PORTRAYING TEACHER-STUDENT’S INTERACTION IN EFL CLASSES : A Case Study in 7TH and 8th EFL - CLT based classroom.

‘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

Dr. DidiSukyadi, M.A. NIP: 196706091994031003

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.

Keywords: communicative competence, communicative language teaching, interactional adjustments, communicative interaction

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 verbal interaction within the classroom (Brein, 1998, p.119); they are also expected to encourage students to produce more target-like output and re-align their inter-language in English (Long, 1983a, 1996; Gass&Varonis, 1985, 1994; Pica, 1987; Larsen-freeman, 1991). These highlighted responsibility and expectation shift the teachers‟ paradigm from merely „focus on form‟ to more „focus on message‟ (Larsari, 2011, p.2).

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).

Various studies have proved that the achievement from completing EFL classes in the countries where English is non-native language is often below average (Larsari, 2011, p.2). The outcome of going through such EFL classes for many years is that students are very often unable to express themselves in English functionally outside classroom (Suherdi and Kurniawan, 2005).

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, (2011) had previous studied around this subject but they did not fully focus on teacher-student communicative interaction in CLT based classes. To provide the insightful knowledge on this subject in order to help EFL teachers, particularly those from Indonesia, succeed in this pivotal role in their CLT classes, this study calls for the willingness to portray the nature of teacher-student communicative interaction in CLT based classes, and to reveal the factors that inhibit teachers to interact with students to promote communicative interaction.

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, perception and communicative competence which can be potential factors that limit their communicative interaction towards students. Thus, this study will cover how teachers put efforts to manage effective interaction towards their students by providing accurate high quality input,

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 communicative competence are also seen pivotal. After knowing their strengths and weaknesses, EFL teachers are expected to improve their ways of verbal interaction towards students. The results provided are also helpful input for the school and the stakeholders to see the qualification of verbal interaction and communicative competence of their EFL teachers. The same results should serve as useful information to other EFL teachers that CLT class requires more negotiation of meaning. Thus, teachers should be more student-centered and the class environment should provide more negotiation of meaning to promote genuine communication.

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

Comprehensible Input : A hypothesis that learners will acquire language best when they are given the input which is 1 step beyond their current level.

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 2 elaborates the theoretical foundations of this study, which includes the insight of the background overview, second language acquisition covering input, interaction and output hypothesis, the relationship between input and interaction, principles and models of classroom interaction, the common patterns of classroom interaction, the understanding of the nature of the classroom, and communicative competence.

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:

1. What is the nature and pattern of teacher-student interaction in the observed EFL classes?

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;

Van Lier, 1998). The juxtaposition of the multiple perspectives from the researcher, the teacher participants and the student participants helped reveal the complexity involved in classroom life and teaching-learning processes. The findings obtained from the classroom observations were triangulated with the findings from other collecting methods in this study.

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.

Thirdly, EFL teachers in these programs are expected to make students successful not only in national examination in class 9th, but also with Cambridge ‘O’ level examination in 10th class. Therefore, observing the way these two teacher-participants do oral interaction with their

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

In this context, participants are the EFL teachers in the classroom. Two EFL teachers were invited to participate in this study, and they were coded as Participant 1 and Participant 2. Through the answers to a designated questionnaire, the background of the EFL teachers who participate in this study will be revealed. The background differences can be the factors leading to different classroom interaction outcomes. The scope of the background in this context includes their age, educational background, and teaching experiences. Knowing their background helps the author understand the way each participant interacts with their students and helps explain the behavior in the observed classes.

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 in the Target Language Observation Scheme (see the appendix). This Target Language Observation Scheme is effective in giving more practical overview of how the participants manage their interaction in the class towards the students. The categories include the language the participants mostly use, the amount of the teacher talk time, the features of feedback the participants mostly provide to their students, and the non-verbal interaction they commonly use.

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

The values are in percentage.

Category Extremely

low

Low Fair High Extremely

high

P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2 P1 P2

01. Use of language 1 100 100

02. Use of language 2 0 0

03. Teacher talk time 60 80

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

12. Pacing 60 60

13. Use of audio-visual aids 80 80

14. Gestures 60 80

15. Humor 40 80

16. Enthusiasm 80 80

The table above shows that both participants always employed the target language; this is likely caused by the policy in this international classroom setting which does not allow the use of

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 material in a more-relaxed environment, which made the students feel free in practicing the target language.

