1 EEJ 5 (1) (2015) English Education Journal http://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej TEACHER’S AND STUDENTS’ TALKS AND THEIR NONVERBAL COMMUNICATION IN THE CLASSROOM INTERACTION Arina Hafadhotul Husna Rudi Hartono, Ahmad Sofwan Prodi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Program Pascasarjana, Universitas Negeri Semarang, Indonesia Info Artikel ________________ Sejarah Artikel: Diterima Juni 2015 Disetujui Juli 2015 Dipublikasikan Agustus 2015 ________________ Keywords: Teacher’s talks, Students’ talks, Nonverbal communication, Classroom interaction. ____________________ Abstract ___________________________________________________________________ This study were aimed to find (1) the pattern of teacher‟s talks and students‟ talks occurred during the classroom interaction, (2) identify teacher‟s nonverbal communication and students‟ nonverbal communication interpreted in their talks. This study was descriptive qualitative method. The participants of this study were one English teacher and 38 students of second semester of Cendekia Utama Nursing College. It used Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS), to analyze teacher‟s and students‟ talks and Zoric‟s and Smid‟s Taxonomy to identify nonverbal communication. The result showed that the most dominant pattern occurred in the classroom interaction at ESP class was the students‟ participation. The teacher spent (55.7%) while students spent (40.3%) in their time. Teacher produced both direct talks and indirect talks. The amount of direct talks (29.1%) was higher than indirect talks (26.5%). It followed by content cross (34.7%), teacher support (14.3%) and continued by teacher control (6.7%), silence or confusion only spent a little time (4%). The result of nonverbal communication showed that teacher and students used more in oculasics and kinesics. They intentionally made eye contact when they communicated each other and used such facial expression, gesture, body signals, eye movement and head position to support their communications. © 2015 Universitas Negeri Semarang  Alamat korespondensi: Kampus Unnes Bendan Ngisor, Semarang, 50233 E-mail: pps@unnes.ac.id ISSN 2087-0108 Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 2 INTRODUCTION Language is the most important means of communication. We use language to communicate with another. According to Corded (1973) as quoted in Septianingrum (2013), the function of language is usually in the form of such phrase as by which man communicate. It seems that someone who wants to communicate with another have to use a language as a means of communication (p.1). In another word, language is the important thing to study because we use language to communicate with another in our daily life as a means of communication. Communication is usually undertaken for a purpose. A person has a reason for transmitting a message to someone else. Communication is simply act of transferring information from one place to another. Although this is a simple definition, when we think about how we may communicate the subject becomes a lot more complex. There are various categories of communication. The first one is spoken or verbal communication such as; face to face, telephone, radio or television and other media. The second is non-verbal communication such as; body language, gestures, how we dress or act – even our scent. Teachers are enables to do various activities to success their language teaching through instruction. While for students who are studying English as foreign language, it is very important to experience in real communication situation in which they will learn how to express their own views and opinions and to develop their real fluency and accuracy which are very essential for the success of foreign language communication. Then, the necessary and useful educational strategy to enhance learning is classroom interaction. The term classroom interaction refers to the interaction between teacher and students in the classroom. It involves the verbal exchanges between students and teachers; however, teacher should know that the students need to do most of the talk to activate their speaking, since this skill requires practice and experience to be developed. In the classroom interaction the teacher should not only focus on material achievement when teaching, they should also be able to treat the student individuals by the language used. The language used by teacher when addressing students in classroom interaction is referred as „Teacher‟s Talk‟. According to Allwright and Bailey (1991) talk is one of the major ways that teacher convey information to learners, and it is also one of the primary means of controlling learner behavior (p. 139). According to Chaudron (1988), teacher‟s talks is characterized by simplification of speech in terms of grammar and vocabulary, exaggerated pronunciation, a slower pace of talk, self-repetition, more frequent and longer pauses and the IRF framework. In the teaching and learning process teachers dominate classroom interaction by using the IRF framework (teachers‟ initiation – students‟ reply – teacher‟s feedback/ follow up). Interaction is not limited in the form of verbal response. A non-verbal interaction may also happen. Another possibility is the combination between verbal and non-verbal interaction. As the response to the teacher, students may answer by saying words expressions in their idea, agreement or disagreement. It can also be in the form of written. Some students prefer to use written form because they are too shy in expressing the ideas orally. Wilson (1999) as quoted in Matsumoto (2013), the students may also give response by nodding, eye-contact, facial expression, gesturing, etc. students can also give response by gesturing followed by saying some expression. In English language teaching there has been recognized term of English for Specific Purposes to indicate teaching with specific discipline in its content. English for Specific Purpose develops and is needed in many areas of education and professions. The interaction in ESP class as same as in another language class, teacher is become an important factor in teaching and learning process. The way that the teacher delivers the subject will control the classroom situation and interaction with Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 3 students. Teacher‟s behavior also gives great influence on students‟ performance and participation in the classroom. According to Harmer (2001) as cited in Septianingrum (2013), there are some factors which influence the teaching and learning process such as; teacher, curriculum, syllabus, materials, methods, media, students and interaction (p. 9). A common problem for English Foreign Language teacher is dealing with a passive class. When a teacher seek interaction such as; asking question to the whole class, the students tend to be unresponsive and avoid the interaction with teacher. This condition can be frustrating experience for both parties. Cendekia Utama Nursing College is one of college that holds English for Specific Purpose classes. The important role of English subject in this college is developing students‟ ability to communicate in English and students‟ understanding related to nursing terminology. The important role of English subject in this college is developing students‟ ability to communicate in English and students‟ understanding related to nursing terminology. In order to do that the aim of teaching English has been changed from learning the language to learning how to use the language as a means of communication. Teacher is demands to be able in developing his or her teaching strategy, so that the students can master English well both active and passive. As cited in Shahi, R.S (2010), Flanders assumed that teacher is the influential authority in the classroom, because teacher‟s talks and what he says determines to a large the reactions of the students (p.1). This study intended to answer the following questions; (1) How do the teacher‟s talks occur in the classroom interaction at ESP classes of Cendekia Utama Nursing College in the Academic Year of 2013/2014?, (2) How do the students‟ talks occur in the classroom interaction at ESP classes of Cendekia Utama Nursing College in the Academic Year of 2013/2014?, (3) How is the teacher‟s nonverbal communication interpreted in her talks?, (4) How are the students‟ nonverbal communication interpreted in their talks? Interaction occurred everyday between teacher and students in the classroom activities. It managed by everyone, not only by the teacher, but also the students in the classroom.Teaching is an interaction process between teacher and students or group of the students to get knowledge, skill, attitude, and to stable what they are learning. Teacher has important role in the classroom because the success of teaching and learning is influence by him/her. According to Rivers (1987), the teacher in teaching and learning process should not be too focus on the best method, but he/she should be looking for the appropriate approach, design of materials, or sets of procedures in a particular case (p.6-9). Classroom interaction defines as a two- way process between the participants in the learning process. The teacher influences the learners and vice versa. Malamah – Thomas (1987) stated that every interaction situation has the potential for co-operation or conflict. How the situation actually develops depends on the attitudes and intentions of the people involved, and on their interpretations of each other‟s attitudes and intentions (p.8).Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) as cited in Walsh (2011), there are three part structure in which the teachers and students communicate in the classroom. It is known as the IRF exchange structure. I for a teacher Initiation, R for a students‟ Response, and F for a teacher Feedback or follow-up also referred to as teacher Evaluation (E). Teacher‟s talk is the language in the classroom that takes up a major portion of class time employed to give directions, explains activities and checks students‟ understanding (Sinclair & Brazil, 1985). While, students‟ talks is the language produced by the students to respond and initiate the teacher‟s talks. In the teaching and learning process a teacher dominates a classroom interaction by using the IRF framework (teachers‟ initiation – students‟ reply – teacher‟s feedback/ follow up). According to Amidon and Hough (1967) as quoted in Shahi, R.S (2010), Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS) Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 4 has been found to be the most popular for capturing classroom interaction patterns. It is currently best known and the most widely used system for analyzing classroom instructional process. Flanders‟ instrument was designed for observing only the verbal communication in the classroom and non-verbal gestures are not taken into account. The Flanders‟ system attempts to categories all the verbal behavior to be found in the classroom. It has three main points; those are teacher‟s talks and students‟ talk. A third point covers other verbal behavior, for example; silence or confusions. It divided into 10 categories, of which 1 to 7 classes were recorded the status of teacher on students to speak; No. 8 to 9 classes are the students to speak on the situation of teacher in class. The last one as No.10 is recorded classroom possible quiescent state (quite or confusion). Table 1. Flander‟s Interaction Analysis System ACTIVITY Teacher Talk Response Indirect Influence ACCEPTS FEELING Accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non- threatening manner. Feeling may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feeling is included. PRAISES OR ENCOURAGES Praises or encourage student actions or behavior. Jokes that release tension, not at expense of another individual, nodding head or saying “um hum?” or “go on” are included. ACCEPTS OR USES IDEAS OF STUDENTS Clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher bring more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. ASK QUESTIONS Asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answers. Initiation Direct Influence LECTURING Giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with her own ideas, asking rhetorical question. GIVING DIRECTIONS Directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. CRITICIZING OR JUSTIFYING AUTHORITY Statements intended to change student behavior from non- acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extremely self- reference. Student Talk Response STUDENTS TALK-RESPONSE A student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statements and sets limits to what the student says. Initiation STUDENTS TALK INITIATION Talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduced own ideas. Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 5 Silence/ confusion SILENCE OR CONFUSION Pauses, short periods of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer. Nonverbal communication has been referred to as “body language”. Knap (1972) defined nonverbal communication as encompassing almost all of human communication expects the spoken or written word. The most comprehensive and scientific categorization of nonverbal communication is offered by Zoric et al. (2007), those are as follow. a. Haptics – Contact and deliberate touch between individuals. b. Kinesics – Kinesics encompasses all forms of body language and body movements, including facial expressions, eye movements, gesture, and posture. c. Oculesics – Oculasic is the act of intentional and unintentionally making eye contact with an individual during communication. d. Physical Appearance – Physical appearance is characteristics of the body, clothing, hairstyle, etc. e. Proxemics – Personal space and arrangement of physical items in a classroom has a surprisingly significant influence on student comfort within the learning environment. f. Silence – Silence is the absence of verbal and nonverbal communication. Silence is the most common nonverbal expression. g. Vocalics and Chonemics – Vocalic includes tone of voice, timbre, volume, and rate of speech, while chronemics relates to timing and pauses. METHOD This study looked deep into one specific real phenomenon that was classroom interaction. It tried to understand the participants and tried to help their problems since the data of this study were teacher‟s and students‟ talks in form of verbal and nonverbal communication.The design of this study was descriptive analysis supported by simple statistic calculation (percentage) in order to describe the findings.The subjects of this study were one English teacher in Cendekia Utama Nursing College and 38 students of B class of the second semester of Cendekia Utama Nursing College in the academic year of 2013/2014. FIACS as cited in Nurmasita (2010) was used in this study to record teacher‟s talks and students‟ talks in classroom interaction. Then, Zoric‟s and Smid‟s nonverbal communication taxonomy (2007) was used to analyze their nonverbal communication. The writer employed observation checklist adapted from Brown (2002:432-434) and Paul (2003: 65-66). It involved six components that were preparation in teaching and learning process, presentation or performance of teaching and learning process, method used in teaching and learning process, personal characteristics of observed teachers, and teacher/students interaction. The results of the classroom interaction observation were transcript in form of written text; both of verbal and nonverbal communication was transcript. The data of verbal communication analyzed based on FIACS procedure; (1) Coding the verbal interaction, (2) Plotting the coded into a matrix, (3) Analyzing the matrix, (4) Analyzing additional data. Nonverbal communication analyzed by using Zoric‟s and Smid‟s nonverbal communication Taxonomy.Observation checklist was analyzed depend on the rank which consist of five classifications. Those classifications were 4 means excellent, 3 mean above average, 2 mean average, 1 mean unsatisfactory and N/A mean not applicable. When the result of observation was indicated of all criteria 4, it means that teacher was amazing in her teaching and learning process. It was cover teacher‟s preparation, performance, method, personal characteristics and her interaction to the students. Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this study the writer found that the teacher and students produce all of their talks during four meeting observation. The teacher and students produce 2400 turns taking during classroom observation. The most frequently pattern observed in the fourth meeting classroom observation was students‟ participation (40.3%). It followed by content cross (34.7%), then teacher support (14.3%) and continued by teacher control (6.7%). While, silence or confusion spent a little time (4%). Teacher produced more in giving information. She spent her talking time in lecturing the students for about (22.4%). Giving information in lecturing the students was important during teaching and learning activity. She was giving information to make students understand about the lesson. Teacher also asked question as her strategy to increase her students‟ participation during teaching and learning process. The writer found that teacher‟s talk ratio was (55.7%) and she produced both direct teacher‟s talks and indirect teacher‟s talks. The amount of direct teacher‟s talks (29.1%) was higher than indirect teacher‟s talks (26.5%). While, students‟ talks ratio was (40.3%). It indicated that the high amount of direct teacher‟s talks affects the amount of students‟ talks. Chart 1. Frequencies of the amount of Pattern of classroom interaction Chart 2. Frequencies of the amount of teacher‟s and students‟ talk ratio In this study, the writer indentified nonverbal communication interpreted in teacher‟s and students‟ talks. It offered by Zoric‟s and Smid‟s nonverbal communication Taxonomy (2007). The writer found that teacher and student used almost their nonverbal communication to support their talk.For example; 34,7 6,7 14,3 40,3 4 The Pattern of Classroom Interaction Content Cross Teacher Control Teacher Support Students Participation Silence or Confusion 55,7 40,3 4 Teacher 's and Students' Talk Ratio Teacher's Talks Students' Talks Silence or Confusion Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 7 T This is Anna Kennedy; Oculasics, haptics and chonemics She is the surgical nurse. Then, … How do you respond my utterance? Here, teacher intentionally made eye contact and touched the student who sat beside her. Then, teacher stressing and giving timing to the sentence. It indicated that teacher gives example to the students as role model. She showed to the students how to introduce their friends to the other by using haptics. It made the