THE ROLE OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION ON IMPROVEMENT OF SPEAKING AMONG IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS

THE ROLE OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION ON IMPROVEMENT OF SPEAKING AMONG IRANIAN EFL LEARNERS Somayeh Azadi (M.A) Department of English Language Teaching, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran Mohammad Aliakbari (Ph.D) Ilam University, Iran Akbar Azizifar (Ph.D.) Department of English Language Teaching, Ilam Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ilam, Iran Corresponding Author: Mohammad Aliakbari ABSTRACT Speaking can be realized as the most common way to convey the message to others and the ability to communicate effectively is a basic requirement which needs to be taken seriously in English education. Likewise, classroom interaction has been said to be one of the primary means of learning in classrooms which has a significant role in language classrooms. Thus, classroom interaction has been suggested as a way of improving speaking skills in conducting the present research. For this purpose the impact of teaching speaking strategies and participants gender on improving speaking skills are considered. For conducting the research, 30 intermediate English language learners were studied. The research pursued a pretest/posttest design to examine the research questions. The results revealed that classroom interaction can be considered as a way of improving the learners speaking ability. Gender made no significant difference for the betterment of their speaking skills. Furthermore, teaching speaking strategies introduced ways of interacting and as a result could help them improve their speaking skills. Structuring the class so that it devotes most of the class time to learners interactions and encouraging in-depth conversations among them can be good ways of promoting classroom interaction. KEYWORDS: Interaction, Classroom Interaction, Speaking, EFL learners INTRODUCTION Hamzah and Ting (2010) noted the importance and the role of English language in the Information and Communication Technology world, educational field, and in real life situations. They also indicated the need to be competent in English language and in spoken English, because English is a world language. Of the four main English language skills listening, speaking, reading, and writing the most important one is speaking. Nunan (2001) introduced listening as the Cinderella skill in second language learning and speaking as the overbearing elder sister. He claimed that functioning in another language is generally characterized by the ability to speak 126

that language. Luoma (2004) stated that speaking skills are an important part of the curriculum in language teaching, and this makes them an important object of assessment as well (p.1). For many second or foreign language learners, speaking skill in English is a priority. Thus learners evaluate their language learning success and their effectiveness of English course based on their improvement in spoken language proficiency (Richards, 2006). Although all English language skills are very significant to learn English language, it is by speaking that others understand one has learnt a language. If one wants to be understood or express his/her feelings, speaking is the most common way. All English language learners especially those in Foreign Language (FL) settings are at least once asked the question can you speak English? But what are their responses? Can they express themselves accurately and fluently? Yule (2006) notes that English conversation is an activity between two or more people in which they take turns at speaking. At one time one speaker speaks and participants wait until s/he indicates the end of his/her speaking, usually by a completion point such as asking a question or pausing. Other participants can take the speaking turn in a number of ways such as making short sounds, using body shifts, or facial expressions. In this way they indicate that they have something to say. One of the most significant features of conversational discourse is being co-operative which has become a principle of conversation named co-operative principle. This principle was first described by Paul Grice. Grice (1975, as cited in Yule, 2006) stated the co-operative principle Makes your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged (p.129). Four conversation maxims called Gricean maxims support this principle: the quantity maxim, the quality maxim, the relation maxim, and the manner maxim. It is through interaction that people give and take information, become familiar with each other s culture, and expresses their needs. In EFL situations, due to lack of the real encountering with the foreign language, there is a need to provide similar situations in classrooms in order to make learners interact and experience using the new language. According to Allright (1984) classroom interaction which is a productive teaching technique manages the classroom language learning. Interaction is face-to-face communication with Particular prosody, facial expression, silence, and rhythmical patterns of behavior between the participants (Crystal, 2003). Interaction also provides opportunities for production and receiving feedback. Interaction in classroom is based on the input provided by both teacher and students. The interaction can be between teacher and students and also between student and student. Both of these kinds of interaction need to be enhanced in the classroom environment. Nugroho (2011) stated that classroom interaction has a significant role. Experiencing something by oneself will help learning it better and in the classroom environment it has been gained by engaging in classroom activities. Interaction between students and teacher influences the learning success. Learning opportunities are more for those who are active in conversation through taking turns than those who are passive. Interaction is viewed as significant by Chaudron (1988, cited in Nurmasitah, 2010), because analyzing target language structures and getting the meaning of 127

