Content uploaded by Henelsie Mendoza
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Henelsie Mendoza on Jul 25, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
Analysis of Interruptions in Classroom Group Discussions
Rosemarie Tan1*, Henelsie Mendoza2,
CO-AUTHORS: Ashvine Carabbacan1, Monica Althea Alcantara1, Cris Jamie Cagascas1, Rhea Lagarde1,
and Rhealyn Chabelita Nabias1
1 Philippine Normal University – Student Researcher
2 Philippine Normal University – Research Adviser
*rosetan858@gmail.com
Abstract: Interruption is often seen as a negative gesture for someone to take the floor. However,
through further research, it was proven that interruption can be used as a way to encourage and
support other speakers in the conversation. With this, the research aims to determine the
classifications and purposes of interruptions used in classroom group discussions and the factors
that led these interruptions to take place. The data were gathered from the selected group of English
and Filipino Majors through the use of audio and video recording devices. The conversations in group
discussions were transcribed using Gumperz et al. (1993) transcription method which then were
classified and interpreted through the classifications of interruption by Ferguson et al. (1977).
Results showed that the participants‟ interruptions were mostly classified as cooperative/supportive
in Filipino (L1) and silent in English (L2). Furthermore, there are myriads of reasons as to why
students interrupt and some of these are to agree, to disagree or to contribute meaningfully in the
discussion. This study is a part of the growing body of research on interruptions in the classroom;
thus, allow teachers to construct ways to use group discussion to enhance students‟ fluency and
utilization of L1 and L2.
Key Words: interruptions; English; Filipino; language; classroom setting
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Classrooms have been considered as the
main arena where language learning occurs since
learners learn through interpersonal interaction with
their teacher and peers. With this, the method of
teaching has been shifting from teacher-centered to
student-centered and one of its features is on the use
of collaborative discussions (e.g. pair and group work)
which are conducted through taking turns and are
comprised of interruptions.
Given these points, the study is significant
for various reasons. First, the rationale of conducting
the study is because in previous research, the focus is
merely on identifying the dominant classifications of
interruptions used in group discussions
contextualized in an international; non-academic
setting. As a result, the purposes of interruptions
during classroom group discussions and the factors
that led these interruptions to take place were left
unexplored. Therefore, there is a need for further
investigation to address this limitation based on
Philippine context with English and Filipino
languages as main variables of this research. With
this, the study is a contribution to the growing body
of language research. Second, the study will break
the notions of the previous studies that interruptions
are only used for negative purposes (e.g. for making
disagreements). Henceforth, students will become
aware on their interrupting behaviors during
classroom conversations. Lastly, the study will
provide teachers further understanding on
interruptions; will allow them to utilize group
discussions as a way to improve students‟ fluency on
L1 and L2, and will teach students pragmatic
competence especially on interruptions.
2
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
1.2 Review of Related Literature
There are several studies that adhere to the
definition of interruption as negative and one of
which came from the study of Xu (2009). According to
this study, interruption is often described as an
unethical intention to cut the flow of the current
speaker‟s speech and to seize the floor to express
one‟s opposition. It is also said that interruption is a
device to exercise power and control over a
conversation (Zimmerman & West, 1975). However,
according to Karpowitz and Mendelberg (2014), they
defined interruption as a way of supporting the
current speaker without depreciating that speaker‟s
efficaciousness.
In the study of Ferguson (1977), Bazzanella
(1994), Yang (2005), Cacioppo and Maroni (2004),
interruptions can be classified as
supportive/cooperative, obstructive, simple, butting-
in, silent and failed interruption (refer to Table 1 for
further information on the Classifications of
Interruption).
There are many factors which affect the use
of interruptions in a conversation. For this study, the
focus will be on the three (3) different factors namely
(1.2.1) gender, (1.2.2) language use and (1.2.3) roles
in the group discussion.
1.2.1 INTERRUPTIONS AND GENDER
In previous researches, men are seen as
interrupters while women are not.
As the definition of interruption evolves, the
identity of interrupters also changes. In Stubbs
(2014) who studied talk among friends within a
chosen student organization found out that
regardless of gender, interruptions happen equally
despite findings from previous researches that men
are interrupters while women are interruptees.
