Katrin Strobelberger
A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries
ISBN: 978-3-8428-2017-3
Herstellung: Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2011
Zugl. University of Bath, Bath, Großbritannien, MA-Thesis / Master, 2010
Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,
insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von
Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der
Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,
bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung
dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen
der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik
Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich
vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des
Urheberrechtes.
Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in
diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,
dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei
zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.
Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können
Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden und der Verlag, die Autoren oder
Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine Haftung für evtl.
verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.
© Diplomica Verlag GmbH
http://www.diplomica.de, Hamburg 2011
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It is with pleasure that I acknowledge the help and support that I received
from the following people during the period of study of this dissertation.
Above all, my sincere thanks go to my parents and my aunt Herta, who
offered me valuable support throughout my M.A. studies. I also want to
thank my supervisor David Skidmore for the supervision of my thesis.
Moreover, I would like to thank those colleagues of mine who provided
technical equipment as well as valuable comments on my study. Last but
not least, I want to express my gratitude to the participants of my study.
iv
ABSTRACT
This dissertation analyses examples of classroom discourse, one of the
most important influences on students' experience in schools, in EFL
classes. The central idea of my enquiry was to compare classroom
discourse in two secondary schools in two European countries, namely
Austria on the one hand, and Spain on the other hand. The focus of my
study is on EFL classes taught by a team of a non-native speaker teacher
and a native-speaker assistant.
The purposes of my study were to gain insights into classroom
communication, to compare classroom discourse in two different countries
to see whether culturally specific rules of classroom communication might
apply, and to investigate the contact situation of two different (if existent)
communication strategies in classroom discourse. Therefore, my study
aimed to answer the following research question: Do the cultural modes of
classroom communication in EFL classes (taught by a team of a teacher
and an assistant) differ from each other? The data needed for this study
was collected by means of video-recording; audio-portions were
transcribed; and these data were analysed using methods of
Conversational Analysis. I focused in particular on turn-taking, the
occurrence of the IRF sequence and simultaneous speech, as well as
restarts and pauses.
My analysis has shown how certain conversational structures, such as
simultaneous speech or the IRE / IRF sequence, work in classroom
discourse. The results hint at different cultural modes of classroom
v
communication, the main differences concerning the presence of the
teacher in the discourse, the degree of smoothness with which the
discourse proceeds and the students' degree of involvement in
communication. Furthermore, the data show that there are indeed
different communication strategies used in classes taught by a team.
Interaction with an assistant might increase students' talking time and
might, if the assistant is given enough freedom, also result in more fluent
student discourse. In addition, my data suggest that some communication
strategies are preferable in the context of EFL teaching with the aim of
enhancing communicative competence, namely not interfering with regard
to content, not selecting next speakers, and offering open discussion
activities.