classroom events is done via interaction. It is through interaction that learners gain opportunities to insert the derived structures of classroom events into their own speech (the scaffolding principles). The communication constructed between the teacher and learners determine how much classroom events are meaningful for the learners. LITERATURE REVIEW In countries such as Iran where English is used as a foreign language and it is taught mostly as a compulsory subject in educational program, the speaking skill is not duly treated, simply because of the time limitation and attention to other skills i.e. speaking has not received much attention and often does not receive due attention in final examinations. Recently more attention is given to improving learners speaking skill especially in foreign language situations by researchers. A thesis done by Khadidja in the academic year 2009-2010 investigated the relationship between the opportunities for production that arise in a classroom setting and the development of the speaking skill. The writer used teachers and students questionnaires in order to collect data. The conclusion was that classroom interaction can have a positive impact on learners speaking capacities. Bashir, Azeem, and Dogar (2011) investigated the factors effecting students English speaking skills. In order to collect data they also used students and teachers questionnaires. They concluded that teachers should use English as medium of instruction, promote interactive techniques, and cultivate English communication culture and also teachers and students should promote questioning and answering in English. Menegale (2008) studied the expanding teacher-student interaction through more effective classroom questions. The article referred to the teachers use of questions and tried to explore the ways in which questioning can be used not only as a means to promote learning in content and language integrated learning contexts but also as a means to enhance students participation and, as a result, their oral production. The conclusion indicated that teachers tend to use questions which recall the students former knowledge. Knop (2009) in his article on the increasing use of the target language in classroom interaction presented some strategies and activities used successfully by teachers to increase target language use. Both the research and classroom practice showed that students use of the target language may be increased through student-to-student pair interactions. Liao (2009) studied the effect of combining the four main language skills (speaking, listening, reading, and writing) on improvement of speaking ability. The writer concluded that the teacher should provide opportunities to knit skills together, because this is what happens in real life. Choudhury (2005) addressed interaction in second language classroom. The writer explored the problem of active participation by incorporating the researchers views and his own teaching experience. Teachers and learners together were the contributing source in managing the classroom interaction and at the same time managing learning opportunities. The findings revealed that making learners actively participate as much as possible cannot be universally right, 128

as not all learners learn best in the same way. What all learners need is an environment in which they can settle down to productive work, each in their various subtle ways. Lourdunathan and Menon (2005) examined the effect of interaction strategy training on group interaction and task performance. For this purpose they trained ten groups of students. The results suggested that training resulted in a significant use of interaction strategies and more effective interaction between group members. Faridatusolihah (2012) examined the effect of teaching English speaking using audio-lingual method on the improvement of the students speaking ability. The sample of the research included 84 of the second grade students of junior high school 1 Cisalak Kab Subang. The writer used quantitative method and non-equivalent group s pretestposttest design to conduct the research. The results of the research showed that teaching English speaking using audio-lingual method was effective to improve the students speaking ability. Mohammadi, Gorjian, and Pazhakh (2014) investigated the effects of classroom structure on the speaking skills of Iranian EFL learners. They also investigated whether learners perform better in competitive, co-operative or individualistic environments. 120 participants were selected among the male pre-university students as the sample of the research. A pretest was conducted at the beginning of the course, then a posttest of speaking after the sessions. The findings revealed that classroom structure affected speaking skills and the results also showed that there were no significant differences among the individualistic, co-operative, and the control groups. A study was done by Malmir and Shoorcheh (2012) on the impact of teaching critical thinking on the Iranian EFL learners speaking skill. The sample of the research contained 40 advanced language learners (20 male and 20 female learners) in an institute in Hamedan. The critical thinking techniques were taught to the experimental group. The results of the study revealed that the students who received critical thinking strategies did better on the oral interview posttest and there was not any significant difference between male and female learners after giving the treatment. Most of the attention given to improving speaking skills has been through manners other than interaction. Since little attention has been paid to interaction among all the students inside the classroom, especially in Iran as a foreign context, this study aimed at exploring the role that interaction could play on improving this skill. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Oral communication is introduced as a prerequisite to students academic, personal, and professional success in life by Morreal, Osborn, and Pearson (2000). Students are mostly taught orally. Poor listening skills make them fail to get the material they encounter and their problems will be intensified when they cannot respond appropriately because of poor speaking skills. Students who cannot clarify themselves may be judged as uneducated. Thus the ability to communicate effectively is a basic requirement which needs to be taught. In the current study, the effect of gender on improving speaking ability is also investigated. 129

