International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development

2017, Vol. 6, No. 3

ISSN: 2226-6348

A Theoretical Review of Classroom Discourse

Omar Ali Al-Smadi, Radzuwan Ab Rashid
Faculty of Languages and Communication, Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin, 21030 Kuala Nerus,
Terengganu, Malaysia.
Corresponding Author: [email protected]

DOI: 10.6007/IJARPED/v6-i3/3169 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v6-i3/3169

Abstract
This paper reviews the characteristics of classroom discourse and interactional routines in an
adult classroom. Classroom discourse differs in functions and forms from language used in
other contexts as teachers and students have specific goals and engage in different sets of
activities in the classroom. Student learning is influenced by their ability to negotiate meaning
and work together in completing the given tasks. The successful negotiation of meaning
suggests that learning has taken place. On the other hand, teacher talk also influences the
student learning. Teachers in classroom modify and simplify their talk to suit their objectives
and effectively engage students with different levels of proficiency. This paper concludes that
an effective classroom discourse involves successful negotiation of meanings not only between
teacher and student(s) but also between student(s) and students(s).
Keywords: Classroom discourse; classroom interaction; negotiation of meaning; teacher talk;
teacher-student interaction; student-student interaction

Introduction
Classroom discourse describes what happens in classroom. It is a form of discourse which falls
within language classrooms specifically verbal routines in classroom (Behnam & Pouriran,
2009). Classroom discourse includes features, such as modes of interactions, teacher talk, and
unequal power relations. Classroom discourse, according to Clark and Clark (2008), is an
intricate sociocultural process that involves techniques of meaning construction in the
development of students’ social identities.
Teachers in classroom have a dominant role as they control the learning objectives,
styles and activities. This role of teachers affects short and/or long-term learning of students
(Kurhila, 2004). Therefore, it is of major importance to consider the role and communication of
teachers in classroom. Teachers’ talk and roles are attached to classroom discourse as teachers
modify and adjust functions and forms of language to enhance interactions and
communications in classroom (Ellis, 2008). Teacher talk is going to be discussed further in
Section 2.0.
Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1975) model of classroom discourse integrates discourse
elements involving hierarchical layers, each layer consists of units from preceding layer:
“Lesson-Transaction-Exchange-Move-Act” (p. 21). The main discourse element is lesson,
whereas act is the slightest element. Discourse functions of act includes evaluation, cue and
elicitation. Within exchange layer, Sinclair and Coulthard notice the following interactional

164 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

features: the sequence of question and answer, responding to tutor instructions by students’
and listening to tutor’s instruction. The sequence of question and answer suggests Initiation-
Response-Feedback (IRF) model: initiation by teacher, response by student and feedback by
teacher.
The IRF model is believed to be dominant in classroom discourses (Nunan & Bailey,
2009). Teachers have the big portion of classroom interactional talk. According to Behtash and
Azarnia (2015) teacher dominates 75% of talk within classroom. Repetition among teacher talk
and integration of IRF sequence give the teacher the biggest portion of classroom talk as the IRF
model suggests teacher talk in initiation and feedback stages. Szendroi (2010) conducted a
study within ESP context, concluding that 71% of talk in classroom is carried out by teacher.
Regardless of generality about IRF model, several disagreements were established. For
example, Walsh (2006b), claimed that in students-based classroom “there is more equality and
partnership” also “more formal, ritualized interactions between teachers and students are not
as prevalent” (p.47). According to Lee (2007), the third component of IRF model is not feedback
all the time, it is rather conditional to former act and therefore “a situated accomplishment”
which reflects preceding act (p.202). In this regard, Nassaji and Wells (2000) identified six
undertakings of the third component of IRF model: “metatalk, comment, justification, action,
evaluation and clarification” (p.7) in addition to subdivisions associated with them.
Teacher talk and classroom interaction are important factors in classroom discourse.
These topics are going to be discussed further in the sections that follow.

