International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 (pp. 425-434) 425

Techniques for Classroom Interaction

Reza Kalantari, Research Institute for Education, Iran

According to Interaction-Based Instruction, samples of the target language become available to the learner for interlanguage construction through classroom interaction. Through carefully designed classroom interaction activities, involving various forms of more or less realistic practice, learners can become skilled at actually doing the things they have been taught about. The problem is that the learners don’t know instinctively how to interact with each other. This research presents a number of teaching techniques that addresses the problems that EFL teachers face to provide an interactive classroom condition. These techniques are the strategies of classroom interaction, such as questioning techniques and modification through cooperative method of learning. The sample comprised 48 intermediate EFL learners who had registered at a private language institution. A pre-test, post–test, and control and experimental groups were designed. The results of post-test indicated statistically significant difference between the control and experimental groups on their conversation performance. The most obvious implication for the use of interaction-based instruction would be for language teachers, language learners and language syllabus designers. As a case in point, teachers can use the strategies of classroom interaction to improve the learners’ conversation performance and develop their interest in English language learning.

Keywords: Questioning Technique; Interaction Hypothesis; Interaction-Based Instruction; Modification; Cooperative Learning

1. Introduction

The term classroom interaction refers to the interaction between teacher and learners in the classrooms. L2 classroom interaction research began in 1960s with the aim of evaluating the effectiveness of interaction in language acquisition. According to Brown (2001), interaction is at the heart of communicative competence. When a learner interacts with another learner he/she receives input and produces output. Nunan (1991) stated that language is acquired as learners actively engage and interact with each other to communicate in target language.

426 | Reza Kalantari Social–interactionists see language as rule-governed cultural activity learned in interaction with others. According to Vygotsky (1978, as cited in Shannon, 2005), social-interaction plays an important role in the learning process. Ellis (2004) stated that "interactionists view language learning as an outcome of participating in discourse, in particular face-to-face interaction" (p. 78). Students don’t know instinctively how to interact with each other. In addition, much training time is devoted to help teachers, arrange appropriate interactions between students and materials. How students should interact with one another is relatively ignored and is a neglected aspect of instruction. In this research, three basic ways are introduced to help L2 learners to interact with each other appropriately.

One of the influential strategies in creating classroom interaction is questioning technique. Where foreign language learners do not have a great number of tools for initiating and maintaining language, encouraging them to formulate or answer questions can provide stepping stones for continued interaction (Aliponga, 2003). The use of questioning strategy outlined in this research is anchored in the Long’s interaction hypothesis, which stresses the role of input in development of second language. The types of questions also affect the classroom interaction. For example, a study of Suter (2001) showed that referential questions make more interaction between learners than display questions. The second strategy is modification which is widely used as negotiation of meaning. Negotiation of meaning has been defined by Pica (1994, as cited in Glew, 1998) as restructuring of interaction that occurs when a communication problem arises. Modification helps the learners to continue the interaction without interrupting it, and solve the miscommunication problem without using their mother language.

The third strategy that can promote interaction is cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is opposed to individualistic and competitive learning, which has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach which involves the characteristics of learner-centered approaches. Cooperative learning requires learners to work in groups to achieve a common goal (Chafe, 1998). Working together maximizes opportunities for student-student interaction with meaningful input and output in a supportive environment.

The present study is designed to promote interaction by using three mentioned strategies in an Iranian EFL context.

2. METHOD

2.1. Participants

The learners who participated in this study were 48 male learners, studying English at Shokouh institution in Miandoab. Most of them were at the intermediate level of English proficiency. Twelve of them were learners

International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 | 427

whose English proficiency level was relatively higher than the others, comparing their scores on the basis of pre-test. These learners were selected as the leaders. The learners’ ages ranged from 15 to 18 years. In order to have control and experimental groups, a pre-test was given to the participants. The experimental group who received the treatment of Interaction Strategies was labled (IS) and the control group who did not receive Interaction Strategies treatment was labled Non-Strategy Interaction (NSI) group. Each group consisted of 24 learners.

2.2. Instrumentation

The participants’ ability on English conversation performance, both at the pre-test and post-test stage, was measured by an oral (speaking) test. The test lasted about 14 minutes for every learner and included four parts; interview, individual task, joint task, and three-way discussion. Each part consisted of different questions. The testees answered these questions orally. The learners’ conversation performance was recorded, and then their conversation performance was graded by using Conversational English Proficiency Ratings Checklist for accent, grammar, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension.

The textbook for the instruction of both groups was Interaction Reading, intermediate level, written by Kirn and Hartmann (2002). 15 texts of the book were selected. The reason that promoted us to choose this book was that it was based on Interaction-Based Instruction and it was possible to divide the texts of this book into segments in order for the learners to work on jigsaw tasks

2.3. Procedure

In order to apply interaction strategies in experimental group, these five phases were used in the instructional treatment.

