A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries

Strobelberger, Katrin

A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltsangabe:Introduction:
In our world of internationalisation and globalisation, teaching and learning take place in a transnational and global context. It is a proven fact that children spend significant periods of their lives in school and it is widely acknowledged among teachers as well as researchers that classroom discourse plays a crucial part in the process of learning. Language, after all, is which the business of schooling is primarily accomplished in. Learning takes place to a great extent when interacting with fellow students or the teacher.
Therefore, classroom language studies, investigating what classroom discourse actually looks like (instead of stating what it should be), are of great importance. Nowadays language studies are to be seen as social and cultural practises embedded in a comprehensive and potentially global process. The study of classroom language and interaction is central to the study of classroom learning. Analysing classroom discourse in order to highlight its characteristic features, therefore, constitutes a worthwhile task since its findings may be used to improve teaching. In this way teachers might become more aware of the way teachers and learners jointly create learning opportunities, and subsequently classroom discourse might be adjusted in order to enhance learning. Interestingly in this respect is Walshs reference to teachers interactional awareness, characterised as the use of meta-language, critical self-evaluation and more conscious interactive decision making. A detailed analysis of classroom discourse possibly helps heighten teachers awareness with regard to classroom interaction.
In conclusion, the increased importance of language in our multicultural societies calls for a detailed investigation of features of classroom discourse with the overall aim of improving teaching and consequently learning. Analyzing classroom discourse is at the heart of the study presented here. The central idea of my enquiry is to compare classroom discourse in two countries. Comparatively studying classroom discourse in two countries will reveal different pedagogical traditions and their underlying social values. The focus of my study is on classes of English as a foreign language taught by a team of a non-native teacher and a native assistant. This analysis of teacher-assistant collaboration, a frequent yet under-researched form of practice, will also help to improve teaching. More background information on my […]

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Katrin Strobelberger

A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries

ISBN: 978-3-8428-2017-3

Herstellung: Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2011

Zugl. University of Bath, Bath, Großbritannien, MA-Thesis / Master, 2010

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von

Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der

Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,

bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung

dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen

der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich

vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des

Urheberrechtes.

Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in

diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,

dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können

Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder

Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl.

verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.

http://www.diplomica.de, Hamburg 2011

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the help and support that I received

from the following people during the period of study of this dissertation.

Above all, my sincere thanks go to my parents and my aunt Herta, who

offered me valuable support throughout my M.A. studies. I also want to

thank my supervisor David Skidmore for the supervision of my thesis.

Moreover, I would like to thank those colleagues of mine who provided

technical equipment as well as valuable comments on my study. Last but

not least, I want to express my gratitude to the participants of my study.

ABSTRACT

This dissertation analyses examples of classroom discourse, one of the

most important influences on students' experience in schools, in EFL

classes. The central idea of my enquiry was to compare classroom

discourse in two secondary schools in two European countries, namely

Austria on the one hand, and Spain on the other hand. The focus of my

study is on EFL classes taught by a team of a non-native speaker teacher

and a native-speaker assistant.

The purposes of my study were to gain insights into classroom

communication, to compare classroom discourse in two different countries

to see whether culturally specific rules of classroom communication might

apply, and to investigate the contact situation of two different (if existent)

communication strategies in classroom discourse. Therefore, my study

aimed to answer the following research question: Do the cultural modes of

classroom communication in EFL classes (taught by a team of a teacher

and an assistant) differ from each other? The data needed for this study

was collected by means of video-recording; audio-portions were

transcribed; and these data were analysed using methods of

Conversational Analysis. I focused in particular on turn-taking, the

occurrence of the IRF sequence and simultaneous speech, as well as

restarts and pauses.

My analysis has shown how certain conversational structures, such as

simultaneous speech or the IRE / IRF sequence, work in classroom

discourse. The results hint at different cultural modes of classroom

communication, the main differences concerning the presence of the

teacher in the discourse, the degree of smoothness with which the

discourse proceeds and the students' degree of involvement in

communication. Furthermore, the data show that there are indeed

different communication strategies used in classes taught by a team.

