Adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.

i ABSTRACT

Rosmayasinta Makasau (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. English Language Studies. Sanata Dharma University.

This study focused on the adjacency pairs in teacher-students interactions in an English Day Program. The aims of this study are to find out the language functions and the types of adjacency pairs which dominantly occured in teacher-students interaction in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada elementary school. The research addressed a research question: What types of adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interaction in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta?

The study was conducted at Mutiara Persada Elementary school Yogyakarta. Unlike most other elementary schools in Indonesia, this school has an English Day Program on Saturdays. During the program, all students and teachers are required to speak English in all occassions. The participants in this research were the 23 students of grade IV – Pegasus which consisted of 10 girls and 13 boys and a non-native English teacher (a homeroom teacher who conducted English Day program). In order to investigate the kinds of interactions that occurred in teacher-student interaction, a discourse study was applied in this research where texts are the sources of the data. The data were collected by observing and recording the teacher-students interactions which occurred both in indoors and outdoors activities of English Day program in four 50-minutes sessions.

The analysis results show that the greatest amount of teacher talk in indoor and outdoor category is primarily due to an emphasis on giving information and giving instructions. In contrast, student talk in indoor and outdoor categories are largely in the functions of responding physicallyand acknowledging.

The findings revealed that the types of adjacency pairs found in teacher-student interactions in indoor outdoor category include, among others, giving information /acknowledging, giving instruction/ acknowledging, question/ answer, inviting/ accepting, asking for attention/ showing attention, greeting/ greeting, expressing opinion/ acknowledging, assessment/ acknowledging, assessment/ disagreement, apology/ acceptance, congratulating/ thanks, and summons/ acknowledgement. There are more than 10 types of adjacency pairs found in the current study compared with the 6 types found by the previous researchers. Those types of adjacency pairs will enrich teacher’s strategies in provoking interactions with students in order to foster learning.

ii ABSTRAK

Rosmayasinta Makasau (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. English Language Studies. Sanata Dharma University.

Penelitian ini difokuskan pada adjacency pairs yang terkandung dalam interaksi guru dan siswa dalam program English Day. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menginvestigasi ragam bahasa dan jenis-jenis adjacency pairs yang dominan ditemukan dalam interaksi guru dan siswa dalam program English Day. Permasalahan yang timbul dirumuskan sebagai berikut “Jenis adjacency pairs apa yang dominan ditemukan dalam interaksi guru dan siswa pada program English Day di sekolah dasar Mutiara Persada Yogyakarta?”

Penelitian ini dilaksanakan di SD Mutiara Persada Yogyakarta. Sekolah ini berbeda dengan sekolah-sekolah dasar lain yang ada di Indonesia karena sekolah ini menerapkan program English Day pada setiap hari Sabtu. Dalam program ini, semua siswa dan guru diwajibkan untuk menggunakan bahasa Inggris dalam bentuk komunikasi verbal. Partisipan penelitian ini adalah 23 murid kelas IV-Pegasus yang terdiri dari 10 perempuan dan 13 laki-laki dan seorang guru (guru wali kelas yang menerapkan program English Day). Untuk menginvestigasi ragam bahasa dan jenis-jenis adjacency pairs yang muncul dalam interaksi guru dan murid, maka discourse study diterapkan dalam penelitian ini dimana teks adalah sumber datanya. Data diambil dengan cara mengobservasi dan merekam segala jenis interaksi guru dan siswa yang muncul baik verbal maupun non-verbal dalam kegiatan English Day indoor maupun outdoor selama 4 kali 50 menit.

Berbeda dengan peneliti sebelumnya, hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa dalam interaksi guru dan siswa ada lebih dari 6 jenis adjacency pairs yang ditemukan. Walaupun guru lebih banyak menghabiskan waktu pembelajaran dengan memberi informasi dan memberi instruksi. Sementara siswa lebih cenderung memberi respon non-verbal dan menerima atau meng-iya-kan ucapan gurunya. Jenis adjacency pairs yang ditemukan adalah: giving information/ acknowledging, giving instruction/ acknowledging, question/ answer, inviting/ accepting, asking for attention/ showing attention, greeting/ greeting, expressing opinion/ acknowledging, assessment/ acknowledging, assessment/ disagreement, apology/ acceptance, congratulating/ thanks, dan summons/ acknowledgement. Perbedaan temuan ini dipengaruhi oleh konteks lokal siswa, dimana siswa yang mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa asing akan sangat kaya dengan jenis-jenis adjacency pairs dalam berinteraksi dengan gurunya dibandingkan dengan siswa yang mempelajari bahasa Inggris sebagai bahasa ibu. Dalam hal ini, jenis-jenis adjacency pairs yang ditemukan akan memperkaya strategi guru dalam memprovokasi interaksi dengan siswanya dan hal ini akan membantu dalam proses pembelajaran.

A T R A K A Y G O Y L O O H C S Y R A T N E M E L E A D A S R E P A R A I T U M T A M A R G O R P s a d e t n e s e r

P Par ita lFul ifllmen toft heRequirements fort heDegreeo fMagiste rHumaniora(M.Hum. )

s e i d u t S e g a u g n a L h si l g n E n i y b u a s a k a M a t n is a y a m s o R 5 5 0 2 3 3 6 3 1 : r e b m u N t n e d u t S s e i d u t S e g a u g n a L h si l g n E f o m a r g o r P e t a u d a r G e h T y ti s r e v i n U a m r a h D a t a n a S 5 1 0 2

ii i

E

G

A

P

N

O

I

T

A

C

I

D

E

D

S K R O W N A

M – MANWORKS ,BUT S

Y A R P N A

i v S T N E M E G D E L W O N K C A s u s e J , d o G y t h g i m l A o t e d u ti t a r g t s e p e e d y m s s e r p x e o t e k il d l u o w I l l a f o t s ri F y m e u n it n o c o t y ti n u tr o p p o n a e m n e v i g d n a , d e p l e h , d e d i u g s a h o h w , ts ir h C a t a n a S ) S L E ( s e i d u t S e g a u g n a L h si l g n E n i m a r g o r p e t a u d a r g e h t t a n o it a c u d e h h ti W . y ti s r e v i n U a m r a h

D i sbles isng da n love , Icould ifnsiht hsit hessi . d

n o c e

S ly , Iwould ilket oexpres smydeepes tgrattiudet omywsieadvsior , ,. D . h P , . c S . M , o tr a k u M . X F . s r

D fo r hi s paiten t guidance and consrtucitve o sl a I . g n it ir w s is e h t y m f o s s e c o r p e h t g n ir u d k c a b d e e

f thank him f o rhi se ffo tr ,

t o l a t o g I . y ti s r e v i n U a m r a h D a t a n a S n i y d u ts y m g n ir u d e c n a d i u g d n a , st r o p p u s f

o in isghstandknowledge rfomhsil ectures . d

ri h

T ly , Iwould ilke t o acknowledge t he suppor tand as is tsance o fDr .J . k

o m si

B o ,Dr .B.B. Dwjiatmoko .M.A,. Dra .Novtia Dewi ,M.S. ,M.A .(Hons). , o m o R d n a . D . h

P Muitara Andalas, who had faclitiated me wtih conducive g n i n r a e

l envrionmentatt heELS SanataDharmaUniverstiy. k n a h t o t e k il d l u o w I , h tr u o

F the p irnciple o fMuitara Persada Elementary . r M , a tr a k a y g o Y l o o h c

S Suwarsana, M.Pd .fo rhi sgood cooperaiton and fo r o d o t e m g n i w o ll

a researchint hsis chool .Myt hankaslogoest oal l tsudent sofI V P

) r u o

f( egasu sclas sas t he paritcipanst i n t hi sresearch ,and Mr .Ruma ,S.Pd ,a s o

h e h

t meroomt eacher,whoreallywelcomedmei nhi sclas .s o t e d u ti t a r g t s e p e e d y m s s e r p x e o t e k il d l u o w

I the big famliy o fSekolah

e k u a r e M s u b o k a Y . t S k il o t a K i g g n i

T . IaslothankRm .Donatu sWea ,Pr .LicI.u .r , , e k u a r e M s u b o k a Y . t S K T S f o d a e h e h

t Drs .Xaveiru sWonmut ,M.Hum.( the , )r o si v d a m u ll u c ir r u c d n a c i m e d a c

ii v . n o it u ti ts n i K T

S Thankyouf ors upporitngmementallyand ifnanciallydu irngmy . y ti s r e v i n U a m r a h D a t a n a S t a y d u ts k n a h

