Classroom Interaction：How far is it,Where should we go?

【Abstract】Classroom interaction is important in second language learning， by creating a language environment to facilitate the input and output of the language learners， which in return influences the second language teaching. As what Allwright （1984） has mentioned that all activities in classroom teaching are realized through living interpersonal communication， interaction is crucial for learners to be immersed in a language environment. Similarly， Wilga （1987） also points out that students can enlarge their language storage and be able to use all the languages that they have learned or unintentionally taken in real life communication by means of interaction. Thus， to put more emphasis on the interaction and raise the awareness of learners and teachers in classroom may show a positive impact on SLL to a great extent， for the reason that interaction bridges the input and the output to help learners as it is expressed in Interaction Hypothesis by Long（1985）. For this， this paper aims to do literature review by reading the articles written mainly by foreign scholars since 1960s. In that period， research methods， domains are categorized. Also， conclusions about gap or niche by previous studies are made. The implication is to help the learner and teacher with a better understanding of classroom interaction and raise their awareness to facilitate second language teaching and learning.

【Key words】classroom interaction; methods; trends; domains

【作者簡介】何平，武汉大学外国语言文学学院。

Ⅰ.Introduction

Interaction has come into the view of the researchers since 1960s and it became a hotspot from 1980s to 19990s. Many scholars（Allwright 1984; Gass 1997; Krashen 1985; Long 1985; Pica 1987; Swain， 1985; Vygotsky， 1978） have done research on classroom interaction（CI） and put up with some hypotheses. According to Ellis（1984， 1994） and Long（1985）， interaction is a kind of bridge to help the learner with the others whether a vis-a-vis talk or by means of other chat programs. From this perspective， interaction can happen either in a natural settings or classroom settings. Needless to say， Classroom Interaction is the interaction happens in classroom settings. Some scholars focus on the activities， such as Allwright and Bailey（1991） and Zhao（2013） who classified CI activities into presentation， practice and production. While others inclined to the analysis of CI in terms of interaction analysis（Bardovi-Harlig， 1997; Flanders，1970; Long ，1980; Saito & Akiyama， 2018）， teacher talk（Gaies 1977; Henzel 1979; Long 1983; Sato 1983） and discourse analysis（ Cazden， 1988; Ellis， 1994; Hall 1995，1998，2004b， 2010; Hellermann 2003，2005; Poole 1992; Seedhouse 2004; Sinclair & Coulthard， 1975）. With more researches being done， different types of CI occur， the relationships between teacher and learner， learner and learner， and learner and text（Brown&Rodgers， 2002） are defined. In the most recent study， a new type of CI is identified， namely， learner-space relationship（Hartwick， 2018）， which illustrates the tendency of computer-assistance language teaching with multimedia equipment.

Ⅱ. Research domains

After reading the articles， three domains are classified： interaction， the relationship between interaction and input/output， and second language teaching and learning.

1. Interaction. Many scholars have made investigations to interaction patterns. Wedin（2010） finds that there are interactional patterns in classrooms in primary school in the study done in rural Tanzania. And four types of call-response interaction patterns are listed： Repetition， Confirmation， Content-question， Completion（Wedin， 2010， p147）.

Also， Lucero（2017） mentions that some topics are highlighted， such as 揳djacency pairs （Long & Sato， 1983; Markee， 1995）， minimal pairs （Cameron， 2001; Hutch， 2006）， and the initiation-response-evaluation/feedback sequence （Cazden， 1988; Ellis， 1994; Sinclair & Coulthard， 1975）？（Lucero， 2017， p.194） in the study and proposes that interaction patterns in the English language teaching education classes（happened in Bogotá， Colombia） have an extended pedagogical meaning. Another interesting study is about gendered patterns in teacher-student interaction in EFL classroom in Greek context（Minasyan， 2017）. Based on a sample of 81 students and 70 teachers， teachers attitude or attention， male and female students participation in classroom interaction are discussed in terms of turn-taking and interruptions， praise and reprimand， class dominance， teacher attention and class participation in classroom interaction. The results show that teachers are biased in favour of boys， especially with respect to giving them more attention; male students receive more teacher attention and more instructions than their female peers maybe for the reason that male students are more active in class participation， by taking more turns， volunteering and calling out. However， female students are more likely to receive praise and positive comments， whereas male students are reprimanded by the teacher as female students are well-behaved（Minasyan， 2017， p.89）.

