ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION : A Case Study in an EFL Class of a Senior High School in Bandung.
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
(A Case Study in an EFL Class of a Senior High School in Bandung)
A Thesis
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for Master’s Degree in English Education
By:
Ade PurnaNugraha Student ID: 1101210
ENGLISH EDUCATION PROGRAM
THE SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
INDONESIA UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION
(2)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2015
APPROVAL SHEET
Analyzing Patterns of Classroom Interaction
(A Case Study in an EFL Class of a Senior High School in Bandung)
By:
ADE PURNA NUGRAHA NIM: 1101210
Approved by: Supervisor
Prof. Dr. Hj. Nenden Sri Lengkanawati, M.Pd
Head of English Education Program
(3)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
(4)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Abstract
This study attempts to reveal the patterns of classroom interaction that appear during the processes of teaching and learning. Previous studies on classroom interaction found that classroom interaction plays an important role in determining the success of students’ learning and that classroom interaction consists of several patterns. These patterns of classroom interaction are varied which mostly depend on teachers’ belief toward the classroom itself. The present study tried to investigate the patterns of classroom interaction and to gain students’ responses toward the processes of teaching and learning conducted by the teacher. The study was conducted in a senior high school in Bandung involving one class of first graders and one classroom teacher as participants. It employed a qualitative study in the perspective of the pedagogical microscope in systemiotic approach to reveal and to analyze the patterns of classroom interaction during the processes of teaching and learning. In order to obtain the necessary data the study used video recording, classroom observation and guided interview as instruments. The data which was analyzed by using pedagogical microscope was the transcription of the video recording. The study found that in general the classroom interaction is interactive. It was revealed that the dominance of knowledge exchanges (50%) and skill exchanges (35%) during the process indicated that the classroom was focused into knowledge transfer as well as knowledge practice. It means that teacher transferred the knowledge to students in order to enable them to practice the knowledge and their English skill. It can be seen from the main activity which was designed by the teacher for the students to actively practice their English skill in describing people’s physical appearances. From the result of the interview, it was found that students responded positively toward the teaching and learning process conducted by the teacher. Most students found the classroom activities, especially the Eat Bulaga game, interesting so that they were motivated to learn in the classroom. Most of them argued that the game was already familiar to them as they used to watch the show about the game on TV. Based on the findings, it is recommended that further analysis by using pedagogical microscope as a research instrument be used, as the instrument could reveal interactions’ patterns as well as evaluates the teaching and learning process in getting further improvement in the innovation of teaching and learning process.
(5)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengungkap pola –pola interaksi yang terjadi selama proses belajar mengajar. Penelitian-penelitian terdahulu pada interaksi kelas menemukan bahwa interaksi kelas berperan penting dalam menentukan kesuksesan belajar siswa dan interaksi kelas juga terdri dari beberapa pola. Pola-pola interaksi kelas ini berbeda tergantung dari keyakinan guru terhadap kelas itu sendiri. Penelitioan ini mencoba menemukan pola interaksi kelas dan memperoleh respon-respon siswa terhadap proses belajar-mengajar di kelas tersebut. Penelitian ini dilakukan di sebuah sekolah menegah atas di Bandung dan melibatkan satu kelas satu dan seorang guru sebagai objek penelitian. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dalam perspektif mikroskop pedagogi dalam pendekatan sistemiotik untuk mengungkap dan menganalisa pola-pola interaksi selama proses belajar-mengajar. Untuk memperoleh data, penelitian ini menggunakan rekaman video, observasi kelas, dan interview sebagai instrumen. Data yang dianalisis menggunakan mikroskop pedagogi adalah data dari transkrip rekaman video. Penelitian ini menemukan bahwa pada umumnya interaksi yang terjadi dikelas sudah aktif dan interaktif. Hal ini dibuktikan oleh dominasi dari pola knowledge exchanges (50%) dan skill exchanges (35%) selama proses belajar-mengajar yang mengindikasikan bahwa kelas tersebut berfokus pada teransfer ilmu dan latihan berbahasa Inggris untuk siswa. Hal itu menunjukkan bahwa guru mentransfer ilmu untuk membuat siswa bias mempraktekkan dan melatih kemampuan berbahasa inggris mereka dalam mendeskripsikan penampilan fisik seseorang. Dari hasil wawancara ditemukan bahwa sebagian besar siswa memberikan respon positif terhadap proses belajar-mengajar yang diselenggarakan guru dikelas. Sebagian besar siswa berpendapat bahwa permainan Eat Bulaga menarik dan membuat mereka termotivasi untuk belajar bahasa inggris. Mereka sudah familiar dengan game tersebut karena mereka sering menonton acaranya di TV. Berdasarkan hasil temuan dalam penelitian ini, penelitian-penelitian selanjutnya yang menggunakan pendekatan mikroskop pedagogik sebagai instrumen sangat dianjurkan untuk mengungkap pola-pola interaksi kelas sehingga perbaikan proses belajar-mengajar dapat tercapai.
(6)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
TABLE OF CONTENT
Abstract………...i
Table of Content ………ii
Chapter I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background ………...…..1
1.2. Statements of the Problem ………..6
1.3. The Objectives of the Study ………...7
1.4. The Scope of the Study ………..7
1.5. The Significance of the Study ………8
1.6. Clarification of Terms ………9
Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Interaction ……….……….…..10
2.2. Classroom Interaction ……….……….11
2.3. Components of Classroom Interaction…...16
2.3.1. Collaborative Dialogue...16
2.3.2. Negotiation...17
2.3.3. Co-construction...19
2.4. Patterns of Classroom Interaction ………..………..19
2.5. Analysis of Classroom Interaction Patterns ………..…………...32
(7)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
2.7. Stages in English Teaching...48
2.8. Relevant Studies on Classroom Interaction Patterns and Pedagogical Microscope Analysis………...50
2.9. Concluding Remarks…...……….……….52
Chapter III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1. Statements of the Problem ……….…………...53
3.2. Research Design ……….………..53
3.3. Data Collection Method………....54
3.3.1. Site and Participants.…...……….………..54
3.3.2. Data Collection Procedures…...……….……….…....55
3.3.2.1. Observation……….………....56
3.3.2.2. Interview……….……….…...59
3.4. Data Analysis………..……….….66
3.4.1. Data from Observation ………..………..…...67
3.4.2. Data from Interview ………..……….…69
3.4.3. The Validity of the Data ………...………….…………....70
3.5. Concluding Remarks……...………….……….…………....71
Chapter IVDATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION 4.1. Statements of the Problem...72
(8)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
4.2. Data Presentation from Observation: Patterns of Classroom Interaction and Their
Effects on the Processes of Teaching and Learning...73
4.2.1. Preparation Phase………...….………...73
4.2.2. Apperception Phase………...…….…...76
4.2.3. Main Activity Phase………...…....….81
4.2.4. Evaluation and Closing Phase……….………...87
4.3. Data Presentation from Interview………..………...94
4.4. Discussion……….…………97
Chapter V CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 5.1 Conclusion………..………..102
5.2. Recommendation………..………...103
REFERENCES………..………...105 APPENDICES
(9)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of the study dealing with classroom interaction patterns in an EFL classroom of a senior high school in Bandung. Following the background’s section is the statements of the problem addressed in this study to define the purpose of the study. The next section is the objective of the study followed by the scope of the study, significance of the study and ended by clarification of terms.
