Interaction Analysis

Introduction

Interaction analysis is an observational tool (Nunan, 1992, p. 163) composed of objective and systematic assessments of classroom activities, designed to analyze the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of teacher verbal behavior and the communication process within the classroom. It assists teachers in optimizing their behavior and enhancing interaction with students, making teaching more efficient and successful (Sharma & Tiwari, 2021, p. 175).

Overview of Process

When utilizing the Flanders interaction analysis category system (FIACS) for observation, the initial step involves watching and analyzing a class video recorded by an experienced teacher, focusing on their classroom management strategies. Applying the writing of low-inference classroom observation to record and describe the classroom situation and consider how these skills can be applied to my teaching activities . The second step is Encoding, where interactions occurring in the classroom are logged every three seconds based on Flanders' categorization of classroom behaviors. According to Amidon & Hough（1967），Flanders categorizes all statements that occur in the classroom into one of three major sections: teacher talk, student talk, and silence or confusion. Teacher talk is further divided into direct and indirect influence behaviors, such as accepting feelings, praising, or encouraging, accepting ideas, and asking questions categorized as Indirect influence. In contrast, lecturing, giving directions, and criticizing or justifying authority are categorized as Direct influence. Student talk is divided into only two categories: responding to the teacher and initiating talk. The third step is Decoding, which involves recording data in a matrix from the previous step. This step visualizes the data to obtain the proportion of each section, and the ratio of various data segments for analysis, and to reproduce the classroom setting (pp. 288-291).

Throughout the entire process, I found the process quite time-consuming, and it is easy to make errors, such as data omissions during the decoding phase, which requires multiple checks. Recording data directly into an Excel spreadsheet during the encoding step might save time. Nevertheless, this method of combining quantitative and qualitative analysis of classroom behavior through interaction analysis is an intriguing approach for me, and I found the entire process very engaging.

Quantitative Analysis

Determine General Aspects of Classroom Interaction.

1. What percentage of the class time does the teacher talk?- 62.74%
   • Percentage of Teacher Talk in Each Category:
   • Categories 1 and 7 are 0%.
   • Category 2 is 21.85%,
   • Category 3 is 6.46%,
   • Category 4 is 32.92%,
   • Category 5 is 9.23%， and
   • Category 6 is 29.54%.
2. What percentage of the class time do the students talk? - 26.52%
   • Category 8 is 99.26%， and
   • Category 9 is 0.74%.
3. What is the total percentage of time spent in silence of confusion? - 10.74%
4. What is the I.D. Ratio (the ratio of indirect to direct teacher statements?- 1.58%
5. What is the revised ID Ratio? - 0.96%

Specific Aspects of Classroom Interaction

The teacher places an emphasis on content as shown by 32 tallies in cell 4-4 and 46 tallies in cell 4-8, indicating a high level of student engagement with teacher-initiated content through questions.

Regarding the use of extended indirect influence, the matrix does not reveal a high concentration of tallies indicative of such an influence by the teacher. Although cells 2-2 and 2-3 show more tallies relative to other cells, the absence of tallies in cells 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 suggests that the teacher's use of indirect influence to extend and amplify student ideas or emotions is minimal.

The teacher's extended direct influence is characterized by the provision of comprehensive and detailed instructions to the class, as evidenced by the substantial number of 63 entries in cell 6-6. Additionally, the lack of entries in cells 7-6, 6-7, and 7-7 suggests that the teacher does not focus on asserting authority through criticism, as there is no record of critical remarks from Jonathan.

When students stop speaking, the teacher typically responds with praise or more questions, as indicated by the higher numbers in cells 2-8 and 4-8, which have 26 and 46 tallies respectively. This demonstrates that the teacher offers praise and positive feedback following student responses.

Teacher statements that stimulate student talk include those that offer praise and positive feedback, along with follow-up questions, as indicated by the higher counts in cells 2-8 and 4-8. Additionally, cell 8-8, holding the highest count of 38 , demonstrates that student engagement is mainly through individual responses to the teacher’s questions, with minimal group discussions.

Silence or confusion is typically followed by teacher talk, particularly questioning, with the highest tallies of 25 in cell 10-10 and 12 in cell 4-10, showing a return to teacher-led dialogue.

There is notable activity in the diagonal categories 1-7, especially in cells 4-4 and 6-6 with tallies of 32 and 63, respectively, which indicates the teacher takes time to ask questions and give instructions, pointing to a deliberate communicative approach. Cell 8-8 also shows significant student response, suggesting they are encouraged to elaborate on their ideas， but they merely take the initiative to talk.

Qualitative Analysis

Jonathan's teaching style is distinctively direct and teacher-led, as inferred from an I.D. Ratio of 1.58, which signifies that Jonathan displayed direct behaviors 1.58 times more than indirect behaviors in this class. Jonathan's direct behavior is exemplified by his use of praise at a high rate of 13.74%, substantially exceeding the average, particularly with 52 tallies in cell 8-2. This indicates his focus on directly responding to students' answers, showing a tendency to provide direct and explicit feedback on student performance. Moreover, Jonathan demonstrates almost no acceptance of students' emotions (with 0%) and seldom integrates students' ideas, comprising just 4.05% of the total class time, with only 3 tallies in cell 3-3. This further accentuates his direct and teacher-centric method. His preference for steering learning through questioning is clear, with a question-asking ratio of 20.66%, markedly higher than the typical range of 8% to 15%. In addition, approximately 18.53% of his interaction time is devoted to giving instructions, which is above the norm, reflecting a direct and authoritative teaching style. In terms of student dialogue, around 34.1% of the tallies in category 8 are found in cell 4-8, and 28.1% of student dialogue occurs in cell 8-8, indicating that student responses are predominantly direct reactions to the teacher's inquiries. The statistic of 0 tallies in cell 9-9 suggests that students have limited opportunities to initiate dialogue, further emphasizing a classroom climate governed by teacher-led and direct instruction.

However, the following two aspects demonstrate Jonathan's inclination towards a more indirect or neutral teaching style. Firstly, he utilizes criticism 0% of the time in his classes and never uses cells 6-7 and 7-6, indicating an indirect approach to teaching. Secondly, there are 57 tallies in category 10, suggesting that Jonathan maintains a balance between a direct and indirect teaching style.

Jonathan's direct teaching style may be associated with the characteristics of the learners. Low-level learners often struggle to articulate their personal ideas and emotions in English, as well as to spontaneously initiate topics using the language. Therefore, they might prefer a teacher-led classroom where learning is directed by the teacher through clear explanations of the material (L’Enfant, J., 2023, p. 2), unequivocal classroom instructions, and questioning. Simultaneously, adult learners are usually more self-regulated, which could account for why Jonathan seems more neutral or indirect in terms of discipline. Additionally, in Jonathan's classes, the proportion of teacher talk（62.74%） is significantly higher than student talk（26.52%）, which may not be ideal for language classes where students need more time and opportunities to speak English.

Conclusion and Reflection

Foreign Language Teachers can adjust their teaching behaviors and attitudes based on interaction analysis in the following ways:

Motivating Learners: Teachers can employ diversified and in-depth praising strategies to encourage students to participate actively. For instance, replacing brief praises like “Good job” with personalized and longer commendation sentences can motivate students more effectively. Such praises not only make students feel recognized but also specifically point out their strengths, increase their passive vocabulary, and foster positive emotional values （Moskowitz, G.，1968，p288）.

Discipline Issues: Interaction analysis helps teachers better focus on the time needed to maintain classroom discipline and adjust their management strategies to better address students' disciplinary issues. Preventative measures such as establishing clear rules and expectations can reduce the occurrence of disciplinary problems.

Teacher-Student Dialogue: By evaluating classroom interactions, teachers can find a balance in the dialogue time between them and their students. If teachers dominate the conversation, students may have fewer opportunities to practice the language. Therefore, teachers should sensitively observe their teaching behavior to ensure students have ample time to express themselves in the foreign language.

Teacher Roles: Interaction analysis assists teachers in observing their roles in the classroom. If teachers notice their behavior patterns are restricted, they can try adopting more varied behaviors, which helps them play multiple roles in teaching, such as facilitators or mentors, thereby promoting student success. （Moskowitz, G. ，1968，p288）

Teacher-Centered vs. Student-Centered Classrooms: Interaction analysis helps teachers better understand classroom types and choose appropriate teaching styles. This may include more collaborative activities, allowing students to lead the learning, and fostering peer feedback. This shift can create a more dynamic and interactive classroom learning environment.

In summary, interaction analysis enables teachers to examine their teaching from an observer's perspective, gaining in-depth understanding of both their own and their students' behaviors through quantitative and qualitative analysis, thus effectively improving teaching behaviors and attitudes.

References

Amidon, Edmund J., and Hough, John B. Interaction Analysis: Theory, Research, and Application. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Pub., 1967. Print. Addison-Wesley Ser. in Education. pp. 288-291.

L’Enfant, J. (2023). Sample Analysis – Teacher Talk: Clip 1. [Unpublished manuscript].

Moskowitz, G. (1968). The effects of training foreign language teachers in interaction analysis. Foreign Language Annals, 1(3), 218-235.

Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. Cambridge university press

Sharma, M., & Tiwari, N. (2021). A study of class interaction analysis using Flanders’s FIAC. International Journal of Scientific Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 8(4), 171-179.