Classroom Interaction Classroom Interaction and Second Language and Second Language

AcquisitionAcquisitionBased on Ellis (2008)

.

Allwright (1984) proposed that interaction is the fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy because everything that happens in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to- person interaction.

This perspective has led researchers to observe and describe the interactional events that take place in a classroom in order to understand how learning opportunities are created and also to examine how different kinds of classroom interaction lead to learning..

The nature of second language The nature of second language classroom discourseclassroom discourse

Classroom discourse mediates btw pedagogic decision-making & outcomes of language instruction.

Classroom discourse:

• is not planned in advance• is co-produced with the learners• will reflect the pedagogic decisions that have been

taken• evolves as part of the process of accomplishing the

lesson• has been found to manifest distinct and fairly

predictable characteristics

These characteristics will be considered These characteristics will be considered in terms of : in terms of :

1) The structure and general characteristics of classroom discourse

2) Types of language use

3) Turn-taking

4) Differences btw classroom and naturalistic discourse

The structure and general characteristics The structure and general characteristics of teacher-centered discourseof teacher-centered discourse

• Early work on teacher-centered classroom made use of interaction analysis systems.

• The aim of these was to identify significant aspects of L2 classroom discourse and to develop specific categories that would allow for quantification.

• By so doing they provided a basis for investigating which interactional features are important for language acquisition.

Some of the most frequently cited interaction analysis systems:

• Fanselow (1977)

• Allwright (1980)

• Allen, Frohlich, and Spada (1984)

The system proposed by Allen et al. is called COMMUNICATIVE ORIENTATION IN LANGUAGE TEACHING (COLT) which differs from other systems.

It was not only informed by current theories of communicative competence & CLT but also by research into L1 & L2 acquisition.

The system is in two parts: The system is in two parts:

1) A description of classroom activities

2) Communicative features

In the first part, the unit of analysis is activity type like drills, translation, discussion, game, and dialogue.

Each activity is described in terms of:• Participant organization (whole class, group or

individual work)• Content (the subject matter of the activity)• Student modality (skills involved in the activity)• Materials (type, length, and source/ purpose)

In the second part:In the second part:

• Coding is based on an audio recording of Coding is based on an audio recording of the classesthe classes

• Seven Seven communicative features communicative features relating to: relating to:

1)1) the use of target languagethe use of target language

2)2) Whether and to what extent there is an info gapWhether and to what extent there is an info gap

3)3) Sustained speechSustained speech

4)4) Whether the focus is on code or messageWhether the focus is on code or message

5)5) The way of incorporation of preceding The way of incorporation of preceding utterancesutterances

6)6) Discourse initiationDiscourse initiation

7)7) The degree to which linguistic form is restrictedThe degree to which linguistic form is restricted

A rather different approach to describing A rather different approach to describing teacher-centerd classroom discourse was teacher-centerd classroom discourse was Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) IRF modelIRF model.

• A hierarchical model with the following ‘ranks’ in the structure of a lesson:

1) Lesson (consisting of an unorderd series of transactions)

2) Transaction (consists of a preliminary , one or more medial, and a terminal exchange)

3) Exchange (has three phases: initiating move, responding move, and follow-up move)

4) Move ( is realized by means of various kinds of acts)

5) Act ( the smallest unit in discourse system like ‘accept’ : yes, ‘evaluate’: good, ‘ comment’ : that’s interesting)

Wrapping up this section,Wrapping up this section,Van Lier (1988) pointed out that it is easy to Van Lier (1988) pointed out that it is easy to overstate the lack of flexibility evident in L2 overstate the lack of flexibility evident in L2 classroom discourse. He found that although the classroom discourse. He found that although the classroom discourse is often controlled by the classroom discourse is often controlled by the teacher, learners do sometimes initiate exchange, teacher, learners do sometimes initiate exchange, and ‘and ‘schismic talkschismic talk’ ( talk that deviates from some ’ ( talk that deviates from some preceding plan) also occurs, at least in some preceding plan) also occurs, at least in some classrooms. classrooms. Other studies (e.g. Ernst, 1994; Johnson, 1995; and Other studies (e.g. Ernst, 1994; Johnson, 1995; and Walsh, 2002) have also pointed to the Walsh, 2002) have also pointed to the variety of variety of discoursediscourse that is possible in teacher-led exchanges. that is possible in teacher-led exchanges.

