TEACHER TALK IN EFL CLASSROOM : A functional grammar analysis of mood.

(1)

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

In the classroom, a teachers’ role is like a movie director who knows how a movie making should flow and how it ends. All crews and characters involved in the movie making process cooperate at their best under the director’s direction to achieve what is aimed. “A teacher opens up unknown or only half suspected areas of skill or knowledge; he makes things clear; he makes things as simple as possible. He enables pupils to do more things and to do them better, to understand more things and to understand them better. “(Marland, 1993 in Capel et al., 1995: 79).

Similarly, a teacher action in the classroom and teacher-students’ interaction are important to the life of the class. Teacher-students’ interaction and classroom management are inseparable classroom practices. Both are crucial in determining the lesson objectives attainment (Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Brown, 2001; Tsui, 2001). Otherwise, the teacher’s roles in the classroom depend upon the function of the language employed by the teacher (Christie & Unsworth, 2000). Therefore, the effect of the language used in classroom settings is an important educational question (Nunan, 1989; McCarthy, 1990; Arnold, 1999).

Cazden (1988) proposed that there are several features of educational institutions that make communication essentially important. Those aspects are:

(2)

a. Spoken language in the classroom is used as an educational medium, in which teachers transfer their educational objectives to students, and students demonstrate what they have learned from the teacher (Christie, 2000).

b. Most interactions between teacher and students take place in the classroom. In the classroom, the teacher, as the director of classroom activities, is in charge of controlling all the talk that occurs while class in the session, to raise the effectiveness of education.

c. Spoken language is an important part of the same initiation of all the participants. Teachers and students come from different identities, cultural backgrounds, and use the classroom as the first large institution to integrate their expectations individually or overtly, which will cause many problems of ineffective teaching and learning. For this reason, it is critical to consider that classroom interaction should be improved in order to enhance the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process. To study what happens in the classroom, going inside what Ellis (1994) called ’the black box’ of the classroom, is interesting, since classroom is a ‘place where interactions of various kinds take place, affording learners opportunities to acquire L2’ as well as foreign language (Ellis, 1994: 565). Allwright (1984:156) assumes that interaction is ‘the fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy’ for the reason that ‘everything that happens in the classroom happens through a process of

(3)

linguistic features (van Lier, 1988:90) of the teacher and the learners are the central concern of this study.

As the classroom is regarded as a communication system, structural interactions will take place within it. There will be a “sharing of experience, expression of social solidarity, decision making and planning, and if it is a hierarchical institution, it will be likely forms of verbal control and transmission of order” (Cazden, 1988, p.2; Christie, 2000), through communication. Thus, communication between a teacher and students becomes a form of discourse in the classroom (Kress, 1985).

Then, in relation to other research studies around discourse analysis as well as teacher’s roles in the classroom, several related research studies have been done by experts. Mehan (1985), for example, conducted a study on the organization of classroom instruction. This study suggests that participation in the classroom community involves a unification of social and academic matters. Hilsom and Cane (1971) and Dalin et al. investigate the role of the teacher in Colombia under the EN (Escuela Nueva) program, in which the teachers acxt as developers, organizers and motivators for their students. Then, Stubbs (1996, cited in Maolida, 2005) analyzes classroom talk using discourse analysis based on the matacognitive functions that characterize teacher-talk. Using this analysis, he shows clearly some strategies employed by teachers to keep in touch with their students.

The last, Eggins (2000) proposed one research about everyday talk between two men and one woman under the analyses of mood choices shown that

(4)

mostly the speaker used declarative clauses, suggesting that the speaker initiates and prolong more exchanges. Overall, these findings are consistent with the general trends identified in mixed-sex interaction: women ask more questions, talk less about themselves than about others and respond rather than initiate.

Meanwhile, Riggenbach (1999, see also Painter, 2000) proposes that many research results under classroom discourse analysis are not only about macro level features of the discourse, such as explanation of social and cultural factors that influence the learning environment, but also are related to micro-level features of language. Such micro-level features might include audio taping of conversations, taped telephone announcements or announcements by the lecturers, followed by listening to the contrasts between rising and falling intonation, or for contrasts between stressed and unstressed syllables. This research is in line with Riggenbach’s research program, which aims to describe not only the macro-level features of classroom discourse, but also the micro-level features of the classroom discourse which focusing on the role and communicative functions of each participant in the classroom.

