TEACHER TALK IN TWO DIFFERENT SUBJECTS IN JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL.
Teacher Talk In Two Different Subjects In Junior High School
A THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
For degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By
LICHA ASMAIRA
Registration Number: 2113321027
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Asmaira, Licha. NIM 2113321027. Teacher Talk in Two Different Subjects In
Junior High School. A Thesis Faculty Of Languages and Arts, State University
of Medan. 2017.
The present study focuses on the type of teacher talk used by English Teacher and
Indonesian Teacher. This research find out the type of talks each Teacher used in the
classroom by applying, the Flanders model. Moreover, this study used descriptive
qualitative design. The instruments for collecting the data were observation, video
tape recorded and tally sheet. From the data that had been taken, it was obtained that
the types of talk by English teacher and Indonesian teacher in the ninth grade of SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan was Direct Talk and Indirect Talk. It was found that
both the teachers applied all categories in the teaching learning process. It found from
the percentage of English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. And also for the
Indonesian teacher total with 62.09% teacher talk. Type of the categories used by
English Teacher was Indirect and Direct Talk and Indonesian Teacher was Direct
Talk.
Keywords: Classroom Interaction, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
System.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, praise and thank for the Merciful Lord. Allah Swt, for the
many blessing and strength given to the writer in finishing this Thesis. You are Lord,
The answer of all I need.
This Thesis has been written in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Literatures Department of Faculty of Languages and
Arts, State University of Medan. However, the completion of this thesis could not be
archieved without assistance of others. In this opportunity, the writer would like to
express gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Reactor of State University of Medan.
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts State
University of Medan.
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S., S.Pd., M.Hum., the head of EnglishEducation Study
Program.
5. Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni M.S., her first and
second Thesis Consultants for her suggestions, advices, comments, guidance
to complete this Thesis.
6. Prof. Yusmaniar Noor, S.Pd., her Grandmother in order who always
motivated the writer.
7. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., the administration Staff of English
Department.
8. Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd, the Adoptive Mother who is always gives her
Suggestion and Advice.
9. Rosmiati. Rn. the Headmaster of SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan and all
Teachers who had helped the writer collecting the data for her research, and
ii
the English Teacher (M. Prihantini .SE.,) and Indonesian Teacher (Heni
Agussusanti .S.Pd.,)
10. Parents H. Abdul Rahman and B. Astuti as well as her beloved siblings M.
Sapri S.Pd., Dewi Ratih Prayuwidya S.Pd., and the last Ade Chepy
Andrean S.Pd., who are always gives support, motivation, and prayer.
11. My beloved close Friends, Nursa’adah, S.Pd., and also others who can not
be mentioned one by one, for their affection, support, suggestions, motivation
to the writer.
Medan, Maret 2017
Licha Asmaira
Reg. No. 2113321027
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .........................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ...........................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURE ...................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLE .....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF GRAPH .....................................................................................................viii
LIST OF APPENDICES .........................................................................................ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Background of the study .............................................................1
The Problem of the study .......................................................................5
The Objectives of the study.....................................................................5
The Scope of the study .........................................................................6
The Significant of the study ...................................................................6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................7
1. Classroom Discourse ..........................................................................7
2. Classroom interaction ........................................................................8
a. Definition ..............................................................................8
b. Teaching Process ...................................................................14
c. Characteristics of Interaction ................................................14
3. Flanders interaction analysis categories ...........................................15
a. Meaning of Flanders Interaction Categories ................................17
b. Teacher Talk Percentage ..............................................................17
B. Relevant Study ....................................................................................22
C. Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................24
v
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Design ....................................................................................26
B. The Subject of the study ..........................................................................26
C. Instrument for collecting data .................................................................27
1) Flanders Observation Tally Sheet .....................................................27
2) Video Recording ..............................................................................29
D. The technique of the data analysis .........................................................30
1. Identification ....................................................................................30
2. Classification ....................................................................................30
a. Percentage of the first teacher talk ................................................31
b. Percentage of the second teacher talk ............................................31
3. Descriptive ....................................................................................32
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS
A. The Data
....................................................................................33
B. Research Finding ...................................................................................41
C. Discussion
....................................................................................45
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................47
B. SUGGESTION ....................................................................................48
REFERENCES
....................................................................................49
v
LIST OF FIGURE
2.1 Flanders Categories ………………………………………………………….16
vi
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.2 Meaning of Various Categories…………………………………….16
Table 4.1 Transcript of Interaction Category English Teacher……………..34
Table 4.2 Transcript of Interaction Categories Indonesian Teacher….........35
Table 4.3 Percentage of English Teacher …………………………………….36
Table 4.4 Percentage Indonesian Teacher ……………………………………37
Table 4.5 Percentage Students of English Teacher ………………….............39
Table 4.6 Percentage Student of Indonesian Teacher ……………….............40
vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendices A Classroom Interaction Tally sheet
Appendices B Transcription
Appendices C Plotting the coded data
Appendices D The Percentage of Classroom Interaction Categories
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
In classroom interaction teaching as an interactive process, interaction means
participation of teacher and students in the process of teaching. In this process,
teacher influences the students; students also interact with the teacher. Interaction
takes place among the students themselves also. In the process of teaching,
everybody interacts with each other person involved in the process. Language
teaching can be summarized into three fields: language learner/learning (How to
learn) language/culture (What to Learn) teacher/teaching (How to teach).