1.1. Background
Considering its importance as a global language that is used in many fields of life, government has been including English as a subject that is expected to help students to cope with their real life later after graduating from schools and continuing their education to higher levels. Through years of its existence in Indonesian schools, it is believed that English teaching and learning have improved and led students to a better achievement in acquiring English. On the other hand, it is found that formal school graduates gain quite poor English(Lisa and Kamal, 2009: 1). This finding, at least, proves that improvements in the English teaching and learning are needed to make students learn and achieve English better.
It is argued that teaching is a matter of process whereas learning is its goal(Buckley, 1993: 3). When both students and teachers learn, it is considered that teaching is most successful. Therefore, teachers should facilitate and guide students to learn. One of the ways to encourage
(10)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
students to learn a language in a way which they are interested in it and they interact with it is designing innovative and planned teaching programs. By designing innovative and planned teaching programs, teachers could create interactive teaching and learning processes in which students could learn, interact, and participate actively during the processes of teaching and learning. It is believed that students who actively interact and participate during the processes of teaching and learning will improve their English better.
In Indonesia, however, some problems appear in the processes of teaching and learning English in terms of classroom interactions which are passive and dominated by teachers. A monotonous teaching technique still depicts the teacher’s performances, a common phenomenon in classroom practice (Marcellino, 2009). The questions do not lead students to a response of various language expressions. Students are normally passive in class and only respond to the teachers’ questions when asked (Marcellino, 2009). Marcellino (2009) argued that there are at
least three primary reasons accounting for this class situation. First, the students’ previous
trainings do not expose this sort of interactive model to them. Second, their cultural values and beliefs somehow do not encourage them to challenge neither their teachers nor their classmates as it may somewhat indicate that they are showing off. Third, the survey shows that their command of English is relatively very poor – lack of vocabularies and expressions as well as mastery of grammar – so as to make them speak Indonesian most of the time in class settings.
Some problems mentioned in the paragraph above might result in an unsatisfactory result of language teaching and learning. The unsatisfactory result of language teaching and learning can actually be varied. One ofthem can be reflected on the incompetency of the learners in using the target language to communicate or interact with (Nugroho, 2009). This issue appears because
(11)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
of the fact that the rules of that language are different from those of their own language and due to the fact that Indonesian students learn English as a foreign language not as a first language or a second language. This situation influences the students' behavior during the learning process. The students tend to be passive in foreign language classes since the input they get is limited (Nugroho, 2009). As the result, students encounter difficulties to maintain communication in the target language. This phenomenon reflects a bad image to foreign language teaching and learning in Indonesia which directly results in the questionable quality of English teacher (Nugroho, 2009). Teachers have more roles in determining the achievement of the teaching objectives that is the competency of students in using the target language. Besides, it has been made aware that teachers possess a particular authority to organize their student since the beginning of the learning process (Cullingford, 1995:160).
Classroom interaction pattern has long been investigated and it is worth being studied
because of their great impact on either facilitating or inhabiting students’ language acquisition.
Traditional language classroom interaction is usually characterized by a rigid pattern, particularly the acts of teachers in the processes of teaching and learning. Teachers in this case are usually
the ones who select and initiate topic for conversation and restrict students’ response. Thus,
having a look at such phenomena, it is found that teachers still take the most dominant role in the lessons. This is because they think that close and persistent control over the classroom
interaction is a precondition for achieving their instructional goals and students’ unpredictable
responses can be avoided (Edwards and Westgate, 1994).
The interaction pattern above is likely to minimize students’ involvement in the lessons
(12)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Teachers should try their very best to strike a balance between “real” communication and
teacher’s talk (McCarty, 1991:18). “A good” teacher’s talk means “a little” teacher’s talk because too much talk by the teacher deprives students’ opportunities to speak (Cullen, 1998).
Therefore, instead of dominating the whole lesson, teachers should give their students more opportunities to initiate topics for conversation (Mackey, McDonough, Fujii,& Tatsumi, 2001).
Recent studies conducted by Inamullah (2005) found that active classroom interaction hasshown great result in improving the learning process especially in stimulating teachers to improve their teaching behavior in order to optimize their student learning. Chiang (2001) also
reported that classroom interaction encouraged student’s motivation in the classroom. Rahayu (2007) stated that through classroom interaction which consistently occurred whether among teacher and students or among students themselves, the learning condition becomes more conducive.
It is believed that the basic and fundamental component of the learning process is communication and communication critical component is interaction between the learner and the source of information. As it is stated by Fulford and Sakaguchi (2010), teachers often play an important role in deliveringinformation through the strategies they choose. Cazden (1988, 2001 as cited in Peets, 2010) argued that the importance of effective communication in the classroom cannot be underestimated as it is the medium of interaction, the medium through which understanding or misunderstanding of curricular content is expressed, and the medium through which students are evaluated daily, in both oral and written forms. Therefore, classroom discourse that refers to the systematic study of classroom communication, with its unique
(13)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
interactional rules and decontextualized languageis suggested due to that reason (Cazden, 2001, cited in Peets 2010).
Communication which occurs in a classroom is defined as classroom discourse (Suherdi, 2009: 5). It refers to certain communication routines in social interactions which manifest certain sociopolitical beliefs (Suherdi, 2009: 5). Indeed, classrooms refer to social context (Haryono, 2001) in which obviously there would be social interaction. Since classroom discourse focuses on the study of classroom communication where classroom interactions might appear within it with its patterns, classroom discourse analysis could become an approach in analyzing the patterns of classroom interaction to reveal how teaching and learning processes are conducted in an EFL classroom.For that reason, this study conductedresearch to investigate classroom interaction patterns in an EFL classroom of a senior high school, a qualitative study in a senior high school in Bandung region. Discourse analysis is believed to be the most appropriate approach in the study of classroom interaction.Discourse analysis maybe simply defined as the analysis of language in context (Suherdi, 2009: 5). One of the approaches in discourse analysis is critical discourse analysis. Critical discourse analysis takes social condition as its main concern (Van Dick 2001, cited in Suherdi 2009: 7). It focuses on understanding the nature power and dominance and how discourse contributes to their production. It concerned with analyzing written text and spoken words to reveal several contexts (Van Dijk 2001, cited in Suherdi 2009). Therefore, this study used classroom discourse analysis as an approach to reveal the patterns of classroom interaction that occurred during the processes of teaching and learning.
(14)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
The present study tried to identify patterns of classroom interaction that appear in an EFL classroom and describe how those patterns create the interactions during the teaching and learning processes. Also, the study tried to gain students’ responses toward the teaching and learning processes. They were further elaborated in the following research questions.
1. What patterns of classroom interaction appear in the teaching and learning process in an EFL classroom of the senior high school?
2. How do those patterns create the interactions which appear during the teaching and learning processes?
3. How do students respond to the teaching and learning processes?
1.3. The Objectives of the Study
The study investigated classroom interaction patterns in the teaching and learning process
in an EFL classroom of a senior high school and gained students’ responses to the teaching and
learning process. This study tried to reach the following objectives.
