Classroom Discourse and Pedagogy - Research Proposal Example

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE & PEDAGOGY Turn-taking 1. Introduction Conversation Analysis or CA is one way to analyzing forms of talk and associated actions during a conversation (Schegloff et al., 2002). This includes institutional talk such as those occurring inside a classroom where the teacher, who generally imparting knowledge to students, controls the conversation by organising the class turn-taking and sequence. To demonstrate this type of talk, this essay selected a second language classroom conversation and one topic from the course. The topic of this essay is turn-taking in second language classroom when a teacher and three Korean students are engaged in long conversation. Five extracts were chosen for this discussion and, for each extract, analysis of sequence and identification of potential learning sites was conducted. The significance of the findings is then presented in the later section and a conclusion summarising the findings and it implications. 2. Literature Review One way of analyzing naturally occurring conversation is through Conversation Analysis method (Seedhouse, 2005). Similarly, transcription is a tool that can be used to identify and describe the events occurring during a conversation (Gardner, 2008). Interactional tools such as turn-taking help in the analysis of complex conversation particularly in classroom talk (Gass, 2004). This is because interaction commonly involves an exchange or give and take situation creating a turn-taking structure (Levinson, 2005). According to Schegloff et al. (2002), regardless of language, fluency, classroom or ordinary conversation, people engaged in talk interaction will likely to organise the order of their participation such as waiting for someone to finish talking before anybody else talks – turn-taking (p.4). Moreover, turn-taking practices is a way of controlling the clarity of discussion since it enables distribution of opportunities to express each and everyone’s side. However, the opportunity to take turn is commonly triggered by a brief silence which can be problematic for second language speaker who cannot start a next turn on time (ibid, p.6). This is because adjacency pairs commonly comes with alternative second parts thus there is always two options to chose – acceptance (preferred action) or rejection (dispreferred action). During a conversation, the first option is usually delivered with no delay while the second one are delivered with hesitation or delay at the beginning of response turn (Seedhouse, 2005). Second language speaker therefore should use audible turn signal to reduce the possibility of incursion of potential speaker during his turn-taking delay (Gardner, 2008). 3. Extracts 3.1 Introduction The following are analysis of extracts from a conversation class between an Australian teacher Harry (T), students Mark (S1), Angela (S2), and Hilda (S3). This extract was selected to demonstrate turn-taking between a native English speaking teacher and second language learners. 3.2 Extract 1 (Line 101-122) Analytic description of the sequence The conversation starts with teacher Harry asking the whereabouts of Angela. Teacher first question receive no response even a turn-taking signal from any student. Therefore, he asked again but it took S1 1.3 seconds to respond in line 106. Teacher made a correction line in 107 and S1 responded with little hesitation or delay but use “he.. huh..huh” to signal a turn-taking event in line 110 until he completed the word “dishwash” in line 111. Teacher made some repairs twice in line 112 and 113 and waited for S1, which immediately confirmed his approval with “Yeah” in line 114. However, the teacher is not satisfied and asked another question in line 115 “She’s washing up” which is probably a third repair to make sure that students fully understand the action. Hesitant, S2 confirmed her understanding with an “Uhn” in line 116 that still sounds a little confused. Teacher went silent for about 0.2 seconds probably waiting for S2 to say the phrase “She’s washing up, accepted S2’s confirmation with a little doubt “hhh Okay”, since it is not an identical MR. S1, probably waiting for his turn insisted that Angela is “dishwashing” then teacher attempted to clarify or make another repair in line 120 but did not complete the sentence and pause for about 0.5 seconds before accepting all the answers from S1 and S2 with “Very good” n line 122. Comments on potential learning sites in the sequence There is no indication of direct learning here as far as S1 and S2 is concern since teacher Harry made a correction twice with the word “dishwashing” but S1 still insist on “dishwash”. Similarly, S2 is undoubtedly unsure of her answer and unable to understand the correction made by teacher Harry. However, nothing is sure what’s going on with the second language speakers mind since there is a possibility that they are learning but do not want express it during the conversation. This is probably the reason why teacher Harry did not insist further. 