A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER STUDENT

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-STUDENT
INTERACTIONS PATTERN OF THE SECOND GRADE
OF SMA KOLESE DE BRITTO YOGYAKARTA 2016/2017
An article

Ricky Julpiusandi Tora Seran
2014083021

ENGLISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
GRADUATE EDUCATION PROGRAM
UNIVERSITY OF SARJANAWIYATA TAMANSISWA
YOGYAKARTA
2017

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-STUDENT
INTERACTIONS PATTERN OF THE SECOND GRADE
OF SMA KOLESE DE BRITTO YOGYAKARTA 2016/2017

Ricky Julpiusandi Tora Seran
rick11bianconero@gmail.com
Imam Ghozali

imamghozali@ustjogja.ac.id
Graduate School of Education,
Universitas Sarjanawiyata Tamansiswa Yogyakarta, Indonesia
Abstract

“A Discourse Analysis of Teacher-Student Interactions Pattern of the
Second Grade at SMA Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta 2016/2017”. This
research aimed to Describe the teacher-and students interaction patterns
the type of interactional and To reveal the impact of teacher and student
interaction.The researcher conducted classroom observation in which
two lesson of difference topic were video recorded, transcribe and
analyzed using IRF and Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk Grid. The
result obtained that classroom. There were found I- R- F , I- I- R- F, IR- F- R-F and , I- R- R- F, as a interactional pattern performed in
classroom interction. There were 14 interactional feature found from the
data, they were Scaffolding , Direct Repair, Content Feedback,
Extended Wait-time, Referential Question, Display Question, Seeking
Clarification, Confirmation Checks, Extended Learner’s Turn, Teacher
Echo, Teacher Interruptions, Extended Teacher Turn, Turn Completion,
For-Focused Feedback. These factor played a big role of creating a good
classroom interaction.

Key words: Classroom interaction, Interactional feature, SETT
Framework.

Introduction
Performing good interaction in a classroom is really important so the students
would get the exact function of language. By doing so the students would not get
confused to what is happening in the classroom but get a clear direction of what to do
in the classroom. Performing teaching and creating a good interaction between teacher
and students is not an easy task. The teacher must comprehend the classroom situation,

such as the ability of the students in communication, especially communication in
English—since it is an English language classroom. If the teacher has already known
his or her class they will get a clear direction what kind of interaction they will use to
conduct the classroom. In example, if a teacher understands that the students are very
active, the teacher may choose a spesific type of interaction to conduct the class.
Classroom interaction then, is necessary and useful as an educational strategy to
enhance learning. The concept of classroom interaction plays a significant role in
the process of second language learning. In fact the considerable interest in the
role of interaction in the context of learning became an important factor for the
researchers of this field, because it creates opportunities for the classroom community

to develop knowledge and skills. Teacher and student interaction that was intended to
be seen in this research are how the teacher and student participate to talk during
teaching and learning process, the teacher and students interaction pattern, corelation
of the amount of teacher and student talk contribute significant result in mastering the
target language by using discourse analysis. The researcher decided to set teacher and
student interaction of English Language Classroom at

SMA Kolese De Britto

Yogyakarta, Grade XI- Bahasa Class as a subject of this research. SMA Kolese De
Britto Yogyakarta is one of favorite schools in Yogyakarta and also recommended by
one of English Lecture.
Based on the explanation above, the researcher has problem statement as follows
1.

What are the pattern performed by teacher and student at SMA Kolese De Britto?

2.

What are the types of interactional features performed by the teacher at SMA

Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta?

3.

What is the impact of of teacher and student interaction in teaching and learning
process at SMA Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta

Brown (2001:165) state that in the era of communicative a language teaching,
interaction is the heart of communication. From this concept, it is clearly stated that
interaction is an important thing for language teacher. Since communication is the main
factor in the communicative languge teaching, communication must appear in every
language learning activity. Here, student are supposed to be able to communicate and

interact with others in language learning context. They will will learn how to
communicate and interact through the interaction itself. Thus, the communication in the
language teaching and learning classroom can be seen from the interaction among the
language classroom participants. According to Walsh, (2011.p.17), one of the most
important features of all classroom discourse is that it follows a fairly typical and
predictable structure, comparising three part : a teacher Initiation, Student Response,
and a teacher feedback. Commonly known as IRF, or IRE ( initiation, Response,

Evaluation). IRF: IRF may have a traditional pattern of discourse, when the teacher
asks a question, the student answers and the teacher evaluates. The teacher continues to
ask another question and so the sequence continues. «In this typical three-part structure,
the teacher initiates a question in order to check a student’s knowledge, a student’s
responses, and the student’s response is evaluated with feedback from the teacher. The
students’ answers are usually brief and students are concerned about giving correct.
Then IRE (Initiation, Response, and Evaluation) is preferred by some writer and
practitioners to reflect the fact that, most of the time, teacher feedback is an Evaluation
of a student contribution. The teacher is constantly assessing the correctness of an
utterance and giving feedback to learner. The IRF exchange structure has had a huge
impact on our understandings of the ways in which teacher and learners communicate. It
also have led to many advances in the field. The IRF interaction pattern it is the
minimum kind of interaction that takes place in the classroom. Most of the time, this
pattern consists of a question initiated by teacher, a responses given by student and
feedback. There are some types of feedback: the first, evaluative feedback (Positive)
(indicate that the learner’s response is acceptable. Evaluates and comment). The second
is Evaluative feedback (negative) immediate oral feedback which at mistake correction,
elicitation, and clue. The third is Repetition feedback, repeating what the student said,
and the last is interactive feedback, a strategy to expand or modify students’ answer.

