THE USE OF INITIATION-RESPONSE-FEEDBACK PATTERN IN CONTENT-LANGUAGE INTEGRATED LEARNING CLASSROOM INTERACTION : CASE-STUDY AT RSBI SCHOOL IN BANDUNG.

TABLE OF CONTENT

PAGE OF APPROVAL ………..……….i

STATEMENT OF THE AUTENTICITY ….……….ii PREFACE ………..iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.………...iv

ABSTRACT ...………...………..v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ………...vi

LIST OF FIGURES ………...x

LIST OF CHARTS ………xi

LIST OF TABLES ………xii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION……….1

1.1. Background………...1

1.2. Research question……….……4

1.3. Aims of the Study……….………5

1.4. Significant of the Study………....5

1.5. Scope of the Research………...6

1.6. Research Methods………...6

1.6.1. Setting and Participants………..6

1.6.2. Instruments……….7

1.6.3. Data Collection……….….7

1.6.4. Data Analysis……….7

1.7. Clarification of Terms………….………..8

1.7.2. Content-Language Integrated learning………..8

1.7.3. Classroom Language……….9

1.7.4. IRF exchanges ………...9

1.8. Paper Organization……….10

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW………..……….12

2.1. Content and Language Integrated Learning ……….….12

2.1.1. Successful CLIL Classroom………..…….14

2.1.2. Effective teaching behavior in CLIL classroom……….…15

2.2. Language taught in context………16

2.3. English as a Medium of Instruction………...17

2.4. Teaching in primary level……….….18

2.5. Classroom Interaction……….21

2.6. Classroom discourse……….…….….23

2.7. IRF in CLIL Classroom……….……….29

2.8. Student – Teacher Interaction: IRF Sequence……….………...………30

2.9. Variation of the teacher initiated IRF……….36

2.10. Question as an Elicit Act in Initiation Moves……….………..36

2.10.1. Openness of the Content: Open-ended and Closed Questions….……..…36

2.10.2. Question Type: Display Questions and Referential Questions…………..37

2.10.3. Questions in Term of Eliciting Functions………..……38

2.10.4. Questions by its Cognitive Level: higher and lower Order Question…...38

2.11. Sociolinguistics……….43

2.13. Code Switching………...…………..44

2.13.1. Types of Code Switching………..….45

2.13.2. The Function of Code-Switching……….…..49

CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………..…54

3.1. Research Design……….……….54

3.2. Samples and Participants of the Study………...55

3.3. Data Collection………..…….56

3.4. Data Analysis………..57

CHAPTER IV RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION………..……..59

4.1. The Description of Data Collection………...59

4.2. The IRF Framework in Class Interaction………...…………61

4.3. Initiation Response Feedback……….63

4.3.1. Initiation……….70

4.3.1.1. Question As an Elicit Act in Initiation Move………..….70

4.3.1.1.1. Display or Referential Questions………..70

4.3.1.1.2. Open-Ended or Closed Questions………..73

4.3.1.1.3. Higher or Lower Level Question………..…75

4.3.1.1.4. The Function of Questions………....78

4.3.2. Response Move (R Slots)………....78

4.3.3. F Move Slots………82

4.5. Bilingualism / Multilingualism………..…….88

4.6. Code-Switching in CLIL Class Interaction……….90

4.6.1. The Occurrence of Syntactic Categories of Code-switching………...90

4.6.1.1. Code-Switching at the Level of Phrase……….….93

4.6.2. The Types of Code-Switching in CLIL Class Interaction…………..…..101

4.6.3. Code-Switching in Function………..105

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS………..….115

5.1. Conclusion………....115

5.1.1. IRF……….…115

5.1.2. Question as Initiation………...…………..116

5.1.3. Code-Switching………...………..117

5.2. Suggestion for the Teacher………...118

5.3. Suggestions for the Next Researcher………..….118

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background

Language is a tool of communication which has an important role in human life. Language is used to express feeling, give ideas, get information and so on. In social community, a particular language is used as means of communication by the same members of the group (Ramelan, 1992). In addition, language is not only a vehicle for the expression of thoughts, perceptions, sentiments, values characteristic of a community, it also represents a fundamental expression of social identity.

There are many languages in the world. One of them is English. Since English is used by the largest number of people in the world, we have to admit that English has become the international language. English is considered as a tool to enter the era of globalization. Either the country considers the language as a second or a foreign language, the language is considered necessary either way which is proven by the placement of English in curricula of the majority of the countries all over the world.

Realizing the importance of English, the Indonesian government has done so many efforts. In education field, Indonesian goverment has implemented it as one of the cumpolsory subjects taught in primary, secondary, and high education in the hope that Indonesian students will master English well.

After English has been taught as an optional subject from primary to high education level, the government provides another breakthrough to enhance the quality of national education in Indonesia. In order to have the same quality as other countries do, the Indonesian government released the policy about International Standard Class or known as RSBI. According to the regulation No.20/2007 about National Education System, “The central government and/or regional government established as least one educational institution of all levels to be developed into an international standard educational institution”, Department of National Education has arranged Initiation of International Equivalence Based Schools or Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf International (RSBI). One of the requirements to be an international standard school is using English as the classroom language.

In regards to the RSBI guidelines proposed by Kemendiknas, international standard schools must conduct bilingual classes, which involve two different languages as the classroom language. In this case, Bahasa Indonesia is used as native language and English as a second language. In bilingual classes, some subjects require teachers to use English as classroom language. Therefore, the teachers who are non-native English teachers have to teach content subject using English and so they have to be familiar with the term of English for Specific Purposes as well as the content itself. As stated by Sukyadi (2012) that the method of using target language in delivering subject content especially Science and Math as what has been implemented in Europe, USA, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaysia has various names; Bilingual Education, Content-based Instruction, Content-based Teaching, Immersion Program or Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL).

