This study employs the improved Flanders Interaction Analysis System (iFIAS) to examine teacher-student verbal interaction in different high school English lesson types, specifically a reading-and-thinking lesson and a listening-and-speaking lesson. Through quantitative coding and qualitative analysis of classroom video recordings, the study explores the characteristics of classroom verbal structure, teacher-student questioning patterns, and teaching styles across the two lesson types. The findings reveal that both lessons demonstrate a well-balanced distribution of teacher talk, student talk, classroom silence, and technology use, with student autonomy showing improvement compared to traditional classrooms. The teacher adopts differentiated questioning strategies and teaching styles in response to the distinct instructional objectives and student performance characteristics of each lesson type. This study provides empirical evidence and practical guidance for optimizing teacher-student interaction in secondary English classrooms, suggesting that teachers should create authentic language contexts to encourage student questioning and integrate technology to enhance interaction quality.

Yinghan Jiang. A Study on Teacher-Student Verbal Interaction in Different Types of High School English Classes Based on iFIAS. International Journal of New Developments in Education (2026), Vol. 8, Issue 4: 56-63. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2026.080409.

[1] Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. General Senior High School English Curriculum Standards (2017 edition, 2020 revision)[M]. Beijing: People's Education Press, 2020.

[2] Ye Z, Pang L J. The nature and characteristics of teacher-student interaction[J]. Educational Research, 2001, (04): 30-34.

[3] Flanders N A, Intent, action and feedback: A preparation for teaching [J]. Journal of Teacher Education, 1963, 3 (14): 251-260.

[4] Fang H G, Gao C Z, Chen J. An improved Flanders interaction analysis system and its application[J]. China Educational Technology, 2012, (10): 109-113.

[5] Fang H G, Kong X M, Zheng Z H, et al. A study on the calculation method of standard score norm for interaction behavior data in smart classroom: Based on the improved Flanders interaction analysis system (iFIAS)[J]. Journal of Distance Education, 2023, 41(05): 67-75.

[6] Inamullah H M, Hussain I, Din M N U. Teacher-students verbal interaction at the secondary level[J]. Journal of College Teaching & Learning (TLC), 2008, 5(9): 41-44.

[7] Zhang W T. An analysis of problems and exploration of solutions for teacher-student interaction in primary school classrooms[J]. Teaching and Administration, 2017, (30): 64-66.

[8] Yang C Y, Long Y D, Yang F. A case study of expert high school chemistry teachers' classroom teaching: Based on Flanders interaction analysis system[J]. Journal of Chemical Education, 2016, 37(11): 43-46.

[9] Cameron D L. An examination of teacher–student interactions in inclusive classrooms: teacher interviews and classroom observations[J]. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 2014, 14(4): 264-273.

[10] Huang Z H, Zhu N. A study on teacher-student verbal interaction in Chinese language classrooms of schools for the deaf: Based on Flanders interaction analysis system[J]. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 2019, (03): 48-55.

[11] Zhu H, Wang T T, Deng M, et al. A study on teacher-student verbal interaction in mathematics classrooms of special education schools for students with intellectual disabilities: Based on the improved Flanders interaction analysis system (iFIAS)[J]. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 2022, (01): 39-46.

[12] Subin K S, Bindu D. A Comparative Study of the Classroom Interaction in Vocational and Non Vocational Classes in the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala[J]. Online Submission, 2017, 2(1): 61-68.

[13] Wu H J, He J H. A study on classroom teaching behavior in secondary vocational education from the perspective of classroom revolution: Based on award-winning works from the national vocational college teaching ability competition[J]. Chinese Vocational and Technical Education, 2022, (14): 63-70.

[14] Tang Y B, Qiao Y, Liu S S, et al. What constitutes high-quality classroom interaction in vocational education? An observation of three typical secondary vocational classrooms[J]. Educational Development Research, 2024, 44(Z1): 60-69.

[15] Yang M, Ye Z H, Han Y H. A discourse analysis of teacher-student and student-student interaction in online courses: A case study of the "media-assisted English teaching" course at the open university of China[J]. Chinese Journal of Distance Education, 2019, 40(12): 34-41.

[16] Liu L Y. Characteristics analysis of teacher-student dialogue in primary school mathematics classrooms[D]. East China Normal University, 2012.

[17] Pan Y N, Wang S, Liu Y, et al. A study on teacher-student interaction in junior high school mathematics classrooms: An analysis based on video cases[J]. Theory and Practice of Education, 2015, 35(08): 59-61.

[18] Ye D L, Wan K, Zeng T, et al. A study on teacher-student interaction effects in a participatory teaching model based on flipped classroom[J]. Modern Educational Technology, 2014, 24(12): 77-83.

[19] Feng Z H, Wu W C, Hu X Y. A study on the coding of classroom interaction analysis for flipped classroom[J]. Journal of Distance Education, 2016, 34(04): 59-64.

[20] Shi Y H, Peng C L, Zhang J M, et al. An analysis of teacher-student interaction behavior in university smart classroom environments[J]. Modern Educational Technology, 2019, 29(01): 45-51.

[21] Jiang Y, Wang W, Li C Y, et al. A study on teacher-student interaction behavior in smart classroom environment[J]. Modern Distance Education, 2019, (03): 13-21.

[22] Mei D M, Wang Q. Interpretation of the general high school English curriculum standards (2017 edition, 2020 revision)[M]. Beijing: Higher Education Press, 2020.