Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
[PP: 87-98]
Mostafa M. Garbaj
Department of English Language, College of Arts
Asmarya University
Libya
ABSTRACT
Interpersonal verbal communication in the language classroom is essential for acquiring target
language features and improving spontaneous oral production. This paper, thus, reports on a study that
attempted to contribute to our understanding of the nature and usefulness of classroom interaction as a
major component of language learning. Transcribed audio-recordings and observation reports from
three advanced speaking ESL classes comprised the data used in the study. Qualitative data analysis
focused on the characteristics and structure of teacher-student and student-student interaction
sequences and their potential contribution to the students’ linguistic knowledge. The study attempted to
address the following two questions: what is the nature and structure of teacher-student and student-
student interaction and what learning opportunities do they create for language learners? The results
indicated that teacher-student interactions followed a regular pattern and allowed limited student
contribution. Student-student interactions, on the other hand, had longer turns and were more natural.
Both types of interaction seemed to influence the learning process in different ways; the former
provided explicit knowledge and comprehensible input while the latter allowed more opportunities for
learners to test their communicative abilities and produce comprehensible output.
Keywords: Classroom Interaction, ESL, Language Learning, Teacher-Student Interaction, IRF
ARTICLE The paper received on Reviewed on Accepted after revisions on
INFO 21/01/2019 20/02/2019 05/04/2019
Suggested citation:
Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL Classroom. International
Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 88
Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL … Mostafa M. Garbaj
that are preferred by both teachers and based on 26 hours of classroom video-
students. The researchers employed two data recording was qualitatively analyzed in
collection techniques; namely, classroom order to reveal teacher’s real-time
observation and questionnaire. Observation management of student errors. The results
and audio recording were employed to indicated that the teacher managed errors
collect data in order to describe teacher talk. creatively by highlighting students’
Twenty-nine EFL teachers of first year achievement and providing personal
students at university level were the subjects appreciation prior to addressing the target
of observation. A questionnaire was errors. Such managerial practices reduced
administered to collect teachers (29) and the negative impact from error correction
students (350)’s responses about their and kept the conversation alive.
preferences to ways of teacher talk. One 2.2. Student-student Interaction
significant result in this study is that teachers Researchers have also studied peer-
usually used the questioning techniques in peer interaction in ESL classrooms. Mackey
class discussions which is the least preferred (2002), for example, examined ESL student-
by the students. The analysis also revealed student interaction in attempt to show how it
discrepancies between the moves preferred provided opportunities for language learners
by teachers and students which were causing to obtain comprehensible input, receive
the students to feel less comfortable to feedback, make modifications in their output
participate in classroom interaction. One and test linguistic hypotheses. The
issue that we cannot overlook when participants in this study were 46 ESL
interpreting the results of this study is that it learners from different linguistic and cultural
did not account for other important backgrounds. The participants were
contextual factors-like class size, curriculum videotaped while interacting with peers, a
requirements and proficiency levels-which teacher, and native speakers. The analysis
may influence teacher management and revealed some overlap among the constructs
questioning practices. (i.e., input, feedback, output and hypothesis
Yanfen & Yuqin’s study did not testing). The researcher concluded that peer
directly focus on the direct effects of interaction helps language learners improve;
teacher-student interaction on language however, he did not provide clear findings
learning, but it was more descriptive in regarding the issues he focused on due to the
nature. Panova & Lyster’s (2002) study, challenges to disentangle those aspects with
however, focused on this area through the presence of overlap among them.