This term is also known as CLIL; Content and Language Integrated Learning. It means, in the process of teaching-learning in RSBI schools, teachers must deliver the content subject

with target language. In Indonesia the target language that is used for teaching-learning process in CLIL class is English. In the meantime, this process of using English as a target language or classroom language is pronounced as EMI; English as Medium of Instruction.

As stated by Haagen and Mathelitsc (2001), the main point of English as a Medium of Instruction (EMI) is the process of combining the conventional instruction of content-area subjects with foreign language learning, instead of mother tongue; a foreign language is used as a tool for communication in different subjects. According to Oxford learner’s pocket dictionary, medium means that by which something expressed (Cowie, 1984). On the other words, it is defined as substance, surrounding, in which something exists or through which something moves. Instruction means instructing or being instructed. Instruction is derived from the word “instruct” that has a meaning as teach a school subject, a skill. Medium of instruction here refers to the target language the teacher uses in conveying the material of school subject. It is especially focused on the English teaching-learning process. According to Heinich (1982) English as the medium of instruction means teacher uses English as the delivery language in the classroom interaction.

Fairclough (2006) stated that the classroom interaction has gained so much attention from number of researchers for they believe it prominent to the success of the learning process. The term classroom interaction refers to the interaction between the teacher and learners, and amongst the learners in the classroom (Carter & Numan, 2001). Earlier studies of second language (L2) classroom interaction have focused on the language used by the teacher and learners, how the interaction is generated, and their effect on L2 learning. More recent studies have begun to investigate the underlying factors which shape interaction in the classroom (e.g. teacher and learner beliefs, social and cultural background of the teacher and learners, and the

psychological aspects of second and foreign language learning) providing further insights into the complexities of classroom interaction. One of the models of classroom interaction that can be found in CLIL class is Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) pattern.

Initiation - response - follow-up or feedback, called IRF pattern is one of the interactional forms, which can be easily found in a classroom setting. The earlier researchers like Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Mehan (1979), Cazden (2001), Lemke (1990), Nassaji and Wells (2000) have presented their studies about this in EFL classrooms. They analyzed the interaction pattern in EFL classrooms through IRF pattern and found it as a dominant pattern occurred in the class interaction. As described by Van Lier (1996), this model consist the teacher initiating talk (question), the students responding, and the teacher evaluating the response (i.e. providing judgment feedback). This practical structural sequence has made the IRF model as one of the types of classroom interaction that is typically used for teacher-student interaction.

Based on the theory from Dalton-Puffer (2006) about CLIL linguistic progression that is constructed by three kinds of languages; language for learning, language of learning and language through learning, therefore she stated that the use of language in CLIL classroom can be found in the IRF sequence interactions. Then it would be interesting to investigate deeper about this phenomenon. For example the interaction between teacher and students in the classroom that happens through IRF exchanges. Besides, putting attention on IRF exchanges between them, the researcher also puts attention to the use of questions as an elicit act in initiation moves from the teacher. Furthermore, it is also important to reveal the use of both languages and how the process of switching language happens in the classroom.

1.2. Research Question

Based on the explanation above this study would like to answer the following questions:

1. How does the IRF sequence exchange happen in the CLIL classroom interaction?

2. What type of questions does the teacher use as initiation move in promoting IRF interaction with the students?

3. How does the code-switching opperate in CLIL classroom interaction?

1.3. Aims of the Study

Referring to questions above, this study is aimed to:

1. To describe the IRF sequence exchanges happen in the CLIL classroom interaction.

2. To describe the type of questions the teacher uses as initiation move in promoting IRF interaction with the students.

3. To describe the use of English and Bahasa Indonesia in CLIL classroom interaction

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study offers several contributions. The finding of this study has practical, theoretical and professional significance. In practical application, this study can contribute to the effort of

teaching method which provokes student participation in learning process actively. On the theoretical side, this study will develop knowledge about the use of IRF sequence proven by numbers of researchers to be the effective method in delivering the teacher-students interaction. The provisional significance of this study also relate to the advantages for professional workers in educational field, especially in teaching Science in CLIL classroom which have to be delivered by English. It can also give the brief explanation about the strategy for the teacher in making interactive learning by conducting IRF pattern, so the limitation of the language they have would not affect the interaction in delivering the subject content.

1.5 Scope of the Research

This study focuses on the IRF sequences that happened between teacher and students in Content-Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) classroom, and describes the questions used by teacher as his/her initiation moves. Furthermore, this study also discusses the use of English and Bahasa Indonesia in the class interaction.

1.6 Research Methods

1.6.1. Setting and Participants

The setting of the research is in one junior high school in Bandung. It is a Rintisan Sekolah Bertaraf International (RSBI) where the students learn Science and Math in two languages; English and Bahasa Indonesia. The reason of choosing this school is because it is one of the favorite schools in Bandung which has implemented English as medium of instruction for

about 4 years, so it must provide more explicit data and the location of this school is very accessible, it made the process of collecting data easier to do.

The participants of this study are teachers and students from Physics and Biology class. The teachers teach 9th grade at one public junior high school in Bandung. They are chosen because they have experiences in teaching content subject using English Instruction in CLIL/Bilingual class for more than two years.

1.6.2 Instruments

In the process of gathering data to answer the research questions, the researcher used some instruments. Related to the instruments use in this study, observation and video recording were used in process of collecting data.

1.6.3 Data Collection

The researcher conducted the research by analyzing the sample data taken from videotaping and observation. Observation was conducted to find out how the sequence of IRF happened in the interaction between both parties and to find out the number of questions teacher makes as initiation, while video recording supported the observations and completed what the observation cannot.

1.6.4 Data Analysis

After collecting the data, the writer made a preliminary exploratory analysis in qualitative research consists of exploring the data to obtain a general sense of the data, memorizing ideas, thinking about the organization of the data, and considering whether you need more data (Creswell, 2008). Agar (1980) “… read the transcript in their entirety several times. Immerse

yourself in the details, try to get a sense of the interview as a whole before breaking it into parts” (p.103).

