Download - Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
1/30
Verbal Classroom Discourse: A small-scale investigation into teacher
follow-up moves in pre-intermediate-level EFL classes at an Omani
Basic Education school
Jamel Abdenacer ALIMI
e-mail: [email protected]
Date: 10 July, 2007.
PAPER PLAN
Introduction
1. Theoretical Background2. The Study
2.1 Research Question
2.2 Methodology2.2.1 Participants
2.2.2 Data Collection
2.2.3 Procedure
2.3 Data Analytical Framework
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Preliminary Observations
3.2 Analysis4. Data Interpretation
4.1 Pedagogical Roles
4.2 Evaluative Roles
4.3 Discoursal Roles
5. Discussion
6. Conclusion
7. End Notes8. References9. Appendices
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Transcription Conventions
Appendix B: Lesson Transcript (Exchanges 2-4 )
Appendix C: Lesson Transcript (Exchanges 2-4 analysed and keyed according to the Jarvis-Robinson 1997 Model)
ABBREVIATIONS
ESL: English as a Second Language
EFL: English as a Foreign Language
TEYL: Teaching English to Young Learners
BE: Basic Education
CLT: Communicative Language Teaching
Creating a patterned, supportive discourse cannot be seen
as easy. It involves skills in using many functions, in
analyzing many voices and in developing interlinked
conversational exchanges.
Jarvis (1996: 49)
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected] -
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
2/30
2
INTRODUCTION
The much-debated issue of teacher classroom discourse has recently received a fresh
impetus as ESL/EFL studies are increasingly interpreting classroom encounters from
(neo-) Vygotskian principles of education1 (e.g., Mercer 1994; Jarvis and Robinson
1997; McCarthy 1991; Cazden 1988; Sinclair and Coulthard 1975; Coulthard 1985;
Demo 2001). A great deal has been subsequently written on such crucial issues asinitiation, questioning, explaining, and giving instructions (e.g., Tsui 1995; Doff 1998;
Brown and Wragg 1993; Kerry 1982; Sinclair and Brazil 1982). In contrast, less
attention has been paid to the form, patterns and functions of teacher verbal feedback
provision (Hewings 1992: 183; Jarvis 1996). As a result, the latter's influence in creating
a supportive discourse as well as an acquisition-rich classroom has, unfortunately,
remained hardly imperceptible by ELT practitioners in many educational settings to
date.
Building on previous studies by Jarvis and Robinson (1997), Cullen (2002) and Jarvis
(1996), the present paper is a modest step towards filling that serious gap in research. It
specifically aims to critically describe the functions and patterns of a non-native EFL2teacher's Follow up moves as they emerge in an interactive lesson that has been
recorded for that very purpose (Appendices A and C).
For a comprehensive report on this mini-scale project, we propose to divide the
remainder into the following five sections: Section One provides a brief theoretical
background of the concept of teacher follow-up. Section Two focuses on the study at
issue, in terms of its aims, method, and analytical framework. Sections Three and Four,
in turn, analyze and comment on the functions and patterns of teacher responsive moves
as observed in the data collected. Section Five discusses the study results in relation to
the set research questions and the framework of analysis here selected.
1. THEORETICAL BACKGROUNDTeacher follow-ups are part of the exchange structure I (R/I) R (F) (F), where
the abbreviations stand for teacher Initiation, student Response, and teacher
Follow-up (Coulthard 1985:136). Described as "the lynchpins of a lesson" by
Brown and Wragg (1993: 34), they specifically refer to those "utterances which
are devoted explicitly to making remarks about what has gone before [in
student responses]" (Sinclair and Brazil 1982: 44).
