‘PORTRAYING TEACHER-STUDENT’S INTERACTION IN EFL CLASSES’ (A Case Study in 7TH and 8th EFL - CLT based classroom )
A THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Master’s Degree
In English Education
By
LIANI SETIAWATI 1007205
English Studies
School of Graduate Studies
Indonesia University of Education
APPROVAL SHEET
This thesis entitled “ Portraying Teacher–Student Interaction in EFL Classes”
(A Case Study in 7th and 8th EFL-CLT based Classroom) has been approved by the supervisor:
The Supervisor
DECLARATION
I hereby certify that this thesis entitled “Portraying Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Class (A Case Study in 7th and 8th EFL-CLT based classroom)” is completely my own work. I am fully aware that I have quoted some statements and ideas from various sources. All quotations are properly acknowledged.
Bandung, January 2013
ABSTRACT
The objective of EFL classes adopting Communicative language teaching (CLT) approach is to be fluent and communicative competent in genuine communication (Hatch1978; Nunan, 1987). In this context, EFL teachers play a pivotal role to foster a learning environment which helps engage students in meaningful verbal teacher-students interactions. To facilitate such meaningful interactions, EFL teachers serve as a source of L2 input to the students (Krashen,1981,1985), encourage students to produce target-like output (Swain, 1995) and provide feedbacks and interactional adjustments (Long, 1996) for students as part of the verbal interactions.
This study therefore attempts to portray the nature of teacher-student interaction and reveals the factors inhibiting teachers to interact with students. 15 classroom observations were conducted in four months, which involved two EFL teachers, together with their 7th and 8th students. Significant and related data were gained from 6 classroom investigations through classroom audio and video-taping, oral report, questionnaire, interview and field-note.
The observations in this study found that EFL teachers performed differently in this context, though the finding confirmed both participants were technically capable of employing various interactional adjustments and providing due feedbacks in teacher-students interactions. Through the questionnaire and interview, it was revealed that such performance variances was related to their belief and perception (Johnson,1999). Apart from personal belief and perception, their performance in engaging meaningful teacher-student interaction was also influenced by their communicative competence which is commonly further broken down in individual competence of linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and strategic (Canale& Swain, 1980).
The follow up analysis with the participants agreed that teachers’ belief and limited communicative competence were likely the causes inhibiting their performance. Communication breakdown and students’ confusion were commonly found in both classes. To rectify this situation, it helps if EFL teachers can align their belief with the basic CLT principles, and develop their communicative competence further.
Table of Content
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.1 Background ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.2 Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.3 Objectives of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.4 Scope and Limitations of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.5 Significance of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.6 Definitions of Key Terms ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 1.7 Thesis Organization ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 2 - REVIEW OF LITERATURE ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1 Second Language Acquisition and Language Teaching ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2 The Necessary Core Elements in Language Acquisition ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.1 Input and Its Role ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.2 The Interaction Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3 The Output Hypothesis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3.1 Output during Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3.2 Unmodified Output during interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3.3 Modified Output during interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.3.4 Modified Output that leads to Uptake during Interaction .... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.4 Communicative Competence in EFL classes ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.5 Managing Teacher Talk i De elopi g Stude ts’ Co u i ati e Co pete eError! Bookmark not defin 2.2.6 Forms of Interaction in the EFL Classes ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.6.1 Negotiation of Meaning ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.6.2 Patterns of Classroom Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.6.2.1 Restricted IRF ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.6.2.2 The Extended Feedback/ The follow-up Move/ The Less Restricted IRF patternError! Bookmark no 2.2.7 Feedback during interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.2.7.1 Negative Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.1.1 Implicit Negative Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.1.2 Explicit Negative Feedback ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.2 Positive Evident ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.2.1 Simple ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.2.2 Translation ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.7.2.3 Completion... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.8 Interactional Processes... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.8.1 The Process of Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.8.2 Interaction Facilitating Negotiation of Meaning ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 2.2.8.3 Interactional Processes and Communicative Language teachingError! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 3 - RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1 Research Questions ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2 Research Design ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3 Participants of the Study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3.1 The Ba kgrou d of Tea hers’ Parti ipa ts ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.4 Research Site ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5 Data Collection ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.1 Observations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.2 Interview ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.5.3 Document Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.6 Procedures of Collecting Data ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.6.1 Methods of Data Analysis ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 4 - FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1 The Nature of Teacher – student Interaction... Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1 The Nature of Teacher – student Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.1.1 The occurrence of Interactional adjustments and feedback Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1.1.1 The occurrence of implicit negative feedback during negotiation of meaningError! Bookmark not 4.1.1.1.2 The occurrence of explicit negative feedback during negotiation of meaningError! Bookmark not 4.1.1.2 The occurrence of positive feedback during negotiation of meaningError! Bookmark not defined.
4.1.1.2.1 Simple ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2 The patterns of interaction – Restricted and Extended IRF .. Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2.1 Restricted IRF/E Pattern emerged in the study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1.2.2 Extended IRF/E Pattern emerged in the study ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2 Factors that inhibit the EFL teachers to interact with their students.Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1 Ho tea hers’ elief a d per eptio shape their er al i tera tio to ards tea her -student communicative interaction. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.1.1 The parti ipa t’s elief a d per eptio to ards tea her-student communicative
interaction. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.1.2 The way the participant interacts with their students to enhance the genuine
communication. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2 The exte t to hi h tea hers’ li ited o u i ati e o pete e a i hi it
teacher-student communicative interaction. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.1 The extent to which the parti ipa ts’ li guisti a d so ioli guisti o pete e relate
to their teaching practices. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.2 The exte t to hi h the parti ipa ts e ourage stude ts’ involvement in classroom
interaction. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.3 To what extent the participants put efforts to make students produce longer
sentences properly. ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.4 Limited Communicative Competence ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.4.1 Limited Sociolinguistic Competence ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.4.2 Limited Linguistic Competence ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2.4.3 Limited Discourse Competence ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.3 Synthesis and Discussion ... Error! Bookmark not defined. CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 5.1 The Nature and Pattern of Teacher-Student Interaction ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 Factors that can inhibit the EFL teachers to promote communicative interactionError! Bookmark not defined. 5.3 Suggestions ... Error! Bookmark not defined.