Interaction with an assistant might increase students' talking time and

might, if the assistant is given enough freedom, also result in more fluent

student discourse. In addition, my data suggest that some communication

strategies are preferable in the context of EFL teaching with the aim of

enhancing communicative competence, namely not interfering with regard

to content, not selecting next speakers, and offering open discussion

activities.

- 1 -

Table of content

I. INTRODUCTION

- 3 -

II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

- 5 -

III. LITERATURE REVIEW

- 8 -

III. 1. The organisation of conversation

- 9 -

III. 2. Classroom discourse

- 11 -

III. 2.1. Teacher talk and the IRE sequence

- 11 -

III. 2. 2. Classroom turn-taking

- 15 -

III. 2. 3. Interactional competence

- 16 -

III. 2. 4. From teacher-centred classrooms to other forms of teaching

- 17 -

III. 2. 5. New forms of pedagogy

- 19 -

III. 3. Classroom discourse in foreign language teaching

- 22 -

III. 3. 1. Second Language Acquisition

- 23 -

III. 3. 2. Communicative foreign language teaching

- 24 -

III.3.3. Communicative Competence

- 27 -

III. 4. Cultural differences in pedagogic traditions

- 29 -

IV. METHODOLOGY

- 32 -

IV.1. Research question

- 32 -

IV.2. Research strategy and design

- 32 -

IV.2.1. Research strategy

- 33 -

IV.2.2. Research design

- 33 -

IV.2.3. Brief description of my two cases

- 36 -

IV.3. Methods of data collection

- 36 -

IV.3.1. The recordings

- 37 -

IV.3.2. Ethics

- 38 -

IV. 4. Methods of data analysis

- 39 -

IV.4.1. Transcribing the data

- 40 -

IV.4.2. Analysing my data

- 41 -

IV.4.3. Validity and reliability

- 42 -

V. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

- 44 -

V.1. Analysis of the Austrian transcripts

- 44 -

V.1.1: Transcript AU1: focus on the interaction between teacher and teaching assistant

- 44 -

V.1.2.: Transcript AU2: student group with the teacher

- 48 -

V.1.3.: Transcript AU3: student group with the teaching assistant

- 52 -

V.2. Analysis of the Spanish transcripts

- 54 -

V.2.1.: Transcripts SP1a and SP1b: focus on the interaction between teacher and teaching assistant

- 54 -

V.2.2.: Transcripts SP2 and SP3: student groups (partly joined by the teacher or teaching assistant)

- 59 -

- 2 -

V.3. Austrian transcripts compared

- 60 -

V.4. Spanish transcripts compared

- 63 -

V.5. Austrian and Spanish interaction compared

- 64 -

VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS

- 67 -

LIST OF REFERENCES

- 72 -

APPENDIX I: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS

- 77 -

APPENDIX II: TRANSCRIPTS

- 78 -

- 3 -

I. Introduction

In our world of internationalisation and globalisation, teaching and learning take place in a

transnational and global context. It is a proven fact that children spend significant periods of

their lives in school and it is widely acknowledged among teachers as well as researchers that

classroom discourse plays a crucial part in the process of learning. Language, after all, is

which the business of schooling is primarily accomplished in. Learning takes place to a great

extent when interacting with fellow students or the teacher.

Therefore, classroom language studies, investigating what classroom discourse actually looks

like (instead of stating what it should be), are of great importance. Nowadays language studies

are to be seen as "social and cultural practises embedded in a comprehensive and potentially

global process" (Risager 2007: 1). The study of classroom language and interaction is central

to the study of classroom learning. Analysing classroom discourse in order to highlight its

characteristic features, therefore, constitutes a worthwhile task since its findings may be used

to improve teaching. In this way teachers might become more aware of the way teachers and

learners jointly create learning opportunities, and subsequently classroom discourse might be

adjusted in order to enhance learning. Interestingly in this respect is Walsh's (2006) reference

to teachers' interactional awareness, characterised as the use of meta-language, critical self-

evaluation and more conscious interactive decision making. A detailed analysis of classroom

discourse possibly helps heighten teachers' awareness with regard to classroom interaction.