The self-imposing, functional presence of the said acts in language teaching/learning
could not be over-emphasized (Tsui 1995: 42). For they allow the teacher to, inter alia,
introduce new information, alter the course of a given topic in progress, expand the
scope of a discussion onwards, and move the lesson back on track (Brown and Bragg,
Op.Cit). In so doing, they adequately respond to the legitimate, basic needs of the
learner for being told or shown by the teacher how s/he is learning thus, hopefully,
allowing early correction, stopping bad habit forming and isolating particular difficulties
(Sinclair and Brazil, Op.Cit.). Their realization, in Jarvis and Robinson (1997)'s view, is
thought to emanate from a conscious minute-by-minute decision-making on the part of
the teacher. Accordingly, each F-move or 'responsiveness"
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
3/30
3
looks back to what the pupils have said, and forward to topic development or
topic shift (). Through these two [contingent and planning] types of
responsiveness, the teacher's ongoing awareness of the pupils' ZPD3 and her
support to their learning may be created (219).
According to Cullen (2002: 118), they thus fulfill two distinct, yet complementary
pedagogical roles evaluative and discoursal. In the former, as he explains,
support for learning is in the formal correction which the F-move offers. In
the latter, support for learning consists primarily in the teacher providing a
rich source of message-oriented target language input as s/he reformulates
and elaborates on the students' contributions, and derives further Initiating
moves from them (ibid: 122).
Taken together, these various standpoints and categorizations strongly hint at the
possibilities and limitations which surround teacher-whole class interactions, in general,
and the feedback-related discourse within them, in particular. The stakes of generating a
coherent classroom discourse out of a multi-pattern and function follow-up moves arehigh in ESL settings (Malouf 1995). They are potentially higher in EFL counterparts,
including the Sultanate of Oman, where TEYL teachers' skills in receiving learners'
contributions are reportedly not known much about and, therefore, need further probing.
The next Section will shed some preliminary light on a case in point at one of the
Sultanate's Basic Education (BE) schools. (For the sake of avoiding unnecessary
repetition, the term "F-move" is used interchangeably with "teacher responsiveness",
"follow-up moves", "follow-ups" and "feedback" in the pages to follow).
2. THE STUDY2.1 RESEARCH QUESTION:
The present study generally aimed at exploring aspects of oral teacher feedback as
occurring in a pre-intermediate level EFL lesson within the Omani context. It
specifically addressed the following questions:
Given young learners in a context officially adopting a multi-layered, task-based
approach to English language learning4,
a- What pedagogical functions can be identified in the ways teachers respond tostudent contributions in the ongoing interactions?
b- What discourse patterns can be identified in the said ways of responses?The underlying question was:
c- How effective are the kinds of teacher responsiveness on the overall discourseand potential support to learning?
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
4/30
4
2.2 METHOD:
2.2.1 Participants
The investigation was conducted in late September 2006 at Sheikh Hamdan Al-Yousefi
Basic Education (BE) School, Oman. It involved a Grade Nine class with a total number
of 35 students. These were Omani nationals, aged between 13 and 14, and in their ninth
year of English instruction. They were considered to be at a pre-intermediate level ofEFL.
The teacher was an Omani national, a holder of an MA in ELT, and with a four-year
teaching experience. He took up an intensive training course in teaching English to
young learners. He was thought as being a highly effective and dedicated teacher.
2.2.2 Data Collection
The data that form the basis of the project are taken from a 45-minute lesson. The class
was selected out of mere convenience and the expectation for a fairly developed level at
communication skills in the students concerned.
2.2.3 Procedure
The class was audio-recorded with the tape-recorder kept on a table right in front of the
room and the microphone aimed at the teacher and learners. The recorded tape was then
transcribed and keyed for analysis. The teacher in question was not informed of the
specific object of the study in order to secure maximum levels of spontaneity and
authenticity of data. No claims are made as to the absolute generalizability of the
teacher responsiveness features illustrated here for all EFL practitioners in the Sultanate.
The patterns and functions referred to in Section Three below are it is strongly
believed very much in common with those pervading in standard BE institutions,
though.
