Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Volume 8 Number 2 June, 2017 Pp.

192-207
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no2.14

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class for Students of Economics Education

Ima Isnaini Taufiqur Rohmah

Post Graduate Program of Semarang State University
Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia

Abstract
This research is attempts to find out the types of teacher and students talk and also the
patterns of teaching-learning interaction. This research was qualitative case study conducted
in English Language 1 class Economics Education Study Program of Teacher Training and
Education Institute Persatuan Guru Republik Indonesia Bojonegoro, East java. The
participants were an English teacher and thirty four students. Observations were conducted
twice in November 2016. The data were analysed by using the combination of interaction
analysis system adapted from (Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz, 1971; Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi,
2004; and Erling et al., 2012). The findings show that the teacher produced almost all types
of teacher talk. They also produced almost all types of student talk in learning process. The
teaching-learning activities used produced the patterns of group work, choral responses,
closed-ended teacher questioning (IRF), individual work, student initiates-teacher answers,
open-ended teacher questioning, and collaboration. Consider the result of this study. It is
important for the teacher to build interactive and communicative teaching-learning activities
involving more interaction and participation among the students. It is also advisable for the
teacher to consider the factors that might affect the teaching-learning interaction in the
classroom.
Keywords: classroom interaction, interaction pattern, student talk, teacher talk

Cite as: Rohmah, I. I.T. (2017). Classroom Interaction in English Language Class for
Students of Economics Education . Arab World English Journal, 8 (2). DOI:
https://dx.doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol8no2.14

192
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

Introduction
In classroom interaction, all the classroom events are included, both verbal interaction
and non-verbal interaction. Meng (2011, p. 98) states that “teachers should include both verbal
and non-verbal languages. Verbal interaction covers written interaction and oral interaction”.
Meanwhile, non-verbal interaction refers to behavioral responses in classroom without using
words such as head-nodding, hand-raising, and so on. Moreover, successful interaction may
promote involvement between teacher and student or among students, enhance learning, and
motivate students. Crago (1997) states that “teacher and students also build on each other’s
communicative behavior as they work together to achieve goals, relate experiences, and meet
curricular demands” ( p. 246). Whatever purpose they bring into the classroom, the outcome is a
co-production by both the teacher and the students who jointly manage interaction as well as
learning (Allwright, 1984, as cited in Zhang 2012, p. 980).

In addition, when students are engaged in direct classroom activities, they will learn
better. The students who are active in classroom through taking turns may develop their
language. Meanwhile, those who are passive in classroom will have less opportunity to learn
language. It is clear that the active role between teacher and students is needed to create a good
interaction in the classroom. They should actively engage in the communication event or
interaction in classroom. Therefore, the quality of teaching and learning process in the classroom
is mainly determined by teacher and students in how they interact with each other actively.
Brown (2000) explains that “interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or
ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other” (p. 165).
Interaction occurs not only from one side but also from at least two people who give and receive
messages in order to achieve communicative process. It is in line with Wagner (1994) who
asserts that “interaction is reciprocal events that require at least two objects and two actions” (p.
8). Interaction occurs when these objects and events naturally influence one another.

In teaching process, the teacher may set a topic and material, give directions, give and
take the responses, determine who contributes in teaching and learning activities, provide
feedback to the students, and so forth in order to make the students get the output effectively.
The teacher may share his/her own experiences with the students and encourage them to talk
about their own ones. The teacher is supposed to elicit more student talk in a classroom
conducted in such a manner. Therefore, the amount of teacher talk and student talk should be
balanced or the amount of student talk should be more dominated because the good proportion of
talk may facilitate interaction effectively and efficiently. Since teacher talk and student talk are
the important parts that establish classroom interaction, teacher may not be allowed to dominate
the class during teaching and learning process. The teacher should give the students more
opportunities to initiate topics for interaction with others. According to Cullen (1998) “good
teacher talk means little teacher talk” (p. 179) because too much talk by the teacher may deprive
students’ opportunity to speak.

