Microsoft Word - 7. 47 The Analysis of Teacher Talk and The Characteristic of Classroom Interaction in English for Young Learner Nurul Khusnaini  English Department, Faculty of Languages and Arts, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Article Info ________________ Article History: Received in 13 August 2019 Approved in 29 November 2019 Published in 30 November 2019 ________________ Keywords: Teacher Talk; Classroom Interaction; Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ This study was aimed to find out the type of teacher talk and the characteristic of classroom interaction take place in the English language classroom of Semarang Multinational School.This study applied descriptive qualitative research. There were two activities in gathering the data of this study: observation and audio recording. In analyzing this study, the researcher used interactive theory proposed by Flander (1989). The findings showed that based on Flanders Interaction Analisys Categories (FIAV), the teacher indirectly influenced the students in teaching and learning process by relying hard on asking questions. Besides asking questions to students, teacher also used (1) accepting students’ feeling, (2) praising or encouraging students, and (3) accepting or even using students’ ideas. In addition the pattern of content cross interaction tended to be more on asking questions than lecturing behavior. It indicated that teacher often relied on asking questions to students in the teaching and learning process rather than to introduce new learning material and help conveying information to students. In conclusion, the teacher indirectly influenced the students in the teaching and learning process. This kind of interaction indicated that teacher often relied on asking rather than lecturing the students. © 2019 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Correspondent Address: ISSN 2252-6706 B8 Building FBS Unnes Sekaran, Gunungpati, Semarang, 50229 E-mail: e.teacher.ichsan@gmail.com ELT FORUM 8 (2) (2019) Journal of English Language Teaching http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/elt Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 48 INTRODUCTION There is no learning without teaching. So as a tool of implementing teaching plans and achieving teaching goals, teacher talk plays an important role in classroom activities. Some researchers have discussed the relationship between teacher talk and language learning. Nunan (1991) stated: "Teacher talk is one of important aspect not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the processes of the acquisition." Teacher talk is undeniably essential feature in relation to classroom interaction. Gebhard (2006, p.81) stated that in English as a foreign language classroom, teacher talk is an important input for the students There has been a growing number of attention in regards to classroom interaction which involve teacher and students. Brown (2006) notes that, “interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in reciprocal effect on each other” (p.165). Rivers (Brown, 2000, p.65) previously states that through classroom interaction, students could enhance their language ability since they are exposed to teacher’s explanation or authentic materials teacher provides, group discussion, etc and students also has chances to practice the language that they possess. Some studies about teacher talk and classroom interaction have conducted to overcome the problem. Yanfen and Yuqin (2010, p.77) denotes that appropriate teacher talk could create positive atmosphere in the classroom and make friendly relationship between teacher and student. Many interactive strategies also appear in teacher talk to make more interaction with the students. They include repetition, prompting, prodding, and expansions, according to Yanfen and Yuqin (2010). Inamullah (2005) wanted to explore patterns of classroom interaction at secondary and tertiary levels in the Northwest Frontier Province of Pakistan using Flanders Interaction Analysis System. She found that it would be better to stimulate teachers to improve their teaching behavior to maximize students learning. In addition, by using Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories, Li, Shouhui, & Xinyin (2011) found that the management of the English classroom and atmosphere during the teaching-learning process depended on the activities which are done by the teachers so that the students who were getting bored would become interested in participating in the class. Dagarin (2015) based on FIAC she stated that teachers could do a lot of things to make the students more interest in classroom activities. The classroom interaction could be more effective if a variety of teacher and student talk was applied in the classroom. All of the researchers above discussed the teacher talk and classroom interaction. Almost all studies conducted their research at junior high school, few of those studies conducted a study at elementary school, there is a study from Li, Shouhui, & Xinyin (2011), however, they focused in the implementation of FIAC during classroom activities. Therefore, the writer will try to analyze the teacher talk type and the characteristics of classroom interaction take place during classroom activities. Problems investigated in this research are (1) what type of teacher talk take place in the English language classroom? (2) what is the characteristic of classroom interaction that occurs in classroom activities? Objectives of this study are (1) To find out the type of teacher talk take that goes on English language classroom of Semarang Multinational School, (2) To find out the characteristic of classroom interaction that occurs in classroom activities. METHODS This study focuses on the teacher talk and classroom interaction during teaching and learning activities in the classroom. Thus, the object of this study was teacher talk and classroom interaction during teaching and learning