CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON BASED ON FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES (FIAC).
CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON
BASED ON FLANDER’S INTERACTION
ANALYSIS CATEGORIES (FIAC)
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirements for
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
ELFRIDAYANI PURBA
Registration Number 2123321024
ENGLISH AND LITERARTURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
iii
DECLARATION
Expect where appropriate acknowledged, this thesis is my own work, has been expressed in
my own words, and has not previously been submitted for publication.
I understand that this paper may screened electronically or otherwise for plagiarism.
Medan,
Februari 2017
Elfridayani Purba
Reg. No. 2123321024
ABSTRACT
Purba, Elfridayani. Registration Number: 2123321024. Classroom
Interaction in English Lesson Based on Flander’s Interaction Categories
(FIAC). A Thesis. English Educational Program, State University of Medan,
2017.
This study focuces on analyzing the process of classroom interaction through
Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) model. 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 (FIAC) model.
The data was found based on the data transcription. The source of the data was
the utterances between English teacher and 7th grade students at SMP N 1
SEIBAMBAN. The instruments for data collection were observation, video
recording, and note talking. The data analysis applied descriptive qualitative
research. It was found that the total percentage each categories classroom
interaction were accepts feelings (0.57%), praise and encourages (1.34%),
accepts or uses the ideas of the students (0.19%), asks questions (13.74%),
lecturing (7.06%), giving directions (30.9%), criticizing or justifying authority
(3.91%), students talk-response (28.81%), students talk-initiation (0.29%), and
silence or confusion (13.17%). It showed that students participated in the
interaction process.
Keywords: Teacher Talk, Students Talk, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
(FIAC) model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
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 Lesson Based on the Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)”.
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 Rector 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.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A.,Ph. D, and Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd, her
Thesis Advisors.
Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., her Thesis
Reviewers for their valuable input to furnish this thesis.
Selamat Purba and mother Asmaria Damanik, her beloved parents who
never give up in supporting, loving, and praying her in any ways.
Her beloved family Nova Irayani Purba, Jan Chrisdo Jumeldi, Yoan Haris
Purba, and Sartika Sihombing who had supported and motivated her during
the accomplishing of this thesis.
Muliater Sialagan S.Pd and Supiyanto S.Pd, The English Teacher in SMP N
1 Seibamban for helping the writer during the research.
Special Thanks to Rio Damanik, for his great love, time, support, helps and
prayers in finishing the thesis.
ii
Her beloved friends (K’chrisna, K’endang, K’juwita, Grace, K’rayona,
Debi, Asrina, Unyil, Ito, Endang, Maria, Nanda, Sutar,Vony,Tyas) who
had give supported and motivated for finishing her thesis.
Her beloved friends at PPLT Seibamban especially
thanks to (Osda,
Methary, Sartika, Sely, and Winata) for the experience, laugh, support, and
prayer.
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 resrach,
particularly in the field of English language teaching.
Medan, Februari 2017
The writer,
Elfridayani Purba
Reg. No. 2123321024
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
DECLARATION ............................................................................................
