available at http://ejournal.unp.ac.id/index.

php/komposisi/index
P-ISSN 1411-3732
E-ISSN 2548-9097

Komposisi:
Jurnal CLASSROOM INTERACTION PATTERNS AND TEACHERS-
Pendidikan STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS ON ENGLISH CLASSES AT SMAN 2
Bahasa, Sastra,
BUKITTINGGI WEST SUMATRA
dan Seni

Volume XIX CLASSROOM INTERACTION PATTERNS AND TEACHERS-

Nomor 2 STUDENTS PERCEPTIONS ON ENGLISH CLASSES AT SMAN 2
September 2018
Hal. 149-158 BUKITTINGGI WEST SUMATRA
Article History:
Submitted Mike Nurmalia Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah
April, 2, 2018 English Graduate Program, Faculty of Languages and Arts
Accepted
October, 30, 2018 Universitas Negeri Padang
Published [email protected]
October, 30, 2018

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.24036/komposisi.v19i2.10037 DOI: 10.24036/komposisi.v19i2.10037

Abstract
This article aims to describe the results of research on interaction
patterns and characteristics of classroom interaction in teaching and
learning activities in English class in Bukittinggi West Sumatera, as well
as perceptions of students and teachers to the interaction. This
research type is descriptive and research data is classroom discourse
between teacher and student when studying English, as well as
questionnaire of student and teacher to class interaction. Participants
are 4 English teachers with 3 meetings for each teacher (12 meetings).
The research used classification theory of class interaction type from
Lindgren (1981), Wajnryb (1992), and El-Hanafi (2013), while for
interaction characteristics used Flanders' Interaction Analysis Code
(FIAC) model. The results of this study indicate that the dominant
interaction pattern is teacher-student with one way traffic interaction,
while the dominant interaction characteristic is the cross content. From
teacher perception, dominant interaction pattern is student-student
interaction and dominant interaction characteristic is teacher support.
Whereas from student perception, dominant interaction pattern is
teacher-student with two-way traffic interaction, and characteristic of
dominant interaction is content cross. It can be concluded that the
interaction pattern and the interaction characteristics that occur in the
teaching and learning process are strongly influenced by the material
and skills taught by the teacher.

Key Words: elicitation techniques, classroom interaction.

Abstrak
© FBS Universitas Negeri Padang
Mike Nurmala Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah, Classroom Interaction

Artikel ini bertujuan untuk mendeskripsikan hasil penelitian tentang pola

interaksi dan karakteristik interaksi kelas dalam kegiatan belajar-mengajar
dikelas bahasa Inggris dikota Bukittinggi Sumatera Barat, serta persepsi siswa
dan guru terhadaip interaksi tersebut. Jenis penelitian ini adalah deskriptif dan
data penelitian adalah percakapan kelas (classroom discourse) antara guru dan
siswa ketika belajar bahasa Inggris, serta angket siswa dan guru terhadap
interaksi kelas. Participants berjumlah 4 guru bahasa Inggris dengan 3 kali
pertemuan pada masing-masing guru (12 kali pertemuan). Penelitian
menggunakan teori pengelompokan tipe interaksi kelas dari Lindgren (1981),
Wajnryb (1992), dan El-Hanafi (2013), sedangkan untuk karakteristik interaksi
digunakan teori Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Code (FIAC) model. Hasil
penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa pola interaksi yang dominan adalah teacher-
student with one way traffic interaction, sementara karakteristik interaksi yang
dominan adalah content cross. Dari persepsi guru, pola interaksi yang dominan
adalah student-student interaction dan karakteristik interaksi yang dominan
adalah teacher support. Sedangkan dari persepsi siswa, pola interaksi yang
dominan adalah teacher-student with two-way traffic interaction, dan
karakteristik interaksi yang dominan adalah content cross. Dapat disimpulkan
bahwa pola interaksi dan karakteristik interaksi yang terjadi dalam proses
belajar-mengajar sangat dipengaruhi oleh materi dan keterampilan yang
diajarkan guru.