In this present research, the researcher analyzes the classroom interaction by using the
combination of interaction analysis system from some experts (Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz,
1971; Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi, 2004; and Erling et al., 2012). All of interaction categories by
those experts divided into teacher talk and student talk categories and also the pattern of
interaction. The teacher talk categories used are accepting student’s feelings, praising and
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 193
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

encouraging, joking, accepting or using student’s ideas, asking questions, repeating student’s
response verbatim, lecturing or giving information, giving directions, criticizing or justifying
student’s behavior and response, and giving feedback. Meanwhile, the categories of student talk
include student talk-response (specific), student talk-response (choral), student talk-initiation,
student talk (inquiry), expressing lack of understanding verbally, student talk in single, student
talk in pairs, student talk in groups, silence, silence-AV, confusion (work-oriented), confusion
(non-work oriented), hand-raising participation, and laughing.

A number of studies had been conducted in the same field but most of them taken in
regular and English classes. Then, to analyze teacher talk and student talk, most of some
previous studies use Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (1970) and Foreign Language
Interaction System (FLINT) by Moskowitz (1971). For example, the study conducted by Hussain
& Bakhsh (2011) who investigated the effects of classroom interaction on students’ academic
achievement at secondary school level. Rashidi (2010) conducted classroom interaction analysis
research in order to find out the pattern of classroom interaction in EFL classroom in Iran. Tsui
(1994) to analyze the classroom interaction of English subject including the verbal and non-
verbal interaction of teacher-students and among students. Pujiastuti (2013) conducted
interaction analysis focusing on the investigation on the realization of verbal classroom
interaction, types of teacher talk, teacher talk implication on student’s motivation, student talk
and teacher’s roles in classroom interaction. Suryati (2015) reports a study on teachers’ use of
interaction strategies in English Language Teaching (ELT) in lower secondary level of education
and Liu and Zhu (2012) conducted a research which attempted to investigate and analyze the
phenomenon of teacher talk time, questioning pattern, and feedback pattern.

This present research intensively analyzed the type of teacher’s talk and student’s talk
and also the pattern of interaction using the combination of some interaction analysis systems
from (Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz, 1971; Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi, 2004; and Erling et al., 2012).
The researcher chooses English Language 1 class of Economics Education Program since the
teacher did not has qualification requested, that is English background. It is expected that this
research is able to be one of reflection and evaluation media for the teacher and students during
the process of teaching and learning.

Methodology
The design of this research was a qualitative case study. The researcher used classroom
interaction discourse analysis which focused on the interaction happened in the class. The unit of
analysis are teacher and students utterances; phrases, words and sentences. The data were dig up
from the teacher and the students in English language 1 class of Economics Education Study
Program. Here, the data were obtained from observing two meetings in November 2016 .

The instrument that used in this study was the combination of interaction analysis system
from (Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz, 1971; Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi, 2004; and Erling et al., 2012).
The researcher used an interactive model of analysis proposed by Miles and Huberman (1994:
10-12). In analyzing data, the three main components were data reduction, data display,
conclusion drawing/ verification. In this research there were some strategies used to obtain
trustworthiness of the data. Those strategies were used to check accuracy or validity the findings
of the research. Creswell (2007, p. 207-209) mentions eight strategies of verifying the
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 194
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

trustworthiness of the research. From the eight strategies proposed, the researcher used three
techniques. They were: triangulation, member checking, and rich and thick description.

Findings and Discussion

Types of Teacher Talk
From the two observations conducted, it showed that the teacher performed almost all
types of teacher talk, except accepting student’s feeling. It can be seen from the table 1:
Table 1. Teacher talk during two observations
Types of teacher talk % The example of utterances
Giving feedback 2.0 Sometimes-sometimes, in our lives-in our
lives, we-we want to be someone who are ideal
for us. OK! Who are ideal for us? For example,
Felizia wanted to be architect. And then, Evan
wanted to be—wants to be a doctor. OK. And I
think that no one want to be a thief.
Criticizing or justifying 2.0 T Why do you choose to be a doctor?
behavior & response S Because my parents is…
T My parents? …
Giving directions 24.3 Well, first, you have to look at in the slide…
expression intention. Expression intention!
Oke, Naila, please read the text “pilot”. Read
louder ya mbak Naila!
Now…open page nine ya…do the task with
your group…
Lecturing or giving information 8.4 Although this one is not English language, OK,
but you know from the subtitle
Repeating student's response 19.9 No…Ooo…No one…really…pilot is good
verbatim lho…
Asking questions 23.9 Teacher want to know, who wants to be a
pilot?
Accepting or using student's 2.8 T So, you, both of them, choose amusement
ideas park because the place is …?
S Emm. Comfortable
T Comfortable to refresh our mind.
Joking 1.2 Kamu itu, Sisca itu the wrong person in the
wrong place.
Praising & encouraging 15.5 Good answer mas arham….give applause to
mas arham…
Accepting student's feeling 0.0 -

From the data in table 1, it can be seen that the types of teacher talk used by the teacher,
from high percentage to low percentage, are giving directions, asking questions, repeating
student’s response verbatim, praising and encouraging, lecturing or giving information,
accepting or using student’s ideas, criticizing or justifying student’s behavior and response,
giving feedback, and joking. Meanwhile, accepting student’s feeling is never used by the teacher.

