Luận văn the effect of classroom interaction on developing non english major sophomores’ speaking skill at ho chi minh university of industry hui

VIETNAMNATIONALUNIVERSITY, ITANOL YERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES VÕ THỊ KIM CÚC THE EFFECT OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION ON DEV ELOPLNG -EN

VIETNAMNATIONALUNIVERSITY, ITANOL YERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

VÕ THỊ KIM CÚC

THE EFFECT OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION ON DEV ELOPLNG

-ENGLISII MAJOR SOPITOMORES’ SPEAKING SKILL AT IIO CII

MINH UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY (HUI)

Anh huéng của tương tác trong lớp học đãi với việc phát triển kỹ năng nói của sinh viên năm hai không chuyên ngữ tại trường Đại Hục Công Nghiệp TP.HCM

M.A MINOR THESIS FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOCY

CODE: 60140111

HoChiMinh, 2014

VIETNAMNATIONALUNIVERSITY, ITANOL YERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

Jaen HEE EERE

VÕ THỊ KIM CÚC

THE KEEECT OE CLASSROOM LNTKRACTTON ON DEVELOPING

-ENGLISII MAJOR SOPITOMORES’ SPEAKING SKILL AT IIO Ci

MINH UNIVERSITY OF INDUSTRY (HUI)

Ảnh hưởng của tương tác trong lớp học dỗi với việc phát triển kỹ năng nỏi của sinh

viên năm hai không chuyên ngữ tại trường Dại Học Công Nghiệp TP.LCM:

M.A MINOR THESIS

FIELD: ENGLISH TEACHING METHODOLOGY

CODE: 60140111

SUPERVISOR: NGUYEN TRUONG SA, PRD

ToChiMinh, 2014

DECLARATION OF AUTHORSHIP

TITLE:

“The effect of classroom inieraction on developing non-Fnglish major sophomare’s speaking at Ho Chỉ Minh University of Industry (HUL}”

Name: VO THI KIM CÚC

Supervisor's Name: Dr NGUYEN TRUONG SA

“J cortify that this work is cntircly my own and has not becn accepted as part of a submission to another purpose elsewhere”

Signed:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study has been completed with the help and support of many persons

‘Therefore, | an grateful to all of them

First and foremost, | would like to express my special thanks to my supervisor, Dr Nguyen Truong Sa, who shaped me on the path toward being an independent researcher

Dear Dr Nguyen Truong Sa, thank you for your initial ideas of the research lopie and your support during the time I was conductmg, the research You have invested a lot of energy and valuable time counseling and correcting my thesis Without your help and support, T would have been in much (rouble completing my study Working wilh you, T have leamed a lot of valuable knowledge and experiences in doing research

Next, | would like to send my deep gratitude Mr Bui Van Hat, the English teacher

at Faculty of Foreign Languages, Ilo Chi Minh University of Industry, who helped me so

much in implementing the study

Besides, my deep gratitude is sent to Ms Hien and Ms Nhung, my colleagues at the College of Finance and Customs, who shared with me their experience in organizing activities I would like to tharik Mr Tin, my close friend who supported me with

technical aids

My thanks are due to my beloved students m the two tion-English major classes, al

Ho Chi Minh University of Industry, who involved in my experment, Without their assistance, my study could not have been conducted I am alsa grateful to my teachers and colleagues al the Fnglish Department, Ho Chi Minh Universily of Tndustry, who gave ame good conditions during the time 1 followed the M.A course All of their help meaningfully contributed to the completion of my study in the master program

Finally I owe everything to my family, especially my parents, who were always with inc when I was in difficulties and gave me mental support to complete my MLA

program.

classroom interaction types Teachers thought that interaction can increase students’ imowledge, confidence, establish relationship They encountered some difficulties during

titeraction: students do not want to lake risk, students’ vocabulary and grammar

problems

1, Rationale of the study cssssessestsservesesntanineesenne

2 Aims of the study

1.1 Theorctical background of the rescarch

1.1.4 The importance of classroom interaction on speaking skill Error! Bookmark not defined

CHAPTER 2METHODOLOGY

3.2.Mothod of the ros

vi

2.5 The validity and reliability đata à nen T8

CHAPTER 3 FLNDINGS AND DISCUSSION

3.1, Findings and discussion coi cv

1 Conclusions 33

2.Implieations of the sbudy

3.Suggestions for further research cà trserierooae 3Ổ

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Participants detailed information

