CDA is the abbreviation for Classroom Discourse Analysis. This is a terminology that refers to the study of interactions between teachers and students in the classroom to identify patterns of interaction that contribute to a better learning process. Analyzing classroom discourse can help teachers improve teaching abilities, regardless of the subject they teach. However, the use of CDA is specifically emphasized or intended for second language lessons as interaction and communication are highly expected in the second language classroom.
The controlled use of language by matching pedagogical and linguistic goals is believed to engage better involvement of students and give opportunities for learning. As mentioned above, by analyzing the discourse between teacher and students in particular interaction done within the classroom, the teacher can determine which expressions or unnecessary actions hide the learning purpose. Conversely, the teacher can evaluate which action or interaction patterns cause or stimulate students to express their thoughts about what is being discussed. Therefore, in order to have teaching improvement, especially in facilitating learners' involvement and building opportunities for learning, this article discusses five language features that can be implemented by teachers, including direct error correction; content feedback; checking for confirmation; extended wait-time; and scaffolding.
Direct Error correction
The first language feature that can be used by teacher in engaging learners involvement is direct error correction. Direct error correction can be one of the effective ways to maintain learners’ involvement. This can be in the form of misspelled, grammar errors, pronunciation errors, and more. Rather than explaining the correct concept of the error made by the students, delivering direct and quick error correction helps students fix their mistakes immediately. Direct error correction has an immediate effect which results in the immediate revision of the learners. In addition, it is also far less time-consuming compared with explaining the reason of the mistakes made by the students. However, a thing that teachers have to bear in mind, is that not all of the errors made by students must be corrected within the interaction in order to reduce interruption and maintain the flow of discussion. Furthermore, Ellis (2009) cautions, that teachers must be selective about which errors to correct during interaction as correcting every error can lead to interruptions and hinder the natural flow of discussion. This is an example of error correction taken from Walsh (2011).
480 L4: the good news is my sister who live in Korea send eh . . .
481 T: SENT=
482 L4: =sent sent credit card to me=
483 T: =ooh very good news . . .
484 L4: but bad news [is]
485 T: [the bad] news is . . .
Content feedback