investigating teacher’s corrective feedback Another study that focused on student-
and examining how it affected ESL student student interaction was conducted by Pica,
learning. This study mainly focused on the Porter and Linnell (1996) to investigate
relationship between the types of feedback whether L2 learners' interaction with peers
and error treatment the teacher used and can address their needs for L2 input,
learner comprehension. The data consisted feedback, and modification of output. This
of ten hours of transcribed oral study investigated whether or not peer-peer
communication (1,716 student turns and interaction can address those aspects in the
1,641 teacher turns). The results revealed way that interaction with native speakers
teacher preference of implicit types of was shown to do. Mainly, the study involved
feedback; namely, repetition and translation. comparing interaction of ESL learners when
Other types of feedback, like clues and they engaged with similar learners and
clarification requests, which give the native speakers of English. This study was a
students the opportunity to self-repair their small-scale investigation that used two
production were not common. The communication tasks to collect the data. The
researchers concluded that the positive effect analysis revealed similarities in the types of
of teacher feedback on student learning was input and feedback offered by both learners
low. and native speakers. However, the learners
Another study that investigated teacher received less modified input from other
led interaction with a special focus on learners than from native speakers. The
feedback in interaction was conducted by researchers concluded that student-student
Fagan (2015). Specifically, this study interaction can address some of the learners’
examined the ways the teacher addressed input, feedback and output needs; however,
student errors while at the same time it does not provide as much modified input
maintaining the flow of interaction. The and feedback as there is in interactions with
participants included 11 advanced adult ESL native speakers.
learners and their teacher. Transcribed data
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 90
Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL … Mostafa M. Garbaj
was a primary participant although it could on Jane?”, and “What’s irregular?” were a
be dominated by the students in case they few examples of this type of prompts.
talked more than the teacher. In student- Although teacher’s questions and
student interaction, the students were the prompts were usually straightforward in
main leaders and the primary speakers terms of what they asked for, this was not
although the teacher might get involved in always the case. The teacher, for example,
this interaction through an interrupting frequently asked a general (i.e. indirect)
comment, for instance. question that was actually meant to test the
Table 1: Stages of Teacher-student Interaction students’ knowledge of a specific word. For
example, in the question “What inspired you
to come to [this institution]?” the teacher
was focusing on whether or not the students
understood the meaning of the word
“inspire” through the answers they would
provide. Similarly, the following question
was meant to reveal what the students knew
As indicated in table 1 above, the most about the word “aesthetics”: “What
recurrent pattern of teacher-student aesthetics do we have in this room?”
interaction consisted of three salient parts; A considerable deal of teacher’s
namely, initiation or prompt (by the initiations was in the form of directions and
teacher), response (by the student), and explanations on how to do some task, like
feedback (by the teacher). Such a pattern peer-to-peer discussions or class
was also identified by other scholars (e.g., assignments. In these situations, however,
Lemke, 1990; Waring, 2009) who the main purpose was usually to prepare the
investigated classroom interaction. The students for whole-class discussion but not
initiation part was usually a question or to ask about linguistic knowledge as in the
another kind of prompt that was meant to examples above. Peer-to-peer discussions
tell the students to provide some kind of could be followed by comments from the
information. When the message was not teacher on how the students were generally
clear, the teacher either repeated or doing with a certain task, but the students
rephrased the prompt. The prompt could ask did not usually receive content-specific
about something very specific like “what’s feedback because the teacher was not a
this called?”, or something more general like partner in these activities. In such occasions,
“do you like the weather?” In general, the the pattern of teacher-student interaction
main purpose of the prompt was to get the (initiation, response, feedback) lacked the
students to give responses that allow the third element (i.e., feedback).
teacher to assess students’ performance and Other situations in which the pattern
provide feedback. cycle of teacher-student interaction was
The prompts the teacher made usually inapplicable, took place when the teacher
focused on different areas of students’ was just giving information to the students.
linguistic knowledge. Pronunciation These instances were ubiquitous and they
questions were among the prompts the were mostly evident when the teacher talked
teacher made; examples of these were: “Say off-topic. The following are a couple of
vote”, “You can say it, try it”. In these examples of these one-sided interactions in
examples, the teacher was focusing which there was no response or feedback:
exclusively on the student’s pronunciation. “You may find a hard time finding an
Another area that the teacher targeted in his apartment building [here]”, “Some
prompts was vocabulary use. Examples of Americans don’t speak clearly”, “[you say]
these prompts were: “Give me a sentence when I get back home or when I go back
using adapting to”; “[use] recover [in a home”. Upon production of these statements,
sentence]”. Through these prompts, the the teacher was not expecting the students to
teacher was actually looking for correct use give any response. The purpose was usually
of the words as well as appropriate sentence to give the students information about the
structure; this means that the teacher was language (e.g. pronunciation, vocabulary
targeting both vocabulary use and use) or about an everyday issue (e.g. where
grammatical accuracy. This could be to find an apartment).