1. To find out the patterns of classroom interaction that appear in the teaching and learning processes in an EFL classroom of the senior high school. The patterns of classroom interaction would reveal kinds of interaction that happen in the classroom. It would show what pattern of interaction dominates the teaching and learning processes, whether it is teacherstudents’ interaction or students’ interaction;
2. To find out how those patterns create the interactions which appear during the teaching and learning processes. How those patterns create the interaction would determine the success of
(15)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
the teaching and learning processes that could be seen from whether the students reach the goal of learning or not; and
3. To gain students’ responses toward the teaching and learning processes. The responses from the students would reveal how the students react toward the teaching and learning processes, whether they react positively or negatively.
1. 4. The Scope of the Study
The study dealt with classroom interaction patterns that appeared in the teaching and learning processes in an EFL classroom of a senior high school. It much more focuses on observing and finding out the interaction patterns that occurred in the teaching and learning process in the classroom. Also, it focused on finding out how the patterns created the interactions which appeared during the process. The analysis used in finding out the patterns is pedagogical microscope study.
1.5. The Significance of the Study
The result of the study is expected to contribute to the related theories, teachers, and students. In term of theoretical significance, the study is intended to support the previous theories on patterns of classroom interaction. In term of teacher significance, the result of the study is expected to give a valuable contribution for English teacher in designing any teaching strategy which is applied in the teaching and learning processes which support the development of an active and interactive classroom interaction. Since it is assumed that students do not get enough and comprehensible English understanding of what they have learned in formal school, the result
(16)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
of the study is intended to give information for teachers of what classroom interaction patterns appear in an EFL classroom of a senior high schoolwhich was analyzed using pedagogical microscope as a tool to find and reveal the interaction. By analyzing the classroom interaction patterns, teachers will have an overview of what happens in an EFL classroom of a senior high school and they can apply the model of teaching applied in that classroom in their own classes. In term of student significance, the result of the study is expected to show students that through games that they enjoy, they could learn English eagerly within an interactive and active teaching and learning atmosphere. They also could improve their English better through an interesting way of teaching and learning.
1.6. Clarification of Terms
To avoid misunderstanding and misinterpretation, some terms in this study are defined as follow.
- Classroom interaction patterns are patterns of interaction that occur in the classroom. In this study, classroom interaction refers to the interaction that occurs in one class of the senior high school where the study was conducted.
- EFL classroom is a class that specifically used for English learning. In this study, EFL classroom refers to an English class of the senior high school in Indonesia.
- Pedagogical microscope is the instrument developed by Berry (1981 cited in Suherdi, 2009: 59) that is used to analyze classroom interaction patterns.In this study, pedagogical
(17)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
microscope refers to an instrument that is used to analyze the data which is taken from classroom interaction.
(18)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter elaborates the methodology of the research. This chapter consists of the research design, statements of the problem, data collection, and techniques of data collection which consist of observation and interview. This chapter also describes data analysis methods.
3.1. Statements of the Problem
The present study tried to identify patterns of classroom interaction that appear in an EFL classroom and describe how those patterns create the interactions during the teaching and
learning process. Also, the study tried to gain students’ responses toward the teaching and
learning process. They were further elaborated in the following research questions.
1. What patterns of classroom interaction appear in the teaching and learning process in an EFL classroom of a senior high school?
2. How do those patterns create the interactions which appear during the teaching and learning processes?
3. How do students respond to the teaching and learning processes?
3.2. Research Design
Discourse Analysis makes use of qualitative method in which it studies classroom transcripts and assign utterance to predetermined categories (Ellis, 1997: 566). One of qualitative
(19)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
method characters is to explore people’s life histories or everyday behavior (Silverman, 2005: 6).
Therefore, qualitative method is suitable with this study. The only object worthy of investigation inside the classroom is classroom interaction (Allwright and Bailey, 1991: 2).
In accordance with the statements of the problem, this study applied pedagogical microscope in systemiotic approach as the basis to identify and analyze the patterns of classroom interaction. For that reason, a pedagogical instrument is an ideal guiding framework as Suherdi (2009: 5) defined it as ‘systemiotic approach toward classroom discourse analysis.’
3.3. Data Collection Method
To gain the data which is necessary to answer the statements of the problem, this study applied several data collection techniques, such as, observation in the forms of video recording and classroom observation, and guided interview. To analyze the patterns of classroom interaction,the pedagogical microscope was used as a guidance of analysis (Suherdi, 2009).
3.3.1. Site and Participants
Site of the study was a senior high school in Bandung. The school was chosen based on several reasons. First, the school is considered as one of the schools in Bandung that have good
achievements in term of teachers’ and students’ qualities. Therefore, by conducting the research
there, it was assumed that the interactive classroom interaction patterns which were useful for the data of the research could be gained and revealed. Second, the policy of the school allowed the researcher to conduct study and gain useful data of the study there. Third, the school also
(20)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
provided one class to the researcher to be observed and allowed the researcher to conduct the interview to some students that became the participant of the study.
Participant of this study was one class of first grade of the senior high school in Bandung. The class was chosen based on the policy and decision of the school official after having a brief meeting with the researcher about the study that would be conducted. The class was suggested to be the object of the research because it was assumed that the students of the class were active during the teaching and learning processes that have been conducted so far. By having active students in the classroom, it was hoped that the research would reveal active and interactive classroom interactions. The other participants were ten students of the class to gain their responses to the teaching and learning process. The participants were chosen randomly so that they could provide the useful data for the research that might represent the responses of most students in the classroom.
3.3.2. Data Collection Procedures
To gain the data which is useful for the analysis, this study employed some procedures. To begin the process of collecting the data, classroom observation in form of video recording was done to record the teaching and learning process which later would be transcribed and
analyzed to answer the research’s question about patterns of classroom interaction. Observation
in this study was conducted in one class of first grade of the senior high school to observe and identify the patterns of classroom interaction that occurred in the class. The data was gained through video recording. Video recording is a type of data collection method in qualitative research. Video recording was used as the instrument to answer both statements of the problem
(21)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
in this study which was identifying what patterns of classroom interaction occurred in the classroom.
To gain naturalness of teaching and learning activities in the classroom, the recording was done several times in order to make the teacher and students get used to it therefore teaching and learning process could occur naturally. Video recording was done two times in order to gain naturalness of the teaching and learning process. After recording the teaching and learning process, the video then was transcribed into transcript to be analyzed using pedagogical microscope instrument to reveal the patterns of classroom interaction which occurred during the teaching and learning process.
After doing classroom observation, interview was done with the students to gain their responses toward the teaching and learning process they experienced in the classroom. The result of the interview then was analyzed using the theories related to classroom interaction to answer
the research question about the students’ responses toward the teaching and learning process.
3.3.2.1. Observation
Observation is a fundamental way of finding out about the world around us. As human beings, we are very well equipped to pick up detailed information about our environment through our senses. However, as a method of data collection for research purposes, observation
is more than just looking or listening. Research, simply defined, is “systematic enquiry made public” (Stenhouse, 1975).Classroom observation, specifically, refers to the study of
investigating what was happening inside the classroom (Allwright and Bailey, 1991: 2). Doing observation is significant in which it helps the researcher to analyze theory in use and participant
(22)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
view point of which is not revealed during an interview (Alwasilah, 2006: 155). The aim of an observation is to gather first-hand information about social processes in a naturally occurring context (Silverman, 1993). One of the reasons why an investigator gathers data through observation is to notice things which may lead to understanding the context (Merriam, 1988). Observation is seen either as a much needed component of experimental research or as the basic research tool for entire projects (Allwright, 1988).