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 195

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

During the observation in teaching and learning process, the teacher was always straight to the
point to greet students then ask them to start the lesson. Without asking the student’s feeling,
teacher directly give directions to them to follow the learning activity such reading the text,
playing game or watching the video related to the lesson material.

The teacher also tended to focus on the teaching and learning activities instead of asking
and accepting what the student’s feeling was. Giving directions takes up the higher percentage
during teaching and learning process. The teacher often gave directions to the students. It
occurred when the teacher gave instructions about the games that would be played by them or
when the teacher asked them to do something like reading the text, opening the page of book,
doing task with partner and asking students to come in front of the class.

Types of Students Talk

The first issue deals with the types of student talk used in the first grade students. From
two observations, the students performed all types of teacher talk. It can be seen from the table 2.
Table 2. Students talk in two observations
Types of student talk % The example of utterances
Laughing 9.9 -
Hand-raising participation 0.5 -
Confusion (Non-work-oriented) 0.5 -
Confusion (Work-oriented) 2.8 -
Silence-AV 2.2 -
Silence 9.3 -
Student talk in groups 3.3 (They discussed with his group to decide who will be
the representative.)
Student talk in pairs 2.8 (The students started to do their work in pair to make
dialogue of conversation.)
Student talk in single 7.1 Oh iya ding sightsee, bener. Eye-catching.
Expressing lack of 2.2 -
understanding verbally
Student talk, inquiry 2.8 Pak, pak, pak, tanya kalo misalnya sebelum selesai
pak, terus udah…
(Her word was cut by teacher because the teacher got
the point from her question.)
Student talk, initiation 7.7 Because we can do (before completing it, the teacher
cut his words.)
Student talk, response (Choral) 11.5 T OK, can you, can you tell what condition?
S Thief. Child
T A child
Student talk, response (Specific) 37.4 T The places?
S Places. We prefer the mall
T You prefer the mall.
S eeee..I like to wear white dress

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 196

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

In two observations conducted, the types of students talk used by the students from high
percentage to low percentage are student talk-response (specific), student talk-response (choral),
silence, laughing, student talk-initiation, student talk in single, student talk in groups, student
talk-inquiry, student talk in pairs, confusion (work-oriented), expressing lack of understanding
verbally, silence-AV, confusion (non-work-oriented), and hand-raising participation.

First, Student talk-response (specific) gets the highest percentage in the two observations.
It occurred when a student gave response to teacher’s question and directions. The student
responded directly and predictably with the specific answers. The second is student talk-response
(choral). The students are speaking in chorus at the same time. This might be in response to
teacher’s question or reading in chorus. At the beginning of lesson, the students used this type to
answer the greeting from the teacher. When the teacher greeted ‘morning class!’, the students
later responded chorally by saying ‘morning!’. The third and the fourth type of students’ talk are
silence and laughing. The condition of the classroom was not always noise. Sometimes, the
students got silence too. The fifth and the sixth are student talk-initiation and student talk in
single. The students used student-talk initiation when they initiated to participate and comment
on the lesson content with their own ideas, opinions, and reactions.

Then, student talk in single occurred when the teacher asked one student to read aloud the
text from the book. The next type of student talk is student talk in groups. When students got a
task in group, they presented it and read it in front of the class. Next, the types of student talk
that got the same percentage in 2.8% are student talk-inquiry and student talk in pairs. The
students used student talk-inquiry when they asked for further information. Student talk in pairs
is the next one. Here, the teacher gave the students peer task like making dialogue. They were
also asked to present and read their work in front of the class.

Furthermore, the other types of student talk are confusion (work-oriented), expressing
lack of understanding verbally, silence-AV, confusion (non-work-oriented), and hand-raising
participation. Confusion (work-oriented) occurred when the teacher served them with a game
and exercise, they all spoke at the same time and called out excitedly. Then, expressing lack of
understanding verbally occurred when the students asked the teacher to explain something that
they did not understand yet.

