direct in the way he motivates or controls the class?

5. What kind of immediate feedback does the teacher give to pupils after they respond?

6. To what extend do pupils participate for extended periods of time? 7. What behaviours does the teacher use to elicit pupil response in the class? 8. To what extend are pupil responses which are called for by the teacher narrow,

predictable ones and to what extent are pupils given the opportunity to bring in their own ideas?

9. What behaviours does the teacher use more extensively in communicating?

2.8 Supporting Factors In Classroom Interaction

Teacher–student interaction is very important in the teaching and learning process because students benefit from this interaction at both the social and academic level (Beyazkurk & Kesner, 2005). Such interaction will be referred to in this research as ‘classroom interaction’ and is defined as ‘the process of face-to-face action’ (Robinson, 1994). This research investigates the types and frequency of interactions initiated by students and students in the seventh grade in SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung. The reasons for initiating classroom interactions are also examined in this research.

2.8.1 Importance of Interaction

A fundamental problem in classroom interaction is that teachers try every day to encourage students to participate effectively in classroom discussions but unfortunately these efforts may fall flat (Moguel, 2004). Previous research on classroom interaction has focused mostly on pedagogical methodology, on teachers' actions during the lesson (Cazden, 1986; Edwards & Westgate, 1994; Hicks, 1995; Mehan, 1998) and on student

behaviour in the classroom (Sahlstrom, 2001). Although teachers engage in a great deal of interaction with their students while in the classroom, most teachers have difficulty remembering these interactions (Good & Brophy, 1994). However, teachers could make ‘mental notes’ to record which students interact more, interact less or do not interact at all. Such mental notes will help teachers to encourage students to interact appropriately and improve learning (Willson, 1999).

2.8.2 Classroom Interaction and Achievement

Willson's (1999) and Younger and Warrington's (1996) findings regarding the relationship between interaction and achievement revealed that high-achieving students initiated more interactions than low-achieving ones. The study also found that the nature of interactions among high achievers differed from those of low achievers. High achievers initiated interactions to volunteer answers, whereas low achievers interacted primarily to seek help.

Professionals in the field of education consider teacher–student interaction fundamental to the learning process. Student involvement in classroom discussions can be a major element in effective instruction. Verbally active students are more likely to be high achievers, and student–teacher interaction can help students develop their cognitive skills (Jones & Gerig, 1994). Various studies on classroom interaction revealed that these students control interaction because they are more active in the learning process and participate more willingly than others (Willson, 1999). Therefore, it is important to investigate classroom interaction in junior high school’s classroom, and students' reasons for initiating such interactions.

2.8.3 Classroom Interaction and Gender

When examining interaction by gender, previous research results have been inconsistent. The questions that arise here and remain an issue in the classroom interaction process are: Who gets the teacher's attention? Who dominates classroom interactions? While Younger, Warrington and Williams (1999) found that more girls than boys take the opportunity to initiate questions, seek clarification on work-related matters, make best use of the support of the teacher, Pavlidou (2003) and Shomoossi, Amouzadeh and Ketabi (2008) indicated that girls participated less in class than boys and took less verbal initiative in their interaction with the teacher. They are more ‘passive’ than boys in the classroom and less persistent than them in their non-compliance with the teacher. Kramer (1985) indicated that high-achieving girls avoided answering teachers' questions in class and offered comments less frequently than boys. Others have found that boys do not dominate classroom talk and teacher time (Swann & Graddol, 1988; Myhill, 2002).

A number of studies have shown gender bias in teacher-initiated interaction in the classroom (Kerr, 1991; Sadker & Sadker, 1985; Tsouroufli, 2002; Younger & Warrington, 2002). While some researchers (Sadker & Sadker, 1985) found that teachers responded differently to boys and girls in the class, with boys tending to dominate classroom interactions and teachers accepting their dominance, others (Comfort, 1996) indicated that girls received more positive feedback from their teachers. Although Comfort (1996) found that teachers initiated more contact with, and directed more questions to boys than girls, they criticised and disciplined boys more. In fact, girls received more positive reinforcement. On the basis of these findings, it

seemed important to investigate the relationship between gender and classroom interaction in Indonesia, particularly in Bandar Lampung.