activitiess. Especially all teachers from grade 1 until grade 6 in elementary school level of Semarang Multinational School. This research used qualitative method with descriptive research type. The rresearcher wants to describe the phenomenon in accordance with actual circumstances, the object of this research is an object that is natural and does not change either before the researchers enter the object or when the researcher is in the object or after the researcher is out of the object. “qualitative method is a research method used to examine the condition of natural objects, where researcher as a key instrument, techniques data analysis in qualitative research conducted in triangulation (joint), inductive analysis, and qualitative research results more emphasis on the meaning of the generalization” (Sugiyono, 2013, p. 1). Descriptive research describes what it is which involves description, recording, analysis, and interpretation of conditions that exist. It involves some types of comparison or contrast and attempts Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 49 to discover relationships between exiting non manipulated variables (Best, 1981, p. 25). The purpose of descriptive research is to describe the facts and characteristics of the object or subject studied systematically The data used in this study are qualitative data. This research requires some data to be analyzed. There are observation and audio recording. Observation is a person's ability to observe using the five senses of the eye and assisted with other senses (Bungin, 2011). According to Nurkancana (1986), observation is a method used to do direct and systematic research in which the data obtained in the study are recorded in the observational note. Recording activity is an observation activity. Sanafi Faisal (1990) as cited by Sugiyono (2008, p. 227), classify the observations into three that are participant observation, overt or covert observation, and unstructured observation. In collected the data, the researcher used overt observation. Researcher said honestly to the data source that she would conduct the research, but the researcher did not involve with the activities carried out by the data sources (only as observers). The researcher observed how the ability of teacher talk in classroom activities. Before doing an observation, the researcher would use guideline which is made by the researcher based on ‘Flanders' Interaction Analysis Category'. Another tool for collecting the data in this research was an audio recording. According to ETSU Human Research Protection Program (2017, p. 1) Audio recording, video video recording, and digital recordings (AVD) of research participants are considered identifiable data as they include images and/or voices of research participants. In addition to analyze the recording for this research study, the researcher needed to ask permission to the participants whether they willing to be recorded or not. After the researcher asks their permission, the participants agreed to be recorded. This method was used to investigate the characteristic of classroom interaction which happens in class. A cell phone would place during the class. It would record how the class takes place, the teacher and students interaction, and the teacher talk itself, this audio which would be analyzed by coding, pairing and put the data code in the calculation matrix. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION This phase explains the result of the study. It consists of two sub-chapters. They are findings and discussion of the findings. Findings present the result of the observation and audio coding from elementary teachers and their students at Semarang Multinational School in the chapter of the detail explanation regarding the types of teacher talk and the characteristic of classroom interaction take place during the class and the perception of the students about their teacher talk in teaching English for young learners. Moreover, the findings will discuss in the discussion of the findings. The Type of Teacher Talk Teacher talk was considered one of the essential features in classroom interaction. In this section, the result of the observations is elaborated. Indirect Influence In the type of indirect influence, there were four categories of teacher talk. They were accepting the feeling, praising or encouraging students, accepting and using students ideas, and the last asking questions. Table 1. Accepting Feeling Observation Result No Name Indirect Influence Yes/No Yes/No 1 K Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes 2 R Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes 3 P Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes 4 L Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes 5 Y Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes 6 J Accepting/Deals with feeling Yes Yes Table 1 presents accepting or deals with feeling result. From the observation for two meetings of teaching and learning process in every class with the same teacher, it was found that almost all of teacher use their influence in accepting the students. This behavior was reflected from the teacher's action when they trid to make sure the condition of the students and also when they helped the Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 50 students in remembering the previous material before the lesson begins. In that situation, the teacher tried to build an interaction with students first. Table 2. Praises and Encouragement Observation Result No Name Indirect Influence Yes/No Yes/No 1 K Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes 2 R Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes 3 P Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes 4 L Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes 5 Y Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes 6 J Praises and uses ideas of students Yes Yes Table 2 presents praises and encouragement result. Praises and encouragement appeared