T s t o al lmy f irend stha t Icould no tmeniton t hei rname sone by one o

h

w havededicatedt hemselvesi nSTKS.tYakobu sMerauket os erveou r tsudent s r

o

f abetterl fie .

r e b m e m e h t ll a o t s k n a h t ts e p e e d y

M s o fmy famliy ,my beloved mothe r e l O a s o

R L pe , ja my beloved husband Aflonsus No Embu, ym lovely daughte r a

l o i

F and al lmy isbilngs . Iwould ilke to thank them fo rthei rprayer ,suppo tr , . e v o l d n a , t n e m e g a r u o c n

e I l ove you all and am rtuly fo trunate t o have you and r

u o

y wsidom inmyl fie .

a t n is a y a m s o

ii i v S T N E T N O C F O E L B A T T I

T LEPAGE ... ... i .. T E E H S L A V O R P P

A ... ...ii S

E H

T ISDEFENSEAPPROVALPAGE ...i.ii v i. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. E G A P N O I T A C I D E D I R O F O T N E M E T A T

S GINALITY ... ...v N A A T A Y N R E P R A B M E

L ...vi E M E G D E L W O N K C

A NTS . ...vii O C F O E L B A

T NTENTS . ...viii R

T S B

A ACT . ... ix .. K A R T S B

A ...x .. S N O I T A I V E R B B A F O T S I

L ...xi

N O I T C U D O R T N I I R E T P A H

C ..........................................................................1

.

A Background ... ...1 .

B ProblemI denit ifcaiton ...7 .

C ProblemLim tiaiton ...8 .

D ResearchQuesiton . ...9 .

E ResearchGoals ... ...9 .

F ResearchBene ifst ...10

I I R E T P A H

C LITERATUREREVIEW...........................................................12

.

A Theoreitca lReview ... 2..1 .

1 Teacher-StudentI nteraciton. ...1 2 .

a De ifniiton so fTeacher-StudentI nteraciton...12 .

b Interacitoni nEFLClassroom...1 3 .

c TheRoleo fTeacher-StudentI nteracitoni nEFLClassroom... 8 1 .

2 AdjacencyParisi nTeacher-StudentI nteraciton s ...18 .

a De ifniiton so fAdjacencyPari .s...18 .

b TheRoleandFunciton so fAPsi nTeacher- dStu entI nteraciton...2 2 .

xi .

d Theoreitca lBa is so fAP sandTeacher-StudentI nteraciton... 42 .

3 ElementarySchoo lStudenst. ...29 .

a De ifniiton so fElementarySchoo lStudent .s...29 .

b Charactersiitc so fElementarySchoo lStudenst...3 0 .

4 MuitaraPersadaElementarySchoo lYogyaka tra... 31 .

a TheProflie... ...31 .

b TheCurirculum... ...32 .

c TheEngl sihDayProgram...33 .

B Theoreitca lFramework...36

I I R E T P A H

C I RESEARCHMETHODOLOGY.............................................39

.

A ResearchMethod...39 .

B Natureo fData...39 .

C DataSources...4 0 .

1 ResearchParitcipanst... 40 .

2 ResearchSetitng...41 .

D ResearchI nsrtumen.t...41 .

E DataColleciton...41 .

F ResearchProcedure .s... 3 ..4 .

G DataAnaly is .s...44 .

H Tru tsworhines .s...48

S S U C S I D D N A T L U S E R V I R E T P A H

C ION.................................................. 15

.

A Resutl s...5 1 .

1 TheOveral lProflieo fAdjacencyParisi nI ndoo randOutdoor...5 1 .

2 Type so fAdjacencyParisi nIniitaitonStage...55 .

a IniitaitonStagei nI ndoo rCategory...55 .

b IniitaitonStagei nOutdoo rCategory...5 7 .

3 Type so fAdjacencyParisi nResponseStage...5 8 .

a ResponseStagei nI ndoo rCategory...58 .

b ResponseStagei nOutdoo rCategory...60 .

x .

a FollowUpStagei nI ndoo rCategory... 3 6 .

b FollowUpStageinOutdoo rCategory...64 .

5 Type so fAdjacencyParisi nI ndoo randOutdoo rCategory...65 .

a AdjacencyParisi nI ndoo rCategory...66 .

b AdjacencyPari sinOutdoo rCategory... 7 6 .

c TheDi ts irbuitonPattern so fAdjacencyParis...68 .

B Dsicus ison. ... 07

N O I S S U C S I D D N A N O I S U L C N O C V R E T P A H

C .................................8 0

.

A Conclu isons... 80 .

B Recommendaitons...82 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Y H P A R G O I L B I

B ...84 S E C I D N E P P A : 1 x i d n e p p

A Lette ro fStatemen.t...87 x i d n e p p

A 2: Theoverallr esutl sofi ndoo rcategory...88 x i d n e p p

A 3 :Theoverallr esutl so foutdoo rcategory...89 x i d n e p p

A 4: Comparsionofteacherand tsudentt a lkini ndoo randoutdoo r

acitviites... .91 .... x i d n e p p

A 5 :Comparsiono feachi nteracitonals equencei nt eache r t n e d u ts d n

a t ka il ndoo randOutdoo rcategory... ... ... ... . .. .... 91 x i d n e p p

A 6 :Picture sofI V-Pegasu sGraders... 92 .. x i d n e p p

A 7 : Indoo rCategory– 1tsmeeitng: Game swtihDicitonary.. ... .. .... . 9.. 4 x i d n e p p

A 8 : Indoo rcategory– 2nd_{meeitng :SpelilngBees Game. .............. 41 1} x i d n e p p

A 9 :Outdoo rCategory – 3rd_{meeitng :}

tA Pe jruanganMuseum-Yogyaka tra... 61 3 x i d n e p p

A 1 :O0 utdoo rcategory–4th_meeitng:

ix S

N O I T A I V E R B B A F O T S I L

P

A s :AdjacencyParis L

F

E :Englsiha saForeignLanguage L

S

E :Englsiha saSecondLanguage T

T :Teache rTalk T

S :Studen tTalk P

D

E :EnglsihDayProgram L

F :ForeignLanguage L

S :SecondLanguage 1

ii x T C A R T S B A a t n is a y a m s o

R Makasau (2015) .Adjacency Pair sin Teacher-Studen tInteraciton a r a it u M t a m a r g o r P y a D h s il g n E n

i Persada Elementary Schoo lYogyakarta . .s e i d u t S e g a u g n a L h si l g n

E Sanata DharmaUniverstiy. r e h c a e t n i s ri a p y c n e c a j d a e h t n o d e s u c o f y d u ts s i h

T - tsudensti nteracitonsi n

. m a r g o r P y a D h si l g n E n

a The aim so fthi s tsudy are to ifnd ou tthe language h t d n a s n o it c n u

f e type sof adjacencypari swhich dominanltyoccure d in t eacher -t

n e d u

ts s interaciton in the Englsih Day program a tMuitara Persada elementary t a h W : n o it s e u q h c r a e s e r a d e s s e r d d a h c r a e s e r e h T . l o o h c

s types fo adjacencypari s

r e h c a e t n i r u c c o y lt n a n i m o

d - tsuden tinteraciton in the Englsih Day program a t a

r a it u

M PersadaElementarySchoo lYogyaka tra? e

h

T tsudy wa s conducted a t Muitara Persada Elementary schoo l e k il n U . a tr a k a y g o