Moreover, this study is conducted for the reason that the analysis of classroom discourse is relevant to various important phenomena of language use, texts, and conversational interactions or communicative events in the classroom (Van Dijk, 1985; Cazden, 1988; Suherdi, 1997). However, the study of classroom interaction under analysis of systemic functional grammar (hereby SFG)which focuses on the

(5)

investigated intensively (Christie & Unsworth, 2000; Fairclough, 2003). Hence, it is necessary to conduct this research which focuses on grammatical features of teachers and students in their interaction in the classroom, in their EFL classroom.

This study is concerned with the analysis of classroom interaction, focusing on the analysis of spoken language in the classroom utilizing systemic functional grammar analysis of mood types of interpersonal metafunction, which is concerned with the analysis of communicative function which are what Halliday refers to as speech functions (Eggins, 1994). This analysis provides examples of teacher’s roles and their communicative functions by investigating actual language used by teacher and students (Eggins, 2000).

1.2 Purpose of the Study

The aim of the research, as mentioned above, is to identify the realization of mood in teacher’s talk and the realization of mood in teacher’s roles and communicative functions. The study also identifies linguistic features; micro-features of interpersonal metafunction, i.e. Mood used by teacher in interaction with students in EFL class by applying the systemic functional grammar as the framework of the analysis.

(6)

1.3 Research Question

In accordance to the aim of the research, the study is to answer the following questions:

1. How is mood realized in the teacher’s talk in EFL classroom interaction?

2. Are different teacher’s roles related to the mood realization?

1.4 Significance of the Study

With its central focus on teacher-talk-in interaction with students, this study has significance for a number of areas including theory, practice, and profession.

For Theory

This study has significance regarding theories concerning the relationship between classroom interaction and student learning (Pinter, 2006; Brown, 2001; Tsui, 2001; Ellis, 1994; van Lier, 1988). The result of this study is expected to provide beneficial information about the linguistic features of classroom life to provide information about textual analysis, particularly analysis of classroom discourse, so that this study will gain many insights into this relationship, which in turn will contribute, even probably in the small scale, to theories of language education, teaching and learning English as a foreign language (Huda, 1999; Allwright and Bailey, 1991; van Lier, 1989; Ellis, 1986).

(7)

For Practice

This study may provide information about the use of functional grammar as a tool for textual analysis in language studies. The insights gained from the investigation will inform future decisions regarding effective and appropriate classroom pedagogy for teaching English practice in EFL classroom. This study of mood system is also hoped to enrich research on investigating classroom behavior which is so central to improve effective teaching-learning practices that the findings and conclusions of this study, practically, may stimulate teachers to improve their teaching behavior in order to maximize students’ learning (Inamullah et al, 2008).

For Profession

The result of this study is probably attracting further research for those who are interested in conducting classroom research. It is hoped that this study will provide information about the role and communicative functions of teachers in English classroom and also will provide information about the linguistic features of classroom life for students and teachers. More studies on classroom interaction will of course enrich insights of teachers, EFL teachers in particular, to have more awareness and options to teach their students effectively and constructively.

(8)

1.4 The Structure of the Thesis

Chapter 1 of the thesis gives an overview of this study describing its central focus. It provides the synopsis of the problem, a description of the research question, and the significance of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the literature from which this study draws. It includes a review of classroom interaction theories as well as an exploration of theories relating to classroom interaction research and Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). Chapter 3 explains the research design and methodology, which calls on two methodological perspectives, discourse analysis and functional linguistics,. This chapter also explicates the research study’s sampling strategy, data collection, data validity and ethical considerations. Chapter 4 presents the analyses of the data, classroom talk. The description uses the Discourse Analysis approach with Systemic Functional Linguistics as the framework of the analysis. Chapter 5 presents the conclusion and the suggestion of the study.

(9)

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY

This Chapter is focused on the description of steps that have been taken to conduct this study. The description below involves: (1) Method of Research, (2) Research Sites, (3) Technique of Data Collection, and (4) Data Analysis. All of them are briefly discussed, but the latest will be elaborated more in the next chapter.