In conclusion, the increased importance of language in our multicultural societies calls for a

detailed investigation of features of classroom discourse with the overall aim of improving

teaching and consequently learning. Analyzing classroom discourse is at the heart of the study

presented here. The central idea of my enquiry is to compare classroom discourse in two

countries. Comparatively studying classroom discourse in two countries will reveal different

pedagogical traditions and their underlying social values. The focus of my study is on classes

of English as a foreign language taught by a team of a non-native teacher and a native

- 4 -

assistant. This analysis of teacher-assistant collaboration, a frequent yet under-researched

form of practice, will also help to improve teaching. More background information on my

study will be provided in chapter 2. In chapter 3 I will review the existing literature on

classroom discourse, in particular in foreign language teaching, but I will also refer in more

depth to the concept of communicative competence as well as cultural differences in

pedagogic traditions. Chapter 4 is concerned with the methodology applied in my study, thus

discussing the research question, the research strategy and design, as well as the methods of

data collection and data analysis applied. The data of my study will then be presented and

analysed in great depth in chapter 5. Finally I will conclude this paper by some final remarks

in chapter 6.

- 5 -

II. Background and context

In our globalised society, languages are attributed an evermore important role as means of

communication. Above all, English, spoken by about 1.8 billion people (cf. Graddol 2006),

has developed as the lingua franca. As such it is thought to be crucial throughout the world

enabling speakers of many countries and cultures to communicate with each other in various

contexts, such as social contexts, business, finance or education.

Consequently, the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) constitutes an important

aspect of worldwide education. In several European countries increasingly more attention has

recently been put on teaching EFL. In recent years more and more native speakers have been

sent to schools across Europe as `language assistants' to enrich English language classes by

offering cultural and linguistic insights. That classroom discourse, which differs significantly

from other forms of conversation, is "one of the most important influences on students'

experience of learning in schools" (Skidmore 2006: 510) is out of doubt. However, as a

language teacher, I claim that classroom discourse is much more important for the process of

foreign language learning than for other subjects, also because the development of

`communicative competence' in the foreign language is nowadays considered the overall aim

in foreign language classes.

The central idea of my enquiry is to compare classroom discourse in two secondary schools in

two countries, Austria on the one hand and Spain on the other. The focus is on classes of EFL

taught by a team of a non-native teacher and a native assistant. The form of teaching

involving an assistant and a teacher has recently gained in importance and is very likely to

become an ever more widespread feature in teaching in schools in the near future. This

specific focus is worth studying because the relationship and interaction between the teacher

and the teaching assistant can be expected to be an important influence on the classroom

discourse produced and subsequently on classroom learning. Furthermore, by putting this

- 6 -

particular focus, different ways of interacting in a classroom might possibly come into contact

since the assistant might not behave the same way linguistically as the teacher.

In Austria the context of teaching EFL has received a lot of attention. Teachers are

continuously offered a wide range of seminars and further training to stay informed about new

developments and findings in this sector. I work as a teacher of English, Spanish and

geography at a secondary grammar school in Vienna (Austria), where language assistants are

considered a beneficial (and thus highly treasured) element of EFL classes. Nevertheless,

since my school did unfortunately not have an assistant at its disposal in the school year

2008/09, a neighbouring school, a Viennese `Gymnasium' focusing on languages, agreed to

participate in my study. The `Gymnasium Wasagasse' is a traditional Viennese secondary

grammar school of about 700 students (27 classes) and 86 teachers. The students are aged 10

to 18 years and finish their education taking the `Matura' exam, a type of A-level exam. One

of the school's focuses is languages, that is, these students learn English, Latin, and French.

