Approaches to analysing classroom discourse

The patterns of interaction that exist in the classroom can be analysed through an analysis of lesson transcripts or classroom discourse. One of the approaches used to analyse classroom discourse is the Discourse Analysis (DA) approach. DA enables researchers to analyse and understand real-life language data, as it examines language use by members of a speech community, and it identifies linguistic features that characterize different genres, as well as social and cultural factors that aid in our interpretation and understanding of different texts and types of talk, by looking at both language form and language function (Demo, 2001). In other words, DA concerns the structural-functional description of discourse found in the classroom (White, 2003). Through DA “the hierarchical systems which depict the overall organization of classroom discourse can be developed” (Seedhouse, 2004, p. 56).

In educational settings, DA is used to uncover the uniqueness of classroom talk and what children must be able to do linguistically to ensure successful language learning (Adger, 2001). DA enables us to understand interaction in the classroom, and comprehend its special nature and therefore to consider how we might vary interaction more and introduce alternative types of sequence. In this study, the DA Approach is adopted as a system of analysis relevant to one of the main aims of the study, namely to investigate how curriculum reform is implemented by looking at the patterns of teacher- student classroom discourse. The DA in this study refers to Sinclair and Coulthard’s (1992) modified Birmingham School model.

4.8.1 System of analysis

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975; 1992) found that language in the classroom is linguistically and pedagogically rich and thus proposed the use of DA to investigate the structure of classroom interaction. DA is widely used and has become well established in studies that investigate classroom interaction patterns in various teaching contexts, such as first, second or foreign languages, from structural-functional perspectives.

The system for analysing classroom discourse developed by Sinclair and Coulthard (1992), proposes that lessons can be analysed at five levels or ‘ranks’: lesson, transaction, exchange, move and act. Lesson is the highest unit of classroom discourse and is constituted of one or more transactions, which made up of one or more exchanges, which made up in turn of one or more moves, which made up of one or more acts. Figure 4.1 is a clear illustration of the system analysis.

Figure 4.1. Levels of discourse analysis

(Adapted from Hardman, Smith & Wall, 2003, p. 201 and Yang, 2008, p. 11)

Exchanges are divided into two major classes: ‘boundary exchanges’ and ‘teaching exchanges’. Boundary exchanges include ‘framing moves’ and ‘focusing moves’. Framing moves function to mark the beginning or end of a stage of a lesson. Typical framing moves are indicated by markers such as ‘Now’, ‘Well’, ‘Good’, ‘OK’ and ‘Right’. Focusing moves usually occur with framing moves and function to talk about the discourse. On the other hand, teaching exchanges consist of initiation, response and follow-up moves, marking the individual steps by which a lesson progresses.

Sinclair and Coulthard (ibid) divide teaching exchanges into two categories: ‘free’ and ‘bound’. The free exchanges are composed of six teaching moves with specific functions and unique structures. The four main functions of these exchanges are informing, directing, eliciting and checking. However, since informing and elicitations can be from the teachers and students, therefore the free exchanges that function to inform and elicit are further divided into: ‘Teacher Inform’, ‘Student Inform’, ‘Teacher Elicit’ and ‘Student Elicit’ along with ‘Teacher Check’ and ‘Teacher Direct’. These are distinguished by their different types of act (see Table 4.2).

Lesson Transaction (Lesson Topic) Exchange (Teaching) Move (Initiation) Act

(Inform) (Direct)Act (Elicit)Act (Check)Act (Reinitiation)Act Act (Reinforce) Act (Repeat) Move (Response) Act

(Reply) (React)Act

Move (Follow-up) Act (Accept) Act (Evaluate ) Transaction (Lesson Topic) Exchange (Boundary) Move (Framing) Act (Marker)