3.1 Method of Research

This study is a descriptive-qualitative design (Silverman, 2002; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Alwasilah, 2002), specifically, in the form of a case study (Freebody, 2003; McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Nunan, 1992). Case study is considered to be the appropriate method as case studiesexamine a facet or particular aspect of the culture or subculture under investigation (Denny, 1978 as cited in Nunan, 1992:77), particularly, this research will study one particular instant of educational experience (Freebody, 2003: 81). A case study has been chosen because this study was carried out in “intensive descriptions and analysis of a single unit or bounded system” (Merriam, 1998, p.19; Stake, 1985, p.278 cited in Emilia, 2005a), which is “employed to gain an in depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved” (Merriam, 1998, p.19).

This study also employed a naturalistic qualitative research design, which means that the researcher did not manipulate or interfere with the classroom

(10)

activities, but work with the case specifically as the design point of a qualitative research (Silverman, 2005).

Moreover, the study utilizes discourse analysis, a spoken discourse of teacher-students talk in particular. Discourse analysis is a research tradition that focuses on analyzing issues of classroom discourse in linguistic terms with the method that aims to study classroom transcripts and assign utterances to predetermined categories (Nunan, 1989, p.5; Alwright & Bailey, 1991:61).

The use of Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) as the tool for analysis is also supporting the definition of case study stated above. This kind of research has been quite popular in educational research, especially in English education, including English as a Foreign Language (EFL), as the context of the research.

3.2 Research Sites 3.2.1 Settings

The research is conducted in a public junior high school Garut regency. The selected class is one class in grade seven. The site has been chosen purposively for several reasons. The first reason is that the school is one of the best junior high schools in the district. The second reason is that the researcher is familiar with the situation and context of this school as he often comes to the school and sharing ideas with his fellow English teachers there. Regarding this, Malinowski argued that for observers in order to make sense of the event being described in what it is attempted,

(11)

the researchers need to understand the situational and cultural context in which the language being used (cited in Eggins, 1994, p. 50; see also Emilia et al., 2005a).

3.2.2 Participants

The participants of this research were the English teacher and the students of grade seven in a junior high school in Garut regency. The participants have been chosen purposively based on the research topic. In this research the participants are the English teacher and the students of grade seven in the second semester academic year of 2008/2009. The numbers of students were 35 students and one teacher. According to Maxwell (1996), qualitative paradigm ‘ignores the fact that most sampling in qualitative research is neither probability sampling nor convenience sampling but falls into the third category: purposeful sampling’.

Based on the statement above, it was concluded that in order to get closer to the process of learning activities in the classroom, it was better to choose a respondent based on the conditions involved and the local values in its process.

3.3 Technique of Data Collection

The data collection technique is in non-participant observation study (McMillan & Schumacher, 2001; Cresswell, 1994;Travers, 2001), . Besides being a complete observer in which the researcher observes without participating, the researcher also documents the teacher-students’ talk in EFL class ,on the basis of IRF (teachers’ Initiate-students’ Respond-teachers’ Feedback) structure, through audio

(12)

video-recording (Cresswell, 1994). These are aimed at capturing the discourse as complete as possible so that the observation can capture the information needed to transcribe. The observation was conducted seven times with the duration of ninety minutes long. The class observed was in an EFL class which utilizes English and Indonesian in the course, but English took more portion of the language used by the teacher in the class.

3.3.1 Observation

To capture what the teacher and student talk to constitute in classroom interactions, this study requires observation as a research tool. The observation type used is the non-participant observer that belongs to what Allwright & Bailey (1991) calls as direct observation in which the observer sits in the classroom and takes notes. Observation was conducted in 5 meetings, based on the information needed for the analysis, which were conducted in EFL class in grade seven (VII D) of SMPN 1 Garut.

The researcher was sitting behind the students without manipulating the teaching and learning process. The class was observed around the English teaching and learning process. These activities were intended to identify the teacher’s role and communicative functions in teaching and learning activities between teacher and students in the classroom. The researcher observed the class activities by taking notes as well as recording of what was said and what both the teacher and the students did

(13)

immediately after each session, in order to keep ”the memory of the observation is still fresh” (van Lier, 1988: 241).