Nunan (1998) says that many language teachers were surprised of the amount
of talk they used in classroom. It is for about 70 to 80 percent out of class time
was spent mostly by teacher talk. It mean that, the teacher too active in the class,
should the student who active more the teacher. The quality and the quantity of
teacher talk have many values in Classroom Interaction. Firstly, it provides
language input as language model for children (Pinter, 2006). Secondly, teacher
talk supports student talk in practicing the language. Thirdly, the appropriateness
of teacher talk can result in a warm classroom atmosphere and informal teacherstudent relationship.
1
2
Failure in the process learn and teach is very generally. Failure, in the
activities of learning and teaching on the general cause of factor. Moreover, when
the researcher observed some teacher and learning process at SMP Swasta Taman
Siswa Medan, the researcher found that the common interaction that occurred in
the classroom was the students would participate to talk if the teacher initiated,
encouraged, and asked them to talk. In fact, the type of teacher talk had great
influence to make the students be active in the classroom. That was the basic
reason why the researcher wanted to know learning process what types of teacher
talk that used in classroom during teaching and learning process.
As we know, teacher has to give opportunity for students to talk, but the
teacher also don’t know what are the students understanding the teacher’s
language.In addition, Harmer (2001: 4) states that students are the people who
need the practice, in other word , not the teacher. In general term, therefore a good
teacher maximizes students talking time and minimizes teacher talking. It means
that a good teacher will be able to control their talking time in classroom
interaction. But the fact, based on the researcher’s observation at SMP Swasta
Taman Siswa Medan, the teacher was too dominant in talking than the students, in
the case they only had a little chance in talking, as an example they were talking
just when teacher asked them the question, Moreover, teacher hold almost the
whole roles in the classroom through lecturing, and giving direction. Teacher talk
dominates most of the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Interaction
analysis has been made to investigate the performance of teacher and students as
well as the role of input and interaction (Richard, 2003).
3
To analysis EFL classroom interaction is appropriate by using Flanders’
Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS). Flanders technique is
appropriate for analyzing the students’ and teacher’s talk at EFL context since the
technique is to measure how much the teacher and students take talking during
teaching and learning process. In fact, both EFL teachers and students are required
to talk in the classroom. Besides that, Flanders (1970) divides teacher talk
(accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts or uses ideas of students, asks
questions, lectures, gives direction, and criticizes or uses authority), students talk
(response and initiation), and silence (period of silence or confusion).
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) is an analysis of teacher and
students talk consisting of category system (Tsui, 1995). It show the types and
quantity of teacher talk is linked to activities. Further, the teacher talk does not
only Organizes classroom activities but also to determined by the activities
intended, undertaken, and unfolding. Flanders (1979)who introduced classroom
interaction analysis, namely Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System
(FIACS), to study what is happening when teacher teaches in the classroom.This
system was designed to define the categories occurs, particularly verbal
interaction by deciding the categories and interpret the matrix. He found the
dominant talking in the classroom, and also the teacher characteristics.
Furthermore this system divided into ten categories, seven categories dedicated to
the teacher, two categories dedicated to the students and one is silent and
confusion. FIACS is very helpful in evaluating and improving teachersway in
teaching in the classroom so that they are gradually improve their teaching’s way.
