International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction

Christopher J. Jenks, Paul Seedhouse

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781137340719
• eBook ISBN: 9781137340733
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Teacher Training

This book gathers together 11 empirical-based studies of classroom interaction carried out in different countries, including the USA, England, Kenya, Sweden, and China. Along with a state-of-the-art literature review, the chapters provide key insights and engagement priorities that will prove relevant to a variety of learning and teaching contexts.

1

International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction: An Introduction

Paul Seedhouse and Christopher J. Jenks

This chapter introduces the reader to English Language Teaching (ELT) classroom interaction as a field of academic research, providing the background to the studies included in this collection, which advance knowledge in this area of study. The chapter starts with a brief history of the ELT classroom and its worldwide spread. It then considers how ELT classroom interaction can be conceptualised, which phenomena are of interest and the different ways in which it may be studied. Finally, we introduce the chapters in this volume.

ELT classroom interaction

Howatt and Widdowson (2004) chart the history of ELT from its earliest recorded origins in ‘double manual’ textbooks of the sixteenth century. The story concentrates on the issues of where and to whom it was taught, spreading outwards from England to Europe and the rest of the world, as well as how it was taught, covering a panoply of methods. Howatt and Widdowson (2004: 210) point out that the practice of learning through conversation has many historical precedents, whilst the nineteenth and twentieth centuries saw the introduction of several teaching methods (Natural Method, Conversation Method, Direct Method, Communicative Language Teaching [CLT]) which were dependent on classroom interaction.

The academic study of interaction in ELT classrooms developed when the technology of audio recording became available in the 1960s. It then became possible to transcribe and study the fine detail of ELT classroom interaction and its relationship to learning processes. Interest in language teaching shifted away from the consideration of teaching methods in isolation towards a focus on classroom interaction as the most vital element in the instructed second language learning process:

Bluntly, classroom interaction is important because interaction is the sine qua non of classroom pedagogy. Interaction is the process whereby lessons are ‘accomplished’, to use Mehan’s very apt term … We are not talking about interaction in terms of ‘communication practice’ for example, but in terms of pedagogy itself, in the most general sense that all classroom pedagogy proceeds, necessarily, via a process of interaction, and can only proceed in this way … The above arguments point to the conclusion that successful pedagogy, in any subject, necessarily involves the successful management of classroom interaction. (Allwright 1984: 159)

The last few decades have seen an increase in interest in classroom interaction, and this has coincided with the global spread of ELT. According to Crystal (2012: 162), ‘The ELT business has become one of the major growth industries around the world in the past half century’, so globalisation has coincided with English becoming an international language. Its global spread has also meant that studies of classroom interaction have proliferated well beyond the UK and USA. Electronic media also mean that videos of ELT lessons are now freely available on the Internet. As Howatt and Widdowson (2004: 369) suggest, ‘The actuality of practice is for the most part unrecorded …’, but the free electronic availability of videos of classroom interaction from around the world now provides an unparalleled opportunity to investigate current classroom practice. Classroom interaction therefore provides us with ready access to massive amounts of data on ELT learning processes.

A persistent criticism of research by classroom language teachers has been that it has been top-down in the sense of dictates from on high, driven by theory and concepts which may have little relevance to classroom practice. Furthermore, little attention or interest has been shown in what language teachers actually do, and classroom practice has not generated theory; in other words, there has been one-way traffic between theory and practice. Research has often conceptualised teachers as intermediaries or ‘transmitters’ who should deliver the pedagogy devised by theorists. Researchers have rarely tried to work the other way round, in other words to build theory based on teachers’ practice. However, we are now in the situation where we have free access to large amounts of classroom data, and it is now possible to take seriously the classroom practice of ELT teachers and adopt a bottom-up approach to ELT classroom research. Pedagogical theory may be generated inductively from interactional data, which ought to enable two-way traffic between theory and practice. Seedhouse (2004) suggests that language teachers perform amazingly complex and demanding interactional and pedagogical work in the classroom; interactional data and the microanalytic approaches exemplified in this volume make this work possible.

Some recent trends in the ELT world are investigated in this collection. Many countries have been developing ELT pedagogies at primary level or earlier; the three chapters by Dooly, Conteh, and Gardner provide evidence of what is actually happening in classroom interaction at these levels. Countries are now trying to teach academic subject matter through English, a methodology commonly referred to as content and language integrated learning (CLIL); chapters by Schwab and Kääntä examine in detail the reality of CLIL classrooms. Language choice and the role of Language 1 (L1) in the ELT classroom is a complex and disputed issue that continues to generate much discussion in the profession. This volume provides evidence of actual practice in terms of language use in a variety of settings, reflecting a range of educational policies.