Y mos tothe relementary schoo sl in Indone isa, t hi sschoo lha s m a r g o r P y a D h si l g n E n

a o n Saturdays .Du irng the program ,al l tsudent sand . s n o is s a c c o l l a n i h si l g n E k a e p s o t d e ri u q e r e r a s r e h c a e

t The paritcipanst i n t hi s

e h t e r e w h c r a e s e

r 23 tsudent so fgrade IV – Pegasu swhich con is tsed o f10 gi lr s s y o b 3 1 d n

a and a non-naitve Englsih teache r (a homeroom teache r who . ) m a r g o r p y a D h si l g n E d e t c u d n o

c In ordert oi nvesitgate t hekind sofi nteracitons t

a h

t occurr edin t eacher- tsudent i nteraciton ,a dsicourse tsudy wa sappiled i nt hi s e r e w a t a d e h T . a t a d e h t f o s e c r u o s e h t e r a s t x e t e r e h w h c r a e s e

r collected by

e h t g n i d r o c e r d n a g n i v r e s b

o teacher- tsudent sinteraciton swhichoccurred both in 0 5 r u o f n i m a r g o r p y a D h si l g n E f o s e it i v it c a s r o o d t u o d n a s r o o d n

i -minute s

. s n o is s e s t a e r g e h t t a h t w o h s s tl u s e r si s y l a n a e h

T e ts amoun toft eacher t alki n i ndoo r n o s is a h p m e n a o t e u d y li r a m ir p s i y r o g e t a c r o o d t u o d n

a giving i nformaiton and

s n o it c u r t s n i g n i v i

g .In conrta ts, tsudent t alk i n i ndoo rand outdoo rcatego ire sare f o s n o it c n u f e h t n i y l e g r a

l responding physicallya nd acknowledging .

r e h c a e t n i d n u o f s ri a p y c n e c a j d a f o s e p y t e h t t a h t d e l a e v e r s g n i d n if e h T , s r e h t o g n o m a , e d u l c n i y r o g e t a c r o o d t u o r o o d n i n i s n o it c a r e t n i t n e d u

ts giving

n o it a m r o f n

i /acknowledging , giving insrtuciton/ acknowledging , quesiton/ / g n it i v n i , r e w s n

a accepitng , asking fo r atteniton/ showing atteniton ,greeitng/ / n o i n i p o g n is s e r p x e , g n it e e r

g acknowledging , assessmen/t acknowledging , /t n e m s s e s s

a dsiagreement , apology/ acceptance , congratulaitng/ thanks , and /s n o m m u

s acknowledgement .There are more than 10 type so fadjacency pari s s u o i v e r p e h t y b d n u o f s e p y t 6 e h t h ti w d e r a p m o c y d u ts t n e rr u c e h t n i d n u o f . s r e h c r a e s e

r Those types o fadjacency pari swli len irch teacher’ ssrtategies in g n i k o v o r

ii ix K A R T S B A a t n is a y a m s o

R Makasau (2015) .Adjacency Pair sin Teacher-Studen tInteraciton a r a it u M t a m a r g o r P y a D h s il g n E n

i Persada Elementary Schoo lYogyakarta. h

si l g n

E Language Studie .sSanata DharmaUniverstiy. g n a y s ri a p y c n e c a j d a a d a p n a k s u k o fi d i n i n a it il e n e

P terkandung dalam

n a u j u tr e b i n i n a it il e n e P . y a D h si l g n E m a r g o r p m a l a d a w si s n a d u r u g i s k a r e t n i si n e j n a d a s a h a b m a g a r i s a g it s e v n i g n e m k u t n

u -jeni s adjacency pari s yang

. y a D h si l g n E m a r g o r p m a l a d a w si s n a d u r u g i s k a r e t n i m a l a d n a k u m e ti d n a n i m o d y n a h a l a s a m r e

P ang itmbu ldriumuskan sebaga ibe irku t“Jeni sadjacency pair s m a r g o r p a d a p a w s i s n a d u r u g i s k a r e t n i m a l a d n a k u m e ti d n a n i m o d g n a y a p a y a D h s il g n

E dis ekolah dasa rMuitara Persada Yogyakarta?” tr a k a y g o Y a d a s r e P a r a it u M D S i d n a k a n a s k a li d i n i n a it il e n e

P a .Sekolahi n i

h a l o k e s n a g n e d a d e b r e

b -sekolah dasar l ain yang ada d iIndone isakarena sekolah , i n i m a r g o r p m a l a D . u t b a S i r a h p a it e s a d a p y a D h si l g n E m a r g o r p n a k p a r e n e m i n i a w si s a u m e

s d an guru diwaijbkan untuk menggunakan bahasa Ingg ir sdalam . l a b r e v i s a k i n u m o k k u t n e

b Parit ispan peneilitan in iadalah 23 mu ird kela sIV -i k a l 3 1 n a d n a u p m e r e p 0 1 i r a d i ri d r e t g n a y s u s a g e

P -lak idan seorang guru (guru

D h si l g n E m a r g o r p n a k p a r e n e m g n a y s a l e k i l a

w ay) .Untukmenginvesitga isr agam si n e j n a d a s a h a

b -jeni sadjacency pari syang muncu ldalam interaks iguru dan h a l a d a s k e t a n a m i d i n i n a it il e n e p m a l a d n a k p a r e ti d y d u t s e s r u o c si d a k a m , d ir u m s m a k e r e m n a d i s a v r e s b o g n e m a r a c n a g n e d l i b m a i d a t a D . a y n a t a d r e b m u

s egala

n o n n u p u a m l a b r e v k i a b l u c n u m g n a y a w si s n a d u r u g i s k a r e t n i si n e

j -verba ldalam

. ti n e m 0 5 il a k 4 a m a l e s r o o d t u o n u p u a m r o o d n i y a D h si l g n E n a t a i g e k n a k k u j n u n e m i n i n a it il e n e p l is a h , a y n m u l e b e s i ti l e n e p n a g n e d a d e b r e B u r u g i s k a r e t n i m a l a d a w h a

b dan ssiwaadal ebih dar i6j eni sadjacencypari syang n a r a j a l e b m e p u t k a w n a k si b a h g n e m k a y n a b h i b e l u r u g n u p u a l a W . n a k u m e ti d h i b e l a w si s a r a t n e m e S . is k u rt s n i i r e b m e m n a d i s a m r o f n i i r e b m e m n a g n e d n o n n o p s e r i r e b m e m g n u r e d n e

c -verba ldan mene irma atau meng- yi a-kan ucapan : h a l a d a n a k u m e ti d g n a y s ri a p y c n e c a j d a s i n e J . a y n u r u

g giving informaiton/

, g n i g d e l w o n k c

a giving instruciton/ acknowledging , ques iton/ answer ,inviitng/ / n o it n e tt a r o f g n i k s a , g n it p e c c

a showing atteniton ,greeitng/ greeitng ,expressing / n o i n i p

o acknowledging ,assessmen/t acknowledging ,assessmen/t disagreement , / y g o l o p

a acceptance ,congratulaitng/ thanks ,dan summons/ acknowledgement. g n a y a w si s a n a m i d , a w si s l a k o l s k e t n o k h e l o i h u r a g n e p i d i n i n a u m e t n a a d e b r e P i a g a b e s s ir g g n I a s a h a b i r a j a l e p m e

m bahasa a isng akan sanga tkayadengan j ensi -n a g n e d n a k g n i d n a b i d a y n u r u g n a g n e d i s k a r e t n ir e b m a l a d s ri a p y c n e c a j d a s i n e j si n e j ,i n i l a h m a l a D . u b i a s a h a b i a g a b e s s ir g g n I a s a h a b i r a j a l e p m e m g n a y a w si s -t a rt s a y a k r e p m e m n a k a n a k u m e ti d g n a y s ri a p y c n e c a j d a s i n e

j eg i guru dalam

m a l a d u t n a b m e m n a k a i n i l a h n a d a y n a w si s n a g n e d i s k a r e t n i i s a k o v o r p m e m . n a r a j a l e b m e p s e s o r p

1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

This study is concerned with adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction in English Day program of elementary school. It aims to find out the various language functions and the types of adjacency pairs found in teacher-student interaction occurred in indoor and outdoor activities of English Day Program. This chapter consists of background of the study, problem identification, problem limitation, research question, research goal, research benefits, and definition of terms.

A. Background

Age and language learning have become the main consideration to achieve the goal of learning. The content, method, and approach in learning should be matched with the psychology aspect of children based on their age level. Hence, the students in elementary school level have different characteristics, abilities, and needs from the students in higher level of education. They are natural learners and very enthusiastic in learning (Cameron, 2001). They learn the target language faster than adults. In line with that, Krashen, Long and Scarcella (1979), in their research concluded that language acquirers who begin natural exposure to a second language during childhood achieve higher second-language proficiency than those beginning as adults (cited in Ellis, 2008:20).

