Teacher’s Reaction to the Student’s Responses
A STUDY OF TEACHER’S REACTION TO THE STUDENT’S RESPONSES IN TERM OF
INITIATING TALK IN THE SPEAKING CLASS AT THE JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
NORISMA ALIF FUJIYANTI
English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya
hazuke.fuji@yahoo.com
AHMAD MUNIR
English Education, Language and Art Faculty, State University of Surabaya
munstkip@yahoo.com
Abstrak
Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian deskriptif kualitatif tentang reaksi guru yang berfokus pada reaksi guru
terhadap respon siswa dan fitur konstruksi atau obstruksi bahasa guru. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan
reaksi guru terhadap respon siswa dan mengklasifikasikannya ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru berdasarkan Walsh (2006).
Subyek penelitian ini adalah guru bahasa Inggris perempuan dan siswa kelas tujuh dari SMP At- Taqwa Surabaya. Data
utama diambil dari pengamatan. Rekaman audio dan wawancara digunakan untuk mengumpulkan data. Berdasarkan
transkripsi, peneliti menganalisis interaksi bagaimana guru bereaksi terhadap respon siswa-siswa. Peneliti
mengklasifikasikan reaksi – reaksi lisan guru tersebut ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru berdasarkan Walsh (2006) dan
menemukan fitur yang membangun dan menghambat siswa untuk berbicara. Studi ini menemukan bahwa guru bereaksi
terhadap respon siswa baik secara verbal maupun non-verbal. Guru menggunakan gerak tubuh, ekspresi wajah, kontak
mata dan bahasa tubuh ketika melakukan reaksi non-verbal. Reaksi verbal guru dilakukan saat mengucapkan tanggapan
guru. Ucapan guru tersebut diklasifikasikan ke dalam 14 fitur bahasa guru. Guru hanya menggunakan tujuh fitur bahasa
guru dari empat belas, antara lain: Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn,
Teacher Echo, Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. Dari tujuh fitur tersebut, satu - satunya fitur yang
menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara yaitu Extended Wait-Time. Referential Question, Extended Teacher Turn dan
Confirmation Checks membangun siswa untuk berbicara. Sedangkan sisanya, Scaffolding , Extended Teacher Turn dan
Teacher Echo dapat membangun dan menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara. Dengan demikian dapat disimpulkan bahwa
guru melakukan reaksi baik verbal dan non-verbal guru selama pelajaran. Guru hanya menggunakan tujuh fitur bahasa
guru dari empat belas. Dari tujuh fitur, hanya Extended Wait-Time yang menghalangi siswa untuk pembicaraan.
Sedangkan enam dari mereka dapat membangun dan menghalangi siswa untuk berbicara.
Keywords : Classroom Interaction, Teacher Talk, Teacher Reaction, Features of Teacher Talk
Abstract
This is a descriptive qualitative study, which focused on the teacher’s reaction to the students’ responses and
the construction or obstruction features of teacher talk. This study is aimed to describe the teacher’s reaction to the
students’ responses and classified the verbal teacher’s reactions into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006).
The subjects of this research are a female English teacher and seventh graders of a Junior High School, At-Taqwa
Surabaya. The main data was taken from the observation. The researcher used audio recording and interview to collect
the data. The data were transcribed and analyzed qualitatively through certain steps then. The researcher classifies the
verbal teacher’s reaction into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006) and finds out the features which
construct and obstruct the students to talk. This study found that the teacher conducted both verbal and non-verbal
teacher’s reaction. The teacher used gestures, facial expression, eye contact and body language when conducting nonverbal teacher’s reaction. The verbal teacher’s reactions are conducted by uttering the teacher’s responses. Those
teacher utterances are classified into 14 features of teacher talk then. The teacher used only seven features of teacher
talk out of fourteen. They were Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn,
Teacher Echo, Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. From those seven features, only Extended Wait-Time
which obstructed the students to talk. Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and Confirmation Checks constructed
the students to talk. While, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn and Teacher Echo constructed and obstructed the
students to talk. It can be concluded that the teacher conducts both verbal and non-verbal teacher’s reaction during the
lesson. From those seven features of teacher talk used, only Extended Wait Time, which obstructs the student to talk.