This study investigated the frequency and types of classroom interaction initiated by students with high and low academic achievement in bilingual classes and by students in regular classes. It also investigated gender in relation to the frequency and types of initiated interaction. The reasons for initiating classroom interaction were also examined. The frequency and types of teachers' initiated interaction with all students in both regular and special education classrooms were also investigated.

The results of this study will show that students interacted more often than evidenced in other studies. The differences may be due to cultural factors, learning experience or gender and teaching style (Willson, 1999). In Indonesian culture, students usually become enthusiastic about interacting with the teacher in the classroom, raising their hands and shouting, begging the teacher to call upon them. Some students do this even if they do not know the answer to the question asked; a common interpretation of this behaviour is that they want to act like the other students.

Basic Theoretical Assumptions of Interaction Analysis:

1. Predominance of verbal communication. 2. Higher reliability of verbal behaviour. 3. Consistency of verbal statements. 4. Teacher’s influence.

6. Relation between social climate and productivity. 7. Relation between class-room climate and learning. 8. Use of observational technique.

9. Role of feedback.

III. RESEARCH METHOD

This chapter discusses about the method of research used in this study, they are: research design, subject of the research, type of data, techniques of data collection, research procedure and data analysis.

3.1 Research Design

This research is classroom interaction and non experiment research, so the researcher used qualitative method, in which focused on the process of teaching and learning not on the product. As Nunan stated (1989:76) there is no substitute for direct observation as a way of finding out about language classrooms. Certainly if we want to enrich our understanding of language learning and teaching, we need to spend time looking in classroom. The classroom is ‘where the action is’, and we shall look at ways of recording and investigating that action. To describe the data that she got, the researcher used descriptive qualitative method.

To analyzed the process of teacher-student and student-student classroom interaction in English class, the researcher observed the activity in the class through videotaped record.

3.2 Subject of the Research

The subject was the seventh grade students of SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung in the year of 2011/2012. The researcher took one bilingual class which consist of 10 males and 22 females. During the reasearch, it showed how many interactions of male and female students. Since this research focus on the interaction in the classroom, the teacher and the students as well as the students’ respond toward any teaching learning stage has become the source of data.

3.3 Data Collecting Technique

The researcher used two techniques to gather the data: recording and classroom observation

1. Recording

The main data was the record of classroom interaction. The researcher recorded the activities and interactions that occurred during English class. Then, the researcher transcribed the data that she got from recording technique. The recording tools used were video recorder. The video recorder was used in front of the class so the students and the teacher were shot. After that the researcher made the transcription, categorized the data into pattern of interaction based on Edge pattern of interaction and Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories, and analyzed the data.

2. Classroom Observation

Observation is the act of collecting data about the performance of a subject through the five senses, sight, smelling, hearing, touching and taste (Arikunto, 2002:133). The

observer directly observed the classroom, and took notes of the relevant events while the teaching-learning process was going on. In the meantime, audio visual recording of the whole activity was also made to acquire more complete data about the classroom process. The classroom observation took 3 times to observe.

3.4 Data Collecting Procedure

The data of this research is the result of the interaction between teacher-students, student-teacher, and student-student. The researcher used several procedures in collecting the data. There were seven steps:

1. Formulating the research question and determining the focus of the research. The formulation of the research question was really needed as the basic or first step of the research. It meant that the process could be used by the researcher in finding the necessity of the research.

2. Preparing the instrument of collecting the data. The instrument of collecting the data was very important in this research. Therefore, the researcher was able to select the instrument which was appropriate to gather the data needed.

3. Determining the class which became the subject of this research. This process was also important since it really influenced the appropriate finding of research. 4. Observing and recording the activities and conversation of teacher and students

during the teaching learning process. The researcher found out the necessary of this research using the appropriate instrument.

5. Making transcription of all the activities and conversation that had been recorded and observed in time unit lecturing.

6. Analyzing and coding the data, then categorizing them.

7. Reporting the result of the data analysis to induce the research findings.

The data in this research were in the form of words, phrases, sentences that were taken from the data resources (field notes and transcript). The data resources were taken by using observation. The observation was done by observing, recording & noting down the events happening in the classroom interaction. The researcher sat in the classroom for eighty minutes in the best position to hear and see the participants and decided the category that best represent the communication of events. The researcher wrote down the categories numbers while simultaneously assessing communication in the next period.