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ............................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1
A. The Background of the Study ............................................................ 1
B. The Problems of the Study ................................................................. 3
C. The Objective of the Study ................................................................ 4
D. The Scope of the Study ...................................................................... 4
E. The Significant of the Study .............................................................. 4
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................... 5
A. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... 5
1. Discourse ....................................................................................... 5
a. Classroom Discourse ................................................................ 6
2. Speech Functions........................................................................... 7
3. The Nature of Interaction ............................................................... 8
a. Classroom Interaction ............................................................... 9
b. Types of Classroom Interaction................................................ 10
c. Aspects of Classroom Interaction ............................................. 11
d. Interactional Strategies ............................................................. 12
4. Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FLACS) ....... 13
a. Ten Categories of Teacher Talk and Students Talk ................ 15
b. The Coding System .................................................................. 19
c. Strength of FIAC Model ......................................................... 22
B. Relevant Studies................................................................................. 22
C. Conceptual Framework ...................................................................... 24
iv
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................... 27
A. Research Design ................................................................................... 27
B. Data and Source of Data ..................................................................... 27
C. Instruments for Collecting the Data ..................................................... 28
1. Observation .................................................................................... 28
2. Video Recording ............................................................................ 28
3. Note Talking................................................................................... 28
4. Data Analysis ................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER IV. DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSIONS .......... 31
A. The Data ............................................................................................... 31
B. Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 38
C. Discussions........................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ................................ 49
A. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 49
B. Suggestion ............................................................................................ 50
REFFERENCES ............................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 53
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIAC)............ 14
Table 3.1 The Example of Transcription Interaction between Teacher and
tudents ........................................................................................................ 29
Table 4.1 Classroom Interaction Transcription A .......................................... 39
Table 4.2 Classroom Interaction Transcription B .......................................... 40
Table 4.3 Classroom Interaction Transcription C .......................................... 40
Table 4.4 The result Categories of Teacher Talk and Student Talk............... 43
vi
S
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 21
Figure 2.1 Chart of Conceptual Framework .................................................. 26
Figure 3.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 30
Figure 4.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 42
Figure 4.2 The result of categories teacher talk and students talk ................. 45
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1.Transcription ............................................................................... 53
Appendix 2.Classroom Note Talking Sheet ................................................... 73
Appendix 3.Coded and Decoded the Data by Observer ................................. 74
Appendix 4.Classroom Observation Tally Sheet ........................................... 78
Appendix 5. The result of categories teacher talk and students talk .............. 80
viii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Classroom interaction becomes the most important part 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 teaching learning process in the
classroom.
Interaction simply means a communication which involve more than one
person. The importance of interaction is explained by Brown (2000:165): Through
interaction, teacher and students exchange thought, feelings, and ideas resulting in
a reciprocal effect on each other in the classroom. Moreover, Lister (2007) states
that interaction makes the students be able to test their communicative success
through exchanging information with the teacher or among the students
themselves. Besides, interaction give advantages for the teacher in gaining deeper
students’ skill and motivation. In classroom activities, the teacher involve the
students to speak actively. The students who are active in interaction through
taking turn may develop their language. Meanwhile, the students who are passive
in interaction have less apportunity to learn.
Furthermore, to have a good interaction, students should realize speech
function. To initiate a talk, students use not only question but also statement,
command or offer to initiate to talk. Speech functions need to be introduced to the
1
2
students in order to give them more knowledge on how to maintain successful
interaction.
Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) model is 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 silence should be written down to put in the
observation sheet.
Based on the researcher’s teaching experience in SMP N 1 Seibamban, it
was found that the common interaction occured in the classroom that the students
would participate to talk if the teacher initiated, encouraged, and asked to students
to talk. In fact, the categories of teacher talk had great influence to make the
students to talk in the classroom. That was the basic reason why the researcher
wanted to find out the common interaction that occured in the classroom wether
the students participated in the interaction process or not. Then, to know how
much the teacher and students spent time to talk during teaching and learning
process.
From the previous study about Classroom Interaction: An Analysis of
Teacher Talk and Student Talk in English for Young Learners (EYL) by Pujiastuti
(2013) found that all of the teacher talk categories of FIAC were revealed
3
covering giving direction, lecturing, asking questions, using students’s ideas,
praising, criticizing student’s behaviour and accepting feelings. However, giving
direction and lecturing were found as the most frequently used categories among
all. The other Studies about An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Techniques at SMPN28
Bandar Lampung by Almira (2016) who conducted a study that the objective was
to describe the interaction between the teacher and learners while they are in the
classroom. The result showed that giving direction was the most frequently used
by the teacher talk. In students talk, students response specific was the most
frequently used.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher wanted to conduct a
research entitled “ Classroom Interaction in English Lesson based on Flander’s
Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) model ”.
B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study were
formulated in forms of questions:
1. How do the teacher and the students use the categories of classroom
interaction in English Class?
2. What is the dominant category used by the teacher and the students in
English classroom Interaction ?
4
C. The Objective of the Study
Based on the problem of the study, the objectives of the study were:
1. To describe how do the teacher and the students use the categories of the
classroom interaction in English Class.
