Teachers` belief in teacher-students interaction in English learning class.

(1)

xiii ABSTRACT

Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.

The fact that there are many educational researches concerning on TSs interaction has reflected how significant TSs interaction for English learning is. TSs interaction plays role for the success of learning by accomodating learning for the students before they are demanded to construct language individually. As what has been found by the researchers in EYL class, a teacher plays more dominant role in TSs interaction. Consequently, how the interaction goes may depend on the teacher. At the same time, what the teacher does is commonly affected by his/ her belief. On the other words, the study on TSs interaction in class can be done by investigating the teachers’belief.

Thus, the goal of this research is to find out the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in English learning in class. This is a qualitative research. Here, the techniques used in this research were doing a direct observation in the English learning class and an in-depth interview with two English teachers. These two participants were selected using purposeful sampling. The observation aimed to find out how the process of TSs interaction runs in English learning class. Then it was followed by in-depth interview to find out the reasons of having such TSs interaction. The investigation resulted into texts as the data for this research namely observation notes and transcripts and also interview transcripts.

The results of this research consist of the teachers’ belief about goals, process, and source of TSs interaction. It can give conceptual insight about how the system of TSs interaction in English learning process in Elementary schools through recognizing the teachers’ belief. Then, it may be beneficial for the teachers as a means supporting self- reflection, schools’ evaluation and also for the educational practitioners who want to investigate the TSs interaction in more details.

Keywords:teachers’ belief, teacher- students interaction, English learning, qualitative study

(2)

xiv

Maria Setyaningsih Nernere. 2016. Teachers’ Belief in Teacher-Students Interaction in English Learning Class. Yogyakarta: Kajian Bahasa Inggris, Program Pasca Sarjana, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Banyaknya penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa menunjukan bahwa interaksi guru dan siswa berperan secara signifikan bagi suksesnya pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Interaksi guru dan siswa berperan penting bagi pembelajaran karena mengakomodasi pembelajaran bagi siswa sebelum mereka mampu berbicara Bahasa Inggris secara mandiri. Seperti yang ditemukan oleh para peneliti pendidikan yang berfokus pada pembelajaran di usia dini, guru memiiki peran yang dominan saat membangun interaksi dengan siswanya. Oleh karena itu, guru sangat berperan dalam berlangsungnya interaksi antara guru dan siswa. Padahal, apapun yang dilakukan oleh guru dipengaruhi oleh apa yang dia percaya. Dengan kata lain, penelitian tentang interaksi guru dan siswa dapat dilakukan dengan menginvestigasi kepercayaan guru tentang interaksi tersebut.

Maka dari itu, penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru yang berhubungan dengan interaksi antara guru dan siswanya di kelas. Dengan menggunakan metode kualitatif, penelitian ini menganalisa hasil observasi dan interview pada dua guru Bahasa Inggris. Dua guru Bahasa Inggris ini dipilih dengan menggunakan teknik purposeful sampling. Observasi dilakukan untuk menemukan bagaimana proses interaksi guru dan siswa berlangsung di dalam kelas. Kemudian, teknik selanjutnya adalah interview. Melalui intervie, peneliti dapat menggali kepercayaan guru yang mempengaruhi keputusannya dalam mengatur interaksiny dengan siswa. Data dari penelitian ini berbentuk teks, seperti catatan dan traksrip selama observasi kelas, dan juga traksrip interview. Data tersebut dianalisis untuk mengetahui kepercayaan guru.

Hasil dari penelitian ini terdiri dari kepercayaan guru yang berhubungan dengan tujuan, proses, dan sumber dari interaksi guru dan siswa. Diharapkan, penelitian ini dapat memberikan gambaran konseptual tentang bagaimana interaksi di kelas antara guru dan siswanya melalui apa yang dipercaya oleh guru. Dengan begitu, hasilnya dapat dimanfaatkan untuk refleksi pribadi bagi guru dan referensi bagi peneliti lain yang ingin melakukan investigasi yang lebih detail. Kata kunci: kepercayaan guru, interaksi guru dan siswa, pembelajaran Bahasa Inggris, penelitian kualitatif

(3)

TEACHERS’

_{BELIEF IN TEACHER-STUDENTS}

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

A Thesis Presented to

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.) in

English Language Studies

Maria Setyaningsih Nernere Student Number: 146332043

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA AUGUST 2016

(4)

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

A Thesis Presented to

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of

Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.) in

English Language Studies

Maria Setyaningsih Nernere Student Number: 146332043

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA AUGUST 2016

(5)

FIL ilIukarto. Ph.D.

Advisor _{Yogyak*rte, July}28, 2016

:' :.i:i l,:r, lt ! ... ':, :: ::,:L:,r:- ::,, .,

:: ::::::i::::l:::;:] il;+-: :i:::

(6)

Secr$qry

(7)

ffi:.'.:'\lr

STATE*MNT

ORIGINALITY

Thit is to certify that all ideas, pmeses, ssrtences, unless otherwise stated,

are the ideas, phrases, and sstrterteeo'of, lhe thesis trtrit€r.

_I

understand

t[e

full

consequeoces iml$ding degree

e

l*tioe

if

I

too& aomebody else,s ideas,

phrases, or sentences without proper references.

28,20t6

Marie Setyaningsih Nernere

Y-ogyakarta, July

w

::.; ii

ril

:id rC

:l :-l

J c i,H

,-l H PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

(8)

PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH I'NTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS

Yang bertanda tangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa universitas Sanata Dhapma:

Nama

: Maria Setyaningsih Nernere

NIM

:146332043

Demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, saya memberikan kepada perpustakaan

Universitas Sanata Dharma, karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul:

TEACHERS' BELIEF IN TEACHER-STTIDENTS _{INTERACTION IN} ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian, saya memberikan

kepada Perpustakaan universitas Sanata Dharma

hak

untuk menyimpan,

mengalihkan dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan

data, mendistribusikannya di Intemet atau media lain rintuk kepentingan akademis

tanpa perlu meminta ijin maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap

mencanfumkan saya sebagai penulis.

Demikian pernyataan ini saya buat dengan sebenarnya.

Dibuat di Yogyakarta

Pada tanggal: 28 Juli 2016

Yang menyatakan,

(9)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I do praise the Lord for kindly giving me chance so I can go through this path.

Certainly, I can not finish this thesis without others’ help. First, I want to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, F.X. Mukarto, Ph.D., for his enlightment, big patience and supports for me during the process of writing. My gratitude also goes my thesis reviewers, Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. Sunarto, M.Hum, for their sharing and great advices. Besides, I also thanks Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., Paulus Sarwoto, Ph.D., Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, Dr. Novita Dewi, M.S.,M.A.(Hons), J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd., M.Hum., Widya Kiswara, S.Pd.,M.Hum., and other great lectures in English Language Studies in Sanata Dharma University for the sharing and inspiration. I also thank my nice friends whom I meet in ELS Sanata Dharma University for their care and support.

My gratitude also goes to my beautiful participants, Susana Raheni, S.Pd. and Christina Maryeni, S.Pd. for letting me learn a lot from their sharing. Besides, I thank the supporting teachers and lovely students in SD Kanisius Wates and SD Kanisius Kotabaru. I also thank my students and colleagues in SD Kanisius Bonoharjo for inspiring me to write this thesis.

I am also grateful for having Rini, Awang and Hehen as my true friends, ever. Last but not least, thanks to Bapa, Mama, Sawe, Ngare, Pae, Bue, Galuh, Vian, and Putri for the abundant love, forgiveness, and support. Hi love, thanks.

