Descriptive Analysis Research

A STUDY OF TEACHER TALK AT A PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN MALANG

Proposed to Follow
“Simposium Guru dan Tenaga Kependidikan 2015”

By
Anik Yusanti, M.Pd
NIP 198102142006042012
English Teacher in Elementary School

PEMERINTAH KABUPATEN KUTAI TIMUR

DINAS PENDIDIKAN
SDN 001 TELUK PANDAN
TAHUN 2013
 Validation

I reported that the Descriptive Analysis Research with the title “A STUDY OF TEACHER TALK AT
A PRIVATE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN MALANG” written by Anik Yusanti, M.Pd as the English
teacher of SMPN 1 Sangatta Selatan had been checked and validated on November 2nd, 2015. She
wrote this research when she works in SDN 001 Teluk Pandan.

Sangatta, November 2nd, 2015

Kepala SMPN 1 Sangatta Selatan

Sukartini, S. Pd., M. Si.

NIP 196808101995122007

ii
 The Statement of Authenticity

Undersigned below:

Name : Anik Susanti, M.Pd

NIP : 198102142006042012
NUPTK : 9546759660300042
Work Unit : SMP Negeri 1 South Sangatta

I state that this paper entitled "A Study of Teacher Talk at a Private Elementary School in Malang"
her own original work, not plagiarism or take other people‟s work

I make this statement with truth and if later proved not to be true, I am willing to accept the
sanctions set by the Ministry of Education and Culture

Sangatta, November 9th, 2015

Principal Participant

Sukartini, S. Pd., M.Si Anik Yusanti, M.Pd

NIP 196808101995122007 NIP 19810214 200604 2 012

iii
 PREFACE

In the name of Allah the most Beneficent the most Merciful, all praises to Allah who has
given an opportunity to me in holding this study and finish it well. This study would not have been
completed without some contribution and support from many people. Therefore, I would like to
express her gratitude to the following people for the suggestions and idea.
I would like to say my deepest gratitude to Siti Kaspiah as the principal of SDN 001 Teluk
Pandan who had given me the opportunity to write this research. Thank you to all my students who
always support me and to the english teacher of Elementary School in Malang as the object of this
study.
My greatest appreciation dedicate to my husband, my parents and all of the people who have
given supports and contribution to me in finishing this research. May Allah bless them all and give
rewards to their merits.
Finally, I hope that this research will have some values for me and for the readers.

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tittle.........................................................................................................i
Validation................................................................................................ii
The Statement of Authenticity.............................................................................iii
Preface ....................................................................................................iv
Table of Content.......................................................................................v
Abstracts..................................................................................................vi
Abstraks..................................................................................................vii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION.................................................................1
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE..............................2
CHAPTER III FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION..........................................7
CHAPTER IV CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION.................................19
References...............................................................................................20

v
 Abstract
This is a descriptive qualitative study which was taken from the researcher‟s idea to know
more about teacher‟s utterances in the English classroom interaction of Elementary school. The
researcher focused on teacher‟s initiation and feedback in the English classroom interaction at a
private elementary school in Malang. This study was held to know how the initiation and feedback
were used and given in classroom interaction and to introduce the reader about the effective strategy
that must be used in teaching English. The result of this study showed that in initiation, the
researcher found three kinds of initiation which was used by the teacher such as: Questioning,
instructing and informing. Display questions dominated in the classroom interaction. It happened
because the teacher always wanted to measure her students‟ comprehension about the material she
had explained. In instructing, the teacher usually used prohibition, command and direction. The
commands dominated the teacher initiation in this classroom interaction because commands can be
used as the controller to the students. while in informing, the teacher delivered this initiations
through instruction and questions both in referential and display questions. In giving directions like
commands the teacher put some informing utterances in it just like in questioning as well. Feedback
results from this study found that the teacher rarely used discoursal function and reformulation
feature, because she often used understandable utterances to give the feedback. Regarding the
effective features, the teacher often used repetition feature in her utterances. In conclusion, the
teacher‟s role in giving initiation and feedback is essentially needed to engage the students to
involved in classroom interaction and make them able to think creatively.
Keyword: Teacher Talk, Classroom Interaction, Initiation, Feedback.