Furthermore, in the study of Robinson and
Reis (1989), it was found that interrupters,
regardless of sex, were seen as less sociable and more
assertive than individuals who did not interrupt. In
short, in contrast to beliefs that interruptions can be
supportive, it was seen in this study that
interruptions lead to negative personality
attributions.
With the existence of researches proving
that both genders can positively and negatively
interrupt in a conversation, it is not sufficient to
assume the identity of the interrupter based on
gender. Rather, the use of language when making
interruptions should be considered also as a basis to
determine the interrupter in the
conversation/discussion.
1.2.2 INTERRUPTIONS AND LANGUAGE USE
Different studies have shown how connected
language and interruptions are.
According to Weinreich (1953), the speaker
either speaks one language or the other. This claim
was supported by the „separation model‟ proposed by
Dulay and Burt (1980) which says that there is no
point of discussing the effects of L1 and L2 on each
other since L1, L2 or foreign language of the speaker
have different set of patterns and rules that do not
share the same characteristics.
On the other hand, studies have shown that
L1 is a significant medium for enhancing students‟
fluency and accuracy of their L2. The probable reason
behind the students‟ preference of using L1 rather
than L2 in their conversations is the fact that they
are more comfortable in using the language (Al
Sharaeai, 2012 & Shabir, 2017).
On the contrary, professionals (e.g. teachers)
do question the use of L1 in an English classroom as
it may become a barrier towards students‟ learning of
other languages. Thus, it may result to students‟ lack
of proficiency in their L2 and in other languages as
well (Farzana, 2017).
With these researches arguing the
effectiveness of L1 and L2 in a particular discourse,
the commonalities behind these is the way a person
uses the language when making interruptions have
an impact to his or her roles in the group discussion.
1.2.3 INTERRUPTIONS AND ROLES IN GROUP
DISCUSSION
With interruption embodying a negative
definition of cutting the flow of a discussion, it is
expected that it is connected to factors such as
dominance, power and status (Eakins & Eakins,
1978, Zimmerman & West, 1975).
With dominance being associated with men,
the study of Smith-Lovin and Brody (1989) strongly
supports this hypothesis. Upon observation, it was
revealed that in group discussions, men talk more
and thus, often assume a leadership position through
receiving more positive and fewer negative
statements.
In contrast to this notion is the study of Ng,
Dunne and Brooke (1993) whose research is on
interruption and influence in group discussions, it
was discovered that group members who gained more
3
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
turns by successfully interrupting others were
perceived as more influential. Thus, it can be
concluded that both men and women can become
interrupters and can be perceived as influential.
1.3 Research Questions
Adopting the methods of the previous
research, this study aims to compare and classify
turn taking strategies, specifically interruptions,
between English and Filipino Majors. This aims to
answer the following questions:
1. What is/are the dominant or evident
classification/s of interruption used in
classroom group discussions of English and
Filipino Majors?
2. Is there a significant difference of
interruptions used in classroom group
discussions between English and Filipino
Majors?
3. What are the factors that affect the
interruptions used in classroom group
discussions of English and Filipino Majors?
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Research Design
This study is under a quantitative-
qualitative research approach.
2.2 Research Setting
In the study, the data was collected from a
state university in Taft Avenue, Manila on January
2018. The university is one of the oldest institutions
in the Philippines who cater future educators in all
fields and one of which is the field of languages:
Filipino and English.
2.3 Participants
A total number of 41 third year college
students were asked to join as participants of the
study. The participants chosen in the study are all
specializing in language (either English or Filipino).
The criteria for the qualified participants relied on
their level of language expertise and availability. The
Filipino Majors‟ group is comprised of 24 students (19
females & 5 males) while the English Majors‟ group
has 17 students (14 females & 3 males). The age of
the participants ranges from 18-23 years. All
participants must have at least ten years of formal
English and Filipino instruction in their primary and
secondary education and have at least two years in
their majorship.
2.4 Instrumentation and Materials
Before conducting the study, through formal
letters, we secured permission from both of the
university administration and the participants. For
the data gathering, a session was done for both
English and Filipino Majors. Every session
comprising the group discussions was about 15 to 20
minutes and was recorded with audio and video
recording devices. To ensure audibility of the data,
the recording devices were tested beforehand and
were placed away from possible interferences.
Thereafter, the data were transcribed
following the Standard Transcription proposed by
Gumperz et al. (1993).
After the data gathering, the researchers
then conducted a short interview on both majors
through selected members of the groups to gain
knowledge on the groups‟ lead speakers.
2.5 Data Collection Procedure
To accomplish the study‟s objectives, the 41
language majors have undergone class observation
while having a group discussion with their peers.
With recording devices at hand, the group
discussions have been recorded to serve as an
authentic data of the study.
To dismiss the participants‟ uneasiness of
being recorded, the researchers asked them to have a
regular conversation with their peers with utmost
assurance that the recorded conversations will not
affect any of their academic records.
Beforehand, both parties were oriented on
the implementation of the study and followed the
same data collection procedure.
2.6 Method of Analysis
The researchers‟ preference of developing
their own transcripts as transcription is regarded as
an analysis within the perspective (Hutchby &
Wooffitt, 1998). With this, the interruptions are
classified as seen on this table.
4
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
Table 1. Classifications of Interruption
Supportive/
Cooperative
Interruption
Speakers A and B can be both in
a simultaneous discourse or
otherwise and there is an absence
of Speaker B‟s intention to take
the turn.
Obstructive
Interruption
Speaker A is interrupted by
Speaker B to make one‟s
disagreement.
Simple Interruption
Speaker A is interrupted in the
middle of the utterance in which
Speaker A drops out while
Speaker B completes the turn.
Butting-in
Interruption
Speaker A is interrupted in the
middle of the utterance but he or
she completes the turn, while the
interrupter does not.
Silent Interruption
Speaker A pauses in the middle
of the sentence and Speaker B
comes in instead of waiting for
Speaker A to continue.
According to Ferguson (1977), it
is called Silent Interruption
because there is no simultaneous
speech involved.
Failed Interruption
Speaker B wants to take the turn
and yet, Speaker B hesitated to
take the turn.
(Ferguson, 1977; Bazzanella, 1994; Cacioppo and
Maroni, 2004 as cited in Maroni, Gnisci, and
Pontecorvo, 2008)
In order to answer RQ2, the researchers
consulted a statistician to calculate the significant
difference of the results between English and Filipino
Majors using T-Test.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section is arranged according to the
research questions mentioned in the first section of
this paper.
3.1 Dominant classifications of interruption
used by English and Filipino Majors
Table 2. Number of Interruptions
Classifications
of
Interruption
Filipino Majors
English Majors
Supportive/
Cooperative
129
53
Obstructive
25
15
Simple
43
29
Butting-in
48
27
Silent
69
60
Failed
2
3
316
187
In Table 2, the dominant classification of
interruption used by English Majors is silent
interruption while Filipino Majors mostly used
supportive/cooperative interruption. On the other
hand, both majors used failed interruption the least
in their group discussions.
Silent interruption is dominantly used in the
English Majors‟ group discussions. According to
Bachman and Palmer (1996 & 2010), speakers tend
to pause in the conversation to think, to compose
sentence and to check grammatical errors before
speaking in the discussion.
On the contrary, supportive/cooperative
interruption is dominantly used in the Filipino
Majors‟ group discussions. Since the Filipino Majors
used their L1, it is easier for them to explain their
points and ideas even in a complicated topic because
they are comfortable in using the language (Al
Sharaeai, 2012). The use of supportive interruption is
not only limited to one-word responses (e.g. “yes”) but
these can be ideas that will either support or enhance
what the speaker said in the discussion.
For the failed interruption, it was the least
used interruption in both majors‟ group discussions
since the topics assigned, regardless of its level of
difficulty, did require different ideas from various
group members which are then, needed to be
discussed and agreed upon as a whole.
Total
5
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
3.2 The significant difference between the
interruptions of English and Filipino Majors
The test result shows that there is no
significant difference in the interruptions used by
both majors. In Table 2, it was shown that the two
most used interruptions are supportive/cooperative
and silent. According to Weinreich (1953), the L2
user either speaks one language or the other. This is
supported by the „separation model‟ (Dulay & Burt,
1980) which sees no point on discussing the effects of
L1 to L2 or vice versa. Both languages, the L1
(Filipino) and L2 (English), might be similar because
these languages are governed by the same
constraints and potentials as any other language
acquired by human beings that led to the same
interruptions used with either L1 or L2 (Cook,
2002b).
3.3 Factors that affect the interruptions of
English and Filipino Majors
3.3.1 Gender
Table 3. Number of Interruptions
Classification
of
Interruptions
Filipino Majors
English Majors
Male
Female
Male
Female
Supportive/
Cooperative
34
95
9
44
Obstructive
7
18
4
11
Simple
11
32
8
21
Butting-in
31
17
11
16
Silent
23
46
17
43
Failed
0
2
1
2
Total
106
210
50
137
In Table 3, it shows that the most commonly
used interruption by men and women was the
supportive/cooperative interruption while the least
commonly used interruption was the failed
interruption wherein the speaker simply failed to
disrupt the other speaker‟s speech.
In the results, it was shown that
supportive/cooperative interruption is used
frequently in the group discussions. This is probably
due to an almost homogeneous nature of the groups
since there are more women than men. According to
Smith-Lovin and Brody (1989), such supportive and
topic-continuing interruptions are more likely to
succeed in a single-sex context.
3.3.2 Language Use
Based from the results, it was shown that
regardless of the language used in a group
discussion, both majors frequently used
supportive/cooperative and silent interruption to
contribute ideas in their group discussions.
In addition, L1 and L2 indeed conduct the
flow of their group discussions in a way where the
speaker uses either of the two languages; other
members in the group will either positively or
negatively respond to what the speaker said due to
their complete understanding of his or her statement.
3.3.3 Roles in Group Discussion
The extract reveals that men tend to
commence and manage the flow of a group
discussion.
Extract 1.
Group Discussion of Filipino Majors
(regarding their suggestions for an upcoming
performance)
Joey: ano game na? game na ba?
diba meron tayong chat na pang grupo tapos
ang una kasing suggestion ay yung tula ni
ano ni… patricio… tapos kaso nga lang
kapag nag ano kapag… yun yung ginamit
baka parang interpretative na pagbigkas
yung mangyari sa ano…
In Extract 1, it shows that Joey started their
discussion by reminding the other members on what
tasks they need to accomplish.
In a group discussion, males have a
tendency to talk more and often claim a leadership
position (Smith-Lovin & Brody, 1989). Therefore, in
Extract 1, it was observed that Joey acted as the
leader that negotiates and feeds the group with
suggestions. Most likely, the group may agree,
disagree, clarify or ask the one that controls the
discussion.
6
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
Despite the fact that a male participant
named Joey is the one who assumed leadership, it
does not seem that his interruptions offend any of the
group members, but rather they were more
encouraged to take part in the discussion.
I: Whenever he interrupts in the discussion, do you
feel intimidated by him or do you feel even more
encouraged to participate in the group discussion?
R1: I feel encouraged to participate in the group
discussion.
R2: He makes me feel like I have to talk and share
something in (the) discussion. If he could do well in
group discussions, I believe I could (do) it also.
However in the group discussions, men are
not the only ones who can lead and thus, be
influential but does so women.
I: Do you see her as an influential person, especially
in a group discussion? Why?
R4: Yes, her directness and authority is highly
influential because of her character…
Based on the interviews done to further
explain the data, it was shown that the person who
interrupts more in the group discussion, his or her
contributions are seen as significant in comparison
with the other group members that have fewer to
none interruptions.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The results suggest that the dominant
interruptions used by English and Filipino Majors
are influenced by different factors such as gender,
language use and roles in a group discussion.
It is also proven in the study that both men
and women can become interrupters. This is because
women are more likely to perform like men to
accommodate them in the conversation.
The research is limited to a sample of L1
(Filipino) and L2 (English) students‟ interruptions in
a classroom setting and in a specific university in the
Philippines. The number and time of the sessions,
including the topics used in the group discussions are
added limitations of the study.
There can be a further research on the
gender of the speakers, the length of utterances, and
the grammatical structure of the interruptions
produced by the students.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study acknowledges the valuable
contribution of the research adviser, Professor
Henelsie Mendoza for her continuous support and
guidance towards making improvements in this
research. For the researchers‟ families and friends,
who encouraged and motivated them to go beyond
the norm. Lastly, to God Almighty, for inspiring
them to do this not merely as a requirement but as a
fulfillment of His will.
6. REFERENCES
Al Sharaeai, W.A. (2012). Students' Perspectives on
the Use of L1 inEnglish Classrooms. Graduate
Theses and Dissertations. 12898.
Allwright, R. L. (1984). The Importance of
Interaction in Classroom Language. Learning
Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 156-171.
Anderson, L.R. & Blanchard, N.P. (1982). Sex
Differences in Task and Social-Emotional
Behavior. Basic and Applied Psychology 3: 109-
40.
Atkinson, J. M., & Heritage, J. (1984). Structures of
social action: Studies in conversation analysis.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1980).
Status Organizing Processes. Annual Review of
Sociology 6. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. 479-
508.
Cook, V.J. (2002b) Bilingual cognition. Paper
presented at the EUROSLA Annual Meeting,
Basel, September.
Dulay, H.C. & Burt, M.K. (1980). On acquisition
orders. Second Language Development: Trends
and Issues. Tübingen: Narr.
Ferguson, N. (1977). Simultaneous speech,
interruptions and dominance. British Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 16(4), 295-302. DOI:
10.1111/j.2044-8260.1977.tb00235.x.
7
Presented at the DLSU Research Congress 2018
De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
June 20 to 22, 2018
Gumperz, J. J., & Berenz, N. (1993).Transcribing
conversational exchanges. In J. A. Edwards & M.
D. Lampert (Eds.), Talking data: Transcription
and coding in discourse research. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. 91-121.
Hall, J. K. & Verplaetse, L. S. (2000). Second and
foreign language learning through classroom
interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Karpowitz, C. & Mendelberg, T. (2014). The Silent
Sex: Gender, Deliberation, and Institutions.
Princeton: Princeton University Press. Specific
pages retrieved from http://books.google.com
Langford, D. (1994). Analysing Talk: Investigating
Verbal Interaction in English. Basingstoke,
England: Macmillan. 1-190.
Manara, C. (2007). The Use of L1 Support: Teachers‟
and Students‟ - Opinions and Practices in an
Indonesian Context. The Journal of Asia TEFL,
4(1), 145-178.
Maroni, B., Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2008). Turn-
taking in classroom interactions: Overlapping,
interruptions and pauses in primary school.
European Journal of Psychology of Education,
23(1), 59-76.
Mesthrie, R., Swann, J., Deumert, A. & Leap, W.L.
(2009). Introducing sociolinguistics: second 43
edition. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Okamoto, D.G., Rashotte, L.S., & Smith-Lovin, L.
(2002). Measuring interruption: Syntactic and
contextual methods of coding conversation.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(1), 38-55.
Shabir, M. (2017). Student-Teachers‟ Beliefs on the
Use of L1 in EFL Classroom: A Global
Perspective. English Language Teaching, 10(4),
45-52. DOI: 10.5539/elt.v10n4p45
Shah, F.U., Khan, U. A., Khan, A. N. (2016). Effect of
interruption on academic achievement of
elementary students in NGOs supported schools
in d. I. Khan (Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) GUJR.
32(1). ISSN: 1019-8180
Smith-Lovin, L., and Brody, C. (1989). Interruptions
in group discussions: The effects of gender and
group composition. American Sociological
Review, 424-435.
Stubbs, K. (2014). The Effects of Gender on
Interruption among Peers. Undergraduate
Honors Theses. 195.
Tannen, D. (2005). Conversational Style: Analyzing
Talk among Friends. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. 272.
Tavakoli, P. (2011). Pausing patterns: Differences
between l2 learners and native speakers. ELT
Journal, 65(1), 71-79.
Van Lier, L. (1988). The Classroom and the
Language Learner. London: Longman
Weinrich, U. (1953) Languages in Contact. The
Hague: Mouton.
Xu, Y. (2009). Gender Differences in Mixed-Sex
Conversations - A Study of Interruptions.1-38.
Yang, L.-C. (2005) Prosodic Structures and Discourse
Organization. Proceedings of the XIIIth
International Congress of Phonetic Sciences in
Stockholm, Sweden. 2. 274-277.
Zimmerman, D. & West, C. (1975). Sex Roles,
Interruptions and Silences in Conversation.
Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance.
Rowley, Ma.: Newbury House. 105-129.