Since I spent the school year 2008/09 as a Sabbatical in Spain, where I myself worked as a

language assistant for German at the EOI (Escuela Oficial de Idiomas) in San Roque, the

obvious second choice was a school in this area. After various unsuccessful attempts at

finding a, for my study adequate, school willing to participate, a secondary school in La Línea

de la Concepción in Andalusia (Spain) agreed to take part. At the `I.E.S. Menéndez Tolosa'

roughly 1200 students, aged 11 to 18 years, are taught by 89 teachers. The students dedicate

their last two years to studying for the `bachillerato', a type of A-level exam. Like the

Viennese school, the I.E.S. Menéndez Tolosa has languages as one of its special focus and

consequently there is one bilingual class at every level. As I was told, in recent years learning

English has gained in importance also in Spain, especially since Spanish people seem to have

realised the potential of mastering English for the European job market.

- 7 -

Before providing more information on my study itself, I will now review the existing

literature on classroom discourse in chapter 3.

- 8 -

III. Literature review

The classroom has been defined as "the gathering, for a given period of time, of two or more

persons (one of whom generally assumes the role of instructor) for the purposes of (...)

learning" (van Lier 1988: 47, cited in Allwright and Bailey 1991: 18). Thus,

characteristically, more than two people have (been) gathered there for the specific purpose of

learning. Since classrooms - typically large, formal gatherings - come together for

pedagogical rather than social reasons, the participants will adhere to their own rules and

conventions of communication which are likely to differ from the norms of turn-taking and

communicative interaction in small, informal social gatherings (cf. Gil 2002). In classrooms,

communication has a central role. Firstly, spoken language is the medium by which most

teaching takes place. Secondly, classrooms are among the most crowded where one person is

responsible for controlling all the talk. Thirdly, language is an important part of the identities

of all the participants.

For all these reasons, it is essential to consider the classroom communication system

as a problematic medium that cannot be ignored, or viewed as transparent, by anyone

interested in teaching and learning. (Cazden 2001:3)

Interest in classroom language studies dates back to the 1940s. Since then different

approaches and methodologies have been applied in various studies whose concerns have also

changed over the years. Early researchers, such as Flanders (1970), Bellack et al. (1966),

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) or Mehan (1979), conceived classroom talk in terms of

structure. More recently, however, studies carried out by Wells (1999), van Lier (1988) and

Mercer (1995) have stressed the need to focus more carefully on the total pattern. Language

thus is seen as a social phenomenon involved in the negotiation and construction of meaning

(cf. Frances 2002). Also, critical discourse analysts and systemic linguists have shown interest

in classroom discourse. However, in general, the majority of classroom studies, whatever their

- 9 -

background, have a pedagogical perspective, since they describe, explain and evaluate aspects

of classroom communication with the aim of improving language teaching.

III. 1. The organisation of conversation

In order to communicate efficiently and sufficiently, people have to agree on following

certain rules for interaction, that is, certain conventions reflecting tacit rights and obligations.

Thus, in conversation, the distribution of talk is governed by an underlying set of non-

linguistic rules that determine who talks, when, how often, and for how long.

The organization of taking turns is fundamental to conversation. Having established that in

conversation the roles of speaker and listener change, that this occurs with remarkably few

silences and little overlapping speech, and that speaker change recurs, Sack, Schegleff and

Jefferson (1974) set up a model for conversation. The model consists of two parts, a `turn-

constructional component' and a `turn-allocation component' (cf. Sacks et al. 1974: 702-703).

A turn may be constructed from various syntactic units. At the first possible completion point

of an utterance, a `transition-relevance place' (TRP), the turn is reallocated and may pass to a

new speaker. Transfer is coordinated "so as to minimize gap and overlap" (Sacks et al. 1974:

704). Nevertheless, unintentional overlapping and silences still occur and are `noticeable'. In

such situations "the participants set out to `remedy' the situation" (Coulthard 1985: 60) by

applying a number of `repair mechanisms'.