realized from the feedback that modified The second stage of teacher-student
both areas. Meaning of words was another interaction is “response” which was
area that the teacher focused on in his provided by the student/s in response to a
questions. “What’s crucial?”, “What’s based prompt by the teacher. The most recurrent
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 92
Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL … Mostafa M. Garbaj
type of response the students provided was response/answer was accurate. This type of
answers (to teacher’s questions). The feedback was intended to reinforce accurate
following are examples of students’ knowledge and encourage the students for
responses: (T stands for teacher, and S more participation. The teacher provided
stands for student) positive feedback in many ways; as explicit
T “What do you like about it?” as using words such as “ok, yes, correct,
S “The windows” right, very good, etc.” or implicitly through
T “Was [the classroom] like this when you came nodding or raising no major objections.
in today?” When the teacher did not object to a
S “Yes” student’s response, feedback could be
T “Do you understand her?”
thought of as part of the following utterance
S “Yes”
T “What’s crucial?” when the teacher advanced to the next point
S “Very important”. or part of the task in hand. For instance, in
Students’ responses here were related the following exchange, the teacher
to some area of linguistic knowledge (i.e. indicated that the student’s response was
vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar) correct by simply moving to the next
because these were the areas that the teacher question.
usually asked about. At times, a student’s T “Crucial, what’s crucial?”
response was a restatement of what the S “Very important”
T “Recover? Think of health” the teacher
teacher said. This was evident when the asked about the meaning of recover in the
teacher drilled the students on pronouncing context of health.
some word or utterance. The students tended In other rare occasions, however, the
to respond with questions when they did not teacher gave positive feedback merely by
understand the teacher’s prompt. At other repeating what the student said. Negative (or
times, students responded simply by silence corrective) feedback, which is the second
when they had no relevant response. type of feedback, was provided in response
What is noticeable about students’ to the students’ erroneous answers or
responses to the teacher is that they were responses. Corrective feedback was offered
usually brief. The vast majority of students’ in many ways; the most recurrent ways were
responses were incomplete sentences; and direct correction, repetition, repetition
they usually ranged from one word to two or request and indirect prompt. In direct
three words long (as it is the case in the correction procedure, the teacher responded
examples above). Moreover, not all students with “no” or “incorrect” and he either
had equal chances to participate in followed that with the correct answer or let
answering teacher’s questions. Responses the student figure out the correct answer
were most of the time provided by very few him/herself. When using the repetition
students. Unless the teacher called on the techniques, the teacher got the student to
rest of the students to urge them to realize and correct a mistake through
participate, only a couple of students repeating the ill-formed response. This type
dominated. Although the teacher tried of corrective feedback is shown in the
‒through continuously requesting different following exchange:
responses‒ to give equal opportunities for all T “Which one do you like?”
of the students, most of them remained silent S “The left one”
and unwilling to participate. One factor that T “The one on the left”
might have encouraged this state of affairs S “Yes”
was the absence of any kind of control on In a repetition request, the teacher
the students’ responses on the part of the asked the student to repeat his/her response
teacher. The students were allowed to shout in order to get him/her to realize the mistake
out their responses which gave the more and self-correct. This type is demonstrated
active and capable students the chance to in the following teacher’s responses: “Say it
dominate and created a safe environment for again”, “So, is it a, b, c, or d?” The teacher
the hesitant ones to stay quiet. also gave indirect prompts to get the
Teacher’s feedback is the final stage in students to realize what went wrong and
teacher-student interaction. Feedback was help him/her self-correct. An indirect
provided as a result of teacher’s evaluation prompt was usually a pause or an indirect
of the appropriateness of a student’s question. When the teacher paused, he
response. Teacher’s feedback falls into two allowed the student to give another response
main types: positive and negative. Positive or let other students engage and help the
feedback was provided when the student’s student. An indirect question usually served
as a prompt that made the student realize grammar when the student made a
what was wrong in his/her response; this grammatical mistake which the teacher
type of feedback is shown in the following corrected through the technique of
exchange: repetition, which was discussed earlier.