- 1 -
Table of content
I. INTRODUCTION
- 3 -
II. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
- 5 -
III. LITERATURE REVIEW
- 8 -
III. 1. The organisation of conversation
- 9 -
III. 2. Classroom discourse
- 11 -
III. 2.1. Teacher talk and the IRE sequence
- 11 -
III. 2. 2. Classroom turn-taking
- 15 -
III. 2. 3. Interactional competence
- 16 -
III. 2. 4. From teacher-centred classrooms to other forms of teaching
- 17 -
III. 2. 5. New forms of pedagogy
- 19 -
III. 3. Classroom discourse in foreign language teaching
- 22 -
III. 3. 1. Second Language Acquisition
- 23 -
III. 3. 2. Communicative foreign language teaching
- 24 -
III.3.3. Communicative Competence
- 27 -
III. 4. Cultural differences in pedagogic traditions
- 29 -
IV. METHODOLOGY
- 32 -
IV.1. Research question
- 32 -
IV.2. Research strategy and design
- 32 -
IV.2.1. Research strategy
- 33 -
IV.2.2. Research design
- 33 -
IV.2.3. Brief description of my two cases
- 36 -
IV.3. Methods of data collection
- 36 -
IV.3.1. The recordings
- 37 -
IV.3.2. Ethics
- 38 -
IV. 4. Methods of data analysis
- 39 -
IV.4.1. Transcribing the data
- 40 -
IV.4.2. Analysing my data
- 41 -
IV.4.3. Validity and reliability
- 42 -
V. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
- 44 -
V.1. Analysis of the Austrian transcripts
- 44 -
V.1.1: Transcript AU1: focus on the interaction between teacher and teaching assistant
- 44 -
V.1.2.: Transcript AU2: student group with the teacher
- 48 -
V.1.3.: Transcript AU3: student group with the teaching assistant
- 52 -
V.2. Analysis of the Spanish transcripts
- 54 -
V.2.1.: Transcripts SP1a and SP1b: focus on the interaction between teacher and teaching assistant
- 54 -
V.2.2.: Transcripts SP2 and SP3: student groups (partly joined by the teacher or teaching assistant)
- 59 -
- 2 -
V.3. Austrian transcripts compared
- 60 -
V.4. Spanish transcripts compared
- 63 -
V.5. Austrian and Spanish interaction compared
- 64 -
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
- 67 -
LIST OF REFERENCES
- 72 -
APPENDIX I: TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS
- 77 -
APPENDIX II: TRANSCRIPTS
- 78 -
- 3 -
I. Introduction
In our world of internationalisation and globalisation, teaching and learning take place in a
transnational and global context. It is a proven fact that children spend significant periods of
their lives in school and it is widely acknowledged among teachers as well as researchers that
classroom discourse plays a crucial part in the process of learning. Language, after all, is
which the business of schooling is primarily accomplished in. Learning takes place to a great
extent when interacting with fellow students or the teacher.
Therefore, classroom language studies, investigating what classroom discourse actually looks
like (instead of stating what it should be), are of great importance. Nowadays language studies
are to be seen as "social and cultural practises embedded in a comprehensive and potentially
global process" (Risager 2007: 1). The study of classroom language and interaction is central
to the study of classroom learning. Analysing classroom discourse in order to highlight its
characteristic features, therefore, constitutes a worthwhile task since its findings may be used
to improve teaching. In this way teachers might become more aware of the way teachers and
learners jointly create learning opportunities, and subsequently classroom discourse might be
adjusted in order to enhance learning. Interestingly in this respect is Walsh's (2006) reference
to teachers' interactional awareness, characterised as the use of meta-language, critical self-
evaluation and more conscious interactive decision making. A detailed analysis of classroom
discourse possibly helps heighten teachers' awareness with regard to classroom interaction.
In conclusion, the increased importance of language in our multicultural societies calls for a
detailed investigation of features of classroom discourse with the overall aim of improving
teaching and consequently learning. Analyzing classroom discourse is at the heart of the study
presented here. The central idea of my enquiry is to compare classroom discourse in two
countries. Comparatively studying classroom discourse in two countries will reveal different
pedagogical traditions and their underlying social values. The focus of my study is on classes
of English as a foreign language taught by a team of a non-native teacher and a native
- 4 -
assistant. This analysis of teacher-assistant collaboration, a frequent yet under-researched
form of practice, will also help to improve teaching. More background information on my
study will be provided in chapter 2. In chapter 3 I will review the existing literature on
classroom discourse, in particular in foreign language teaching, but I will also refer in more
depth to the concept of communicative competence as well as cultural differences in
pedagogic traditions. Chapter 4 is concerned with the methodology applied in my study, thus
discussing the research question, the research strategy and design, as well as the methods of
data collection and data analysis applied. The data of my study will then be presented and
analysed in great depth in chapter 5. Finally I will conclude this paper by some final remarks
in chapter 6.