vi
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In elementary school, the teacher makes the classroom interaction to the children between the
age of six up to twelve years old. In this level of age, children learn from direct experiences;
children learn from hands-on physical activities; children‟s thinking is embedded in here-and-now
context of situation; children learn holistically from whole to parts using scripts; and children have
a short attention span (Bruner, 1996 and Piaget 1975 in Musthafa, 2010:121). From this statement,
children‟s ability to acquire something are through learning by doing, and sometimes they need
some clearly explanation in detail about everything that they want to know.
This research studies about teacher talk in private elementary school in Malang. Malang was
chosen as it has qualified schools, good educational environment and also good teachers‟
competence in teaching. Here, the researcher wants to employ teacher talk as the discussion
especially in initiation and feedback, without neglecting the role of students‟ response. Ellis
(2008:794) stated that “L2 teacher talk can be viewed as a special register, analogous to foreigner
talk”. This study has the function to describe its phonological, lexical, grammatical and discoursal
properties. Specifically, this study has research questions as follows: 1) How is the initiation used
by the English teacher in classroom interaction at a private elementary school in Malang? (2) How
is the feedback given by the English teacher in classroom interaction at a private elementary school
in Malang?
The researcher also sees that teacher talk is a special communicative activity. Its goal is to
communicate with students and develops students‟ foreign language proficiency. This
communicative activity related to communicative language teaching that “on the threshold of the
21st century, communicative language teaching has become familiar to discussion about the
practice and theory of second and foreign language teaching as the Big Mac is to fast food”
(Savignon, 2005:635).
Based on previous studies, the study about feedback and initiation are always interesting to be
discussed. Setiawati (2012) dicussed about constructive teacher talk, revealing the suitable amount
and the students‟ perception of teacher talk. She found that reducing teacher talk could make the
class more motivating, interesting and chalenging. Another was conducted by Fauziah (2009) who
found the ways to overcome the problems by giving simple question, giving easy talk, and
approaching students.
The context of this study is related to the kind of initiation used, the functions and strategy of
effective feedback in English classroom interaction at a private elementary school in Malang.
 CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1. Teaching English for Young Learners in Indonesia
English is taught to Indonesian students to enable them to communicate with each other by
using English. In elementary level, the student ability is lower than junior or senior high school and
need some techniques and strategies to deliver the material. In this level of age according to Eccles
(1999:31): “they seek opportunities to master and demonstrate new skills, to make independent
decisions and control their own behavior, and to form good social relationships with peers and
adults outside the family.”
In Indonesia, some teachers still use traditional methods in teaching such as teacher centered
method that use the teacher as the center of all activities in the classroom. They tend to talk more
dominantly than the students. In this case, the students just act as passive receivers in the process of
transfering knowledge. Consequently, most of the students in elementary school are less active than
they are supposed to be in learning process. In the process of teaching and learning, there are some
ways that can be done to make students active in the classroom interaction. But the teacher must
know who the students are in this teaching area. The teacher as an input provider needs to be able to
create comfortable teaching condition through communicative approach. Mustafa (2010) explained
that:
As children learn more readily when engaged in physical movements, teachers should use activity-
based teaching-learning techniques such as TPR (Total Physical respond), games, and projects. Also
to be noted here is that teachers should focus on functional English for vocabulary development, and
for immediate fulfillment of communicative needs of the young learners.

From that statement, we know that teaching to young learners have to use communicative way, so

the teaching process can be effective.

2.2. Classroom Interaction

Every level of education cannot be separated from the term classroom interaction. The
teacher must have ability to create good classroom interaction in teaching learning activity.
Allwright (1984:156) in Ellis (2008:775) stated that interaction is the fundamental fact of classroom
pedagogy because everything that happens in the classroom happens through a process of live
person to person interaction. This interaction may have advantages to the students because they
through the process directly in the classroom as the proces of learning.
Classroom interaction as the conventional discourse that has the content of verbal pattern
according to Kumpulainen and Wray (2002:44) is:
Continuesly negotiated and recreated that evolves over time. The different dimension of classroom
interaction are linked not only to the historical or sociocultural context of the activity but also to the
interpretations and situated meaning created in the immadiate interaction context.
 Classroom interaction as a part of classroom discourse contains many dialogues that happens
between students and teacher or students and students. In Bearne, Dombey and Grainger (2003:21):
Much of the discourse surrounding classroom talk uses the term „dialogue‟ to indicate collaborative
construction of meaning between children and adults. However, just as there is ambiguity about what
„interaction‟ means in terms of pedagogy, there are different shades of meaning attached to „dialogue‟.
Certainly, it implies some exchange of views between two or more speakers; there is also an assumption
that such encounters will move thinking further. In the classroom there is an added ingredient – the
relative power of the contributors – and this is accompanied by the sense that the teacher‟s professional
knowledge will guide the dialogue towards a pre-selected end.

So, in this classroom interaction the role of teacher skills in making dialogue and talking with the
students must be done effectively in order to get better understanding of the students.
Cullen (1998) in Ellis (2008:794) stated that classroom never imitate communicative
behavior outside the classroom and discourse can be pedagogically effective when teacher can
combine “instructor” and “interlocutor” successfully. It means that teacher can give instruction and
become friend in sharing idea in classroom interaction. This statement is become reflection of the
revisionist account of the value of IRF.
2.3. Tacher Talk
2.3.1. The Function of Teacher Talk
Teaching is always using talk to make interaction with the students. Teacher talk is kind of
activity to keep in touch with the students in classroom interaction. Teacher talk in Indonesia has a
role as foreigner talk. So, in this study also interest to find characteristics of teachers‟ speech to non
native speaker‟s that are peculiar to the classroom. Chaudron (1988:85) had some results
concerning teachers‟ modification speech from lower level of NNSs (Non Native Speaker‟s), they
are: 1) Rate of speech appears to be slower; 2) Pauses, which may be evidence of the speaker
planning more, are possibly more frequent and longer; 3) Pronounciation tend to be exaggerated
and simplified; 4) Vocabulary use is more basic; 5) degree of subordination is lower; 6) more
declaratives and statements are used than questions; 7) Teacher may self-repeat more frequently.
From those finding, the researcher also will study the teacher‟s modification in teaching using the
talk as well.
Talking about teacher talk is always related to the interaction in the classroom which needed
communicative way to use it. Yanfen and Yuqin (2010) stated that teacher talk is an indispensable
part of foreign language teaching in organizing the activities, and the way teachers talk not only
determines how well they make their lectures, but also guarantees how well students will learn. To
organize the activities is needed such a communicative interaction in the classroom. Cullen
(1998:179) stated in his article entitled Teacher Talk and Classroom Context that:
Communicative classroom are held to be those in which features of genuine communication are evident,
and, by exclusion, classes where they are not present are considered to be uncommunicative. In the case
of teacher talk, similar criteria might be used to asses such aspect classroom language use as the kind of
questions teachers ask their students, or the way they respond to students contribution.
From that statement we may know that teacher talk has important function in interaction with the
students. Cullen (1998) also said that the important of teacher talk is to facilitate and promote
communicative interaction in the classroom. Teacher‟s communicative ways are needed to deliver
such function of the teacher talk such as in J. D. Ramirez et al. (1986) in chaudron (1988:54) that
stated pedagogical function of explaining, commanding, questioning, modeling, feed back and
others.
2.3.2 Teacher Initiation
The term Initiation means the way of teacher to initiate an interaction to the students.
According to Sinclair and Brazil (1982:36), teacher‟s initiation is the main instrument of education.
By doing the initiation, teacher delivers some questions, instructions and informations in classroom
interaction with the students. This is an example for IRF move in the classroom that can describe
which one is initiation (I), response (R) and feedback (F):
(T) I: What is she doing in the picture?
(S) R: She is reading a magazine.
(T) F: That‟s right. She is reading a magazine.