almost in every activity, almost 100% all of the teacher used this influence to make the students feel happy or proud of their work. The teacher praised or encouraged students often by repeating students' answers and giving words of praises, for example, "Well done", "Good job", "Nice", and so on. Besides giving praises and encouragement, the teacher sometimes accepted students' ideas or even used their ideas or their answer. Some teachers used the student's ideas to build a new material like making a new sentence, phrase, and more. This kind of behavior was reflected by the teacher's elaboration, clarification, modification, and summary of students' responses (answers or ideas) to the teacher talk. Table 3. Asking Question Observation Result No Name Indirect Influence Yes/No Yes/No 1 K Asking question Yes Yes 2 R Asking question Yes Yes 3 P Asking question Yes Yes 4 L Asking question Yes Yes 5 Y Asking question Yes Yes 6 J Asking question Yes Yes Table 3 presents asking question result. It showed the category of teacher's talk which dominated the indirect influence type was asking questions. The teacher often asked questions when they wanted to begin the lesson, introduced new learning material, starting a new topic, and stimulated student's knowledge about the lesson. Direct Influence Direct influence included the behavior of lecturing or giving information, giving direction, criticizing student's behavior and also criticizing student's responses. Table 4. Lecturing Observation Result No Name Direct Influence Yes/No Yes/No 1 K Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes 2 R Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes 3 P Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes 4 L Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes 5 Y Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes 6 J Lecturing/Gives information Yes Yes Table 4 presents lecturing and giving information result. Based on the result above from two meetings for each class, we could see that all the teacher use this point of direct influence in guiding the students during class activities. Some of the teacher's lectures were follow-ups to the teacher's response to students' answers. Besides, the teachers also used their explanation before they get down to the material. In other words, when students gave the right answers to the teacher's question, the Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 51 teacher often gave praises to the student's answer. After praising the students, the teacher continues to explain the material, by giving questions when explaining the material it wa expected that students would find it easier to understand the material given. Table 5. Giving Directions Observation Result No Name Direct Influence Yes/No Yes/No 1 K Gives directions Yes Yes 2 R Gives directions Yes Yes 3 P Gives directions Yes Yes 4 L Gives directions Yes Yes 5 Y Gives directions Yes Yes 6 J Gives directions Yes Yes Table 5 presents the result of giving direction. After the observation results were obtained, it could be seen that all of the teachers used this point in the category of teacher talk. The direction was often given if the teacher wanted students to make a project, work in a group, come to the front of the class, exercise individually, etc. Table 6. Criticizes Student's Behavior Observation Result No Name Direct Influence First Meeting Second Meeting 1 K Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes 2 R Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes 3 P Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes 4 L Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes 5 Y Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes 6 J Critizes student’s behavior Yes Yes Table 6 presents Criticizes Student's Behavior result. After the observation was done, the researcher finds the result above. It could be seen that all of the teachers of the elementary level of Semarang Multinational School use the influence in criticizes student's behavior. The teacher would like to comment on students' behavior and then acknowledge them what was right to be done so that students did not make any more mistakes. This was done to control the behavior of students in the class and also to maintain the classroom condition so that it stayed quiet during the learning process. Table 7. Critizes Student's Responses Observation Result Table 7 presents the result of Criticizes Student's Behavior. After the observation result was obtained, based on the table above, it can be seen that there is some teacher criticizes their student's responses, but some of them did not do that. Some of the teacher criticized their student's responses like reminding the students if their responses were not appropriate, and also when the student wanted to interrupt his or her teacher in the middle of the teacher's explanation. However, some teachers just gave a sign to the students for silent than gave an unnecessary response. The teachers have done all of the indirect influence to gain student's attention and also to make the students more active during the class activities. In addition, the category of teacher's talk, which dominated the indirect influence was asking questions. The teacher often asked questions when they wanted to began the lesson, introduced new learning material, starting a new topic, and stimulated student's knowledge about the teaching. In line with research by Li, Shouhui, and Xinyin No Name Direct Influence First Meeting Second Meeting 1 K Critizes student’s responses Yes Yes 2 R Critizes student’s responses No Yes 3 P Critizes student’s responses Yes No 4 L Critizes student’s responses Yes Yes 5 Y Critizes student’s responses Yes Yes 6 J Critizes student’s responses No No Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 52 (2011), the teachers of English could determine how English is to be taught to young learners– learning English through activities in social contexts. Meanwhile, the management