- 5 -
II. Background and context
In our globalised society, languages are attributed an evermore important role as means of
communication. Above all, English, spoken by about 1.8 billion people (cf. Graddol 2006),
has developed as the lingua franca. As such it is thought to be crucial throughout the world
enabling speakers of many countries and cultures to communicate with each other in various
contexts, such as social contexts, business, finance or education.
Consequently, the teaching of English as a foreign language (EFL) constitutes an important
aspect of worldwide education. In several European countries increasingly more attention has
recently been put on teaching EFL. In recent years more and more native speakers have been
sent to schools across Europe as `language assistants' to enrich English language classes by
offering cultural and linguistic insights. That classroom discourse, which differs significantly
from other forms of conversation, is "one of the most important influences on students'
experience of learning in schools" (Skidmore 2006: 510) is out of doubt. However, as a
language teacher, I claim that classroom discourse is much more important for the process of
foreign language learning than for other subjects, also because the development of
`communicative competence' in the foreign language is nowadays considered the overall aim
in foreign language classes.
The central idea of my enquiry is to compare classroom discourse in two secondary schools in
two countries, Austria on the one hand and Spain on the other. The focus is on classes of EFL
taught by a team of a non-native teacher and a native assistant. The form of teaching
involving an assistant and a teacher has recently gained in importance and is very likely to
become an ever more widespread feature in teaching in schools in the near future. This
specific focus is worth studying because the relationship and interaction between the teacher
and the teaching assistant can be expected to be an important influence on the classroom
discourse produced and subsequently on classroom learning. Furthermore, by putting this
- 6 -
particular focus, different ways of interacting in a classroom might possibly come into contact
since the assistant might not behave the same way linguistically as the teacher.
In Austria the context of teaching EFL has received a lot of attention. Teachers are
continuously offered a wide range of seminars and further training to stay informed about new
developments and findings in this sector. I work as a teacher of English, Spanish and
geography at a secondary grammar school in Vienna (Austria), where language assistants are
considered a beneficial (and thus highly treasured) element of EFL classes. Nevertheless,
since my school did unfortunately not have an assistant at its disposal in the school year
2008/09, a neighbouring school, a Viennese `Gymnasium' focusing on languages, agreed to
participate in my study. The `Gymnasium Wasagasse' is a traditional Viennese secondary
grammar school of about 700 students (27 classes) and 86 teachers. The students are aged 10
to 18 years and finish their education taking the `Matura' exam, a type of A-level exam. One
of the school's focuses is languages, that is, these students learn English, Latin, and French.
Since I spent the school year 2008/09 as a Sabbatical in Spain, where I myself worked as a
language assistant for German at the EOI (Escuela Oficial de Idiomas) in San Roque, the
obvious second choice was a school in this area. After various unsuccessful attempts at
finding a, for my study adequate, school willing to participate, a secondary school in La Línea
de la Concepción in Andalusia (Spain) agreed to take part. At the `I.E.S. Menéndez Tolosa'
roughly 1200 students, aged 11 to 18 years, are taught by 89 teachers. The students dedicate
their last two years to studying for the `bachillerato', a type of A-level exam. Like the
Viennese school, the I.E.S. Menéndez Tolosa has languages as one of its special focus and
consequently there is one bilingual class at every level. As I was told, in recent years learning
English has gained in importance also in Spain, especially since Spanish people seem to have
realised the potential of mastering English for the European job market.
- 7 -
Before providing more information on my study itself, I will now review the existing
literature on classroom discourse in chapter 3.
- 8 -
III. Literature review
The classroom has been defined as "the gathering, for a given period of time, of two or more
persons (one of whom generally assumes the role of instructor) for the purposes of (...)
learning" (van Lier 1988: 47, cited in Allwright and Bailey 1991: 18). Thus,
characteristically, more than two people have (been) gathered there for the specific purpose of
learning. Since classrooms - typically large, formal gatherings - come together for
pedagogical rather than social reasons, the participants will adhere to their own rules and
conventions of communication which are likely to differ from the norms of turn-taking and
communicative interaction in small, informal social gatherings (cf. Gil 2002). In classrooms,
communication has a central role. Firstly, spoken language is the medium by which most
teaching takes place. Secondly, classrooms are among the most crowded where one person is
responsible for controlling all the talk. Thirdly, language is an important part of the identities
of all the participants.