4
Furthermore, there were two also studies done in classroom interaction by
using FIACS. First, research was done by Putri (2014) about the Classroom
Interaction by using Flanders Interaction Technique at SMPN 13 Kota Bengkulu
in 2013/2014. She found 1) the teacher A at VII C, teacher talk (66,15%), and
students talk (33,10%). Besides that, for the teacher B, teacher talk (70,3%), and
students talk (28,41%). 2) Both teacher A and B, the content cross was the most
dominant characteristics during the observation. The characteristics showed the
correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that was the teacher spent talking
time more in teaching and learning process to ask questions and lecture. The other
study was conducted by Nurmasita (2010) about Classroom Interaction
Characteristics in a Geography Class Conducted in English: The Case At Ten
Year of an immersion Class In SMA N 2 Semarang. She found that 1) The most
dominant characteristics was content cross. It reflected that most of the teaching
learning time was devoted to questions and lectures by the teacher. 2) The teacher
spent 57,43% and student spent 22,20% in teaching learning time.3) The
characteristics showed the correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that
was the teacher spent talking time more in teaching and learning process to ask
questions and lecture.
The other research was done by Kumpul (2013) about Classroom Interaction
in Bilingual classes in SMAN4 Denpasar. He found that in Biology class student
talk-response became dominant meants that students active enough in the
classroom interaction, and in Chemistry classes, the dominant was teacher talk in
giving direction and Physic classes the dominant was accepting feeling.
5
From explanation above the researcher will focus her study on the types of
language and characteristics of teacherused in theclassroom interaction at SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan by using Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
System (FIACS).
B. The Problems of the Study
The Problems of the Study were formulated as follows:
1. What types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom
interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
2. What are the differences of teachers talk used by English and
Indonesian teachers at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
C. The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problem above, the objectives of the study were as follows:
1. To find out types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom.
2. To find out differences of teachers talk used by English and
Indonesian teachers.
6
D. The Scope of the Study
There are many questions can be analyzed by used Flanders Interaction
Categories System such as teacher talk, students talk the characteristics of the
teachers and the categories of the teacher talk. This studied was limited on the
types of the teacher talk in the classroom interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa
Medan.
E. The Significance of the Study
The finding of the study was expected to be useful for:
1. Theoretically
This study is expected to provide benefit of knowledge, at least can be
useful as a reference for further study.
2. From practically view, it also hopefully gives valuable contribution to
English teacher and Indonesian teacher in case of they can be better to
analyze their own teaching performance, to observe they classroom
behavior and then to plan as well as to conduct interactive and childfriendly verbal classroom interaction.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data of teacher percentage, types of both teachers and also the
characteristic of teacher, conclusion was drawn on the following.
1. The categories of talk by the English teacher and Indonesian teacher at SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan, Both the teachers using all categories of
Flanders, The data showed that the type of direct and indirect teacher talk that
the types of teacher talk used by the English teacher is indirect and direct talk
and then, the Indonesian teacher is direct teacher talk. The teachers focus
giving the students direction in teaching learning process.
2. The differences of both teachers talk used in the class the percentage of
English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. The highest category was giving
direction and followed by asking question. And also for the Indonesian class
total teacher talk, with 62.09% teacher talk. The highest category was giving
direction and followed by lecturing. In other word that teacher still had too
high in talk and student had passive contribution in the classroom.
47
48
B. The suggestion
In relation to the conclusion and suggestion are staged as following :
1. The teachers to can improve their teaching interaction on the talk time. And
give more chance to practice their language.
2. The students to be active in the class. In addition, this study expected could
help and give the more information about classroom interaction, especially
for further study.
49
REFERENCES
Acroksiamy. 2010. Educational Technology. http://staxaviersbedcollege.org
viewed. 21March 2016
Amatari, Veronica Odiri. 2015. A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in
a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education,
2015, Vol. 3 No.5, pp.43-49.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Fgransisco: Longman.
Babelan, A.Zahed., and Kia M.Moeni, (2010). Study of Teacher-Students
Interaction in Teaching Process and its Relation with Students’
Achievement in Primary Schoos. TSS Journal, 5(1), 55-59.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and
Mixed Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.
Cohen et al. 2007. Research Method in Education. Newyork: Routledge.
