English Language Teaching in its Social Context

EVALUATION OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION 293Table 18.1 Average scores and percentage increase for each groupGroup 1 I Group2 I Group 3* I Group4SS T1 T2 I SS T1 T2SS T1 T2SS T1 T21 80 882 75 833 74 844 67 835 62 766 61 787 60 758 60 649 58 7510 58 7511 57 7811121 63 702 57 733 54 794 53 785 53 686 48 757 52 638 52 769 51 7010 51 6811 50 7850 74 1250 74 12131 60 852 50 723 48 684 47 835 45 826 44 747 43 668 42 849 41 7710 41 7111 41 6839 7239 7238 701 49 732 36 813 35 634 34 715 32 786 30 377 29 638 11 54Average Scores For Each GroupT1 T2 I T1 T2 I T2 T264.72 78.09 I 52.82 72.66 I 44.53 74.76 I 32 65Group 120.65%Group 2 Group 3 Group 437.53% 67.88% 1 03.1 2 Yo*group under studybetween what the informants report as ‘uptake’ and the interactivc process in which theclass participates. However, I did not go into any further detail with them, not wanting theteacher to give undue emphasis to linguistic items in order for learners to remember asmany as possiblc. It was hoped that the usual teaching and learning situation would not beinfluenced by alerting the participants’ attention to the researcher’s focus of interest.In fact, when filling out the ‘uptake charts’ at the end of the first observational lesson,it was noticed that some learners tried to peep at their peers’ charts to enable them toreport more items than they actually could. At this point it was emphasised to the subjectsthat they should look upon the author as an outsider, a researcher rather than as a teacher,and that whatever reports and comments they made would be entirely confidential. Theirreports were not to be shown to the instructor, nor would they have any bearing on theirgrades.As it was planned to observe the same teacher with thc same group for two hours aweek for six weeks, the procedure became routine and my presence was accepted with ease