Other researchers describe classroom Other researchers describe classroom interaction by identifying the different interaction by identifying the different types of types of

language use language use

The following are some of the frameworks for The following are some of the frameworks for types of language use:types of language use:

• Mc Tear’s framework (1975) :Mc Tear’s framework (1975) :

1)1) Mechanical Mechanical (no exchange of meaning)(no exchange of meaning)

2)2) Meaningful Meaningful ( meaning is contextualized but still no ( meaning is contextualized but still no information conveyed)information conveyed)

3)3) Pseudo- communicative Pseudo- communicative (new info conveyed (new info conveyed but unlike the naturalistic discourse)but unlike the naturalistic discourse)

4)4) Real communication Real communication ( spontaneous speech, ( spontaneous speech, exchanging opinions, jokes, etc.)exchanging opinions, jokes, etc.)

Ellis’s (1984) framework:Ellis’s (1984) framework:

1)1) Goal ( the overall purpose of an interaction)Goal ( the overall purpose of an interaction)

2)2) Address ( who talks to whom)Address ( who talks to whom)

• Three goals specified:Three goals specified:

a. a. Core goals Core goals where the focus is on the language where the focus is on the language itself itself (medium(medium), on some other content ), on some other content (message), (message), or embedded in some ongoing or embedded in some ongoing activity such as model-making (activity such as model-making (activity).activity).

b. b. Framework goals Framework goals associated with the associated with the organization and management of classroom organization and management of classroom events.events.

c. c. Social goals Social goals provide opportunities for learners to provide opportunities for learners to perform a wider range of language functions.perform a wider range of language functions.

Van Lier’s (1988) framework: Van Lier’s (1988) framework:

• There are four basic types of classroom interaction There are four basic types of classroom interaction according to whether the teacher controls according to whether the teacher controls the topic the topic andand the activity the activity andand the function that language the function that language serves.serves.

• Type 1:Type 1: the teacher controls neither topic nor the the teacher controls neither topic nor the activity activity (e.g. small talk at the beginning of the class or (e.g. small talk at the beginning of the class or private talk btw students) private talk btw students)

• Type 2: Type 2: the teacher controls the topic but not the the teacher controls the topic but not the activity activity (e.g. teacher gives instructions or delivers a (e.g. teacher gives instructions or delivers a lecture)lecture)

• Type 3: Type 3: the teacher controls both the topic and the the teacher controls both the topic and the activity activity (e.g. the teacher elicits responses in a lang drill)(e.g. the teacher elicits responses in a lang drill)

• Type 4: Type 4: the teacher controls the activity but not the the teacher controls the activity but not the topic topic (e.g. small group work with specified rules and free (e.g. small group work with specified rules and free topics) topics)

The third criterion : Turn-takingThe third criterion : Turn-taking

Research which examined turn-taking in L2 Research which examined turn-taking in L2 classroom has drawn extensively on classroom has drawn extensively on ethnomethodological studies of naturally ethnomethodological studies of naturally occurring conversations (e.g. Sacks, Schegloff, occurring conversations (e.g. Sacks, Schegloff, and Jefferson , 1974)and Jefferson , 1974)

McHoul (1987) showed that in classroom McHoul (1987) showed that in classroom setting, there is a strict allocation of turns in setting, there is a strict allocation of turns in order to cope with potential transition and order to cope with potential transition and distribution problems and that who speaks to distribution problems and that who speaks to whom at what time is firmly controlled. As a whom at what time is firmly controlled. As a result, there is less turn-by-turn negotiation and result, there is less turn-by-turn negotiation and competition, and individual student initiatives competition, and individual student initiatives are discouraged.are discouraged.

Van Lier (1988) identified the following Van Lier (1988) identified the following basic basic rulesrules governing classroom turn-taking: governing classroom turn-taking:

1.1. In L2 classrooms, whenever centralized In L2 classrooms, whenever centralized attention is required: attention is required:

a.a. One speaker speaks at any one time;One speaker speaks at any one time;

b.b. Many can speak at once if they say (roughly) Many can speak at once if they say (roughly) the same thing, or at least if ( a proportion of ) the same thing, or at least if ( a proportion of ) the simultaneous talk remains intelligible.the simultaneous talk remains intelligible.

2. If not (a) or (b), repair work will be undertaken.2. If not (a) or (b), repair work will be undertaken.

He also states that classroom turn-taking is He also states that classroom turn-taking is different from other verbal interactions in that different from other verbal interactions in that it is it is regulated by means of some form of regulated by means of some form of centralized control centralized control to ensure ito ensure intelligibilityntelligibility..

