As we reflected on our experiences as teacher educators and researchers, and examined our beliefs about the teaching and learning processes in language classrooms, we became convinced that discourse between teacher and students should flow continuously, with turn taking in the classroom more equally distributed. In short, discourse should follow the T-S-T-S (teacher-student-teacher-student) pattern. In many ESL classroom situations, as evidenced in research by Mohtar (1988), the pattern T-S-T is predominant. The T-S-T pattern occurs when a teacher asks a question, a student answers, and the teacher provides feedback. The teacher then asks another question and the same pattern is repeated. Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) categorize this sort of exchange as I-R-F (Initiation-Response-Feedback). Outside the classroom, discourse is usually more casual, and students need to be able to initiate turns to speak rather than merely responding to questions, hence the need to practice the T-S-T-S pattern in the classroom.
Since spoken language is "the medium by which much teaching takes place and in which students demonstrate to teachers much of what they have learned" (Cazden, 1988, p. 432) a study of classroom discourse can reveal much about the teaching and learning processes. According to Wells (1986), teaching a language is not simply the transmission of linguistic knowledge. It is more of an attempt to negotiate shared meanings and understanding between the learners and their interlocutors (Saleemi, 1989; Hatch, 1984; Long, 1983). Teachers very often use small group activities or pair work to ensure maximum participation among students. Large groups are often believed to provide little opportunity for students to talk and to generate meaningful language. However a study by Ernst (1994) has shown that communication within a ten member teacher-led group can engage students in meaningful discussion.
This paper will focus on interaction between teacher and students. We will first examine some possible reasons for the lack of participation among students in the classroom. We will then discuss possible strategies for engaging students in classroom discourse. Finally, we will suggest a number of factors which favour the sustenance of classroom discourse.
Factors Limiting Interaction
In this section, we will identify possible reasons for a lack of student interaction in the classroom. We will examine four areas: student characteristics; teacher characteristics; the teaching process; and lesson content.
The Students
Students' lack of participation in the classroom may be due to personal characteristics. Asian students in particular are known to be passive in the classroom. Sato (1982) discovered that Asian learners (Chinese, Japanese and Koreans) took fewer turns to speak compared to other ESL learners (Latin Americans, Europeans and Middle Easterners). Sato attributed Asian students' reticence to their beliefs about permissible classroom participation. A similar view regarding Asian students is expressed by Khoo (1988). Khoo describes Singaporean students as reticent and shy by nature. According to Khoo, their nature is "aggravated by social and cultural characteristics that view learning as a serious business so that the fear exists of giving a wrong answer and being thought stupid"(p. 318). In a Malaysian context, Salleh (1982) observed that the students were generally quiet and restrained. They did not volunteer to answer questions unless forced to do so. If responses to teachers' questions are not given voluntarily then it is hardly surprising that questions to the teacher are seldom produced. With regard to questioning the teacher, Singh (1995) notes that "in some Far Eastern cultures to question a teacher can be seen as a challenge to the teacher's authority" (p. 3).
The Teacher
The teacher-student relationship is also important in influencing student participation. Singh (1995) states the following:
If the teacher is "authoritarian" and is seen by the students as the centre of all knowledge, then this creates a barrier to communication. If the student is not allowed to question critically the "teacher's words" then this is a monologue where there is no real communication because there may be no understanding. (p. 3)
Hence "if a dialogue takes place then there is communication" (Singh, 1995, p. 3). However, if the dialogue is on the teacher's terms then very often students' responses will only be a regurgitation of what has been taught by the teacher. Teachers often expect students to produce correct responses which have actually been predetermined by them. Brooks (1993) reports an observation of a classroom exchange between a Spanish teacher and a second year high school student. During the interaction the teacher defined "what is and what is not an acceptable manner of responding to her questions" (Brooks, 1993, p. 234). By taking such recourse the teacher establishes, monitors and maintains acceptable ways for students to participate in classroom lessons and activities. Since teachers decide what, how, to whom, and how long students can speak, the students are thus "prevented from engaging each other in any sort of 'real' conversation" (Brooks, 1993, p. 235).
