{"title":"An analysis of teachers’ classroom interaction by using self-evaluation of teacher talk","authors":"Riski Valentika, Y. Yulia","doi":"10.36597/JELP.V3I1.2903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study focuses on classroom interaction in English teaching and learning at SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Bengkulu. The objective of this study is to 1. Describe student-teacher interaction pattern, 2. Find out the type of interactional features in the classroom. The data were first-grade students. This study shows how teacher and student talk and give a response to each other. This study is conducted in form of discourse analysis. The writer used observation to get the data. The data were in a form video recording of classroom interactional both teachers and students. The writer made transcription from recorded data and analyzed it through IRF exchange structure and applied Walsh’s framework in interactional features. The result of the research showed teacher A and B interaction pattern is Initiation (I)- Response (R)- Feedback (F). Teacher A’s pattern was I (initiation), R (response) and F (feedback). In her classrooms, teacher A provides lots of initiation to her students. Teacher B’s pattern was IRF in this class with the highest amount of initiation in form question. Teacher A used 12 (twelve) interactional feature based on Walsh framework (2006). There were extended learner turn (ELT) 171 frequencies, extended teacher turn (ETT) 90 frequencies, Display Question (DQ) 66 frequencies, confirmation check (CC) 36 frequencies, seeking clarification (SC) 35 frequencies, Teacher echo (TE) 27 frequencies, referential question (RQ) 20 frequencies, Scaffolding (SCF) 16 frequencies, extended wait time (EWT) 13 frequencies, turn completion (TC) 12 frequencies, direct repair (DR) 5 frequencies, content feedback (CF) 1 frequency. Teacher B used 12 (twelve) interactional feature based on Walsh framework (2006). There were extended learner turn (ELT) 155 frequencies, Display Question (DQ) 53 frequencies, extended teacher turn (ETT) 42 frequencies, referential question (RQ) 23 frequencies, confirmation check (CC) 17 frequencies, seeking clarification (SC) 13 frequencies, Form focus feedback (FFF) 12, Teacher echo (TE) 8 frequencies, Scaffolding (SCF) 8 frequencies, extended wait time (EWT) 7 frequencies, turn completion (TC) 4 frequencies, direct repair (DR) 3 frequencies. Both of teacher A and B provide a lot of extended learner turn by giving a direct question and referential question. Students’ response frequently in English, in Indonesian and in another hand in their mother tongue. ","PeriodicalId":32887,"journal":{"name":"Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of English Language Pedagogy and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36597/JELP.V3I1.2903","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
This study focuses on classroom interaction in English teaching and learning at SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Bengkulu. The objective of this study is to 1. Describe student-teacher interaction pattern, 2. Find out the type of interactional features in the classroom. The data were first-grade students. This study shows how teacher and student talk and give a response to each other. This study is conducted in form of discourse analysis. The writer used observation to get the data. The data were in a form video recording of classroom interactional both teachers and students. The writer made transcription from recorded data and analyzed it through IRF exchange structure and applied Walsh’s framework in interactional features. The result of the research showed teacher A and B interaction pattern is Initiation (I)- Response (R)- Feedback (F). Teacher A’s pattern was I (initiation), R (response) and F (feedback). In her classrooms, teacher A provides lots of initiation to her students. Teacher B’s pattern was IRF in this class with the highest amount of initiation in form question. Teacher A used 12 (twelve) interactional feature based on Walsh framework (2006). There were extended learner turn (ELT) 171 frequencies, extended teacher turn (ETT) 90 frequencies, Display Question (DQ) 66 frequencies, confirmation check (CC) 36 frequencies, seeking clarification (SC) 35 frequencies, Teacher echo (TE) 27 frequencies, referential question (RQ) 20 frequencies, Scaffolding (SCF) 16 frequencies, extended wait time (EWT) 13 frequencies, turn completion (TC) 12 frequencies, direct repair (DR) 5 frequencies, content feedback (CF) 1 frequency. Teacher B used 12 (twelve) interactional feature based on Walsh framework (2006). There were extended learner turn (ELT) 155 frequencies, Display Question (DQ) 53 frequencies, extended teacher turn (ETT) 42 frequencies, referential question (RQ) 23 frequencies, confirmation check (CC) 17 frequencies, seeking clarification (SC) 13 frequencies, Form focus feedback (FFF) 12, Teacher echo (TE) 8 frequencies, Scaffolding (SCF) 8 frequencies, extended wait time (EWT) 7 frequencies, turn completion (TC) 4 frequencies, direct repair (DR) 3 frequencies. Both of teacher A and B provide a lot of extended learner turn by giving a direct question and referential question. Students’ response frequently in English, in Indonesian and in another hand in their mother tongue.Â
本研究聚焦于SMA Muhammadiyah 1 Bengkulu英语教学中的课堂互动。本研究的目的是:1。2.描述学生与老师的互动模式。找出课堂中互动特征的类型。数据是一年级学生。这项研究显示了教师和学生如何相互交谈和给予回应。本研究采用语篇分析的形式进行。作者采用观察法来获取数据。数据以视频形式记录教师和学生的课堂互动。通过IRF交换结构对记录的数据进行转录和分析,并在交互功能上应用walsh框架。研究结果表明,教师A与教师B的互动模式为发起(I)-回应(R)-反馈(F)。教师A的互动模式为I(发起)- R(回应)- F(反馈)。在她的课堂上,A老师给她的学生提供了很多启蒙。 miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss miss。A老师使用了基于Walsh框架(2006)的12(12)交互特征。扩展学习者转弯(ELT) 171次,扩展教师转弯(ETT) 90次,Â显示问题(DQ) 66次,确认检查(CC) 36次,寻求澄清(SC) 35次,教师回声(TE) 27次,参考问题(RQ) 20次,脚手架(SCF) 16次,延长等待时间(EWT) 13次,转弯完成(TC) 12次,直接修复(DR) 5次,内容反馈(CF) 1次。B老师使用了基于Walsh框架(2006)的12(12)交互性特征。扩展学习者转向(ELT) 155个频率,显示问题(DQ) 53个频率,扩展教师转向(ETT) 42个频率,参考问题(RQ) 23个频率,确认检查(CC) 17个频率,寻求澄清(SC) 13个频率,形成焦点反馈(FFF) 12个频率,教师回声(TE) 8个频率,Scaffolding (SCF) 8个频率,延长等待时间(EWT) 7个频率,回合完成(TC) 4个频率,直接修复(DR) 3个频率。teacher A和B都通过给出直接问题和参考问题提供了大量的扩展学习者转向。学生们经常用英语、印尼语和他们母亲tongue.Â的另一只手回答