Since, English is learnt as either second or foreign language in Indonesia, Stern (1983:400) states that “If the second language is learnt as a foreign language in a language class in a non-supportive environment, like in Indonesia, instruction (teacher talk) is likely to be the major or even the only source of target language

2

input”. In this concept, the controls of the teacher over the classroom activities are still high. Thus, students got the input of English mostly from their teacher, it makes the teacher plays a vital role in English language learning. They talk in front of the class in order to give directions, explain activities, clarify the procedures students should use on an activity, and check students‟ understanding on lessons (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). Therefore, they added, teacher is the one who become the major portion of class time.

According to Amidon and Hough (1967) teaching is more than talking, however the fact shows that the predominant instructional behavior of teacher is talk. He added, 70% of classroom instructional time is spent in talk by either the teacher or students. Thus, learning a language in the classroom is a consequence of the exposure of the learner to the linguistic environment that manifested in the interaction between the participants in that context (Mehrdadand Farahian, 2012). This exposure occurs in form of a casual conversation or dialogue, asking and answering questions, clarifying some procedures of an activity or any other forms of two ways communication which occurred among students and teachers.

The common problem faces by the EFL classroom is that an EFL teacher usually is faced with a non-interactive classroom where students are frequently unresponsive and avoid interacting with their teacher. Most of students keep quiet and do not respond to the teacher‟s questions. Where according to Watson (1980, cited in McNamara, 1994), teachers tend to focus on the book/handout, and give little opportunity for students to talk. He added, students hardly express their opinion, and are reluctant to ask questions. They just listen to the teachers‟ explanations and do instructions. In this case, students become passive and have

3

less of participation in the classroom. It is a kind of reflection for teachers that they are the one who should motivate, encourage, and able to maintain students‟ participation in teaching and learning process in the classroom.

When the teacher talks, he may present the information which becomes the target language input for students. When the students received the input from the teacher, by the time and of repetition, they will produce the target language which is called as output. Students‟ production could be triggered by enriching the classroom activities which involves students‟ participation. It is good for the teacher if they know how to design interactive activities in the classroom. When the students enjoy the activities, such games, songs, crafts, etc, they will be encouragedbeing more enthusiastic in learning. They will be encouraged to ask some questions for example to clarify the information that they really eager to know related to the activities. When the students are involved in classroom interaction, there will be more opportunities for them to talk.

Hence, interactions between the teacher and student in the classroom are very important for language learning and teaching, because it leads to language acquisition and learning (Ellis, 1998). Interaction can build positive atmosphere in the classroom because students will feel that they are as an important part in the teaching and learning process. It helps students to be able to express their feelings, ideas, opinions, or to ask questions for something they do not know about the lesson or even for clarifying. In an effort to provide two ways interaction, actually teachers unconsciously have organized turn-taking with their students. What is closely related with the turn-taking system is automatic paired utterances called adjacency pairs (Xia Yan, 2010). Adjacency pairs occurred in a sequence of

4

utterances within a predictable interactional context. Rymes (2008) says most of the teachers‟ everyday communication with students and how students response them is predictable, for example when the teacher says „Good morning!‟ Students will also answer „Good morning!‟ “Without this kind of predictability, it would be difficult to conduct class at all – or a simple conversation for that matter” (Rymes, 2008:54).

Adjacency pairs are an integral part of classroom interaction because it occurs in the structure of conversation (Xian Yan, et al. 2010). It happens when two or more people give response to one another. For example, when the teacher says how are you? the students usually answered fine, thank you! In this simple interaction, a type of adjacency pair occurred was „greeting/ greeting‟. Moreover, when a teacher invites one of astudent to come in front of the class and then the student accepts it by saying yes sir!It means that adjacency pairs type „invite/ acceptance‟ category occurred. This process of two ways interaction occurs if the teacher can maintain the flow of interaction with their students.

Therefore, classroom interaction is needed in teaching and learning process, because it contributes to the development of learning by providing target language practice opportunities (Hatch, 1978). In this study, the typical adjacency pairs are seen as an important part in teacher-student interaction. It is important to select and to decide which types of adjacency pairs that seems can trigger student‟s individual response. It is started from the teacher‟s first pair part and the expected of second pair part from students. So, the teacher here is the one who decide what kind of interaction he wants. As Walls (2002) states that teacher‟s ability to

5

control their use of language is considered to as important as their ability to select appropriate methodologies.

Betsy Rymes (2008) provides 6 (six) typical of adjacency pairs in her book entitled „Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection‟. The typical adjacency pairs she provide are greeting/ greeting, question/ answer, invitation/acceptance, assessment/ disagreement, appology/ acknowledgement, and summons/ acknowledgement. According to her, those kinds of typical adjacency pairs are usually found in classroom interactions. But then, the contexts of those types are found in the U.S. classroom settings. So, the researcher tries to conform these 6 typical adjacency pairs into different contexts of students. Considering thestudents who studying English as their first language will be different from those who studying it as their foreign language. Therefore, the students in U.S. will be different from students in Asia in the way they learn and achieve English. These differences influence the dynamic of classroom interactions. Logically, the types of adjacency pairs selected might also be different, it depends on how they interact each other. A question raised up in the researcher‟s mind, „Are those typical adjacency pairs proposed by Rymes (2008) will also be found in Indonesian classroom contexts orare therestill any other different types will be found?‟.

The focus of this study is on the adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction in English Day program in elementary school level. The English Day program is a school‟s program in which all the elements in that school (teachers, students, and other staff) should use full English in their communication consequently in any occasions during the school time. It is interesting to the

6

researcher due to some reasons: first, the position of English subject in elementary school level is still debatable. In the new curriculum of 2013, English subject is erased from the lists of elementary school curriculum. Therefore, many schools did not provide English subject for students. However, some schools stipulated English as a local content on their school‟s programs. They even stipulated English as one of the major programs to enhance students‟ English proficiency such as in English Day program. Second, even though English Day program is not a new and a rare thing in Indonesian context, not many schools apply it. Through this program, students could have more opportunities to drill and to practice their language ability by interacting with their friends and the teacher.

Unlike other school, Mutiara Persada has an English Day Program. The curriculum of this school is based on the National-Plus Curriculum. It means that the curriculum is based on the international perspective of life under the wisdom of local and national socio-cultural framework (the school‟s profile). The context of this study is in Mutiara Persada elementary schoolin Yogyakarta. The majority of the students are from Java and they use Javanese as their first language, Indonesian as their second language, and they learn English as a foreign language.

The English Day program in this school becomes the local content program which conducted in every Saturday. The program is aimed to improve students‟ English skills and become more proficient in this subject. The activities in this program are various; for example, in indoor activities they have like playing games, role play, telling stories, making handcrafts, etc. Thus, in the outdoor activities, the school used to send the students to experience the real

7

communication like visiting the museum, airport, post office, zoo, bakery shop, etc.

This program could run well since almost all the teachers in this school (especially home room teachers) are from English department alumnus. They could speak English fluently all the time during the program, and are proficient in English since some of them had joined the international teacher training. Moreover, teachers and students used to speak English not only every Saturday in English Day program, but also in their daily teaching and learning process in the classroom.

Based on the description above, there is a relation among the English Day program, teacher-student interaction, and adjacency pairs. The language that teacher and students use mostly contains with adjacency pairs. It occurs in the interactions both indoor and outdoor programs in English Day. It becomes the basic consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “Adjacency Pairs in Teacher – Student Interaction in English Day Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta”.

B.Problem Identification

Learning a language is not only to know the concept or the structure but also to know how to use the language itself. English language learning in Indonesian context is still in a non-supportive environment. The use of English is mostly in the classroom settings where the controls of teachers over the classroom activities are still high. Moreover, many scholars have pointed out that the range of discourse that the student can be exposed to in a second language classroom is quite limited, no matter how natural the teachers make it.

8

Language learning in the classroom, especially for foreign language learners, even provides not enough exposure for students. One way to overcome the limitations of the classroom is to bring the students to the point where they can begin to understand and to use the language in the real life situation. Thus, they can experience how to encounter with such situations in the real life. It is supported by Long (1996, cited in Ellis, 2008:256), „nonclass-room studies are more revealing because spontaneous conversation with no metalinguistic focus is provided‟.