T “[what does] stress [mean]?” In one interactional cycle with the
S “Nervous” teacher, students may be expected to engage
T “Stress can make you nervous?” in learning three times. The first one is when
4.2 Learning in Teacher-student Interaction the teacher poses a question or gives a
The subject of teacher-student prompt or topic for discussion. At this time,
interaction was usually either directly or the students learn from their thinking and
indirectly related to the system of the reflection about the question or prompt. The
language. That is, the teacher was usually teacher sometimes allows the students to
asking (or giving information about) work in groups to prepare their answers or
pronunciation, grammar or vocabulary, and responses, which helps them build and
the students responded within these areas. synthesize their knowledge. The second
Thus, the kind of knowledge the students stage of learning takes place when the
acquired form teacher-student interaction learners are providing their answers or
was related to how the system of the responses. At this time, they interact with
language works. When the teacher engaged the teacher and/or their classmates which
in interaction with the students, he was provides a context where they add to and
providing, eliciting, or commenting on (i.e., modify what they know. In the third stage,
providing feedback) information that which is the last one, the students enhance
concerns the way the various parts of their knowledge by eliminating errors and
language function. Although this was not imprinting the correct responses or answers
exclusively true, it was the norm with the through teacher’s feedback.
vast majority of teacher-student As it was stated earlier, the way the
communication. The following are examples teacher interacted with the students did not
in which the focus was on pronunciation, exclusively follow the cycle of initiation,
vocabulary, and grammar respectively: response, feedback. The teacher sometimes
1- T “It is important to stress; what left direct instruction on pronunciation,
does that mean?” vocabulary and grammar and engaged in
S “empha, empha, empha” the student was general conversations with the students.
trying to pronounce the word emphasize in These conversations were mostly unrelated
order to explain the word stress that the to the study material and hence could be
teacher asked about. labeled as “off-task”. The teacher was
T “You can say it, try it” almost always the dominant speaker in these
S “stress” conversations. Although it is not always
T “No, the word you’re trying to say” very clear what learning took place –
S “emphasis” depending on what language features the
T “No, not emphasis, what is the word?” the students noticed and acquired in the
teacher then pronounced it slowly and asked conversation, these conversations provided
the students to repeat after him. exposure to comprehensible input (Krashen,
2- T “To say that a building is 1985). Other conversations were useful to
structurally sound, it is built to last long the students because they were informative
time; what’s sound?” S “intact” about cultural issues and everyday life of
T “How about in good condition or strong” English-speaking people. Additionally,
3- T “All right, contagious, Hassan teacher’s talk could be considered as a
contagious” The teacher asked Hassan to listening activity for learners. Because the
use the word in a sentence. teacher is a native speaker of English, the
S “The flu contagious between the students students could, for example, benefit from his
in class” pronunciation and intonation and reflect on
T corrected him “The flu is contagious how he used the language to address
among the students in class” different issues. Simply stated, the teacher
In the first interaction, the focus was could be a model for the students to follow
on the meaning of an utterance but then the in terms of his effective performance. The
interest shifted to pronunciation as one of following is an example when the teacher
the students found difficulty in pronouncing was talking about some slang expressions:
a word. Similarly, in the third interaction, T "Some Americans don’t speak clearly.
the teacher asked the student to use a word Some use double negatives like I don’t got
in a sentence; however, the focus shifted to
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 94
Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL … Mostafa M. Garbaj
no money, I don’t got nothing. Have you speaker's production. We can think of the
ever heard that?" first situation as positive feedback and the
S "But you have to say I don’t get second as negative feedback.
anything?" In the example above, it is clear that
T "I don’t have anything. If you hear a both students were doing well in terms of
double negative you know they don’t really articulating their thoughts. This could be
mean it. I don’t got nothing actually means I recognized from the smoothness of the
have something, but they mean I don’t have conversation. A tentative conclusion thus, is
anything" that hints of feedback are embedded in the
T "Djoo ee" responses the students provided to each
Ss "What?" other. The students might not be self-
T "Did you eat?" … conscious about the feedback they provide
4.3 Student-student Interaction to each other but that was what actually
Unlike teacher-student interaction, informed them how well they were doing
student-student interaction was less when they engaged in conversations.