While the other six features, both construct and obstruct the students to talk.
Keywords : Classroom Interaction, Teacher Talk, Teacher Reaction, Features of Teacher Talk
1
Retain. Volume 01 Nomor 01 Tahun 2014, 1 - 6
INTRODUCTION
Teachers need an extra ability to teach English for
Junior High School students since they are included in to
young learners’ classification. Cameron (2001) defined
young learners as those who are less than 14 years old.
Unlike adult, young learners are generally conscript into
language classes. They often have no obvious reason for
learning English. Furthermore, young learners do not
always have well developed literacy skills to support
their learning English. They are not able to read or write
in their own language. They often learn slowly and forget
quickly since they are still developing cognitively,
linguistically, socially, emotionally and physically.
Musthafa (2010:123) mentioned that there are
three reasons why teaching young learners becomes quite
difficult. The first reason is the limited function in social
interaction. The second reason is the short time in
teaching English as a local content. The third reason is
about teaching English for young learner needs to prepare
good ability and good training for the teacher. The
teachers need to be competence and confidence in
practicing the language target, which is English. Besides,
they must be active and creative in demonstrating the
language accurately, clearly, fluently in order to scaffold
the students in speaking English.
The exposure toward English affects the
successful of learning English. Hammer (2000:24) stated
that, the language learners will be success if they are
exposed to language, motivated to learn, and have
opportunity to use the language they are learning.
Hammer’s statement implies that to get the students
succeed in learning English, the teacher should build the
students’ exposure to English and give the students
opportunities in using English. The teacher has to
construct the students become active in the class.
However, making the students active in speaking
class becomes quite difficult. Most of them have much
opinion, yet, they may feel unconfident even shy to speak
up in English. Whereas, in the speaking class, the more
practice is needed. Therefore, teachers should understand
what languages would be more efficient to initiate talk
and construct the students in participating and practicing
English as the language target in order to create an
environment in which the students feel more confident to
speak English during the learning process.
In a foreign language classroom, in this case an
English class, the amount of student talk is expected to be
higher than the teacher talk, especially in a speaking
class. Walsh (2006) stated that all about language
teachers use in order to control, organize, and motivate
the class which cause interaction between teacher and
students called teacher talk.
The success of conducting teacher talk depends on
the teacher’s strategies for managing interaction in the
classroom. Some teachers give a change for the students
to contribute and participate in learning process.
According to Bailey (2003: 54 – 56), one of the four
principles of teaching speaking is that the teacher should
provide opportunities for the students to talk and limit his
own talk. However, some teachers deny the students to
participate in learning process. They obstruct the students
when they seek to involve the lesson. Whereas, the high
amount of student talk in the English classroom expands
the students’ exposure toward English.
Walsh (2002) examined the ways in which
teachers construct or obstruct learner participation in
classroom interaction, through their choice of language.
Construction meant “increasing learning potential” which
can be done through activities like, Direct Error
Correction,
Content
Feedback,
Checking
for
Confirmation, Extended Wait Time, and Scaffolding.
Obstruction meant “reducing learning potential” which
can be done through Turn Completion, Teacher Echo,
and Teacher Interruptions.
According to Walsh (2006) investigation about the
14 features of teacher talk that can construct and obstruct
the students’ participating. The researcher wants to know
whether the Walsh’s construction or obstruction of
teacher talk are also be applied in Indonesia School
contexts or not.
This study outlines two research questions, “How
does the teacher react to the students’ responses in order
to initiate talk in the speaking class?” and “Which
features of Teacher Talk do construct and obstruct the
students to talk?”
A point to be noted is that the way the teacher
reacts to the students’ responses. The researcher makes
detail about the description of teacher talk in the term of
teacher’s reaction. The verbal teacher’s reactions are
classified into 14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh
(2006).