Maria Setyaningsih Nernere

(10)

vii

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGE ... ii

DEFENCE APPROVAL PAGE ... iii

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY... iv

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH ... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ... vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ... x

LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS ... xi

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xii

ABSTRACT... xiii

ABSTRAK ... xiv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION... 1

1.1 Place of the Current Research ... 1

1.2 Scope and Limitation of the Current Research ... 5

1.3 Problem Formulation ... 5

1.4 Goal of the Current Research ... 5

1.5 Significances of the Current Research ... 6

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW... 7

2.1 Theoretical Review ... 7

2.1.1 Teachers’Belief ... 7

2.1.1.1Definition of Teachers’ Belief... 7

2.1.1.2 Sources of Teachers’ Belief... 9

2.1.1.3 The Role of Teachers’ Belief... 10

2.1.2 Teacher-Students Interaction ... 11

2.1.2.1 Definition of TSs Interaction ... 12

2.1.2.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction... 13

2.1.2.3 The Role of TSs Interactionin Young Learners’ Classroom ... 17

(11)

viii

2.1.3.1 English Learning in Class ... 19

2.1.3.2 English Learning inYoung Learners’ Classroom... 20

2.1.3.3 English Learning in Kanisius Elementary School ... 21

2.2 Theoretical Framework ... 22

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... 24

3.1 Research Design... 24

3.2 Nature of Data ... 24

3.3 Research Instruments ... 25

3.3.1 Observation Notes... 25

3.3.2 Interview Guideline... 25

3.4 Source of Data... 26

3.5 Data Collecting Techniques ... 28

3.6 Data Analysis ... 29

3.7 Trustworthiness ... 30

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ... 31

4.1 RESULTS ... 31

4.1.1 Types of TSs Interaction ... 31

4.1.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction ... 49

4.2 DISCUSSION ... 62

4.2.1 Goals of TSs Interaction ... 62

4.2.2 Process of TSs Interaction ... 69

4.2.3 Sources of TSs Interaction ... 74

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS ... 75

5.1 CONCLUSIONS... 75

5.1.1 Teachers’ Belief in the Goals of TSs Interaction... 75

5.1.2 Teachers’ Belief in the Process of TSs Interaction... 76

5.1.3 Teachers’ Belief in the Sources of TSs Interaction... 78

5.2 IMPLICATIONS ... 79

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS ... 80

REFERENCES... 81

(12)

(13)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Theoretical Framework ... 22

Figure 3.1. The concept of English- English TSs Interaction ... 38

Figure 3.2. The concept of English- Indonesia TSs Interaction ... 42

Figure 3.3. The concept of Indonesia- Indonesia TSs Interaction ... 46

Figure 2.5. The concept of Javanese TSs Interaction... 49

(14)

LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS

EFL : English as a Foreign Language

ELS : English Language Studies EYL : English for Young Learners IRE : Initiation- Response- Evaluation IRF : Initiation- Response- Follow up

KTSP : Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan (Curriculum 2009)

T : Teacher

TS : Teacher-Student

TSs : Teacher-Students

Ss : Students

SS : Student-Student

ask inf : asking information giv inf : giving information giv inst : giving instruction

(15)

xii

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1 Observation Notes and Trancript First Participant 1 ... 86 APPENDIX 2 Observation Notes and Trancript First Participant 2... 99 APPENDIX 3 Observation Notes and Trancript First Participant3…….... 110 APPENDIX 4 Observation Notes and Trancript Second Participant 1….. 121 APPENDIX 5 Observation Notes and Trancript Second Participant 2 ... 137 APPENDIX 6 Interview Transcript First Participant………... 146 APPENDIX 7 Interview Transcript Second Participant………... 159

(16)

xiii

Keywords:teachers’ belief, teacher- students interaction, English learning, qualitative study

(17)

xiv ABSTRAK

(18)

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

The current research is aimed to find out the teachers’ belief in teacher-students interaction in English learning. This is a worth- doing research since it is useful for reflecting how the teachers quality of interaction in young learners’ English class. This chapter discusses the place of current research in the area of TSs interaction and the urgency beyond this research. Then, one research question is formulated. Besides, the theoretical and practical benefits of this research are stated.

1.1 Place of the Current Research

Inspired by Vygotzki’s theory on the role of social interaction for the students’ development, there have been many researchers who have concerned on classroom interaction (Pinter, 2006). They focus differently on analyzing its pattern, causal factors, effects, and other aspects of interaction by researching the interaction in different setting, subject learnt or age level of participants and using different research methodology. In Indonesia, many educational researchers have concerned on classroom interaction. Murtiningrum (2009) has researched the typical moves in each interaction in classroom including TSs interaction in the area of vocational school. She finds that teachers interact with their students by accepting feeling, praising or encouraging, accepting or using ideas of the students, asking questions, lecturing, and giving direction. Madeten (2013) also

(19)

investigates classroom interaction in Junior High School. He finds out the four categories in interaction namely teacher talk, student talk, non- verbal interaction and related factors. Many research concerning on classroom interaction have shown the importance of interaction for learning.

Classroom interaction consists of teacher- students (TSs) interaction, teacher- student (TS) interaction, and student- student (SS) interaction. Each pattern plays its own role for the success of learning. Due to Hammond’s model of language teaching, TSs interaction plays big role during the process of teaching learning before the students produce the text independently. Concerning on the importance of TSs interaction, Sibley (1990) investigated three-part exchanges, teacher feedback, and the role of gender in it. Nugent (2009) finds that TSs interaction has bigger role for the success of learning since it affects the students’ motivation and finally affects their achievement. Besides, Hong, et al (2011) believe that TSs interaction facilitates scaffolding for learning. Recognizing the importance of TSs interaction for learning, Nassaji & Wells (2000) research on the use of triadic dialogue in TSs interaction that depends on the teachers’ goals. McClowry et al (2013) also investigate factors affecting TSs interaction. Recently, Makasau (2015) goes into details by researching the adjacency pairs occuring in the TSs interaction.

Acknowledging the importance of investigating TSs interaction for the learning success from the previous research, it is needed to investigate further the reality of TSs interaction in English classroom in Indonesia. In this research, the setting is in Elementary School. Although nowadays English is no longer a

(20)

compulsory subject to learn, some schools in Yogyakarta still have English for their students. The truth is that in elementary school, TSs interaction plays dominant role in the success of language learning. Many researchers concerning on teaching English to young learners such as Pinter (2006), Cameron (2001), Moon (2000), and Halliwell (1992) agree that young learners are willing to engage in learning only if the teaching and learning process is meaningful to them. Here is the role of TSs interaction. Ellis (2008) states that everything happens through a process of live interaction in a classroom. How the interaction can accomodate meaningful learning is very important in primary language classroom. Young learners do not directly learn from textbooks but they practice and tend to learn indirectly through the interaction that they experience in classroom. Hall & Walsh (2002) also state that most learning opportunities are accomplished through face-to-face interaction. Thus, interaction has role for effectual learning environments and in shaping of individual learners’ development.

Realizing the importance of interaction, how the teacher interacts with his/ her students to construct meaning should be concerned. As Makasau (2015) states that the initiator of almost every exchange is the teacher. They may have purpose in mind so that they lead the interaction, guide the process and evaluate the result. The educational researchers have noticed what the developments in cognitive psychology highlight that there are complex relationships between what people do and what they know and believe. They find that it happens also in education (Borg, 2009). All decision that teachers have for TSs interaction is affected by

(21)

their knowledge and belief. Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968 in Pajares (1992) state that belief is the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives. In classroom setting, belief affects the teachers’ decision on holding the teaching and learning process. Richards & Lockhart (1996) also support the influence of belief in the real class by stating that what the teachers do is a reflection of what they know and believe. Considering the important of belief, Puspitasari (2013) and Liao (2007) investigatethe teachers’belief in English teaching in Elementary stage to find out how the teaching goes.

Considering the importance of TSs interaction for the success of learning and the dominant role of belief in influencing the teacher who dominantly takes part in the TSs interaction, this current research focuses on investigating the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction. Many researchers have concerned on TSs interaction. They werePetek (2013) investigating the teachers’ belief in classroom interaction and Chu (2014) discussing the belief of TSs interaction in kindergarten. Unfortunately, they have not investigated teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in Elementary stage deeper. This is the gap that this research tries to concern on. The findings from the existing theories are used as the references for this research. Pattern and forms of interaction that the teacher believes to work in constructing meaning in the real English class are observed. The reasons behind having such interaction are also investigated further. Specifically, this research focuses on investigating the TSs interaction in young learners’ classrooms in private schools. By researchingthe teachers’belief, the concept of TSs interaction

(22)

in elementary schools can be illustrated especially related to the system of TSs interaction consisting of the goals, process, and its sources.

1.2 Scope and Limitation of the Current Research

Classroom interaction consists of TSs interaction, TS interaction, and SS interaction. In this research, the focus is only on TSs (teacher- class) interaction. Here, TSs interaction refers to the interaction between teacher and his/ her students during the English learning. Learning can happen anywhere but in this research, the investigation will be focused in learning happening in the classroom. Interaction can be in the form of verbal and non- verbal. This current research focuses more on the verbal one. The interaction can be initiated either by the teacher or the students. Since the initiator of the interaction is the teacher while the teacher’s decision may be influenced by belief, this research focuses on investigating the belief of English primary teachers about the TSs interaction. The participants are specified from Kanisius Elementary Schools.