systematic. It was more casual and irregular. 4.4 Learning in Student-student Interaction
Table 2 below shows the most recurrent As the teacher usually provided
pattern of student-student interaction. knowledge about the subsystems of the
Student-student conversations were usually language, the students were putting their
made up of recurrent initiation-and-response knowledge into practice as they talked to
format as the following example each other. Student-student interaction was a
demonstrates. very healthy atmosphere for language
S1- "Did you go to Canada?" practice. The students seemed more relaxed
S2- "Yes" and willing to share what they had in a more
S1- "Do you drive?" natural way than when they talked to the
S2- "Yes, I went to Canada by my car, whole class or the teacher. When they spoke
driving" together, they did not seem to hesitate to
S1- "Women are not good drivers in my express their ideas the way they liked. This
country, some of them" was evident from the speed, easiness and
S2- "Men do more accidents in my country" engagement they showed when they
Table 2: Stages of Student-student Interaction interacted with each other.
Student-student interaction contributed
to students’ knowledge through providing a
welcoming environment to practice, reflect
on and monitor their production. To put it in
other words, oral production allowed the
students to test their pronunciation, lexis and
structures; such conversations provided a
Anything can trigger (or be a subject vibrant venue for comprehensible output
of) student-student interaction. Students (Swain, 1993, 2005), an important factor in
usually talked about anything that interested language acquisition. A major part of what
them, either related or unrelated to learning students learned from peer interaction relates
English. Even when they were working on a to reinforcement of their knowledge rather
specific learning activity, the students than expanding it. Because the students were
seemed to talk about anything that came to at a comparable proficiency level, what they
mind. What was noticeable about student- learned from each other was easy to uptake
student conversation was that the students and not as challenging as what they learned
did not usually give explicit feedback to from the teacher. This is based on the easy
each other. Feedback on appropriate language they used when they
language use in student-student interaction communicated with each other.
was elicited from either advancement or Generally speaking, teacher-student
breakdown in communication. If the and student-student interactions appear to
conversation was continuing normally, this complete each other in the way they improve
could be regarded as an indirect indicator the student's linguistic abilities. Teacher-
that the interlocutors were doing well in student interaction served the function of
terms of pronunciation, lexical choice, and offering knowledge on how the sub-systems
grammar. If, however, one interlocutor was of the language (e.g., pronunciation,
having difficulty, it could be regarded as a grammar) operate, and student-student
sign that something went wrong in one interaction presented a site in which the
students could actually use and revive the
knowledge they have already acquired. The complex utterance that might lead to
former provided knowledge on how to mistakes in front of the class and/or the
function and the latter provided an teacher. Anxiety is another noticeable
opportunity to actually function. A very feature in students' performance, which
good analogy of this relationship is might be an outcome of the psychological
acquiring knowledge on how to drive a car and mental pressure (avoiding mistakes and
(knowledge about the skill) and actually manipulating the language) the student goes
getting on the road and driving (performing through.
the skill). One kind of knowledge appears to Table 3: Properties of Student Talk
be based on the other. Simply talking about
driving is not enough to get somebody to
drive a car successfully, and sitting behind
the wheel and getting on the road without
prior knowledge on how to handle the In student-student conversations, the
controls of the vehicle is similarly way the students spoke seemed more or less
ineffective. This view is compatible with the opposite of that in teacher-student
cognitive theories to language acquisition conversations. The students spoke relatively
(e.g. McLaughlin, 1987, 1990; Schmidt, faster and they apparently produced longer
1992) utterances. They were spontaneous to speak
Although both teacher-student about whatever came to their minds and they
interaction and student-student interaction sounded more casual. This might be because
are important in terms of language learning, they were not much worried about making
most of the students had only little mistakes in front of their partners. They
opportunities to participate in each type as absolutely appeared more relaxed and
indicated by the observation. In teacher- comfortable than when they spoke with the
student interaction, the teacher usually teacher in front the class. These differences
communicated with more active students may be related to the degree of privacy they
who sat at the front. These students had in both situations; while they were "on
responded to the majority of the questions the spot" in teacher-student interactions, in
posed by the teacher and they also asked student-student interactions the listeners
most of the questions. The data indicate that were usually one or two classmates or
two students dominated teacher-student friends. It must be stressed that although
interactions. The teacher attempted to push these issues were to a great degree obvious
other students to partake in such discussions from the observation; their interpretations
by calling on them individually but this was are obviously tentative. Additionally, these
not effective. Likewise, the students did not features are applicable to the performances
have enough time to talk in student-student of most of the students but not all of them.
conversations because the teacher assigned 5. Conclusion
limited time for such activities. Moreover, The present study was conducted in an
occasionally, the teacher did not monitor effort to describe the nature and organization
these activities which allowed some students of ESL classroom interaction, both teacher-
to converse in their native language instead student and student-student fronted, and
of English. show how each type promotes language
4.5 Other Features of Teacher-student and learning. Teacher-student interaction mostly
Student-student Interaction consisted of three parts; namely, prompt,
In addition to what has already been response, and feedback. The teacher
discussed, there are some properties that generally dominated this type of interaction
distinguished the way the students talked to and he usually talked about linguistic
each other from the way they talked to the particularities in relation to pronunciation,
teacher in front of the whole class. These grammar, and vocabulary. The students were
properties, which are summarized in Table often listeners and when they spoke, they
3, indicate the degree of comfort the gave short utterances. Most of the students
students experience in each type and may were hesitant to speak with the teacher, and
provide some explanation of why they were they spoke only when he called on them. In
resistive to talk with the teacher. When they teacher-student interaction, the students
talk to the teacher, the students tended to were exposed to knowledge on how the
produce short utterances. This may be language is used properly; yet, spontaneous
attributable to the fact that the students were use of linguistic knowledge was limited to
monitoring their performance more carefully occasional instances. Sometimes the teacher
and being cautious in order to avoid more abandoned the question-response-feedback
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 96
Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL … Mostafa M. Garbaj
pattern and gave casual speech about some each other. The students need to incorporate
general subject which, hypothetically, what they learn in their working language
provided rich comprehensible input for the system; otherwise, language instruction
students. might not produce the desired outcomes.
Student-student interaction usually The teachers should allocate enough time for
consisted of two parts (i.e., initiation and student-student discussions in order to allow
response). The students talked on a variety the students to apply and activate what they
of topics that did not necessarily deal with passively learn from regular instruction.
the study material or involve direct language This is important because, for example,
learning. When they spoke to each other, the learning the structure of the present
students sounded more relaxed and produced progressive tense and when it is used
longer utterances than when they spoke with without having the chance to actually use it
the teacher. The most relevant role of might not achieve the teaching/learning
student-student interaction in language objective of getting the students to apply that
learning is that it provided a context in knowledge as they speak or write. Another
which the students could naturally use their related issue that teachers should consider, is
linguistic knowledge (i.e. produce the organization of peer discussion. It is
comprehensible output). This type of imperative to organize the class in pairs or,
interaction represented an easygoing in groups of three at most. Larger groups
environment in which they could use their would encourage more active students to
knowledge of language more spontaneously. dominate the conversations. For the
Both teacher-student and student- teaching/learning process to be effective,
student interactions are important for and to focus on both the knowledge and
language learning because they seem to skill, the teacher should make sure that the
complement each other. Teacher-student students have similar opportunities to
communication is a main source of participate in both teacher-student and
knowledge about the linguistic system, and student-student discussions.
student-student communication is a unique Limitations
setting where learners could practice and While the audio-recording technique
reinforce what they know about the was very helpful in obtaining what the
language. teacher and students said, at times,
Implications especially in group discussions, it was not
Classroom interaction is the activity possible to get intelligible utterances without
through which second language learning getting very close to the students. This was
takes place. Language teachers as well as not possible; thus, the researcher had to
learners should utilize classroom interaction record one group at a time which means that
as much as possible to serve their teaching a good deal of student-student interaction
and learning objectives. The language was not utilized in the study.
