CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS INSPEAKING CLASS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION

Submitted to

Graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta as a

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Magister Degree of Language Study of

English

By

Dian KusumaSuci

NIM: S 200 110 030

GRADUATE PROGRAM OF LANGUAGE STUDY

MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

2015
 CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS IN SPEAKING CLASS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT OF
MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION

Submitted to

Graduate Program of Language Study of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta as a

Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for Getting Magister Degree of Language Study of
English

Submitted By

Dian KusumaSuci
NIM: S 200 110 030

The script has been approved by:

Pembimbing I Pembimbing II

Prof. Dr. EndangFauziati, M.Hum MaulyHalwat H., Ph.D.

CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS INSPEAKING CLASS OF ENGLISH DEPARTMENT

OF MUHAMMADIYAH UNIVERSITY OF SURAKARTA

Dian KusumaSuci

Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta

Abstract

The paper describes the types of classroom interactions occur in speaking class of English

Department of Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. Subject of the research consisted

of third semester students of English Department of Muhammadiyah University of

Surakarta. The data gathering was conducted by observation and open – ended interview

with the participants. The data were analyzed qualitatively. The result of the research

indicated the dominant type of classroom interaction is teacher – student interaction. This

implies that the students have been most interacted with the teacher in the class which

resulted in the learning outcomes.As the interaction are essential in classroom, it is

expected that the teacher can create more interesting activities leads to active interactions

in the class between teacher and students as well as among students.

Key words: classroom interactions, speaking class, teacher roles.

Introduction

Language is a means of control as well as of communication. People can

transfer information or messages and express their ideas and emotions with language.

Language is also used to express everyone’s hopes, ambitions, and thoughts. Moreover,

language can serve the human needs in their communication in all sectors, such as

industry, military, business tourism, transportation, sports, international relations, and

especially in education.

In education, English has become the primary language of communication. It is

spoken by millions of people all over the world. In Indonesia itself, English is considered a
foreign language taught from elementary to university level. Most of Indonesian

universities provide English faculty whether to fulfill the demand of this department. The

objectives of teaching learning English in universities is to prepare students facing the

world’s challenges and as the future English teacher, they should be prepared to finally

delivered English in their own class. To be able to communicate in second language (L2) or

foreign language (FL) can be troublesome for language learners especially those who live

outside the L2 or FL are used.

Students need to practice English and use it communicatively inside or outside

the classroom. Problem that might be faced by most of the teachers is to encourage

students to speak. They will not be able to speak communicatively outside the classroom

if they are not able to do it inside the classroom. Students need to experience real

communicative situations in which they will learn how to express their own views and

opinions, and to develop their oral fluency and accuracy which are very essential for the

success of foreign language communication. Classroom interaction then, is necessary and

useful as an educational strategy to enhance learning. According to Seliger (1989: 30-31)

despite the need for the whole class teaching and individual work in language classrooms,

it has often been emphasized that without other kinds of interaction, students are

deprived of many useful and motivating opportunities for using and learning the new

language. Language classrooms can be seen as sociolinguistic environments (Cazden,

1988) and discourse communities (Hall and Verplaetse, 2000) in which interaction is

believed to contribute to learners’ language development. Interaction is face to face

communication with particular prosody, facial expression, silence, and rhythmical patterns

of behavior between the participants (Crystal, 2003). Classroom interaction provides

learners with the opportunity to receive comprehensible input and feedback from their

interaction partners (Ellis, 2005).

Research Methodology
 The research was carried out at Muhammadiyah University of Surakarta. It was

conducted in Speaking class for third semester students. The goal of the speaking subject

was to make students able to use the appropriate expressions required discussion and

debate acquire skills l in discussion and debate, to express ideas smoothly, to understand

different rules in various debate system participate actively using different debating

systems. Furthermore, the classes were aimed to increase students’ communication skill.

The method of this study is descriptive qualitative. The data were collected by

observation and open-ended interviews with participants. Observation was suggested as a

way of gathering information about teaching rather than a way of evaluating teaching.