2. To describe the dominant category used by the teacher and the students in
English classroom interaction.
D. The Scope of the Study
There are several methods of classroom interaction analysis, some of
them are: Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC), Foreign Language
Interaction Analysis (FLINT) system, Initiation Response and Evaluation (IRE),
and Topically Related Sets (TRS). In this case, this research is limmited by the
interaction that occurs in the classroom between the English teacher and the 7th
grade students in English lesson based on Flanders classroom interaction model.
E. The Significant of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives of the study were:
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
24
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data of teaher and students interaction in the classroom, a
conclusion was 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. The
categories of classroom interaction easier to find through the data
transcription which is coded before. While, pairing the number of categories
of interaction is used to enter it into matrix. Then, from the matrix can
simplify to calculate each category until get the percentage on it.
(2) The dominant category of Teacher Talk in English classroom Interaction at
SMP NEGERI 1 was giving direction (30.92%). While the lowest category
was accepts or uses the ideas of student (0.19%). The dominant category of
Students Talk was students talk-response(28.81%) while the lowest
categories was student talk initiation (0.29%)
49
50
B. Suggestion
In line with the conclusion above, some suggestions are recommended as
follows:
(1) It is suggested that English teacher should balance their talk in the classroom
ineraction. Only the teacher more talk in the classroom then the students.
The students should be able to speak actively in classroom or in other words
the students at SMP N 1 Seibamban should be given the opportunity to talk
and elaborate their knowledge. The teacher should improve their teaching
way in the classroom into a good way.
(2) It is suggested that Students should participate actively one another in the
classroom until the categories of teacher and students balance used in the
classroom. By applying Flanders Model, it can improve the students to
interact actively in the classroom.
(3) It is suggested that the Further research that want to apply Flander’s model in
the teaching learning process should consider teacher talk and students talk
in the whole classroom prrocess.
51
REFERENCES
Al-Nawrasy, Omar. 2012. The effect of Native and Nonnative English Language
Teacher on Secondary Students’ Achievement in Speaking Skills. Jordan
Journal of Educational Science,2012, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.243-254.
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.
Asmara, Risaning Tias. 2007. An Analysis on The Speaking Classroom
Interactions at The Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri 7 Surakarta in The
Academic Year 2006/2007. Surakarta : University of Sebelas Maret.
Brown, H Douglas.1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Brown, H Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. 2nd edn. New York: Longman.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.
Dagarin, Mateza. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.
David, Nunan. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Newyork : Prentice Hall.
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,2010. Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp 48-58.
Halliday,M.A.K.1985.Spoken and Written Language.Victoria:DeakinUniversity
Press
Haris, David P. 1974. Testing English as A Second Language. New Delhi: Tata
Mcgraw-Hill Publishing.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to teach English.Edinburgh Gate: AddisonWesley
Longman.
Heaton,J. B. 1991. Writing English Language Testing.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
52
Maiza, Masfa. Dwi Rukmini, Ahmad Sofwan. 2015. Teacher’sBasic Questioning
Used by English Teacher in Teaching English. English Education
Journal, 5 (1), 4.
Pujiastuti, Rini Triani. 2013. Classroom Interaction : An Analysis of Teacher Talk
and Student Talk in English for Young Learners (EYL) : University of
Education.
Richards, J and T. Rogers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, Jack C. 2008.Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, M. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2nd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago press.
Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse : The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural
language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Syakur, 1987.Language Testing and Evaluation. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret
University Press.
Tias, W Alvita. 2012. An Analysis of Teacher Talk and Students Talk in Speaking
Class At The Second Grade Students of Natural Science and Social
Science Classes At SMA N 1 Gadingrejo. Lampung: Unversity of
Lampung.
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.
BASED ON FLANDER’S INTERACTION
ANALYSIS CATEGORIES (FIAC)
A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Requirements for
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By:
ELFRIDAYANI PURBA
Registration Number 2123321024
ENGLISH AND LITERARTURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
iii
DECLARATION
Expect where appropriate acknowledged, this thesis is my own work, has been expressed in
my own words, and has not previously been submitted for publication.