Perhaps the most significant contribution that studies of ELT classroom interaction provide is a realistic idea of what actually happens in pedagogical talk, thus enabling a process account of language learning through interaction.

How can ELT classroom interaction be conceptualised?

ELT classroom interaction is, on the one hand, a very straightforward phenomenon; it consists of whatever people say and do in the ELT classroom. On the other hand, it has been conceptualised and approached as a phenomenon in a great number of ways. It can be conceptualised as a ‘point of delivery’, where different aspects of a language are taught and learnt (vocabulary, listening), where a teaching method or syllabus or materials or assessment are delivered, where cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communication takes place; a location where affect, identity, motivation interact with group dynamics; a place where educational theory and practice interact, or where interaction and pedagogy combine. The classroom may be understood as preparation for English use in the outside world and/or as a place to get a qualification. It can be investigated as a location where learners produce systematic and thus analysable interlanguage data, including errors, or where they display learning strategies. It can be seen as a place where teachers teach, make pedagogical choices, display teaching strategies or beliefs, respond to learner talk (including error treatment), deliver a curriculum and evaluate learner progress. It is a site where bilingualism, multilingualism, code-switching, and above all, learning, may be investigated. It is a place where technology is deployed. Classroom interaction may be constrained or influenced by policy at the level of school, region, country or world, and may relate to the materials and technology which are available. The classroom can be considered, particularly from an second language acquisition (SLA) perspective, as a place where the internal cognitive processes of learners are engaged and may be investigated. Classroom interaction may be related to learner variables such as proficiency, gender, ethnicity, age, social class, linguistic or cultural background. What happens in the ELT classroom may relate to how English is used in the world, particularly in relation to developments in technology and demand for cross-border communication. It can be conceived as a locus of ideological conflict (Canagarajah 1999) and related to broader political or social trends in the outside world.

Which phenomena are of interest in ELT classroom interaction?

It follows from the above that there is no limit to the range of phenomena which may be investigated by researchers. Any of the wide range of constructs employed in applied linguistics and SLA may in principle be researched in relation to ELT classroom interaction (e.g. proficiency, motivation, fluency, implicit and explicit knowledge). The following are examples of phenomena studied in published work. Hall et al. (2011) investigate interactional competence and Walsh (2011) proposes the term classroom interactional competence. Hellermann (2007) focuses on task openings; Lee (2008) on yes-no questions; and Nguyen (2007) on rapport building. Wong and Waring (2008) focus on a specific teacher response (‘very good’). Markee (2005) examines off-task talk and Appel (2010) investigates participation. Pekarek Doehler (2010) and Seedhouse and Walsh (2010) discuss learning via classroom interaction. Hellermann and Pekarek Doehler (2010) show how language learning tasks are implemented. Jacknick (2011) studies shifts in classroom activities, Li and Walsh (2011a) compare teachers’ beliefs with their classroom interaction, whilst Waring (2011) studies learner initiatives. Mortensen (2011) focuses on word explanation, Jenks (2007) on floor management in task-based interaction, and Fagan (2012) looks at how novice teachers deal with unexpected learner contributions.

A number of studies have explored the mechanism of repair in relation to L2 classroom interaction. This is a vital mechanism as far as SLA is concerned; as Markee observes, ‘Conversational repair is viewed by SLA researchers as the sociopsychological engine that enables learners to get comprehended input’ (2000: 31). Hosoda (2006) relates the employment of repair trajectories to level of language proficiency, showing that this became relevant when one participant invited repair by another and when intersubjectivity was threatened. Jung (2004) shows how a learner employs repair initiation as a resource in production of vocabulary items. Koshik (2002) reveals how teachers use the pedagogical practice of designedly incomplete utterances in order to initiate self-correction by learners. Nakamura (2008) explores how repair is related to the management of talk.

Although there is a considerable literature on bilingual code-switching, relatively little research had been undertaken on code-switching in ELT classrooms. This has changed recently when researchers started to use conversation analytic tools to investigate classrooms. Mori (2004: 537) shows ‘how code switching … serves as a resource for managing sequential boundaries, and at the same time, affects the ways in which their interactive activities are organized’. Kasper (2004: 551) shows how ‘code switching worked as one device by which the novice requested a target language action format from the L2 expert’. Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain (2005) conceptualise code-switching as a resource for effective bilingual communication. They found that learners in their classroom setting often employed code-switching ‘for discourse-related functions that contextualise the interactional meaning of their utterances’ (Liebscher and Dailey-O’Cain, 2005: 234). Unamuno (2008) shows that language choice is related to the management and completion of assigned pairwork tasks. Nussbaum and Unamuno (2006) suggest that the ability to switch languages constitutes part of a child’s sociolinguistic competence in the multilingual classroom setting of Catalonia.

