A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH … · 2017-12-18 · 2.1.4 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction… ... Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

A THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Magister Hummaniora (M.Hum)

in English Language Studies

by

Martha Septiningtyas

Student Number: 146332016

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016

PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI

i

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH TO

YOUNG LEARNER (TEYL) CLASSROOM USING FLANDERS’

INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM

A THESIS

Presented as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

to Obtain the Magister Humaniora (M.Hum.)Degree

in English Language Studies

by


Student Number: 146332016

THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY

YOGYAKARTA

2016


ii


iii


iv

DEDICATION PAGE

This thesis is dedicated to Jesus Christ, my family and friend who always helped me,

motivated and inspired me to do my best in order to finish my thesis. My father, Drs.

Dwi Bukapto, my mother Prihatin Ekowati, SPd, and my beloved young cute sisters

Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I love you all and truly fortune to have you in my

life.

HOPE

“There is nothing you can’t achieve with

time, attention and effort”


v


vi


vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all I would like to express my deepest thanks to Almighty God, Jesus

Christ, who has supported, helped and given me a chance to continue my education at

The Graduate Program in English Language Studies (ESL) Sanata Dharma

University. Only through his blessing and unconditional love, I could complete this

thesis.

Secondly, I would like to say my deepest thanks to my thesis advisor Dr. B.B.

Dwijatmoko, M.A. for the guidance, support and encouragement. I am really grateful

for his suggestions and advices from the beginning when I started write this study.

Many thanks are also expressed to F.X Mukarto.Ph.D., Dr. J. Bismoko and Dr.

E.Sunarto, M.Hum as my thesis reviewers for their suggestions to improve this thesis.

Furthermore, J.S.M Pudji Lestari, S.Pd. M.Hum, for her suggestion to find the topic

and school for this research to support this thesis.

Thirdly, I would like to thank the principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School, Mrs. Bernadetta Dwi Retno Aryanti, S.Psi. for her willingness to be

interviewed, reliable cooperation and for allowing me to do research in her school.

My truly thanks also addressed to all students of Kindergarten A and B as the

participants in this research. To Miss. Nining Sumarsih, S,Sos, Miss. Henny Madya

Sari, SS as the classroom teachers who really welcomed me and gave good

cooperation in her class during observation times and interview.

Fourthly, my special gratitude goes to all the members of my family in

Klampok Banjarnegara. My beloved father Drs. Dwi Bukapto, my beloved mother


viii

Prihatin Ekowati.SPd, my lovely sisters Elsa Aprilia and Merry Meilani. I would like

to thank them for never ending understanding, supporti both financial and spirit, love,

pray. All my family for their loves, sympathies and cares so I could complete this

study. Since family is a unit of people that loves and supports each other through

good times and bad times. They gave wonderful care, attention and understanding

during the difficult time in finishing my thesis. The one and only, dear my future-

husband abang Aryond Silalahi, S.T. who shared the happiness, sadness togetherness

and value advices. Thank you so much for your dedication and valuable supports.

Special thank also addressed to my sista Sari who supports both my thesis and my up

and down of my challenging life. Adit & Indra as my IT consultant, who helped me

to ensure the format. Agnes Mira, my best friend and my private counselor. I wish to

thank to my thesis reader for your willingness to read and comments on this thesis.

The last but the least, many thanks are dedicated to Marita, the one who help me to

ensure the format and grammatical mistake. Finally, I expect that this thesis would be

useful for further study and education practitioner.

May God always bless us!

Yogjakarta, August 24th

, 2016



ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE…………………………………………………………………………..i

APPROVAL SHEET……………………………………………………………….. ..ii

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

DEDICATION PAGE………………………………………………………………..iv

STATEMENT OF WORK ORIGINALITY…………………………………………v

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………… vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS……………………………………………………………. ix

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………….. xii

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………… xiii

LIST OF GRAPHS…………………………………………………………………. xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………. xv

ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………... xvi

ABSTRAK……………………………………………………………………………………xviii

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study……………………………………………………… 1

1.2. Problem Identification………………………………………………………… 5

1.3. Problem Limitations…………………………………………………………. 7

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

1.5. The Research Goals…………………………………………………………… 7

1.6. Research Benefits……………………………………………………………... 8

CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. Theoretical Review…………………………………………………………. 10

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

2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction………………………………………………. 13

2.1.3 Student Talk and Teacher Talk………………………………………… 17

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

2.1.5 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)…………………………………. 22


x

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

2.1.7 Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta…………………………….. 28

2.2 Related Studies………………………………………………………………. 29

2.3 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………….. 30

CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design……………………………………………………………... 35

3.2. Research Procedure………………………………………………………….. 36

3.3. Nature of Data……………………………………………………………….. 37

3.4. Data Sources…………………………………………………………………. 38

3.5. Research Instruments………………………………………………………… 40

3.6. Data Collection……………………………………………………………… 43

3.7. Data Analysis………………………………………………………………… 45

3.8. Trustworthiness……………………………………………………………… 49

CHAPTER IV RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1. Results……………………………………………………………………. 58

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

4.1.2 Interaction Event………………………………………………………….. 60

4.1.3 The Result of Interview…………………………………………………… 66

4.2. Discussions………………………………………………………………... 72

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

4.2.1.1 Student Participation………………………………………………….. 73

4.2.1.2 Content Cross…………………………………………………………. 85

4.2.1.3 Teacher Support………………………………………………………. 96

4.2.1.4 Teacher Control……………………………………………………… 106

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

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

4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction…………………………………………… 116

4.4 Summary……………………………………………………………………. 124


xi

CHAPTER V CONCLUSION & RECOMMENDATION

5.1. Conclusion………………………………………………………………….. 127

5.2. Recommendation…………………………………………………………… 129

BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………...…135

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

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

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

Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol……………………………………… 140

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix12: Pictures of Learning Activities ……...……………………………… 220


xii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Characteristics of Young Learners……………………………. 11

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

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

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

Table 3.2 Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis………………………… 42

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

Table 3.4 Observation Data Transcription………………………………… 46

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

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

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

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

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

Table 4.1 Classroom interaction pattern in 1st meeting..………………….. 62

Table 4.2 Classroom interaction pattern in 2nd

meeting …………………... 63

Table 4.3 Classroom interaction pattern in 3rd

meeting ……....................... 63

Table 4.4 Classroom interaction pattern in 4th

meeting …………............... 63

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

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

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

Table 4.8 Sample of interview with the school principal.......................... 68


xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

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

Figure 2.2 Matrix of Flanders Interaction.................................................... 27

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework................................................................ 32

Figure 3.1 Research Procedure...................................................................... 37

Figure 3.2 Data Analysis Tehnique.............................................................. 57


xiv

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 4.1 The Student Participantion Pattern.................................................74

Graph 4.2 The Distribution of Student Talk....................................................75

Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern...............................................................85

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

Graph 4.5 The Teacher Support Pattern...........................................................96

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

Graph 4.7 The Teacher Control Pattern......................................................... 106

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

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

Graph 4.10 Teachers’ Talk and Students’ Talk Ratio.....................................116


xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix 7 The Observation Protocol Result in 3rd

Meeting..................................164

Appendix 8 The Observation Protocol Result in 4th

Meeting...................................176

Appendix 9 The Blueprint for Interview Guideline..................................................191

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

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

Appendix 12 Pictures of Teaching Learning Activities ..........................................215


xvi

ABSTRACT

Martha Septiningtyas (2016). A Study of Interaction in Teaching English to Young

Learner (TEYL) Classroom Using Flanders’ Interaction Analysis System. The

Graduate Program in English Language Studies, Sanata Dharma University.

This study is focused on the young learner classroom interaction at Kindergarten

school level. The goals of this study are (a) to indentify the predominant interaction

patterns and (b) to discover how the interaction happened. Since, the interaction

patterns influenced the way the teacher delivers her talk and how the students produce

the target language during the interaction.

This study is the classroom-centered research. It concentrates on the classroom

interaction, in order to gain insights and increase our understanding of young learner

classroom interaction. The classroom-research was done to contribute to the second

language teaching field for young learner classroom. The study was conducted at

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta. It has a unique concept of

teaching. They have philosophy to build relationship as mother and children not as a

teacher. The point is that create “second home” for students when their mother are

working.

The participants in this research were 15 students of class A and B, a non-native

classroom teacher and the school principal of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

Yogyakarta. An interaction analysis system was applied in this research called

Flanders Interaction Analysis System. The data were collected by observing

(observational protocol) and video recording the teacher-students interaction during

teaching-learning process. The data were confirmed by doing the unstructured

interview with a classroom teacher and the school principal.

The finding of this research, teacher’s talk (49.5%) and student’s talk (47.2%)

from total utterances found. It was found that there was not so much different

percentage between teacher’s and student’s talk. It indicated that the interaction went

smoothly and active. The students were active in producing their talk and the teacher

delivered the suitable talk to stimulate students. The analysis results show that the

most predominant-pattern during the interaction was student participation. It

emphasized on the student’s responding talk and the student’s initiating talk. The

second predominant pattern was content cross, to show how often the teacher

delivered lecturing and questioning talk to the students. The third predominant

pattern was teacher support, it consisted of accept or uses student ideas, praising &

encouraging and accept feeling. Another finding was the type of teacher talk, indirect

talk became the most dominant pattern also 75%. It indicated that, the teacher gave

the freedom and applied the flexible pattern for the students to respond and initiate

their opinion. Those interaction patterns will help the classroom teacher in promoting

and increasing the quality of young learner classroom interaction.

The researcher hopes this study will give advantages for kindergarten teachers in

the way they use English to young learner classroom. The result of this study used as

recommendation and evaluation for the teacher. In addition, for the school to improve

their quality.


xvii

Finally, the young learner classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School as the model for comprehensible interaction. As the researcher found that the

interaction pattern was dominated by student participation talk. In addition, the result

of this study give guidance on how to build, prepare and manage the school

environment. Such as regulation and atmosphere to support teaching and learning

process of using English during teaching and learning process.

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Young learners, Classroom Interaction

Pattern, Classroom-Centered Research, Flanders Interaction Analysis System.


xviii

ABSTRAK

Martha Septiningtyas (2016). Analisis Interaksi Siswa dan Guru di TEYL

(Pengajaran Bahasa Inggris Siswa Usia Dini) Menggunakan Sistem analisa

ineteraksi Flanders’. Program Paska Sarjana Kajian Bahasa Inggris. Universitas

Sanata Dharma, Yogyakarta.

Penelitian ini difokuskan pada interaksi siswa usia dini pada kelas taman kanak-

kanak. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk mengetahui pola interaksi dan

bagaimana interaksi tersebut berlangsung. Antara siswa dan guru kelas yang terjadi di

kelas Taman Kanan-Kanak. Khususnya dalam proses pembelajaran bahasa Inggris,

yang bertempat di TK Ananda Mentari Yogyakarta. Berkaitan dengan hal tersebut

maka peneliti mengajukan dua pertanyaan untuk di jawab dalam penelitian ini: Pola

interaksi apa yang mendominasi dalam interaksi guru dan siswa usia dini? Bagaimana

interaksi yang terjadi di TK Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta?

Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan penelitian-kelas yang banyak

berkontribusi dalam peningkatan qualititas pembelajaran. Khususnya yang berkaitan

erat dengan penggunaan bahasa Inggris di kelas muris usia dini. Penelitian ini

diselenggarakan di TK Ananda Mentari Yogjakarta. Sekolah ini memiliki konsep

pembelajaran yang berbeda dari sekolah pada umumnya. Sekolah ini menerapkan

philosofi mengenai hubungan yang erat antara ibu dan anak. Latar belakang yang

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

bekerja. Bahasa Inggris merupakan bahasa pengantar utama yang di gunakan dalam

komunikasi. Semua guru dan siswa di wajibkan untuk berbicara dalam bahasa Inggris

pada semua aktifitas di sekolah.

Partisipan penelitian adalah 15 orang siswa dari kelas A dan B, seorang guru

Taman kanak- kanak dan kepala sekolah dari Ananda Mentari yang sekaligus sebagai

pendiri sekolah. Dalam rangka mengetahui pola interaksi yang terjadi antara siswa

dan guru. Sebuah system analisis di aplikasikan dalam penelitian ini yang disebut:

Flanders Interaction Analysis System. Data penelitian di peroleh dari pengamatan di

kelas dan rekaman video interaksi guru dan siswa saat proses belajar mengajar.

Pengamatan di kelas di lakukan empat kali selama 50 menit di setiap pertemuan. Data

di dukung dengan hasil wawancara dengan guru pengampu kelas dan kepala sekolah

yang sekaligus pendiri sekolah.

Data mengindikasikan bahwa siswa sangat aktif dalam berpartisipasi sepanjang

proses pembelajaran di kelas. Data kuantitatif menunjukan 49.5% adalah teacher talk

dan 47.2% adalah student talk. Hasil penelitian menunjukan bahwa pola yang paling

mendominasi adalah student participation (partisipasi siswa). Menitikberatkan pada

partisipasi siswa dalam bentuk respon siswa dan inisiatif siswa pada diskusi di kelas.

Pola interaksi kedua yang mendominasi adalah content cross. Menitikberatkan pada

penjelasan guru dan pertanyaan guru. Pola ke tiga yang mendominasi adalah teacher

support (dukungan guru). Di berikan dalam bentuk menerima gagasan siswa,

mendukung dan menghargai pendapat atau tindakan siswa. Pola interaksi tersebut

yang akan membantu guru untuk mendukung dan meningkatkan kualitasi interaksi


xix

siswa usia dini. Hal lain yang di temukan dalam penelitian ini adalah dominan nya

pola jenis tuturan guru (teacher talk) di kelas. Indirect talk (tuturan-tidak langusng)

menjadi pilihan guru dalam berinteraksi, dibuktikan hasil kuantitative menunjukan

75%. Ini mengindikasikan bahwa guru memberikan keleluasaan pada siswa untuk

mengungkapkan pendapat mereka tanpa harus takut di salahkan oleh guru.

Peneliti berharap bahwa hasil dari penelitian ini dapat meningkatkan kesadaran

dan kajian tambahan. Mengenai pentingnya pola interaksi yang tepat untuk

meningkatkan kualitas interaksi di kelas dengan anak usia dini menggunakan bahasa

Inggris. Pada khususnya untuk sekolah tempat di adakan penelitian ini. Hasil dari

penelitian ini dapat di gunakan sebagai kajian dan kritik yang membangun untuk

meningkatkan dan mempersiapkan guru, siswa dan lingkungan untuk terciptanya

interaksi yang harmonis untuk mendapat hasil pembelajaran yang maksimal.

Keywords: Teacher talk, Student talk, Siswa usia dini, Pola interaksi kelas,

Penelitian-kelas, Flanders Interaction Analysis System


1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The study is focused on teacher talk and student talk in young learners’

classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. It aims at exploring

the patterns of interaction and how the interactions happened in kindergarten level.

This chapter contains several sections: the background of the study, problem

identification, problem limitations, and statement of research questions, research

goals and research benefits.

1.1 Background of the Study

In a foreign language situation, the learner depend almost entirely on the school

for the language input. The situation is related to the classroom as a crucial place for

students to practice the target language. Further, Cameron (2008) said that foreign

language learner, a classroom is the basic part for the students to use and to

experience the target language. In the classroom, a communication between the

teacher and the students is designed to create compressible classroom interaction.

The interaction in young learner classroom has different pattern in term of

teacher talk and student talk. Teachers who teach foreign language for young learner

usually will talk more frequently in the class, by comparing to teachers who teach

adult learners. The reason mostly is because the students’ ages of are considered as

young learner. Which are around four until five years old. The students are not able to

read and write yet to support their understanding. As a consequence, the teachers of


2

kindergarten school have certain rules as the facilitators (model) to introduce them

into the new language and also motivate them to be able to speak up in English.

The kindergarten teachers not only deliver the English course, but also builds

enough motivation for young learner to be ready and confident to learn English in the

next education levels. Later, students are able to use the target language to support

their daily needs such as reading the English book, understanding the teachers’

explanation and interacting in English both with their teachers and friends or peers. In

this case, they are motivated to use English in their daily communication naturally.

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogjakarta is the setting of this research.

The researcher has at least two reasons in choosing this school. First, the purpose of

this study is to investigate the interaction pattern of active classroom interaction in

using English. The researcher has already done a pre-observation. The result shows

that students talk is more than the teacher (51% is for student’s talk and 49% is

teacher’s talk). It means that students are active because the teacher successfully

gives enough comprehension input and lead the interaction. Second, the unique

concept of this school in is term of the teacher-student relationship. The philosophy

of being second mother. It makes a curiosity how did the interaction happen. In this

school, English is not only as a courses but also as the instruction language teaching

for the communication during the school time interaction.

In the typical classroom, there is a teacher and 15 students. The teacher spends

a good deal of her time in explaining things to the children, talking to them, showing

pictures, videos and objects, and going through the demonstrations (simulation). The

teacher assesses the student’s understanding by asking questions, assigning tasks and


3

supervising the accomplishment of the assigned tasks. The students alternately listen,

answer questions and perform the assigned tasks, in order to demonstrate or improve

their understanding about the certain topic. The rule of the children is to understand

and produce the target language is clearly presenting. This oversimplified the way of

talking about what it can be seen in classroom interaction in Ananda Kindergarten

School is substantially active.

In the classroom, such elements include the perceived purpose of the interaction

both locally (lesson & teacher), institutionally (school regulation) and the students’

background (Lyster, 2007). All of the children that participated in the class have been

learnt English since they were young which was around 2-3 years old. According to

Lyster (2007) when children come to school at the age of 3, they are still developing

the four skills, they have little knowledge of the world. It means that children

approach additional language in a natural manner. In this case, a natural interaction in

the class when the teacher is delivering the lesson.

As the background of the children, they live with their family which is

considered as Indonesia native. They are potentially acquire more than one language.

Since, some of the students come from bilingual family, their families have

communicated to them in more than one language, although all children speak

English in school. According to the school principal, some of students are required to

speak Indonesian or even Javanese language when they are at home.

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

that student’s mother have to work with stable occupation instead of become a

housewife. The students are provided by their parents such story books, the kids’


4

magazines and a direct satellite television. As the result, the children are used to

communicate in English. The reason is mostly because they get many language inputs

from those media. After that, they are able to produce meaningful output, during the

process teaching and learning interaction both with teachers and their friends.

Teaching English for the kindergarten school student is very different from

teaching English in higher level (adult learner). A young learner needs certain

technique or method to achieve the target language. Teacher talk is the most common

technique to teach a foreign language to young learners rapidly. Walsh (2002),

consideres how a teacher through their choice of language, constructs or obstructs the

learner participation in face to the face classroom interaction. From his research, it is

developed a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk to

facilitate and optimize the learners’ contribution.

This study is the classroom-centered research which concentrates on a classroom

interaction. The purpose is to gain the awareness and increase the understanding

about the young learner is classroom learning. It aims to identify the occurrences that

promote learning in the classroom. In this study the researcher uses the Flanders

Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) to analyze the teacher’s talk and the student’s

talk during the interaction. Flanders (1970) originally developed a research tool,

called as Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS). This systems was developed

to categories the types and the quantity of verbal interaction in TEYL (Teaching

English to young learner) to plot information on a matrix and it can help to analyze

and to complete the interpretation in chapter 4.


5

Based on the description above, there is a relation between young learners’

classroom interaction and the teacher talk. The teacher delivers their talk during

teaching learning activity. To support their teaching performance, motivate student to

speak up and do interaction in target language (English). A kindergarten teacher has

special or different pattern to interact with kindergarten students. It becomes the basic

consideration of the researcher to do the research with the title “A Study of Classroom

Interaction in TEYL (Teaching English to Young Learner) classroom using Flanders

Interaction Analysis System”.

1.2 Problem Identification

Analyzing the patterns through interaction is realized between foreign language

learners and the teacher. It has long been a research interest leading to a major in the

educational research involves to understand the nature and the implications of

classroom interaction. Several studies have been aiming at showing the complexity at

foreign language classroom. Flanders (1970) and Coulthard (1985) describe

classroom interaction structure; Allwright (1980) analyze patterns of participation-

turn, topics, and tasks in language learning and teaching.

Another studies of the language teacher use in class include those of Zhou, X

(1999), Zhou, Y (2010) and Nurmacitah (2010). The findings are approved the

researchers’ statement before that one-way communication class are lack of real

communicative information. Since the teacher is dominating classroom interaction,

this research helps the teacher to move away from a teacher-dominated mode. This

study guides the teacher to adopt a more student-dominated of the teaching. The


6

teacher should try to combine activities and materials which largely promote on the

communication between the teacher and students.

The teacher’s talk in English learning is marked as a complicated and a

problematic part especially for young learner’s classroom. In one side, the teachers

are suggested not to talk too much when they are teaching in classroom. It makes the

students become passive in initiating and responding the teacher’s utterances. Since

the student’s opportunities are limited, in this case the teacher dominated the class. In

the others hand, the quality is more crucial rather than the quantity. The quality here

means that the effectiveness to promote student to be active in class and deliver the

material become easy to understand. Realizing that, teacher domination in EFL class

is not very beneficial for improving the learners’ ability to talk in target language.

The teacher has to manage their talk into appropriate proportion. It means that

teachers have to make the learner talk more than teachers do. According to Liu

Yanfen & Zhao (2010), when the teacher talk and promote a classroom interaction. It

is called a communicative interaction. The example of teacher talk are question,

feedback, correct and the speech (explanation).

This study will concern about four patterns suggested by Flanders cited in Hai

& Bee (2007). (1) Student participation, (2) Content cross (3) Teacher control and (4)

Teacher support. The explanation of each pattern is provided in the chapter 2.

Since the students are not able to write and read yet, both teacher and learners

are non-native speakers and they have an interaction by using English, will the

teaching learning process in this class go smoothly? That is the reason why the

researcher choose the young learner classroom interaction.


7

1.3 Problem Limitation

The researcher would like to define the study by providing a problem

limitation. This study is concerned on the teacher talk and the student talk in the

young learners’ classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

Yogyakarta. In this research, the researcher only concerned on investigating verbal

interaction only (spoken language) that occurred between the teacher and students by

using Flanders’s Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) as an analysis technique.

This study is based on the three months observation at Ananda Mentari

Kindergarten, Yogyakarta. The duration for one observation is 60 minutes of the

teaching and learning activities. In this kindergarten, the course begin with a

discussion about certain topic follow up with the question-answer season. The

participants of this research were taken from a classroom teacher and kindergarten

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

1.4 Statement of Research Questions

The research goals of this study are to find out:

(1).What are the predominant patterns of classroom interaction between the

teacher and students in young learner classroom interaction? (2). How did the

interactions happen in teaching learning at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

Yogyakarta?

1.5 The Research Goals

Based on the problem of the research, the goals of the research are listed below.

There are three research goals of this study (1) to find out the teacher-students

interaction patterns during classroom teaching and learning process. (2) To find out


8

the percentage of each interaction pattern. (3) To discover how the interactions did

happen in the classroom at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.

1.6 Research Benefits

The result of the study can be used by the Kindergarten school teachers as a

reference to deliver the comprehensible teacher talk in young learners’ classroom

interaction. In addition, to manage the verbal interaction in the teaching and learning

process. As the result, this study can help students to achieve the target language.

Practically, the benefits of this research for the participant especially for the

kindergarten school teacher. First, teachers become more aware of their talk in the

process of a teaching and learning. They will be provided the comprehensible

understanding and reflecting about their teaching practices. Further, they become

more realize about the variety of teacher talk. Second, the teachers are provided a

comprehensible model of the teacher talk in the teaching learning process particularly

in a young learners’ classroom interaction. At least, the other teachers can apply this

teaching model in their own classroom. Third, the teacher is suggested to increase her

teacher talk (TT) productivity to address the target language to learners.

Theoretically, the result of this study will provide the comprehensible

information and several benefits in education in the general, especially in motivating

the teacher to achieve active young learner classroom interaction in target language.

The benefit is to motivate teacher to produce the comprehensible and the suitable

teacher talk (TT) in teaching learning activity. This research provides readers with

several transcriptions of various functions of verbal behavior spoken by teacher and

many kind of the student’s response. The content of information in this study is also a


9

particularly benefit for the school management to provide certain training and

mentoring program to support the teacher’s skill in leading the interaction with young

learner. The transcriptions can be learnt by teachers of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School Yogyakarta to understand and would be more aware of their talk.

In term of creating a comfortable and a lively situation, those make the students

participate actively in the target language both in the class and the daily

communication. The result of this study can also be used as a reference for the other

researchers who willing to conduct a study in English teaching-learning process in

term of the young learners’ classroom interaction.


10

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter deals with the review of related literature to the present study. The

study is designed to find out the interaction pattern and describe the interaction

between teacher and students in Kindergarten school level at Ananda Mentari

Kindergarten School, Yogyakarta.

2.1. Theoretical Review

There are several major issues underline in this study. They are teaching

English for Young Learner (TEYL), Teacher talk (TT), Students talk, type of

classroom interaction, compressible input hypothesis, comprehensible output

hypothesis, interaction hypothesis, adjacency pairs, IRF (Initiation, Response,

Feedback) related studies and school profile of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten school.

2.1.1 Teaching English to Young Learner (TEYL)

In this part, the researcher gives an overview of several theories and the

research relevant to children’s language learning in the field of the teaching young

learners’ particular in the teaching English. What is the difference between the

teaching a foreign language to children and to adult learners? According to Cameron

(2002), children are often more enthusiastic and lively as learners. In other words, the

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

understand. In other hand, Cameron (2002) also states that children also lose their


11

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

difficulty.

As the general concept of teaching English to young learner’, what and how the

teachers teach young learner is different from teenagers and adult learners. It is

crucial important to show the differences of these three learner groups keeping in

mind the fact that every learner is unique and such lists are able to reflect

generalizations (Harmer,2007). Harmer (2007) cited in Ersoz, A (2008) provides the

special characteristic of the young learner as seen in table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Characteristics of young learners

Young Learners Characteristics

Age : 3-6 years old

Grade : Pre-school Education

Language focus/skills used:

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

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

No reading & writing

Characteristics:

Low concentration span but easily excited

High motivation; active involvement

Love talking but problems in sharing

Repetition and revision is needed

Limited motor skills (using a pen and scissors) but kinesthetic and energetic

Love stories, fantasy, imagination, art drawing and coloring

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

teachers’ verbal action behavior during teaching learning process. The following

information is about how teachers have to do in SLA (second language acquisition)

teaching environment for young learners based on (Harmer, 2007). (1) Teachers


12

should have rich repertoire of activities to help young learners receive information

from a variety of sources and plan a range of activities for a given time period. (2)

Teachers should work with students individually or in group. (3) Teacher need to be

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

link or relate teaching to everyday interests and experiences.

2.1.1.2 Scaffolding

Vygotsky has developed the scaffolding theory that has come about the concept

of a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). The ZPD theory suggested that students

should be judged on what they can do with the assistance of an expert rather what

they are capable of doing on their own (Cameron 2002). According to this theory,

teachers are able to deliver the instruction language (new language) that students are

not familiar with or beyond their potential. Vygotsky suggests a theory of scaffolding

that the language of adult use is mediate the world for children and help them to solve

the problem. The teacher leads the student’s intention during the interaction in order

to help children. In completing the task are not yet able to do for themselves

(Cameron, 2002). Furthermore, Daniels (2002) concerns that the Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD) emphasizes on teacher-learners collaboration and negotiation.

Cole (2002) argues that extended understanding of scaffolding in the language

and education is needed. Since young learners have the very limited knowledge. It is

better for the teacher to give very specific scaffolding (guidance) to make students

understand on how to use the language. Cameron (2002) stated that the young

speaker around five years old, they are lack the awareness to cater for other

participants in discourse, and are not skillful enough to plan their talk. In this case,


13

the teacher requires to give clear guidance for students to take nature of a

conversation. The conversation is not dominated by the teacher, the conversation

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

the topic.

2.1.2 The Classroom Interaction

In order to describe about what happened in the classroom and to know better

what exactly happed in a language classroom, in this research, knowledge about the

classroom interaction particularly in TEYL (teaching English for young learner)

context needs to be increased. Tsui (2008) defines a classroom as a place where more

than two people gather together for the purpose of learning, with one having the role

of the teacher. It means that the communication between the teacher and students in

classroom goes constantly. Another definition is provided by Richard in Ticko (2009)

he states that pattern of verbal communication and the type of social, later will be

discussed about the classroom verbal interaction, teacher talk and second language

acquisition (SLA).

According to Hai & Bee (2006) there are at least four roles that must be done

by the teacher in the teaching and learning process particularly in young learner

interactions.

1. The teacher as motivator

The teacher can motivate students, in other words an English teacher has be able to

look for the most efficient ways and must have striven to make the class interesting


14

concern on motivating, stimulating as well as facilitating the learners particularly in

teaching young learner.

2. The teacher as facilitator

The teacher facilitates to students in learning foreign language for example the

teacher can facilitate the fun condition in teaching and learning process.

