4.2 Stage of Controlled Practice 58!
4.2.1 Setting-up: implicit modelling 61!
4.2.2.3 Collaborative Evaluate phases: LL use in ‘guessing what’s in teacher’s mind’ 71!
phase (‘very good’) , the teacher adds a co-evaluation phase. It can be identified in a long episode of exchanges between the teacher and students, in which both TL and LL are used
extensively. Their specific features and patterns of the pedagogic activities, relations and modalities are elaborated as follows.
In this evaluation phase, seven learning cycles/exchanges are identified. The first 6 cycles are structured as ‘Focus ^ Propose ^ Reject’. At the beginning of this evaluating phase, the teacher does not provide any specific hints but simply mentions ‘there is one mistake’ in the Role-play, as shown in Table 4.11.
Spkr Exchange Gloss Cycle
phase
Matter Now Smile has an apple,
apple
farmer .
[BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET THIS APPLE, YOU SHOULD ANSWER MY QUESTION CORRECTLY. WHEN THEY WERE ANSWERING FARMER’S QUESTION JUST NOW, THEY MADE A BIT MISTAKE.
Focus L2 grammar
T WHO FOUND IT?] Focus L2 grammar
S10: {One student raises his hand}
T ? [YOU FOUND IT YOURSELF?] Focus L2 grammar
Jimmy, [JIMMY PLEASE].
S10: [NOT CLEAR ENOUGH.] Propose L2 pronunciation
T: [OH, NOT CLEAR ENOUGH?] Reject Repeat
[YOU READ IT VERY CLEARLY
ALREADY.]
qualify
Table 4.11 Typical pedagogic activities in initiating co-evaluation
In Table 4.11, the teacher is expecting a grammatical mistake which is an extra article before the adjective (“it's a yellow”). However, in the first teacher’s move, Focus, there is no explicit discourse hinting what kind of mistake it is or locating where it is. Students thereafter come out with a wide range of unexpected answers. For example, Student 10 comments on their English pronunciation. The other five student’s cover aspects including the identification of L2 words (e.g. ‘not yellow but white’) and L2 pronunciation (see more examples in Appendix A). Although the teacher sometimes gives confirmation (e.g. ‘very good’) to them, she is not satisfied with their answers as she keeps seeking the expected one by saying “any more” and does not reward any of these students with a prize (an apple). It can be interpreted that she implicitly rejects all of them. Table 4.12 shows another example.
Juice [STILL ONE MORE MISTAKE. JUICE, YOUR TURN.]
Focus grammar
S13: Cow black and white black.
[COW IS BALCK AND WHITE, BUT THEY SAID IT’S BALCK.]
Propose item
T: black,
white,
[THEY SAID IT’S BALCK ONLY, BUT NO WHITE, RIGHT?]
Affirm (Reject) repeat
Juice, one two three for you. Good boy.
approve
Table 4.12 Example of potential Reject phase in the analysis of pedagogic activities
In this example, she confirms Student 13’s answer by adding points on the grading board for her. In this way, her evaluation is Affirm. However, she does not give the prize to S13 and continues seeking answers, which shows that S13 is also Rejected.
After successive failing attempts, she finally locates the answer specifically by reading the target exchange and stressing on the wrong words in Cycle 7. This cycle is structured ‘Prepare ^ Identify ^ Focus ^ Identify ^ Affirm. Such findings indicate that Reject phase may be avoided if sufficient hints (Prepare phase) have been provided before the question. Table 4.13 shows the analysis of pedagogic activities in this cycle.
Spkr Exchange Gloss Cycle
phase
Matter
T THEN I WILL REPEAT
WAHT THEY SAID AND SEE WHO CAN GET IT.]
Prepare L2 sentences
T farmer [JUST NOW WHEN THE
FARMER ASKED]
L2 sentences
T What colour is it? L2 sentences
T [TWO KIDS AMONG
THEM SAID]
L2 sentences
T It’s a yellow. {pausing} L2 sentences
T It’s a yellow. T stresses ‘a’} L2 grammar
Ss It’s yellow. {One student calls out the answer and then the others follow}
Identify L2 grammar
T .{T chooses the one who firstly says the answer}
[OK, YOU PLEASE.] Focus T
S16 It’s yellow. Identify S16
T It’s yellow. Affirm T
Pedagogic activities in Round 2 is identically sequenced as Focus ^ Propose ^ Affirm. No Reject phase can be identified. Students perform much more successful than in the first round. In terms of the pedagogic relations, most of the pedagogic exchanges are sequenced as
dK1^K2^K1. In the meanwhile, some other dynamic moves including both Tracking and Challenging moves can be identified, such as the teacher’s requests for confirmation (cfrq), requests for replay (rprq) and challenges to students’ responses (ch). Table 4.14 shows an example of dynamic moves sequenced as dK1^K2^sc^cfrq^K1.