From those kind of verbal activities, initiation can be categorized into three such as: questioning,
giving instruscting and informing.
Questioning is such kind of request to initiate students to talk in the classroom interaction.
Chaudron (1988: 126) stated that:
“teachers‟ question constitute a primary means of engaging learners‟ attention, promoting
verbal responses, and evaluating learners‟ progress, although there is considerable debate as
to whether language teaching methodology requires this sort of interaction.”

Questions devided into two types, they are display and referential question. Display question
is the question which the teacher already knows the answer. Referential question is the question
which the teacher doesn‟t know the answer. Chaudron (1988:127) explained that referential
question may be either open or closed and display questions would tend to be closed, the
supposition is that open/general questions, or referential questions, would promote greater learner
productivity, and the latter would likely promote more meaningful communication between teacher
and learner.
Instructing is the same term with directing. It means giving instruction or giving order to the
students in classroom interaction. Sinclair and Brazil (1982:75) stated that in directives there is an
action specified, and an appropriate response is in two parts:
a. An acknowledgement, from a close class very similar to the response to a simple inform;
b. An activity to suit the content of the direcitve.
 Informing is the activity to give any informations in the classroom interaction. This activity
could be done by both teacher and students. If the teacher wants to know about the students
received the information efficiently, so the teacher will deliver information question about the given
subject. In the other way, the students will give answer which consisting of information to the
teacher. According to Sinclair and Brazil (1982:57-58) the teacher‟s power of information control
has several fairly habitual features of classroom talk. Those habitual features are:
a. The teacher has to fill silences. Depending on the particular teaching style, pupils may or may not
speak spontaneously to each other or to the teacher, but they never have the responsibility for the
talk.
b. The teacher speaks most of the time. Estimates vary as do factors in the teaching situation
(subject matter, type of activity, age, sex, etc.) of pupils, personality of teacher. But the range of
variation is between most of the time and all the time.
c. The pupils have a very restricted range of verbal functions to perform. They rarely initiate, and
never follow-up. Most of their verbal activity is response, and normally confined strictly to the
term of the initiation.
d. The teacher determines the nature of the discourse and in particular what freedom the pupils have
to construct their own utterance.

2.3.3. Teacher’s Feedback

Feedback is the follow-up from the teacher to students‟ responses. It become an important
component in theories of learning because the learners need to know how they are learning and
receiving a judgement from their performance in the classroom (Sinclair & Brazil, 1982:44).
While in Cullen (2002) identified two function of teacher‟s feedback, they are: evaluative
and discoursal Follow-up. Evaluative follow-up is typically co-occur with display question that
ususally asked by the teacher to elicit pre-determined response. This kind of follow-up has the
function to give feedback individually about their performance, and in particular, in the English
classroom, to allow learners to confirm, disconfirm and modify their interlanguage rules (Chaudron,
1988:134). Discoursal follow-up is the feedback to focus in giving attention to the whole class of
individual response, teacher tries to rephrase in more acceptable form and to elaborate the students
to extend the dialogue and encourage further contributuion.
Cullen (2002: 124-125) also stated that there are some features of effective teacher talk that
characterize the follow-up moves. They are reformulation, elaboration, comment, repetition, and
responsiveness. Reformulation is used by the teacher to repair students‟ contribution without
interupting the flow of discourse in the classroom, but the teacher makes correction in direct speech.
Elaboration is the way to provide lingustically richer source of input of the class. Comment is the
type of follow-up by repeating the student‟s response and the teacher gives additional comment of
his own. Repetition or echoing is the way to give feedback by repeating student‟s respond with the
rising tone that can make student‟s attention to the respond. Responsiveness is the general quality
that the teacher exhibits of listening and responding with genuine interest to the content of the
students‟ saying.
2.4 Students’ Response
According to Sinclair and Brazil (1982), in initiating some interactions in the classroom, the
answers, a diversion and anything else are the types followed a question broadly. Those types
emerge as the students‟ response in many ways depend on the question delivered.
Sinclair and Brazil (1982:40) stated “that responses are also forward-looking, and the
choices that are made in a response have considerable effect on what follow them”. Based on their
theory from the students‟ response, the researcher can determine whether the teacher‟s utterances
can be classified in terms of the framework of the study or not.
2.5 The Framework of Teacher Talk in This Study
To answer the research question, the researcher has limitation framework in order to get
focusing on the research question. After explaining all the theories about teacher talk and its section
the researcher made the framework of the study and based on the theories above (Sinclair & Brazil,
1982 and Cullen, 2002), the following framework of teacher talk was drawn as guidance for
observation to transcribe the data:
Figure 1: The Framework of Teacher Talk
CLASSROOM INTERACTION