2.0 Teacher talk

Teacher talk is the main source of learner information and the key for controlling class and
students’ behavior (Guo et al., 2010). Also, teacher talk is the crucial chunk of teaching a
language. It is a special language used by teachers when talking to class members within
educational setting. Also, it is the source of language input and it has direct inspiration on
outcomes (ibid).
Teachers in classrooms may address whole class participants as an application of IRF
model, teachers may also speak to an individual student for leading less guided exercises and
finally speaking to members of a group for organizing acts and evoking self -initiated language
and collaboration (Rashid, 2016). It is believed that teacher talk is not only important in
managing classrooms, it is also of major importance in the processes of learning. Within the
course of teaching, teachers usually clarify and make their talk simpler by slowing pace of their
talk, speaking louder than usual, using simple words and rules and repeating certain themes.
According to Brown (2001), teacher talk in classroom bears direct and indirect impacts on
students. Indirect impact is present through means by which teacher encouraging and praising
students, using ideas of students, repeating students’ words, telling jokes and asking questions.
On the other hand, direct impact is present through presenting new ideas and discourses,
correcting without rejecting, offering guidance and giving directions. Shim (2007) puts forth
that questioning, offering feedback and eliciting are the most common characteristics of
teacher talk.
Teacher talk in classroom demonstrates certain adjustments to suit objectives and
effectively involving participants, such as exaggerating pronunciation, repeating self, pausing,
low subordination degree and using statements and declaratives more frequently than

165 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

questions. Xuewen (2006) categorizes such modifications in teacher talk to the following
categories: firstly, at phonological level, modifications include: slow delivery rate, intonation is
exaggerated, contraction is avoided, special noun’s stresses, more pauses and stress, and
releasing final stops. Secondly, at syntactic level, modifications include: repetition, more
questions especially yes-no questions and infrequent wh-questions, well-formed utterances,
reduced complex utterances, preference to present tense and use of canonical words order.
Thirdly, at semantic level, modification includes: nouns are preferred in comparison with
reference pronouns, frequent use of nouns and verbs, infrequent use of idiomatic expressions
and employment of concrete over dummy verbs like do. Such linguistic modifications are also
acknowledged by Ferguson (1971), Henzl (1979), Long (1983), Kelch (1985).
Teacher talk plays an important role in classroom interaction. Teachers initiate, guide,
monitor and feedback interaction among participants. Aspects of classroom interaction are
going to be discussed in the section that follows.

3.0 Classroom interaction

Interaction in classroom is a practice which fosters the advancement of learners’ listening and
speaking abilities. The interaction process encompasses two parties. So, it is not only one-party
practice, rather two or more members sending and receiving utterances to establish a
communication practice. Classroom interaction is a “social process of meaning-making and
interpreting, and the educational value of interaction grows out of developing and elaborating
interaction as a social process” (Scarino & Liddicoat, 2009, p. 39). It is proven in literature that
classroom interaction is fluid and dynamic (Seedhouse, 2011). Classroom talk and interaction
are “the collection and representation of socio-interactional practices that portray the
emergence of teaching and learning of a new language through teachers’ and students’ co-
construction of understanding and knowledge in and through the use of language-in-
interaction” (Sert, 2015, p. 9).
Classroom interaction, according to Allwright and Bailey (1991), furnishes “input,
practice opportunities, and receptivity” (p.25). Therefore, it is significant to learning and
teaching. Teachers should be flexible and allowing possibilities of student-to-student and
student-to-teacher interactions. Also, the teachers should not have a dominant role in class,
they should actively engage student in classroom interaction (River, 1987).
Classroom interactions offer students chances to integrate target language structure/s
to talk they produce. Interactions awaken students’ instinct to respond and participate in
interactions whether or not proficiency is necessary for tasks or activities being negotiated.
Therefore, the success of any event in classroom is highly dependent on construction of
communication between and among teacher and student (Daniels, 2001).
Wellington and Osborn (2001) mark language in classroom as most important and has
many roles, such as aesthetic, mental, educational and communicative. Language plays an
important role in verbal class interactions as well as allowing students to think, reason and
negotiate classroom content. Language boosts exchanges of talk and advances learners’
competencies and performance. According to Walsh (2006b) interactions are “context shaped
and context renewing” (p.50). In other words, participants in interaction depend on context
and remodeling of context for invoking their identities and actions. Also, context here is
considered “a product and a project of participants’ actions” (Heritage, 2004, p.224).