The first phase, dealt with creating small groups amongst the experimental group according to the principles of cooperative learning. Each small group included one weak learner, two average learners, and one strong learner, which is based on Anderson (1989). The strong or competent learners were selected as the leaders for groups. The leaders’ English proficiency level was relatively higher than the others, comparing their scores to others according to pre-test scores. Consequently, the experimental group was divided into six groups, each with four members working together in jigsaw task for the purpose of this research.

The second phase, concerned with the familiarizing the learners with the strategies of classroom interaction. The strategies of classroom interaction were explained to the learners clearly. They were told how to use the

428 | Reza Kalantari questioning technique and ask and answer the questions. The strategies of negotiation of meaning were explained to the learners, too. The learners were taught how they can ask for clarification, check the comprehension, and confirm and rephrase the utterance. The five essential elements of cooperation and the benefits of cooperation were explained to the learners. They were encouraged to interact with their groupmates, discuss, and negotiate the learning material together. In the third phase, 15 texts were selected from Interaction Reading intermediate level by Kirn and Hartmann (2002). Each text was divided into three segments.

In the fourth phase, in every session, the leaders were responsible to read all parts of a text, on the basis of jigsaw tasks, and prepare some comprehension questions. The groupmates were responsible to read only their own segment. According to jigsaw task, the learners worked in groups, and each learner was given information that others didn’t know. The learners interacted with each other and discussed; finally, they could synthesize their information and comprehend the whole text.

In the fifth phase, the leaders provided some comprehension questions on the basis of the text and asked their groupmates. The learners sat close to each other and worked together in groups on jigsaw task. They negotiated the meaning of texts through jigsaw task and answered the questions. The leaders asked their groupmates questions and they answered the questions. When there was misunderstanding communication, the learners could modify each others’ uttrance and ask questions that led finally to their understanding of the whole text.

3. Results and Analysis of pre –test Scores

After the learners’ conversation performance was graded, their pre–tests were scored, the means of both groups were calculated, and the following results were observed.

Table 1. Descriptive Analysis of the Pre-test for both experimental (IS) and control groups (NIS)

M N SD Experimental 40.7 24 13.37 Control 41.5 24 13.03

As Table 1. Indicates, the means of two groups, experimental and control groups, are almost the same. It proved the homogeneity of two groups. In order to check the difference between the two means and to ensure more reliable result, T-Test analysis was used and the following results were observed.

International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 | 429

Table 2. T-Test Analysis of Pre–test for both experimental (IS) and control (NIS) groups M Diff. SD Diff. t df Sig. (one-tailed) Experimental vs Control -0.8 -0.34 -0.20 46 1.68

Another point, which needed careful attention, was the value of degree of freedom. Each group had 24 learners; one of the scores was predictable given the other 23. So each group had 23 degree of freedom. Since there were two groups, the total df (24-1+24-1) is 46. Because df = 46 is not listed in the table including critical values of t but falls between 40 and 60, so 40 was chosen as being the closest to 46. The critical value of t at 0.05 level of significance of one–tailed test was 1.68.

tobserved = -0.20 < tcritical ( α df = 46 P < 0.05 = 1.68)

Fortunately, our tobserved was enough below tcritical. So we concluded that the difference is statistically non-significant. It means that the experimental and control group were homogenous.

Figure 1. Shows the homogeneity of two groups. It means that two groups, experimental and control groups, were at the same level and there was no main difference between two groups.

40.7 41.5

0102030405060708090

100

IS NIS

Figure 1. Comparing means of experimental (IS) and control (NIS) groups in pre-test.

430 | Reza Kalantari

4. Results and Analysis of Post-test Scores

After 15 sessions, the same oral test as a post–test was administered for both groups, and their conversation performance were graded again .Two groups’ post–test scores were gathered and their means and standard deviations were calculated. The control group didn’t receive treatment, but the experimental group received treatment; they were taught by the strategies of interaction through jigsaw tasks. After collecting the data, the following results were obtained.

Table 3. Descriptive Analysis of the Post–test both experimental and control groups

M N SD Experimental Control

51.2 43.2

24 24

14.41 13.37

Having compared means of two groups, we observed that the mean of the experimental group was more than the control group mean. As was shown in the Table 3, the standard deviation of experimental group was more than the control group. According to Hatch and Farhady (1981), the larger the standard deviation, the more variability from the central point in the distribution. According to an analysis of T-Test, the following results were observed:

Table 4. T-Test Analysis of Post–test both for experimental (IS) and control (NIS) groups

(Difference) M

(Difference) SD t df Sig.