Teacher Talk

Initiation Feedback

Questioning Instructing informing Function Effective Features

Referential Discoursal Reformulation,

Display Evaluative
Responsiveness
Comment
Elaboration
Repetition

From those theories explained that both initiation and feedback are the most usually done by
the teacher in classroom interaction. Here, the researcher takes the theories from Sinclair and Brazil
(1982) and also Cullen (2002) which can be usefull as outline to answer the research question. The
researcher can find how is the good way to give the talk for young learner related to the initiation
and feedback in classroom interaction in elementary level.
 CHAPTER III
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
3. 1. Findings
3.1.1 The Teacher’s Initiation in the Classroom Interaction.
a. Initiation
The initiation used in this class is generally very clear uttered and the teacher delivered it in
three languages such as in English, Indonesia and Javanese. From the teacher utterances, many of
them fell into questioning, instructing and informing.
1) Questioning
In terms of giving question, the teacher often used display question and referential question.
This study showed that in questioning, the teacher was using very simple vocabulary and easy to be
comprehended by the students who always hear about some simple vocabulary from the teacher.
She also used translation in her utterances.
The teacher tried to build good communication with the students, it is indicated by saying
“How are you today?”. The students responded it well because the teacher uttered those kind of
questioning almost in every meeting. She delivered that initiation also to ask about the homework
she gave in the last meeting. She checked the homework to the most naughty and hyperctive student
but he is very fluent in English. Here, the tacher also aksed for his reason why he did it in a paper.
This question indicated that the teacher did not know at all about the reason. Besides, the usage of
referential question in this classroom played the important role in giving stimulation to the students.
From those utterances above, the researcher classified the referential questions in this following
table:
Table 4.1: Data Analysis (1)
Referential Questions
T: Ok. How are you today?
Referential T: Rafli have you do your homework?
Question T: Ok. Why in the paper?

The other example of initiation in questioning is from the teacher made referential question
that was not answered, the word “really?” is such referential question to make sure about the
previous response of the student. After that she tried to get information about the task she had given
last week, “who still not submit the homework today?” indicated that she did not know who
exactly did the homework and here she wanted to know for sure about that. From the students‟
responses she could know how many students that did not do the task. In the last initiation she
asked her students by using short utterances such as “oh...finish? Who is? Fadel” but here the
students still could comprehend well her utterances because these terms she uttered often used in
this classroom activity, besides her tones in that phrase was easy to comprehend. From this
following table classified about the questions:
Table 4.2: Data Analysis (1)
Referential Question
T: Really?
T: Who still not submit the homework today?
Referential T: Is there?
Question T: Anyone of you?
T: Alung, have you do?
T: Who is? Fadel?

The other referential question from the second observation merely used the same utterance
such as to know the students‟ comprehension but here the teacher often asking about students‟
concept of learning and some of questions made reference to a simple response of the students.
The teacher asked students‟ comprehension in “easy or difficult to you?” and their
response seemed unrellated with teacher‟s initiation. To correct students‟ mistake in responding, the
teacher used another initiation in “lha kok gak nyambung sih mas?”. That was kind of referential
question to made correction. In this extract, teacher needed to give ssome correction of students‟
response because the students‟ have to know that they had made mistake in their response. The
referential questions from extract can be seen in this following classification table.
Table 4. 3: Data analysis (1)
Referential Question
T: Easy or difficult to you?
Referential
T: No no no easy or difficult?
Question
T: Lah kok gak nyambung sih mas?

In this classroom interaction the teacher only delivered referential question in the begining
and the end of the study in the classroom. This custom always appear in every teaching and learning
process in this classroom. This types of questions mostly same with the second observations about
referential questions. The teacher used it in the begining of the teaching learning activity and she
also usually used this type of question to know students‟ comprehension.
The point in this type of question, the teacher could deliver well the message to the students
and she could get the information that she wanted to know about her students to make good
conducive classroom interaction.
a. Display Question
In this part of discussion take the dominant role in the classroom interaction. Display
question that is delivered to the students has fixed answer that can be useful to measure students‟
ability in attaining the material given.
 From that transcription, the researcher could see that the teacher initiated the students by
reflecting the past lesson about the usage of this, these, that and those, it was showed in the
utterance “do you still remember about, this, these, that and those?”. From this question, it is
known that the teacher had delivered the material about that and she tried to remind the students
about material given. From the students‟ response the teacher known that they still remembered
about the past lessons and she asked deeper about its meaning and function. When teacher asked
about the meaning in “What is the maning of ini? Which one?” she tried to elaborate students
mind about the material and in “ok, the meaning of this and these is? Apa?” she repeated almost
the same display question to make students more comprehend about her explanations. In asking
about the function, she asked “Ok guys what is the function of this?” that sentence made the
students paid attention to what would the teacher explain about, and it made the students focused on
the explanation. The other display questions which has the same objective was showed from these
sentences: “Why we use this?” and “Why we use the to be is? Why? How about they?”. Those
sentences also did not need students‟ response but to make students focused in the next explanation
of the teacher about the displayed questions uttered. On the transcribtion the teacher initiated the
students to give examples about her explained material and she guided the students well to
comprehend and remind again about it and classified in this table:
Table 4.4 (Data analysis 1)
Display Question
Display T: Ok, do you still remember about this, these, that and those?
Question T: What is the maning of ini? Which one?
T: Ok, the meaning of this and these is? Apa?
T: Ok guys what is the function of this?
T: Why we use this?
T: Why we use the to be is? Why? How about they?

From the findings shown that display question mostly took dominant utterances. In the
beginning of the teaching learning activity the teacher reflected the past lesson while in the process
of teaching and learning, she uttered display question related to the lesson given.
The teacher moved from another topic from positive sentence of this, these, that and those to
the interogative sentences by using display question both in Indonesia and English, but she prefered
to make utterances in Indonesia rather than in English because just like to this utterance “how if we
change this sentence, this sentence into question?”. Here almost the same with the previous
explanation that she wanted her students more comprehend her following explanation, she did not
really need students‟ answer in this case. The other initiation in form of display question always
used many examples from things in the classroom like the utterance “This is a table” and “Is this a
table?”. The classification data was in the following table:
 Table 4.5 (Data analysis 1)
Display Question
Display T: Sekarang bagaimana kalau kita rubah...how if we change this sentence into
question question? Caranya bagaimana?
T: Bagaimana caranya?
T: To be nya dari “this is a table” itu mana? To be nya itu mana? To be nya yang
mana?
T: So we change into the question seperti ini: Is this a table? Artinya apa?
Apakah ini sebuah meja? Is this a table?
T: Bagaimana?
T: Are these tables?