Besides interaction itself， the error correction in interaction is focused. Chun（1982） has made a research on errors correction in interaction and the focus of the study is Initiation-Response-Evaluation exchanging. By a series from an investigation into error correction in NS-NNS discourse， different types of errors are ascertained and how these errors are corrected through interaction.

As interaction involves at least two interlocutors， there must be some pauses or wait time in the process. The duration of wait time is also important according to Ingrams study. In the classroom， pauses between speakers are often described as ‘wait time （Rowe， 1974）， ‘think time （Stahl， 1990） or ‘thinking time （Alexander， 2004）（qtd， Ingram & Elliot， 2016， p.49）. Opportunities for extending wait time are structurally built into formal whole-class interactions; namely， the structure of turn-taking allows for longer pauses both during and between turns so that interaction can be more fluent and appropriate for the current context.

2. The relationship between interaction and input/output. The second hot research topic is the relationship between interaction and input/output as they are closely related. Allwright （1984） 搒uggested the study of the notion of ‘uptake， the investigation of what individual learners claim to have learned from the interactive classroom events which have just preceded？ （qtd. in Slimani， 1992， p.200）. Uptake is used to mean the form existing in certain mental states through the effect of interaction. Thus， by modification in interaction， input can become uptake to help the learner have a better apprehension. Pica（1987） also substantiates the impact of interaction on comprehension by comparison between premodified input（linguistically reducing complexity） and interactionally modified input（opportunities for interaction）. It is found that comprehension is best assisted when the content of the directions was repeated and rephrased in interaction（interactionally modified input）（Pica， 1987， p.737）. In another study， Pica（1996） probes how language learners interaction addresses the input， output， and feedback needs of l2 learners by the communication task of 30 learners and 10 NSs of English. The results reveal that learners negotiation with other learners addressed their theoretical needs for L2 learning is different from their negotiation with NSs particularly with respect to their need for modified input in general and， more specifically， for input modified in ways that conform to features of L2 morphosyntax due to the limited modified input. However， learners need to modified output are similar when learners negotiate with NSs or with each other. Thus， learners strongest contribution to each others needs appear to be in the amount and type of feedback they provided through their signals of negotiation.

By audio and video taping 35 adult participants（8 NSs and 27 NNSs） of English representing 13 different L1 backgrounds， who are performed three tasks（picture description， opinion exchange， and decision making）， Shehadeh（2001） found that： 揵oth self- and other-initiations provided NNSs with abundant opportunities to produce modified output but more instances of modified output resulted from self-initiation than from other-initiation. Thus， self-initiations play an important role in prompting modified output and that learners need both time and opportunity to initiate and complete repair of their own messages？（Shehadeh， 2001， p.450-451）.

3. Second language teaching and learning（SLT/L）.In these domains， more researches focus on the practical use of interaction in second language and teaching.

Johnson（1983） has done a research on English language proficiency of Spanish-speaking elementary children. The finding is that there is no relationship between verbal interaction in English and growth in English language proficiency， while inter-ethnolinguistic peer tutoring treatment resulted in increased vocabulary comprehension in second language learning.

Based on the immersion program， Cleghorn（1984） makes an ethnographic study of interaction among the staff of an French immersion school in Montreal. Results are that interaction among the staff is conflictual and that the underlying tension could be related to societally based group conflict. It is also found that the teachers used two main interaction strategies to minimize interpersonal conflict and to maintain a semblance of professional harmony： 1） avoidance of social interaction and 2） the predominant use of English in cross-group communication（Cleghorn， 1984， p.595）. Thus， interaction is related to the social background of the interlocutors which will have an impact on second language teaching.

A more grammatical aspect of second language learning is done by （Bardovi - Harlig， 1997）. In this study， the author discusses the potential problems and advantages of assessing grammatical competence from production data from interactional contexts by means of longitudinal study of the acquisition of the English tense/aspect system by instructed ESL adult learners（Bardovi-Harlig， 1997， p.806）.

In order to know how interaction happens in different classrooms， content-based and task-based classroom investigations are made. Gibbons（2003） discusses how teacher interactions with ESL students in a content-based（science） classroom mediate language learning. And several ways of teachers mediate language and learning are identified： mode shifting through recasting， signaling to the students how they can self-reformulate， indicating where a reformulation is needed but handing this task over to the learner， and modeling alternative ways of recontextualising personal knowledge（Gibbons， 2003， p.267）. In Smiths（2005） study， the results suggested that the complexity of negotiation routines does not influence learner uptake and there is no relationship between degree of uptake and the acquisition of target lexical items（p.33）. Thus， there may be difference between content-based and task-based classroom interaction concerning the impact on language learning.

