Teacher – Student Interaction in the English Classroom: A Case Study in a Single Sex School

Authors

  • wim banu ukhrowi Universitas Negeri Surabaya
  • Suharsono Suharsono Universitas Negeri Surabaya
  • Suwono Suwono Universitas Negeri Surabaya

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.17722/jell.v9i1.344

Keywords:

Teacher – student interaction, onversation analysis, single sex school.

Abstract

This study aims to know the pattern of teacher – student conversation in English class in a single sex class. The data were obtained from a private Islamic bilingual high school Jombang. The study used qualitative approach. The data are based on the observations of the classroom and video recordings during three meetings in each class (female and male class). The theory used in the study was conversational analysis proposed by Paul Ten Have. There are four types of conversation analysis. They are turn – taking organization, sequence organization, repair organization, and preference organization. The result showed that the highest number of conversation analysis type was turn – taking organization followed by sequence organization (adjacency pairs) and the preference organization and the lowest number was repair organization. The pattern of teacher student conversation was influenced by several factors such as the topics discussed, the teaching – learning method used by the teacher, the rules of Islamic regulations and the teacher’s strategy in giving extra score to the students. Method. From the results it can be concluded that there were no marked differences of the pattern of teacher – student conversation found in the class of female student and male student only. The teacher had succeeded in the teaching and learning process without considering the gender of the students.

Downloads

Published

2018-02-28

How to Cite

ukhrowi, wim banu, Suharsono, S. and Suwono, S. (2018) “Teacher – Student Interaction in the English Classroom: A Case Study in a Single Sex School”, Journal of English Language and Literature (ISSN: 2368-2132), 9(1), pp. 716–721. doi: 10.17722/jell.v9i1.344.