Then, the writer codes the data. Coding is the process of segmenting and labeling text form description and broad themes in the data (Creswell, 2008). This description and broad themes would then be developed. Describing and developing themes from the data consists of answering the major research questions and forming an in-depth understanding of the central phenomenon through descriptive and thematic development (Creswell, 2008). At the end of these processes, the writer would interpret and report the findings.

1.7. Clarification of Terms

To avoid misconception and misunderstanding related to the topic of this study, number of terms is clarified as followed:

1.7.1. Billingualism

The definition of bilingualism is complex and is influenced by multiple factors such as the age of acquisition of the second language, continued exposure to the first language (L1), relative skill in each language and the circumstances under which each language is learned. Popular definitions of bilingualism conceptualize language knowledge as being a binary category whether one is classified as having acquired two languages or not (Brutt & Varghese, 2004). However, bilingualism should be thought of as being on a continuum, where one can have varying levels of proficiency in two languages, regardless of how and when they were acquired. In addition, language and literacy skills are comprised of multiple subs kills. In any given language, bilinguals might be highly proficient in one domain of skills but not the other.

1.7.2. Content-Language Integrated Learning

Content and language integrated learning (CLIL) was originally defined as a pedagogical approach with a dual focus, involving the integration of (second/foreign/target) language study with the study of a subject domain instructed in that language (Räsänen, 1999). However, there are many other definitions and terms use worldwide, all referring to some kind of an approach where both content learning and language learning are being promoted.

1.7.3. Classroom Language

Classroom language is the language used in a classroom situation. It certainly is a language for special purposes which have to be learned especially. The classroom language itself can be categorized into two major categories (1) teacher talk and (2) student talk. Teacher talk refers to the language produced by the teacher addressed to learners in the course of classroom interaction. While student talk can be defined as the language produced by the student in the course of classroom interaction. Usually, the student talk appears as the response of the teacher talk.

1.7.4. IRF Exchange

Initiation - response - follow-up or feedback, called IRF pattern is one of the interactional forms, which can be easily found in a classroom setting. The earlier researchers like Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), Mehan (1979), Cazden (2001), Lemke (1990), Nassaji and Wells (2000) have presented their studies about this in EFL classrooms. They analyzed the interaction pattern in EFL classrooms through IRF pattern and found it as a dominant pattern occurred in the class interaction. As described by Van Lier (1996), this model consist the teacher initiating talk (question), the students responding, and the teacher evaluating the response (i.e. providing

judgment feedback). This practical structural sequence has made the IRF model as one of the types of classroom interaction that is typically used for teacher-student interaction.

1.8. Paper Organization

This research paper organized into five chapters as follows:

CHAPTER I : INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides the background of the study, research questions, the aims of the research, significance of the research, hypothesis, research method, and clarification of the key terms and organization of the paper.

CHAPTER II : LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter consists of related theories that relevant to the research. The theories are conducted from other experts and researchers with related literature that the writer used in investigating the research problem.

CHAPTER III : RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology conducted in conducting the research. It consists of research design, research population and sample of the research, data collection, research procedures, and data analysis.

CHAPTER IV : FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter reports the findings and discussion of the study generated by interpreting and analyzing the collected data. It provides the data collection, data presentation, the explanation of data analysis, and the result of data analysis.

CHAPTER V : CONCLUTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter concludes research result, conclusion and recommendations for teaching process and further research.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter explains the methodology of the research. To obtain the clearer picture of teaching Science in bilingual classes implemented in the setting of the research, the researcher engaged a qualitative study. Through this qualitative study, the researcher tried to answer the research questions; (1) How does the IRF sequence exchange happen in the CLIL classroom interaction? (2) What type of question does the teacher use as initiation move in promoting IRF interaction with the students? (3) How does the code-switching opperate in CLIL classroom interaction?

Given those primary guiding research questions, as well as the purposes of the research, a qualitative study represented an appropriate means of obtaining data. In the first sub chapter of this chapter, the researcher begins with a description of the setting and participants of the research. Overall, this chapter presents setting, participants of the research, research design, data collection and data analysis. Each sub chapter is described as follow.

3.1. Research Design

Based on the research questions mentioned above, this study employs qualitative research design by using descriptive and identification method. Moreover, qualitative research tends to be a research design describing the data in descriptive form which consist utterance, written data or human behavior (Bogdan –Taylor, 1992).

This research is conducted under a qualitative study and is designed to get a better understanding about the phenomenon of IRF exchanges in the students-teacher interaction in CLIL classroom (Content-Language Integrated Learning). Furthermore, this research is grounded on the data from the field (through observation and video recording). Therefore, based on those reason, the qualitative research design is employed in this study.

Furthermore, in order to support qualitative research design, the descriptive and identification method are attempted by the researcher. The descriptive method tends to describe and discover the data taken from observation and video recording about the existence of IRF pattern in teacher-students interaction in Bilingual/CLIL classroom. Descriptive method is the method when the data are gathered from existing situation, then the data interpreted without manipulating data (Sowell-Casey, 1982). This study uses the descriptive method because it describes and interprets the data in the form of description. Moreover, the use of identification method means that the study is attempted to identify the data to the theoretical foundation related to this study.

The identification method assists the researcher to identify which data or items fell into what categories based on the theoretical foundation. Since this research deals with the investigation of a phenomenon or case in a real-life context it is called a qualitative descriptive case study. Furthermore, the research is conducted through several steps; collecting, interpreting, classifying, making conclusion and reporting.

3.2. Samples and Participants of the Study

Participants’ selection is first determined to decide the respondents who are involved in

consideration whether people can provide significant contribution for the experience under investigation. Arikunto (2002) adds that source of the data in the research is the subject where the data are achieved from. Since this study investigates discourse realization, the selection of the respondents involves a high standard for their linguistic abilities, majors, communicative and sociolinguistic competence. By using communicative and sociolinguistic competence, the subjects of the research expected to be able to produce communicative learning.

