*Corresponding Author P-ISSN: 1978-8118 E-ISSN: 2460-710X 33 Lingua Cultura, 16(1), July 2022, 33-41 DOI: 10.21512/lc.v16i1.7764 PEDAGOGIC INTERACTION IN AN ONLINE EFL CLASS AT A JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL IN DEPOK Fitria Azifah Dewi1; Sisilia Setiawati Halimi2* 1,2Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Humanities, University of Indonesia Jl. Prof. Dr. Selo Soemardjan, Kampus UI, Pondok Cina, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat 16424, Indonesia 1fazifah.dewi@gmail.com; 2sshalimi@gmail.com Received: 12th October 2021/Revised: 14th February 2022/Accepted: 16th February 2022 How to Cite: Dewi, F. A. & Halimi, S. S. (2022). Pedagogic interaction in an online EFL class at a junior high school in Depok. Lingua Cultura, 16(1), 33-41. https://doi.org/10.21512/lc.v16i1.7764 ABSTRACT The research was conducted to investigate how the teacher built pedagogic interactions with the students in an online EFL class in Depok, including how the teacher used speech structures, language shifts, and how the students perceived the interactions. The shift to online learning in the pandemic era had affected the quality of learning. Due to the complexity of online learning, interpersonal interactions between teachers and students were frequently overlooked in an online class. Applying exploratory sequential mixed methods, the research was meant to provide findings that could be used to improve the quality of online learning. It began with a qualitative research phase, and then the results of the qualitative phase were used to build into the quantitative phase. Classroom observations, stimulated recalls, and a questionnaire were used to collect the data. The results indicate that the EFL teacher builds his/her interactions by prioritizing pedagogical functions and targeting the students' cognitive domains. The dominant learning cycle is the focus phase with a pedagogical role as an information provider. Intramove is identified as the most frequently occurring code-switching type used for pedagogical, managerial, and technical functions. Translanguaging is also identified which gives rise to productive bilingualism. Overall, the pedagogic interactions that are established by the EFL teacher are well perceived by the students, and they give some suggestions for the quality improvement of EFL online learning so that future classes will be more interactive. More research on the aspects of class interactions during online learning should be carried out to help teachers improve the quality of their online teaching. Keywords: pedagogic interactions, online class, EFL class, code-switching INTRODUCTION The COVID-19 pandemic has caused all offline learning activities to be shifted to distance online learning. Zoom is one of the various online learning media used by most teachers (Atmojo & Nugroho, 2020) because it is able to facilitate face-to-face online learning and is real-time (synchronous). Online learning with video-teleconferencing (synchronous) requires students to activate their cognitive aspects more than online learning that is not real-time (asynchronous), such as online assignments with a certain response time limit (Payne, 2020). Teachers need to be able to continue to interact directly with students even though they are in a pandemic situation that requires learning to be carried out remotely. Moreover, in distance learning, there is a tendency to lack interaction, which causes students not to participate actively because they merely listen to explanations from teachers (Gillies, 2008 in Wu, Hsieh, & Yang, 2017). Teachers’ role in synchronous online learning is divided into four: pedagogical, social, managerial, and technical functions (Berge, 1995). In the pedagogical function, the teacher acts as a facilitator and moderator who provides explanations and asks questions to students to encourage them to discuss and develop their thinking skills. In the social function, the teacher plays a role in building pleasant and conducive interactions 34 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 16 No. 1, July 2022, 33-41 and interpersonal relationships with students during the learning process. In the managerial function, the teacher plays a role in regulating the progress of class discussion and interaction. In the technical function, the teacher’s role is to ensure that students are comfortable with the online system and their devices. Basically, the concept of online learning in the pandemic era needs to be examined because it has some fundamental differences from the concept of regular or general online learning. First, online learning is usually done willingly, while it is done out of necessity in the pandemic era. Second, regular online learning is well-planned that can take months, while in the pandemic era, it is sudden and thus tends to be unprepared (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020). Those two different online learning contexts give rise to a concept called Emergency Remote Teaching (ERT), which is considered suitable for the pandemic era (Bozkurt & Sharma, 2020; Hodges et al., 2020; Jiang & Yu, 2021). In the researchers’ opinion, the usage of the term ERT to refer to online learning is important to examine because this term has a similar meaning to that of online learning in general, but various aspects cannot be ruled out. Hodges et al. (2020) have stated that online learning in the pandemic era should focus more on the context, input, and process than the results. In other words, paying attention to students’ affective aspects in an online class in the pandemic era is something that cannot be ignored by teachers because the ‘suddenness’ brought about by the pandemic certainly affects students’ psychology in that they have to quickly adapt to the current situation. In addition, regular online learning success criteria tend to focus on students’ achievements or outcomes and are student-centred (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005). Meanwhile, online learning in the pandemic era, which is characterized by suddenness and limited preparation, cannot be expected to produce the same result as regular online learning. Although some of these characteristics do exist and are inevitable, it does not mean that efforts to make pandemic-era online learning successful are unnecessary. The basic principles of online learning can still be used as a reference for evaluating learning in this pandemic era. An online EFL class is a social context that has its own discourse. The various modalities used in teaching and learning activities, the large number of students in one classroom (Rose, 2014), and the target of learning a foreign language often hinder the teacher from building good interactions in an EFL class. Therefore, taking a closer look at the interactions that occur in an EFL classroom is an excellent initial step toward improving the quality of learning. In the research, the term teacher-student interaction is called pedagogic interaction (Rose, 2014; 2018), which is elaborated with a pedagogic register system to see the dominance of teacher- student interaction, particularly in relation to comprehensive pedagogic relations. The pedagogic register is a system for analyzing classroom discourse. Classroom discourse is a genre (Rose, 2014), and like other social genres such as the workplace, a classroom has its own social context. The pedagogic register is a Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL) system that includes fields, tenors, and modes. The field is in the form of pedagogic activities that are negotiated in the pedagogic relations between the teacher and students (tenors) and delivered through a variety of different pedagogic modalities such as oral speech, writing, gestures, and other somatic activities (modes) (Rose, 2018). Rose has added that the entire system is a forum for exchanging knowledge and values between the teacher and students. Figure 1 is a curriculum genre chart that describes the pedagogic register system (Rose, 2018). Figure 1 Classroom Discourse in a Pedagogic Register System The pedagogic register theory can help comprehensively describe teachers’ and students’ interaction patterns and their meanings in terms of pedagogical activity cycles, interpersonal relationships between teachers and students, and the modality used during face-to-face or online learning. A comprehensive description of the interaction patterns of teachers and students and their meanings is believed can help teachers improve the quality of learning in their class. In the research, considering the background and objectives, the researchers only examine aspects of pedagogic relations developed in various learning cycles or phases that are part of pedagogic activities. Previous studies related to this topic are conducted by Mariadi, Erwani, and Putri (2021) and Sepulveda- Escobar and Morrison (2020). Mariadi, Erwani, and Putri (2021) have found that online learning promotes good and effective classroom interaction if some factors, such as instruction, learners, and physical factors, are settled. The other research by Sepulveda- Escobar and Morrison (2020) has found that the lack of direct interaction with learners and the sudden change of setting strongly affected the participants’ own learning process. Both studies have revealed the need for further research to examine the interpersonal relationship between teachers and students in an online classroom often neglected. In response to this, 35Pedagogic Interaction in an Online .... (Fitria Azifah Dewi; Sisilia Setiawati Halimi) both researchers are motivated to further examine the realm of pedagogic relations as a representation of interpersonal metafunction in systemic functional linguistics. Pedagogic relations in classroom discourse are realized through interaction in the form of exchanges between a teacher and students when they negotiate meaning (Rose, 2018). The exchange of speech is divided into two aspects: Knowledge (symbolized by K) and Action (symbolized by A). Meanwhile, the teacher or student can serve the role of a primary speaker/actor or a secondary speaker/actor for each speech exchange. The purpose of knowledge utterances is to convey learning content and provide feedback so that these utterances are primarily dominated by the teacher. However, the learner can also play the role of a secondary speaker in using this type of utterance when answering questions from the teacher. The purpose of the action utterance is to effect action, so the main actor will usually ask permission to do something, and the secondary actor has the role of approving the action. In building this interpersonal relationship, further exchanges of speech can occur, such as delaying (symbolized by d), following up speech (symbolized by f), giving challenges (symbolized by ch), or clarifying (symbolized by cl). In every utterance generated by the teacher and students, there is also an interact and act system (Rose, 2018). The interact and act systems are inseparable in speech analysis. Interact is the intention of the speaker’s/doer’s utterance, such as directing or qualifying. Meanwhile, an act is an action that is expected to follow up on interactions, such as directing attention, qualifying knowledge, and so on. In addition to the pedagogic relations, the researchers also look at the learning cycle built by the EFL teacher in the online class. The learning cycle is one part of the pedagogic activities, which refers to the various phases of learning activities. In one learning cycle, there are five phases (Rose, 2014, 2018): the preparation phase, the focus phase (question and answer), the assignment phase, the evaluation phase, and the elaboration phase. The five phases do not only occur in one learning cycle because there can be more than one learning cycle containing a repetition of phases in one meeting. In an EFL class, classroom discourse cannot be separated from the phenomenon of language switching from L1 to L2 or vice versa. The phenomenon of switching between two or more languages in a multilingual and multicultural community as a communication strategy is called code-switching (Doqaruni, 2017). The complexity of the interaction of pedagogic discourse in a bilingual EFL class calls for efforts to see the causes of such code-switching and not merely look at the code-switching types. The research uses two types of code-switching, which are predicted to be able to describe the pattern of interaction in a multilingual EFL class (Kartika-Ningsih & Rose, 2018) by connecting them to the analysis of the pedagogic register. Those two code-switching types are interrole (switching between roles) and intrarole (switching between utterances in one role). Interrole is a type of code-switching that occurs between roles in one speech exchange. For example, when the teacher starts the speech using L1 (native language), the student responds using L2 (foreign language), and the teacher closes the speech exchange by giving an evaluation using L2. The intrarole type is further divided into intermove and intramove. In the intermove type, the teacher uses L1 and L2 when starting and/or closing the speech exchange. The third type of code-switching is the most common in bilingual classes, which is intramove. In the intramove type, the teacher uses L1 and L2 in one utterance or one sentence at a time. Research on code-switching in an online EFL context is still infrequent since most research related to online EFL class has only focused on multimodality aspects (Adinolfi & Astruc, 2017) or bilingual class in general (Cahyani, de Courcy, & Barnett, 2018). Research related to code-switching needs to be conducted to help EFL teachers get references for effective translation practices, considering that there is still a tendency in foreign language classes that teachers should maximize their use of L2 (Liu et al., 2004). The research focuses on classroom discourse with an emphasis on teacher-student interactions that are built from a comprehensive pedagogical aspect in an online EFL class in a junior high school. In addition, the researchers also look at the students’ perceptions of how the teacher built pedagogic interactions with them in an online EFL class. Thus, the research seeks to answer three questions: (1) How does the teacher use speech structures when building interactions with students in an online EFL class? (2) How does the teacher use code/language switching in an online EFL class? (3) What is the students’ perception of the interactions built by the teacher in the online EFL class? The researchers focus on teacher and student interaction in an online class by looking at class discourse analysis built between the two. The researchers believe that this is the most important part of online learning that has not been researched thoroughly. By examining the classroom discourse, investigating how the teacher used code-switching in online and distributing a questionnaire, the pattern of pedagogical interactions can be identified. The researchers could offer good recommendations for teachers and further research. The findings of the research are expected to be able to help direct the practice of teaching EFL in online classes, especially how teachers deliver effective instruction or speech to students and build interpersonal relationships with students so that teacher professional development programs can be well designed. It is also expected that the findings can provide future directions for further research in English online learning. 36 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 16 No. 1, July 2022, 33-41 METHODS The case study research applies mixed methods with an exploratory sequential design that starts with collecting qualitative data, followed by quantitative data, and ends by integrating the two to answer research questions. The research is conducted online by joining an online EFL class in grade 8 using the Zoom learning application at a private junior high school X in Depok city. It is claimed that the class is the top English class in that school. Online class observations are carried out for six meetings. The duration of each meeting is 80 minutes. The research participants in this online EFL class are an EFL teacher aged 37, and 25 students aged 13–14. Two units of learning material are delivered by the EFL teacher in this research. Each unit has a different theme and focuses on four language skills (listening, reading, writing, and speaking) and grammatical contents. However, during six observations in the online EFL class, the researchers observe that the teacher only focuses on the listening and grammar contents. The teacher confirms that this is done for the sake of efficiency due to limited learning time in the online class. The researchers use three research instruments: class observation, stimulated recall, and questionnaire. The class observation is carried out to answer the first research question about how the teacher uses speech structures when building interactions with students in an online EFL class. The stimulated recall is used to answer the second research question about how the teacher uses code-switching in an online EFL class. The last instrument which is utilized to obtain quantitative data is a questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of three parts. The first part consists of three questions asking for participants’ information, including name, age, and experience of learning English online. The second part consists of 16 closed-ended questions with five Likert scale answer options. The questions aim to find out how the teacher establishes interactions with the students in online English class. The third part of the questionnaire contains four open- ended questions, which ask for the students’ reflections and suggestions regarding the interactions built by the teacher in the online English class. The total number of questions in the questionnaire is 23 questions. The writing of the questionnaire questions is based on the pedagogic interaction theory (Rose, 2014; 2018). Before distributing the questionnaires, the researchers conduct a pilot study involving several respondents to test the questionnaire’s reliability. After that, the researchers check the pilot study results using the Cronbach's alpha formula. The result of the pilot study is quite high at 0,606 points, which shows that the questionnaire is well-written and is ready to be used. After collecting the data, the researchers analyze them by classifying the teacher’s utterances into categories consisting of the function or role of the teacher, the pedagogic role, the learning phase, the interact and act system, and code-switching types. After the data have been analyzed according to the categories, the researchers conduct an inter-rater test to ensure that the data analysis is sufficiently reliable. An assessor classifies the resulting speech data based on pedagogic roles, pedagogy phases, and pedagogic relations that include interact and act systems. The pedagogic roles generate an agreement value of 0,95, which means it belongs to the category of almost perfect agreement. The pedagogic phases generate an agreement value of 0,89, putting it in the category of almost perfect agreement. Pedagogic relations generate an agreement value of 0,78, putting it in the category of substantial agreement. These explanations clearly illustrate how the researchers carry out the research. It has also clearly described the research design, the replicable research procedures, and the way to summarize and analyze the data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The following is information about the accumulation of speech function data in an online EFL class. Figure 2 Speech Functions in Online EFL Class Figure 2 shows that in all utterances collected from the six online class meetings, 57,71% are classified as pedagogical function, 28,45% are classified as managerial function, 11,07% are classified as a technical function, and 2,77% are classified as social function. The pedagogical function utterances that mostly occurred in the online EFL class aim to trigger opinions from students, ask questions by the teacher, repeat the material that has been taught by the teacher, and explain concepts contained in the material by the teacher. The managerial function utterances in the online EFL class are mostly used by the teacher to ensure that students are ready to learn, regulate students’ behavior during the learning process, arrange students’ turns to answer questions, and inform students how to carry out online assignments. Technical function utterances in the online EFL class cover various purposes, which are to check the synchronicity of the screen display, check students’ engagement, and check connection 37Pedagogic Interaction in an Online .... (Fitria Azifah Dewi; Sisilia Setiawati Halimi) stability. The social function utterances in the online EFL class generally aim to reprimand a student for the behavior and examine the condition of the student’s learning environment. Even though social functions are at the lowest frequency of all roles, the teacher still tries to maximize her role as an online class facilitator by paying attention to the students’ affective aspects. Overall, the utterances generated from teacher- student interactions in the online EFL class still focus on the pedagogical function or teaching content but lacked in building deeper interpersonal relationships such as maximizing social or affective functions. Although the four speech functions in online classes are not possible to be used with exactly the same frequency (Berge, 1995), an online teacher is expected to pay attention to at least the aspects of content and interaction with students as much as possible. The teacher’s concern is about core and basic competencies set by the government and have to be mastered by the students. This can be one of the factors which lead them to focus more on the contents of the material. It seems that the primary objective is to convey all materials in their entirety. This finding, however, should be seriously addressed during the pandemic because, in online learning, social and affective interactions cannot happen outside class sessions. Awareness about this should be raised among teachers. Next, Table 1 shows the data analysis of pedagogic relations, including interact and act systems. The results of the interact data analysis in Table 1 show that the teacher builds interactions more by teaching than by soliciting at 69,71% and 30,29%, respectively. Meanwhile, the results of the act system analysis show that the teacher builds more interactions by prioritizing thought or cognitive process at 45,47%, followed by student behaviors at 22,23%, perceptive aspects at 13,04%, affective aspects at 11,86%, joint activities at 6,40%, and finally teacher evaluation at 1,01%. Table 1 shows that interact teaching dominates the teacher’s speech in the online EFL class at 69,71%. The details of the teaching system data analysis are shown in Figure 3. Figure 3 Interact Teaching System Figure 3 shows that the interact system in teaching is divided into three activities, namely evaluating, presenting, and directing. Of the three interact systems, evaluating has the highest frequency at 57%, followed by presenting at 24,05%, and directing at 18,73%. These findings indicate that teachers build interactions more by providing feedback or evaluations than by delivering materials and directing students. EFL teaching in an online class that focuses on grammar results in a teaching system is dominated by the activity of giving feedback. The dominance of the teaching system in an online EFL class also indicates a teacher-centred learning model. This is in line with the researchers’ finding that the online class applies an act system that prioritizes the thinking process or targets students’ cognitive domain. The impact of this is that the teacher focuses on delivering materials and providing feedback to students but pays little attention to the students’ affective side and provides few discussion activities. During the online learning process, there are phases that keep repeating themselves and form a learning cycle: preparation, specification or focus, task, evaluation, elaboration, and direction. Figure 4 shows the results of the researchers’ data analysis on six online EFL class meetings in terms of those phases. Figure 4 Pedagogic Phases in an Online EFL Class Figure 4 shows that teacher establishes interaction with the students mostly in the focus phase at 37,07%, followed by the evaluation phase at 22,05%, the assignment phase at 21,57%, the preparation phase at 7,29%, the elaboration phase at 6,44%, and the direction phase at 5,59%. The interactions built by the teacher in each phase can be categorized into different roles. Figure 5 shows the results of the data analysis of the pedagogic roles in the online EFL class. Figure 5 shows that the teacher’s most dominant Table 1 Pedagogic Relations EFL Teacher’s Interact System EFL Teacher’s Act System Soliciting Teaching Behaviours Teacher Evaluation Joint Activity Perceptive Cognitive Affective 30,29% 69,71 % 22,23 % 1,01 % 6,40 % 13,04 % 45,47 % 11,86 % 38 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 16 No. 1, July 2022, 33-41 role when building interaction with the students is K1 (delivering and evaluating), at 26,86%. The researchers have also found that K1 is the most common role in all phases of learning at each meeting. This is in line with Havwini’s (2019) finding that the most dominant initiation act of an EFL teacher’s utterance in adult class is asking questions or giving prompt questions. The teacher’s second and third most dominant role is K2 and dK1. In dK1 utterances, the teacher asks students questions in order to check or test their understanding. The pattern that most often emerged in relation to this is the teacher’s dK1 utterance which is usually followed by a student’s direct answer (K2) or by the teacher’s challenge (ch), which is usually triggered by the absence of any response from the students. This pattern makes the ch and rch (response to challenge) roles rank the next highest at 8,21% and 7,47%, respectively. Ch and rch utterances not only are scattered and emerged after dK1 utterances but also followed other roles and usually arose when no student responded to the teacher’s prompts. When producing responding-to-challenges (rch) utterances in the online class, the teacher does several activities, including calling a student’s name again, moving to another student, asking students to repeat their statements, and providing feedback to students. Figure 5 Pedagogic Roles Note: A1 : primary actor A2 : secondary actor A2f : secondary actor-follow up K1 : primary knower K2 : secondary knower K2f : secondary knower-follow up dK1 : delayed primary knower K1f : primary knower-follow up ch : challenge rch : response to challenge dA1 : delayed primary actor tr : tracking rtr : response to tracking cl : clarification rcl : response to clarification In relation to the learning cycle, Rose (2018) has described the tendency of the role relations in speech utterance with learning phases, as seen in Figure 6. Figure 6 shows that the role tendency in the preparation phase is K1, in the focus phase is dK1, in the assignment phase is K2, in the evaluation phase is K1, and in the elaboration phase is K1. Even though not entirely the same as Rose’s theory (2018), the dominance of these roles is quite consistent throughout the researchers’ observation of the six online EFL class meetings, as shown in Figure 7. Figure 6 Role Tendency in Learning Phase (Rose, 2018) Figure 7 Role Tendency during Learning Phases in an Online EFL Class Figure 7 shows the role tendency that is most in line with Rose’s (2018) pedagogic activity theory that can be found in the evaluation and elaboration phases, which is at 100%. In both phases, most of the activities done by the teacher can be categorized as delivering knowledge (K1). In the preparation phase, the K1 role is also quite dominant at 66%. Likewise, the K2 role is very dominant in the assignment phase at 83%. This naturally happens because, in the assignment phase, the students are more active in answering questions. However, in the focus phase, the researchers have also noticed that the dK1 role only emerges as much as 33%. Other roles identified in the focus phase are K2 by the students at 80% and by the teacher at 20%, and the teacher plays the K1 role by providing feedback and delivering information. This shows that when the EFL teacher asks the students questions related to the materials taught, the students are found to reply directly. However, the reply does not answer the questions; instead, they ask similar questions (K2), and the teacher has to re-explain the materials (K1). 39Pedagogic Interaction in an Online .... (Fitria Azifah Dewi; Sisilia Setiawati Halimi) There are several factors that may have caused this to happen. First, the researchers have found that the elaboration phase only happens 7,29% throughout the six online EFL class meetings. Lack of elaboration and examples when explaining the concepts contained in the materials, particularly those about grammar, could have reduced students’ understanding of the topic, so re-asking questions are the most effective solution that they can adopt. Second, the lack of a good internet connection during listening activities carried out by playing videos may have caused students to miss several pieces of information. Third, problems related to the affective aspect of the students, such as boredom when participating in online lessons, may have also interfered with their focus when listening to the teacher’s questions and explanations. In order to build productive interaction with students in an online EFL class, the use of code- switching by the teacher becomes an unavoidable phenomenon. To answer the second research question, the results of the researchers’ analysis of the teacher’s code-switching in the online EFL class are presented in Figure 8. Figure 8 Teacher’s Code-Switching in an Online EFL Class Figure 8 shows that to build interactions with the students, the teacher mostly uses the intramove type of code-switching at 88,22%, followed by the interrole code-switching type at 8,27%, and by the intermove type at 3,51%. This fact is in line with the statement by Kartika-Ningsih and Rose (2018) that intramove is the most common type of code-switching that occurs in daily bilingual conversations and multilingual language classes, including the online EFL class in this research. The learning content, mostly about grammar, is one factor that leads the teacher to switch from L2 to L1 or vice versa in a single exchange. Teachers’ tendency to use L1 while explaining language structures aims to ease students’ understanding of the grammar lesson. Mujiono (2016) has reported that the most dominant factor causing teachers to switch language is the students’ use of L1 when interacting with the teacher. It is also stated that the use of code-switching can help learners acquire English better (Puspawati, 2018; Rido & Sari, 2018; Zainil, 2019). The practice of translanguaging is also identified in the EFL class. Translanguaging departs from a heteroglossic perspective which sees two or more languages as an integrated linguistic system (Garcia, Lin, & May, 2016; Vogel & Garcia, 2017). Both the teacher and the students in the research use two languages during class without hesitation, and this shows that translanguaging is also encountered in this online EFL grammar class. This is encountered when the participants are talking about matters related to technical functions, such as when the internet connection is disrupted or when the teacher and students wish to build more rapport. The occurrence of translanguaging indicates that the teacher no longer limited themselves to using only one language and is aware of the benefits of using two languages interchangeably. In other words, the teacher maximizes his/her two linguistic resources in both L1 and L2 and spontaneously offers the students the freedom to do the same, albeit indirectly. This gives rise to the phenomenon of productive bilingualism. In this paradigm, code-switching is a communication strategy. It is carried out in a planned manner to help a bilingual convey his/her message, but in the context of translanguaging, the flexibility aspect becomes stronger. In other words, a communication strategy that a teacher uses in an online EFL classroom can change depending on the context he/she is dealing with. In this online class, the type of intramove code- switching, namely the mixing of two languages in one exchange, is dominant. In the online EFL class, code- switching becomes an inevitable practice because of the importance of making the best use of the limited teaching time. As the answer to the third research question, the researchers’ analysis shows that students’ perceptions of interactions built by the EFL teacher during online class meetings are quite positive at 79%. However, the interaction built by the teacher is only able to actively involve 44% of students. Students hope that the teacher can be more interactive in building interactions in online EFL classes, such as giving games, increasing discussion and group work, not being too fixated on PowerPoint Presentation (PPT) explanations, maximizing the use of two languages in an online class, being more tolerant of connection problems in an online class, and improving teacher’s internet connections so that online learning process could run more effectively. According to Irawan & Salija (2017), giving appreciation can encourage student motivation and make students feel valued. The findings of this research demonstrate the students’ high need for the EFL teacher’s attention to their affective aspects. This stems from the high psychological pressure of participating in ERT online learning that students may experience. This should be informed to not only the teacher in this research but also to other teachers because, as confirmed in previous research by Nasir, Yusuf, and Wardana (2019), the less attention a teacher pays to the affective side of learners, the greater the tendency of the teacher to dominate speech in class. If 40 LINGUA CULTURA, Vol. 16 No. 1, July 2022, 33-41 this happens, a teacher-centred model will dominate online learning, and it will not be able to fulfil students’ expectations of more-interactive learning. CONCLUSIONS Pedagogic interactions, which include the functions of the teacher’s speech, interact systems, and dominating teaching content, cannot be separated from the practice of code-switching and raises students’ perceptions of the overall interaction built by the teacher. It can be concluded that the interaction built by the teacher in the online EFL class is more focused on serving pedagogical functions than paying attention to target students’ cognitive domains. The code-switching practice performed by the teacher gives rise to the practice of productive bilingualism and indicates that the use of code-switching can be integrated with the translanguaging phenomenon in an online EFL class. Overall, students consider that the pedagogic interactions built by the EFL teacher in their online class have been carried out well. Students’ recommendations for the teacher to improve his/her online EFL teaching methods seem to be in line with the literature regarding one aspect of ERT online learning, which emphasizes the need for more attention to the learners’ affective aspects than merely to their pedagogical aspects. ERT online learning and regular online learning are slightly different concepts that require all educational practitioners to determine the portion of classroom discourse for pedagogical, managerial, technical, and social or affective functions and adjust it to the learners’ needs and age. The social or affective functions need special attention from all teachers who teach English online because the absence of this can demotivate students in learning English. Regarding the contribution to the bilingual aspect and the EFL classroom, this research indicates the importance of further socializing the practice of translanguaging to EFL education practitioners and EFL teachers. This is important because the separation of two languages and two linguistic resources of a bilingual is one of the main concerns in Indonesian EFL teaching. A bilingual who maximizes the use of two languages for the purpose of understanding lessons is often considered less skilled in English. It is time that EFL teaching in Indonesia may adopt a translanguaging perspective and makes it a factor in strengthening the linguistic resources of Indonesian students, most of whom are bilingual and even multilingual. The limitation of the research is the fact that it does not discuss all aspects of Rose’s pedagogic interaction in 2014 and 2018 since it only focuses on the pedagogic relation aspects and the learning cycle. Future research can address the pedagogic modalities aspects, which also need to be investigated because they are related to the use of learning resources used by teachers in an online class. In addition, future researchers can add the number of classes and research participants to obtain more generalized results. Advanced researchers may also consider carrying out research on online EFL classes for young learners or adult learners. The theoretical implication of the research is that the pedagogic register theory by Rose (2014, 2018), which actually departs from and for offline classes for general literacy-based subjects, has been proven to be able to be used to analyze data obtained from an online EFL class that focuses on listening and grammar skills. This can be considered as the most important contribution and the new finding of the research. By using this theory, more aspects of class interactions during online learning can be analyzed and explained clearly so that researchers can inform teachers on how to improve the quality of their online teaching. Future researchers may also consider applying the pedagogic register theory to investigate online EFL classes, focusing on reading, writing, or speaking skills. REFERENCES Adinolfi, L., & Astruc, L. (2017). An exploratory study of translanguaging practices in an online beginner- level foreign language classroom. Journal of the European Confederation of Language Centres in Higher Education (CercleS), 7(1), 185-204. https:// doi.org/10.1515/cercles-2017-0008. Atmojo, A. E. P., & Nugroho, A. (2020). EFL classes must go online! Teaching activities and challenges during COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia. Register Journal, 13(1), 49-76. https://doi.org/10.18326/rgt. v13i1.49-76. Berge, Z. L. (1995). Facilitating computer conferencing: Recommendations from the field. Educational Technology, 35(1), 22-30. Bozkurt, A., & Sharma, R. C. (2020). Emergency remote teaching in a time of global crisis due to CoronaVirus pandemic. Asian Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 1-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.3778083. Cahyani, H., de Courcy, M., & Barnett, J. (2018). Teachers’ code-switching in bilingual classrooms: Exploring pedagogical and sociocultural functions. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(4), 465-479. https://doi.org/10.108 0/13670050.2016.1189509. Doqaruni, V. S. (2017). Communication strategies in experienced vs. inexperienced teachers’ talk: A sign of transformation in teacher cognition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching, 11(1), 17-31. https://doi.org/10.1080/17501229.2015.1009071. Garcia, O., Lin, A., & May, S. (2016). Bilingual and multilingual education. Denmark: Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02324-3_9-1. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133-148. http://dx.doi. org/10.1207/s15389286ajde1903_2. 41Pedagogic Interaction in an Online .... (Fitria Azifah Dewi; Sisilia Setiawati Halimi) Havwini, T. (2019). Investigating the interaction patterns in EFL virtual classroom: A case study. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 377, 192-196. https://dx.doi.org/10.2991/ icaess-19.2019.36. Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The difference between emergency remote teaching and online learning. In Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International License. Retrieved from https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the- difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching- and-online-learning. Irawan, E., & Salija, K. (2017). Teachers’ oral feedback in EFL classroom interaction (A descriptive study of senior high school in Indonesia). ELT Worldwide: Journal of English Language Teaching, 4(2), 138- 152. Jiang, L., & Yu, S. (2021). Understanding changes in EFL teachers’ feedback practice during COVID-19: Implications for teacher feedback literacy at a time of crisis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 30, 509-518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-021- 00583-9. Kartika-Ningsih, H., & Rose, D. (2018). Language shift: Analysing language use in multilingual classroom interactions. Functional Linguistics, 5(9), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0061-0. Liu, D., Ahn, G., Baek, K., & Han, N. (2004). South Korean high school English teachers’ code switching: Questions and challenges in the drive for maximal use of English in teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 605-638. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588282. Mariadi, M., Erwani, P., & Putri, R. T. (2021). The pedagogy in online learning: Challenges and opportunities. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Bahasa Dan Sastra, 1(1), 22-32. Mujiono. (2016). Code switching in English instruction and factors affecting the language attitude of indonesian EFL learners in using it. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 2(4), 12-24. Nasir, C., Yusuf, Y. Q., & Wardana, A. (2019). A qualitative study of teacher talk in an EFL classroom interaction in Aceh Tengah, Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 8(3), 525-535. https://doi. org/10.17509/ijal.v8i3.15251. Payne, J. S. (2020). Developing L2 productive language skills online and the strategic use of instructional tools. Foreign Language Annals, 53(2), 243-249. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/flan.12457. Puspawati, I. (2018). Teachers’ use of code switching in EFL classroom and its functions. Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 42-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.18196/ftl.3128. Rido, A., & Sari, F. M. (2018). Characteristics of classroom interaction of English language teachers in Indonesia and Malaysia. International Journal of Language Education, 2(1), 40-50. https://doi.org/10.26858/ ijole.v2i1.5246. Rose, D. (2014). Analysing pedagogic discourse: An approach from genre and register. Functional Linguistics, 1(11), 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40554-014-0011-4. Rose, D. (2018). Pedagogic register analysis: Mapping choices in teaching and learning. Functional Linguistics, 5(3), 1-33. https://doi.org/10.1186/ s40554-018-0053-0. Sepulveda-Escobar, P., & Morrison, A. (2020). Online teaching placement during the COVID-19 pandemic in Chile: Challenges and opportunities. European Journal of Teacher Education, 43(4), 587-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1820981. Vogel, S., & Garcia, O. (2017). Translanguaging. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.181 Wu, W. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flipped classroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. International Forum of Educational Technology & Society, 20(2), 142-157. Zainil, Y. (2019). Pedagogical practices of code-switching in EFL classrooms in Padang, Indonesia. In The First ELEHIC Social Sciences on Sustainable Development for World Challenge: The First Economics, Law, Education and Humanities International Conference (pp. 634-643).