Recent studies have provided evidence of what actually happens during particular language learning activities. In recent years, the range of activities covered has become very diverse, expanding the knowledge and evidence base. Bushnell (2009) reveals how language play emerges and is organised in a beginner’s Japanese classroom. Piirainen-Marsh and Tainio (2009) relate the interactional practices of collaborative video-game playing to language learning processes. Jung (2004) traces vocabulary learning of one learner during conversations over a 3-month period. Mortensen (2011) reveals the practice of ‘doing word explanation’ or the joint production of vocabulary explanation by teacher and learners. Lazaraton (2004: 111) produces a microanalysis of gesture and speech used by a teacher during vocabulary explanations and concludes, ‘classroom L2 learners receive considerable input in nonverbal form that may modify and make verbal input (more) comprehensible’. Nguyen (2007) shows how a teacher builds rapport with learners and positive affect at the same time as managing the pedagogical element of the lesson. Lee (2008) focuses on yes-no questions in teacher-fronted ESL lessons, Hellermann (2006) investigates reading classes and Hellermann (2005) portrays the co-construction of a quiz game.

How can ELT classroom interaction be studied?

Many research methodologies have been employed to investigate ELT classroom interaction. The majority of studies have been conducted using video and/or audio recordings of classroom interaction that require the production of transcriptions (Jenks 2011). Some use different discourse analytic approaches to analyse and evaluate the recordings, whilst others have used observation or coding schemes of various kinds. The detailed, intensive study of interaction in Language 2 (L2) classrooms only took off in the 1960s with the advent of audio- and, later, video-recording technology. The first wave of development in the description and analysis of L2 classroom interaction was observation or coding schemes from the 1960s. A second major development was the use of discourse analysis (DA) from the 1970s. DA uses methodological principles typical of linguistics to analyse classroom discourse in structural–functional linguistic terms (Chaudron 1988: 14). An exemplary study of (L1) classroom interaction which adopts this DA approach is Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Probably their most significant finding as far as the teaching profession is concerned is their identification of the three-part sequence typical of classroom interaction. This sequence is generally known as Teacher Initiation, Learner Response, and Teacher Follow-Up or Feedback (IRF) in the British school, and Initiation, Response, and Evaluation (IRE) in the American school.¹ All coding schemes for L2 classroom interaction are implicitly based on a DA paradigm and embody ‘the assumption that those features of the interaction of teacher and taught which are relevant to the researcher’s purposes are evident “beneath” or “within” the words exchanged’ (Edwards and Westgate 1994: 61). The following coding systems were developed especially for the L2 classroom: the COLT instrument (Froehlich et al. 1985), TALOS (Ullman and Geva 1984), and FLINT (Moskowitz 1976); a list of observation instruments is available in Chaudron (1988: 18).

Strong interest then emerged in applying the comparatively new methodology of Conversation Analysis (CA) to the description and analysis of L2 classroom interaction. The overall picture of the L2 classroom which emerges from the application of a CA methodology is that it is a very complex, dynamic, and fluid interactional environment. Pedagogy and interaction are intertwined in a mutually dependent relationship and we must examine the minute detail of the interaction to gain a full understanding of the instructed L2 learning process. For example, Olsher (2004) demonstrates how L2 learners in small-group project work may complete sequential actions through gesture or embodied displays, revealing the importance of nonverbal aspects of interaction. Koshik (2002) reveals how teachers use the pedagogical practice of designedly incomplete utterances in order to initiate self-correction by learners. Carroll (2005) challenges the general perception that L2 novice learners are incompetent communicators, uncovering their ability to make creative communicative use of their minimal linguistic resources by using sophisticated conversational micro-adjustments. Mori (2002) traces how a task-as-work-plan (which was intended to be a discussion with native speakers) is transformed into a task-in-process resembling a structured interview of question-and-answer exchanges. Markee (2000) portrays the progress of intersubjectivity during two tasks, one of which results in learner comprehension of the target item while the other does not. Appel (2007: 282) examines how L2 classroom interaction can be seen as a form of performance, and suggests ‘verbal interaction in the language classroom can be seen as a reflexive mode of communication which uses some of the resources characteristic of performance to make language its special focus’. Seedhouse (2004) applies CA methodology to an extensive and varied database of language lessons from around the world to tackle the question ‘How is L2 classroom interaction organised?’ The main thesis developed in this monograph is that there is a reflexive relationship between pedagogy and interaction in the L2 classroom, and that this relationship is the foundation of its context-free architecture. This relationship means that, as the pedagogical focus varies, so too does the organisation of the interaction.