For all these reasons, it is essential to consider the classroom communication system
as a problematic medium that cannot be ignored, or viewed as transparent, by anyone
interested in teaching and learning. (Cazden 2001:3)
Interest in classroom language studies dates back to the 1940s. Since then different
approaches and methodologies have been applied in various studies whose concerns have also
changed over the years. Early researchers, such as Flanders (1970), Bellack et al. (1966),
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) or Mehan (1979), conceived classroom talk in terms of
structure. More recently, however, studies carried out by Wells (1999), van Lier (1988) and
Mercer (1995) have stressed the need to focus more carefully on the total pattern. Language
thus is seen as a social phenomenon involved in the negotiation and construction of meaning
(cf. Frances 2002). Also, critical discourse analysts and systemic linguists have shown interest
in classroom discourse. However, in general, the majority of classroom studies, whatever their
- 9 -
background, have a pedagogical perspective, since they describe, explain and evaluate aspects
of classroom communication with the aim of improving language teaching.
III. 1. The organisation of conversation
In order to communicate efficiently and sufficiently, people have to agree on following
certain rules for interaction, that is, certain conventions reflecting tacit rights and obligations.
Thus, in conversation, the distribution of talk is governed by an underlying set of non-
linguistic rules that determine who talks, when, how often, and for how long.
The organization of taking turns is fundamental to conversation. Having established that in
conversation the roles of speaker and listener change, that this occurs with remarkably few
silences and little overlapping speech, and that speaker change recurs, Sack, Schegleff and
Jefferson (1974) set up a model for conversation. The model consists of two parts, a `turn-
constructional component' and a `turn-allocation component' (cf. Sacks et al. 1974: 702-703).
A turn may be constructed from various syntactic units. At the first possible completion point
of an utterance, a `transition-relevance place' (TRP), the turn is reallocated and may pass to a
new speaker. Transfer is coordinated "so as to minimize gap and overlap" (Sacks et al. 1974:
704). Nevertheless, unintentional overlapping and silences still occur and are `noticeable'. In
such situations "the participants set out to `remedy' the situation" (Coulthard 1985: 60) by
applying a number of `repair mechanisms'.
Allocation of turns may proceed in three ways:
`current speaker selects next', `self selection' and `current speaker continues'. These three
allocation options operate utterance by utterance and are in an ordered relationship in that "the
first over-rides the second and the second over-rides the third" (Coulthard 1985: 60). Turns to
speak are valued and sought, most consist of only a single sentence, "unless permission has
been sought for a longer turn, perhaps to tell a story or a joke" (Coulthard 1985: 61). While
Sacks et al. (1974) argue that possible complete units are signalled grammatically and
semantically, Coulthard (1985) suggests that this might happen also paralinguistically and
- 10 -
kinesically. However, this evidence must be evaluated with great care since turn-taking can be
managed perfectly well in telephone conversations (cf. Coulthard 1985: 66). Thus, as
Levinson (1983: 302) points out such signals can only be supportive. Nevertheless, "[i]n any
description of turn-taking there is the problem of what constitutes a turn" (Coulthard 1985:
69). By selecting the next speaker, the current speaker "usually also selects the type of next
utterance by producing the first part of an adjacency pair" (Coulthard 1985: 69). Adjacency
pairs, which consist of two utterances, have been shown to be the basic structural units in
conversation. The two utterances are produced successively by different speakers, are ordered
(first pair part, second pair part), related, and the first pair part sets up a transition relevance.
Second pair parts are marked if they represent the dispreferred option.
