CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON THROUGH FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE OF MANDIRI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL.

(1)

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON THROUGH

FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES

SYSTEM (FIACS) AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE OF

MANDIRI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL

THESIS

Submitted as Partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

By:

ENDANG P MARBUN

Registration Number 2123321028

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT

FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS

STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN

2017

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

ABSTRACT

Marbun, Endang Pratiwi. Registration Number: 2123321028. Classroom Interaction in English Lesson Through Flander’s Interaction Categories System (FIACS) at the Eleventh Grade of Vocational School Mandiri. A Thesis. English Educational Program, State University of Medan, 2016.

This study focuces on analyzing the process of classroom interaction through Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS). The objective was to describe how the teacher and students use the categories of classroom interaction in English class by using Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS). The data was found based on the data transcription. The source of the data was the utterances between English teacher and 11th grade students at Mandiri Vocational School. The instruments for data collection were observation, video recording, and note talking. The data analysis applied descriptive qualitative research. The dominant category of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS) was found that asks questions category for teacher talk and students - talk response category for students talk. The total percentage of each categories classroom interaction were accepts feelings (2.15%), praise and encourages (9.67%), accepts or uses the ideas of the students (0%), asks questions (18.27%), lecturing (6.45%), giving directions (15.05%), criticizing or justifying authority (12.09%), students talk-response (32.25%), students talk-initiation (2.15%), and silence or confusion (1.07%). So, the classroom interaction was happened between teacher and students in the teaching and learning process in English lesson based on Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS)

Keywords: Teacher Talk, Students Talk, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) model.

(7)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer would like to express her deepest gratitude to Jesus Christ for His Grace, Guidance, Praise, Honour, Mercy and given the ability to the writer so that she finally accomplished her thesis entitled: “Classroom Interaction in English Through Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the Eleventh Grade of Vocational School Mandiri”.

This thesis is aimed to fulfill one of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Pendidikan of the English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, State University of Medan (UNIMED).

This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and the helps of several individuals who always contributed and extended their valuable assistances in the preparation and completion of this thesis. Therefore, the writer would like to express her gratitude and special thanks to :

 Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Reactor of State University of Medan.  Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M. Hum., the Dean of Faculy of Languages and Arts.  Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English and Literature

Department.

 Nora Ronita Dewi, S. S, M.Hum., the Head of English Educational Study Program.

 Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., and Johannes J Gultom, S. Pd, M.Hum., her Thesis Advisors.

 Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Dra. Masitowarni Siregar, M.Ed., her Thesis Examiners for their valuable input to furnish this thesis.

 Marasil Marbun and mother Melvina Manik, her beloved parents who never give up in supporting, loving, and praying her in any ways.

 Her beloved family Hendra Agustinus Marbun, Lydia Veronica Marbun, Yonelda Basa Marbun, Mario Seplyn Marbun, Maria Supri Haryati, Yentiar Manurung and Ioansen Bona Marbun who had supported and motivated her during the accomplishing of this thesis.

(8)

iii

 Her beloved friends (Maria, Elfridayani, Sutar, Trynanda, Vony, Dhina Azizah Lubis, Nova Marya, Putri, Ucha, Nia, Anggi and Ade) who had give supported and motivated for finishing her thesis.

 Her beloved classmates in Ext. Class-C 2012. Thank You Guyss for our togetherness since 4 years.

The writer realizes that her Thesis is still far from being perfect, therefore she warmly welcomes any constructive suggestions that will improve the quality of this Thesis. She hopes that this Thesis would be beneficial for further research particulary in the field of English language teaching.

Medan, Februari 2017

The writer,

Endang P Marbun

(9)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

ABSTRACT ... i

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ... ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...iv

LIST OF TABLES ...vi

LIST OF FIGURES ... vii

LIST OF APPENDICES ... viii

CHAPTER I.INTRODUCTION ... 1

A. The Background of the Study ... 1

B. The Problem of the Study ... 3

C. The Objective of the Study ... 3

D. The Scope of the Study ... 3

E. The Significance of the Study ... 4

CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ... 5

A. Theoretical Framework ... 5

1. Teaching and Learning Process ... 5

2. Theory of Language Learning in the Classroom ... 6

3. Classroom Interaction ... 8

4. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) ... 12

B. Relevant Studies ... 22

C. Conceptual Framework ... 23

CHAPTER III.METHODOLOGY OF RESEARCH ... 26

A.Research Design ... 26

B.Data and the Source of Data ... 26

C. Instruments for Collecting the Data ... 27

1. Observation ... 27

2. Video Recording ... 27

3. Note Talking ... 27

D. Data Analysis. ... 28

CHAPTER IV. DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION ... 31

(10)

B. Data Analysis ... 40

C.Discussion………...43

CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ... 47

A.The Conclusion ... 47

B. The Suggestions ... 47

REFERENCES ... 49

(11)

LIST OF TABLES

Pages Table 2.1 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIAC) .... …..13 Table 2.2 Sample Matrix of Interaction Analysis ... …..21 Table 2.3 Sample of Percentage in Classroom Interaction ……….22 Table 3.1 The example of transcription interaction between teacher and

students ………28

(12)