Kata kunci: teknik elisitasi, interaksi kelas.

Introduction
Interaction in the classroom is seen as an essential part of teaching
learning process. Lasac (2011) believes that it is in the classroom that the
patterns of thinking should be set, attitudes should be shaped and participation
can influence students’ self-confidence to the learning. Therefore, the
interaction should be built well for both students and teacher so they can be
engaged to the learning materials well.
Moreover, Tuan and Nhu (2010) state that the traditional language
classroom interaction is commonly characterized by a constant pattern,
particularly the acts of asking questions, instructing, lecturing, and correcting
students’ mistakes toward the lesson given. This means these aspects will
determine how the classroom will be. If the interactions given by the teacher are
meaningful, challenging, and meet the students’ prior knowledge, the students
would easily engage with the topic of lesson. This will then result a positive and
interactive classroom situation.
Classroom interaction refers to activities done by both teacher and
students in the classroom where they engage each other toward the lesson given
by the teacher. Brown (2001:165) says that interaction is the heart of
communication where communication is all about. Dagarin (2004:128) also

UNP JOURNALS PRINTED ISSN 1411-3732

150
 Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Volume 19 No. 2
Bahasa, Sastra, dan Seni September 2018

supports that classroom interaction can be defined as a two-way process

between the participants in the learning process. The teacher influences the
students and vice versa. Therefore, it is clear that interaction in the classroom is
seen as crucial since the interaction involves both teacher and students to the
teaching materials where they have communication during the interaction in the
English classroom.
The importance of investigating classroom interaction can be seen from
how it has helped in finding effective ways of preparing teachers, evaluating
teaching, studying the relationship between teaching and learning, and
promoting teachers’ awareness of their teaching and consequently improving it
(Al-Garawi, 2008). These research fields give more evidence the importance to
observe more about classroom interaction because any kinds of problems that
might be faced by teachers or students happen in the classroom could be solved
through analyzing the classroom interaction.
Regarding to the classroom interaction patterns, some researchers have
classified the interaction into several groups. El-Hanafi (2013) divides the
interaction pattern into four types: (1) T-SS (teacher-students), (2) SS-SS
(students-students), (3) S-T (student-teacher), and (4) S-S (student-student)
pattern of interaction.
Based on the classification made by El-Hanafi (2013), the teacher-student
interaction pattern can be simplified into smaller types. First, according to
Lindgren (1991), there are three variations of teacher–students interaction: (1)
one-way traffic interaction, which is indicated by response from the student,
(2) two-way traffic interaction which is indicated by feedback for the teacher,
and (3) multi-way traffic interaction pattern which indicated by involving many
students and commenting by the teacher on a single topic.
The first two variations of the teacher-students interaction patterns (one-
way traffic interaction pattern and two-way traffic interaction pattern) that are
proposed by Lindgren (1981) and Wajnryb (1992), do not show multi-traffic
interaction which involves an interaction of inter-students. The teacher gives
initiation to the students by giving question or statement and it is answered or
commented by single student, and then the interaction does not continue.
Therefore, the last interaction type is multi-way traffic interaction pattern.
The teacher should give another reinforcement that is able to ignite
students’ curiosity to involve the topic being discussed. There should be other
comment or respond from other students toward the question or statement
given; after answering or commenting, the student gives the chance back to the
teacher to respond them back. The multi-way traffic interaction pattern is seen
as ideal interaction created by both teacher and students since it indicates that
the teaching and learning process are interactive and allows them to engage well
to the lesson.
Classroom interaction can also be in the form of student-student
interaction. It is believed that student-student interaction is more conductive