As Marion Dadds (cited by Stoll, 2003: 93) says:
Observation work had been a valuable part of the research and learning process. More looking had led to more seeing. More seeing had led to more understanding and changes in
professional perception. ‘I’ve learnt observation techniques’, she said. ‘I know stand back and
observe the children, myself, and other staff. I see more and I understand more.
Therefore, the study first employed classroom observation in the form of video recording to gain the data which later was transcribed and analyzed using the pedagogical microscope analysis instrument to reveal the interactions which occurred during the teaching and learning processes. The data from video recording was crucial since it would be used as the main instrument to reveal the classroom interaction.
The observational data gathering continues until theoretical saturation is reached (Adler and Adler, 1994). Silverman (1993) suggests five stages in organizing an initially unstructured observational study: beginning the research (where a set of very general questions is proposed), writing field notes (usually beginning with broad descriptive categories, but later developing more focused codes and categories), looking as well as listening, testing hypotheses and making broader links. In this study, the codes and categories of observation sheet which were used to
(23)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
analyze the video recording were based on the pedagogical microscope instrument as seen in the following table.
Table 3.1
The codes and categories of exchanges in Pedagogical Microscope in Systemiotic Approach (From Suherdi, 2009: 59 adapted from Berry, 1981)
No New Code
Meaning
Knowledge Exchange
1 JL Teacher gives explanation/student answers the teacher actual question.
2 TB Teacher gives actual question. 3 TU Teacher gives display question. 4 KaJ Teacher/student comments on JL. 5 Kak Teacher/student comments on KaJ.
Action Exchange
6 TA Teacher gives action example/student does an action based on teacher instruction.
7 MA Teacher asks students to do a non-scored action/student does action based on teacher instruction/student asks teacher to give example of an action.
8 SA Teacher asks student to do an action.
Skill Exchange
9 KaA Teacher/student comments on TA. 10 KaKa Comments on action comment.
11 TK Teacher gives example of language communication/student
does language communication based on teacher’s request.
12 MK Teacher asks student to do non-scored language communication/students asks teacher to give an example of language communication.
(24)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
14 KaTk Teacher/students comments on TK. 15 KaKtk Comments on comment on KaTk.
3.3.2.2. Interview
Understanding the world from the subjects’ point of view, unfolding the meaning of
people’s experiences, uncovering their lived world prior to scientific explanation are the attempts
of qualitative research (Kvale, 1996: 1). Interview can be defined as a conversation with purpose (Kahn and Cannell, cited in Marshall and Rossman, 2006). Interview process was done to gain the necessary data dealing with the research (Alwasilah, 2006: 191). Interview was also done to gain in-depth information that couldn’t be accessed through observation (Alwasilah, 2006: 154). The researcher used interview as research instrument to gain the verification and validity of data gained from classroom observation.
Nunan (1992) categorized interviews based on their degree of formality, namely: structured, structured, and unstructured. Some differences among structured, semi-structured, and unstructed interview can be seen from the following table.
(25)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Table 3.2
The Differences among structured, semi-structured, and unstructured interview (Adapted from Berg, B. L. (2004). Qualitative Research Methods for Social Science 5th ed, p.
79)
The interview that was conducted in this study could be seen in the following table.
No Interview Questions
1. Sudah berapa lama adik belajar bahasa Inggris? (How long have you been studying English?) 2. Adik suka belajar bahasa Inggris? Kenapa?
(Do you like learning English? Why?)
3. Bagaimana menurut adik belajar bahasa Inggris disini? Apakah menyenangkan? Kenapa?
(26)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
4. Kalau sedang belajar bahasa Inggris di kelas, gurunya berbicara menggunakan bahasa Inggris terus-menerus atau dicampur dengan bahasa Indonesia?
(Does the teacher use full English or mixed Indonesian-English when learning English in the classroom?)
5. Yang mana yang lebih mudah dimengerti menurut adik, guru mengajarkan bahasa Inggris dengan full-English di kelas atau dicampur dengan bahasa Indonesia? Kenapa?
(Which one is easier for you, full-English or mixed Indonesian-English learning? Why?
6. Apa saja kegiatan yang sering di lakukan di kelas kalau sedang belajar bahasa Inggris?
(What activities do you often do in the classroom when learning English?)
7. Bagaimana pendapat adik tentang game yang tadi dimainkan di kelas? Apakah
membantu adik dalam belajar?”
(What do you think about the game you played in the class just now? Did it help you to learn?)
8. a. Apakah gurunya sering menyuruh adik dan teman-teman belajar dan bekerja dalam kelompok di kelas?
(Does your teacher often ask you to learn in groups in the classroom?)
b. Menurut adik apakah belajar dalam kelompok bisa membantu adik lebih mudah belajar dan berbicara bahasa Inggris?
(Do you think group learning makes you easier to learn and speak English?)
9. Bagaimana menurut adik tentang cara gurunya mengajar selama ini? Apakah mudah dimengerti?
(What do you think about the way the teacher teaches you? Is it understandable?) 10. Cara belajar bahasa Inggris yang seperti apa yang adik mau agar adik bisa lebih
cepat belajar bahasa Inggris?
(27)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu Table 3.3 Interview Questions
In this study, semi-structured interview was used. As it is argued by Berg (2004), in conducting a semi-structured interview, there are some things that may be done by an interviewer, such as, reordering the questions, adjusting the language, answering the questions, and adding or deleting probes to the interview. In conducting the interview of the study, the researcher also did those things in order to gain a comprehensible interview data. The opportunities to change the words but not the meaning of questions provided by a semi-structured interview schedule acknowledges that not every word has the same meaning to every respondent and not every respondent uses the same vocabulary (Treece & Treece 1986).
Clearly, in this type of interview, validity and reliability depend, not upon the repeated use of the same words in each question, but upon conveying equivalence of meaning (Denzin, 1989). By using semi-structured interview, the interviewer has a general idea of where s/he wants the interview to go, and what should come out of it, but does not enter the interview with a list of predetermined questions (Marshall and Rossman, 2006).
Barriball and While (1994, p.329) listed some advantages of semi-structured interview which were argued by some researchers. First, it has the potential to overcome the poor response rates of a questionnaire survey (Austin,1981). Second, it is well suited to the exploration of attitudes, values, beliefs and motives (Richardson et al. 1965, Smith, 1975). Third, it provides the opportunity to evaluate the validity of the respondent's answers by observing non-verbal indicators, which is particularly useful when discussing sensitive issues (Gordon, 1975). Fourth, it can facilitate comparability by ensuring that all questions are answered by each respondent
(28)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
(Bailey, 1987). Fifh, it ensures that the respondent is unable to receive assistance from others while formulating a response (Bailey, 1987).
