PE 47

كارشناسي ارشد

آموزش زبان انگليسي

پيام نور رشت

29/11/93

فريدون وحداني

هدي ديوسر

Interaction analysis , Textual interaction , Interpersonal interaction , Ideational interaction

وحداني،فريدون , ديوسر،هدي

Classroom research mainly concentrates on what happens in classrooms and tries to explore these events. One aspect that has been under investigation in this area is ʹclassroom interactionʹ. Interaction analysis has been done from different perspectives in EFL classes. The current work was inspired by Kumaravadiveluʹs (2006) classification of interaction types: textual interaction, interpersonal interaction and ideational interaction. The main objective of the present study was to investigate the nature of interaction types proposed by Kumaravadivelu (2006), the extent of their occurrence and their contribution to L2 development regarding two levels of Elementary and Intermediate. Three hundred female EFL students, ranging from 13 to 19 years old, participated in this study. During data collection process, 20 sessions (10 Elementary and 10 Intermediate levels) of EFL classes in Rasht Kish Language Institute were observed by the researcher and the main events regarding the types of interaction under investigation were written in the form of field notes. In addition, whole sessions were audio-recorded for later reflection and more detailed analysis. The results of this research were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. The quantitative data from the observation were analyzed through inferential statistics (three Independent Sample T-tests) and descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation). Qualitative analysis of data was carried out through transcription of important events in both levels regarding the types of interaction investigated in the current work and comparing their natures. The quantitative results indicated that although there was a difference between means of time spent on three types of interaction in this study regarding two levels of Elementary and Intermediate, the difference was not significant in p level (p= 0.05). Regarding the qualitative analysis, the nature of these three types of interaction was compared based on two levels and some similarities and differences were found.

31153