Investigating EFL Teachers' Fulfillment of Interactional Requirements of L2 Classroom Modes and EFL Learners’ Interaction
Subject Areas : Journal of Applied Linguistics Studies
Meraj Talebi
1
,
Amir Marzban
2
*
,
Babak Mahdavi
3
1 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد قائم شهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائم شهر، ایران
2 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد قائم شهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائم شهر، ایران
3 - گروه زبان انگلیسی، واحد قائم شهر، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، قائم شهر، ایران
Keywords: Managerial Mode, Materials Mode, Skills and Systems Mode, Classroom Context Mode, Classroom-Based Observation, Self-Evaluation of Teacher Talk (SETT),
Abstract :
The primary goal of this classroom-based observation was to assess the degree to which Iranian EFL teachers meet the interactional requirements of L2 classroom modes, materials, skills, and systems, as well as classroom context. In order to achieve the objectives, the researchers requested twelve EFL teachers at Iran Language Institute (ILI) to record twenty minutes of their classes. This was done to minimize disruptions to the teaching process and the communicative and interactional behaviors of the learners. The voice-recorded interactions were transcribed, and the required data were illustrated. The teachers were interviewed without providing micro-contexts to understand their mental processes. The data analysis confidently demonstrated that the L2 classroom modes fulfilled the interactional requirements of Iranian EFL teachers, thereby promoting interaction among L2 learners. The findings assist novice and experienced teachers in understanding and incorporating these modes into their lesson plans and teaching experiences, enhancing their teaching skills in alignment with the syllabus and pedagogical goals.
Aşık, A., & Kuru Gönen, S. İ. (2016). Pre-service EFL teachers’ reported perceptions of their development through SETT experience. Classroom Discourse, 7(2), 164-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2016.1150865
Bachman, L. F. (1995). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press.
Barraja-Rohan, A.-M. (2011). Using conversation analysis in the second language classroom to teach interactional competence. Language Teaching Research, 15(4), 479-507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168811412878
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. Pearson Longman.
Canale, M. (1983). On some dimensions of language proficiency. Oller, 333-42.
Canale, M. and M. Swain. (1980). ‘Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing.’ Applied Linguistics.1(l), 1-47.
Carroll, 5. B. (1961 b). The nature of data, or how to choose a correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 26(4), 347-72.
Carroll, J. B. (1968). The psychology of language testing. Davies, 46-69.
Cook, G. (1989). Discourse in language teaching: A scheme for teacher education. Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (2008). Second language learning and language teaching (4th edn.). London: Hodder Education.
Davies, A. (2007). An introduction to applied linguistics: From practice to theory (2nd edn.). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Doughty, C. & Williams, J. (1998). Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language teaching research 4.3, 193-220.
Ellis, R. (2001). Investigating form-focused instruction. In R. Ellis (Ed.), Form focused instruction and second language learning. Blackwell.
Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
Ghafarpour, H. (2017). Classroom conversation analysis and critical reflective practice: Self-evaluation of teacher talk framework in focus. RELC Journal, 48(2), 210-225. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0033688216631173
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). ‘The form of a functional grammar’ in G. Kress (ed.): Halliday: System and Function in Language. Oxford Universiv Press
Hanson, W. E., Creswell, J. W., Plano Clark, V. L., Petska. K. S., & Creswell, K. S. (2005). Mixed methods research designs in counselling psychology. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 52(2), 224–235.
Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Basil Blackwell.
Howard, A. (2010). Is there such a thing as a typical language lesson? Classroom Discourse, 1(1), 82–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463011003750699
Huriyah, S., & Agustiani, M. (2018). An analysis of English teacher and learner talk in the classroom interaction. Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal, 2(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.31539/leea.v2i1.385
Hymes, D. H. (1972 b). ‘On communicative competence’ in J. B. Pride and J. Holmes (eds.): Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Penguin: 269-93.
Hymes, D. H. (1973). Toward Linguistic Competence. Texas Working Papers in Sociolinguistics, Working Paper No. 16. Austin, Tex.: Center for Intercultural Studies in Communication, and Department of Anthro- pology, University of Texas.
Hymes, D. H. (1982). Toward Linguistic Competence. Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania. (Mimeo).
Jocuns, A. (2012). The encyclopedia of applied linguistics. Iowa State University.
Johnson, K. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie. A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
Kramsch, C. (1986). ‘From language proficiency to interactional competence.’ The Modern Language Journal, 70 (4), 366-372. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1986.tb05291.x
Lado, R. (1961). Language Testing. McGraw-Hill.
Lantolf, J. P. (ed.). (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: OUP.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Thorne, S. L. (2007). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. In B.Van Patten & J. Williams.(eds.), Theories in second language acquisition: An introduction. N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 693-701.
Long, M. H. (1981). Input, interaction, and second language acquisition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 379(1), 259-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1981.tb42014.x
Mackey, A., & Gass, S. M. (2016). Second language research: Methodology and design. Routledge.
McCarthy, M. J., & Walsh, S. (2003). Discourse. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching. McGraw-Hill.
Munby, J. (1978). Communicatrve Syllabus Design. Cambridge University Press.
Namaziandost, E., & Nasri, M. (2019). A meticulous look at Long’s (1981) interaction hypothesis: Does it have any effect on speaking skill? Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, 6(2), 218-230.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Savignon, S. J. (1983). Communicative Competence: Theory and Classroom Practice. Addison-Wesley.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8(4), 289–327. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1973.8.4.289
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129–58. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/11.2.129
Seedhouse, P. (2004). The Interactional architecture of the second language classroom: A conversational analysis perspective. Blackwell.
Seedhouse P (2005) Conversation analysis and language learning. Language Teaching, 38(4), 165-187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805003010
Shamsipour, A., Allami. H. (2012). Teacher talk and learner involvement in EFL classroom: The case of Iranian setting. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(11), 2262-2268. https://doi:10.4304/tpls.2.11.2262-2268
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 8, 289-327.
Suryati, N. (2015). Classroom interaction strategies employed by English teachers at lower secondary schools. TEFLIN Journal, 26(2), 247-264.
Teng, B., & Sinwongsuwat, K. (2015). Teaching and learning English in Thailand and the integration of conversation analysis (CA) into the classroom. English Language Teaching, 8(3), 13-23.
Tokdemir Demirel, E., & Kaçar, I. G. (2017, January 18-20). The promotion of an interaction rich L2 classroom context: A case study in the Turkish context from the perspective of novice and expert teachers. Paper presented at Interactional Competences and Practices in a Second Language (ICOP-L2), Institut des sciences du langage et de la communication, Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland. https://www.conftool.net/icop-l2-2017
van Dijk, T. A. (1977). Text and Context: Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. Longman.
van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner: Ethnography and second-language classroom research. Longman.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring classroom discourse: Language in action. Routledge.
Walsh, S., & O’Keeffe, A. (2007). Applying CA to a modes analysis of third-level spoken academic discourse. In H. Bowles & P. Seedhouse (Eds.). Conversation analysis and languages for specific purposes. Peter Lang.
Waring, H. Z. (2017). Theorizing pedagogical interaction: Insights from conversation analysis. Routledge.
Yauwangsa, V. V., & Wijaya. H. P. S. (2016). The second language classroom modes by senior English teacher at XYZ English course in Surabaya. Kata Kita, 4(1), 18-26.