Apart from rules governing turn-taking, there are two principles in operation in conversation:
firstly, the co-operative principle, encompassing the four maxims of quality, quantity,
relevance, and manner (Grice 1967), and secondly, the politeness principle organised along
three maxims, namely that of `Don't impose', `Give options' and `Make your receiver feel
good' (Lakoff 1973). The concept of face, borrowed from Goffman (1967) by Brown and
Levinson (1987) and defined as "'something that is emotionally invested and that can be lost,
maintained or enhanced'" (Brown and Levinson, 1987, in: Coulthard, 1985: 50), must be
acknowledged. Face-threatening acts have to be avoided. Thus, positive and negative
politeness principles, which are also influenced by the dimensions of social distance, power
and formality (cf. Holmes 1985), apply in conversation. The tension that exists between the
co-operative and the politeness principles reflects "a dual purpose of human intercourse",
namely "to act efficiently together with other people, and to create and maintain social
relationships" (Cook 1989: 34).
- 11 -
III. 2. Classroom discourse
Classroom communication, as an example of institutional talk, differs from ordinary
conversation in various aspects. It differs from non-didactic, everyday conversation insofar as
classroom discourse is objective in its orientation, carried out to reach the aim of teaching,
curriculum, and learning. In classroom discourse,
the desired outcome on the part of at least one participant involved the teacher is
we may say learning. The discourse that occurs in classroom settings is necessarily
affected by this. (Edmonson 1980: 275)
Secondly, classroom discourse can be seen as regular dialogic mode. Thirdly, classroom
discourse is characterised by specific organisational features of the school as a public
institution. The teacher, as the representative of the institution, "is the person institutionally
invested with the most talking rights" (Gil 2002: 277).
Teacher dominance is reflected
everytime and everywhere in the classroom.
Dominance derives from the claim to be able to teach, to make the transaction
successful in respect of its specified objectives. In this case there is no assertion of
right but a claim to knowledge: not `Do this because I tell you and I am the teacher'
but `Do this because I am the teacher and I know what's best for you (...).
(Widdowson 2001: 180, cited in Tschakert 2006: 16)
However, despite this imbalance and inequality of power between learner and teacher,
"classroom discourse is a collectively built enterprise where meanings of different types are
constructed moment by moment." (Gil 2002: 277)
III. 2.1. Teacher talk and the IRE sequence
Mehan (1979), analysing classroom discourse in teacher-led lessons in a single classroom of a
public primary school in San Diego, found that classroom lessons are sequentially and
hierarchically structured events. Compared to the adjacency pairs typical of normal
conversations, a three-part sequence, the IRE (Initiation Reply Evaluation) sequence, is
typical of classroom discourse: the teacher elicits information, a student provides a reply
which is then evaluated by the teacher, the third part being the most important one in
classroom settings. If the three-part structure breaks down, that is, if the reply is not given, the
- 12 -
teacher uses several repair strategies, such as prompting, repeating or simplifying, to restore
symmetry (`extended sequence'). This ubiquitous, three-part sequence has been characterized
"as the exchange that constitutes the genre of classroom discourse" (Hellermann 2003: 80)
and it has been said to account for as much as 70% of all classroom talk.
Nevertheless, Mehan's IRE model has often been subject to criticism, the main criticism
being put on the type of questions asked by teachers, i.e. inauthentic `display' questions of
which the teacher already knows the answer. Teachers' questioning behaviour constitutes 20
to 40% of classroom talk (cf. Tsui 1995: 23). `Open' questions can be distinguished from
`closed' ones, and `display', that is, knowledge-checking questions, from `referential'
questions, i.e. questions to which the teacher does not have an answer. While referential
questions are typical of social communication, display questions are associated with didactic
discourse since they mirror asymmetrical conversation. Questions that are open in form but
demonstrably closed in function have been called `pseudo-open questions' by Cazden (2001:
53). In addition, Holmes (1995) distinguishes `response-restricting' questions, which are
intended to elicit a short specific response, and `facilitative' questions, which invite speakers
to respond more fully. In general, questions that are authentic, high level, and allow for
multiple responses or discussion are more likely to provoke student thought and analysis (cf.
