Advances in Language and Literary Studies

ISSN: 2203-4714
www.alls.aiac.org.au

Classroom Interaction in Teaching English as Foreign Language at Lower Secondary Schools in

Indonesia

Hanna Sundari*
The Faculty of Language and Arts, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI, Jalan Nangka No. 58 C, South Jakarta, Indonesia
Corresponding Author: Hanna Sundari, E-mail: [email protected]

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history The aim of this study was to develop a deep understanding of interaction in language classroom
Received: September 24, 2017 in foreign language context. Interviews, as major instrument, to twenty experienced English
Accepted: November 16, 2017 language teachers from eight lower secondary schools (SMP) were conducted in Jakarta,
Published: December 30, 2017 completed by focus group discussions and class observation/recordings. The gathered data
Volume: 8 Issue: 6 was analyzed according to systematic design of grounded theory analysis method through
Advance access: December 2017 3-phase coding. A model of classroom interaction was formulated defining several dimensions
in interaction. Classroom interaction can be more comprehended under the background of
interrelated factors: interaction practices, teacher and student factors, learning objectives,
Conflicts of interest: None materials, classroom contexts, and outer contexts surrounding the interaction practices. The
Funding: None developed model of interaction for language classroom is notably to give deep descriptions on
how interaction substantially occurs and what factors affect it in foreign language classrooms at
lower secondary schools from teachers’ perspectives.
Key words:
Classroom Interaction,
Language Classroom,
English Classroom,
Foreign Language,
Secondary School

INTRODUCTION i­nitial intake. Comparing the old and new linguistic features
Classroom interaction has been a central issue in teaching is the second phase in acquiring the second language. The
and learning English in the era of communicative language last is when the language learner develops new hypothesis
teaching. A number of articles and books related to compre- based on the comparison of old and new input and store it
hensible input, output, and interaction in second language as a final intake. Then, Van Lier (in Hermanto, 2015) added
acquisition (Ellis, 1991; Krashen, 1989; Larsen-Freeman & that interaction mediates input and intake with meaningful
Long, 1991; Mackey, Abbuhl, & Gass, 2012; Swain, 2000) activities; therefore, it is prominent to facilitate acquisition.
have given great contributions for language teaching and Not only input, Swain wrote that comprehensible input is not
learning. Besides, the research dealt with teacher talk, stu- sufficient enough if the language learner does not have am-
dents response and feedbacks, also called as a classroom ple opportunities to use the language (Mackey et al., 2012).
discourse, has been widely published and discussed among By output, language learners should be aware of identifying
language teachers/educators, researchers and experts (Liski- linguistic error and reconstructing production of language.
nasih, 2016; Maolida, 2013; Roostini, 2011; Walsh, 2011). To have these views in mind, the teacher in language class-
However, classroom interaction in a foreign language con- room plays a critical role to provide comprehensible input
text for secondary schools particularly based on teachers’ as well as to give a plentiful room for students to speak and
perspectives seems to have less attention. write the language by setting various interaction modes in
In the field of second language acquisition, negotiation the classroom.
of meaning through modified input occurs in interactional Taking into account the contexts where the language
conversation. Conversational negotiation and linguistic ad- learners acquire the language, sociocultural views of lan-
justment provides comprehensible input that is integrated guage learning defines language and social interaction be-
into acquired language (Mayo & Soler, 2013). According to tween people are inextricable. Thoms (2012) summarized,
(Ellis, 1991), second language is acquired in 3 phases. The in sociocultural theoretical view, the major aspects of lan-
first is noticing linguistic features (input) related to short- guage are tied and formed by the strategies in which people
term memory and perception; the input is then called an interact with others in various communicative contexts. He

Published by Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Copyright (c) the author(s). This is an open access article under CC BY license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.8n.6p.147
148 ALLS 8(6):147-154

