Investigating Classroom Discourse

Steve Walsh

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• eBook ISBN: 9781134218998
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Communication Studies
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

Introducing language use and interaction as the basis of good teaching and learning, this invaluable book equips teachers and researchers with the tools to analyze classroom discourse and move towards more effective instruction.

Presenting an overview of existing approaches to describing and analyzing classroom discourse, Steve Walsh identifies the principal characteristics of classroom language in the contexts of second language classrooms, primary and secondary classrooms, and higher education settings. A distinct feature of the book are the classroom recordings and reflective feedback interviews from a sample group of teachers that Walsh uses to put forward SETT (Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk) as a framework for examining discourse within the classroom. This framework is used to identify different modes of discourse, which are employed by teachers and students, to increase awareness of the importance of interaction, and to maximize learning opportunities.

This book will appeal to applied linguists, teachers and researchers of TESOL, as well as practitioners on MEd or taught doctorate programmes.

1 Features of classroom discourse

Introduction

In this chapter, as a first step towards characterizing classroom interaction, I present and evaluate some of the key features of second language (L2) classroom discourse. Throughout the chapter, the position adopted is that teachers should, and indeed do, play a much more central role than that advocated under both Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and Task-based Language Learning (TBLL). Rather than simply ‘handing over’ to a group of learners by emphasizing pair- and group-work, it is the teacher’s ability to manage learner contributions which will, arguably, determine the success or otherwise of a lesson. In light of the centrality of this role, the discussion which follows focuses principally on features of classroom discourse which are essentially the responsibility of the teacher. These are: control of patterns of communication; elicitation techniques; repair strategies; and modifying speech to learners.

The communication patterns found in language classrooms are special, different from those found in content-based subjects. Communication is unique because the linguistic forms used are often simultaneously the aim of a lesson and the means of achieving those aims. Meaning and message are one and the same thing, ‘the vehicle and object of instruction’ (Long, 1983a: 9); language is both the focus of activity, the central objective of the lesson, as well as the instrument for achieving it (Willis, 1992). This situation is, in many respects, atypical, most unlike, for example, the one prevailing in a history or geography lesson, where attention is principally on the message, not on the language used. As Thornbury (2000: 28) puts it:

language classrooms are language classrooms [original emphasis], and for the teacher to monopolise control of the discourse – through, for example, asking only display questions – while possibly appropriate to the culture of geography or maths classes, would seem to deny language learners access to what they most need – opportunities for real language use.

The consequence of this observation is that any attempt to analyse communication in the L2 classroom must take account first of all of its uniqueness and second of its complexity. As Cazden points out (1986: 432), classroom communication is a ‘problematic medium’. The process of communication in a TESOL¹ context – a multinational, multilingual and multicultural setting – is further complicated by the fact that misunderstandings, which almost certainly impair teaching and learning, are potentially more frequent. This is due to the differences in the backgrounds, expectations and perceptions of language learners, together with the status they attach to the teacher, who may be the only native-speaker present. Clashes of expectations are by no means uncommon in the EFL context and frequently present the teacher with enormous interactional difficulties (Shamin, 1996). An understanding of the dynamics of classroom discourse is therefore essential for teachers to establish and maintain good communicative practices (Johnson, 1995). The first step in gaining such an understanding is familiarization with the features of L2 classroom discourse.

Recent surveys of interaction in classes which adopt a predominantly CLT methodology identify a number of broad characteristics. For example, Spada and Lightbown (1993) have commented that features such as the limited amount of error correction, the emphasis on communication over accuracy, and learners’ exposure to a wide range of discourse types distinguish the communicative classroom from more ‘traditional’ learning modes. Other studies have focused on the interactive differences between lockstep, whole class teaching and more decentralized, interactive modes of learning (Porter, 1986; Rulon and Creary, 1986; Foster, 1998). Perhaps surprisingly, there is now a growing body of evidence to suggest that peer interaction is not as effective as was once thought in promoting acquisition (Dörnyei and Malderez, 1997; Foster, 1998). Rampton clearly questions the value of learner–learner interaction (1999: 333): ‘some of the data we have looked at itself provides grounds for doubting any assumption that peer group rituals automatically push acquisition forwards’.

Observations like the previous one are borne out in other studies (see, for example, Mitchell and Martin, 1997) and later in this book (see Chapters 2 and 6), indicating that the role of the teacher in shaping classroom interaction may need to be reconsidered, as may the very notion of whole class teaching. Simply handing over to learners is apparently an inadequate means of promoting second language acquisition (SLA); there is both an expectation and responsibility that the teacher is there to teach the second language, not simply to organize practice activities. Indeed, in most parts of the world, if they simply ‘handed over’ to learners, teachers would be criticized for not doing their job or would be accused of shirking responsibilities. The assumption of the teacher as ‘mere facilitator’ may be a middle-class, western, culture-bound perspective.