ONLINE ISSN 2928-3936 UNP JOURNALS

151
Mike Nurmala Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah, Classroom Interaction

and challenging especially for students to practice the target language, the
student-student interaction can increase the students self-reliance and confident
and participation in communication since they have peer interaction (El-Hanafi,
2013). The student-student interaction is commonly in form of group discussion,
group project, role-play, and many others.
Furthermore, Wajnryb (1991) believes that student-student interaction
pattern through an interactional activity are intended to make the students
participate more in speaking. Frequency of turns for each student to speak
in a pair can be optimal. For example, the student-student interaction pattern
can be done through group work discussion. Teacher gives a task for group
working and the students can interact each other within the group members to
solve the problem of the topic given. The peer interaction helps them to
motivate the group members to speak since the teacher is not directly involved
in the discussion. They feel more confidence to speak and not too afraid to make
mistakes.
In analyzing the interaction characteristics in the classroom, FIAC model is
chosen to analyze the present research. Flanders in Dagarin (2004) establishes
ten interaction analysis categories to describe teaching and learning process
according to the classroom language, also known as Flanders’ Interaction
Analysis Categories (FIAC) model.
The FIAC model are seen from three perspectives: perspective of teacher
talk: (1). Accepts feelings: it may be positive or negative and their prediction and
recalling are included, (2) praises or encourages, (3) accepts or uses ideas of
pupils, (4) ask questions-may be about content or procedure, (5) lectures-gives
facts or opinion about content or procedures, (6) gives directions-commands or
orders, (7) criticizes or justifies authority-statements to change students‘
behavior; Perspective of student talk: (8) response, (9) initiation; and perspective
of silence: (10) silence or confusion-pauses, short periods of silence, confusion
and incomprehension.
FIAC model was designed to categorize the types and quantity of verbal
interaction in the classroom and to plot the information on a matrix so that it
could be analyzed and interpreted (Dornyey, 2007). The results will give a picture
as to who was talking in the classroom, how much and kind of talking that took
place. FIAC model became widely used coding system to analyze and improve
teacher-student interaction pattern. The easiness to gain and analyze the data is
seen to be the beneficial of using this system, as well as the well-structured of
categorizing the spoken interaction happen during teaching and learning time.
That is why this model is seen suitable to use in order to analyze the whole
interaction happen in the classroom.
Moreover, Sampath and Santhanam (2007:53-64) say that the analysis of
matrix is so dependable that even a person not present when observations were
made could make accurate inferences about the verbal communication and get a
mental picture of the classroom interaction. Different matrices also can be made

UNP JOURNALS PRINTED ISSN 1411-3732

152
 Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Volume 19 No. 2
Bahasa, Sastra, dan Seni September 2018

and used to compare the behavior of teachers at different age levels, sex,
subject-matter etc.
So that, Sampath and Santhanam (2007:53-64) believe this analysis would
serve as a vital feedback to the teacher or teacher trainee about his intentions
and actual behavior in the classroom. The supervising or inspecting staff can also
easily follow this system. That is why FIAC model is an effective tool to measure
the social-emotional climate in the classroom.
From 10 categories available on FIAC model, the matrix could be
concluded into 4 categories: (1) Content Cross: a heavy concentration in a
column 4 and 5, and row 4 and 5 indicates teacher dependence on questions and
lectures. (2) Teacher Control: a concentration on column and row 6 and 7
indicates extensive commands and reprimands by the teacher. (3) Teacher
Support: a heavy concentration of tallies in column and row 1, 2, and 3 indicates
that the teacher is reinforcing and encouraging students’ participation. (4)
Student Participation: a concentration of tallies in column 8 and 9 reflects
student responses to the teacher’s behavior.
For the perception, Gosmire et al. (2009) divide the perception regarding
interaction into four areas: learner-content interaction, learner-learner
interaction, learner-instructor interaction, and overall interaction. Thus, these
indicators were used in order to measure perceptions for both teachers and
students toward the classroom interaction happen during teaching and learning
process.
Also, the 10 indicators in FIAC model and the four types of interaction
patterns were used to triangulate the data from classroom discourse,
questionnaire of teachers’ perception and students’ perception toward the
interaction. So the reality in classroom with the perceptions of teachers and
students can be compared each other.

Research Method
The design of this research was descriptive. There were 4 teachers at
SMAN 2 Bukittinggi West Sumatra that have been attended. Each teacher was
attended for three times in the same class. It was done to see the interaction
pattern and interaction characteristic of the classroom, with 124 students from
the four classes where the four teachers taught (32 students at class A, 32
students at class B, 34 students at class C and 26 students at class D) which the
students were in academic year 2014/2015 representing science and social class.

Finding and Discussion

Based on the finding from the teaching and learning process, it is found
that most dominant interaction pattern in English classes was the teacher-
student interaction pattern with one-way traffic interaction pattern. This means
the teachers focused on teaching by lecturing and asking question without

ONLINE ISSN 2928-3936 UNP JOURNALS

153
Mike Nurmala Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah, Classroom Interaction

having interaction with the students, or if there were, the interactions were in a
little portion of students’ talk.
The data show that the four English teachers with three meetings for
each, the teacher-student interaction with one-way traffic interaction appeared
54.57% from the total interactions, while the teacher-student interaction pattern
with two-way traffic interaction appeared 38%, the multi-way traffic interaction
pattern appeared 5.20%, and the student-student interaction pattern appeared
2.22% from the total interaction. Therefore, the dominant pattern of interaction
in English classes in SMAN 2 Bukittinggi West Sumatra was the teacher-student
interaction pattern with one-way traffic interaction pattern.
The example of the teacher-student pattern of interaction with one-way
interaction is as follow:

Extract 1

T: Okay, now based on the dialogue what are the speakers use for their
dialogue? Or what are the expressions the use in their dialogue?
S: (silent)
(Transcript 4, teacher B: line 155-156)

For the teacher-student pattern of interaction with two-way interaction, the

example is as follow:
Extract 2

T: Okay, next, text number two. Complete the correct word in the bracket.
Ilham. Number one. Read the text. Baca text nya dulu.
S2: I finded
T: I finded. Ilham answer. Okay. So this is irregular verb. Find, bentuk
keduanya adalah?
S3: found
T: found. Okay. Nah found. Not finded. Find, found, found.
(Transcript 5, teacher B: line 78-84)

For the multi-way traffic interaction, the example can be seen as follow:
Extract 3
T: separate. Apa artinya separate?
S1: berpisah
T: Berpisah. Terpisah. Ini adjective or verb?
S1: adjective
S2: No. Verb
T: Verb. Kalau dia bentuk negatif, kita menggunakan karta kerja, berarti
kita menggunakan kata bantu. He and his wife didn’t separate.
(transcript 5, teacher B: line 68-73)

UNP JOURNALS PRINTED ISSN 1411-3732

154
 Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Volume 19 No. 2
Bahasa, Sastra, dan Seni September 2018

For the student-student interaction pattern, the example can be seen as follow:
Extract 4

S1: Dina, have you experienced a natural disaster?

S2: Yes
S1: What is it?
S2: Tsunami, in 2004
S1: what happen?
S2: The earthquakes came. Then the sea water receded. Then seven
minutes later, very big waves came.
S1: Thank you for your information, Dina.
S2: You are welcome.
T: That’s you two made it? Okay.
(Transcript 9, teacher C: Line 73-82)

The classroom activities were still in a teacher’s dominant. This

determines the students had little initiation to ask question, to comment
teacher’s explanation, or to add some information toward the lesson given in the
teaching and learning process. The domination of the teacher is seen as normal
since in Indonesia, it is believed that teacher should give lesson about the
teaching materials during the teaching and learning process, and the students
accept the teacher’s explanation. The typical of Indonesian students are passive,
so it is difficult for them to initiatively ask question to the teacher without being
asked or questioning material given by the teacher.
The teacher-student interaction pattern with one-way traffic interaction
pattern indicates that the teacher is difficult to engage the students to
participate with the materials given. It can be caused by several things, such as
lack of interactive media used by the teacher, so she or he is difficult to ask the
students to be involved, the limitation of the teacher’s knowledge toward the
topic lesson, or lack of interactive classroom activities that the teacher could
create.
For the interaction characteristics that used the theory of FIAC model,
from with three meetings for each, it can be recapitalized that 61.24% of the
interactions were categorized as content cross where the teaching and learning
process was dominated by teacher talk by asking questions to the students and
lecturing the lesson. Therefore, the second characteristic was students’
participation (29.63%) where students talk appeared in form of answering or
responding teacher talk and initiatively asking or commenting the lesson matter.
Thus, there were 8.46% of the interactions classified as Teacher control
where the teacher gave commands, directions or order and criticized or justified
authority (in form of statements to change students‘ behavior). The last, teacher
support appeared 0.67% where the teacher accepted feelings (it may be positive
or negative and teacher’s prediction and recalling), praised or encouraged, and