The researcher showed that it was almost the same between the first and the second
obesrvations which also using many examples around the students. The authentic examples from
the usage of present continues tense were used by teacher very well through display questions. The
examples given about the things around, such as the name of uniforms as the topic of the lesson.
She initiated the students by displayed questions and always repeated students‟ response clearly
such in “Shirt, and then what is this?”, “Belt, terus celana?”, “Short not shirt. Kaos kaki?”,
“Socks. Sepatu?” She uttered those all of talk by pointing the things she had mentioned, so the
students could know well what was the meaning of the things in English. These utterances could be
very effective if she used in familiar example and repeteadly. The next displayed questions also
delivered well by using herself as the example, it was indicated in “What am I doing now? Bu
Elin sekarang lagi ngapain?” and the students‟ responded variety, she could gave correction from
student‟s mistake directly. The other good displayed question also shown when the teacher asked
about what are the students doing by saying “what are you doing now?” and they responded well
by saying some verb ing. From those transcription can be seen that teacher also using bilingual
terms to initiate the students such as “selain studying sambil ngapain?”. It could be helpful to the
slow learners in the classroom. Here, she did not asked only to the clever students but also some
unclever students. Here, she gave the same opportunity to all students for extending their opinion in
responding teacher‟s initiation.
Table 4.6 (Data analysis 1)
Display Question
Display T: If you still remember part of uniform?
Question T: Tidak boleh teriak dulu! Part of uniform bagian-bagian seragam atas sampai
bawah.
T: Shirt, and then what is this?
T: Belt, terus celana?
T: Short not shirt. Kaos kaki?
T: Socks. Sepatu?
 T: What am I doing now? Bu Elin sekarang lagi ngapain?
T: Ok, what are you doing now?
T: Selain studying sambil ngapain?

1) Instructing
Another initiation that is used in teacher initiation in this classroom interaction is instructing.
In this term of instructing consists of prohibition, command and direction.
The command can be seen in the sentence “Now with your partner in your...in the side of
your table, please make the sentence like bu Elin and Alif do!” because in this sentence, teacher
gave some instruction to do her command in doing some exercise about the lesson discussed. In the
extracts 4.8 the command was “please read it all of you together!”. While the direction shown in
the sentence from the extract 4.9 “Ok abang with this sama belakang-belakangnya sudah pas
itu, and then Raihan with Rafli, Ahmad with Alung you with Lia ok!” because the teacher gave
the direction to the students to make simple dialogue with their partner. The other utterances in
extract 4.9 were included in commands. These following data classifications would make clear from
the data nalaysis above:
The example of instructing in form of prohibition can be shown by the teacher when gave
instruction in form of prohibition such as “hey wake up!” and “silent please!” It means that
teacher gave initiation to forbid the students to sleep and stop being crowded, here the students
responded that initiation by deed. Same from those all extracts, the other also gave prohibition for
the students did not doing something that she did not like, the sutdents‟ response always same, they
just kept silent in responding. In the prohibition implied in “Jangan suka main sendiri ta
Raihan!” and the student did not redpond well because this student was rarely gave attention to the
teacher and he got different treatment than the other children. The utterances such in “Tidak boleh
teriak dulu!” and “Sssst...jangan rame!” also showed the prohibitions of students behave in the
classroom, here the students‟ response were always in deeds by being keep silent and listen to the
teacher‟s explanations. Those utterances were showed that the teacher dislike the students‟ behave.
Table 4.8 (Data analysis 2)
Initiation with instruction (Prohibition)
Instructing T: The other sient please! Silent please! Silent please!
T: Jangan suka main sendiri ta Raihan!
T: Tidak boleh teriak dulu!
T: Sssst...jangan rame!

Most of instructing in teacher utterances were dominated by command. This kind of

initiation often used in the classroom interaction to make students under control.
 2) Informing
In classroom interaction almost all of the teacher utterances consist of information. In this
term of informing can be in form of instruction, command and question both referential and display
which contain of information. Here, the teacher could utter well informative utterances to the
students. The researcher could select that on the data classification, the informing implicitly existed
in the utterances above in form of question and command. “Ok guys, you have an English
homework lastweek, and I want to ask you, who still not submit the homework today?” that
utterance shown the informing of teacher about the homework and who did not do the homework.
After initiating some simple questions, she knew that there sere some students did not do the
homework. In command “Ok. You have to stand up for 15 minutes because you’re not to do
your homework!” informed that there was a punishment for the students‟ who did not do the
homework. Mostly the informing utterances shown in form of question and command. Here is the
classification:
Table 4.9 (Data analysis 3)
Initiation with Informing
Informing T: Really? Ok guys, you have an English homework lastweek, and I want to ask
you, who still not submit the homework today? Ok. So...so there are two students
that not submit the homework and the students are Alung and....
T: Oh...finish? Who is...? Fadel?
T: Abang? Ok. Two students not bring the homework today. Ok, you know what
you have to do right? Abang and Fadel? You know what you have to do right?
Ok. You have to stand up for 15 minutes because you‟re not to do your
homework!
T: Yes, 15 minutes to stand up.

