Which Teacher-Student Interaction Triggers Students' Uptake

The pattern of interaction between the teacher and the students will determine the students' uptake (i.e. the students' incorporating correction into an utterance of their own). This paper examines the type of teacher-student interaction which will likely trigger the students' uptake. The data was taken from the recordings of 10 non-native English lessons at university level and different types of subjects (literature, grammar, discourse, semantics, and classroom management). 500 minutes of lessons were transcribed and 50 focus on form episodes were chosen to be analyzed. The study revealed that the dominant type of interaction was reactive focus on form which was followed by metalinguistic feedback.


INTRODUCTION
Classroom interaction is one of the primary means by which learning is accomplished. Through this interaction, teachers and students construct a common body of knowledge (Hall & Walsh, 2002). Teacher ± student interaction also helps define the norm by which individual student achievement is assessed. Such interaction usually follows a typical pattern of interaction, i.e. the turns of the teacher and the student talks.
Earlier research on teacher-student interaction revealed that one particular pattern which characterizes most western schooling was IRE pattern (Barnes, 1992;Cazden, 1988). This pattern consists of teacher-led three part sequences of Initiate ± Response and Evaluation. In initiation phase, the teacher begins by posing a question to a student to which he or she already knows the answer. Students are expected to provide a brief but correct response to the question. This question will then be evaluated by the teacher by sayiQJ ³*RRG´ ³7KDW ¶V ULJKW´ RU ³7KDW ¶V QRW ULJKW ´ 7KH PDLQ SXUSRVH RI IRE pattern is to elicit information from the students in order to ascertain whether they have understood the materials. A sample of teacher-led interaction in IRE is like the following:

:KR ¶V DERXW"
(initiate) S: Phil Collins (response) T: Yeah (evaluation) The IRE pattern was then considered insufficient in the sense that the teacher would not have any proof whether the students have really accomplished their learning or not. Thus, Wells (1993) proposed a reconceptualization of the IRE pattern by changing the last E into F, thus forming IRF SDWWHUQ ,QVWHDG RI HYDOXDWLQJ VWXGHQWV ¶ UHVSRQVHV WKH WHDFKHU IROORZHG XS WKHLU UHVSRQVHV ) E\ asking them to expand on their thinking, justify or clarify their opinions. With this follow up move, the teacher directed the pattern of interaction to enhance opportunities for learning. A sample of an IRF pattern can be like the following T: What does Phil Collins do? (initiate) S: He ..singer (response) T: He is a singer (follow up ± feedback) The follow up (F) move in the IRF pattern can be done by providing the appropriate feedback to the students. Feedback usually takes the form of error correction. A number of studies have shown that corrective feedback can lead to successful learner repair in immediate response to feedback (Lyster & Ranta 1997;Hee Sheen, 2004;Tsang 2004). Subsequently, if the students notice the feedback given by the teacher, WKH\ ZLOO DFKLHYH DQ µXSWDNH ¶ GHILQHG DV µ D VWXGHQW ¶V XWWHUDQFH WKDW LPPHGLDWHO\ IROORZV WKH WHDFKHU ¶V IHHGEDFN DQG WKDW FRQVWLWXWHV D UHDFWLRQ LQ VRPH ZD\V WR WKH WHDFKHU ¶V DWWHQWLRQ WR GUDZ DWWHQWLRQ WR VRPH DVSHFW RI WKH VWXGHQW ¶V LQLWLDO XWWHUDQFH ¶ (Lyster & Ranta, 1997).
FROORZLQJ /\VWHU DQG 5DQWD ¶V IUDPHZRUN RI W\SHV RI IHHGEDFN DQG 7VDQJ ¶V framework of uptake categories, this study examines the interaction pattern of 10 English lecturers of BINUS University. It further investigates the effects of corrective feedback on learner uptake and student-generated repair in teacher-student interaction in English classrooms. The following questions are applied to guide the investigations: (1) What kinds of teacher-learner interaction occur in English classrooms in Bina Nusantara University; (2) How do different kinds of WHDFKHUV ¶ corrective feedback relate to learnerV ¶ uptake.

Focus on Form Episodes
To analyze the teacher-learner interactions in this study, several focus on form episodes have been chosen as the data /RQJ GHILQHG µIRFXV RQ IRUP ¶ DV IROORZV )RFXV RQ IRUP« RYHUWO\ GUDZV VWXGHQWV ¶ DWWHQWLRQ WR OLQJXLVWLF HOHPHQWV DV WKH\ DULVH incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning or communication.
:KDW LV PHDQW E\ WKH WHUP µIRUP ¶ KHUH GRHV QRW UHIHU H[FOXVLYHO\ WR JUDPPDU EXW FDQ DOVR be directed at phonology, vocabulary, grammar or discourse. A focus on form episode in this study is defined as an episode of teacher ±student interaction which focuses on a specific linguistic item.