and the atmosphere of the English classroom depend on the activities done by the teachers, so that the students who were especially getting bored, will become interested and pay attention to the learning activities. Asking questions seemed to be the essential features in the teaching and learning process. By asking questions, teachers were considered successful in getting students' attention, involved students' interaction, conveyed the learning material, and introduced new content without direct explanation. This finding was consistent with the results of Yanfen and Yuqin (2010). Yanfen and Yuqin (2010) found that asking questions was the most common way used by the teacher to invite pupils to talk and it found a valid invitation. By giving questions, it is hoped that it would encourage students to participate more in class, expressing their ideas or opinions on the material, rather than just listening to the teacher explanation. Besides, the implementation of direct influence, including the behavior of lecturing, giving direction, and criticizing and justifying authorities, most of the lecturing process were follow-ups the teacher's response to students' answers. In other words, when students give answers to the teacher's questions, the teacher tended to give praises to the right answers. After praising students, the teacher managed to start giving some explanations to students, so students can more easily understand the material provided. This finding is in line with Jones (2000), he found that increasing student participation with teacher support made teaching activities more effective. By giving questions, the teacher can trigger students to speak and simultaneously reduce the delivery of material directly. Another teacher's talk category is giving direction or instruction. The direction often given when the teacher wanted students to work in a group, come to the front of the class, exercise individually, etc. The teacher was also likely to criticize her students when students answered her question incorrectly. They also criticized students' unacceptable behavior, and also acknowledged them what was right, so that students did not make any more mistakes. This finding is in line with Amatari (2015, p.47) he stated that teacher needs to experiment with one's behavior, obtaining objective information about one's behavior, evaluating the data in terms of the teacher's role, in other words, attaining self-insight while acting as a teacher. The Characteristics of Classroom Interaction Classroom interaction characteristic was defined by making use of the audio recording. The audio recording that had been transcribed was then coded based on the coding procedure of FIAC. The coding procedure was followed by pairing the code and then put into the interaction matrix. From the interaction matrix, the researcher was able to define the character of the interaction in the classroom. From all two meetings, it was discovered that the interaction pattern was content cross according to Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories.The content cross pattern marked by many appearances in the columns 4-5 and rows 4-5. Code four represents asking questions categories, while code 5 shows the lecturing behavior of the teacher. Table 8. Audio Coding Result 1st Meeting Grade Categories Teacher Talk Pupils Talk 1 42,1% 21,05% 2 36,8% 31,6% 3 31,6% 21,05% 4 31,6% 26,3% 5 36,8% 26,3% 6 36,8% 26,3% Table 8 shows the result of audio recording from meeting one including the audio recording result from grade one until grade six. The audio recording was coded based on Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). It showed the result between the content cross and the students' participation percentage. It could be seen that the teacher talk was more dominant than the student's participation in the action of the teacher often asked questions before they explained or introduced the material to the student. Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 53 Table 9. The Result of Audio Coding 2nd Meeting Grade Categories Teacher Talk Pupils Talk 1 47,3% 26,3% 2 36,8% 26,3% 3 42,1% 36,8% 4 42,1% 26,3% 5 36,8% 31,6% 6 36,8% 26,3% As shown in Table 9, after the audio recording result of the second meeting was obtained, it shows some differences with the previous meeting result. It culd be seen that both teachers talk either student's participation increased during the second meeting, it had occurred when the teacher introduced new material, the teacher often gave questions and explanations which triggered students to respond to questions and explanations given. Based on the result above, in the first meeting, the percentage of content cross reached the total number of 35,9% while it turned to be 40,31% in the second meeting for the hole class. This characteristic of interaction was affected by the context of language teacher use in the teaching and learning process. Here there is an increase in the second meeting since the teachers tried to introduce new learning material to students. The second pattern that dominated the classroom interaction was students' participation, which was in the number of 25,4%. In the second meeting, the students' involvement in the classroom was increased by 28,9%. Students' participation characteristic identified since students were encouraged by the teacher to participate in the class by answering the teacher's questions, presenting the material, and giving their ideas to the class. The finding of classroom interaction pattern was consistent with the previous studies conducted by Dagarin (2015) and Sharma (2016). Dagarin (2015) and Sharma (2016) uncovered that the content cross pattern in their research tended to be more on asking questions rather than lecturing. In this research, the researcher also found that the discovered of the content cross pattern fell more on asking questions rather than teaching. It showed that teacher often relied on asking questions to students in