The Teaching Process
Our observation of classroom interaction reveals that teachers very often ask questions as a teaching strategy. The questions teachers use can affect the performance of the students. Display questions "which are intended to elicit information already known to the questioner" (Gaeis, 1983, p. 208) deprive students of the opportunity to express their opinions and to contribute further to the discourse. In their study of six ESL classrooms, Long and Sato (1983) discovered that display questions contributed more than half of all questions asked by the teacher. Ernst (1994) notes in her study that display questions asked by the teacher (among other features of teacher talk) reduced the students' opportunity to speak. The other features of teacher talk found in Ernst's (1994) study are repetition of previous messages (repeating), changes in form and content of original message (repairing), providing information (explaining), and maintaining the floor (holding). While repeating, explaining, repairing, and asking display questions are components of teacher talk, holding the floor refers to turn-taking within the discourse.
Turn taking in the classroom is controlled by the teacher. The teacher organizes the structure of the lesson and by doing so may influence student interaction. McHoul (1978) states the following:
If the teacher's turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a current speaker selects next technique (sic), then the right and obligation to speak is given to a single student; no others have such a right or obligation and transfer occurs at that transition-relevance (sic) place. (p. 188)
The interaction pattern where the teacher selects a student to answer her questions is observed by Samuel (1982) in his study in a Malaysian school. This pattern occurred particularly when the teacher employed the questioning strategy during the course of teaching. After answering the teacher's question the student "gave the turn back to the teacher" (Samuel, 1982, p. 129). Hence if the teacher chooses this pattern of interaction, participation of students will be highly controlled by him or her.
Content of the Lesson
The text used or the topic taught by the teacher may influence the interaction pattern in the classroom. The text may be a factual one and the questions asked may require students merely to retrieve information from it. The text may not stimulate any discussion, or the questions asked may not require students to give opinions. After being questioned by the teacher, a student will answer and the correct answer will be accepted by the teacher who then asks another question. There is thus no continuity in the flow of discourse as the following question will deal with a different aspect of the text or topic. The content of the text may also be uninteresting to the students. Ernst (1994) discovered that the content of the topic is important; when it related to studentsﾕ interests the students were able to communicate even with limited L2 resources.
We have seen that the lack of student participation in classroom discourse may be due to student characteristics, teacher characteristics, the teaching process, and the content of the lesson. These factors are all interrelated and two or more may operate at the same time to cause students to refrain from talking.
Strategies Used to Sustain Student Engagement
In the previous section we discussed some reasons why students fail to participate in classroom discourse. We believe that the teacher must identify impediments to communication in his or her own classroom before developing strategies to encourage increased student contributions to classroom discourse.
We are using the term "to sustain student engagement" to refer to the continuance of student talk after the teacher has provided feedback to a student response. Generally, after a question is asked by the teacher, a student will respond and the teacher will then provide feedback. After the answer is accepted, the student normally refrains from talking further and the teacher regains his or her turn at talking. In the next exchange, the teacher normally asks a different question and another student responds to it. The interaction pattern T-S-T then recurs throughout the lesson. This type of interaction does not provide continuity in the discourse. Student interaction is not sustained as each question asked by the teacher deals with a different aspect of the topic. We believe that student interaction can be sustained if the teacher, when providing feedback, can exploit the response given by the student. In order to encourage students to continue talking, feedback from the teacher should be stimulating. The type of feedback given by the teacher can restrict or facilitate student participation and language use (Ernst, 1994). Mohtar (1996) found that the following types of teacher feedback can encourage students to interact.
Accepting a Student's Answer
The acceptance of a student reply by the teacher can encourage students to offer more information about what is asked. Continuity depends on the type of question asked and also the type of topic. If the question requires more than one answer then students have the opportunity of adding to the information already given. If the text allows students to explore the content further, then their interest would be stimulated and they would be encouraged to talk more. In one example from the study by Mohtar (1996), the teacher made the students listen to a series of sounds. The students had to guess what happened based on the sounds heard. There were parts where the answers were specific and definite. There were parts where the students were stimulated into giving a variety of answers which the teacher accepted. At one point in the lesson a woman's scream was heard. Students had to guess what happened. The following extract from Mohtar (1996) illustrates this case.