The researcher would give another example of informing while in the teaching and leaning
process. The teacher used some imperatives and questions to initiate the students. In informing the
initiation, the students did not respond, they just listened the teacher utterances to get the
information in her initiation and they only answer the last initiation about teacher‟s question.
Table 4.10 (Data analysis 3)
Initiation with informing
Informing T: yaa..on page 94, part 5 you will find 6 pictures, ok you will find 6 pictures.
What are you doing with this pictures? In this pictures you and your partner,
please asking something using polite interuption, dengan ditambahi is that, are
those, is that, are those! Ya semua gambarnya. For example. Please look at the
example of the first picture! What is the first picture in the example? What
picture is that?
T: Now you please make a question! Membuat pertanyaan. Bagaimana? Excuse
me, is this your cat? Kemudian partner nya bertanya, yes its is atau no, it is not.
 Based on the table above can be seen that in some utterances, the teacher gives important
information to the students implicitly and explicitly. In some command there are also many
information delivered just as on that transcription. The stressing utterances could be seen in the last
initiation “Dava sedang menyanyi, coba Davindra! Dava ibu tulis di sini this is subject. Dava this
is subject, to be nya apa? To be nya itu yang kanan, itu to be, yang kiri ini subject. Ini to be
belum dihapus, to be nya yang mana pilih!”. From those utterances, the teacher asked a student to
translate her sentence in English and she stressed many times about informing the pattern of present
continues tense.
Table 4.11 (Data analysis 3)
Initiation with Informing
T : We are...lihat rumusnya teman-teman! Kalau mau ngerjakan dilihat
rumusnya apa!
T : Ini..this is subject. This is to be and now we have devine the verb ing write
menjadi ....ing...ing.
T : Writing. We are writing. Paham? Ok bu Elin mau coba lagi satu kali.
Informing
T : Rumusnya yang ini? Ya ndak usah, rumusnya dimasukkan ke dalam otak.
Only write the answer. ok, Dava sedang menyanyi. Davindra!
T : Dava sedang menyanyi, coba Davindra! Dava ibu tulis di sini this is
subject. Dava this is subject, to be nya apa? To be nya itu yang kanan, itu to
be, yang kiri ini subject. Ini to be belum dihapus, to be nya yang mana pilih!

Informing can also be used to clarify students‟ mistakes. This kind of information given in
making explanation, definition, examples and defining the problems. This table bellow consists of
clarifying talk of students‟ response toward teacher‟s initiation in giving information. The teacher
utterances indicated corrective and clarification to give feedback of students‟ response. In the
teacher utterance “what?” reflected the short clasrification of students‟ response, and after students
gave the answer, the teacher gave correction directly from their mistake by saying “True”. While in
clarification the teacher uttered “Ine kan ingin mengembalikan ke police station, yaa betul”.
In conclusion, teacher talk in initiation in this classroom has good way in delivering the message
to the students even in this Initiation teacher takes the dominant talk in the classroom. Here, the
teacher also delivered both in English and Bahasa Indonesia as well because she tried to give literal
meaning in her explanation in English and on the contrary. In questioning, both referential and
display have their own objective to initiate students‟ response. While in instructing, teacher initiate
with some imperative, command and direction. Moreover, in informing teacher delivers it in form
of instruction, command and question.
3.1.2. Teacher’s Feedback in the Classroom Interaction.
After discussing about initiation, the researcher explained about the feedback used in this
classroom activities. In this part of discussion, the researcher is exploring teacher‟s feedback in
terms of the function and the effective strategies. From the data analyzed, the researcher can
describe that most of the feedback function uttered in evaluative feedback and only some of the
feedback took discoursal function.
Talking about the function in this discussion, the researcher can describe that the evaluative
function took the whole conversation in the classroom in form of display question and in some
corrective feedback from students‟ response. It happened because of the teacher wanted to know
how far the students comprehend teacher‟s explanation about the material. While in discoursal
function, the feedback from the teacher only appeared in the begining of the teaching learning
activity. Because in discourseal feedback usually appeared in referential that do not need corrective
feedback from students‟ response, here the teacher only give reformulation feedback linguistically
that almost did not appear in the teacher feedback. The researcher investigated that most of the
conversation in classroom interaction took evaluative feedback to give students more understand
from the teacher explanation and the corrective features also used to give student correction of their
response. This following table occured the dominant evaluative function than discoursal function.
The feedback given mostly related to the material that discussed in the classroom.
Table 4.13 (Data Analaysis 4)
Feedback Analysis
Feedbacks Functions Strategy of Effective Features
T: This is a table. Evaluative Repetition
T: Ok good. Evaluative Praise
T:Yes, lebih dari satu. Evaluative Repetition
T:Tanya...Bagaimana caranya? Evaluative Repetition, elaboration
T: Nooo..we have to be here. Kita Evaluative Corrective, comment, reformulation
punya to be. We have is and we have
are. So if we want..

From the data analysis, the researcher only found discoursal function in a few conversation.
The discoursal feedback appeared in the begining of teaching learning activity such in “Five. It
means that one month I’m not come in five meeting”. Here the teacher gave th meaning of the
answer she said to the students. The second in “Tidak boleh teriak dulu!” indicated that teacher
gave feedback to the student‟s shout and made prohibition in her utterance. From the first discoursal
function, the teacher asked about the meeting from the students that they did not hold. In the next
formulative feedback the teacher explain the negotiation of meaning in exact meeting. And for the
last discoursal function, the teacher formulated students‟ shout by saying imperative sentence to
keep silent.
Table 4.14 (Data Analaysis 4)
Feedback Analysis
Feedbacks Functions
T: Five. It means that one month I‟m not come in five meeting. Wow Discoursal
benear-benar lama ya! Ok teman-teman I want to ask you part of
uniform. If you still remember part of uniform.
T: Tidak boleh teriak dulu! Part of uniform bagian-bagian seragam atas Discoursal
sampai bawah.