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Figure 2.1 Chart Conceptual Framework ... …..25 Figure 3.1 Pairing the code number……….29 Figure 4.1 The Result Categories of Teacher Talk and Students Talk……..42

(13)

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Pages

Appendix 1.Classroom Observation Tally Sheet. ... 51

Appendix 2. Ploting the Coded Data by Observer ... 52

Appendix 3. The result of CategoriesTeacherTalk and StudentsTalk ... 53

Appendix 4. Observation Tally Sheet by Observer ... 55

(14)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

A. The Background of the Study

Classroom gets an important place for the success of teaching and learning

process. In the classroom, teacher and students carry out learning activities

through interaction. It was really important for teacher and students in

materialized the harmonious of teaching and leaarning process in the classroom.

Classroom interaction is the action that performed by the teacher and the

students in the process of teaching and learning in the classroom. In classroom

interaction has verbal interaction and non verbal interaction. When, students do

their written and oral interaction in the classroom, it means that they have done

their verbal interaction and for their non verbal interaction showed from their

responses such as head-nodding, hand raising and so on without using their words

in their interaction in the classroom (Meng, 2011:98).

Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) as a model of classroom interaction used to find out how does the teacher’s and students’ talking time during the teaching and learning process (Flanders,1970). The researcher who

wants to use FIAC model has to do plotting a coded data with a constant time

before putting the data into observation tally. It is intended for knowing the calculating of the teacher’s and students’ talk in the classroom. In addition, it means the researcher who wanted to use FIAC model had to use every three

seconds to decide which one of the best category of teacher talk, students talk, or

(15)

interaction from the teacher that are more talking and the students only gave a

little responses. It can be seen from the percentage that 80% teacher talk and 20%

students talk by Flanders (1970).

Based on the English teacher’s experience in teaching English at Mandiri Vocational High School found that the students had problems in interaction in the

classroom. The problems were some students could not express their idea in

English, and the students often gave a little responds and use Indonesian language

when the teacher ask the question in the classroom. It would make their

interaction were not effective in using English as a target language in their study.

From the previous study about An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by

Using Flander Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Technique at

SMPN 13 Kota Bengkulu by Putri (2014) found that the percentage of teacher talk

(66.15%)and students talk (33.10%). That is the basic reason for the researcher

want to know how the teacher and student interact each other during teaching and

learning process in classroom.

So, from the explanationabout classroom interaction the reseacher decided to use Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS). Flander technique is appropiate for analyzing the students’ and teachers’ talk in the teaching and learning process.

(16)

B. The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study were

formulated in form of questions:

1. What is the dominant category during classroom interaction in English Lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS)at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri?

2. How do the percentages of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri?

C. The Objective of the Study

Based on the problem of the study, the objectives of the study were:

1. To find out the dominant category of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri.

2. To find out the percentages of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri.

D. The Scope of the Study

This study was limited only on analyzing interaction that occur between the

English teacher and the 11th grade students in English lesson at Mandiri

Vocational School by using Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS).

(17)

E. The Significant of the Study

The significant of the study was classified into two – theoretically and practically.

1. Theoretically, the result of this study can be a reference for other teacher so it

can improve their teaching way in the classroom.

2. Practically, for the teachers as a reference to know how the teacher used flander’s interaction model, for the students to give them information how the students use flanders interaction model, for other researcher to give them information how to apply Flander’s Interaction model in the classroom.

(18)

47 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. The Conclusion

After analyzing the data of teaher and students interaction in the classroom,

the conclusions were drawn on the following :

1. The teacher and students use all the categories of the classroom interaction by

applying Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) model. But the

dominant category of the teacher talk was giving direction and for students

talk was students talk response.

2. The percentage of teacher talk in English classroom interaction at Mandiri

Vocational School was giving direction (15.05%). While the lowest category

was accepts or uses the ideas of student (0%). The dominant category of

students Talk was students talk-response (32.25%) while the lowest

categories was student talk initiation (2.15%). And the percentage for silence

or confusion was (1,07%).

B. The suggestions

Based on the data findings and what this research intended to, it was

suggested that :

1. In the teaching learning process, the teacher should interact one another until

get feedback on it. It means that, the teacher should balance teachers talk and

(19)

the students answer the question is given. It is important is used to measure the

students’ understanding about the material until it make them focus for receving

the lesson in the class. So the interaction between students and teacher will be

balance.

2. Further research should know that in the classroom practice have to consider

teacher talk and students talk as an important part that contribute the whole

classroom prrocess.

(20)

REFERENCES

Amatari, Veronica Odiri. 2015. A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2015, Vol. 3 No.5, pp. 43-49.

Brown,H. Douglas.1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.

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

Brown,H. Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd edn. New York: Longman.

Byrne,Donn. 1999. Teaching Oral English. New Edition. Mishawaka. Longman Publish Group.