The data of this study is collected from one of State Junior High School in Bandung. There are several reasons why the researcher chooses this school as a research location. The first reason is based on the information that this school has provided Bilingual class (in this study it’s called CLIL), for more than three years now. So researcher makes a conclusion that the first party participants (teachers) have had enough experience in delivering content subject material in English. Related to the research questions stated earlier, researcher thinks this school is able to give the data about the interaction between the teacher and the students, and the pattern of their interaction clearly.

The samples of this study are 9th grade students and their Science teachers. The researcher assumes that this combination of students and their Science teacher in this school can provide the good picture of communicative learning.

3.3. Data Collection

In order to gain the natural interaction between students and teacher in the classroom, researcher used video recording technique. Video recording can be valuable in providing researchers with objective first hand data for analyzing data of teacher-students behavior in the classroom (Burns, 1999). Van Lier (1990) also recommended that discourse analysis normally

used transcript and videotaped interaction as its database. Transcripts have three advantages: a) they overcome the limitations of intuition because they enable repeated scrutiny and visits of the data; b) other researchers have access to the data about claims which are made; and c) data can be reused and reexamined for new investigations (Silverman, 1993).

The second technique used in this study was observation, it was held to support the data elicited recording in order to make data analysis more objective. As stated by Creswell (2008) there are four options in observation technique; those are complete participant, observer as participant, participant as observer and complete observer. Upon this theory, researcher decided to choose the last type of observation; complete observer, which means that the researcher observes without participate in the teaching learning process.

Many researchers have argued for the presence of the researcher in the research site,

observing and writing down the participants’ behaviors. The fundamental assumption in this

data-collection method is that watching and listening are the best ways for the researcher to discover what is happening and to capture the most important events, which tend to be taken for granted in a setting (Morse & Richards, 2002). By being there, the researcher can “get a “feel”

for the atmosphere of the setting” in a multi-dimensional way.

3.4. Data Analysis

As stated by Suherdi (2006), there are 4 steps suitable in this research; transcribing the video-recording, coding and analyzing data, interpreting data and finishing. 1) Transcribing the video-recording. Looking to the fact that the researcher get main data from video-recording taken from the classroom, the researcher responsible to transcribe the video-recording into a transcript, as suggested by Allwright-Bailey (1991), researcher must tend to use transcript as a database for

discourse analysis. 2) Coding and analyzing the data. In this step, the data that have been transcribed are coded using label such as: category of knower, move based on IRF pattern, kind of moves, name etc. Therefore, in this study researcher have several strategies, as followed:

1. Dividing the transcript based on IRF exchange pattern

2. Analyzing and coding the exchanges found earlier by the kind of knower degree, move classification, category in each move, function of the move, etc

3. Analyzing the type of questions used by the teacher based on Kinsella (1997) and Bloom’s (1956) theory of categories of questions to find in what type does the questions given by teacher categorized into.

4. Quick reviews of the code-switching phenomena happen in the interaction.

3) Interpreting the data. In this phase the researcher tries to answer the research questions as stated earlier based on the findings analyzed by two strategies above. As known that the research put two research questions, so in this phase, researcher also gives the explanation and relation of how those questions connect each other and lead into complex discussion. 4) Finishing. The researcher provides the findings and discussion in conclusion and suggestion to illustrate the study as a whole.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS

This chapter is divided into two subs, first is conclusion and then suggestions. The conclusions are formulated from research questions, and the suggestion provides the recommendation for Science teachers and further research.

5.1. Conclusion

The aim of this study is to answer the research questions in relation to the IRF pattern used in content-language integrated learning classroom and the type of questions used by the teachers in promoting the pattern. In addition, there is also explanation of how those teachers and their students used English and Bahasa Indonesian in their learning interaction.

This study sets conclusion from one of the 4C CLIL framework proposed by Coyle (1999). 4C CLIL framework is constructed by content, communication, cognition and culture. The findings of this study are intended to make conclusion from communication point of this framework. This study has provided a brief picture of communication process happened in Biology and Physics classroom interaction. Then, the use of Sinclair and Coulhard IRF pattern were intended to present the actual description and factual information of the use of languages in these classrooms. Based on what has been set by Kemendiknas regarding the use of English and Bahasa Indonesia in RSBI schools, the proportion of the use of these two languages in third year RSBI class must be combined at the percentage of 75% English and 25% Bahasa Indonesia.

Looking to the findings stated in previous chapter, the researcher concludes that both teachers failed to fulfill the requirement stated by Kemendiknas which is set

At the point of communication process that happened in both classrooms, Biology class produced English utterances as much as 31,44%, 34,91% Bahasa Indonesia and 31,44% of the total utterances were code-switched. In Physic class, English utterances were produced as low as 4,93%, Bahasa Indonesia utterances 88,82% and 6,25% of the total utterances were code-switched. Based on this fact and the IRF analyzing process presented in the findings, the researcher concludes that both teachers failed to promote the use of target language in their class interaction. In short, it means that both classroom were failed at the point of communication

process that is one of the Coyle’s 4C framework used in CLIL classroom. Even though these two

classrooms were failed to promote the CLIL communication process, the researcher could state that at this point, the Biology class was better that Physics in term of communication process.

5.2. Suggestion for the Teacher

There are some suggestions for the teacher to realize the importance of the classroom interaction characteristic and to develop their teaching skill and method. First, it is better if the teacher not only spends the teaching-learning time by explaining the material. Teacher can organize some activities for the students to make the classroom interaction more effective. They can also use more open-ended question to promote space for discussion, and higher level question in order to enhance the students thinking process. Then the teacher should create positive atmosphere in the classroom, so the students will more enjoy taking a part in the teaching – learning activities.

5.3. Suggestions for the Next Researcher

This research is a preliminary research of classroom interaction study. It is focused on the classroom interaction in CLIL class. It is known that in international school, Science and Math are delivered in English. Other researchers could carry out a research and development in order to expose more from bigger number of lessons and including Math class in it. The results of this research can be a basic result, example and guidance in order to develop the other new researches.

