VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF ENGLISH CLASSROOM.

VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF
ENGLISH CLASSROOM

A THESIS

Submitted to English Applied Linguistics Study Program in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora

BY

DELFINA
Registration Number: 8106112004

ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POST GRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The most sincere gratitude is rendered to Allah SWT for the miracle of
live and wonderful love for her in completing the thesis successfully and the rest
of her life. This foreword is not intended to be a list of thanking to certain people,
but as an indebtedness, as a way to show gratitude to the people involved in the
voyage of this study. The debts are varied, some more longstanding than others.
Her endless thanks is directed to the head of education department of Deli
Serdang, the head of Deli Serdang government, and Mr. Yusnaldi Yusmansyah,
M.Pd, the head of Bina Program of Deli Serdang Education Departement for their
support in providing financial aid for her study.
Her deeply thanks is directed to Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed and Prof. Dr.
Sri Minda Murni, M.S as The Head and The Secretary of English Applied
Linguistics Study Program and Mr. Farid Ma’ruf as the administration staff for
their assistance regarding the official administrative procedures to fulfill the
requirements for completing the thesis.
Her deepest gratitude goes to her advisers, Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning,
M.Pd and Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd, for the warm-hearted supports and
encouragement during her thesis completion. Besides, her deep thanks to the rest
of her thesis examiners; Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd and Prof. Dr. Sriminda
Murni, M.S. and Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed for their encouragement, important
input and feedback for the improvement to this thesis.

i

. However, at any case, her foremost gratitude must be shown to the head of
SMA CT Foundation, Mr. Daulat, M.Pd, M.Si. the vice, Mr. Erwin Syahputra
M.Pd. the English teachers, Mr. Ahmad Nasihin, S.H.I and Mr. M. Guntar , S.Pd,
the students of Algoritma class of SMA CT Foundation and the administrators
who had faith in her work, and who always supported her with encouragement,
and who helped her feel as if she were one of them in the classrooms.
Her special thanks goes to her teaching colleagues, Drs. Suriadi, M.Pd,
Amanah, S.Pd. M.Hum, Siti Rahmi, S.Pd, and Hikmalia, S.Pd from whom the
idea of the thesis inspired, for their time of reading and discussing her thesis and
for their warm support.
Her sincere appreciation is also expressed to all her best friends; Hairani,
Luhetri, Nisa, Julia, Hestika, Fitri Ayunisa, Resty, Eka, Trisna, and Tasya for
memorable time and motivation provided for the accomplishment of the thesis and
with whom the writer struggles together during the academic years.
Lastly, her profound gratitude is given for her beloved parents and
brothers, for their endless love, pray and support for whole her life and her special
thanks goes to special persons; her husband, Suharmin, and her lovely daughter,

Puti Aisyah Naurah, for their patience, motivation, inspiration, and enjoyable
time, and love given in her life, this thesis is dedicated for you all.
Medan, February 2016

DELFINA

ii

ABSTRACT

Delfina. Verbal Interaction in Small Class Size of English Classroom. A
Thesis. English Applied Linguistics Study Program. Post Graduate School.
State University of Medan. 2016.
This study deals with the verbal interaction practiced in small class size of
English classroom of SMA CT foundation Medan in the perspective of
conversation analysis. The objectives of the study are to found out the patterns of
interaction between two teachers who teach 20 students in a similar class and
created reasons why the participants practice the way they do. This research was
conducted in descriptive qualitative design. The transcription data were collected
in one classroom at SMA CT Foundation, an elementary school classroom in Deli

Serdang regency which has adopted a small classroom size for five years through
observation, recording and in depth interview. The transcription data of
participants’ utterances were analyzed in Nasaji and Wells’ theoretical framework
(2001). There was also interviews with two teachers and four students both male
and female. The findings of the study showed that that there are four types of
exchange structure practiced by the participants. They are IRF, IRE, IRFRFRF,
and IRFRFRE. From fourteen categories of teacher talk three categories were not
practiced by the teachers. They are rejection in evaluation move, and confirmation
and reformation in follow up move. The categories frequently used by the teachers
in teaching small class of CT foundation were introduction and information
delivery in preparatory initiation move, information gathering, known answer
questions, demanding, authentic questions in initiation move, acknowledgement,
in evaluation move, and four types of follow up move such as solicitation,
clarification, extension, and association. The verbal interaction between the
teachers and students was dominated by the use of questions namely known
questions and solicitations to initiate the students’ talk and responded by
information back and counter inquiry talk categories. The reason for the teacher
practiced frequently known questions and solicitations to initiate the students’ talk
is the target of teaching English and their belief and perception toward their
learning process, while students’ verbal interaction is affected by their closeness

with their teachers and school regulations.