Another methodology which has been employed to study ELT classroom interaction is ethnography, including van Lier’s (1988) portrayal of the dimensions and factors involved in teaching and learning, Creese’s (2006) study of partnership teachers, Talmy’s (2009) critical ethnography of an ESL classroom and Moses’s (2012) microethnography of an inquiry classroom. In recent years, sociocultural studies of ELT classroom interaction have been published (e.g. Van Compernolle 2010). Recently, mixed methods approaches have started to be employed, such as Llinares and Morton (2010), as well as corpus linguistics (Evison 2013; Farr and Riordan 2012). Whilst most studies have used cross-sectional snapshots of whole class interaction, studies such as Hellermann (2006) have looked at longitudinal development in the interactions of two individual learners and Markee (2008) developed a system for tracking learning over time. Eskildsen (2011) and Nguyen (2011) have tracked the progress of a single learner and Langman and Bayley (2007) focused on a single child learner. In this volume, Lugendo and Smith employ a sociocultural approach and Conteh employs an ethnographic approach; the rest of the studies in this volume employ CA microanalysis.

The variety and diversity of ELT classrooms

As Van Lier (1988: 5) puts it, ‘One of the problems with L2 classroom research is that there is such a tremendous variety of L2 classrooms’. The size, nature, and variety of the database should also be of interest to researchers, and to L2 teachers in particular in determining the generalisability of the study and its applicability to the reader’s own professional context. Seedhouse (2004) has argued that, because of the diversity of L2 classrooms, one should not only specify the database in terms of number of lessons or fragments of lessons, but also in terms of the following background contextual factors, in order that the diversity of the database might be assessed: L1 of the learners; multilingual or monolingual classes; culture; country of origin; age of learners; type of institution; level of learners’ proficiency in L2.

Studies of ELT classrooms thus far have investigated many different types of classroom; ESP classrooms such as Burns and Moore’s (2007) study of the accounting classroom and Packett’s (2005) study of journalistic interviewing, CLIL classrooms (Dalton-Puffer 2007), immersion classrooms (Pekarek Doehler and Ziegler 2007), EAL classrooms (Leung 2010), and bilingual kindergartens (Sherris 2011). In terms of geographical range, recent years have seen the publication of studies containing evidence of ELT classroom interaction in Jamaica (Taylor 2010), Syria (Rajab 2013), Australia and Korea (Ko 2013), Austria and Spain (Strobelberger 2012), Hong Kong (Luk and Lin 2007), Taiwan (Li and Seedhouse 2010), Abu Dhabi (Yazigi and Seedhouse 2005), and Turkey (Icbay 2010). As electronic publishing becomes more widespread, we can expect transcripts...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Figures
• Series Editors’ Preface
• Notes on Contributors
• 1 International Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction: An Introduction
• 2 Teaching Methods and Approaches: Looking into a Unique CLIL Classroom in Germany
• 3 Summons Turns: The Business of Securing a Turn in Busy Classrooms
• 4 ‘Funds of Knowledge’ for Achievement and Success: Multilingual Pedagogies for Mainstream Primary Classrooms in England
• 5 The Multimodal Organisation of Teacher-Led Classroom Interaction
• 6 Networked Classrooms and Networked Minds: Language Teaching in a Brave New World
• 7 Giving and Following Pedagogical Instructions in Task-Based Instruction: An Ethnomethodological Perspective
• 8 Scaffolding for Mediated Learning during ‘Whole-Class Exercises’ in Kenyan Secondary English Lessons
• 9 L2 and L3 Integrated Learning: Lingua Franca Use in Learning an Additional Language in the Classroom
• 10 What’s the Use of Technology? Insights from EFL Classrooms in Chinese Secondary Schools
• 11 Analysing ELT in the European Arena: Multilingual Practices
• 12 Examining English-Only in the EFL Classroom of a Swedish School: A Conversation Analytic Perspective
• 13 Applying Global Perspectives on ELT Classroom Interaction to Current Issues in Language Teaching
• References
• Index