Cullen, Richard. (1997). Teacher Talk and Classroom context. ELT Journal,
52 (3), 179-187.
Dagarin, M 2004,’Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English as a Foreign Language’,pp.3-4
Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second language development. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analysing Teaching Behaviour. Reading; Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Educational.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth
Edition. Cambridge: Longman
50
Koul, L. 1996. Methodology Educational Research, Third revised. New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing House.
Kumpul. 2013. Classroom Interaction Analysis in Bilingual Science classes in
SMAN 4 Denpasar.
Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Nurmasita, 2010.Classroom Interaction Characteristic in a Geography Class
conducted in EnglishThe Case at ten year of Immersion Class In SMA N
2. Semarang
Pinter, Anamaria. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press
Putri, F.G. 2014. ‘ An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using Flander
Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Technique at SMPN 13
Kota Bengkulu In 2013/2014 Academic Year’, SarjanaEducationThesis,
Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia.
Richard. Jack C. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to
Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sita, N 2010. ‘A Study of Classroom Interaction Characteristics In Geography
Class Conducted in English: The Case At Year Ten Of An Immersion
Class In SMA N 2 Semarang’, Thesis, Diponegoro University,
Semarang, Indonesia
Tsui, A.B.M. (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction.London: Penguin.Ur.
P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
A THESIS
Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements
For degree of Sarjana Pendidikan
By
LICHA ASMAIRA
Registration Number: 2113321027
ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGE AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017
ABSTRACT
Asmaira, Licha. NIM 2113321027. Teacher Talk in Two Different Subjects In
Junior High School. A Thesis Faculty Of Languages and Arts, State University
of Medan. 2017.
The present study focuses on the type of teacher talk used by English Teacher and
Indonesian Teacher. This research find out the type of talks each Teacher used in the
classroom by applying, the Flanders model. Moreover, this study used descriptive
qualitative design. The instruments for collecting the data were observation, video
tape recorded and tally sheet. From the data that had been taken, it was obtained that
the types of talk by English teacher and Indonesian teacher in the ninth grade of SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan was Direct Talk and Indirect Talk. It was found that
both the teachers applied all categories in the teaching learning process. It found from
the percentage of English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. And also for the
Indonesian teacher total with 62.09% teacher talk. Type of the categories used by
English Teacher was Indirect and Direct Talk and Indonesian Teacher was Direct
Talk.
Keywords: Classroom Interaction, Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
System.
i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
First and foremost, praise and thank for the Merciful Lord. Allah Swt, for the
many blessing and strength given to the writer in finishing this Thesis. You are Lord,
The answer of all I need.
This Thesis has been written in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Sarjana Pendidikan at English Literatures Department of Faculty of Languages and
Arts, State University of Medan. However, the completion of this thesis could not be
archieved without assistance of others. In this opportunity, the writer would like to
express gratitude to:
1. Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., the Reactor of State University of Medan.
2. Dr. Isda Pramuniati, M.Hum., Dean of Faculty of Languages and Arts State
University of Medan.
3. Prof. Dr. Hj. Sumarsih, M.Pd., the Head of English Department.
4. Nora Ronita Dewi, S., S.Pd., M.Hum., the head of EnglishEducation Study
Program.
5. Dra. Meisuri, M.A., and Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni M.S., her first and
second Thesis Consultants for her suggestions, advices, comments, guidance
to complete this Thesis.
6. Prof. Yusmaniar Noor, S.Pd., her Grandmother in order who always
motivated the writer.
7. Eis Sri Wahyuningsih, M.Pd., the administration Staff of English
Department.
8. Dr. Siti Aisah Ginting, M.Pd, the Adoptive Mother who is always gives her
Suggestion and Advice.
9. Rosmiati. Rn. the Headmaster of SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan and all
Teachers who had helped the writer collecting the data for her research, and
ii
the English Teacher (M. Prihantini .SE.,) and Indonesian Teacher (Heni
Agussusanti .S.Pd.,)
10. Parents H. Abdul Rahman and B. Astuti as well as her beloved siblings M.
Sapri S.Pd., Dewi Ratih Prayuwidya S.Pd., and the last Ade Chepy
Andrean S.Pd., who are always gives support, motivation, and prayer.