The other discoursal function could be seen in teacher utterances to rephrase student‟ utterances
in table 4.15. In the teacher rephrased “tempat pensil” with using its literal meaning that has aim to
correct student‟s response. In the teacher explaination of the word “five” meant giving explanation
so the students could now well how many meeting they did not meet. The teacher made correction
to student‟s answer while giving question about present continues tense with trully example about
herself. In the last discoursal function, the teacher rephrased student‟s response and explained the
related rule related to the sentence.
Table 4.15 (Data Analaysis 4)
Feedback Analysis
Feedbacks Functions
T: Tempat pensil, nooo...that is pencil case. What is? Discoursal
T: Five. It means that one month I‟m not come in five meeting. Wow benar-benar Discoursal
lama ya! Ok teman-teman I want to ask you part of uniform. If you still
remember part of uniform?
T: No, I am not asking like that. Listen to me now! What am I doing now? Bu Discoursal
Elin sekarang lagi ngapain?
T: Ya miss Elin is standing. Nha..in English, dalam bahasa Inggris tidak sama Discoursal
dengan bahasa Indonesia. If in Indonesia kalau mengerjakan aktifitas itu mboh
sekarang, mboh nanti, mboh besok tidak ada rumusnya. But in English, do not
sleeping! But in English if you want to tell the activity that is happening yang
terjadi sekarang itu ada rumusnya gak sama dengan bahasa Indonesia.

For another feedback such as repetition, comment and elaboration often appeared in her
utterances to give feedback for the students‟ response, especially the repetition strategy which took
dominant talk in her utterances from classroom interaction. In her feedback also consists of
corrective, clarification and praise which are as the parts of comment and repetition. This following
utterances consisted of repetition, comment and elaboration. In repetition and comment there are
corrective clarification and praise. From that extract above, the researcher could see some repetition
in the sentences “Yes, “this, these, that, those”, and “this and these”. Only one comment in
praising above that is “Ok good!” Elaboration could be seen in “Do you still remember about
this, these, that and those?” here the teacher elaborated the students about the last lesson given.
“What is the meaning of ini?whisch one?” also used colaborative strategy to explore students‟
ability toward remembering the past lesson. It also could be seen in the sentence “The meaning of
this and these is? Apa?” While corrective and clarification could be seen from the following
sentence “This is a table.” After giving correction, the teacher gave further explanation about the
sentence. The comment here is in the sentence “innalillahi!” because teacher felt surprise and
made the reflect comment in arabic word.
Reformulation were very seldom saw in the utterances from the first, second and third
observations. The researcher could find some reformulations from the second observation. The
utterances could be seen in the word “negative” with the student‟s response “not” and she
continued by asking the exact rules about present continues tense. She reformulated again from the
student‟s response by saying “S + to be + apa? Not + verb ing.”
In term of responsiveness, the teacher gave good strategy in it and responded students well. It
shown from the way of teacher in listening the students response and give the feedback with the
sincerely interest.
The point from the feedback given was mostly dominated by repetition. From the three data
got, the repetition always appeared and dominated in her feedback. The teacher used many
repetition to give stressing of her feedback from students‟ contribution. The researcher tried to
explore based on the data got and made this analysis of the discussion as exploration based on the
researcher knowledge.
In conclusion, the importance of initiation and feedback usage in classroom interaction are
needed as part of teacher and students activities in the classroom which could build good atmosphere
in the classroom. The teacher delivered her utterances in such good and communicative way so the
students could get her message in her explanation. The teacher initiated the students to get involved
in classroom interaction by giving them stimulation with the clear utterances in both English and
Bahasa Indonesia. The students also could give responses which responded by good teacher‟s
feedback. Even the teacher rarely gave reformulation but she could delivered effective features of
feedback in elaboration, comment, repetition and responsiveness. Her responsibility is quite good to
response students‟ contribution. So, in the classroom the teacher could create good interaction
between teacher and students.
3.2 Discussion
 In this section, the researcher discussed about the evaluation of the findings. The researcher
talked in the findings about the initiation and feedback used and given in classroom interaction.
3.2.1 Teacher’s initiation in the Classroom Interaction.
Based on data displayed and data analyzed above, the usage of initiation in classroom
interaction in this classroom consisted of the three parts of initiation such as: Questioning,
instructing and informing. Chaudron (1988:126) stated that In questioning, the teacher‟s question
constitute a primary means of engaging learners‟ attention, promoting verbal responses and
evaluating learners‟ progress. In questioning the teacher used both referential and display question.
The questioning in referential delivered well by using some familiar vacobulary and daily used by
the teacher. Even the referential questions used rarely in the classroom interaction but they could
make the students‟ entering the readiness to accept the lesson. This readiness could make good
classroom interaction, because as stated by Alwright (1984:156) in Ellis‟ book (2008:775) that
everything happened in the classroom was through the process of live person to person interaction.
Here, the teacher made her students ready in learning their lesson and made the situations very
comfortable. When the situation was good, the interaction may give the advantages for the students
because they learnt through process directly. In display questions as the dominant utterances besides
instructing, the teacher used actual examples when she gave and asked some example from the
students just as the statement of Piaget (1975) in Mustafa (2010) that said children tend to learn
from something they have experienced directly in the context here and now, they also have the way
of thinking and attention shortly.
While delivering the initiation in instruction, the teacher initiated the students in form of
prohibition, command and direction. Most of the teacher‟s utterances in the classroom interaction
were in form of command. While prohibition and direction delivered infrequently, whereas in
Sinclair and Brazil (1982:75) stated that in directives there is an action specified and the approriate
response devided into two, they are acknowledgement and activity. Here the teacher engaged the
authoritative as a part of third type in adult control. It is the outcome of high warmth and high
control. That type of adult control was stated by Engleheart (2009) as the discussion in chapter two.
The teacher was giving initiation in form of informing also used well here. The informing
always existed in form of instruction and questions given to the students. it can be seen in the
extract 4.16 which showed the invormative utterances in both question and instruction for example:
T : Rumusnya yang ini? Ya ndak usah, rumusnya dimasukkan ke dalam otak. Only
write the answer. ok, Dava sedang menyanyi. Davindra!. According Sinclair and Brazil
(1992:57-58) the teacher‟s power of information control has several habitual features of classroom
talk. The features covered about the teacher‟s role as the filler of silences because the students may
not speak spontaneously and they never have the responsibility for the talk. The teacher also speaks
most of the time, while the students have a very restricted rage of verbal function to perform and the
las features was about the role of teacher to determine the nature of the discourse and in particular
what freedom the pupils have to construct their own utterances.
3.2.2. Teacher’s Feedback in the Classroom Interaction.
The researcher described the feedback given in this classroom interaction in forms of feedback
function and the effective strategy in delivering the feedbacks. Teacher utterances in this classroom
interaction was dominated by evaluative feedback function which is typically co-occur with display
question that usually asked by the teacher to elicit predetermined response. That evaluative function
based on Cullen theory that was explained in the second chapter. From the data the researcher could
display that evaluative feedback was very dominant. The researcher also explained about the usage
of discoursal function which rarely used in teacher‟s utterances. In some utterances from classroom
interaction activity, the researcher could see some of discoursal function such as in the data
displayed and data analyzed above.
The other discussion about feedback analysis, the researcher found that effective strategy of
delivering feedback in this classroom seemed quite dominated only by repetition. In Cullen (2002)
this is repetitive feedback of students contributions, sometimes derogatorily described as echoing. It
used in a number of ways in the teacher‟s utterances of this classroom. Comments used rarely in
teacher‟s utterances.
The most rarely strategy used in the feedback was reformulation. This form very seldom seen
in the three data of observation. It caused by the teacher who always used literal language in
delivering her material. She used some simple utterances in her talk in order to get easy
understanding in students‟ perception. Reformulation from Edward and Mercer (1987) in Cullen
(2002:124-125) explained that it is the teacher‟s way to repair students‟ contribution. In this
classroom interaction, the teacher very rare to reformulate students‟ contribution.
After formulating this chapter, the researcher could take the last finding that in general the
discoursal function and reformulation feedback only could be seen slightly in the teacher‟s
utterances.
 CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
4.1 Conclusion
Based on the result of the study, it can be found that the initiation used by the teacher varried
based on her utterances such as in terms of questioning, instructing and informing. In the
questioning, teacher used few of referential questions, only in the begining of the teaching learning
activity and she often used display question. In delivering the initiation of instructing, the teacher
reflected in terms of command and and direction. While in informing, the teacher uttered the talk in
form of instruction and question in both of referential and display question. In informing, the
instruction and question given definitly consist of information.
In giving feedback, teacher mostly used evaluative function and less discoursal feedback
function. Whereas about the strategy in delivering feedback, she gave the feedback well with full
stressed utterances used in repetition to distinct the students‟ response. The repetition here
sometime consist of corrective utterances which made students‟ understand their fault in
responding. While in comment and elaboration, the teacher used praise and clarification which
could be the support of the students to compete with their friends in the classroom. In this classroom
interaction, teacher still took dominant role in classroom interaction and students only responded
her initiation and feedback in short response.
Here, the researcher tried to show the change of IRF exchange which shown that the teacher
feedback has a crucial part in clarifying and building the ideas that students expressed in their
responses. Hopefully, this study could be useful for classroom study and the result could determine
whether the feedback is effective or not.
4.2 Suggestions
The researcher suggests that teacher took dominant role in the classroom interaction will make
classroom are not effective and make the students very depend on the teacher‟s answer. The usage
of discoursal function and also the reformulation strategy need to be increase to make students
exploration of the teacher‟s feedback become eagerly to be known. Here also suggested to the
readers to explore more information about the IRF exchange in the classroom in order to know
more about the effective features especially in identifying responsiveness, because by knowing this
feature, the teacher could be better in teaching. As the teacher, if we have greater understanding
about this IRF exchange, we will have ability to train and develop our self in teaching our students
in the classroom.
The other suggestion is for further researcher who could develop this study deeply. Especially
about the feedback in the classroom interaction of higher level of education.
 REFERENCES

