Definition of TSs Interaction
than two thirds of all teacher questions…are concerned with narrow lines of interrogation which stimulate an expected response’.
Barnes 1979 in Moyles,et al. 2003 recognizes that teacher’s dominance in interaction exists as the teacher has a conflict between the need to promote
learning and the need to maintain control. Unfortunately, this condition can ‘devalue both the knowledge the students have and their capacity to use speech to
apply the knowledge to a new task’. Thus, it is better to “engage students in active ways rather than sitting passively listening to the teacher” Barnes, 1979 in
Moyles et al.2003,p.17. It will be different if the joint negotiation and meaning- making are emphasized in learning and teaching. There will be wider
communicative strategies and the nature of social interaction will be changed into more dynamic teaching and learning conversation Orsolini Pontecorvo,1992 in
Kumpulainen Wray, 2002. In this pattern, the communicative strategies used consist of repetition and rephrashing of students’ contribution instead of mere
questioning and evaluation activity Kumpulainen Wray, 2002. Another perspective for classroom interaction is called collective
argumentation developed by Brown Renshaw in Kumpulainen Wray 2002. In this pattern, the communicative strategies used are sharing or interpreting,
comparing, explaning, justifying, establishing joint agreement and presenting for a validation to coordinate different perspective in classroom. Then, the teacher’s
participation consists of managing, reminding, supporting, modelling, encouraging students to evaluate, and providing strategies for dealing with
interpersonal conflicts Brown Renshaw 2000 in Kumpulainen Wray PLAGIAT MERUPAKAN TINDAKAN TIDAK TERPUJI
2002. In this perspective, the students take a part in classroom more than the teacher. It is not in line with Kovalainen, Kumpulainen, and Vasama in
Kumpulainen Wray 2002 who promote the teacher’s participation in class. In their research, they identify four modes of teacher’s participation into evocative,
facilitative, collective and appreciative modes Kumpulainen Wray, 2002. By having that teacher’s participation, the students did not see their teacher as the
knowledge- giving authority but instead proudly presented their own ideas and also questioned the assumptions presented by the teacher Kumpulainen Wray,
2002, p.14.