11. My beloved close Friends, Nursa’adah, S.Pd., and also others who can not
be mentioned one by one, for their affection, support, suggestions, motivation
to the writer.
Medan, Maret 2017
Licha Asmaira
Reg. No. 2113321027
iii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGMENT .........................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENT ...........................................................................................iv
LIST OF FIGURE ...................................................................................................vi
LIST OF TABLE .....................................................................................................vii
LIST OF GRAPH .....................................................................................................viii
LIST OF APPENDICES .........................................................................................ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
The Background of the study .............................................................1
The Problem of the study .......................................................................5
The Objectives of the study.....................................................................5
The Scope of the study .........................................................................6
The Significant of the study ...................................................................6
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Framework ..........................................................................7
1. Classroom Discourse ..........................................................................7
2. Classroom interaction ........................................................................8
a. Definition ..............................................................................8
b. Teaching Process ...................................................................14
c. Characteristics of Interaction ................................................14
3. Flanders interaction analysis categories ...........................................15
a. Meaning of Flanders Interaction Categories ................................17
b. Teacher Talk Percentage ..............................................................17
B. Relevant Study ....................................................................................22
C. Conceptual Framework ..........................................................................24
v
CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHOD
A. Research Design ....................................................................................26
B. The Subject of the study ..........................................................................26
C. Instrument for collecting data .................................................................27
1) Flanders Observation Tally Sheet .....................................................27
2) Video Recording ..............................................................................29
D. The technique of the data analysis .........................................................30
1. Identification ....................................................................................30
2. Classification ....................................................................................30
a. Percentage of the first teacher talk ................................................31
b. Percentage of the second teacher talk ............................................31
3. Descriptive ....................................................................................32
CHAPTER IV. DATA AND ANALYSIS
A. The Data
....................................................................................33
B. Research Finding ...................................................................................41
C. Discussion
....................................................................................45
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................47
B. SUGGESTION ....................................................................................48
REFERENCES
....................................................................................49
v
LIST OF FIGURE
2.1 Flanders Categories ………………………………………………………….16
vi
LIST OF TABLE
Table 2.2 Meaning of Various Categories…………………………………….16
Table 4.1 Transcript of Interaction Category English Teacher……………..34
Table 4.2 Transcript of Interaction Categories Indonesian Teacher….........35
Table 4.3 Percentage of English Teacher …………………………………….36
Table 4.4 Percentage Indonesian Teacher ……………………………………37
Table 4.5 Percentage Students of English Teacher ………………….............39
Table 4.6 Percentage Student of Indonesian Teacher ……………….............40
vii
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendices A Classroom Interaction Tally sheet
Appendices B Transcription
Appendices C Plotting the coded data
Appendices D The Percentage of Classroom Interaction Categories
ix
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A. The Background of the Study
In classroom interaction teaching as an interactive process, interaction means
participation of teacher and students in the process of teaching. In this process,
teacher influences the students; students also interact with the teacher. Interaction
takes place among the students themselves also. In the process of teaching,
everybody interacts with each other person involved in the process. Language
teaching can be summarized into three fields: language learner/learning (How to
learn) language/culture (What to Learn) teacher/teaching (How to teach).
Nunan (1998) says that many language teachers were surprised of the amount
of talk they used in classroom. It is for about 70 to 80 percent out of class time
was spent mostly by teacher talk. It mean that, the teacher too active in the class,
should the student who active more the teacher. The quality and the quantity of
teacher talk have many values in Classroom Interaction. Firstly, it provides
language input as language model for children (Pinter, 2006). Secondly, teacher
talk supports student talk in practicing the language. Thirdly, the appropriateness
of teacher talk can result in a warm classroom atmosphere and informal teacherstudent relationship.
1
2
Failure in the process learn and teach is very generally. Failure, in the
activities of learning and teaching on the general cause of factor. Moreover, when
the researcher observed some teacher and learning process at SMP Swasta Taman
Siswa Medan, the researcher found that the common interaction that occurred in
the classroom was the students would participate to talk if the teacher initiated,
encouraged, and asked them to talk. In fact, the type of teacher talk had great
influence to make the students be active in the classroom. That was the basic
reason why the researcher wanted to know learning process what types of teacher
talk that used in classroom during teaching and learning process.