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
This introductory chapter will delineate the issues related to the concern of this study, i.e. to analyze the nature and pattern of teacher-student interaction in EFL classes, and to reveal the factors inhibiting the EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with their students in EFL classes. It includes the background of the study, problem investigated, research question, objectives of the study, organization and overview of chapters, and definitions of terms.
Background
The purpose of EFL classes is to help students acquire and develop English in their
inter-language system. Among various teaching approaches, the common one widely adopted in
recent years is Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) approach. The priority and key focus
in EFL classes adopting CLT is to train up students to be fluent and communicative competent
in genuine communication (Hatch1978; Nunan, 1987). In CLT classes, the role of EFL teachers is therefore more pivotal in helping students engage in meaningful reciprocal interaction (Thomas, 1987). It is EFL teachers‟ responsibility to facilitate and „orchestrate‟ the meaningful
In such CLT classes, EFL teachers are expected to facilitate communicative interactions that allow collaboration and scaffold comprehension and comprehensibility (Donato, 1994; McCormic, 1997; Swain, 1997). Such interactions should also provide opportunities for students to comprehend received messages, produce modified output and attain to the target language form to develop their interlanguage (Krashen, 1982; Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991; Swain &Lapkin, 1995). How EFL teachers facilitate such communicative interactions in an EFL CLT based classroom is therefore critical to what students ultimately acquire English in their inter-language system (Gass& Mackey, 2007, p.87; Tsui, 1995, p.1; Johnson, 1995, p.81).
Managing meaningful teacher-student interaction which can promote genuine communication in CLT based class is quite challenging. Despite EFL teachers‟ efforts of
developing learners‟ communicative capability in real life situation, some research studies
reveal that EFL teachers often fail to establish the genuine or natural communication (Nunan, 1987 p.137 cited in Seedhouse,1996; Kumaravadivelu, 1993 p.12). One of the reasons is because this kind of interaction requires not only EFL teachers‟ know-how technical skills of provide appropriate input (Krashen,1981,1985), various interactional adjustments, feedback (Long, 1983, 1985, 1996) or encouragement to students‟ output (Swain, 1995), but also require the solid quality of the teachers‟ communicative competence in linguistic, sociolinguistic,
discourse and strategic. The way they talk and hold the conversation can determine whether EFL teachers can either succeed or fail in implementing their plans (Nunan, 1991).
Apart from students‟ personal capability and aptitude issues, one of the common causes leading
to this disappointed outcome is related to the unsatisfied quality of teacher-student communicative interaction in English (Sadtono, 1997; Darjowijojo, 1977; Jayadi, 2004; Kwelju, 2004; Mantiri,O., 2004). Among others, in Indonesia, this unsatisfied quality of teacher-student communicative interaction in English is often related to local EFL teachers‟ low proficiency in English and their inadequate knowledge of facilitating appropriate communicative interaction in classes. Limited teachers‟ competence in areas of linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse and
strategic (Savignon, 1983; Canale and Swain, 1980) is, on the other hand, likely to reduce the quality of teacher-student communicative interaction. To complicate the situation, what EFL teachers believe towards their interaction and communicative competence can lead to different teaching practices and communicative interaction approaches (Johnson, 1999) which, in turn, deliver different learning experiences and outcomes to their students.
Knowing the pivotal role of the teachers in facilitating effective teacher-students communicative interaction in EFL classes adopting CLT approach, limited studies on this subject are available. Xie, X.(2008), Tognini, R. (2007), Isharyanti (2005), Fauziah (2009) and Ma‟ruf,
Research Questions
1. What is the nature and pattern of the teacher-student interaction in EFL classes adopting CLT?
2. What factors inhibit the EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with their students in EFL classes adopting CLT?
Objectives of the Study
Based on the research background stated above, a study entitled “Portraying Teacher
-Student Interaction in EFL Class” (A Case Study in 7th and 8th EFL-CLT based classroom) was conducted, aiming at:
1. Portraying the nature and pattern of teacher – student interaction occurring in the observed EFL classes.
2. Revealing the factors that can inhibit the EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with their students in EFL classes adopting CLT?
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The scope of this case study is focused on the nature and pattern of the verbal interaction that can trigger students to actively communicate in the communication in the perspective of CLT. Besides that, this study has an attempt to reveal the factors emerging from teachers‟ belief,
application of negotiation of meaning, interactional adjustments, provision of feedback, and encouragement of students‟ output will be identified. Factors emerging from teachers‟ belief,
perception and communicative competence that influence their ways of communicative interaction will also be analyzed. This study is very limited since it was conducted only on the 7th and 8th EFL classes in one Private Junior High School in Bandung adopting Cambridge International Curriculum. With very small samples in very limited research site, it‟s impossible
to generalize the findings to larger population. However, as a non-participatory researcher, I put in extra effort to better understand and have broader perspective of the teaching-learning process within these classes.
Significance of the Study
The result of this case study is expected to be able to give feedback to EFL teachers in general so that they can reflect whether their verbal and pattern of interaction can promote genuine communication in EFL classes adopting CLT. Besides that, knowing to what extent teachers‟ beliefs and communicative competence can give influences and inhibit their ways of
Other schools that adopt CLT approach should also be able to use the findings here as the starting point to draft up their teaching guideline in dealing with EFL classes.
Definitions of Key Terms
SLA : Second Language Acquisition focused more on the acquiring the language and not on the learning process.
Communicative Competence: a term in linguistics which refers to a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology, and the like, as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately.
CLT : emerged as a response to the other approaches like audio-lingual method and puts more focus on the importance of genuine communication in EFL classes.
Interaction : When two or more people or things communicate or react to each other.
Interactional Hypothesis : is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Taken from Michael Long (1996), the theory claims that comprehensible input needs to be comprehended through meaning negotiation
The input should come at level i+1. This theory is an essential component in Stephen Krashen's Input Hypothesis.
Output hypothesis : Developed by Merrill Swain, the comprehensible output (CO) hypothesis states that learning takes place when encountering a gap in the linguistic knowledge of the L2. By noticing this gap the learner becomes aware of it and might be able to modify his output so that he learns something new about the language. Although Swain does not claim that comprehensible output is solely responsible for all or even most language acquisition, she does claim that under some conditions.
Thesis Organization
This thesis consists of 5 chapters with the organization presented as follows:
Chapter 1 presents the background of the study, the objectives of the study, the research methodology in brief, the scope and limitations of study, the significance of the study, the definition of terms and the organization of the thesis.