The observation was conducted to understand and describe the instructional

process in teaching learning of English. The observations were done in the classroom. An

audio visual recorder was used to record the learning activity done by the teacher and the

students. The researcher also wrote a field note about the important points found.

The interviews were done before and after the observations. The interviews

done before the observation were used to know the teacher’s and student’s

understanding, believe, and opinion toward English learning. The interview done after the

observation found out why participants did or did not do like what they had said in the

previous interview. The interviews were done in Indonesian. The interviews were

recorded then it was written in a transcript form. The observation would be reported

descriptively based on what the researcher observed in class. The report was narrative

written. It was like the sequence of events happened in the classroom.

The process of data analysis involved was started from the corpus of data. The

corpus of data was used to make the thematic organization of data. The corpus of data

was used to make the thematic organization of data. Then, the data were analyzed in

sections or chapters. The corpus of raw data was the data got from the related fields that

was the data from the classroom. These data were taken by observation and interview.

The data were taken then transcribed and written in the form of description and

narration. The researcher then made code to the written data. The coding was based on
the observation and interview guides that have been made. After all data have been

coded, they were analyzed or discussed using headings/subheadings.

Results and Discussion

There are four types of interaction observed during the teaching learning

process: (1) teacher – student interaction, (2) teacher – students interaction, (3)

student(s) – teacher interaction, (4) student(s) – student(s) interaction.

Teacher – student interaction happens between the teacher and one student,

that is to say a teacher takes a part in such interaction. She negotiates with her student

the content of the course, asks questions, use student’s ideas, lectures, gives directions,

criticizes or justifies student talk responses. On the other hand, the students will benefit

by drawing on the experience of his/her teacher on how well to interact in the manner

that is the most effective.

During teacher-student interaction, the student seek to demonstrate their

speakingand listening skills in front of the teacher that is why latter should consider her

way of interacting which is very crucial in learning and teaching.

To get the picture of the students’ emotion in the class, the teacher did a

personal communication to some students. It was done in the beginning (in the opening

class) and in the closing of the class. In the beginning of the class, the teacher greeted

some students individually, after s/he greeted all students in the class. It was done to get

to know student’s condition that day, and whether they were ready to study. In

observation 2, teacher asked one of the student to find her group and paid attention In

checking students’ attendance, teacher called students’ name one by one. By doing this,

the teacher knew the students more individually and also to make sure everyone was

present (obs.1,2,3,4,5,6,7).

When the teacher noticed that student made progress related to his or her

study, praised will be given to them. It was found in observation 4. A student answer the

questions asked by the teacher correctly, teacher appreciated the effort by saying
“excellent!”. This was good motivation for the student and also her friends. The teacher

appraisal for the student individually can also be found in observation 4,5,and 6.

Teaching learning process in the class was done by doing discussion and

debate. Discussion session took part before the debate began. In this session, students

prepare to present the data the collected earlier. This activity lasted for 10 minutes.

During this activity, teacher accepted idea from the student individually. Every student

was given a chance to participate and deliver his or her idea about the issue of the

discussion/debate. In fact, every student had opportunity to express his or her opinion. As

it was found in observation 1. The teacher talked about debate system. The teacher asked

what they knew about debate. She called one of the students to answer the question. Her

answer indicated that she already understood what debate was. The teacher then called

another student and asked “how many types of debate do you know?”. The student

answered, “I don’t know, miss”. In the second observation, the teacher asked one of the

student about his condition that day because she was noticed that this student was

absent last week because of an accident.

Teacher – students interaction occurs between the teacher and more than one

students. Teacher and students take a part in such interaction. He negotiates with her

students the content of the course, asks questions, uses students’ ideas, lectures, gives

directions, criticizes or justifies student talk responses. On the other hand, the students

will benefit by drawing on the experience of his/her teacher on how well to interact in the

manner that is the most effective. This part also talked about the interaction that

happened between the teacher and the students. The information was sent by the

teacher, but it was addressed to the students as group instead of individual.