METHODS
This is descriptive qualitative study. The
researcher describes the phenomenon happened which
has no deal with number. McMillan (1992) explained that
a qualitative research stresses on a phenomenological
model or focuses on understanding and meaning which
has no deal with number. The subjects of the study are a
female English teacher and the seventh graders of Junior
High School (SMP At-Taqwa Surabaya). The students
consist of 38 students, 20 male and 18 female. While the
teacher graduated from Surabaya State University in
2010. She has been teaching for 3 years: in MTs Miftahul
Huda Pasuruan for a year and At- Taqwa for two years.
Teacher’s Reaction to the Student’s Responses
reformulated the student’s utterance in order to make
something clearer, for example:
Extract 1:
S6 : Why the cloth not not…ehm, you know?
S9 : Yes, yes,, because usually indie clothing is
like that and then they sell like, like jacket
and, and, any other cloth but, but I can’t I
can’t search it, search it..
T
: Search to get the picture?
S9 : Yes
T : So, you mean that actually you sell many
kind of cloths but, but, that is only the
picture.
The main data was taken through the observation.
Audio recording and interview were used to collect the
data. The data were then transcribed qualitatively. The
researcher classified the verbal teacher’s reaction into 14
features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006) and found
out the features of teacher talk that construct and obstruct
the students to talk. The researcher used tables to analyze
the data. The tables contain of the analysis of teacher’s
reaction, teacher talk and the result of interview between
the researcher and the students.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Interaction has an important relation with
communication; if there is no interaction, there cannot be
communication (Thomas, 1987:4). Hence, interaction
between the teacher and the student during the teaching
learning process is needed, especially at the speaking
class. There are four principles which need to be applied
in teaching speaking (Bailey, 2003: 54 -56). One of them
is the teacher should provide opportunities for students to
talk and limit the teacher talk. This principle informs that
the teacher should not dominate the talk and give the
students more opportunity to talk. Rivers (1983:67) stated
that to develop communication skill in a foreign
language, the students must have continual practice in
communicating. The teacher has to respond them back by
giving reaction. The teacher’s reaction consists of verbal
reaction, which is spoken and non-verbal reaction, which
is unspoken such as gesture, touch, eye contact, hand
coding, facial expression, body language and so on.
The teacher’s utterances are included in the verbal
teacher’s reaction. Those utterances can be classified into
14 features of teacher talk based on Walsh (2006). The
researcher found that the teacher used seven features of
teacher talk out of fourteen. From those seven features,
only Extended Wait-Time which obstructed the student to
talk. Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and
Confirmation Checks constructed the student to talk.
While, Scaffolding, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher
Echo both constructed and obstructed the student talk.
Walsh (2002) examined that construction can be done
through activities like, Direct Error Correction, Content
Feedback, Checking for Confirmation, Extended Wait
Time and Scaffolding. While, obstruction can be done
through Turn Completion, Teacher Echo, Teacher
Interruptions.
The first feature used was Scaffolding. This
feature is divided into three categories, they are
Reformulation Scaffolding, Extension Scaffolding, and
Modeling Scaffolding. The researcher found those
categories during the observation. The first feature,
Reformulation Scaffolding, shows how the teacher
Extract 1 shows the Reformulation Scaffolding
used when the teacher repharaprased the student’s answer
which was unclear. A student asked to her friend, then
her friend answered it, however, the answer was unclear.
The teacher repeated student’s answer by repharaprased it
using her own words. According to the observation, this
category constructs the students to talk.
The second category is Extension Scaffolding. It
showed when the teacher extended the the student’s
contribution, for example:
Extract 2:
S8 : Eighty.
T : Eighty. Eighty percent. Okay, sit with your
group please. One, two, three..
Extract 2 shows that Extension Scaffolding
occurred when the teacher extended the student’s answer.