Markee ( 2000) identified the following general Markee ( 2000) identified the following general characteristics of turn-taking in classroom characteristics of turn-taking in classroom talk: talk:

• The pre-allocation of different kinds of turns to The pre-allocation of different kinds of turns to teachers and learnersteachers and learners

• The frequent production by learners of turns in The frequent production by learners of turns in choruschorus

• The frequent production of long turns by the teacher The frequent production of long turns by the teacher and short turns by the studentand short turns by the student

• The requirement that learners produce elaborated The requirement that learners produce elaborated sentence-length turns in order to display knowledgesentence-length turns in order to display knowledge

• A pre-determined topicA pre-determined topic

The difference btw classroom and naturalistic The difference btw classroom and naturalistic discoursediscourse

The discourse that results when the focus is on trying to learn a The discourse that results when the focus is on trying to learn a language is different from that which results when the focus language is different from that which results when the focus is on trying to communicate.is on trying to communicate.

Studies like Pica and Long (1986) have shown that natural Studies like Pica and Long (1986) have shown that natural discourse occurs rarely in the classrooms and there is very discourse occurs rarely in the classrooms and there is very little negotiation of meaning little negotiation of meaning in classrooms in comparison to in classrooms in comparison to conversations outside the classroom.conversations outside the classroom.

Kasper ‘s(1986) study testify to the Kasper ‘s(1986) study testify to the restricted nature of restricted nature of pedagogic discoursepedagogic discourse. .

Gremmo, Holec, and Riley (1978) argued that in the classroom Gremmo, Holec, and Riley (1978) argued that in the classroom setting discourse rights are invested in the teacher.setting discourse rights are invested in the teacher.

It is the teacher who has the right to : It is the teacher who has the right to : • Participate in all exchangesParticipate in all exchanges• Initiate exchangesInitiate exchanges• Decide on the length of exchangesDecide on the length of exchanges• Close exchangesClose exchanges• Include or exclude other participantsInclude or exclude other participants• Act as Act as informantsinformants or or knowers knowers

As a result there is a prepoderance of teacher acts over students acts.As a result there is a prepoderance of teacher acts over students acts.

However, Kramsch (1985) argued that the classroom is However, Kramsch (1985) argued that the classroom is characterized by characterized by ‘ co-existing discourse worlds’ .‘ co-existing discourse worlds’ .

She suggested that the nature of classroom discourse She suggested that the nature of classroom discourse will depend on :will depend on :

• The roles that participants adoptThe roles that participants adopt• The nature of learning tasksThe nature of learning tasks

• The kind of knowledge that is targetedThe kind of knowledge that is targeted

Instructional discourse Instructional discourse arises when the teacher and the arises when the teacher and the students act out institutional roles, the tasks are students act out institutional roles, the tasks are concerned with the transmission and reception of concerned with the transmission and reception of info and are controlled by the teacher and there is a info and are controlled by the teacher and there is a focus on focus on knowledgeknowledge as a product and as a product and accuracyaccuracy..

Natural discourse Natural discourse is characterized by more fluid roles is characterized by more fluid roles established through interaction, tasks that established through interaction, tasks that encourage equal participation in the negotiation of encourage equal participation in the negotiation of meaning, and a focus on meaning, and a focus on the interactional process the interactional process itself and on fitself and on fluencyluency..

one way in which the two worlds can be brought one way in which the two worlds can be brought together is through together is through communicating about learning communicating about learning itselfitself , as suggested by Breen (1985). , as suggested by Breen (1985).

The teacher’s contribution to The teacher’s contribution to classroom discourseclassroom discourse

L2 TEACHER TALK can be viewed as a L2 TEACHER TALK can be viewed as a special special registerregister , analogous to foreigner talk., analogous to foreigner talk.

Fillmore (1985) identified a number of features of Fillmore (1985) identified a number of features of teacher talk that she claimed were facilitative of teacher talk that she claimed were facilitative of acquisition: acquisition:

Avoidance of translationAvoidance of translation An emphasis on communication and An emphasis on communication and

comprehension by ensuring message redundancycomprehension by ensuring message redundancy The avoidance of ungrammatical teacher talkThe avoidance of ungrammatical teacher talk The frequent use of patterns and routinesThe frequent use of patterns and routines RepetitivenessRepetitiveness Tailoring questions to suit the learners’s level of Tailoring questions to suit the learners’s level of

proficiencyproficiency General richness of languageGeneral richness of language

Other features of teacher talk Other features of teacher talk summarized from Chaudron ( 1988): summarized from Chaudron ( 1988):

• Amount of talk Amount of talk ( e.g. teacher takes up about ( e.g. teacher takes up about two-thirds of the total talking time)two-thirds of the total talking time)

• Functional distribution Functional distribution ( general picture is one ( general picture is one of teacher dominance as teachers are likely to of teacher dominance as teachers are likely to explain, question, and command and learners to explain, question, and command and learners to respond)respond)