Also， the feedback from interaction is vital in second language learning and teaching. Mackey（2007， p.307） finds that learners who engage in procedurally familiar tasks had more opportunities to use feedback， and learners who engage in tasks that are familiar in both content and procedure are more likely to use the feedback. Similarly， Saito and Akiyama（2018） explore the nature of interaction， which could be comparable to other observation studies that descriptively looked at the feedback frequency during meaning-oriented interaction. And， in these studies， there is a positive tendency that feedback from interaction can improve learning.

Furthermore， how to do interactions in classroom is a question. Ryve and Mason（2012， p.14） advise to establish mathematics for teaching within classroom interactions in teacher education for the reason that the study suggests that the teacher educators use of variation， technical terms from the mathematics education domain and communicative strategies are important in establishing a classroom presentations and interactions about MfT（mathematics for teaching）. Thus， a new approach of teaching through classroom interaction is proposed with the development of technology.

Though different approaches are utilized in classroom， whether and what kind of interactions are beneficial to language teaching and learning is consistently focused by scholars. Lee（2006） suggested displaying questions. Reinke and Herman（2016） emphasized on the attention. However， Zhao（2013） holds the opinion that more involvement in interaction does not ensure better achievements.

Another hot topic is about the importance of peer interaction in second language learning. After observing 14 students， Xu， et al（2005） evaluate the effects of class wide peer tutoring. Also， group work interaction can broaden learners options（Kramsch， 2012， p.799）. Especially for bullying victims， creating a supportive network of peers（Holt & Espelage， 2007） is very important for language learning by statistics from questionnaires answered by 85 classes in 10 schools of Norway（Havik， 2017， p.364）. Xu and Kou（2018） discuss group interaction strategies and students oral performance in Chinese EFL classrooms. Factors influencing peer interaction are learners language proficiency（Iwashita， 2001）， task type（Pang&Wu， 2000）， and other sociolinguistic factors（Basturkmen&Shackleford， 2015）（qtd. Xu & Kou ， 2018， p.199）. Four types of interaction strategies are categorized： （a） the use of follow-up questions; （b） requesting and giving clarification; （c） repair; （d） requesting and giving help（Xu & Kou， 2018， p.200）.

To sum up， just as what Hall（2010） notes in the review article that interaction can be regarded as both the method and result of language learning， especially the Initiation-Respond-Feedback organization （e.g.， Poole 1992; Hall1 1995，1998， 2004b; Hellermann 2003， 2005; Seedhouse， 2004）（qtd， Hall， 2010， p.206） is important in SLT/L. All these domains are all concerned with SLT/L even though some are about input/out or interaction itself， as the ultimate goal of classroom interaction is to facilitate the language learning as what the teachers and learner expect.

Adriaensensa et al.（2017） compare acceptance and rejection in the classroom interaction of students who stutter and their peers on the basis of a sample comprised 22 SWS（students who stutter） and 403 non-stuttering peers （22 classes） of secondary education in Flanders（Belgium）. Also， the study of an interactive mobile messaging app， aiming to support and promote interactions between students and lecturers in the classrooms of higher education， was done by Gan and Balakrishnan（2017）. Bokhove（2018） explores classroom interaction with dynamic social network analysis（DSNA） and shows that SNA and DSNA is very beneficial to get the instant and background information of the learner.

Ⅳ. Research trends

Based on the previous discussion， the trends of the research on CI are concluded.

The first trend is about the use of research methods. As the author has mentioned before， quantitative study is the most favored in the last century. Later， qualitative study begins to rise. And then， ethnographic study is done to analyze the social and cultural factors. Recently， social network analysis method is used with the development of computer science. Also， mixed approaches are used in many studies now. This maybe for the reason that more dynamic， deep， complex， social and cultural factors need to be considered in the research. As the review of the research methods by Martin-Jones（2000）， there is a tendency from sociolinguistic approach， participant-related switching， microethnographic approach to qualitative ethnographic method before 2000. There is a booming of other updated methods after 2000.

The second trend is that from pure linguistic area to other domains such as culture， computer technology and even neural science. This is quite true not only for classroom interaction but also other disciplines as many subjects are interwoven with each other.

The third trend is related to culture. SLT/L is bound to local culture as language is connected with culture. For example， Crago（1992） and Gorter（2015） explored the interaction between culture and CI.

The fourth one is about the connection with computer technology. It is much more convenient and time-saving to collect and analyze large amount of data. Different scholars focus on different parts of mixture of interaction and computer technology， such as telecollaboration（Belz， 2003; ODowd & Ritter， 2006）， internet-mediated intercultural foreign language education（Belz &Thorne， 2006）（qtd. ODowd， 2011， p.369）. ODowd emphasized the crucial and promising role of internet in foreign language education as online foreign language interaction is moving from the periphery to the core in his study（ODowd， 2011）. Some scholars pay attention to the learning Apps， such as the Work Activity Observer App for the iPad（Hansberger， 2011）， the Lesson Study Alliance（2014）， Gephi（GephiConsortium， 2014）.

The fifth trend is about neural science. For example， Havil（2017） makes a study about bullying victims perceptions of CI and Adriaensensa et al.（2017） does a research on stuttered students. This is a new upcoming area， because students deserve being treated equally. Students， especially who are not normally grown-up， need more concern.

The last trend is concerned with replication study. Some studies are duplicated just by exchanging the context or participants. For example， Eckerth（2009） makes replication studies on negotiated interaction in the L2 classroom by exchanging the context in L2 German Course students. Gass and Valmori（2015） make replication studies in interaction and working memory research. Replication studies are done because some researches are very important and classical.

Ⅴ. Conclusion

Based on the research， we could had a better understanding of CI and how fat it is. First， there is a tendency from emphasis on analytical quantitative approaches（1972-1992） to emphasis on qualitative approaches（1992-2011） and to the intertwining with computer technology（2011-2018）. One reason for this is that the need to do deep， complicated and dynamic analysis. Second， advantages of the classroom lies in the fact that the teacher can vary the dimensions of the classroom and thus can create multiple learning opportunities where the students at different proficiency levels and of different learning styles can get input， practice opportunities and then convert input into intake（Zhao， 2013， p25）. As the the classroom is a place where the input， output are promoted via interaction， which can be altered by different ways， among which information gap activities are commonly used（Foley， 1991， p.71）. Third， different scholars hold different attitudes on CI. Some scholars（Allwright， 1984; Ellis， 1994） hold a positive attitude towards the effects of interaction. While others disagree with this point， such as Doughty and Pica（1986）， Ellis（1994）， Zhao（2013）， who hold the view that more involvement in interaction does not ensure better achievements or active learners in interaction dose not mean more success. Thus， so far no conclusive results have been concluded. As for to what amount of interaction is the best， Hall（1999） believes that the appropriate amount is concerned with not only linguistic factors but also extralinguistic， sociocultural factors（class， topic， gender， role of teacher）（p.143）. Moreover， students and their individual characteristics should be treated as primary starting points for the ways in which the teachers organized the distribution of home language use in their classrooms（Rosiers， 2016， p276）. Fourth， as the two models show that CI and SLA ought to be considered holistically. Learners learn by engaging in interactions per se（direct involvement in interaction） but also by listening to interactions（eavesdropping learning）. Fifth， it is increasingly accepted that conversational interaction in a second language plays an important facilitative role in second language learning（Gass，2003; Long，1996）. While， language acquisition is a gradual and recurrent process instead of something accomplished once for all. Therefore， in CI， the repetitious encounter with listening， speaking， reading and writing can lead to more successful acquisition.

Also， we had better think it over about where we should go on the research of CI. 1）As what have been presented above， the research results are mixed， some even contradictory. Thus， more researches are expected to done to provide more evidence either for the theoretical or practical development. 2）More researches need to be continued to refine the analytic tools in order to probing the dynamics of bilingual classroom interaction to a further extent， especially with the help of computer technology. Mixed approaches are recommended to do the complicated and dynamic study. 3）More extralinguistic， social， historical and cultural factors should be taken into consideration in further study. As external factors and individual learner difference play a big role in SLA/SLL. 4）It seems that there are less comparative studies with large amount of data collection. Thus， more cross-cultural or cross-regional researches should be made as the construction of the shared community.

References：

[1]Adriaensensa， S. Waesb， S. V. & Struyf， E. 2017. Comparing acceptance and rejection in the classroom interaction of students who stutter and their peers： A social network analysis. Journal of Fluency Disorders. 53， 13-24.

[2]Allwright， R. 1984. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied Linguistics. 5， 156-171.