REFERENCES

Afriani, I. (2009). “Metode penelitian kualitatif”. Available at (http://www.penalaran unm.org/index.php/artikelnalar/penelitian/116-metode-penelitiankualitatif.html)

Retrieved on April 18th 2012

Agar, M. (1980). Qualitative research methods. Baverlyhills, CA: Sage Publications

Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Angelo, T. A. and Cross, K. P (1993). Classroom assessment techniques. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arikunto, S. 2002. Dasar-dasar evaluasi pendidikan (Edisi revisi). Yogyakarta: Bumi Aksara. Aziz, N. (2009). Students‟ perception on teaching and learning mathematics in English.

Accessed 13 june 2012, from

http//kajianberasaskansekolah.blogspot.com/2008/04/students_perception_on_teaching_an d.html.

Baradja, M.F. (1990). Kapita selekta pengajaran bahasa. Malang: IKIP Malang.

Bogdan, R & Steven J. (1992). Pengantar Metode Penelitian Kualitatif. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional

Bloom, B. S., et al. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: Mckay.

Bloom, D & Theodorou, E. (1988). Analyzing teacher-student and student-student discourse. In J. C. Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 217-248).

Brutt, G, J & Varghese, M. (2004). Bilingualism and language pedagogy. Multilingual Matters Limited

Burns, A.C. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Candela, A. (1999). Students‟ power in classroom discourse. Linguistics and Education 10(2), 139-163.

Carroll, S. & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit negative feedback: An empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15: 357-386.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to speaker of other language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. E. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom discourse. The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Caudron, C., (1988). Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Christensen, L. B. (2004). Experimental Methodology (Ninth Edition). Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Coulthard, M. and M. Montgomery (eds.) (1981). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Coulthard, M.(Ed). (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge. Coulthard, M., Brazil, D. (1992). Exchange structure in Coulthard, M. (ed) Advances in

spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge, 50‐78.

Council of Europe (2001), Common European framework of reference for languages

– learning, teaching, assessment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cowie, C. (1984). Oxford advanced learner dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Coyle, D. (1999). Theory and planning for effective classrooms: Supporting students in content and language integrated learning contexts. In J. Masih (ed.) Learning through a foreign language. London: CLIL.

Coyle, D., Hood P. & Marsh D. (2010), CLIL: Content and language integrated learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Creswell, J. (2008). Educational research planning, conducting and evaluating quantitative research. New Jersey: Pearson Education International

Cullen, R. (2002). Supportive teacher talk: the importance of the F-move. ELT Journal, 56(2): 117-127.

Cumming, A. (1994). Alternatives in TESOL research: Descriptive, interpretative and ideological orientation. TESOL Quarterly, 28(4): 673-703.

Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Dalton-Puffer, C. (2006). Questions as strategies to encourage speaking in content-and-language-integrated classrooms. In E. Uso-Juan & A. Martirez-Flor (Eds.), Current trends in the

development and teaching of the four language skills (pp. 187-214). New York: M. deGruyter.

Fairclough, N. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research, in R. Wodak and M. Meyer (Hgg.). Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage, s. 121-38.

Fairclough, N. (2006). Language and power. London: Longman

Gage, N.L. & David C. B. (1998). Educational psychology: 6th Edition. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gerot, L and Wegnell. P. (1994). Making sense of functional grammar. Australia: antipodean Education Enterprise (AEE)

Graaff, R., Koopman, G. J., and Westhoff, G. (2007). Identifying effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL). Based on “An observation tool for effective L2 pedagogy in content and language integrated learning (CLIL)” by De Graaff, Koopman, Anikina, and Westhoff, in The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, vol. 10/5, 603–624.

Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers sometimes do. In S. Graham & V.S. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution Theory: Applications to Achievement, Mental Health, and Interpersonal Conflict (pp. 17-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gumperz, J. J. (1967). On the linguistic markers of bilingual communication. Journal of Social Issues, 23, 48–57.

Gutierrez, K. D. (1994). How talk, context, and script shape contexts for learning: A cross-case comparison of journal sharing. Linguistics and Education, 5(3&4): 335-365.

Haagen, C & Leopold Mathelitsch. (2001). English As a Medium Of Instruction in ScienceTeaching.http://www.Fisica.uniud.it/girepseminar2001/CS06/HAAGEN_03_FINA L.pdf

Hadley, G. (2010). An analysis of questioning and feedback strategies using the IRF framework. (dissertation, The School of Humanities of the University of Birmingham, UK unpublished)

Hakim, A. (2006). Speech variety of elite people in Makassar: Forms and social functions of Indonesia-English code switching. Jurusan Sastra Inggris Fakultas Sastra UNHAS 4.2, p70-80

Hall, J.K. (1998). Differential teacher attention to student utterances: the construction of different opportunities for learning in the IRF. Linguistics and Education 9(3), p. 287-311

Hammink, J. E. (2000). A comparison of the code switching behavior and knowledge of adults and children. (Thesis, University of Texas. EI Paso. Unpublished)

Harlen, W. (1992). The Teaching of Science. London: David Fulton publishers

Havranek, G. (2002) When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?. International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.

Heinich, R. (1982), Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction, New York : John Wiley & Sons

Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York: Longman Inc Holmes, J. (2000). An introduction to sociolinguistics. England: Pearson Education

Hu, Q. Q. (2004). A Survey on the questioning pattern of college English teachers. Foreign Language World, 6: 22-27.

Katie, W. (2007). English as a medium of instruction. Retrieved on may 25, 2012 from http//www.tefllogue.com/English-as-medium-of-instruction.html

Kinsella, K. (1997) Moving from comprehensible input to “learning to learn” in CBI, in: M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. (White Plains, NY, Longman), 46-57.

