SISMA KUSUMA NINGRUM Pengarang Maria Ramasari, M.Pd. Dosen Pembimbing 2 Ayu Oktaviani, S.Pd., M.A., M.Pd. Dosen Pembimbing 1 Ayu Oktaviani, S.Pd., M.A., M.Pd. Ketua Penguji Sastika Seli, S.Pd., M.A. Penguji 1 Yulfi, M.Pd. Penguji 2 SISMA KUSUMA NINGRUM Contributor

This research aims to identify the types of direct and indirect talk and the dominant of teachers talk in English classroom interaction at SD Palm Kids Lubuklinggau. The method of this research was qualitative approach. This reseach was descriptive design. The data was obtained from observation (field note and video recording). The subject of this research was two English teachers at SD Palm Kids Lubuklinggau. The researcher used Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) to analyze teachers' talk. The result both of teacher A and teacher B showed that indirect talk got more than direct talk. The percentage in direct talk and indirect talk of teacher A were 35,06% and 64,92%. The result of this study was the teacher A used more indirect talk in teaching for her students like asking question 34,10%.Meanwhile,The direct talk of teacher A used giving direction as the most frequent in direct categories. This category got 23,57%. In this case, the teacher A dominantly used giving direction and asking question in the teaching learning process. In other hands, the percentage in direct talk and indirect talk of teacher B were 45,23% and 54,75%. The result of this study was the teacher B used more indirect teaching for her students like asking question 24,26%.Meanwhile, the direct talk of teacher B used giving direction as the most frequent in direct categories. This category got 25,04%. It meant thatthe teacher B dominantly used giving direction and asking question in the teaching learning process. Nevertheless, the occurred categories happened naturally with the consideration of learning situation that takes place. Keywords: Direct talk, FIAC,Indirect Talk, Teachers’ talk