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 use of qualitative case study allows the researcher to capture the nature of the data source which may be derived from various sources, among others are observation, questionnaire, and interview. Qualitative design has its own strength to describe the social phenomena that emerge naturally during the research. All in all, qualitative design helps capture process of understanding a social or human problem, based on building complex, holistic picture, formed with words, reporting detailed views of informants, and conducted in a natural setting to its subject matter (Creswell, 1994). The qualitative case study design, on the other hand, allows the researcher to explore the activities of each EFL teacher. Since the researcher positions herself as non-participant, thus her tasks are to observe, analyze, distribute questionnaire to the teachers as well as interviewing them. The questionnaire survey and interview results were expected to be able to answer the Research Questions.

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 was said and done by teacher and students in the classroom (Alwasilah, 2007:220; Van Lier, 1998; Allwright, 1988; Fraenkel & Walker, 1993:384). The observation will make use of audiotapes recording, handy-cam and schemes of interaction analyses provided.

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

The analysis of document was needed to support and enrich the data gained from observation and interview. By doing the document analysis, the information can be proved objectively so that it can become the foundation to defend the finding results against the mistaken interpretation (Alwasilah: 2007)

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.

The results of the interview will be categorized and later displayed in the form of tables. The triangulation data will be employed to make a contrast and comparison of all the data

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

negotiation during their interactions with students. Many various interactional adjustments like asking referential questions, clarifying, checking comprehension and attempting to extend the follow-up turn were much employed. However, whether these kinds of interactional adjustments can lead to genuine communication as suggested by Nunan (1987) was still a question. Similarly to previous studies, negative feedback was the most common interaction category observed and positive evidence on the other hand was the least employed category. Among various negative feedback, implicit negative feedback, especially negotiation moves, were mostly commonly

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

Negative Feedbac k; P1; 585 Negative Feedbac k; P2; 183 Interacti onal routines ; P1; 289

Interacti onal routines

; P2; 62 Interactional routines Positive Evidence Negative Feedback

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).

This typical pattern of interaction follows restricted IRF (Sinclair &Coulthard, 1975; Nassaji and Wells, 2000). P1 and P2 made a lot of initiations, closed exchange and provided feedback. Students were only given few opportunities to response in second turn. This was evidenced by the rarity data of longer student’s output/ production. Students had no willingness to modify or reformulate their output. They responded only when either P1 or P2 asked questions. Talking

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’

communicative competence can be another factor that determines to what extent they can maintain their interaction with students. The occurrence of negotiation of meaning was proved not the only determinant for the success of teacher-student interaction. Findings from this study shows that no matter how much the participants put efforts in negotiating the meaning with students, they were found to have failure in making their students comprehend and extend the input when they produce utterance. Lacking or having insufficient communicative competence can also a potential obstacle that can cause communication breakdowns. When the EFL teacher that should be a good model for students lacks of proficiency in English, especially in linguistic, discourse, and also sociolinguistic competence, the students will get the negative impact too. In line with Canale and Swain (1980), sociolinguistic and linguistic competence became main

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

competence as one factor that can encourage students to actively participate in communicative interaction.

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.

Thirdly, EFL teachers are more suggested to be more creative and in facilitating kinds of interactive games or communicative tasks to make students actively involve during lessons.

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.

All in all, the school can start implementing this communicative interaction method even if their EFL teachers are not yet competent in conducting the approach. An EFL teacher with a communicative competence matching to the target language can be hired or employed to provide a training. The EFL teachers who need the training to improve their communicative competence,

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.

This study actually was only short-term study and conducted in one single data collection session and did not employ any measures of second language learning, thereby preventing any speculation about the bias likely to occur during the research study.

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).

Besides, the observed EFL teachers had much experience in teaching and speaking English, and the majority of the students had had received basic English lesson at their elementary schools prior to entering their 7th grade. As such it is the opinion of this researcher that further study is needed to determine if implementation of communicative interaction is applicable for a broader range of students. Further research is needed to determine the effect of larger class sizes. Can this method be applied in classrooms of 40 students or even more? It should also be researched if gains can be made in students who are not as motivated as the test group. Can similar gains be made in classrooms that are unable to devote similar amount of time to this type of teaching? Can teachers with little or no experience teaching communicative interaction be adequately trained with the limited resources available to national schools? Finally, will the lack of modern facilities, such as computer, projectors, etc. which aid the process, seriously hinder the results?