Next, silence-AV occurred when the teacher played a video or short movie. During
watching that video, all the students got silence in a period of time. In confusion (non-work-
oriented), the students were out-of-order. They might not be concerned with the task at hand.
Lastly, the students could be said that they rarely used hand-raising participation. It was because
they were not accustomed to use it. They never raised their hand to participate during teaching
and learning process. Meanwhile, from two observations conducted, the students raised their
hand when they knew sure about the answer. If they did not know, they would follow the other
friends to answer together It can be said that the type of student talk that is mostly used by
students in the class is student talk-response (specific). It is followed by student talk-response
(choral), student talk in single, silence, laughing, student talk-initiation, confusion (work-
oriented), expressing lack of understanding verbally, student talk-inquiry, student talk in groups,
silence-AV, student talk in pairs, confusion (non-work-oriented), and hand-raising participation.

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 197

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

The Pattern of Interactions

The patterns of interaction occurred in the teaching and learning are choral responses,
closed-ended teacher questioning (IRF), collaboration, and student initiates-teacher answers.
First, choral responses pattern occurred when the teacher greeted the students by saying
‘morning class!’ and the students responded ‘morning’. After checking students’ attendance, the
teacher tells about today’s teaching material. Here, choral responses pattern occurred when the
teacher asked the students about what they wanted to be in the future. Another choral responses
pattern occurred when the teacher asked the students whether they had finished their work.
Secondly, closed-ended teacher questioning (IRF) pattern occurred when the teacher gave some
reflections on the short movie that they watched.

This pattern showed how the teacher initiated the students to ask a question; the student
responses to the teacher’s question; and the teacher gave feedback. The third is collaboration
pattern. It occurred when the teacher gave the students a warmer activity like a game. In
expressing intention material, the students had to do a warmer activity to discuss the picture of
four interesting places with their friends. The last pattern is student initiates-teacher answers.
This pattern occurred when the student thought for questions and asked to teacher directly and
then the teacher responses the student’s question. The example of each pattern is figured out in
the table 3.
Table 3. The example of pattern of interaction in two observations
The pattern The example of utterances
choral responses pattern TT Who wants to be a doctor? Mas reza….do you
want
S No sir….
T Who… no one???
S Hahahahaha (laughing)
closed-ended teacher questioningT I just want to know ….kalau kalian semua do
(IRF) a good thing to your friend, kira kira ada yang
akan ask the return nggak ya?
S No….!!!
T Yes good… don’t ask the return lho ya.. Allah
will give us later…
collaboration pattern S Good morning friends… we are from the first
team will explain our picture.
S In the picture, many people go to the beach
because they want to watch sunrise or sunset
student initiates-teacher answers S Read all…or…. Not teacher
T Read all ..

From the table 3, it is seen that the teacher dominated the classroom. The teacher
frequently gave directions and asked question. Although the class was still dominated by the
teacher, it did not mean that the students were passive. The students seemed to be active since
the teacher sometimes used interactive and communicative activities such as game, exercises,
and discussion to raise the students’ interaction and participation. These activities can be done

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 198

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

individually, in pairs, or even in groups. These activities also refer to the student-centered
because the students are forced to get involved actively.

Discussion
The teacher plays dominant roles in the classroom interaction because he used almost all
types of teacher talk during teaching and learning process such as giving directions, asking
questions, lecturing, repeating student’s response verbatim, and praising and encouraging. This
consistency of findings is similar to the previous research as mentioned by Nunan (1991) who
states that “many language teachers were surprised by the amount of talk that they used in
classroom” (p. 190). The dominance of teacher talk proportion in each meeting occurred since
the teachers mainly explained grammatical rules and gave directions on learning activities.

The current research findings also revealed that the roles of the teacher which were
mostly adopted by the teacher are controller, director, manager, facilitator, and resource. It can
be shown from the high percentage of giving directions, asking questions, lecturing, repeating
student’s response verbatim, and praising and encouraging by which the teachers led the flow of
interaction. The roles of teachers are supported by Brown (2000, pp. 166-168) & Dagarin (2004,
p. 130) who stated that “teacher’s directions is the highest percentage, it is needed since the
students need guidance in their learning process”. Without teacher’s directions, the students
might get confusion and doubt about what they do next. The most important point that
determines how successfully students learn is the way instructions are formulated well by the
teacher. It is line with Brown (2000, pp. 166-168) & Dagarin (2004, p. 130) in the previous
chapter who mentioned that “the roles of teacher as controller, director, manager, facilitator, and
resource”. The teacher stated that directions were needed to invite the students to follow the
teaching and learning activity.