3.5 Instrument of the Research

The researcher used the instrument proposed by Flanders (1970). This instrument has been used extensively in various studies regarding classroom interaction. The items in the Flanders Interaction Analysis were converted in an observation sheet.

Observation Sheet (Interaction Matrix)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Class :

Date :

Time :

The following is an example of how an observation is tallied and entered into a matrix: Teacher : Open your books to page 160 and answer the first question, Bill [category 6].

Three seconds pass while the students get out their books and open them [category 10].

Bill : Spain and Portugal is from Iberian Peninsula [category 8]. Teacher : Very good, Bill [category 2].

Teacher: Who has the answer to the next question? [category 4] Students : I don’t know where we are [category 9].

Teacher : We are on page 160, the second question under exercise I [category 5]. If you had been paying attention, you would have known where we are [category 7]

Teacher : Martha, continue by reading your answer to the second question and be very careful to watch your pronunciation as you read [category 6]

Martha : They don’t pronounce the ‘h’ in Spanish or in French, do they? [category 9] Teacher : That’s right, Marta [category 2]

‘h’ is a silent letter in both of those languages [category 3]

Observations automatically begin and end with category 10. An observer, therefore, would have tallied the above interaction in a column in the following way: 10-6-10-8-2-4-9-5-7-6-6-9-2-3-10.

Every number except the first and last 10 is then entered into the matrix twice, which is how the sequence of event is preserved. Each of the 100 cells in the matrix contains an event and what happen directly afterwards. If the behaviours just described are entered into a matrix, they would be paired in this way first:

1st _{pair (}10

6_{) 2}nd _pair 3rd _{pair (}10

8_{) 4}th _pair 5th _{pair (}2

4_{) 6th pair} 7th _{pair (}9

5_{) etc.} 7

The rows in the matrix designate the first event; the columns are the second event. A tally is placed for each pair of numbers in the corresponding cell at the intersection of the appropriate column and row. The first pair above to be entered will go in the 10-6 (read “ten-six”) cell. The second will be placed in the 6-10 cell; the third, in the 10-8 cell; the fourth in the 8-2 cell; and so on. When all of the tallies for an observation are entered into the matrix the columns and the rows are each totaled. The totals for the columns and the rows are identical, i.e., the total for column 1 will be the same as the total for row 1. Figure 2 illustrates where the above tallies will be placed on a matrix; the totals for the columns and the rows are also indicated.

The researcher will classify the data in terms of the quantity of the students interaction into six types of interaction patterns, they are:

a. T-Ss (teacher-students) b. Ss-T (students-teacher) c. T-S (teacher-student) d. S-T (student-teacher)

e. T-S-S (teacher-student-student) f. S-S (student-student) interaction

And classify students’ speech in terms of the quantity of the students’ utterances in the classroom into the kinds of contribution categories, they are: Seeking Suggestions,

Suggesting, Agreeing, Disagreeing, Seeking Clarification, Clarifying Responses, Interrupting, and Miscellaneous. The coding system that will be used is based on the scheme devised by Bowers (Nunan: 1989:80)

3.6. Data Analysis

The data analyzed in this study were the data of the teacher-learners interaction in the classroom. In this study, the writer analyzed the observed data by using Flanders' Interaction Analysis System suggested by Allwright and Bailey (1991:10, 202-203). According to Flanders, the interaction is classified into several components as follows:

1. Teacher talk, which was sub-categorized into direct and indirect influence The direct influence involved:

a. Lecturing, i.e. giving facts or opinions about content or procedure, expressing his own ideas, and asking rhetorical questions;

b. Giving direction, i.e. giving directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply;

c. Criticizing or justifying authority, i.e. making statements intended to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern, bawling someone out, stating why the teacher is doing what he was doing; extreme self-reference.

The indirect influence:

a non-threatening manner. Feeling may be positive or negative. Predicting and recalling feelings are included;

b. Praises or encourages i.e. praises or encourages students' action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, "um hm?" or "go on" are included; c. Accepts or uses ideas of student, i.e. clarifies, builds and develops ideas

suggested by students;

d. Asks questions, i.e. asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answers.

2. Learner talk, which is subdivided into student-talk response, student-talk initiation, and silence or confusion.

a. Student-talk response, i.e. a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the context or solicits student's statements and sets limits on to what the student says;

b. Students-talk initiation, i.e. talk by the students which they initiate, unpredictable statements in response to teacher;

c. Silence or confusion i.e. pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer (Allwright ad Bailey, 1991:202-2003).