students got the point of the material clearly. T Ten past fifty five. Oculasics How about the others way to speak it? AS Silent class Silence and kinesics (head position) In this example, teacher intentionally made eye contact with students.Then, students did not give respond or only silent but in their nonverbal communication they moved their head up to look at the clock. In this condition, they did know nothing but it indicated that the silent of the students, they tried to think their respond by looking at the clock to know the time. Then they produced their respond. In the verbal communication when students did not produce sound to respond teacher question it called with silence, but it have different meaning in nonverbal communication. When students did not produce sound but they did the verbal behavior such as, nodding head or express some facial expression related with their feeling, it indicated that students respond their teacher. So the meaning of silence in verbal communication not always confusion or they did know nothing. Teacher and students did almost of their nonverbal communication offered by Zoric‟s and Smid‟s Taxonomy such as; haptics, kinesics, oculasics, proxemics, vocalic and chonemics. In this study, the students‟ understanding about the material was not significantly increased. It can be seen from the result of the tests. The average score of pre – test was 58 and after teacher explained the material the average score of the pre-test was 75. The scores of the students were in the average. It indicated that the students enough well in understanding the material. In the preparation of teaching and learning process teacher was well prepared and well organize in the class. The class material was explained in an understandable ways. Directions were clear and concise and students were able to carry them out. The teacher was able to control and direct class but sometimes teacher did not used appropriate method and media. It makes the teaching and learning process passive and monotone. Students were active in learning process and most of them were enjoy the class. CONCLUSION The percentage of teacher‟s talk ratio is 55.7% and she produces both direct teacher‟s talks and indirect teacher‟s talks. The amount of direct teacher‟s talks is 29.1%. It is higher than indirect teacher‟s talks (26.5%).The teacher also performs content cross with total percentage (34.7%), then teacher support (14.3%) and continued by teacher control (6.7%). While, students‟ talks ratio is (40.3%). It indicates that the high amount of direct teacher‟s talks affects the amount of students‟ talks. Then, silence or confusion only spends with total percentage (4%). The little amount of silence here means that the students understand the material well. It was also found that teacher does almost her nonverbal communication to support her talks. For example; teacher almost makes eye contact intentionally with the students and sometime touches the student. She also stresses and gives time to the sentence. It makes the Arina Hafadhotul Husna / English Education Journal 5 (1) (2015) 8 students get the point of the material clearly. Here, teacher does almost of her nonverbal communication offered by Zoric‟s and Smid‟s Taxonomy such as; haptics, kinesics, oculasics, proxemics, vocalic and chonemics. Based on the conclusions drawn above, the following courses of action to increase the quality of English classroom interaction have been recommended as follow; (1) More communicative classroom activities needed to be given to the students. The activities should give more chance for the students to interact either to the teacher or to the students. It helps to increase the students‟ confidence to interact in English. Activities like role plays, information gaps, small group, or pair work can be included. (2) Teacher needs to use appropriate question, for example related to critical thinking. So the students not only answer with „yes‟ or „no‟ but they can also produce their language in speaking and explore their mind to be more creative thinker. (3) Both of teacher and students create a classroom situation that makes the students feel comfortable to initiate an interaction using English. The teacher needs to be more frequent using English in class. The use direct translation can be reduced. (4) The teachers‟ encouragement to the students‟ progress need to be improved. The encouragement can motivate the students to be more active in learning. REFERENCES Allwright, D & K. M. Bailey. (1991). Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles an Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (Second Edition). New York: Pearson Education Company. Chaudron, C. (1988). Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flanders, N. A. (1970 a). Analyzing Teacher Behavior. New York: Addison-Wesley. Flanders, N. A. (1970 b). Intent, action and feedback: A preparation for teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 14, 251–260. Knapp, M. L. (1972). Nonverbal communication in human interaction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Knapp, M. L & Hall, J. A. (1992). Nonverbal communication in human interaction (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987). Classroom Interaction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matsumoto et.al. (2013). Nonverbal Communication Science and Applications. London: SAGE Publication. Paul, D. (2003). Teaching English to Children in Asia. Quarry Bay: Logman Asia ELT. Rivers, Wilga M. (1987). Interactive Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Septianingrum, E. (2013). English Classroom Interaction at the State Vocational High school 1 Pekalongan. Semarang State University. Sinclair, J. M & Brazil, D. (1985). Teacher Talk. London: Oxford University Press. Shahi, R. S. (2010). Observation and Analysis of Classroom Teaching at Teriery Level. Bilingual Journal of Humanities & Social Science Vol.1. Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action. London: Routledge Zoric, G., Smid, K & Pandzic, I. S. (2007). Facial Gestures: Taxonomy and applications of non‐verbal, non‐emotional facial displays for embodied conversation agents. In T. Nishida (Ed.), Conversational Informatics: An Engineering Approach. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.