Kelly 2007). While questions have been a frequent focus of study, "it is surprising how little
research has been done on explanation" (Tsui 1995: 30) considering that explanations make
up a significant part of teacher talk. Basically, procedural explanation, regarding
organizational aspects of the lesson, contrast with content explanation of subject content of
the lesson. In order to be effective, "one needs to take into consideration the explainer, the
problem to be explained and the person(s) to whom the problem is explained." (Tsui 1995:
31)
- 13 -
In contrast to the IRE sequence, Mehan's higher level concept of `topically related sets'
(combination of basic plus conditional sequence) has often been ignored by other researchers
(cf. Cazden 2001: 31). A teacher's evaluation, which is undoubtedly central in classroom
teaching, necessarily concludes a topically related set, while it need not occur after each
student's response. However, the teacher's evaluation is not simply a matter of correctness,
but rather a remark on the adequacy as a reply. Consequently, answers which are correct in
terms of the question, but not those the teacher is seeking are evaluated negatively. Mehan
(2001: 263) distinguishes positive and negative evaluation, pointing out that a positive
evaluation is a terminal act, while a negative evaluation may but need not appear after an
incorrect or incomplete answer. Negative evaluations are routinely `marked', "the most
familiar markedness [being] (...) a delay in either the turn's or the evaluation's production"
(Macbeth 2003: 263), as also Hellermann (2003) argues. Teachers often withhold feedback
until a correct response is produced to avoid giving negative feedback (cf. Tsui 1995: 42).
Mehan's IRE sequence closely resembles Sinclair and Coulthard's (1975) IRF sequence, the
predominant form of communication inside the classroom.
A typical exchange in the classroom consists of an initiation by the teacher, followed
by a response from the pupil, followed by feedback, to the pupil's response from the
teacher. (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975: 21)
This three-move structure, the IRF (Initiation-Response-Follow-up) structure, is conventional
and may vary culturally. On the basis of primary school data Sinclair and Coulthard drew up a
model consisting of five ranks: acts moves exchanges transactions lesson. Acts
combine to form moves which in turn form exchanges, such as the IRF exchange, etc..
1
Sinclair and Coulthard's model has been subject to criticism. The model being an analysis of
the product of communication rather than the process and it being unable to handle intention
1
The original model has undergone a lot of modifications, but the underlying theoretical assumptions remain
basically the same. The major advances have, according to Sinclair and Coulthard (1985), been in the
characterization of the exchange which led to a new structure for exchanges as I (R/I) R (F) (F) (for details see
Coulthard 1985: 135 ff.).
- 14 -
have been most strongly criticised.
2
Furthermore, the "imbalance in number of turns between
students and teacher in the IRF exchange" (Hellermann 2003: 81) has been criticised.
Between 50 and 75% of talk in the classroom is done by the teacher (cf. Allwright and Bailey
1991: 139). On the one hand, talk is a major way to convey information to learners. On the
other hand, it functions as the primary means of controlling learners' behaviour. The temporal
relationship between a student utterance and the teacher's prior question and subsequent
feedback (`wait time') is also an aspect worth investigating. Typically teachers wait for one
second or less for the students to start a reply. However, increasing wait time has been shown
to lead to more profound changes in students' use of language and logic as well as students'
and teachers' attitudes and expectations (cf. Cazden 2001: 50).