The student answered “eighty”, however, the teacher
extended it by saying “Eighty percent”. This category
obstructs the students to talk.
The last category, modeling scaffolding, used to
correct a student’s contribution by giving a model.
According to the observation, this category obstructs the
students to talk.
Extract 3:
S9 : Ustadzah, the event will start at 5 until 7 pm.
What is the English of ‘akan diadakan’?
T : Will be held.
S9 : Held, okay.
T : held, h-e-l-d (the teacher pronouns and spells
it)
Extract 3 shows the modeling scaffolding was
used by the teacher when a student asked her the English
of ‘akan diadakan’. The teacher answered it and modeled
it by pronouncing that word.
According to Flanders (1970), Scaffolding is
included in the fourth category of indirect teacher talk. It
provided how the teacher shows his or her agreement
toward what the students are saying or doing by
3
Retain. Volume 01 Nomor 01 Tahun 2014, 1 - 6
rephrasing the student’s idea. It is in the line with
Nunan’s (1989) statements that the idea given by the
student must be re-paraphrased or spoken differently.
The second feature of teacher talk found was
referential question. This feature is used to gain the
students’ opinion by giving questions in which the
teacher does not know the answer. This feature constructs
the students to talk since it lets the students to deliver
their own thought.
Extract 4:
S6 : What does it for?
T
: What do you think?
S6 : Ehm, I think for what turn to get.
Extract 4 shows the referential question used by
the teacher. It showed when a student asked the teacher,
and then the teacher answered it by giving the student a
question “what do you think”. This question included
referential question since it could gain the student ideas.
It is important for the teacher to give some
questions to the students in order to gain their opinion.
Cazden (2001) stated that in classroom interaction,
students are involved in two kinds of talks: 1). Talk with
experts (teacher), usually the pattern is I-R-E (teacher
question, student’s response and teacher evaluation); 2).
Talk among peers. Therefore, it was important for teacher
to give some questions in order to initiate talk which
caused the students’ responses. The teacher used
referential question to gain the students to deliver their
opinion, their ideas and their thought.
The third feature found was Extended Wait-Time.
This feature used when the teacher gives the students
sufficient time to respond or formulate the responses.
According to the observation, this feature obstructs the
student to talk.
Extract 5:
T : You’re welcome. Okay, girls, I give you time
five minutes. I’m sorry, because Nabila
uses my laptop, so you have to prepare
with your laptop. Or one laptop, the other
in the flashdisk, but you can use your
friend’s laptop.
The teacher asked the students to present their
presentation in front of the class. However, they had not
finished their presentation. Thus, the teacher gave five
minutes more for the students to finish their presentation.
Giving the students several times to respond or
formulate on response is needed. The students are people
who learn something. They need sufficient time in their
learning process. Therefore, the teacher gave several
times for students to answer a question given or finish
their work. She gave sufficient times to the student to
finish preparing their presentation.
The fourth feature found was Extended TeacherTurn. It is a feature, which gives the teacher time to
deliver her contributions for more than one clause. The
teacher needs time to explain the lesson. She used more
than one clause while explaining the materials. Moreover,
this feature could be used to command the students. This
feature could construct the students to talk; yet, it could
obstruct the students to talk sometimes.
Extract 6:
T
: Okay, other question? Salma gets one
point, do you want to keep it as yours or
your group? If for your group please
write down there 50.
S6 : No no no. sorry friends.
T : Okay, no other questions? No?
S6 : Why the date is 7?
From the Extract 6, it shows that the teacher used
more than one clause. The teacher invited the students to
ask some questions related to their friend’s presentation.
In addition, she also commanded a student to write down
the point she got because giving a question to her friend.
However, this feature obstructs the student to talk,
for example:
Extract 7:
T
: Okay, prepare it well and finish your
work and the one who is finish, you can
give me the file. Prepare for your
presentation ya, for your presentation
girl.
Extract 7 shows that the teacher spoke more than
one sentence. However, there was no verbal response
from the students. The teacher only commanded the
students to prepare their presentations well and finish it.