Table 2: Observation and interview schedule

Table 3: The resulls of all observations

Table 4: The resulls of classroom interaclion types

viii

15

ld 21

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS HUI Ho Chi Minh University of Industry

FLINT Foreign Language Interaction Analysis

PART A INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the siudy

Classroom interaction is the key for the language learner to reach the gaal of using the language accurately, fluently, and confidently whether in its written or

spoken forms Chaudron (1998) moles thal only through imteraclion can learners

acquire the target language structures and its their meaning, and leamers have more opportunities to incorporate such structures into their oral performance In addition, wilh classroom interaction, English learners can find il a bil casicr to gain [lueney and accuracy in their speaking According to Swain (1997), language production in classrooms provides the opportunity for meaningful practice of learners’ linguistic

resources thal lead lo accuracy Tn addition, in the study of Hailey (2006),

interaction not only helps leamers to notice what they cannot express precisely the meaning they wish but alsa pushes leamers to produce more accurate and

appropriate Janguage Tn the same vein, Savignon (1983) affirms that the

development of communicative competence is promoted in “expression, interpretation, and negotiation of meaning involving interaction between two or amore persons or belween one and a written or oral text” One again, the elTect of interaction on leamers’ communicative competence and then speaking ability is

asserted by Welker’s (1997 82) that “a thousand meetings, the best textbooks,

crvalive leaching materials, even native speakers visiling classroom aren’| going Lo

give students Hnglish communicatively Only by using English with their teacher and classmates will develop the ability lo speak English” However, in the light of speaking skill, it sccms that the author fails to address classroom interaction in the

relation to develop speaking skill

In Vietnam, most of students cannot use English for communicating in real situation although they have learned English for many years Accarding to Van

(2007 22) “Vietnamese learners’ English proficiency levels were very low, they

seemly failed to take part im oral communication” In addition, ‘think (2006)

addressed that many Victnamese students are mable to produce a pertict sentence although they have leamed Linglish in classrooms for seven years ‘Then it becomes doubtful whether the unadequale interaction makes Vietnamese students in general and students in colleges, universities in particular are not able to speak English The researcher also wonders whether classroom interaction is one of the causes that lead

to failure and coruplion of students’ English speaking or to whal extent Fnglish teachers have met the barriers in applying classroom interaction in teaching speaking skills The paper is conducted in the pursuit of revealing the hidden part of language teaching and learning For thal reason, the paper will serve the practical investigation, it’s hoped that the finding may serve as a reference document to the teachers who are interested in improving their student’s speaking, skill

2 Aims of the study

This study is aimed atinvestigating the reality of interaction in speaking classrooms for non-English major sophomores at Ho Chi Minh University of

Industry (HUL) ‘To be specific, the aims of the study are:

- ‘To find out types of classroom interaction,

- To examine teachers’ perception about the importance of classroom interaction and main difficulties that they face when employing the classroom

Inferaction im order lo improve the students’ communicative or speaking

competence,

3 Research questions

The gencral question addressed in this study is: How is interaction employed

in the classroom for non-Linglish major sophomores at LLUI?

This question can be answered by addressing these specific questions:

1 What are the teachers’ perceptions of the importance of classroom

interaction?

2 What kinds of classroom interaction are applied in practice?

3 What aro the main barricrs in implementing classroom interaction?

4 Scape of the study

Initially, the purpose of the researcher is examining how classroom interaction helps to improve speaking skill Iiowever, due to the constraint of time, the researcher can’t examine these effects Unfortunately, the proposed title of the study had been approved and it could not be changed ‘therefore, the thesis will be only limited to focus on the types of classroom interaction employing in practice, find

oul whether classroom inleraction is implemented adequately and the barriers that

teachers cneounter when applying the classroom interaction to build up speaking skill to non- English major sophomores at HUI only, leaving other contexts of