1.3 Problem Formulation

Based on the background of the research, the problem of this research, as follows:

(23)

1.4 Goal of the Current Research

In relation to the research question, the main goal of this research is to find out the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction in English learning in class. The investigation of this current research will deal with the goals, process, and the source of TSs interaction.

1.5 Significances of the Current Research

This research is aimed to find out the teachers’ belief inTSs interaction in English learning in Elementary school. Thus, theoretically, this research may contribute to the concern of ELS especially in English teaching for Young Learners. Practically, this research may be beneficial for the teachers and the school/ institution. First, it can be a source for doing teachers’ reflection which aims to improve the efficiency in teaching. Song, Hannafin, & Hill (2007) state that successful teachers often reconcile by recognizing differences between their underlying teaching belief and practices and student learning practices. Donaghue (2003) also argues that eliciting teachers’ belief is important for teachers’ development since belief affects the acceptance and uptake of new approaches, techniques, and activities. Thus, through having the findings of this reseach, teachers can do self- reflection and be aware of their development process. Besides, the findings may be useful for the institution to evaluate the English learning process. Later on, it can be a consideration whether or not the institution should hold a teaching training for improving skills for interaction.

(24)

7 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section reviews the theories related to this current research. The theories are about teachers’ belief, TSs interaction, and English learning. Besides, the relation between those construct are presented in the theoretical framework.

2.1 Theoretical Review

In this research, there are three constructs namely teachers’ belief, teacher-students interaction, and English learning class. Here, the theories about those constructs are reviewed.

2.1.1 Teachers’_Belief

There are three theories reviewed in this part. They are the definition, sources, and the role of teachers’ belief in language teaching and learning.

2.1.1.1Definition of Teachers’_Belief

Due to the finding of the ELT practitioners’ research about belief, there is no clear explicit meaning for belief. This is why Pajares (1992) considers belief as a messy construct. Many researchers such as what Brown and Cooney (1982), Sigel (1985), Harvey (1986) in Pajares (1992) agree that belief is the major determinant of behavior. Belief that someone holds guide how he/ she acts. Bandura, 1986; Dewey, 1933; Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Rokeach, 1968 in Pajares (1992,p.2) support it because they agree that ‘belief is the best indicators of the decisions individuals make throughout their lives’. He/ she may find that what he/

(25)

she believes on is true so what he/ she decides to do in his/ her life often be affected by his/ her belief.

In classroom setting, teacher may act according to what he/ she believes on. Borg (2003,p.2)defines teacher as an ‘active, thinking decision-makers who make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalised, and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and belief. It means that teachers’ belief play a role in the teachers’ decision- making. Pajares (1992), Richardson (1996), Richards, Gallo, & Renandya (2001), and Phipps (2009) find on the influence of teachers’ belief on classroom decision making. Compared to teachers’ knowledge, Pajares (1992) and Marion Williams et al. (1997) in Xu (2012) noted that teachers‘belief have a greater influence on the way they plan their lessons, on the kinds of decisions they make, and on their general classroom practice. The teaching method, materials, tasks and activities a teacher designs and uses in class may be affected by his/ her belief. Thus, compared to knowledge, teachers’belief was the better predictor of how teachers behave in the classroom (Marion Williams et al., 1997 in Xu, 2012).

Unfortunately,there is often a ‘discrepancy’ between what the teachers say about their belief and the way they act (Marion Williams et al., 1997 in Xu, 2012). Therefore, investigating belief is not merely done by interviewing the doers. Not all teachers are aware of their belief. Besides, Pajares (1992) also states that understanding belief is not an easy thing to do since people tend to reluctant on representing their belief accurately. Therefore, it is better done through a ‘direct observation or measurement such a survey’ than inferring from “what people say,

classroom observation

interview interview

(26)

intend, and do- fundamental prerequisites. Technically, White (1999) in Liao (2007) claimed that:

“(1) Belief has an adaptive function to help individuals define and understand the world and themselves, and (2) belief is instrumental in defining tasks and behaviors. Thus, the belief systems that teachers develop are often held to be true and can guide their teaching behaviors.”

2.1.1.2 Sourcesof Teachers’_Belief

Belief is not created incidentally. It exists through process in which it is affected by various factors. Belief systems are dynamic and permeable mental structures, susceptible to change in light of experience (Muijs & Reynolds, 2002 in Liao, 2007). On the other words, belief is affected by experiences and vice versa. Richards (1998) and Borg (2003) agree that teachers’ belief are significantly affected by experiences in their prior learning and teaching practices, classroom observations that they were exposed to, their previous training courses, and other contextual factors. The same finding is also proved by Liao (2007) supported by Johnson, 1992; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Smith, 1996 who state that English teachers may have belief about the ideal approaches in teaching which are affected by their previous educational experiences, cultural backgrounds, and social interaction, which may further shape their belief about English teaching.

Besides affected by the past experiences, Pajares (1992) states that belief is affected by evaluation and judgment. Belief is different from knowledge which is based on objective fact. Logically, the experiences that the teacher has are evaluated, judged and finally born to be his/ her belief. Once a belief exists, it may

(27)

change any time as any experiences the teacher finds as truth can influence it. Though, Marion Williams et al. (1997) argue that belief tends to be culturally bound, to be formed early in life and to be resistant to change.

Reviewing to the theories above, it is concluded that belief are values hold by someone, influenced by experiences of prior learning, practice, training or other related meaningful events that considered to be true by the person. Those values affect the person in his/ her action. Thus, belief can be observed through their action.

2.1.1.3 The Role of Teachers’_{Belief in Language Teaching and Learning}

Teachers always bring their belief in every situation in their lives, including in situations and decisions related to language teaching. Thus, the implementation in teaching is affected by the teachers’ belief. It is apparent that belief hold by teachers belongs to crucial aspect in language teaching. Kuzborska (2011) also emphasizes that teachers’ belief play a central role in some aspects of teaching and learning process including the classroom practice. Concisely, teachers’ belief affects the system of language teaching either the goal, process, or the components. First, teachers’ belief underlies the decision in formulating the goal (Graves, 2000). The quality of the output is also influenced by the teachers’belief. If the teachers’belief resulted on the working decision for the students, the goals of teaching can be accomplished well. It has been confirmed by Kuzborska (2011) who finds the significant relationship between teacher belief and student achievement.

(28)

Second, teachers’ belief affect the process of teaching, started from the planning up to the making it to be real in class. Xu (2012) states that teachers' belief shape in determining what should be taught and what path of instruction should be followed. It continues to affect the interactions with students.

Third, what teachers hold as their belief influences their decision-making related to the components of teaching. What the teachers do in class whether it is about teaching methodology, language use, classroom management or other aspects in the teaching process is affected by their belief. Richards, Gallo, & Renandya (2001) confirm that teachers’ belief strongly affect the materials and activities they choose for the classroom. Besides, teachers’ belief also influences the teachers’ development (Richards, Gallo, & Renandya, 2001). In fact, those findings are not absolutely true. Phipps (2009) finds that considering on the practical classroom circumtances, the teachers’ belief are not always reflected on the classroom practice. Thus, teachers’ belief can be affected by the teachers’ practices, experiences or other external factors. Clark and Peterson (1986) in Richards, et al. (2001).

2.1.2 Teacher- Students Interaction

Due to the Hammond’s model of language teaching, the classroom interaction happens between teacher and students, student and student, and also teacher and student. In fact, TSs interaction plays big role for the success of language teaching and learning since it happens almost in each stage of teaching excluding stage of independent construction.

(29)

2.1.2.1 Definition of TSs Interaction

There have been many researchers who concern on classroom interaction and ended with synthesizing the meaning of interaction. Basically, interaction happens between two parties. In the interaction, Brown (2000, 165) considers that there is“an exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas resulting in reciprocal effect on each other”. Those two or more parties communicate each other based on their portion. Due to the interaction hypothesis proposed by Long, in interaction, there is a modification that may facilitate acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways (Ellis R. , 2008). As its name, TSs interaction is an interaction involved teacher and students in class. TSs interaction belongs to types of interaction in a classroom (Brown, 1987). This interaction dominantly happens on the stages of language teaching, started from building knowledge of field, up to joint construction of text as apparent in the Hammond’s model of language teaching. It happens between teacher and students during the course.