I understand that this paper may screened electronically or otherwise for plagiarism.
Medan,
Februari 2017
Elfridayani Purba
Reg. No. 2123321024
ABSTRACT
Purba, Elfridayani. Registration Number: 2123321024. Classroom
Interaction in English Lesson Based on Flander’s Interaction Categories
(FIAC). A Thesis. English Educational Program, State University of Medan,
2017.
This study focuces on analyzing the process of classroom interaction through
Flanders Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC) model. 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 (FIAC) model.
The data was found based on the data transcription. The source of the data was
the utterances between English teacher and 7th grade students at SMP N 1
SEIBAMBAN. The instruments for data collection were observation, video
recording, and note talking. The data analysis applied descriptive qualitative
research. It was found that the total percentage each categories classroom
interaction were accepts feelings (0.57%), praise and encourages (1.34%),
accepts or uses the ideas of the students (0.19%), asks questions (13.74%),
lecturing (7.06%), giving directions (30.9%), criticizing or justifying authority
(3.91%), students talk-response (28.81%), students talk-initiation (0.29%), and
silence or confusion (13.17%). It showed that students participated in the
interaction process.
Keywords: Teacher Talk, Students Talk, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
(FIAC) model.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
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 Lesson Based on the Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)”.
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 Rector 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.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A.,Ph. D, and Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd, her
Thesis Advisors.
Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., her Thesis
Reviewers for their valuable input to furnish this thesis.
Selamat Purba and mother Asmaria Damanik, her beloved parents who
never give up in supporting, loving, and praying her in any ways.
Her beloved family Nova Irayani Purba, Jan Chrisdo Jumeldi, Yoan Haris
Purba, and Sartika Sihombing who had supported and motivated her during
the accomplishing of this thesis.
Muliater Sialagan S.Pd and Supiyanto S.Pd, The English Teacher in SMP N
1 Seibamban for helping the writer during the research.
Special Thanks to Rio Damanik, for his great love, time, support, helps and
prayers in finishing the thesis.
ii
Her beloved friends (K’chrisna, K’endang, K’juwita, Grace, K’rayona,
Debi, Asrina, Unyil, Ito, Endang, Maria, Nanda, Sutar,Vony,Tyas) who
had give supported and motivated for finishing her thesis.
Her beloved friends at PPLT Seibamban especially
thanks to (Osda,
Methary, Sartika, Sely, and Winata) for the experience, laugh, support, and
prayer.
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 resrach,
particularly in the field of English language teaching.
Medan, Februari 2017
The writer,
Elfridayani Purba
Reg. No. 2123321024
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
DECLARATION ............................................................................................
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................... i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ............................................................................... ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................... vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES ............................................................................... viii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 1
A. The Background of the Study ............................................................ 1
B. The Problems of the Study ................................................................. 3
C. The Objective of the Study ................................................................ 4
D. The Scope of the Study ...................................................................... 4
E. The Significant of the Study .............................................................. 4
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ......................... 5
A. Theoretical Framework ...................................................................... 5
1. Discourse ....................................................................................... 5
a. Classroom Discourse ................................................................ 6
2. Speech Functions........................................................................... 7
3. The Nature of Interaction ............................................................... 8
a. Classroom Interaction ............................................................... 9
b. Types of Classroom Interaction................................................ 10
c. Aspects of Classroom Interaction ............................................. 11
d. Interactional Strategies ............................................................. 12
4. Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories System (FLACS) ....... 13
a. Ten Categories of Teacher Talk and Students Talk ................ 15
b. The Coding System .................................................................. 19
c. Strength of FIAC Model ......................................................... 22
B. Relevant Studies................................................................................. 22
C. Conceptual Framework ...................................................................... 24
iv
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................... 27
A. Research Design ................................................................................... 27
B. Data and Source of Data ..................................................................... 27
C. Instruments for Collecting the Data ..................................................... 28
1. Observation .................................................................................... 28
2. Video Recording ............................................................................ 28
3. Note Talking................................................................................... 28
4. Data Analysis ................................................................................. 29