166 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

Classroom social interaction according to Scarino and Liddicoat (2009) takes place
between teacher and student and vice versa also among students themselves. Interaction
actively engages students to comprehend and interpret fellow students. Students in interaction
not only perform, but also analyze happenings in classroom activities and practices. In the
following subsections, I will discuss types of classroom interactions, teacher – student(s)
interaction and student(s) – student(s) interaction, in particular.

3.1. Teacher- student(s) interaction

Teacher- student(s) interaction occurs when the teacher talks with one or more students. The
teacher negotiates content with students, asking questions, using pupil’s thoughts, giving
directions, lecturing, correcting or explaining talk made by the students. Students in this regard
can imitate teacher on how well to practice interaction and negotiation effectively (Khadidja,
2010).
In interacting with students, teachers should concentrate on type of language which
students can comprehend i.e. output should address all students’ levels and must be
understood. Also, teachers should plan in advance what they are going to say since this
language serves as a resource to students. Moreover, teachers need to be careful about the
way they speak, for example, tone, speed, intonation and voice. Furthermore, teachers should
choose interesting topics for talks and discussion as they serve initiation for elicitation
(Khadidja, 2010). Acknowledging this, the role of teacher in classroom interaction is directly
connected to students’ output development.
Similar to the teacher – student(s) interactions, student(s) – student(s) interactions have
a significant role in the development of classroom interactions as well as language
development. Student(s) – student(s) interaction in classroom is going to be discussed in the
following subsection.

3.2 Student(s) – student(s) interaction

Interaction among and between students is another form of classroom interaction. Such
interactions are noticed in classroom as students share notes, ideas and gratefulness.
Interaction among students actively construct skills and knowledge (Scrivener, 2005). Social
relationships among participants will also be established in course of interaction. Therefore,
teachers should hearten active participation in classroom interactional practices. Student
interaction is “a powerful way to reinforce what have been learned” (Naegle, 2002, p.128).
Student(s) – student(s) interaction arises in peer interaction or group interaction in order to
exercise language input and getting feedback when they correct one another or when they ask
questions (Mackey, 2007). According to Lynch (1996) “group work is more likely to lead to
negotiation of meaning than interaction with the teacher” (p. 111). Group work in this sense
allows feedback to arise from students as they correct and feedback one another.
Student interactions improve development of classroom inclusiveness, for example,
enabling and nurturing quiet and or shy students to take more part in classroom interaction
(Suhaili and Haywood, 2017). In interacting with fellows, such students usually experience little
amount of pressure in participation and they are usually more contented “learners who will
establish social relationship through this kind of interaction, where the sense of learning
community is promoted and isolation is reduced in the classroom” (Khadidja, 2010, p.16).

167 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

Accordingly, facilitating interactions among participants represents effectiveness for promoting

learner character in students, and promoting learning responsibilities through taking active part
in learning processes.
Teacher- student(s) interactions as well as student(s) – student(s) interactions are both
vital in EFL classroom. Students’ and teachers’ interactions within classroom are necessary for
promoting eloquent interactions. The process in which students interact and negotiate
comprehension with one another is referred to as negation of meaning which is going to be
discussed in the following section.