According to Pica, et al. (1987), TSs interaction is kind of environment for second language acquisition in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding. The interaction ends when the messages are understood well. The understanding is related to what the teachers want to accomplish as planned. In this case, the planning is suited to the goals of English learning in Elementary school which have been created in the curriculum. While, TSs interaction also becomes a focuse in social perspective, in which,

this face-to-face interaction is a medium facilitating learning opportunities and plays a role in the ‘creation of effectual learning environments and in the

(30)

shaping of individual learners’ development. Specifically, through interaction, students ‘are socialized into particular understanding of what counts as the official curriculum and of themselves as learners of that subject matter’ (Hall & Walsh, 2002,p.187).

A can be seen in Hammond’s model of language teaching, TSs interaction involves bigger participation in which all the students in class are invited to interact.

Therefore, it is decided that TSs interaction is an interaction between a teacher and his/ her students during the learning in which they modify and restructure the interaction to achieve mutual understanding affecting students’ development. TSs interaction here can be initiated either by the teacher or the student. Then, it continues to build communication between the teacher and his/ her students in class.

2.1.2.2 Pattern of TSs Interaction

In TSs interactions, the interaction happens between teacher and students during the course. Cazden (1986, 1988), Mehan (1979) Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002) agree on a typical classroom interaction pattern known as the Initiation- Response- Feedback. IRE is preferred by some writers and practitioners to reflect the fact that, most of the time teachers’ feedback is in the form of evaluation to assess students’ contribution. On the further research, it is found that the third move can be varied, thus the typical pattern is changed into Initiation- Response- Follow up (IRF) for the wider possibilities of moves (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). Nassaji & Wells (2000) find that IRF structure can be varied in forms and functions depending on the goal of

(31)

the activity. The goals themselves are influenced by how the teachers view their teaching.

As the consequences, different view of teaching will lead into different of communicative function of IRF structure as agreed by Kumpulainen & Wray (2002). According to Brown (2000), there are twelve principles covered in three main principles namely cognitive, affective, and linguistic principles that become the foundation for interaction. Then, it will lead into different language learning environment (Hall & Walsh, 2002).

In fact, teacher plays a dominant role during the interaction. How they act in class is reflected from their ideal perception about teacher’s role in classroom (Hong et al, 2011). Richard & Rodgers (2001) also agree that the learning approach defines the teachers’ role that creates specific patterns of interaction between teachers and learners in classroom. For instance, if they think that a class needs a controller, they will controls the content of interaction and the distribution of speaking turn (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002).

Nassaji & Wells (2000) have defined the roles in the interaction. First is about the primary knower. There are three available possibilities namely teacher as a primary knower and the adressees as the second knower; specific student as primary knower while teacher and other students as secondary knower; and no preselected knower in which all participants can contribute for constructing mutual understanding. Second is about the “manager” of the discussion in which he/ she has the right to select the speaker, decide the direction and pace of the talk.

(32)

According to Brown (2000), teacher may have five roles in the classroom namely as a controller, director, manager, facilitator and resource. Every role plays different actions during interaction.

Commonly, there are two pattern often used in the interaction. First is IRE in which the teachers play the role as an expert and tend to evaluate to respond the students’ answer (Hall & Walsh, 2002). In this case, they consider themselves as the first knower (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). This pattern may limit the students’ learning opportunity to express their ideas. On the other hand, the second pattern involves a range of functions on the third moves. According to Hall & Walsh (2002), this pattern can lead into effective teaching since it promotes students participation, highlight key concepts and ideas, build a shared base of knowledge,and evoke feeling of inclusivity. Rashidi & Rafieerad (2010) draw the pattern into this detail:

Table 2.1 Pattern of Classroom Interaction Initiating Acts

a. Requestive b. Directives c. Elicitation d. Informative

Responding Acts a. Positive response b. Negative response c. Temporization

Follow- up acts a. endorsement b. concession c. acknowledgment

In the traditional classroom, the first pattern is dominant. The teachers tend to dominate their questions and the students rarely initiate a talk or share their ideas. Commonly, teachers give a question to discuss, an instruction to do by the students. Then, they give follow- up. From this pattern, it is apparent that the power of teacher in class exists. Teacher often initiates on the first and the third move. Moreover, Flanders (1970) in Moyles et al. (2003,p.102) find that ‘more

(33)

than two thirds of all teacher questions…are concerned with narrow lines of interrogation which stimulate an expected response’.

Barnes (1979) in Moyles,et al. (2003) recognizes that teacher’s dominance in interaction exists as the teacher has a conflict between the need to promote learning and the need to maintain control. Unfortunately, this condition can ‘devalue both the knowledge the students have and their capacity to use speech to apply the knowledge to a new task’. Thus, it is better to “engage students in active ways rather than sitting passively listening to the teacher” (Barnes, 1979 in Moyles et al.2003,p.17). It will be different if the joint negotiation and meaning-making are emphasized in learning and teaching. There will be wider communicative strategies and the nature of social interaction will be changed into more dynamic teaching and learning conversation (Orsolini & Pontecorvo,1992 in Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). In this pattern, the communicative strategies used consist of repetition and rephrashing of students’ contribution instead of mere questioning and evaluation activity (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002).

Another perspective for classroom interaction is called collective argumentation developed by Brown & Renshaw in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002). In this pattern, the communicative strategies used are sharing or interpreting, comparing, explaning, justifying, establishing joint agreement and presenting for a validation to coordinate different perspective in classroom. Then, the teacher’s participation consists of managing, reminding, supporting, modelling, encouraging students to evaluate, and providing strategies for dealing with interpersonal conflicts Brown & Renshaw (2000) in Kumpulainen & Wray

(34)

(2002). In this perspective, the students take a part in classroom more than the teacher. It is not in line with Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, and Vasama in Kumpulainen & Wray (2002) who promote the teacher’s participation in class. In their research, they identify four modes of teacher’s participation into evocative, facilitative, collective and appreciative modes (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002). By having that teacher’s participation, the students did not see their teacher as the knowledge- giving authority but instead proudly presented their own ideas and also questioned the assumptions presented by the teacher (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2002, p.14).

2.1.2.3. The Role of TSs Interaction in Young Learner Classroom

The verbal interaction in class must be exposed by the teachers for certain purposes. Brown T. (1987) argues that it is caused by the teachers’ intention to influence the actions of the young learners. If the learners react as expected, the teaching and learning process will proceed successfully as planned. In constructing the interaction, a teacher may fantasize about how her actions will be interpreted. Richard & Rodgers (2001) state that interaction aims to specify and organize the language teaching content so the purpose of communication can be met. Interaction may affect some aspects in teaching and learning.

First, it deals with cognitive aspects. According to Yanfen & Yuqin (2010), through interaction with teachers, students can increase their language store and use all languages they possess. During the interaction, they can acquire the comprehensible input exposed to them. If the input is still incomprehensible, the

(35)

teacher can make the use of interaction to do modification if needed to make sure whether the input is understood by the students successfully. The modification can be done by doing comprehension and confirmation checks and clarification requests either by encoding or, more frequently, by triggering repetition and rephrasing of input content. Long (1996) also agrees that interaction facilitates acquisition because of the conversational and linguistic modifications that occur in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. Pica, Doughty, & Young (1987) and Sarab & Karimi (2008) find that this interactional modification facilitates second language comprehension better than pre-modified input. Modification done through the interaction can help the learners to comprehend the input. The successful interactional modification can accommodate learning and acquisition for young learners. It is confirmed by Pica, Doughty, & Young (1987) who state the interaction of teacher and students in which both parties modify and restructure the interaction to arrive at mutual understanding can be an ideal environment for second language acquisition. It is also in line with theories of communicative competence. Due to those theories, the importance of interaction was emphasized to negotiate meaning (Brown, 2000).

Second, it deals with affective development of students. By interacting with young learners in class, teacher can create an interesting atmosphere so the learners can feel motivated and the will not feel bored. It is in line with Nugent (2009) who finds the positive relationship between the teacher and students’ interaction and students’ motivation. Chowdhury & Rashid (2014) also agree that the effective interaction can create a pleasant atmosphere in the classroom with

(36)

friendly relationships among the participants of the learning process. If the learning is interesting and meaningful to the young learners, the goals of the teaching and learning process can be accomplished (Halliwell, 1992; Moon, 2000; Pinter, 2006). Allwright in Sibley (1999) notices the importance of interaction so he suggests that the interaction should be inherent in the very notion of classroom pedagogy itself.