T: Let's see what you have. OK. What happened?
S1: Policeman
T: (writes 'policeman')
S2: Gangster
T : (writes 'gangster') (p. 181)
In this example, the teacher allowed the students to give a variety of answers. The feedback was nonverbal. By writing down the answers given by the students, the teacher conveyed to the students that their replies had been accepted.
Asking Questions
Feedback from the teacher may take the form of elicitation. After a student's response, the teacher may elicit further information. The subsequent question is related to the previous one asked and the information required is within the student's knowledge. An example from Mohtar's (1996) study follows:
T : What is he talking about?
S : Men.
T : Men. What sort of men? (p. 198)
In the followup move, the teacher incorporated the student's answer into her question. Such a construction is termed uptake by Cazden (1988). In the example, the teacher accepted the reply but tried to elicit a more satisfactory answer from the student. Other forms of uptake which appeared in Mohtar's study were "Then what happened?" "Then?" and "Why?"
Elicitation in the follow up move can also be used to encourage other students to contribute to the discourse. After one student responds, the teacher can elicit views from others regarding the reply. Hence instead of providing feedback directly to the student who answers, the teacher can pass over his or her turn to other students in the classroom.
Nominating
After responding to a student's answer, the teacher can encourage other students to contribute information. She can select some students or indicate that she requires someone to answer. An extract from Mohtarﾕs (1996) study illustrates how the teacher encourages students to continue providing answers.
S: That is why he is naming the mountain after this man.
T: That is why he is naming this mountain after this man. Does anybody disagree or does anybody have another interpretation? (p. 121)
In this example, the teacher reserves her judgment after receiving an answer from a student. She provides the other students with an opportunity to talk about and comment on what was said by the previous student.
Checking
The teacher can encourage students to continue contributing to the discourse by providing cues for students to take their turns. This can also be done by checking. A check can be made after a student reply in order to discover whether other students understand. This point is illustrated by a case introduced in Mohtar's (1996) study.
T: Can anyone tell me about a superstition?
S: (raises hand)
T: (looks at S)
S: When it's late at night and you're alone walking in a deserted area and you get a feeling of being followed. There are three lights to protect you. When you look back you see nothing. The top light goes down to your shoulder.
T: Any questions about that? (p. 215)
In this example, the teacher provides the chance for other students to ask questions. Students seldom ask questions in the classroom. They rarely question the teacher for doing so "may be seen as a challenge to the teacher's authority" (Singh, 1995, p. ?). In this case, the students are required to direct their questions to their own peers. Hence there is no fear of challenging the teacher's authority. They will therefore feel more comfortable asking questions.
Giving Opinions
The teacher can also incorporate an opinion into her feedback in order to encourage further responses from students. Our observations have shown that the teacher's opinion may induce students to respond. This strategy requires the students to be fairly well informed about the topic. Student responses may or may not show agreement with the teacher's opinion. An extract from Mohtar's (1996) study demonstrates how students responded to this type of teacher feedback.
T: So if you come back and you donﾕt wash it off before you enter the house then the ghost will follow you in. The westerners have survived pretty all right so far.
S1: The westerners don't have the same superstitions as the Asians.
S2: If this superstition is true and since the westerners donﾕt have these superstitions how come the bad luck donﾕt come to them?
S3: But the westerners do have superstitions. (p. 231)
Evaluating
The teacher often evaluates a student's reply to a question. To encourage further participation by students the teacher can provide high level evaluation which is "more than just 'Good' or 'mere repetition of a student's answer.'" (Nystrand & Gamoran, 1991, p. 273). According to Nystrand and Gamoran, "when a teacher's evaluation is high level, the student really gets the floor." (p. 273). Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) describe high level evaluation as consisting of two parts:
(a) the teacher's certification of the response e.g. Good.
(b) the teacher's incorporation of the response, usually in the form of either an elaboration or a followup question. (p. 273)
An exchange in Mohtar's (1996) study shows an example of this type of evaluation. In a lesson on poetry, the teacher discussed a poem with students. At one point during the lesson the teacher asked the students to interpret the poem. Students continued to give answers and the teacher provided feedback which encouraged the students to provide further information.