Allocation of turns may proceed in three ways:

`current speaker selects next', `self selection' and `current speaker continues'. These three

allocation options operate utterance by utterance and are in an ordered relationship in that "the

first over-rides the second and the second over-rides the third" (Coulthard 1985: 60). Turns to

speak are valued and sought, most consist of only a single sentence, "unless permission has

been sought for a longer turn, perhaps to tell a story or a joke" (Coulthard 1985: 61). While

Sacks et al. (1974) argue that possible complete units are signalled grammatically and

semantically, Coulthard (1985) suggests that this might happen also paralinguistically and

- 10 -

kinesically. However, this evidence must be evaluated with great care since turn-taking can be

managed perfectly well in telephone conversations (cf. Coulthard 1985: 66). Thus, as

Levinson (1983: 302) points out such signals can only be supportive. Nevertheless, "[i]n any

description of turn-taking there is the problem of what constitutes a turn" (Coulthard 1985:

69). By selecting the next speaker, the current speaker "usually also selects the type of next

utterance by producing the first part of an adjacency pair" (Coulthard 1985: 69). Adjacency

pairs, which consist of two utterances, have been shown to be the basic structural units in

conversation. The two utterances are produced successively by different speakers, are ordered

(first pair part, second pair part), related, and the first pair part sets up a transition relevance.

Second pair parts are marked if they represent the dispreferred option.

Apart from rules governing turn-taking, there are two principles in operation in conversation:

firstly, the co-operative principle, encompassing the four maxims of quality, quantity,

relevance, and manner (Grice 1967), and secondly, the politeness principle organised along

three maxims, namely that of `Don't impose', `Give options' and `Make your receiver feel

good' (Lakoff 1973). The concept of face, borrowed from Goffman (1967) by Brown and

Levinson (1987) and defined as "'something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost,

maintained or enhanced'" (Brown and Levinson, 1987, in: Coulthard, 1985: 50), must be

acknowledged. Face-threatening acts have to be avoided. Thus, positive and negative

politeness principles, which are also influenced by the dimensions of social distance, power

and formality (cf. Holmes 1985), apply in conversation. The tension that exists between the

co-operative and the politeness principles reflects "a dual purpose of human intercourse",

namely "to act efficiently together with other people, and to create and maintain social

relationships" (Cook 1989: 34).

- 11 -

III. 2. Classroom discourse

Classroom communication, as an example of institutional talk, differs from ordinary

conversation in various aspects. It differs from non-didactic, everyday conversation insofar as

classroom discourse is objective in its orientation, carried out to reach the aim of teaching,

curriculum, and learning. In classroom discourse,

the desired outcome on the part of at least one participant involved the teacher is

we may say learning. The discourse that occurs in classroom settings is necessarily

affected by this. (Edmonson 1980: 275)

Secondly, classroom discourse can be seen as regular dialogic mode. Thirdly, classroom

discourse is characterised by specific organisational features of the school as a public

institution. The teacher, as the representative of the institution, "is the person institutionally

invested with the most talking rights" (Gil 2002: 277).

Teacher dominance is reflected

everytime and everywhere in the classroom.

Dominance derives from the claim to be able to teach, to make the transaction

successful in respect of its specified objectives. In this case there is no assertion of

right but a claim to knowledge: not `Do this because I tell you and I am the teacher'

but `Do this because I am the teacher and I know what's best for you (...).

(Widdowson 2001: 180, cited in Tschakert 2006: 16)

However, despite this imbalance and inequality of power between learner and teacher,

"classroom discourse is a collectively built enterprise where meanings of different types are

constructed moment by moment." (Gil 2002: 277)

III. 2.1. Teacher talk and the IRE sequence

Mehan (1979), analysing classroom discourse in teacher-led lessons in a single classroom of a

public primary school in San Diego, found that classroom lessons are sequentially and

hierarchically structured events. Compared to the adjacency pairs typical of normal

conversations, a three-part sequence, the IRE (Initiation Reply Evaluation) sequence, is

typical of classroom discourse: the teacher elicits information, a student provides a reply

which is then evaluated by the teacher, the third part being the most important one in

classroom settings. If the three-part structure breaks down, that is, if the reply is not given, the

- 12 -

teacher uses several repair strategies, such as prompting, repeating or simplifying, to restore

symmetry (`extended sequence'). This ubiquitous, three-part sequence has been characterized

"as the exchange that constitutes the genre of classroom discourse" (Hellermann 2003: 80)

and it has been said to account for as much as 70% of all classroom talk.