All of these questions should be researched both collectivelly and individually. In order to research them individually, similar research should be conducted substituting the factors in this and similar studies with variables from above. For example, a different highly competent teacher could replace the second participating teacher teaching a sample of students from one or several national schools would replace the test sample used to determine the overall effectiveness of the communicative interaction method in the national school context. This or these schools can serve as a test in order to confirm the correctness of the SLA hypothesis.

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 Verlag.

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: Basil Blackwell.

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. TESOL Quarterly, 35(3), 407-432.

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: Pergamon.

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, 259-78.

Sadtono,E. 1977. ELT Development in Indonesia: a Smorgasbord. In E. Sadtono (Ed.) The Development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang: Penerbit IKIP Malang.

Sadtono,E. 1979. ELT Development in Indonesia: a Smorgasbord. In E. Sadtono (Ed.) The Development of TEFL in Indonesia. Malang: Penerbit IKIP Malang.

Savignon, Sandra J. 1983. Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Massachucets: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company

Setiawati, L.2011.‘a Descriptive Study on Teacher Talk in EYL Class (An exploratory study in 4th

Elementary International School). Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol.1 No.2. January,2012.

Setiyadi, A.B.2006. Metode Penelitian untuk Pengajaran bahasa Asing: Pendekatam Kualitatif dan Kuantitatif. Yogyakarta: Graha Ilmu.

Silverman, D.2000. ‗Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook‘. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silverman, D.2005. ‗Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook‘. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sinclair, J.M., Coulthard, R.M. 1975. ‗Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English used by Teachers

and Pupils‘. London:OUP. 0Coulthard, Sinclair. 1975.

Spada, N. & M. Fröhlich. 1995. Communicative orientation of language teaching observation scheme. Coding conventions and applications. Sydney: NCELTR, Macquarie University.

Stenson, N.1974. Induced Errors. New frontiers in Second Language Learning.ed.John H. Schumann and Nancy Stenson.Row;ey, Mass: Newbury House Publishers.

Schensui, S.L. et al. 1999. ‗Essential Ethnographic Methods‘. California: Alta Mira Press.

Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). ‗Developing basic conversational ability in a second language‘. A case

study of an adult learner of Portuguese. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking 312 to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 237-326) Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Selinger, H. W., & Shohamy, E. (1989). Second language research methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schmidt, R. (1990). ‗The role of consciousness in second language learning‘. AppliedLinguistics, 11, 129-158.

Schmidt, R. (1992). ‗Awareness and second language acquisition‘. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,

13, 206-219.

Schmidt, R. (1993). ‗Awareness and second language acquisition‘. Annual Review of AppliedLinguistics,

13, 206-226.

Schwartz, B.D. 1993. ‗On explicit and negative data effecting and affecting competence and linguistic

behavior‘. Studies in second language acquisition 15, 147-163.

Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non‐native speakers‘ production of modified comprehensible output and second language learning. Language Learning, Vol. 49, Issue 4, (pp. 627‐675). Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for acquisitional research. Language Learning, Vol. 52, Issue 3, (pp. 597‐647).

Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self‐ and other‐initiated modified output during task‐based interaction. TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 35, Issue 3, pp. (433‐457).

Spada, N. and Lightbrown, P.M. 1993. ‗Instruction and he development of questions in L2 classrooms‘. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, IS, 205-24.

Stake, R.1998. ‗The art of case study research‘. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publication.

Stern,H.H. 1983. ‗Fundamental Concepts of Language teaching in Second Language Classrooms‘.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Swain, M. 1985. ‗Communicative competence: some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible

output in its development‘. In S, Gass and C. Madden (eds). Input in Second Language

Acquisition. Rowley, M.A. : Newbury House.

Swain, M. 1995. ‗Three functions of output in second language learning‘. IN G.Cook and B. Seidelhofer

(eds). Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Swain, M. 1997. ‗Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to second language learning‘. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, 34, 115-132.

Swain, M. 1998. ‗Focus on Form through Conscious Reflection‘, in C. Doughty and J. Williams (eds),

Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 64-81.

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. 1998. ‗Interaction and Second Language Learning: two adolescent French

immersion students working together‘. The Modern Language Journal, 83: 320 – 28.