2.3 DATA ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
A relevant and appealing analytical framework for answering the research questions
mentioned above was the one devised by Jarvis and Robinson (1997). The said model,
as briefly summed up in Table 2 here below, was selected for two reasons: Firstly, it
TEACHER RESPONSIVE MOVES
I- FUNCTIONS:GROUP/CATEGORY PEDAGOGICAL FUNCTION EXAMPLES
A Show acceptance of pupils' utterances Accept; complete; talk now
B Model language Rephrase
C Give clues Clue
D Develop, elaborate, build-up the
discourse
Extend/guide; Extend/bridge
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
5/30
5
E Clarify pupils'
understanding/task/purposes/principles
Check; set
F Disconfirm; reject; rebuke Ignore
II- PATTERNS:
i- FOCUS: "This involves the teacher overly focusing on a topic and making that focuspublic (and therefore potentially shareable)" (ibid, 219).
ii- BUILD: "The topic is then built, usually in interaction with the pupils. Builddepends onthe teacher's sense of "unfinished business" so that ideas are pursued and developed" (ibid,
220).
iii- SUMMARIZE: "Teachers may then summarize the point or principle which has been builtin the segment of the lesson" (ibid, 220).
Table 1: Main features of teacher responsive moves (Adapted from Jarvis and Robinson 1997).
offers detailed codes for identifying and by extension understanding the motives
behind the joint pedagogical and discoursal functions of teacher responsive moves.
Secondly, it does without all the paralinguistic features such as gestures and eye-gaze,
which allows us to pre-empt the possible criticisma valid one in the case of face-to-
face interactionthat only video recording can capture all the features of conversation(Francis and Hunston 1992: 124).
The Section above provided necessary background details about the study at issue in
terms of its research questions, methodology, and data analysis framework. The Section
to follow will now turn to the analytical description of the various R- Moves made bythe teacher here concerned. Due to obvious constraints with time and space, the Section
will limit itself to Exchanges Two through Four from the Lesson in question (See
Appendix D).
3. DATA ANALYSIS3.1 PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS:
The segment reproduced below is extracted from the second Exchange in a lesson that
has been audio-recorded in a Grade Nine class at a Basic Education school in Muscat
Region, Oman (See Appendices A and C for details). The sequences under study extend
from Points 16 through 175. The functions and patterns of the primarily responsive
moves in the teacher-participants talk are glossed down the left-hand and right-hand
sides of the Transcript, respectively (Transcription conventions appear in Appendix B).
Though not explicitly articulated, the teacher was
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
6/30
6
FUNCTIONS LESSON TRANSCRIPT PATTERNS
E2 Set
E1 Check
A4 Confirm
E1 Check
F6 Doubt
A1 Accept
EXCHANGE TWO: VOCABULARY REVIEW
16-T: OK,
last time (0.3)
Where are you? Which Page now
you're come? Which page?
17- S1: Five18- S2: Me, teacher!
19- T: Page five
= How did you fini.. = How
did you get hangingout
20- Ss: Yes.
21- T: We took "hanging out"?
22- Ss: Yes!
23- T: [OK OK (..)
FOCUS. Teacher shift
to a new focus
Students' thinking
related to a concept
previously dealt with.
Unsuccessful attempt.
The teacher seems at
odds where to start!
BUILD. Student's
reply in 17 is taken up
FOCUS. Students
asked if they have
already dealt with a
vocabulary item.
False start. Non-
idiomatic English
BUILD. Teacher's
idea in 19 continued.
Students' confirmation
in 19 doubted.
Table 2: An extract from the tape-recorded Lesson (Appendix One) keyed and
analyzed according to the Jarvis-Robinson model.
actually engaging his class of 34 boys in a vocabulary revision in preparation for a
subsequent consolidation task in Exchange Three.
3.2 ANALYSIS
The Transcript of Exchanges 2 through 4 is composed of a total of 105 student turns and54 teacher interventions. With very few exceptions, the learners offers were incorrect,
ill-formed or simply expressed in the mother tongue, Arabic. In response, the teachers
follow-ups as further evidenced in the commentary notes in
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
7/30
7
F. REJECT: At Point 25, the teacher sharply rejects the students definition of the phrase hang out at
24, which was given in Arabic.