Students (for beginners and for foreign language learners) who have low access to get input outside the class should be supply with more exposure of target language in the classroom (Krashen, 1982). Consequently it creates more opportunity for students and teachers to use the target language in their communication.

When there are communications between the teacher and student, interaction occurs. Teacher-student interaction is needed in language learning. It can help students to acquire the target language (Ellis, 2008). To help students acquire the target language, it is important for the teachers to understand what languages would be more efficient to be presented to the learners especially in provoking interactions in the classroom. In this study, the typical adjacency pairs are seen as an important part in teacher-student interaction. It is important to select and to decide which types of adjacency pairs that seems can trigger student‟s individual response.

9 C.Problem Limitation

In order to avoid misperception from the readers, the researcher would like to determine the study by providing problem limitation. This study is focused on the adjacency pairs in teacher-student interaction in English Day program of Mutiara Persada elementary school Yogyakarta. The aim of this study are to find out the various language functions in teacher-student interactions and to find out the types of adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interactions in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.

The U.S. adjacency pairs typology provided by Betsy Rymes (2008) will be marked as the consideration in this study. The study will conform whether the 6 (six) types of adjacency pairs in the U.S. classroom interactions provide by Rymes will exactly the same as found in Indonesian context or even more than six types will be found. The assumptions that there will be different in types or even in the total number of adjacency pair types. The differences might be influenced by the contexts of learning and the classroom dynamic. Hence, the foreign language learners will not the same as the second language learners especially in the dynamic of teacher-student interactions. The participapnts of this research were taken from a home room teacher (who conducted English Day Program) and fourth graders of Mutiara Persada Elementary school Yogyakarta.

D.Research Question

The research question of this study is “What types of adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interaction in English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta?”

10 E.Research Goals

The research goals of this study are to find out the various language functions in teacher-student interactions and to find out the typical adjacency pairs dominantly occur in teacher-student interactions in the English Day program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.

F. Research Benefits

This research will be benefits for the readers especially for teachers as the educators who are expected to be able to improve the quality of teaching and learning English in primary classroom. Theoretically, the results of this research provide scientific information and multiple advantages in teaching and learning English in primary classroom, especially in motivating teachers to provoke effective interactions with students. The effective interaction in the classroom promotes the verbal behavior of teachers and students that isrelated to the socio emotional climate of the classroom. It helps students to be more enthusiastic in learning and acquiring the target language.

This research provides the readers with the transcriptions of various language functions spoken by the teacher and students. These transcriptions can be studied by the teachers especially the English teachers of Mutiara Persada elementary school Yogyakarta, to understand what languages would be more efficient to be presented to the learners. In other words, it can be used as the reflection of classroom interactions to improve teachers‟ performance.

Types of adjacency pairs found in the results will be benefit for teachers in provoking interactions in the classroom. Teachers can be more creative in creating a situation where the students will feel comfortable and more confident in

11

interactive activities. By doing so, mutual understanding between the teacher and students can be enriched to improve academic achievement.

12 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

There are two parts in this chapter. The first part is theoretical review and the second one is theoretical framework. This study is designed to identify the typical adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions found in English Day program of Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta.

A.Theoretical Review

In this part, the researcher will present the related theory about the topic. The discussion is based on the theories of adjacency pairs and teacher-student interactions. Thus, the researcher will present the pre-understanding of the study in theoretical framework.

1. Teacher-Student Interaction

There are three sections in this part; definition of teacher-student interaction, the importance of interaction in EFL classroom, and the role of teacher-student interaction in EFL class.

a. Definitions of Teacher-Student Interaction

Classroom interaction between EFL and ESL learners and their teachers have been the most discussed topics in both classroom research and second language acquisition research (Ellis, 2008). There are many scholars with different perspectives on classroom interaction. According to Wagner (1994), interaction is reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions. Interaction occurs when these objects and events naturally influence one another. In a classroom interaction there is “Exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas between two or more people in a cooperative manner. Through the interaction

13

with the teacher, students can increase their language storage and so; improve their knowledge of language as much as possible” (Yanfen and Yuqin, 2010:76). According to Brown, (1997:212-213) “Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other“. Theories of communicative competence emphasize on the importance of interaction as human beings use language in various contexts to “negotiate” meaning, or to get an idea out of one person‟s head and into the head of another person and vice versa.

Through interaction, students can increase their language storage as they listen to or read authentic linguistic material, or even the output of their fellow students in discussions, skits, joint problem-solving tasks, or in other dialogue tasks. In interaction, students can use all they possess of the language, all they learned or casually absorbed in real life exchanges. Even at an elementary stage, they learn in this way to exploit the elasticity of language (Brown, 2007).

Interaction in the classroom occured when there is communication between the teacher and students. The exchanges of teacher talk and student talk occured in various kinds of occassions. Teacher talk influences student talk.

b. Interaction in EFL Classroom

Interaction is the fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy. “Everything that happens in the classroom happens through a process of live person – to – person interaction (Allwright, 1984:156)”. Classroom interaction is an important concept for English language teachers, because through interaction teachers provide language input for students. It is supported by Long (1996) that interaction facilitates acquisition because of the conversational and linguistic modifications

14

that occur in such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. The relationship between teacher‟s plans and the output in classroom interaction can be seen in figure 1 below:

Syllabus Input

Method Practice Opportunities

Atmosphere Receptivity

Figure 1. The relationship between plans and outcomes (from Allwright and Bailey 1991, cited in Ellis, 2008:784)

To facilitate classroom interaction, the teacher plans their lessons activities by making selections of what to teach (syllabus), how to teach (method), and how to create such classroom atmosphere that the teacher willing to be (Ellis, 2008). When the teacher acted on, their plans result in „classroom interaction‟. The interaction provides learners with opportunities to encounter input or to practice the L2. There is also a state of „receptivity‟ which defined as „an active openness‟ a willingness to encounter the language and the culture. In traditional language classroom settings, teacher is the one who becomes the major portion of class time (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). They provide learners with instruction and explain activities; clarify the procedures that the students should use on an activity and check students‟ understanding on lessons. Through the interaction, learners have opportunities to understand and use the language they comprehend.

1. Teacher Talk

Talk mediates learning because we learn in and through language (Vygotsky, 1994). Since any classroom interaction consists of „Teacher talk‟ and „Student talk‟, and because “A major portion of class time is imployed by the

Classroom interaction

15

teacher (Yanfen and Yuqin, 2010:77)”, we realize that the important role of „Teacher talk‟ has in classroom interactions.

Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to allow the various classroom processes to happen that is the language of organizing the classroom (Johnson, 1995). This includes the teacher‟s explanations, responses to questions, instructions, praises, corrections, etc. Teacher talk is defined as the kind of modifications in teacher‟s speech that can lead to a special type of discourse (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Richards and Lockhart (1996) argued that when teachers use teacher talk, they are trying to make students as easy as possible to understand; and effective teacher talk may provide essential support to facilitate both language comprehension and learner production. In other words, teacher talk contributes to the successful in learning since it provides input in target language for learners. Learners‟ production is the consequence from the input they got.

In line with this, Nunan (1991) argues that „teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the process of acquisition‟. Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instruction, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities (Cullen, 2002). It is also a kind of communication-based or interaction-based talk, because teachers use language to encourage communication between learners and themselves. Teachers adopt the target language to promote their communication with learners.

In a nut shell, teacher talk can be described as the target language used by the teacher in managing classroom activities and also as the language input to

16

develop students‟ language proficiency. Not only as the input for students but also as a bridge to stimulate students‟ language production.

Teacher talk plays a very important role in the teaching process as an interactive device. Teachers may use a lot of interactive devices such as questioning, giving directions; explain activities, or checking students‟ understanding. Considering English is learnt as either second or foreign language in Indonesia where the students have low access to English exposure, the language teacher uses in the classroom is likely to be the primary source or even the only source of English exposure. As stated in the previous chapter that “If the second language is learnt as a foreign language in a language class in a non-supportive environment, like in Indonesia, instruction (teacher talk) is likely to be the major or even the only source of target language input” Stern (1983:400). It can be sum up, teacher talk is the main element of students‟ English language input. Betsy Rymes (2008), says that words function in different contexts, it affects teachers and students more control over the classroom discourse. The interactional context affects teacher‟s language in use.