• Modifications in the rate of speech Modifications in the rate of speech ( e.g. when ( e.g. when talking to learners or slower rate with less talking to learners or slower rate with less proficient learners)proficient learners)

• Longer PausesLonger Pauses• Distinct and exagerated phonology, intonation, Distinct and exagerated phonology, intonation,

and stressand stress• Modifications in vocabulary, syntax Modifications in vocabulary, syntax (e.g. shorter, (e.g. shorter,

less complex, less marked structures)less complex, less marked structures)• Modifications in discoursModifications in discourse e ( e.g. teachers use ( e.g. teachers use

more self-repetitions with L2 learners)more self-repetitions with L2 learners)

Teachers’ questionsTeachers’ questionsTeachers , whether in content classrooms or language classrooms, typically Teachers , whether in content classrooms or language classrooms, typically

ask a lot of questions.ask a lot of questions.

Mc Cormic and Donato (2000) argued that questions need to be viewed as Mc Cormic and Donato (2000) argued that questions need to be viewed as ‘ ‘ dynamic discursive tools ‘ dynamic discursive tools ‘ that serve that serve to build collaborationto build collaboration and and to to scaffold scaffold comprehension and comprehensibility. comprehension and comprehensibility.

There are different taxonomies of questions , like Barnes (1969) :There are different taxonomies of questions , like Barnes (1969) :

Factual questions Factual questions (what?), (what?), reasoning questions reasoning questions (why?how?) , (why?how?) , open open questions questions (not requiring any reasoning), and (not requiring any reasoning), and social questions social questions ( influence ( influence student behavior by means of control or appeal) student behavior by means of control or appeal)

• Baren’s distinction of Baren’s distinction of openopen vs. vs. closedclosed and and pseudo-questionspseudo-questions• Long and Sato’s (1984) taxonomy:Long and Sato’s (1984) taxonomy:

Echoic questions Echoic questions (ask for repetition or confirmation) vs. (ask for repetition or confirmation) vs. epistemic epistemic questions questions (acquiring information) which include (acquiring information) which include referentialreferential (genuinely (genuinely info-seeking) and info-seeking) and display questions display questions (test the learners by eliciting (test the learners by eliciting already known information)already known information)

Use of the L1Use of the L1

The teacher’s use of L1 in the L2 classroom remains a complex and controversial issue.

It is complex because clearly the utility of using L1 will depend on the instructional context.

It is controversial because different theories of L2 acquisition afford very different hypotheses about the value of L1 use in the classroom.

Use of metalanguageUse of metalanguage

• Clearly when teachers elect to use Clearly when teachers elect to use metalanguage they are treating language as metalanguage they are treating language as an ‘ an ‘ objectobject’ rather than using it as a ’ rather than using it as a ‘tool‘tool’ for ’ for communication.communication.

• Relatively few studies have examined Relatively few studies have examined teacher’s use of metalanguage and to date, teacher’s use of metalanguage and to date, no study has investigated the relationship no study has investigated the relationship btw teachers’ use of metalanguage and L2 btw teachers’ use of metalanguage and L2 acquisition.acquisition.

The learners’ contribution to classroom discourseThe learners’ contribution to classroom discourse

• There has been substantially less work done on the learners’ There has been substantially less work done on the learners’ contributions , probably for the obvious reason- learners typically contributions , probably for the obvious reason- learners typically contribute a lot less than teachers and in a quite limited ways.contribute a lot less than teachers and in a quite limited ways.

• In terms of learners participation, there is no clear evidence that the In terms of learners participation, there is no clear evidence that the quantity of participation affects their rate of development.quantity of participation affects their rate of development.

• As Lightbown (2006) pointed out, even meaningful practice does not As Lightbown (2006) pointed out, even meaningful practice does not necessarily ensure high levels of fluency and accuracy.necessarily ensure high levels of fluency and accuracy.

• Learners Learners initiationinitiation and and questionsquestions assist acquisition , because according assist acquisition , because according to to interaction hypothesis interaction hypothesis they create the conditions that lead to they create the conditions that lead to negotiation of meaning, and according to negotiation of meaning, and according to sociocultural theorysociocultural theory they they ensure the learners’ interest in the activity, help the teacher to identify ensure the learners’ interest in the activity, help the teacher to identify what speech forms may lie within the learner’s zone of proximal what speech forms may lie within the learner’s zone of proximal development, and provide a basis for determining the kind of development, and provide a basis for determining the kind of scaffolding needed to assist the learners to use and internalize more scaffolding needed to assist the learners to use and internalize more complex languagecomplex language

Thank Thank YouYou