Types of Teacher-Student Interaction
Focus on form can be divided into two types µUHDFWLYH ¶ DQG µSUH-HPSWLYH ¶ /RQJ & Robinson, 1998). Reactive focus on form arises when learners produce an utterance containing an actual perceived error, which is then addressed usually by the teacher but sometimes by another learner. The following sample of reactive focus on form was taken from .
S: I was in pub. T: in the pub? S: Yeah and I was drinking beer with my friend In this interaction, the teacher intentionally drew DWWHQWLRQ WR WKH VWXGHQW ¶V HUURU that is eliminating the DUWLFOH µWKH ¶ HYHQ WKRXJK WKH WHDFKHU SHUIHFWO\ XQGHUVWRRG KLV XWWHUDQFH 7R SXW LW DQRWKHU ZD\ reactive focus on form addresses a performance problem (which may or may not reflect a competence problem).
Pre-emptive focus on form, on the other hand, addresses an actual or a perceived gap in the VWXGHQWV ¶ NQRZOHGJH 7HDFKHUV VRPHWLPHV SUHGLFW D JDS LQ WKHLU VWXGHQWV ¶ NQRZOHGJH DQG VHHN WR address it. This can be seen in the following example: S: What is sacked? T: Sacked is when you lose your job, you do something wrong maybe, you steal something, and your boss says, right, leave the job. (Ellis, Basturkmen, and Loewen, ibid) Pre-emptive focus on form can be initiated by either the teacher or the student, thus they are termed as: student-initiate and teacher-initiate. Preemptive student initiate is an episode in which a student initiates a focus on a specific linguistic feature because there is a gap in his/her knowledge. Student initiated FFE is typically began with a question of some kind. Preemptive teacher initiated FFE is an episode in which a teacher initiates a focus on a specific linguistic features because she things the feature may be problematic to the students. Typically this was achieved by a teacher query.
In teacher-initiated exchanges there will be two possibilities: (a) the students might answer the question, LQ ZKLFK FDVH QR JDS LQ WKH VWXGHQW ¶V NQRZOHGJH ZDV HYLGHQW RU E VWXGHQWV PLJKW IDLO WR answer the question. If the student did not answer the question, the teacher might choose to answer the question herself, or she might choose not to respond.

/\VWHU DQG 5DQWD
RSLQHG WKDW D FRUUHFWLYH IHHGEDFN FDQ OHDG WR WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ Xptake. They defined uptake as: Similarly,  freely defined as students incorporating correction into an utterance of their own. The terminology appears following the discussion on language learning DQG IRFXV RQ IRUP LQ ZKLFK VWXGHQWV ¶ LQLWLDWHG discussion on a particular word or vocabulary often are WKH H[DPSOHV RI WKHVH ,Q WKH SUHYLRXV VWXGLHV IRFXV RQ IRUP GHDOW ZLWK WHDFKHUV ¶ FRUUHFWLRQ EXW LQ WKH recent developments, more attention has been directed to other interactions in the classroom. It turned RXW WR EH WKDW VWXGHQWV ¶ RIWHQ UHVSRQGHG WR SDUWLFXODU ZRUGV RU FHUWDLQ QHZ LQIRUPDWLRQ LQ ZKLFK WKH\ asked the teachers for more explanation or to have more understanding about the form.
The steps to uptake are as follows: First, the student addresses a grammatical problem or a student may raise a question. The second step would be student formulates the problem, initially SUHFHGHG E\ WHDFKHU ¶V TXHVWLRQ RU EDFN channeling for clarification. The third step would be the teacher's response indicating the correct form and the last step would be further or metalingual explanation. The student's uptake will be apparent in which students would acknowledge the teacher's answer with their own utterance.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Ten English Department Lecturers and 300 students in Bina Nusantara University, Jakarta, were chosen randomly as the participants of this research. The subjects taught by the lecturers are varied, i.e. English Grammar, Discourse, Travel Management, Literature, Semantics, and Classroom Management. All the participants were non-native speakers of English; their first language was Indonesian. Lecturers used English and Indonesian as the medium of instruction. The materials for this research were the transcripts of the recordings of 10 lesson sessions. Each session consisted of 50 minutes, thus the total recording were 500 minutes. First of all, 10 English Department lecturers were chosen randomly as the paUWLFLSDQWV RI WKLV UHVHDUFK 7KHQ WKH UHVHDUFKHUV VDW LQ HDFK OHFWXUHU ¶V FODVV and record all the interactions that occurred between the lecturers and their students. The recordings of HDFK WHDFKHU ¶V OHVVRQ ZHUH WUDQVFULEHG 7KH transcriptions were then trimmed by eliminating some parts which were unintelligible without reducing the content of the materials. The final transcription results were used as the data for this research. The transcription data were selected and classified into 50 focus on form episodes (FFE). These focus on form episodes were analyzed using the framework by Lyster and Ranta (1997): reactive and preemptive focus on form. Using the same framework, WHDFKHUV ¶ IHHGEDFN were coded into six categories: (1) recast; (2) explicit correction; (3) elicitation; (4) clarification requests; (5) metalinguistic feedback; and (6) repetition.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study are divided into three major headings according to the three types of teacher-student interaction: reactive teacher feedback, preemptive teacher-initiate, and preemptive student-initiate.

Reactive Teacher Feedback
In this reactive focus on form interaction, the teacher used five types of feedback: recast, explicit correction, elicitation, repetition and metalinguistic feedback. there is a possibility that the student does not notice the correction given by the teacher. In this interaction, the student used the correction given by the teacher, E\ LQWHJUDWLQJ WKH WHDFKHU ¶V FRUUHFWLRQ into his own sentence. This indicated that an uptake has taken place.
Explicit correction provides explicit signals to the student that there is an error in his utterance. In this type of feedback the teacher supplies the correct form and clearly indicates that what the student said was incorrect.
(example 2) T: Tom remembered to close the door. 6 7RP UHPHPEHUHG WKDW KH KDV WR FORVH WKH GRRU EXW KH KDVQ ¶W FORVHG WKH GRRU \HW 7 %HFDXVH WKLV KDSSHQHG LQ WKH SDVW µ7RP UHPHPEHUHG WR FORVH WKH GRRU ¶ Ya, the first explanation was OK, uh nearly correct. You said Tom remembered that he needed to close the door, he needed to close the door because it, this happened in the past.
In this interaction, the teacher asked the student about the meaning of Tom remembered to FORVH WKH GRRU ¶ 7KH VWXGHQW DQVZHUHG EXW WKH WHDFKHU ZDV GLVVDWLVILHG ZLWK WKH DQVZHU +H VDLG µYa, WKH ILUVW H[SODQDWLRQ ZDV 2. ¶ EXW WKHQ KH UHFWLILHG LW E\ DGGLQJ µXK QHDUO\ FRUUHFW ¶ Then, he gave the explanation of the meaning. The students did not respond after lLVWHQLQJ WR WKH WHDFKHU ¶V H[SODQDWLRQ instead they only smiled. From this interaction, we cannot detect an uptake since the students did not show their understanding.
A metalinguistic feedback involves the teacher providing comments, information or questions related to the well-formedQHVV RI WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ XWWHUDQFHs without explicitly providing the correct answer. In this category we also include the explanation about grammar or the theory provided by the WHDFKHU DV WKH UHVSRQVH IRU WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ TXHstions. In the following example, the teacher was discussing the difference of gerund and infinitive.  Lyster and Ranta (1997) there are three ways of eliciting the correct form from the students: (a) when the teacher pauses and lets the student complete the utterance, (b) when the teacher asks an open question, and (c) when the teacher requests a reformulation of the ill-formed utterance. Example (4) shows an instance of (c), in which the teacher asks the student to reformulate his sentence and (a) in which he pauses and lets the student finish the sentence. Repetition requires teacher to repHDW WKH VWXGHQW ¶V LOO-formed utterance, usually by adjusting intonation to highlight the error, as can be seen in the following example.
(example 5) S: Tom remembered, maksudnya si Tom udah inget nutup pintu, buat nutup pintu and second one someone asked Tom to close the door.
(Tom remembered, I mean Tom has remembered closing the door, to close the door and second someone asked Tom to close the door) T: Someone asked Tom to close the door? S: Uh Tom is T: Tom remembered to close the door? 7KH WRSLF RI WKLV LQWHUDFWLRQ LV DOVR WKH VDPH LW ZDV DERXW WKH PHDQLQJ GLIIHUHQFH RI µ7RP UHPHPEHUHG FORVLQJ WKH GRRU ¶ DQG µ7RP UHPHPEHUHG WR FORVH WKH GRRU ¶ In his response, the teacher UHSHDWHG WKH VWXGHQW ¶V XWWHUDQFH ³6RPHRQH DVNHG 7RP WR FORVH WKH GRRU´ ZLWK GLIIHUHQW LQWRQDWLRQ While the student used the intonation for statement, the teacher used the intonation for question. The SXUSRVH RI WKLV UHSHWLWLRQ ZDV QRW WR KLJKOLJKW WKH VWXGHQW ¶V LOO-formed sentence since his sentence was perfectly grammDWLFDO 5DWKHU WKH WHDFKHU ZDQWHG WR HPSKDVL]H WKH PHDQLQJ RI WKH VWXGHQW ¶V VHQWHQFH The first part of the GLVFXVVLRQ ZDV WKH PHDQLQJ RI µ7RP UHPHPEHUHG closing WKH GRRU ¶ 7KXV ZKHQ the student included µVRPHRQH ¶ LQ KLV H[SODQDWLRQ WKH WHDFKHU GLUHFWO\ repeated the sentence by HPSKDVL]LQJ WKH ZRUG µVRPHRQH ¶ DQG FKDQJLQJ WKH VHQWHQFH LQWR TXHVWLRQ LQWRQDWLRQ This kind of interaction also did not produce an appropriate uptake since the student responded by showing her KHVLWDWLRQ ³8K 7RP LV ´ She did not finish her sentence. Moreover, the teacher did not follow with another feedback or correction or explanation, instead he continued the discussion by asking the meaning of the other sentence.

Preemptive Teacher Initiate
Preemptive focus on form typically consists of exchanges involving a query and response. In teacher initiate interaction, the teacher usually asks the students about the materials or the lessons. In this interaction, teacher can also give feedback which can lead to successful and unsuccessful uptake.
(example 6) T: µSRSSHG RXW ¶ is literal or non literal? S: non T: --In the above example, the teacher DVNHG ZKHWKHU WKH SKUDVH µSRSSHG RXW ¶ KDV OLWHUal or nonliteral meaning. The VWXGHQW FRXOG DQVZHU WKDW µSRSSHG RXW ¶ ZDV QRQ OLWHUDO (OOLV Basturkmen, and Loewen (2001b) mentioned that one of the problems of such teacher-initiated preemption, is that the perceived gap may not be an actual gap. In the example above, the fact that the student was able to DQVZHU WKH WHDFKHU ¶s TXHVWLRQ VKRZHG WKDW WKH VWXGHQW DOUHDG\ NQHZ WKDW WKH SKUDVH µSRSSHG RXW ¶ LV QRQ literal. Thus there was no actual gap. Consequently, there was no need for the teacher to follow up this query. In fact she did not make any comment. Since no feedback occurred, no uptake would follow.
Another preemptive teacher initiate is shown in the following example. In this interaction, the teacher used metalinguistic feedback.

Preemptive Student Initiate
Student-initiated exchange is illustrated in example 8. In this exchange, the teacher was discussing the elements of literature. The student initiated this interaction by asking about one element that was still not clear for her. The teacher response can be categorized as explicit explanation feedback.

CONCLUSION
This study revealed that the dominant type of interaction that happened in university level was reactive focus on form, in which the teachers give comment or feedback towarGV WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ LOOutterance. The type of feedback that the teachers provide was mostly recast, i.e. reformulating the incorrect utterance. However, not all types of feedback FDQ OHDG WR WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ XSWDNH 0RVW RI WKH WLPH WKLV KDSSHQV EHFDXVH WKH VWXGHQWV GLG QRW SURYLGH IXUWKHU UHVSRQVHV DIWHU WKH WHDFKHU ¶V IHHdback. Thus, it is difficult to determine whether an uptake has taken place or not. This result indicated that the teacher student interaction only stops at IRF pattern (teacher initiation, student response and teacher follow up) as discussed by Lee and Ng (2010).
The preemptive focus on form interaction also showed that teacher-initiated interactions were higher in number than student-initiated exchanges. Again, an uptake was accomplished in a teacherinitiated interaction, in which the teacher provided metalingual feedback. On the contrary, studentinitiated exchanges failed to generate the expected uptake.
This study has attempted to investigate which teacher-student interaction and which type of IHHGEDFN FDQ JHQHUDWH WKH VWXGHQWV ¶ XSWDNH +RZHYHU LW LV QRW DOZDys easy to determine whether an uptake has been established. Various contextual, linguistic, cognitive factors of the learners will determine their achievements.