E. CHECK: At 25, he picks up the students utterance at 24 and checks the students; understanding of
the vocabulary item by means of a question.
A. ACCEPT: At 27, he accepts what the student hassaid by reiterating the utterance (and adding the
words the house, by the way).
D. EXTENG/GUIDE + A. TALK NOW: At 27, he builds on the students response in 26 to extend/
guide the discourse. He also invites the class to join in the lesson andtalk.
A. ACCEPT: At 29, he explicitly shows his acceptance of the students offer at 28, by dint of the
customary signal Goodand of the reiteration of the answer given (Notice the error made, though).
F. DISMISS + E. SUMMARIZE + D. EXTEND/BRIDGE: At 31, he rejects the students offer at 30.
He, nonetheless, sums up the concept at issue before extending andguiding the discourse forward via
two focus questions.
Table3: Explanatory comments on the ways in which the teacher here concerned took
up his students' utterances.
Table 3 came in various ways as he apparently felt most convenient. Their individual
occurrences per patterns and functions were tabulated as follows:
TEACHER RESPONSIVE MOVES
TOTAL %
I- FUNCTIONS: 102 100
CATEGORY PEDAGOGICAL FUNCTION
42
12
1204
1202
23,52A Show acceptance of pupils' utterances
1 Accept
2 Encourage
4 Confirm
6 Talk now7 Complete
B Model language
1 Rephrase
04
04
03,92
C Give clues
2 Clue
3 Prompt
4 Reiterate
12
04
01
07
11,76
D Develop, elaborate, build-up the discourse
04 03,92
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
8/30
8
3 Extend/guide
3 Extend/bridge 03
01
E Clarify pupils' understanding/ task/ purposes/principles
1 Check
2 Set
3 Purpose
4 Summarize
32
18
05
05
04
31,37
F Disconfirm; reject; rebuke
2 Reject
4 Dismiss
6 Doubt
08
04
02
02
07,84
II- PATTERNS: 40 28,16
iv- Focusv- Buildvi- Summarize
1224
04
Table 4: Totals of teacher Follow-ups per Patterns and Functions (Adapted from Jarvis
and Robinson [1997])
Interpretation of the above F-move choices is turned to in the next Section.
4. DATA INTERPRETATIONVaried as they were, the teacher-participant's F-moves tended, nonetheless, to converge
towards the performance of three fundamental roles pedagogical, evaluative, and
discoursal. Details about each of these roles are presented in the following sub-sections.
4.1 PEDAGOGICAL ROLES:
From a pedagogical perspective, the responsiveness moves were resorted to help
introduce, use and practise some lexical and syntactic aspects of the target language
which had already been selected by teaching materials designers for learners at Grade
Nine classes (The Simple Past Tense plus the phrasal verbs hang outandchill out, in our
case).
Equally, the said moves sought to pave the way for a greater involvement on the part of
the students in the course of the Lesson. This was attempted by getting them, amongst
others, to offer suggestions (Points 46; 51-62), to tell about personal experiences (The
Al-Bahjat sequence at Points 73-86), and to react either verbally or non-verbally to
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
9/30
9
peers contributions (at point 63; 73 and 82). The segment here below illustrates the
latter points:
45- T: Good [writes on the board] "He's chilling in or out" (0.5) [to one of the
students]And what about you, good-looking youngman, where do you
hang out? where do you hang out? (.) Ehm?
46- S: beach
47- T: beach? =Finished the beach48- S: Now?
49- T: Finished the beach (0.1) In the city inside the city you can make
50- S1: [ building buildings
51- S: skating
52- T: skating
53- S2: walking
54- T: walking
55- S: play football [unclear]
56-T: playing football
57- S4: Drive bicycle
58- S5: play tennis59- S6: listening to music
60-S7: watching snooker
61- S8: go to the stadium
62-S7: I go to see er..er..[Unclear] the national football team
63- S8: a team? Which team?
64- S7:Oman's.
65-T: Good!