Kitiyanusan, R. (2004). Facilitating the questioning skills f student teachers through action research (Disertation, Victoria Library University, 2004, Unpublished)

Koziol, J. M. (2000). Code-Switching between Spanish and English in contemporary American Society. Available in www.smcm.edu/ilc/dfdocs/koziol.pdf, accessed on 27 May 2012. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Levine, D. R & Adelman, M. B. (1993). Beyond language: Cross-cultural communication.

Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural press, Inc

Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 22-27

Liebscher, G. & OʹCain, D. J. (2005). Learner code‐switching in the content‐based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89: 234‐247.

Littlewood, W. (1989). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31-35.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics,. P. 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amp041

Love, K & Suherdi, D. (1996). The negotiation of knowledge in an adult English as a second language classroom. Linguistics and Education 8, p. 287-311

Macedo, A.R. (2000). Classroom and spoken discourse & phonology. Module 4. pp 3-7 University of Birmingham, England

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471 -479.

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. London and New York: Routledge.

Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL classes. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4), 583-596

Martinez, M. (2011). CLIL and cooperative learning. ISSN Encuentro, 7-23

McClure, E. (1981). Formal and functional aspects of the code switched discourse of bilingual children. In R. Duran (Ed.), Latino language and communicative behavior, (pp. 69-94). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

McCormic, D. E. (2009). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms.{Review of the book Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms, by Dalton-Puffer .C. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2007. Pp. xii + 330.]. SSLA, 31, 501–519. doi:10.1017/S027226310909038X

McKendry, E. (n.d). An overview of second language teaching methods and approaches.

Retrieved on May 27th _{2011. Available at}

(www.cramlap.org/FileStore/Filetoupload,23970,en.doc)

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to work together. London: Routledge.

Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Beverly Hills, C: Sage Publications

Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Code-switcing as indexical of social negotiations. In L. Wei (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader (pp. 137-165). New York: Routledge.

Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Duelling languages: grammatical structure in code switching. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Myers-Scotton, C. & Jake J.L. (1995). Matching lemmas in a bilingual competence and production model. Linguistics 33: 981-1024.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Code switching. In F. Coulmas (Ed). The handbook of sociolinguistics. (pp. 217-237). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Myhill, D. (2003). Principled understanding? Teaching the active and passive voice. Language and Education, 17(5): 355-362.

Myhill, D. (2006) Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What‟s the use of „triadic dialogue‟?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3): 376-406.

Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179-204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Nilep, C. (2006). “Code switching” in Sociocultural linguaistics. (Online), (accesed on Juni 2011 from http://www.colorado.edu./ling/CRIL/Volume19_Issuel/ paper_NILEP.pdf,). Nishimura, M. (1986). Intrasentential code-switching: the case of language assignment. In:

Jyotsna, V (Ed.). Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.

Nuffield Primary Science Teachers‟ Handbook (1992). Nuffield

Nunan, D. (2001), Research methods in language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillipson, R. (2009). Disciplines of English and disciplining by English, Asian EFL Journal Volume 11 Issue IV, last accessed online 10 October 2012 at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_2009_rp.php

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. p355-362.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581-618.

Poplack, S. (1981). Syntactic structure and social function of code switching. In R. P. Duran (Ed.), Latino language and communicative behavior (pp. 169-184). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Poplack, S. (1985), Contrasting Pattern of Code-switching in Two Communities in H.J. Warkentyne (ed), Method V: Proceedings of the V international conference on methods in dialectology, Victoria, University of Victoria Press.

Rahman, A. (2004). Code switching between teachers and students (Study on verbal

communication in panti asuhan Al-Khodijah Desa Sumberpasir Kec. Pakis Kab. Malang. (Thesis. Malang: Maulana Malik Ibrahim State Islamic University, Unpublished)

Ramelan. (1992). Introduction to linguistics analysis. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.

Rampton, B., C. Roberts, C. L. & R. Harris (2002). Methodology in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 23(3), 373-392

Räsänen, A. (1999). Teaching and learning through a foreign language in tertiary settings. Publications of Higher Education Evaluation Council: 5. Helsinki: Edita.

Regulation No.20/2007 about National Education System. (2007). Indonesia Department of National Education

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (1985) Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (2002) Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (3rd ed). London: Longman.

Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rivers, W. M. (1993). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, P. (1964). English syntax. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Romaine, S (1989) Bilingualism (1st edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S (1995) Bilingualism (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse makers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. London: Blackwell.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Scott, E. (2008). Corrective feedback in the language classroom: How to best point out language mistakes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.languagestudy.suite101.com/article.cfm/corrective_fee dback_in_thelanguage, Accessed on 22 August 2012

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. 1992. Toward an analysis of discourse, In Coulthard, M.(Ed) (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. 89-110. London: Routledge.

Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference, (Online),from (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html, accessed on Mei 2012).

Sowell , E & Casey, R J. (1982). Research methods in education. Wadsworth: Pub. Co.

Sprinthall, N.A. and Sprinthall, R.C. (1990), Education psychology: A development approach, 5* edn,U.S.A: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

Stockwell, R.P., Schachter, P. & Partee, B.H. (1968). English syntax project. London: U.C.L.A mimeo

Stockwell, R.P. (2002) . Sociolinguistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge Suherdi, D. (2003). Kurikulum 2004 (Standard kompetensi mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris).

Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Suherdi, D. (2006). Classroom discourse analysis: A systemiotic approach. Bandung: UPI Press. Sukyadi, D. (2012). Efektivitas penggunaan Bahasa Inggris calon guru dan guru MIPA sekolah

RSBI di Bandung. (Proposal, Indonesia University of education, Unpublished)

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). New York: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. G. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Meditative acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97‒114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swan, M. (1996). Practical English usage. New York: Oxford University Press

Tsui, A. B. M. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal 16: 8-30

Tsui, A. (1992). A functional description of questions. In Coulthard, M.(Ed) 1992. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. 89-110. London: Routledge.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2006). Discourse, interaction and cognition. Special Issue, Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159–177.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman Group UK Limited

Van Lier, L. (1990). Ethnography: Bandai, bandwagon, or contraband? In C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom (pp. 33-53). London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.

