analyzing patterns of classroom interaction
TRANSCRIPT
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARMED FORCES ESPE•CAREEER: APPLIED LINGUISTICS TO ENGLISH
LANGUAGE•TEACHER´S NAME: MSC. NÉSTOR BONILLA BONILLA •MADE BY: JORGE CHUVA
BY JORGE CHUVA 1
ANALYZING PATTERNS OF CLASSROOM
INTERACTION INEFL CLASSROOMS
IN IRAN
©©
2
INTRODUCTION
•ANALYZING INTERACTION PATTERNS HAS BEEN OF INTEREST SINCE THE 1940S
BY JORGE CHUVA 3
CLASSROOM CENTRED RESEARCH (CCR)•FOCUSES ON CLASSROOM INTERACTION•TO DISCOVER INSIGHTS AND TO DEVELOP
UNDERSTANDING OF LANGUAGE LEARNING AND TEACHING•TO DIAGNOSE THE PHENOMENA THAT ENCOURAGE OR
BLOCK LEARNING
BY JORGE CHUVA 4
PURPOSE OF THE PAPER• TO PRESENT RESEARCH CARRIED OUT IN EFL SCHOOLS
IN IRAN• TO DIAGNOSE THE PATTERNS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN
TEACHERS AND STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM.• TO ANALYZE THE AFFECT THAT GENDER HAS ON
CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS.
BY JORGE CHUVA 5
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
•ONE OF MANY APPROACHES USED TO ANALYZE AND DESCRIBE THE BEHAVIOR OF PARTICIPANTS IN THE CLASSROOM•ANALYSES THE COMMONLY SPOKEN LANGUAGE IN ITS
LINGUISTIC FORM AND STRUCTURE•THE ANALYSIS IS MADE FROM AN OUT-SIDE PERSPECTIVE
AND THEREFOR AN OBJECTIVE VIEWPOINT
BY JORGE CHUVA 6
PARTICIPANTS•16 TEACHERS- 8 FEMALES, 8 MALES•SINGLE GENDERED CLASSES•BOYS TAUGHT BY MALE TEACHERS AND GIRLS TAUGHT
BY FEMALE TEACHERS
BY JORGE CHUVA 7
METHODS OF THE STUDY
•NON-PARTICIPANT OBSERVER EACH CLASS•EACH CLASS RECORDED ON MP3•EACH RECORDING TRANSCRIBED
BY JORGE CHUVA 8
DATA ANALYSISALL DATA ANALYZED USING THE MODEL PROPOSED BY TSUI (1994)ALL CLASSROOM CONVERSATION IS ANALYZED AND CATEGORIZED INTO 3 MAIN GROUPS•TEACHER-STUDENT TALK•STUDENT-TEACHER TALK•STUDENT- STUDENT TALKS
BY JORGE CHUVA 9
PROBLEMS WITH DATA ANALYSIS MODEL
•DUE TO THE VARIED TYPE OF TEACHER STUDENT INTERACTIONS, IT WAS NECESSARY TO INCLUDE A MORE DETAILED CATEGORIZING SYSTEM.
BY JORGE CHUVA 10
THE SOLUCIONINSERTED CATEGORIES FROM TSUIS 1985 MODEL
• ELICIT• EVALUATE• NOMINATE• ACCEPT• COMMENT• CLUE
• INSERTED THE “REPAIR”CATAGORIES BORROWED FROM THE CONVERSATION ANALYSIS• SELF-REPAIR (THE STUDENT
CORRECTS HIMSELF)• REPAIR (THE TEACHER
CORRECTS THE ERROR)• PEER REPAIR (THE OTHER
STUDENT CORRECT THE ERROR)
BY JORGE CHUVA 11
TO ANALYZE STUDENT TEACHER TALK AND STUDENT TALK• THE ORIGINAL 1994 MODEL PROPOSED BY TSUI WAS SUFFICIENT TO
ANALYZE THE STUDENT LED INTERACTIONS. • IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO INCLUDE THE SAME SUB CATEGORIES THAT
WERE NEEDED TO ANALYZE THE TEACHER LED CONVERSATIONS.