ONLINE ISSN 2928-3936 UNP JOURNALS

155
Mike Nurmala Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah, Classroom Interaction

accepted or used ideas of the students. In short, the dominant interaction

characteristic appeared in English classes in SMAN 2 Bukittinggi West Sumatra
was content cross.
The four English teachers in SMAN 2 Bukittinggi West Sumatra had
different perceptions toward the interaction patterns and interaction
characteristics when they taught. To see the overall perceptions from the four
teachers, the recapitulation of the data can be described as follow: 95% for the
student-student interaction pattern, 80% for teacher-student interaction pattern
with one-way traffic interaction pattern, 70% for the multi-way traffic
interaction, and 60% for the teacher-student interaction pattern with two-way
traffic interaction pattern. Therefore, the data imply the most dominant
interaction pattern based on perception of the teachers was student-student
interaction pattern.
For the interaction characteristics, the perception of the teachers can be
described as follow: 95% for teacher support, 92.50% for content cross, 91.67%
for teacher control, and students’ participation for about 82.50%. Therefore, the
perceptions of English teachers in SMAN 2 Bukittinggi West Sumatra can be
concluded that the dominant interaction pattern was student-student
interaction pattern interaction characteristic was teacher support.
For the students’ perception, From the recapitulation, 88% of the
respondents believed that the interaction pattern was teacher-student
interaction pattern with two-way traffic interaction, 76% chose one-way traffic
interaction, 67% picked student-student interaction pattern, and 61% chose
multi-way traffic interaction pattern.
For the interaction characteristics, the perception of the students can be
described as the following data: 86.61% picked content cross, 78.39% chose
teacher control, 75.73% voted teacher support, and 71.13% chose students’
participation.
Therefore, the perception of the students about the pattern of
interaction in English classes was teacher-student interaction pattern with two-
way traffic interaction and the characteristic of the interaction was content
cross.
Finally, it can be concluded that Different materials or skills that the
teacher teaches will create different pattern of interaction and characteristics of
interactions, resulting different atmosphere and dominant role in teaching and
learning process from both teacher and students. The four teachers taught
different materials for different skills. Therefore these factors give direct
influence to the interaction patterns and interaction characteristics.

Conclusion
Based on the finding from the teaching and learning process, it could be
sum up that most dominant interaction pattern in English classes was the
teacher-student interaction pattern with one-way traffic interaction pattern. This