As we know, teacher has to give opportunity for students to talk, but the
teacher also don’t know what are the students understanding the teacher’s
language.In addition, Harmer (2001: 4) states that students are the people who
need the practice, in other word , not the teacher. In general term, therefore a good
teacher maximizes students talking time and minimizes teacher talking. It means
that a good teacher will be able to control their talking time in classroom
interaction. But the fact, based on the researcher’s observation at SMP Swasta
Taman Siswa Medan, the teacher was too dominant in talking than the students, in
the case they only had a little chance in talking, as an example they were talking
just when teacher asked them the question, Moreover, teacher hold almost the
whole roles in the classroom through lecturing, and giving direction. Teacher talk
dominates most of the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Interaction
analysis has been made to investigate the performance of teacher and students as
well as the role of input and interaction (Richard, 2003).
3
To analysis EFL classroom interaction is appropriate by using Flanders’
Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS). Flanders technique is
appropriate for analyzing the students’ and teacher’s talk at EFL context since the
technique is to measure how much the teacher and students take talking during
teaching and learning process. In fact, both EFL teachers and students are required
to talk in the classroom. Besides that, Flanders (1970) divides teacher talk
(accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts or uses ideas of students, asks
questions, lectures, gives direction, and criticizes or uses authority), students talk
(response and initiation), and silence (period of silence or confusion).
Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) is an analysis of teacher and
students talk consisting of category system (Tsui, 1995). It show the types and
quantity of teacher talk is linked to activities. Further, the teacher talk does not
only Organizes classroom activities but also to determined by the activities
intended, undertaken, and unfolding. Flanders (1979)who introduced classroom
interaction analysis, namely Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories System
(FIACS), to study what is happening when teacher teaches in the classroom.This
system was designed to define the categories occurs, particularly verbal
interaction by deciding the categories and interpret the matrix. He found the
dominant talking in the classroom, and also the teacher characteristics.
Furthermore this system divided into ten categories, seven categories dedicated to
the teacher, two categories dedicated to the students and one is silent and
confusion. FIACS is very helpful in evaluating and improving teachersway in
teaching in the classroom so that they are gradually improve their teaching’s way.
4
Furthermore, there were two also studies done in classroom interaction by
using FIACS. First, research was done by Putri (2014) about the Classroom
Interaction by using Flanders Interaction Technique at SMPN 13 Kota Bengkulu
in 2013/2014. She found 1) the teacher A at VII C, teacher talk (66,15%), and
students talk (33,10%). Besides that, for the teacher B, teacher talk (70,3%), and
students talk (28,41%). 2) Both teacher A and B, the content cross was the most
dominant characteristics during the observation. The characteristics showed the
correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that was the teacher spent talking
time more in teaching and learning process to ask questions and lecture. The other
study was conducted by Nurmasita (2010) about Classroom Interaction
Characteristics in a Geography Class Conducted in English: The Case At Ten
Year of an immersion Class In SMA N 2 Semarang. She found that 1) The most
dominant characteristics was content cross. It reflected that most of the teaching
learning time was devoted to questions and lectures by the teacher. 2) The teacher
spent 57,43% and student spent 22,20% in teaching learning time.3) The
characteristics showed the correlation to the teacher indirect and direct talk that
was the teacher spent talking time more in teaching and learning process to ask
questions and lecture.
The other research was done by Kumpul (2013) about Classroom Interaction
in Bilingual classes in SMAN4 Denpasar. He found that in Biology class student
talk-response became dominant meants that students active enough in the
classroom interaction, and in Chemistry classes, the dominant was teacher talk in
giving direction and Physic classes the dominant was accepting feeling.
5
From explanation above the researcher will focus her study on the types of
language and characteristics of teacherused in theclassroom interaction at SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan by using Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories
System (FIACS).
B. The Problems of the Study
The Problems of the Study were formulated as follows:
1. What types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom
interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
2. What are the differences of teachers talk used by English and
Indonesian teachers at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa Medan?
C. The Objectives of the Study
Based on the problem above, the objectives of the study were as follows:
1. To find out types of teachers talk used by the teachers in the classroom.
2. To find out differences of teachers talk used by English and
Indonesian teachers.
6
D. The Scope of the Study
There are many questions can be analyzed by used Flanders Interaction
Categories System such as teacher talk, students talk the characteristics of the
teachers and the categories of the teacher talk. This studied was limited on the
types of the teacher talk in the classroom interaction at SMP Swasta Taman Siswa
Medan.
