DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION IN EFL CLASSROOM

Sinfdagi muloqot xorijiy tilni o‘rganishda judamuhim ahamiyatga ega. Ushbu maqolada ingliz tilini xorijiy til sifatidao‘qitish (EFL) darslarida o‘qituvchi va o‘quvchilar orasidagi muloqotdiskurs tahlili yordamida ko‘rib chiqiladi. Tadqiqot o‘qituvchilarningqanday qilib ko‘rsatmalar berishi, savollar berishi va fikr-mulohazalarinitaqdim etishi, shuningdek, o‘quvchilar qanday javob berishi vamuloqotga qanday kirishi ko‘rsatilgan.Darslar yozuvlariga asoslangan material diskursning muhimxususiyatlarini ajratib ko‘rishga imkon beradi: so‘z almashish tartibi,o‘zaro ta‘sir turlari va qatnashish modellari. Natijalar o‘qituvchininganiq muloqoti — tushunarli ko‘rsatmalar, ochiq savollar va qo‘llabquvvatlovchi fikr-mulohaza — o‘quvchilarning ishonchini oshirishga,materialni yaxshiroq tushunishga va faoliyatda faol ishtirok etishgayordam berishini ko‘rsatadi.Biroq, o‘qituvchining ortiqcha so‘zlashuvi, o‘quvchilarjavoblarining kamligi va xavotir yoki til darajasining pastligi sababliyuzaga keladigan muloqot muammolari kabi qiyinchiliklar ham qaydetilgan. Maqolada o‘quvchilarning tashabbuskor nutqinirag‘batlantirish, o‘qituvchining so‘zlashish vaqtini qisqartirish vamuloqot uchun qulay muhit yaratish kabi o‘zaro ta‘sirni yaxshilashuchun amaliy tavsiyalar taqdim etiladi.Shuningdek, diskurs tahlilining o‘qituvchilarga o‘z amaliyotinitahlil qilishda qanday yordam berishi tushuntiriladi. Xulosa qilib,diskursni yaxshilash bo‘yicha tavsiyalar va kelajakdagi tadqiqotyo‘nalishlari — raqamli vositalar, multimodal muloqot va EFL sinflaridamadaniyati xisobga olingan muloqot kabi takliflar taqdim etiladi.

DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION IN EFL CLASSROOM

Kuchkarova Azaliya Shuxratovna Student of Namangan State Pedagogical Institute, Foreign Languages Department, E-mail: azaliyakuchkarova19@mail.ru Raximjonova Muxlisa Rustamjon qizi Teacher at Namangan State Pedagogical Institute, Foreig Languages Department.

Annotatsiya. Sinfdagi muloqot xorijiy tilni o‘rganishda juda muhim ahamiyatga ega. Ushbu maqolada ingliz tilini xorijiy til sifatida o‘qitish (EFL) darslarida o‘qituvchi va o‘quvchilar orasidagi muloqot diskurs tahlili yordamida ko‘rib chiqiladi. Tadqiqot o‘qituvchilarning qanday qilib ko‘rsatmalar berishi, savollar berishi va fikr-mulohazalarini taqdim etishi, shuningdek, o‘quvchilar qanday javob berishi va muloqotga qanday kirishi ko‘rsatilgan. Darslar yozuvlariga asoslangan material diskursning muhim xususiyatlarini ajratib ko‘rishga imkon beradi: so‘z almashish tartibi, o‘zaro ta’sir turlari va qatnashish modellari. Natijalar o‘qituvchining aniq muloqoti — tushunarli ko‘rsatmalar, ochiq savollar va qo‘llabquvvatlovchi fikr-mulohaza — o‘quvchilarning ishonchini oshirishga, materialni yaxshiroq tushunishga va faoliyatda faol ishtirok etishga yordam berishini ko‘rsatadi. Biroq, o‘qituvchining ortiqcha so‘zlashuvi, o‘quvchilar javoblarining kamligi va xavotir yoki til darajasining pastligi sababli yuzaga keladigan muloqot muammolari kabi qiyinchiliklar ham qayd etilgan. Maqolada o‘quvchilarning tashabbuskor nutqini rag‘batlantirish, o‘qituvchining so‘zlashish vaqtini qisqartirish va muloqot uchun qulay muhit yaratish kabi o‘zaro ta’sirni yaxshilash uchun amaliy tavsiyalar taqdim etiladi. Shuningdek, diskurs tahlilining o‘qituvchilarga o‘z amaliyotini tahlil qilishda qanday yordam berishi tushuntiriladi. Xulosa qilib, diskursni yaxshilash bo‘yicha tavsiyalar va kelajakdagi tadqiqot yo‘nalishlari — raqamli vositalar, multimodal muloqot va EFL sinflarida madaniyati xisobga olingan muloqot kabi takliflar taqdim etiladi.

Kalit so’zlar: O‘qituvchi va o‘quvchilar o‘rtasidagi muloqot, Sinf diskursi, Diskurs tahlili, EFL o‘qitishi, Ovoz almashish strategiyalari, Savol berish texnikalari, Fikr-mulohaza amaliyotlari, O‘quvchilarning ishtiroki, Muloqot uchun o‘quv muhiti. Annotation. Classroom communication is very important when learning a foreign language. This article explores how teachers and students interact in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) classes using discourse analysis. The study looks at how teachers give instructions, ask questions, and provide feedback, and how students react and take part in classroom talk. The research is based on recorded lessons, which help identify important features such as turn-taking, types of interaction, and participation patterns. The results show that clear teacher communication—simple instructions, open questions, and helpful feedback—builds students’ confidence, improves their understanding, and increases participation. However, the study also points out problems like too much teacher talk, few student answers, and communication difficulties caused by anxiety or low language level. The article offers practical ideas for better interaction, such as encouraging students to speak more, reducing teacher talk time, and creating a more communicative classroom. It also explains how discourse analysis can help teachers reflect on their teaching. Finally, it gives recommendations for improving classroom discourse and suggests future research on digital tools, multimodal communication, and culturally sensitive interaction in EFL classrooms. Keywords: teacher–student interaction, classroom discourse, discourse analysis, EFL teaching, turn-taking strategies, questioning techniques, feedback practices, student participation, communicative classroom environment.

Itroduction. Classroom discourse analysis (CDA) investigates how meaning is produced, negotiated, and interpreted within instructional settings. In EFL classrooms, where language is both the medium and the object of learning, the study of interaction is particularly important. Foundational frameworks such as Sinclair & Coulthard’s IRF/IRE model, Mehan’s interactional patterns, and Conversation Analysis (CA) provide tools to analyze how teachers initiate sequences, how students respond, and how teachers evaluate or expand these responses [1]. Research across primary, secondary, and tertiary EFL contexts shows that teachers dominate classroom talk, often controlling topic shifts, turn allocation, and repair. While IRF patterns help maintain order, they frequently restrict student opportunities to produce extended turns or engage in authentic interaction. More dialogic approaches—such as uptake, contingent questioning, and responsive

feedback—have been shown to increase engagement, promote deeper cognitive processing, and develop learner autonomy. Recent studies broaden the scope of CDA to include multimodality, taskbased discourse, online classroom interaction, and the sociocultural dimensions of participation [4]. These studies emphasize that teacher– student interaction is shaped by contextual variables such as class size, teacher identity, cultural norms, digital tools, and institutional expectations [2]. Overall, CDA literature reveals that instructional quality is not defined only by the curriculum but also by the interactional architecture created through discourse. Methodologies. This article synthesizes methodological practices used across discourse-analytic research on EFL classrooms and proposes a research design suitable for examining teacher–student interaction. Participants and Data Sources A typical CDA-oriented study uses: • 10–30 EFL classroom sessions from different proficiency levels • audio and video recordings of naturalistic lessons • teacher interviews and stimulated recall sessions • field notes documenting nonverbal behavior and classroom ecology. Lessons are recorded over several weeks to capture typical interactional routines. Video data provides access to embodied actions such as gesture, gaze, posture, and material handling, which shape turntaking and participation [3]. Two complementary analytic approaches are commonly used: • Conversation Analysis (CA): to examine turn design, repair, overlap, sequence organization • IRF/Turn-distribution coding: to quantify teacher vs. student talk, question types, uptake, feedback moves Transcription typically follows Jeffersonian conventions, including timing, overlap notation, breath markers, and intonation indicators. Data analysis Analysis proceeds through: 1. Micro-analysis of selected sequences 2. Identification of recurring interactional patterns 3. Cross-case comparison across lessons, teachers, and classroom types 4. Interpretation of patterns in relation to pedagogy and learner engagement

This dual quantitative–qualitative approach allows researchers to describe interaction in detail while connecting findings to broader educational issues. Advantages and disadvantages: 1. Captures learning in real time: CDA reveals the micromoments where comprehension, confusion, engagement, or disengagement occur. 2. Supports teacher professional development: Video-based CDA can increase teacher awareness of implicit routines and help refine questioning and feedback strategies. 3. Exposes participation inequalities: CDA highlights which students receive opportunities to speak and which remain silent. Reveals hidden curriculum: Teacher tone, turn allocation, and repair practices communicate social norms, values, and expectations. Disadvantages 1. Time-consuming: High-quality transcription and analysis require significant time and expertise. 2. Complexity: CA and discourse coding demand specialized training and methodological precision. 3. Limited generalizability: Findings are context-dependent and may not translate directly across cultures or instructional environments. Conclusion. Discourse analysis provides a powerful lens for understanding how learning is constructed through interaction in EFL classrooms. By examining teacher questioning, feedback, repair, and turn-taking, educators gain insight into the pedagogical roles of talk and the social dynamics embedded in classroom communication. Although CDA requires time, training, and methodological rigor, its benefits for teacher development and learner engagement are substantial. Future research integrating multimodal, comparative, and technology-enhanced methods will further enrich our understanding of teacher–student interaction and support more equitable, dialogic, and effective EFL instruction [4].