3. The teacher as Organization

The teacher can select the material for the classroom use, so that students do not think

the process of learning English is difficult and complicated.

4. The teacher as mediator

The Teacher can give stimulant to the student by using media, they can present how

to use a media to support learning activity.

In Indonesia context, English is learnt as a foreign language and young learners

learn English mostly in a language class with no supportive situation. Therefore TT

(teacher talk) is likely to be the major and even the only the one source of the target

language input. Several researchers have discussed the relationship between teacher

talk and language learning. As Nunan (1991) points out: “Teacher talk is crucial

importance, not only for the organization of classroom but also for the processes of

acquisition”. In line with this statement, Krashen (1985) states that teacher talk

determines successful language learning by providing plenty of high quality input for

the language itself. In line with Nunan (1991), he says that the teacher talk is crucial

part, not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the acquisition

process. In terms of acquisition, TT is essential since it is probably the major of

comprehensible a target language input the learner it received or acquired.


15

2.1.3 Types of Classroom Interaction

The type of interaction depends on certain type of the teacher talk and the

student talk appears in classroom. According to Krashen (1992) there are at least

three types of classroom interaction; teacher-dominated, teacher centered, and

student-centered. The definition of each types is provided by Krashen (1992). First,

teacher-dominated is when the teacher takes so much time to talk and students only

have little opportunity to talk. Second, a teacher-centered is when the teacher takes

control of students to be active participate at the classroom interaction. The last type

is student-centered. Different from the first type, in this case the teacher is as the

facilitator and students are more active rather than the teacher in classroom

interaction.

Furthermore, the classroom interaction as a form of the institutional talk is

locally managed but cooperative constructed speech exchange systems (Markee and

Kasper, 2004). According to them, the composed of interaction between teacher and

students and among students, classroom interaction is one of chance where any reality

about classroom phenomena is produced and can be observed at the similar time.

According to Lyster (2007), a learning languages through an interaction has a

pedagogical focus because the interaction provided the teacher and also learners with

couple of strategies for facilitating the comprehension, a formal accuracy, an

academic achievement and the literacy development.

The classroom interaction is a conversation between a teacher and students. It

points about how the teacher promotes students to speak in class and how students

interact among their friends. What happens in a productive class hour is described by


16

Dagarin (2004) lists that there are at least three types of interaction frequently occur

in classroom, as follows.

The first is student-teacher classroom interaction. This interaction will

encourage teacher in way they deliver information and feedback. Asking question is

the most frequent activity that the student do with their teacher. The example is when

they ask about material they do not understand and ask about the certain procedure

such as game and role play.

The second interaction is students-students classroom interaction. According to

Ur (2000), there are more than one patterns of classroom interaction, such as group

work, closed-ended teacher questioning, individual work, collaboration and teacher

talk. In this case, students are given free chance to speak in class since they can talk

each other.

The third interaction is teacher-whole classroom interaction. Tang (2010)

contends that in the most EFL classroom context, the teachers always initiate teacher-

whole class interaction by asking question and students’ responds to the teacher

questions. It other words, during classroom interaction teacher keeps asking questions

orally to the students to stimulate them speak up. Dagarin (2009) argues that there are

three types of teacher whole class interaction such as giving explanation, praises,

information, and instruction. Since it commonly occurs in EFL classroom, the

researcher concludes that teacher whole class is a basic interaction in order to make

student talk.


17

2.1.4 Student Talk and Teacher Talk

In the previous part of this study, the researcher have already explained that

classroom interaction is cooperative effort from teacher and students in form of talk.

The researcher lists several definitions about teacher talk and students talk and how

those aspects influence the interaction.

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

comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition

(Ellis, 1994:583). Teacher as the one who lead the interaction in class, produce

teacher’s talk to input and stimulate students comprehension.

There are several definitions of (teacher talk) TT have been given from

different perspective by some experts. Teacher talk is the language a teacher uses to

allow the various classroom processes to happen, that is the language of organizing

the classroom. This includes the teacher’s explanations, responses to questions,

instructions, praises and correction. Ellis (1985) formulates his own view about

teacher talk: “Teacher talk is a special language that teacher use when addressing

L2 learners in classroom”. It means that teacher addresses classroom language

learners differently from the way they address classroom that they address classroom

learners. Teacher talk is also defined as the kind of modification in teachers’ speech

that can lead to a special type of discourse (Richard and Lockhart, 1996). Richard and

Lockhart explain that when teacher use teacher talk, they are trying to make

themselves as easy as possible to understand and effective teacher talk may provide

crucial support to facilitate both language comprehension and learner production.


18

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

lead to a certain type of discourse (Ellis, 2008). Moreover, Nunan (1991) states that

teacher talk is crucial importance, not only for organization of the classroom but also

for the process of acquisition. In line with this, Cullen (2002) argues that teacher talk

is used in class when teachers are conducting instruction, cultivating their intellectual

ability and managing classroom activities.

Suherdi (2009) divided student talk into four types: (1) asking questions, (2)

creating talk exchange, (3) repeating and answering teacher’s or peer’s question.

Meanwhile, according, to Moore (2008), creating student talk has a good advantage.

The student can acquire the knowledge and exchange information through interaction.

For example, a student who is talking with her/his peers can exchange the

information about their experience, hobbies, and many more.

2.1.5 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction

Adjacency pairs in conversation exchange during classroom interaction

between teacher-learners and learner-learner. Speech acts are clearly related to what

conversation analysis is called adjacency pairs or it can be said as utterances that

usually occur together (Cook, 1989). In other words, the production of a speech such

as an offer will normally be accompanied by a response, the response may be

preferred one.

Based on the theories how young children acquire and develop their foreign

language through interaction. Theories focus on second language acquisition (SLA)


19

such as Input Hypothesis, Output Hypothesis and Interaction Hypothesis. The

specific explanations will be listed below.

2.1.5.1 Comprehensible Input Hypothesis

Input plays a critical role in language learning. There is no learning without

input. The language used by the teacher affects the language produced by the

learners, in the interaction generate, and the kind of learning takes places. The

problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate and effective for

language learners in the classroom. Input is defined as language as language which a

learner hears or receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). How

long has the child been learning the language? The amount of language to which the

students has already knew about the language.

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

Krashen’s Input Hypothesis proposes that comprehensible input is essential for

the learner to acquire a language (Krashen, 1982: 22). Krashen further maintains that

learner will begin to produce the language naturally when they have enough exposure


20

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

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

development, called I, and the level that learner will get to next must slightly beyond

the level at which he or she has already acquired, called i+1(Krashen, 1982). This

argument is in line with Miles (2004) that teacher should use target language in

delivering the lesson.

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

comprehensible input. He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible

to learners, is not likely to cause learning to take place. Teacher talk actually serves

as the main source of input of language exposure in classroom learning. According to

Krashen (1982), the basic function of language teaching is to deliver compressible

input for those who cannot get it from outside the classroom and for the foreign

language students who do not have input sources outside the class. It can be argued

that the teacher talk, a comprehensible input refers to the utterance that learners

understand on the basis of context which they are used to, as well as the language

which they have learned.

2.1.5.2 Comprehensible Output Hypothesis

Ellis (2008) argues that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 the

acquisition. The English learners should not only increase the information input but

also increase the efficiency output of language skills. They have learned such as

speaking and writing. According to Swain (1985), her output hypothesis emphasizes

the role of outcome in SLA. She argued that comprehensible input is not a sufficient

condition for SLA, it is only when the input becomes intake that SLA takes place.


21

Learners can improve their language level through “forcing” them to produce

output in target language. In the term of to say or write things or through using the

target language in meaningful ways. Swain (1985) particularly emphasize that it is

only when learners are pushed to use the target language. In other words, it is only

when learners think it is necessary to improve and develop the target language level,

language output can contribute to language acquisition. Therefore, teacher talk is

playing very crucial role during the process of language learning and should manage

to push the students to produce the target language. Through giving students more

opportunities and much more time to the student to practice beside they offer

suitable input.

2.1.5.3 Interaction Hypothesis

The interaction therefore is an important concept of English language learning

process both teacher and students. Long (1996) argues that interaction facilitates

acquisitions because of the conversation and linguistic modifications that occur in

such discourse and that provide learners with the input they need. In other words,

through interaction, learners have more opportunities to understand and practice the

target language comprehensibly. Moreover, Allwright and Bailey (1991) state that

through interaction, the plan produces outcomes (input, practice opportunities and

receptivity). The teacher has to plan the syllabus, method and atmosphere before

they do their teaching in class instead of providing opportunities for learners to

practice the target language. It also creates a ‘state of receptivity’ defined as ‘an

active opens’ means a willingness to encounter the language and the culture. As the


22

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

process.

Interaction support the student comprehension by assisting learner L2

production (Long, 1996). Long (1993), argue that much second language interaction

occur through conversation. Long agrees with Krashen that comprehensible input is

crucial for language acquisition. According to him, teachers are able to modify the

interaction so the learners have more opportunities to practice the target language. In

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

speak target language with other speaker.

Van Lier (1988) points out: if the keys to learning are exposure to input and

meaningful interaction with learner. It is a must to find out what input and

interaction of classroom can provide. He also suggests that interaction is essential for

language learning which occurs in and trough participation in speech events, that is,

talking to others, or making conversation (Van Lier. 1988)

The following diagram, Van Lier suggests that interaction mediates between

input and intake. Most important and central is the interaction with others in

meaningful activities, but as a complement, and partial replacement, the learner’s

cognitive device may also interact directly with the available input.

2.1.6 IRF (Initiation—Response-Feedback)

Developing a classroom interaction where students feel comfortable to initiate

their talk, rather than simple response to the teacher. Initiation-response-feedback

(IRF) patterns is probably the most suitable form that teacher can apply. A common


23

practice in classroom discourse in IRF sequence (teacher initiation-student response-

teacher feedback; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975; Van Lier (2002) educators who have

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

strategies for re-organizing any given classroom’s turn taking structures.

Furthermore, Lee (2007) says that the ‘initiation’ turns of IRFs carry out different

kinds of actions, and the third turn from the teacher may launch a range of teaching

activities.

According to Hale (2011), the IRF pattern is safe and comforting because in

many what is expected in classroom interaction by both teacher and students. It can

therefore be distressed for them to attempt to move beyond the three-part sequence.

In this case, to create more self-directed communicative interaction. Waring (2009)

says that the teacher tends to ask questions they typically already knows the answer.

2.1.6.1 The Interaction Pattern

The IRF exchange in language teaching process is referred as turn-taking of

teacher-student-teacher in classroom. It is mentioned as (IRE), first (I) ‘Initiation’

phase the teacher usually ask questions, to which the student responds (R) and the

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

teacher are better to give more referential questions rather than display question to be

viewed as more pedagogically interaction (Vygotsky 1978 cited in Van Lier 2002).

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

development”. Vygotsky also provides the definition of ZPD, the zone of proximal

developments is the gap between what a learner has already mastered (the actual level

of development) and what they can achieve when provided with educational support


24

(potential development). In other word, Vygotsky suggests that instead of testing

what a student knows to make sure her understanding. It is much better to provide

someone who has mastered the concept. To guide them to solve the problems with

the students’ ability in solving the problems, furthermore, ZPD is focused on the

relation between instruction and development. Where teacher as the one who gives

the instruction to the students.

2.1.6.1.1 Questions

Question is commonly classified into two main categories. First, display

(closed) questions, in which teachers have already know the answer. The purpose of

this type of questions is to check the students’ understanding. Second, referential

(open) questions, the teachers want to know about students’ opinions toward certain

topics. Nunan (1998) says that referential questions should be used more often than

display questions if it refers to genuine communication in the language classroom.

This stance implies that display questions are not suitable with the purpose of

communicative competence. According to Brown (2007), he found that referential

questions obtained responses of higher quality as well as increased complexity. It

emphasizes on elicit language from learners in form of vocabulary, pronunciation and

language function to support their own opinion.

2.1.6.1.2 Feedback

In this part, the researcher focuses on feedback from the teachers. According to

Richards and Schmitt (2002), feedback is given while someone is speaking and

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

that?”


25

Helpful interactional which supplies corrective feedback letting learners know

their utterance are problematic (Mackey, 2006). Furthermore, Havranek (2002) seems

to agree with Mackey that corrective feedback is most likely to be successful if the

leaners are able to provide the correct form when they are alerted to the error.

In this research, besides applying IRF theory to discover the interaction pattern.

In the next part, it provides an explanation and description about Flanders’ interaction

analysis. Later it will be used to collect the data.

2.1.7 Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIACS) Technique

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

2013) that is coding categories of interaction analysis to know the quantity of verbal

interaction in the classroom. This technique is one of important techniques to observe

classroom interaction systematically. Flanders (1970) noted the famous “two-thirds”

rule: two-thirds of classroom time consist of talk, and two-thirds of that talk is teacher

talk.

Tichapondwa (2008) argues that Flanders’ interaction Analysis System is for

identifying, classifying, and observing classroom verbal interaction. It means that

Flanders’ interaction Analysis help the researcher to identify classroom interaction

during teaching and learning process in classifying the interaction into the teacher

talk, student talk and silence. Below is table of classroom interaction pattern by

Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006)

\


26

Table 2.2: Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories

No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

Teacher Talk

A. Indirect Talk

1. Accept Feelings

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

He feels himself that the students should not be punished for exhibiting

his feelings.

Feelings may be positive or negative

2. Praise or Encouragement

Teacher praises or encourages student action or behavior.

When a student gives answer to the question asked by the teacher, the

teacher gives positives reinforcement by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very

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

3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students

If a student passes on some suggestion, then the teacher may repeat in

nutshell in his own style or words.

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

clarifies builds or develops ideas or suggestion given by a student.

4. Asking Questions

Asking question about content or procedures, based on the teacher ideas

and expecting an answer from the students.

Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries on his lecture

without receiving any answer.

B Direct Talk

5 Lecturing/Lecture

Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure expression of his

own ideas, giving his own explanation, citing an authority other than

students, or asking rhetorical questions.

6 Giving Direction

The teacher gives directions, commands or orders or initiation with

which a students is expected to comply with:


27

Open your books

Stand up on the benches

Solve 4th

sun of exercise

7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority

When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt with foolish

questions, then this behavior is included in this category.

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

category.

Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing

Student Talk

8 Student Talk Response

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

Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the question.

9 Student Talk Initiation

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

Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom to develop

opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions; going

beyond the existing structure.

10 Silence or Pause or Confusion

Pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion in which

communication cannot be understood by the observer.

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

characteristic.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

TEACHER SUPPORTS

STUDENT

2

3

4 CONTENT CROSS

5

6 TEACHER

CONTROL

PARTICI

PATION

7

8

9

10

Figure 2.2 . Matrix of Flanders Interaction


28

The matrix analysis shows types the interaction characteristics. The types of

interaction characteristics are presented as follows.

1. Content Cross

A heavy concentration in a column 4 and 5 and row 4 and 5 indicates teacher

dependence on questions and lectures.

2. Teacher Control

A concentration on column and row 6 and 7 indicates extensive commands and

reprimands by the teacher.

3. Teacher Support

A heavy concentration of score in column and row 1, 2, and 3 inicates that the teacher

is reinforcing and encouraging students’ participation.

4. Student Participation

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

behaviour.

2.1.8. Ananda Mentari Kindergarten Yogyakarta

2.1.8.1 School Profile

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School is the school which applies English as

medium language instruction in teaching learning system. The school use

International-based education systems since 2011. The school believes that “A

CHILD IS A DISCOVERER”. There are at least three missions that they want to

achieve. First, it is to promote respect to all creatures in young children by teaching

peace, cooperation, and justice. Second, it is to train children to be independent,

creative, critical and able to speak up their minds and to love learning process. Third,

it is to provide a space for children to use English in daily programs in order to

prepare them for successful international communication in the future. The program


29

in this school is full English curriculum that has been already planned to meet the

need of living as a global citizen in the 21th century.

2.1.8.2 Teaching and Learning Process

The students enjoy the activities during learning process in classroom. Without

being noisy they sit down nicely in the classroom while teacher shows the slide the

process of create germ stone. The students are active and noisier in the term of give

their opinion and respond to the teacher. The teacher also seems happy to listen to all

student’s contribution. The students are much more confident and outspoken. After

the lecturing, teacher ask them to make their own germ stone using stone and water

paint. They look happy to do the activities. They practice the language in real

situation context with friends and teacher. They experience the language in use by

communicating in their own words. In case, the teacher has two different rules. First,

teacher is as the role model to give correct example to the students. Second, the

teacher also acts as good friend to share. Since, the goal is that students have to

communicate naturally in English.

2.2 Related Studies

In this part researcher review some related studies in the same filed concerning

teacher talk. It investigated in a variety of subject learned, or in the methodology

used.

Nurmacitah (2010) conducted research on examining classroom language

learning experiences and evaluation on teacher talk in immersion senior high school

classroom. The result that is content cross pattern interaction become the most

dominant pattern. The interaction is dominated by teacher in explaining and giving


30

direction to the students. The suggestions are 1) shifting the teacher-centered

classroom into student-centered classroom; 2) Focusing on the quality of teacher talk;

3) improving questioning technique, using proper feedback technique.

Suherdi (2009) conducted study on kindergarten teacher talk to investigate the

characteristic of the teacher talk in the kindergarten classroom. The result of analysis

revealed that teachers used speech modifications: repetitions, recasting and

exaggerated. In term of language used, teacher was more dominantly used Indonesian

than English. Teacher talk contains high frequency of repetition to avoid

mispronunciation made by the students, to help the student memorize vocabulary and

active during classroom interaction.

Maylisias Wan (2013) she is conducting a research to describe and interpreted

the function of teacher talk in Elementary school English class. This research used

Flanders’s Interaction Analysis Categories. The result shows that the language used

by teacher were classified into two categories namely, indirect and direct influence.

The researcher suggests for the teacher to use more target language rather than L1 in

classroom interaction. By doing this, it is expected teacher can guide the student to

get more exposure of the target language input.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

The input in form of teacher talk (TT) plays as a critical role in language

learning because they still have less prior knowledge of the target language. As

Krashen (2004) says that learners will begin to produce the language naturally when

they have enough exposures to comprehend input. Teacher talk in the classroom


31

becomes an essential part in language learning. It helps the learners to comprehend

and acquire the target language (English).

Through interactions, the students are able to acquire their communication in

the target language. They are required to be active participate in the classroom

discussion. When teacher’s talk and student’s talk are exchange continually,

interaction occurred (Richards and Lockhart, 1996). It means, communication in form

interaction is influenced by teacher and student talk. Later, the interaction will create

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

student’s talk.

The teacher will use various type of teacher talk (TT) during interaction in

young learner English classroom. In the researcher’s assumptions, at least

questioning, giving information, giving instruction, feedback, lecturing and talk to

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

The framework established in this research is constructed on the assumption

that, the various type of talk between teacher and student. Those will provide the

different type of classroom interaction pattern to stimulate comprehensible input and

learning outcome (language production) after that generate an active and meaningful

learning and process.

In table 2.2 is talk about the concept of research plotting. In this way, the

researcher gives clear description of how this research would be completed. In first

column (a) the research variable are displayed, (b) conceptual definition on each

variable, (c) category of talk, (d) sub-category, (e) research action and (e) the analysis

step. The purpose of those table is to provide relation on each research variable that


32

later used in description and discussion chapter. The concept of research table was

developed from Hartanto (2010) with some additional modification from the

researcher. The dominant patterns of classroom interaction in four meetings observed

were identified using the concept of research plotting.

Figure 2.3 Conceptual Framework

Classroom Interaction What?

How?

Interaction Types

(Characteristic)

Teachers’ Talk Students’ Talk

1. Content Cross

2. Teacher Control

3. Teacher Support

4. Student Participant

1. Accepts Feeling

2. Encouragement

3. Use Students’ Ideas

4. Asking Question

5. Lecturing

6. Giving direction

7. Criticizing

1. Students’

Response

2. Student

Initiation

3. Silence or

Confusion

Adjacency

Pairs

1. Input Theory

2. Output Hypothesis

3. Interaction Hypothesis

Valuable Input

& Develop

Interaction

Correct &

Meaningful

production

Interaction

1. Student-Teacher

2. Student-Student

3. Teacher-whole class

Flanders’s Interaction

Analysis (FIA)

Observation

Protocol Flanders’s

Matrix


33

Table 2.3. Research Concept Plotting

Concept Conceptual

Definition

Category Sub

Category

Research Action Analysis

A B C D E

Classroom

interaction

(Talk)

A kind of

communication

between

teacher-

students in

classroom

using target

language

(English)

Teacher

Talk

Accepts

Feeling

Observation with

full of description

and interview

In opening and

closing

learning

process

Encourageme

nt

Observation with

full of description

and interview

The way

teacher support

students in

producing

language

Asking

Question

Observation with

full of description

and interview

Teacher asks

questions to

the students

Lecturing Observation with

full of description

and interview

Teacher

delivers the

material

Giving

direction

Observation with

full of description

and interview

Teacher asks

student to do

something

Criticizing Observation with

full of description

and interview

Criticize

students’

behavior in

class

Student

Talk

Student talk-

response

Observation with

deep

interpretation and

interview.

When student

respond to the

teacher’s talk.

Student talk-

initiation

Observation with

deep

interpretation and

interview.

When students

produce talk

by their own

though.

Silence or

confusion

Observation with

deep

interpretation and

interview.

The moment

when students

are silence or

confuse.


34

Interaction

Pattern

A certain

combination of

classroom talk

that create

different

characteristic

of classroom

interaction

Content

Cross

Questioning

and Lecturing

Observation and

full interpretation

Questioning

and Lecturing

Teacher

Control

Criticizing or

justifying and

Giving

direction

Observation and

full interpretation

Criticizing or

justifying and

Giving

direction

Teacher

Support

Accepting

feeling,

encourageme

nt and using

students’ idea

Observation and

full interpretation

Accepting

feeling,

encouragement

and using

students’ idea

Student

Participant

Student talk-

response and

Student talk-

initiation

Observation and

full interpretation

Student talk-

response and

Student talk-

initiation

Classroom

research

Doing research

in school

setting about

teaching and

learning lead

by teacher and

students in

order to

improve the

quality of

teaching.

Descriptive Participants’

description

Description and

deep interview

Participant

describe their

action in class.

Researcher’s

description

Description and

deep interview

Researcher

describe based

on the

observation.

Interpretive Participants’

interpretation

Description and

deep interview

Participant

give their own

understanding,

opinion and

expectation.

Researcher’s

interpretation

Description and

deep interview

Researcher

interpret the

result of

interview and

relate them

with theories.


35

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes in detail about the methodology applied in conducting

this research. The research procedures include research method, nature of data, data

sources, research instruments, data collection technique, data analysis and

trustworthiness. In data sources, research participants and research are presented.

3.1. Research Design

The approach in this research was qualitative that supported by simple statistic

calculation (percentages) in order to support the finding. Classroom-research design

was applied in this study. As Nunan and Bailey (2009) “fundamentally classroom

research involves doing research in school setting about teaching and learning”.

This study used Flanders Interaction Analysis System (FIAS), proposed by

Flander in 1970 cited in Hai & Bee 2007. Which is resulted in much better

understanding of classroom interaction aims and events. In this study was focused on

interaction patterns and how did the interaction happen.

The researcher was not to negotiate in the research setting and did not try to

control naturally occurring events, because the study tended to find out the

predominant interaction patterns and describe how the interactions happened. It went

in deeper analysis through interviewing the classroom teacher about her reason to

deliver certain talk that create certain interaction patterns. Furthermore, school


36

principle was also interviewed to investigate the reason, opinion, understanding and

certain expectation toward young learner classroom interaction.

3.2. Research Procedure

The procedure of this research would be as the follow adopted from Nurcita

(2010)

1. The researcher came to the class and sat at the backside

2. The researcher prepared audio visual recording and guidance and rules of

Flander interaction analysis.

3. The researcher put code on the particular type of teachers and student talk in

order to get expected data.

4. The researcher put the plotting of the coded data into matrix of Flander

interaction analysis.

5. The researcher calculated the teacher’s and student’s talk during teaching and

learning process by Flander’s formulas.

6. The researcher identified students’ and teacher’s characteristic by referring to

Flander’s interaction matrix to identify the teachers’ and students’

characteristic.


37

3.3. Nature of Data

In this study, researcher worked with spoken (verbal behavior) language

delivered by the teacher and young learners. The data were recorded from teaching

learning activities in Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta. Those utterances were transcribed

into transcription of conversations. The data were collected from the observations

during the process of teaching-learning English. The form of data were audio-visual

recording concerning teacher talk taken during classroom observation. In this study,

the researcher analyzed the teacher based on the spoken language found in their

interactions of Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) that the researcher

adapted from Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2007).


38

The methodology of this research used one of the observation scheme for the

objective and the quantitative data, video-tape recording of interactions for qualitative

data. The audio-tape recording of the interview with the classroom teacher and the

school principal. The list of interview questions are based on the observation result

that have already done by the researcher. The researcher also arranged the questions

based on Hartanto (2010) and Wan (2015). Their study concerned about teacher’s

perception toward teacher talk in foreign language classroom.

3.4. Data Sources

The data in this research were taken from the video-recording result of the real

interaction, between the teacher and students’ interaction during class. It was

transcribed into transcriptions. The concern of this study was to discover the pattern

of classroom interaction and how did interaction happen.

3.4.1 Research Participants

The participant was a 25 old female kindergarten school teacher whose pseudo

name in this study was Mrs. Nina. She is from non-English education department

background. She graduated from Islamic University in sociology major. She has

experienced in teaching English at the kindergarten school over five years. The

researcher chose her as teacher participant because of her willingness to be observed

as well as interviewed. Furthermore, the school principal recommended Mrs. Nina to

be observed for collecting data proses. To validate and confirm the narrative data

from the class observation, the researcher had done the interview with the teacher to

get cross check the result and identify un-observable utterance.


39

In addition, the school principal was also involved as the participant of this

research. She was the founder of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.

She had really good understanding of teaching young learner in foreign language. She

also found the valuable concept of school which take care, loved and educated

children when their mothers were going to work. She graduated from psychology

major and had a lot of experiences in teaching young learner, before she established

the school. She was very fluent in speaking English. Finally, she was really generous

and open-minded person.

3.4.2 Research Setting

This study was conducted in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta.

This is one of the private Playgroup and Kindergarten school located at Jln.

Anggajaya I/285 Condongcatur, Jogjakarta. Ananda Mentari has a unique program

that offers a mix of regular full day for children age 12 months to 6 years old. The

study was started in the second semester of 2015/2016 academic year. It was done in

January-March 2016.

This school consisted of ‘grade’ Baby class, Toddler class, Nursery class,

Kindergarten one and Kindergarten two. In this study, the researcher concerned in

Kindergarten two, there were 12 students in class and there were two teachers to

handle the class. The duration for the class started from 8 am -11.30 am. In this

school, English was used as classroom language in daily teaching learning process.

There were three reasons for the researcher to conduct this research in this

school. The first one was because this school is located near from where researcher

lives. The second reason was in term of language that the school used in their


40

teaching learning is 100% English. Third reason was based on the first pre-

observation that have done in 15th

November 2015, the researcher found that the

students were actively speaking in English in order to have some discussion both with

teacher and their friend. Furthermore, Miss Pipin one of lecture in English Studies

Program Sanata Dharma University suggested the researcher to conduct this research

there.

The researcher had no problems when conducted this study in this school.

Hopefully, the research result contributed to the development of English teaching and

learning quality to this school in the future. Particularly, in term of young learner

classroom interaction in foreign language. Finally, the research setting could be

considered as having credible data, provided an effective interaction and an easy

access for collecting data.

3.5. Research Instruments

This study apply of two instruments in collecting the data. They were a video-

camcorder and observation protocol. Video was used to take the class observation

data while the interview guideline was used in interviewing the participants about the

language used in the classroom. Since this study focused on the teacher talk therefore

researcher focused the observation on how the teacher delivered their verbal/spoken

language in teaching-learning process.

3.5.1 Observation Protocol

During the observation, the researcher got the reliable data, since the researcher

would put the code on the certain teacher talk during the interaction occurred in the

classroom. Before the researcher filled the observation protocol sheet. The researcher


41

had to understand observation protocol guidance that included list of Flander’s

Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) that the researcher adapted from Flander

(1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006). The observation protocol guidance is provided in

chapter 2.

There were some rules for deciding which one the best category should be put

out the code consistency. Flander (1970 cited in Sign et al.2008) provided rules to

help researcher in identifying the talk.

Rule 1 When it is not certain in which of two categories a statement belongs,

choose category that is numerically farthest from category 5

Rule 2 The observer should not involve their personal point of view. If a

teacher attempts to be clever, student see teachers’ statement as critics

of students; the observer sues category 7.

Rule 3 If more than one category active in a span of 3 second, and then all

the categories should be recorded

Rule 4 If the same period of silence exceeds 3 seconds. It should be recorded

the category No.10

Rule 5 When teacher calls a child by name, the observer is supposed to

record a 4th

category.

Table 3.1: Five rules for deciding which category should be put code consistency.