3.3.2 The Audio-videotape Recording

Nunan (1992) supports the use of recorded data that allows for the preservation of the primary data, for example in the form of audio, video, or audio-video recordings. This study used audio-audio-videotaping as a technique for capturing natural interaction used in detail. The observer recorded the English teaching-learning activity to gather information about what teacher’s talk with students in the classroom. “For more complicated enquiries,….., you may prefer to audio record or even video-record…., so that you can go back in detail to what was said, by whom, in what tone of voice, and so on.” Allwright and Bailey (1991, p.3). There are three records chosen to be analyzed for the reason that those records represent the naturalness of the data needed for the study.

3.4 Data Analysis

In this research, the researcher applied inductive analytical approach (Alwasilah, 2002). It means that the data analysis began while data were being gathered. As the characteristic of qualitative research, the analyses were tentative and provisional throughout the study and only become comprehensive once when the data were completely collected (Travers, 2002). Ongoing data analysis and interpretation were based on data mainly from observation. There are two main data from

(14)

observation: the result from field note and spoken language transcript. The spoken transcript from the observation results only into three meetings because the transcripts from the first and the fourth observation were failed and it could not be transcribed at all.

Data from observation of spoken language transcript were analyzed using the mood type analysis (statement, question, offer, and command) under SFL system from Halliday (Halliday, 1994; Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Eggins, 1994; Butt et al., 2000). It is utilized to find out the teacher’s roles that were proposed mainly by Harmer (2001) and Brown (2001) and speech functions of the teacher and the students’ responses in EFL Classroom, particularly how the teacher and the students use the language in interacting among them during the classroom interaction.

Therefore, in this research, the researcher begins by presenting the facts or general statements from the obtained data to the conclusion. The steps in analyzing the data were analyzing the clauses of the discourses based on the systemic functional grammar (SFG) under the “systemic functional linguistics” by Halliday (Eggins, 1994, p, 149, 156: Gerot & Wignell, 1994, p.25). The Analysis was categorized into mood type’s analysis, as what have been discussed briefly in theoretical framework of this study.

Categorization:

(15)

Category 1: Teacher’s role in EFL classroom Sub-categories: - Controller

- Prompter/ Director - Tutor/ Manager - Facilitator/Participant - Resource

Category 2: Teacher’s communicative/speech functions in EFL classroom Sub-categories:

Statement Question Command Offer

3.7 Concluding Remark

The purpose of this study was to portray the role and communicative functions of the teacher in EFL classroom. It is a qualitative research under characteristic of case study which employed a naturalistic paradigm and used an analytic induction method, which also based on systemic functional linguistic analysis. To compile the data, the researcher utilized multiple techniques and tools such as video camera, tape-recording, and field note. The data obtained from instruments were presented and analyzed in the next chapter in order to answer research questions.

(16)

Chapter 5 Conclusion and Suggestion

5.1 Conclusion

This study seeks to find the realization of mood in teacher’s talk in EFL classroom interaction and also to identify different mood realization in different teacher’s roles. From the results and findings in previous chapter, several conclusions can be drawn.

First, mood is realized through the use of declaratives, interrogatives and imperatives. Looking at the realization of mood in the teacher talk in EFL classroom interaction based on the data from the classroom discourse analysis, the teacher tended to use more declarative and interrogative mood types. It shows that the teacher liked to explain and to assess the students’ comprehension of the lesson discussed. Concerning the speech functions in the classroom, based on the discourse, actually the teacher mostly used questions and commands during the interaction process in the classroom, then statements and the last is offers. She produced 174 questions with different typical mood clause, 95 commands, 56 statements and 15 offerings. Each initiation was expressed in different typical moods.

Second, relating to the mood realization in different teacher’s roles in the classroom, based on the data from observation, most roles were performed by the teacher, and she tended to be strict at one role i.e. as the controller, but sometimes she

(17)

roles performed in the classroom were supported by the data from the classroom discourse.

Based on the findings above, two important points can be raised. First, although one may assume that the teacher’s role in a lower secondary education is different from other educational institutions, the result shows that the role of the teacher in lower secondary education depends on the approach of the teacher and his/her teaching and learning experiences on handling the class. Regarding this, there were several points to remember that the teacher in lower secondary tends to act more as a controller, a traffic keeper or gate keeper that selects to reject or permit anything to be applied to the class. Second, speech functions that determine the realizations of the mood of the teacher were independent, even though in the different situation it will depend on the responses of the students whether they are supporting or confronting response.