66- S9: I go to buy er.. a present
67- S10: [I go to visit my parents
68-T: [No that's not hanging out
69- S: [unclear]
70-T: No, that's not you're (.) That's not hanging out (0.1) Hanging out means
with your friends= you go about aimlessly. Where wouldyou hang out?
71- Ss: [unclear]
72-T: Okay
73- S2: = I go to Bahjat
74-T: Bahjat = what do you do at Bahjat
75- S2: I go to see er..
76- S3: [to fight with boys
77-T: to see the cinema?
78- S4: [ to smoke hookah79- S2: sorry?
80- T: Nothing else (.) Only to see the cinema?
81-S2: Yeah
82-Ss:[ quiet laughter]
83-T: Noflir
ting with girls at all?
84- Ss: Sometimes!
85 S2: [yea
86-Ss: [Sometimes
4.2 EVALUATIVE ROLE:
In parallel with the objectives pointed out previously was the evaluative role so much
salient across Exchanges Two through Four. As illustrated in the extract below, the
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
10/30
10
23- T: What is "hanging out"? (0.2) What is "to hang out"? Yes?
24- S: It means to spend the time outside home
25- T: English (0.1) Are you inside your house or outside your house?
26- S: Outside
27- T: Outside house = with whom
28- S: With my friends
29- T: Good = with your friends30- S: With my family
31- T: Not your family. It's always you're with your friends outside home when
you have free time you have free time. The question is where do you hang
out? (.) Where do you like to hang out?
follow-ups, expounded here by a show of acceptance (Point 29) or, adversely, by
outright rejection (Point 31), rather focused on form correctness be it lexical or
syntactic. They were meant, in the first place, to confirm, disconfirm and modify the
interlanguage rules which they had formed about the target language system (Chaudron
1988: 133; quoted in Cullen 2002:110).
Interestingly, the statistics provided in Table Four show a neatly low number of form-
focused F-moves (Reject: 4, Dismiss: 2, Rephrase: 4). In contrast, the totals of F-moves
of Types A, C and D clearly demonstrate the teacher-participants tolerance towards
learners non-target-like utterances as possible. Coming from a non-native practitioner
in an EFL educational context where focus-on-forms attitudes are notoriously
preponderant, this is quite exceptional (see Nunan and Lamb 1996 for a dissimilar
account).
4.3 DISCOURSAL ROLE:
The preoccupation with the lexico-grammatical correctness of student utterances was
intertwined with discourse-oriented concerns. The purpose this time was to sustain and
develop the interaction between the teacher and student interlocutors and attempt in
the process at making the meaning publicly emanating from it fully shareable among
the class members at large (Jarvis and Robinson 1997: 220; Cullen 2002: 120).
As could be evident in the Exchanges at study, the latter type of role was worked at by
dint of various channels. These namely include:
a- The Focus,Build, andSummarizepattern,b-
The Functions of Types A, C, and D.c- The input modification (i.e., the linguistic simplification of teacher talk), and
d- The interaction modifications or ways in which teachers alter the patterns ofclassroom discourse to help students understand (Lynch 1996: 44; Tsui 1995; 55).
5. DISCUSSION
The discussion of the teacher-participant's F-moves will address the two
research questions which guided the study (see Subsection 2.1).
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
11/30
11
Insofar as the first Question is concerned, the data obtained tend to reveal the
presence of a rich variety of Function-oriented, verbal feedback moves. This
finding is hardly surprising or unusual given the predominantly oral character
of interactions at this stage of the Lesson. It does, however, support earlier
conclusions about the versality of this aspect of teacher behavior. The latter's
characterization as a important agent for sequencing and structuring a lesson
(Brown and Wragg 1993: 22) is well-founded in this regard.