On the other hand, Nystrand in (Hall & Walsh, 2002) argue that TSs interaction was a significant factor ‘in creating inequalities in student opportunities to develop intellectually complex language knowledge and skills. It is closely related with the dominant power of the teachers in classroom. It will be discussed further in the section below.

2.1.3 English Learning

2.1.3.1 English Learning in Class

Learning is a process of gaining input. In this research, the object learnt is English which is considered as the foreign language in Indonesia. Ellis (2008) defines learning as conscious study. Perceived from the cognitive theory, English learning has dynamic mechanisms. Anderson (1985) in Ellis (2008) elaborates the process of learning in which the learners select information, organize it, relate it to what they already know, retain what they consider to be important, use it in appropriate context, and reflect on the success of their learning effort. Cognitive theory is only an instance of learning perspective. Others perspectives that influence the way of learning are such as behaviorist theory, communicative

(37)

competence theory, humanistic perspective, social interactionism. Those perspectives affect the way someone learn a language and construct learning strategies from it.

2.1.3.2 English Learning in Young Learners Classroom

Compared to language learning in adult classroom, language learning in young learners’ classroom is different in some ways since young learners have their own characteristics. To make the learning works and meaningful to young learners, the learning should be adapted based on their characteristics. Moon (2000) states that young learners tend to go for meaning. They are experts on guessing meaning even if they do not understand individual words. Moreover, they can respond on it once they can grasp the meaning (Harmer, 2000). Unfortunately, teachers often ask their students to make sure that they understand. By doing constant checking in this way the teachers are implying that they expect the children to understand every little bit they hear. (Halliwell, 1992) As the implication, the teaching should be meaningful. If young learners do not find it meaningful, they will not be active as planned and the goal of teaching and learning may not be accomplished. Besides, young learners have short span of attention. It is easy for them to get bored and feel demotivated if their learning is difficult, not interesting and not meaningful to them. Moreover, what they learn is different from their mother tongue. Moon (2000) assures that the bored and demotivated young learners will not success in learning. Moreover, young learners tend to react based on their feelings (Moon, 2000). If they are

(38)

demotivated because of experiencing difficult situation, they will end up with hating to learn English. It will give bad impact to their English ability in the future. Thus, the teacher should design the learning that is not burdening for them. On the other hand, if the students experience the meaningful activities, they will learn from it. Harmer (2000) states that students often learn indirectly rather than directly. Thus, the more meaningful the learning they experience, the more knowledge they gain. Reflecting to those characteristics, the teachers of young learners should provide physical activities, deal with routines and repetition in learning, (Cameron; 2001), provide full of gesture, intonation, demonstration, action, and facial expressions to convey meaning (Pinter; 2006), provide authentic ready- made bits of language such as songs, rhymes, drama, etc., and do scaffolding (Cameron; 2001). According to Brown (2000), English teachers in young learners classroom should not only providing lot of ‘authentic language tasks’ but also mastering specific skills and intuitions to accommodate those characteristics.

2.1.3.3 English Learning in Kanisius Elementary Schools

Kanisius Elementary School is a private elementary school that still uses English as subject to study. Since the curriculum for English in Elementary school is no longer available in the curriculum 2013, the latest curriculum nowadays, this school decides to have KTSP (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) as guidance to set the goals and objectives for the learning. In KTSP, the core competence 2006 is used in which it is confirmed that “Kemampuan berkomunikasi dalam

(39)

pengertian yang utuh adalah kemampuan berwacana, yakni kemampuan memahami dan/atau menghasilkan teks lisan dan/atau tulis yang direalisasikan dalam empat keterampilan berbahasa, yaitu mendengarkan, berbicara, membaca dan menulis.” Thus, the interaction exists in listening, speaking, reading, and writing activity. Yet, the goal of English learning due to the core competence 2006 is dealing with spoken language. In KTSP, it is stated that ‘ tujuan belajar bahasa Inggris di tingkat SD adalah untuk mengembangkan kemampuan berbicara secara terbatas yang disertai dengan tindakan’. It means that the goal of English learning in Elementary school is to develop speaking skill facilitated with the action.

2.2 Theoretical Framework

From the reviewed literature, it is inferred that teacher- students interaction is influential for language learning. It facilitates the teacher and his/ her students to construct a mutual meaning. During this process, the acquisition process happens. In fact, may educational practitioners have confirmed that the teacher plays dominant role in TSs interaction in young learners’ classroom. Meanwhile, the teachers’ action in classroom, including in managing TSs interaction is influenced by the teachers’ belief. Since interaction is a system, it can be stated that the teachers’ belief influence the goals, process, and the components of the TSs interaction. How teachers believe about what interaction in English learning will affect his/ her decision in formulating the goals of the interaction, designing the content, and others.

(40)

Belief here is not learnt. It does not exist by themselves. They are born through processes that are affected by the experiences in their previous schooling, schools, or training (Borg, 2003). Those belief are used in decision making. Different belief towards learning will produce different interaction. The framework of the teachers’belief is illustrated in this figure:

notes:

affected by consists of

Figure 2.1. Theoretical Framework adapted from Borg (2003)

TEACHERS’ BELIEF

in TSs interaction Schooling:

learning experience (education), TEYL training

Professional Coursework: teaching experiences, KTSP,

school policy & values

Contextual Factors:

T/ Ss Motivation Classroom Practice:_{Class size, duration}

Process of TSs interaction

Pattern& Types Goals of TSs

interaction 1. Ss’ cognition 2. Ss’ affective

Components of TSs interaction 1. Teacher talk 2. Students talk

(41)

24 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section describes the methodology used in this research. It consists of research design, nature of data, research instruments, sources of data, data collecting technique, and data analysis. Besides, there is a trustworthiness section describing how the validity and reliability of this research are gained.

3.1 Research Design

Considering belief as a value, qualitative research methodology was chosen to be applied in this research. Creswell (2012) states that qualitative research is best suited to address a research problem which its variables are needed to explore.

3.2 Nature of Data

The data obtained in this qualitative research would be in the form of texts. It consisted of observation notes and also interview transcripts. Here, the observation notes were the result of observing the interaction happening during the English learning in classroom handled by the participants. The transcripts of the verbal interaction between the teacher and her students during the learning in the classroom and the notes during the observation describing setting, any behaviors and interaction happening during the interaction would be written in the observation notes. Then, another text was in the form of interview transcript. It

(42)

was in the form of written one as the result of transcribing the interviews done with the participants.

3.3 Research Instruments 3.3.1 Observation Notes

To find out the teachers’ belief, what actually occurred during the gathering data would be written on the observation notes. According to Ary et al (2010), observation notes would cover the comprehensive picture of a situation which was observed. The setting, any behavior and interaction during the observation were recorded in written. To gather the data during the observation, the researcher did not use video recording. It was purposefully done to keep the naturalness of the learning. Thus, this instrument was effective to investigate how the TSs interaction went.

3.3.2 Interview Guideline

Investigating teachers’belief using direct observation was not enough yet. Marion Williams et al., 1997 in Xu (2012) argued that sometimes there was a ‘discrepancy’ between what the teachers say about their belief and the way they act. Thus, guided by some ideas found as the result of the observation, the interview guideline was created to find out the deeper and clearer understanding. Finally, it would result in the form of teachers’ belief. By having interview guideline, the topic discussed during the interview could be controlled.

(43)

Since the focus on this research was on verbal interaction, this research would use audio recorder to collect data. It aimed to support the data obtained during the observation and the interview. It helped to make sure that all the data was obtained. It eased the process of analysis since it could be played many times as needed. Audio recording was the ideal instrument to record the data during the observation. It would not disturb the teacher and the students so the observed one was the natural one.

3.4 Source of Data

Since this research aimed at exploring the teachers’ belief in TSs interaction, the participants were those who could give clear insight about that topic. Hence, this research used purposeful sampling as suggested by Creswell (2012). He stated that it was the way chosen by qualitative researchers to best understand the phenomenon. According to Patton (1990, p. 169) in Creswell (2012; 206), the participants should be information rich. By having the right target as the participants, the information gathered would be valid and complete. Graves (2000) implied that belief came from past experience and belief about learning and teaching that grew out of and guide that experience. Thus, to get the belief in teacher-students interaction, the participants were those who had experienced learning about interaction in young learner classroom in their research or educational training. Through having those experiences, they had some belief related to the topic of this research. Since the focus of this research was the interaction in learning English in elementary school, the basic knowledge was

(44)

about teaching English to young learners. Besides, they should have experienced a lot in teaching so that they had evaluated their theories and had some judgments to believe on. The more experience the teachers had, the more reliant on their “core” principles they had become (Gallo et al, 2001).In this research, it was decided to choose participants who had experienced teaching English in Elementary school for more than 10 years.