E. The Significance of the Study
The finding of the study was expected to be useful for:
1. Theoretically
This study is expected to provide benefit of knowledge, at least can be
useful as a reference for further study.
2. From practically view, it also hopefully gives valuable contribution to
English teacher and Indonesian teacher in case of they can be better to
analyze their own teaching performance, to observe they classroom
behavior and then to plan as well as to conduct interactive and childfriendly verbal classroom interaction.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
A. Conclusion
After analyzing the data of teacher percentage, types of both teachers and also the
characteristic of teacher, conclusion was drawn on the following.
1. The categories of talk by the English teacher and Indonesian teacher at SMP
Swasta Taman Siswa Medan, Both the teachers using all categories of
Flanders, The data showed that the type of direct and indirect teacher talk that
the types of teacher talk used by the English teacher is indirect and direct talk
and then, the Indonesian teacher is direct teacher talk. The teachers focus
giving the students direction in teaching learning process.
2. The differences of both teachers talk used in the class the percentage of
English teacher with 55.64% teacher talk. The highest category was giving
direction and followed by asking question. And also for the Indonesian class
total teacher talk, with 62.09% teacher talk. The highest category was giving
direction and followed by lecturing. In other word that teacher still had too
high in talk and student had passive contribution in the classroom.
47
48
B. The suggestion
In relation to the conclusion and suggestion are staged as following :
1. The teachers to can improve their teaching interaction on the talk time. And
give more chance to practice their language.
2. The students to be active in the class. In addition, this study expected could
help and give the more information about classroom interaction, especially
for further study.
49
REFERENCES
Acroksiamy. 2010. Educational Technology. http://staxaviersbedcollege.org
viewed. 21March 2016
Amatari, Veronica Odiri. 2015. A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in
a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education,
2015, Vol. 3 No.5, pp.43-49.
Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy, Second Edition. San Fgransisco: Longman.
Babelan, A.Zahed., and Kia M.Moeni, (2010). Study of Teacher-Students
Interaction in Teaching Process and its Relation with Students’
Achievement in Primary Schoos. TSS Journal, 5(1), 55-59.
Creswell, John W. 2009. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and
Mixed Method Approaches. California: Sage Publication.
Cohen et al. 2007. Research Method in Education. Newyork: Routledge.
Cullen, Richard. (1997). Teacher Talk and Classroom context. ELT Journal,
52 (3), 179-187.
Dagarin, M 2004,’Classroom Interaction and Communication Strategies in
Learning English as a Foreign Language’,pp.3-4
Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom Second language development. New York:
Prentice Hall.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analysing Teaching Behaviour. Reading; Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. How to Teach English. Essex: Pearson Educational.
Harmer, Jeremy. 2001. The practice of English Language Teaching, Fourth
Edition. Cambridge: Longman
50
Koul, L. 1996. Methodology Educational Research, Third revised. New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing House.
Kumpul. 2013. Classroom Interaction Analysis in Bilingual Science classes in
SMAN 4 Denpasar.
Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classrooms. New York: Prentice
Hall.
Nurmasita, 2010.Classroom Interaction Characteristic in a Geography Class
conducted in EnglishThe Case at ten year of Immersion Class In SMA N
2. Semarang
Pinter, Anamaria. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford:
Oxford
University Press
Putri, F.G. 2014. ‘ An Analysis of Classroom Interaction by Using Flander
Interaction Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Technique at SMPN 13
Kota Bengkulu In 2013/2014 Academic Year’, SarjanaEducationThesis,
Universitas Bengkulu, Bengkulu, Indonesia.
Richard. Jack C. 2008. Teaching Listening and Speaking from Theory to
Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, Wilga M. 1987. Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sinclair and Coulthard. 1975. Towards and Analysis of Discourse: The English
Used by Teachers and Pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Sita, N 2010. ‘A Study of Classroom Interaction Characteristics In Geography
Class Conducted in English: The Case At Year Ten Of An Immersion
Class In SMA N 2 Semarang’, Thesis, Diponegoro University,
Semarang, Indonesia
Tsui, A.B.M. (1995). Introducing Classroom Interaction.London: Penguin.Ur.
P. (1996). A course in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.