CLASSROOM

INTERACTION AND
SECOND LANGUAGE
ACQUISITION
METHODS OF RESEARCHING LEARNING IN
THE SECOND LANGUAGE CLASSROOM
 Psychometric
 Interaction Analysis
 Discourse Analysis
 Ethnographic
PSYCHOMETRIC
Characteristics View Methods
Involves the Language is Method used
comparison of gained through are;
the effects of the application Experimental
the spesific of method, pre and post
instructional materials, and test with
programs or treatment experimental
methods on and control
students’ groups
learning
outcomes
PSYCHOMETRIC
 Examples
Study Method and Procedures Findings

•College-Level German •Experimental •Grammar group did

as the foreign language better at reading and
instruction (The •The students are writing
comparison of Grammar divided into grammar
translation method and and audiolingual froup •Audiolingual did better
Audiolingual) in speaking and listening
•Each group is taught by
•Conducted sweeney using each method
and wertheimer 1964
•Tested in the first and
second year of study
INTERACTION ANALYSIS
 Using form or categories for coding spesific
classroom behaviors
 The category listed in the schedule reflected
the researcher’s assumption about which
behaviours were most important and not
thoretically motivated
 Title A Studyof theClassroom Interaction Using Flander Interaction
Analysis Categories System (FIACS) Technique at MAN 3 Banjar in
Academic Year 2017/2018.
Objective •to find out the teacher talk and student talk percentages in
the classroom interaction during teaching learning process.
•to know the characteristics of interaction between students
and teacher in English class
Participant •30 students and one teacher at the 11th MIPA 1 graders of
s MAN 3 Banjar.
Method •FIACS Technique to analyze the classroom interaction
•simple statictic to get the result.
•The data of this study are gained by doing observations in the
field.
•During the observation, the writer sat at the back of the
classroom, observed, and recorded the teaching –learning
process.
Findings •Teacher talk (indirect and direct influence) 57,11%
•Students talk 33,15%
•Silence 10,14%
•The characteristic of the classroom interction in XI MIPA 1
grader at MAN 3 Banjar is Content Cross
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
 Describes kinds of interaction in the
classroom systematically
 It gives attention not only to the individual
uttearance but also how these utterances
combined to form larger discoursal units
 Title Discourse Analysis of Questions in Teacher Talk (Faruji 2011)

Objective What is the frequency of the occurrence of different types of

questions (e.g. factual, empirical, productive, and evaluative) in the
discourse of an Iranian EFL teacher talk?

Participants •The participant was an Iranian EFL teacher in a language institute in

Iran who has 8 years of experience and has got her MA degree in TEFL
two years ago.
•Ten students participated in the class.

Method •The data were collected during 8 sessions of observations, samples of

them has been audiotaped by the researcher.
•Analysis of teacher questions (sub-categorized as monitoring talk in
class discourse) was made by using the categories suggested by
Moore’s Bloom taxonomy namely; factual, empirical, productive and
evaluative

Findings •Factual questions (52,71%) were used to ask meanings

•Evaluative questions (27,13%) were used to stimulate learners
motivation to study
•Productive questions (13,95%) were used to make the students think
and use their world knowledge to answer the questions. These types
of questions encourage the learners to participate by producing long
turns.
ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY
 Emphasizes the importance of multiple
perspectives through triangulation
 The data is collected through;
 Observation
 Interviews
 documents
 Advantages
 It can account for the learners who do not participate
actively in the class
 It provides insight into the conscious thought processes
of participant
 It helps to identify variables which have not previously
been acknowledged
 Title AN ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY OF ENGLISH LEARNING AT SMK NEGERI I
GORONTALO
Objective To find out and understand more deeply and comprehensively about
English learning conducted at SMK Negeri I Gorontalo
Participants English teachers and students of SMK Negeri I Gorontalo grade XI
second semester of 2015/2016 school academic year
Method •The study was carried out for one semester from February to June
2016
•Data were collected through observation, interview and data
recording and documentation
•Observations were conducted during the ongoing teaching and
learning process of English including learning activities that are
managed and implemented outside the classroom
Findings •Methods and approaches used are an integrated approach of genre-
based scientific using whole language method.
•Sufficient learning media supporting learning.
•The role of teachers and learners who support each other in learning
is constructive so that the learning process becomes interesting and
fun.
COMPARATIVE METHOD
STUDIES
 Establish which two or more methods or
general approaches to language teaching is
most effective in terms of the actual learning
that is achieved after a certain period of
time
 Comparative method studies have failed to
provide evident that one method is better
than another.
Study
 Examples
•College-Level German as
the foreign language
instruction (The
comparison of Grammar
translation method and
Audiolingual)
•Conducted sweeney and
wertheimer 1964
•The effect of traditional
approach (grammar
translation), functional skill
(audiolingual) and the
functional+grammar on the
beginning and intermediate
french and german classes
at the high school level
Method and Procedures Findings
•Experimental •Grammar group did better
at reading and writing
•The students are divided
into grammar and •Audiolingual did better in
audiolingual froup speaking and listening
•Each group is taught by
using each method
•Tested in the first and
second year of study
•The achievement is •No significant differences
measured by the between the three methods
standardized test at the
mid and end of the year •Traditional group was
superior in term of the
•The 4 skills are tested on reading skill but did less in
each group oral skill
•Students are divided into 3 •No differences found from
groups according to the test on the other skills
skills being studied and
compared
ASPECTS OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
 It has 3 premises;
 Rejecting that classroom differs in term of a
single variable such as method
 Describing instructional event as fully as possible
to generate hypothesis
 Direct observation on the classroom
 The goals;
 Todiscover and to describe how teachers
accomplish classroom lessons as socially
constructed events and how they take place
 THE NATURE OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
 Classroom discourse mediates the pedagogic
decision making with the outcomes of the
language instruction

