Class Interaction Analysis in English Learning Based On Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS)
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56983/eltm.v3i1.222Keywords:
Teacher, Students, Classroom Interaction, English learningAbstract
The objective of this research is to describe the kinds of classroom interaction take place between teacher and student and describes what is the most dominant talk take place in classroom interaction based on the Flanders Class Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS).This research used descriptive qualitative research. The data of this study are the interaction between teacher and students in the classroom. The data were taken by recording the classroom interaction. The subject of this research was 17 students and one English Teacher. The researcher used observation for techniques of collecting data. Flanders Interaction Analysis used to identify and analyze teacher and students interaction in classroom.Based on the result of this study, it could be concluded there are 10 categories of interaction, 7 categories of teacher talk, such as accepts feelings, praises or encourage, accepts or uses students ideas, asking question, lecturing, giving directions, criticizing or justifying authority; 2 categories of students talk namely students talk response and students talk initiation and 1 category of silence. The researcher concludes that the teacher was dominant in the classroom. It proved by the percentage of teacher talk was 58.70% than students talk was 30.34%, and the kinds of classroom interaction, the students participation was 30.34% has higher percentage than others and silence was 10.94%.
Downloads
References
Akbar, M., Berry‐Bibee, E., Blithe, D. L., Day, R. S., Edelman, A., Höchel, J., Jamshidi, R., Kim, M., Li, L., & Purohit, V. S. (2018). FDA public meeting report on “drug interactions with hormonal contraceptives: public health and drug development implications.” The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 58(12), 1655–1665.
Arief, N. N., Famiola, M., Pratama, A. P., Anggahegari, P., & Putri, A. N. A. (2022). Sustainability Communication through Bio-Based Experiential Learning. Sustainability, 14(9), 5204.
bin Nordin, M. N., Mustafa, M. Z. Bin, & Razzaq, A. (2019). The Practice of Headmasters’ Leadership and Its Effect on Job Satisfaction of Special Education Integration Program (PPKI) Teachers in Johor, Malaysia. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 7(9), 2008–2014.
Cassum, S. H., & Gul, R. B. (2017). Creating enabling environment for student engagement: Faculty practices of critical thinking. International Journal of Higher Education, 6(1), 101.
Da Luz, F. S. dos R. (2015). The relationship between teachers and students in the classroom: Communicative language teaching approach and cooperative learning strategy to improve learning.
Erlangga, H. (2021). Effect of digital marketing and social media on purchase intention of Smes food products. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), 12(3), 3672–3678.
Georgiou, Y., & Kyza, E. A. (2018). Relations between student motivation, immersion and learning outcomes in location-based augmented reality settings. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 173–181.
Hefter, C. (2018). Observing Typical Practice in Sixth Grade ELA Classes: Implications for Practitioners & Researchers.
Indriyani, C. E., & Trioktawiani, F. R. (2019). Teacher talks: an analysis of direct and indirect influences for young learners in EFL class. JELE (Journal of English Language and Education), 5(2), 99–106.
Knapik, D., Kołek, K., Rosół, M., & Turnau, A. (2019). Autonomous, reconfigurable mobile vehicle with rapid control prototyping functionality. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 52(8), 13–18.
Ma, P., Liu, J., Shen, F., Liao, X., Xiu, M., Zhao, H., Zhao, M., Xie, J., Wang, P., & Huang, M. (2021). Individualized resuscitation strategy for septic shock formalized by finite mixture modeling and dynamic treatment regimen. Critical Care, 25(1), 1–16.
Margutti, P. (2021). Challenging the triadic dialogue format: Pupils’ interactional work in answering questions in whole-class interactions.
Prayitno, H. J., Ngalim, A., Sutopo, A., Pangestu, D. W., Jamaluddin, N., & Ali, A. H. (2019). Directive Politeness Act Strategy In The Discourse Of Education Column In National Newspaper As The Formation Of Students’character In Indonesia. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(2), 349–362.
Rintaningrum, R. (2018). Investigating Reasons Why Listening in English is Difficult: Voice from Foreign. Asian EFL Journal, 20(11).
Romaine, S. (2017). On the problem of syntactic variation and pragmatic meaning in sociolinguistic theory. Folia linguistica, 51(s1000), 1–29.
Rozgonjuk, D., Elhai, J. D., Ryan, T., & Scott, G. G. (2019). Fear of missing out is associated with disrupted activities from receiving smartphone notifications and surface learning in college students. Computers & Education, 140, 103590.
Sagita, I. (2018). Teacher Talk and Learner Talk in The Classroom Interaction (An Interaction Analysis to an English Language Class at SMP N 2 Sindang). Wiralodra English Journal, 2(1), 98–106.
Widiyanto, G., & Wibowo, F. X. P. (2021). Analysis of the Effect Product Quality, Trustworthiness, Convenience, Perceptions of Usefulness and Price on Purchase Intention During the Covid Pandemic 19. Primanomics: Jurnal Ekonomi & Bisnis, 19(1), 181–190.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 English Language Teaching Methodology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