Figure 2. Rymes’ (2008) dimension of interactional context.

Teacher talk is the most important means to control the classroom; it is not only a tool to convey knowledge for students (Xiao-yan, 2006). It is important in classroom management because through language teachers know whether they are fail or success in teaching.

17 2. Student Talk

Student talk is the language produced by the learners in communication with teachers or peers. According to Johnson (1995), students talk uphold inquiry, collaborative learning, and making knowledge personally meaningful. He added, the students will lose the component of interaction if they cannot voice out their mind at school. Student talk can be as a vehicle for developing communicative practices (Hymes, 1972). Many theories, research and practice seem to conclude that, elaborated students talk in the classroom foster learning. Student production which is called student talk is used to interact with teacher and their peers or other friends in the classroom. Those interactions may lead to increasingly comprehensible input, and thus greater levels of understanding (Krashen, 1982). Student talk comprises two categories; student talk-response and student talk-

initiation. Student talk-initiation is the statement or a question asked by a student

when he or she has not been prompted to do so by the teacher. Student

talk-response is talk by students in response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or

asks student statement and when the student answers a question asked by the teacher, or when he responds verbally to the teacher‟s instruction. It is almost difficult to differenciate between student‟s response and student‟s initiation. But then, it can be distinguished from the student‟s answer whether the types of answer is a predicted by the teacher or not. When in response to a teacher‟s question the student gives an answer which is expected for that particular question, the statment is student‟s response. Conversly, when the response to teacher‟s question the student gives an answer different from the teacher‟s

18

expectation for that particular question, the statement is categorized as student‟s initiation.

c. The Role of Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Class

Since Indonesian learners learn English as either second or foreign language in the classroom, teacher talk plays an important role in their target language development. The use of target language as the means of communication in the classroom can improve students‟ language input (Nunan, 1991). In terms of acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is probably the major source of comprehensible target language input where the learner can receive and even produce the target language. Therefore, more positive commenting and encouraging languages should be employed by teachers.

2. Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interactions

There are some important points that will be discussed in this part, they are: definition of adjacency pairs, definition of teacher-student interactions, the role and the function of adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions, the significance of adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactions, and theoretical basis of adjacency pairs and teacher-student interactions.

a. Definitions of Adjacency Pairs

According to Sacks and Schegloff (1979), adjacency pair is a sequence of two utterances that follow one another. It is „adjacent‟, and has two parts first pair part and second pair part. In line with that, Rymes (2008:55) states that adjacency pair is a two part interactional sequence in which the first part (e.g., a question) produces the expectation for the second part (e.g. an answer). Adjacency pairs

19

also reflect how ordered speech is, regardless of the number of people that are in the conversation, and how this is achieved through turn-taking. Jovanovic, et al., (2006:11) also state that “Adjacency pairs are minimal dialogic units which consist of paired utterances such as question-answer or statement/ agreement”. The paired utterances are produced by different speakers. Utterances in an adjacency pair are ordered with the first part (A-part, the initiative) and the second part (B-part, the response). Overall, Wood and Kroger (2000) argued that, there are two types of possible responses to the first parts of adjacency pairs: preferred and dispreferred. Preferred responses are those that are expected or conventional; and dispreferred responses are those that are not. They added, preferred refers to the design features of utterances, not to individual dispositions (e.g. personal wishes or expectations). For example, the preferred response to a question is an answer, to an invitation an acceptance, and so on. Yet, dispreferred responses include excuses or justifications. For example, the refusal of an invitation for dinner by saying “(paused) well, it‟d be great but we already promised to have dinner with the children”. In terms of classroom discourse, these two types of possible responses might also occur in the conversation between a teacher and students. A student might express his disagreement on teacher‟s assessment. He even might refuse teacher‟s invitation to take turn to read a text.

Another definition comes from Thornburry and Slade (2006), they say that adjacency pair is composed of two turns produced by different speakers which are placed adjacently and where the second utterance is identified as related to the first. They added, adjacency pairs include such exchanges as question/ answer;

20

complaint/ denial; offer/ accept; request/ grant; compliment/ rejection; challenge/ rejection, and instruct/ receipt.

In multiparty conversations, adjacency pairs do not impose a strict adjacency requirement, since a speaker has more opportunities to insert utterances between two elements of an adjacency pair. For example, a suggestion can be followed by agreements or disagreements from multiple speakers.

Some typical adjacency pairs in English in U.S. proposed by Rymes (2008) are: Greeting/ Greeting; Question/ Answer; Invitation/ Acceptance; Assessment/ Disagreement; Apology/ Acceptance; and Summons/ Acknowledgement. Thus, according to Rymes, all of these typical adjacency pairs take place in teacher-student interactions in the classrooms day after day in predictable ways.

The figure below will lead us to the example of the adjacency pairs:

Adjacency Pairs Type Example

Greeting/Greeting Teacher : Good morning!

Students : Good morning!

Question/Answer Teacher : Is today Friday?

Students : Yes!

Invitation/Acceptance Teacher : Would you like to read next?

Students : Sure.

Assessment/Disagreement Teacher : This is beautiful short today.

Students : I thought it was creepy, actually.

Apology/Acknowledgement Student : I am sorry I‟m late.

Teacher : That‟s okay – we started late today anyway.

Summons/Acknowledgement Teacher : John? John : Yes?

21

Figure 3 above presents the examples of how adjacency pairs occur in the classroom interaction between teacher and student in U.S. context. The first part of each utterance is followed by the second part in sequences. Richards and Schmidt (1983:131) define greeting/ greeting in adjacency pairs as “closed sets, formulaic, and easily learned”. They also argue that these typical adjacency pair forms are normally found in second language classroom instruction. Adjacency pairs typically have three characteristics (Sacks and Schegloff, 1973): they consist of two utterances; the utterances are adjacent, that is the first immediately follows the second; and different speakers produce each utterance.

According to Sacks and Schegloff (1973), the basic rule of adjacency pairs operation is to give the recognizable production of a first pair part. In addition, Renkema (2004) considers adjacency pair as an important building block of conversation. She developed the sequence of the adjacency pair not only limited on the two adjacent sequences of utterances. There are also other sequences that often occur and need to be acknowledged as important as well, such as three-part sequences. The three-part structure can be seen in the example, „Can you open the door please?‟, „Sure!‟, „Thank you‟. The three-part structure is the response from the first speaker as a result of the act of the second speaker. The generosity of the second speaker is appreciated. In here, the chains of adjacency pairs occurred.

From the above definitions, it can be concluded that adjacency pair is the sequence of utterances which can be formulated by teacher to manage the students‟ response. It can help teacher to control over the classroom interaction since these sequences are automatic pairs. For example the summons from teacher

22

automatically will be response by the student he addressed. It is also important to point out that adjacency pairs are not only focus on the first and second pair part; the three parts should also be considered.

b. The Role and Function of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interaction Considering interaction as a vital aspect of communicative-based language learning, adjacency pair is one of the main aspects implied in teacher-student interaction. Adjacency pairs have an important part of the teacher-student interaction which cannot be neglected. As teachers, the language we choose, and the way we choose to understand the language used by our students, significantly shapes what kinds of people show up in our classroom (Rymes, 2008). Adjacency pairs help teacher to predict what comes next in the conversation or in the interactional context with students. To be able to control the classroom or the situational context, adjacency pairs should be established in teacher talk. Thus, Rymes (2008) states the function and the role of adjacency pairs in teacher-student interactionare as provoking questions, discussion-starters questions, and thought-provoking. Rymes (2008) provides the examples of praise statements below which do not probe for more:

Teacher: I liked your demonstration. or

You listened well today. or

Your pictures are great.

When teacher uses the statements above for giving praise to students‟ project, students might only response by saying „thank you‟ or even they just show modesty by giving shy disagreement. According to Owocki and Goodman

23

(2002:52), alternative forms of praise can change into compliments by using thought-provoking questions. The table below shows the examples:

I liked your

demonstration.

could be... what kind of practice did it take to get ready for this demonstration?

You listened well today. could be... You seemed very interested today. What caught your interest?

Your pictures are great. could be... Your pictures helped me enjoy your story. How did you think to include the little anchor?

Figure 4. The example of teacher talk with and without considering of adjacency pairs (Owocki and Goodman, 2002:52 cited in Rymes, 2008:69).