Figure 1. The Role of Interaction (Van Lier, 1988)

also added that language learners develop their competences In addition to studies above, Consolo (2006) presented
in social interactions and relationships via participation in analysis of teacher talk and student speech, and students’ views
communication with more experienced, knowledgeable, and on communication practices in foreign language classrooms
competent participants, such as teacher and/or peer (Thoms, at a state university in Brazil. Then, he pictured a model of
2012). The roles of teachers and/or peer in foreign language classroom interaction in foreign language lessons involving
classroom are to guide and assist in completing linguistic a scope of facts and factors. In the classroom, the relation
tasks and language production through interaction. between teacher and students is asymmetrical. When doing
Related to language learning in various social contexts, whole-class interaction, the students face limitations in their
classroom, as one of social contexts, is a small society con- oral proficiency. Teacher is expected to have competence in
sisting of teacher and learners with a specific cultural sys- managing classroom to encourage student participation to help
tem in which roles, functions, and goals are different among their oral language development. The research also found the
them. According to Seedhouse & Jenks (2015), language sociolinguistic environments, such as student need, cultural as-
classroom is a place that aspects of language are learnt and pect, linguistic aspect, and psychological aspect may influence
taught, method, syllabus and materials are applied, theories language development. Similarly, the other element – content,
and practices are met, social identity and affective factors motivation, comprehension, production, negotiation – might
are affected, and classroom is a site where interaction and provide for conditions to foster foreign language development.
education unite. In the other words, interaction practices Classroom interaction involves teacher and students as
occurring inside the classroom are apparently influenced by interactants in using target language. In the classroom, com-
factors outside the classroom. Moreover, classroom interac- munication is mostly initiated and maintained by the teachers.
tion can be defined as institutional talks that is locally or- They, as a key holder of classroom communication, play prom-
ganized into conversational exchanges system cooperatively inent roles to manage the classroom participation and stimu-
(Markee & Kasper, in Kharaghani, 2013). In the classroom, late student language production. Their perspectives related to
controls are on the teacher’ hand as the knower; she modifies language classroom practices need to be discovered to com-
and simplifies her utterances to help students understand the prehend what actually happens in the classroom. Interaction,
language easily; she frequently gives feedbacks or correction in the terms of input, output and interaction, in second class-
when students make errors; then, the common interaction rooms has been widely discussed by researchers; nonetheless,
pattern follows the moves on teacher initiates communica- most research has been taken place in Western cultural settings
tion, students respond and teacher gives feedback (Murray (Hall, 2011). Meanwhile, classroom discourse in the particular
& Christison, 2011; Ur, 2009; Walsh, 2011). Then, every- area to fully understand how sociocultural aspect and societal
thing in the classroom requires the use of language. Walsh belief outside the classroom shape classroom interaction in-
(2011) stated that learners access new knowledge, acquire side at foreign language contexts is fewer and needed (Thoms,
and develop new skills, identify problems, and establish and 2012). The majority studies in classroom discourse have con-
maintain relationship through language in interaction. Par- ducted exclusively for adult language learners as participants;
ticularly in language classroom, interaction is viewed as cen- whereas only a few research explores classroom communica-
tral of language learning and teaching. The language used tion in middle schools context and teacher engagement in for-
is as both the object of study and the medium of instruction eign language (Thoms, 2012). Therefore, this current research
(Long, 1983 in Walsh, 2011). The teacher and students use aims to address the following research questions:
the language in interaction in the classroom as the learning 1) How does classroom interaction take place in English as
goal. foreign language classrooms at lower secondary schools
Moreover, interaction in language classroom has been in- based on teachers’ perspectives?
vestigated and analyzed using various approaches by some 2) What factors extensively affect classroom interaction
researchers and language experts. The brief summary of re- in English as foreign language classrooms at lower sec-
cent studies in classroom interaction is as following Table 1. ondary schools based on teachers’ perspectives?
Classroom Interaction in Teaching English as Foreign Language at Lower Secondary Schools in Indonesia 149

Table 1. Recent Studies of Classroom Interaction (Walsh, 2011)

Writers Contexts Concepts
Van Lier (1988) L2 Classroom interaction Four types of L2 classroom interaction
Less topic‑orientation, less activity‑orientation
More topic‑orientation, less activity‑orientation
More topic‑orientation, more activity‑orientation
Less topic‑orientation, more activity‑orientation
Jarvis & Primary‑level EFL Lessons Pedagogic functions of classroom interaction
Robinson (1997) Show acceptance of pupils’ utterances
Model language
Give clues
Elaborate and build up the discourse
Clarify understandings
Disconfirm or reject
Kumaravadivelu (1999) A framework of Critical Classroom The framework reflects the external and internal factors
Discourse Analysis (CCDA) of classroom discourse
Seedhouse (2004) Conversation Analysis on turn‑taking Four classroom contexts
and sequence Form and accuracy contexts
Meaning and fluency contexts
Task‑oriented contexts
Procedural contexts
Steve Walsh (2011) L2 classroom context using L2 classroom modes
conversation analysis Managerial
Materials
Skills and systems
Classroom context