Table 4.14 Dynamic exchange in co-evaluation phase
In Table 4.14, Student 12 has a self-correct (sc) move after a normal K2 move. It is followed by the teacher’s request for confirmation (cfrq) move. However, without student’s responses to her confirmation, the teacher continues with an affirmation (K1) directly. In addition to requests for confirmation, the teacher sometimes asks students to repeat their answers, which can be encoded as request for replay (rprq). Table 4.15 shows an example of such dynamic exchange sequenced as: rprq^rp^rrp^rrpcfrq.
T [SAY THAT AGAIN.]{T checks the picture on the board but seems not to understand him}
rprq
S14 Duck [THE DUCK IS YELLOW.]
{He lowers his volume a lot and is barely heard this time.}
rp
T , duck ? [OH, YOU SAID DUCK IS
YELLOW, RIGHT?]
rrp
T OK, it’s yellow rrp
T ? [YEAH]? cfrq
Table 4.15 Dynamic exchange in co-evaluation phase (3)
Considering the timing when the teacher’s dA1 move is finally complete (the last move of this phase), the first five students’ Propose are in fact Rejected. Till the last exchange in this
spkr exchange gloss roles
Joy [STILL ONE MORE MISTAKE. JOY,
YOUR TURN.]
dK1
S12: Pig orange, [PIG IS ORANGE. K2
orange pink. PIG IS NOT ORANGE. PIG IS PINK.] sc
T: pig pink orange
,
[OH, PIG IS PINK BUT NOT ORANGE. YEAH?
cfrq
phase, the teacher performs her action role (A1) promised by her former delayed action (dA1) role in Exchange 1. Hence, a double coding (from both perspectives of knowledge & action exchanges) for Affirm and Reject (e.g. dK1 & dA1 in Table 4.15) in this evaluation phases may be of significance to be considered in the current analytical framework (Rose, 2014). The analysis of the cycle phases and exchange structures of this whole evaluation phase is presented in the below Table 4.15:
Spkr Gloss Cycle phase Roles
T Now, I have an apple. [BUT IF YOU WANT TO GET THIS APPLE, YOU SHOULD ANSWER MY QUESTION CORRECTLY. WHEN THEY WERE ANSWERING FARMER’S QUESTION JUST NOW, THEY MADE A BIT MISTAKE. WHO FOUND IT
Focus dA1
[YOU FOUND IT YOURSELF?] dK1
JIMMY PLEASE.
S10: [NOT CLEAR ENOUGH.] Propose K2
T: [OH, NOT CLEAR ENOUGH?] Reject K1
[YOU READ IT VERY CLEARLY ALREADY.]
T [WHAT ELSE? YOU PLEASE.] Focus dK1
S11 [PIG WAS PRONOUNCED TOO LONG.] Propose K2
T [YEAH, IT IS A BIT TOO LONG.] Affirm without rewards K1
T [WHAT ELSE?] dK1
… K2
Affirm without rewards K1
… … … …
T We can’t say? Focus dK1
S15 It’s a yellow. Propose K2
T Very good. Affirm with rewards K1
A1
Table 4.15 Pedagogic activities & relations in Co-evaluation
Such a double coding of Affirm or Reject phases help to gain better understanding of the actual pedagogic practice by considering the pedagogic function in a phase rather than being constrained within one single exchange, particularly when multiple exchanges serving a shared function exist in one learning phase. For example, in this phase containing six exchanges, the teacher does not give the award to the students till the last exchange. Without the double coding, analysis may simply show that students are affirmed all the time. However, from this case shown above, most of the students are likely to understand that they are in fact denied by the teacher
and thus keep attempting. Such double coding allows teachers and researchers to analyze teacher talk by considering both the knowledge and action exchange. In other words, teachers’
corresponding action is also included in the analysis. Therefore, praise with rewards might be added to the original choices for evaluations in Rose’s analytical framework, as Figure 4.5 shows below:
Figure 4.5 Choices for Evaluate phases (modified from Rose’s 2014, p. 18)
In Figure 4.5, the original options repeat, approve, praise, ignore, qualify, negate,
admonish consider encoding within one small exchange without considering the potential
evaluation phases in a bigger learning cycle or action exchange. The current study provides this example by taking the teacher’s non-verbal response as evaluation which is realized as dA1^A1. It enables us to specify phases of Evaluate from the smallest units/exchanges to the bigger learning cycle involving multiple exchanges. It also allows us to analyze teacher's evaluation by considering both the knowledge exchange in teacher talk and also the non-verbal action
exchange.
Praise with rewards T: ‘if anyone can get the answer, you can get this big apple. (Multiple exchanges)