The type of teacher talk that is rarely or never used by the teacher is accepting student’s
feeling. This type always gets the lower percentage from both observations. The teacher used this
type depending on the student’s feeling. If they were happy, the teacher would keep it on in order
to make them more excited. Then, the teacher asked the students to be calm when they got
nervous. Next, the teacher asked them personally when they look sad. There is need for teachers
to be aware and appreciate the mood of the learners. In short, the teachers produce this type in
order to help the students to understand the student’s feelings and attitudes by letting them know
that they will not be punished when they are expressing their emotions.

It can be stated that all types of teacher talk are the important part of classroom
interaction for student’s acquisition. It is supported by Nunan (1991) who argues that “teacher
talk has crucial importance not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the process
of the acquisition” (p. 189). The types of teacher talk used by the teacher are so far from the
traditional classroom, the teacher only sits or stands behind a desk and spends a large amount of
time giving lecturing and directions whereas the students’ role are sitting, listening, and taking
note passively. However, Brown (2001: 99) recommends that teacher talk should not occupy the
major proportion of class hours, otherwise, the teachers are probably not giving students enough
opportunity to talk.

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 199

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

From the research findings, it is also found that almost all the types of student talk are
used by students in the class. Some types of student talk in the classroom might be intentionally
used by the students as a learning strategy. Regarding student talk, this research has shown the
types of student talk covering responses and initiation. Many directions, lectures, and questions
posed by the teachers have motivated the students to give responses and initiation. Senowarsito
(2013) supports it by stating that “the students tend to use some interpersonal function markers
such as cooperation, agreement, disagreement, response, reaction, and confirmation during
teaching and learning process” (p. 94).

Candela (1999) claims that “when the students get more engaged with the academic task,
their participation in knowledge construction is more active and they can manage to make
various discourse moves to use their power and yield it” (p. 157). Some types of student talk in
the classroom might be intentionally used by the students as a learning strategy. Regarding
student talk, this research has shown the types of student talk covering responses and initiation.
Many directions, lectures, and questions posed by the teachers have motivated the students at
giving responses and initiation. In conveying the responses, the students do not always do it
individually. Sometimes, the students give response chorally. It is in line with Brock-Utne (2006)
who says that “chorus answer is safe to talk for students” (p. 35).

The patterns of interaction during teaching and learning process is not fully dominated by
the teacher because the students also actively participate in teaching and learning process. The
teacher emphasizes student-centered, relying heavily on hands-on activities, group work, peer
work, individual work, projects, and discussion to engage students and encourage active
participation. The patterns of interaction during teaching and learning process in this research
occur between teacher and student or student and student. This result is similar to Brown (2000)
who states that “interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between
two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other” (p. 165). The term of
interaction implies an action-reaction or a two-way influence which may be between individuals
(e.g. student-student or teacher-student) or between an individual and a group (e.g. teacher-
audience) or between materials and individuals (Biddle, 1967, as cited in Sadeghi et al., 2012, p.
167).

Learner-centered activity such as group work, which forces students to talk to each other
spontaneously, ask each other questions, and respond in a natural way, is one of example how
this might be practiced. In group work pattern, the students are given a group task in doing
learning activities like playing game and doing a task from the book. To support it, Meng &
Wang (2011) assert that “group work activity is a good way to change the traditional teacher talk
that dominates the class” (p. 102). Besides, Jones (2007) states that “when students are working
together in English, they talk more, share their ideas, learn from each other, get involved more,
feel more secure and less anxious, and enjoy using English to communicate” (p. 3). It is in line
with Lightbown & Spada (1999) who argue that “students produce not only a greater quantity
but also a greater variety of language functions, for example, disagreeing, hypothesizing,
requesting, clarifying, and defining” (p. 85).