CHAPTER IV. DATA, DATA ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSIONS .......... 31
A. The Data ............................................................................................... 31
B. Data Analysis ....................................................................................... 38
C. Discussions........................................................................................... 46
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION ................................ 49
A. Conclusion ........................................................................................... 49
B. Suggestion ............................................................................................ 50
REFFERENCES ............................................................................................ 51
APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... 53
v
LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIAC)............ 14
Table 3.1 The Example of Transcription Interaction between Teacher and
tudents ........................................................................................................ 29
Table 4.1 Classroom Interaction Transcription A .......................................... 39
Table 4.2 Classroom Interaction Transcription B .......................................... 40
Table 4.3 Classroom Interaction Transcription C .......................................... 40
Table 4.4 The result Categories of Teacher Talk and Student Talk............... 43
vi
S
LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 21
Figure 2.1 Chart of Conceptual Framework .................................................. 26
Figure 3.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 30
Figure 4.1 Matrix of Pairing the Code Number ............................................ 42
Figure 4.2 The result of categories teacher talk and students talk ................. 45
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix 1.Transcription ............................................................................... 53
Appendix 2.Classroom Note Talking Sheet ................................................... 73
Appendix 3.Coded and Decoded the Data by Observer ................................. 74
Appendix 4.Classroom Observation Tally Sheet ........................................... 78
Appendix 5. The result of categories teacher talk and students talk .............. 80
viii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
Classroom interaction becomes the most important part 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 teaching learning process in the
classroom.
Interaction simply means a communication which involve more than one
person. The importance of interaction is explained by Brown (2000:165): Through
interaction, teacher and students exchange thought, feelings, and ideas resulting in
a reciprocal effect on each other in the classroom. Moreover, Lister (2007) states
that interaction makes the students be able to test their communicative success
through exchanging information with the teacher or among the students
themselves. Besides, interaction give advantages for the teacher in gaining deeper
students’ skill and motivation. In classroom activities, the teacher involve the
students to speak actively. The students who are active in interaction through
taking turn may develop their language. Meanwhile, the students who are passive
in interaction have less apportunity to learn.
Furthermore, to have a good interaction, students should realize speech
function. To initiate a talk, students use not only question but also statement,
command or offer to initiate to talk. Speech functions need to be introduced to the
1
2
students in order to give them more knowledge on how to maintain successful
interaction.
Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) model is 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 silence should be written down to put in the
observation sheet.
Based on the researcher’s teaching experience in SMP N 1 Seibamban, it
was found that the common interaction occured in the classroom that the students
would participate to talk if the teacher initiated, encouraged, and asked to students
to talk. In fact, the categories of teacher talk had great influence to make the
students to talk in the classroom. That was the basic reason why the researcher
wanted to find out the common interaction that occured in the classroom wether
the students participated in the interaction process or not. Then, to know how
much the teacher and students spent time to talk during teaching and learning
process.
From the previous study about Classroom Interaction: An Analysis of
Teacher Talk and Student Talk in English for Young Learners (EYL) by Pujiastuti
(2013) found that all of the teacher talk categories of FIAC were revealed
3
covering giving direction, lecturing, asking questions, using students’s ideas,
praising, criticizing student’s behaviour and accepting feelings. However, giving
direction and lecturing were found as the most frequently used categories among
all. The other Studies about An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Techniques at SMPN28
Bandar Lampung by Almira (2016) who conducted a study that the objective was
to describe the interaction between the teacher and learners while they are in the
classroom. The result showed that giving direction was the most frequently used
by the teacher talk. In students talk, students response specific was the most
frequently used.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher wanted to conduct a
research entitled “ Classroom Interaction in English Lesson based on Flander’s
Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) model ”.
B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study, the problems of the study were
formulated in forms of questions:
1. How do the teacher and the students use the categories of classroom
interaction in English Class?
2. What is the dominant category used by the teacher and the students in
English classroom Interaction ?
4
C. The Objective of the Study
Based on the problem of the study, the objectives of the study were:
1. To describe how do the teacher and the students use the categories of the
classroom interaction in English Class.
2. To describe the dominant category used by the teacher and the students in
English classroom interaction.