Below was the observation protocol that was for putting out the code. This would

help the researcher to decide particular type of talk during observations time. The

recorded utterances were in form of conversation between teacher-students, student-

teacher and student-student


42

Table 3.2: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2007).

Day/Date : Meeting :

Teacher’s Name : Material :

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Indirect

talk

Accepts feelings

Praise or

encouragement

Accepts or uses

ideas of students

Direct

talk

Asking questions

Lecturing/lecture

Giving direction

Criticizing or

justifying authority

Student

response

Student talk

response

Student talk

initiation

Silence or pause or

confusion

TOTAL


43

3.5.2 Recording Instrument

The researcher used audio-visual recording to make the data accurate and valid.

The recording helped the researcher to aware certain types of teacher talk and student

talk during the learning and teaching process in classroom.

3.6. Data Collection

The data was collected by observing class meetings by using two methods in

collecting the data including observation protocol and recording (audio-visual

recording). Through the observation, the researcher could observe what the teacher

and student did and talked in classroom. Creswell (2007) suggested that data

collection steps should include setting of the study, collecting information through

unstructured (semi-structured) observation and interviews and visual material, as well

as establishing the protocol for gathering information.

3.6.1 Observation protocol

The researcher put out code the particular teacher and student talk that was on

the Flander’s Interaction Analysis Category (FIAC). Observation protocol sheet

during teaching and learning process after the researcher did plotting the coded data

firstly. The researcher put out code at the end of each three seconds interval in order

to get expected data. Here was an illustration of how to put a code of classroom

verbal interaction based on the observation protocol and the rules of Flanders’s code

system. The illustration could be seen as the follows.


44

Table 3.3. An illustration of how to put a code of classroom verbal interaction.

Adopted from Sign et at 2008

Classroom verbal

interaction

Recorded

as

Explanation

Teacher: Have you ever

gone by the plane?

4 The teacher ask the students about the

content of the topic. He expects an

answer from the student. It is as teacher

direct talk recorded as 4.

Student: The students are

silence

10 The students are in short period of silence

because they do not know what they have

to do. It is as silence or pause of

confusion recorded as 10.

Teacher: Why are you

confused when I said open

page 47?

7 The teacher ask “why” to criticize why

the student silence. It is a teacher direct

talk that is criticizing by asking “why”

recorded as 7.

The teacher accepts the

students’ feeling since

they do not understand.

1 The teacher accepts the students feeling

where she feels that the students should

not ne punishes. It is as teacher indirect

talk recorded as 1.

Students: The students

give their opinion about

the topic.

8 The student’s response to the teacher’s

talk. It is as students talk response

recorded as 8.

3.6.2. Recording

The researcher recorded the whole part if teaching and learning process in order

to get the teacher and student talk during the process. In recording, the researcher put

code on the particular the teacher and student talk based on the Flander’s Interaction

Analysis Categories (FIAC) observation protocol and rules.

Furthermore, in recording the researcher recorded teacher’s talk, student’s talk

and silence based on the observation protocol guidance adapted from Flander (1970

cited in Hai and Bee 2007) as the follow:


45

First, teacher’s talk consisted of direct and indirect talk. The indirect talk

includes teacher accepts the student feeling and ideas; praises or encourage student

action or behavior, repeat, clarifies, builds or develop ideas or suggestion given by a

student, asks questions about content or procedures based on the teacher ideas, gives

his own explanation; gives directions, commands and asks the students not to

interrupt with questions.

Second, student talk consisted of direct talk that included the student talk in

responding to the teacher talk; and expressing their own ideas; initiating a new topic;

freedom to develop opinions and a line of through like asking thoughtful questions.

Third, silence included pauses, short periods of silence and period of confusion

in which communication cannot be understand by the observer.

3.6.3. Interview

In this research the purpose of interviewing teacher was to find out the teacher

opinion, reason about their teaching particularly their talk, teaching performance and

student’s talk during the interaction. The researcher created the interview lists based

on the observation result.

3.7. Data Analysis

In order to answer the research question, (1) what are the predominant patterns

found in young learners classroom interaction? (2) How did the interaction happen?

The researcher done several steps on analyzing data.

The data were analyzed on the transcription of four direct observations. The

data analysis in this study were in form of conversation transcription. The video-

taped lesson interview was transcribed were checked by the teacher. To avoid


46

misspelled words or any talks which did not make sense. The clear step and guideline

was provided by Creswell (2003) to help researcher analyze and display data in the

result and discussion chapter.

Table 3.4 Guidelines for data analysis

STEP ACTIVITY

Step 1 Organizing the data The interview are transcribed, filed notes

are typed and arranged into different

categories.

Step 2 Reading the data Making general sense of the data and

reflecting on its overall context.

Step 3 Coding process Organizing the data and labeling the

categories with terms from the term of

both teacher and student talk.

Step 4 Generate description Using the coding process to generate

description about participant, setting and

events.

Step 5 Narrating the description and

themes

Chronologically convey findings of the

analysis by mentioning the events,

detailed discussion of several context,

specific illustration figures and multiple

opinion from different participant

(teacher and school principle)

Step 6 Interpreting the data The researcher’s personal interpretation

of the participant’s understanding or

expectation from a finding with concepts

or theories from related literature.


47

The data analysis was conducted by the researcher after collecting the data.

This study used Flander’s formulates to get the expected data. It used to count the

percentage in order to compare teacher talk and student talk? Finally, to gather

quantitative data that supporting the finding by providing simple statistic data.

3.7.1 Teachers’ and Students’ Ratio

After the researcher got data from observation protocol analysis, the researcher

calculated how much the teacher talk frequency in classroom interaction by using

Flander’s formulates (1970) cited in Sign et al 2008 and Nugroho 2009). The

researcher used it to find out the percentage of teacher and student talk during

classroom interaction. Here are the formulas.

1. Teacher Talk Ratio/ Percentage of Teacher Talk (TT)

The tallies of first seven categories are added and divided by the total score of the

matrices (N).

2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio (ITT)

- It indicated teacher actions in encouraging and supporting students’ participations.

- Its percentage could be calculated by adding score of the first four categories and

dividing by the total tallies of the matrix (N)

3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio (DTT)

- It indicated the teacher actions restricting student participation.


48

- In this ratio the score of 5th

, 6th and 7th

categories were added and divided by “N” to

calculate the percentage.

4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage of Students Talk (PT)

- It indicated verbal activities of students in response to the teacher

- In this ratio, the score of 8th

and 9th

categories are added and divided by “N” to

calculate the percentage.

5. Silence or Confusion Ratio (SC)

6. Indirect and Direct Ratio (I/D)

3.7.2 Analyzing the matrix

The next step was to complete matrix, some areas hadhigh score and the other

low. A heavier concentration of socre in a certain area gave information about who is

talking and what type of talking is taking place.

3.7.3 Analyzing the additional data

The additional data conduted from teacher and the school principal. Interview

with the classroom teacher was to get deeper information about her teaching


49

perfomance in class. The second interview had done with the school principle to seek

information on her personal understanding, expectatoin, opinion and school

regulation related to teaching learning process in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School, Yogjakarta.

3.8. Trustworthiness

This qualitative research adopted one of the triangulation type proposed by

Denzim, that is, data sources triangulation. Data sources could be very base on the

times the data were collected, the place, or setting and from whom the data were

obtained (Denzim, 1970). There were two participants in this research. The data used

in this study obtained from two different sources and two different data collections

techniques (observation and interview).

The process of data confirmation began from collecting the data from audio-

visual recording by doing class observations. The result of class observation and data

analysis would be clarified with the teacher opinion and understanding. Therefore, the

purpose of interviewing the participants was to discover their reason, opinion,

understanding, and expectations toward young learner classroom interaction. The

questions would be constructed later after the class observation data analysis. The

reason is the researcher ensured that the trustworthiness was preserved.

3.8.1 Answering of the Research Questions

This section present the steps of processing and analyzing the data to describe

how the data were collected and analyzed. This process was a fundamental section of

this study.


50

3.8.1.1 Conducting Classroom Observation

In this qualitative research, class observation used as a technique to collect data

about teacher talk. To get the audio-visual data, the researcher had to observe the

process of teaching and learning in the classroom. Firstly, the researcher met the

school’s principal to get a permission and informed her than the researcher would like

to do some classroom observation at the school. Second, the researcher met with

classroom teacher to arrange the observation schedule. Third, the researcher did the

observations and interview session with the classroom teacher and the school

principal.

In this study, the researcher transcribed the audio manually to get the clear

transcription of the teacher language. So the researcher described the interaction in

term of verbal language between teacher and students. Table 3.5 was the sample of

the audio transcript getting from class observation.

After the class, a detailed transcription of the recording was worked out and

then we got a comprehensive written record of the lessons to be analyzed statistically.

After the data were transcribed, the teacher talk was located based on the each

categories and analyzed with regard to the two research questions which the study

investigated.


51

Table 3.5: Observation Data Transcription

Date : Topic:

Extr

act

Conversation Context of situation Teache

r Talk

Coding Student Talk

001

(2)

T: “Good morning friend,

How are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss

Nining, I am fine thank you”

Teacher greets student

while starting the teaching

activity.

Accept

ing

(Acpt.)

Response

002

(2)

T: “Are you ready for

something, surprised?”

S: “Wow, we are ready Miss”

Teacher addressing to all

students in the classroom

Asks

questio

ns

(Ask.Quest

.)

Response

003

(2)

T: “Did you check the

weather outside, just a

moment ago. It is rainy or

sunny?”

S: “Sunny, the sun is very

bright”

Teacher asks the student

about today’s activity

Asks

questio

ns

(Ask.Quest

.)

Initiate

004

(2)

T: “Do you see little rain or

cloudy sky outside?”

S: “No, it is sunny already”

Teacher gives the

information about what

will they learn.

Asks

questio

ns

(Ask.Quest

.)

Initiate

Since the process of collecting data from different type of rich data from

different sources. The researcher regulated to collect and use all of the optional type of

data to confirm and support the validity of data analysis and data finding. As stated in

previous part this study gathered data from observation, interviews (teacher and the

school principle and field note (See the table 3.5).


52

Table Qualitative Data Collection Types and Sources of Data

(Adapted from Creswell, 2007)

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

Data Collection

Types

Sources Product Purpose

Interviews Research

participant

Interview

transcription,

interview note,

audio and audio

file recording.

-Elicit participants’

narrative story

-Anticipate and

pursue emergent

leads and clues

-Form the basis for

interpretation to

build meaning and

understanding

Observations -The research

participant’s

behavior, attitude

and actions.

-Appearances,

events, occurrences

and activities in the

immediate setting

(classroom and

institution)

Observation notes

and video

recording file

- Link, connect and

confirm facts and

findings

- Get description of

external behavior

and immediate

physical realities of

the participants and

research setting.

- Achieve

trustworthiness

3.8.1.2. Analyzing of Class Observation Data

There were several stages in analyzing the data in this study: (1) preparing the

data in the form of transcription by transcribe the class observation data. (2)

Categorizing the teacher talk and student talk based on the observation.(3) conducting

coding on the teacher talk and student talk based on the Flander Interaction Analysis

Coding System (FIACS) by from Flander (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006). During


53

the process of analyzing data, the researcher needed to managed, sorted out and

ensure for the type and pattern. Later to get clear and valid finding of what exactly

happened in classroom.

After that the researcher analyzed the pattern of interaction into three

categories, namely: teacher direct talk, teacher indirect talk and students’ talk. In

order to analyze the pattern of interaction, the researcher selected teacher and students

talk from the transcripts and put them those categories.

Table 3.7 Verbal Interaction categorization (Flander cited in Hey Bee 2007)

Focusing of Teacher talk and Student Talk

Category Type Talk or Utterance

Content Cross

Teacher dependence on

questions and lectures

Lecturing

Teacher gives facts or

opinion about content or

giving her own

explanation

T: “The second thing we

will use this paper for

wrapping the bottle this

way. Oh my bottle is small

so I can cut the paper like

this” (4/048)

Questioning

Teacher is asking question

about content or procedure

and expecting answer from

students

T: “Let’s listen to Fiona.

What are the material

come out from the volcano

when it is erupting?”

(3/015)

Teacher Control

Extensive commands and

reprimands by the teacher

Giving Direction

Teacher gives directions,

commands or orders which

student is expected to

comply with

T: “After you have finished

to make sandwich. You

will go outside to grill the

bread. And we will have

party” (2/030)

Criticizing or Justifying

Teacher asks ‘what ‘and

‘why’ to the students to

change students’ behavior

from unexpected to

acceptable behavior.

T:”I think Stefani has to

pay attention, you don’t

even finish your space

shuttle” (4/072)


54

Teacher Support

Teacher’s reinforcing and

encouraging students

Accepts feeling

Teacher accepts the

feelings of the students

T: “Good morning friends.

On Monday Miss Martha

told you about how to save

the earth” (4./001)

Use student idea

When the students’ ideas

are accepted by the teacher

then teacher may repeat in

her own word.

T: “So according to

Nathan. The rocket need

fire to be launched to the

outer space” (4./011)

Praise encouragement

Teacher praises of

encourages student action

or behavior

T: “Good, we can build

nice and comfortable tent”

(3/031)

Student Participation

Students’ response to the

teachers’ behavior

Student Talk Response

The student talk in

response to the teacher’s

talk

S: “Gold and silver”

(4/024)

S: “That is corn shape”

(2/045)

Student Talk Initiating

Talk by students that they

initiate, expressing own

ideas, initiating a new

topic and going beyond the

existing structure.

S: “I have ever tried the

marshmallow and the

color is colorful I also like

the taste” (2./026)

Silence Pause, short periods of

silence and period of

confusion in which cannot

be understood by the

observer.

T: “Do you know some

sign when volcano will

erupt? Do you know?”

S: “….” (silence) (4/025)

3.8.1.3. Ensuring Trustworthiness of research Result

The interview protocol developing unstructured interview. According to Hai &

Bee (2006), unstructured interview was intended to provoke through and further

information from the participants while making necessary confirmation to the

findings gained from the initial. The interview while conveying the understanding,


55

reason, opinion, though, feeling, expectation and experience in term of young learner

classroom interaction.

After the researcher analyzed the classroom observation data, the researcher

tried to ensure the result of class observation of data analysis. The researcher

interviewed the teachers to obtain their opinions on the certain talk they have

distributed and their teaching performance in order to manage the interaction. The

researcher listed the sample of interview questions with classroom teacher and the

school principle. The complete interview result with Ms. Nining can be seen on

appendix 9.

Table 3.8 Sample of Interview Questions with classroom teacher

No List of Questions

1 When you enter the classroom you greet your student by using the expression of

“good morning, friends?” Do you have any reason for using friends rather than

students?

2 You intense to use referential questions to asked your students. Do you have

any purpose with that?

3 How if your student can not answer your questions correctly?

4 What will you do to make them understand, in case your students are considered

as young learners?

5 Students tend to answer the questions shortly when you required them to

produce student talk response ‘answer’. Any reason about that?

6 Students seem prefer to initiate their answer rather than just do yes no question

or short answer. Why is that so?

The following was the sample of interview questions lists with the school

principle. The entire interview data were attached in Appendix 9. The following was

a sample of unstructured of interview of Ms. Detty as principle.


56

Table 3.9 Sample of Interview Questions with school principle

No List of Questions

1 Miss what is your personal opinion about young learner classroom interaction

using English as foreign language?

2 How about your expectation toward students in contributing their talk during

interaction?

3 What is your purpose, to require interaction at school time have to be done in

100% English?

4 Is there any consideration on more focus in oral form instead of written?

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

There were at least four stages to ensure the research result based on Wan

(2013). First constructing interview questions, the interview questions were

constructed based on the result of classroom observation data analysis. Second,

conducting the interview, the researcher directed face to face to interview the

participant using voice-recorder. Third conducting interview with the school principle

to know the school concept and certain requirement both from teacher and students in

term of interaction. The final step was analyzing the interview data. Furthermore, the

result of interview was able to help researcher in developing concept and idea in

order to support the accuracy and validity of research analysis.

The following figure showed the working of the data analysis technique and the

triangulation strategy to obtain the trustworthiness of this study adapted from

Creswell (2007). Figure 3.5 above provides the various steps in analyzing the data.

Those steps have applied in this research to conduct trustworthiness and to confirm


57

the finding. The overall steps in analyzing teacher talk and students talk would be

presented detailed in appendix 1 – 3.

Figure 3.2. Data Analysis Technique

Raw Data Collection

Data

Reading &

Recording

Narratives:

(Interview transcription, Description of field notes, etc)

Data

Readin

g

Coding, Categorizing, Reduction & Labelling

Thematic/categorized Data Presentation

Data Analysis,

Interpretation

&

Triangulation

Answering ‘why’ questions (Interview,

Observation &Analysis

Making Inferences

(interview

&observation)

Discussing Themes

(Interview,

Observation

&Analysis)

Drawing conclusions

(Interview, Observation

&Analysis)


58

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

This chapter presents the research result and discussion. The results will be divided

into: (1) data result, (2) discussion, and (3) summary.

4.1 RESULTS

This part provides the general description of young learner classroom

interaction. First, the pattern of interaction found during teaching and learning

activity. Second, the overall description of how the interaction happened. Third, it is

also provide the interview result with the classroom teacher and the school principal.

4.1.1 The General Description of Teaching and Learning Process.

The researcher describes further about the general description of learning

process at Ananda Mentari School. The brief description of teaching learning process,

the participants of the study, and the classroom interaction will be presented first.

One class was handed by two teachers. One teacher was responsible to teach

and to lead the class activities and the other teacher helped the students to finish the

task or the activity. This became a special consideration that the students were young

learners. Most primary-grade children (4-5) are still preoperational. They learn best

with concrete experiences and immediate goals (Kamp, Sue, and Coppell (2002). In

this case, the teacher has already got acquainted with the students. As the result, the

process of interaction could be well managed. In other words, students learnt new


59

thing from the teacher. They experienced the real situation by doing the activities in

class.

When the researcher started joining the class at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten,

the researcher noticed that students liked to talk or talk-active. It could be seen during

the observations, which students liked to mention the name objects, defined a

sentence and described about things in their own words. The students needed to know

how to feel and to know about new object in order to understand it well. They learnt

through the oral language or the verbal behaviors which were delivered by the

teacher. For example vocabulary, pronunciation, intonation and many more contents

in form of the teacher’s explanations and directions.

Finally, both of the teacher and students created a classroom situation that

made students feel comfortable to initiate and do interaction using English. The

activities mostly were done in classroom. The teacher was showing pictures, videos,

and objects and demonstrating about certain process related to the topic. The teacher

spent her teaching time on explaining things to the students, talking to them,

questioning and answering student’s several questions.

Norman & Schmidt (2004) cited in Brendel 2014 find out that more effective

teachers organized their teaching in a way which: (1) Reviewed the content to access

learner’s abilities; (2) Overviewed the content with the students, motivating them and

showing why it will be important to them; (3) Presented the content in small simple

steps, asking questions while doing this; (4) Exercised the content to provide learners

time to practice the skills they have already learnt. The researcher found that the


60

interaction in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School had similar approach to the

theory from Norman & Schmidt about organizing an effective teaching.

The following description gave clear explanation why interactions were well

managed by the teacher. In the preparation of teaching earning process was well

prepared and well organized in the class. The class material was explained in a

compressible ways. The activities were prepared and delivered clearly related to the

topic. The directions were understandable and concise.

Those situation provided enough chance for the students in acquiring all the

learning process. Through those fun learning activities, students brought to

experience the real context of situation. They could learn the new vocabulary and

practice the target language in different topic. During the activities, students had a lot

of opportunities to practice their target language by interacting with their teacher and

also their friends. When students practiced those language inputs, they would be easy

to remember all the contents, vocabulary and pronunciation, since, the students would

remember what they had already done in all class activities.

4.1.2 Interaction Event

The data of this study were generated from taking audio-video visual record of

four meetings of the classroom interaction. Each meeting was observed in 60 minutes

length. The observation were conducted four times in 3 months (January, February

and March) in 2016. The observed verbal behaviors were translated into the described

into descriptive codes. Its printed out is enclosed in appendix 3-6.

The participant of this study was a female kindergarten school teacher who has

been teaching young learner for almost 5 years. The observations were done during


61

she was delivering teaching-learning practices in the classroom in kindergarten B.

The class consisted of 15 students; 9 girls and 6 boys. The researcher took position at

the back as non-participant in the classroom. The researcher was not involved in class

activities in order to get the natural interaction without any distractions from the

researcher.

The observations were focused on the talk occurring during the class activities.

The data acquired were plotted into different matrix namely; talking time-interaction

analysis and interaction analysis. Those were conducting after completing the steps

(1,2,3) suggested by FIACS (Flanders Interaction Analysis Coding System). The

matrixes had different purposed in serving or displaying the data found.

The first matrix focused on the talk and the verbal behavior performed during

the classroom interaction. Furthermore, it was also used to analyze the pattern of

classroom interaction (the content cross, the teacher control, the teacher support, the

students’ participation and additional direct and indirect talk distributed by teacher).

The matrix presented in tables below showed the pattern found during interaction.

The complete one can be seen on the appendix 3-


62

Table 4.1 Pattern (1st Meeting).

F

I

R

S

T

R

E

V

E

N

T

FIRST OBSERVATION

Accept feelings 5

95

Praise or

Encouragement 6

Accepts or uses

student’s ideas

Asking questions 17

Lecturing/explaini

ng 12

Giving direction 10

Criticizing or

justifying

authority

2

Student talk

response 23

Student talk

initiation 16

Silence 6

Total 5 6 17 12 10 2 23 16 6

Table 4.2 Pattern (2nd

Meeting).

S

E

C

O

N

D

E

V

E

N

T

SECOND OBSERVATION

Accept feelings 5

120

Praise or

Encouragement 6

Accepts or uses

student’s ideas 3

Asking questions 20

Lecturing/explaini

ng 10

Giving direction 10

Criticizing or

justifying

authority

7

Student talk

response 24

Student talk

initiation 31

Silence 4

Total 5 6 3 20 10 10 7 24 31 4


63

Table 4.3 Pattern (3rd

Meeting)

T

H

I

R

D

E

V

E

N

T

THIRD OBSERVATION

Accept feelings 3

145

Praise or

Encouragement 7

Accepts or uses

student’s ideas 2

Asking questions 20

Lecturing/explaini

ng 21

Giving direction 5

Criticizing or

justifying

authority

4

Student talk

response 24

Student talk

initiation 36

Silence 2

Total 3 7 2 20 21 5 4 24 36 2

Table 4.4 Pattern (4th

Meeting)

F

O

U

R

T

H

E

V

E

N

T

FOURTH OBSERVATION

Accept feelings 6

134

Praise or

Encouragement 15

Accepts or uses

student’s ideas 4

Asking questions 15

Lecturing/explaini

ng 14

Giving direction 15

Criticizing or

justifying

authority

4

Student talk

response 33

Student talk

initiation 39

Silence 4

Total 6 15 4 15 14 15 4 33 39 4


64

The four matrixes are about classroom interaction pattern in first meeting until

fourth meeting. They are indicated that interaction is not dominated by the teacher.

The distribution of each type of talk is also balance with one to another. It can be seen

from the number of the teacher talk (tail 1-7) and the student talk (tail 8-10).

Furthermore, it is found that the number of talks also increases. Based on the

observation, in the first meeting the class activity is not as many as other meetings

since the activity is only class discussion without any simulation about the topic.

Another point is the number of silence (tail 10) has very low frequent. It showed that

students are active in participating classroom discussion.

4.1.2.1 Teacher Talk and Student Talk

Before the researcher shows the percentage result of the teacher’s talk and the

student’s talk, the researcher defines the differences of percentage of the teacher talk

and the percentage of student talk. The definitions are suggested by from Flander

(1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).

First, the percentage of teacher talk represented the amount of the total class

time during which the teacher is speaking. To find the percentage of teacher talk, the

total number of column 1-7 is divided by the total number of columns in the matrix.

Second, the percentage of student talk indicated the amount of the total class

time during which a student is speaking. The percentage of student talk is found by

dividing the total number of columns 8 and 9 by the total number of columns in the

matrix. Below is the result of teacher talk proportion in each meeting (1st-4

th

meeting). The complete result can be seen in appendix 2.


65

Table 4.5 The Results of Students’ Talk and Teacher’s Talk

No Meeting Teacher Talk Student Talk Silence

Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

1 First 52 53% 39 41.5% 6 5.5%

2 Second 59 49.5% 55 47% 4 3.5%

3 Third 62 51.5% 60 47% 2 1.5%

4 Fourth 63 54% 72 53.2% 4 2.8%

478

Total 236 49.5% 226 47.2% 16 3.3%

In order to describe the table above, the total number of teacher talk will be

compared with the number of student talk category. The teacher talk and the student

talk will be compared in the four meeting observations. The result shows that the

teacher talk and the student talk is not really different 49.5% and 47.2% for students’

talk. Further a lot information about the observation result in teacher-student

interaction will be presented. The table shows that the total number of talk during

interaction is 478 of utterances. Those utterances will be divided into two main

categories teacher talk and student talk. The proportion of student talk is 226 or 49%.

Those utterances will be classified into 3 parts. The proportion of teacher talk is 236

or 51% the teacher talk will be classified into direct and indirect influence. The result

of teacher talk can be seen in table 4.6 about classroom interaction in 4 different

pattern.


66

Table 4.6 Result Summary of Classroom Interaction Pattern

No Profile First

Meeting

Second

Meeting

Third

Meeting

Fourth

Meeting

Total

Meeting

1 Content Cross 31.53% 27% 28% 21.6% 26.28%

2 Teacher Control 13.63% 14.16% 12.2% 14% 13.74%

3 Teacher Support 11.57% 13.66% 10.8% 18.4% 12.10%

4 Students’ Participation 43.27% 45.85% 46% 54% 45.47%

To describe the table above, the total number of teachers’ and students; talk will be

categorized into four different patterns (content cross, teacher control, teacher support

and student participation). The percentage of each patterns have been counted using

Flander Interaction Analysis System (FIAS) formulas. After that it will compared with all

observation meeting result to get the accumulation of each pattern. The result shows the

student participation become the most predominant pattern. The proportion of student

participation pattern is high in the whole four meeting is 43.27%, 45.85%, 46% and 54%.

It means that the students are active enough in the classroom interaction. The second

predominant pattern is content cross. The proportion is 31.53%, 27, 28% and 26, 28%. It

spend 26.28% of teaching learning time, it mean teacher spent more her talking time in

lecturing. She was giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with her own ideas

to give comprehensible input for the students.

4.1.3 The Interview Result

Before the researcher presented the interview result, the researcher tried to

describe the participant and the process of the interview. There were two subjects to


67

be interviewed in this research. The subject of this study was the classroom teacher

and the school principle of Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School.

The first subject of this study was one female kindergarten teacher who had

been teaching in Ananda Mentari Jogjakarta for about 3 years and 15 kindergarten

students who set in Kindergarten B. To obtain trustworthiness of the narrative data,

the researcher also interviewed the teacher as the participant of the research. The

students were not interviewed since they were considered as young learner so their

opinion would not reliable enough. Therefore in this study, the researcher only

focused on the interview process that had already been done by the teacher and the

school principal. The purpose was to confirm the result and clarify un-observable

utterances which researcher found difficult to identify (coding process).

The second subject was the head master and also the founder of Ananda

mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta. The researcher needed to confirm the result

of the study. Furthermore, it was crucial for the researcher to know about the concept

(background) of the school, some school regulations, expectations, and understanding

about young learner interaction. In order to enrich the information about students, the

teacher and the school as well. Furthermore, it supported the finding of this research

by providing school principal’s opinion.

The first interview with the classroom teacher was done in May 17th

2016 in the

teacher’s room. The researcher arranged the appointment before met her. The

interview took time for about 30-40 minutes. The interviews with the teacher were

done in English. The teacher gave the researcher a lot information about teaching


68

learning process in her class. She was very helpful and answered the questions very

detail information.

The second interview with the head master (founder) was done in April 22nd

2016. The interview took 30 minutes and it was done in English too. The head master

gave in depth information about the concept of school, her own understanding and

expectation toward young learner classroom interaction. The researcher informed her

about the result if the study in order to get her confirmation.

Three months after observations ended, the teacher was interviewed in order to

obtain her opinion, reason and perspective on the communicative processes at

classroom. The interview was conducted after some basic findings and results to

develop interview questions. Furthermore, the interview guideline from wan (2010)

were also used to develop the questions. The researcher had already listed the crucial

point from the interview result. Below was the summary of interview with classroom

teacher, the complete one can be seen in appendix 8-9.

Table 4.7 Summary of the interview with the teacher

TOPIC

(Question)

RESPONSE

Teacher

Experience

She has been teaching in kindergarten for 2 years in

Indonesian language as language teaching.

She has been teaching in Ananda Mentari almost 4 years.

Teaching young learner, teach students with fun and

happy we hope that the student will enjoy the lesson

easily.

Student’s

background

The students are mostly have been learning in Ananda

Mentari start from Baby class.