The last pattern is collaboration. The collaboration pattern is also well-known as pair
work pattern. It occurred when the students work in pair to do the activity or task given by the
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 200
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

teacher. The activity that is used by the teacher is in line with what Watcyn-Jones (2002)
mentioned that “there are several types of activities for working in pairs such as ice-breaker or
warm-up activities” (p.7). Wallace, Stariba, & Walberg (2004) note that “frequent collaboration
gives chances to the students in communicating meaningful ideas one another and being active
learners”(p. 14). To strengthen it, Storch (2001) argues that “collaboration pattern seems to be a
good idea for teachers to give a communicative activities because it immediately develops the
amount of student practice” (p. 53). In short, collaborative work often exerts a beneficial effect
on task performance.

Conclusion and Suggestion

The findings of the research show that the teacher perform almost all types of teacher talk
in order to make their students get involved and talk actively in teaching and learning process.
They provide many communicative learning activities that make them use teacher talk
continuously. Giving directions, asking questions, lecturing or giving information, praising and
encouraging, and repeating student’s response verbatim are the most frequently used by both
teachers during teaching and learning process. Meanwhile, criticizing or justifying student’s
behavior and response, accepting or using student’s ideas, giving feedback, joking, and accepting
student’s feeling are rarely used by them.

The students also perform almost all types of student talk in participating learning
process in the classroom. They use the types of student talk continuously with different
proportion because the teacher provide interactive learning activities. The use of each type of
student talk depends on the learning activities given by the teacher. It is found that the students
are often given individual task, peer task, and group task during teaching and learning process.
The more interactive activities they get, the more talk they use.

The patterns of interaction are not fully dominated by the teacher because the students
also actively participate in teaching and learning process. These patterns might increase talk and
interaction both teacher and students. When the teachers use the learning activities like game,
drills, individual task, peer task, and group task, the patterns of group work, choral responses,
closed-ended teacher questioning (IRF), individual work, student initiates-teacher answers, open-
ended teacher questioning, and collaboration emerge during teaching and learning process. These
patterns occur between teacher and student(s) and between student(s) and student(s).

Based on the conclusion above, it is highly recommended that the teacher should
decrease their proportion to give lecturing, asking questions, and giving directions by providing
the students an interesting theme or the latest topic to be discussed in group work or in pair work,
challenging questions as well to engage higher order thinking skills of the students. The teachers
should also give a wait-time for them to think then convey what things are going on their mind,
more creative in designing the teaching style, communicative activities, materials, and tasks in
order to make students actively participate in the class. The students should be more actively
engaged in the classroom interaction and braver to talk and interact with their teacher and
students directly during teaching and learning process.

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 201

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

Acknowledgement: This paper is funded by Indonesian Education Scholarship (LPDP)

About the Author:

Ima Isnaini Taufiqur Rohmah is a Doctorate Student of English Education Study Program of
Semarang State University, Semarang, Central Java, Indonesia. She has special interest in
English Language Teaching Methodology. She has published some articles in journals in the
area. She has also presented some of her research results in international seminar such as
TEFLIN.