In formulating the questions for interview, Bloom taxonomy was used as the fundamental base to compose the questions. Bloom (1956 in Dalton, J. & Smith, D., 1986)has provided us with his taxonomy to assist us to compose questions on different levels of thinking. This taxonomy ranges from lower to higher levels of cognitive thinking. These levels are:
1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation
Dalton and Smith (1986) also provided some useful verbs that could be use to formulate questions on different level of thinking based on Bloom’s taxonomy as seen in the following table.
Table 3.4. Some useful verbs in formulating questions on different level of thinking based on
Bloom’s taxonomy
(Adapted from Dalton and Smith, 1986)
Knowledge Comprehension Application Analysis Synthesis Evaluation Tell List Describe Relate Locate Write Find Explain Interpret Outline Discuss Distinguish Predict Restate Solve Show Use Illustrate Construct Complete Examine Analyse Distinguish Examine Compare Contrast Investigate Categorise Create Invent Compose Predict Plan Construct Design Judge Select Choose Decide Justify Debate Verify
(29)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
State Translate Classify Identify Explain
Imagine Argue Recommend
Based on what Dalton and Smith (1986) elaborated about level of thinking in questioning rooted from Brown (1956 in Dalton and Smith, 1986), the interview questions and their levels of thinking could be seen from table 3.5.
In conducting the interview of the study, the researcher reordered the questions, adjusted the language, answered the questions, and adding or deleting probes during the interview process, in order to gain comprehensible data of the interview. As it is argued by Berg (2004), in conducting a semi-structured interview, there are some things that may be done by an interviewer, such as, reordering the questions, adjusting the language, answering the questions, and adding or deleting probes to the interview. The opportunities to change the words but not the meaning of questions provided by a semi-structured interview schedule acknowledges that not every word has the same meaning to every respondent and not every respondent uses the same vocabulary (Treece & Treece 1986).
Table 3.5. Interview questions and their level of thinking No Levels of
thinking
Interview Questions
1. Knowledge Sudah berapa lama adik belajar bahasa Inggris? (How long have you been studying English?) 2. Knowledge Adik suka belajar bahasa Inggris? Kenapa?
(Do you like learning English? Why?)
(30)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
menyenangkan? Kenapa?
(What do you think about learning English here? Is it fun? Why? 4. Knowledge Kalau sedang belajar bahasa Inggris di kelas, gurunya berbicara
menggunakan bahasa Inggris terus-menerus atau dicampur dengan bahasa Indonesia?
(Does the teacher use full English or mixed Indonesian-English when learning English in the classroom?)
5. Analysis Yang mana yang lebih mudah dimengerti menurut adik, guru mengajarkan bahasa Inggris dengan full-English di kelas atau dicampur dengan bahasa Indonesia? Kenapa?
(Which one is easier for you, full-English or mixed Indonesian-English learning? Why?
6. Comprehension Apa saja kegiatan yang sering di lakukan di kelas kalau sedang belajar bahasa Inggris?
(What activities do you often do in the classroom when learning English?)
7. Evaluation Bagaimana pendapat adik tentang game yang tadi dimainkan di
kelas? Apakah membantu adik dalam belajar?”
(What do you think about the game you played in the class just now? Did it help you to learn?)
8. Knowledge
Comprehension
a. Apakah gurunya sering menyuruh adik dan teman-teman belajar dan bekerja dalam kelompok di kelas?
(Does your teacher often ask you to learn in groups in the classroom?)
b. Menurut adik apakah belajar dalam kelompok bisa membantu adik lebih mudah belajar dan berbicara bahasa Inggris?
(Do you think group learning makes you easier to learn and speak English?)
(31)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
ini? Apakah mudah dimengerti?
(What do you think about the way the teacher teaches you? Is it understandable?)
10. Evaluation Cara belajar bahasa Inggris yang seperti apa yang adik mau agar adik bisa lebih cepat belajar bahasa Inggris?
(What way of English learning do you want to improve your English?)
The interview was conducted to answer the third statement of the problem of the study which was about gaining students’ responses toward the teaching and learning process. Therefore, the interview focused on gaining the data about how the students gave their opinions about the teaching and learning they experienced in the class. The interview was recorded and transcribed to be processed in data analysis.Premature judgments about the importance of content were also made in order to save the time of transcribing the interview (Seidman, 115). In addition, it is crucial to understand that transcription is neither neutral nor value-free. As Arksey & Knight (1999)wrote, “transcriptions are, quite unequivocally, interpretations.”
3.4. Data Analysis
The data analysis was done to get the answers of the research questions. It was presented in the form of research finding. Pedagogical microscope was applied as the instrument of analysis in order to analyze the data gained from data collection instruments.
(32)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
3.4.1. Data from Observation
Data from observation was taken in the form of recorded classroom activities. The recorded data was gained through filming the teaching and learning process from the beginning until the end of the lesson using handy cam. After getting the recorded data, it wasthen transcribed in form of transcription to be used in the analysis of the data.
The transcription was analyzed using pedagogical microscope as the instrument of analysis (Suherdi, 2009) by categorizing the exchanges and counting the percentage of each category. The instruments that were used in the analysis process of classroom interaction patterns were the categories of exchanges from Suherdi (2009), which are, knowledge discourse, action discourse; andskill discourse.The categories were followed by sub categories as described in table 3.6. .
All categories of classroom interaction patterns were used as symbols for the utterances or exchanges from video transcription. The symbols were calculated to find out the tendency of specific exchanges. Then, after gaining percentage of the particular exchanges, the final conclusion of what patterns that occur in the classroom interaction was discussed and analyzed in accordance with theories related to pedagogical microscope analysis to answer the first statement of the problem which focused on revealing patterns of classroom interaction that appeared during the processes of teaching and learning. By revealing the patterns of classroom interaction, it would show some patterns that dominated the teaching and learning processes. Therefore, the patterns of classroom interaction that appeared in the classroom could be drawn. The dominating patterns that appeared during the teaching and learning processesalso answered the second
(33)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
statement of the problem which focused on how those patterns created the interactions in the classroom to reveal whether they were interactive teaching and learning or not.
Table 3.6
The categories of exchanges in Pedagogical Microscope in Systemiotic Approach (From Suherdi, 2009: 59 adapted from Berry, 1981)
No New Code
Meaning
Knowledge Exchange
1 JL Teacher gives explanation/student answers the teacher actual question.
2 TB Teacher gives actual question. 3 TU Teacher gives display question. 4 KaJ Teacher/student comments on JL. 5 Kak Teacher/student comments on KaJ.
Action Exchange
6 TA Teacher gives action example/student does an action based on teacher instruction.
7 MA Teacher asks students to do a non-scored action/student does action based on teacher instruction/student asks teacher to give example of an action.
8 SA Teacher asks student to do an action. 9 KaA Teacher/student comments on TA. 10 KaKa Comments on action comment.
Skill
11 TK Teacher gives example of language communication/student does language communication
based on teacher’s request.
12 MK Teacher asks student to do non-scored language communication/students asks teacher to give an example of language communication.
(34)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Exchange 14 KaTk Teacher/students comments on TK. 15 KaKtk Comments on comment on KaTk.