Syllabus Input

Method Classroom
interaction Opportunity

receptivity
Atmosphere
THE NATURE OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION
 The structure and the general characteristics
of classroom interaction
 Types of language use
 Turn taking
 Differences between classroom and
naturalistic discourse
 THE STRUCTURE OF CLASSROOM
DISCOURSE
Mehan (1979) Sinclair and Coulthard Allen, frolich, and Spada
(1975) (1984)

• Opening phase •Lesson •Description of classroom

activities

• Instructional phase •Transaction •Communicative features

• Closing phase •Exchange

•Move (Initiating,
reposnding, and follow up)

•Act (evaluate, accept,

comment)
TEACHING EXCHANGE (SINCLAIR
AND COULTHARD 1975)
 The elements of the teaching exchange can
be seen in the following conversation:
Exchange Move Act
Teacher : Ask anan what his Initiating
name is?

Students :What is your name? Responding

Teacher :Good!. Follow up Evaluating

TYPES OF LANGUAGE USE
 Allwright (1980)  Mc tear (1975)
provides a macro identifies 4 types
analysis of language of language use
teaching and  Mechanical
learning by  Meaningful
identifying 3 basic  Pseudo-
elements communicative
 Samples
 Real communication
 Guidances
 Management
activities
TYPES OF INTERACTION FOUND
IN L2 CLASSROOM
 Core goals  Teachers control
 Framework goals neither topics nor
activities
 Social goals
 Teachers control the
topics only
 Teachers control both
 Teachers control the
activity only

Ellis (1984) Van Lier (1982; 1988)

TURN TAKING
 Sacks, schegloff, and jefferson (1974) identified a
number of rules underlying speaker’s selection and
change
 Only one speaker speaks at a time
 Speaker selects the next soeaker by nominating or by
performing the first part of an adjency pair
 Speaker allows the next speaker to self-select
 Van Lier (1988) identifies a number of turn taking
behaviors
 Topic
 Self-selection
 Allocation
 Squence
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CLASSROOM
AND NATURALISTIC DISCOURSE
 It depends on  It is characterized by
 The roles adopted by
participants
 The nature of learning
task
 The kinds of knowledge
targeted
Classroom discourse
 Fluid roles established
through interaction
 Task encouraging equal
participation in the
negotiation of meaning
 Focus on interactional
process and fluency
Naturalist discourse
TEACHER TALK
Feature Main conclusion Main studies
Amount of talk Teacher takes two- Legaretta 1977;
third of the total bialystok et al. 1978;
talking time ramirez et al. 1986
Functional Teacher explains Shapiro 1979;
distribution Teacher questions bialystok et al. 1978;
and commans ramirez et al. 1986
Learners respond
Rate of speech Slowing down the Henzl 1973;
speech rate Dahl, 1981;
Wensche and Ready
1985;
Griffiths 1990 and
1991a
Pauses Longer pauses when Downes 1981;
talking to the learner Hakansson 1986;
Wesche and Ready
1985
Phonology, Teachers speak Henzl 1973 and 1979;
intonation, louder and make Downes 1981;
Feature Main conclusions Main Studies
Modifications in Vocabulary No significant vocab Henzl 1979;
modifications in university Mizon 1981
lecturers to L2 Learners

Modifications in Syntax Using shorter utterance to Pica and Long 1986;

low proficient learners Gaies 1977;
Degree of subordinatons is Kleifgen 1985;
relative Early 1985;
Fewer marked structures Wesche and Ready 1985
More declarative
statements than questions