As a first step to understanding communication in the second language classroom, the remainder of this chapter presents a description of the principal characteristics of L2 classroom discourse, largely from the teacher’s perspective. Four features have been selected as being typical and representative of the context: control of patterns of communication; elicitation techniques; repair strategies; modifying speech to learners.

Control of patterns of communication

The features of second language classroom discourse are easy to identify and present a very clear structure, where teachers control both the topic of conversation and turn-taking. Students take their cues from the teacher through whom they direct most of their responses. Owing to their special status, L2 teachers control most of the patterns of communication (Johnson, 1995), primarily through the ways in which they restrict or allow learners’ interaction (Ellis, 1998), take control of the topic (Slimani, 1989), and facilitate or hinder learning opportunities (Walsh, 2002). Put simply, even in the most decentralized L2 classroom, it is the teacher who ‘orchestrates the interaction’ (Breen, 1998: 119).

The underlying structure of second language lessons is typically represented by sequences of discourse ‘moves’ IR(E/F), where I is teacher initiation, R is learner response and E/F is an optional evaluation or feedback by the teacher (Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975). In later versions of the model, F became follow-up. Throughout the remainder of this book, the model is referred to as the IRF sequence, as illustrated below:

Extract 1.1

(I)	T	Two things to establish for the writer at the beginning of the story. One situation situation. What is the situation at the beginning of the story anybody? What’s the situation Douglas? Have you read the story Douglas?
(R)	S	No sir.
(F)	T	Ah that won’t help then will it who’s read the story what is the situation at the beginning Michael? Is it Michael?

(Walsh, 1987)

As can be seen in Extract 1.1, for every move made by the learner, a teacher makes two, leading Chaudron (1988) to the conclusion that teacher talk represents approximately two-thirds of classroom speech. It is both particular to the classroom and characterized by it. Other writers have commented on the appropriacy of the IRF sequence to any instructional setting (see, for example, Drew and Heritage, 1992; Barnes, 1992; Nystrand, 1997), while Musumeci (1996) suggests that more ‘traditional’ IRF interaction patterns prevail for four reasons. First, teachers’ and students’ expectations regard question and answer routines as appropriate classroom behaviour.

This is how conversation, in a classroom, is characterized. Second, teachers feel the need to make learners ‘feel good’. The feedback given by a teacher to a student is important and necessary. Third, the system of power relations in most classes means that it is the teacher who has more of the ‘floor’ owing to asymmetrical roles (cf. Lin, 2000). Finally, the time constraints facing teachers confirm question and answer routines as the most effective means of advancing the discourse.

Kasper (2001) argues that the IRF sequence is frequently perceived negatively in language classrooms since learners are afforded minimum interactional space. She goes on to suggest how this position is improved when teachers offer learners greater participation rights and a more central position in the interaction. McCarthy (2003) advocates ‘listenership’ in the follow-up move of the IRF exchange: the ability of learners to demonstrate that they are engaged in the discourse even when they are not the main speaker. Clearly, as McCarthy says, this is a skill that is more closely related to speaking than listening. Arguably, it is a skill that teachers can foster through more careful interactions with learners.

In the L2 classroom, teachers control both the content and the procedure of the learning-process. According to Cazden (1986), some of the features of the L2 classroom context include: teachers control the topic of discussion; teachers control who may participate and when; students take their cues from teachers; role relationships between teachers and learners are unequal; teachers are responsible for managing the interaction which occurs; teachers talk more. Johnson (1995) supports Cazden, suggesting that teachers control both the content and structure of classroom communication, at least in part, by their use of language. Furthermore, their decision as to whether to tightly control the topic of discussion or whether to allow a more egalitarian discourse structure in which students self-select and have a more equal share in turn-taking, is not random. Her conclusion, that teachers influence learner participation both by the ways in which they use language and by what they bring to the classroom, adds further weight to the argument for increasing teacher awareness of language use.

In Extract 1.2 below, for example, note how the teacher selects who may tal...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1. Features of Classroom Discourse
• 2. Learning In the Second Language Classroom
• 3. Approaches to Analysing Classroom Discourse
• 4. A Framework for Analysing Classroom Interaction
• 5. Using SETT In Different Contexts
• 6. Using SETT for Teacher Education
• 7. Conclusions
• Appendix 1: Transcription System
• Appendix 2: SETT Procedure
• Appendix 3: SETT Workshop Materials
• Notes
• References