RESEARCH METHOD were then followed by interviews and focus group discus-
The method used to accommodate this study is known as sion. The latter was held due to the participants’ restricted
grounded theory. According to Creswell, grounded theory time to conduct one-by-one interviews. The interviews were
method is “a systematic, qualitative procedure used to gen- transcribed verbatim and respectively analyzed; at the same
time, memos/journals were carefully noted at any time the
erate a theory that explains, at a broad conceptual level, a
data gathered until the model emerged.
process, an action, or an interaction about substantive topic”
From three types of grounded theory designs, systematic
(Creswell, 2012). It is used to give deep explanation and ex-
design by Strauss and Corbin was chosen since this struc-
plain high complexity of the phenomenon for specific pop-
tured approach of three-phase coding is more ideal for be-
ulation where the existing theories perhaps do not address
ginner (Creswell, 2012: 430). In the first phase, called open
the problem clearly. Participants in this study were twenty
coding, the data were identified, labelled and named line-by-
experienced English language teachers from eight lower
line, phrase-by-phrase, sentence-by-sentence or expression
secondary schools (SMP) in Jakarta. They were comprised
into codes to represent the participants’ opinions, attitude,
three male teachers and seventeen female teachers who have
action, thought, feeling, beliefs and patterns. Then, the codes
been teaching English around three to thirty-six years in all
were formulated into categories and sub-categories. At axial
grades. With lots of experiences, the participants could be coding, the categories were reformulated and related to other
assumed to have knowledge, capability and feasibility to categories in six related paradigms (causal, context, core cat-
provide information, experiences and opinions about inter- egory, intervening, strategies, and consequences) (Creswell,
action in their classrooms. 2012: 426). The third phase, selective coding, consisted of
To collect the data, 12-recorded semi-interviews were combining the categories together into a model and concep-
the major instrument, completed by 2 focus group discus- tualizing the interrelated categories into an abstract explana-
sions and 13 classroom observation/recordings throughout tion of classroom interaction. Instead of sequential steps, the
six months of collecting and analyzing data. Pilot interview collecting and analyzing data was a zigzag process, taking
was undertaken to test, if necessary, modify the questions. At back and forth to constantly reexamine the old and new data,
first, the researcher initiated by asking general question, such categories and developed model.
as “could you tell me how you interact with students in the
class?”. Due to a beginner in grounded-theory analysis, the
researcher conducted classroom observation/recording in the FINDINGS
first phase as preliminary study to narrow research focus. Us- In this section, it is firstly reported the description of the core
ing FLINT protocol analysis of classroom interaction (Mos- category emerged from the data, labelled as classroom in-
kowitz, in Brown, 2007: 216-218), classroom o­ bservations teraction practices. The classroom interaction occurs in di-
150 ALLS 8(6):147-154