Nevertheless, Mehan's IRE model has often been subject to criticism, the main criticism

being put on the type of questions asked by teachers, i.e. inauthentic `display' questions of

which the teacher already knows the answer. Teachers' questioning behaviour constitutes 20

to 40% of classroom talk (cf. Tsui 1995: 23). `Open' questions can be distinguished from

`closed' ones, and `display', that is, knowledge-checking questions, from `referential'

questions, i.e. questions to which the teacher does not have an answer. While referential

questions are typical of social communication, display questions are associated with didactic

discourse since they mirror asymmetrical conversation. Questions that are open in form but

demonstrably closed in function have been called `pseudo-open questions' by Cazden (2001:

53). In addition, Holmes (1995) distinguishes `response-restricting' questions, which are

intended to elicit a short specific response, and `facilitative' questions, which invite speakers

to respond more fully. In general, questions that are authentic, high level, and allow for

multiple responses or discussion are more likely to provoke student thought and analysis (cf.

Kelly 2007). While questions have been a frequent focus of study, "it is surprising how little

research has been done on explanation" (Tsui 1995: 30) considering that explanations make

up a significant part of teacher talk. Basically, procedural explanation, regarding

organizational aspects of the lesson, contrast with content explanation of subject content of

the lesson. In order to be effective, "one needs to take into consideration the explainer, the

problem to be explained and the person(s) to whom the problem is explained." (Tsui 1995:

31)

- 13 -

In contrast to the IRE sequence, Mehan's higher level concept of `topically related sets'

(combination of basic plus conditional sequence) has often been ignored by other researchers

(cf. Cazden 2001: 31). A teacher's evaluation, which is undoubtedly central in classroom

teaching, necessarily concludes a topically related set, while it need not occur after each

student's response. However, the teacher's evaluation is not simply a matter of correctness,

but rather a remark on the adequacy as a reply. Consequently, answers which are correct in

terms of the question, but not those the teacher is seeking are evaluated negatively. Mehan

(2001: 263) distinguishes positive and negative evaluation, pointing out that a positive

evaluation is a terminal act, while a negative evaluation may but need not appear after an

incorrect or incomplete answer. Negative evaluations are routinely `marked', "the most

familiar markedness [being] (...) a delay in either the turn's or the evaluation's production"

(Macbeth 2003: 263), as also Hellermann (2003) argues. Teachers often withhold feedback

until a correct response is produced to avoid giving negative feedback (cf. Tsui 1995: 42).

Mehan's IRE sequence closely resembles Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) IRF sequence, the

predominant form of communication inside the classroom.

A typical exchange in the classroom consists of an initiation by the teacher, followed

by a response from the pupil, followed by feedback, to the pupil's response from the

teacher. (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 21)

This three-move structure, the IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) structure, is conventional

and may vary culturally. On the basis of primary school data Sinclair and Coulthard drew up a

model consisting of five ranks: acts moves exchanges transactions lesson. Acts

combine to form moves which in turn form exchanges, such as the IRF exchange, etc..

Sinclair and Coulthard's model has been subject to criticism. The model being an analysis of

the product of communication rather than the process and it being unable to handle intention

The original model has undergone a lot of modifications, but the underlying theoretical assumptions remain

basically the same. The major advances have, according to Sinclair and Coulthard (1985), been in the

characterization of the exchange which led to a new structure for exchanges as I (R/I) R (F) (F) (for details see

Coulthard 1985: 135 ff.).

- 14 -

have been most strongly criticised.