The above remarks, however, should in no way blur the intrinsic limitations of
the F-moves as to their intended pedagogical effects. The failure of generating
reasonably well-formed, communicative stretches of spoken discourse on the
part of the students stands out as one of the most pertinent tokens, in this
respect. This finding sharply contrasts with the virtually native-like fluency
which learners seem to prove of in other educational settings (see, for instance,
the data collected in Cullen 2002; Jarvis and Robinson 1997). The reasons
behind such a state of affairs are numerous. But, they could be traceable in the
teacher's rather non-standard language proficiency level as well as the
conspicuous deficiencies relating to his feedback provision techniques. This
fairly intersects with findings which denounce the inconsistency, ambiguity,and imprecision within teacher responsiveness moves (Allwright 1975;
Fanselow 1975; Slimani 1989; cited in Panova and Lyster 2002: 574-5).
Concerning the second research question, the Exchanges feedback patterns
exhibit two fundamental characteristics:
a- The considerable involvement on the part of the teacher-participant inpursuing and developing the ideas which keep springing out of the
ongoing interactions, and
b- The repeated disruption of the flow of ideas because of the highfrequency of Focus, Build, and Summarize acts.
The latter feature casts serious doubts as to the effect of the feedback moves on
the overall quality of discourse and on the potential support to learning. The
relative smoothness in teacher-student talk reported, for instance, in Sinclair
and Coulthard (1975), Jarvis and Robinson (1997), and Cullen (2002) is
strikingly alien to the present Lesson snapshots. Rather, The prevalence of little
meaningful communication, which tangibly touches on a sense of "time-
passing" (Dinsmore 1985), tends to be the case in our data. Should they be
checked out against the tenets and procedures of the methodology and
approach officially en vigueur at BE institutions, the interactions at issue wouldreveal little or no correspondence to TBLT in its either strong or weak forms
(Willis 1996; Skehan 1998). Their "[resemblance] to traditional patterns of
classroom interaction rather than genuine interaction" (Nunan 1987: 137)
appears much more evident, in fact. In this sense, their efficacy to pupils'
learning as well as compatibility with recent theories of EFL/ESL language
instruction remains highly questionable.
The foregoing comments bring the issue of effectiveness of verbal teacher
responsiveness on the overall classroom discourse and on potential learning, which was
posed in the third research question, centrestage. The analysis, and hearing, of theExchanges under study yield no obviously definite answer. The correlation remains hard
to establish. Astonishingly enough, the sequences seem an almost ideal example of what
a discoursally ambivalent learning environment may mean. This conclusion is, more or
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
12/30
12
less, in line with similar ones in recent field studies, where the ways in which teachers,
through their choice of language, construct learner participation in face-to-face
classroom communication are fraught with considerable obstruction (Walsh 2002: 3).
Facilitation and promotion of learner talk via reformulation, clarification checks,
direct error correction, content feedback, scaffolding, and voluntary adoption of a "back-
seat" attitude as the discourse progresses are outweighed by too many instances of
teacher interruptions thus, obstructing smooth flowing of exchanges as well as
learning potential (see Walsh, Op.Cit., for implications for teacher education andresearch).
The above findings and insights about spoken teacher responsiveness were made
available with exclusive reference to the Jarvis-Robinson typology. As such, they are
representative rather than comprehensive. Their elevation to a fuller, much more
illuminating account for the features of this highly complex communication aspect
would undoubtedly be possible provided that the current deficiencies in the said
framework were eradicated. As personally experienced, these mainly concern the
following:
The overt tendency to assign every feedback move, whatever it may turn to be,with a priori, pre-ordained single function. A one-to-one correspondence
between utterance and function is simply not possible to establish in all cases
(Cook 1989; McCarthy 1991). The subjectivity and, therefore, the risk of unaccountability, when labeling and
sorting out teacher moves. Categories such as "Reject" and "Dismiss", for
instance, have proved quite confusing.
The absence of a clear-cut boundary between types of move in teacher talk as iscommonly identified in discourse analysis literature. As apparently conceived
of, the differences between teacher Initiation and Feedback are not relevant
here. Indeed, all teacher utterances are to be viewed as types of responsiveness
because of the concepts of contingency and planning (Jarvis and Robinson,
Op.Cit.: 219).