The purpose of this study is to investigate the role of classroom interaction in improving speaking skill. Thus, the main goal followed by the present study is to explore the relationship between interacting inside the classroom and improving the speaking skill. The results of the present study can be useful for teachers and learners. It can provide a rationale for the teachers to carry out oral interaction in class to improve students speaking skills. The results of this study can be used as a model by teachers in order to instruct and train good English speakers. The results of this study can also be useful for the learners to be acquainted with using strategies appropriate for their success in improving their verbal interaction. In addition students can benefit from strengths of others through making interaction with them. This will also improve their discussion skills and as a result their speaking capabilities. This study helps to determine the effectiveness of applying interaction in teaching speaking in EFL classroom. RESEARCH QUESTIONS The following research questions have been addressed in conducting this investigation: Is there any relationship between classroom interaction and speaking improvement among Iranian English learners? Is there any difference between male and female learners in improving their speaking skills? METHODOLOGY Research Design The present study is a quasi-experimental research with a pretest/posttest design to examine the research questions. In pretest/posttest design, the immediate effect of treatment and the extent to which a treatment results in learning can be determined (Mackey & Gass, 2005, Lunenburg & Irby, 2008). Participants This study included 30 participants. They were selected among the students of a language institute in Ilam, Iran. The whole participants were divided into four groups, two groups as the experimental groups and the other two as the control groups. The classes were groups of 7 and 8 (8 females and 7 males in experimental group and 7 females and 8 males in control groups). Out of the whole participants (30 participants), 15 participants were female and 15 participants were male learners. Their ages ranged from 15 to 40. All of them were from Ilam with Kurdish as their first language. The classes were mixed and included both male and female learners. The procedure of selecting the sample was non-random based on convenience sampling. According to Mackey and Gass (2005) convenience sampling is the selection of participants who happened to be available at the time of the study. Instrumentation In this study Oxford Quick Placement Test (version 1) was used as a tool to put the learners in approximately the same level. The test contained 60 multiple-choice items which needed 30 minutes to conduct. 130

The Cambridge English: Proficiency Speaking Test also known as Certificate of Proficiency in English (CPE) was used as the pretest. This test included 3 parts which lasted for 19 minutes. The test examines grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and interactive communication. After training the learners and giving treatment to the experimental groups, the First Certificate in English (FCE) was employed as the posttest which included 4 parts. The whole test took 14 minutes to conduct. The pretest and posttest were performed in groups of 2 or 3 persons. For groups of three, the tests took some minutes more. They needed two examiners to conduct; one examiner gave the test and the other one just listened to the examinees performance and decided upon giving the marks. During administering the pretest and posttest, the voices of the examinees were recorded. Procedures As indicated in the previous section, Oxford Placement Test was given to the learners to determine their levels and make them homogeneous. For carrying out this study, the pretest (CPE) was taken in the form of two or three persons, that is two or three participants were examined each time. Each of the different speaking skills (grammar, vocabulary, discourse management, pronunciation, interactive communication) marked by two examiners. Then the marks were added to achieve a single mark. The marks were for the whole speaking test, not for each part of the test. Then, during 4 weeks, 3 sessions per week, speaking strategies were taught to the participants in experimental group. Apart from introducing these speaking strategies to the learners, there was a discussion topic for each session. The control and experimental groups had the same topics for discussion. The only difference was that the experimental groups received the speaking strategies. After performing the classes, the posttest (FCE) was given to the learners to consider their progress. During both pretest and posttest the examinees voices were recorded. The pretest and posttest were the same for both control and experimental groups. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 1 represents the distribution of the scores gained by the participants in the control group after performing the pretest and posttest. Total Scores Pretest (%) Posttest (%) Table 1: Frequency distribution of control group scores in pretest and posttest 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13.3 20 13.3 6.7 33.3 6.7 0 6.7 0 0 0 0 6.7 0 26.7 20 6.7 13.3 6.7 6.7 0 13.3 131