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

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, Third Edition. USA: Sage Publications.

Dagarin, Mateza. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.

Ellis, R. (2003) Second Language Acquisition (9th Edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Eriba, J. O. & Achor E. E. 2010.Effect of School Type and Teacher Gender on Classroom Interaction Patterns in Integrated Science Class. Brunei International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 2(1) 48-58.

Flanders, N. A (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley Pub.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to teach English.Edinburgh Gate, Harlow CM20 2JE: AddisonWesley Longman.

Lodico, Marguetite. et al. 2006. Method in Educational Research. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

(21)

Nafrina, Ajeng. 2007. The Teacher And Learner Talk In The Classroom Interaction of Grade VIII A SMPN Cepiring Kendal. Thesis S1. Semarang Stated University.

Nurmasitah, S. (2010). A Study of Classroom Interaction Characteristics in Geography Class Conducted in English: The case at year ten of an immersion class in SMA N 2 Semarang. Post Graduate School, Diponegoro University, Semarang, Indonesia.

Putri, F. G. (2014). An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using Flander Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS) technique at SMPN 13 Kota Bengkulu in 20123/2014Academic Year. University of Bengkulu.

Richard, J.C. (1992) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, Jack. C. and Richard Schmidt.2002.Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Third Edition). London: Longman, Pearson Education.

Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interactive Language Teaching.Interaction as the Key to Teaching Language for Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse : The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action, London: Routledge

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

(1)

B. The Problems of the Study

Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study were formulated in form of questions:

1. What is the dominant category during classroom interaction in English Lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS)at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri?

2. How do the percentages of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri?

C. The Objective of the Study

Based on the problem of the study, the objectives of the study were:

1. To find out the dominant category of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri.

2. To find out the percentages of classroom interaction in English lesson through Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) at the eleventh grade of Vocational School Mandiri.

D. The Scope of the Study

This study was limited only on analyzing interaction that occur between the English teacher and the 11th grade students in English lesson at Mandiri Vocational School by using Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS).

(2)

E. The Significant of the Study

The significant of the study was classified into two – theoretically and practically.

1. Theoretically, the result of this study can be a reference for other teacher so it can improve their teaching way in the classroom.

(3)

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

A. The Conclusion

After analyzing the data of teaher and students interaction in the classroom, the conclusions were drawn on the following :

1. The teacher and students use all the categories of the classroom interaction by applying Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) model. But the dominant category of the teacher talk was giving direction and for students talk was students talk response.

2. The percentage of teacher talk in English classroom interaction at Mandiri Vocational School was giving direction (15.05%). While the lowest category was accepts or uses the ideas of student (0%). The dominant category of students Talk was students talk-response (32.25%) while the lowest categories was student talk initiation (2.15%). And the percentage for silence or confusion was (1,07%).

B. The suggestions

Based on the data findings and what this research intended to, it was suggested that :

1. In the teaching learning process, the teacher should interact one another until get feedback on it. It means that, the teacher should balance teachers talk and students talk. In this case, only the teacher give question to the students until

(4)

the students answer the question is given. It is important is used to measure the students’ understanding about the material until it make them focus for receving the lesson in the class. So the interaction between students and teacher will be balance.

2. Further research should know that in the classroom practice have to consider teacher talk and students talk as an important part that contribute the whole classroom prrocess.

(5)

REFERENCES

Amatari, Veronica Odiri. 2015. A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 2015, Vol. 3 No.5, pp. 43-49.

Brown,H. Douglas.1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to

Language Pedagogy. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.

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

Brown,H. Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach

to Language Pedagogy. 2nd edn. New York: Longman.

Byrne,Donn. 1999. Teaching Oral English. New Edition. Mishawaka. Longman Publish Group.

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

Learning. Los Angelas: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed

Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Design Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods

Approaches, Third Edition. USA: Sage Publications.

Dagarin, Mateza. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in

Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.

Ellis, R. (2003) Second Language Acquisition (9th Edition). London: Oxford University Press.

Eriba, J. O. & Achor E. E. 2010.Effect of School Type and Teacher Gender on Classroom Interaction Patterns in Integrated Science Class. Brunei

International Journal of Science and Mathematics, 2(1) 48-58.

Flanders, N. A (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, Mass: Addison- Wesley Pub.

Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to teach English.Edinburgh Gate, Harlow CM20 2JE: AddisonWesley Longman.

Lodico, Marguetite. et al. 2006. Method in Educational Research. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.

(6)

Nafrina, Ajeng. 2007. The Teacher And Learner Talk In The Classroom

Interaction of Grade VIII A SMPN Cepiring Kendal. Thesis S1.

Semarang Stated University.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richard, Jack. C. and Richard Schmidt.2002.Longman Dictionary of Language

Teaching and Applied Linguistics (Third Edition). London: Longman,

Pearson Education.

Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interactive Language Teaching.Interaction as the Key to

Teaching Language for Communication. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse : The English

Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.

Walsh, S. 2011. Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action, London: Routledge

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

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON THROUGH FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE OF MANDIRI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL.