EXAMINING EFL CLASSROOM INTERACTION BASED ON SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD MODEL.

EXAMINING EFL CLASSROOM INTERACTION
BASED ON SINCLAIR AND COULTHARD MODEL

A THESIS
Submitted to Fulfill the Partial Requirement for
the Degree of Sarjana Pendidikan

By

NURUL WULANDA
Registration Number: 2122121052

ENGLISH AND LITERATURE DEPARTMENT
FACULTY OF LANGUAGES AND ARTS
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2017

63

ABSTRACT
Wulanda, Nurul. Registration Number: 2122121052. Examining EFL

Classroom Interaction Based on Sinclair and Coulthard Model. A Thesis.
English Educational Program, Faculty of Language and Arts, State
University of Medan, 2016
The aim of this study were: (a) to identify classroom discourse patternings of EFL
classroom interaction based on Sinclair and Coulthard Model, and (b) to describe
how EFL classroom interaction affects the students’ learning process based on
Sinclair and Coulthard Model. The subject of this study were an English Teacher,
and 40 students of XI MIA 1, SMA Swasta Nurul Iman. The research was
qualitative research. To answer the problem of the study, the methodology used in
the research was discourse analysis in the form of descriptive. The data collected
through the following instrument: observation, and recording. Then the data were
analyzed by using Sinclair and Coulthard model of classroom discourse. The
result of this research were the following, (a) it was found that in the classroom
discourse, there were seven patterns initiated by the teacher and four patterns
initiated by the student as the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) was used more
often by the teacher, (b) the interaction affects the teaching learning process in a
way how the lesson passed on to the student affects the goal of learning English
itself to be able to use English both inside and outside the classroom. It can be
concluded that the students were not getting used to interact with English, and the
goal of communicative skill in English was not achieved. Thus, the teachers

should reorganize the activities which can foster more interaction by using
English in the classroom.
Keywords: Classroom interaction, classroom discourse, Sinclair and Coulthard,
IRF Pattern.

i

ABSTRAK
Wulanda, Nurul. Nomor Identitas Mahasiswa: 2122121052. Examining EFL
Classroom Interaction Based on Sinclair and Coulthard Model. Skripsi,
Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni,
Universitas Negeri Medan, 2016
Tujuan penelitian ini adalah (a) untuk mengidentifikasi pola interaksi di kelas
Bahasa Inggris berdasarkan model Sinclair and Coulthard, dan (b) untuk
mendeskripiskan bagaimana interaksi di kelas Bahasa Inggris mempengaruhi
proses belajar siswa berdasarkan model Sinclair and Coulthard. Subjek penelitian
ini adalah satu orang guru Bahasa Inggris dan 40 siswa di kelas XI MIA 1, SMA
Swasta Nurul Iman. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian kualitatif. Untuk menjawab
masalah penelitian, digunakan metode discourse analysis dalam bentuk deskriptif.
Data diperoleh dengan instrument berikut, observasi dan merekam. Kemudian

data dianalisis menggunakan model Sinclair and Coulthard dari classroom
discourse. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah, (a) bahwa dalam interaksi kelas,
ditemukan tujuh pola interaksi yang dimulai oleh guru, dan empat pola interaksi
yang dimulai oleh siswa sebagai IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) yang paling
sering digunakan oleh guru, (b) interaksi mempengaruhi proses belajar siswa
dalam hal bagaimana pelajaran disampaikan kepada siswa tersebut mempengaruhi
tujuan belajar Bahasa Inggris itu sendiri, yaitu untuk mampu menggunakan
Bahasa Inggris di dalam maupun di luar kelas. Dapat disimpulkan bahwa siswa
belum terbiasa berinteraksi dengan Bahasa Inggris, dan guru sebaiknya menyusun
ulang aktivitas belajar yang dapat merangsang interaksi dengan berbahasa Inggris.
Kata Kunci: Classroom interaction, classroom discourse, Sinclair and
Coulthard, IRF Pattern.

ii

ii

63

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS....................................................................................... v
LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................... viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ......................................................................................ix
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................1
A. The Background of the Study .........................................................................1
B. The Problems of the Study ............................................................................. 6
C. The Objectives of the Study ........................................................................... 6
D. The Scope of the Study .................................................................................. 7
E. The Significance of the Study ........................................................................7
CHAPTER II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................................8
A. Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 8
1.

English as Foreign Language .................................................................8

2.

Classroom Interaction ..........................................................................12

3.

Classroom Discourse Analysis ............................................................14

4.

Sinclair and Coulthard Model .............................................................16

B. Relevant Studies .......................................................................................... 27
C. Conceptual Framework ............................................................................... 30
CHAPTER III. METHOD OF RESEARCH .................................................... 33
A. The Research Design ................................................................................... 33
B. Source of the Data ....................................................................................... 34
v

C. Instrument of Data Collection ..................................................................... 35
D. Technique of Data Collection....................................................................... 35

E. Technique of Data Analysis ......................................................................... 36
CHAPTER IV. DATA ANALYSIS, RESEARCH FINDINGS AND
DISCUSSIONS ..........................................................................38
A. Data Analysis ............................................................................................... 38
1. Classroom Discourse Patterning of EFL Classroom based on Sinclair and
Coulthard Model (1975) .......................................................................... 38
2. The Students’ Learning Process based on Sinclair and Coulthard Model
(1975) ...................................................................................................... 45
B. The Research Findings ................................................................................. 49
1. Classroom Discourse Patterning of EFL Classroom based on Sinclair and
Coulthard Model (1975) .......................................................................... 49
2. The Students’ Learning Process based on Sinclair and Coulthard Model
(1975) ...................................................................................................... 52
C. Discussions ................................................................................................... 54
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS..................................57
A. Conclusions .................................................................................................. 57
B. Suggestions .................................................................................................. 58
REFERENCES ..................................................................................................... 60
APPENDIX ...........................................................................................................63

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Pages
Table 2.1 The Realization of Grammatical, Situational with Discourse ............... 21
Table 2.2 Classes of Act ....................................................................................... 22
Table 2.3 Classes of Moves .................................................................................. 25
Table 2.4 Classes of Exchange ............................................................................. 26
Table 4.1 The IRF Pattern Initiated by the Teacher .............................................. 39
Table 4.2 The IRF Pattern Initiated by the Student .............................................. 40
Table 4.3 The Frequency and Percentage of the Classroom Discourse Patterning
Initiated by the Teacher ......................................................................... 50
Table 4.4 The Frequency and Percentage of the Classroom Discourse Patterning
Initiated by the Student .......................................................................... 50

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Pages
Figure 2.1 Teacher’s Initiation System ..................................................................22

Figure 2.2 Chart of Conceptual Framework .......................................................... 31
Figure 4.1 The Percentage Formula ....................................................................... 49

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Pages
Appendix A. Symbol Sheet .................................................................................... 63
Appendix B. Lesson Material Sheet ...................................................................... 66
Appendix C. Dialogue Transcript of Conversation at the First Meeting ...............67
Appendix D. Dialogue Transcript of Conversation at the Second Meeting .......... 79
Appendix E. Analysis Conversation of the First Meeting ..................................... 92
Appendix F. Analysis Conversation of the Second Meeting ...............................116

ix

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

A. The Background of the Study

Students’ learning takes place through communication system with others
as cognitive process of constructing knowledge and developing competency to
understand, reason, and solve problem (Markee, 2015, p.96).
The communication system in the classroom itself is hold by the interaction
among teacher and students. Therefore, the interaction in the classroom is quite
different with ordinary interaction. The study of that communication system is the
study of classroom discourse. This study of classroom discourse is thus a kind of
applied linguistics— the study of situated language use in one social setting.
In the classroom it is usually the teacher who decides who will speak, and
for how long. When the teacher decides to ask a question, the teacher tend to know
the answer. The aim of asking the question is to evaluate the student’s competency.
Among Indonesian people, normally people ask when they do not know the answer
or seek an information. For the example when someone asks about time. She/he
asks about time whether because she/he really does not know what time is it and
does not have watch with her/him. In casual conversation it is strange and rude not
only to ask something that the answer is already known by the speaker, but also to
evaluate the answer. For example:
A: Excuse me sir, would you please tell me where is this address?
B: Yes, it is two blocks from here.

1

2

A: You are right. Good job.
In real life people normally ask question to find out something they do not
know, and respond in different way. Given the example above, when the question
is already answered by B, the proper answer might be, “Oh… I see. Thanks for your
help, sir.”
Therefore, what actually happen in the classroom will determine the
outcome of the learning that is realized in real life. The students in the classroom is
subject to the norms of classroom context, language and discourse whereas in the
same trying to acquire a different set of conventions, language and discourse
patterns that will be acceptable outside the classroom. Briefly speaking, for the
students of English as a foreign language like in Indonesia where English plays no
major role in the community and is primarily learnt only in the classroom, the
students still need to learn English in order to use it in social context. The
distinctions of linguistic structure of discourse have been shown by Sinclair and
Coulthard (1975) that classroom has by nature a tripartite structure: the teacher
initiates, the pupil responds, the teacher then evaluate the response.

In addition the data were collected in three college English classrooms of
non-English majors at Qingdao University of Science and Technology teacher
dominates the class and controls the topic; the English used by the students is
minimal with only words, phrases and short sentence (Jiang, 2012, p.2151). Also
the research from Qingdao University which resulting that teacher-initiated
exchanges dominated in classroom dicourse patterns (Yu, 2009, p.154)

3

Studies which focused on pattern of interaction in Indonesian school settings
were very rare. One journal that has been found out was published by TEFLIN, this
study found that the dominant type of interaction was teacher-student
interaction. Teacher-student interaction occupied 93% of the time while the
Student-Student interaction occupied only 7% of the time. (Suryati, 2015, p.253).
The other national journal also found that verbal classroom interaction was
dominated by the teacher. These results confirmed in interview that teacher
acknowledged that the interaction was dominated by him and it was hard to make
the students talk more (Mulyati, 2013, p. 3-5)
The analysis of the interaction taking place between the teachers and the
students in EFL classrooms in Iran has shown that the teachers/students interaction
was rather dominated by the teachers (Shiraz and Rafieerad, 2010, p. 93-120)
The basic purpose of school is achieved through communication. Teaching
is achieved through talking, and the quality of talk and the interaction must affect
the learning that takes place in the classroom where the subject is language.
Interaction itself is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas,
between two or more people. In the language classroom, English is used as the topic
and the medium of instruction. As the topic, it constitutes the subject matter of the
lesson. While as the medium of instruction, English provides a means of
communication for the organization of the learning process. Whereas in EFL
classroom the medium of instruction may be natural language (mother tongue).
In Indonesia where English is as Foreign Language and taught from
elementary to high school, the goal of learning English, especially for Senior High

4

School student based on Materi Pelatihan Guru Implentasi Kurikulum 2013 Tahun
2015: Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris is,
“Tujuan mata pelajaran Bahasa Inggris di sekolah menengah adalah untuk
mengembangkan potensi peserta didik agar memiliki kompetensi komunikatif
dalam wacana interpersonal, transaksional, dan fungsional, dengan menggunakan
berbagai teks berbahasa Inggris lisan dan tulis, secara runtut dengan menggunakan
unsur kebahasaan yang akurat dan berterima, tentang berbagai pengetahuan faktual
dan prosedural, serta menanamkan nilai-nilai luhur karakter bangsa, dalam konteks
kehidupan di lingkungan rumah, sekolah, dan masyarakat.”
(Rohim, 2015, p.16)
Unfortunaltely, based on author’s teaching experience when doing Teaching
Practice in SMA Negeri 1 Babalan, the students often became reluctant to
participate in a classroom interaction due to their lack of convention of turn-taking
as the signals of their interactions with each other and with the teacher. Firstly,
because they either did not know how to respond or say something in English.
Secondly, as the author’s finding, the students felt less confident to say something
in English. The EFL students barely participated in their verbal interactions. Turns
were rarely more than several clauses, and there were frequently extended periods
of silence as the teacher wrote notes on the whiteboard. In addition, students mostly
used natural language with each other and the teacher which causing no practice in
constructing their own question and response. Supported by Huraerah’s findings in
her research at in one of Senior High School in Bandung, it was revealed that the
percentage of teacher talk was more than 54% (2013).
In attempt to understand those such classroom interaction that can be very
mechanical even monotonous, understanding possible contributing pattern of
classroom discourse would give benefit by enabling the teacher to evaluate their
own output as the teacher and that of their students the EFL classroom.

5

In Indonesia, the research of classroom interaction is comparatively few and
the materials that the researcher get were very limited. But yet the classroom
discourse is so important to analyze. Regardless any method the teacher used,
whether it is student-centered or teacher-centered, the students barely talk. Since in
Indonesia, English is used in EFL classroom, the English itself becomes problem
because in EFL classroom, natural language (mother tongue) can occur.
By analyzing classroom discourse enables the teacher to understand the
special nature of classroom interaction; to understand why teacher talk so much
more than the students. To understand the special nature of classroom discourse,
Sinclair and Coulthard, borrowing from Halliday's theory of scale and category
grammar by developing ranks at the discourse level which is in descending order:
Lesson, Transaction, Exchange, Move and Act. Also it has by nature a tripartite
structure: the teacher initiates, the pupil responds, the teacher then evaluate the
response (Sinclair and Couthard, 1992, p. 2)
Lesson is the highest unit of classroom discourse that consist one or more
transactions. Transaction then is combined by exchange. Exchange as two or more
utterances are combined by move. Move and acts are very similar to words and
morphemes in grammar. Move is the smallest free unit although it has a structure
in terms of acts. Acts are the units at the lowest rank of discourse that corresponds
the grammatical unit clause.
One of the most important features of all classroom discourse is that it
follows a fairly typical and predictable structure, comprising three parts: a teacher
initiation, a student response, and a teacher feedback, commonly known as IRF.

6

This three-part structure was first put forward by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975
and is known as the IRF exchange structure. The work of Sinclair and Coulthard
had a huge impact on the understanding of the ways in which teacher and students
communicate.
Classroom discourse analysis is useful for a teacher to understand the form
of discourse classroom pattern, the teacher get understanding of the ways story can
be told, questions can be responded to, and problem can be solved. This study aids
their teaching patterns in a way that will encourage interactions among students and
improved classroom performance especially for teaching and learning English as
Foreign Language.

B. The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study above, the writer makes the
identifications of study as:
1. What are the classroom discourse patterning of EFL classroom
interaction based on Sinclair and Coulthard model?
2. How do the EFL classroom interaction affect the students’ learning
process based on Sinclair and Coutlhard model?

C. The Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the study are:
1. To identify classroom discourse patternings of EFL classroom
interaction based on Sinclair and Coulthard model.

7

2. To describe how EFL classroom interaction affects the students’
learning process based on Sinclair and Coutlhard model.
D. The Scope of the Study
The scope of the study is describing classroom discourse in EFL classroom
based on Indonesia, especially in North Sumatera. It will be analyzed in eleventh
grade senior high school, XI MIA 1 of SMA Swasta Nurul Iman.

E. The Significances of the Study
Findings of this study are expected to provide information which may have
theoretical as well as practical value for English teachers. Theoretically, the
findings of the study later will add some new theories and evaluation in the area of
classroom interaction. Meanwhile practically, the findings become source of
reference for the English teachers especially in Senior High School in their attempts
to increase students’ learning process.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS
In this chapter, the researcher presents conclusions and suggestions related
to the research finding and discussion.
A. Conclusion
This section presents the conclusions of the study conducted based on the
objectives of the study. The objective of the study is (a) to identify classroom
discourse patterning of EFL classroom interaction based on Sinclair and
Coulthard model (1975), and (b) to describe how EFL classroom interaction affect
the students’ learning process based on Sinclair and Coutlhard model (1975).
1. The classroom discourse patterning of EFL classroom at XI MIA 1 SMA
Nurul Iman, based on Sinclair and Coulthard model (1975) was dominated
by IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) patterning initiated by the teacher
(30.62%) in the sense of teacher-dominated the classroom interaction. It
was found that there were seven patterns initiated by the teacher,
meanwhile there were only four patterns initiated by the student.
2. Secondly, how the EFL classroom interaction affect the students’ learning
process can be seen in terms with the categories that are mostly used by
the teacher, it can be concluded that the teacher’s roles were as manager,
director, facilitator, and controller, in other words teacher-centered,
meanwhile Curriculum 2013 agreed to be student-centered. The interaction
affects the teaching learning process in a way how the lesson passed on to
57

58

the student. In this study, it was found that the teacher mostly used Bahasa
as the medium of interaction along with the students. The goal of learning
English is to be able use English inside and outside the classroom. So, if
the teacher did not make the students get used to speak in English by using
it himself/herself both as medium and the subject in the classroom
interaction, it will affect the goal of learning English itself is not
accomplished. If the teacher is to prepare the students for real-world
communication, the teacher need to develop awareness of the language
produced inside the classroom and the types of roles that the teacher might
possibly be limiting the students.
An application of the Sinclair & Coulthard model allows teachers to
objectively understand the choices they make and how those choices impact the
communication that is likely to take place in the classroom. Practically and
theoretically, the results of the present study will be useful to language teachers
teaching English as a foreign language, in helping them investigate what actually
is going on in their own classes, trying to move away from a teacher-dominated
mode of teaching by adopting a more student-dominated mode of teaching.

B. SUGGESTIONS
The writer would like to propose some considerable suggestions as follows:
1. Teacher
It is necessary for the teachers to reorganize the activities which can foster
more interaction in the classroom, such as brainstorming and problemsolving, role play, simulations, and discussion. Using such activities in the

59

classroom, teachers will be able to motivate students to learn in a more
involving way. These kinds of activities can provoke a very positive
attitude towards language learning since they resemble real life events.
Moreover, students must be persuaded to interact positively and
effectively in the language classroom. Teachers should incorporate more
real life like activities into their teaching practice.

2. Institution
The institution should provide the English textbooks by trying to
incorporate activities and tasks in the books which would provoke more
‘genuine communication’ between teachers and students.
3. Students
The students should be daring to speak in English, because in the
classroom they are allowed to do mistake, and less outside the classroom.
In other word, interaction in the classroom will provide them the chance to
participate in English communication in society.

4. The next researcher
It is finally suggested that other researchers should conduct further studies
on classroom discourse whether it is based on Sinclair and Coulthard
model, which will be a very useful reference to the students’ needs in
teaching learning process.

REFERENCES
Auerbach, C. F., and Silverstein, L. B. (2003). An Introduction to Coding and
Analysis: Qualitative Data. New York: New York University.
Benham, B., and Pouriran, Y. (2008). Classroom Discourse: Analyzing
Teacher/Learner Interactions in Iranian EFL Task-Based Classrooms.
Journal: Porta Linguarium, (12), 117132.
Broughton, B., Brumfit, C., Flavell, R., Hill, P., & Pincas, A. (1980). Teaching
English as a Foreign Language. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, Ltd.
Brown, H. (2011). Exchange Structure in The Modern Classroom: ‘Jamie’s
Dream School’. Journal: Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3,
3156.
Brown, H.D (2007). Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. USA:
Pearson Education.
Brown, H.D (2000). Teaching by principles (2nd Ed.). London: Longman.
Candlin, C., and Mercer, N. (2001). English in Its Social Context. A Reader.
London: Routledge.
Christie, Frances. (2002). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Functional
Perspective. London: Continuum.
Collins, L., and Munoz, C. (2016). The Foreign Language Classroom: Current
Perspective and Future Considerations. The Modern Language Journal.
100 (16), 133-147.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London.
Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge.
Coulthard, M. and Brazil, D. (1992). Exchange Structure. In Coulthard. M,
Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Duff, P. A. (2008). Case Study Research in Applied Linguistics. USA: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Edward, D. and Mercer, N. (1993). Common Knowledge: The Development of
Understanding in the Classroom. New York: Routledge.

60

61

Gündüz, M. (2014). Analyzing Language Classroom through Classroom
Interaction. International Journal of Human Science. 11 (2), 1149-1166.
Huraerah, N.R. (2013). The Analysis of Verbal Interaction between Teacher and
Students in The Classroom. Thesis, Bandung: Universitas Pendidikan
Indonesia.
Jenks, J.C. and Seedhouse, P. (2015). International Perspective on ELT
Classroom Interaction. United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods & Techniques. New
Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publisher.
Hadhi, P. (2012). An Analysis of Classroom Interaction Using Sinclair and
Coulthard Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Model in English Speaking
Class at Class XI Science 8 of SMAN 2 Bandar Lampung. Thesis, Bandar
Lampung: The University of Bandar Lampung.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2007). Language and Education. London: Continuum.
Hanum, F. (2014). Classroom Discourse Analysis in Language Interaction in the
“To Sir with Love” Movie. Thesis, Surabaya: State Islamic University
Sunan Ampel.
Huraerah, N. 2013. The Analysis of Verbal Interaction between Teacher and
Students in the Classroom. Thesis, Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Jiang, X. (2012). A Study of College English Classroom Discourse. Journal:
Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(10), 21462152. Finland:
Academy Publisher.
Kron, W. R. and Remedios, L. (2007). Classroom Discourse in Problem-Based
Learning Classrooms in the Health Sciences. Australian Review of Applied
Linguistics, 30(1), 1-18. Australia: Monash University Express.
Kumpulainen, K. and Wray, D. (2002). Classroom Interaction and Social
Learning from Theory to Practice. New York: Routledge Falmer.
Liu, J. and Le, T. (2012). A Case Study on College English Classroom Discourse.
International Journal of Innovative Interdisciplinary Research, (2), 2-11.
Markee, N. (2015). The Handbook of Classroom Discourse and Interaction.
United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

62

McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse Analysis for Language Teacher. United
Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, R., and Myles, F. (2004). Second Language Learning Theories (2nd Ed).
Britain: Hodder Arnold.
Mulyati, F. A. (2013). A Study of Teacher Talk and Student Talk in Verbal
Classroom Interaction to Develop Speaking Skill for Young Learners.
Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 110.
Nashroh, S. K. (2015). The Effect of Community Language Learning On Students’
Achievement in Speaking Skill. Thesis, Medan: UNIMED
Nunan, D. (1992). Research Method in Language Learning. Cambridge: Press
Syndicate.
Rashidi, N., and Rafueerad, M. (2010). Analyzing Patterns of Classroom
Interaction in EFL Classroom in Iran. The Journal of ASIA TEFL, 7(3),
93120.
Rohim, F. (2015). Materi Pelatihan Guru Implementasi Kurikulum 2013 Jenjang
SMA/SMK Tahun 2015: Mata Pelajaran Bahasa Inggris. Kementerian
Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan.
Rymes, B. (2009). Classroom Discourse Analysis: A Tool for Critical Reflection.
New York : Hampton Press.
Saragih, A. (2015). Discourse Analysis: A Systemic Functional Linguistic
Approach to the Analysis of Discourse and Text. Medan.
Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1992). Towards an analysis of discourse. In
Coulthard. M, Advance in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom Interaction Strategies Employed by English
Teachers at Lower Secondary Schools. TEFLIN Journals, 26(2), 247264.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse Language in Action. London:
Routledge.
Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. London: Routledge.
Willis, J. (1981). Spoken Discourse in the E.L.T Classroom: A System of a
Description. Thesis. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Yu, W. (2009). An Analysis of College English Classroom Discourse. CCSE:
Asian Social Science, 5(7), 152159.