Before starting the class activity, the teacher greeted the students classically. It

was found in observation 1,2,3,4,5, 6, and 7. The teacher used the expressions like

assalamualaikumwr.wb and good day. Little chitchat was also used by the teacher. “How

are you guys doing today? Good?” (obs. 6). “Have you had your lunch today?” (obs.3) “the

weather is hot today, don’t you think?” (obs.4). Greetings were also used by the teacher

to end the class. the expressions used were “OK. That was the end of today’s class” (obs.3)
“okay. Let’s call it a day. Thank you and see you next week” (obs.4) “that’s all for today.

Thank you for coming” (obs.5). “Do you have questions before I end the class?” (obs.6).

“wassalamualaikumwr.wb” (observation 1,2,3,4,,5,6). The greetings and leave takings

were used to get the picture of students’ feeling that day.

The interaction between the teacher and the students was found in the

beginning of the class when the teacher proposed questions about students’ condition

and they replied directly the teacher also explained the learning objectives (obs.

1,2,3,4,5,6),. Then, the teacher asked students to pay attention to her explanation and

make notes if it was necessary (obs.1). In observation 2, the teacher asked students to sit

together with their group and prepared the data they collected. To hear this, students

immediately moved to find their group. Furthermore, the interaction was found while

students had discussion/debate. The teacher walked around the students and reminded

them to speak louder if they spoke too softly; she also reminded them if they pronounced

the words mistakenly. In observation 3,4,5,6 the teacher repeated the activities. When

there were some students who asked about the meaning of words, the teacher answered

them immediately by translating into Indonesian (obs.2). In some cases, the teacher only

gave clues and the students guessed to get the meaning (obs.4 and 6). In doing a class

activity, the teacher explained the instruction in English the sometimes translated them

into Indonesian. (obs. 2,3,4).

The interaction that was started by the student(s) and addressed to the

teacher were the responses of the teacher’s talk. The interaction was categorized into two

types: students’ response, students’ initiation.

The students’ response was divided into two kinds: response to questions

related with the topics and response to questions unrelated with the topic. Responses to

questions related with the topic were occurred in the following condition:

- Beginning of the class

Before the class began, the teacher asked the students whether they had prepared the
 data for discussion and debate today. Teacher used English and so did the student

reply.

(obs. 2,3,4,5). Teacher also asked whether they found difficulty to collect the data.

There was a student who tried to share his opinion that collecting the data was not

easy since he needed to search from many sources and it confused him. He used both

English and Indonesian to speak. He changed his words into Indonesian once he did

not know the English words. (obs.2)

- Before coming to the discussion and debate

The teacher asked whether they were ready to begin the session. This short

conversation was done in English. Students were able to answer it well. (obs. 2,3,4,5)

- When the students did the activity

When the students were doing the discussion with their group, the teacher asked

questions like “have you finished?” (obs.2,3) what is the meaning of ….?” (obs.3). the

students answered these questions using simple English sentence.

- After teacher explained the topic and students finished debating

After explaining the topic, the teacher asked some questions to know whether the

students had understood the topic. The questions were: any questions? (obs.1 and 2).

Any comment? (obs. 1 and 2).Is it clear? (obs.3,4,6). The students answered by saying

no but sometimes yes.

Responses to questions unrelated to the topic happened when the students

answered the teacher’s greeting (obs. 1,2,3,4,5,6). It also occurred when the teacher

asked about the students’ attendance (obs. 1,2,3,4,5). The questions and responses were

in English.

Gestures and action were another form of the students’ responses to the

teacher’s questions or directions. The students’ gestures were nodding or shaking head

(obs.1,2 and 4), listening to the teaching who explained the material while playing with

their pens (obs. 1 and 2). The students action happened when they did directly what the

teacher told them to without saying anything.

 The students interact with their friends sometimes. Both related and unrelated

to the topic of the discussion/debate. Related to the topic, students interacted by giving

each other questions and comments during the discussion/debate. from the observations,

it was found that students interacted by asking questions student asked” I’d like to

propose PoI to the Prime Minister” (obs.3,4,5), “ I want to ask question to the first

speaker”. (obs.3 and 4). “I want to ask the second speaker”. (obs.3,5,6). “May I ask the

DPL?” (obs.6 and 7). in every debate session, it could be found student who refuted the

opponent opinions. “I disagree with the statement given by the minister ….” (obs.2,3,4,5).

“the leader of the opposition had make a confusing statement” (obs.3).

The students interacted with each other to discuss things unrelated with the

topic. It was about something outside of English lesson and they talked in Indonesian.

(Obs.3 and 5). They weren’t aware of the importance of studying English. (obs.2).

Whenever they had chances, they use if to chat with other friends about something

unrelated to the topic. (obs.4). this activity sometimes distracted other students’

concentration. This happened mostly when the teacher was walking around the class to

check the groups.

According to the observation on Speaking class for third semester students,

there are four types of interaction occurred in the classroom: (1) teacher – student

interaction, (2) teacher – students interaction, (3) students – teacher interaction, (4)

students – students interaction. Among these four types of interaction, the research

draws the most frequent to the least frequent interaction happened in the classroom. The

data was collected from the 7 times observation during the period of observation.

The table showed that the dominant interaction occurred in the class was

teacher and students (0,42%). The teacher – students’ interaction happened in every part

of the session, at the beginning, in the middle, and in the end of the lesson. The

interaction mostly discussed about the materials. This interaction happened also when

teacher reminded students to focus and pay attention to her explanation.

The second dominant interaction in the class is students – students interaction

(0,29%). This kind of interaction took place in the beginning before the teacher started the
lesson; in the middle of the lesson during the discussion and debate session; in the end of

the meeting when teacher was about to close the meeting. The interaction during the

discussion and debate was about the material, students made discussion mostly with the

member of the same group. They talked about the data collected by the other member of

the group and discussed whether they agreed with the result or not. When the teacher

announced to start the debate, students started to prepare and data and made their

speech. Some students actively participated during the debate. They asked questions to

the opponent group, rebutted other’s group opinions, and gave comments to other

participants’ performance.

Student(s) – teacher interaction appeared in the speaking class (0,21%). This

kind of interaction took place at the beginning of the class when students replied the

teacher’s greeting. Students were confidently replied at the teacher’s greeting together.

However, they seemed unconfident when the teacher pointed out his/her personally.

When the teacher asked them whether they find difficult words, they hesitated to

answer. Only few of them had the courage to answer or propose question. They tended to

work in group, answer the teacher’s questions collectively. They were unconfident

(I.S.1.Nit), (I.S.3.Fat).

The least interaction occurred in the classroom was teacher – student

interaction (0.08%). This was the interaction between teacher and student individually. It

only occurred few times in every meeting. Mostly were in the beginning and the midst of

the meeting. Student, personally, still had problem in replying directly when the teacher

pointed out at he/she directly. The interaction occurred between teacher and the student

personally was mostly about something unrelated with the topic.

Conclusion
 Both the teacher and students were aware and understood that interaction was

important in language learning, especially speaking class. They also understood to be able

to interact well, they needed to practice. Therefore the material was set as perfect as

possible in order to make students could experience interaction in the classroom.

However, this learning objective was not supported by some students who paid less

attention that the others, had low self confident, and had fear of making mistakes. The

teacher realized the situation and tried to come up with an effective teaching technique to

minimize the problem.

There are four types of interaction occurred in class. These four interactions

support one and another to gain the learning purposes. The interaction between the

teacher and students occurs in the class and it is the most dominant type of interaction.

They interacted in the beginning, in the middle, and in the end of the class. each of the

interaction has different aims. This grand purpose of each interaction is to make students

capable to deliver their ideas, speak up spontaneously in public, and to involve in the

discussion as well as debate.