Chapter 3 outlines the research methodology and how to address the research questions with valid and reliable methodology.
Chapter 4 discusses the data presentation, analysis, and findings of the results, based on those obtained from the classroom observation, questionnaires and teacher-student interview towards the teacher-teacher-student interaction in EFL classrooms. Chapter 5 concludes the study with identified conclusion, limitations, and highlights the
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The previous chapter has discussed the literature review underpinning the issue of this study exploring the nature and pattern of teacher-student interaction in teaching and learning process and revealing the factors that can inhibit EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with students in EFL classes adopting CLT. Chapter three tries to overview several important aspects related to research methodology including the research questions, research design, participants of the study, research instruments, data collection place, time, and procedures, and data analysis procedures.
This study employed qualitative research method. Regarding the qualitative research design, rich and grounded data which were gained from various sources over a period of time would be elaborated and observed. This extensive variety of data was deeply explored through the various instruments such as questionnaire, interview, recording and videotaping (Suter, 2006). The researcher also made use the relevant points from her field note which was taken during the classroom observation.
Research Questions
In order to accomplish the objectives of the study, the following research questions are addressed:
2. What factors inhibit EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with students in EFL classes adopting CLT?
Research Design
The study used Qualitative research design since it is an inquiry process of understanding a social or human problem based on building a complex, holistic picture and forms with words reporting detailed views of informant, and conducted in natural setting (Creswell, 1994). Creswell (2003) also posits the advantage of qualitative study in enabling the researcher to develop a level of detail about the individual or place and to be highly involved in actual experiences of the participants (p.181). Besides that, several aspects can emerge during the study and can make use of multiple methods that are interactive and humanistic. This method was used in the belief that it can give a broader, deeper insights and more accurate picture of the teacher-student interaction during classroom observations.
In order to address the research question, the researcher used a case study. A case study is qualitative in the nature and helps the researcher to explore in depth a program, event, activity, process or one or more individuals (Creswell, 2003 p.15). The case(s) are bounded by time and activity and researchers collect detailed information using a variety of data collection procedures over a sustained period of time (Stake,1998). Similarly, a case study is used to observe and analyze intensively on a ‘single unit’ or ‘bounded system’ (Smith, 1978 cited in Merriem, 1998
p.19, see also Fraenkel and Wallen, 2006 p.439). It could be an individual program, event, group, activity, ongoing process and developing ‘as full an understanding of that case as possible’
(Punch, 1998 p.50 cited in Silverman, 2005 p.126) in a bound context (Miles and Huberman,
gain an in-depth understanding of the situation and meaning for those involved’ (p.19). Thus, this study emphasizes more in ‘the process rather than outcomes’ (1989 p.19). Using this
qualitative case study, the rich data gained from classroom observations conducted in 7th and 8th EFL classes should be able to give thick descriptions of the teacher-student interaction, as well as their efforts to manage the occurrence of second language acquisition. Yin (1984) proposes that ‘a case study is an empirical inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its
real-life context … in which multiple sources of evidence are used (p.23)’. Merriem (1988) also
adds that ‘… the qualitative case study can be defined as an intensive, holistic description and
analysis of a single entity, phenomenon, or social ‘unit’ (p.16)’. A case study intends to ‘understand a particular case in its idiosyncrasy, in its complexity, rather than generalizing
findings (Stake, 1998 p.256)’.
The following was one example of case study having an attempt to reveal what was really happening in the teacher-learner interaction inside the classroom. At this point, Xie (2008) used two research designs, i.e. case study and ethnography study and she employed multiple data collection methods; among them were interviews, observations, audio and video-taping, oral reports and stimulated reflections. In other words, she relied more on the results of classroom observations and the participants’ viewpoints as predominant sources of data rather than
imposing an outsider’s viewpoint to gain insights into the issue under discussion (Rubio, 1997;
Since this study had an attempt to portray the nature and pattern of EFL teachers’ verbal interaction, as well as revealing the teachers’ factors that can limit student’s active participation
in communication, various ways of verbal interaction and EFL teachers’ communicative
competence will be observed. Seeing a fact that this study was intended merely to reveal the ongoing process that really occurred inside the classrooms investigated, generating new theories and phenomenon that emerges or refining teacher-student interaction and classroom interaction pattern subsequently are not the focus of the study.
Participants of the Study
The participants are 2 language teachers and students in 7th and 8th EFL classes in one private Junior High School adopting Cambridge program in Bandung. The researcher chose these two teacher-participants with several considerations. Firstly, both of them teach EFL in classes adopting Cambridge program that have different characteristics of those from other programs. Secondly, EFL teachers in these specific programs are seen to have more burdens
since it’s not easy to interact using L2 most of the time while the environment in Indonesia does
not support. To make their students competent in L2 linguistic features and fluency, EFL teachers in these programs will be the only models in class so that they are expected to apply effective strategies in their interactional patterns and meaningful talk since it is the only input that students can obtain in classroom.
students is assumed to be able provide grounded and fruitful information that will be beneficial for this research study.
On the other hand, 7th and 8th students were also chosen as the participants since their classes consist of only around 17 to 20 and the students’ level of English is considered higher
than others since they have to pass a series of English version entrance test including mathematics, science and English. The environment in these two EFL classes were seen appropriate for the study since it tries to fulfill parents’ need and school’s goal to prepare
students to be able to cope with international challenges and improve students’ fluency in English.
The Background of Teachers’ Participants
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-1 Participants’ Background Data
CATEGORY PARTICIPANT I PARTICIPANT 2
Age Between 30-35 Between 35 – 40
Educational Background S1 English S1 English
Teaching Experience 10- 15 years 15 – 20 years
Two EFL teachers, Participant 1 and Participant 2, were observed in this study. Questions of personal data given in the questionnaire were able to show the differences and similarities of the age, educational background and teaching experiences of the participants. The table above shows that both participants graduated from S1 English department and both are considered experienced, though participant 2 has more teaching experience. Their ages are different but the gap is not significant enough to split them into 2 different generations and their age ranges are fairly considered mature age. Overall, their backgrounds are not identical but similar enough.
The Target Language Observation Scheme of the Teachers’ Participants
While observing the participants’ classes, the researcher completed the categories listed
The results then will be categorized and interpreted before they were displayed in a result table, shown in the percentage.