She also asked the student who has finished giving her
file to the teacher.
The fifth feature found was teacher echo. It shows
the repetition of the teacher’s and the students’ utterance
that is spoken by the teacher. Those repetitions were used
to strengthen the contribution, which has given by the
teacher or the student.
Extract 8:
(1) S4 : Lidya,
T : Lidya, okay. Ksenia with?
(2) S3 : Ninety.
T : Ninety, okay, what about you, Michel?
Those two dialogues above were the examples of
teacher echo, which were found when the researcher
conducted the observation. Both of them showed that the
teacher repeated the student’s utterances before giving
response to the student. In the first dialogue, the student
Teacher’s Reaction to the Student’s Responses
said “Lidya”, and then the teacher repeated it by saying
“Lidya” too before giving her next response, which was
“okay. Ksenia with?”. In the line with the first dialogue,
the teacher also repeated the student’s utterances by
saying what the student has said. The student said
“ninety” and the teacher repeated it. She said “ninety”
first before giving her next response, which was “okay.
What about you, Michell?”.
According to Cullen (2002), repetition as a
teaching strategy can be evident in both types of moves.
Repetition is known as a teacher "echo." It can be used to
acknowledge, confirm, question, or express surprise at a
student's contribution while ensuring that all listeners
have heard it. Cullen (1998) redefines repetition,
formerly a feature of non-communicative teacher talk, as
communicative within a classroom context for its
pedagogic function. According to the observation,
Teacher Echo could both construct and obstruct the
students to talk.
The sixth feature found was confirmation checks
feature. This feature was concerned on the way teacher
making sure that she understood the student’s
contribution. Based on the observation, this feature could
both construct and obstruct the students to talk.
Extract 9:
S9 : Yes, yes,, because usually indie
clothing is like that and then they sell
like, like jacket and, and, any other
cloth but, but I can’t I can’t search it,
search it..
T
: Search to get the picture?
S9 : Yes
S7
T
S7
T
S7
T
S7
: Yes.
: And you don’t have the copy of it?
: Ehm, no,
: Really?
: He’em. If tomorrow, I …
: Try to finish it now. Okay?
: Okay.
Extract 10 shows that the teacher interrupted the
student utterance. The student told to the teacher that her
memory card was full of virus and she did not have its
copy. It seemed that the student would bargain the
teacher to collect her works tomorrow. However, the
teacher interrupted her utterances, which had not finished
yet. The teacher asked her to finish the work now.
There were five features of teacher talk, which the
teacher has not used. They were direct repair, display
question, content feedback, form-focused feedback, and
seeking clarification. However, these features should be
used also to react the students’ responses. Direct repair is
used to correct the wrong students’ contribution directly.
For example, when the student’s answers are wrong; the
teacher should correct it directly so that they do not let
the students to make a mistake. Moreover, it is important
for the teacher to react the students’ contribution by
giving some feedback. Walsh (2006) divided feedback
into two kinds, namely, content feedback and formfocused feedback. Content feedback is a feedback, which
concerns on the message rather than the words used. The
form-focused is a feedback, which concerns on the words
used. In addition, seeking clarification can also be used to
react to the students’ responses too. It is included how the
teacher asks students to clarify something that they have
said. Display question also can be used to check the
students’ comprehension by giving question related to the
lesson.
Furthermore, the teacher also gave unspoken
reaction using gestures, facial expression, eye contact and
body language. She used the non-verbal teacher’s
reaction to strengthen her verbal reaction. Gesture
showed when she used her hand while she explained and
gave directions to the students. There were three gestures
conducted, hand pointing, hand coding, and clapping.
The researcher divides hand coding into three kinds,
namely counting, raising hand and explaining. The
teacher used clapping as a reward for the student.
Another non-verbal teacher's reaction used are
facial expression. The teacher showed two facial
expressions which were smiling and laughing. Besides,
the teacher always showed eyes contact when interacting
with the student. She did not avoid it. In a line with the
teacher, the students also did eyes contact when they
asked, answered and talked with the teacher.
