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
1. 2.
3.
4.
5. 6.
Introduction Theoretical Background The Study 2.1 Research Question 2.2 Methodology 2.2.1 Participants 2.2.2 Data Collection 2.2.3 Procedure 2.3 Data Analytical Framework Data Analysis 3.1 Preliminary Observations 3.2 Analysis Data Interpretation 4.1 Pedagogical Roles 4.2 Evaluative Roles 4.3 Discoursal Roles Discussion Conclusion 7. End Notes 8. References 9. 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)
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 as initiation, 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 EFL2 teacher'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 BACKGROUND Teacher 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"
2
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 are high 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 STUDY 2.1 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 to student 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 discourse and potential support to learning?
3
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 of EFL. 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, discourse
elaborate,
build-up
4
the
Extend/guide; Extend/bridge
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 focus public (and therefore potentially shareable)" (ibid, 219).
ii-
BUILD: "The topic is then built, usually in interaction with the pupils. Build depends on the 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 built in 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 criticism—a valid one in the case of face-toface interaction—that 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 by the 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 ANALYSIS 3.1 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-participant’s 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
5
FUNCTIONS
LESSON TRANSCRIPT
PATTERNS
EXCHANGE TWO: VOCABULARY REVIEW
16-T: OK,
FOCUS. Teacher shift to a new focus
E2 Set
last time (0.3)
Students' thinking related to a concept previously dealt with.
E1 Check
Where are you? Which Page now you're come? Which page?
Unsuccessful attempt. The teacher seems at odds where to start!
17- S1: Five 18- S2: Me, teacher! A4 Confirm
19- T: Page five BUILD. Student's reply in 17 is taken up = How did you fini.. = How did you get hanging out
E1 Check
FOCUS. Students asked if they have already dealt with a vocabulary item. False start. Nonidiomatic English F6 Doubt
20- Ss: Yes. 21- T: We took "hanging out"?
22- Ss: Yes! A1 Accept
23- T:
BUILD. Teacher's idea in 19 continued. Students' confirmation in 19 doubted.
[OK OK (..)
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 and 54 teacher interventions. With very few exceptions, the learners’ offers were incorrect, ill-formed or simply expressed in the mother tongue, Arabic. In response, the teacher’s follow-ups— as further evidenced in the commentary notes in 6
F. REJECT: At Point 25, the teacher sharply rejects the student’s definition of the phrase “hang out” at 24, which was given in Arabic. E. CHECK: At 25, he picks up the student’s 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 has said 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 student’s response in 26 to extend/ guide the discourse. He also invites the class to join in the lesson and talk. A. ACCEPT: At 29, he explicitly shows his acceptance of the student’s offer at 28, by dint of the customary signal Good and of the reiteration of the answer given (Notice the error made, though). F. DISMISS + E. SUMMARIZE + D. EXTEND/BRIDGE: At 31, he rejects the student’s offer at 30. He, nonetheless, sums up the concept at issue before extending and guiding the discourse forward via two focus questions.
Table 3: 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
I- FUNCTIONS: CATEGORY A
B
C
D
TOTAL 102
% 100
PEDAGOGICAL FUNCTION Show acceptance of pupils' utterances
42
1 Accept 2 Encourage 4 Confirm 6 Talk now 7 Complete
12 12 04 12 02
Model language
04
1 Rephrase
04
Give clues
12
2 Clue 3 Prompt 4 Reiterate
04 01 07
23,52
03,92
11,76
Develop, elaborate, build-up the discourse 04
7
03,92
3 Extend/guide 3 Extend/bridge
E
F
03 01
Clarify pupils' understanding/ task/ purposes/ principles
32
1 Check 2 Set 3 Purpose 4 Summarize
18 05 05 04
Disconfirm; reject; rebuke 2 Reject 4 Dismiss 6 Doubt
08 04 02 02
07,84
40
28,16
II- PATTERNS: ivvvi-
Focus Build Summarize
31,37
12 24 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 INTERPRETATION Varied 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 out and chill 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 8
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 young man, where do you hang out? where do you hang out? (.) Ehm? 46- S: beach 47- T: beach? =Finished the beach 48- 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 tennis 59- 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 would you 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 hookah 79- S2: sorry? 80- T: Nothing else (.) Only to see the cinema? 81-S2: Yeah 82-Ss:[ quiet laughter] 83-T: ↓No flirting 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 9
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 friends 30- 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 formfocused 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-participant’s 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, and Summarize pattern, 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 of classroom discourse to help students understand (Lynch 1996: 44; Tsui 1995; 55).
5. DISCUSSION
The discussion of the teacher-participant's F-moves will research questions which guided the study (see Subsection 2.1).
10
address the two
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 exhibit two fundamental characteristics: a- The considerable involvement on the part pursuing and developing the ideas which ongoing interactions, and b- The repeated disruption of the flow of frequency of Focus, Build, and Summarize acts.
Exchanges feedback patterns of the teacher-participant in keep springing out of the ideas because of the high
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 "timepassing" (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 would reveal 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 the Exchanges 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 11
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 "backseat" 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 and research). 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 is commonly 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 up students' 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. CONCLUSION This 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 in building up in-class interaction patterns and language learning, in the long run. 12
• The complexities inherent in the strategies of providing such a feedback at a moment-by-moment basis. • The lack of a firm command of the techniques and ways in responding adequately 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 discoursal offers 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-utterance organization 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 NOTES 1- 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 language classrooms: "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; and foreign language classrooms. Foreign language learning contexts are those in which exposure to and opportunities for target 13
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 as the 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. REFERENCES Allen, 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 teacher’s 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.
14
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 exploratory study of teacher response and support to pupils’ learning", Applied Linguistics 18, 2: 212–228. 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] 15
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 English Language Teaching Journal 41, 2: 136-45.
teaching:
Making
it
work",
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 Psychological Processes Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.
of
Higher
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. APPENDICES Appendix A: Transcription System
16
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 T Teacher S Student (not identified) S1: S2: etc, identified student Ss several students at once or the whole class [ Onset of a spate of overlapping or simultaneous utterances by more than one learner turn continues, or one turn follows another = without any pause Non-verbal elements of the conversation and (( )) notes about the lesson or other features by the transcriber A single period in parentheses signals a slight (.) pause. silence; length given in seconds (4) rising intonation – question or other ? emphatic speech: falling intonation ! editor’s comments (in bold type) T organises groups Colons signal stretched-out sounds. The more colons, the greater extent of the stretching. :
Illustration
Footb::ll
Translation of utterances in the L1 Italics Superscript
* .
Superscript indicates stronger-than-usual stress, accompanied by raised volume. Non-standard, "croaky" pronunciation A full-stop indicates a falling in tone. It does not necessarily indicate the end of an utterance.
↓↑
Pointed arrows, placed immediately before the onset of the shift, indicate a marked falling or rising intonation shift.
>