Modification in discourse Using more self-repititions Hamayan and Tucker 1980;

with low proficient l2 Ellis 1985d
learners
ERROR TREATMENT
 This area deals with 3 issues
 Terminology in error treatment
 Learners attitude to error treatment
 Who performs the error treatment
 TERMINOLOGY
Terminology Types of treatment
Feedback Repair correction
Vigil and Oller •Term used by •Feeback Treatment
(1976) divided schegloff, that draws resulting in
feedback into jefferson, and the learners learners
two; sacks (1977) attention to autonomus ability
•Cognitive •it attempts to the error to ;
feedback identify and •correct themselves on
an item
•Affective remedy •Elicitate the correct
feedback communication response
problems •Teacher transforms or
demans improvement
•Positive or negative
reinforcement involving
expression of approval
and disapproval
LEARNERS ATTITUDE
Study findings
Cathcart Learners want to be corrected and want more
and olsen; correction than provided
1976
Chenowth Learners want to be corrected not only during the
et al; 1983 form-focused activity but also when conversing with
the native

contradiction
Study Findings
Krashen; Correction is both useless and dangerous
1982
Cathcart The communication becomes undesirable
and olsen;
1976
 solution
Study Findings
Salica 1981; •Certain types of errors should be
Courchene corrected such as errors in;
1980; • Discourse
Chaudron 1986; • Content
Franselow • Lexical errors
1977b;
Lucas 1975;
WHO PERFORMS THE ERROR
Study Findings
Kasper 1985; language- The errors corrected by
centred phase of an the learners themselves
english lesson in grade or by other learners
10
Chaudron 1986; Only 39% of errors trated
in the immersion class
he studied result to a
successfull uptake
 TEACHERS QUESTIONS
researcher Types of questions
s
Barnes •Factual questions
(1969;1976 •Reasoning questions
) •Open questions
•Social questions
Long and •Echoic questions demanding repitition of utterance
Sato (1983) •Epistemic questions demanding information
covering referential and display questions

Koivukari •Rote questions

(1987) •Comprehension questions

Hakansson •Nexus questions

and •Alternative questions
Lindberg •X-questions
 researchers findings
Barnes (1969;1976) •Most secondary school teacher
prefer closed question to open
question
Long and Sato (1983) •Most teachers asked for more display
than referential questions
White and lightbown •Teacher rarely gave time for
(1984) students to reformulate answers
before repeating, rephrasing or
redirecting questions to another
students
 researchers findings
Brock (1986) •The response to referential
questions is longer than display
questions
Banbrook (1987) •Referential questions can elicit
response of varying length and
complexity
White (1992) •Referential questions are used with
a high-level class
LEARNERS PARTICIPATION
 It is studied to proof if the participation
results to acquisition
 It is viewed from the quantity and the quality
of the participation
 QUANTITY OF PARTICIPATION
Study Findings conclusion
Seliger 1977; There is positive corelation between Proficiency brings
Naiman et al various measures of learners participation
1978; participation and proficiency
Strong
1983;1984;
Day 1984; No relation between the
Ely 1986a; participation and proficiency
Allwright 1980
Chaudron 1988; Correlational study between the
Ellis 1988b participation and proficiency is not
easy to interpet
QUALITY OF PARTICIPATION
 Swain (1985) claimed that acquisition is
promoted when there are opportunities for
pushed out output, not just any kind of
output
 It is influenced by the degree of control the
learners exercise over the discourse.
 It is important to not restrict the nature of
learners participation in teacher-controlled
interaction
Researcher Study
Catchcart (1986) Different kinds of
communicative acts
performed by the eight
spanish-speaking children
in a veriety school settings
House (1986) Comparing the
performance of advanced
level german learners of
english in role play
situation
Rosing-Schow and Haastrup - When the participation is
1982;
Ellis 1988 - Factors influencing the
Findings/opinion
•Learner control results to
a wide variety of
communicative acts and
syntatic structures
•Teacher control results to
single word prduction,
short phrases
Role play conversation
sounded more natural
strictly controlled, there
maybe few opportunities
for learners to practice
communicative strategy
nature of interaction
•The nature of learners
response
•Teacher’s policy
•Individual learners
TASK AND INTERACTION
 Idea of some kinds of activities designed to
engage learners using the language
communicatively or reflectively to arrive at
the outcome rather than the learning of a
specified feature of L2
 The main research goals are to uncover how
spesific variables affect the interaction that
occurs when the learners perform the task
 These variables can be divided into those
relating to the task and to the participant
Study Task variable findings
Long 1980; Two-way task (e.g. Games, It results in increased
Doughty and pica 1986; role play, etc) negotiation of meaning
Newton 1991;
Long 1989; 13 •One way task Two way task result to a
more ngotiation work than
•two way task the one way task
Long 1989; 14 •Planned task Planned task strecth
•unplanned task interlanguage more than
the unplanned task,
however it is not clear
whether planned task helps
the learners in unplanned
task
Long 19898; 16 •Closed task (requires Closed task produce more
participant to reach a negotiation work
single set of correct
solutions

•Open task (free

conversation, debate etc)
SMALL GROUP WORK AND
INTERACTION
Study Kinds of group work findings
Brumfit 1984; Group work •Increasing language
Long and Porter parctice
1985. opportunities
•Improves the quality
of student’s talk
•Individualize
intruction
•Promotes positive
affective climate
•Motivates learners
to learn
Long, Adams, Small group Greater and better
McLean, Castanos quality of language
1976
Rulon and McCreary Small group There is more
Teacher led negotiation of
discussion content in small