Method
In this research, the researcher discusses about teacher and students interactional pattern
using discourse analysis. It is taken from grade XI of SMA Kolese De Britto
Yogyakarta. Here the researcher uses qualitative descriptive method. Descriptive

qualitative is aimed to know the type of teacher talk and students talk in English
language classroom of grade XI SMA De Britto Yogyakarta. The data of this research
are collected by recroding the classroom interaction and observing the natural setting
classroom. The data are then analysed using disourse analysis to know the type of
teacher talk in the classroom. In describing the analysis, the researcher use qualitative
descriptive method. The writer also applied Discourse Analysis (DA) model to do the
research. The discourse analysis was adopted as the methodology to analyze the
collected research data on classroom interaction between teacher and student subjects.
the discourse analysis is applied because the source the data was in form of video
record. It means that the data was spoken classroom discourse. The participant of the
research were the teacher and students of SMA Kolese De Britto who were in
Language Class Grade XI. There were 26 students in the classroom. The research study
was conducted in the second semester of the academic year of 2016/2017.

Result

Some findings are gotten from the observation in the classroom and the transcript of
English class in SMA Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta. here are the findings:
1. The pattern performed by the teacher and the students in SMA Kolese De
Britto Yogyakarta.
1) Interactional Pattern Teacher and Student by IRF
Table 2. the pattern of IRF on Data 1.

13.

T

14.

S

15.

T

what is that? So it is

contradiction, cotrari .. what
is the contrary here?
kebalikan dari kenyataan
yes, Okay . so the first
regulation on the result,

I

Teacher asked the
previous student

R

Student answer the
question s
Teacher tried to
remember the rule of
subject

F

the teacher initiate by a question and the student responded with the
answer and feedback came after student response, finishing by the
teacher with compheresion statement.

2) Interactional Pattern Teacher and student by IIRF
Table 3. the Pattern of IIRF on Data 1
46 T okay .. “Virza trained
I The teacher read an
hard for a years, he was in
infomation about the
top 10 indonesian idol “
exercise
47 T each of you try, how you
I The teacher tried to
change this and how you
stimulate the exercise .
to express the wish using
and asked some student
if clause. Mikha you

ready .?
48 T so, the first thing here ,
I Teacher continued to
that you have to pay
explained the
attention is that whether ,
information about the
you knooww ... this real
subject
fact happened in the
present and in past..
49 S Past ..
R Some student gave the
opinion
50 T okay ,, it is in past.. if it is
F Teacher gave response
in past thats means.. the
based on the opinion of
conditional will be accept
student ,

to the past ....
In this pattern the teacher had a lot of initiate (I) to get the respon by
students , during the teacher explained the researcher had the assumption
that students confused with the explanation. in data 1, before the teacher
offer "Mikha" as a student was ready to do the exercise, the teacher read
exercise , then the teacher tries to remind the students not to forget the
basic of the conditional sentence “in past”, the students respond (R) to
the teacher that the pattern the question of conditional sentence happend
in “PAST” conditional. The Feedback (F) by teacher about the answer
of the students was "Okay" which is means the correct answer, but the
feedback (F) was emphasizing in appropriate of conditional sentence
"past tense."

3) Interctional Pattern Teacher and Student by IRRF
Table 5. the pattern of I-R-R-F on Data 1
21.
T .... if the real past happen in the
I
past that mean ..the conditional
will be in ......
22.
S
past
R
23.

Ss

Past perfect

R

24.

T

Yes, Pas Perfect

F

Teacher tried to
stimulate the
subject of topic
Student gave the
opinion
Some student
complete opinion
Teacher repeat
the utterance of
student opinion