Table 1 shows that 13.3% of the participants in control group gained the lowest score (6) in the pretest. The highest score was 13 with 6.7% frequency. The score 10 was the score which gained the most frequency (33.3%). The above table indicates that after conducting the posttest the score 7 was the lowest score among control group participants with 6.7% frequency. 13.3% of participants in control group gained the highest score (16). But the most frequently score gained by participants was 9 with 26.7% frequency. In Table 2 descriptive statistics of the control group scores in pretest and posttest are presented. Table 2: Descriptive statistics of control group scores in pretest and posttest Descriptive Statistics Mean Median Std. Deviation Range Max Min Pretest 8.8000 9.0000 2.00713 7.00 13.00 6.00 Posttest 9.1333 10.0000 2.66905 9.00 16.00 7.00 As it can be seen from Table 2, the mean of the total scores in pretest is 8.8. The maximum and minimum scores were 13 and 6 respectively. It is obvious from the table that the mean of the total scores in control group posttest is 9.13. The maximum and minimum score were 16 and 7 respectively. Comparing the total score means of the two tests in Table 2 indicates that there is not a significant difference between the scores of pretest and posttest in control group. Table 3 demonstrates the frequency distribution of experimental group scores in pretest and posttest. Table 3: Frequency distribution of experimental group scores in pretest and posttest Total Scores 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Pretest (%) 6.7 6.7 6.7 13.3 6.7 20 13.3 0 20 6.7 0 Posttest (%) 0 0 0 13.3 0 13.3 6.7 20 20 6.7 20 It can be seen from Table 3 that highest frequency in pretest was pertinent to scores 12 and 15 with 20% frequency and the lowest frequency was related to scores 7, 8, 9, 11, and 16 with 6.7% frequency. The above table mentions that 13 and 16 were the scores with the lowest frequency (6.7%) in posttest. The highest frequency (20%) belonged to scores 14, 15, and 17. Table 4 presents the descriptive statistics of experimental group scores in pretest and posttest. Table 4: Descriptive statistics of experimental group scores in pretest and posttest Descriptive Statistics Mean Median Std. Deviation Range Max Min Pretest 11.8667 12 2.72204 9 16 7 Posttest 14.0667 14 2.31352 7 17 10 The data show that the mean of the total scores in pretest for experimental group is 11.86. The highest score gained by participants in pretest was 16 and the lowest score was 7. From Table 4 it is obvious that the mean of total scores in posttest for experimental group is 14.06 and the highest score gained by participants in this group was 17 and the lowest score was 10. By comparing the mean scores gained from Tables 4, it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between the scores of pretest and posttest in experimental group. As stated earlier, the first research question intended to check if there is any relationship between classroom interaction and 132

speaking improvement among Iranian English learners. To find this relationship, Pearson Correlation Coefficient was run. Table 5: Relationship between classroom interaction and speaking improvement Variables Relationship between classroom interaction and improving speaking skills Correlation Coefficient Significance Level (sig).850 **.000 Table 5 considers the relationship between classroom interaction and improving speaking skills using Pearson correlation coefficient. As seen in the above table, the correlation coefficient is 0.850. So, there is a high correlation between classroom interaction and speaking skills. Thus, there is a significant and positive relationship between the two variables and employing interaction among learners inside the classroom improved their speaking skills. This finding supports the finding obtained by Khadidjah (2009-2010) and Bashir, Azeem, and Dogar (2011). The second research question aimed at finding if there is any difference between male and female learners in improving their speaking skills. To find this difference, Independent Sample Test was employed. Equal Varianc e assume d Equal Varianc e not assume d Table 6: Independent Sample Test for considering gender differences in speaking skill Levene s t-test for Equality of Means Test F Sig. t df Sig. (2- tailed Mean Differenc e Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper 1.745.197 -.887 28.383 -.93333 1.05259-3.08946 1.22279 -.887 26.609.383 -.93333 1.05259-3.09455 1.22788 The F value for Levene s test is 1.745 with a significance value of 0.197. Since the significance value is greater than 0.05 (p>05), the null hypothesis (no difference) was confirmed for the assumption of homogeneity of variance, concluding that there is not a significant difference between the two gender variances. CONCLUSION The purpose of the present study was to investigate the role of interaction inside classroom on improving speaking proficiency. To carry out the study, the sample was chosen among English 133