Bearne, E., H. Donbey, and T. Grainger. 2003. Classroom Interaction in Literacy. Open University
Press. New York.

Bruner, J. 1996. The Culture of Education. Camridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classroom: Research on Teaching and Learning.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. New York.

Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher Talk and the Classroom Context. ELT Journal Volume 52/3 July. Oxford
University Press. Oxford.

Cullen, R. 2002. Supportive Teacher Talk: The Importance of the F-Move. ELT journal Volume
56/2 April. Oxford University Press. Oxford.

Eccles, J. S. 1999. The Development of Children Ages 6 to 14. The Future of Children: When
School is Out, Vol.9 No.2. Michigan University.

Ellis, R. 2008. The Study of Second Language Acquisition. 2nd Edition. Oxford University. New
York.

Englehart, J. M. 2009. International Handbook of Research on Teacher and Teaching: Teacher –

Student interaction. Springer. New York.

Kumpulainen, K., and D. Wray. 2002. Classroom Interaction and Social Learning. Routledge. New
York.

Mustafa, B. 2010. Teaching English to Young Learners in Indonesia: Essential Requirement.

EDUCATIONIST Vol.IV No. 2 Juli. UKI. Bandung.

Piaget, J. 1975. The Development of Thought: Equilibration of Cognitive Structures. Translated

1977. New York: Viking Press.

Savignon, S. J. (2005). Communicative Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals. In Hinkel, Eli.
Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning (pp. 635-651).
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. London.

Setiawati, Liani. 2012. A Descriptive Study on the Teacher Talk at EYL Classroom. Conaplin
Journal: Indonesian Journal Of Applied Linguistics Volume 1, No. 2. Bandung.

Sinclair, J. McH. and Brazil, D. 1982. Teacher Talk. Oxfrod University Press. Oxford.