teacher in particular, plays a major role in References
controlling and designing classroom Antón, M. (1999). The Discourse of a learner-
activities so that they promote language centered classroom: Sociocultural
learning in the best way possible. Language perspectives on teacher-learner interaction
educators should specifically be careful in in the second-language classroom. The
Modern Language Journal, 83(3), 303-
dealing with the many details that affect
318. doi: 10.1111/0026-7902.00024
classroom interaction; most importantly, August, D. L. (1987). Effects of peer tutoring on
how much each student participates in the second language acquisition of
discussions, and how to get reticent students Mexican American children in elementary
to take part in those discussions. The school. TESOL Quarterly, 21(4), 717-736.
language teacher can come up with effective Baharun, H., Harun, H., & Othman, J. (2018).
ideas that break the silence of his/her Analysis of negotiation episodes in
students without affecting the friendly foreign language learner
atmosphere in class. The teacher, for interactions. GEMA Online Journal of
example, can assign a group of student to be Language Studies, 18(2), 202-216.
discussion leaders for a specific period of Chismar, C. (1985). Teacher meaning and
time. Additionally, the teacher can avoid student learning: The role of interaction
in selected college classrooms. Retrieved
explicit corrective feedback and use more
from ERIC database: ED269763
integrated techniques to draw learner Fagan, D. S. (2015). Managing language errors
attention to his/her mistakes. in real-time: A microanalysis of teacher
Language teachers should also be practices. System, 55, 74-85.
aware of their students’ needs to talk with doi:10.1016/j.system.2015.09.004.
Foster, P., & Ohta, A. S. (2005). Negotiation for Canadian Mod-ern Language Review, 50,
meaning and peer assistance in second 158–164
Language classrooms. Applied Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just
Linguistics, 26(3), 402-430. doi: speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
10.1093/applin/ami014 Canadian Modern Language Review, 50,
Gibbons, P. (2003). Mediating language 158–164
learning: Teacher interactions with ESL Swain, M. (2005). The output hypothesis:
students in a content-based classroom. Theory and research. In E. Hinkel (ed.),
TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 247-273. Handbook of research in second language
Guk, I., & Kellogg, D. (2007). The ZPD and teaching and learning (pp. 471-483). New
whole class teaching: Teacher-led and Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
student-led interactional mediation of Ulichny, P. (1996). Performed conversations in
tasks. Language Teaching Research, an ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly,
11(3), 281-299. 30(4), 739-764.
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues Yanfen, L. & Yuqin, Z. (2010). A study of
and Implications. New York: Longman. teacher talk in interaction in English
Lemke, L. (1990). Talking science: Language, classes.
learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics,
Long, M. H. (2017). Instructed second language 33(2), 76-86
acquisition (ISLA): Geopolitics, Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language
methodological issues, and some major (A. Kozulin, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:
research questions. Instructed Second MIT Press.
Language Acquisition 1, 7–44. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society.
Long, M. H. (2018). Interaction in L2 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Classrooms. The TESOL Encyclopedia of Press.
English Language Teaching, 1-7. Waring, H. (2009). Moving out of IRF
Mackey, A. (2002). Beyond production: (initiation-response-feedback): A single
Learners’ perceptions about interactional case analysis. Language Learning, 59,
processes. International Journal of 796–824.
Educational Research, 37, 379–394
McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second
language learning. London: Edward
Arnold.
McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 113-128.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of
corrective feedback and uptake in an adult
ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36(4),
573-595.
Patkowski, M. (1980). The sensitive period for
the acquisition of syntax in a second
language. Language Learning, 30, 449–
472
Pica, T., Lincoln-Porter, F., Paninos, D., &
Linnell, J. (1996). Language learners'
interaction: How does it address the input,
output, and feedback needs of L2
learners? TESOL Quarterly, 30(1), 59-84.
Saito, K. (2018). Recasting. In The TESOL
Encyclopedia of English Language
Teaching (Eds. J. I. Liontas, T.
International Association and M.
DelliCarpini).
doi:10.1002/9781118784235.eelt0097
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms
underlying second language fluency.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
14, 357-385.
Shi, L. (1998). Negotiated interaction in teacher-
led versus peer group adult ESL
discussions. TESL Canada Journal, 16(1),
54-74.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just
speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
Cite this article as: Garbaj, M. (2019). Interactional Architecture and Learning Opportunities in an ESL
Classroom. International Journal of English Language & Translation Studies. 7(1). 87-98.
Page | 98