UNP JOURNALS PRINTED ISSN 1411-3732

156
 Komposisi: Jurnal Pendidikan Volume 19 No. 2
Bahasa, Sastra, dan Seni September 2018

means the teachers focused on teaching by lecturing and asking question

without having interaction with the students, or if there were, the interactions
were in a little portion of students’ talk.
For the interaction characteristic by FIAC model, the most dominant
characteristic in the classroom interaction was content cross. It also means that
most of the teaching-learning time was devoted to asking questions and lecture
by the teacher. Here, asking questions means the teacher asks a question about
content or procedure with the intent that a student answers, while lecturing
means giving facts or opinion about content or procedure with his own ideas,
asking rhetorical question.
From the questionnaire of students’ perception, it is found that the most
dominant interaction pattern during the teaching and learning process believed
by the students was teacher-student interaction pattern with two-way traffic
interaction pattern. This means the students believed that their English teachers
could engage more than one student to participate in the lesson. The teachers
might ask one question to more than one student, and those students could
respond her. This means the interaction was fair enough.
From the perceptions of the students toward the interaction, it is found
that the dominant interaction characteristic was content cross. It is matched with
the conclusion from the teaching and learning process.
From the perceptions of the teachers toward the interaction pattern, it is
found that the dominant interaction pattern was student-student interaction
pattern where the students are having interaction each other in group
discussion, pair work, or group work. However, the conclusion is different with
the data from the teaching and learning process.
From the perceptions of the teachers toward the interaction
characteristic, it is found that the dominant interaction characteristic was
teacher support where the teachers are predicting or recalling feeling, praising or
encouraging student actions or behavior and clarifying, building, or developing
ideas suggested by a student. However, this conclusion is also different with the
data from teaching and learning process.
Also, different materials or skills that the teacher teaches will create
different pattern of interaction and characteristics of interactions, resulting
different atmosphere and dominant role in teaching and learning process from
both teacher and students.
The implications of the present research for language learning can be
seen from the teachers. The English teachers in SMAN 2 Bukittinggi seem to
know the theory of having interactive teaching and learning process during the
lesson, but it was hard for them to apply in real situation. For example, some
teachers used interactive multimedia, but failed to use them well. As the result,
the interaction between the teachers with the students in the classroom was
passive where it was dominated by the teachers that mostly adopted a role as
controller in the classroom as she frequently led the flow of interaction.

ONLINE ISSN 2928-3936 UNP JOURNALS

157
Mike Nurmala Sari, Mukhaiyar, and Hamzah, Classroom Interaction

REFERENCES
Al-Garawi, Buthayna. 2008. A Review of Two Approaches to L2 Classroom
Interaction. Retrieved from http://www.ub.uit.no/garawi/approaches-to-
l2-classroom-interaction.pdf on October 15, 2015
Brown, D H. 2001. Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Pedagogy. New York: Pearson Education - Longman
Dagarin, Mateja. 2004. Classroom interaction and communication strategies in
learning English as a foreign language. English Language Overseas
Perspectives and Enquiries (ELOPE): Studies in the English language and
literature in Slovenia. Journal volume I/1-2: ISSN 1581-8918. Retrieved
from http://www.adas.edus.si/Elope/PDF/ElopeVol1Dagarin.pdf on
March 20, 2015
Dornyei, Zoltan. 2007. Research Methods in Applied Linguistics: Quantitative,
Qualitative and Mixed Methodologies. Oxford: Oxford University press
El-Hanafi, Mourad. 2013. Pattern of Interaction in Moroccan Middle School
Classroom: Study. Retrieved from
http://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2013/06/94745/patterns-of-
interaction-in-the-moroccan-middle-school-classroom-study/ on May 14,
2015
Gosmire et al. 2009. Perception of Interactions in Online Course. Merlot Journal
of Online Learning and Teaching.Vol. 5 no. 4. Retrieved from
http://www.jolt.merlot.org/vol5no4/gosmire_1209.pdf on October 16,
2015
Lasac, Lovelyn B. 2011. Classroom Interaction Analysis. Retrieved from
http://www.scribd.com/doc/67287182/Classroom-Interaction-
Analysis#scribd on October 16, 2015
Lindgren. Henry Clay 1991. Educational Psychology in the Classroom. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc
Sampath K., Panneerselvam A. and Santhanam S. 2007. Introduction to
Educational Technology. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Private Limited
Tuan, Luu Trong and Nhu, Nguyen. 2010. Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction
in EFL Classroom. Journal of Studies in Literature and language, Vol. 1, No.
4, 2010, pp. 29-48, ISSN 1923-1563. Retrieved from
http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/sll/article/download/j.sll.192315632
0100104.004/1434 on October 20, 2015
Wajnryb, Ruth. 1992. Pattern of Interaction. Retrieved from
http://www2.vobs.at/ludescher/Planning/Patterns%20of%20Interaction.
doc on May 14, 2015

UNP JOURNALS PRINTED ISSN 1411-3732

158