In this research, the chosen participants who were considered as rich informants were two Elementary School teachers of English who were experienced and having background knowledge about teaching English to Young Learners. They were English teachers in Kanisius elementary schools. Both were from two different Kanisius Elementary schools. In this research, the participants were one English teacher from SD Kanisius Wates and another one from SD Kanisius Kotabaru. Both of them had learnt about English teaching in their English language Education study program. They also had taught for more than 10 years.

Kanisius schools were chosen since compared to the other elementary schools, these schools remain to have English as subject to learn for their students. Since their newest curriculum does not involve English as Elementary subject, Kanisius Elementary schools decided to teach English using the guide of curriculum 2006 (Kurikulum Tingkat Satuan Pendidikan) in which English was still considered as the course to teach.

(45)

3.5 Data Collecting Techniques

As stated in the literature review above, teachers’ belief could be obtained from what the teachers did during the TSs interaction. Therefore, investigating teachers’ belief was better done through a ‘direct observation’ as suggested by Pajares (1992). Besides, Watson-Gegeo in Sibley (1990,p.6) also agreed on the use of observation to investigate classroom interaction. They stated that interaction could be investigated through observation but it must be ‘systematic, intensive, and detailed’.

In this research, the observation was done for many times as needed. The first participant was observed for three times. It was on April 13, 2016, April 20, 2016, and May 25, 2016. While, the second participant was observed twice. It was on April 11, 2016 and April 18, 2016. Direct observation was done to obtain how the interaction went through between the teacher and the students. It was done more than once to make sure that the data obtained can give information to the real pattern of the interaction in that class.

The observation took places in English classes of fourth graders and fifth graders. Which classes to observe were decided by the teachers. During the observation, taking notes and recording the audio were done to get the data. The recording was transcribed to ease the analysis. After those data were prepared and analyzed, some important points that were considered as important themes were investigated more in the interview.

Investigating teachers’ belief through doing direct observation was not enough yet. Hence, after doing the direct observation, the interview was done. The

(46)

interviews with the first participants were done on April 13, 2016, April 20, 2016, May 11, 2016, and June 6, 2016. While, the interview with the second participants were done on April 11, 2016, April 18, 2016, May 23, 2016, and June 17, 2016. By having interview as the data collection technique, useful information that could not be directly observed could be gained. Besides, the interviewer also had better control over the types of information received, because the interviewer could ask specific questions to elicit this information (Ary, et al, 2010). Both participants would be interviewed to clarify things and ask for clearer explanation for what had happen during the TSs interaction in class. As the last technique, the teachers were interviewed again to cross- check the result of data analysis.

3.6 Data Analysis

In this research, the process of analyzing data was adopted from Creswell (2012). It consists of collecting data, preparing data for analysis, reading through data, coding the data, and coding the text for themes and description to be used in the research report. After the observation notes and interview transcript have been ready to a, the process of reading, coding, and describing will be done.

Table 3.1 Procedures of Data Analysis

Process Results

collecting data observation notes, audio files of

observation and interview

preparing data for analysis observation notes, transcripts of classroom observation and interview reading through data notes of important understanding

coding data coded data

coding the text for description to be used in the research report

description coding the text for themes to be used

in the research report

(47)

3.7 Trustworthiness

To keep the trustworthiness for this research, the data and the analysis should be trustworthy. The instruments as well as the finding should be valid and reliable. In this research, the trustworthiness of the data was achieved by doing cross- checking. It is done by having multiple data instrumentation namely direct observation and interview. According to Ary et al. (2010), if multiple data sources result in similar findings, the reliability of the research is improved. The data was compared whether they supported each other. What was found during the observation was discussed and investigated further during the interview. This was why the interviews were done right after the observation. It aimed to know the teachers’ consideration affecting their actions during TSs interactionat that time.

Besides aiming to achieve the trustworthiness of data, the interviews were also done to confirm the results of the analysis. After having enough data, the analysis was presented and discussed with the teacher on the interview. As a result, the discussions in the chapter 4 were presented with the teachers’ confirmation.

(48)

31 CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the research results and the discussion. The results consist of two big lines namely types of interaction and pattern of interaction. Then, the analysis of the results is presented in a discussion. It covers the teachers’ belief on three parts of interaction system namely goals of TSs interaction, process of TSs interaction and the components of TSs interaction.

4.1 RESULTS

In this section, the results of collecting data are presented. Some samples of data obtained from the observation notes and transcripts and the interview transcripts are provided. The coding above the data is the number of sample which is written in ‘< >’ and the coding below the sample is the locator for the source presented in appendices.

4.1.1 Types of TSs Interaction

Although TSs interaction existed in English class, the language used was not in full English. In fact, it consisted of English (the target language), Bahasa Indonesia (the students’ first language) and Javanese language (the students’ native language). The distribution use of those languages was varied for each class. The teachers agree that Bahasa Indonesia was used more compared to English. Besides that, Javanese language was also used sometimes. Therefore, the distribution of the medium instruction was approximately 60%: 35%:5% for

(49)

Bahasa Indonesia, English, and Javanese language. In this case, the use of English depended on the students’ language proficiency and students’ motivation. The correlation was positive. The higher the students’ language proficiency or/ and the higher the students’ motivation to use English was, the larger the English portion would be. Commonly, English was used for simple interaction such as greeting and classroom instruction. When it came to discussion, teachers would guide and explain in Bahasa Indonesia. At the other time, Javanese language was only used if the teachers wanted to warn or make jokes to the students. Here is the detail for each type of interaction.

4.1.1.1 English- English TSs Interaction

During the observation, English-English interaction was promoted more in the first participant’s class. She expected that in English learning, the students were able to communicate using simple expressions. To achieve that goal, she often initiated TSs interaction in English. Thus, the students would be accustomed to such expressions and be able to respond them in English. The teacher wanted their students to practice communicating in English started in a classroom. Realizing that the students were still in a basic level, the teacher only applied English interaction for simple communication such as greeting, discussing things using display questions, giving classroom instruction, and closing. For instance, here was the dialogue for the greeting.

<1>

T : Attentions please, get set. Ss : Get set (stand up).

T : Good afternoon, students.

(50)

Ss : Good afternoon, Ms Nana. T : How is everything with you? Ss : I am fine, thank you, and you?

T : I am fine too, thank you. Sit down, please. Ss : Thank you.

(obsN1_1-8)

It seemed that the students had been familiar with the greeting since they did it as a routine for the students. They were familiar with the teacher’s initiation and the interaction went smoothly. The students responded their teacher without any doubt. As seen in the sample data <1>, teacher used English for giving classroom instruction. It was simple so the teacher was confidently speaking without translating it into Bahasa Indonesia.

Based on the observations in the first participant’s class, the teacher varied the expressions for greeting. Sometimes, she said ‘how are you?’. At other chances, she said ‘how is everything with you?’. She expected that the students were able to be familiar with the varied expressions and able to notice the function. Later on, they could use those expressions to communicate (intN2_10).

Personally, the second participant also had the same concern on varying expressions in greeting. She considered that every students should participate actively on the interaction so that they could understand and learn from it. However, she could not do it because her school had its own style for greeting. Every Monday and Tuesday, the greeting in classroom should be in English and the expressions had been fixed. She realized that instead of becoming an interaction to learn, the greeting only became a formality. It made the teacher worried to greet the students using different expressions. She wanted the students neither to be confused nor to respond randomly. Thus, she decided to follow the

(51)

rule. She used the fixed expressions to interact with her students (intY3_118-130). Besides for greeting, the students also experienced having English- English interaction for discussing things which they were familiar with, e.g interaction to discuss day and date for that day.

<2>

T : What date is today?

Ss : Today is Wednesday, April, thirteen, two thousand and sixteen (unclear) T : Nah, March, first, two thousand and?

Ss : Sixteen (obsN1_9-12)

The teacher intentionally asked about day and date to her students after greeting in every meeting. She assumed that this kind of interaction could improve the students’ vocabularies and pronunciation skill. Since it was done as habit, the students would notice and be accustomed to days and date. The teacher stated that this kind of interaction encouraged the students to rich their memory about days and date. They should know the vocabulary first if they wanted to involve actively on the interaction. Based on the illustration <2> above, it was seen that the teacher asked the students to repeat their answer. She wanted to make sure that the students’ responses were correctly spoken. Sometimes the students only imitated other students’ answers.