English leaching and learning oul of discussion

5 Methods

The research is based on qualilaive method with three mslruments:

classroom observation, interview and document analysis ‘Lhe video from classroom observations areanalyzed and then coded by using [lint (Voreign Language Interaction) system (Moskowitz 1971) and Malamah-Thomas’ (1987) frameworks

‘These instruments areaimed to find out the classroom interaction types, collect the information from teachers’ perceptions of the importance of classroom interaction and barriers in applying the classroom interaetion

Speaking is an interactive process of constructing meaning that involves producing

and receiving and processing information (Brown, 1994; Burns & Joyce, 1997)

Sophomore non English major students arc students in the sccond year oŸ university or college and their majors are not Linglish

7 Design of the study

‘The paper of the research will be organized as follows:

CILAPTER |: INTRODUCTION consists of rationale of the study, aims of the

study, research questions, scope of the study, methods and design of the study

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW explains the theoretical framework

related to the study Tn this chapter, the researcher serves the thoory of speaking,

interaction, interaction in speaking classroom, aspect of interaction as well as types

of classroom inleraction Besides, it also conlais the previous sludies examining

the gains of teaching spealsing upon interaction

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY discusses the methods of the study and some other key constructs such as particzpants, ethical issues and the like,

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION describes the result of analysis and explains the answer of the research questions In this chapter, the researchers reveals the lypes of classroom inloraction that Frequently occur, displays the teachers’ perceptions about the importance of classroom interaction and their difficulties in employing the classroom interaction

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION describes the summary of the research as briefly as possible whole part It contains such highlights of the study as types, teachers’ perceptions and barriers of classroom interaction Besides, implication of

the study and recommendations for further studies arc also mehuded.

PART B DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK and LITERATURE REVIEW 1.1 Theoretical backgraund of lhe research

1.1.1, What is interaction in language classrnoms?

Tt is important to make clear the concept of “classroom interaction” used in this study First, we will take a look at the term interaction in general and then we will connect it to the context of language classrooms For one thing, interaction, as explained by Robinson (1994 7), can be either “verbal, channeled through written or spoken words, or non-verbal, channeled through touch, proximity, eye-contact, facial expressions, gesturing ete” In other words, in the course of interaction, there should be al leas lwo people using spoken and/or writlen words lo gel involved in communication in a particular context For another word, interaction phrases, which lave been defined as “the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in a reciprocal effect on cach other” (Brown

2001 165), or face to face communication with particular “prosody facial expression, silence and rhythuical patterns of behavior between the participants” (Crystal 2003 238), have been given a lot of attention within the language leaming fields in recent years From the two definitions, it is suggested that interaction can only gel oveurred when there is a specilic purpose and an identified situation Tr the

course of classroom interaction, “classroom interaction” refers to “verbal mieraction

through spoken words” between the teacher and students and among students in the language classrooms To put it in another way, classroom interaction moans to communicate spontaneously and verbally for the sake of sharing social and personal data (Couniban 1998 7

) Ás shown previously, because interaction and classroom

interaction invelve human beings, such tlnngs as emotions, crealivily, agreement or

disagreement and so on should be taken into considerations (Cowuban 1998 72)

For that reason, it is easy to recognize feelings included in the conversations among

lutrtakers Tn language classrooms, interaction involves nol rly leachers and

students but students also Even when the commitment to case oral performance

fails, making an effort to fill the gap between them will get students to speak in

SON

ys 1.1.2 Aspect of interaction

1.1.2.1 ‘Teacher tallk

In language teaching and learning, what is called by “teacher talk” is the

language typically used by teachers in their communication In simple words,

according to Ellis (1988), “teacher talk” is special language the teacher use when

addressing learners in the classroom Teacher talk is crucial and important, not only

for the organization and management the classroom but also for the process off

acquisition

According to Flanders (1970), as quoted by Krypsin and I'eldhusen (1974 20),

the sectiont of'“Ieacher talk” is readily subdivided info two major calegorios: imdiroot

a Indirect Teacher Talk

Furthermore, Flanders describes the categories of indirect teacher talk into:

- Accepting feeling: accept and clarify the feeling of the students in a non-

threatening manner Heeling may be positive or negative

- Praises and Encourages: praise and encourage stuilcnts’action or behavior,

jokes to release tension, and nodding head or saying “hmm” or “go on”

- Accepts or use students’ ideas: there are two teachers’ behaviors included in this category ‘he first aspect involves the teachers acceptance of the students ideas,

cg, “ummm, T ses your point” The

cond aspect involves the teachors using a

student’s ideas to further develop lesson

- Asking question: the most important key in creating an interactive language

classroom is the initiation of interaction by the teacher One of the best ways to

develop the role as an initiator and sustainer of interaction is to develop a repertoire

of questioning strategies

Chaudron (1998 32) has also adapted fiom Flint system, also puts the torm teacher talk into indirect and direct influence He clarifies indirect teacher talk into

following items

= Deals with (ecting: in a non-threatening way, accepting, discussiryg, referring

to, or communicating understanding of past, present, or future feelings of students

- Praises or encourages: praising, complementing, tell to students why what they have to say or do is valued Encouraging students to continue, trying to give them confidence Confirming answers are correct

- Jokes: Intentional joking, kidding, making puns, attempting to be humorous, providing the joking is nol al anyone’s expense Unintentional humor isnot included in this category

= Uses ideas of the students: clarifying using interpreting, summarizing the ideas of students, The ideas must be rephrased by the teacher but still recognized as

‘being student contributions

- Repeat student response verbatim: repeating the exact words of the students after they participate

- Ask questions: asking questions to which an answer is anticipated Rhetorical

questions are not included in this category

b Direct teacher talk

Based on Flanders categories, as quoted by Kxypsin and Feldhusen (1974), direct teacher talk is divided into smaller and more meaningful unit:

- Lixplaining or Informing: another component that takes up very significant portion of teacher talk is explanation Informing or lecture is generally used to get

across important facts, opinions, concepts, or generalizations to the students

- Giving direction or commands: this category is used when student compliance with the teacher's statement results in some observable activity ence, direction or commands giving by the teacher allow the student only minimal freedom in responding, The distinction between commands and dircotions depend

on the freedom allowed to the students Commands which are very explicit are more laniting: whereas dircotions are less demanding and volurtary intone

- Seolding/Reprimanding or Defending Authority: im general, teachers employ

statement or criticism or reprimand in order to comect students’misbehaving,

Critical comments in calling attention to the inappropriate activity are intended to

get sludents to modilyy their behavior

‘As a comparison, and not so different from Flanders, Flint’s system, as quoted

by Chaudron (1998 32), describes the direct influence on teacher talk into:

- Giving information: giving information, fhels, awn opinion or ideas,

lecturing, or asking rhetorical question

- Correcting without rejection: telling the students who have made mistake the

correct response without using words or intonation which communicate criticism

- Giving direction: giving direction, requests, or commands which students are expected to follow

- Directing pattern drills, giving statements which students are expected to repeat exactly, to make substitutions in, or to change from one form to another

- Criticizing students’bchavior: Rejecting the behavior of students: replying to change the non-aeceptable behavior, communicating anger, displeasure, annoyance,

dissatisfaction with what the sludents are doing

- Criticizing students'response: telling the students his response is correct or

acceptable and communicating by words or intonation criticism, displeasure,

rejection

1.1.2.2 Students talk

A representative instrument for observation of students‘talk is classroom

quoted by Chaudron (1998 32-33), the following are the items being

concemed with student talk in classroom interaction based on Flint system

- Student's response, specific: Responding to the teacher within a specific and limited range of available or previously shaped answer,

- Student's response, choral: Choral response by the total class or part of the

students must now make a selection

- Silence: Pauses in the interaction Periods of quiet durimg which there is no verbal interaction

- Silence A-V: Silenec in the interaction during wluch a piece of audio-visual

equipment is being used to communicate

- Confusion, non-work oriented: More than one person at a time is talking, so the interaction cannot be recorded Students are out of order, they are not behaving

aa the teacher wishes, and they are nol concerned with task at hand

- Laughior laughing, giggling by ihe class, individuals, and or the teacher.