The reliance on what is only observable in teacher behaviour whilst taking upstudents' contributions. Conceptualization of additional sub-categories to the
taxonomy in order to account for inner teacher beliefs, conceptions and attitudes
regarding feedback provision will not be an extravagance in this case.
6. CONCLUSIONThis paper has critically described the verbal feedback practices of an in-service Omani
EFL practitioner in the context of a small action-research project and based on the Jarvis
and Robinson's 1997 model for analyzing teacher responsiveness. The analysis of the
patterns and functions of such an aspect of classroom talk-in-interaction has revealed the
major points here below:
The high-ranking position of verbal teacher responsiveness as a factor inbuilding up in-class interaction patterns and language learning, in thelong run.
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
13/30
13
The complexities inherent in the strategies of providing such a feedbackat a moment-by-moment basis.
The lack of a firm command of the techniques and ways in respondingadequately to learner contributions and initiatives.
The study, however limited in scope, is hoped to contribute to an emerging
body of research that examines the complex ways in which student discoursaloffers and teacher responsiveness interact in English Language Teaching
contexts. Though the feedback strategies of the teacher in this study cannot, in
any ways, be assumed to echo those of ELT colleagues in other educational
settings, the paper ushers to possibilities for future research investigations that
will touch further onto the numerous intricacies that lie behind the deployment
of spoken feedback strategies.
Stubbs (1983: 43)'s suggestion
to study how the script [for a classroom dialogue] is constructed, and
how general taken-for-granted stereotypes of teacher and pupil
behaviour are related to the detailed utterance-by-utteranceorganization of classroom discourse
will surely provide a useful starting point to this end.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Thanks to Mr. Saeed Al-Saadi and all the students in Grade Nine at Sheikh Hamdan bin
Khamis Al-Yousefi School.
I wish to make it clear that the comments on the Lesson data here provided are
in no way an attack on the teaching style of the teacher concerned or the
learning proficiency of his students. Quite on the contrary.
7. END NOTES1- Vygotsky's philosophy rests on the notion of language acquisition taking place in
'social space' rather than in the enclosed and isolated mind of the individual. See
Mercer (1994) for a detailed discussion on Neo-Vygotskian theory and classroom
education.
2- Hall and Walsh (2002) draw a distinction between three types of languageclassrooms: "first language classrooms; second language classrooms, which
include contexts in which the language being learned in the classroom is also the
language of the community; andforeign language classrooms. Foreign languagelearning contexts are those in which exposure to and opportunities for target
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
14/30
14
language interaction are restricted for the most part to the language classroom"
(186).
3- L.S. Vygotsky (1978) defines ZPD or Zone of Proximal Development asthe distance between the actual development level as determined by
independent problem solving and the level of potential development
as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers (86).
4- English for Me 9A. Teacher's Book(2005-6: vii)
8. REFERENCESAllen, D. (1996) (Ed.), Entry Points. Papers from a Symposium of the
Research, Testing and Young Learners, SIGS, Kent: International Association
of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language.
Allwright, R.L. (1975), Problems in the study of the language teachers
treatment of learner error. In M. Burt and H. Dulay (Eds.), New Directions in
Second Language Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education: On TESOL
75, Washington, DC: TESOL, 96-117.
Anderson, C. and A. Beretta (1992) (Eds.),Evaluating Second Language Education,Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Brown G. and E.C. Wragg (1993), Questioning in the Secondary School,
London: Routledge /Falmer.
Burt, M. and H. Dulay (1975) (Eds.), New Directions in Second Language
Learning, Teaching and Bilingual Education: On TESOL 75, Washington,
DC: TESOL
Cazden, C.B. (1988), Classroom Discourse, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chaudron, C. (1988), Second Language Classrooms, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cook, G. (1989),Discourse, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. (1977/1985), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. 2nd Edn,
Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited.
Coulthard, M. (1992) (ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, London:
Routledge.
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
15/30
15
Cullen, R. (2002), "Supportive teacher talk: The importance of the F-move",
English Language Teaching Journal 52, 2: 117-27.