[3]Bardovi-Harlig， K. 1997. Assessing Grammatical Development in Interactional Contexts. TESOL Quarterly. 41（3）， 797-806.

[4]Bokhove， C. 2018. Exploring classroom interaction with dynamic social network analysis. International Journal of Research & Method in Education. 41（1）， 17-37.

[5]Crago， M. B. 1992. Communicative Interaction and Second Language Acquisition： An Inuit Example. TESOL Quarterly. 26（3）， 487-505.

[6]Chun， A. E. Day， R. R.& Chenoweth， A. N. 1982. Errors， Interaction， and Correction： A Study of Native-Normative Conversations. TESOL Quarterly. 16（4）， 537-547.

[7]Congmin Zhao. 2013. Classroom Interaction and Second Language Acquisition： The More Interactions the Better？ Studies in Literature and Language. 7（1）， 22-26.

[8]Doughty， C. & Pica， T. 1986. 揑nformation Gap？ Tasks： Do They Facilitate Second Language Acquisition？ TESOL Quarterly. 20（2）， 305-325.

[9]Ellis， R. 1994. The study of second language acquisition. Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

[10]Gan， C. L. & Balakrishnan， V. 2017. Enhancing classroom interaction via IMMAP–An Interactive Mobile Messaging App. Telematics and Informatics. 34， 230-243.

[11]Gass， S. & Valmori， L. 2015. Replication Studies： Replication in interaction and working memory research： Révész. Language Teaching. 48（4）， 545-555.

[12]Gibbons， P. 2003. Mediating Language Learning： Teacher Interactions With ESL Students in a Content-Based Classroom. TESOL Quarterly.37（2）， 247-273.

[13]Goffman， E. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia： University of Pennsylvania Press.

[14]Gorter， D. 2015. Multilingual interaction and minority languages： Proficiency and language practices in education and society. Language Teaching. 48（1）， 82-98.

[15]Hall， J. K. 2010. Interaction as method and result of language learning. Language Teaching. 43（2）， 202-215.

[16]Hartwick， P. 2018. Investigating research approaches： Classroom-based interaction studies in physical and virtual contexts. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 30（2）， 161-176.

[17]Havik， T. 2017. Bullying victims perceptions of classroom interaction. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 28（3）， 350-373.

[18]Ingram， J. & Elliot， V. 2016. A critical analysis of the role of wait time in classroom interactions and the effects on student and teacher interactional behaviors. Cambridge Journal of Education. 46（1）， 37-53.

[19]Jinfen， Xu & Kou Jinnan. 2018. Group Interaction Strategies and Students Oral Performance in Chinese EFL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly. 52（1）， 198-209.

[20]Krashen， S. 1985. The Input Hypothesis： Issues and Implication. London： Longman.

[21]Long， M. H. 1985. Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers.  Studies in Second Language Acquisition. 5， 177-193.

[22]Mackey， A. Kanganas， A. P. & Oliver， R. 2007. Task Familiarity and Interactional Feedback in Child ESL Classrooms. TESOL Quarterly. 42（1）， 285-312.

[23]Minasyan， S. 2017. Gendered Patterns in Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Classroom： The Greek Context. Journal of Language & Education. 3（3）， 89-98.

[24]O Dowd， R. 2011. Online foreign language interaction： Moving from the periphery to the core of foreign language education？ Language Teaching. 44（3）， 363-380.

[25]Pica， T. et. al. 1996. Language Learners Interaction： How Does It Address the Input， Output， and Feedback Needs of L2 Learners？ TESOL Quarterly. 30（1）; 59-84.

[26]Pica， T. Young， R. & Doughty， C. 1987. The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly. 21（4）， 737-758.

[27]Reinke， W. M. & Herman， K. C. 2016. Bridging the Gap： Using the Brief Student–Teacher Classroom Interaction Observation to Inform Classroom Practices. Hammill Institute on Disabilities. 42（1）， 43-45.

[28]Ryve， A. Nilsson， P. & Mason， J. 2012. Establishing mathematics for teaching within classroom interactions in teacher education. Educational Studies in Mathematics. 81（1）， 1-14.

[29]Saito， K. & Akiyama， Y. 2018. Effects of Video-Based Interaction on the Development of Second Language Listening Comprehension Ability： A Longitudinal Study. TESOL Quarterly. 52（1）， 163-176.

[30]Shehadeh， A. 2001. Self- and Other-Initiated Modified Output During Task-Based Interaction. TESOL Quarterly. 35（3）， 433-457.