T: What is he talking about?
S: Men.
T: Men. What sort of men?
S: Great.
T: He's talking about great men.
S: They die.
T: They die and people don't remember them anymore. Is that what the poet is saying? (p. 209)
In this example, the teacher's question "What sort of men?" required the students to think further and to elaborate on the previous answer. In the latter part of the exchange, the teacher expanded on a student reply ("They die") and followed it up with a question requiring more answers or more satisfactory answers.
Providing Guidance
The teacher can guide students to continue talking by providing clues and prompts. It was noted in Mohtar's (1996) study that after repeating a student reply, teachers sometimes provide a clue to help students answer questions more correctly. An example follows:
T: Where do you think Julia was?
S: In the car.
T: In the car. OK. Right. From the sound of her dress where do you think she might be? (p. 194)
In this example, the teacher focused the student's attention on the rustling of a dress (expressed by the teacher as "the sound of her dress") to enable the student to provide a more correct answer. In another example, the teacher encouraged student participation by prompting. The following exchange shows the prompt used by the teacher.
T: Then what happens?
S: She got in.
T: She got back. She was frightened by the cat, got back to the car again and tried to . . . (p. 196)
In this case the teacher elaborated on the student's answer and then provided a prompt to obtain further information.
We have found that the teacher can exploit his or her turn after a student reply in order to motivate students to ask questions, give opinions, or provide further information. The teacher does not need to end an exchange by passing judgment on student responses. Teachers must be aware of the types of feedback which will encourage students to contribute more freely to classroom discourse.
Conclusion
The classroom lesson can provide a communicative context if, during the course of performing everyday classroom activities, the teacher and the students build on each other's communicative behaviour as they work towards fulfilling curricular objectives. To be able to do this both teacher and students must understand interactional rules. We have suggested that student interaction can be limited by student characteristics, teacher characteristics, the teaching process, and the content of the lesson. We believe that the teacher can encourage student participation, and have outlined a number of strategies to help teachers do so.
References
Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveats in ﾔcommunicativeﾕ discourse: Toward a conceptualization of the foreign language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 233-242.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse. In M. C.Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 432-462). NY: Macmillan Pub. Co.
Ernst, G. (1994). Talking Circle: conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 28, 293-323.
Gaeis, S. (1983). The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 205-217.
Hatch, E. (1984). Theoretical review of discourse and second language acquisition. In A. Davies, C. Criper, & A. Howatt (Eds.), Interlanguage (pp. 190-203). Edinburgh University Press.
Khoo, G.K. (1988). Interaction dynamics of classroom discourse. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Murdock University, Australia.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Long, M., & Sato, C. (1983). Classroom foreign talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachersﾕ questions. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.). Classroom oriented research in language learning (pp. 268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
McHoul, A. (1978). The organization of turns at foreign talk in the classroom. Language in Society, 7, 183-213.
Mohtar, T. M. T. (1988). An analysis of language needs of teacher trainees at Institut Bahasa. Unpublished manuscript. Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Mohtar, T. M. T. (1996). Effects of teacher feedback on student behaviour during English Language lessons. Unpublished manuscript. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Nystrand, M. & Gamoran, A. (1991) Instructional discourse, student engagement and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, p. 261-291.
Saleemi, A. P. (1989). Inputs for L2 acquisition. IRAL, 27, 173-191.
Salleh, M. (1982). Cross-cultural comparison in classroom interaction. In A. Chamberlain & T. Llamzon, (Eds.). Studies in classroom interaction (pp. 145-157). Occasional Papers No. 20. Singapore. SEAMEO Regional Language Centre.
Samuel, M. (1982). Social context and questioning strategies in selected lessons from four Communicational English classes. Unpublished M. Ed. thesis. Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya.
Sato, C. (1982). Ethnic styles in classroom discourse. In M.Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.). On TESOL '81 (pp. 11-24). Washington, DC: TESOL.
Sinclair, J. M. & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singh, H. (1995). Barriers to communication in Science Education. Education Today, 45, 3-6.