Demo, D.A (2001), "Discourse analysis for language teachers", [1 April, 2002]
Dinsmore, D. (1985), "Waiting for Godot in the EFL classroom", English
Language Teaching Journal 39, 4: 225-34.
Doff, A. (1998), Teach English: Trainer's Handbook, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
English Language Curriculum Department (2005-6), English for Me 9A. Teacher's
Book, Sultanate of Oman's Ministry of Education: ELCD.
Fanselow, J. (1977), The treatment of error in oral work, Foreign Language Annals
10: 583-93.
Francis, G. and S. Hunston (1992), "Analysing everyday conversation". In M.
Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, London: Routledge,
128-61.
Hall, J.K. and M. Walsh (2002), "Teacher-student interaction and language
learning",Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22, 186-203.
Hewings, M (1992), Intonation and feedback in the EFL classroom. In M.
Coulthard (ed.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis, London: Routledge,
183-96.
Hutchby, I.R and R. Wooffitt (1998), Conversation Analysis, Oxford: Polity Press.
Jarvis, J. (1996), "Responsiveness in the primary classroom". In D. Allen (ed.),
Entry Points. Papers from a Symposium of the Research, Testing and Young
Learners, SIGS, Kent: International Association of Teachers of English as a
Foreign Language, 44-52.
Jarvis, J. and M. Robinson (1997), "Analysing educational discourse: An exploratorystudy of teacher response and support to pupils learning",Applied Linguistics 18, 2:
212228.
Johnstone, B. (2002),Discourse Analysis, Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Kerry, T. (1982),Effective Questioning, London: Macmillan.
Lynch, T. (1996), Communication in the Language Classroom, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Malouf, R. (1995), "Towards an Analysis of Multi-party Discourse". [22 November,
2007]
http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0107http://www.cal.org/ericcll/digest/0107 -
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
16/30
16
McCarthy, M. (1991), Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers, New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mercer, N. (1994), "Neo-Vygotskian Theory and Classroom Education". In B.
Stierer and J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in Educational
Practice, Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: Oxford University Press.
Nunan, D. (1987), "Communicative language teaching: Making it work",English Language Teaching Journal 41, 2: 136-45.
Nunan, D. and C. Lamb (1996), The Self-directed Teacher, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Panova, I. And R. Lyster (2002), Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in
an adult ESL classroom, TESOL Quarterly 36, 4: 573-95.
Sinclair, J. and D. Brazil (1982), Teacher Talk, Oxford: Oxford University
Press.Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard (1975), Towards an Analysis of Discourse.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (1998), A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Slimani, A. (1992), "Evaluation of classroom interaction". In C. Anderson and
A. Beretta (Eds.), Evaluating Second Language Education, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 197-221.
Stierer, B. and J. Maybin (Eds.), Language, Literacy and Learning in
Educational Practice, Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters: Oxford
University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1983), Discourse Analysis: The Sociolinguistic Analysis of Natural
Language, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Tsui, A.B.M. (1995),Introducing Classroom Interaction, London: Penguin.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.
Walsh, S. (2002), "Construction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner
Involvement in the EFL Classroom",Language Teaching Research 6, 3: 3-23.
Willis, J. (1996),A Framework for Task-Based Learning, London: Longman.
9. APPENDICESAppendix A: Transcription System
-
7/27/2019 Aspects of verbal classroom discourse= An exploatory investigation into teacher follow-up moves.pdf
17/30
17
The transcription system is adapted from various sources, including, most notably,
Johnstone (2002), Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998: vi-vii) and Jarvis and Robinson (1997).
N.B: The Lesson Exchanges under study were recorded under normal classroom
conditions with no specialist equipment. Occasional unintelligibility of the recording is
due to background noise, simultaneous speech and other types of interference.
Unintelligible parts of the transcripts are marked indistinct. Language has not been
corrected so as to preserve authenticity of data.
Symbol/Notation Glossary Illustration
T
S
S1: S2: etc,
Ss
[
=
(( ))
(.)
(4)
?
!
T organisesgroups
:
Italics
Superscript
*
.
>