Furthermore, the "imbalance in number of turns between

students and teacher in the IRF exchange" (Hellermann 2003: 81) has been criticised.

Between 50 and 75% of talk in the classroom is done by the teacher (cf. Allwright and Bailey

1991: 139). On the one hand, talk is a major way to convey information to learners. On the

other hand, it functions as the primary means of controlling learners' behaviour. The temporal

relationship between a student utterance and the teacher's prior question and subsequent

feedback (`wait time') is also an aspect worth investigating. Typically teachers wait for one

second or less for the students to start a reply. However, increasing wait time has been shown

to lead to more profound changes in students' use of language and logic as well as students'

and teachers' attitudes and expectations (cf. Cazden 2001: 50).

Hellermann (2003), focusing on the prosody with which IRF exchanges are accomplished,

argues that the "use of different intonation contours distinguishes institutional discourse, like

that of the classroom, from everyday conversation" (Hellermann 2003: 99), to be more exact,

it is the "use of intonation in the third turn of the IRF exchange" (Hellermann 2003: 100) that

characterises classroom discourse. Whereas teachers use falling and rising intonation contours

in their feedback to differentiate between correct and incorrect assessment, this is not an

option in everyday conversation. Thus, in the classroom the teacher "can control through

prosody the trajectory of the discourse following a student response" (Hellermann 2003: 100)

by indicating whether an extension of the issue beyond the IRF sequence is warranted, as is in

the case of incomplete or incorrect student answers. However, it is obvious that prosody plays

a role also in spontaneous, naturally occurring conversation. In such conversations

participants "make use of prosody as a resource for interactional collaboration" (Szczepek

Reed 2006: 209) by tying two turns together to form a unit in the prosodic domain through

However, Coulthard (1985: 143) argues that "it is in fact a misunderstanding of the model to describe it as a

static product description". Nevertheless, they admit that it is not always possible to analyse a text

unambiguously and that there might be a problem of embedding. Furthermore, he argues that the structure

indeed "makes predictions about what a speaker will do next provided he chooses to stay within the same

exchange." (Coulthard 1985: 145).

- 15 -

prosodic orientation. Prosodic orientation is defined as "the conversational activity of

displaying awareness of another speaker's prosody in the prosodic design of one's own next

turn." (Szczepek Reed 2006 : 33-34)

In conclusion, although the IRE / IRF exchange has often been criticised, it has also been

considered a "useful tool with which teachers can use their status as facilitators in classrooms

to guide a large number of students toward the common goal of dialogic learning"

(Hellermann 2003: 81).

III. 2. 2. Classroom turn-taking

Classroom lessons, as shown by Mehan (1979), are also structured by means of the turn-

taking machinery, which consists of basic turn-allocation procedures and `improvisational

strategies' employed by the teacher to deal with disruptions in the basic system. Violations of

the co-occurrences between speaker and respondent are called `sanctioned violations' by

Mehan. Here the teacher works to repair the breach and to re-establish the normal form of

interaction. In contrast, `unsanctioned violations' and `unwarranted sanctions', which are

actually unacceptable designations, are allowed by the teacher when, after a break-down, the

teacher's only concern is to restore order or to continue. The fact that the participants engage

in repair work leads Mehan to the conclusion that his model indeed resembles the

participants' model, a precondition extremely important for him within his ethnographical

framework. In classroom conditions, turn-taking takes on a form slightly different from that

found by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) for normal conversation since `current

speaker selects next speaker' seems the only possible option, while the options of `next

speaker selects self' and `current speaker continues' do not seem to apply.

Thus, in traditional classrooms, speaking rights are attributed by the teacher who is in control

of the right to speak. Teachers may allocate turns to students by specifying who is to take the

turn (`personal solicit') or by throwing it open to the whole class (`general solicit') (cf.