mensions of verbal, non-verbal, personal and pedagogical Interaction Practices

­practices. Then, teacher and student factors, learning ob- Classroom interaction are categorized into verbal practices,
jectives and content materials, classroom context and outer non-verbal practices, pedagogical practices and personal
context are discussed as factors may influence teacher pref- practices. The majority of teachers said that they combine
erences during interaction with the students. first and target language. Other teachers prefer to use mostly
in first or target language. For easiness and quickness, G3
Description and G14 generally use Indonesian as medium of instruction.
Once I try to use English, yet they do not understand
Just like the other days, this morning I enter the classroom
what I am saying. Then, I think I rather choose to use
and greet all the students “Good morning, class!”. Not to
wait so long, they reply loudly, “Good morning, mam!” and Indonesian than keep consistent in English. (TW-07).
sit nicely on their chairs. Another opening activity is asking Other dimensions in verbal practices are teacher talk,
them who is absent today and whether they have done their teacher questions, error correction, student response and stu-
homework. Sometimes I set up my materials on the laptop dent question. Teacher talk is dominated over classroom com-
and prepare it. Another time, I assign them to do language munication. Slow, clear and loud pace with simple expression
practices from the course-books. Otherwise, I bring teach- is the characteristic of teacher talk. Teachers also deliver ques-
er-made worksheet that I prepare the day before. The quan- tions mostly in the form of displayed questions. Regarding to
tity, class size, time allocated, topics/materials and the diffi- error correction, some teachers prefer to repair error made the
culty level are several aspects to consider. In reading section, students; meanwhile, other choose to ignore it. The teachers
the students mostly interact with books and exercises. Mean- described differently about the student response. Most of them
while, I facilitate them to interact each other through pair and stated that student response particularly oral language in En-
group work particularly in speaking section. However, at the glish is still limited in the form of short expression.
end of the year, I teach to make them ready for examination Yes, the students are asked to produce writing product
and continuing higher level of education. During the class, in English. However, in the process of making the prod-
I mostly give them instructions and directions to do many uct, they use Indonesian, it doesn’t matter for me. That
activities. Furthermore, to get them involving in the lesson is the level of the student. If their levels are all good in
and make them speak, I deliver lots of questions. They are English, they can speak English. (TW-02).
able to answer the questions though I expect more varieties Teacher also yielded that some students ask questions
and responses. Whatever the responses they give in the class, when necessary. As the students do not understand what they
I do not forget to praise them. I think giving a compliment should do and they find problems of vocabulary, they come
will motivate them to learn more. Besides, a good model of to the teachers for help. The teachers reported that what they
language is also important. Accordingly, I frequently choose communicate with the students not only about materials or
one of the excellent student in the class as a model. To break subject. Moreover, giving advices, suggestions, warning as
the boredom and build rapport, I incidentally put in humors well as compliment are also part of interaction practices.
even though I personally believe that I am not a humorous It is so important. The student feels that my teacher appre-
person. To interact with students in the language classroom, ciates me by giving compliment. For next, she will learn
several aspects need to take into account either inside or out- more and more. That is so important. (TW-FGD-02).
side the class. We say good job or you can do it. Students (teenagers)
Interaction in the classroom is mostly initiated by teach- love to be praised. (TW-02).
er through oral communication. Combining first and target The teachers believe that at this present the students, as
language, teacher gives directions, presents materials, asks beginners, provide limited language production. By the time,
questions, delivers grammatical items, and corrects student they gradually develop their language proficiency.
error. It is called as verbal interaction practice. Not only ver-
bal dimension, interaction also involves eye-contact, facial
Teacher and Student Factors
expression, and gesture as non-verbal dimension. To man-
age unpredictable situation and disruptive behavior, teacher The way teacher manages the class and communicate with
sometimes warn and motivate the students as pedagogical the students and the way students respond it are determined
practices in classroom interaction. Giving compliment and by some factors. The teachers described that the teacher’s
humors in the classroom are the sign of personal interaction language proficiency may influence how she interacts with
practices in building rapport. Most teacher believe that the the students and the student response.
students, as beginning language learners, still need time to I think it is such as an endless circle. At first, teacher
improve their language proficiency, particularly production. thinks that the students are low proficient; therefore, she
They think their main goals of learning are giving first pos- decides to use Indonesian. At the same time, the stu-
itive impression to learn English and preparing the students dents find the teacher never speaks English, so they then
for examination. They are certain the students comprehend feel why I should try to use it. It becomes an endless
what the teachers teach though they are not enough suffi- circle. (TW-03).
cient to produce the language orally. The set of belief system In addition to language proficiency, the teachers revealed
perceived by the teacher might influence their preferences in that pedagogical competence, experience and personality
classroom interaction practices. may also influence interaction practices.
Classroom Interaction in Teaching English as Foreign Language at Lower Secondary Schools in Indonesia 151

At my first year of teaching, I gave lots of lectures be- This (pointing out the course-book) is just a piece of cake
cause I was still confused what to do during the lessons. for grade 9… (TW-12).
But now, I always find ways how to treat them… (TW- Most of the teachers also believe that interaction between
FGD-01). teacher and students will get highest on content materials for
…if the teachers are lack in giving materials, lack of speaking skills where oral communication is most required.
experiences and lack of knowledge, it (the teaching pro-
cess) will be offhanded. (TW-05).
Classroom Contexts
Moreover, teachers realized that teaching experience in
various classes will enhance their skill of managing class- Classroom context in interaction, as category emerged from
room and building communication and interaction with the data, refers to overall elements dealt with classroom. Teach-
students. They also perceived that each class, likewise each ers described several contexts affect the way they interact
person, is unique, so is the interaction practice, even with the with students. They are grades, class size, class composition,
same teacher. duration, classroom climate, and learning facility. Several
The same teacher in different classes will shape different teachers reported that they treat each class and grade differ-
interaction. (CW-04). ently. Types of questions, compliment, treatment and class-
The teachers described that student response in interac- room activity are dissimilar among the grades.
tion is influenced by various factors, such as level of profi- It is different. For grade 7, they were already graduated from
ciency, characters, intelligence, confidence, and motivation. primary schools, so they could understand short, simple ex-
Low proficient students will provide limited response even pressions. Gradually they get higher class, the language ex-
though the teacher believe they are good at comprehension. pressions are more complex. Then, when they are in grade 9,
At least, they give response (in Indonesian). It indicates their language will be more difficult and complex. (TW-05).
that they understand the meaning. (CW-01). Most of the teachers also revealed that class size has in-
Some teachers said that the students’ language profi- fluenced interaction in the classroom. Large classes make
ciency in their classes are very low. It becomes constraint them to choose whole-class interaction since they do not
in communication and interaction. On the other side, some enough time to interact with students one by one.
teachers reported that confidence and intelligence are related When we test several students orally, then what about
to student response. the others? The class will be so noise. Even though I
They have confidence because they are smart, because had assigned them to do something, it was still so much
they know (the materials). if not, they will be silent and noise. They could not be controlled. (TW-12).
anxious. We can see that students who are low keep in Even not all teachers agree, class composition seeming-
silence. Usually, the students who yell out loud (to an- ly affects the way student interact in the classroom. Some
swer teacher’s question) are good (smart) even though teachers said that mixed-heterogenous class, such as high
their speaking is disorder and messy. I still appreciate it. students and low students, fairly determines interaction as
(TW-12). well as gender composition.
Some teachers described that their students are high-mo- Heterogeneous class in which high and low students,
tivated, and it makes the process of communication and or disruptive and obedient students, are together causes
interaction in teaching learning process easier. Meanwhile, difficulty for teacher to manage the class and select ac-
some teachers reported that their students are not interested tivity. (CW-FGD-02).
in learning English and do not provide expected responses. Moreover, most teachers described interaction in English
This situation brings problems to communication and inter- in the classroom takes a lot of time. In fact, the duration is
action. quite limited for each session.
For example, they act out dialogue. If we focus on ac-
curacy, it needs more than one session… We need to
Learning Objectives and Content Materials
revise their vocabulary and pronunciation. It will take
The teachers revealed that each grade has specific objectives a lot of time because they are more than forty students
of language skill based on mandated curriculum and syllabus. each class, just four hours in a week… (TW-07).
The desired objectives and specific skill will determine the Some teacher also said that learning facility in the class-
classroom activity and communication set by the teachers. room is very helpful learning process in general, and specif-
In grade 9, it will focus on national examination, so ically for interaction with the students. Video, film, picture,
reading section is major activity. Speaking and listening music and photos are not only facilitating learning language
activity are neglected… (TW-03). but also stimulating students to give more responses.
…it is not for communication. I think my goal is much
more to reading comprehension. It helps them to contin-
ue to the higher level of education… (TW-12). Outer Context
The teachers said that the content materials discussed in The teachers described that the way they interact and com-
each meeting and the level of difficulty might influence how municate with the students is not only determined by class-
the students interact in the classroom. room context but other factors may intervene and shaped
It depends on the materials. It will be individual work or the face of relation, communication and interaction between
group…(TW-FGD-02). teacher and students.
152 ALLS 8(6):147-154

Curriculum 2013 is quite different. The students need to first for easiness and practicality. For beginning language
practice first… (TW-05). learners, first language can be used to explain materials,
The previous curriculum which I first taught English did discuss method of learning, and announce information that
not require communication competence. In my opinion, will be difficult to understand in target language (Harmer,
the students are expected to comprehend. However, at 2007:132). Brown (2007: 119) also added that, for begin-
this present, particularly curriculum 2013 requires them ner, the main objectives of language learning is to compre-
to be able to communicate and interact well. (TW-06). hend and produce language in the controlled repertoire of
The teachers reported that curriculum, school system, language.
parent role, and exposure are some factors that influence With regard to teacher talk, it is characterized by slow,
how teachers build interaction and communication and how clear and loud pace with simple expression in large quanti-
the students give responses. The model of classroom interac- ties. This result support the findings by Walsh (2011: 6) and
tion in English as foreign language classes for lower second- (Rashidi & Rafieerad (2010: 93). Teacher’s speech is typi-
ary schools is displayed below. cally slower, louder, more deliberate, and makes greater use
of pausing and emphasis. Then, classroom communication
DISCUSSIONS is dominated by teacher speech to give instruction, explain
activity, and check comprehension. In addition to speech,
From the emerged data, interaction in EFL classroom is not
only verbal practices and non-verbal practices. Other dimen- teachers also deliver questions, mainly displayed questions.
sions, such as personal and pedagogical practices, are also This finding support that mostly teachers questions are in
apparent as one of characteristics of classroom communica- the form of displayed, close questions, rather than referential
tion. Teachers frequently use language to manage the class questions (Farahian & Rezaee, 2012: 161; Petek, 2013: 1198;
as well as building rapport between teacher and students. Pujiastuti, 2013: 171).
This may be consistent to second language classroom modes Concerning to handling errors, some teachers correct the
by Walsh (2011: 113). Managerial mode is one of classroom errors made the students; meanwhile, other teachers feel that
interaction features whose function is to organize the physi- at some point errors need to be neglected. This finding sup-
cal learning environment. ports the view by Brown (2007: 119) that as beginners, the
Moreover, the medium of instruction is differently de- students need to have plenty of time to produce language
scribed. The majority of the teachers prefer to combine with no fear of being corrected. However, the teachers
first and target language with various proportion. The first have to give feedback related to grammatical and phono-
language used in foreign language class is also reported by logical errors in order that the students do not always feel
Petek (2013: 1195). Other teachers choose to use mostly in right. Discussing student response, the teachers said that

Figure 2. The Model of Classroom Interaction in EFL Classes for Lower Secondary Schools
Classroom Interaction in Teaching English as Foreign Language at Lower Secondary Schools in Indonesia 153