Table Error! No text of specified style in document.-2Target Language Observation Scheme of the Participants
04. Explicit lesson structure 80 80
05. Task orientation 100 100
06. Clarity 100 100
07. Initiate problem solving 80 60
08.Personalized questions and comments
40 80
09. Positive reinforcement 80 80
10. Negative reinforcement 40 80
11. Corrections 80 80
the first language. Since these international EFL classrooms adopt communicative approach principles (Nunan,1987), EFL teachers are more expected to create a learning environment promoting more genuine communication. This situation is beneficial for secondary language learners to acquire the target language automatically as the EFL teacher becomes a good model that contributes lots of input to the students (Krashen, 1985). Yet, very distinctive difference was found from the observation. Participant 1 made use of more interactional adjustments or corrective feedback. Despite the same percentage they achieved, i.e. 80%, it was revealed that participant 1 often provided her students with implicit negative feedback: clarifying, confirming comprehending requests that bring to recast, as well as interactional routines like elicitation and drilling, which triggered the occurrence of negotiation of meaning in her class. Participant 2, similarly, also provided the interactional feedback. However, the feedback occurred in
participant 2’s classes were mostly explicit feedback. Teacher talk time employed in the
participants’ classes was found high (60 and 80%) with a consideration that class is the most
ideal place for learners to have continuous contact with their EFL teachers functioning as good models for the target language. It is obvious that successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used by the teacher and the type of interactions occurring in the classroom (Ellis, 1985, p.43) cited in Setiawati (2011), in accordance with this, participant 1 was seen to be more willing to encourage her students to get involved in the discussion or any activities. The use of audiovisual was also high since the classes have already used in-focus projector and equipped with Wi-Fi connection, thus teachers are required to use activities with IT. Gestures and jokes were more often found in participant 1’s classes. Participant 1 was seen to be able to deliver the
Research Site
The study was conducted in 7th and 8th EFL classes adopting Cambridge program in one Private Christian Junior High School in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia. This site was chosen for its accessibility since the researcher teaches here so it could give easier access for her to get the permission to conduct a research. Besides that, the researcher is quite familiar with the site and the students observed. Having known the researcher well made the students not feel bothered when the class was set up for the purpose of research. Besides that, it was not easy to find a site that employs L2 most of the time in EFL classes. Most EFL classes use bilingual method, the use of L1 and L2 are employed together. So, the EFL classes in these programs became the main choice, the ones the researcher believed could provide fruitful and deeper insight and the ones were relevant and appropriate to her study.
The data were collected within 4 months, from November to March. December was not taken into account since there were no lessons at all.
Data Collection
Since this is a qualitative case study, the researcher will put big emphasis on the triangular data collected from the field. Data is expected to be gained from observation, interview, document analysis, questionnaire, recording and video-making.
Observations
Observation is the systematic gathering of behavioral actions and reactions through the use of specific instrument or professional impressions (Schensui, 1999). All information during classroom observations were mainly taken in a number of ways: watching, hearing, listening and documenting what was seen and heard, by asking questions, by sharing activities and noting documents, behaviors, and reactions; or a combination of these (Widiyantoro, 2009, p.74). The researcher took a role as a participant observer, so in this study, she administered each session to observe the nature, pattern of teacher-learner interaction were held, as well as exploring the features of teacher talk and students’ perception.
The observations were mainly focused on the activities conducted by each EFL teacher during their classroom interaction. The researcher will sit at the back and take notes about ‘what
Interview
The interview will be conducted to support the data from observation. Similar to observation, interview is also one important date collecting technique since the questions in interview will probably develop (Alwasilah, 2008:192; Silverman, 2000:51). Weaknesses could reveal from the survey questionnaires, thus to mitigate the weaknesses, students and teachers’
interviews followed. Eisner (1991) posits that the use of survey questionnaires for studying a problem of this nature could be enhanced with interview. Interviews are strong instruments to collect depth-information not available from the questionnaire.
In this study, the researcher herself conducted the interview. First, because she positioned herself as the participant observer so there wouldn’t be any bias since she had no importance to
the result of any findings. Secondly, because parties, teachers and students have known her so they could express any answers with less threaten.
Document Analysis
Procedures of Collecting Data
In order to collect the data, teacher and students’ questionnaires were distributed to all
of the participants involved in this study. The teachers and the students as the respondents of the study were asked to answer to all the questions related to the classroom interaction and their perception towards it based on their opinions and understanding. Additionally, the researcher interviewed 2 EFL teachers and 20 students dealing with the classroom interaction. After accomplishing the process of filling out the questionnaires and interview, all the data were transcribed, calculated, and put in the table result as the fixed data.
Methods of Data Analysis
To analyze the data from the questionnaire, I followed Riduwan (2007, 2008) that made use of the Likert Scale (strongly disagree, disagree, average, agree and strongly agree) in his research. The first step on data analysis was all answers of all items on the questionnaire checked and recapitulated based on the teacher and the students’ responses. The next step is calculating
the score of each scale have been got, then the scores were summed up to get the total score of those items. Since the highest score is five and the lowest score is 1, thus the determination of the highest score of an item was derived from multiplication of the total respondents and the highest scale of that particular item. Then, the percentage of that item could be achieved by dividing the total score to the highest score, which then was multiplied to 100. The item percentage was then interpreted based on the criteria of scores interpretation below to identify the significances of that particular item based on the classroom interaction of each content teacher.
obtained from different sources. This technique can enhance the validity of the conclusion of the study and a more comprehensive ideas to formulate the answer research questions can be carried out (Alwasilah, 2007; Setiyadi, 2006)
When data for a research project was collected, the researcher reported the findings to increase people’s understanding about a phenomenon (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Potter (1996,
p.172) mentions several ways for reporting research findings, among others are description, interpretation, and explanation. Sometimes, the approaches can be combined in various ways. Due to my study, my goal was a thick description and explanation; interpretations were merely used when trying to help answer research questions.
Since gathering data was conducted at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of classroom observations, the ongoing process analyses were used to evaluate and adjust materials and application methods of the program.
The triangulation method was used to enhance the validity of her study by combining various data sources. All data sources were analyzed and compared to validate conclusions arrived at this study.