It can be concluded that the teacher in the class observed tended to exert power that it is typical to the culture of education in Indonesia in which teachers have most authority in the classroom. On the other side, it is evidenced that Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) was able to describe one of the issues from classroom interaction, particularly in describing teacher’s talk and teacher’s roles in the classroom interaction.

(18)

5.2 Suggestions

From the conclusion above, there are some suggestions that are noted. First, for the next study, it will be better if the study is conducted in longer time in order to give contribution in other contexts. Utilizing other research instruments such as questionnaires and interviews will provide more detailed data since this study only utilized observation to get the data. This study only took five classroom observations. Other phenomenon could be found if the classroom observation were done more than five meetings. In relation to the number of students and classes involved in this study, it would be good if the class used as the samples more than one teacher and 30 students in one class. Therefore, the finding could be more various.

Second, related to the teacher’s role in lower secondary education, it will be better if the next researcher compare it with another teacher based on gender, educational background, or different cultural background. By conducting this, it can be found that whether it is found different result from one another because it is assumed that different person has different characteristics and personality.

(19)

Bibliography

_______. (2006) ‘Teacher Talk: The Secret of Comprehensible Speech for Non- native Speakers of English’ http://www.longman.com

Alamanra, I., (2004). Generic Structure and Lexico-Grammatical Characteristics of Application Letters in English: A Discourse Analysis. English Department Faculty of Language and Art, State University of Jakarta. Thesis.

Allwright, Dick, and Bailey, Kathleen M,.(1991). ‘Focus on The Language Classroom’. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Alwasilah, C. A. (2002). ‘Pokoknya Kualitatif: Dasar-dasar Merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif’. Bandung: Pustaka Jaya.

Alwasilah. (2006). “Redefinisi Profesi Dosen” in Pikiran Rakyat. 5-1-2006.

Alwasilah. 2007. Quality Teaching at a Leading and Outstanding University: A Conceptual Framework for Action and Development. Indonesia University of Education. UPI Press: Bandung-Indonesia.

Anderson, L. W., (1989). The Effective Teacher; Study Guide and Readings. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company. United States of America.

Arnold, J. (1999). Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press. United Kingdom.

Arvani, M. (2006). ‘A Discourse Analysis of Business Letters written by Iranian and Native Speakers’ http://www.asian esp journal.com

Beaugrande, R. (2005) ‘Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Ideology, Methodology’ http://www.beaugrande.com

Berry, M. (1977). An Introduction to Systemic Linguistics, Two Levels and Links. Batsford; London.

Bloom, B. S. (1982). Human Characteristics and School Learning. McGraw Book Company: America.

Bloor, T. & M. Bloor. (1995). The Functional Analysis of English.: A Hallidayan Approach. Arnold. London.

(20)

Bower, G. H. & Cirilo, R. K. (1985). “Cognitive Psychology and Text Processing” Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.). Volume 1, Disciplines of Discourse. Academic Press: Amsterdam.

Brinton, L. J. (2003). “Historical Discourse Analysis” in The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds.). Blackwell Publishing. USA.

Brown, H. D. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd Edition. Longman.

Burns, R. (1994). Introduction to Research Method. Second Edition. Longman. Burns, Joyce & Gollin. (1996). I See What You Mean: Using Spoken Discourse in

the Classroom; a handbook for Teacher. National Center for English Teaching and Research: Australia.

Butler, C. S. (1985). Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Applications. Batsford; London.

Butt, D., Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, S., and Yallop, C. (2000). ‘Using Functional Grammar’. Sydney: Macquarie.

Cazden, B. C. (1988). Classroom Discourse; The Language of Teaching and Learning. Heinmann, Portsmouth, NH.

Chapelle, Carol A. (1998). ‘Some Notes on Systemic-Functional Linguistics’

http://www.public.iastate.edu/~carolc/LING511/sfl.html/

Chaudron, Craig. (1988). 'Second Language Classroom'. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Christie, F. (2000). “The Language of Classroom Interaction and Learning” in Research Language in Schools and Communities; Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.) Cassel. London.

Christie, F. (2005). Language Education in the Primary Years. University of New South Wales: Australia.

(21)

Christie, F. & Unsworth, L. (2000). :Developing Socially Responsible Language Research”, in Research Language in Schools and Communities; Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.). Cassel. London.