3.4.2. Data from Interview
Interview process was conducted in order to answer the third statement of the problem
that was gaining students’ responses to the teaching and learning process. Interview was done by
using voice recorder as the media to record the interview process. After gaining and transcribing the recorded data, the next process wasanalyzing it by using theories related to classroom interaction to reveal how students responded to teaching and learning processes conducted by the teacher. The data from the interview was also analyzed to reveal how the game that was conducted during the processes of teaching and learning affect the existences of codes and
categories and patterns of classroom interaction which were supported by the students’
statements..
Therefore, the data from interview was useful to reveal how students’ perceptions toward the game and the processes of teaching and learning process triggered the appearances of the codes of classroom interaction patterns. The findings from the interview were also useful to find out whether students responded positively to the teaching and learning processes or not by
analyzing it from the students’ point of view.
(35)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Validity is one of the important points in conducting qualitative research. There are some strategies that can be applied to meet the validity of qualitative research, such as, triangulation, member checks, long-term observation, peer examination, participatory or collaborative modes
of research, and research’s biases, thick description, typicality or modal category, and multisite
designs (Merriam, 1998; Alwasilah, 1998). In accordance with those strategies to meet the validity of the data, McMillan and Schumacher (1997) states that there are some strategies to enhance the validity of qualitative research design, such as, prolonged and persistent field work, verbatim accounts, low-inference description, multiple researchers, mechanically recorded data, participant researcher, member checking, participant review, and negative cases or discrepant data. In this study, the researcher used thick description to provide detail description of where the study was conducted, who were involved in the study, and how the study was conducted (Merriam, 1998; Alwasilah, 1998).
Besides that, this study also applied member checking technique and used mechanical recorded data in the form of video recording to meet the validity of the data (McMillan and Schumacher, 1997).member checking is a procedure largely associated with qualitative researchwhereby a researcher submits materials relevant to an investigation for checking by the people who were the source of those materials (McMillan and Schumacher, 1997) . Probably the most common form of member validation occurs when the researcher submits an account of their findings (such as a short report or interview transcript) for checking (Emerson and Pollner, 1988). In this study, the researcher submitted a short report including the transcript of video recording of the research to the teacher who taught in the observed and recorded class. Besides
(36)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
that, the researcher gave the interview transcript to the students who were interviewed during the study.
3.5. Concluding Remarks
This chapter elaborates the qualitative method which was applied in conducting the research. It explains how pedagogical microscope analysis which was used as the instrument of analysis related to the qualitative method. Pedagogical instrument is an ideal guiding framework
as Suherdi (2009: 5) defined it as ‘systemiotic approach toward classroom discourse analysis.’
Discourse Analysis makes use of qualitative method in which it studies classroom transcripts and assign utterance to predetermined categories (Ellis, 1997: 566). One of the qualitative method
characters is to explore people’s life histories or everyday behavior (Silverman, 2005: 6).
Besides that, this chapter also elaborates data collection, and techniques of data collection which consist of observation and interview. Furthermore, this chapter describes how the data of the research were analyzed using pedagogical microscope. Finally, this chapter explains the strategies which were used to meet and enhance the validity of the research.
(37)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
(38)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
This chapter presents the conclusion of the present research and also recommendation gained from the research finding and for further development of the study or other relevant studies.
5.1 Conclusion
The study reported classroom interaction patterns in the teaching and learning process in
an EFL classroom of a senior high school through pedagogical microscope and gained students’
responses toward the teaching and learning process. The goal of the study was to find out the patterns of classroom interaction that appear in the process. The study also intended to find out
how those patterns create the interactions as well as to gain students’ responses toward the
teaching and learning process.
The present study found that there are three types of exchanges which occur during the teaching and learning process, such as, knowledge exchange, action exchange, and skill exchange. It is also found that knowledge and skill exchanges dominate the process. Through the analysis of these three types of exchanges, the study revealed that there are at least two patterns of classroom interaction found during the teaching and learning process, such as, teacherstudents’ interaction pattern and studentstudents’ interaction patterns. It is also found that students-students’ interaction pattern dominates the teaching and learning process. It
(39)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
indicates that students interact and participate actively during the process. Therefore,
students-students’ interaction pattern creates interactive learning process in the classroom.The study also revealed that students respond positively toward the teaching and learning process conducted by the teacher. They found it easier and more interesting to learn English by doing the activities, especially playing “Eat Bulaga” game designed by the teacher. Through the game, they could
have fun while learning how to describe people’s physical appearances.
Finally, the present study concluded that the teaching and learning process has been done interactively. Teacher and students as well as students and students interact and participate actively during the process. The positive responses from the students are also gained because they are motivated in learning since they found it interesting to learn English as the materials and activities are familiar to their life.
5.2. Recommendation
After conducting research and finding the results of the present study, it is suggested to
do further studies on applying the activities, especially playing “Eat Bulaga” game to describe
people’s physical appearances in different levels and classes. Through continuous and
simultaneous studies, it is expected that the game can be one of activities that can be applied by teachers to create interactive learning in the classroom. Conducting further studies in applying different games or activities to promote interactive learning is also urgently needed since they play an important role in motivating students to learn English better in the classroom.
The study also recommends that pedagogical microscope could be used as an instrument to reveal what actually happens in the teaching and learning process. The instrument could be
(40)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
used to find and analyze patterns of interaction that occur in the classroom. Through the analysis, teachers or researchers could identify and evaluate their teaching process so that they could
improve the teaching for the sake of students’ better learning and comprehension.
The results of the present study are specific to the site and participants of the study. Therefore, they could not be generalized. Further studies on similar contexts and focuses in different levels and classes are urgently needed to expand scopes of the studies and results.
(41)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
REFERENCES
Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. 1994. Observation techniques. Denzin. N.K and Lincoln. Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Pp.377– 92. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Alwasilah, A.Chaedar. 2006. PokoknyaKualitatif, Dasar-dasarMerancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya. Allwright, Dick, and Bailey Kathleen M. 1991.Focus on The Language
Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barriball, K. & While, A. Collecting Data Using A Semi-structured Interview: A Discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 19:328-335.
Bishop, Philip. E. 2000. Classroom Interaction. Valencia Community College. Available:http://www.geocities.com/meitzu 2002/paper.html Accessed on 4 November 2014
Brekelmans,Mieke., Mainhard, Tim., den Brok, Perry,. Wubbels Theo.2011.
Teacher Control and Affiliation: Do Students and Teachers Agree?
Netherland: Utrecht University and Eindhoven University of technology. Brown, Douglas H. 1980. Principles of Languages Learning and Teaching.
America:Prentice Hall.
Brown, Douglas H. 2001. Teaching by Principles, an interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: A Pearson Education Company.
Buckey, Francis J. 2000. Team Teaching, What, Why, and How? California: Sage Publication, Inc.
Chiang, Meitzu. 2001. Classroom Interaction.
Available: www.geocities.com/meitzu2002/paper.html. Accessed on 1 August 2014)
Coulthard, Malcolm. 1983. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. England: Longman Group.
Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher Talk and Classroom Context. ELT Journal, 52 (3), 179-187.
Cullingford,Cerdic.1995.TheEffectiveTeacher.London:Cassell.