Triangulation of Data Sources and Data Collection Technique
TEACHER/ RESEARCHER/ STUDENTS
Interviews
TEACHER/ RESEARCHER/ STUDENT
Observations
STUDENTS
CONCLUSIONS, SUGGESTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
Backed up with a framework of various linguistic theories, this study set out to portray the nature and pattern of classroom interaction and reveal the factors that can inhibit the EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction with their students in EFL classes adopting CLT.
This chapter answers each question, and elaborates their implications for research. The first research questions will be answered in section 5.1 below. 5.2 will discuss the second research question.
The Nature and Pattern of Teacher-StudentInteraction
The discussion of the nature of teacher-student interaction covers the importance of teacher talk, interactional adjustments, provision of feedback and students’ encouragement to get involved in communicative interaction. Through teacher talk, a good EFL teacher having good communicative competence is expected to be able to maintain the interaction by providing appropriate input and giving opportunities to use negative feedback and positive evidence.
Findings from research question 1 revealed P1 and P2’s efforts to conduct meaning
observed. This statistics distribution pattern is similar between both participants. The main variation between both of them was the frequency as the chart illustrated below.
Classroom observation found out how P1 managed to induce more interactions than P2. The observation confirms that both participants had demonstrated no problems of inducing such interactions technically. The statistics variation was interestingly observed proportional to the noise level in the classroom.
In P1’s classes, the atmosphere appeared more carefree, and that’s in line with the finding
from student’s interview. This carefree atmosphere is very likely related to P1’s teaching style
underpinned by her teaching beliefs. The teacher’s interview shows that, instead of providing model answers to learners, P1 believes that a teacher is merely a facilitator who helps learners to search their answers. P2 considers trial and error is a learning process acceptable and highly encouraged in the classroom. Thus, functioning as a facilitator in the context of EFL classes in this study, P1 was therefore naturally more willing to make use of a fair amount of rather extended IRF/E. Communication break-downs were commonly observed and promptly rectified by employing implicit negative feedback, especially Negotiation Moves like Confirmation Requests and Clarification Requests. When a classroom is full of interactions, particularly
verbal interactions, it will appear a bit noisy and carefree. In such a carefree environment, as
revealed from student’s interview, students were found to be more inclined to deliver longer
utterance.
Comparatively, P2’s classes were in better classroom order and quiet. From the
interview, t was revealed that P2 believes that learning linguistic features is the way to master second language. This belief led to more exercises give to the learners followed by model answers. Though P2 was observed initiating conversations in her classes by questioning her students, the questions were very often limited to typical display questions which in nature did not encourage interactional move. Meanwhile, as the objective of delivering the subject knowledge was clear, disciplining the class in strict order is therefore more essential and important to ensure achieving the objective within the calculated timeframe. The classroom atmosphere, as a result, was less carefree and students appeared afraid to make mistakes and disrupt the class progress. The outcome of such traditional language teaching style is that P2’s
classes had induced fewer students’ utterances.
From their verbal interaction pattern, P1 and P2’s classes, from the surface, show the
characteristics of CLT approach since they negotiated the meaning with students. P1 was seen to extend the feedback, yet, it was not enough. The patterns of interaction implemented in both
classrooms were still dominated by typical traditional teacher’s classrooms (Thornbury, 1996).
time in the classroom was more dominated by teachers, allowing them to control the topic and
general discourse and directing turn topic through the questions. In conjunction with Cazden’s
(1988) and Seedhouse’s (2001) study, this can bring to ‘rather closed format of conversation’.
The observation in this study explains that the technical skill of mastering various teacher-learner interactions is essential, but the teaching style and the underpinning belief could largely determine the outcome of SLA effectiveness in classroom.
Factors that can inhibit the EFL teachers to promote communicative interaction
The results show that despite P1 and P2’s efforts in managing interaction in their
classroom, there were differences in between. This is mainly caused by the differences in their
belief and perception. It is obvious that the teachers’ belief and perception can be one factor that
leads to different teaching practices and verbal interaction pattern. Besides, the EFL teachers’
problems found in this study. If still mostly dealing with phonology, morphology, syntax and
lexis, how the EFL teachers can improve their students’ linguistic competence. Lack of
pragmatic knowledge also became a big issue that made communicative language teaching in
these EFL classes couldn’t encourage students to better output effectively. Besides that,
discourse and strategic incompetence become the potential factors that can inhibit teachers to triggers students’ participation in communicative interaction, too.
A good EFL teachers should encourage their students’ participation in classroom
discussions, welcome their contributions, motivate them by such practices (Cazden, 2001) and facilitate students to produce language output so that they learn to apply the semantic and syntactic processing of the language, thus, they should have qualification to modify the language
structures. Reformulating and modifying the students’ inappropriate utterances will help students
reflect on their mistakes and notice the effect of the use of certain expressions on their interlocutors. They will learn from the mistakes to reformulate their non target-like utterance into more target-like result. This requires the EFL teachers to have language competence that is close to native language proficiency.
The excerpts data found in this study show that both the participants could not enhance genuine communication in their classrooms. In the context of CLT-based classrooms where students’ communicative competence becomes the main target to achieve SLA, though having putting in extra efforts, P1 and P2 were seen to have obstacles and fail to support learners to produce communicative outputs and actively engaged in communicative activities (Harmer,
1991, p.49). This demonstrates the importance of enhancing EFL teachers’ communicative
Suggestions
Based on the findings and the conclusions gained in this research, I would like to propose some suggestions that hopefully could be helpful and beneficial for all the participants and stakeholders involved in this study.
Firstly, there is a must for EFL teachers to have well-developed communicative competence which can benefit them to produce more effective talk when they interact with their students. Findings in this study show that EFL teachers observed often fail in bringing their students either to get actively involved in longer utterance or produce more target-like utterance, thus, school should facilitate to give more qualified in-house training so that their communicative competence in their talk can be improved and enhanced. The knowledge of sociolinguistic and linguistic competence is seen pivotal to make students more motivated to interact with their teachers and their friends in the target language. The combination of communicative competence
and EFL teacher’s efforts to negotiate meaning with students during interaction can lead to better
acquisition and development of the target language.
Secondly, as Well (1993) emphasizes in his study, EFL teachers must learn some skills to
extend the third turn of IRF. They should extend students’ thought by justifying, paraphrasing,
clarifying, repeating and making links with their own experience. These activities can make class become more communicative and closer to genuine communication. By doing this, students are given more chance to produce output longer.
Better interaction will be more enhanced through the selection of appropriate communicative tasks, so teachers should employ many various kinds of tasks. Tsui (2001) on students’
interaction says that learners’ participation increases when pair work and group work were
assigned. Studies have proved that carrying out tasks will always require negotiation of meaning.
Thirdly, both focus on meaning and form are essential in second language learning since it can raise consciousness-raising (Cook, 2008; Ellis, 2003; Rutherford, 1987 as quoted in Baleghizadeh, S. (2010), enhance comprehensible input gained by students. Focusing on form can encourage students to pay conscious attention to certain forms in the input, which they are likely to ignore. Such attention, according to Schmidt (1990) is necessary for acquisition to take place. However, explaining the form (Long 1991, p. 45-46) must be in context and not like teaching grammar in an old-fashioned way. Focus on form is treated as a proactive attempt to teach certain linguistic forms communicatively (Doughty and Williams, 1998). Thus, it must occur in meaning-centered discourse interactionally and incidentally (not preplanned) (Ellis et al. 2001 a: 411-412).
Furthermore, as speaking is a necessary academic task which may not be developed
without effective instruction and teacher’s guidance, it is recommended that English speaking
teachers apply an effective means for promoting oral skills, which is an instruction in strategy
use that will activate and develop students’ communicative competence and can help students
acquire the target language before long.
should observe and video a highly-competent EFL teacher model how to explain concepts in English and generate a communicative interaction with learners, using intensive and challenging iinstructions, as well as actively engage the student’s interest. They also have to co-teach in class
to reinforce the understanding of the lesson concept in students’ L1. While the competent teacher
is conducting direct instruction, the other teachershould be facilitating group work or monitoring. This observation should function as a training and a means to promote students’ learning experience and language acquisition. This training program will not only benefit the learning teachers, but will also enable students to learn English through intensive interaction with the presence of two teachers. The supervision of learner-learner interaction that was conducted minimally with the presence of only one teacher, could be conducted effectively with the
presence of the learning teacher to assist students’ discussion in English.
Implications
The role of interaction is considered vital for language acquisition. The negotiation of meaning involved in the interaction is believed to enhance language learning and able to push the process of language development further. Thus, the findings from this study can provide some basis for suggesting directions for future research studies over longer periods of time that examine the relationship between negotiation of meaning involved in teacher-student interaction and second language acquisition of specific grammatical structures or lexical items.
Furthermore it would be interesting to examine the task-based interaction since communicative tasks can also facilitate second language acquisition. In addition, further study can also emphasize the effectiveness of feedback, feedback of focus on form, or interactional moves training. Fillmore (1979 as cited in Pica, 1994) also says that social interaction within group work achieved through a series of social strategies in native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) interaction is the key to successful acquisition. Moreover, the study of the effects of recasts can be evaluated universally based on the linguistic elements of input and theory-driven contextual features. Recast and its role as corrective feedback is a controversial issue among second language acquisition (SLA) researchers. It has gained several terms, for instance
recasting is called as ‘modification’, ‘completion or elaboration’ (Pica et al., 1989) or
‘paraphrasing’ (Spada&Frochlich, 1995).
REFERENCES EXIST IN THESIS
Alwasilah, A.C.2007. ‗Pokoknya Kualitatif‘. Bandung: PT. Kiblat Utama.
Alwasilah, A.C.2008. ‗Pokoknya Kualitatif‘. Bandung: PT. Kiblat Utama.
Alwasilah, A.C.2008.‗Pokoknya Kualitatif. Dasar-dasar merancang dan Melakukan Penelitian Kualitatif‘.
Dunia Pustaka Jaya.
Allwright.1984. ‗The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning‘. Applied Lingusitcs 5:
156 – 171.
Allwright, 1988. ‗Observation in the Language Classroom‘. Applied Lingusitics and language Study.
ISSN 0582553768, 9780582553767. Longman, 1988.
Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). ‗Focus on the Language Classroom‘. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Anderson, F. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: nails that don‘t stick up. In Wadden, P. (ed.)
A Handbook for Teaching English at Japanese Colleges and Universities. New York: Oxford
University Press, 101-110.
Ayoun,D. 2001.‘The Role of Negative and Positive Feedback in Second Language Acquisition of the
Passé Compose and Imparfait‘. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 226-243.
Barnes, Guttfreund, Satterly and Wells.1983. ―Characteristics of Adult Speech which Predict Children
Language‘s Development‖. Journal of Child Language, 10, 65-84.
Baleghizadeh, S.2010. ―Meaning-Fcused Form‖ . Novitas Royal. (Research on youth and language).
2010, 4(1), 119-128.
Bassano, S. and M. A. Christison. 1995. ‗Community spirit: A Practical guide to Collaborative Language
Learning‘. Burlingame, CA: Alta Book Center. ISBN: 1-882483-30-8.
Birdsong, D.1989.Metalinguistic performance and interlinguistic competence. New York: Springer
Brown, H. D. (2001). ‗Teaching by principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy‘. 2nd Ed.
White Plains, NY: Longman/Pearson Education
Brown,H.D.2002. ‗Teaching By Principles – An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy (3rd
Edition)‘. London: Longman, Pearson Education.
Carroll, S.1995.The irrelevance of verbal feedback to language learning. In L. Eubank, L. Selinker, & M.
Sharwood Smith,Eds. The current state of interlanguage: Studies in honor of William E.
Rutherford,pp. 73–88. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cameron, Lynne.2001. ‗Teaching Languages to Young Learners‘. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cazden, C.B. 2001. ‗Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning‘. Westport:
Heinemann.
Chaudron,C.1988. ‗Second Language Classrooms: Research on Teaching and Learning‘. Cambridge
University Press.
Chaudron,C.1998. ‗Second Language Classroom: Research on Teaching and Learning‘. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed.). New York:Macmillan.
Cook, V. (Ed.). (2000). ‗Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition [M]‘. Foreign Language Teaching
and Research Press & Macmillan Publishers Ltd.
Corder, S. P. (1967). The significance of learner‘s errors. International Review of Applied
Linguistics in Language Teaching, 5, 161-170.