Cloran, C. (2000). ‘Socio-semantic Variation: Different Wordings, Different Meanings” in Research Language in School and Communities; Functional Linguistic Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.). Cassel. London.

Collerson, J. (1994). English Grammar; A Functional Approach. Primary English Teaching Association. Victoria.

Creswell, John W. (1994). ‘Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches’. London: SAGE Publication.

Cruickshank, K. (2006). Teenagers, literacy and schools; Researching in Multilingual Context. Routledge. New York.

Dalin, P., Ayono, T., Biazen, A, B.,Mumtaz, J., Miles, M. B. (1994). How Schools Improve: An International Reports. Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Great Britain.

Darlin, H., Linda & John Bransford (Eds.). (2005) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teacher Should Learn and be Able to Do. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. San Fransisco.

Douglas. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. [online] available at:

http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0107demo.html. Accessed on June 24, 2006.

Duranti, A. (1985). “Sociocultural of Discourse”, in Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.) Volume 1, Disciplines of Discourse. Academic Press: Amsterdam.

Eggins, Suzanne. (1994). ‘An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics’. London: Pinter Publishers, Ltd.

(22)

Eggins, Suzanne. (2000). “Researching Everyday Talk” in Research Language in Schools and Communities; Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.) Cassel. London.

Eggins, Suzzane. & Diana Slade. (1997). ‘Analysing Casual Conversation’: London: Casell.

Ellis, Rod. (1986). ‘Understanding Second Language Acquisition’. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing Discourse. Routledge; London.

Freebody, Peter. (2003). ‘Qualitative Research in Education’ London: SAGE Publications.

Gee, James Paul. (1999). ‘An Introduction to Discourse Analysis’ London: Routledge.

Gerning, B. (2005). The Use of English in Natural and Social Science Textbook; A Comparative Study Based on Systemic Functional Linguistics. Graduate School of Education, State University of Jakarta. Dissertation.

Gerot, Linda, and Wignell, P. (1994). ‘Making sense of functional Grammar’. Sydney: Antipodean Educational Enterprises.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). ‘An Introduction to Functional Grammar’. 2nd Edition. London: Edward Arnold Publishers, Ltd.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). “Dimension of Discourse Analysis: Grammar”. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.). Volume 2, Dimension of Discourse. Academic Press: Amsterdam.

Halliday, M. A. K. (2003). ‘On Language and Linguistics’ London: Continuum. Halliday & Hassan. (1985). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in

a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Deakin University Press, Victoria. Halliday, M.A.K, and Martin, J.R. (1993) ‘Writing Science: Literacy and

(23)

Halliday, M. A. K. Mathiessen, C. (1997). Systemic Functional Grammar: A first STEP into the Theory. [online] Available at:

http://www.ling.mq.edu.eu/nlp/resource/virtualLinguistic/publication/s fg_firststep/SFG%20%intro%20New.html. Accessed on September 10, 2006.

Halliday, M. A. K.& Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3rd Edition. Arnold Publisher.

Harmer, J. (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd Edition. Longman.

Hughes, Rebecca. (2002). ‘Teaching and Researching Speaking’ London: Longman.

Jensen, M.T. (2003). ‘Frameworks for Transcribing and Analyzing Discourse in the Classroom’ http://www. Nola-ed.com.

Kasher, A. (1985). “Philosophy and Discourse Analysis”, in Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.). Volume 1, Disciplines of Discourse. Academic Press: Amsterdam.

Kress, G. (1985). Linguistic Processes in Socilcultural Practice. Deakin University Press. Victoria.

Lier, L. V. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. Longman. London and New York.

Lipson, M. (2004). Exploring Functional Grammar: Functional Grammar Studies for Non-Native Speakers of English. Miller (Ed.). Bologna.

Lock, Graham. (1996). ‘Functional English Grammar’ New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lukmana, I. (2006). “Kajian Bahasa dan Pemberdayaan Sosial”. Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra, Vol. 6 No. 2, Oktober 2006.

Ma, Xiao Yan. (2006). ‘Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms’

(24)

Maolida. (2005). The Influences of Teacher’s Instructional Objectives on Variation of Exchange Pattern in Teacher-Students Interaction: A Classroom Discourse Analysis. Paper. Unpublished.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text; system and structure. John Benjamins Publishing, Netherlands.