D. The Scope of the Study
There are several methods of classroom interaction analysis, some of
them are: Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC), Foreign Language
Interaction Analysis (FLINT) system, Initiation Response and Evaluation (IRE),
and Topically Related Sets (TRS). In this case, this research is limmited by the
interaction that occurs in the classroom between the English teacher and the 7th
grade students in English lesson based on Flanders classroom interaction model.
E. The Significant of the Study
Based on the problems of the study, the objectives of the study were:
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
24
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data of teaher and students interaction in the classroom, a
conclusion was 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. The
categories of classroom interaction easier to find through the data
transcription which is coded before. While, pairing the number of categories
of interaction is used to enter it into matrix. Then, from the matrix can
simplify to calculate each category until get the percentage on it.
(2) The dominant category of Teacher Talk in English classroom Interaction at
SMP NEGERI 1 was giving direction (30.92%). While the lowest category
was accepts or uses the ideas of student (0.19%). The dominant category of
Students Talk was students talk-response(28.81%) while the lowest
categories was student talk initiation (0.29%)
49
50
B. Suggestion
In line with the conclusion above, some suggestions are recommended as
follows:
(1) It is suggested that English teacher should balance their talk in the classroom
ineraction. Only the teacher more talk in the classroom then the students.
The students should be able to speak actively in classroom or in other words
the students at SMP N 1 Seibamban should be given the opportunity to talk
and elaborate their knowledge. The teacher should improve their teaching
way in the classroom into a good way.
(2) It is suggested that Students should participate actively one another in the
classroom until the categories of teacher and students balance used in the
classroom. By applying Flanders Model, it can improve the students to
interact actively in the classroom.
(3) It is suggested that the Further research that want to apply Flander’s model in
the teaching learning process should consider teacher talk and students talk
in the whole classroom prrocess.
51
REFERENCES
Al-Nawrasy, Omar. 2012. The effect of Native and Nonnative English Language
Teacher on Secondary Students’ Achievement in Speaking Skills. Jordan
Journal of Educational Science,2012, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp.243-254.
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.
Asmara, Risaning Tias. 2007. An Analysis on The Speaking Classroom
Interactions at The Tenth Grade of SMA Negeri 7 Surakarta in The
Academic Year 2006/2007. Surakarta : University of Sebelas Maret.
Brown, H Douglas.1994. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. New Jersey : Prentice Hall.
Brown, H Douglas. 2000. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to
Language Pedagogy. 2nd edn. New York: Longman.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed
Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.
Dagarin, Mateza. 2004. Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English As A Foreign. Sloven: Sloven University.
David, Nunan. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology. Newyork : Prentice Hall.
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,2010. Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp 48-58.
Halliday,M.A.K.1985.Spoken and Written Language.Victoria:DeakinUniversity
Press
Haris, David P. 1974. Testing English as A Second Language. New Delhi: Tata
Mcgraw-Hill Publishing.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to teach English.Edinburgh Gate: AddisonWesley
Longman.
Heaton,J. B. 1991. Writing English Language Testing.Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
52
Maiza, Masfa. Dwi Rukmini, Ahmad Sofwan. 2015. Teacher’sBasic Questioning
Used by English Teacher in Teaching English. English Education
Journal, 5 (1), 4.
Pujiastuti, Rini Triani. 2013. Classroom Interaction : An Analysis of Teacher Talk
and Student Talk in English for Young Learners (EYL) : University of
Education.
Richards, J and T. Rogers. 1986. Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard, Jack C. 2008.Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, M. 1981. Teaching Foreign-Language Skills. 2nd ed. Chicago: University
of Chicago press.
Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse : The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, M. 1983. Discourse Analysis: the sociolinguistic analysis of natural
language. Oxford: Blackwell.
Syakur, 1987.Language Testing and Evaluation. Surakarta: Sebelas Maret
University Press.
Tias, W Alvita. 2012. An Analysis of Teacher Talk and Students Talk in Speaking
Class At The Second Grade Students of Natural Science and Social
Science Classes At SMA N 1 Gadingrejo. Lampung: Unversity of
Lampung.
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.