- 16 -

Allwright and Bailey 1991). Personal solicits can be done by nominating or by gestures such

as eye gaze or pointing, while asking a question or looking around accompany general

solicits. On the other hand, students' turn-taking behaviour consists of unsolicited and

solicited (`initiating') turns (cf. Tsui 1995: 77). Learners may bid by raising their hands or

using the teacher's name, or may simply take a turn. In addition, students sometimes take

`private turns', that is turns not shared with the rest of the class. Allocating turns evenly to

students is not easy and in general teachers seem to allocate more turns to active students or

those likely to know the answer (cf. Tsui 1995: 75). When attributing speaking rights, seating

arrangements and gaze are of importance (cf. Cazden 2001: 48). In contrast to everyday

conversation, where turns are typically one sentence long, in more formal speech situations,

such as classrooms, the speaker whose role assigns him extra authority can select the speakers

for several successive utterances (cf. Coulthard 1985: 61-64).

III. 2. 3. Interactional competence

The presence of this tacit, normative rule system requires `interactional competence' in order

to participate in the classroom effectively (cf. Mehan 1979: 127). Admittedly, this seems to be

a vague concept, yet Mehan manages to describe its features convincingly. Classroom

competence involves matters of form (being interactionally appropriate) as well as content

(being academically correct). Hellermann (2007: 85) defines interactional competence as "a

learner's ability to co-construct appropriate linguistic forms, registers, and sequential routines

in appropriate contexts in order to accomplish discursive practices." As Mehan's study shows,

students acquire interactional competence within the course of time. In Liebscher and Dailey-

O'Cain's study (2003) students similarly acquired an awareness of their roles in the

classroom, which led them to behave in ways different from outside the classroom and from

the teacher. Mehan does not comment on the teacher's role with regard to the acquisition of

interactional competence, while Gil (2002: 278) argues that "to guide the students to learn the

- 17 -

rules of this complex metalinguistic game" is the teacher's job. This, in my opinion, however,

is to be debated. In conclusion,

an important part of education for children in school is learning that conversations in

classrooms have unique features, and that the demands of classroom discourse must be

kept separate from the demands of everyday discourse. (Mehan 2001: 294)

A possible weakness of Mehan's study lies in the fact that he analysed discourse in only one

classroom. Mehan himself addresses this issue briefly, arguing, by referring basically to

informal evidence, that equivalent structural arrangements as well as similar structuring work

could be found in other classrooms, too. In his analysis, Mehan rejects grammatically based

categories since meaning is not conveyed by grammatical means. Furthermore, while other

researchers have frequently ignored paralinguistic and kinesics behaviour in their analyses,

Mehan attributes great importance to these factors. All in all, his analysis is definitely one of

the most detailed analyses carried out in this area of study.

III. 2. 4. From teacher-centred classrooms to other forms of teaching

The IRE sequence has been regarded as characteristic of traditional lessons, in which lecture

style teaching prevails. Furthermore, the turn-taking behaviour described above may only

apply to teacher-centred lessons and not to all forms of classroom interaction. Here, in my

opinion, lies a weakness of Mehan's work in that it only focuses, as typical of early studies of

classroom discourse, on teacher-led lessons, which he is, however, well aware of. The

predominance of teacher-centred lessons is possibly linked to the study representing "public

schooling in the early grades" (Macbeth 2003: 245). Mehan (1979: 11) claims that "[t]he

situation is even more complex in student-centered classrooms, team-teaching arrangements,

and learning centers." Nevertheless, Cazden (2001: 109) argues that on the one hand,

"differences between learning in teacher-led lessons and learning in peer groups are becoming

less marked" and that, on the other hand, there is more and more space for student exchanges

also in teacher-led lessons.

Details

Seiten
Erscheinungsform: Originalausgabe
Jahr: 2010
ISBN (eBook): 9783842820173
DOI: 10.3239/9783842820173
Dateigröße: 599 KB
Sprache: Englisch
Institution / Hochschule: University of Bath – Department of Education
Erscheinungsdatum: 2011 (September)
Note: 1

Autor

Katrin Strobelberger (Autor:in)

A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries

Zusammenfassung

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Details

Autor

Katrin Strobelberger (Autor:in)