(one tailed) Experimental Control - 8 - 0.93 1.86 46 1.68

Table 4. Shows the difference between the results of post-test of experimental and control groups. Since the researcher expected a positive directional hypothesis, the test was used as one-tailed test at 0.05 level of significance. The critical value of t at 0.05 levels was 1.68.

tobserved = 1.86 > tcritical (α df = 46 p < 0.05 = 1.68)

International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 | 431

Figure 2. displays the difference of means of control and expertmental groups in post- test.

51.243.2

0102030405060708090

100

IS NIS

Figure 2. Comparing means of experimental (IS) and control (NIS) groups in post- test.

These results show a significant difference between two means in the post-test. It means that the difference between two means was significant enough to reject the null hypothesis and accept the proposed directional hypothesis. We can confidently claim that classroom interaction through the strategies of questioning and modification in a group work improves the EFL learners’ conversation performance.

The findings of this study confirm the previous findings (Cheon, 2003; Ellis, 1992; Long, 1983; Gibson, 2004; Mackey, 1998) and show some evidence to suggest that EFL learners’ speaking ability improves through the use of the strategies of interaction.

5. Conclusion

Most EFL teachers are concerned about the unsatisfactory outcome of English language learning in Iran. It is disappointing and discouraging for them to witness incomplete students’ performances despite their high efforts to enable them to communicate in English in language classrooms. To increase foreign language proficiency, some researchers and teachers have provided

432 | Reza Kalantari instruction that helped students to learn how to use more relevant and more powerful learning strategies. In ESL/EFL studies, some positive effects of strategy instruction emerged for proficiency in speaking. In this research three strategies were used to find the effects of these strategies on conversation performance of Iranian EFL learners. The finding of this research showed that the use of the strategies of classroom interaction could improve the learners’ conversation performance.

The use of questioning techniques can help the learners to initiate language. When foreign language learners don’t have a great number of tools for initiating speaking, encouraging them to formulate and answer the questions provides a continued interaction that helps learners to improve their language development.

Negotiation of meaning can provide a lot of input and output for learners to improve their interlanguage. Working in cooperative groups provides learners to work in groups to achieve common goals. It can maximize opportunities for the learners to interact with each other that provide meaningful input for them.

In traditional methods, the interaction is between teacher and learners i.e., the interaction is from teacher to learners. But in interaction-based instruction, the interaction is among learners.That is to say, the interaction is from learner to learner. The teacher monitors the learners and tries to encourage them to monitor themseleves whithout the help of the teacher. Using of the strategies of classroom interaction helps learners to work in relaxed environment of learning whitout anxiety.

The Author

Reza Kalantari is bilingual Researcher at Research Institute for Education, Iran (Correspondence: kalantari_636@yahoo.com)

References

Aliponga, J. (2003). Developing fluency through questioning strategies. Retrieved on June 20, 2005. http://www.asion-efl-jornal.com/aliponga archive.html

Anderson, L. W. (1989). The effective teacher: Study guide and reading. Random NewYork House.

International Journal of Language Studies (IJLS), Vol. 3(4), 2009 | 433

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principle an interactive approach to language pedagogy. (2nd Ed.), White Plans, NY: Pearson Education.

Carter, R., & Nunan, D. (2001). Teaching English to speaker of other language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chafe, A. (1998). Cooperative learning and the second language classroom. Retrieved on October 13, 2004. http://www.cooperation.org/chafe-cooprative.html

Cheon, H. (2003). The validity of computer mediated communication in the Korean secondary EFL classroom. Retrieved on January 30, 2005.

http://www.asion-efl-jornal.com/march03.sub2.php

Ellis, R. (1992). Instructed second language acquisition. Black Well, Oxford University Press.

Ellis, R. (2004). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford University Press.

Gibson, G. (2004). Facilitating English conversation development in large classrooms. Retrieved from January 12, 2005. http://;teslj.org/techniques/gibson-conversation.html

Glew, p. J. (1998). Verbal interaction and English second language acquisition in classroom contexts. Retrieved on January 12, 2005. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier8/glew.html

Hatch, E., & Farhady, H. (1981). Research design and statistics for applied linguistics. Rahnama Publications.

Kirn, E., & Hartmann, P. (2002). Interactions reading. (4th Ed.), LosAngeles College: Mc Graw.Hill Contemporary.

Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and negotiation of comprehensible input applied linguistics. Washington D.C.

Mackey, A. (1998). Input, interaction, and second language development: An empirical study of question formation in ESL. Cambridge University Press.

434 | Reza Kalantari Mirhassani, A. (2003). Theories, approaches and methods in teaching English

as a foreign language. Tarbiat Moderres University.

Nunan, D. (1991). Language teaching methodology. London: Prentice hall.

Shannon, F. (2005). Interactionist theory in second language acquisition. Retrieved on May 05, 2005. http://fredshannon.blogspot.com/fredShannon archive.html

Suter, Ch. (2001). Exploring teachers question and feedback. University of Birmingham.