Davis, Heather A., Gabelman, Megan M., Wingfield, Rickiah D. 2011. “She Let
Us be Smart:” Low-Income African-American First-Grade Students’
Understandings of Teacher Closeness and Influence.North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
(42)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Dalton, J. & Smith, D. 1986. Extending Children’s Special Abilities: Strategies
for primary classrooms. Available:
http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/Dalton.htm. Accessed on 4 November 2014).
Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. 1994. Investigating Classroom Talk. London; Washington D. C.: Falmer Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1990. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Falvey, Margaret, 1986. Classroom Interaction Research and The Foreign Language Classroom. Sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo.
Flanders, N. 1970.Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley: Reading, Mass.
Fulford, Catherine P., and Greg Sakaguchi, 2010, Developing a Taxonomy of Interaction Strategies for Two-Way Interactive Distance
Education Television, International Journal of Instructional Media 28. 4 (2001): 375+. InfoTrack Humanities & Education Collection.Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
Available: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?/prodld=IPS&userG roupName=ptn071. Accessed on 28 January 2014.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Teaching Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gordon, R.L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics. Illinois Dorsey Press.
Granfield, James M. 2001. Teaching Individuals with Physical Dissabilities and Other Health Impairment: www.southernct.edu/granfield/ASD
Hadley, Alice Omaggio. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. U.S.A: Thomson Learning Inc.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman. Haryono, Akhmad. 2001. Interaksi Sosial dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Asing.
Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Vol.1/Nomor 1/Januari-Juni 2001.
Hasan, A. S. 2006. Analyzing Bilingual Classroom Discourse .The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 9 (1) , 7-18.
(43)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inamullah, Muhammad, 2005, Patterns of Classroom Interaction at Different Educational Level in the Light of Flanders’
Interaction Analysis,Rawalpindi, University of Arid Agriculture. Available: www.eprints.hec.pk/99/. Accessed on 15 October 2014.
Icbay, Mehmed Ali,2008, A Thesis “The Role of Classroom Interaction in the
Construction of Clasroom order: A Conversation Analytic Study”, Turkey, The
Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical University.
Johnstone, R. 1989. Communicative Interaction: A Guide for Language Teacher. London: CILT.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1988). The Natural Approach. Prentice Hall International.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. 2001.
Investigating Learners Report about The L2 Classroom. IRAL, 39, 285-308.
Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marcellino, M. 2009.English Language Teaching in Indonesia: A Continuous Challenge in Education and Cultural Diversity. Jakarta: Universitas Atmajaya. McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S.S, (1997), Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, New York: Longman.
Moon, J. & Nikolov, M. Eds. 2000. Research into Teaching English to Young Learners. Pecs: University Press Pecs.
Moore, Michael Graham, 1989, Three Types of Interaction, the American Journal of Distance Education. Available:
www. elearning-reviews.org/publication/272. Accessed on 8 May 2014. Musthafa, Bachrudin, M.A., Ph.D. 2003. EFL for Young Learners:
Course Materials. Unpublished textbook. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.
(44)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Murray, Harry G., & Lang, Megan. 2007. Does Classroom Participation Improve Students Learning? Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
Nisriyana, Ela, 2007, A Skripsi“Hubungan Interaksi Sosial dan Sebaya dengan Motivasi Belajar Siswa Kelas IX di SMPN 1Pegandon”,
digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/collect/skripsi.
Nolasco, R., and L. Arthur. 1987. Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nugroho, Kurniawan Yudhi. 2009. Interaction in English as A Foreign Language
Classroom (A Case Study of Two Seniors High Schools in Semarang in The Academic Year 2009/2010). Unpublished Research. Semarang.
Nunan, David. 1992. Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching: First Edition. Singapore: Mc. Graw-Hill.
Nurrizal, Ma’ruf, 2011, A Thesis “Classroom Interaction Patterns In
Team Teaching Model In An EFL Classroom (a qualitative study at
an integrated Islamic elementary school)”, Bandung, Indonesia University of
Education.
Peets, Kathleen F, 2010, The Effects of Context on the Classroom Discourse Skills of Children with Language Impairment.InfoTrac Humanities & Education Collection. Available:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?/prodld=IPS&userGroupNam e=ptn071. Accessed on 18 January 2014.
Rahayu, Nunik ,2007, A Thesis “A Descriptive Study on Classroom Interaction of English Teaching-Learning Process in Large Classe of the First Year Students
in SMAN1 Gemolong”, Surakarta, Sebelas Maret University.
Raine, P. (2010). An application of the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) method of discourse analysis. Available:
http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/raine_sinc-coul.pdf. Retreived on 10th January 2014.
Richard, Jack, 2002, Curriculum Development in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. 1987. Interaction As The Key to Teaching Language for Communication. In Interactive Language Teaching. Ed. W.M. Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverman, David. 2005.Doing Qualitative Research, a Practical Handbook. New Delhi: Sage Publication.
(45)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and development. London: Heinemann.
Suherdi, Didi. 2007. MenakarKualitas Proses BelajarMengajar. Bandung: UPI PRES.
Suherdi, Didi. 2009. Classroom Discourse Analysis “A Systemiotic Approach”, revised edition. Bandung: CELTICS.
Suherdi, Didi. 2009. MikroskopPedagogik: AlatAnalisis Proses Belajar Mengajar, Edisi Revisi. Bandung: CELTICS.
Syamsuddin, Damaianti, Vismalia. 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa.
Bandung: SPS UPI dan PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
Valerio, 1996, Patterns of Classroom Interaction Activity. Available: www.ihup.edu/evalerio/. Accessed on 27 April 2014.
Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learners
Involvement in The EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1), 3-23.
Willis, Wesley R, 1986, Make Your Teaching Count. Illinois. Victor Book. Available: www.sabda.org.pepak. Accessed on 20 August 2013.
(46)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
(1)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu REFERENCES
Adler, P.A. and Adler, P. 1994. Observation techniques. Denzin. N.K
and Lincoln. Y.S. (Eds.) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Pp.377–
92. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage.
Alwasilah, A.Chaedar. 2006. PokoknyaKualitatif, Dasar-dasarMerancang dan
Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
Allwright, Dick, and Bailey Kathleen M. 1991.Focus on The Language
Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barriball, K. & While, A. Collecting Data Using A Semi-structured Interview:
A Discussion paper. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 19:328-335.
Bishop, Philip. E. 2000. Classroom Interaction. Valencia Community
College. Available:http://www.geocities.com/meitzu 2002/paper.html Accessed on 4 November 2014
Brekelmans,Mieke., Mainhard, Tim., den Brok, Perry,. Wubbels Theo.2011. Teacher Control and Affiliation: Do Students and Teachers Agree? Netherland: Utrecht University and Eindhoven University of technology.
Brown, Douglas H. 1980. Principles of Languages Learning and Teaching.
America:Prentice Hall.
Brown, Douglas H. 2001. Teaching by Principles, an interactive Approach
to Language Pedagogy. New York: A Pearson Education Company.
Buckey, Francis J. 2000. Team Teaching, What, Why, and How? California: Sage
Publication, Inc.
Chiang, Meitzu. 2001. Classroom Interaction.
Available: www.geocities.com/meitzu2002/paper.html. Accessed on 1 August 2014)
Coulthard, Malcolm. 1983. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. England:
Longman Group.
Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher Talk and Classroom Context. ELT Journal, 52 (3),
179-187.