iii

ABSTRAK

Delfina. Verbal Interaction in Small Class Size of English Classroom. A
Thesis. Program Studi Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Pasca Sarjana
Universitas Negeri Medan 2016.
Penelitian ini berkaitan dengan interaksi bahasa verbal secara rutin terjadi
di kelas dengan jumlah siswa sedikit ketika pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris di SMA
CT Foundation Medan dengan pendekatan analisa percakapan. Tujuan penelitian
ini adalah untuk menemukan bentuk interaksi diantara dua orang guru yang
mengajar 20 orang siswa di kelas yang sama dan menentukan alasan yang yang
mendasari kecendrungan praktik penggunaan bahasa verba yang terjadi. Penelitian
menggunakan metode kualitatif deskriptif. Data transkrip percakapan didapat dari
satu kelas di SMA CT Foundation, sebuah sekolah yang telah menerapkan kelas
kecil selama lima tahun terakhir, melalui observasi, perekaman dan interview
langsung. Data transkripsi dari ujaran kemudian dianalisa dengan teori Nasaji dan
Wells (2000). Kemudian interview dilakukan terhadap kedua orang guru dan 4

orang siswa laki-laki dan perempuan. Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa terdapat
empat variasi struktur percakapan yang digunakan. Empat variasi tersebut
meliputi IRF, IRE, IRFRFRF, and IRFRFRE. Dari empat belas kategori ujaran
guru tiga katagori tidak muncul. Tiga katagori tersebut adalah rejection pada
evaluation move, dan confirmation dan reformation pada follow up move.
Katagori yang sering digunakan oleh guru di kelas tersebut adalah introduction
dan information delivery pada preparatory initiation move, information gathering,
known answer questions, demanding, authentic questions pada initiation move,
acknowledgement, pada evaluation move, and four types of follow up move such
as solicitation, clarification, extension, and association. Interaksi bahasa verbal
yang terjadi antara guru dan siswa didominasi oleh known questions and
solicitations untuk memancing partisipasi interaksi bahasa siswa dan dijawab
dengan jenis information back dan counter inquiry. Yang mendasari
kecendrungan guru menggunakan katagori tersebut adalah target pembelajaran
Bahasa Inggris dan keyakinan dan persepsi guru terhadap pembelajaran, bahwa
dengan interaksi seperti itu mereka yakin siswa akan menjadi aktif dan target
pembelajaran tercapai, sementara interaksi verbal yang digunakan siswa
dikarenakan kedekatan hubungan anatara guru dan siswa dan tuntutan peraturan
sekolah.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents

Pages

Acknowledgement..........................................................................................

i

Abstract...........................................................................................................

iii

Abstrak............................................................................................................

iv

Table of Contents...........................................................................................

v

List of Tables..................................................................................................

viii

List of Figures................................................................................................

ix

List of Appendices.........................................................................................

x

CHAPTER

I.

CHAPTER II .

INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study......................................

1

1.2 The Problem of the Study............................................

7

1.3 The Objectives of the Study.........................................

8

1.4 The Scope of the Study................................................

8

1.5 The Significances of the Study....................................

9

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 The Nature of Verbal Interaction in Classroom ……... 10
2.2 Conversation Analysis

…………………………….. 13

2.3 Patterns of Classroom Verbal interaction

…….. 14

2.3.1 The Sequence Types of Verbal interaction
……………………………….…………………...

15

2.3.2 The Categories of Teacher and Students Talk
…………………………………………………... 18

2.3.2.1 Teacher Talk

……………………... 18

2.3.2.2 Student’s Talk

……………………... 22

2.4 Factors Influencing Verbal Interaction ………………23
2.5 Forms of Classroom Verbal Interaction ……………... 25
2.4.1 Teacher – learner interaction

v

……………... 25

2.4.2 Learner – learner interaction
2.6 Class Size

……………... 26

……………………………………... 27

2.7 Relevant Studies ……………………………………... 28
2.8 Conceptual Framewok………………………………… 31

CHAPTER III.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design ……………………………………... 34
3.2 Data and The Participants of Study

……………... 34

3.3 Instrument of Data Collection

……………………... 35

3.4 Technique of Data Collection

……………………... 35

3.5 Technique of Data Analysis

……………………... 37

3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ……………………... 39
CHAPTER IV.

DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, DISCUSSION
4.1 Data Analysis................................................................... 40
4.1.1 Pattern of Verbal Exchanges Structure…………...44
4.1.1.1 IRF................................................................. 44
4.1.1.2 IRE................................................................. 45
4.1.1.3 IRFRE……………………………………… 45
4.1.1.4 IRFRFRF....................................................... 46
4.1.2 The Categories of Teacher and Students’ Talk
......................................................................................... 46
4.1.2.1 Introduction ……………………………... 47
4.1.2.2 Information Delivery …………………….. 47
4.1.2.3 Information Gathering …………………… 48
4.1.2.4 Known-answer Question…………………. 48
4.1.2.5 Demanding ………………………………49
4.2.2.6 Authentic Question ………………………50
4.1.2.7 Acknowledgment

………………………50

4.1.2.8 Solicitation…………………………………51

vi

4.1.2.9 Information Back…………………………. 52
4.1.2.10 Acceptance…………………………………52
4.1.2.11 Counter Inquiry…………………………….53
4.1.3 The Reasons why the Participants Interact
the Way They Did................................................. 53
4.2 Findings........................................................................... 56
4.3 Discussion........................................................................ 57
CHAPTER V .

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
5.1 Conclusions...................................................................... 62
5.2 Suggestions...................................................................... 63

REFERENCES............................................................................................. ……... 64
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………............. 68

vii

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1 Conclusions
After analyzing teacher-students verbal interaction in a small class
size of CT Foundation Senior High School, the conclusions are drawn as
the following:
1. The exchange structure of verbal interaction is varied into four
types, namely IRF, IRE, IRFRFRF, and IRFRFRE.
2. There are two talk categories frequently used by the teachers in
teaching small class of CT foundation, known answer questions,
solicitation and two talk categories frequently used by the students,
namely information back and counter inquiry. Thus, the verbal
interaction between the teachers and students was dominated by the
use of questions namely known questions and solicitations to
initiate the students’ talk and responded by information back and
counter inquiry talk categories.
3. The reason for the teacher practiced frequently known questions
and solicitations to initiate the students’ talk is the target of
teaching English while the reasons for dominant used of
information back and counter inquiry are affected by the school
regulation and their closeness with their teachers.

62

63

5.2 Suggestions
In accordance to the results of the study, the followings are
suggested for further study:
1. The numbers of participants in this study are too small as there are only
one class students in this classroom and 2 teachers so it may be more
valid if there are larger numbers of participants of other schools that
implements classroom size.
2. In order to have the whole picture about the interaction patterns between
teachers and students in a lesson, apart from analyzing the whole class
interactions, the student-student interactions and teacher-student
interactions during group, work pair or work individual tasks should
also be analyzed.
3. Since both the teacher and students benefitted by learning practice in
small classroom size, the small class size should be the best choice of
school management for formal education in the entire of Deli Serdang
Regency.

64

REFERENCE

Altrichter, H., et. al. 2008. Teachers Investigate Their Work: An Introduction to
action research across the professions. Ney York: Routledge
Balitho, R. 2010. Teacher Talk and Learner Talk. European Centre for Modern
Language: Council of Europe.
Barnes, D. 1978. The study of classroom communication in teacher education. In
M. Gill, &W.J. Crokers, (eds.). English in teacher education. Armidale,
NSW: University of New England.
Bogdan and Biklen, 1999, Qualitative Research for Education, London: Allyn
and Bacon.
Brown, H.D .2001. Teaching by principles (2nd Ed.). London: Longman.
Cazden, C. (2000). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Porthmouth, NH:Heinemann.
Celce, M and Murcia. 2001. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language.
United State of America : Heinle & Heinle.
Consolo, D. A. 2000. Teacher’s Action and Student Oral Participation in
Classroom Interaction. In J.K. Hall & Verplacte (Eds.). Second and
Foreign Language Learning Trough Classroom Interaction (p. 91-108).
New York: Lawrence Elrbaum Association.
Creswell, J. W. 2009. Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods
Approaches, Third Ediciton. USA: Sage Publications Inc.
Dagarin, Mateja. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English As A Foreign Studies In The English Language And
Literature In Slovenia. ELOPE, Volume 1, str 127-139
Denzin, N. K. & Lincon, Y. S. 1994. Introduction: Entering the Field of
qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Dinas Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan. 2010. Standard Pelayanan Minimal. Jakarta:
Kementrian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Dukmak, Samir. 2010. Classroom Interaction in Regular and Special Education
Middle Primary Classroom in the United Arab Emmirates .British
Journal of Special Education. Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 39-48
64

65

Ellis, R. 1994. The study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fisher, Douglas, & et. al. 2008. Content Area Conversation: How to Plan
Discussion-Based Lessons for Diverse Language learners. Nashville:
ASCD.
Francis, Jessica. 2014. Relating Preschool Class Size and Student Achievement. A
Dissertation of Program in Child Development.
Gorongna, Pedzisai. 2013. The Nature and Quality of Classroom Verbal
Interaction: Implications For Primary School Teachers in Zimbabwe:
Savap International Journal. March. 2013. Vol. 4. No. 2
Harvit. G. 2010. Handbook and Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Heritage, John. 1997. Conversation analysis and institutional talk: analysing data.
In David Silverman (Ed.). Qualitative research: Theory, method and
practice (pp161- 182). Sage: London.
Holloman, Y. 2007. The Impact of the Virginia K-3 Primary Class size Reduction
Program on Student Achievement in Reading. Unpublished Disertation.
Virginia: Educational Leadership and Policy Studies.
Javid, S, A. et.al. 2013. International Research Journal of Applied and Basic
Sciences. Science Explorer Publications. Vol, 4
Jonassen, D.H., Tessmer, M., hannum, W.H., 1999, Task Analysis Methods for
Instructional Design, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers,
Kearsley, G. 1976. Questions and Question-Asking in Verbal Discourse: A crossDisciplinary Review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5, 355-375.
Krashen, S.D. 1978& 1981. The Monitor Model for Second Language Acquisition
and Second Language Learning. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Lincon, Y. & Guba. 1975. Naturalistic Inquiry. New York: Sage.
Long, M. H. & Sato, C. J. 1983. Classroom foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and
functions of teachers’ questions. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House.
Mazeland, H. 2006. Conversation Analysis. Netherland: Elsivier. Retrieved on
February 18th , 2015. At http://www. Let.rug.nl/mazeland/ELL06maz.pdf.

66

McCharty, Michael. 2002. Discourse Analysis for The Language Teacher.
Shanghai: Shanghai Education Press.
Mehan, Hugh. 1979. Learning Lesson. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University
Press.
Miles, Matthew, B, and Huberman, A. Michael. 2014. Qualitative Data Analysis:
A Method Sources Book. 3 rd Ed. United States of America: Sage
----------------------------------------------------.
Thousand Oaks: Sage.

1994.Qualitative

Data

Analysis.

Nunan, D. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. London: Penguin English.
Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: A textbook for teachers. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
O’Donoghue, T. & Punch, K. 2003. Qualitative Educational Research in Action:
Doing and Reflecting. New York. Routledge.
Orellana, A. 2006. Interaction in Online Courses. The quarterly Review of
Distance Education. Vol. 7. No 3.Nova: Southtern University.
Ozemir, O. 2009. Three Turn Sequences in Reading Classroom Discourse.
Proceedings of the BAAL Annual Conference. Newcastle University.
Richards, Keith. 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. MacMillan: Aston
University
Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive Language Teaching. Interaction as the Key to
Teaching Language for Communication. New York: Cambridge
University
Press.
Ridho, A., et al. 2014. Investigating EFL Master Teacher’ Classroom Interaction
Startegies: A Case Study in Indonesian Secondary Vocational School.
SoLLs.INTEC.13: International Conference on Knowledge-InnovationExcellence: Synergy in Language Research and Practice.
Robinson, Helja Antola. 2005. The Ethnography of Empowerment: The
Transformative Power of Classroom interaction. London: The Falmer
Press (A member of the Taylor & Francis Group)
Ryme, Betsi. 2008. Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical
Reflection. Cresskill, N.J: Hampton Press.

67

Saiko, V, 2007, Different Student Strategies for Interactional Power in the IRF
Pattern in EFL Classroom, University of Jyvalyska.
Sammons, P and Bakkum, L. 2011. Effective Schools, Equity and Teacher
Effectiveness: A Review to the Literature. Vol.15 no 3. December 2011.
University of Oxford, Departement of Education.
Seedhouse, P. 2005. Conversation Analysis and Language Learning. Language
Teaching. 38 (4), 165-187. Retrieved on February 18th , 2015 at
http://www.novitasroyal.org/ Vol_5_1/sert_seedhouse.pdf
Sheperd, Michael, A. 2010. A Discourse Analysis of Teacher-Students Classroom
Interactions. Unpublished Disertation.
Shomoossi, Nematullah. 2004. The Effect of Teachers’ Questions Behaviour on
EFL Classroom Interaction. The reading Matrix. Vol.4, No.2.
Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Sarosdy, et al. 2006. Applied Linguistics I. Ertekunki az Ember: Unpublished.
Slavin, R. E. (1992). Research methods in education. Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Van Lier, L. 1988. The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.
Thapa, C. B. & Lin, A. M. Y. 2013. Interaction in English language classrooms
to enhance students’ language learning. Retrieved June 12, 2015 from
http://neltachoutari.wordpress.com/2013/08/01/interaction-inenglishlanguage- classrooms-to-enhance-nepalese-students-languagelearning/
Tolson, A. 2006. Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburg:
Edinburg University.
Tsui, A.B.M. 1995. Introducing Classroom Interaction. London: Penguin.
--------------. 2011. Ethnography and Classroom Discourse London: Routledge.
Tuan, T. L and Nhu. K. T. N. 2010. Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in
EFL Classrooms. www.csanada.net: Studies in Literature and Language.
Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 29-48