4.0 Negotiation of meaning: An aspects of classroom interaction

Interaction in classroom brings in the concept of negotiation of meaning which entails positive
learning resulted from interactions. Negotiation of meaning refers to interactional practices
which arises within two or more participants working with each other to establish a bi-
directional comprehension of certain utterance. During negotiation of meaning a receiver
demands a clarification or a confirmation of certain utterance, and the utterer replies to the
request by simplifying, elaborating or repeating the utterance. Negotiating meaning usually
involves certain discourse stratagems, such as clarifying a request, confirming understanding,
repeating, recast or restating (Pica, 1994; Pasfield & Neofitou, 2014). These conversational
moves are important in developing learning. Long (1996) describes three conversational
components of negotiation of meaning: “input modification” such as stressing certain word,
“semantically contingent responses” such as repeating certain word/s, and “conversational
modification” such as clarifying or confirming (p.434). Studies on students’ interaction
emphasize interactive discourse among participants where negotiation of meaning is
considered vital. Students’ linguistic output should be made straightforward to class, therefore
other students can participate in interaction. In case comprehension is lost, several adjustment
processes can be employed to straighten out interaction, such as simplification and
accommodation.
Negotiation of meaning is vital to foreign and second language development as
negotiation encourages understanding and positive interaction among students (Blake, 2000;
Abbuhl, 2011). Negotiation of meaning embraces precision, accuracy and inspiring self-repair
(Smith, 2003a). Therefore, opportunities must be granted to students in classroom for
interacting, asking questions, asking for and giving feedback and speaking their mind. Students
in classroom should negotiate, state and interpret ongoing meaning in classroom (Derakhshan
et al., 2015). According to Oradee (2012) teachers should design interactive environment for
learning where students have the chances to use language and interactionally negotiate
meaning. Students must be made active partakers in process of constructing meaning and
interaction within class as it results in development of language. Also, performance among
language learners is not only directed to proficiency, but also to regularity of negotiation
practices that the students involved in. Negotiation of meaning advances students’ output to
higher levels (Sommat, 2007).
Bitchener (2004) highlights that in students’ negotiation of meaning, students adjust
around 66% of their troublesome exchanges, such positive adjustment is an indicator that
learning has taken place. Within students’ interaction, retentiveness of adjustments shows that
negotiation of meaning has occurred and negotiation of meaning contributes to language

168 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

learning. Bitchener further emphasizes that recast is connected to negotiation of meaning. The
importance of recast is that it provides disciplinary linguistic structures to students and has no
undesirable excessive effect on communicative flow of certain tasks. Interactions embracing
recast are more useful and advantageous than those in which recast is absence (Leeman, 2003).
Varonis and Gass (1985b) formulated a model which reveals the role of negotiation of
meaning in unfolding discourse structure. In their model, when a breakdown in comprehension
arises, speakers are possibly engaged in a set of exchanges aiming to resolve non-
understanding within dialogue. In their model, negotiation practices involve triggers and
resolutions. Trigger is the receiver’s non-understanding utterance. While resolution involve an
indicator which indicates unclearness and a response that answer invitation to clarity. This
model to negotiation practices shows linguistic resources are employed by students to
acknowledge misunderstanding and resolve breakdowns in communications. This model helps
finding regularity of negotiation of meaning practices which occurs in conversations. This model
has been used recently in technological enhanced situations, such as video calls interactions
(Yanguas, 2010; Monteiro, 2014; Van der Zwaard, 2017).
In discussing negotiation of meaning, Krashen’s input hypothesis, Long’s interactional
hypothesis and Swain’s output hypothesis serves as a theoretical framework for describing and
explaining negotiation of meaning. The input hypothesis by Krashen (1985) argues that reading
and listening (language input) is important in language learning and development and that
speaking and writing fluency will indeed be ensured after students construct adequate
competence in language input. Comprehensive input is approved to be crucial however not
enough to promote language acquisition, the output indeed initiates students noticing breaks
between target language and interlanguage they produce (Swain, 1995). The output hypothesis
by Swain (1995) on the other hand claims that language input is important in learning but
insufficient, language production triggers students to pay attention to linguistic forms for
expressing projected meaning and solving any linguistic deficits in a proper way at any certain
context.
The interaction hypothesis by Long (1996) suggests that interactional practices focalizes
on negotiation of meaning. The regularity of certain occurrences in target form produces input
adjustments and adverse evaluation for increasing content expectedness and clarity. Such
processes encourage observing innovative forms, breaks in interlanguage, divergence between
output and input and connections of innovative forms of meaning. Interactions according to
Long enhance understanding, negotiation of meaning and mastery of semantically conditional
talk. Role play, class participation, group and pair work, teacher and student talks are among
the tasks and activities which excite classroom interaction for negotiating meaning.