Besides for greeting and initial questions in the beginning of the class, English interaction was also built in a usual activity. In the first participant’s class, there is a habit to play lottery for choosing students to perform in class. First, she chose four small papers in random for having four students to come in front of the class. There was student’s personal information written on each paper. Later on, the teacher would read the information written on the paper as clue and the

(52)

students should guess whose paper it was. The information was spoken in English. The dialogue below was the illustration.

<3>

T : Okay, first student. Ss : Boy

Girl T : Boy Ss : Boy!

T : His hobbies are playing soccer and drawing. Ss : Iwan?

Fidel?

T : He was born on May. Ss : Fidel

T : Yes, Fidel Ss : Yeay! (obsN1_36-45)

Here the interaction began. The students were so enthusiastic and willing to respond the teacher. They considered it as a game so it was free for them to express themselves. By having clues, the students were encouraged to think. They competed to guess the meaning so they could guess whose personal information it was. This kind of activity was engaging for the students. It made the TSs interaction went successfully.

The other example was the interaction initiated by the teacher using simple question. First, the teacher drew a picture on the blackboard. Then, she asked questions based on what the students saw on the drawing.

<4>

T : Nah, ms Nana want to… (drawing a figure on the blackboard) T : Nah, coba(“well, see.”), is the eye big?

Ss : Yes

T : Is the nose big? Ss : Yes

T : Nah (well), two big eyes (while writing) T : (writing ‘nose’ and looking at the students) Ss : one big nose

(53)

T : Kalo headnya bagaimana ini?(“How about the head?”) Ss : big

Ss : one big head (obsN1_78-92)

She asked about some characteristics drawn on the face. The students responded directly. It seemed easy for the students since they only had to describe what the saw. Through having the interaction, they constructed the language to describe the drawing. First, the teacher guided them through giving question. They created the language together as a model. Surprisingly, the students could construct the language by themselves at the end. It seemed that the students understood on what they should do. Thus, when the teacher asked about the head, some of them directly said “one big nose”.

Based on the observation, sometimes the students gave responses that are grammatically incorrect. The teachers stated that it was acceptable as long as the students could understand the teacher’s intention. However, the responses might be various either in English or Bahasa Indonesia. Actually, the teacher would be happier if the students could respond in English too. However, responding in Bahasa Indonesia was also appreciated as long as the students understood. The teacher stated that if they found such this case, they would inform the students about how to respond in English. They expected that the students could answer in English in the future. Unfortunately, this case was not found during the observation.

During the interaction, everything did not always go smoothly. The students might misunderstand the teachers’ initiation or mispronounce a word. Thus, the teacher gave them follow- up by giving corrective feedback.

(54)

<5>

T : I have? (touching eyes) Ss : Two eyes (mispronounced) T : Two eyes (correct pronunciation) (obsN1_25-27)

Fixing mispronounced words was often done by the teachers. This kind of interaction often happened in the reading aloud activity. Teacher said that students should know the right pronunciation. In Elementary school, the early stage in education, students should be taught the right one. It would be for the sake of their future. If they still made mistake, it would not be a matter. At least, the teacher had informed the right one. Thus, the teacher also makes the use of interaction to communicate the right pronunciation.

Based on the interview, the teachers used English only for simple conversation that the students had been familiar with. Moreover, she would expose more English to the students once they showed their interest to English. In fact, in the first participant’s class, the students made rule not to speak using Bahasa Indonesia during the English class. Thus, English- English interaction was promoted.

During this interaction, teachers has bigger portion for speaking, since they often dominate the initiation and give the follow- up to the students’ responses. The initiation can be in the form of asking question or giving incomplete information. Then, the students’ response can be in the form of giving information. It was found that students also may initiate the interaction by asking question as the response to what the teacher said. The teachers paid attention on the students’ responses. If there was a mistake, they would give corrective

(55)

feedback as the follow-up. Once the students responded using Bahasa Indonesia, the teacher would give follow- up by informing how to respond in English. Unfortunately, this kind of interaction was not found during the observation. As what has been stated above, the teachers interacted with their students in English since they wanted their students to learn. Later on, they would use it to communicate. Here is the figure:

T

S

enhancing language proficiency/ language acquisition (implicit knowledge)

fluency

Figure 4.1. Concept in English- English TSs Interaction

1. INITIATION <1> greeting <2> ask info <3> giv info <4> giv inst 3.FOLLOW- UP: <1> giv confirmation <2> giv appraisal <3> echoing <4> give corrective feedback

2. RESPONSES <1> respond greeting <2> <3> respond

<4> respond to instruction Goals: <1>communicate <2>check <3>be input <4>manage behavior Goals:

<1> <2> build confidence <3> be input <4> be input

•school’s rule

•students’ proficiency

•students’ interest

(1)

di kelas, tidak harus full English?

74 heem, ya kalo bisa ya Inggris, kalo nggak ya Inggris trus Bahasa Indonesia,

75 ibu lebih memilih berbicara menggunakan Bahasa Inggris 1 expression lalu diartikan atau Inggris Indonesia di-mix dalam 1 kalimat?

76 ow, nggak selalu, kalo hanya bahasa di kelas, classroom instruction kan udah tau tu,

77 itu full English?

78 ya, kalo yang di luar itu, mungkin agak, ya Bahasa Indonesia, apalagi kelas satu tuh, tapi kadang dicampur juga, open your book, kalo kelas satu kan Cuma belajar satu sampai sepuluh, lha kalo halaman lima puluh delapan?

79 iya ya buk

80 jadi ya, open your book, halaman lima puluh delapan,

81 jadi itu full English lalu diartikan to bu? 82 bisa, tergantung kelasnya juga, lihat

situasi dan sekolahnya piye, checking Ss

knowledge obsk1_94

83 Jadi kalau saya simpulkan, guru berinteraksi untuk mengetes kemampuan siswa?

84 bisa,

85 ngetes pronunciation?

86 bisa, membangun relasi juga bisa,

87 berbicara tentang membangun relasi, ibu kan juga memotivasi siswa,

88 iya, ayo dicoba, moso nggak tau, ah, dulu udah pernah belajar di kelas satu nih, 89 kemaren waktu di kelas, ibu juga

memastikan, gampang kan,

90 ya memberi support, motivasi, ho’o supporting Ss

91 gitu tau, kok lupa, betul- betul, motivasi bisa

92 kemudian, kalau saya simpulkan, melalui interaksi ibu juga mengontrol kelas? 93 mengontrol itu maksudny?

94 ya saat ibu memberikan instruction, ya sekarang semuanya buka bu,

(2)

96 tidak melulu dengan perintah sih bu, memberi saran, berkomentar, atau warning, sama kayak waktu ibu bilang, hayo nek rame, nggak ada waktu buat ganti lho ya. Tapi itu sepertinya last option ya bu?

97 ho’o, nek bocahe udah rame banget, padahal yo nggak, nanti nek rame nilaine tak kurangi, padahal yo nggak tak kurangi

negotiating

98 ya memang cuma buat, 99 yaa, jenenge bocah ki,

100 kalo pada rame kan interaksinya jadi nggak efektif

101 iyo, kalo ada satu yang rame, wis, kabeh ngomong, rame dewe- dewe, haa, pusing

requirement for

successful int

102 jadi interaksi hanya bisa efektif kalo siswanya suportif ya bu?

103 ho’o

104 kalo rame brarti interaksinya tidak efektif? 105 ya ramenya karena apa dulu, diskusi oke,

rame nggak papa to,

106 tapi kalo sibuk sendiri, jalan- jalan

107 ya itu nggak efektif to, tapi mau nggak mau hari itu kita harus memberikan sesuatu, materi to

108 jadi harus tetap berjalan sesuai dengan rencana

109 heem,

110 kalo harus nunggu diam, anak sekarang itu beda e mbak, SD itu,waaaaa

111 jadi ibu memaklumi kalo ada siswa yang tidak terlibat dalam interaction?

students’ participation

112 iya

113 selama mereka tidak mengganggu

114 betul

int1_6 115 lalu mbalik lagi ke awal bu, ketika greeting, kan itu adalah kebiasaan setiap hari senen dan selasa, ibu setuju nggak dengan pembiasaan seperti itu?

116 boleh nggak papa

117 greeting yang selalu sama, maksudnya tipenya, God be with you

118 eh, tapi kalo selalu sama, ini, secara pribadi, kalo saya sih nggak, moso yo ngono- ngono terus,

(3)

119 jadi?