BY JORGE CHUVA 12
THE EFFECT OF GENDER• INVESTIGATION OF THE EFFECT THAT GENDER HAS ON THE INTERACTIONS• DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE TEACHERS • DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS• ANALYSIS OF FREQUENCY COUNTS AND PERCENTAGE INDICES WERE
CALCULATED FOR EACH OF THE THREE CATEGORY TYPES (TEACHER-STUDENT TALK, STUDENT-TEACHER TALK AND STUDENT-STUDENT TALK)
BY JORGE CHUVA 13
RESULTS TEACHER LED CONVERSATION• BOTH MALE TEACHERS AND FEMALE TEACHERS DOMINATED THE
CONVERSATIONS HELD WITH THEIR STUDENTS IN THE CLASSROOM.• IN GENERAL FEMALE TEACHERS GAVE MORE POSITIVE ORAL FEEDBACK, BUT
THE DIFFERENCE WAS VERY LITTLE.• IN GENERAL THERE EXISTED VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MALE AND
FEMALE TEACHERS IN THEIR INTERACTION WITH THE STUDENTS• INDICATING THAT GENDER DID NOT AFFECT THE INTERACTION THAT THE
TEACHERS HAD WITH THEIR STUDENTS
BY JORGE CHUVA 14
STUDENT-TEACHER TALK•VERY SMALL DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE FEMALE STUDENTS AND
MALE STUDENTS INTERACTED WITH THEIR TEACHERS•RESULTS INDICATED THAT THE STUDENTS WERE ALSO ACTIVE IN
TALKING WITH THE TEACHER• STUDENTS RESPONDED TO QUESTIONS AND CORRECTED THEIR OWN
ERRORS AND THE ERRORS OF THEIR PEERS AND ALSO OPENLY RECEIVED THE CORRECTIONS FROM THE TEACHER. BOTH MALE AND FEMALE STUDENTS ALSO ASKED QUESTIONS OF THE TEACHERS.
BY JORGE CHUVA 15
STUDENT-STUDENT TALK•FEMALE STUDENTS INTERACTED MORE IN
CONVERSATION THAN MALE STUDENTS.•(PERHAPS BECAUSE FEMALE TEACHERS ENCOURAGED
MORE INTERACTION THAN MALE TEACHERS IN THE CLASSROOM)
BY JORGE CHUVA 16
CONCLUSION• BOTH MALE AND FEMALE TEACHERS DOMINATED THE CONVERSATION IN THEIR CLASSES, BY
ASKING QUESTIONS, PRESENTING TOPICS, CORRECTING STUDENT ERRORS AND BY GIVING ORAL FEEDBACK.• IN SINGLE GENDERED CLASSROOMS GENDER PLAYED A VERY SMALL ROLE IN THE
DIFFERENCES OF INTERACTION THAT STUDENTS HAD WITH THEIR TEACHERS AND VICE VERSA• IT’S POSSIBLE THAT IN MIXED GENDERED CLASSES A GREATER DIFFERENCE MAY BE
RECOGNIZED• TO ENCOURAGE A GREATER STUDENT BASED PARTICIPATION IN CONVERSATION IT IS
NECESSARY THAT THE TEACHERS INCORPORATE EXERCISES THAT GIVE MORE POSSIBILITIES FOR THE STUDENTS TO EXPRESS AND LESS NEED FOR TEACHER DOMINATED CONVERSATION, SUCH AS BRAINSTORMING, GROUP ACTIVITIES AND PAIR WORK.
• SOURCE: HTTPS://WWW.GOOGLE.COM.EC/#Q=ANALYZING_PATTERNS+_OF_CLASSROOM_INTERACTION_IN_EFL_CLASSROOMS_IN_IRAN+20+1+PDF
BY JORGE CHUVA 17