References
Al-Otaibi, S. S. H. (2004). The Effect of "Positive Teacher Talk" on Students' Performance,
Interaction, and Attitudes: A Case Study of Female Students at the College of Languages
& Translation at King Saud University. Saudi Arabia: Thesis.
Allwright, D. (1984). The Importance of Interaction in Classroom Language Learning. Applied
Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171.
Brock-Utne, (2006). Focus on Fresh Data on the Language of Instruction Debate in Tanzania and
South Africa. Cape Town: African Minds
Brown, H. D. (2000). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy
(2nd Edition). New York: Pearson Education.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of Language Teaching and Learning (The 4th Edition). White
Plains, New York: Longman.
Brown, G. (1975). Microteaching. London: Methuem.
Brown, J. D. (2001). Using Surveys in Language Programs. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Candela, A. (1999). Students’ Power in Classroom Discourse. Linguistics & Education, 10(2),
139-163.
Crago, M. B., Eriks-Brophy, A., Pesco, D., & McAlpine, L. (1997). Culturally Based
Miscommunication in Classroom Interaction. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in
Schools, 23(3), 245-254.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches (2nd Edition). Thoasand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
Approaches. Thoasand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating
Quantitative and Qualitative Research (4th Edition). New Jersey: Pearson.
Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher Talk and the Classroom Context. ELT Journal, 52(3), 179-187.
Dagarin, M. (2004). Classroom Interaction and Communicate Strategies in Learning English as
a Foreign. Ljubljana: Birografika Bori.
Erling, E. J., Burton, S., & McCormick, R. (2012). The Classroom Practices of Primary and
Secondary School Teachers Participating in English in Action (Study 2a2). Dhaka,
Bangladesh: English in Action (EIA).
Flanders, N. 1970 Analyzing Teacher Behavior. Addison-Wesley. Reading, Mass: P.171.
Hussain, L., Ameen, I., & Bakhsh, K. (2011). The Effect of Classroom Interaction on Students’
Academic Acievement at Secondary School Level. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 2(3), 492-496
Jones, L. (2007). The Student-Centered Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 202
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are learned. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Liu, M. & Zhu, L. (2012). An Investigation and Analysis of Teacher Talk in College English
Class. International Journal of English Linguistics, 2(5), 117-121.
Meng, X. & Wang, X. (2011). Action Study of Teacher’s Language on EFL Classroom
Interaction. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 1(1), 98-104.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis
(2nd Edition). Thoasand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Moskowitz, G. (1971). Interaction analysis: A New Modern language for supervisors. Foreign
language Annals, 5(2), 211-221.
Nunan, D. (1991). Language Teaching Methodology. Hertfordshire: Prentice Hall International.
Pujiastuti, (2013), Classroom Interction: An Analysis of Teacher talk and Student talk in English
for Young Learners (EYL), Journal of English and Education, 1(1), 163-172.
Rashidi, (2010), Analyzing Pattern of Classroom Interaction in EFL Classrooms in Iran, The
Journal of Asia TEFL 7, (3), 93-120 Autumn.
Sadeghi, S., Ketabi, S., Tavakoli, M., & Sadeghi, M. (2012). Application of Critical Classroom
Discourse Analysis (CCDA) in Analyzing Classroom Interaction. English Language
Teaching, 5(1), 166-173).
Senowarsito. (2013) Politeness Strategies in Teacher-Student Interaction in an EFL Classroom
Context, TEFLIN Journal, 24, 1, January.82-96
Setiawati, L. (2012). A Descriptive Study on the Teacher Talk at EYL Classroom. Conaplin
Journal, Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 33-48.
Storch, N. (2001). How Collaborative is Pair Work? ESL Tertiary Students Composing in Pairs.
Language Teaching Research, 5, 29-53.
Suryati, (2015). Classroom Interaction Strategy Employed by English teacher at Lower
Seconday School, TEFLIN Journal, 26, 2, July, 247-264
Tuan, L. T. (2010). Theoretical Review on Oral Interaction in EFL Classrooms. Studies in
Literature and Language, 1(4), 29-48.
Wagner, E. D. (1994). In Support of a Functional Definition of Interaction. The American
Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 6-26.
Wallace, T., Stariba, W.E., & Walberg, H.J. (2004). Teaching Speaking, Listening, and Writing.
Brussels: International Academy of Education.
Watcyn-Jones, P. (2002). Pair Work 2. Penguin Books.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. London: SAGE Publications.
Zhang, P. (2012). Interactive Patterns and Teacher Talk Features in an EFL Reading Class in a
Chinese University-A Case Study with Communicative Teaching Method. Theory and
Practice in Language Studies, 2(5), 980-988.

Appendix A
The Interaction Analysis Systems from
Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz, 1971; Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi, 2004; and Erling et al., 2012

Flanders, 1970 Moskowitz, 1971 Brown, 1975 Al-Otaibi, 2004; Erling et al.,
2012
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 203
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

Accepting feeling Deals with Teacher’s Accepting student’s -

feelings responding feeling
Praising or Praises or - Encouragement and -
Encouraging encourages positive
reinforcement,
trusting, caring
Joke - - -
Accepting/using Uses idea of the - - -
ideas of student student
- Repeats student - - -
response
verbatim
Asking question Ask question Teacher’s Asking questions Asking
questioning question
Lecturing Gives Teacher’s Giving information Presenting
information lecturing
- Correct without - - -
rejecting
Giving direction Gives direction - Giving direction Organizing
Criticizing/justifying Criticizes student - Reaction -
authority behavior
- Criticizes student - - -
response
- - - Expressing the Giving
teacher’s own ideas feedback
Responding Student response Pupils Student talk response -
specific responding specific
- Student response - Student talk response Chorusing
choral non specific
Initiating Student response Pupil’s Student talk initiation -
open ended, or volunteering
student-initiated
- - - Student’s talk inquiry -
- - - Expressing student’s -
own ideas
- - - Expressing lack of -
understanding
verbally
- - - - In pairs
- - - - In group
Silence or confusion Silence Silence (S) - On their own
(single)
- - - Silence (work- -
oriented)
- Silence A-V - Silence non (work- -
Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 204
ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

oriented)
- Confusion work- Unclassifiable Confusion work- -
oriented (x) oriented
- Confusion non - Confusion non work -
work-oriented oriented
- Laughter - - -
- Uses the native - - -
language
- Non Verbal - - -
- - - Hand raising -
participation