The table above provides the alternative choice for teacher about the follow up questions when giving praise for students. Whether the teacher expects students‟ further response or just to let the students acknowledge the praise by giving simple word like „thank you‟ or even just smile.

By carefully design the first pair part of adjacency pair, teachers have a great power to shape what comes next or to predict how students will participate in a classroom talk (Rymes, 2008). Teachers can provoke students to give response by creatively design the first part of adjacency pairs. It means that teacher provides and facilitates students to engage in the conversation.

c. The Significance of Adjacency Pairs in Teacher-Student Interactions

One of the primary tools driving interaction is the adjacency pair (Tsui, 1989). The concept of adjacency pairs was developed by Sacks and Schegloff (1979), they stated that this is one of the most basic forms of speech that is used to produce conversation. In other words, adjacency pairs become the basic unit of conversational interaction (Tsui, 1989:546). Much of what teacher says/ talks everyday to students and how students answer back is predictable for example, when teacher says „good morning!‟ students will reply “good morning!” or a

24

summon requires a response. Adjacency pair is a predictable interactional context in which these sequences occurred in a classroom-talk every day. Without this kind of predictability, it would be difficult to conduct class at all (Rymes, 2008:54). Since adjacency pairs consist of two or more sequences, teacher may choose the first part of the adjacency pairs to predict the students‟ response will be. Thus, this first part of the adjacency pairs could be as a trigger of students‟ response to interact. As Wood and Kroger (2000) state that, there are two types of possible responses to the first parts of adjacency pairs they are preferred and dispreferred. Preferred responses are those that are expected or conventional and dispreferred responses are those that are not.

d. Theoretical Basis of Adjacency pairs and Teacher-student interaction There are three major basis theories will be discuss in this part, they are comprehensible input, comprehensible output, and interactional hypothesis.

1. Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Input is used to refer to the language that is addressed to the L2 learner either by a native speaker or by another L2 learner. Input is defined as language which a learner hears or receives and from which he or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). The input hypothesis theory is introduced by Krashen (1982: 22); he emphasizes on the process of increasing ones‟ competence in acquiring language. In his theory, Krashen posted a question of „how do we acquire language?‟ this question leads us to the process of how acquirers acquire a language, includes a target language. We acquire language by understanding language that contains structure which beyond our current level of competence (i + 1). This is done with the help of context or extra-linguistic information (Krashen, 1982:21). Another argument

25

says, in order to maximize the exposure, L2 lesson should be taught in L2 (Miles, 2004). In terms of language learning, teacher talk is important because it is probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.

Language is not acquired in a short time. It needs a long process. Throughout this process learner become familiarized of the encounter words. What makes them familiar with words for acquisition is the frequency of their usage and the number of encounters in different forms and contexts (Nation, 1990; Schmidt, 2001). Learners should be provided with much natural input, especially extensive listening opportunities and particularly in the early stages of learning. Krashen provides the requirements for optimal input they are 1) should be comprehensible. It can be maintained that teacher talk does provide comprehensible input. 2) Interesting/ relevant. While Lado (1964) advises that the dialogue contain „useful‟ language, that it be age-appropriate and natural, most dialogues fall far short of the mark of true interest and relevance.

According to Krashen (1982), the primary function of language teaching is to supply comprehensible 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. The classroom can be benefit when it provides an important contribution and becomes the major source of comprehensible input for students. It can be argued that the class was the primary source of comprehensible input for students, considering Indonesian students learn English in a non-supportive environment.

26

Krashen argued that the value of second language classes lies not only in the grammar instruction, but in the simpler “teacher talk”, that is the comprehensible input. It can be an efficient place to achieve at least for the intermediate levels, as long as the focus of the class is on providing input for acquisition” (Krashen, 1982). Krashen claimed that simplified input and context can play a role in making input comprehensible.

2. Interaction Hypothesis

Interaction can facilitate acquisition by assisting learner‟s L2 production (Long, 1996). Long (1983) argued that much second language acquisition takes place through conversational interaction. He agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is necessary for language acquisition. However, he is more concerned with the question of how input is made comprehensible. According to him modified interaction as the necessary mechanism for this to take place. The learners‟ need is not necessarily simplification of the linguistic forms but rather an opportunity to interact with other speakers, in ways which lead them to adapt what they are saying until the learner shows signs of understandings.

The general claim of interaction hypothesis is that engaging in interpersonal oral interaction in which communication problems arise and are negotiated facilitates incidental language acquisition. Interactive input is more important than non-interactive input because it supplied learners with information relating to linguistic forms that were problematic to them. Interactional modifications may remove the need for learners to develop their linguistic competence and thus have a negative effect on acquisition. For example, modified repetitions of learner

27

utterances need not be confirmation checks; they might simply function as conversational continuants (Ellis, 2008:451).

...negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that triggers interactional adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive ways.

Internationally modified input works for acquisition when: (1) it assists learners to notice linguistic forms in the input, and (2) the forms that are noticed lie within the learner‟s processing capacity (Long, 1996). In their research results, Polio and Gass (1998) suggested that learners comprehend better when they have control over the content and form of the discourse.

3. Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

Output indicates the outcome of what the student has learned. Comprehensible output hypothesis constructs by Swain (1985) as the complement to Krashen‟s Input Hypothesis. She argued that comprehensible input alone was insufficient to ensure that learners achieved high levels of grammatical and sociolinguistic competence. Based on her research, she found that the learners fail to develop marked grammatical distinctions in French. She speculated that it might be because the learners had limited opportunity to talk in the classroom and were not „pushed‟ in the output they produced.

Swain proposed that production (especially pushed output) may encourage learners to move from semantic (top-down) to take place with little syntactic analysis of the input. Production forces learners to pay attention to the mean of expression especially if they are „pushed‟ to produce messages that are concise and socially appropriate (Swain, 1995 cited in Ellis, 2008:261). Production

28

requires learners to process syntactically; they have to pay some attention to the form of language (Swain, 1995 cited in Ellis, 2008:261).

Production has six roles: 1) It serves to generate better input through the feedback that learner‟s efforts at production elicit, 2) It forces syntactic processing (i.e. it obliges learners to pay attention to grammar), 3) It allows learners to test out hypotheses about the target language grammar, 4) It helps to automotive existing L2 knowledge, 5) It provides opportunities for learners to develop discourse skills, for example by producing „long turns‟, 6) It is important for helping learners to develop a „personal voice‟ by steering conversations onto topics they are interested in contributing to.

Swain claimed that the basic instructional pattern in class was one in which teachers talked a great deal and students got to say very little. It means that teacher needs to provide much exposure through their talk. This exposure will equip the students for their language production. On her observations, Swain formulated an alternative hypothesis of „comprehensible output‟ hypothesis. She suggests that the opportunities to produce language were important for acquisition (Swain, 1995 cited in Nunan, 2001:90). She added, „Being pushed to produce output obliges learners to test hypotheses and refine their developing knowledge of the language system‟. Learners not only need to practice the language, but also to test their hypothesis through practicing whether the language they used is appropriate in the certain context.

It has also being claimed that being pushed to produce output obliges learners to cope with their lack of language knowledge by struggling to make themselves understood, by speaking slowly for example, or repeating or clarifying

29

their ideas through rephrasing (Hedge, 2000:13). It can maximize the opportunity of students to talk. „Getting students to speak – to use the language they are learning – is a vital part of a teacher„s job‟ (Harmer, 2000:4). Thus the quality of the input to the learner was seen as a central variable in second language outcome.

Swain argued that pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output may have a long-term effect. One way in which output may promote acquisition is by priming learners to attend to linguistic features in the input.

3. Elementary School Students

The definitions and the characteristics of elementary school students will be provided in this section.

a. Definition of Elementary School Students

Elementary school in Indonesia is called Sekolah Dasar (SD). It is the basic of formal education under the responsibility of the Ministery of Education and Culture (Kementerian Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan or Kemendikbud) and the Ministry of Religious Affairs (Kementerian Agama or Kemenag). Students who are studying in this level should spend 6 years started from grade 1 up to 6 to graduate from this stage. The gradutates students from elementary schools level can continue their education to junior high school or Sekolah Menengah Pertama (SMP). Generally, elementary school students are the children who are age about 7 – 12 years old who studying in between grade 1 up to 6 in elementary level.