- Uses English: using English by the teacher or students

- Nonverbal: nonverbal gestures or facial cxpressions by the teacher or the

students who communicate without the use of words

Another simpler point of view is INlanders’categories As quoted by Krypsin and Feldhusen (1974), Flanders subdivides students talk inta two categories depending on the students’ response

- Student talk — Rxpeoled or prediolable response: this oaiegory is when the student replies to a teacher’s question or direction based on the type of question or direction posed by the teacher

+ Student, talk-Thitiated tespomse: Tre this case, the sludent is responsible for

originating the verbal activity It is when students volunteer statements or questions

without being asked or induced by the teacher

1.13 Types of classroom interaction

It is true that classroom interaction come in many shapes and forms (Van Lier 1988) and many be in various combinations In the classroom aiming at teaching the

largel language, the lypes of interaction offen inchude

- Teacher speaking (o the whole class,

- Teacher speaking to an individual student with the test of the class as

hearers;

- ‘Teacher speaking to a group of students,

- Student speaking to teacher,

- Student speaking to student;

- Student speaking to group members,

- Student speaking to the whole class,

(Malamah-Thomas 1987)

The first two types of interaction aro the most commonly occurring types in the language classroom ‘hey are characterized by the teacher initiation, stadent(s) yesponse and teacher follow-up pattern, referred to as (he TRF (Tnitiation-Response- Feedback) exchange structure Much argument about these two types of Imieraction focuses on the teacher initiating questions Some researchers (e.g Nunan 1987,

Kumaravadivelu 1993, Thonthury 1998) criticive those mieraclive examples

inititated by the teachers display questions for their non-communicativeness and

hold that real communication can only be realized in the classrooms when the

teachers questions are of referenlial questions (6 “true mformalion questions”, Lo

which the teacher does not know the answers) some other researchers (e.g Van Lier

1988, Seedhouse 1996, Cullen 1998) argue that the pedagogical nature of the

classroom activilies makes ils discourse distinct to a certain extent [rom the nalural

discourse outside the classroom

So far common sense tells us that, whether classroom interaction is communicative or not should not be judged by whether the referential or display questions are used, but by whether these questions are meaningful in the context whether the interaction initiated by the questions promote the comprehension of the language input and whether the teachers questions elicit the students responses out

of independent thinking,

The third type of interaction refers to the teacher participating, students” group work, helping student go deep into the discussion by contributing his/her ideas to the subject At this time, the teacher plays a role of a facilitator of learning

The fourth type of interaction means that it is the learner instead of the teacher who imitates the question, When this occurs, il is regarded as learner initiative Learner initiative is common in the leamer-centered classroom, but rare in the

teacher-fronted classroom

The fifth and sixth types- student speaking to student and student speaking to group members-are usually called pair work and group work; the latter is inevitably

linked to tasks Rescarchors advocating pair or group work believe that these two types of interaction can provide more opportunities for language production, and

collaborative work [acilitales learnmipr

Student speaking to the whole class is the seventh type of interaction that mainly focuses on the student workshop or presentation

1.1.4 The importance of classroom interaction with speaking skill

Interaction plays the key role im learning a language With this pais of view,

Williams and Barden (1997 206) put it in this way “if we take an interaction view of

learning, we see the nature of the interaction that take place as a key to learmng

This is especially apparent in the case of learning a language where using language

is essentially a social activity, and interaction in the target language is an integral

part of the Jearting process” Tn addition, ita study into the role of classroom

interaction, Hall and Verplaetse (2000) affinm that it ts in their interactions with

each other learners learn the form and the content of the target language hence

foster the imchvidual developorent With the same vem, Bovale (2004) explains,

interacting helps learners to learn words and phrases more easily and use the language more correotly than they just hear or see them passively The process of

negotiation of mearing makes learners understand and acquire the same time the

structure of the language I'urthermore, in a claim on the importance classroom interaction in language learning in foreign language lessons, Allwright (1984 158)

asscris iLis “inherent i very notion of classroom pedagogy itself”