Hellermann (2003), focusing on the prosody with which IRF exchanges are accomplished,
argues that the "use of different intonation contours distinguishes institutional discourse, like
that of the classroom, from everyday conversation" (Hellermann 2003: 99), to be more exact,
it is the "use of intonation in the third turn of the IRF exchange" (Hellermann 2003: 100) that
characterises classroom discourse. Whereas teachers use falling and rising intonation contours
in their feedback to differentiate between correct and incorrect assessment, this is not an
option in everyday conversation. Thus, in the classroom the teacher "can control through
prosody the trajectory of the discourse following a student response" (Hellermann 2003: 100)
by indicating whether an extension of the issue beyond the IRF sequence is warranted, as is in
the case of incomplete or incorrect student answers. However, it is obvious that prosody plays
a role also in spontaneous, naturally occurring conversation. In such conversations
participants "make use of prosody as a resource for interactional collaboration" (Szczepek
Reed 2006: 209) by tying two turns together to form a unit in the prosodic domain through
2
However, Coulthard (1985: 143) argues that "it is in fact a misunderstanding of the model to describe it as a
static product description". Nevertheless, they admit that it is not always possible to analyse a text
unambiguously and that there might be a problem of embedding. Furthermore, he argues that the structure
indeed "makes predictions about what a speaker will do next provided he chooses to stay within the same
exchange." (Coulthard 1985: 145).
- 15 -
prosodic orientation. Prosodic orientation is defined as "the conversational activity of
displaying awareness of another speaker's prosody in the prosodic design of one's own next
turn." (Szczepek Reed 2006 : 33-34)
In conclusion, although the IRE / IRF exchange has often been criticised, it has also been
considered a "useful tool with which teachers can use their status as facilitators in classrooms
to guide a large number of students toward the common goal of dialogic learning"
(Hellermann 2003: 81).
III. 2. 2. Classroom turn-taking
Classroom lessons, as shown by Mehan (1979), are also structured by means of the turn-
taking machinery, which consists of basic turn-allocation procedures and `improvisational
strategies' employed by the teacher to deal with disruptions in the basic system. Violations of
the co-occurrences between speaker and respondent are called `sanctioned violations' by
Mehan. Here the teacher works to repair the breach and to re-establish the normal form of
interaction. In contrast, `unsanctioned violations' and `unwarranted sanctions', which are
actually unacceptable designations, are allowed by the teacher when, after a break-down, the
teacher's only concern is to restore order or to continue. The fact that the participants engage
in repair work leads Mehan to the conclusion that his model indeed resembles the
participants' model, a precondition extremely important for him within his ethnographical
framework. In classroom conditions, turn-taking takes on a form slightly different from that
found by Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson (1974) for normal conversation since `current
speaker selects next speaker' seems the only possible option, while the options of `next
speaker selects self' and `current speaker continues' do not seem to apply.
Thus, in traditional classrooms, speaking rights are attributed by the teacher who is in control
of the right to speak. Teachers may allocate turns to students by specifying who is to take the
turn (`personal solicit') or by throwing it open to the whole class (`general solicit') (cf.
- 16 -
Allwright and Bailey 1991). Personal solicits can be done by nominating or by gestures such
as eye gaze or pointing, while asking a question or looking around accompany general
solicits. On the other hand, students' turn-taking behaviour consists of unsolicited and
solicited (`initiating') turns (cf. Tsui 1995: 77). Learners may bid by raising their hands or
using the teacher's name, or may simply take a turn. In addition, students sometimes take
`private turns', that is turns not shared with the rest of the class. Allocating turns evenly to
students is not easy and in general teachers seem to allocate more turns to active students or
those likely to know the answer (cf. Tsui 1995: 75). When attributing speaking rights, seating
arrangements and gaze are of importance (cf. Cazden 2001: 48). In contrast to everyday
conversation, where turns are typically one sentence long, in more formal speech situations,
such as classrooms, the speaker whose role assigns him extra authority can select the speakers
for several successive utterances (cf. Coulthard 1985: 61-64).