Creswell, J. 1994. ‗Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches‘. London: Sage
Creswell, J. W. (2003). ‗Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (2 nd
Coultas, V. 2009. ‗Strategies for Behavior Management and Talk-based Tasks‘. Constructive Talk in
Challenging Classrooms. Taylor and Francis – e- library.
Corder, S.P. (1981). Error analysis and interlanguage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cullen, R., 2002. ‗Supportive Teacher Talk: the Importance of the F Move‘.ELT Journal, vol. 56/2. OUP.
Dardjowidjojo, S 1997, 'English policies and their classrooms impact in some ASEAN/Asian countries',
in GM Jacobs (ed.), Language Classrooms of Tomorrow: Issues and Responses,
SEAMEO-RELC, Singapore, pp. 36-54.
De Bot, K. (1996). The Psycholinguistics of the Output Hypothesis. Language learning, 46, 529-555.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinning of focus on form. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition
and second language instruction (pp. 206-257). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
De Bot, K., Lowie, W., and Verspoor, M. 2005. ‗Second Language Acquisition, An Advanced
Resource Book‘. London: Routledge.
Denzin and Lincoln. 1994. ‗Handbook of Qualitative Research‘. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Denzin and Lincoln. 1996. ‗Handbook of Qualitative Research‘. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Doughty, C. Cognitive underpinnings of focus of focus on form. In P. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and
Second Language Instruction. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press, 106 - 57.
Doughty, C. and Varela, E. (1998) Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty and J.Williams (eds)
Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge:Cambridge University
Press.
Donato, R.1994. ‗Collective Scaffolding in Second Language Learning‘. In J.P. Lantolf and G. Appel
(eds). Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Doughty, C., & Long, M. H. (Eds.). (2003). ‗Handbook of Second Language Acquisition‘. New York:
Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational
practice. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Ellis, R. (1984). ‗Classroom Second Language Developmen‘t. Oxford: Pergamon.
Ellis, R. 1985. ‗Understanding Second Language Acquisition‘. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language
Education Press.
Ellis, R. 1988. ‗Classroom Second Language Development‘. London: Prentice Hall.
Ellis, R. (1990). ‗Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Learning in the Classroom‘. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell. (1997). SLA Research and Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1994). The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. 1995. The study of Second Language Acquisition. (3 edn.) Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis,R. 1998. ‗Discourse Control and Acquisition-Rich Classroom‘. In W.A. Renandya and G.M. Jacobs
(eds). Learners and Language Learning Anthology Series 39, Singapore: SEAMO Regional
Language Centre.
Ellis, R. (1999). ‗Discourse-Control and the Acquisition-Rich Classroom‘. In W. Renandya & G. Jacobs
(Eds.), Learner and language learning. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamazaki, A. 1994. ‗Classroom interaction, Comprehension, and the Acquisition of L2 Word Meanings‘. LanguageLearning, 44(3), 449-491.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word
meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21, 285-301.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001a). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.
Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001b). Preemptive focus on form in the ESL classroom.
Farrell,T.S.J. 2005. ‗Reflective Language Teaching: From Research to Practice‘. London: Continuum
Press.
Fauziah, A. ‗ A Portrait of Teacher Talk in EFL Classroom in Indonesia‘. A thesis submitted as a partial
fulfillment of the requirement of the Master‘s Degree. English studies. School of Graduate
Studies. Indonesia University of Education.
Ferguson, C. 1971. ‗Absence of Copula and the Notion of Simplicity‘: A study of normal speech, baby
talk, foreigner talk and pidgins, in Hymes (ed.). 1971b.
Ferguson,C. 1975. ‗Towards a Characterization of English Foreigner Talk‘. Anthropological
Lingusitics17: 1-14.
FengQican.1999. ‗Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instructions, cultivating their
intellectual ability and managing classroom activities‘
Flanders, N.A. 1960. ‗Interaction Analysis in the Classroom: A Manual for Observers‘. University of
Michigan, Ann Harbor.
Flanders, N.A. 1970. ‗Analyzing Teacher Behavior‘. Reading, MA: Addison – Wesley.
Fraenkel, J. and Wallen, N. 1993. ‗How to design and evaluate research in education‘. Singapore.
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. (1996). ‗How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. (3rd Ed.)‘.
McGraw Hill. New York.
Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2006). ‗How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education(6 th
ed.)‘.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Furrow, D., Nelson, K., & Benedict, H. (1979). ‗Mothers‘ speech to children and syntactic development:
Some simple relationships‘. Journal of Child Language, 6(3), 423–443.
Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ:`Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gaies, S. (1979). Linguistic Input in First and Second Language Learning. In F.Eckman and A. Hastings
Gaies, S.J.1983. ‗The investigation of language classroom process‘. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 205-217.
Gass, S. and Varonis, E. (1985). ‗The Effect of Familiarity on the Comprehension of Nonnative Speech‘.
Language Learning, 34, 65-89.
Gass, S.M., and Varonis, E,M. 1985. ‗Task Variation and Non-native/Non-native Negotiation of
Meaning‘. In S.M. Gass and C.G. Madden (Eds.), Input in Second Language Acquisition
(pp.149-161). Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Gass, S.M. & Varonis, E.M. 1985a. ‗Task Variation and Non-native. Non-native Negotiation of
Meaning‘ in Gass and Madden (eds). 1985.
Gass, S.M. and Varonis, E.M. 1994. ‗Input, Interaction and Ssecond Language Production. SSLA, 16(3):
283-302.
Gass,E. and Varonis, E. 1985. Non-native/non-native Conversations: A Model fo Negotiation for
Meaning. AppliedLinguisitics, 6(1), 71-89.
Gass, S.M. 1997. ‗Input, Interaction, and Second Language Learner‘. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associate, Inc., Publishers.
Gass, S. & Mackey, A. (2007). ‗Data Elicitation for Second and Foreign Language Research‘. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Gibbons,P. 1998. ‗Classroom Talk and the Learning of New rRgisters in a Second Language. Language
and Education‘, 12(2), 99-118.
Gleitman, L.R., & Rozin, P. (1977). ‗The Structure and Acquisition of Reading I: Relations
betweenOrthographies and the Structure of Language. In A.S. Reber & D.L. Scarborough (Eds.),
Toward apsychology of reading: the proceedings of the CUNY conference. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Gleitman, L., Newport, M., & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of the motherese hypothesis.