Teacher acted as facilitator who monitored the discussion/debate. She didn’t

allowed to get involved in the discussion/debate. In the middle of the discussion, teacher

walked around the class to check students, remind them to speak clearer, and to answer

questions. Some students might give teacher questions directly and it would be answered

instantly. Some others would just keep silent. This forced teacher to actively remind and

motivate them. Teacher will give instruction for the students about what to do in the

class. This kind of act is taken to make the class runs smoothly. It is also needed to

overcome students who are passive during the activities. Teacher also acts as motivator in

the class. She encourages students to speak up and deliver their ideas. Appraisal and

reward will be given for the students who successfully beat the challenges, in this case is

to state opinions in front of others.

In making students become more active in class activity, the teacher pointed or

called out certain student(s) by name. The teacher realized that by recognizing student(s)

by name, they would feel special and appreciated. Moreover, when every act of
activeness they did was counted and put it as consideration to raise their score. Some

students were very score-oriented.

English was often used for communication between teacher and students. The

teacher spoke English most of the time. the teacher explained the material, gave

instructions, and asked questions in English. However, to avoid misunderstanding and to

help students with low English proficiency teacher also used Indonesian. If the teacher

used English expressions, it sometimes followed by Indonesian translation. In some cases,

students were fail to understand teacher’s explanation. This was when students should

repeat the explanation more than once, ask whether they understood, and to switch the

words to the familiar ones. The communication among the students were mostly in

Indonesian. The use of English was very limited in the discussion/ debate session. They

were too shy and they didn’t get use to talk in English.

Bibliography

Abarca, M.F. (2004). Interaction In The English Classroom; An Exploratory Study.

Allwright, R.L. 1976 "Language Learning Through Communication Practice." ELT

Documents, No. 3, London, The British Council, 2-14.

Bailey, K. M. (2005). Practical English Language Teaching. Singapore: McGraw Hill.

Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1999).Teaching the Spoken Language.Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive approach to Language

Pedagogy, 2nd ed.. New York: Longman.

Bishop, Philip. E. (2000).Classroom Interaction (Article).Valencia Community

College.Courtney Cazden, Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth:NH

Dagarin, MAteja. (2004). CLASSROOM INTERACTION ANDCOMUNICATION

STRATEGIES IN LEARNINGENGLISH AS A FOREIGN.Sloven: Sloven
University.
David Crystal (2003). English as a global language. (2n d ed. First ed., 1997), Cambridge:
Cambridge University.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and Researching Motivation. London: Pearson Education

Limited.

Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction (pp. 238 –

239).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of Second language acquisition (second ed). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
ELLIS. R.( 1999). Learning a second language through interaction.Amsterdam:
JohnBenjamins,.

Ellis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: OxfordUniversity

Press, Inc.

Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition.Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,

Inc.

Fauziati, Endang. 2002. Teaching of English as a Foreign Language. Surakarta:

Muhammadiyah University Press

Ghussain, Al. (2001). The Effectiveness of Using Information Gap on Developing Student
Speaking Skill.

Gass, S. &Varonis, E. (1994).Input, interaction and second languageproduction.Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 16, 283-302.

Gass, S. M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner.Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Elrbaum.

Gass, S., &Varonis, E. (1994). Input, interaction, and second language production.Studies
in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 16: 283–302.

Gass, S. (2003). Input and Interaction.In C. J. Doughty & Long. M.

Gass, S., Mackey, A., & Ross-Feldman, L. (2005). Task-Based Interactions in Classroom
and Laboratory Settings.LanguageLearning, 55 (4), 575-611. H. (Ed.s): The
handbook of second language acquisition. Malden,MA: Blackwell.

Gas and Selinker. (2001). Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course (2nd
Edition). Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hatch, E. M. (1983).Psycholinguistics: A second language perspective.Massachusetts:

Newbury House Publishers, Inc.

HALL, J.K. ; VERPLAETSE, L. (Eds.). Second and Foreign Language Learningthrough

Classroom Interaction. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000.

HATCH, E. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In: HATCH, E.

(Ed.).Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978.

Hatch. E. (1992).Discourse and Language Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University.

Inamullah, M. (2005).Pattern of Classroom Interaction at Different
EducationalLevels in the Light of Flanders Interaction
Analysis.Dissertation.Pakistan.

Johnson, K. (1992a). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during
literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior
24: 83-108.

Krashen, S. (1981).Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:

PergamonPress.
Katseff, Howard P., Robinson, Bethany S. (1994): Predictive Prefetch in the Nemesis
Multimedia Information Service. In: ACM Multimedia.

Luoma, S. (2004).Assessing speaking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lochtma,

K. (2002). Oral corrective feedback in the foreign languageclassroom: how it affects
 interaction in analytic foreign languageteaching. International Journal of
Educational Research, 37, 271-283.

Lyster, R., &Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learneruptake: Negotiation of form
in communicative classrooms. Studiesin Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-6.

Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition.In
W. C. Ritchie &T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp.
413-468). New York: AcademicPress.

Oxford, R.L., 1990: Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know.
Boston: Heinle&Heinle.

MURPHEY, T. (Ed.) Language learning histories II . Nagoya, Japão: South

MountainPress, 1998.

Mackey, A. (Ed.). (2007). Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A

collection of empirical studies. Oxford: Oxford. University Press.

Mackey, Alison. 2007. “Input, Interaction and Second Language Development, An

Empirical Study Question Formation in ESL”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition (SSLA) Journal, 21, 557-587.

Mackey, Alison. 1999. “Input, Interaction and Second Language Development, An

Empirical Study Question Formation in ESL”. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition (SSLA) Journal, 21, 557-587.

Nguyen, H. (2007). Rapport Building in Language Instruction: A Microanalysis of the

Multiple Resources in Teacher Talk. Language and Education, 21, (4), 284-303.

Nolasco, R. & Arthur, L. (1988).Large Classes. London, Macmillan Publishers Ltd.

O'Malley, J.M. &Chamot, A.U., (1990): Learning Strategies in Second Language

Acquisition.Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

PICA, T. (1987)Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language

learningconditions, processes, and outcomes? Language Learning, v. 44, n. 3,
p.493–527, 1994.

PICA, T.Second language acquisition, social interaction in the

classroom.AppliedLinguistics. v. 7, n. 1. p. 1-25,

Rivers.W.M. (1987). Interaction as the Key to TEAching Language for Communication in

Interactive Language Teaching; e.d. W.M. Rivers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.

Richards and Lockhart.(1994). aim to develop a reflective approach to Teaching.

Cambridge University Press, Mar 25, 1994

_______________ (1994).Reflective Teaching in Second Language Classroom.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learners uptake incommunicative classrooms

across instructional settings. LanguageTeaching Research, 8 (3), 263-300.

Seliger and Long (eds): Classroom-Oriented Research in SecondLanguage Acquisition,

Rowley, Mass., Newbury House, 246-267.
Seedhouse, P.(1997). The case of the missing ‘no’: the relationshipbetween pedagogy and
interaction. Language Learning, 47, 547–583.

Sadker, M. and Sadker, D. (1992).Ensuring equitable par-ticipation in college classes. In.

Border L.L.B. &Chism N.V.N. (Ed), Teaching for Diversity: New Directions for
Teaching and Learning, 49-56. Jossey-Bass, San Fransisco.

Seliger, H and Shomamy E. (1989).Second Language Research.Method. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

White, L. (1996b). Universal grammar and second language acquisition: current trendsand
new directions. In W. Ritchie & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of
languageacquisition). New York: Academic Press.

White, L. (1996). Adverb placement in second language acquisition:Some effects of

positive and negative evidence in the classroom.Second Language Research, 7,
133–161.

Williams, J. (2001). The effectiveness of spontaneous attention toform.System, 29, 325-

340.

Thornbury, S. (2005).How to Teach Speaking. England: Pearson Educational

Limited.TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Summer, 1994), pp. 377-389 Published
by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable
URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3587438\.
The Internet TESL Journal, Vol. IV, No. 7, July 1998http://iteslj.org/

VYGOTSKY, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher

psychologicalprocesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Walqui Aida. (2000). Contextual Factor in Second Language Acquisition. July 17, 2007.
http//www.cal.org/resources/digest/0005contextual/html.