3.3 Extract 2 (Line 124-148) Analytic description of the sequence This conversation is continuation of extract 1 where teacher Harry is asking some question to three students. This extract is a little more complex as it involves several turn-taking events generated. The new segment started at line 124 where teacher Harry asked S1 of his whereabouts. Teacher Harry waited for about 0.8 seconds before S1 signal his turn. It took S1 another 0.6 delay before he can completely say “I am in the living room” in line 126. The 1.4 seconds delay seems an indication that he was thinking of the most appropriate answer or having difficulty recalling the name “living room”. Teacher waited for his turn for 0.5 seconds then asked again to confirm S1’s answer in line 129 and S1 answered “Yeah” immediately. Teacher take his turn and accepted the answer in line 130 and proceeds with another question directed to S1 again in line 131- “What are you doing?”. Again, it took S1 the same amount of time (0.8) seconds to respond. The delay is probably from the same reason mentioned earlier because the “uh” in line 133 is suggestive of turn talking with hesitation as S1 finally completed the sentence “I am watching tv”. Teacher waited for about 0.3 seconds and seems satisfied with the answer and commented “Very good” in line 135 which S1 quickly acknowledged in line 136. After 0.3 seconds, teacher take his turn and another question was thrown to S1 but this time it only took him 0.5 seconds to signal a turn. However, it took him about 1.4 seconds to say, “I am”, 1.0 seconds to utter, “watching”, and another 1.7 seconds to express the word “soccer”. These pauses seem to suggest intense thinking but most probably for the word “soccer” since he’s got no problem saying the words “I am watching” earlier. Teacher Harry then confirms and accepted the answer in line 145 and compliment S1 with “Very good” in line 148. Comments on potential learning sites in the sequence There seems some form of learning in this conversation as S1 was trying to complete his sentence. Although there may be some delay, the amount of thinking suggests that he is trying to recall the proper structure of his answer and the correct name for the game he is watching. The smooth turn-taking events seems to help S1 to express his understanding completely while teacher Harry is in control and patiently waiting for his turn, 3.4 Extract 3 (Line 150 -160) Analytic description of the sequence This extract is a continuation of extract 2 just after a brief 0.5 seconds. Teacher asked a general question to everybody “Where are they? In line 150 but waited for 0.8 seconds for anybody to take his turn. Seems unsure of what his teacher is talking about, S1 responded with “Angela and Mark” in line 152 and continue with “in the grocer” after 0.6 seconds. Teacher Harry waited for 0.3 seconds before taking his turn and made some expansion and repair by saying “Angela and Mark are in or at the grocery?” which S1 quickly approved with “Yeah” twice in a row in line 157 and 158. Teacher accepted S1’s answer after a brief 0.5 seconds with “Very Good”. Comments on potential learning sites in the sequence There seems no direct learning here but S1’s acknowledgement of teacher correct suggests that he recognized the difference between “in” and “at”. The 0.6 seconds delay in line 152 before S1 finally utter “in the grocery” suggests that he is choosing his words, which is likely “in” or “at”. S1’s repeated approval to teacher’s repair statement indicates his full understanding of sentence proper structure. 3.5 Extract 4 (Line 373-416) Analytic description of the sequence This is an extract from later conversation with teacher Harry and the three Korean students. They were actually taking about an image of an old woman with a dog. This extract is more complex than the other is as it is lengthy with multiple turn-taking events coming from teacher and more than one student. In line 373, teacher as all students what they think the woman is doing with her other hand and after 0.5 seconds, S2 replied with a clarifying question “with other hand?” She was probably thinking whether the teacher is talking about the right or the left hand of the woman in the picture. Similarly, she was not sure if that hand is the one holding a dog in line 378. The teacher replied in line 380, after about 0.6 seconds, and confirmed the hand holding the dog is the one he is talking about and repeated the question again in the same line. S2 seems still unaware of the right words to say and reply “Ah” while the teacher confirms it again in line 382. Similarly, also unsure about it S3 asked again “Its a dog?”. The teacher considered this question as an answer, and finally accepted it in line 385. There was a brief Korean talk, probably examining the image and thinking about the right word for “tapping” but S2 made the wrong choice and answered “touching” in line 393. Unsatisfied, teacher made a corrective attempt and asked S2 to reconsider it- “touching it? In line 397 and S2 and S3 replied with understanding while the phrase “touching...it”. However, they still seem to have no idea of the right term thus the teacher made some correction in line 402 – 406 and informed the students that the right word is “patting”. S1 and the rest repeated the “patting” indicating their first encounter with the word. The teacher recognized this and demonstrated how patting is being done at line 412 and repeated the exact phrase once again in line 415. However, only S2 signify her understanding by saying “Oh yeah” in line 416. Comments on potential learning sites in the sequence There is no direct evidence of learning in this extract since none of the students was by themselves able to figure out the correct phrase – “Patting the dog”. In fact, they do not have any idea about the word “patting” until the teacher actually demonstrated how it is done. If there is some learning here, it is the awareness of the difference between ‘touching’ and ‘patting’ a dog. Similarly, repeating what the teacher said may indicate learning or recognition that such word exist and applicable in that situation. 3.6 Extract 5 (Line 417-449) Analytic description of the sequence This extract is continuation of the conversion in extract 4, which is about woman and her dog. The complexity is almost the same but the turn-taking events include not just from teacher but also student to student. Teacher asked the students the emotional condition of the dog in line 417 to 419 with “does the dog look very annoyed or angry?”. S2 express disagreement in line 421 but did not signal a turn. Teacher noticed the reaction and expanded his question with “He looks what?” in line 422 and after about 1.2 seconds, S3, in doubt and without any turn signal asked S2 the meaning of word “angry”. S2 tried to take turn but teacher interrupted in line 427. S2 signal a turn again and was successful and express her own understanding of the word and answered “very sad” in line 428. Teacher take his turn without any signal and explained that the dog is very relaxed but still, S3, who attempted to take her turn, is so confused about the meaning of “angry” in line 433. Teacher repeated that the dog is relaxed but S2 still thinks that the proper word is “happy”. Comments on potential learning sites in the sequence Although there seems some disagreement with the way teacher Harry described the emotional condition of the dog, this disagreement is actually misunderstanding of the question at first. For instance, S2, in line 428 is actually demonstrated her confusion when she mistakenly provide her meaning of “annoyed” and “angry” as “very sad”. The image of the dog is relax thus there is no reason to think that he is very sad. This assumption is strengthen by the fact that fellow Korean student S3, was also so confused about the word “angry”. In fact, until the end of the extract, the group student is still cannot properly describe the dog’s behaviour despite repeated attempts from teacher Harry. There is no potential learning in this extract. 4. Significance of findings In all five extracts, there is a noticeable advantage to language learning and teaching when the turn-taking events are properly managed. For instance, second language learner S1 in extract 3 was given enough time to think, talk, and complete the sentence on his own. Moreover, despite needs for repair, the proper turn-taking help S1 understand the idea completely. Language teaching in this well-managed turn-taking extract is undoubtedly successful. Similarly, despite the length of conversation in extract 2, well-managed turn-taking events successfully encouraged second language learners to think, understand, and express the proper answer. In contrast, extract 5 is a bit chaotic since there were interruptions, incursion, and un-signalled turn-taking events resulting to confusion and learning difficulty. Analysis of the five selected extracts shows that turn-taking is somewhat automatic regardless of culture and language difference but it is vulnerable to incursion particularly to second language learners who usually take time to even express their desire to talk or signal a turn. Therefore, discussions in language learning class should always take into account the implications of second language learners’ delay and hesitation in expressing their thoughts in English. 5. Conclusion Literatures in conversional analysis commonly compliment the value of well-managed turn-taking events in learning. Similarly, this assignment found that classroom discussions for elementary level TESOL learners could greatly benefit from interactional tool like turn-taking. Majority of extracts shows that whenever teacher waited for students to think and take turn uninterrupted, the chances of learning is increased. In contrast, whenever somebody interrupts and no turn-taking signal is made, discussion is chaotic and learning is less. The implication of these findings to language teaching and learning is positive in the sense that knowledge of the value of well-managed turn-taking events can encourage other practitioners to improve their class discussion techniques. 6. Reference list Gardner R, (2005), What does Conversation Analysis have to say about second language and second language acquisition?, in Rod Gardner & Tim Geer (eds), Observing Talk, Tokyi: Hituzi Shobo, pp.2-24 Gass S, (2004), Conversation Analysis and Input-Interaction, The Modern Language Journal, 88, IV, pp. 597-616 Levinson S, (2005), On the human “interaction engine”, Nijmegen: Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics, pp. 1-43 Schegloff E, Koshik I, Jacoby S, & Olsher D, (2002), Conversation Analysis and Applied Linguistics, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, US: Cambridge University Press, p.3-31 Seedhouse P, (2005), Conversation Analysis and Language Learning, Language Teaching, Vol. 38, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp.165-187 Read More