The education system in Indonesia required all citizens to undertake the compulsary education for nine years. It consists of 6 years in the elementary level and three years in junior high school or secondary level. Schools in Indonesia are organized either by the government (negeri) or private sectors (swasta). Thus,

169 Asking for

attention

D4.T.(Ask.Att.) Are you ready to watch the video every one???

Nooo...(chorus) Criticizing D4.S.(Crit.) Yessss...(some students) Acknowledging D4.S.(Ack.) Giving

information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) You have to, this is the last activity and I hope you can do your best. Ok?

Yes we are...(all students)

Acknowledging

D4.S.(Ack.)

Repeating D4.T.(Rep.) One more time, are you ready??

Inviting D4.T.(Inv.) Ok. I would like to please the operator to play the video.

(Watching the video) Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) The operator plays the video. Teacher and students are watching together. Giving

information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) (After playing the video for once)Ok, we will play the video for the second, this is the last chance for you to find the answer so, please do your best.

(Students paying attention to the video)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Students are watching the video for the second.

Inviting D4.T.(Inv.) Ya, let s at h. Giving

instruction

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) (after watching the video for the last chance)Ok students, keep sit down, just stay

the e. Do t go a he e,

Mr. Ruma this is my paper...(give the worksheet to teacher)

Acknowledging and responding physically

D4.S.(Shw.Att.) and

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

Students are submitting their worksheet. Giving

information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) Your teacher will go and collect your paper. Pak Ruma and Miss Sekar will go and take your paper. Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Good! Mr. Ruma...(give his

worksheet)

Asking for attention and responding physically

D4.S.(Ask.Att.) and

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ok, thank you. Mr. Ruma...please...not

yet...(some students are Showing

D4.S.(Shw.UnSts f.)

170

not ready yet to submit their worksheet)

Unsatisfaction Criticizing D4.T.(Crit.) I am so sorry, the time is

over. You should do it faster.

This is my worksheet Mr. Ruma...(give her worksheet)

Acknowledging and responding physically

D4.S.(Shw.Att.) and

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ok, thank you. Here you are...(give her paper to Mr. Ruma)

Acknowledging and responding physically

D4.S.(Shw.Att.) and

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ok, thank you.

At Miss Sekar... Giving answer

D4.S.(Giv.Ans.) Asking

referential question

D4.T.(Ask.Ref. Qst.)

Where is yours?

Acknowledg ing

D4.T.(Ack.) Ok.

(some students shake their heads)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Asking

referential question

D4.T.(Ask.Ref. Qst.)

Whose worksheet that has not been taken yet?

Confirming D4.T.(Conf.) Ok. You all have submitted your paper ya...

Yeess sir... Acknowledging D4.S.(Ack.)

Giving instruction

D4.T.(Giv.Ins.) Ya, still in your seat...sit down. Listen to me...get back to your seat so, we can start the quiz.

(calm down and get

back to their own sit) Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

Inviting D4.T.(Inv.) Ok. Let s sta t the uiz everyone....

(pay attention to teacher)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

Students are ready for the quiz. Giving

Information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) Make sure you answer the question.

Confirming D4.T.(Conf. All right, for the first...you have watch the video right?

Yeesss....(chorus) Acknowledging D4.S.(Ack.)

Display question

D4.T.(Disp.Qst .)

So, what is the name of an ingradient which looks like a

celery? Parsley...

171 Who wants to answer?

What s the a e?

Confirming D4.T.(Conf.) Parsley?

Criticizing D4.T.(Crit.) No...it s ot a pa sle . Asking

referential question

D4.T.(Ask.Ref. Qst.)

Who wants to try? Pepper...

Giving answer

D4.S.(Giv.Ans.)

Criticizing D4.T.(Crit.) No. Later you should pay more attention to the video.

Do t e ois he the

video is played.

Criticizing D4.T.(Crit.) No. It s ot peppe . Me sir... Asking for attention

D4.S.(Ask.Att.) Acknowledg

ing

D4.T.(Ack.) Ya Lui? Cilantro... Giving answer D4.S.(Giv.Ans.)

Acknowledg ing

D4.T.(Ack.) Cila t o, that s o e t. (the student is smiling) Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Congratulati

on

D4.T.(Cong.) Very good! Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) We got one winner, Lui. Whaaaouw... Showing satisfaction

D4.S.(Shw.Stsf.)

Giving information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) Next question. The second question is very easy...you can see from the title of the video. So, I will choose one of you who raise their hand quickly...

Me sir...me sir...(some students raising their hands)

Asking for attention

D4.S.(Ask.Att.) Students are competing to answer the

question by raising their hands. Display

question

D4.T.(Disp.Qst .)

Who is...or what is the name of the host?

Inviting D4.T.(Inv.) Ok. Imel Chelse Giving answer D4.S.(Giv.Ans.)

Confirming D4.T.(Conf..) Pardon me?? Chelse Giving answer D4.S.(Giv.Ans.)

172 way you pronounce ... Chelsie... say...Chelsie.

Repeating Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ya correct, Chelsie ya... congratulation Imel, you won.

Yeeee....!!! (laughs) Showing Satisfaction

D4.S.(Shw.Stsf.)

Giving information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) Next question. The last question is not related on the video but related to the

activities today. Me...me...(chorus while raising their hands)

Asking for attention

D4.S.(Ask.Att.)

Asking for attention

D4.T.(Ask.Att.) Please listen...listen...

Display question

D4.T.(Disp.Qst .)

What is the name of the person who guided you on the first floor?

Inviting D4.T.(Inv.) Ok. Cingcing first... Mr. Doni Giving answer D4.S.(Giv.Ans.) Confirming D4.T.(Conf.) Mr. Doni...

Thank you Miss... Acknowledging

D4.S.(Ack.) Congratulati

on

D4.T.(Cong.) Yes good! Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Congratulation for you Cingcing...

Giving information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) So, we have three winners already. Lui, Imel, and Cingcing...

(Students clap their hands)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

Congratulati ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Clap hands everybody...

Giving information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) Ok students...now is the time for us to announce the winner of our whole activities today. For topping pizza competition...the winner is...Naya!

Yeeee....(students shouted and clap their hands)

Showing Satisfaction

D4.S.(Shw.Stsf.)

173 Giving

information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) And the second is....Imel Rega...

Yeeee...horeee.... Showing Satisfaction

D4.S.(Shw.Stsf.) Imel...Imel....Imel...(som

e students shouted)

Encouraging D4.S.(Enc.) Giving

information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) And the last is....Farel.... Huuuuu....yeee....yes...y es...Fareeeelll...(shouted )

Congratulation D4.S.(Cong.)

Inviting

D4.T.(Inv.)

Ok. Come and get your presents here.

(The three students walk to the teacher, and the rest are clapping their hands).

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) The three students who won the competition for the whole activities, come in front to the teacher to get their presents. Giving

instruction and translating

D4.T.(Giv.Ins.) And

D4.T.(Trans.)

Ok students, please go back

to your

seat...semuanyakembali ke tempat duduk masing-masing....come on...

(students go back to their seats and preparing their things-crowded)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

After delivering the present for

students, the teacher invites all students to prepare

themselves to close the

toda s a ti it .

Giving information

D4.T.(Giv.Inf.) We are going to end our activities today. We are going to close our outdoor English Day Program today. Giving

instruction

D4.T.(Giv.Ins.)

All stude ts please do sile t laps !

Clap...clap...sttttt....stttt. ..clap....clap

...sttttttttttt...stttttttttttt ....all stude ts do sile t claps

Acknowledging and responding physically

D4.S.(Ack.) and D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.)

Inviting D4.T.(inv.) Before we go home, let us pray together...

(All the students keep silent and do praying together)

Responding physically

D4.S.(Rsp.Phy.) Teachers and all students are praying together. Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ok. Good....thank you.

Yes we are...(all Acknowledging

174 Asking for

attention

D4.T.(Ask.Att.) Are you ready to pray? together) Congratulati

ng

D4.T.(Cong.) Ok. Every one thank you...

Thank you Holland Bakery....see you next

time Holland

Bakery...(all together)

Greeting

D4.S.(Grtg.)

Giving instruction

D4.T.(Giv.Ins.) And we have to say thank you for Holland Bakery... Giving

Instruction