Martin, J.R., Matthiessen, M., Painter, C. (1997). ‘ Working with Functional Grammar’. London: ARNOLD.

McCarthy, Michael. (1990). ‘Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers’ USA: Cambridge University Press.

McMillan,J.H., and Schumacher,S. (2001). ‘Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction’ New York: Longman, Inc.

Mehan. (1985). “The Structure of Classroom Discourse”, in Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.). Volume 3, Discourse and Dialogue. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Merriam, B. S. (1998). Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Educations: Revised and Expanded from Case Study Research in Education. San Fransisco: Jossey Bass Publisher.

Nunan, David. (1992). ‘Research Methods in Language Learning’ USA: Cambridge University Press.

Nunan, David. (1989). ‘Understanding Language Classrooms’ UK: Prentice Hall International.

Painter, C. (2000). “Researching First Language Development” in Research Language in Schools and Communities; Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.). Cassel. London.

Paltridge, B. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Book 3. Gerd Stabler. Australia.

Qi, Fang.(2007) ‘Classroom Research and Action Research: Principles and Practice in EFL Classroom’ http://www. RELC.com

(25)

Ravelli, L. (2000). “Getting Started with Functional Analysis of Text” in Research Language in Schools and Communities; Functional Linguistic Perspectives. Unsworth, L. (Ed.) Cassel. London.

Riggenbach, H. (1999). Discourse Analysis in the Language Classroom.: Volume 2 the Spoken Language. Ann Arbor; The University of Michigan Press. Robinson, W. P. (1985). “Social Psychology and Discourse” in Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Van Dijk (Ed.). Volume 1, Disciplines of Discourse. Amsterdam:

Academic Press.

Sadker, M. P. & Sadker, D. M. (1988). Teacher’s, Schools and Society. USA: Random House, Inc.

Schiffrin, D. (2003). “Discourse Markers: Language, Meaning, and Context” in the Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Schiffrin, D., Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds.). USA: Blackwell Publishing.

Silverman, David. (2005). ‘Doing Qualitative Research’ London: SAGE Publications.

Sinclair, J.M., and Coulthard, R.M. (1975). Towards an Analysis of Discourse’ London: Oxford University Press.

Skelton, A. (2005). Understanding Teaching Excellence in Higher Education; An Introduction. United States of America: Merrill Publishing Company. Suherdi, D. (2006). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Systemiotic Approach.

Bandung: UPI Press.

Suherdi, D. (1997). “Focusing on the Teaching-Learning Process: A Case Study of the Use of Classroom Discourse Analysis in Understanding the Language of EFL/ESL Classroom” in Sadtono, E. (Ed.). 1997. The development of TEFL in Indonesia. The English Department of IKIP Malang in Collaboration with Bina Budaya Foundation. Malang. (p. 142-157).

Thorne, Steve. (2001). ‘A brief introduction to the work of M.A.K. Halliday and Systemic-Functional Linguistics’ http://www.asian-efl journal.com Tompson, G. (1996). Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.

(26)

Travers. (2001). Qualitative Research through Case Study. London: Sage Publications.

Van Dijk. (1985). Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Volume 3, Discourse and Dialogue. Amsterdam: Academic Press.

Van Lier, Leo (1988). ‘The Classroom and the Language Learner, UK: Longman. Wheldall, K. & Glynn, T. (1989). Effective Classroom Learning: A Behavioral

Interactionist Approach to Teaching, Theory and Practice in Education. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

(1)

Collerson, J. (1994). English Grammar; A Functional Approach. Primary English Teaching Association. Victoria.

Creswell, John W. (1994). ‘Research Design: Qualitative & Quantitative Approaches’. London: SAGE Publication.

Cruickshank, K. (2006). Teenagers, literacy and schools; Researching in Multilingual Context. Routledge. New York.

Dalin, P., Ayono, T., Biazen, A, B.,Mumtaz, J., Miles, M. B. (1994). How Schools Improve: An International Reports. Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Great Britain.

Darlin, H., Linda & John Bransford (Eds.). (2005) Preparing Teachers for a Changing World: What Teacher Should Learn and be Able to Do. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. San Fransisco.

Douglas. Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. [online] available at: http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0107demo.html. Accessed on June 24, 2006.