it is still limited in the form of short expression. Some of and compliment are carefully selected by the teachers; other-
the students seem reluctant to use target language. These wise, they will bring disadvantageous and disruptive.
also consistent with the result of Nasruloh (2013: 142) and Furthermore, school system, curriculum, exposure, par-
Savaşçı (2014: 2682). Nasruloh wrote that the students have ent role and social background seemingly become indirect
a great opportunity to produce language, yet their production factors that influence of how teacher and students commu-
is still little and limited. Meanwhile, Savasci revealed that nicate and interact each other. Not too specific on interac-
the students do not high willingness and desire to respond tion in language classroom, this research finding may sup-
teacher’s questions and rarely involve in conversation with port what has been extensively explained by Stern (1983, in
teacher and other students. However, from this current re- Hall, 2011: 182-183) about contextual factors in language
search finding, the teachers believe that at this present the teaching. Stern noted that the school, institutional or educa-
students, as beginners, provide limited language production; tional system provides the immediate environment for the
it is normal and natural. By the time, they gradually develop language class, affecting classroom practice by providing or
their language proficiency. Moreover, that the students are instituting, for instance, the language learning curriculum
in silence does not indicate that they are not learning lan- and wider educational policies and values. Stern also added
guage. It seems that language learner needs a little time to that the regional, national and international contexts for En-
comprehend and process what they listen and hear. And they glish language teaching and learning that may influence at-
provide responses when they feel they are ready. Just like titudes and policy, thereby affecting, both directly and in di-
what Yamat, Fisher, & Rich (2013: 1337) stated, the students rectly, what happens within educational institutions and the
actually learn language even though they keep silent. language class itself. In addition, the findings of this current
To build interaction with the students in foreign language, research are also consistent to Seedhouse & Jenks (2015)
teacher has to be proficient enough. Language proficiency and (Thoms (2012)’s views of factors influencing classroom
is one of the requirements as language teacher. At one side, discourse. Interactions that take place inside the classroom,
it influences how the teacher interacts with the students. As several variables outside of the classroom could affect dis-
the finding by Kang (2013: 149), the more teacher uses En- course occurs in the classroom. Then, Seedhouse & Jenks
glish in the classroom, the more students imitate and use it. (2015) clarified by giving more explanation that classroom
Being proficient, the teacher can also stimulate the students interaction might be inhibited or affected by policy from
to participate in oral interaction in the classroom (Consolo, school, region or country, and it is also related to learner
variables, linguistic or cultural background.
2006: 33). On the other hand, student factor may play prom-
inent role in classroom interaction. Student’s level of pro-
ficiency, character, intelligence, confidence and motivation CONCLUSION
are elements that may influence how students communicate This present study investigates classroom interaction and
and interact with others in the class. This finding support the several factors affecting it in foreign language classrooms
views of some experts related to foreign language learning in at lower secondary schools based in teachers’ perspectives.
general. Harmer (2007: 43) viewed that language learner has Classroom interaction is highly complex, yet it is central in
his own preferences. One student probably like creative writ- language teaching learning process. The students acquire
ing and speaking activity, while others more enjoy structural language through and in interaction with others, teacher and
activity. In addition to preferences, student confidence can students. This current study aims at exploring interaction in
be one of issues in language learning. Savaşçı (2014: 2686) language classroom in English as foreign language context
found that feelings, such as less confident and afraid to made at lower secondary schools from teacher perspectives. From
errors, are causes of the students are reluctant to participate dimension of verbal and non-verbal of interaction practic-
in classroom communication. es, teacher speech, questions, and feedback are emerged as
Interaction in language classroom between teacher and dominance in overall classroom communication. In addition
students is primarily related to how teacher use language to verbal and non-verbal dimensions, pedagogical and per-
to check student comprehension. However, the teachers, sonal dimensions arise the head to control and manage the
mostly as initiators of interaction and communication, have classroom and to build rapport between teacher and students.
several considerations underpinned their preferences in the Furthermore, several factors, in and outside the class-
classroom. Learning objectives and materials discussed in room, may affect the way the teachers interact with the learn-
the classroom may bring the different modes of interaction. ers and the strategy they select in the classrooms. Learners
Moreover, contexts in the classroom, school and neighbor can and teacher variables, learning objectives, and targeted
probably give indirect effect to how teachers build communi- language skills are initial factors influencing classroom in-
cation and interaction. Teaching in large heterogeneous class teraction. Secondly, classroom contexts can be specified as
with low-motivated students and lack of facility is, at some grades, composition, class size, duration and learning facil-
points, different to the one of small class with high-achievers ity. Not only those factors, several external factors, as so-
completed by internet access and multimedia. To those class- ciocultural background, arise out, such as adopted national
es, teachers select different language practice and activity, curriculum, school system, parent role, language exposure
level of quantity and difficulty of materials, and learning ob- and other social economic variables. In the other words,
jectives. Moreover, they differently use the type of questions, in general, classroom, institutional, and national contexts
feedback, and error repair. Not only those elements, humors which are related to language teaching learning policy may
154 ALLS 8(6):147-154