120 tapi karena kan ini juga, kita tuh mengajar, maksudnya pengajarnya, maksudnya gurunya kan nggak Cuma Bahasa Inggris tok, engko nek diajari kok bedo, aku njawabe ki piye yo, ngko nek nganu, lha ngko muride ra nganu

121 malah nggak dong dan nggak bisa merespon ya bu

122 ngko malah bingung, ra kompak po piye, nah, iye yo mbak yo, saya sebenernya nggak setuju sih,

123 jadi kalau di kelas, ibu tetap menggunakan greeting yang sama

124 kalo itu sudah otomatis e mbak, 125 ibu tidak setuju karena?

126 lha tadi itu, kok koyone diseragamkan, enake kan, yo maksudnya kan, halo good, morning, good morning. Bukan yang, Goooood morniiiiiiiiiing Mam,

127 sebenarnya kan ada banyak versi ya bu, how are you, how is everything with you. Kalo greetingnya Cuma itu- itu aja, siswanya kan cuma taunya itu- itu aja 128 nah, makanya

129 jadi menurut ibu, seharusnya bervariasi? 130 tapi ya tergantung ini tadi,

131 jadi intinya, greeting hanya sebuah pembiasaan ya bu, bukan sebagai bentuk komunikasi ya bu

(4)

Interview 4

Interviewee: Ms. Y

Contexts S Scripts Themes

intY3_118 interaksi kan manut dari peraturan sekolah, kemudian ibu menganggap itu bukan komunikasi tetapi sebuah bentuk pembiasaan, menurut ibu, interaksi yang seharusnya itu seperti apa?

ini menurut saya?

iya, menurut ibu, seharusnya seperti apa? harusnya, idealnya itu how are you, satu- satu gitu. Tapi karena kadang kalo udah masuk itu situasinya itu udah, ya pernah gitu, tapi ya pas kelasnya nggak rame, kadang kan kalo pergantian jam itu kan

ow, maksudnya ada interaksinya

ya how are you satu- satu, ya kadang nggak semua, tapi yo kentekan waktu yo, ya how are you,

dalam Bahasa Inggris?

heem, ya kadang mereka jawabnya ya sakarepe dewe,

kalau yang peraturan sekolah itu kurang natural ato gimana bu?

oh yang ini,

kan memang ngko nek mlebu ngomong ngene, njawabe ngene

menurut ibu, yang satu- satu tadi? apakah dengan begitu siswanya bisa belajar sesuatu secara langsung?

kalo belajar sesuatu pasti belajar tapi ya nggak, nggak banyak gitu, karena kan Cuma kuwi- kuwi wae to, mungkin kalo dalam pelajaran tau, selain

kalo menurut ibu saat berinteraksi, misalnya saat reading aloud, terus ibu meminta anak-anak untuk memperhatikan, walau sudah memperhatikan, tapi ibu akan mengulang biar semuanya memperhatikan. Nah menurut itu, seberapa penting siswa harus memperhatikan? seberapa penting? ya kalo itu harus memperhatikan, kalo nggak memperhatikan nanti mereka nggak tau, pemahamannya kurang, jadi kalo dibilang penting ato nggak,

(5)

ya penting

jadi kalo mereka sudah memperhatikan itu pasti mereka bisa dong?

ya setidaknya, setidaknya menju kesitu udah bisa, daripada rame, mereka nggak tau apa-apa. Setidaknya mereka udah, ya walaupun nggak semuanya dong tapi kalo udah memperhatikan itu, pasti ya bisa lah

apalagi kalo merespon ya bu

nah, kalo merespon berarti dia tau to, paham gitu

kemudian ibu kemarin ngendika, dengan berinteraksi, tanya jawab itu bisa membangun emosi, membangun relasi, itu bisa dijelaskan lagi nggak bu, maksudnya gimana?

yak arena ngobrol itu to, ya tidak hanya sesuai dengan materi tapi kita di luar materi, ya itu juga ya membangun komunikasi dengan siswa

kalo dengan membangun emosi, dampaknya ke siswa

ya lebih nganu to, kayaknya malah lebih akrab, nggak kayak guru karo murid, tapi kan ada kedekatan, walaupun nggak deket seperti di rumah, tapi mereka merasa diperhatikan jadi kalo mereka merasa diperhatikan, mereka merasa

ya nyaman gitu lah, jadi pelajarannya bisa

he’e, nah itu, idealnya seperti itu

kemudian ibu, misalnya saying good, ketika anak- anak merespon, atau ibu mengulang jawaban mereka, itu tuh sebenarnya fungsinya untuk apa bu?

nah, mungkin dia ngomongnya nggak jelas juga bisa, ngomonnya nggak jelas jadi kita ulang lagi biar temen- temennya pada mendengarkan dan tau gitu to. Kdang kan disuruh ngomong, tapi nggak keras, udah ngomong, tapi tetep aja nggak keras fungsinya guru ya itu tadi, biar semuanya mengingatkan, ini lho jawabannya yang dia jawab tadi, bener ato nggak.

Jadi menurut ibu, posisinya guru di kelas itu sebagai supervisor,

T as supervisor

(6)

fasilitator ya

Teachers` belief in teacher-students interaction in English learning class.

TEACHERS’

_{BELIEF IN TEACHER-STUDENTS}

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

STATE*MNT

ORIGINALITY

_I

t[e

e

if

I

w

Nama

NIM

hak

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICES

T

S

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

o'The Influence of Students' Educational Background to Their Achievement in Learning English

TEACHER QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN GRADE TWELVE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF ENGLISH CLASSROOM.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON TEACHER-STUDENTS INTERACTION IN SPEAKING CLASS AT SMP N 1 TOROH IN 2016/2017 ACADEMIC YEAR A Descriptive Study On Teacher-Students Interaction In Speaking Class At Smp N 1 Toroh In 2016/2017 Academic Year.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON TEACHER-STUDENTS INTERACTION IN SPEAKING CLASS AT SMP N 1 TOROH A Descriptive Study On Teacher-Students Interaction In Speaking Class At Smp N 1 Toroh In 2016/2017 Academic Year.

STUDENTS AND TEACHER INTERACTION IN READING CLASS AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMKN 1 BANYUDONO STUDENTS AND TEACHER INTERACTION IN READING CLASS AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMKN 1 BANYUDONO.

Teachers’ Belief On Learning, Learners, and Teachers of Scientific Approach in English as Foreign Language

AN ANALYSIS ON THE NATURE OF TEACHER- STUDENT INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASS

STUDENTS' PERCEPTION TOWARD TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASS

Classroom interaction in english learning - USD Repository

Dukungan

Links

Teachers` belief in teacher-students interaction in English learning class.

TEACHERS’

BELIEF IN TEACHER-STUDENTS

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LEARNING CLASS

STATE*MNT

ORIGINALITY

I

t[e

e

if

I

w

Nama

NIM

hak

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF CODES AND ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF APPENDICES

T

S

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

o'The Influence of Students' Educational Background to Their Achievement in Learning English

TEACHER QUESTIONS IN ENGLISH CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN GRADE TWELVE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF ENGLISH CLASSROOM.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON TEACHER-STUDENTS INTERACTION IN SPEAKING CLASS AT SMP N 1 TOROH IN 2016/2017 ACADEMIC YEAR A Descriptive Study On Teacher-Students Interaction In Speaking Class At Smp N 1 Toroh In 2016/2017 Academic Year.

A DESCRIPTIVE STUDY ON TEACHER-STUDENTS INTERACTION IN SPEAKING CLASS AT SMP N 1 TOROH A Descriptive Study On Teacher-Students Interaction In Speaking Class At Smp N 1 Toroh In 2016/2017 Academic Year.

STUDENTS AND TEACHER INTERACTION IN READING CLASS AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMKN 1 BANYUDONO STUDENTS AND TEACHER INTERACTION IN READING CLASS AT THE SECOND YEAR OF SMKN 1 BANYUDONO.

Teachers’ Belief On Learning, Learners, and Teachers of Scientific Approach in English as Foreign Language

AN ANALYSIS ON THE NATURE OF TEACHER- STUDENT INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASS

STUDENTS' PERCEPTION TOWARD TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT IN ENGLISH AS FOREIGN LANGUAGE (EFL) CLASS

Classroom interaction in english learning - USD Repository

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan

_{BELIEF IN TEACHER-STUDENTS}

_I