Appendix B
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
The combination of Interaction Analysis System from (Flanders, 1970; Moskowitz, 1971;
Brown, 1975; Al-Otaibi, 2004; and Erling et al., 2012).
(Observation Categories and Definitions)

1. Accepting student’s feelings

(Accepting, discussing, referring to, understanding of past,
present, or future feelings of students in a non-threatening way.
Feelings may be positive or negative.)
2. Praising and encouraging
(Praising and encouraging student’s action and behavior.
Praising, complimenting, and telling students why what they
have said or done is valued. Encouraging students to continue,
trying to give them confidence, and confirming that answers are
correct.)
3. Joking
(Intentional joking, kidding, making puns, attempting to be
Teacher humorous, providing the joking is not at anyone’s expense.)
Talk 4. Accepting or using student’s ideas
(Clarifying, building or developing, using, interpreting, and
summarizing the ideas or suggestions from a student. The ideas
must be rephrased by the teacher but still recognized as being
student’s contributions.)
5. Asking questions
(Asking questions about content or procedure with the intent that
a student should answer the question and an answer is
anticipated.)
6. Repeating student’s response verbatim
(Repeating the exact words of students after they participate.)
7. Lecturing or giving information

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 205

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

(Giving information, facts, own opinions, or own ideas,

lecturing, explaining, narrating, reading the materials, or asking
rhetorical questions.)
8. Giving directions
(Giving directions, requests, or commands that students are
expected to follow; directing various drills; facilitating whole-
class and small-group activity.)
9. Criticizing or justifying student’s behavior and
response
(Rejecting the behavior of student; trying to change student
behavior from the non-acceptable to acceptable pattern;
communicating anger, displeasure, annoyance, and
dissatisfaction with what students are doing; Telling the
student’s response is not correct or acceptable and
communicating criticism, displeasure, annoyance, rejection by
words or intonation.)

10. Giving feedback

(Responding to something students have said or done, and
evaluating or commenting on it.)
11. Student talk, response (specific)
(It is talk by student in responding to the teacher within a
specific and limited range of available answers. Student
responds directly and predictably to teacher’s question and
directions.)
12. Student talk, response (choral)
(One student or more attempting to give responses without
being selected by the teacher or without raising their hands; All
of the class is speaking in chorus at the same time. This may be
in response to the teacher’s questions, or reading in chorus.)
13. Student talk, initiation
(It is talk by student in responding to the teacher with students’
own ideas, opinions, reactions, feelings. Initiating the
participation or commenting on the lesson content.)
Student talk 14. Student talk, inquiry
(Asking for further information, asking for clarification, for
examples, asking about lesson content.)
15. Expressing lack of understanding verbally
(Asking the teacher to explain something or responding to a
teacher’s question by saying I don’t know, for instance.)
16. Student talk in single
(One student is speaking at this particular moment. The student
may be talking to the teacher or with another student, or s/he
may be reading aloud.)
17. Student talk in pairs

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 206

ISSN: 2229-9327
 Arab World English Journal (AWEJ) Vol.8. No. 2 June 2017

Classroom Interaction in English Language Class Rohmah

(All of the students are talking to each other in pairs.)

18. Student talk in groups
(All of the students are talking to each other in groups.)
19a.Silence
(Pauses in the interaction, periods of quiet during which there is
no verbal interaction.)
19b.Silence-AV
(Silence in the interaction during which a piece of audiovisual
equipment, e.g., a tape recorder, filmstrip projector, record
player, etc., is being used to communicate.)
20a.Confusion (work-oriented)
(More than one person at a time talking. Students are calling out
excitedly, eager to participate or respond, concerned with task at
hand in which communication cannot be understood by the
observer.
21. Hand-raising participation
(Students raising their hands to participate and to answer the
teacher’s questions.)
22. Laughing
(Laughing and giggling by the class, individuals, and/or the
teacher.)

Arab World English Journal www.awej.org 207

ISSN: 2229-9327