Wardhaugh, R. (1970). Language structure and language teaching. RELC Journal 1 (1): 5-16. Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed). UK: Blackwell Publishing. Waring H. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback

and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92: p32-56

Waring, H. (2009). Moving out IRF. Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan: pp. 237-326

Warren, M. (1985). Discourse analysis and English language teaching. (master's thesis, University of Birmingham, Unpublished)

White, A. (2003). The application of Sinclair and Couldhard‟s IRF structure to a classroom

lesson: Analysis and discussion. Applied Linguistics, 25(3): 376-406.

Wilkinson, R. (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht

Xie, Xiaoyan. (2008). Interactions during teacher-fronted class time of English classes in a Chinese University. (Thesis, The Victoria University of Wellington, 2008, Unpublished) Zhao, X. H. (1998). Study of teacher talk in the intensive reading course at a university level.

Harlen, W. (1992). The Teaching of Science. London: David Fulton publishers

Havranek, G. (2002) When is corrective feedback most likely to succeed?.International Journal of Educational Research, 37, 255-70.

Heinich, R. (1982), Instructional media and the new technologies of instruction, New York : John Wiley & Sons

Hoffman, C. (1991). An introduction to bilingualism. New York: Longman Inc Holmes, J. (2000). An introduction to sociolinguistics. England: Pearson Education

Hu, Q. Q. (2004). A Survey on the questioning pattern of college English teachers. Foreign Language World, 6: 22-27.

Katie, W. (2007). English as a medium of instruction. Retrieved on may 25, 2012 from http//www.tefllogue.com/English-as-medium-of-instruction.html

Kinsella, K. (1997) Moving from comprehensible input to “learning to learn” in CBI, in: M. A. Snow & D. Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and content. (White Plains, NY, Longman), 46-57.

Kitiyanusan, R. (2004).Facilitating the questioning skills f student teachers through action research (Disertation, Victoria Library University, 2004, Unpublished)

Koziol, J. M. (2000). Code-Switching between Spanish and English in contemporary American Society. Available in www.smcm.edu/ilc/dfdocs/koziol.pdf, accessed on 27 May 2012. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science. language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Levine, D. R & Adelman, M. B. (1993). Beyond language: Cross-cultural communication.

Yarmouth, Maine: Intercultural press, Inc

Levine, G. S. (2003). Student and instructor beliefs and attitudes about target language use, first language use, and anxiety: Report of a questionnaire study. The Modern Language Journal, 22-27

Liebscher, G. & OʹCain, D. J. (2005). Learner code‐switching in the content‐based foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal 89: 234‐247.

Littlewood, W. (1989). Foreign and second language learning: Language acquisition research and its implications for the classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Littlewood, W. (2000). Do Asian students really want to listen and obey? ELT Journal, 54(1), 31-35.

Lorenzo, F., Casal, S. & Moore, P. (2009). The effects of content and language integrated learning in European education: Key findings from the Andalusian bilingual sections evaluation project. Applied Linguistics,. P. 1–25. doi:10.1093/applin/amp041

Love, K & Suherdi, D. (1996). The negotiation of knowledge in an adult English as a second language classroom. Linguistics and Education 8, p. 287-311

Macedo, A.R. (2000). Classroom and spoken discourse & phonology. Module 4. pp 3-7 University of Birmingham, England

Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional feedback?. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471 -479.

Mackey, A. & Gass, S. (2005) Second language research: Methodology and design. London and New York: Routledge.

Markee, N. (2004). Zones of interactional transition in ESL classes. The Modern Language Journal 88 (4), 583-596

Martinez, M. (2011). CLIL and cooperative learning. ISSN Encuentro, 7-23

McClure, E. (1981). Formal and functional aspects of the code switched discourse of bilingual children. In R. Duran (Ed.), Latinolanguage and communicative behavior, (pp. 69-94). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex.

McCormick, D. E., & Donato, R. (2000). Teacher questions as scaffolded assistance in an ESL classroom. In J. K. Hall & L. S. Verplaetse (Eds.), Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. 183-202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

McCormic, D. E. (2009). Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms.{Review of the book Discourse in content and language integrated learning (CLIL) classrooms, by Dalton-Puffer .C. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2007. Pp. xii + 330.]. SSLA, 31, 501–519. doi:10.1017/S027226310909038X

McKendry, E. (n.d). An overview of second language teaching methods and approaches.

Retrieved on May 27th _{2011. Available at}

(www.cramlap.org/FileStore/Filetoupload,23970,en.doc)

Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to work together. London: Routledge.

Morse, J. M., & Richards, L. (2002). Readme first for a user’s guide to qualitative methods. Beverly Hills, C: Sage Publications

Myers-Scotton, C. (1988). Code-switcing as indexical of social negotiations. In L. Wei (ed.), The Bilingualism Reader (pp. 137-165). New York: Routledge.

Myers-Scotton, Carol. (1993). Duelling languages: grammatical structure in code switching. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Myers-Scotton, C. & Jake J.L. (1995). Matching lemmas in a bilingual competence and production model. Linguistics 33: 981-1024.

Myers-Scotton, C. (1993). Code switching. In F. Coulmas (Ed). The handbook of sociolinguistics. (pp. 217-237). Cambridge: Blackwell.

Myhill, D. (2003). Principled understanding? Teaching the active and passive voice. Language and Education, 17(5): 355-362.

Myhill, D. (2006) Talk, talk, talk: Teaching and learning in whole class discourse. Research Papers in Education, 21(1), 19-41

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What‟s the use of „triadic dialogue‟?: An investigation of teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3): 376-406.

Nikula, T. (2007). The IRF pattern and space for interaction: Comparing CLIL and EFL classrooms. In C. Dalton-Puffer & U. Smit (Eds.), Empirical perspectives on CLIL classroom discourse (pp. 179-204). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

Nilep, C. (2006). “Code switching” in Sociocultural linguaistics. (Online), (accesed on Juni 2011 from http://www.colorado.edu./ling/CRIL/Volume19_Issuel/ paper_NILEP.pdf,). Nishimura, M. (1986). Intrasentential code-switching: the case of language assignment. In:

Jyotsna, V (Ed.). Language processing in bilinguals: Psycholinguistic and neuropsychological perspectives. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale.