Some of them speak English in their own home.

The new comer students are able to adapt with the school


69

but they need more time to enjoy the class.

School Regulation The student used 100% English in class during the

teaching and learning process.

We only use Bahasa only in moral lesson so the students

do not forget their own native language.

Accepting She greets the students by “friend” because she wants to

be their friend instead of teacher.

The students always response her greeting and excited to

know about today activity.

Questioning She often uses referential questions to explore students’

ideas about the topic.

During the discussion teacher only use pictures and

videos.

The printed books will be used during free-time after

snack time in the library.

The teacher has prepared the material the day before we

teach the students together with curriculum division.

There is no incorrect or correct answer.

Giving Direction

When the students do not understand the direction, we

will repeat the direction.

Teacher stimulate students to aware their own mistake

and corrected by themselves.

The long directions are given to give comprehensible

input for students.

Praising and

Encouraging

Teacher encourages the students when they more

support to complete the task.

The passive students will put near from the teacher by

arrange the seat position in the beginning of class.

The passive students do not mean they are not smart but

they need more focus

Lecturing Teacher gave explanation about facts such as teacher

personal experience or knowledge to the students.

The long explanation means many inputs for students.

Teacher used Indonesia when she explained new and

complicated term.

Teacher has enough time to review the explanation in

the end of lesson or the day after.


70

There are presentation, discussion and exploration

section in whole teaching.

Criticizing or

justifying

Teachers checking the students by moving around,

asking, observing.

So when the students act misbehavior during the class

teacher will remind them about the rule.

There is a rule that have agreed in the early of class.

The students are easy to control since they understood

the rule.

Student Talk Student active in discussion because they get a lot of

input and learn English from them still are young.

Teacher usually tend to stimulate student to answer in

long sentence in order to explore their experience

The students love to interact with new person using

English.

The teacher also help them by corrected both vocab and

structure.

The second interview had been done with the school principal of Ananda

Mentari Kindrgarten School. The questions were developed by Hartanto (2010) and

supported by the researcher understanding, experience and result of observation about

young learner classroom interaction. The goal was to seek the opinion and

understanding of the founder about young learner classroom interaction. In this sense,

researcher tried to carry out the school principle knowledge, opinion and idea in the

analysis process. The complete interview transcriptions can be seen in appendix 10.

Table 4.8 Summary of the interview with the school principal

TOPIC

(Question)

RESPONSE

Concept of the

school

She established the school to help mothers in order to

take care their kids during work day.

They teach the students become independent and to


71

respect each other.

In making curriculum, and established all the decision

from that philosophy of “mother and child”.

Founder’s

understanding

about interaction

The easiest way to teach young learner because they

will follow all the directions.

The students are genius in their own way and they

accept everything that we give.

She believes is not difficult for us to build relationship,

trust in teaching and learning condition.

Founder’s

expectation about

interaction

(teacher)

Teachers have to be able to talk to the students as

friend not as teacher.

The basic communication is teacher has similar level

with students.

Founder’s

expectation about

interaction

(students)

The think that I know is they come to school every day

and I want to see them happy.

There is nothing they have to finish or mastered in

some skills.

School Regulation

(using English to

communicate)

I believe English is the universal language that people

have to learn.

If they want to explore and learn, provide them with

Indonesian movie or book will not be enough.

We want to use the golden ages to build up the

vocabulary and ability to speak in English.

They don’t speak bad words We control their

vocabularies

School Regulation

(focus on speaking

skill)

The regulation in kindergarten. We not supposed to

give them writing and reading courses.

The point is that they do something because they want

to do not have to do.

That is enough for me, my children have self-

confidence to talk to foreigner without any doubt in

making mistake.

School Regulation

(grammar)

We don’t have standard of grammar, we concern more

English as communication purpose only.

The more they learn English in the classroom the

grammar become better.

Student’s Behavior Our philosophy we are not teacher but we are the


72

mothers.

Because of the philosophy at the earlier, it becomes the

fundamental all the activities here.

4.2 DISCUSSIONS

The researcher has finished the research procedure such as, observation stages

and interview step. The first next stage is to describe the observation results. The

second stage is starting to relate between teacher’s opinion, point of view and the

reason in using her talk during the process of teaching and learning. The third stage is

adding school principle opinion toward young learner interaction, the understanding

and the expectation toward teachers and the student’s quality.

The research goal of this study is to discover the interaction pattern in the

young learner classroom analysis. The focus is to find out the predominant pattern

such as student participation, content cross, teacher control, and teacher support.

Furthermore, the description and the interpretation section is supported by interview

result both with the classroom teacher and the school principal.

In the discussion section, the researcher showed the answer of first research

question about the most predominant interaction pattern. The discussion started with

the most predominant pattern to less dominant pattern. The second research

questions, were also answered in this section about how the interaction happened in

Anand Mentari Kindergarten School. The description of interaction was attached in

every single type of talk both teacher and students.


73

4.2.1 Predominant Patterns of Young Learner Classroom Interaction

The pattern of classroom interaction on each variable in young learner

classroom interaction has been presented on the data result in the previous part of this

chapter. The interpretation of data results will be presented as follows, it started from

the most predominant pattern to less dominant patterns. The discussion would be

supported by the result of interview both from teacher and the school principal.

4.2.1.1 Student Participation

Based on the result, it could be concluded that most predominant pattern in the

classroom interaction was student’s participation. The proportion was (45.47%), it

showed that the students were active enough to participate. In responding the

teacher’s utterances such as questions, directions and explanations. The students not

only responded to the teacher but also initiated their opinion during the discussion.

(Mercer & Dawes, 2008) when students are active participate in spoken language, it

can help them enrich their target language sources and build their confidence to

communicate in English.

The student’s participation pattern consist of three types of student’s talk. There

are student talk responding and student initiating which has high percentage from the

total teaching-learning time. The proportion of the students’ participation pattern can

be seen in the graph 4.1 below.


74

Graph 4.1 Student Participation Pattern

From the graph, it can be seen that in the four times meeting students are active

enough in talking both initiating and responding. Student participation make up

(45.47%) of the total interaction pattern. However the student talk initiation was the

highest variable is (29%) in fourth meeting. It shows that, students tend to speak

initiating talk compared to responding talk (25.80%). Furthermore, the total number

of student talk is 226 utterances. Which are classified into 2 of different type

utterances (student talk response and student talk initiation).

The researcher tried to list the percentage in each meeting based on the graph

4.1. In first until fourth meeting, student talk response percentage were 24.20%,

25.80%, 24.80% and 29% or its represents 104 utterances. Next is the student talk

initiation the percentage starts the first meeting until fourth meeting 17%, 20%,

16.50% and 24.60% or it constitutes 122 utterances from the total 226 students talk

pattern. The proportion of student talk initiation and student talk response can be

seen in the graph 4.2 below.

0,00%

10,00%

20,00%

30,00%

FirstSecond

ThirdFourth

24,20% 25,80%

16,50%

24,60% 17% 20%

24,80% 29%

Student Participation

Student talk response Student talk initiation


75

Graph 4.2 The distribution of Students’ Talk

In addition, the researcher also provides the graph 4.2 about the distribution of

student talk. It have already been discussed that student participation pattern entails

of two variable student talk response and student talk initiation. Student talk

initiation was the highest frequent number in student talk category. It constituted

54% or 122 utterances. The second was student talk response, it represented 104 or

43% or 97 utterances from the total utterances found in the class discussion. The

reason was mostly because the students preferred to talk based on their idea instead

of just repeat what teacher has already told. The last variable of student participation

pattern was silence, it represented in low frequency 3% or 6 silence from all

discussions.

From the result, it can be seen we that the students are active, since they spent

most their time to talk and they rarely have silence during the discussion. The result

indicates that the students demonstrate their enthusiasm on responding and initiating

to their teacher stimulation in form of verbal behavior. Further analysis of the

results is made based on each categories.

Student's Silence

3% Student Talk Response

43%

Student Talk Initiation

54%

The Distribution of Students' Talk

Student's Silence

Student Talk Response

Student Talk Initiation


76

4.2.1.1.1 Student Talk Response

The first variable of student participation pattern which has substantial

proportion is student talk response 43% or 97 utterances out of 226 total utterance.

Student response talk had been done by the student in responding to the teacher’s

talk. When teacher asked question, the students were directly gave their answer after

questions have distributed.

The classroom observation data showed that, student used student talk response

for one purpose. The purpose was to answer the questions about lesson. They have

already learnt or when the teacher tried to reviewed the previous lesson. The way

students responded to the teacher’s verbal interaction also short. The expressions

used by the student were clearly shown in the following extract 4.1.

Extract 4.1

T: “So is the map right or wrong?”

S: “Wrong” (1./039)

In this conversation, the teacher wanted to check if the students got the

correct map or not. Additionally, the teacher often asked the students a questions to

identify students’ understanding for performing certain behaviors. The student

responded teacher to let the teacher know about the problem that they had during

the class activity. As the result if the answer was “wrong” so the teacher can help

students to find the correct map.

Extract 4.2

T: “And yesterday we learnt about people who might travel to out

space. What we call those people?”

S: “Astronaut” (4./007)


77

In extract 4.2 students responded to the teacher about previous topic. The

reason why teacher used question to review the topic that they have already

discussed. According to Tang (2010) to provide adequate support and maintain the

student’s engagement in the course. When the students responded about their

memory in remembering topic “astronaut”. It means students got enough

understanding about the topic, so they kept remember thing they have already done.

The teacher paid attention to the student’s comprehension and provided the

appropriate, suitable support in form of asking them about thing they already learnt

in previous meeting.

Interview transcription 4.1

“We don’t give them special training to the students. When there is a guest

come they will act normally. We only inform them about the guest. They will

interest to the new people. In addition, they love to interact with new person

using English”

In the interview transcription 4.1 result with classroom teacher. The student talk

responses meant talk produced by the students, in order to respond students’ verbal

behavior about the content and the procedure. According to the teacher the classroom

interaction have already observed were the real context without any modification or

training. The classroom condition was naturally happened, because the students were

not easy distracted by new people in their class. As researcher found, the students

were nice to have interaction with the researcher.

The students seem more active when there was new person in class; even they

tried to get interaction using English with the researcher. When a student talked “who

are you?” to the researcher, the teacher justify students act by saying “is that polite to


78

ask who are you to Miss Martha?” In this example, it can be seen that teacher did

well controlled when student interacted to new people in class. It was not only matter

of using English but also properness of language used by the students.


“The students like to talk by their own idea rather just answer yes no

questions. I also prefer to ask them to produce longer answer so that

they can speak more to produce target language”

Another findings, the student gave their response in short answer when the

teacher asked about procedure or yes/no questions. According to the teacher, the

students tend to answer in long rather than short answer. It can be seen in interview

transcription 4.2. The student talk responses has lower amount of percentage rather

than the student talk initiation. During the observation, the teacher tended to give the

referential questions instead of yes/no questions in order to explore student’s critical

thinking. That was become the reason why the students respond was lower rather than

the student initiation talk. Hence, the habit of Ananda Mentari kindergarten school in

requiring students to speak longer in order to give their own idea.

4.2.1.1.2 Student Talk Initiation

The next student talk is student talk initiation as the most dominance in

student participation pattern. It represents 54% or 122 utterances from total of

student talk. The further information about student initiated talk. Through this type

of talk students are able to express their own ideas; initiating a new topic; freedom

to develop opinion and line of though like asking thoughtful questions and going

beyond the existing structure or procedure.


79

The student’s initiation talk has the high proportion. The topic decided in

teaching learning process such as camping, treasure and meals. Those influences

student’s motivation in initiating their opinion during interaction. In other words,

the students were confident and brave enough to initiate the interaction both with

teacher and friends. This statement was supported by Pinter (2006) good

characteristic of learner are those who have willingness to experiment the language

and initiate questions in interacting with teacher. Student were initiating their ideas

become a habit in this school which is shown by the use of English in daily

interaction.

The students were significantly during the discussion; those conditions are

influenced by the use of AVA (audio visual aid) such as video, picture, computer

program that was quite interesting for the students. Those kind of media help the

teacher to give clear explanation. In addition, it is also used to attract the student’s

attention.

The other reason is because there are only 15 students in one class so as the

result the teacher was able to give the extra attention and enough time for the

students to be active participated. The expressions used by the student are clearly

shown in the following extract 4.3.

Extract 4.3

T: “Excellent, Nathan, we can also can make a fire to burn a marshmallow”

S: “Wow marshmallow I have some in my home” (2./050)

According to the conversation in extract 4.3 the students not only responded

to teacher’s verbal behavior, but also they initiated their own idea about


80

marshmallow based on their experience. The researcher also found that student

initiated their talk by themselves without the teacher asked them to initiate. The

observational result showed, that the students initiated their own opinion more than

just response. It constituted 54% or 122 utterances. The second was the student talk

response, it represented 104 or 43% or 97 utterances from the total utterances found

in the class discussion. The student was able to develop his own ideas by

participating in the discussion.

Extract 4.4

S: “When the space shuttle is in out space the rocket will fall down back to the

earth”

T: “Emm thank you Fian for such great opinion, but we will talk it later”

(4./015)

It can be seen from extract 4.4; students initiated their talk during the

discussion. When teacher was giving input in form of explanation to the students.

Based on Hai Bee (2007) teacher was able to reinforce and build of students’ ideas

content by inform the students about interesting content. It meant the more student-

initiated comments were occurring before the teacher reinforcement, the more target

language they produced during the interaction. This statement was supported by

Swain (1985); pushing learners to produce more comprehensible output have a long-

term effect. Since, when students initiated their talk they were able to practice

numerous vocabularies, the language function and promote student’s self-confidence

in expressing their opinion in front of the class.



81

“We use English everyday even some of them use English to communicate with

their family. They get input not only from school so they learning by doing.

They listen to the teacher, movie, and song so they become acquitted with the

pronunciation and grammar they also learn by observing people around them.

The teacher also helps them by correct them if they speak in wrong structure”

Students were not allowed to speak Indonesian during school. They were

allowed only in Bahasa Indonesian lesson once in week. So the students were still

able to speak their own native language. The student used English as main classroom

language since the school regulation required both teacher and student to speak in

English. Sometimes students’ talk was not correct but that was not the problem since

the goal was to make them active. The teacher usually helped them to express

students’ idea by stimulate them to keep talking. Based on the observation, the

teacher listened all students’ answer, by doing this the student felt that they were

respected by the teacher. Merrill Swain (1985) has taken Krashen’s idea one step

further with her suggestion that students acquired language most meaningfully when

they also have opportunity for comprehensible “output”, or “pushed output”.


“Yes, teacher usually tends to stimulate student to answer in long sentence in

order to explore their experience during the lesson. To promote them to speak

more in target language about their own personal opinion”

The classroom activities in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School were

dominated by the students or we called as student centered classroom. It was not

typical classroom characteristic in Indonesia which the teacher was always

dominating the class interaction. In this young learner classroom interaction, the


82

students spent the most of their time in responding and initiating their ideas their own

idea during the discussion. Ellis (1994) argued that, the interaction provided

opportunities to encounter input or to practice the target language. It meant when the

students asked the teacher questions, interaction between the teachers and learners

became obvious. The resulting teacher talk can attract the learner’s attention and may

be more facilitative acquisition of the target language.

4.2.1.1.3 Student Silence

The last variable of the student participation pattern is silence. It represents in

low frequency 3.3% or 16 silence from total utterances 478 found during class

discussions. In the verbal communication, when the students do not produce sound

to response to the teacher questions is called silence. From the result it can be seen

that the students were active, since they spent most their time to talk and rarely they

have silence during the discussion. The expression and situation experienced by the

student are clearly shown in the following excerpts:

Extract 4.5

T: “Why are you smiling Peter? What will you do if the volcano eruption

happened?”

S: “………….” (Silent)

T:” When it is really happen you don’t have time to smile because it is so

scared”

S:”I will run away to safe place, seeking for exit door miss” (3. /030)

Sometimes the students became silent because they did not understand the

teacher’s questions. As the result, the students did not say anything in responding to

the teacher’s verbal behavior. The teacher helped the students to find the answer by

giving a clue. Furthermore, the teacher also provided longer time to give student


83

extra time found the answer. According to Maley (2003) the teacher was providing

longer time to wait might lead to students’ profound output which further improves

the classroom interaction.

Based on the observation result, the teacher’s question in the extract 4.5

means questioning about the students’ behavior during they had done the volcano

eruption simulation. The students should in the serious attention to move. It was

crucial to save their life when volcano eruption happened. The situation was

students keep talking to each other’s. That became the reason of the teachers’ verbal

behavior on this conversation. Furthermore, the student’s silence meant that, they

would follow teachers’ instruction to be serious and focus to do the volcano

eruption simulation.

Extract 4.6

T:”I think Stefani has to pay attention, you don’t even finish your space

shuttle”

S:”…………..” (Silent) (4./072)

In the extract 4.6 it can be seen that students were silent because the teacher

tried to criticize student’s behavior. This conversation indicated, the teacher let the

conversation “blank” without any talk. The goal was to let the student realized her

mistake. Sometimes a teacher found a condition that should be faced by any action

to control the class. The example is in extract 4.6, when the teacher delivered an

utterance to make student focus on the lesson. The silence period in this case was

happened because student realizes she was wrong. Teacher kept silent and dis what

the teacher asked for to finish her space shuttle. Schmidt (2002) cited in Wang

(2010) stated that a connection exists between learning and attention. He further


84

explained that noticing, which is required learner focus, was a crucial part of the

learning process. Finally we can conclude about student’s the silence period was not

only they did not understand or confused about teacher’s behavior, but also they

realized ,figured out their mistake and attention the warning from the teacher.


”Usually the passive students we put them in the front near the teacher so they

can understand the direction, explanation that we give to them. Sometimes, I

usually provide them longer time to answer the questions”

In the table of interview result, it can be seen about the teacher’s opinion

toward student’s silence in class discussion. Walsh (2011) states the meaning of

students’ silence in verbal communication was not always confusion or they do know

nothing. As the researcher stated before, silence in class has two meaning or

condition. First when the teacher was asking them to stop certain disturbed behavior.

Second, when students could not understand teacher’s explanation or direction. The

teacher provided longer time to wait the student responds the questions. This

statement was in line with cited Maley (2003) the teacher was allowing longer time

for students to make their responses to be promoted and facilitated the interaction. In

addition, the teacher concerned about avoiding student’s misunderstanding. By

arranging students’ seat position was applied by teacher to make sure student got

clear information during class discussion.

The student’s participation pattern was the most frequently happen during the

interaction. From this condition, the researcher concluded that teacher was success

to lead the interaction. The other factor was because the students’ background, they


85

got many language inputs. It can be seen from the result, students were mostly

responded and initiated their idea. Finally, the teacher, and the students supported

each other to create a compressible interaction.

The conclusion from the student participation pattern was related to

comprehensible output and comprehensible input. Input (lecturing) was defined as

language as language which a learner heard or received and from which her or she

can learn. The output was kind of language that the student produce since the

teacher stimulated them through questioning. IRF (Initiation, respond and feedback)

also gives direct influence to the way teacher and student do interact in classroom.

4.2.1.2 Content Cross

Graph 4.3 The Content Cross Pattern

In the four meetings, the content cross is the second predominant pattern; it is

26.28% or 129 utterances from the total 478 utterances found in four meetings. It

could be showed that the teacher spent the teaching-learning process in asking

questions and lecturing. In the graph 4.3 it can be seen the distribution of both

lecturing and questioning in each meeting. In the first meeting is 15.70% for

questioning and 12.60 % for lecturing. In the second meeting is 16.60% for

15,70%

8,30%

13,70% 11,20%

12,60%

16,60% 14,50%

10,40%

FIRST SECOND THIRD FOURTH

Content Cross

Lecturing Questioning


86

questioning and 8.7 % for lecturing. In the third meeting is for 14.50% questioning

and 13.70% for lecturing. The last meeting found the percentage for lecturing 11.20%

and 10.40% for questioning. From the graph we can conclude that questioning

become the most frequent variable compared to lecturing in content cross pattern.

The proportion of the content cross pattern in each variable can be seen in the

graph below:

Graph 4.4 The distribution of Lecturing and Questioning

In this study the researcher also provided graph 4.4 about the distribution of the

content cross pattern. The content cross pattern can be divided into two types of

teacher talk; lecturing and questioning. The questioning variable is the highest

frequent percentage in content cross pattern category. The questioning constitutes

55.20% or 72 utterance. The second variable is lecturing; it represents 44.80% or 57

utterance from the total utterances 129 talk in the four times class discussions. The

percentage was not too much so that the teacher was not dominating the interaction. It

pointed that teacher stimulate the students to be active by delivering question and

gave the input through lecturing. The researcher also found that the teacher gave her

lecturing part in long explanation and contained full of the new term or contents. This

Lecturing; 44,80%

Questioning ; 55,20%

L E C T U R I N G

Q U E S T I O N I N G

0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00%

THE DISTRIBUTION OF LECTURING AND QUESTIONING


87

become the reason why questioning has higher frequency rather than lecturing. In

addition, teacher asks different questions with different students too. In order to seek

different information both from different question and students.

4.2.1.2.1 Lecturing

From the graph 4.4, it could be seen that in the four times meetings the

teacher was giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with her own ideas

to make meaningful input for students. It represents 44.80% or 57 utterance from

the total utterances 129 talk in the four times class discussions. It can also be seen

from the percentage were significantly high (15.70%) in the first meeting.

The explanations were given by the teacher typical long and complicated

phrase for young learner. But since the students have already spoken fluently in

English, they understood it. If there was new words the teacher would inform them

about the meaning and how to pronounce it in correct way.

Giving information in lecturing the students was crucial during the teaching

and learning activity. Input was defined as language which was a learner hears or

receives and from which her or she can learn (Ellis, 2008). In this case, the teacher

was giving information to make students understand the lesson. In other word

through lecturing the teacher already gave input in form of new content information

and new vocabulary for the students. According to Ellis (2008) paying attention to

input on the importance of listening skill from increased listening opportunities. It

indicates lecturing or presentation section gives the learner the opportunity to gather

meanings and to associate them with the language. Hence, students could give their


88

full attention in understanding the messages that were being communicated without

pressure to respond immediately. The expressions used by the teacher is clearly

shown in the following extract 4.7:

Extract 4.7

T: “So yesterday we learnt about storm, flood and land slide. And today we will

learnt another disaster”

S: “It must be sad when we discuss about disaster Miss” (3./004)

The context of the conversation in extract 4.7 was the teacher recall the

students’ memory about the previous topic. The teacher also informed about todays’

topic they would discuss. The significant purpose of inform about topic before started

lesson was to prepare the students to think about the material would be explained by

teacher.

In extract 4.7 students initiated their feeling about the topic. According to

Swain (1985) only in under certain circumstance the output contributes to improve

the target language acquisition and learning process. It meant when the teacher

delivered a questions to students, she gave opportunities for students to produce the

language output meaningful and the comprehensible way. In addition, students have

already remembered about topic they already knew. The result was the discussion

became smooth and teacher was able to give more input to the students. As Cameron

(2001) states that, the information received as input, was mentally processed, and the

results students would produce the output. It meant the language exposure was given

by the teacher stimulated students to produce the output.

Extract 4.8

T: “The airport must be closed. The pilot can’t drive the airplane”


89

S: “The people will stay at home” (3./036)

In extract 4.8 the teacher was not only inform but she explained the condition

when volcano eruption happened. The teacher wanted the students realized about the

condition so easy for them to use their own imagination. In addition, not all students

known about airport regulation during disaster happened. Some students have

already understood but some of them amazed about the fact given by the teacher. The

input in form of new information became significant stimulation for the students to

produce language output. The fact, after got new term information, students initiated

their opinion “The people will stay at home” The people will stay at home. This type

of situation contributed to create active and lively classroom.

Extract 4.9

T : “The smoke and the dust come out from the volcano may burn

everything. Actually the dust is very good for people to plant vegetable and

fruit. They are very useful for planting because it makes the soil fertile. That

was the reason people plant the vegetable and fruit in the high land, because

the soil there are very fertile”

S : “Wow I like to plant fruit in my field (3./044)

In the conversation above sometimes the teacher gave long and complicated

explanations to the student. The teacher gave information about the positive aspect of

volcanoes eruption based on her experiences. Teacher not only gave input from text

book, videos and picture but also teacher was adding her personal experience to

enrich her explanation. At those situation students were required to listen carefully.

The input Hypothesis by Swain (1985) claims that language input in form of listening

comprehension is important in the language program. It meant learners have built

their target language competence through comprehending input. According to the


90

input hypothesis explained by Krashen. The input must be comprehensible in that it is

near the learner’s current level of development, called I, and the level that learner will

get to next must slightly beyond the level at which he or she already acquired, called

i+1(Krashen, 1982). In this case, the teacher gave a long explanation therefore

students got input in form of vocabulary, content and pronunciation. Later they were

able to practice what they have already listened. Some of the explanations were from

the teacher’s personal experience, the teacher tried to give explanation beyond from

students’ knowledge. As the result, students acquired more about the content and

target language comprehension.

When the teacher shared her experience, students were interested to the

explanation even it contained new vocabulary. The strategies the teacher used was

significantly effective. During her explanation the teacher also supported her talk

using gesture (body movement). The example, the teacher moved her hand to show

mountain to make students understand high land as the new term of vocabulary. The

researcher also realized, those became the reason why lecturing percentage was not as

high as questioning. Once the teacher gave input which was comprehended a lot

information can be responded by more than two students.


”Usually we give explanation about facts such as teacher personal experience

or knowledge to the students. So it can be another input for students’

understanding”

There were three parts in on meeting were covered by the teacher. First, the

teacher gave presentation to the student about the topic using pictures and videos.

Second part was discussion, in this part students felt freely to express their opinion


91

using their own idea. The third part was exploration, students had to complete the

hand craft or activity assigned by the teacher. The teacher acted as supervisor, model

and facilitator, to lead the classroom interaction became smoothly. The researcher

found during the observation, it could be seen in the interview transcript 4.6. When

the teacher explained the long information students were silent, the reason mostly

they tried to obtain the meaning.


”Usually if we have enough time we will review the explanation in the end of

lesson. Or teacher will review the lesson the next day of lesson to check

students’ understanding.”

The teacher used 100% English as the classroom and the instructional language.

It could be seen, in the interview result with the teacher. The teacher gave explanation

about facts and also her personal experience. In the observation, the researcher found

that the information and explanations were considered long and complicated.

According to the teacher the reason was because the long information had two main

functions. The first function was as comprehensible input for the students in form

content, vocabulary, and practice their listening skill. The second function was to

provide students to memorize and to acquire the information, since they were enough

time for them to obtain the information. Therefore, the students learnt different topic

in each meeting as researcher already discussed.

There were several ways to check whether students understood or not. First,

teacher would review the lesson the next day of lesson to check students’

understanding. From that way the teacher could know who was listening to the

teacher and who did not. Second, if there was enough time, the teacher reviewed the


92

previous lesson the next meeting. In the interview also found that every Friday

teachers had arranged activity with curriculum division. The topic can be from the

teacher idea and what was happening around student’s daily life. So the discussion

would be interesting since students gave their attention to the topic they liked much.

4.2.1.2.2 Questioning

Another variable in the content cross pattern was the questioning strategy, the

proportion ia (60.60%) in the third meeting observation. The questioning function is

the highest frequent percentage in content cross pattern category. The questioning

constitutes 55.20% or 72 utterance out of 478 utterances in four meetings. The

questioning represented the predominant variable in content cross pattern. The

researcher found during the observation, most questions were given by teacher to

review or to seek more specific information from the students. The teacher asked

question as her strategy to increase or to stimulate the students’ participation.

Furthermore, the teacher was questioning the students about the material and the

procedure in order to make student active in responding and initiating their own ideas

related to the topic. Since the school decided different topic for each meeting, so it

would be good for the students to increase their knowledge and avoid boredom

during the class discussion.

Extract 4.10

T: “What we can do while we are having camping?”

S: “playing guitar, eat and sleep” (2./024)

In the beginning of presentation time, the teacher asked about “what can do

while having camping”. Having a camping was not new experiences for the students.


93

The teacher asked about their ideas about camping to explore students’ critical

thinking. The questioning about the topic also as stimulation for them to do brain

storming things related to camping activity. Swain (1995) particularly emphasize that

it is only when learners are pushed to use the target language. The teacher pushed the

students to talk by asking them, in those time the students had to answer the question.

Automatically, they would produce what it was called as a language output.

The questioning was the highest percentage, it indicated that the teacher

wanted students to become active in class by answering teacher’s questions. Fleta

(2005) states that asking the right questions in the class can provide students a bridge

to acquire the material. During the discussion, the teacher helped the students to

answer the question by providing pictures. Later they would have the real camping

experience in class. The students remembered all the things related to camping when

they have ever done that. In the conversation, it can be seen that students initiated

“sleep, playing guitar and eat” as the activity during camping. In other word, teacher

was success to let them explored their own idea.

Extract 4.11

T:”So after you finish the space shuttle. Are you going to travel to the moon?”

S:”No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the earth”(4/048)

Extract 4.11 occurred when students had done their own works called space

shuttle. In this conversation the teacher asked a referential questions, it meant teacher

expected students to answer based on their ideas. Furthermore, in the end of lesson

students had already knew about material related to space shuttle. The student

initiated a unique answers “No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the earth”. From the


94

answer it can be concluded that students had already acquainted about the term and

success to imagine the situation how if they became astronaut.

Teacher could help to develop students’ ideas by asking questions. Liu and

Elicker (2005) found that when teachers asked specific questions or asked for

students, children felt more confident and secure. It meant questioning was one of

common strategy to stimulate students to participate active in discussion. Through

questioning teachers were able to stimulate and guide the student to produce the

target language confidently.

On teacher’s questioning behavior, the teacher asked mainly referential

questions. The reason was because the teacher tried to explore students’ ideas through

referential questions instead of using display questions which was not required long

and complicated answer. It can be seen in the extract 4.11 “What we can do while we

are having camping?” Hsu (2001) states in her study discussing referential and

display questions: “teachers’ using questioning strategies effectively contributes to

students’ language development”. All teachers should avoid using merely display

questions in classroom. In other words, referential questions should be encouraged so

as to increase students’ interest in participation in the true conversation. In brief,

referential questions often leaded to a start the true conversation between teachers and

learners. The improvement of classroom interaction between the teacher and students.

In this case teacher did the right strategies to ask students in referential questions.


“I want student to explore their idea. So that’s why we don’t ask about yes/ no

question but we want to know their own understanding about the lesson”


95


“Actually there is no incorrect or correct answer. When the answer is just too

far out of context we just remind them. We can say “we can talk about that next

time; we do not discuss it today”

The researcher found based on the interview, if the students cannot answer the

question. The teacher would not correct them directly, but when the answer was too

far out off the context teacher just remind them. In fact, mostly students were able to

answer the questions were given by the teacher. The observation result show, students

just needed more time to answer the questions. Teachers’ providing longer wait time

might to students profound output which further improves the classroom interaction.

As Maley (2003) argues that the more voluntary answer, longer response, and more

questions appear with the teachers’ allowing longer wait time for students to make

their response. In other words, the researcher found that the teacher provides more

opportunity for the students to be active in the discussion by questioning.

In questioning variables the teacher and students was active in a conservation or

exchanges the information. Teaching exchanges consisted of I (opening),R (response)

and F (follow up) (Walsh, 2012). The conversation was to convey information from

the students and response related to the students’ answer and the last is follow-up the

way the teacher give their opinion toward students’ opinion.

Both observations and interview result showed the teacher and the school

regulation. The way teacher preferred to use referential question instead of display

questions. It indicated that the teacher aware of providing many chances for students

to confirm their own knowledge. The fact English in Ananda Mentari kindergarten

school was not only use for lesson but also practice for the real communication goals.


96

4.2.1.3 Teacher Support

Based on the finding on the pattern of interaction also showed the teacher

support pattern is (16.70%) or 80 utterances from 478 as total utterances. It is the

third pattern found during four observation meetings. From the graph, it can be

pointed that during the interaction teacher was praised and encouraged the students at

the most in the fourth meeting (10.30%) or 15 utterances. In contrary, the teacher

rarely used students’ idea in all four meeting since the percentage of each meeting

was considered low (2.90%) or 4 utterances at the most. The third variable was accept

feelings, which was done in the beginning of class in order to greet the students. The

result was also relatively low (5.20%) or 6 utterances at the most in the first meeting.

Graph 4.5 Teacher support Pattern

The result indicated that the teacher used relatively little time to accept feeling

and to praise or encourage the students as well as accepting students’ ideas. In teacher

support pattern the teacher gave lot opportunities for student to talk by giving

exploratory talk. This statement is in line with Barnes (2008) “exploratory talk is

purposeful conversation designed by the teacher, which provide chances to students

First Second Third Fourth

5,20% 4,10%

2% 4,40%

6,30% 5% 4,80%

10,30%

0% 2,50%

1,30% 2,90%

TEACHER SUPPORT

Accepts feelings Praise or encouragement Accepts or uses ideas of students


97

to engage in conversation”. From the observation result it could be seen the example,

express new ideas, arrange information’s and paraphrase the ideas. They were used to

encourage students to perform and participate actively toward the lesson. The

proportion of teacher as whole results could be seen on the graph below.

Graph 4.6 Distribution of Accept Feeling, Encouragement and Use Students’ Ideas

The result shows that praising and encouragement become the main parts of

others two variables. Further information about the teacher support pattern would be

presented. To describe the graph 4.6 above, the total number of utterances in the

teacher support pattern is 80 utterances or 16,73% from total 478 utterances. Those

utterances are classified into three different functions. The most frequent function is

the praising encouragement; it constitutes 34 or 55% from the total 80 utterances

found. The second frequently occurs function is accepts feeling, it constitutes 19 or

equal to 26, 50%. The next function is accept or use student ideas, it constitutes 9 or

equal to 18.50%.

4.2.1.3.1 Praising or encouragement

The observation results show that the teacher uses mostly praise and

encouragement variable as the most predominant talk compare to accept feeling and

Accepts Feeling

Praising encouragement

Accept or Use student ideas

19

34

9

26,50%

55%

18,50%

THE DISTRIBUTION OF ACCEPT FEELING, ENCOURAGEMENT AND USE STUDENTS' IDEAS

Percentage Quantity


98

use student ideas in the fourth meetings. The most frequent function is praising

encouragement; it constitutes 34 or 55% from the total 80 utterances found. The

researcher found that teacher’s behavior of praising and encouraging students are

occurred during the discussion. Nunan 1991 cited in Hasan 2007, positive feedback

had two principal functions: to let students know that they have performed correctly,

so to increase motivation through praise. In other words, the function of praise and

encouragement could provide suitable support according to the students’ need such as

enhancing students’ motivation and learning motivation. According to Hai & Bee

(2006) the teacher acted as a motivator for student for acquired and active

participated in classroom interaction. Teachers gave facilitate to the students in

learning foreign language, for example the teacher can facilitate the fun conditions in

teaching and learning process. In this case, teacher was praising and encouraging

student.

Extract 4.12

S: “The rain must be hard. The rain will clean the dust everywhere” (3/038)

T: “Thank you Ruel, you are smart to know about that”

The situation was, the teacher showed a picture of volcano dust in the field. As

soon after that, in extract 4.12 students delivered their talk about “rain can clean the

dusk”. After that the teacher was praising her by saying “thank you Ruel, you are

smart to know about that”. Feedback is probably the single most important ingredient

for teachers to improve their teaching behavior (Cross 1996; Snell et al.2002). The

point was the student produced her own idea without asking from the teacher. In the

conversation, the teacher directly gave feedback for the students in form of praising.


99

Moreover, the teacher did not use of phrase such as “Okay” and “Good”. She tended

to give feedback in form of sentence; it means the praise was done meaningfully. In

this case, the teacher praised her to make her proud of herself since the idea was

brilliant to know about rain and dust. Next time student would repeat similar thing

because she felt teacher was respecting her as much.

Extract 4.13

S: “Miss I forgot to bring old bottle”

T: “Oke, Nafisa will gives you a bottle” (4/020)

In extract 4.13 the teacher encouraged student made a space shuttle even she

forgot to bring the old bottle. The important aspect from the conversation was, when

a student got a problem and she almost gave up. The teacher kept in encouraging her

to continue. The teacher provided a solution in form of gave bottle to create space

shuttle. The researcher also found that the teacher stimulated others students to help

Nafisa by giving bottle. The result was good; one of the students gave one of her

bottle to Navisa. Lyster (2007) states teachers distribute their praise to the whole and

individuals at their performance and encourage the class throughout the lesson. It

was effective way for the teacher to teach student about helping each other’s. In this

case, students were not only developed their critical thinking but also their awareness

to help their friends.

The teacher and the students interaction in form of praising and encouraging

was understood to be an important issue in a learning process. In this study the class

participants were kindergarten students who always needed the teacher support so

they were able to speak active during the discussion. Sometimes, the students as


100

young learner found problem, it decreased their own confident to continue activity.

The praising talk, it could be seen in the excerpt 4.12. The teacher spoke “excellent,

smart” to praise students’ answer about the topic. The encouraging behavior could be

seen in the line 4.13. When one student got a problem about the material. She forgot

to bring old bottle to make space shuttle. Once she was stuck and almost give up,

teacher encouraged her by providing a bottle. In instance, both encouraging and

praising support student in doing the activity and expressing their own ideas.


“Actually no. Usually when they need more support from the teacher to

answer. For the example if the students are so silence and then as a teacher I

will say “I will give you a star if you answer the questions” in order to

encourage them”


“Usually the passive students we put them in the front near from the teacher so

they can understand the direction, explanation that we give to them. The

passive students will stay in front of the teacher and the active one will sit at the

back”

As shown in interview transcriptions above about teacher opinion toward in

what way she supported students during the interaction. The interesting finding was

discovered based on the interview result. According to the teacher not all students in

her class were active, some of them were considered as passive students. Passive

students in this case, meant a group of students who would respond only when

teacher asked them. “The passive students will stay in front of the teacher and the

active one will sit at the back” these the special treatment was given by the teacher

deals with passive students. Chet Meyers in Bishop (2000) suggests some basic rules

for consistently encouraging the student interaction: “arrange and use the classroom


101

space to encourage interaction and create a friendly environment”. In this case, the

teacher arranged the seat to keep close to passive students, in order to keep

encouraging them and make sure they understand every single explanation and

procedure. Finally, the teacher tended to give them extra attention for them to avoid

class domination by active students.

4.2.1.3.2 Accepts Feelings

The first variable of teacher support pattern is accepting feeling. It constitutes

19 or equal to 26,50% of the total 80 utterances in teacher support pattern. The

teacher used accepts feelings action/talk in the beginning of the class. The

observation data showed that the teacher used greeting and asking function to the

students. A more detailed analysis of accept feeling function is made by considering

the conversation found between teacher and students during the interaction. The

expressions used by the teacher are can be seen in the excerpts below:

Extract 4.14

T: “Good morning friend, how are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine thank you” (1./002)

The accept feeling utterances were given by the teacher generally to create a

good relationship with the students and built a lively atmosphere before the teacher

started the lesson to explain, discuss and asked them related to the material. In fact,

accept feeling utterances also have a purpose to attract students’ attention when they

were busy with their own activity in the beginning of the lesson.

Extract 4.15


102

T: “Good morning friends. Are you ready for today’s activity? On Monday

Miss Martha told you about how to save the earth”

S: “And how to save animal” (4/003)

In extract 4.15 it can be seen, the teacher not only greeted the students but also

teacher re-introduces the guest who already taught them in the previous meeting.

Teacher reminds students about the topic ‘how to save our mother earth’. The

essential purpose in that conversation was that teacher brought the students back to

the previous activity in order to make them remember both material and the guest

teacher. Later students would not curious about the guest in their classroom. Hence,

they would ready to accept the explanation and express their ideas freely.

During the observation time, the researcher found the teacher used accept

feeling talk not only to start the class but also to obtain the students attention. It can

be seen in the extract 4.15 “Are you ready, friend for today’s activity”. Instead of

using greeting, the teacher preferred to ask to the student to get their curiosity about

class activity and also prepared students to be ready to do several activities. In

addition, in the line 2 the teacher combined both greeting and reviewed the previous

material (topic). The teacher also let the student remembered about the guest teacher

(the researcher) who have already taught them about ‘save our earth’. The reason was

mostly because the teacher wanted to re-introduce the guest in their class. As the

result the student more focus on the discussion without questioning about the guest.


“I want to be their friend, not as a teacher. So as the result we can tell the story

and we can learn together. Not as a teacher and student I will lean together

with them as a friend”



103

“Yes, they always response my greeting usually in the beginning of the class

before we learn together in classroom”

Another particular finding was the teacher called her students as ‘friend ‘instead

of kids or student. It could be seen in the interview result above. According to the

teacher, she expected to get close relation with the students. It was effective action to

stimulate students in order respond to their “friend” their ideas. Learning to share and

to express ideas was very crucial skill. The class situation became such lively and

active because there was no teacher and students but good friend who share, talk and

learn together.

4.2.1.3.3 Accepts or uses ideas of students.

The table 4.6 about the distribution of accept feeling, praising and encouraging

and accepts or use ideas of students. The result showed that the less frequent variable

in teacher support pattern is accepts or uses ideas of students it constitutes 9 or equal

to 18.50% from the total 80 utterances found. The distribution in each meeting also

substantial low the teacher rarely uses students’ idea in all four meeting since the

percentage of each meeting is considered low (2.90%) or 4 utterances at the most.

This variable become the most infrequent used by the teacher we can clearly see it is

only 9 utterance during the discussions. Based on Flanders cited in Hai & Bee (2007)

stated that uses idea of students can be identify such as clarifying, using, interpreting,

summarizing the ideas of students. Furthermore, the ideas must be rephrased by the

teacher but still be recognized as being student contribution.

Extract 4.14

S: “I have ever tried the marshmallow and the color is colorful I also like the taste”


104

T: “I agree with you Nathan, the taste is good” (2/026)

This conversation occurred in excerpt 1.14 between the teacher and a student

indicates that the teacher delivered their talk in form of accepts students ideas when

students initiated his ideas related to the topic. “The more the input is queried, recycle

and paraphrased, to increase its comprehensibility, the greater its potential usefulness

as input” (Mitchell and Lyles, 2004). In the conversation the researcher found the

teacher did 2 kind of behavior actions. First, she agreed about the taste of

marshmallow by saying “I agree with you”. Second behavior action was repeating

and paraphrasing student’s sentence by saying “the taste is good”. In this

conversation the contribution of the student was considered as a meaningful and

comprehensible output. The reason was because students were able to share his idea

based on his own experience toward marshmallow. Even the student got the input not

from the teacher explanation but during the discussion, the student was able to

produce output later she would get feedback from the teacher.

Extract 4.15

S: “Me me me Miss I want to say something, the rocket bring a lot of fire and

rocket”

T: “So according to Nathan. The rocket needs fire to be launched to the outer

space”

(4/011)

The setting of conversation in excerpt 1.15 was during presentation time leaded

by the teacher. The teacher used student’s ideas about rocket to support her

explanation. In the beginning the researcher found that the ideas were given by

students was long, but not well managed and difficult to understand. Even somehow

the idea was too difficult to be understood by others students. In this case, the teacher


105

uses student’s ideas to repeating and paraphrasing the idea became more

comprehensible. As the result, the idea that before too broad or unclear became

comprehensible, meaningful and easy to understand.


“Actually there is no incorrect or correct answer. When the ideas are still

related to the topic I will accept it. The other reason is to enrich the discussion

since there are will be various ideas both from the teacher and students. In

addition, to respect to student ideas so next time they will express their ideas

without any afraid of being rejecting”


“Sometimes, when I think that student ideas is good and related to the topic. I

will re-use it in class by repeating so other student are able to know it. In that

way, students also active participate in discussion in contributing their own

ideas such as opinion, experiences and their background knowledge they get

when they are not in school time”

“By repeating students’ utterance for correct utterance, the teacher appeared to

be ‘trying to help students move a head in their inter language development”

(Allwright and Bailey in Richard and Lockhart, 1994). The interesting fact about this

excerpt was the ideas must be rephrased by the teacher but still be recognized as

being the student contribution. The teacher was respecting the student’s idea as a

great contribution so next time the student would not be afraid to share their

understanding or experience because there was no wrong or right answer on that

particular discussion. The teacher helped students to give their contribution in form of

opinion or idea.

The limitation of the roles of IRF pattern defined by Sinclair and Coulthard

(1975). The teacher’s role was not only check the students’ works but also to provide

feedback, as more the case in the real-world communication. IRF was also concerned


106

about how teacher use or accept student’s ideas such as paraphrasing or repeating the

answer. In the real-communication setting was merely in the domain of correct

answer but how the students performing their opinion.

4.2.1.4 Teacher Control

The fourth pattern is teacher control, it also considered as the less frequent

pattern in total four observations in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School. Based on

the finding on interaction pattern, it indicates 11.5% or 55 utterances from 478 as

total utterances. The result shows, the proportion giving direction variable are 40

utterances and criticize or justifying authority 15 utterances. It can be seen in the

graph 4.7 below. It can be pointed that during the interaction the teacher gave

direction the students at the most in the fourth meeting (10.50%) or 15 utterances. In

addition, it can be seen that criticizing or justifying authority is less frequent variable.

The proportion is 5.80% or 5 utterances in the second meeting at the most.

Graph 4.7 Teacher Control Distribution Pattern

The result indicated that the teacher spent a little tome for giving directions and

the criticizing or justifying activity. The reason was mostly because the teacher was

more focus on the lesson and the discussion. Furthermore, the classroom condition or

0 0 0 0

10,50% 8,30%

3,40%

11%

2,10%

5,80%

2,70% 2,90%

0

0,05

0,1

0,15

Teacher Control

Meeting Giving direction Criticizing or Justifying authority


107

the school environment was well conditioned and perceived not to need so much

control from the teacher. The students were nice they follow all the teachers’

direction and do the lesson activity by themselves. The proportion of the teacher as

whole results can be seen on the graph 4.8 below.

Graph 4.8. The Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing

The graph 4.8 shows that giving direction become the primary parts of

another variable criticizing or justifying. More details information about the teacher

control interaction pattern will be presented. In order to describe the graph 4.8

above, the total number of utterances are distributed by the teacher is 55 utterances

or 11.50% from total 478 utterances. Those utterances are categorized into two

function variable. The most frequent function is giving direction, it constitutes 40 or

72% from the total 55 utterances found. The second frequently occurs function is

criticizing or justifying authority, it constitutes 15 or equal to 28%. The expressions

used by the students and teacher are clearly shown in the following excerpt.

4.2.1.4.1 Giving Direction

Extract 4.17

Giving Direction 72%


28%

The Distribution of Giving Direction and Criticizing or Justifying

Giving Direction



108

T: “We have also have sandwich, that we can make it outside after this. We will

try to spread the bread with strawberry jam and butter. Later you will cut the

bread and slice it and spread the butter by yourself”

S: “Yes. I want to do it soon, Miss” (2/029)

In the conversation above the teacher gave certain direction to the students

during lesson was a crucial part. In term of controlling and directing procedure of

certain activity. The Teacher had officially authority to control the class. In other

word, the teacher was able to lead the class according to the plan that had already

designed before. The teacher was giving direction usually when she prepared the

students for activities such as game, role play and simulation. The teacher needed to

ensure that the students understand what they was going to do next. In this

conversation the teacher not only gave the direction but also the instruction.

In extract 4.17 the teacher used those utterances to direct the students to make a

sandwich. The Students were required to make a sandwich by themselves so it was a

must for the teacher to direct in every single action. So as the result, students were

able to complete the task since they were able to understand what should to do in

finishing the tasks.

Extract 4.18

T: “We will put our mask like this. The green one should be outside and the

white one is inside. Let’s us put on to cover our nose and month from the dust

when we are breathing”

S: “The mask is too big Miss” (3/055)

The conversation between the teacher and the student in extract 4.18 was

indicated as directing utterances. The teacher was directing students to wear a masker

during volcano eruption disaster. The researcher found that, mostly of the students

were not familiar with the mask. It was crucial for teacher to guide them how to wear


109

a mask. In addition, the teacher also gave them information about the purpose of

wearing a mask. The process of directing was going well, because the students did all

the instructions were given by the teacher.


“Usually we know that they understand by doing what the direction is. For

the example in exploration time we ask them to draw something, they will

draw what should they draw with the direction like that. When the student

have not understand the direction, we will repeat the direction”


“We do not directly correct them when the students do not understand our

direction. What usually we do is to stimulate them to aware their own mistake

and corrected by themselves”

In the interview transcription 4.16 the teacher stated her action when to ensure

that students understand about her long and complicated direction. The teacher asked

the students to do the direction. If the students were able to complete the direction, it

meant that they had already understood. In the other hand, when students could not

understand the direction, the teacher helped them by repeating the direction. In the

observation, the teacher even came closer to the student and repeated once again the

direction slowly so the students were able to comprehend the direction. This normal

happened in the young learner classroom, especially the passive and the younger

students needed to be helped by the teacher both in complete the task or comprehend

the teacher verbal behavior, in this case is teacher direction. Furthermore, the students

had to understand the direction first before they did the directed task or activities.


110

4.2.1.4.3 Criticizing or Justifying authority

The second variable in the teacher control pattern is criticizing or justifying

authority function. This variable as the less dominance variable compare to giving

direction variable. It is representing 28% or equal with 15 utterance from total

utterance found in 4 times observation. From the result, it can be see that the teacher

spent a little time in criticizing or justifying activity. As cited in Hai bee (2007),

Flanders assumed that teacher is the influential authority in the classroom, because

teacher’s talk and what he says determiners to large the reaction of the students.

Statement intends to change student behavior from non-acceptable to acceptable

behavior. The expressions used by the students and teacher are clearly shown in the

following excerpt.

Extract 4.19

S:”I want to spread more butter” (2/048)

T:”Could you please repeat your question?”

The situation was, a student expressed what she wanted to do. In extract 4.19,

the teacher cannot hear the students’ voice clearly. The result of observation showed

that student’s seat position was away from the teacher. In addition, the teacher was

busy to help others students to make sandwich. As soon after that, the teacher was

providing a justifying utterances. The teacher says “Could you please repeat your

question?” so that the teacher can listen once more to the student ideas. Michael

Long (2004) suggests that acquisition takes place best in a setting in which meaning

is negotiated through interaction. It was suggested to the teacher that early attention

must focus on providing student with the ability to communicate messages such as “I


111

don’t understand,” “Could you please repeat that?” “Could you please speak

louder?”

Extract 4.20

T: “It is ok if you want to take in the floor first. So it would not be disturbed

you because we need to do something with the paper”

S: “Yes” (4/047)

In the observation result the conversation in extract 4.20 occurred when the

teacher criticized the student’s behavior in class. The conversation was in end of the

discussion time, the teacher asked students to make space shuttle. The condition was

students had to put the colorful paper in a bottle, some of students were busy playing

with the bottle. To deal with those kind situation, the teacher asked them to take in

the floor first, in order to shift their attention on cutting the paper. Yanfen and Yuqin

(2010) stated “instruction means and authoritative direction to be obeyed”. In the

conversation, teacher told the students to do stop specific action. Since, teacher had

an authority to control over the interaction and class activity.

According to conversation in extract 4.19 up to 4.20, there were two conditions

or context when the teacher criticized student’s behavior. The first condition, when

the teacher wanted for students did something. In this case was to speak louder, the

purpose was to make sure student’s opinion clear enough to be listened by the teacher

and the others students. The example was in extract 4.29. The second condition was,

when the teacher criticize the student improper behavior. The goal was to bring

students back focus on the lesson.

The example was in extract 4.20. Finally, it indicated that criticizing was not

always negative. It can be positive also, to create comprehensible condition for


112

students to acquire target language. In classroom interaction the teacher usually

controls the topic and the amount of attention that each student receive and allocated

turns (Erickson, 2004). Sometimes sequence-closing of feedback (F) is not enough,

the teacher is able to provide kind of warning both in educating and controlling the

classroom.

The criticizing made the class became a supportive and comprehensible place

for the teaching and learning process. Since, the students were able to get input easily

from the teacher in form of critique and justification. A teacher had an authority to

give her students a positive or negative feedback depend on the students’ learning

performance. In the context of classroom relationship between the teacher and

students. It was common for the teacher being authority to control all aspects in class.

Finally, teacher responsibility was to control the interaction flowing smoothly and

efficiently.


“Usually we know that they understand my justification by observing their

behavior. For example in the class discussion there is certain student who busy

with her shoes, hair or book. As a teacher I will criticize her by saying “Leona,

are you want to play outside or listen to me? After that the student should stop

her activity and listen to the teacher. But if not I will give more action such as

ask her to play outside for 5 minutes

.


“The kindergarten students are considering old enough. In the beginning the

lesson we have already discusses the rule in the classroom. So when the student

act misbehavior during the class teacher will remind them about the rule”

From the interview transcription 4.18 and 4.19 above it can be seen that the

teacher criticizes a student in order to control the student behavior in class. According


113

to the teacher if there was a student did non-acceptable behavior. The teacher would

criticize them in several stages. The first stage was justify the student behavior by

questioning, the second stage was justify student’s behavior by giving option, keep

doing those behavior or go out the classroom. The last stage, asked them to go

outside the class for 5 minutes in order to give students time to think about their

mistake. The interesting finding about “punishment” was the teacher called back the

student to join the class and pretend nothing happened. The teacher said that after

students get the ‘punishment” they would realize their mistake. The point, in the

same time the teacher were able to control student non-acceptable behavior and the

teacher asked the student back to join the class without judging them as bad student.

The conclusion of teacher control pattern related to classroom interaction. The

teacher was the leader of the classroom. The teacher control the interaction but not

dominated the interaction. The teacher was as the one who kept the conversation on

the right topic. Finally, the teacher control all her utterances, students’ talk and

classroom engagement since the learner was still in young ages. The teachers’

guidance was still needed.

4.3 Types of Student talk and Teacher Interaction

The classroom interaction is seen as one of the primary aspect leading

successful teaching learning process. The interaction between teacher and student will

be go smoothly when teacher talk and student talk is completing each other to create

comprehensible input and produce meaningful output for the students. The table

below presents both teacher talk and student talk found in learning activities of

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Jogjakarta.


114

4.3.1 Indirect Talk and Direct Talk

Indirect talk was talk done by the teacher that giving indirect influence toward

the student’s performance. Indirect talks were used to encourage students to

participate actively during interaction. It meant the teacher allowed the students to be

active during the interaction. It can be called as student-centered model learning,

based on the four observations the teacher only gives little explanation about the

material only in presentation part. The students have discussion with their friend or

with the teacher in all part (presentation, discussion and exploration). The result of

indirect influence can be seen in the graph 4.9 below:

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

The result indicated that the proportion of indirect influence in classroom

interaction was lower than the direct influence. The amount of indirect talk (75%) or

62 utterances was lower than and direct talk influence (25%) or 184 utterances.

According to Brown (2007) he stated that direct teaching is that type of talk

which tended to minimize the freedom and variety of response that student can create

in classroom interaction. The result showed the direct talk is not high, it means that

the teacher leads students to give their opinion. It means, in direct teacher talk is

Direct Talk 25%

Indirect Talk 75%

Percentage of Direct talk and Indirect talk

Direct Talk Indirect Talk


115

concerned on the teacher who dominated the interaction. The researcher found,

teacher spent little time to use direct talk. Since, the goal in Ananda Mentari is

communication and student enjoy the learning process.

In other hand, the finding indicated that indirect talk has higher percentage 75%

or 184 talk during the interaction. Brown (2007)” stated that indirect talk was type of

talk which tended to allow the student maximal freedom in giving verbal response”.

The pattern found in Ananda Mentari kindergarten school also indicated the students

had a significant better attitude in classroom. The reason was because the teacher

applied flexible patterns as mother and kids. The students free to express what they

thought about the topic discussed in class. It was kind of student-centered interaction,

the condition when teacher stimulate student by questioning and lecturing. After that

students usually had discussion with their friend and teacher.

The researcher found that students tended to initiate their respond before the

teacher asked them. This finding is in line to Hai & Bee (2006) finding, that indirect

talk were far more likely to provide flexibility of influence than were the direct. It can

be concluded that indirect talk were delivered by teacher encouraged the condition of

second language acquisition because indirect talk leaded the students to think

creatively. The term of creative here mean teacher keep in monitoring or controlling

of student utterances. The meaningful communication in this case, it was discussion

based on the topic and avoid inappropriate words for students.

It can be seen on the graph 4.9 about students’ talk and teachers’ ratio. It can be

seen that student talk ratio was 47% or 226 utterances. While the teachers’ talk ratio

about 50% or 236 utterances. In addition the graph also listed the ratio of silence or


116

confusion ratio was only 3%. It indicated that the ratio between the teacher talk and

student talk was not significantly different. It showed that the high amount of direct

teachers’ talks affects the amount of student talks. Moreover, from this result can be

seen that students were considered active in verbal communication. It can be seen

from amount of silence or confusion was low. The researcher found the student

suddenly silent when the teacher criticized their unappropriated behavior during the

learning process.

Graph 4.10 Teachers’ Talk and Student Talk Ratio

Based on the teacher opinion in the interview, teacher did more asking

questions rather than others three type of talk (accepts feeling, encouragement and

use students’ ideas). In order to stimulate student active they were able to produce

target language. Because according to teacher, students will enjoy responding the

questions.

4.3.2 Types Classroom Interaction

Interaction in the classroom refers to the conversation between the teacher and

students, as well as among the students, in which active participation and learning

becomes crucial. According to Mercer and Dawes (2008) “conversation between and

Teacher Talk’s 50%

Student Talk’s 47%

Silence or confusion

3%

Teachers' Talk and Students' Talk Ratio

Teacher Talk’s

Student Talk’s

Silence or confusion


117

among various parties in the classroom have been referred to as educational talk or

exploratory talk”. In other words, through educational talk in class students

constructed knowledge, obtain a much input and had opportunities to practice target

language. The school principal stated her understanding about young learner

classroom interaction. The following transcript shows head master’s opinion. She

said:


“In my opinion about interaction with young learner is the easiest way

compare if I have to interact with adults or someone older than my students.

Because they are genius in their own way and they accept everything that we

give”

The school principal stated her understanding about young learner classroom

interaction. According to her the students were smart in their own way. Since they

were still young so they easy absorb every information delivered by the teacher. Mrs.

Detty also stated the reason why the interaction have to be done in English. She said:


“It is because I believe English is the universal language that people have to

learn. If you don’t understand English at all they will get lost. Nowadays,

books, movies and different kind of information in TV, newspaper, internet.

80% or even more is available in English. If they want to explore and learn,

provide them with Indonesian movie or book will not be enough”

The school principle has a great reason to create school policy that interaction

should be done in English. In the similar time the students were able to learn English

and explored the contents with their own idea. The interactions were mostly dominated

by discussions (utterance) not in written expression. The school principle also gave her

concern about those situation of young learner. She said:


118


“We teach them to speak English in the class and they follow all the

direction. Because they 100% trust to the teacher, program and this

school”

The school principle also explained about the reason why English was easier

to learn for students. Teaching English to young learner was simpler, since they

would follow all the directions were given by teacher. According to Mercer (2000)

learner merely accepts what the teacher says ‘on trust’ because of lack of

understanding on their early age. It mean student would accept all the information

and direction from the teacher, since they have not knew before.

They absorb all the input from the teacher. Later, the directed practice what all

they got with the teacher and friends because the school have already created the

comprehensible atmosphere and facilitation to support student when students

produce the target language output.

Below the researcher shows the condition why students have not yet learn about

writing and reading skills.


“No, we are not supposed to give them writing because the regulation in

kindergarten. That is enough for me, my children have self-confidence to

talk to foreigner without any doubt in making mistake”

According to the school principle, a kindergarten students were not given

written because the kindergarten regulation. Their ages are still young, they learn

something because they want it. The school and teacher cannot force them to learn

how to write and read because they are not ready yet.


119

The interaction found in the classroom was discussed based on who started the

interaction and whom it was addressed. It also discussed about the condition why the

interaction happened. By using these categories, the interaction that found could be

seen more clearly. Although, in some cases, it was quite difficult to differentiate that

happened between the students Murtiningsih, S (2009). There are three categories:

1) Teacher- student interaction

2) Student- teacher interaction

3) Student – student interaction

4.3.2.1 Teacher-student interaction

The following discussion talked about the interaction happened between the

teacher and the student. The information was sent by the teacher and addressed to the

students. The teacher-student interactions were done in the beginning of the class and

the closing of the class. In the beginning of the class, the teacher greeted the students.

Extract 4.20

T: “Good morning friend, how are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine thank you (3/001)

In conversation 4.20 teacher greeted students in the beginning of the class. The

purpose of those behaviors was to check student’s condition and to make sure that

students were ready to start the lesson on that day. Lyster, R. (2007) good

relationship between the teacher and student was important for student motivation

and their target language achievement. The teacher wanted to build a good

relationship with the students.


120

As the result, students felt comfortable to accept the input and produce the

language output. Since, the relation was not only the teacher and the student but also

“good” friend or partner. In addition, greeted the student’s also effective strategy to

get their attention since in the morning some of them were sleepy or busy with their

activity.

Extract 4.24

T: “I am going to choose who will go outside to make sandwich, to spread the

jam and cutting the bread”

S: “I want to eat it all” (2/038)

When the teacher was explaining what they would do in class, the teacher

informed the students about the today’s activity. The crucial of this conversation, the

teacher leaded the class activity so she had to explain the procedure for the student

clear and understandable. The researcher found that students interested toward the

teacher’s explanation because they used their own imagination to figure the activity

out. In the conversation, teacher succeeded to attract student interest. Finally, if the

teacher acted friendly towards the students, it was likely that the students act friendly

towards the teacher (Roorda, D. 2012). In addition the school principle also stated

about her expectation about how teacher lead the interaction. She said:


“Yes of course, the standard for every teacher here are they have to be able to

talk to the students as friend not as teacher”

This statement was in line with the teacher’s opinion that the position of

teacher and students should in the same level. The point was that the students were


121

not afraid to speak to their friend, even somehow students make mistakes when

express their opinion. The teacher as a moderator in the explanation time only.

4.3.2.2 Student-teacher interaction

This part also talked about the interaction that happened between the teacher

and the students. The information was send by the student to the teacher.

Extract 4.22

S:”Miss, can I take five fire papers?”

T:”Yes of course, Miss Nining will cut more papers (4/073)

The student asked for permission since she wanted to take paper. From the

conversation it can be seen that the relation between the teacher and students were

well-managed. It can be seen from the conversation, student was permitting the

teacher before she take a paper. The students were well-mannered because actually

the paper were near her, easy for her to take it without permission from the teacher.

Extract 4.23

S: “Miss, We cannot draw the entire map. The place is very secret”

T: “Don’t worry I will help you later to draw the map”(1/024)

When the students were doing the class activity, one of them initiate an opinion

about the map. Based on her opinion the map was difficult to draw since the place

was hidden in the map. The purpose of express her own feeling about activity was

responded nicely by the teacher. From the conversation, it described how verbal

behaviors of both the teacher and the student fit together and mutually adjust to each

other (Roorda, D. 2012). It can be seen that teacher took control of the students in

form of encouragement (solution), students usually tended to listen and went along


122

with the teacher. This was the important of student talk initiation, the teacher were

able to know what student need and how to give them solution. As the result, the

teaching learning process was going smooth and well managed. Since, the students

were also active in expressing their problems when they complete the task. According

to Walsh (2001) the IRF sequences in teacher-student interaction have power in the

language socialization in classroom interaction. Similarly, in Ananda Mentari context

the interaction in form of initiation talk from a student. It give comprehension chance

for the teacher to give them the respond and feedback. As the result, ongoing

interaction can be achieved the goal of communication.

The school principal stated her expectation toward students the way they

contribute during the interaction. She said:


“I don’t know the expectation. The think that I know is they come to school every

day and I want to see them happy. I want to see them learn every single day”

There is no certain expectation about student’s contribution during the

interaction. The important thing is the student enjoy the class and they learn

something new during school time. The school are not allowed to force them to

master certain skill. Since, the goal is the students are able to produce English without

any afraid of making mistakes.

4.3.2.3 Student-student interaction

Classes that have high interaction among students are more student-focused,

class provides multiple opportunities for student to discuss ideas in small groups

Inamullah, M (2007. In this case student-student interaction may significantly support


123

a whole class discussion. A simple indicator of this is the proportion of the class

discussion dedicated to students talking. The interaction was started by the student

and addressed to other students.

Extract 4.24

S:”Fian’s space shuttle is like people, it is tall”

S:”Ha ha maybe because it has long hair too”(4/055)

The students interacted with their friend too; even the proportion was not

significant enough. In the conversation 1.22 students initiate her opinion toward

fian’s space shuttle. They talked in English about something they have already done

or learn in class.

Extract 4.25

S: “You picked the wrong map. We can’t find the treasure”

S: “But we picked the yellow map together”

The interaction among the students was found when the student complained

about the map. The situation happened when group could not find the treasure box

because they picked the wrong map. In this case, a group member criticized about the

leader’s decisions. Topic the interaction was also important aspect handling the

students’ conversations in purposefully and meaningfully. It can be seen, students

were mostly communicate each other about things related to the topic. In other words,

they were able to keep focusing on the lesson instead of talking about other topic

which was not related to the lesson. For example, the interaction was well developed

since the student used English even in the case they talked about behavior which

during completing the activity. One group failed to finish the task, groups’ member

express her unpleased to the group leader by “You should pick the right map not the


124

wrong map”. The leader was feeling guilty since he was silent, as soon teacher

encouraged him by asking them to repeat the activity on the next meeting. It can be

concluded that interaction between student-student happened naturally but in this case

teacher controlled the whole interaction in classroom. The researcher found that the

student’s behavior were good. The school principle has an explanation about those

condition. She said:


“Once more, our philosophy we are not teacher but we are the parent. We

don’t force the children to know about everything. We provide them a lot

opportunities to explore their own idea. That is why in discussion time is

always lively”

The student-student interaction is going well since the student’s behavior is

well-mannered. According to the school principle teacher leads and educates them as

a mother not as teacher. In this case, the students are easy to control because they feel

that the teacher cares and loves them. As a mother teacher does not have such

requirement like a teacher. Furthermore, according to school principle the interactions

are going well since all those activities is based on the mother and childrem

philosophy.

4.4 Summary

This study is aimed to describe about the pattern of young learner classroom

interaction. From the result and discussion on the previous part, the practical finding

of this study was displayed as below.

The teacher was active to stimulate students during the discussion. The teacher

gave such comprehensible input in form of explanations, directions, and use student


125

ideas. In order to stimulate students became active. The teacher also delivered

question to check both students’ comprehension and explore their own idea or critical

thinking. The most frequent term was student talk initiation; students were freely to

initiate their opinion during the discussion. The students also did initiate exchanges

with the teacher and their friends by being contributed to express their opinion,

feelings, and personal experiences.

There is no correct or wrong answer because according to the teacher the point

was student active in expressing their idea. Student talk response was less frequent

happened in the discussion. The teacher avoided to give display questions which

required short/yes or no answer. In this case, teacher prefer to seek student’s critical

thinking instead of something they have already known in class.

In this students were active in practicing the language output by asking

questions or expressing their idea or opinion. The researcher also found that not all

students were active; there were passive students from younger ages. They usually

were afraid to speak up. The effective strategy used by the teacher was arranging the

student’s seat position. Furthermore, since there were only 15 students in one class,

teacher was able to give extra attention to the passive students. The teacher helped the

passive students by guide them to express their idea by giving clues. In addition, the

silence of student was very low portion, mostly they were silence because teacher

critique students’ behavior in class.

During the observation the researcher found there are two different purpose of

questioning. The first type related to the lesson discussion such as content, procedure,

explanation and opinion. The second type related to student’s behavior in class. For


126

example, teacher criticized students who shout in class, did not follow teachers’

instructions, played with their stuff and talked each other during the class. In this

class, students were good when teacher justify about their inappropriate behavior in

class. The students directly stop what they were doing and back to the class activity.

Teacher talk influence student’s language production both in quality and

quantity. In quality teacher talk help learners to find the correct answer. In quantity,

teacher talk encourage student to produce more talk. The more teacher asks questions

the more students would respond.


127

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The conclusion on this chapter summarize the whole study and it also gives

recommendations to the English education how to teach young learner. The

discussion in this chapter is arranged in three main parts, namely (1) conclusion and

(2) recommendation.

5.1 Conclusion

The analysis of classroom language has indicated that classroom learning is not

so much about the individual’s acquisition by only of knowledge. It is about learning

how to behave appropriately and how to read the context of the lesson use the right

kind of language (Mercer & Dawes, 2008). Based on the finding of this research, the

following conclusions are listed below.

The teaching and learning process are required not only the teacher’s talk but

also the student’s talk. In a young learner classroom interaction, the teacher deals

with particular the young learners characteristic. In this case, the teacher’s job is not

only to teach the students about content in target language but also to build the

student’s motivation. In purpose to be active participate in producing target language

based on their own critical thinking. The Student participation pattern is the most

dominantly happened. The proportion is (45.47%), it shows that students are active

enough to participate in classroom discussion. It indicated that the teacher has already

succeed to lead the interaction become active, comprehensible and meaningful.


128

Furthermore, it provides the comprehensible activities to support second language

acquisition (SLA) for young learner classroom. In this case, the teacher wants to

explore the students’ critical thinking. The result reflects, 47.2% from the total

classroom talk is devoted to the student’s talk, 49.5% is for the teacher talk and the

number of silence is low 3.3%. In other words, the interaction is not dominated by the

teacher since the frequency of the whole talk were not substantial different.

Additionally, the teacher is successful to promote students in producing target

language, it can be clearly seen from the number of silence.

The interaction in this this young learner classroom is in three-way

communication; there are interaction between the teacher-students, students-the

teacher, and students-students. Those kind of interaction have been done all in

English, even when students communicate each other’s using English. This would

seem to follow when interaction is not dominated by teacher-student only. The others

two interaction (student-teacher & student-student). It indicates that the teacher not

only gives the information (input) but also has a great tendency to stimulate the ideas

and motivations for students to learn new content, information and practice their

target language happily.

The results from the interview classroom teacher and school principal state that

there is no certain requirements for students to achieve the particular standard. It can

be concluded that they do not expect students to master or comprehend certain skill.

This study can help the teacher to be more aware and support their self-

sufficient. What is mean by self-sufficient is that teacher has compressible knowledge

to plan their talk. There are three basic knowledge: first, teachers are able to choose


129

the suitable talk based on the context and certain condition. Second, the teacher

knows how to help passive students. Third, the teacher are able to create and maintain

certain interaction pattern based on their requirement.

5.2 Recommendations

The results in this study have the significant implications for teachers as the

educators. The one who is expected to improve the quality of young learner

classroom interaction particularly in kindergarten level. In the interaction in a foreign

language, the teacher should provide comprehensible input to the students, the more

students received input the more they will produce the target language. The

researcher lists several recommendations for the school as the setting of this study.

First, the teacher can provide a well-structured and approachable verbal support

(productive talk) to all students. As the result, the teacher can give what are the

student’s needs. The use of the carefully planned small-group work provides a simple

and doable solution to increase the frequency of students-students interactions.

Furthermore, the teacher also gives the individual consultation time for passive

students in class. Somehow, the teacher can discover the solution when she talk to the

student individually after or before the class activity begin.

Third, it is better for the teacher to give longer time for the student to answer

the questions. As the observations result, sometimes the teacher is not patient enough

to wait student’s answer. The teacher directly, move to another students who are able

to answer quickly. In fact, the teacher will lose a chance to know what students want

to express is. Even the student faces difficulties to express their ideas through

English. The teacher is able to help the students by giving the encouragement.


130

Fourth, teacher talk is an important part of interaction. Pica, Doughty, & Young

(1990) say that what seems essential is not only merely that target language input be

present, but also that the learner understands it. In this case, it is better for the teacher

to be wise and creative to deliverer their language. Since the students have different

level of proficiency. This is the reason to evaluate the teacher talk whether

understandable enough for all students not only for high-level proficiency students.

Fifth, there are several ways to avoid a teacher-dominated and the passive

student will lack of chance. It is better for the teacher to re-arrange the activities

which can stimulate more in the classroom interaction such as brainstorming and the

problem solving, role play, the simulations and group work. Those activities help

students exchange information to achieve comprehensible input. They are

contributing in the meaningful experiences to acquire the target skills. Moreover,

applying, those kind of activities in the classroom, the teacher will be able to increase

the student’s motivation in participating and producing language output during

interaction both with the teacher and pairs.

Finally, the researcher hope that this study gives the practical contribution to

the understanding of interaction pattern in TEYL classroom particularly in English

learning. Furthermore, it gives benefits to teacher, kindergarten students as participant

and the reader of this research.


131

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allwright, D., & Bailey,K.M. (1991) Focus on the language classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teacher. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Astuti,Windy,.I. (2010). The meaning of teaching English large classes to a novice

teacher. Unpublished thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Brewster J., Ellis G., & Girard D. (2004). The Primary English Teachers’ Guide

(New Edition). Penguin English Guided. Edinburg Gate: Pearson Education

Ltd.

Brown, H.D (2007) Teaching by Principles – An Interactive Approach to Language

Pedagogy (3rd

Edition). London: Longman, Pearson Education Ltd.

Cameron, L. (2002). Teaching Language to Young Learners. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Cameron, L. (2008). Challenges for ELT from the expansion in teaching children.

ELT Journal, 57/2, pp.105-112

Cook, V. (2000) Second Language Learning and Language Teaching (2nd

Edition).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, M & Cole, S. (2007). The Development of Children. 4th

Ed. New York:

Scientific American Books. Distributed by W.N. Freeman and Company.

Coulthard, M (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis (2nd

ed). Pearson

Education Ltd

Cresswell, J. W. (2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design (2nd

Edition):

Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage

Publication Inc.

Daniels, H. (2002) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. New York: Rutledge/Falmer.

Ellis, R. (2003) Second Language Acquisition (9th

Edition). London: Oxford

University Press.

Ellis, R. (2008).The Study of Second Language Acquisition (2nd

Edition). London:

Oxford University Press.


132

Erickson, F. (2004). Talk and Social theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Flanders, N. (1970) Analysis Teaching Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fleta, M.T. (2005) The role of interaction in the young learners’ classroom.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Completes University. Madrid.

Hai SK, Bee LS.(2006). Effectiveness of interaction analysis feedback on verbal

behavior of primary school teachers. October 17th

2015. Retrieved from

https://sgliput.wordpress.com/2016

Harmer, J. (2000). How to teach English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and

Research Press.

Hartanto, S. (2010). Teacher perception of classroom talk in English learning at

Vocational School. Unpublished thesis Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma

University.

Hu, Q. Q., Nicholson, E., & Chen, W. (2004). An investigation and analysis of

questioning pattern of college English teacher. Foreign Language World, 6,

22-27. February 8 2016. Retrieved from

www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/viewFile/20965/13699

Inamullah, M (2007). Patterns of classroom interaction at different education level in

the light of flander’s interaction analysis. Pakistan: Pakistan University

Press. January 16 2016. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40172016

Krashen, S. D (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implication. London:

Longman.

Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and Teaching Language through Content: a

counterbalanced approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamin’s publishing

Company.

Long, M. (1996). The Role of Linguistic Environment Second Language Acquisition.

Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New York:

Academic.

Makasau, R (2015). Adjacency Pairs in Teacher- Student Interaction in English Day

Program at Mutiara Persada Elementary School Yogyakarta. Final Project.

Unpublished thesis. Jogjakarta. Sanata Dharma University Press.


https://sgliput.wordpress.com/2016

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijel/article/viewFile/20965/13699

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40172016

133

Mercer, N.,& Dawes, L., (2008). The value of exploratory talk. In N, Mercer, & S.

Hodgkinson (Eds), Exploring talk in school. London: Sage

Murtiningrum, S. (2009). Classroom Interaction in English Learning. Unpublished

Thesis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology: A Text book for Teachers.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.

Nurmasita,S. (2010). Classroom Interaction and the Effectiveness of Teaching

Learning English as a Local Content Subject at Elementary School. Final

Project. Semarang State University.

Pinter, Anamaria. (2006). Teaching Young Language Learners. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Rashidi, Nasser. (2010). Analyzing Pattern of Classroom Interaction in EFL

Classroom in Iran. The Journal of Asia TEFL. Shiraz University.

Richard, J.C.(1992) Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Roorda,D.L. (2012). Teacher-child relationship and interaction process: Effects on

students’ learning behavior and reciprocal influences between teacher and

child. Ede, The Netherlands: GVO drunkkers & vormagevers B.V.

Roseberg,C.R,& Silva, M.L. (2009). Teacher-children interaction and concept

development in kindergarten Discourse Processes, 46,572-591. March 12

2016. Retrieved from www.jstor.org.

SK Hai & LS. Bee (2006). Study of Teacher-Student Interaction in Teaching Process

and its Relation with Students Achievement in Primary Schools. Malaysia.

The Social Sciences.

Sinclair,J., & Coulthard, M. (1992). Toward an Analyaia of Discourse. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Suherdi, D. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A systemic Approach. Bandung:

Celtics Press. April 9 2016. Retrieved from journal.upi.edu/index.php/L-

E/article/download/318/208

Tichapondwa,S.M. 2006). Interactive communication and the teaching-learning

process. Gweru:Mambo Press.

Tsui, A.BM. (1989). Beyond the Adjacency Pair. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.


http://www.jstor.org/

134

Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the Language Learner. London: Longman

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in Society. London: Harvard University Press.

Wan. M. (2013). A study of Teacher Talk in Elementary School English Class.

Unpublished thesis .Yogyakarta. Sanata Dharma University

Walsh, S. (2011). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement

in the EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research

Walsh, S. (2012). Conceptualizing classroom interaction competence: Language in

action. New York: Rout ledge

Yanfen, L. & Yuqin, Z. (2000). A Study of Teacher Talk in English Classes. Chinese

Journal of Applied Linguistic, Vol.33 no 2, pp.76-86. January 23 2016. Retrieved

from www.celea.org.

Zhang, H. (2009). Moving out of IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback):A single case

analysis. Language Learning Research Club. University of Michigan. June

14 2016. Retrieved from www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/tesolal/Warin

Zhou, X., & Zhou, Y. (2010). An investigation and analysis of teacher talk of college

English teacher. Foreign Language Teaching and Research.


http://www.tc.columbia.edu/faculty/tesolal/Warin

135

APPENDIX


136

Appendix 1: Matrix of Flanders Interaction Analysis in four meetings


137


138

Appendix 2: The Overall Result of Classroom Interaction

1. Content Cross Pattern

No Meeting Content Cross Percentage

1 First 29 30.53%

2 Second 30 25%

3 Third 41 28%

4 Fourth 29 21.6%

2. Teacher Control Pattern

No Meeting Teacher Control Percentage

1 First 12 12.63%

2 Second 17 14.16%

3 Third 9 6.2%

4 Fourth 19 14%

3. Teacher Support Pattern

No Meeting Teacher Support Percentage

1 First 11 11.57%

2 Second 14 11.66%

3 Third 10 6.8%

4 Fourth 25 18.4%

4. Student Participation Pattern

No Meeting Student Participation Percentage

1 First 39 41.05%

2 Second 55 45.85%

3 Third 60 41%

4 Fourth 72 54%


139

Appendix 3: The Comparison of teacher talk and student talk

No Meeting Teacher Talk Student Talk Silence

Quantity % Quantity % Quantity %

1 First 52 53% 39 41.5% 6 5.5%

2 Second 59 49.5% 55 47% 4 3.5%

3 Third 62 51.5% 60 47% 2 1.5%

4 Fourth 63 54% 72 53.2% 4 2.8%

478

Total 236 49.5% 226 47.2% 16 3.3%


140

Appendix 4: Blueprint Observation Protocol

Thesis title : A Study of Classroom Interaction in Teaching Process

Using Flanders Interaction Analysis System at Ananda

Mentari Kindergarthen School.

Research Questions : 1. what are the predominant patterns of classroom

interaction between teachers and students in young learner

classroom interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

Yogyakarta?

2. How did the interactions happened in teaching learning at

Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta?

Research Goal : 1. To find out the interaction pattern during classroom

interaction at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School

Yogyakarta.

2. To find out whether the interaction was teacher-dominated

or student-dominated.

3. To discover how interactions are happen in the classroom

at Ananda Mentari Kindergarten School Yogyakarta.

Observation guide adapted from Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited

in Hai and Bee 2006).

No. Flander’s Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC)

Teacher Talk Coding


141

A. Indirect Talk

1. Accept Feelings

(Acpt.)

In this category, teacher accepts the feeling of the

students.

He feels himself that the students should not be

punished for exhibiting his feelings.

Feelings may be positive or negative

2. Praise or Encouragement

(Pra.)

Teacher praises or encourages student action or

behavior.

When a student gives answer to the question asked by

the teacher, the teacher gives positives reinforcement

by saying word like ‘good’, ‘very good’, ‘better’,

‘correct’, excellent’, ‘carry on’.

3. Accepts or Uses ideas of Students

(ideas) If a student passes on some suggestion, then the

teacher may repeat in nutshell in his own style or

words.

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

Or the teacher clarifies builds or develops ideas or

suggestion given by a student.

4. Asking Questions

(Ask.Quest.) Asking question about content or procedures, based

on the teacher ideas and expecting an answer from

the students.

Sometimes, teacher asks the question but he carries

on his lecture without receiving any answer.

B Direct Talk

5 Lecturing/Lecture (Lect.)

Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure

expression of his own ideas, giving his own explanation,

citing an authority other than students, or asking

rhetorical questions.

6 Giving Direction


142

The teacher gives directions, commands or orders or

initiation with which a students is expected to comply

with:

Open your books

Stand up on the benches

Solve 4th

sun of exercise

(Giv.Dirct.)

7 Criticizing or Justifying Authority

(Crt.) When the teachers asks the students not to interrupt

with foolish questions, then this behavior is included

in this category.

Teachers ask ‘what’ and ‘why’ to the students also

come under this category.

Statements intended to change student behavior from

unexpected to acceptable pattern.

Stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing

Student Talk

8 Student Talk Response

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

talk

Teacher asks question, student gives answer to the

question.

9 Student Talk Initiation

Initiate Talk by students talk in response to teacher’s talk

Expressing own ideas; initiating a new topic;

freedom to develop opinion and line of though like

asking thoughtful questions; going beyond the

existing structure.

10 Silence or Pause or Confusion Silence

Pauses, short periods of silence and period of

confusion in which communication cannot be

understood by the observer.


143

Appendix 5: Observational Protocol Result of First Meeting

Table: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).

Day/Date : Tuesday, December 15th

2015 Time : 2x 30 minutes

Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 students (6 boys and 9 girsl)

Topic : Treasure box Place : Kindergarten B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Teacher

indirect

talk

Accepts feelings 1 IIIII 5 Praise or

encouragement 2 IIIII I 6

Accepts or uses ideas

of students 3

Teacher

direct

talk

Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII

IIIII 17

Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII II 12

Giving direction 6 IIIII IIIII 10

Criticizing or

justifying authority 7 II 2

Student

talk

response

Student talk

response 8 IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII

III

23

Student talk

initiation

9 IIIII IIIII IIIII I

14

Silence or pause

or confusion

10 IIIII

I

6

Tota

l

5 6 15 12 10 2 23 16 6 95


144

The Distribution of Teacher Talk and Student Talk and transcription teacher-student

interaction

Ratio Formula Score

1. Teacher Talk Ratio/ Percentage

of Teacher Talk (TT)

TT = 52 x 100 : 95 = 54%

2. Indirect Teacher Talk Ratio

(ITT)

ITT = 28 x 100:95 = 29%

3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio

(DTT)

DTT = 24x100:95 = 25%

4. Students’ Talk Ratio/ Percentage

of Students Talk (PT)

PT = 39 x 100 : 95 = 41%


SC = 6 x 100 :95= 6,5%


28/24 x 100= 116%


145

Extr

act

Conversation Context of

situation

Teacher

Talk

Coding Student

Talk

001

(1)

T : “Ok, Good morning friends”

S : “Good morning, Miss Nining”


while starting the

teaching activity.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

002

(1)

T: “How are you today, friends?”

S: I am fine Miss, Thank you.

Teacher addressing to

all students in the

classroom

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

003

(1)

T: “Who knows what we will do today?”

S: “I know miss, to find the pirate miss”

Teacher asks the

student about today’s

activity

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Initiate

004

(1)

T: Raise your hand please, I cannot hear you.

S: (all student shout) “find the treasure in the

sea miss”

T: “Miss Nining cannot hear you, all of you

said find a treasure, find treasure. Let listen to

Caca “what we will do caca?”

S : “We will find a treasure, Miss”

Teacher gives the


will they learn.

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Initiate


146

005

(1)

T : “So we will play treasure hunt”

S : (students clap their hand) “Yewwwww”

Teacher informs the

name of game that will

be play for today.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

006

(1)

T: “Are you ready to be a pirate today. Later,

we will find the treasure box here on your

group. Before you find the treasure, you will

have a map from your friend to find the

treasure box. So before you find the treasure

each group will make the map first.

S: ….. (students are listening to the teacher)

Teacher explains aboit

the rule of the ‘treasure

hunt’ game to the

students.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Silence

007

(1)

S: “Now…are you ready to do the game?”

(rhetorical question)

T: “Yes Yes…. “

Encourage the students

to be ready for the

game.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

008

(1)

T : “I will divide you into 3 group, Kakak Rula

stand up over there, Kakak Fian stand up there

and Elsi stand up beside kak Rula”

Teacher mentions the

name that later become

one group.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)


147

S: (students do the teacher instruction to make

a group)

009

(1)

S : “Me me I want with Muel, Miss”

T : “please wait Shifa, I will call you after this”

Teacher command the

student to wait till she

calls students’ name

Accepts

Feeling

(Acpt.)

Initiate

010

(1)

T: “Vio, where are you going? follow your

group”

S : “I am confuse which my group is, Miss”

Teacher asks the

student to join his

group.

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Initiate

011

(1)

T: “everyone stand with your group?”

S : (student silent)

Teacher want to make

sure that students on

their right group.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Silence

012

(1)

T: “Are you ready, Kids?

S: “Yes….”

Everyone is excited to

do the game

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

013

(1)

T: “Remember this is your group, so make sure

the leader will take care of the group member

and before we play the treasure hunt. First, we

will hide the treasure box”

Teacher gives direction

to the group members.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response


148

S : (shouting) “Wowwwww”

014

(1)

T: “One teacher will company in every group,

so you will find the secret place to hide the

treasure box. And after that you will go back

here and you will make the map to find the

treasure box”

S : (students are listening)

Every group will have a

teacher as a guide to go

to their “secret place’

and help them to draw

the map.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Silence

015

(1)

T: “Is that clear, friends?”

S : “Yes’s, Miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

016

(1)

T: “Then, Who will go first?”

S: “ Mine, Mine miss, group 2”

T : “Ok, You go first Fika’s group”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Initiate

017

(1)

T : “Go follow your group leader, friends”

S: (follow their leader)

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

018

(1)

T : “Peter, you are the leader so please take

care your group member”

S : “Of course, miss”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

019

(1)

T: “Hafi, can you make a circle, Sit down Accepts (Acpt.) Response


149

please”

S: “Ok, Miss”

Feeling

020

(1)

T : “Evan, please sit near Jhon”

S : “Yes,Miss”

Accepts

Feeling

(Acpt.)

Response

021

(1)

T : “Thank you, very good”

S: ………..

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

022

(1)

T: “Kiel will draw the map for us”

S : “Kiel Miss, he is good on drawing”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direct.

)

Initiate

023

(1)

S: “When we start drawing, Miss?”

T : “ wait until other group come after hide the

treasure”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiat

e

024

(1)

S: “Miss, We cannot draw all the map. The

place is very secret”

T : “Don’t worry I will help you later to draw

the map”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

025

(1)

T : “Please don’t draw something are not Criticizing (Crt.) Initiate


150

important, please follow your leader instruction

or Miss Nining rules”

S: “why we should follow Ruel, Miss?”

T: “Because we will not make a wrong map,

right?

026

(1)

S : “Miss, Evan bites my hand”

T: “Evan, why did you do that? Do you want

Qiqi bites you too?

T: “You have to answer the question. It is ok I

am not angry. But tell me why first”

S : “ He takes my pen and he will not return it”

Accepts

Feeling

(Acpt.)

Initiate

027

(1)

T: “Where is Aslan?”

S : “He goes to toilet, Miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

028

(1)

T: “Do you remember where the place is?”

S : “In the park”

T : “stttsssssss other group will know it, keep it

secret”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

029

(1)

T : “ Excuse me hello, clap one”

S : (clap their hand, listen to the teacher)

Lecturing (Lect.)


151

030

(1)

T: “Have you hidden you treasure in your

secret place?”

S : (together) “Yess”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

031

(1)

T : “Now we will make the map, but you tell

your friend where is your treasure box through

spoken: My treasure is over there”

S : “No, it is become easy to find”

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

032

(1)

T: “Tomorrow you will have another treasure

hunt, of course the different treasure hunt. So

make sure you come for tomorrow”

S : “Yew, can’t wait for tomorrow”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

033

(1)

T: “Are you ready?”

S : “Yes Miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

034

(1)

T : “You can start now”

S : (drawing)

Lecturing (Lect.)

035

(1)

T : “You can draw the sign, anything that you

passed when you hide the treasure box”

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

036

(1)

S : “ Miss, I found the treasure near Miss

Detty’s Office”

Praising (Pra.)

Initiate


152

T : “ Good Job, Kayla”

037

(1)

T: “Who is the first group?”

S : “Peter”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

038

(1)

T: “The first group what is inside your treasure

box?”

S : “ Poison”

T: “Poison? It is contain a poison?”

S : “Yes, stinky and disgusting”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

039

(1)

T: “You are not lucky, You can try it again

tomorrow. Don’t be sad”

S : “Yes, we want to try more”

The student seem gave

up since she failed to

find the treasure,

teacher try to encourage

her to try again

tomorrow.

Encouragin

g or

Praising

(Pra.)

Response

040

(1)

T: “Do you follow the map? Did the map is

correct or not?”

S : “Correct”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

041

(1)

T : “Congratulation for 1st group”

S : “Yew”

Encouragin

g or

(Pra.)

Response


153

Praising

042

(1)

T: “How about the 2nd

group. Is it difficult of

easy to find the treasure?’

S : “Difficult, the map we follow is wrong”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Initiate

043

(1)

T : “Everyone please listen to Aska”

S : “ The treasure is under the table”

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

044

(1)

T : “So is the map right or wrong?”

S : “Wrong”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

045

(1)

T: “How about 3rd

group, is that easy or

difficult?”

S : “little bit difficult”

T: “Did you do together or not?

S : “Yes”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

046

(1)

T:”Jiza Elzi did you do together or not?”

S : (silence)

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Silence

047

(1)

T: “The 3rd

group did not did together. For Lecturing (Lect.) Response


154

tomorrow we will change the leader”

S : “Yes, he was wrong, Miss”

048

(1)

T: “ok friends, are you hungry?

S : “Yes, we are hungry”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

049

(1)

T:”Lets pray for our lunch break”.Are you

ready to pray?”

S : “Yes, we are ready”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.

)

Response

050

(1)

T : “Put your hand and close your eyes”

S : (students pray)

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

051

(1)

T : “Lets listen and repeat after Aska”

S : (listening and repeating)

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

052

(1)

T : “Girls go first, and boys follow after that”

S : (going out to have lunch)

Giving

Direction

(Giv.Dirct.)


155

Appendix 6: Observational Protocol Result of Second Meeting

Table: Matrix of Flander Interaction Analysis. (1970 cited in Hai and Bee 2006).

Day/Date : Friday, February 12th


Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 (6 boys and 9 girsl)

Topic : Camping Place : Kindergarten A

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Teacher

indirect

talk

Accepts feelings 1 III 5 Praise or

encouragement 2 IIIII 6

Accepts or uses

ideas of students 3 III 3

Teacher

direct

talk

Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII

20

Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII 10

Giving direction 6 IIIII IIII 10

Criticizing or

justifying authority 7 IIIII II 7

Student

talk

response

Student talk


IIIII IIIII IIIII II

24

Student talk

initiation 9 IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII

31

Silence or pause or

confusion 10 IIII

4

To

tal 5 6 3 20 10 10 7 24 31 4 120


156


interaction Ratio Formula Score



TT = 59 x 100 : 120 = 49%


(ITT)

ITT = 34X100:120 = 28%


(DTT)

DTT = 27x100:120 = 22%



PT = 55 X 100 : 120 = 49%


SC = 4 X 100:120= 3%


34/27x100= 125%


157

Extr

act


situation

Teacher

Talk

Coding Student

Talk

001

(2)

T: “Good morning friend, How are you today?”

S: “Good morning Miss Nining, I am fine

thank you”


while starting the

teaching activity.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

002

(2)

T: “Are you ready for something, surprised?”

S: “Wow, we are ready Miss”

Teacher addressing to

all students in the

classroom

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

003

(2)

T: “Did you check the weather outside, just a

moment ago. It is rainy or sunny?”

S: “Sunny, the sun is very bright”

Teacher asks the


activity

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

004

(2)

T: “Do you see little rain or cloudy sky

outside?”

S: “No, it is sunny already”

Teacher gives the


will they learn.

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

005

(2)

T: “Next we will have camping”

S: “Yewwwww..It must be fun”

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

006

(2)

T: “Are you happy with that?”

S: “Sure, I am very happy ”

Teacher make sure that

students are interesting

to the topic.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response


158

007

(2)

T: “Do you want to sing Mr sun?”

S: “Yes, I like Mr Sun” (shouting to the

teacher)

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

008

(2)

T: “Listen to the video, please”

S: “…….” (silent)

Students are shout each

other’s, teacher tried to

remain them.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.

)

Silence

009

(2)

T: “Did you watch kakak kakak in the movie,

what are they wearing?”

S: “They are wearing jacket, trouser and hat”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

010

(2)

T: “Are they wearing raincoat?”

S: “No”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

011

(2)

T: “Are they wearing coat?”

S: “No, they are wearing a t-shirt”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

012

(2)

S: “They are wearing glass”

T: “I can’t hear you clearly, can you just repeat

it once more?”

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

013

(2)

S: “ short pant and skirt ”

T: “Yes, you right Sara”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate


159

014

(2)

T: “Are they wearing boots?”

S: “No, they wear yellow sandals. We wear

boot in rainy day”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

015

(2)

T: “Yes, correct. In the video they are having

summer and they are wanting a sun”

S: “oooooo” (listening)

Lecturing (Lect.)

Silence

016

(2)

T: “We are going camping after this”

S: “Yew, I like camping”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

017

(2)

T: “Where is this”

S: “In the river, in the lake, near the beach”

Teacher showing the

picture of camping

ground

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

018

(2)

T: “When we are going to camping. What we

should need?”

S: “tend, with blue color miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

019

(2)

T: “What else’s?”

S: “a bad, a jacket, backpack ”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

020

(2)

T: “Look, how about this?”

S: “Fire, Fire is hot miss it is dangerous ”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

021 T: “It is night or day time?” Asks (Ask.Ques Response


160

(2) S: “Night” questions t.)

022

(2)

T: “They are camping at night. What are they

doing?”

S: “…..” (silent)

T : “They burn some fireworks, and make

themselves warm during the night”

The teacher try to

explain the condition

based on the videos.

Since the student are

seem confuse.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Silence

023

(2)

T: “The last is this. What are they doing?”

S: “They are playing inside the comfortable

tend miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

024

(2)

T: “What we can do while we are having

camping?”

S: “playing guitar, eat and sleep”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

025

(2)

T: “Excellent, Nathan, we can also can make a

fire to burn a marshmallow”

S: “Wow marshmallow I have some in my

home”

Teacher praises

students about his

experience about how

to cook a mars mellow

by saying “excellent”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

026

(2)

S: “I have ever tried the marshmallow and the

color is colorful I also like the taste”

The teacher agreed with

students’ opinion about

Uses ideas

of Students

(ideas) Response


161

T: “I agree with you Nathan, the taste is good” marshmallow

027

(2)

T: “Do you like marshmallow?”

S: “Yes”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

028

(2)

T: “Later we will try to eat marshmallow”

S: “Wow. I like marshmallow ”

Lecturing (Lect.) Response

029

(2)

T: “We have also have sandwich, that we can

make it outside after this. We will try to spread

the bread with strawberry jam and butter. Later

you will cut the bread and slice it and spread

the butter by yourself”

S: “Yes. I want to do it soon, Miss”

Teacher informs the

student about what they

should to step by step to

make them understand.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

030

(2)

T: “After you have finished to make sandwich.

You will go outside to grill the bread. And we

will have party”

S: “Yew...”

Teacher gives

instruction.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

031

(2)

S: “Now, Let build a tent for us”

T: “Good, we can build nice and comfortable

tent”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Response

032 T: “Here we will build our own tent. I need Teacher and student Giving (Giv.Direc Response


162

(2) some boys to help me, Peter, Nathan, Elang

and Stephen”

S: “Yes Miss”

together build up the

tent

direction t.)

033

(2)

T: “You need to tight the rope to this part. It

must be tight”

S: “Yes, we can do it”

Teacher gives

instruction to the

learner

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

034

(2)

T: “And then the girl please help to cover the

rope”

S: “Yes, Miss”

Teacher asks the

student to build the tent

too.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

035

(2)

T: “Clap one please”

S: “Yes” (clapping their hand)

Teacher try to get

students’ attention

before move to next

activity.

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Response

036

(2)

T: “Now the tent is done. Do you want

something to eat?”

S: “Yes”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Response

037

(2)

T: “We are going to make sandwich ”

S: “Wow”


038 T: “I am going to choose who will go outside to Lecturing (Lect.) Response


163

(2) make sandwich, to spread the jam and cutting

the bread”

S: “I want to eat it all”

039

(2)

T: “You have to wash your hand first before

touch the bread”

S: “Yes, Miss”

Teacher distributes

hand sanitizer to the

students.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

040

(2)

T: “Remember, I can’t eat the bread ”

S: “Why Miss. I am hungry”

T:” Because we have to wait our friends”

Teacher remain the

student to follow the

rules.

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

041

(2)

T: “Come on spread the jam into the bread

nicely”

S: “Miss I want to eat it”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Response

042

(2)

T: “What the color of jam friend?”

S: “Red strawberry jam”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

043

(2)

S: “Miss, Leona eat the bread”

T: “don’t Fiona please wait other friends”

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

044 T: “We have to be fast” Accepting (Acpt.) Initiate


164

(2) S: “I am done Miss”

045

(2)

T: “Finished Miss”

S: “Wait down there”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Initiate

046

(2)

T: “Miss I am done”

S: “Good, Kayla”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

047

(2)

T: “Miss the taste of butter is salty I don’t like

it”

S: “spread it with strawberry jam and you will

like it”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direc

t.)

Initiate

048

(2)

T:”Ok, enough Kevin. Thank you. Go to the

classroom.”

S: :”I want to spread more butter”

Teacher stops the

activity have done by

student to move to next

activity since student

get much excited.

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

049

(2)

T: “Who is the first eat marshmallow?”

S: “This my first time and like it much Miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate


165

050

(2)

T: “You know, I like the burned part. It is very

yummy”

S: “I don’t like it”


051

(2)

T: “You don’t like it, so put in here then”

S: “The taste is strange”

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

052

(2)

T: “Nafisa, why you don’t like it”

S: “It is too sweet and stinky Miss”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

053

(2)

T: “Wow I think Dika like marshmallow so

much. You want more? ”

S: “Yes Miss I want some more. I love

marshmallow”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

054

(2)

T: “After this maybe you will go to the

camping area, you can play in tent area, read a

book and play with your friend. You will

explore tent area. Nafisa and Peter will plays

guitar and other song a nice song”

S: “Yes, may I sleep there Miss”

Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate


166

055

(2)

T: “Are sure you don’t like marshmallow. Why?”

S: “….” (silent)

T: “Is it too sweet for you? It is ok if you don’t like it at

least you tried to eat marshmallow and how does it

taste.”

Student don’t eat the

marshmallow some of

them found difficult to

explain the reason.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Silence

056

(2)

T: “Jeje, don’t play with it. If you don’t like it put it here

”

S:”...” (silent)

Teacher try to control

student’s misbehavior

Criticizing

or

justifying

(Crt.) Silence

057

(2)

T: “Later you will spread the jam on the bread we will

toast the bread with the strawberry jam. Who likes it?”

S:”I want vanilla jam and chocolate jam I don’t like

strawberry the taste is sour”


058

(2)

T: “We don’t have vanilla jam. Numa what do

you like?” S:”Peanut”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Ques

t.)

Initiate

059

(2)

T: “Oke friends it that clear. Anyone knows what have to

do?”

S:”Yes Miss I understand”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.)

Response


167

Appendix 7: Observational Protocol Result of Third Meeting

Day/Date : Wednesday, February 17th


Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 students (6 boys and 9 girsl)

Topic : The Volcano Place : Kindergarten B

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total

Teacher

indirect

talk

Accepts feelings 1 III 3 Praise or

encouragement 2 IIIII II II 7

Accepts or uses

ideas of students 3 2

Teacher

direct

talk

Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII IIIII IIIII

20

Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII I 21

Giving direction 6 IIIII 5

Criticizing or

authority 7 IIII 4

Student

talk

response

Student talk


IIIII IIIII

IIII

24

Student talk

initiation 9 IIIII IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII IIIII

IIII I

36

Silence or pause

or confusion 10 II 2

Total 3 7 2 20 21 5 4 24 36 2 145


168

The Distribution of Teacher Talk and Student Talk and transcription teacher-student interaction

Ratio Formula Score



TT = 62 x 100 : 145 = 42.75%


(ITT)

ITT = 32 x 100 : 145 = 22%

3. Direct Teacher Talk Ratio (DTT)

DTT = 30 x 100 : 145 = 20.7%



PT = 60 x 100 : 145 = 41.3%


SC = 2 x 100 : 145 = 1,5%


32/30 x 100= 106%


169

Extr

act


situation

Teacher

Talk

Coding Student

Talk

001

(3)

T: “Are you ready, friend?”

S: “Yes, sure”


while starting the

teaching activity.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

002

(3)

T: “Fian, please don’t sit next to Nathan so you

can’t see clearer”

S: “Yes, Miss”

Teacher manage the

students’ position so

that they can easy to

see the projector.

Accepting (Acpt.) Response

003

(3)

T: “Ok friend, this week we will learnt about natural

disaster, and yesterday we have learnt about disaster

that happened in the rain season. What are they?”

S: “storm, flood, landslide and ”

Teacher asks the


activity

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.) Response

004

(3)

T: “So yesterday we learnt about storm, flood and

land slide. And today we will learnt another disaster”

S: “It must be sad when we discuss about disaster

Miss”

Teacher gives the

information about

what will they learn.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

005

(3)

T: “What picture is it”

S: “That is volcano”

Teacher show the

picture of volcano to

Asks

questions



170

make students

understand.

006

(3)

T: “What do you think about volcano? Raise your

hand first. Navisa please”

S: “The volcano is scary. The color is black. There is

smoke”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

007

(3)

T: “And then Peter?”

S: “There is lava around the volcano. The lava is hot”

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.) Initiate

008

(3)

T: “Let see first one by one, look at the black smoke

here. What is wrong with the volcano?”

S: “The volcano is full of lava”

Asks

questions


009

(3)

T: “Look here the volcano is erupting, the smoke out

and the color here is black. The smoke is hot”

S: “The smoke hot and black”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

010

(3)

T: “Ya right. Just like people say this is the lava”

S: “Lava”

Uses ideas

of

Students

(ideas) Response

011

(3)

T: “Now look here. Do you think is this hot friend?”

S: “Yes. It is very hot. It is dangerous

Asks

questions



171

012

(3)

T: “And beside of smoke and lava. Move down from

the volcano become like this. Because the volcano is

covered by lava ”

S: “I want wont to stay there. It is dangerous”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

013

(3)

T: “What is that”

S: “A rock”

Asks

questions


014

(3)

T: “Yes you are right, Bia. This is rock”

S: “A rock full of smoke”

Praising

or

Encourag

ing

(Pra.)

Initiate

015

(3)

T: “When the volcano is erupting the material will go

out from the volcano. The first one is rock, smoke

and lava”

S: “Wah giant rock”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

016

(3)

T: “So what are they material come out when

volcano is erupting?”

S: “Fire, lava, rock and giant stone”

Asks

questions


017

(3)

T: “Look. The fire burn the tree around the volcano

here. Emm what do you think about the animal?”

Asks

questions



172

S: “they will die”

018

(3)

T: “So when the volcano erupts the people around the

volcano here should be evacuated to the…...”

S: “Safety place far from volcano”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

019

(3)

T: “The people have to move because of the

situation. It is very dangerous to keep stay there”

S: “The smoke of volcano also make us sick”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

020

(3)

T: “That is very good, Fian”

S: “Thank you, Miss”

Fian is significantly

active so the teacher

praised him.

Praising

or

Encourag

ing

(Pra.)

Response

021

(3)

T: “Do know Merapi friend? The closest volcano

from our place here is Merapi. This is when Merapi

erupted couple years ago. Look at this people are

wearing musk because of volcano dust”

S: “My grand mama house is near from merapi”

Teacher explain the

information to the

student about Merapi

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

022

(3)

T: “What is that Bia”

S: “That is the smoke of volcano and the dust”

Asks

questions


023 T: “What do you mean? Usually the smoke come Criticizin (Crt.) Initiate


173

(3) together with the dust”.

S: “The smoke is stuck in our face”

g or

justifying

024

(3)

T: “Look at this. Look at this”

S: “motorcycle, dust and road full of dust ”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direct.) Response

025

(3)

T: “Yes, miss Nining also agree with Navisa, this is

the dust of volcano”

S: “The place is dirty”

Teacher agreed and re

state students’ idea

toward picture given

by teacher.

Uses ideas

of

Students

(ideas) Initiate

026

(3)

T: “Yes Nafisa you want to tell something?”

S: “We have to go another place”

Criticizin

g or

justifying

(Crt.) Response

027

(3)

T: “Look at the dust here. The dust will cover

anything house and then look at this”

S: “They wear mask and jacket”


028

(3)

T: “Sometimes people wear umbrella and sun glasses

to protect the eyes”

S: “The color of glasses is black”


029

(3)

T: “What are they doing?”

S: “In a big room”

Asks

questions



174

030

(3)

S: “No. That is evacuation room”

T: “Yes. That is right Shifa. Great”

Praising (Pra.)

Initiate

031

(3)

T: “This shelter. Just like this”

S: “The safe one for the people”


032

(3)

T: “Look they are sleeping together here and they

will eat together while wait for better condition. Until

the volcano stop erupt and look”

S: “Oh my God. That place is covered by dust”


033

(3)

T: “The dust from the mountain will cover the tree,

plant and vegetable ”

S: “We can’t eat it”


034

(3)

T: “Look at this in the airport”

S: “Wah that us City link plane”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

035

(3)

T: “Do you think we can go by air plane in this

situation?”

S: “Because the dust covers the mirror and the road is

slipper ”

Asks

questions


036

(3)

T: “The airport must be closed. The pilot can’t drive

the airplane”



175

S: “The people will stay at home”

037

(3)

T: “look here. The dust covers the vegetable, the tree

and the building. So what will happen next?”

S: “The rain will remove the dust”

Asks

questions


038

(3)

T: “Yes right Noel. If there is no run the vegetable

will be died”

S: “The rain must be hard. The rain will clean the

dust everywhere”

Praising

or

Encourag

ing

(Pra.)

Initiate

039

(3)

T: “So this all about volcano eruption”

S: “Volcano eruption ”


040

(3)

T: “Lets listen to Fiona. What are the material come

out from the volcano when it is erupting?”

S: “rock, smoke, fire and lava”

Teacher ask the

student who seems

passive during the

discussion.

Asks

questions


041

(3)

T: “What is happen to animal?”

S: “They will be burned”

Asks

questions


042

(3)

T: “Because they are enough tree for animal to eat.

So the animal will die too”

S: “I will give them my food”



176

043

(3)

T: “What we will do when volcano erupted?”

S: “We move to the safety place”

Asks

questions


044

(3)

T: “The smoke and the dust come out from the

volcano may burn everything. But after a while when

they stop after some weeks or some months. Actually

the dust is very good for people to plant vegetable

and fruit. They are very useful for planting because it

makes the soil fertile. That was the reason people

plant the vegetable and fruit in the high land, because

the soil there are very fertile ”

S: “Wow I like to plant fruit in my field”

Teacher shared the

new knowledge to the

student. In order to get

the benefit from the

volcano eruption


045

(3)

T: “Do you know some sign when volcano will

erupt? Do you know?”

S: “….” (silence)

Asks

questions

(Ask.Quest.) Silence

046

(3)

T: “Sometimes earthquake will happen around the

volcano. We called it Volcano earthquake ”

S: “Volcano earthquake ”


047

(3)

T: “Because the lava inside the volcano. They want

to come out soon. The lava will push anything. It

Teacher try to explain

the process of volcano



177

make earthquake around the volcano. Usually the

weather become hot. That is why animal which live

around the mountain they have in ting so they will

move down to the cooler place ”

S: “The lava will come out”

eruption. And the

situation around the

volcano.

048

(3)

T: “Where they will go?”

S: “Artic ”

Asks

questions


049

(3)

T: “Artic? No that is too far”

S: “To the village”

Give the clarification

to the student’s

answer.

Criticizin

g or

justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

050

(3)

T: “Miss Nining life in the high land here near the

Merapi Mountain. What was happen not only

earthquake but also the sound of Merapi. The sound

was very loud. That is why I have to move to safety

place left the house. It took many weeks for us to

clean the house it was very dirty”

S: “Yack dirty house”

Teacher shared her

own experiences to

the students.


051

(3)

S: “I think desert is the safe place”

T: “That is too far, Peter”

Criticizin

g or

(Crt.) Initiate


178

justifying

052

(3)

T: “What is the sound of animal in the mountain

?”

S: “kukuk kukukuk ”

Asks

questions


053

(3)

T: “When they volcano erupted the dust come out we

need to wear mask. I have musk for us to use. I will

give you one by one”

S: “I want the blue one”


054

(3)

S: “Miss, I don’t know how to use it”

S: “Don’t worry. Miss Nining will help you”

Praising

or

Encourag

ing

(Pra.)

Initiate

055

(3)

T: “We will put our mask like this. The green one

should be outside and the white one is inside. Let’s

us put on to cover our nose and month from the dust

when we are breathing”

S: “The mask is too big Miss”

Teacher give the

instruction how to use

mask.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direct.)

Initiate

056

(3)

T: “It is free for us”

S: “Thank you Miss”

Praising

or

(Pra.)

Response


179

Encourag

ing

057

(3)

T: “Please sit down nicely friend”

S: “I lost my mask, help me”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direct.)

Initiate

058

(3)

T: “Don’t worry Shila I will give you the new one”


Praising

or

Encourag

ing

(Pra.)

Response

059

(3)

T: “How do you feel when earthquake happened?”

S: “Scared”

Asks

questions


060

(3)

T: “Why are you smiling Peter? When it is really happen you

don’t have time to smile because it is so scared”

S: “…..” (silence)

Accepting (Acpt.)

Silence

061

(3)

T: “How many people will hide under this table?”

S: “one or two”

Asks

questions


062

(3)

T: “The others can line up on the wall and follow the

sign. Usually the sign will teach you to find the

closest exit door. So it makes you easy to get out”

S: “We have to run”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate


180

Appendix 8: Observational Protocol Result of Fourth Meeting

Day/Date : Friday, February 26th


Teacher’s Name : Miss Nining Number of student : 15 (6 boys and 9 girsl)

Topic : Space Shuttle Place : Kindergarten B

Teache

r

indirec

t talk

Accepts feelings 1 IIIII I 6 Praise or

encouragement 2 IIIII IIIII

IIIII

15

Accepts or uses

ideas of students 3 IIII 4

Teache

r direct

talk

Asking questions 4 IIIII IIIII IIIII 15 Lecturing/lecture 5 IIIII IIIII

IIII

14

Giving direction 6 IIIII IIIII

IIIII

15

Criticizing or

justifying authority 7 IIII 4

Studen

t talk

respon

se

Student talk

response 8 IIIII IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII IIIII III

33

Student talk

initiation 9 IIIII IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIIII IIIII

IIIII IIII

39

Silence or pause or

confusion 10 IIII 4

T

ot

al

6 15 4 15 14 15 4 33 39 4 134


181


interaction

Ratio Formula Score



TT = 63 x 100 : 134 = 47%


(ITT)

ITT = 40 x 100 : 134 = 30%


(DTT)

DTT = 33 x 100 : 134 = 25%

4. Students’ Talk Ratio/

Percentage of Students Talk (PT)

PT = 39 x 100 : 134 = 54%


SC = 4 x 100 : 134= 3%


40/33 x 100= 121%


182

Extr

act

Conversation Context of situation Function Coding Student

Talk

001

(4)

T: “Good morning friends. On Monday Miss

Martha told you about how to save the

earth”

S: “And how to save animal”


while starting the

teaching activity by asks

the student about

previous meeting topic.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

002

(4)

T: “How to say our mother earth?”

S: “Say no to plastic Miss ”

Teacher was addressing

question to all students in

the classroom

Asks

questions


003

(4)

T: “Thank , You are clever ”

S: “Yes. Thank you”

Teacher encouraged and

praised student’s

response.

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Response

004

(4)

T: “On Thursday we also learnt about

around object and the color is gray from the

earth. It doesn’t has their own light because

they got the light from the sun ”

S: “It is a moon”

Teacher gives the


will they learn.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

005 T: “Actually the moon is the earths’ satellite. Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate


183

(4) It follows the earth moving during the

rotation process”

S: “The only one satellite”

006

(4)

S: “And the star also”

T: “Yes, good Sifa”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

007

(4)

T: “And yesterday we learnt about people

who might travel to out space. What we call

those people?”

S: “Astronaut ”

Asks

questions


008

(4)

T: “If we want to go or travel out of space

we can go by special vehicle. We don’t go

there by airplane Garuda and Air Asia No”

S: “Garuda can’t reach the out of space.”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

009

(4)

T: “We can go by Space shuttle”

S: “Space Shuttle”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

010

(4)

T: “Yes Nathan you want to say

something?”

S: “ The rocket bring a lot of fire and

Asks

questions



184

rocket”

011

(4)

T: “So according to Nathan. The rocket need

fire to be launched to the outer space”

S: “Me me me Miss I want to say

something”

Teacher use student idea

to explain about how

rocket can be launched

Uses ideas

of Students

(ideas) Initiate

012

(4)

T: “How if talk one by one so all of you can

say something”

S: “The rocker brings the space shuttle”

Accepting (Acpt.)

Initiate

013

(4)

T: “Yes. The rocket brings the space shuttle.

Without rocket cannot be launched to outer

space. Because it need energy”

S: “The rocket is similar to airplane”

Uses ideas

of Students

(ideas) Initiate

014

(4)

T: “Is it airplane?”

S: “No”

The teacher corrected the

student’s response

because the answer is

wrong

Asks

questions


015

(4)

S: “When the space shuttle is in out space

the rocket will fall down back to the earth”

S: “Emm thank you Nathan for such great

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.) Initiate


185

opinion, but we will talk it later”

016

(4)

T: “I think that is enough Nathan we need to

work fast. Look at the clock it has been

fifteen minutes past ten. So today we are

going to make space shuttle”

S: “Yes, I will make my own”

The teacher stop the

student to give their

opinion because the time

is limit so they can move

to the next activity.

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

017

(4)

T: “So that’s way yesterday Miss Nining

asked you to bring old plastic bottle”

S: “I bring two bottles”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

018

(4)

T: “Do we use these old bottle to drink?”

S: “No, it is dirty and not healthy ”

Asks

questions


019

(4)

T: “So this is for Navisa, Nathan , Peter,

Bia, Fani, Safira, Elsi, Fian”

S: “Thank you Miss Nining”

Teacher distributed the

old bottle

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

020

(4)

S: “Miss I forgot to bring old bottle”

T: “Oke, Nafisa will gives you a bottle ”

Teacher encourages

student to keep continue

making a space shuttle

even she forgets to bring

old bottle.

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate


186

021

(4)

T: “Say thank you for Navisa”

S: “Thank you Navisa”

Accepting (Acpt.)

Response

022

(4)

T: “I think Fian and Nathan are better to

move here. Leona and Peter move there

because I want you to see clearer on the

projector ”

S: “Yes Miss”

Teacher asked some of

students to move to

arrange the better sit

position.

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

023

(4)

T: “Thank you. Because we need to do

many things today. You may share each

other and help your friend but please focus

to your own”

S: “I have my own blue bottle”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

024

(4)

T: “Today we have own bottle. This made

from plastic when its fall down that’s ok it

would not be broken. We will also use paper

”

S: “Wow gold paper”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

025

(4)

T: “Thank you very much Peter to play with

the bottle”

Teacher remain the

student’s inappropriate

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Silence


187

S: “….” (silence) behavior

026

(4)

T: “What color is it”

S: “Gold and silver”

Asks

questions


027

(4)

T: “Yes, you are right”

S: “Yes”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Response

028

(4)

T: “We also have red paper. What shape is

it?”

S: “It is a dorm”

Asks

questions


029

(4)

T: “Yes. This is a dorm or we can say a half

circle”

S: “Yes”

Teacher used students

idea about the paper’s

shape

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

030

(4)

T: “Take one red paper to make a corn

shape”

S: “Corn shape”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

031

(4)

S: “I can’t do it really difficult ”

T: “Don’t worry teacher will help you”

Teacher encouraged the

students.

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate


188

032

(4)

T: “I have already put a tape. You need to

peel it yourself, so it will be this shape”

S: “I can do it”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

033

(4)

T: “Where we can put this?”

S: “In the top of bottle”

Asks

questions


034

(4)

T: “Yes, we can put on the top of bottle”

S: “The hat of the bottle”

Teacher used students

idea about the how to put

the paper on the bottle

Uses ideas

of Students

(ideas) Initiate

035

(4)

T: “But looked at Elsi. She doesn’t need

because her bottle has already had corn

shape. Thank you Elsi”

S: “Wow, Elsie’s bottle is cute”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

036

(4)

T: “So this is the first step that we will do. I

will distribute to you one by one for Leona,

Fian.”

S: “Wow”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

037

(4)

T: “Please peel the tape”

S: “The white tape behind the paper”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

038 S: “I can’t do it by myself. Miss help me” Teacher encouraged Praising or (Pra.) Initiate


189

(4) T: “Don’t worry I will help you” student to keep trying Encouragin

g

039

(4)

T: “Thank you friends, thank you for trying”

S: “It is easy to do”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

040

(4)

T: “This way I will tape it into another side”

S: “Yes”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

041

(4)

T: “Wow this is good Fioan”


Praising or

Encouragi

(Pra.)

Response

042

(4)

T: “Let’s try to fold”

S: “Wow”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Response

043

(4)

T: “Thank you for trying yourself”

S: “I can’t do it Miss”

Praising (Pra.)

Initiate

044

(4)

T: “Let’s do it together. Peel the tape, fold

the paper this way until it become corn

shape”

S: “Miss I can do it”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Dirct.)

Initiate

045

(4)

T: “Thank you Fian. Nice trying by

yourself”

Praising or

Encouragin

(Pra.)

Response


190

S: “Yes, Miss” g

046

(4)

T: “Wow very good, Bia”

S: “thank you Miss”

Praising or (Pra.)

Response

047

(4)

T: “It is ok if you want to take in the floor

first. So it would not be disturbed you

because we need to do something with the

paper”

S: “Yes”

Teacher reminds the

student to take the paper

on the floor so it would

not disturb while they do

the activity.

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Response

048

(4)

T: “The second thing we will use this paper

for wrapping the bottle this way. Oh my

bottle is small so I can cut the paper like

this”

S: “Wow. My bottle is too big”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate

049

(4)

T: “Can you do that?”

S: “Yes”

Asks

questions


050

(4)

T: “You can name the bottle later when it is

done in the your own space shuttle”

S: “Miss I can use the paper as a mirror”

Giving

direction

(Giv.Direct.) Initiate

051 T: “Can we help you to tape the paper?” Asks (Ask.Quest.) Initiate


191

(4) S: “Yes, I need help Miss” questions

052

(4)

T:”Fian can you fold it yourself, can you?”

S:”Yes, I can”

Asks

questions


053

(4)

T:”Stefani put the paper on the floor and

make the corn shape”

S:”Yes, Miss”

Giving

direction


054

(4)

T:”So put the bottle on the paper and roll,

roll and roll until the bottle is covered by the

silver paper”

S:”The paper is slippery ”

Giving

direction


055

(4)

T:”please hold it tightly, till Miss Nining

come to tape it”

S:”I want to tape it by myself”

Giving

direction


056

(4)

T:”So after you finish the space shuttle. Are

you going to travel to the moon?”

S:”No, I am afraid if I can’t go back to the

earth”

Asks

questions


057

(4)

S:”Miss I have done my space shuttle with

sparkling color in the body of it”

Praising or

Encouragin

(Pra.)

Initiate


192

S:”Good Job Sabia, that is beautiful space

shuttle”

g

058

(4)

T:”Next I will give you some colorful paper.

Your job is to cut into circle and to put into

your space shuttle body. Look at this friend

circle shape”

S:”A big circle”

Lecturing (Lect.)

Response

059

(4)

T:”I will distribute the scissor please use it

wisely”

S:”Wow scissor I want to cut the green and

yellow paper”

Giving

direction


060

(4)

T:”Friend, I will give you an example. I will

cut one circle please try to manage do not

too small or too big and then after that take

the glue put in the space shuttle it can be

one, two. If you think the circle is too big so

you can make it smaller. After that I put the

circle nicely one or maybe four on the

around. It can be colorful too, you can share

Teacher explain the

procedure how to cut the

paper and put it in the

space shelter.

Lecturing (Lect.)

Initiate


193

with your friend. ”

S:”I want cut seven circles with different

color too”

061

(4)

T:”Peter can you share the blue and green

paper?”

S:”Yes, just take it”

Teacher gave the

example if they want to

share the paper.

Asks

questions


062

(4)

T:”The glue is in the middle friend”

S:”I take the glue first”

Giving

direction


063

(4)

S:”It is very difficult”

T:”Wait Miss Nining will help you there”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Initiate

064

(4

T:”Come on friend do it yourself. You are

kindergarten student now”

S:”…..”(silence)

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Silence

065

(4)

T:”Peter do you want another color?”

S:”Yes, I need red color”

Asks

questions


066

(4)

T:”Ok, friends have you finished?”

S:”Yes”

Asks

questions


067 T:”The next step is we will paste in the Lecturing (Lect.) Initiate


194

(4) bottom of the bottle. So it will be this way,

one will be in the right and the one will be in

the left so it will be like this. And the

teacher has already put the double tape on

the wing. Your job is just to peel the tape

and put the wing on your space shuttle ”

S:”Wow it has two wings to fly”

068

(4)

S:”I am done Miss”

T:”Wow, good job Fian”

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Initiate

069

(4)

S:”Fian’s space shuttle is like people, it is

tall”

S:”Ha ha maybe because it has long hair

too”

Uses ideas

of Students

(ideas) Initiate

070

(4)

T:”Friend, if you have already done don’t

forget to clean your garbage and also give

me back the scissor”

S:”I have many garbage on my floor”

Giving

direction


071

(4)

T:”This is the last step. We will use the red

paper for fire and then we will place in the



195

bottom of the bottle. Take one red paper put

some glue on the tail and stick it in the

bottle”

S:”The fire is red I will make fire”

072

(4)

T:”I think Stefani has to pay attention, you

don’t even finish your space shuttle”

S:”…” (silence)

Teacher remain the

student’s misbehavior to

be more focus on the

activity.

Criticizing

or justifying

(Crt.) Silence

073

(4)

S:”Miss, can I take five fire papers?”

T:”Yes of course, Miss Nining will cut more

papers”

Accepting (Acpt.)

Initiate

074

(4)

S:”May I go outside to throw away the paper

Miss?”

T:”Good Chalya, keep the class clean”

Accepting (Acpt.)

Initiate

075

(4)

T:”Thannk you friend you do your best to

make space shuttle today, don’t forget to

show it to your parent ”

S:”Thank you Miss”

Praising or

Encouragin

g

(Pra.)

Response


196

Appendix 9: Blueprint for Interview guideline

To interview the teacher:

No TOPIC QUESTION

1 Accepting Do you have any reason for using friends

rather than students?

Do your students always response to your

greeting?

2 Questioning Do you have any purpose to use

referential questions?

What do you think about using display

(the answer is listed on the book)

question in your teaching?

How long you prepare the material

before you delivered it in the class

3 Giving Direction What will you do to make them

understand long directions, in case your

students are considered as young

learners?

How if they misunderstand your teaching

direction?

Why you don’t used Indonesia language

when the student difficult to get your

direction?

4 Praising and

Encouraging

What do you say when your students are

able to answer your answer correctly?

Do have any reason on praising and

encouraging your students?

In what way you encourage your student


197

to be active participate in discussion?

5 Lecturing

When do you need to give an explanation

to your students?

What kind of information that you usually

gives to your students?

Do use always use English to explain

information to your student?

6 Accepting ideas

In your teaching, I found you intense to

accept student ideas. Do you have any

purpose with that?”

In what way you accept your student

ideas during the discussion?”

7 Criticizing or justifying

By doing confirmation on student’s

behavior in class. Are they related to

classroom management?

Can you give me the examples of some

misbehavior done by students? How can

you fix them?

“What will you do to make them

understand, in you justify their non-

acceptable behavior through questions

instead of direct criticizing?”

8 Student Response Did you gave any training to them before?

Students tend to answer the questions

shortly when you required them to

produce student talk response ‘answer’.

Any reason about that?

9 Student Initiate

Students speak English in right grammar,

many vocabulary and correct


198

pronunciation. Do you have certain

treatment to make them as fluent as

that?

Based on the observation, students seem

prefer to initiate their answer rather than

just do yes no question or short answer.

Why is that so?

To Interview the school principal:

No TOPIC QUESTION

1 School Regulation Miss Detty, can you give simple

explanation about this school

background or purpose?

So far, what have you done in order to

support and improve both interaction

quality and student language

comprehension?

What is your purpose, to require

interaction at school time have to be

done in 100% English?

According to the result, the students are

not yet given explanation about written

form. Is there any consideration on more

focus in oral form instead of written?

2 Understanding about

interaction

Miss what is your personal opinion about

young learner classroom interaction

using English as foreign language?

3 Expectation How about your expectation toward

teacher in lead the young learner


199

interaction during teaching and learning

process? Are there any special

requirement?

How about your expectation toward

students in contributing their talk during

interaction?

4 Students’ behavior The result show student talk and teacher

talk has almost similar proportion 49% for

student’s talk. Do you give them special

treatment to be active in produce target

language?

The observation result also indicated that

students in Kindergarten A and B are well-

mannered. They easy to control and not

many students did inappropriate ate

behavior. How can it happen when deal

with young learner? Is it related to school

regulation?

5 Topic The last, about topic discussion. Is there any

intention before decided the topic since in

four time observation I found in different

topic?


200

Appendix 10:

Interview result with classroom teacher

No Researcher Teacher

1 Accepting

When you enter the classroom

you greet your student by

using the expression of

“good morning, friends?”

Do you have any reason for

using friends rather than

students?

Do your students always

response to your greeting?

I want to be their friend, not as a

teacher. So as the result we can

tell the story and we can learn

together. Not as a teacher and

student I will lean together with

them as a friend.

Yes, they always response my

greeting usually in the

beginning of the class before we

learn together in classroom.

2 Questioning

You intense to use referential

questions to asked your

students. Do you have any

purpose with that?

What do you think about using

display (the answer is listed

on the book) question in your

teaching?

How long you prepare the

material before you delivered

it in the class?

I want student to explore their

idea. So that’s why we don’t ask

about yes no question but we

want to know their own

understanding about the lesson.

Usually we only use power point

slide such as pictures and

videos. The book is used in time

table class in the morning. They

can easily find the book in the

library in this school.

The teacher has prepared the

material the day before we

teach the students. And after


201

How if your student can not

answer your questions

correctly?

that we will inform the student

about the topic will be

discussed. Sometimes we also

use the book to look more about

the topic with the story also.

Usually we have time after

snack about 15-30 minutes, we

have prepared the book so the

student can read it by

themselves or learn together

with the teacher.

Actually there is no incorrect or

correct answer. When the

answer is just too far out of

context we just remind them. We

can say “we can talk about that

next time, we do not discuss it

today”.

3 Giving Direction

I watched the recording of

your teaching, that you

always gives your student a

long and complicated

direction. What will you do

to make them understand, in

case your students are

considered as young

learners?

Usually we know that they are

understand by doing what the

direction is. For the example in

exploration time we ask them to

draw something, they will draw

what should they draw with the

direction like that. When the

student have not understand the

direction, we will repeat the

direction. One day we ask them


202

How if they misunderstand

your teaching direction?

Why you don’t used Indonesia

language when the student

difficult to get your

direction?

to draw animal in the desert but

they draw bear. We as a teacher

ask “does the bear live in the

desert?”

We do not directly correct them

when the students do not

understand our direction. What

usually we do is to stimulate

them to aware their own

mistake and corrected by

themselves.

We only use Bahasa only in

moral education sometime we

use Bahasa for the student of

what we will say and do for

moral lesson. Moral lesson

sometime in the morning and

during the class. Usually

related to the team, sometime

we saw in the power point

“what we should do for our

country? “We don’t through the

garbage to our country” and

sometime we also repeat in

Bahasa “gak boleh buang

sampah di sungai”. For

learning activity we use

English.

4 Praising and Encouraging


203

What do you say when your

students are able to answer

your answer correctly?

Do have any reason on

praising and encouraging

your students?

In what way you encourage

your student to be active

participate in discussion?

Usually we gave a star with the

crayon and also sticker.

Sometime we have question to

the student, no one in the

classroom forget the answer but

if there is a student who answer

it because she/he remember we

give them a star or sticker.

Actually no. Usually when they

need more support from the

teacher to answer. For the

example if the students are so

silence and then as a teacher I

will say “I will give you a star if

you answer the questions” in

order to encourage them.

Usually the passive students we

put them in the front near from

the teacher so they can

understand the direction,

explanation that we give to

them. That is why you can see in

the beginning of the lesson I

arrange the seat position of the

students. The passive students

will stay in front of the teacher

and the active one will sit at the

back. Actually the passive

students do not mean they are

not smart but they need more


204

focus they play with the shoes,

their hair or keep talking each

other. That is the reason I

arrange the sit position to make

them give extra attention to the

lesson.

6 Lecturing

When do you need to give an

explanation to your students?

What kind of information that

you usually gives to your

students?

Do use always use English to

explain information to your

student?

Every week we learn about sub-

theme so in one day we learn

about knowledge. For example

this week we will learn about

astronaut so one day we will

talk everything about

astronaut? In the next day we

will create for example the

astronauts’ food. The activity is

related to the other previous

day such as discussion and

exploration.

Usually we give explanation

about facts such as teacher

personal experience or

knowledge to the students. So it

can be another input for

students’ understanding.

First we use English but if the

term is too complicated we

usually use Bahasa. For

example we discussed about


205

How do you make sure that

they understand on your

explanation?

leaves and “what is this like a

line in the leave here” teacher

said “in bahasa Indonesia we

called it tulang daun”. We use

bahasa only when there is new

vocabulary and I think it is also

new for them even in Bahasa.

But I rarely speak in Bahasa

because so far they can

understand what I have said

since they are so smart to

receive all the new information.

Sometimes they know more

rather than us as teacher. They

like to watch the television,

watch movie and see in the

book. For example I said “look

at this picture this is

atmosphere that protect our

earth” and one of student said

“I know atmosphere I watch

from the television program talk

about human planet”. In this

case I learnt a lot from them.

Usually if we have enough time

we will review the explanation

in the end of lesson. Or teacher

will review the lesson the next

day of lesson to check students’


206

As I observed during your

teaching, I realize that your

explanations were long

enough. Is there any reason

why you gave the long

explanation to them?

As far as I know the topic

have given to the students

are complicated enough for

their age. How can you

decide the certain topic and

do you have any special

consideration for choosing

the topic?

understanding. From that way

teacher can know who is

listening to the teacher and who

is not.

Long explanation sometimes we

have 9 until 11. Actually we

explained first 30-40 minutes.

After that we do some

exploration activities related to

the topic such as craft, drawing

or role play that we have

already explained. So that is

why long explanation is the

effective for teacher to give

students enough input incase

teacher as the source of

learning process.

On Friday we have break down

activity with curriculum

division. In break down part we

will decide the topic for the

following week. The topic can

be from teacher idea and what

is happening around us. So the

discussion will be interesting

since students give their

attention to the topic they like

much.

7 Accepting ideas


207

In your teaching, I found you

intense to accept student

ideas. Do you have any

purpose with that?”

In what way you accept your

student ideas during the

discussion?”

Actually there is no incorrect or

correct answer. When the ideas

are still related to the topic I

will accept it. The other reason

is to enrich the discussion since

there are will be various ideas

both from the teacher and

students. In addition, to respect

to student ideas so next time

they will express their ideas

without any afraid of being

rejecting”

“Sometimes, when I think that

student ideas is good and

related to the topic. I will re-use

it in class by repeating so other

student are able to know it. In

that way, students also active

participate in discussion in

contributing their own ideas

such as opinion, experiences

and their background

knowledge they get when they

are not in school time ”

8 Criticizing or justifying

As I saw in the video, you

ask your student whether

they are in the right group or

not, whether their “MAP” is

Yes, off course. Actually as a

teacher we need to cross check

the information that we give

and how they get the


208

correct or wrong”. Do have

any reason to always

confirm your student’s

response?

By doing confirmation on

student’s behavior in class.

Are they related to

classroom management?

information. So that’s why

teacher moves around the class

in order to check one by one.

When students give their

opinion, I will not directly

adjudge whether it is right or

wrong answer. As I said before

the goal is to stimulate them to

express their opinion, idea

using target language. By

saying “is that true? “Are you

sure?” usually after that

student will rethink their

answer and later they will be

able to find their own mistake

and fix their answer by

themselves.

The kindergarten students are

consider old enough. In the

beginning the lesson we have

already discusses the rule in

the classroom. So when the

student act misbehavior during

the class teacher will remind

them about the rule. If one

student keep playing with the

staff teacher will inform them

about first warning, second,

and third. The third warning


209

Can you give me the

examples of some

misbehavior done by

students? How can you fix

them?

“What will you do to make

them understand, in you

justify their non-acceptable

behavior through questions

instead of direct

criticizing?”

can be “you can stay outside

for five minutes” after that they

will come back to the

classroom act nothing

happened.

As far teacher only give a

warning to the students “don’t

play with the shoes”. When we

send out for five minutes at

most to make them realize and

stop doing misbehavior action

during classroom. They have

never rebel the teacher because

they understand the rule and

follow the instruction. That

also become the classroom

management to keep the class

being smooth and to control

students’ behavior.

“Usually we know that they are

understand my justification by

observing their behavior. For

example in the class discussion

there is certain student who

busy with her shoes, hair or

book. As a teacher I will

criticize her by saying “Leona,

are you want to play outside or

listen to me? After that the


210

student should stop her activity

and listen to the teacher. But if

not I will give more action such

as ask her to play outside for 5

minutes.

8 Student Response

Based on the interview, I

found the students were able

to answer such complicated

question and also gave their

personal opinion. Did you

gave any training to them

before?

Students tend to answer the

questions shortly when you

required them to produce

student talk response

‘answer’. Any reason about

that?

We don’t give them special

training to the students. When

there is a guest come they will

act normally. We only inform

them about the guest. They will

interest to the new people. They

will listen to the information

given by new people in class. In

addition, they love to interact

with new person using English.

The students’ likes to talk by their

own idea rather just answer yes

no questions. I also prefer to

ask them to produce longer

answer so that they can speak

more to produce target

language.

9 Student Initiate

Students speak English in right

grammar, many vocabulary

and correct pronunciation.

We use English everyday even

some of them use English to

communicate with their family.


211

Do you have certain

treatment to make them as

fluent as that?

Based on the observation,

students seem prefer to

initiate their answer rather

than just do yes no question

or short answer. Why is that

so?

They get input not only from

school so they learning by

doing. They listen to the

teacher, movie, and song so

they become acquitted with the

pronunciation and grammar

they also learn by observing

people around them. The

teacher also help them by

correct them if they speak in

wrong structure. The student

“you eat what?” we will remind

them with correct grammar

“what do you eat?”. Students

are not allowed to speak

Bahasa in school time just in

Bahasa Indonesia lesson once

in week. So the students still

able to speak their own native

language.

Yes, teacher usually tend to

stimulate student to answer in

long sentence in order to

explore their experience during

the lesson. To promote them to

speak more in target language

about their own personal

opinion. Usually we ask them to

explain their answer. The


212

student initiate also can be

showed when they raise their

hand to give their answer, even

we as teacher really appreciate

how student initiate their own

response even we don’t ask

them directly.

10 Teacher’s understanding

Do have you any certain belief

about teaching so that you do

not teach the student about

writing and reading

May I know your education

background?

How about you’re teaching

experience?

About teaching reading and

writing we do it in 9.00 until

9.30 in the morning for time

table. It is for nursery

kindergarten A and

kindergarten B. 10.00 – 11.00

we focus on exploration. So we

learnt about writing, reading

and bahasa Indonesia on table

activity. Kindergarten they

learnt about alphabet and the

nursery about pre

understanding.

I have been teaching in

kindergarten with English

language approval in Terban,

but I teach in Indonesia

language not in English. So in

Ananda Mentari is the first

experience to teach young

learner in English. I spend


213

What is your opinion about

teaching English for young

learner?

As a teacher. Do you know the

background of the students

almost 3 years here. I am still

learning to speak English well

with the teacher here with

correct grammar and

pronunciation.

They learn English from very

beginning age start from baby

class, nursery class and

kindergarten. Most of them start

learn from Baby class there are

only 2 students come in the last

time.


214

here?

Appendix 11:

Interview result with school principle

List of Interview Questions for the School Principle

No Researcher School Principle

1 Miss Detty, can you give simple

explanation about concept or

purpose of this school?

“I build this program for mothers who need

help to take their children. Since, they have

to go to work to build their career, which is

why I design this program for full day

school. We can be like 2nd

parent for the

students. We teach the students become

independent and to respect each other. We

treat them like in traditional family, such as

give nutritious food. Actually everything

that we give is all mom’s job. Because the

mother is not available, so our job is to

replace their job. That become the basic in

making curriculum, and established all the

decision from that philosophy”

2 Miss what is your personal

opinion about young learner

classroom interaction using

English as foreign language?

“In my opinion about interaction with

young learner is the easiest way compare if

I have to interact with adults or someone

older than my students. Because they are

genius in their own way and they accept

everything that we give. We teach them to

speak English in the class and they follow


215

all the direction. Because they 100% trust

to the teacher, program and this school.

Even we don’t need to ask, the only thing

we need to provide is safety, trust and

relationship. I believe is not difficult for us

to build relationship, trust in teaching and

learning condition”

3 How about your expectation

toward teacher in lead the young

learner interaction during

teaching and learning process?

Are there any special

requirement?

“Yes of course, the standard for every

teacher here are they have to be able to talk

to the students as friend not as teacher. So

we put the similar position as the basic

communication. In term of classroom,

teacher sometimes act as a moderator in

little bit higher. But it is only during the

explanation time and presentation time”

4 How about your expectation

toward students in contributing

their talk during interaction?

“I don’t know the expectation. The think

that I know is they come to school every day

and I want to see them happy. I want to see

them learn every single day. So if they are

going classroom happy and tell something

they have learn during school time in their

home to the parent, I think that is enough.

There is nothing they have to finish or

mastered in some skills. I have put the

standard that high”

5 What is your purpose, to require

interaction at school time have to

be done in 100% English?

“The ideas why I make that policy in this

school. It is because I believe English is the

universal language that people have to

learn. If you don’t understand English at all


216

they will get lost. Nowadays, books, movies

and different kind of information in TV,

newspaper, internet. 80% or even more is

available in English. If they want to explore

and learn, provide them with Indonesian

movie or book will not be enough. That is

the reason why I provide, all the book,

movie and information in English. We teach

them to speak and understand the English.

It is my way to open the window of

language so they can see more outside the

world”

“Learning English in early ages is different

to learning English is adult ages. Because

in this ages children listen and practice it.

They don’t have time to process, for

example of they hear wrong pronunciation

they will speak wrong pronunciation too. I

am not afraid of that consequences,

because their journey is still long and they

will more speak with others people and they

will read more books, movies. Because it is

important to them to learn 2nd

or even 3rd

language. The point is that they don’t need

to think about the formula or structure.

They just listen to the structure and they

speak. We want to use the golden ages to

build up the vocabulary and ability to speak

in English. For now it is enough, later they


217

can improve themselves”

“The last is, they don’t speak bad words We

control their vocabularies so they don’t

speak bad words. Since, they don’t have

any bad words vocabulary”

6

Do you provide a course about

reading and writing skill?

“No, not supposed to give them writing

because the regulation in kindergarten. We

not supposed to give them writing and

reading courses. Even some school do it,

but I don’t. The point is that they do

something because they want to do not have

to do. Sometimes if you pay attention more,

some of them really good at grammar

because they watch TV, they watch story

telling. But cannot make them as standard

at this school. I mean become like certain

student. So I give them freedom to continue

learning English later on, at least they can

speak and people understand them. Even

when we do mini trip and we met foreigner,

they can speak and the foreigner

understand. That is enough for me, my

children have self-confidence to talk to

foreigner without any doubt in making

mistake”

7 I found some students are able to

read. How about that condition?

“Yes, because they want to read. They are

ready to accept how to read they can read.

But if they want to read, they will not ready

too. We want not force them, because


218

forcing in this early ages become

boomerang at some point they shut-down

their motivation and it is very dangerous

for the future learning”

8 According to the result, the

students are not yet given

explanation about written form.

Is there any consideration on

more focus in oral form instead

of written?

“We don’t have standard of grammar, we

concern more English as communication

purpose only. But they learnt grammar

from the book they read, movie that they

watch and finally because they are very

active. The more they learn English in the

classroom the grammar become better. In

the end of semester, they will do the

presentation. The result is people

understand, what they are trying to explain

and say to us. Those become enough for me

because in grammar, later year of their

journey in learning English they will learn

more about grammar and everything. We

more focus in pronunciation and

vocabulary, even though sometimes when

the grammar is really bother, we repeat

after the correct grammar form. But, if do it

often I am afraid the students will get tired

easily to learn and afraid to express their

ideas in English. Once they stop using

English because they afraid or shy, we

cannot get their attention back”

9 The observation result also

indicated that students in

“There is no special training about

behavior. Once more, our philosophy we


219

Kindergarten A and B are well-

mannered. They easy to control

and not many students did

inappropriate ate behavior. How

can it happen when deal with

young learner? Is it related to

school regulation?

are not teacher but we are the parent. We

don’t force the children to know about

everything. We provide them a lot

opportunities to explore their own idea.

That is why in discussion time is always

lively. They always ask questions, express

idea and they are given time by the teacher

to build up their own language. As a mother

you don’t have such requirement like a

teacher. Teacher will have to measure you

at the end of the semester but mother no.

Mother knows exactly how to develop their

children. Because of the philosophy at the

earlier, it becomes the fundamental all the

activities here”


220

Appendix 12: Pictures of Learning Activities in Ananda Mentari Kindergarten

School

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

Yogyakarta


221

2. Picture of students and teacher interaction in explanation time

3. Picture of students and teacher interaction in discussion time


222


Documents

A STUDY OF INTERACTION IN TEACHING ENGLISH … · 2017-12-18 · 2.1.4 Theory Basis of Adjacency Pairs and Teacher-student interaction… ... Appendix 1 Matrix of Flanders Interaction