Teacher Inform is used for passing on facts, opinions, ideas and new information to the pupils and usually there is no verbal response to the initiation. Therefore, there is no feedback. When pupils offer information that they think is relevant or interesting, this is deemed to be Student Inform. Nevertheless this exchange seldom occurs in the classroom. In contrast to Teacher Inform, Teacher Direct is designed to get the pupils to do rather than to say something (e.g., ‘open your book at page 60’ or ‘please sit properly’). Therefore, in this exchange feedback is not essential, although it frequently occurs. Teacher Elicit is designed to obtain verbal contributions from the pupils. As discussed earlier, elicitation by teachers is usually in the form of questions. In the classroom environment, very often the teacher usually knows the answer to the question asked. Nevertheless, in this exchange, feedback from the teacher is expected because the pupils, having given their answer, want to know if it was correct or not. Cases where students ask questions to seek clarification, or get information, are considered as Student Elicit. However, the questions asked are typically of the order ‘Do we need to underline?’ or ‘May I go to the toilet?’ and therefore feedback is not essential. Teacher check is an exchange used by the teacher to discover how well the students are progressing, whether they can follow the teaching pace, or whether they can hear what is being presented or said (e.g. ‘do you understand?’ or ‘can you follow me?’). Feedback is not essential because the questions are real and the teacher does not know the answer.

The bound exchanges consist of five types: four of which are attached to Teacher Elicits and one to Teacher Direct. So, the bound exchanges include: ‘Re-initiation (i)’, ‘Re- initiation (ii)’, ‘Listing’, ‘Reinforce’ and ‘Repeat’. In the analysis system, an exchange is defined as Re-initiation (i) when a teacher receives no response to his/her elicitation from the students. This is where the teacher restarts by repeating, rephrasing, simplifying or giving hints such as using acts like clue, prompt or nomination. Re- initiation (ii) occurs when students give the wrong answer to a teacher elicitation and the teacher spends time with the same student in order to get the correct answer, or the teacher asks other pupil for the correct answer. A listing exchange, on the other hand, refers to an exchange where teachers keep back an evaluation to get more answers. This is usually to ensure that more students know the answer. The Reinforce exchange happens when the teacher re-explains or re-states a statement or an instruction. Lastly the Repeat exchange refers to a situation where the teacher asks the students to repeat their answers.

Table 4.2. Sinclair and Coulthard’s system of analysis

Exchanges Moves Acts

Teaching Free Teacher Inform Teacher Elicit Student Inform Student Elicit Teacher Direct Teacher Check Ini ti at ion -R es pon se -F ee db ac k (I R F ) Marker Starter Elicit Inform Direct Reply Demonstration Comment Clue Accept Prompt Metastatement Evaluate Conclusion Bound Re-initiation Listing Repeat Reinforce Boundary Framing Focusing Framing Focusing

Discourse analysis to second language teaching and learning where investigation of actual language use in the classroom can provide information on how teachers can improve their teaching practices, and the way students will learn language through exposure to different kinds of discourse as oral communication is the tool by which teaching takes place and in which students demonstrate to teachers what they have learned (Cazden, 1987). Through classroom discourse analysis teachers are able to monitor not only the quantity of students’ output but most importantly the quality.

4.9 Summary of the chapter

In summary, Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) is recognized as an effective method in language learning as it focuses on developing students’ communicative competence by engaging them in authentic communication. Through the CLT approach, students are able to choose what to say, how to say it and when to say it, so that what is communicated is appropriate, purposeful, meaningful and effective given its context. This will develop the learners’ competency not only as regards communicative competence but also as regards linguistic competence.

Hence, learners need to engage in communicative activities, because this type of activity provides students with opportunities to speak and share ideas in a relatively relaxing way. Students should be free to choose what to say and how to say things. Through these opportunities, indirectly English environment is automatically created thus

helping students cultivate their sense of the language and creating an atmosphere where students can improve their English ability (Fang, 2010).

The CLT teacher’s job is to facilitate communication in the classroom by establishing situations likely to promote communication, because in CLT, language and communication are interdependent. The teacher-student exchanges that take place in the course of educational activities should encourage learning and the acquisition of language. The classroom interaction should encourage longer interactions and extended discussion, to enable the students to practice their spoken English. An understanding of the IRF sequence enables us to model spoken language in the world inside the classroom, suggesting ways of constructing dialogues for teaching, role-plays for practising conversation, etc. (Walsh, 2011).

Therefore, an emphasis on communication in language learning classroom may offer a clearer and more secure understanding of how teacher-student dialogue can be used to good effect and of how opportunities for productive dialogue may sometimes be wasted (Mercer & Littleton, 2007, p. 5). Moreover, analysis of research on classroom interaction reveals that there is not enough emphasis in a lot of educational policy and classroom practice on the value of teaching children the way to use language for learning.