Cullingford,Cerdic.1995.TheEffectiveTeacher.London:Cassell.
Davis, Heather A., Gabelman, Megan M., Wingfield, Rickiah D. 2011. “She Let
Us be Smart:” Low-Income African-American First-Grade Students’ Understandings of Teacher Closeness and Influence.North Carolina: North Carolina State University.
(2)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Dalton, J. & Smith, D. 1986. Extending Children’s Special Abilities: Strategies
for primary classrooms. Available:
http://www.teachers.ash.org.au/researchskills/Dalton.htm. Accessed on 4 November 2014).
Edwards, A. D., & Westgate, D. P. G. 1994. Investigating Classroom
Talk. London; Washington D. C.: Falmer Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1990. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, Rod. 1994. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Falvey, Margaret, 1986. Classroom Interaction Research and The
Foreign Language Classroom. Sunzi1.lib.hku.hk/hkjo.
Flanders, N. 1970.Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley: Reading,
Mass.
Fulford, Catherine P., and Greg Sakaguchi, 2010, Developing a Taxonomy
of Interaction Strategies for Two-Way Interactive Distance
Education Television, International Journal of Instructional Media 28. 4 (2001): 375+. InfoTrack Humanities & Education Collection.Web. 5 Feb. 2010.
Available: http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?/prodld=IPS&userG roupName=ptn071. Accessed on 28 January 2014.
Gibbons, Pauline. 2002. Scaffolding Language, Scaffolding Learning. Teaching
Second Language Learners in the Mainstream Classroom. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gordon, R.L. (1975). Interviewing: Strategy, techniques, and tactics.
Illinois Dorsey Press.
Granfield, James M. 2001. Teaching Individuals with Physical Dissabilities and
Other Health Impairment: www.southernct.edu/granfield/ASD
Hadley, Alice Omaggio. 2001. Teaching Language in Context. U.S.A: Thomson
Learning Inc.
Harmer, J. 2001. The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman.
Haryono, Akhmad. 2001. Interaksi Sosial dalam Pembelajaran Bahasa Asing.
Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa Vol.1/Nomor 1/Januari-Juni 2001.
Hasan, A. S. 2006. Analyzing Bilingual Classroom Discourse .The International
(3)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Hatch, E. 1992. Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inamullah, Muhammad, 2005, Patterns of Classroom Interaction at
Different Educational Level in the Light of Flanders’
Interaction Analysis,Rawalpindi, University of Arid Agriculture. Available: www.eprints.hec.pk/99/. Accessed on 15 October 2014.
Icbay, Mehmed Ali,2008, A Thesis “The Role of Classroom Interaction in the
Construction of Clasroom order: A Conversation Analytic Study”, Turkey, The Graduate School of Social Sciences of Middle East Technical
University.
Johnstone, R. 1989. Communicative Interaction: A Guide for Language Teacher.
London: CILT.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Cooperative
Learning.
Krashen, S. and Terrell, T. (1988). The Natural Approach. Prentice Hall
International.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative Language Teaching. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., McDonough, K., Fujii, A., & Tatsumi, T. 2001.
Investigating Learners Report about The L2 Classroom. IRAL, 39, 285-308.
Malamah-Thomas, A. 1987. Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Marcellino, M. 2009.English Language Teaching in Indonesia: A Continuous
Challenge in Education and Cultural Diversity. Jakarta: Universitas Atmajaya.
McCarthy, M. 1991. Discourse Analysis for Language Learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S.S, (1997), Research in Education: A Conceptual Introduction, New York: Longman.
Moon, J. & Nikolov, M. Eds. 2000. Research into Teaching English to Young Learners. Pecs: University Press Pecs.
Moore, Michael Graham, 1989, Three Types of Interaction, the American Journal
of Distance Education. Available:
www. elearning-reviews.org/publication/272. Accessed on 8 May 2014.
Musthafa, Bachrudin, M.A., Ph.D. 2003. EFL for Young Learners:
Course Materials. Unpublished textbook. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education.
(4)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Murray, Harry G., & Lang, Megan. 2007. Does Classroom Participation Improve
Students Learning? Ontario: University of Western Ontario.
Nisriyana, Ela, 2007, A Skripsi“Hubungan Interaksi Sosial dan Sebaya dengan
Motivasi Belajar Siswa Kelas IX di SMPN 1Pegandon”, digilib.unnes.ac.id/gsdl/collect/skripsi.
Nolasco, R., and L. Arthur. 1987. Conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nugroho, Kurniawan Yudhi. 2009. Interaction in English as A Foreign Language Classroom (A Case Study of Two Seniors High Schools in Semarang in The Academic Year 2009/2010). Unpublished Research. Semarang.
Nunan, David. 1992. Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunan, David. 2003. Practical English Language Teaching: First
Edition. Singapore: Mc. Graw-Hill.
Nurrizal, Ma’ruf, 2011, A Thesis “Classroom Interaction Patterns In Team Teaching Model In An EFL Classroom (a qualitative study at
an integrated Islamic elementary school)”, Bandung, Indonesia University of Education.
Peets, Kathleen F, 2010, The Effects of Context on the Classroom Discourse Skills
of Children with Language Impairment.InfoTrac Humanities & Education
Collection. Available:
http://find.galegroup.com/gps/start.do?/prodld=IPS&userGroupNam e=ptn071. Accessed on 18 January 2014.
Rahayu, Nunik ,2007, A Thesis “A Descriptive Study on Classroom Interaction of
English Teaching-Learning Process in Large Classe of the First Year Students
in SMAN1 Gemolong”, Surakarta, Sebelas Maret University.
Raine, P. (2010). An application of the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) method of
discourse analysis. Available:
http://www.cels.bham.ac.uk/resources/essays/raine_sinc-coul.pdf. Retreived on 10th January 2014.
Richard, Jack, 2002, Curriculum Development in Language Teaching,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. M. 1987. Interaction As The Key to Teaching Language for
Communication. In Interactive Language Teaching. Ed. W.M. Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Silverman, David. 2005.Doing Qualitative Research, a Practical Handbook. New
(5)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia | repository.upi.edu | perpustakaan.upi.edu
Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data. Methods for Analysing Talk,
Text and Interaction. London: Sage Publications.
Stenhouse, L. 1975. An introduction to curriculum research and
development. London: Heinemann.
Suherdi, Didi. 2007. MenakarKualitas Proses BelajarMengajar. Bandung:
UPI PRES.
Suherdi, Didi. 2009. Classroom Discourse Analysis “A Systemiotic Approach”,
revised edition. Bandung: CELTICS.
Suherdi, Didi. 2009. MikroskopPedagogik: AlatAnalisis Proses Belajar
Mengajar, Edisi Revisi. Bandung: CELTICS.
Syamsuddin, Damaianti, Vismalia. 2007. Metode Penelitian Pendidikan Bahasa.
Bandung: SPS UPI dan PT. Remaja Rosda Karya.
Valerio, 1996, Patterns of Classroom Interaction Activity. Available:
www.ihup.edu/evalerio/. Accessed on 27 April 2014.
Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learners
Involvement in The EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6 (1), 3-23.
Willis, Wesley R, 1986, Make Your Teaching Count. Illinois. Victor
(6)
Ade Purna Nugraha, 2015
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION