A study of interaction in Teaching English To Young Learner (TEYL) classroom using flanders` interaction analysis system.

(1)

xvi ABSTRACT

Martha Septiningtyas (2016). A Study of Interaction in Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL) Classroom Using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. The Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.

This study is focused on the young learner classroom interaction at Kindergarten school level. The goals of this study are (a) to indentify the predominant interaction patterns and (b) to discover how the interaction happened. Since, the interaction patterns influenced the way the teacher delivers her talk and how the students produce the target language during the interaction.

This study is the classroom-centered research. It concentrates on the classroom interaction, in order to gain insights and increase our understanding of young learner classroom interaction. The classroom-research was done to contribute to the second language teaching field for young learner classroom. The study was conducted at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. It has a unique concept of teaching. They have philosophy to build relationship as mother and children not as a teacher. The point is that create “second home” for students when their mother are working.

The participants in this research were 15 students of class A and B, a non-native classroom teacher and the school principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. An interaction analysis system was applied in this research called Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The data were collected by observing (observational protocol) and video recording the teacher-students interaction during teaching-learning process. The data were confirmed by doing the unstructured interview with a classroom teacher and the school principal.

The finding of this research, teacher’s talk (49.5%) and student’s talk (47.2%) from total utterances found. It was found that there was not so much different percentage between teacher’s and student’s talk. It indicated that the interaction went smoothly and active. The students were active in producing their talk and the teacher delivered the suitable talk to stimulate students. The analysis results show that the most predominant-pattern during the interaction was student participation. It emphasized on the student’s responding talk and the student’s initiating talk. The second predominant pattern was content cross, to show how often the teacher delivered lecturing and questioning talk to the students. The third predominant pattern was teacher support, it consisted of accept or uses student ideas, praising & encouraging and accept feeling. Another finding was the type of teacher talk, indirect talk became the most dominant pattern also 75%. It indicated that, the teacher gave the freedom and applied the flexible pattern for the students to respond and initiate their opinion. Those interaction patterns will help the classroom teacher in promoting and increasing the quality of young learner classroom interaction.

The researcher hopes this study will give advantages for kindergarten teachers in the way they use English to young learner classroom. The result of this study used as recommendation and evaluation for the teacher. In addition, for the school to improve their quality.

(2)

Finally, the young learner classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School as the model for comprehensible interaction. As the researcher found that the interaction pattern was dominated by student participation talk. In addition, the result of this study give guidance on how to build, prepare and manage the school environment. Such as regulation and atmosphere to support teaching and learning process of using English during teaching and learning process.

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Young learners, Classroom Interaction Pattern, Classroom-Centered Research, Flanders Interaction Analysis System.

(3)

xviii

ABSTRAK

Martha Septiningtyas (2016). Analisis Interaksi Siswa dan Guru di TEYL (Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Siswa Usia Dini) Menggunakan Sistem analisa ineteraksi Flanders’. Program Paska Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Universitas Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.

Penelitian ini difokuskan pada interaksi siswa usia dini pada kelas taman kanak-kanak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pola interaksi dan bagaimana interaksi tersebut berlangsung. Antara siswa dan guru kelas yang terjadi di kelas Taman Kanan-Kanak. Khususnya dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa Inggris, yang bertempat di TK Ananda Mentari Yogyakarta. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut maka peneliti mengajukan dua pertanyaan untuk di jawab dalam penelitian ini: Pola interaksi apa yang mendominasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa usia dini? Bagaimana interaksi yang terjadi di TK Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta?

Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian-kelas yang banyak berkontribusi dalam peningkatan qualititas pembelajaran. Khususnya yang berkaitan erat dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggris di kelas muris usia dini. Penelitian ini diselenggarakan di TK Ananda Mentari Yogjakarta. Sekolah ini memiliki konsep pembelajaran yang berbeda dari sekolah pada umumnya. Sekolah ini menerapkan philosofi mengenai hubungan yang erat antara ibu dan anak. Latar belakang yang

penting adalah menciptakan “rumah ke dua” bagi siswa, di saat ibu mereka pergi

bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.

Partisipan penelitian adalah 15 orang siswa dari kelas A dan B, seorang guru Taman kanak- kanak dan kepala sekolah dari Ananda Mentari yang sekaligus sebagai pendiri sekolah. Dalam rangka mengetahui pola interaksi yang terjadi antara siswa dan guru. Sebuah system analisis di aplikasikan dalam penelitian ini yang disebut: Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Data penelitian di peroleh dari pengamatan di kelas dan rekaman video interaksi guru dan siswa saat proses belajar mengajar. Pengamatan di kelas di lakukan empat kali selama 50 menit di setiap pertemuan. Data di dukung dengan hasil wawancara dengan guru pengampu kelas dan kepala sekolah yang sekaligus pendiri sekolah.

Data mengindikasikan bahwa siswa sangat aktif dalam berpartisipasi sepanjang proses pembelajaran di kelas. Data kuantitatif menunjukan 49.5% adalah teacher talk dan 47.2% adalah student talk. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pola yang paling mendominasi adalah student participation (partisipasi siswa). Menitikberatkan pada partisipasi siswa dalam bentuk respon siswa dan inisiatif siswa pada diskusi di kelas. Pola interaksi kedua yang mendominasi adalah content cross. Menitikberatkan pada penjelasan guru dan pertanyaan guru. Pola ke tiga yang mendominasi adalah teacher support (dukungan guru). Di berikan dalam bentuk menerima gagasan siswa, mendukung dan menghargai pendapat atau tindakan siswa. Pola interaksi tersebut yang akan membantu guru untuk mendukung dan meningkatkan kualitasi interaksi

(4)

siswa usia dini. Hal lain yang di temukan dalam penelitian ini adalah dominan nya pola jenis tuturan guru (teacher talk) di kelas. Indirect talk (tuturan-tidak langusng) menjadi pilihan guru dalam berinteraksi, dibuktikan hasil kuantitative menunjukan 75%. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa guru memberikan keleluasaan pada siswa untuk mengungkapkan pendapat mereka tanpa harus takut di salahkan oleh guru.

Peneliti berharap bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan kesadaran dan kajian tambahan. Mengenai pentingnya pola interaksi yang tepat untuk meningkatkan kualitas interaksi di kelas dengan anak usia dini menggunakan bahasa Inggris. Pada khususnya untuk sekolah tempat di adakan penelitian ini. Hasil dari penelitian ini dapat di gunakan sebagai kajian dan kritik yang membangun untuk meningkatkan dan mempersiapkan guru, siswa dan lingkungan untuk terciptanya interaksi yang harmonis untuk mendapat hasil pembelajaran yang maksimal.

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Siswa usia dini, Pola interaksi kelas, Penelitian-kelas, Flanders Interaction Analysis System

(5)

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Magister Hummaniora (M.Hum)

in English Language Studies

Martha Septiningtyas

Student Number: 146332016

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2016

(6)

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)Degree

in English Language Studies

Martha Septiningtyas Student Number: 146332016

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA 2016

(7)

(8)

(9)

DEDICATION PAGE

This thesis is dedicated to Jesus Christ, my family and friend who always helped me, motivated and inspired me to do my best in order to finish my thesis. My father, Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my mother Prihatin Ekowati, SPd, and my beloved young cute sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I love you all and truly fortune to have you in my life.

HOPE

“There is nothing you can’

t achieve with

(10)

(11)

(12)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to express my deepest thanks to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, who has supported, helped and given me a chance to continue my education at The Graduate Program in English Language Studies (ESL) Sanata Dharma University. Only through his blessing and unconditional love, I could complete this thesis.

Secondly, I would like to say my deepest thanks to my thesis advisor Dr. B.B. Dwijatmoko, M.A. for the guidance, support and encouragement. I am really grateful for his suggestions and advices from the beginning when I started write this study. Many thanks are also expressed to F.X Mukarto.Ph.D., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr. E.Sunarto, M.Hum as my thesis reviewers for their suggestions to improve this thesis. Furthermore, J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd. M.Hum, for her suggestion to find the topic and school for this research to support this thesis.

Thirdly, I would like to thank the principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School, Mrs. Bernadetta Dwi Retno Aryanti, S.Psi. for her willingness to be interviewed, reliable cooperation and for allowing me to do research in her school. My truly thanks also addressed to all students of Kindergarten A and B as the participants in this research. To Miss. Nining Sumarsih, S,Sos, Miss. Henny Madya Sari, SS as the classroom teachers who really welcomed me and gave good cooperation in her class during observation times and interview.

Fourthly, my special gratitude goes to all the members of my family in Klampok Banjarnegara. My beloved father Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my beloved mother

(13)

viii

Prihatin Ekowati.SPd, my lovely sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I would like to thank them for never ending understanding, supporti both financial and spirit, love, pray. All my family for their loves, sympathies and cares so I could complete this study. Since family is a unit of people that loves and supports each other through good times and bad times. They gave wonderful care, attention and understanding during the difficult time in finishing my thesis. The one and only, dear my future-husband abang Aryond Silalahi, S.T. who shared the happiness, sadness togetherness and value advices. Thank you so much for your dedication and valuable supports. Special thank also addressed to my sista Sari who supports both my thesis and my up and down of my challenging life. Adit & Indra as my IT consultant, who helped me to ensure the format. Agnes Mira, my best friend and my private counselor. I wish to thank to my thesis reader for your willingness to read and comments on this thesis. The last but the least, many thanks are dedicated to Marita, the one who help me to ensure the format and grammatical mistake. Finally, I expect that this thesis would be useful for further study and education practitioner.

May God always bless us!

Yogjakarta, August 24th, 2016

(14)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE………..i

APPROVAL SHEET……….. ..ii

THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE……….……….. iii

DEDICATION PAGE………..iv

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY………v

LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN………..……..vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……… vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………. ix

LIST OF TABLES……….. xii

LIST OF FIGURES……… xiii

LIST OF GRAPHS………. xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES………. xv

ABSTRACT………... xvi

ABSTRAK………xviii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study……… 1

1.2. Problem Identification……… 5

1.3. Problem Limitations………. 7

1.4. Statement of Research Questions………... 7

1.5. The Research Goals……… 7

1.6. Research Benefits………... 8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Theoretical Review………. 10

2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)……….. 10

2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction………. 13

2.1.3 Student Talk and Teacher Talk……… 17

2.1.4 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction…….. 18

(15)

2.1.6 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique 25

2.1.7 Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta……….. 28

2.2 Related Studies………. 29

2.3 Theoretical Framework……….. 30

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY 3.1. Research Design………... 35

3.2. Research Procedure……….. 36

3.3. Nature of Data……….. 37

3.4. Data Sources………. 38

3.5. Research Instruments……… 40

3.6. Data Collection……… 43

3.7. Data Analysis……… 45

3.8. Trustworthiness……… 49

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1. Results………. 58

4.1.1 The general description of teaching and learning process……… 58

4.1.2 Interaction Event……….. 60

4.1.3 The Result of Interview……… 66

4.2. Discussions………... 72

4.2.1 Predominant Patterns of Young Learner Classroom Interaction………….. 73

4.2.1.1 Student Participation……….. 73

4.2.1.2 Content Cross………. 85

4.2.1.3 Teacher Support………. 96

4.2.1.4 Teacher Control……… 106

4.3. Types of Student talk and Teacher Interaction………... 113

4.3.1 Indirect Talk and Direct Talk………... 114

4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction……… 116

(16)

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion……….. 127

5.2. Recommendation……… 129

BIBLIOGRAPHY ………...…135

Appendix 1: Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in four meetings……… 136

Appendix 2: The Overall Result of Classroom Interaction………... 138

Appendix 3: The Comparison of teacher talk and student talk………. 139

Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol……… 140

Appendix 5: Observational Protocol Result of First Meeting………... 143

Appendix 6: Observational Protocol Result of Second Meeting……….. 155

Appendix 7: Observational Protocol Result of Third Meeting………. 167

Appendix 8: Observational Protocol Result of Fourth Meeting……… 180

Appendix 9: Blueprint for Interview guideline………. 196

Appendix 10: Interview result with classroom teacher……… 200

Appendix 11: Interview result with school principle………... 214

(17)

xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Young Learners………. 11

Table 2.2 Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories ……… 25

Table 2.3 Research concept plotting………..…33

Table 3.1 Ten rules for deciding code ………. 41

Table 3.2 Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis……… 42

Table 3.3 How to put a code of classroom verbal interaction………..…… 44

Table 3.4 Observation Data Transcription……… 46

Table 3.5 Guideline for data analysis….……….... 51

Table 3.6.Table qualitative data collection types and sources of data…….. 52

Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization………... 53

Table 3.8 Sample of interview questions with classroom teacher………… 55

Table 3.9 Sample of interview questions with school principle…………... 56

Table 4.1 Classroom interaction pattern in 1stmeeting..……….. 62

Table 4.2 Classroom interaction pattern in 2ndmeeting ………... 63

Table 4.3 Classroom interaction pattern in 3rd meeting ……... 63

Table 4.4 Classroom interaction pattern in 4thmeeting …………... 63

Table 4.5 The Results of Student’s Talk and Teacher’s Talk... 65

Table 4.6 Summary Result of Classroom Pattern Interaction... 66

Table 4.7 Sample of interview with the teacher... 68

(18)

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acqusition... 19

Figure 2.2 Matrix of Flanders Interaction... 27

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework... 32

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure... 37

(19)

xiv

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 4.1 The Student Participantion Pattern...74

Graph 4.2 The Distribution of Student Talk...75

Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern...85

Graph 4.4 The Distribution of Lecturing and Questioning...86

Graph 4.5 The Teacher Support Pattern...96

Graph 4.6 Accept Feeling, Encouragement& Use Student Idea... ..97

Graph 4.7 The Teacher Control Pattern... 106

Graph 4.8 Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing...107

Graph 4.9 The results of Direct and Indirect Influence in Each Meeting...114

(20)

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in Four Meetings ...136

Appendix 2 The Overall Result of Interaction based Flanders Formulas...137

Appendix 3 The Comparison of Teacher Talk and Student Talk...138

Appendix 4 The Blueprint of Observation Protocol……...139

Appendix 5 The Observation Protocol Result in 1st Meeting ...142

Appendix 6 The Observation Protocol Result in 2nd Meeting ...153

Appendix 7 The Observation Protocol Result in 3rd Meeting...164

Appendix 8 The Observation Protocol Result in 4th Meeting...176

Appendix 9 The Blueprint for Interview Guideline...191

Appendix 10 The Interview Result with Classroom Teacher ...195

Appendix 11 The Interview Result with School Principle ...209

(21)

xvi

ABSTRACT

(22)

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Young learners, Classroom Interaction Pattern, Classroom-Centered Research, Flanders Interaction Analysis System.

(23)

xviii ABSTRAK

penting adalah menciptakan “rumah ke dua” bagi siswa, di saat ibu mereka pergi

bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.

(24)

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Siswa usia dini, Pola interaksi kelas, Penelitian-kelas, Flanders Interaction Analysis System

(25)

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The study is focused on teacher talk and student talk in young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. It aims at exploring the patterns of interaction and how the interactions happened in kindergarten level. This chapter contains several sections: the background of the study, problem identification, problem limitations, and statement of research questions, research goals and research benefits.

1.1 Background of the Study

In a foreign language situation, the learner depend almost entirely on the school for the language input. The situation is related to the classroom as a crucial place for students to practice the target language. Further, Cameron (2008) said that foreign language learner, a classroom is the basic part for the students to use and to experience the target language. In the classroom, a communication between the teacher and the students is designed to create compressible classroom interaction.

The interaction in young learner classroom has different pattern in term of teacher talk and student talk. Teachers who teach foreign language for young learner usually will talk more frequently in the class, by comparing to teachers who teach adult learners. The reason mostly is because the students’ ages of are considered as young learner. Which are around four until five years old. The students are not able to read and write yet to support their understanding. As a consequence, the teachers of

(26)

kindergarten school have certain rules as the facilitators (model) to introduce them into the new language and also motivate them to be able to speak up in English.

The kindergarten teachers not only deliver the English course, but also builds enough motivation for young learner to be ready and confident to learn English in the next education levels. Later, students are able to use the target language to support their daily needs such as reading the English book, understanding the teachers’ explanation and interacting in English both with their teachers and friends or peers. In this case, they are motivated to use English in their daily communication naturally.

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogjakarta is the setting of this research. The researcher has at least two reasons in choosing this school. First, the purpose of this study is to investigate the interaction pattern of active classroom interaction in using English. The researcher has already done a pre-observation. The result shows that students talk is more than the teacher (51% is for student’s talk and 49% is teacher’s talk). It means that students are active because the teacher successfully gives enough comprehension input and lead the interaction. Second, the unique concept of this school in is term of the teacher-student relationship. The philosophy of being second mother. It makes a curiosity how did the interaction happen. In this school, English is not only as a courses but also as the instruction language teaching for the communication during the school time interaction.

In the typical classroom, there is a teacher and 15 students. The teacher spends a good deal of her time in explaining things to the children, talking to them, showing pictures, videos and objects, and going through the demonstrations (simulation). The teacher assesses the student’s understanding by asking questions, assigning tasks and

(27)

supervising the accomplishment of the assigned tasks. The students alternately listen, answer questions and perform the assigned tasks, in order to demonstrate or improve their understanding about the certain topic. The rule of the children is to understand and produce the target language is clearly presenting. This oversimplified the way of talking about what it can be seen in classroom interaction in Ananda Kindergarten School is substantially active.

In the classroom, such elements include the perceived purpose of the interaction both locally (lesson & teacher), institutionally (school regulation) and the students’ background (Lyster, 2007). All of the children that participated in the class have been learnt English since they were young which was around 2-3 years old. According to Lyster (2007) when children come to school at the age of 3, they are still developing the four skills, they have little knowledge of the world. It means that children approach additional language in a natural manner. In this case, a natural interaction in the class when the teacher is delivering the lesson.

As the background of the children, they live with their family which is considered as Indonesia native. They are potentially acquire more than one language. Since, some of the students come from bilingual family, their families have communicated to them in more than one language, although all children speak English in school. According to the school principal, some of students are required to speak Indonesian or even Javanese language when they are at home.

The students’ parent had a middle-high level of literacy. There are ‘special’ rule

that student’s mother have to work with stable occupation instead of become a housewife. The students are provided by their parents such story books, the kids’

(28)

magazines and a direct satellite television. As the result, the children are used to communicate in English. The reason is mostly because they get many language inputs from those media. After that, they are able to produce meaningful output, during the process teaching and learning interaction both with teachers and their friends.

Teaching English for the kindergarten school student is very different from teaching English in higher level (adult learner). A young learner needs certain technique or method to achieve the target language. Teacher talk is the most common technique to teach a foreign language to young learners rapidly. Walsh (2002), consideres how a teacher through their choice of language, constructs or obstructs the learner participation in face to the face classroom interaction. From his research, it is developed a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk to facilitate and optimize the learners’ contribution.

This study is the classroom-centered research which concentrates on a classroom interaction. The purpose is to gain the awareness and increase the understanding about the young learner is classroom learning. It aims to identify the occurrences that promote learning in the classroom. In this study the researcher uses the Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) to analyze the teacher’s talk and the student’s talk during the interaction. Flanders (1970) originally developed a research tool, called as Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS). This systems was developed to categories the types and the quantity of verbal interaction in TEYL (Teaching English to young learner) to plot information on a matrix and it can help to analyze and to complete the interpretation in chapter 4.

(29)

Based on the description above, there is a relation between young learners’ classroom interaction and the teacher talk. The teacher delivers their talk during teaching learning activity. To support their teaching performance, motivate student to speak up and do interaction in target language (English). A kindergarten teacher has special or different pattern to interact with kindergarten students. It becomes the basic consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “A Study of Classroom Interaction in TEYL (Teaching English to Young Learner) classroom using Flanders Interaction Analysis System”.

1.2 Problem Identification

Analyzing the patterns through interaction is realized between foreign language learners and the teacher. It has long been a research interest leading to a major in the educational research involves to understand the nature and the implications of classroom interaction. Several studies have been aiming at showing the complexity at foreign language classroom. Flanders (1970) and Coulthard (1985) describe classroom interaction structure; Allwright (1980) analyze patterns of participation-turn, topics, and tasks in language learning and teaching.

Another studies of the language teacher use in class include those of Zhou, X (1999), Zhou, Y (2010) and Nurmacitah (2010). The findings are approved the

researchers’ statement before that one-way communication class are lack of real communicative information. Since the teacher is dominating classroom interaction, this research helps the teacher to move away from a teacher-dominated mode. This study guides the teacher to adopt a more student-dominated of the teaching. The

(30)

teacher should try to combine activities and materials which largely promote on the communication between the teacher and students.

The teacher’s talk in English learning is marked as a complicated and a problematic part especially for young learner’s classroom. In one side, the teachers are suggested not to talk too much when they are teaching in classroom. It makes the students become passive in initiating and responding the teacher’s utterances. Since the student’s opportunities are limited, in this case the teacher dominated the class. In the others hand, the quality is more crucial rather than the quantity. The quality here means that the effectiveness to promote student to be active in class and deliver the material become easy to understand. Realizing that, teacher domination in EFL class is not very beneficial for improving the learners’ ability to talk in target language. The teacher has to manage their talk into appropriate proportion. It means that teachers have to make the learner talk more than teachers do. According to Liu Yanfen & Zhao (2010), when the teacher talk and promote a classroom interaction. It is called a communicative interaction. The example of teacher talk are question, feedback, correct and the speech (explanation).

This study will concern about four patterns suggested by Flanders cited in Hai & Bee (2007). (1) Student participation, (2) Content cross (3) Teacher control and (4) Teacher support. The explanation of each pattern is provided in the chapter 2.

Since the students are not able to write and read yet, both teacher and learners are non-native speakers and they have an interaction by using English, will the teaching learning process in this class go smoothly? That is the reason why the researcher choose the young learner classroom interaction.

(31)

1.3 Problem Limitation

The researcher would like to define the study by providing a problem limitation. This study is concerned on the teacher talk and the student talk in the

young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. In this research, the researcher only concerned on investigating verbal interaction only (spoken language) that occurred between the teacher and students by using Flanders’s Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) as an analysis technique.

This study is based on the three months observation at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten, Yogyakarta. The duration for one observation is 60 minutes of the teaching and learning activities. In this kindergarten, the course begin with a discussion about certain topic follow up with the question-answer season. The participants of this research were taken from a classroom teacher and kindergarten

student’s class (4-5 years old) of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. 1.4 Statement of Research Questions

The research goals of this study are to find out:

(1).What are the predominant patterns of classroom interaction between the teacher and students in young learner classroom interaction? (2). How did the interactions happen in teaching learning at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta?

1.5 The Research Goals

Based on the problem of the research, the goals of the research are listed below. There are three research goals of this study (1) to find out the teacher-students interaction patterns during classroom teaching and learning process. (2) To find out

(32)

the percentage of each interaction pattern. (3) To discover how the interactions did happen in the classroom at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.

1.6 Research Benefits

The result of the study can be used by the Kindergarten school teachers as a reference to deliver the comprehensible teacher talk in young learners’ classroom interaction. In addition, to manage the verbal interaction in the teaching and learning process. As the result, this study can help students to achieve the target language.

Practically, the benefits of this research for the participant especially for the kindergarten school teacher. First, teachers become more aware of their talk in the process of a teaching and learning. They will be provided the comprehensible understanding and reflecting about their teaching practices. Further, they become more realize about the variety of teacher talk. Second, the teachers are provided a comprehensible model of the teacher talk in the teaching learning process particularly in a young learners’ classroom interaction. At least, the other teachers can apply this teaching model in their own classroom. Third, the teacher is suggested to increase her teacher talk (TT) productivity to address the target language to learners.

Theoretically, the result of this study will provide the comprehensible information and several benefits in education in the general, especially in motivating the teacher to achieve active young learner classroom interaction in target language. The benefit is to motivate teacher to produce the comprehensible and the suitable teacher talk (TT) in teaching learning activity. This research provides readers with several transcriptions of various functions of verbal behavior spoken by teacher and many kind of the student’s response. The content of information in this study is also a

(33)

particularly benefit for the school management to provide certain training and mentoring program to support the teacher’s skill in leading the interaction with young learner. The transcriptions can be learnt by teachers of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta to understand and would be more aware of their talk.

In term of creating a comfortable and a lively situation, those make the students participate actively in the target language both in the class and the daily communication. The result of this study can also be used as a reference for the other researchers who willing to conduct a study in English teaching-learning process in term of the young learners’ classroom interaction.

(34)

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter deals with the review of related literature to the present study. The study is designed to find out the interaction pattern and describe the interaction between teacher and students in Kindergarten school level at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School, Yogyakarta.

2.1. Theoretical Review

There are several major issues underline in this study. They are teaching English for Young Learner (TEYL), Teacher talk (TT), Students talk, type of classroom interaction, compressible input hypothesis, comprehensible output hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, adjacency pairs, IRF (Initiation, Response, Feedback) related studies and school profile of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten school. 2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)

In this part, the researcher gives an overview of several theories and the research relevant to children’s language learning in the field of the teaching young

learners’ particular in the teaching English. What is the difference between the teaching a foreign language to children and to adult learners? According to Cameron (2002), children are often more enthusiastic and lively as learners. In other words, the

young learners want to do many classroom activities even they don’t really

(35)

interest more quickly and hardly can keep themselves motivated on a tasks they find difficulty.

As the general concept of teaching English to young learner’, what and how the teachers teach young learner is different from teenagers and adult learners. It is crucial important to show the differences of these three learner groups keeping in mind the fact that every learner is unique and such lists are able to reflect generalizations (Harmer,2007). Harmer (2007) cited in Ersoz, A (2008) provides the special characteristic of the young learner as seen in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Characteristics of young learners

Young Learners Characteristics Age : 3-6 years old

Grade : Pre-school Education Language focus/skills used:

Listening & Speaking : Vocabulary items (concrete & familiar objects)

No grammar teaching (exposed to chunks through song and classroom language) No reading & writing

Characteristics:

Low concentration span but easily excited High motivation; active involvement Love talking but problems in sharing Repetition and revision is needed

Limited motor skills (using a pen and scissors) but kinesthetic and energetic Love stories, fantasy, imagination, art drawing and coloring

The general description of teaching English for young learners is related to the

teachers’ verbal action behavior during teaching learning process. The following information is about how teachers have to do in SLA (second language acquisition) teaching environment for young learners based on (Harmer, 2007). (1) Teachers

(36)

should have rich repertoire of activities to help young learners receive information from a variety of sources and plan a range of activities for a given time period. (2) Teachers should work with students individually or in group. (3) Teacher need to be

aware of the students’ interest to motivate them. Beyond that teachers are better to

link or relate teaching to everyday interests and experiences. 2.1.1.2 Scaffolding

Vygotsky has developed the scaffolding theory that has come about the concept of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD theory suggested that students should be judged on what they can do with the assistance of an expert rather what they are capable of doing on their own (Cameron 2002). According to this theory, teachers are able to deliver the instruction language (new language) that students are not familiar with or beyond their potential. Vygotsky suggests a theory of scaffolding that the language of adult use is mediate the world for children and help them to solve the problem. The teacher leads the student’s intention during the interaction in order to help children. In completing the task are not yet able to do for themselves (Cameron, 2002). Furthermore, Daniels (2002) concerns that the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) emphasizes on teacher-learners collaboration and negotiation.

Cole (2002) argues that extended understanding of scaffolding in the language and education is needed. Since young learners have the very limited knowledge. It is better for the teacher to give very specific scaffolding (guidance) to make students understand on how to use the language. Cameron (2002) stated that the young speaker around five years old, they are lack the awareness to cater for other participants in discourse, and are not skillful enough to plan their talk. In this case,

(37)

the teacher requires to give clear guidance for students to take nature of a conversation. The conversation is not dominated by the teacher, the conversation

should base on students’ knowledge, and it has controlled from the teacher to ensure

the topic.

2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction

In order to describe about what happened in the classroom and to know better what exactly happed in a language classroom, in this research, knowledge about the classroom interaction particularly in TEYL (teaching English for young learner) context needs to be increased. Tsui (2008) defines a classroom as a place where more than two people gather together for the purpose of learning, with one having the role of the teacher. It means that the communication between the teacher and students in classroom goes constantly. Another definition is provided by Richard in Ticko (2009) he states that pattern of verbal communication and the type of social, later will be discussed about the classroom verbal interaction, teacher talk and second language acquisition (SLA).

According to Hai & Bee (2006) there are at least four roles that must be done by the teacher in the teaching and learning process particularly in young learner interactions.

1. The teacher as motivator

The teacher can motivate students, in other words an English teacher has be able to look for the most efficient ways and must have striven to make the class interesting

(38)

concern on motivating, stimulating as well as facilitating the learners particularly in teaching young learner.

2. The teacher as facilitator

The teacher facilitates to students in learning foreign language for example the teacher can facilitate the fun condition in teaching and learning process.

3. The teacher as Organization

The teacher can select the material for the classroom use, so that students do not think the process of learning English is difficult and complicated.

4. The teacher as mediator

The Teacher can give stimulant to the student by using media, they can present how to use a media to support learning activity.

In Indonesia context, English is learnt as a foreign language and young learners learn English mostly in a language class with no supportive situation. Therefore TT (teacher talk) is likely to be the major and even the only the one source of the target language input. Several researchers have discussed the relationship between teacher talk and language learning. As Nunan (1991) points out: “Teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for the organization of classroom but also for the processes of

acquisition”. In line with this statement, Krashen (1985) states that teacher talk determines successful language learning by providing plenty of high quality input for the language itself. In line with Nunan (1991), he says that the teacher talk is crucial part, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the acquisition process. In terms of acquisition, TT is essential since it is probably the major of comprehensible a target language input the learner it received or acquired.

(39)

2.1.3 Types of Classroom Interaction

The type of interaction depends on certain type of the teacher talk and the student talk appears in classroom. According to Krashen (1992) there are at least three types of classroom interaction; teacher-dominated, teacher centered, and student-centered. The definition of each types is provided by Krashen (1992). First, teacher-dominated is when the teacher takes so much time to talk and students only have little opportunity to talk. Second, a teacher-centered is when the teacher takes control of students to be active participate at the classroom interaction. The last type is student-centered. Different from the first type, in this case the teacher is as the facilitator and students are more active rather than the teacher in classroom interaction.

Furthermore, the classroom interaction as a form of the institutional talk is locally managed but cooperative constructed speech exchange systems (Markee and Kasper, 2004). According to them, the composed of interaction between teacher and students and among students, classroom interaction is one of chance where any reality about classroom phenomena is produced and can be observed at the similar time. According to Lyster (2007), a learning languages through an interaction has a pedagogical focus because the interaction provided the teacher and also learners with couple of strategies for facilitating the comprehension, a formal accuracy, an academic achievement and the literacy development.

The classroom interaction is a conversation between a teacher and students. It points about how the teacher promotes students to speak in class and how students interact among their friends. What happens in a productive class hour is described by

(40)

Dagarin (2004) lists that there are at least three types of interaction frequently occur in classroom, as follows.

The first is student-teacher classroom interaction. This interaction will encourage teacher in way they deliver information and feedback. Asking question is the most frequent activity that the student do with their teacher. The example is when they ask about material they do not understand and ask about the certain procedure such as game and role play.

The second interaction is students-students classroom interaction. According to Ur (2000), there are more than one patterns of classroom interaction, such as group work, closed-ended teacher questioning, individual work, collaboration and teacher talk. In this case, students are given free chance to speak in class since they can talk each other.

The third interaction is teacher-whole classroom interaction. Tang (2010) contends that in the most EFL classroom context, the teachers always initiate teacher-whole class interaction by asking question and students’ responds to the teacher questions. It other words, during classroom interaction teacher keeps asking questions orally to the students to stimulate them speak up. Dagarin (2009) argues that there are three types of teacher whole class interaction such as giving explanation, praises, information, and instruction. Since it commonly occurs in EFL classroom, the researcher concludes that teacher whole class is a basic interaction in order to make student talk.

(41)

2.1.4 Student Talk and Teacher Talk

In the previous part of this study, the researcher have already explained that classroom interaction is cooperative effort from teacher and students in form of talk. The researcher lists several definitions about teacher talk and students talk and how those aspects influence the interaction.

Teacher talk has attracted attention because its potential effect on learners’

comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition (Ellis, 1994:583). Teacher as the one who lead the interaction in class, produce

teacher’s talk to input and stimulate students comprehension.

There are several definitions of (teacher talk) TT have been given from different perspective by some experts. Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to allow the various classroom processes to happen, that is the language of organizing

the classroom. This includes the teacher’s explanations, responses to questions, instructions, praises and correction. Ellis (1985) formulates his own view about teacher talk: “Teacher talk is a special language that teacher use when addressing L2 learners in classroom”. It means that teacher addresses classroom language learners differently from the way they address classroom that they address classroom learners. Teacher talk is also defined as the kind of modification in teachers’ speech that can lead to a special type of discourse (Richard and Lockhart, 1996). Richard and Lockhart explain that when teacher use teacher talk, they are trying to make themselves as easy as possible to understand and effective teacher talk may provide crucial support to facilitate both language comprehension and learner production.

(42)

Teacher talk is defined as the kind of modifications in teacher’s speech that can

lead to a certain type of discourse (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Nunan (1991) states that teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for organization of the classroom but also for the process of acquisition. In line with this, Cullen (2002) argues that teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instruction, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities.

Suherdi (2009) divided student talk into four types: (1) asking questions, (2) creating talk exchange, (3) repeating and answering teacher’s or peer’s question. Meanwhile, according, to Moore (2008), creating student talk has a good advantage. The student can acquire the knowledge and exchange information through interaction. For example, a student who is talking with her/his peers can exchange the information about their experience, hobbies, and many more.

2.1.5 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction

Adjacency pairs in conversation exchange during classroom interaction between teacher-learners and learner-learner. Speech acts are clearly related to what conversation analysis is called adjacency pairs or it can be said as utterances that usually occur together (Cook, 1989). In other words, the production of a speech such as an offer will normally be accompanied by a response, the response may be preferred one.

Based on the theories how young children acquire and develop their foreign language through interaction. Theories focus on second language acquisition (SLA)

(43)

such as Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The specific explanations will be listed below.

2.1.5.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the learners, in the interaction generate, and the kind of learning takes places. The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and effective for language learners in the classroom. Input is defined as language as language which a learner hears or receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). How long has the child been learning the language? The amount of language to which the students has already knew about the language.

Figure 2.1 Input and Attributes in L2 Acquisitions (Adapted from Brown 2007)

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis proposes that comprehensible input is essential for the learner to acquire a language (Krashen, 1982: 22). Krashen further maintains that learner will begin to produce the language naturally when they have enough exposure

(44)

to comprehensible input. According to the input hypothesis explained by Krashen, the

input must be comprehensible in that it is near the learner’s current level of

development, called I, and the level that learner will get to next must slightly beyond the level at which he or she has already acquired, called i+1(Krashen, 1982). This argument is in line with Miles (2004) that teacher should use target language in delivering the lesson.

In Krashen’s view, acquisition takes place of a learner’s access to

comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause learning to take place. Teacher talk actually serves as the main source of input of language exposure in classroom learning. According to Krashen (1982), the basic function of language teaching is to deliver compressible input for those who cannot get it from outside the classroom and for the foreign language students who do not have input sources outside the class. It can be argued that the teacher talk, a comprehensible input refers to the utterance that learners understand on the basis of context which they are used to, as well as the language which they have learned.

2.1.5.2 Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

Ellis (2008) argues that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 the acquisition. The English learners should not only increase the information input but also increase the efficiency output of language skills. They have learned such as speaking and writing. According to Swain (1985), her output hypothesis emphasizes the role of outcome in SLA. She argued that comprehensible input is not a sufficient condition for SLA, it is only when the input becomes intake that SLA takes place.

(45)

Learners can improve their language level through “forcing” them to produce output in target language. In the term of to say or write things or through using the target language in meaningful ways. Swain (1985) particularly emphasize that it is only when learners are pushed to use the target language. In other words, it is only when learners think it is necessary to improve and develop the target language level, language output can contribute to language acquisition. Therefore, teacher talk is playing very crucial role during the process of language learning and should manage to push the students to produce the target language. Through giving students more opportunities and much more time to the student to practice beside they offer suitable input.

2.1.5.3 Interaction Hypothesis

The interaction therefore is an important concept of English language learning process both teacher and students. Long (1996) argues that interaction facilitates acquisitions because of the conversation and linguistic modifications that occur in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. In other words, through interaction, learners have more opportunities to understand and practice the target language comprehensibly. Moreover, Allwright and Bailey (1991) state that through interaction, the plan produces outcomes (input, practice opportunities and receptivity). The teacher has to plan the syllabus, method and atmosphere before they do their teaching in class instead of providing opportunities for learners to practice the target language. It also creates a ‘state of receptivity’ defined as ‘an

(46)

result, the essential of classroom interaction has important role in teaching learning process.

Interaction support the student comprehension by assisting learner L2 production (Long, 1996). Long (1993), argue that much second language interaction occur through conversation. Long agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is crucial for language acquisition. According to him, teachers are able to modify the interaction so the learners have more opportunities to practice the target language. In

this way teacher can easy check student’s understanding through their ability to

speak target language with other speaker.

Van Lier (1988) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with learner. It is a must to find out what input and interaction of classroom can provide. He also suggests that interaction is essential for language learning which occurs in and trough participation in speech events, that is, talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier. 1988)

The following diagram, Van Lier suggests that interaction mediates between input and intake. Most important and central is the interaction with others in meaningful activities, but as a complement, and partial replacement, the learner’s cognitive device may also interact directly with the available input.

2.1.6 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)

Developing a classroom interaction where students feel comfortable to initiate their talk, rather than simple response to the teacher. Initiation-response-feedback (IRF) patterns is probably the most suitable form that teacher can apply. A common

(47)

practice in classroom discourse in IRF sequence (teacher initiation-student response-teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Van Lier (2002) educators who have

interest in ‘democratizing’ classroom talk could well their investigations with

strategies for re-organizing any given classroom’s turn taking structures. Furthermore, Lee (2007) says that the ‘initiation’ turns of IRFs carry out different kinds of actions, and the third turn from the teacher may launch a range of teaching activities.

According to Hale (2011), the IRF pattern is safe and comforting because in many what is expected in classroom interaction by both teacher and students. It can therefore be distressed for them to attempt to move beyond the three-part sequence. In this case, to create more self-directed communicative interaction. Waring (2009) says that the teacher tends to ask questions they typically already knows the answer. 2.1.6.1 The Interaction Pattern

The IRF exchange in language teaching process is referred as turn-taking of teacher-student-teacher in classroom. It is mentioned as (IRE), first (I) ‘Initiation’ phase the teacher usually ask questions, to which the student responds (R) and the

end of phase is (F/E) or ‘feedback/evaluation’ (Van Lier, 2002). In this sequence, the

teacher are better to give more referential questions rather than display question to be viewed as more pedagogically interaction (Vygotsky 1978 cited in Van Lier 2002).

In term of interaction pattern, teachers are able to used “zone of proximal

development”. Vygotsky also provides the definition of ZPD, the zone of proximal developments is the gap between what a learner has already mastered (the actual level of development) and what they can achieve when provided with educational support

(48)

(potential development). In other word, Vygotsky suggests that instead of testing what a student knows to make sure her understanding. It is much better to provide someone who has mastered the concept. To guide them to solve the problems with

the students’ ability in solving the problems, furthermore, ZPD is focused on the relation between instruction and development. Where teacher as the one who gives the instruction to the students.

2.1.6.1.1 Questions

Question is commonly classified into two main categories. First, display (closed) questions, in which teachers have already know the answer. The purpose of this type of questions is to check the students’ understanding. Second, referential (open) questions, the teachers want to know about students’ opinions toward certain topics. Nunan (1998) says that referential questions should be used more often than display questions if it refers to genuine communication in the language classroom. This stance implies that display questions are not suitable with the purpose of communicative competence. According to Brown (2007), he found that referential questions obtained responses of higher quality as well as increased complexity. It emphasizes on elicit language from learners in form of vocabulary, pronunciation and language function to support their own opinion.

2.1.6.1.2 Feedback

In this part, the researcher focuses on feedback from the teachers. According to Richards and Schmitt (2002), feedback is given while someone is speaking and

includes ‘comments such as …….“Yeah. You right” and“really? Are you sure about

(49)

Helpful interactional which supplies corrective feedback letting learners know their utterance are problematic (Mackey, 2006). Furthermore, Havranek (2002) seems to agree with Mackey that corrective feedback is most likely to be successful if the leaners are able to provide the correct form when they are alerted to the error.

In this research, besides applying IRF theory to discover the interaction pattern. In the next part, it provides an explanation and description about Flanders’ interaction analysis. Later it will be used to collect the data.

2.1.7 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique

Flanders’ interaction analysis is developed by Flander (1970 cited in Melaysias

2013) that is coding categories of interaction analysis to know the quantity of verbal interaction in the classroom. This technique is one of important techniques to observe classroom interaction systematically. Flanders (1970) noted the famous “two-thirds” rule: two-thirds of classroom time consist of talk, and two-thirds of that talk is teacher talk.

Tichapondwa (2008) argues that Flanders’ interaction Analysis System is for identifying, classifying, and observing classroom verbal interaction. It means that

Flanders’ interaction Analysis help the researcher to identify classroom interaction during teaching and learning process in classifying the interaction into the teacher talk, student talk and silence. Below is table of classroom interaction pattern by Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006)

(50)

Table 2.2: Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories

No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) Teacher Talk

A. Indirect Talk 1. Accept Feelings

 In this category, teacher accepts the feeling of the students.

 He feels himself that the students should not be punished for exhibiting his feelings.

 Feelings may be positive or negative 2. Praise or Encouragement

 Teacher praises or encourages student action or behavior.

 When a student gives answer to the question asked by the teacher, the teacher gives positives reinforcement by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very

good’, ‘better’, ‘correct’, excellent’, ‘carry on’.

3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students

 If a student passes on some suggestion, then the teacher may repeat in nutshell in his own style or words.

 The teacher can say ‘I understand what you mean’. Or the teacher

clarifies builds or develops ideas or suggestion given by a student. 4. Asking Questions

 Asking question about content or procedures, based on the teacher ideas and expecting an answer from the students.

 Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries on his lecture without receiving any answer.

B Direct Talk

5 Lecturing/Lecture

 Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure expression of his own ideas, giving his own explanation, citing an authority other than students, or asking rhetorical questions.

6 Giving Direction

 The teacher gives directions, commands or orders or initiation with which a students is expected to comply with:

(51)

 Open your books  Stand up on the benches  Solve 4th sun of exercise 7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority

 When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt with foolish questions, then this behavior is included in this category.

 Teachers ask ‘what’ and ‘why’ to the students also come under this

category.

 Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing Student Talk

8 Student Talk Response

 It included the students talk in responses to teacher’s talk

 Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the question. 9 Student Talk Initiation

 Talk by students talk in response to teacher’s talk.

 Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions; going beyond the existing structure.

10 Silence or Pause or Confusion

 Pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.

Here is Flander’s interaction Matrix to identify the teachers’ and student’s

characteristic.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

TEACHER SUPPORTS STUDENT

2 3

4 CONTENT CROSS

6 TEACHER

CONTROL

PARTICI PATION

7 8 9 10

(52)

The matrix analysis shows types the interaction characteristics. The types of interaction characteristics are presented as follows.

1. Content Cross

A heavy concentration in a column 4 and 5 and row 4 and 5 indicates teacher dependence on questions and lectures.

2. Teacher Control

A concentration on column and row 6 and 7 indicates extensive commands and reprimands by the teacher.

3. Teacher Support

A heavy concentration of score in column and row 1, 2, and 3 inicates that the teacher is reinforcing and encouraging students’ participation.

4. Student Participation

A concentration of score in column 8 and 9 reflects studen responses to the teacher’s

behaviour.

2.1.8. Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta 2.1.8.1 School Profile

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School is the school which applies English as medium language instruction in teaching learning system. The school use International-based education systems since 2011. The school believes that “A

CHILD IS A DISCOVERER”. There are at least three missions that they want to achieve. First, it is to promote respect to all creatures in young children by teaching peace, cooperation, and justice. Second, it is to train children to be independent, creative, critical and able to speak up their minds and to love learning process. Third, it is to provide a space for children to use English in daily programs in order to prepare them for successful international communication in the future. The program

(53)

in this school is full English curriculum that has been already planned to meet the need of living as a global citizen in the 21th century.

2.1.8.2 Teaching and Learning Process

The students enjoy the activities during learning process in classroom. Without being noisy they sit down nicely in the classroom while teacher shows the slide the process of create germ stone. The students are active and noisier in the term of give their opinion and respond to the teacher. The teacher also seems happy to listen to all

student’s contribution. The students are much more confident and outspoken. After the lecturing, teacher ask them to make their own germ stone using stone and water paint. They look happy to do the activities. They practice the language in real situation context with friends and teacher. They experience the language in use by communicating in their own words. In case, the teacher has two different rules. First, teacher is as the role model to give correct example to the students. Second, the teacher also acts as good friend to share. Since, the goal is that students have to communicate naturally in English.

2.2 Related Studies

In this part researcher review some related studies in the same filed concerning teacher talk. It investigated in a variety of subject learned, or in the methodology used.

Nurmacitah (2010) conducted research on examining classroom language learning experiences and evaluation on teacher talk in immersion senior high school classroom. The result that is content cross pattern interaction become the most dominant pattern. The interaction is dominated by teacher in explaining and giving

(54)

direction to the students. The suggestions are 1) shifting the teacher-centered classroom into student-centered classroom; 2) Focusing on the quality of teacher talk; 3) improving questioning technique, using proper feedback technique.

Suherdi (2009) conducted study on kindergarten teacher talk to investigate the characteristic of the teacher talk in the kindergarten classroom. The result of analysis revealed that teachers used speech modifications: repetitions, recasting and exaggerated. In term of language used, teacher was more dominantly used Indonesian than English. Teacher talk contains high frequency of repetition to avoid mispronunciation made by the students, to help the student memorize vocabulary and active during classroom interaction.

Maylisias Wan (2013) she is conducting a research to describe and interpreted the function of teacher talk in Elementary school English class. This research used

Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Categories. The result shows that the language used by teacher were classified into two categories namely, indirect and direct influence. The researcher suggests for the teacher to use more target language rather than L1 in classroom interaction. By doing this, it is expected teacher can guide the student to get more exposure of the target language input.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The input in form of teacher talk (TT) plays as a critical role in language learning because they still have less prior knowledge of the target language. As Krashen (2004) says that learners will begin to produce the language naturally when they have enough exposures to comprehend input. Teacher talk in the classroom

(55)

becomes an essential part in language learning. It helps the learners to comprehend and acquire the target language (English).

Through interactions, the students are able to acquire their communication in the target language. They are required to be active participate in the classroom discussion. When teacher’s talk and student’s talk are exchange continually, interaction occurred (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). It means, communication in form interaction is influenced by teacher and student talk. Later, the interaction will create

certain patterns that promote the quality of teacher’s talk and increase the number of student’s talk.

The teacher will use various type of teacher talk (TT) during interaction in young learner English classroom. In the researcher’s assumptions, at least questioning, giving information, giving instruction, feedback, lecturing and talk to

manage the class such as justifying authority and critique student’s behavior.

The framework established in this research is constructed on the assumption that, the various type of talk between teacher and student. Those will provide the different type of classroom interaction pattern to stimulate comprehensible input and learning outcome (language production) after that generate an active and meaningful learning and process.

In table 2.2 is talk about the concept of research plotting. In this way, the researcher gives clear description of how this research would be completed. In first column (a) the research variable are displayed, (b) conceptual definition on each variable, (c) category of talk, (d) sub-category, (e) research action and (e) the analysis step. The purpose of those table is to provide relation on each research variable that

(56)

later used in description and discussion chapter. The concept of research table was developed from Hartanto (2010) with some additional modification from the researcher. The dominant patterns of classroom interaction in four meetings observed were identified using the concept of research plotting.

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework Classroom Interaction What?

How?

Interaction Types

(Characteristic) Teachers’ Talk Students’ Talk

1. Content Cross 2. Teacher Control 3. Teacher Support 4. Student Participant

1. Accepts Feeling 2. Encouragement

3. Use Students’ Ideas

4. Asking Question 5. Lecturing

6. Giving direction 7. Criticizing

1. Students’ Response 2. Student Initiation 3. Silence or Confusion

Adjace ncy

1. Input Theory 2. Output Hypothesis 3. Interaction Hypothesis Valuable Input & Develop Interaction Correct & Meaningful production Interaction 1. Student-Teacher 2. Student-Student 3. Teacher-whole class

Flanders’s Interaction Analysis (FIA)

Observation Protocol

Flanders’s

(57)

Table 2.3. Research Concept Plotting Concept Conceptual

Definition

Category Sub Category

Research Action Analysis

A B C D E

Classroom interaction (Talk)

A kind of communication between

teacher-students in classroom using target language (English) Teacher Talk Accepts Feeling Observation with full of description and interview

In opening and closing

learning process Encourageme

Observation with full of description and interview

The way

teacher support students in producing language Asking

Question

Observation with full of description and interview

Teacher asks questions to the students Lecturing Observation with

full of description and interview

Teacher

delivers the material

Giving direction

Observation with full of description and interview

Teacher asks student to do something Criticizing Observation with

full of description and interview

Criticize

students’

behavior in class

Student Talk

Student talk-response

Observation with deep

interpretation and interview.

When student respond to the

teacher’s talk.

Student talk-initiation

Observation with deep

interpretation and interview.

When students produce talk by their own though.

Silence or confusion

Observation with deep

interpretation and interview.

The moment when students are silence or confuse.

(1)

can improve themselves”

“The last is, they don’t speak bad words We control their vocabularies so they don’t speak bad words. Since, they don’t have any bad words vocabulary”

6 Do you provide a course about reading and writing skill?

“No, not supposed to give them writing because the regulation in kindergarten. We not supposed to give them writing and reading courses. Even some school do it, but I don’t. The point is that they do something because they want to do not have to do. Sometimes if you pay attention more, some of them really good at grammar because they watch TV, they watch story telling. But cannot make them as standard at this school. I mean become like certain student. So I give them freedom to continue learning English later on, at least they can speak and people understand them. Even when we do mini trip and we met foreigner, they can speak and the foreigner understand. That is enough for me, my children have self-confidence to talk to foreigner without any doubt in making mistake”

7 I found some students are able to read. How about that condition?

“Yes, because they want to read. They are ready to accept how to read they can read. But if they want to read, they will not ready too. We want not force them, because

(2)

forcing in this early ages become boomerang at some point they shut-down their motivation and it is very dangerous for the future learning”

8 According to the result, the students are not yet given explanation about written form. Is there any consideration on more focus in oral form instead of written?

“We don’t have standard of grammar, we concern more English as communication purpose only. But they learnt grammar from the book they read, movie that they watch and finally because they are very active. The more they learn English in the classroom the grammar become better. In the end of semester, they will do the presentation. The result is people understand, what they are trying to explain and say to us. Those become enough for me because in grammar, later year of their journey in learning English they will learn more about grammar and everything. We more focus in pronunciation and vocabulary, even though sometimes when the grammar is really bother, we repeat after the correct grammar form. But, if do it often I am afraid the students will get tired easily to learn and afraid to express their ideas in English. Once they stop using English because they afraid or shy, we cannot get their attention back”

9 The observation result also indicated that students in

“There is no special training about behavior. Once more, our philosophy we

(3)

Kindergarten A and B are well-mannered. They easy to control and not many students did inappropriate ate behavior. How can it happen when deal with young learner? Is it related to school regulation?

are not teacher but we are the parent. We don’t force the children to know about everything. We provide them a lot opportunities to explore their own idea. That is why in discussion time is always lively. They always ask questions, express idea and they are given time by the teacher to build up their own language. As a mother you don’t have such requirement like a teacher. Teacher will have to measure you at the end of the semester but mother no. Mother knows exactly how to develop their children. Because of the philosophy at the earlier, it becomes the fundamental all the activities here”

(4)

Appendix 12: Pictures of Learning Activities in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

1. Picture of teachers and students of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

(5)

2. Picture of students and teacher interaction in explanation time

(6)

A study of interaction in Teaching English To Young Learner (TEYL) classroom using flanders` interaction analysis system.

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

Martha Septiningtyas

Student Number: 146332016

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

HOPE

“There is nothing you can’

t achieve with

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION BY USING FLANDER INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) TECHNIQUES AT SMPN 28 BANDAR LAMPUNG

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON THROUGH FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE OF MANDIRI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON BASED ON FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES (FIAC).

VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF ENGLISH CLASSROOM.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A CASE STUDY OF STUDENT TALK IN AN EFL CLASSROOM.

THE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER TALK AND LEARNER TALK IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A Descriptive Study at 1st Grade of Senior High School in Bandung.

AN ANALYSIS OF ANOMALOUS EXCHANGE IN YOUNG LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A case study at an elementary school in Bandung.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER TALK AND STUDENT TALK IN ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS (EYL).

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH USING QUIPPER SCHOOL AT VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 2 BUDURAN SIDOARJO.

Classroom interaction in english learning - USD Repository

Dukungan

Links

A study of interaction in Teaching English To Young Learner (TEYL) classroom using flanders` interaction analysis system.

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

Martha Septiningtyas

Student Number: 146332016

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS

’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

HOPE

“There is nothing you can’

t achieve with

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

AN ANALYSIS OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION BY USING FLANDER INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) TECHNIQUES AT SMPN 28 BANDAR LAMPUNG

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON THROUGH FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES SYSTEM (FIACS) AT THE ELEVENTH GRADE OF MANDIRI VOCATIONAL SCHOOL.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN ENGLISH LESSON BASED ON FLANDER’S INTERACTION ANALYSIS CATEGORIES (FIAC).

VERBAL INTERACTION IN SMALL CLASS SIZE OF ENGLISH CLASSROOM.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A CASE STUDY OF STUDENT TALK IN AN EFL CLASSROOM.

THE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER TALK AND LEARNER TALK IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A Descriptive Study at 1st Grade of Senior High School in Bandung.

AN ANALYSIS OF ANOMALOUS EXCHANGE IN YOUNG LEARNERS’ CLASSROOM INTERACTION: A case study at an elementary school in Bandung.

CLASSROOM INTERACTION: AN ANALYSIS OF TEACHER TALK AND STUDENT TALK IN ENGLISH FOR YOUNG LEARNERS (EYL).

CLASSROOM INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH USING QUIPPER SCHOOL AT VOCATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL 2 BUDURAN SIDOARJO.

Classroom interaction in english learning - USD Repository

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan