References

• Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language Pedagogy. 2nd Ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc
• Bughio, I. A., Abro, Q. M. M., & Rashdi, P. R. S. (2014). Effective Online Distance Learning In Pakistan and Challenges. International Journal of Management Sciences, 2(6), 274- 279.
• Cassidy, M. (1998). Historical perspectives on teaching with technology in K-12 schools. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 6(2), 170-184.
• Cohen, I. (2011). Teacher-student interaction in classrooms of students with specific learning difficulties learning English as a foreign language. Journal of Interactional Research in communication disorders.
• Dagarin, M. (2004). Classroom interaction and communication strategies in learning English as a foreign. ELOPE, 1, 127-139.
• Edwards, B. (2009, October 25). Classic PCs vs. New PCs: Their true cost. Technologizer.Retrieved from
• Fu, J. (2013). Complexity of ICT in education: A critical literature review and its implications. International Journal of Education and Development using ICT, 9(1), 112-125.
• Ghavifekr, S., & Rosdy, W. A. W. (2015). Teaching and learning with technology: Effectiveness of ICT integration in schools. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 1(2), 175-191.
• Grismore, B. A. (2012). Mini Technology Manual for Schools: An Introduction to Technology Integration. Online Submission.
• Hong, H. (2009). Teacher-student interaction in Singapore classrooms: a corpus-based study. Center for research in pedagogy and practice, National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological university, Singapore,
• Kingston, P., Morgan, J., & Wagstaff, A. (1992). The impact of new learning technologies in education. Education Training.
• Lee, S. C., & Irving, K. E. (2018). Development of Two-Dimensional Classroom Discourse Analysis Tool (CDAT): scientific reasoning and dialog patterns in the secondary science classes. International Journal of STEM education, 5(1), 1-17.
• Lee, S. C., & Karen E. I. (2018). Development of Two-Dimensional Classroom Discourse Analysis Tool (CDAT): scientific reasoning and dialog patterns in the secondary science classes. International Journal of STEM education, 5(1), 1-17.
• Muzdalifah. (2016). An Analysis of Classroom Interaction in Speaking Class at the Third Semester of English Department. Muhammadiyah University of Makassar.
• Pinkeviciene. (2011). Triadic dialogue in efl classroom: embedded extension. Studies about languages.
• Richards, J. & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective Teaching In Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
• Rustandi, A. (2013). Meaning negotiation between teachers and students in fledgling international standardized school. International Journal of English and education, 2(3).
• Sinclair, J. M. H. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis ofdDiscourse. The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Usher, A. (2012).What Nontraditional Approaches Can Motivate Unenthusiastic Students?. Center on Education Policy.
• Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
• Yelland, N. (2003). Learning in school and out: formal and informal experiences with computer games in mathematical contexts. In Learning in School, Home and Community (pp. 3-12): Springer.
• Young, R. (2008). Using technology tools in the public school classroom.