3. Giving a title or name to each categories. 4. Making a category table.

research.

In this table below, number 1 up to 7 are teacher talk which are categorized into indirect and direct influence and number 1 up to 3 are learner talk.

No Speaking Strategies Observation %

TEACHER TALK I Accepts feeling

2 Praises or encourages

3 Accepts or uses students’ idea 4 Asks questions

5 Lecturing 6 Giving directions 7 Criticizing

LEARNER TALK I Pupil talk- response

2 Pupil talk- initiation 3 Silence or confusion

Total

5. Determining additional data of in-depth interviews & underlining words, phrases, or sentences concerning to the topic.

6. Formulating Flanders Theory. Procedure of Flanders Interaction Analysis:

There are two steps that will be conducted in analyzing data using Flanders Interaction Analysis. Which are:

• Code number • Place of sitting

• Recording the category number • Instant recording

• Recording in uncertainty

• Not to shift into opposite classification • No biases

2. Decoding process

 Construction of an interaction matrix

After analyzing the data researcher classifies students’ speech in terms of the quantity of the students’ utterances in the classroom into the kinds of contribution categories, they are: accept feeling, praises or encourages, accept ideas asks questions, lectures, gives directions, criticizes, students’ response, student talk initiation, silence or The coding system that will be used is based on the scheme devised by Flanders (Flanders: 1967:103-116). The data that already categorized can show us which interaction phenomena that mostly facilitate the teaching learning activity.

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

After conducting the research, doing the analysis, and presenting the results, the conclusion and suggestions are presented in this last chapter.

Conclusion

Interaction Patterns

1. After analyzing the data, it can be seen that in terms of the total number of interactions in the patterns, there were 185 patterns of interactions. Interactions were produced by the teacher and the students during the implementation of the topic lesson.

2. In terms of total number of interactions, Teacher-Students (T-Ss) dominated the interaction by having 29.1% of interactions (in percentage), followed by Student-Teacher (S-T) 21.7%. The third position was Students-Student-Teacher (Ss-T) for having 19% of interactions, followed by Teacher-Students (T-S) 13.5%, Student-Student (S-S) 9.2% and Teacher-Student-Student (T-S-S) 7.6% of interactions.

3. The percentage of Teacher-Students (T-Ss) dominated the whole patterns, but Student-Teacher (S-T) was not far enough from the percentage of Teacher-Students (T-Ss), it means students can balancing the teacher in the classroom interaction, but teacher still become a centre of attention.

Interaction Process

The Teacher-Students verbal interaction showed that percentage of the mean number of talk toward mean number of interactions is 92.5%. It reflects that the mean number of talk (in percentage) is more than two-thirds of classroom time is devoted to talking. Then, the percentage of the mean number of teacher talk toward mean number of talk is 53.2%. It reflects that the mean number of teacher talk (in percentage) is more than two-thirds of talking time; the person talking is the teacher. The percentage of the mean number of teacher talk toward mean number of teacher talk is 48.5%. It reflects that the mean number of teacher indirect talk (in percentage) is more than two-thirds of teacher talk.

The Differences between Male and Female Students

It knows that interaction from male students is 38 or 33.9% from total interaction, female students have 31 interactions or 27.8% and both male and female students have 43 interactions or 38.3%. Total interaction of the students is 112 interactions. Even though there were not far enough but there was a difference between male and female students, it concludes that male students are more interact than female students.

Suggestions

Considering the results of the research, suggestions might be given as follows:

1. The teachers are expected to give more space for the students to get involved in learning process because the students also need language exposure to improve their comprehension.

2. The teachers are expected to use more direct influence rather than indirect influence to encourage, support and elicit student’s participation during the lesson because it can make the students feel free in giving their opinion without afraid of making mistake.

3. The teacher should be creative in designing the tasks in order to make the students more enthusiastic in managing the class or creating fun activities to make the student more interactive.

ECI FEBRIANI

A Script

Submitted in a Partial Fulfillment of

The Requirement for S-1 Degree

In

The Language and Art Department of

Teacher Training and Education Faculty

LAMPUNG UNIVERSITY

BANDAR LAMPUNG

DEDICATION

This script is fully dedicated to

My beloved Pepi and Memi

Ir. Panani and Dra. Anna Herawati.