Classroom interaction is definitely very essential im the leaching and leaming process because it provides language leaners with speaking opportunities with teacher and other Jeamers which are the basis factor for the language acquisition

and the development of speaking skill

1.2 Previous studies upon classroom interaction

Many studies have heen conducted to investigate the interaction m classrooms

However, it is impossible to review all of these studies Kor example, different

12

classroom observation instruments have been devised by classroom researchers Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) used teacher-student verbal interaction as thew data for research into discourse analysis and found Ul classroom layguage provided a relatively simple and structured type of discourse than normal everyday conversation These researchers have presented to teachers a picture of how Weachers and students interact in many classrooms This piclure helps teachers reflect what they usually perform in the classroom and in this way they may find out some problems in their teaching This kind of understanding is the preliminary step before any improvements can be made

Pamies et al (1971) sludied the classrooms of a team of teacher and found that

teacher talked far more than students replicd and the reply time was share among thirty or more students Other researchers also point out that classroom language is restricted as iL is generally dominaled by the teacher who is direcling the talk m the classroom with the students playing a secondary and minor role the classroom talk

environment (Mehan 1979: Wells 1986, Cazden 1988) Labercane and Hunsberger (1990) discovered im their study that leachers dommuated the classroom talk by

giving explanations, asking questions, stating directions and clarifymg confusion, sot As a consequence, the amount of pupil talk was comparatively small A picture

of teachers dominating the class, talking most of the time and students listening to them is depicted

CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Participants

The research was undertaken over a period of four mouths The non-

participant observation took place at the second semester of non-linglish major

sophomores in Ho Chi Minh University of Industry (HUT) Three teachers (Teacher

A,B,C) were teaching Basic English at three classes (class A, B, C) respectively and

150 non-English major sophomores were chosen as the participants in this study

Teacher A was about twenty seven years old He was non-native speaker of English,

graduated from Ho Chi Minh University of Industry with a major in English, and

just got his M.A degree in TESOL from Victoria University He has been teaching

English for 3 years The age of teacher B was aboul wenly wine She was non-native

speaker of English, graduating from Quy Nhon University a major of English, and

got her M.A degree in TESOL from Ho Chi Minh City Open University She has

teen teaching English for 6 years Teacher C was 50 years old She was non-native

speaker of English, graduating from Vinh University a major of English, and got her

MA degree in Applied Linguistics from Canberra University She has been

toaching English [or 17 years The 150 students were from dillerent facullics, non-

English major and their average age was twenty ‘Ihe elass A located on the fourth

floor of the first building on the campus, there are 39 girls and 16 boys in class A

The class B had 23 girls and 27 boys Teacher C’s class was composed 28 girls and

22 boys, All of them were in the second year of non-Linglish major learning ‘The

students in three classes had two English classes every week and spent 3 months

learning Uris Rasic English The researcher observed one lesson taught by cach

teacher The text book selected for these classes was American Ileadway 1

Teaching experience 3 years 6 years 7 years

‘Language of instructions English English English

Student age (years old) 20 tn 27 20/221 2010 27

school’s curriculum) intermediate | intermediate

American American | American Textbook used

Headway 1B Headway 1B | Teadway 1B Length of the course 3 monihs 3 monlhs 3 months

Table 1: Participants detailed information

2.2 Method of the research

This study is apphed a qualitative research design Qualitative design was

chosen in order to explore and understand the social phenomenon (Creswell 2009

22), ‘The strategy applied was a case study since it explored in depth activity in one

or more individuals (Creswell 2009 30) In this research, the data was collected

through naturalistic observation, document, analysis and inlorview

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000 442), “naturalistic observation

means observing individuals in their natural settings, simply observes and records

what happens as things naturally occur” Tn this research, the researcher observed

the classroom activities Ihrough video recording Observation has the following

15

advantages: (1) researcher can record information as it oceurs, (2) researcher has a

first-hand experience with participants, (3) usual aspect can be noticed during observation, and (4) it is useful in exploring (opies that may be uncom [orlable for participants to discuss (Creswell 2009 167) Another method was document analysis Document analysis is defined as “a technique which enables a researcher

to study human behavier in indirect way through an analysis of their

communication” (Fraenkel & Wallen 2009 472) Document analysis has

advantanges, namely it is useful as a means of analyzing observation data and a

vesearcher can delve into records and documents (Fraenkel & Wallen 2000 83) In

this research, the document analyzed was video’s transcription of teaching-leaming process Further, to investigate the classroom interaction appeared between teacher and siuderts, this rescarch employed Forcign Language Interaction (Flint) system

developed by Moskowitz (1971), as cited in Brown (2001 170) This analysis

system has several benefits; it is helpful in developing interactive language teaching since il gives the rescarcher # loxonomy for observing {cachers, sel a Cramewark for evaluating and improving the teaching and helps to set a learning climate for

inleractive teaching (Brown 2001 168-169) While, lo invesligals types of

classroom interaction in spcaking class, the researcher used Malamah-Thomas’s (1987) framework about types of classroom interaction

in addition, interview was conducted for three observed teachers Interview

is defined as a “rich source of data which provide access to how peaple account for”

(Silverman 2006 148) Interviews are also valuable because they permit researchers

to gain participants’ insider perspective on what they do and why they do it by

asking focused questions and eliciting attitudes, beliefs, and perspectives (Bartels

2005) For this research, the purpose of rdervtew is Lo [ind oul lie barmiers when

teacher employ the classroom interaction as well as teacher’s perception the

importance of classroom interaction

2.3 Data collection procedures

The data collection procedures involved five stages: (1) administrational coordination, (2) pre-observational preparation, (3) classroom observation, (4) interview and (5) implementing transcription Initially, during the pre-observation phase, the researcher first sought permission from the teacher participant as well as school administrators for classroom observation Then the researcher arranged appointments with the teacher participant lo check the time available for observation After being, permitted to observe the class, the researcher asked the teacher not ta depart from their regular lesson plans or syllabuses so that what really

happen in their classroom could be studied In order to avoid affecting the leacher’s

natural behavior, this study does not expose the identity of teacher participant as well a3 the students Second, the researcher prepared the necessary instruments required: video-camoordor, a digilal voice recorder, a nolebook and a tripod The video-camcorder, which was operated by the researcher herself in order to capture

as much verbal and non-verbal behavior as possible was placed at the right back comer of the classroom to oblain the most excellent view In the third phase, the researcher conducted to observe three classes ‘The classroom observation process

lasted from May 28" to Tune 9" 2014 The researcher observed the classroom A was on May 28", 2014 The next observation was on June 2“ 2014, The last one

was on June 9 2014, In this case, all of the results of the observation were taken noles and recorded by using tape recorder To keep the Leacher-student interaction processing naturally, the lessous were observed in a non-participating way The main source for the data used in this study is three videotapes of classroom teaching recorded during classroom observation In order to obtain the whole classroom interaction and every movement of the participants, the class observation was taken

by the widest angle of view and occasionally by a long shot, with the tripod- amounted video camera localed in the back of the classroom The audio dala were

recorded by a portable digital voice recorder, which was attached inconspicuously

to the teacher and students participants

After three classroom observations, the researcher interviewed to the teacher

by using in-depth interviewing method According to Sutopo (2002 59), in-depth

interviewing tclhiod is (he most applicable in qualilalive study This aclivily is not

done strictly, but it is carried out closely by using the focused questions that are

arranged based on the observations By using this technique, the researcher pets

reliable information from the teacher Honestly, especially thal is related ta the

teacher's perception about importance of classroom interaction and the problems in

employing the classroom interaction The observed teacherswere selected to

iilerview, because the interview would give the researcher the chance to raise

questions from the classroom observation in addition to this, the questions in

interview were constructed around: the classroom activities, how the teacher

organized the classroom aclivilies, comparing between pair work and group work,

when the teacher organize or when not organize, the teacher succeeded or failed in

organizing these activities

The researcher held the first interview with the teacher on June 11 2014 for

about 20 minutes in the teacher's room ‘The researcher also took the second

interview on June 13° 2014 also in the Leacher’s room And the last interview wax

on Rue 16" 2014 The researcher also used tape recorder Finally, the researcher

transcribed videotapes with three teachers to check whether the transcriptions were

exaclly or nol The rescarcher [inished transcribing the 150 minules of classroom

observation in mid-Jme 2014, and completed coding at the end of June 2014