III. 2. 3. Interactional competence
The presence of this tacit, normative rule system requires `interactional competence' in order
to participate in the classroom effectively (cf. Mehan 1979: 127). Admittedly, this seems to be
a vague concept, yet Mehan manages to describe its features convincingly. Classroom
competence involves matters of form (being interactionally appropriate) as well as content
(being academically correct). Hellermann (2007: 85) defines interactional competence as "a
learner's ability to co-construct appropriate linguistic forms, registers, and sequential routines
in appropriate contexts in order to accomplish discursive practices." As Mehan's study shows,
students acquire interactional competence within the course of time. In Liebscher and Dailey-
O'Cain's study (2003) students similarly acquired an awareness of their roles in the
classroom, which led them to behave in ways different from outside the classroom and from
the teacher. Mehan does not comment on the teacher's role with regard to the acquisition of
interactional competence, while Gil (2002: 278) argues that "to guide the students to learn the
- 17 -
rules of this complex metalinguistic game" is the teacher's job. This, in my opinion, however,
is to be debated. In conclusion,
an important part of education for children in school is learning that conversations in
classrooms have unique features, and that the demands of classroom discourse must be
kept separate from the demands of everyday discourse. (Mehan 2001: 294)
A possible weakness of Mehan's study lies in the fact that he analysed discourse in only one
classroom. Mehan himself addresses this issue briefly, arguing, by referring basically to
informal evidence, that equivalent structural arrangements as well as similar structuring work
could be found in other classrooms, too. In his analysis, Mehan rejects grammatically based
categories since meaning is not conveyed by grammatical means. Furthermore, while other
researchers have frequently ignored paralinguistic and kinesics behaviour in their analyses,
Mehan attributes great importance to these factors. All in all, his analysis is definitely one of
the most detailed analyses carried out in this area of study.
III. 2. 4. From teacher-centred classrooms to other forms of teaching
The IRE sequence has been regarded as characteristic of traditional lessons, in which lecture
style teaching prevails. Furthermore, the turn-taking behaviour described above may only
apply to teacher-centred lessons and not to all forms of classroom interaction. Here, in my
opinion, lies a weakness of Mehan's work in that it only focuses, as typical of early studies of
classroom discourse, on teacher-led lessons, which he is, however, well aware of. The
predominance of teacher-centred lessons is possibly linked to the study representing "public
schooling in the early grades" (Macbeth 2003: 245). Mehan (1979: 11) claims that "[t]he
situation is even more complex in student-centered classrooms, team-teaching arrangements,
and learning centers." Nevertheless, Cazden (2001: 109) argues that on the one hand,
"differences between learning in teacher-led lessons and learning in peer groups are becoming
less marked" and that, on the other hand, there is more and more space for student exchanges
also in teacher-led lessons.
Ende der Leseprobe aus 99 Seiten
- nach oben
Details
- Arbeit zitieren
- , 2010, A comparison of classroom discourse in two countries, Hamburg, Bedey Media GmbH, https://www.diplom.de/document/228608
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Deutschlands größter Sharing Community
Jetzt Zusammenfassungen, Skripte und Klausuren kostenlos downloaden!
Uniturm.de
Ihre Vorteile als Autor
Geld verdienen Für jedes verkaufte Exemplar erhalten Sie Autorenhonorar - bis zu 40%.Kostenlose Buchveröffentlichung
Als eBook-Studie im Original und / oder auf Wunsch zusätzlich als hochwertiges Fachbuch in unserem renommierten Buchverlag.
Renommee als Fachbuchautor
Präsentieren Sie sich als Fachfrau oder Fachmann in Ihrem Fachgebiet und machen Sie sich bekannt.
Persönliche Betreuung
Unser Lektorat wird Sie persönlich betreuen und ist auch telefonisch unter 040-655992-14 erreichbar.
Weltweit im Buchhandel
Ihr Buch ist weltweit im Buchhandel und Online-Buchhandel wie z.B. amazon erhältlich.
Jetzt Autor werden!
Kommentare