LIST OF TABLES

Table

Page

1.

Table of Specification of Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories. ... 19

2.

Number and Percentage of Interaction Patterns ... 42

3. Number of interaction categories ... 45

4.

Descriptive state of interaction between teacher and students during the

teaching learning process ... 47

5.

Proportion of Talk in Classroom ... 49

6.

Proportion of Teacher Talk in Classroom ... 49

MOTTO

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. and Kathleen M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:

Prentice Hall.Inc.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. Wesley: Longman, Inc.

Chaudron, Craig. 1988. Second Language Classroom-Research on Teaching and

Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clifford, H. 1998. A Comparison of Gender-Related Attitudes Towards Mathematics

between Girls in Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schools. Cornwall:

University of Exeter.

Dukmak, S. 2010. Research Section: Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special

Education Middle Primary Classrooms in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 37: 39–48. NASEN.

Edge, J. 2001. Essentials of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Flander, N. 1967 Teacher Influence in the Classroom. Interaction analysis: theory,

research, and application. London:Addison-Wesley.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1986. Language Across the Culture. In Makhan L. Tickoo (ED).

Language in Learning (pp 14-28). Singapore: SEAMEO Rsegional Language Centre.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Moleong, L. J. 1994. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Bandung.

Musthafa, Bachrudin . 2003. EFL for Young Learners: Course Materials. Unpublished

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A guide for Teacher-Initiated Action. London: Prentice Hall International Ltd. United Kingdom.

Prabhu, N. S. 1991. The Learner’s Effort in the Language Classroom. In Eugenius

Sadtono (Ed). Language Acquisition and the Second Foreigner Language

classroom (pp 49-58). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional language Centre.

Rivers, W. M. 1987. Teaching Language Teaching. Cambride: Cambridge University

Press.

Rowiyah, S. 2008. Classroom Interaction in Speaking Class Using CTL

Implementation at The First Year of MTS Negeri 2 Bandar lampung.

Lampung University, Bandar lampung. (Unpublished Script).

Setiadi, B. Ag. 2006. Metodologi Penelitian Untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing,

Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Yufrizal, H. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition (A Text Book for

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER ... i

ABSTRACT ... ii

APPROVAL ... iii

CURRICULUM VITAE ... iv

DEDICATION ... v

MOTTO ... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... viii

LIST OF TABLE ... ix

I.

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Problem ... 1

B. Formulation of the Problem ... 5

C. Objective of the Rresearch ... 5

D. Uses of the Research ... 6

E. Scope of the Research ... 6

F. Definition of Terms ... 7

II.

FRAME OF THEORIES

A. Concept of Language Learning ... 9

B. Teacher Talk ... 10

C. Learner Talk ... 12

D. Concept of Classroom Interaction ... 14

E. Classroom Interaction in Language Teaching ... 15

F. Pattern in Classroom Interaction... 17

G. Classroom Interaction Analysis ... 19

H. Supporting Factors in Classroom Interaction ... 24

III.

RESEARCH METHOD

A. Research Design ... 29

B. Subject of the Research ... 30

viii

D. Data Collecting Procedure ... 31

E. Instrument of the

Research ... 33

F. Data Analysis ... 36

IV.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A.

Result of the Research...41

B.

Discussion of the Findings...52

V.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A.

Conclusion... 69

B.

Suggestion... 71

REFFERENCES ... 72

CURRICULUM VITAE

The name of the writer is Eci Febriani. She was born in Bandar Lampung, on

February 13, 1989. She is the first child of lovely couple, Ir. Panani and Dra.

Anna Herawati. She has two brothers Egi Pandana and Eqi Ramadhan Panani

She entered TK PTPN VII Musi Landas, Palembang in 1993 and then continued

her study in SD Negeri 2 Perum Way Halim in 1994. Having graduated from the

elementary school in 2000, she entered SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung and graduated

in 2003. After that, she finished her high school at SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung in

2006.

After finishing her school, she entered the S1 regular program at English

Literature Department at Lampung University in 2006. She carried on

Program

Pengalaman Lapangan

(PPL) and did the research in SMP Negeri 4 Bandar

Lampung. During her study in Lampung University, she always tries to sharpen

her English language teaching and learning ability by working as an English

teacher in bimbel Cerdas Bangsa.