language learners in Safir institute in Ilam, Iran. In addition to investigating the role of classroom interaction on improving speaking proficiency, the effect of gender on improving speaking proficiency was also assessed. To test the research questions of the study, inferential statistics was utilized using SPSS software. Pearson Correlation Coefficient results showed that there was a positive and significant relationship between classroom interaction and improving speaking proficiency. It means that interaction inside the class improves the speaking proficiency. The second question was tested using Independent t-test. The level of significance gained from Levene s test proposed that there was no significant difference between gender and improving speaking skill. Therefore, gender (male/female) of the participants did not affect speaking proficiency. Thus, it can be concluded that gender cannot be considered as a factor inhibits or helps learners to improve their speaking proficiency. On the basis of the present research findings, it can be concluded that there was a positive and significant relationship between the variables of classroom interaction with speaking skills. That is to say, by reinforcing classroom interaction, speaking skills will be improved as well. The results of the study showed that there was no difference between male and female learners in improving their speaking proficiency. There were some limitations in conducting the research that need to be addressed. The size of the sample is one limitation of this study. 30 English language learners were investigated, of whom 15 people were female learners and the other 15 were male learners. Thus, generalizing the findings should be made cautiously. Another limitation is about the place of conducting the research which was in an institute in Ilam. Therefore, the findings may not be generalized to schools, universities, and also to institutes in other cities. REFERENCES All wright, D. (1984). The importance of interaction in classroom language learning. Applied linguistics, 5(2), 156-171. Bashir, M., Azeem, M., & Dogar, A. H. (2011). Factors effecting students English speaking skills. British journal of arts and social sciences, 2(1), 34-50. Choudhury, S. (2005). Interaction in second language classrooms. BRAC University Journal, 2(1), 77 82. Crystal, D. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Faridatusolihah, N. F. (2012). Teaching English speaking using audio-lingual method at the second grade students of junior high school 1 Cisalak KAB.Subang. Retrieved April 5, 2012, from: http://www.qm2.org/mbriefs/10.html. Hamzah, M. H., & Ting, L. Y. (2010). Teaching speaking skills through group work activities: A case study in SMK Damai Jaya. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. Retrieved from: http://eprints.utm.my/10255/2/lu_yee_ting.pdf. Khadidja, K. (2009-2010). The effect of classroom interaction on developing the learner s speaking skill. (Unpublished dissertation, Constantine University). 134

Knop, C. K. (2009). Increasing use of the target language in classroom interaction. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from: http://www.oomroom.ca/resources/knop article.pdf. Liao, G. (2009). Improvement of speaking ability through interrelated skills. English language teaching, 2(3), 11-14. Lourdunathan, J., & Menon, S. (2005). Developing speaking skills through interaction strategy training. The English teacher. 34, 1 18. Luoma, S. (2004). Assessing speaking. Ernst Klett Sparachen. Macky, A., & Gass, S. M. (2005). Second language research methodology and design. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Malmir, A., & Shoorcheh, S. (2012). An investigation of the impact of teaching critical thinking on the Iranian EFL learners speaking skill. Journal of language teaching and research. 3(4), 608 617. Menegale, M. (2008). Expanding teacher-student interaction through more effective classroom questions: From traditional teacher-fronted lessons to student-centered lessons in CLIL. Retrieved November 2011 from: http://lear.unive.it/bitstream/10278/1005/1/05menegale.pdf. Mohammadi, H., Gorjian, B., & Pazhakh, A. (2014). The effect of classroom structure on speaking skills of Iranian EFL learners: A comparative study. International journal of language learning and applied linguistic world. 5(1), 472 487. Morreal, S. P., Osborn, M. M., & Pearson, J. C. (2000). Why communication is important: A rational for the centrality of the study of communication. Journal of association for communication administration, 29(1), 1 25. Nugroho, K. Y. (2011). Interaction in English as a foreign language classroom (A case of two state senior high schools in Semarang in the academic year 2009/2010). English education journal, 1(1), 50-69. Nunan, D. (2001). Second language teaching and learning. University of Hong Kong. Heinle & Heinle publishers. Nurmasitah, S. (2010). A study of classroom interaction characteristics in a geography class conducted in English: The case at year ten of an immersion class in SMA N2 Semarang (Doctoral dissertation, Universitas Oiponegoro). Richards, J. C. (2006). Developing classroom speaking activities: From theory to practice. Guidelines-Singapore-Periodical for classroom language teachers then magazine for language teachers, 28(2), 3. Yule, G. (2006). The study of language. Cabridge university press. New York. Third edition. 135