The teacher gave a stimulate or instruction to the student while used of
feedback are waiting one, two or more of the student answered the
initiate of teacher then the teacher gave the feedback. This pattern occurs
when the teachers initiate (I) the question to open more interactions
between student-student respond (R). The teacher initiates (I) with the
question of clue so that students who are passive with a conversation can
provide their Response (R) . After hearing all the responses from the
students then the teacher gives Feedback (F) by the student right answer
or respond. The researcher assume that this pattern was a good way.
4) Interctional Pattern Teacher and Student by IRFRF
The third variation was IRFRF, here the example below :
Table 8. the Pattern of IRFRF on Data 2
T Now why we have little
46
I The teacher asked the
match girl in happy prince
student why the topic
and why should we have
“the litle match girl”
little match girl in?
S The same era..
47
R The student answered
the teacher
T Good
48
F The teacher agree with
the student answered
S the same adaptater
48
R Some student add the
answered
T Actually it same era ok!
50
F Teacher gave a
correction about the
answered
In this variation the (I) initiate from teacher was a treatment to get the
student reponses so the next section, teacher will give the feedback and

received the response from the teacher. In this variation teacher should
have a good change to follow up the response from student. The
variation was found in all the data. This pattern of teachers initiate
initiation so that students remain consistent with the understanding of the
explanations and materials that have been conveyed, the response of the
students given to the initiation just answering questions then the teacher
tried more deeply with feedback from students' answers by appreciating
the answers and explaining further about answers from students and
teachers still trying to ask questions in the context of feedback from
students' answers by trying students to reinforce student answers whether
they believe in the completeness of combining both teacher responses
and teacher feedback. Once the student is confident and understands the
teacher's answers and explanations, the teacher tries to provide additional
feedback with emphasis on material clarification as the closing of the
conversation patterns between teachers and students.
1. The type of interactional features performed by the teacher at SMA
Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta.
The researcher analyzed 2 (two) transcription. The analysis information
about the interaction features which used by the teacher during the lesson.
The writer classified the teacher utterance to find out the classroom
interaction strategy in teaching and learning English. The researcher presents
the interaction features in form of tables below:
Table 36. Total Teacher Interactional Feature
NO

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

TYPE OF TEACHER
INTERACTIONAL
FEATURES
Scaffolding
Direct Repair
Content Feedback
Extended Wait-time
Referential Question
Display Question

DESCRIPTION OF TEACHER
INTERACTIONAL FEATURE
DATA I
DATA II
Conditional
Narrative Text
Sentence
“Little Match Girl”
3
4
10
5
16
14
10
17
3
51
44

7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

Seeking Clarification
Confirmation Checks
Extended Learner’s Turn
Teacher Echo
Teacher Interruptions
Extended Teacher Turn
Turn Completion
For-Focused Feedback
Comment
Informative
Directive

8
30
11
2
35
27
8
27
15
10

11
4
11
1
21
6
6
17
2

2. The impact of teacher and student interaction in teaching and learning
process at SMA Kolese De Britto Yogyakarta.
Students can understand each explanation by the teacher in because the
teacher becomes the main actor in every interaction The explanation given
by the teacher through the use of fulll english language becomes the trigger
of the students trying to listen to every teacher's utterance. The used of
feedback (F) showed by teacher are mostly Interactive Feedback and
Evaluate Feedback. The “interactive feedback” by teacher was a good way to
initiate the student response about the instruction or material. The
“interactive feedback” was a good way to give the student more space to
think what the material will be. Furthermore, the “Evaluation Feedback” was
good way to accept and comment what the student said. Unfortunately, her
students were passive in order to response or feedback. the pressure to give
the right answer and the fear of making mistakes and being laughed at by
their peers. The teacher was serious but approachable, strict but caring. We
could see students respected and enjoyed her lessons. In both groups she
started by checking homework and reviewing what had been said on the
previous class, but she used different words to do it. The teacher adapted her
body language, her tone and intonation, the vocabulary, but, still, she kept
the same classroom interaction patterns and managed to have students active
and attentive until the end of the class. Moreover, not only she taught them
content but also manners and study techniques.. From all that, I learned that

teaching could be defined as a matter of adaptation and routine. In other
words, teachers have to adapt their voice, body language, vocabulary,
contents and rhythm to the group class they are working with. But at the
same time, students should adapt themselves to each teacher’s standards,
rules and methodology.
Conclusion
All the analysis of the study related to the problems that have been discussed in the
previous chapters. This chapter presents conclusion and suggestion of the analysis This
study attempts to examine and analyze the classroom interaction at SMA KOLESE DE
BRITTO Yogyakarta. The teachers question was her strategy to interact with her
students. The teacher used full English language to interact but the student did not find
the difficult to understand the material There were found I- R- F , I- I- R- F, I- R- F- RF and , I- R- R- F, as a interactional pattern performed in classroom interction. The
highest interactional feature used by teacher were Display question, seeking
clarification, confirmation checks, Extended Teacher Turn and feature as a dominant to
ask and give the student treatment on developing the student knowledge and more
information

References

Brown, G and Yule, G. 1999. Teaching Spoken Language: An Approach based on the
analysis of conversational English, Cambridge: Cambridge university press.
Celce-Murcia, M,.&Olshtain, E. (2000)."Discourse and context in language teaching."
New York: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. (1992). "Discourse analysis for language teachers."New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Nunan, David. 1993. Introducing Discourse Analysis. UK: England. Penguin Group.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Riggenbach, H. (1999). "Discourse analysis in the language classroom: Volume 1.
Walsh, Steve. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse; Language in Action. New York:
Routledge Taylor and Francis Group