the teaching and learning process either to introduce new learning material and help convey information to students. Yanfen and Yuqin (2010) support that most teachers make more use of asking questions to student to attract students' attention and make students talk. CONCLUSION Based on the data analysis in the previous chapter, the researcher found out that the result of the research denotes that teacher talk type in the classroom interaction is indirect influence based on Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC). Data from observation result highly show that the teacher indirectly influences the students in teaching and learning process by relying hard on asking questions. Besides asking questions to students, the teacher also made use of accepting students' feeling, praising or encouraging students, and accepting or even using students' ideas based on the observation done by the researcher. The type of teacher talk also leads to classroom interaction pattern. By making use both of the audio recordings either the interaction matrix, the researcher can identify the interaction pattern in the classroom. It found that the interaction pattern that occurred in the classroom was content cross, which was marked by the emergence of code 4 (asking question) and code 5 (lecturing). However, the content cross characteristic could be more on to one of the categories. In this research, it discovered that the pattern of content cross tended to be more on asking questions than lecturing behavior. It indicates that teacher exceptionally depends on asking questions. This result is consistent with the observation result that the teacher often asking questions either to familiarize the students with a new chapter of the lesson and also attract students' attention either make students participate more in the classroom. Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 54 REFERENCES Amatari, V. O. (2015). The Instructional Process: A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education. Vol. 3, No. 5, 2015, pp. 43-49. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150305.11. Anugerah, A. (2018). An Analysis On The Nature Of Teacher-Students Interactionin English Class.Final Project. Tanjungpura University. Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. San Fransisco: Longman. C.Sprinthall, R., T.Schmutte, G., & Sirois, L. (1991). Understanding Educational Research. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall,Inc. Chan, T., & Yuen, M. (2015). Inclusive Education In An International School: A Case Study From Hong Kong. The University of Hongkong. International Journal Of Special Education Vol. 30, No: 3, 2015. Choudhury, S. (2005). The Interaction Of Teachers In Second Language Classroom. BRAC University Journal, Vol. II, No. 1, 2005, pp. 77-82. Dagarin, M. (2015). Classrom Interaction And Communication Strategies In Learning English As A Foreign Language. University of Ljubljana. DOI: 10.4312/elope.1.1-2.127-139. Firdaus, R. (2016). The Analysis of Teacher Talk and Learner Talk in the Classroom Interaction. (Research Based Paper). Postgraduate School. INDONESIA UNIVERSITY, Jakarta, Indonesia. Flanders, N. A. (1989). Analyzing Teaching Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Inamullah, M. (2005). Pattern of Classroom Interaction at Different Educational Levels in the Light of Flanders Interaction Analysis. Dissertation. Pakistan. Jones (2000) : In walia, J.S. " Education technology" Patiala, paul publication (2004) , pp— 308-309 Li, L., Shouhui, S., & Xinyin, C. (2011). Beyond research: Classroom interaction analysis techniques for classroom teachers. Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Malihi, J. A. F.(2015). Saudi EFL Teachers’ Readiness and Perceptions of Young Learners Teaching at Elementary Schools. English Language Teaching; Vol. 8, No. 2; 2015. E-ISSN 1916-4750. Mulyati, F. A. (2013). A Study Of Teacher Talk And Student Talk In Verbal Classroom Interaction To Develop Speaking Skill For Young Learners. E-jourmal of English and Education 2013, 1(1), 1-10. Nugroho, K. Y. (2009). Interaction in English as a foreign language classroom: A case of two state senior high schools in Semarang in the academic year 2009/2010. Oktaviani, A.,& Fauzan, A.(2017). Teachers’ Perceptions About The Importance Of English For Young Learner. Journal of Linguistics, English Education and Art (LEEA) Volume 1 No 1, 2017. e- ISSN:2597-3819 Onceçaya, G.(2010). The Role Of Teacher Talk In Young Learners’ Language Process. Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey. Riduwan. (2010). Metode dan Teknik Menyusun Tesis. Bandung. Alfabeta Sharma, S. (2016). A Study Of Classroom Interaction Characterstics Using Flander's Class Room Interaction Analysis Ina Maths Class. Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity and English Language. APRIL-MAY, 2016, VOL. 3/15 Sofwan, M., & Habibi, A. (2015). Teachers of English for Young Learners: An Analysis on Their English Proficiency and Profile. University of Jambi. Sukarno. (2008). Teaching English To Young Learners And Factors To Consider In Designing The Materials. Nurul Khusnaini / ELT Forum 8 (2) (2019) 55 e-journal of economics and education, Vol.5 No.1 2008. Walsh, S. (2006). Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom. ELT Journal, 60 (2), 133-141. Widi, K, R. (2010). Asas Metode Penelitian: sebuah pengenalan dan penuntun langkah demi langkah pelaksanaan penelitian. Yogyakarta. Graha Ilmu. Xiao, X. (2010). Analysis of Teacher Talk on the Basis of Relevance Theory. Canadian Social Science. Vol. 6, No. 3, 2010, pp. 45-50. E-ISSN 1712-8056 Yanfen, L. and Yuqin, Z. (2010). A study of teacher talk in interactions in English classes. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 33 (2):76-86 Yin, R. K. (2011). Qualitative Research from Start to Finish. New York, London. The Guilford Press. Zainal, Z. (2007). Case study as research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 9, 16.