Nuffield Primary Science Teachers‟ Handbook (1992). Nuffield

Nunan, D. (2001), Research methods in language teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Phillipson, R. (2009). Disciplines of English and disciplining by English, Asian EFL Journal Volume 11 Issue IV, last accessed online 10 October 2012 at http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/December_2009_rp.php

Polkinghorne, D. E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology. p355-362.

Poplack, S. (1980). Sometimes I‟ll start a sentence in Spanish y termino en español: toward a typology of code-switching. Linguistics 18: 581-618.

Poplack, S. (1981). Syntactic structure and social function of code switching. In R. P. Duran (Ed.), Latino language and communicative behavior (pp. 169-184). Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corp.

Poplack, S. (1985), Contrasting Pattern of Code-switching in Two Communities in H.J. Warkentyne (ed), Method V:Proceedings of the V international conference on methods in dialectology, Victoria, University of Victoria Press.

Rahman, A. (2004). Code switching between teachers and students (Study on verbal

communication in panti asuhan Al-Khodijah Desa Sumberpasir Kec. Pakis Kab. Malang. (Thesis. Malang: Maulana MalikIbrahim State Islamic University, Unpublished)

Ramelan. (1992). Introduction to linguistics analysis. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.

Rampton, B., C. Roberts, C. L. & R. Harris (2002). Methodology in the analysis of classroom discourse. Applied Linguistics 23(3), 373-392

Räsänen, A. (1999). Teaching and learning through a foreign language in tertiary settings. Publications of Higher Education Evaluation Council: 5. Helsinki: Edita.

Regulation No.20/2007 about National Education System. (2007). Indonesia Department of National Education

Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S. (2001) Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (1985) Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics. London: Longman.

Richards, J. C. and Schmidt, R. (2002) Dictionary of language teaching & applied linguistics (3rd ed). London: Longman.

Rivers, W. M. (1987). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rivers, W. M. (1993). Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roberts, P. (1964). English syntax. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.

Romaine, S (1989) Bilingualism (1st edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Romaine, S (1995) Bilingualism (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Schiffrin, D. (1987), Discourse makers, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse. London: Blackwell.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language. A case study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House Scott, E. (2008). Corrective feedback in the language classroom: How to best point out language mistakes.Retrievedfromhttp://www.languagestudy.suite101.com/article.cfm/corrective_fee dback_in_thelanguage, Accessed on 22 August 2012

Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. London: Sage.

Sinclair, J. McH. & Coulthard R.M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, M. 1992. Toward an analysis of discourse, In Coulthard, M.(Ed) (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. 89-110. London: Routledge.

Skiba, R. (1997). Code switching as a countenance of language interference, (Online),from (http://iteslj.org/Articles/Skiba-CodeSwitching.html, accessed on Mei 2012).

Sowell , E & Casey, R J. (1982). Research methods in education. Wadsworth: Pub. Co.

Sprinthall, N.A. and Sprinthall, R.C. (1990), Education psychology: A development approach, 5* edn,U.S.A: McGraw-Hill, Inc.,

Stockwell, R.P., Schachter, P. & Partee, B.H. (1968). English syntax project. London: U.C.L.A mimeo

Stockwell, R.P. (2002) .Sociolinguistics: A resource book for students. London: Routledge Suherdi, D. (2003). Kurikulum 2004 (Standard kompetensi mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris).

Jakarta: Depdiknas.

Suherdi, D. (2006). Classroom discourse analysis: A systemiotic approach. Bandung: UPI Press. Sukyadi, D. (2012). Efektivitas penggunaan Bahasa Inggris calon guru dan guru MIPA sekolah

RSBI di Bandung. (Proposal, Indonesia University of education, Unpublished)

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. Widdowson (pp. 125-144). New York: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. G. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Meditative acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (ed.) (2000) Sociocultural theory and second language learning, 97‒114. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swan, M. (1996). Practical English usage. New York: Oxford University Press

Tsui, A. B. M. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC Journal 16: 8-30

Tsui, A. (1992). A functional description of questions. In Coulthard, M.(Ed) 1992. Advances in spoken discourse analysis. 89-110. London: Routledge.

Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2006). Discourse, interaction and cognition. Special Issue, Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159–177.

Van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman Group UK Limited

Van Lier, L. (1990). Ethnography: Bandai, bandwagon, or contraband? In C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom (pp. 33-53). London: Modern English Publications in association with the British Council.

Van Lier, L. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum: awareness, autonomy and authenticity. New York: Longman.

Wardhaugh, R. (1970). Language structure and language teaching. RELC Journal 1 (1): 5-16. Wardhaugh, R. (1986). An introduction to sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Wardhaugh, R. (2002). An introduction to sociolinguistics (4th ed). UK: Blackwell Publishing. Waring H. (2008). Using explicit positive assessment in the language classroom: IRF, feedback

and learning opportunities. The Modern Language Journal 92: p32-56

Waring, H. (2009). Moving out IRF. Language Learning Research Club, University of Michigan: pp. 237-326

Warren, M. (1985). Discourse analysis and English language teaching. (master's thesis, University of Birmingham, Unpublished)

White, A. (2003). The application of Sinclair and Couldhard‟s IRF structure to a classroom lesson: Analysis and discussion. Applied Linguistics, 25(3): 376-406.

Wilkinson, R. (2004). Integrating content and language. Meeting the challenge of multilingual higher education. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers Maastricht

Xie, Xiaoyan. (2008). Interactions during teacher-fronted class time of English classes in a Chinese University. (Thesis, The Victoria University of Wellington, 2008, Unpublished)

Zhao, X. H. (1998). Study of teacher talk in the intensive reading course at a university level.