Swain, M. (1993). ‗The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren‘t enough‘. The Canadian

Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164

Swain, M. & Lapkin, S. (1995). ‗Problems in Output and the cognitive processes they generate: A step

towards second language learning‘. Applied linguistics,16 (3), 371-91.

Suherdi, D. and Kurniawan (2005). T‘eaching-learning processes inmultilingual context: A detailed

picture of two different English classrooms in urban elementary school‘. The 53rd TEFLIN

International Conferece. Yogyakarta.

Snow, C.E. and A.Ninio.1986. ‗The contrast of literacy: what children learn from reading to read book‘.

Pp. 116-137 in Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading, Wtc. Teale and E. Sultzby.ed, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tognini, R.2007.‘ Interaction in Languages other than English Classes in Weestern Australian Primary

and Secondary Schools: Theory, Practice and Perceptions‘. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the

requirements of Doctor of Philosophy (Applied Linguistics). Faculty of Education and Arts School of International, Cultural and Community Studies.

Thomas, A.M.1987. ‗Classroom Interaction‘. New York: Oxford University Press.

Truscott, J. (1998). ‗Noticing and Second language acquisition: a critical review‘. Second Language

Truscott, J. (2007). ‗The effect of error correction on learners‘ ability to write accurately‘. System, 16, 255–272.

Tsui, amy B. M. 1995. ‗Introducing Classroom Interaction‘. London: Penguin English.

Ur Penny. 2000. ‗A Course in Language Teaching Practice and Theory‘. Beijing: Foreign Language

teaching and Research Press.

Van Lier. 1988. ‗The classroom and the language learner‘. London: Longman.

Van Lieur. 1991.‘Inside the classroom: Learning processes and teaching procedures‘. Applied Language

Learning 2: 29 – 69.

Van Lier.1996. ‗Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and Authenticity‘. New

York: Longman.

Van Lier, L.1998. ‗The relationship between consciousness, interaction and language learning‘. Language

Awareness 7, 129–145.

Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners‘ output. Language Learning, 47, 589-636.

Weinstein, C.S. 1989. ‗Teacher Education Students‘ Perceptions of Teaching: Journal of Teacher Education‘.

Wells, G. 1985. ‗Language Development in the Pre-School Years‘. Cambridge: Cambridge university

Press.

Wells, G. 1986a. ‗The Meaning Makers: Children Learning Language and Using Language to Learn‘.

London: Hodder and Stoughton

Wells, G. 1999. ‗Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wells,G. And Chang-Wells, G.L.1992. ‗Constructing Knowledge Together: Classroom as Centres of

Widiyantoro, L.N.2009. ‗Teaching writing: structure and style , metacognitive instruction model for teaching descriptive writing skill to 9thgrade Indonesian EFL students‘. 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.

Wheldall, K. & F. Merrett. 1984. ‗Positive Teaching: The Behavioral Approach‘. London: Allen and

Unwin

Wheldall, K. & F.Merrett. 1987. What is the Behavioral Approach to teaching? In N. Hastings and J. Ackwieso (Eds). New Directions in Educational Psychology (Vol.2), Behavior and Motivation. Brighton: Falmer Press.

Xie,Xiaoyan.2008. A thesis submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Applied Linguistics. Victoria University of Wellington 2008.

Xiao Yan, Ma.2006. ‗Teacher talk and EFL in university classroom‘. A dissertation submitted as a partial

fulfillment for the degree of M.A. in English Language and Literature. School of foreign language and literature. Chongqing Normal University and Yangtze Normal University, China.

Van den Branden, K.1997. Effects of negotiation on language learners' output. Language Learning 47: 589-636.

Yin, R. (1984). Case Study Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Ziglari, L.2008. ‗The Role of Interaction in L2 Acquisition: An Emergentist Perspective European Journal

of Scientific Research‘. ISSN 1450-216X Vol.23 No.3 (2008), pp.446-453© EuroJournals

Publishing, Inc. 2008http://www.eurojournals.com/ejsr.htmZiglari, 2008

Zhou X.and Zhou, Y. ‗Data Survey and Analysis on Teacher Talk in College English Classroom

Teaching‘. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 2002, 1, 59-68.

Zhou, X., & Zhou, Y. (2002). ‗Study of teacher talk in English language classrooms at a university level‘.

Zhang, Yuxiang, & Wang, Jiling. (2007, January). Learner-centredness. English Teaching

professional Issue 48.p. 29. Keyways Publishing Ltd.