Journal of Child Language 11, 43-79.
Harley, B. & Hart, D. (1997). "Language aptitude and second language proficiency in classroom learners
of different starting ages". Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 19. 379-400. Henning, J. E., 2004. ‗THE ―BOW TIE‖. A Conceptual Tool for Opening-Up Classroom Discourse‘. Curriculum
and Teaching Dialogue,vol.6, No.1.
Hatch, E. (1978). Acquisition of syntax in a second language. In J. Richards (Ed.), Understanding second
and foreign language learning (pp. 34-70). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Hu, G. W. (2005). Contextual influences on instructional practices: A Chinese case for an ecological
approach to ELT. TESOL Quarterly, 39(4), 635-660.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3588525
Isharyanti, N. 2005. ‗Second Language Acquisition and Computer Mediated Communication (CMC). A
thesis submitted for a partial fulfillment of a master‘s degree. English Department of Satya Wacana
Christian University (SWCU). Salatiga. Indonesia.
Izumi,S.2002. Output, input enhancement and the noticing hypothesis. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 24, 541-577.
Iwashita, N. (2001). ‗The Effect of Learner Proficiency on Interactional Moves and Mmodified Output in
Nonnative-Nonnative Interaction in Japanese as a Foreign Language‘. System, 29, 267-287.
Jayadi, I 2004, 'ELT in Indonesia in the context of English as a global language', in BY Cahyono and U
Widiati (eds), The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in Indonesia, State
University of Malang Press, Malang, Indonesia, pp. 1-16.
Johnson, K.E. 1995.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kweldju, S 2004, 'Lexically-based language teaching: An innovative step for ELT in Indonesia', in BY
Cahyono and U Widiati (eds), The Tapestry of English Language Teaching and Learning in
Indonesia, State University of Malang Press, Malang, Indonesia, pp. 37-56.
Krashen, S.D. 1981. ‗Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Learning‘. Oxford:
Krashen, S.D. 1982. ‗Principle and Practice inSecond Language Acquisition‘. Oxford: Pergamon
Press.
Krashen, S.D. 1985. ‗The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications‘. New York: Longman Inc.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In: N. Ellis (ed), Implicit and Explicit learning of
Languages. London: Academic Press, pp. 45-77.rashen, S.D. and Terrel, T.D.1993. ‗The Natural Approach : Language Acquisition in the Classroom‘. London: Prentice Hall Europe.
Kumaravadivelu, B. 1993. ‗Maximizing Learning Potential in the Communicative Classroom‘. ELT
Journal 47/1: 12-21.
Kumaravadivelu, B.n.d. 1994. ‗Patterns of Interaction in English as a first and Second Language
Classroom Discourse‘. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1999. Critical classroom discourse
analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33: 453 – 84.
Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H. 1991. An Introduction to second language research. Harlow.
Longman.
Lemke, J. (1990). ‗Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values‘. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lestari, Lies.A. 1999. English Classroom Culture Reformation: How Can It be Done? Teflin Journal, Vol.
10, No. 1. Universitas Negeri Surabaya
Liu, N.F. and Littlewood, W.1997. ‗Why do many students appear reluctant to participate in
classroom learning discourse?‘. System, 25(3):371-384.
Long, M. H. 1980. ‗Input, Interaction and Second Language Acquisition‘. Unpublished PhD dissertation.
University of California at Los Angeles.
Long, M.H. 1980. ‗Inside the ‗black box:: methodological issues in classroom research on language
learning‘. Language Learning, 30, 1 – 42.
Long, M. H. (1981). ‗Input, interaction and second language acquisition‘. In H. Winitz (Ed.) Native
Language and Foreign Language Acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 379,
Long, M.H. 1983a. ‗Native Speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of meaning‘.
Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 126-141.
Long, M.H. 1983b. ‗Native speaker / non-native speaker conversation in the second language classroom‘.
On TESOL’82: Pacific Perspectives on Language Learning and Teaching. Washington, D.C.:
TESOL.
Long, M.H.1996. ‗The role of linguistic environment in second language acquisition‘. In W. Ritchie & T.
Bhatia (Eds.). Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp. 413-468). New York: Academic
Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D.& Long, M. 2000. ‗An Introduction to Second Language Acquisition Research‘
Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
Long, M. & Sato, C. 1983. ‗Classroom Foreigner Talk Discourse: Forms and Functions of Teachers‘
questions. In Seliger and Long (eds). Classroom Oriented research in Second Language
Acquisition. Newbury House.
Long, M.H., Inagaki, S. and Ortega, L. 1998. ‗The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA: Models and
recasts in Japanese and Spanish‘. Modern language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Lyster, R. (1998). ‗Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse‘. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20(1): 51-81.
Lyster, R. (1998a). ‗Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and
learner repair in immersion classrooms‘. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (1998b). ‗Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse‘. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 20, 51-81.
Lyster, R.1998a. Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies inSecond
Language Acquisition 20, 51–81.
Lyster, R. 1998b. ‗Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error types and
Lyster, R. (2002). ‗Negotiation in immersion teacher-student interaction‘. International Journal of
Educational Research, 37, 237-253.
Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. 1997. ‗Corrective feedback and learner uptake; negotiation of form in
communicative classroom‘. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 37–66.
Lin, A. (1996). Bilingualism or linguistic segregation? Symbolic domination, resistance and
code-switching in Hong Kong high schools. Linguistics and Education, 8,
49–84.
Leow, Ronald,P. 2007. Input in the L2 classroom: An attentional perspective on receptive practice.
Applied Linguistics and Cognitive Psychology pp. 21-50. Cambridge Applied Linguistics.
Long, M.1994. 'Group work in the teaching and learning of English as a foreign language—problems and
potential ' English Language Teaching Journal 31/4 285-92.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on Form: Theory, research, and practice. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.15-41). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). The Asian EFL Journal, Volume 9, Number 2 90
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
Mackey, A., & Philip, J. 1998. ‗Conversational Interaction and second language development: recasts,
response, and red herrings‘. The Modern Language Journal, 82(3): 338-56.
Mackey, A.1997.Interactional modifications and the development of questions in ESL. Unpublished
manuscript, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Mackey, A. (1995). Stepping up the pace: Input, interaction and interlanguage development: An empirical
study of questions in ESL. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sydney, Australia.
Mackey, A. (1999). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question