5.0 Conclusion
Classroom interaction drives teaching and learning processes, it involves teacher-student(s)
interaction and student(s)-student(s) interaction. Group and pair activities are useful for
negotiation of meaning. Such activities give students active part in classroom interactive
discourse, for example, initiating, responding to and ending dialogues. Interactions in second or
foreign language classroom control opportunities of learning which students receive. Both
students and teachers contribute to the management of classroom interaction as well as
management of opportunities to learn.

169 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

REFERENCES
Abbuhl, R. (2011). Why, when, and how to replicate research. In A. Mackey & S. Gass, (Eds.).
Research methods in second language acquisition (pp. 296-312). London: Wiley Blackwell.

Allwright, D., & Bailey, M. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to
classroom research for language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Behnam, B., &Pouriran, Y. (2009). Classroom discourse: Analyzing teacher/learner interaction in

Iranian EFL task-based classrooms. Porta Linguarum, 12, 117-132.

Behtash , Z.& Azarnia T.(2015) A case study of teacher talk time and student talk time in an
Iranian language school, International Journal of English Language,(2), 274 -285.
Bitchener, T. (2004). The relationship between negotiation and meaning. Language Awareness,
13 (2), 81-95.

Blake, R. (2000). Computer Mediated Communication. A Window on L2 Spanish Interlanguage.

Language Learning & Technology, 4(1), 120-136.

Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Clark, C. & Clark, I. (2008). Exploring and exposing a gap in L2 research: How socio-linguistic
roles and relationships facilitate or frustrate second language acquisition. Journal of the
Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 30(1), 101-113.

Daniels, H. (2001) Vygotsky and Pedagogy. NY: Routledge/Falmer.

Derakhshan, A., Tahery, F., &Mirarab, N. (2015). Helping adult and young learner to
communicate in speaking classes with confidence. Mediterranean Journal of Social
Science, 6(2), 520-525. http://dx.doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2p520.

Ellis, R. (2008). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford, England: Oxford University
Press.

Ferguson, C. A. (1971). Absence of copula and the notion of simplicity: A study of normal speech,
baby talk, foreigner talk and pidgins. In D. Holmes (Ed.), Pidginization and creolization of
languages,141-150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Guo, Y., Piasta, S. B., Justice, L.M., &Kaderavek, J.N. (2010). Relations among preschool
teachers’ self-efficacy, classroom quality, and children’s language and literature gains.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1094-1103.

Henzl, V.(1979). Foreigner talk in the classroom. International Review of Applied Linguistics,
17(2), 159-167.

170 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

Heritage, J. (2004). Conversation analysis and institutional talk: Analyzing data. In D. Silverman
(Ed.), Qualitative research: Theory, method and practice. London: Sage. 222-245.

Kelch, K. (1985). Modified input as an aid to comprehension. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 7, 81-90.

Khadidja, K. (2010). The Effect of Classroom Interaction on Developing the Learner’s

Speaking Skill. A Thesis, Mentouri University.

Krashen, S. D. (1985). The input hypothesis: issues and implications. London: Longman.

Kurhila, S., (2004) Clients or language learners - being a second language speaker in
institutional interaction. In: R. Gardner and J. Wagner, eds. Second language
conversations. London: J, W and Contributors.

Lee, Y. (2007). Third turn position in teacher talk: Contingency and the work of teaching.
Journal of Pragmatics, 39(1), 180-206.

Leeman, J (2003) Recasts and second language development: Beyond negative evidence.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 37–63.

Long, M. H. (1983). Linguistic and conversational adjustments to non-native speakers. Studies in

Second Language Acquisition, 5(2), 177-193.

Long, M. (1996). The Role of the Linguistic Environment in Second Language Acquisition. In
W.Ritchie& T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Second Language Acquisition. New
York, Academic. 413- 468.

Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the Language Classroom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Macky, A. (2007). Conversational Interaction in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:Oxford

University Press.

Monteiro, K.(2014). An experimental study of corrective feedback during video-conferencing.

Language Learning and Technology, 18 (3), 56–79.

Naegle, P. (2002). The New Teacher‟s Complete Sourcebook. USA: Scholastic Professional Book.

Nassaji, H., & Wells, G. (2000). What's the use of 'triadic dialogue'?: An investigation of
teacher-student interaction. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 376-406.

Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A
comprehensive guide. Boston, MA: Heinle.

171 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

Oradee, Th. (2012). Developing speaking skills using three communicative activities (discussion,
problem-solving, and role- play). International Journal of Social Science and Humanity,
2(6), 532- 533.

Pasfield-Neofitou, S. (2014). Language learning and socialization opportunities in game worlds:

Trends in first and second language research. Language and Linguistics Compass, 8, 271-
284.

Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language learning,
conditions, processes, outcomes? Language Learning, (44), 493-527.

Rashid, R. A. (2016). Topic continuation strategies employed by teachers in managing

supportive conversations on Facebook Timeline. Discourse Studies, 18(2), 188-203.

Rivers,W.(1987). Interactive Language Teaching. Interaction as the Key toTeaching Language

for Communication. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Scarino, A. & Liddicoat A. J. (2009). Teaching and Learning Languages: A Guide. Melbourne:
Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Scrivener, J. (2005). Learning Teaching.UK: Macmillan Education.

Seedhouse, P. (2011). Conversation analytic research into language teaching and learning. In
E.Hinkel (Ed.), Handbook of research in second language teaching and learning, 345‒363.
New York: Routledge.

Sert, O. (2015). Social interaction and L2 classroom discourse. Edinburg: Edinburg University
Press.

Shim, J. H. (2007) Teacher Talk as Strategies in the Classroom.

Sinclair, J. & Coulthard, R., (1975) Toward an analysis of discourse. Oxford University
press.

Smith, B. (2003a). Computer-mediated negotiated interaction: An expanded model. The

Modern Language Journal, 87 (1), 38-57.

Sommat, S. (2007) The effects of the patterns of negotiation of meaning on the English
language used in communicative information gap tasks by Thai lower secondary school
students. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation in English Language Studies, Suranaree
University of Technology.

Suhaili, W. S. H., & Haywood, J. (2017). A student-centered approach to ideas generation for
projects: Is it a threat to creativity and innovation?. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 2(1), 13-
26.

172 www.hrmars.com/journals
 International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development
2017, Vol. 6, No. 3
ISSN: 2226-6348

Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning in Cook, G. and
Seidelhofer, B. (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H.G.
Widdowson.125-144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Szendroi I., (2010) Teacher talk in the ESP classroom: The results of a pilot observation
study conducted in the tourism context, (4), 39 -58.

Van der Zwaard, R. (2017). Patterns of (negotiated) interaction during telecollaboration

between native and advanced non-native speakers Utrecht: LOT.

Varonis, E. &Gass, S. (1985b) Non native/Non Native Conversations: A model for Negotiation of
Meaning. Applied Linguistics, 6 (1), 71-90.

Walsh, S. (2006b). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.

Wellington J. J., Osborne, J. (2001). Language and Literacy in Science Education. Open
University Press.

Xuewen, H. (2006). Teacher talk in EFL in university classrooms. Dissertation submitted as a

partial fulfillment for the degree of M.A. in English Language and Literature. Chongqing
Normal University and Yangtze Normal University, China.

Yanguas, I.(2010). Oral computer-mediated interaction between L2 learners: it’s about time!.
Language Learning & Technology, 14 (3), 72-93.

173 www.hrmars.com/journals