influence, directly or indirectly, the language practices and nesia. K@Ta, 15(2), 117–123. https://doi.org/10.9744/
activities in the class. In conclusion, they may bring impli- kata.15.2.117-124
cation to the teacher preferences when building interaction Mayo, M. D. P. G., & Soler, E. A. (2013). Negociated In-
with the students and the classroom discourse itself. put and Output/Interaction. In J. Herschensohn & M.
Young-Scholten (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition (p. 842). New York: Cam-
REFERENCES
bridge University Press.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Murray, D. E., & Christison, M. (2011). What English Lan-
Approach to Language Pedagogy. New York: Pearson guage Teachers Need to Know Volume I : New York: Tay-
Education. lor & Fancis e-Libaray. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/ccv002
Consolo, D. A. (2006). Classroom oral interaction in foreign Nasruloh, M. I. (2013). Teacher-Student Interaction in a
language lessons and implications for teacher develop- Project-based Learning Classroom. Journal of English
ment. Linguagem & Ensino, 9(2), 33–55. and Education, 1(1), 142–153.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, Petek, E. (2013). Teacher’s Beliefs about Classroom Inter-
conducting, and evaluating quantitative and quali- action and their Actual Practices: A Qualitative Case
tative research. Educational Research (Vol.  4). Bos- Study of a Native and a Non-native English Teacher’s
ton: Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1017/ In-class Applications. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
CBO9781107415324.004 Sciences, 70, 1195–1199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sb-
Ellis, R. (1991). The Interaction Hypothesis: A Critical Evalu- spro.2013.01.176
ation. In Regional Language Centre Seminar (pp. 1–46). Pujiastuti, R. T. (2013). Classroom Interaction: An Analysis
Singapore: EDRS & ERIC. Retrieved from http://eric. of Teacher talk and Student Talk in English for Young
ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordDetail?accno=ED338037 Learner (EYL). Journal of English and Education, 1(1),
Farahian, M., & Rezaee, M. (2012). A Case Study of an 163–172.
EFL Teacher’s Type of Questions: An Investigation into Rashidi, N., & Rafieerad, M. (2010). Analyzing patterns of
Classroom Interaction. Procedia - Social and Behav- classroom interaction in EFL classrooms in Iran. Jour-
ioral Sciences, 47, 161–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nal of Asia TEFL, 7(3), 93–120.
sbspro.2012.06.631 Roostini, K. E. (2011). A Reflection on Teacher Questioning
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring English Language Teaching: Types. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, I(1),
Language in Action. New York: Routledge. 9–22.
Harmer, J. (2007). The Practice of English Language Learn- Savaşçı, M. (2014). Why are Some Students Reluctant to
ing. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited. Use L2 in EFL Speaking Classes? An Action Research
Hermanto, H. (2015). Understanding Teacher Talk to Sup- at Tertiary Level. Procedia - Social and Behavioral
port Students’ Communicative Competence Hermanto. Sciences, 116, 2682–2686. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sb-
Jurnal Sosial Humaniora, 8(2), 143–159. spro.2014.01.635
Kang, D. M. (2013). EFL teachers’ language use for class- Seedhouse, P., & Jenks, C. J. (2015). International Perspec-
room discipline: A look at complex interplay of vari- tives on ELT Classroom Interaction. In C. J. Jenks &
ables. System, 41(1), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. P. Seedhouse (Eds.), International Perspectives on ELT
system.2013.01.002 Classroom Interaction (pp. 1–9). Hampshire: Palgrave
Kharaghani, N. (2013). Patterns of interaction in efl class- MacMillan.
rooms. In The Global Summit on Education (pp. 859– Swain, M. (2000). The Output Hypothesis and Beyond- Me-
864). Kuala Lumpur: WorldConferences.net. diating Acquisition through Collaborative Dialogue. In
Krashen, S. D. (1989). Language Acquisition and Langauge Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning
Education. UK: Prentice Hall. (pp. 97–114). https://doi.org/10.1093/icb/18.3.401
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M. H. (1991). Input Modifi- Thoms, J. J. (2012). Classroom Discourse in Foreign Lan-
cation and Second Language Comprehension. An Intro- guage Classrooms : A Review of the Literature. Foreign
duction to Second Language Acquisition Research. Language Annals, 45(S1), 8–27. https://doi.org/10.111/j
Liskinasih, A. (2016). Corrective Feedbacks in CLT-Adopt- .1944-9720.2012.01177.x.FOREIGN
ed Classrooms’ Interactions. Indonesian Journal of Ap- Ur, P. (2009). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and
plied Linguistics, 6(1), 60–69. https://doi.org/10.17509/ Theory. UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
ijal.v6i1.2662 org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Mackey, A., Abbuhl, R., & Gass, S. M. (2012). Interaction- Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse: Lan-
ist Approach. In S. M. Gass & A. Mackey (Eds.), The guage in Action. Oxon: Routlege Taylor & Francis
Routledge Handbook of Second Language Acquisi- Group.
tion (pp. 7–23). New York: Routlege Taylor & Francis Yamat, H., Fisher, R., & Rich, S. (2013). Young Malaysian
Group. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263112000423 Children’s Silence in a Multicultural Classroom. Proce-
Maolida, E. H. (2013). A Descriptive Study of Teacher’s Oral dia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 1337–1343.
Feedback In an ESL Young Learner Classroom in Indo- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.464