Extract 9 was the example confirmation check
found by the teacher when conducting the observation.
The conversation above shows that the teacher made sure
that she had understood what the student have said. The
way the student delivered her opinion was around the
buss. Therefore, the teacher paraphrased the student’s
sentences using her own words. The teacher just checked
that her thought was same with the student's thought.
The last feature of teacher talk found was teacher
interruptions. It used to avoid chaos. The researcher
found that the teacher interrupted the student’s
contribution, whereas, her utterance was not finished. In
the line with the previous feature, this feature also could
both construct and obstruct the student to talk.
Extract 10:
S7 : Ustadzah, my memory card is full of virus
ustadzah,,
T : Oh, like that?
S7 : The file is gone.
T : Oh, really?
5
Retain. Volume 01 Nomor 01 Tahun 2014, 1 - 6
Furthermore, the teacher also conducted body language
when she was teaching. Body language is included to the
nonverbal reaction too. She moved at one side to the
other side of the class the students when she was
teaching. She did not stay in one place only.
In summary, the teacher used seven features of
teacher talk out of fourteen. They were scaffolding,
referential question, extended wait-time, extended teacher
turn, teacher echo, confirmation checks, and teacher
interruption. From those seven features, the only feature,
which obstructed the student to talk was Extended waittime. Three of them which constructed the student to talk
were Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and
Confirmation Checks, whereas the rest, Scaffolding,
Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo and could both
construct and obstruct the student talk. Moreover, both
the teacher and the students spoke in English during the
teaching and learning process.
CONCLUSION
From thorough elaboration and discussion upon
the data on the fourth chapter, it could be concluded that
the teacher reacted the students’ responses both verbally
and non-verbally. The verbal reactions could be classified
into 14 features of teacher talk, yet, these teacher
utterances could be classified into seven features only;
they were Scaffolding, Referential Question, Extended
Wait-Time, Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo,
Confirmation Checks, and Teacher Interruption. From
those seven features, the only feature, which obstructed
the student to talk was Extended Wait-Time. Three of
them which constructed the student to talk were
Referential Question, Teacher Interruption, and
Confirmation Checks, whereas the rest, Scaffolding,
Extended Teacher Turn, Teacher Echo and could both
construct and obstruct the student talk. Moreover, the
teacher conducted the non-verbal reaction by using
gestures, facial expression, eye contact and body
language.
REFERENCES
Bailey, K. M. 2003. Speaking. In David Nunan (ED).
Practical English Language Teaching. New
York: McGraw Hill
Cameron, L. 2001.Teaching languages to young learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cazden, C. B. 2001. Classroom discourse: the language
of teaching and learning. Portsmouth:
Heinemann
Cullen, R. 1998. Teacher talk and the classroom context.
ELT Journal, 52 (3), 179-187
Cullen, R. 2002. Supportive teacher talk: the importance
of the f-move. ELT Journal, 56 (2), 117-127
Flanders, N. A. 1970. Analyzing Teacher Behavior.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Harmer, J. 2000. The Practice of English Language
Teaching. London: Longman
McMillan, J. H. 1992. Educational Research:
Fundamentals for The consumer. New York:
Harper Collins Publisher
Musthafa, B. 2010. Teaching English to Young Learners
in Indonesia. Educationist, 10, 120-125
Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Classroom: A
Guide for Teacher Initiated Action. UK: Prentice
Hall
Rivers, W. M. 1983. Speaking in Many Tounges: Essay
in Foreign Language Teaching. New York:
Cambridge University Press
Thomas, A.M. 1987. Interactice Language Teaching.
New York: Oxford University Press
Walsh, S. 2002. Construction or obstruction: teacher talk
and learner involvement in the EFL classroom.
Language Teaching Research, 61 (1), 3-23
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating Classroom Discourse. New
York: Routledge