MOTTO

71

REFERENCES

Allwright, D. and Kathleen M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, H. Douglas. 1980. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Inc.

Brown, H. Douglas. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. Wesley: Longman, Inc.

Chaudron, Craig. 1988. Second Language Classroom-Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Clifford, H. 1998. A Comparison of Gender-Related Attitudes Towards Mathematics between Girls in Single-Sex and Co-Educational Schools. Cornwall: University of Exeter.

Dukmak, S. 2010. Research Section: Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special Education Middle Primary Classrooms in the United Arab Emirates. British Journal of Special Education, 37: 39–48. NASEN.

Edge, J. 2001. Essentials of English Language Teaching. London: Longman.

Flander, N. 1967 Teacher Influence in the Classroom. Interaction analysis: theory, research, and application. London:Addison-Wesley.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1986. Language Across the Culture. In Makhan L. Tickoo (ED).

Language in Learning (pp 14-28). Singapore: SEAMEO Rsegional Language Centre.

Hornby, A. S. 1995. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moleong, L. J. 1994. Metodologi Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya.

Bandung.

Musthafa, Bachrudin . 2003. EFL for Young Learners: Course Materials. Unpublished textbook. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.

72

Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A guide for Teacher-Initiated Action. London: Prentice Hall International Ltd. United Kingdom.

Prabhu, N. S. 1991. The Learner’s Effort in the Language Classroom. In Eugenius Sadtono (Ed). Language Acquisition and the Second Foreigner Language classroom (pp 49-58). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional language Centre. Rivers, W. M. 1987. Teaching Language Teaching. Cambride: Cambridge University

Press.

Rowiyah, S. 2008. Classroom Interaction in Speaking Class Using CTL Implementation at The First Year of MTS Negeri 2 Bandar lampung.

Lampung University, Bandar lampung. (Unpublished Script).

Setiadi, B. Ag. 2006. Metodologi Penelitian Untuk Pengajaran Bahasa Asing, Pendekatan Kuantitatif dan Kualitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Yufrizal, H. 2008. An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition (A Text Book for ESL Learners and English Teachers). Bandung: Pustaka Reka Cipta.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

COVER ... i

ABSTRACT ... ii

APPROVAL ... iii

CURRICULUM VITAE ... iv

DEDICATION ... v

MOTTO ... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vii

TABLE OF CONTENT ... viii

LIST OF TABLE ... ix

I. INTRODUCTION A. Background of the Problem ... 1

B. Formulation of the Problem ... 5

C. Objective of the Rresearch ... 5

D. Uses of the Research ... 6

E. Scope of the Research ... 6

F. Definition of Terms ... 7

II. FRAME OF THEORIES A. Concept of Language Learning ... 9

B. Teacher Talk ... 10

C. Learner Talk ... 12

D. Concept of Classroom Interaction ... 14

E. Classroom Interaction in Language Teaching ... 15

F. Pattern in Classroom Interaction... 17

G. Classroom Interaction Analysis ... 19

H. Supporting Factors in Classroom Interaction ... 24

III. RESEARCH METHOD A. Research Design ... 29

B. Subject of the Research ... 30

viii

D. Data Collecting Procedure ... 31

E. Instrument of the Research ... 33

F. Data Analysis ... 36

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION A. Result of the Research...41

B. Discussion of the Findings...52

V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION A. Conclusion... 69

B. Suggestion... 71

REFFERENCES ... 72

CURRICULUM VITAE

The name of the writer is Eci Febriani. She was born in Bandar Lampung, on February 13, 1989. She is the first child of lovely couple, Ir. Panani and Dra. Anna Herawati. She has two brothers Egi Pandana and Eqi Ramadhan Panani

She entered TK PTPN VII Musi Landas, Palembang in 1993 and then continued her study in SD Negeri 2 Perum Way Halim in 1994. Having graduated from the elementary school in 2000, she entered SMPN 4 Bandar Lampung and graduated in 2003. After that, she finished her high school at SMAN 9 Bandar Lampung in 2006.

After finishing her school, she entered the S1 regular program at English Literature Department at Lampung University in 2006. She carried on Program

Pengalaman Lapangan (PPL) and did the research in SMP Negeri 4 Bandar

Lampung. During her study in Lampung University, she always tries to sharpen her English language teaching and learning ability by working as an English teacher in bimbel Cerdas Bangsa.