Modelo definitivo

Extensive research on classroom interaction in non-dialogic contexts has shown that typically teaching and learning employs one particular pattern of interaction, which encompasses three turns, namely teacher asks questions, students provide answers and teacher evaluates the answers (Bolitho, 2011; Chang, 2009; Yang, 2008). The classroom discourse is analogous to the archetypal kind of teacher-led recitation first identified by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975, 1992) which consists of the three moves referred to as ‘initiation-response-feedback’ (I-R-F hereafter): an initiation, usually takes the form of teacher questions, a response, usually refers to a student’s attempt to provide an answer to the teacher’s question, and a follow-up, refers to the feedback the teacher gives (usually in the form of an evaluation) on the answers given by the student(s). This discourse pattern is sometimes known as ‘triadic dialogue’ (Nassaji & Wells, 2000). One reason for the common occurrence if I-R-F sequences is teachers’ underlying epistemological belief that this type of interaction pattern is “a powerful pedagogic device for transmitting and constructing knowledge” (Cullen, 2002, p. 118) where “teacher’s role is to pass down information to students whose role is to receive and internalize the information and when called upon, to extract and accurately display it” (Hall & Walsh, 2002, p. 196).

It is claimed that a strict use of the I-R-F structure constrains students’ learning opportunities, especially as regards building communicative competence. This is due to the fact that the I-R-F pattern is typically dominated by closed questions (definitions and examples of closed questions can be found in 4.7.1.1) which require one-word or short factual answers, or by questions that recall information and call for predictable correct answers, and by teachers’ follow-up moves that are usually in the form of evaluative feedback (Ackers & Hardman, 2001; Hawkes, 2012). In this case, teachers play the role of an expert and control almost all of the verbal functions; they select and initiate topics for discussion, ask questions, decide who may speak, when and for how long, and initiate repair (Hall & Walsh, 2002; Mroz et al., 2000; Walsh, 2002; Walsh, 2011; Yang, 2008). As a result, learner participation and learning is inhibited (Cazden, 1988). Such a teacher dominant pattern of classroom discourse more often facilitates teacher control of the interaction than student learning of the content of the lesson.

4.7.1 The effects of questions and feedback on classroom interaction

However, in recent years empirical studies have found that the same basic I-R-F structure can take a variety of forms and be recruited by teachers for a wide variety of functions, which can in fact contribute to enhancing the learning process. Nassaji and Wells (2000) suggest that the choice of initiating questions and the choice of follow-up by teachers may influence the way the sequence develops. By introducing questions that introduce issues and avoiding evaluative follow-ups, students’ contributions and participation can be extended and in due course elevate students’ learning performance. Smith and Higgins (2006) argue similarly: “the quality of the manner with which teachers react to pupils’ responses to questions in the I-R-F exchange facilitates a more interactive learning environment” (p. 490). In other words, patterns of interaction that are able to engage students’ and promote their active participation will help to develop thinking and subsequently affect learning. These characteristics are consistent with the typology of the features of interactive teaching constructed by Paterson and Essarte- Sarries (2003) which assert that interactive teaching should engage the pupils, involve the pupils actively and practically, encourage broad pupil participation, conduct activities in a collaborative way, convey knowledge, assess and extend knowledge, encourage reciprocity and meaning-making, attend to thinking and learning skills, and address the social interests and emotional needs of the pupils.

4.7.1.1 The effects of questions

One of the commonly used strategies to enhance interaction in the ESL classroom is questioning, because in communicative language teaching, (a) questions are meant to persuade the learners to produce language (Shomoossi, 2004) and (b) questioning behaviour that the teacher employs may affect ESL classroom interaction (David, 2007). Teacher questions can either be in the form of a series of questions to bring the class to a conclusion or used in isolation in the middle of a series of informs to check whether the pupils have remembered a fact (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992).

The types of question teachers may ask can be categorized in many different ways. One common distinction is between closed questions and open questions. Closed questions are those that have only one acceptable answer or a predetermined answer (Myhill & Dunkin, 2005). Conversely, open questions are those that have more than one

acceptable answer (Galton et al., 1999a; Yang, 2010) or exploratory, tentative responses (Myhill & Dunkin, ibid). Closed questions such as, “Is the sky in the picture white or black?” or “Do you like the story?” will only allow students to answer in one word or with a yes/no answer. Such kinds of question limit the opportunities for the students to elaborate and expand their answers. On the other hand questions such as “Why do you think the sky is black?” or “What is interesting about the story?” allows students to respond in multiple ways. Open questions provide multiple and varied opportunities for students to practise communicating and respond with a variety of verbal and non-verbal responses which may promote sustained and new interaction (Walker et al., 2004).

Another distinction is between display questions and referential questions. Display questions are defined as those questions whose function is to get the students to display knowledge already known to the teachers, or recently acquired knowledge, whereas referential questions are those to which the response is not known by the teacher and directed towards the real world of the students outside the classroom (Nunn, 1999; Thornbury, 1996). Hence, display questions inviting recall, encouraging brief answers involving exchange of information or even one-word answers, rather than speculation and problem-solving, are less likely to get learners to produce large amounts of speech.

In contrast, referential questions increase the amount of learner output. Referential questions stimulate an exchange of ideas and eventually promote discussion (Jones, 2007). They initially provoke thoughtful answers and these in turn provoke further questions, eventually building blocks of dialogue (Alexander, 2006) leading to the creation of a discourse, which “can produce a flow of information from students to the teacher and may create a more near-normal speech (sic)” (Shomoossi, 2004, p. 97). The dialogue generated by an increased use of referential questions prevents students from giving yes/no answers, promotes their understanding (Fisher, 2006), helps them become more creative (Jones, 2007) and engages them in learning and being more actively involved in their own learning. In other words, closed or display questions inhibit language learning, because the student’s answer serves to end an interaction pattern and rarely to extend or initiate it (Myhill & Dunkin, 2005).

Another type of question, which is very commonly found in classroom discourse is ‘cued elicitation’, that is the use of a mid-sentence rise in voice intonation that acts as a teacher elicit. It is designed to get a response from the pupils during, or at the end of, an

explanation or following a pupil response. This type of question requires a minimal response from the students, because “the elicitation is usually in the form of a repetition or completion of a phrase or word and is often direct” (Hardman et al., 2009, p. 71). An example is shown in a lesson extract below taken from Primary 6 science lesson on a lesson topic entitled rearing of chicken, taken from a study by Hardman et al (2008. p. 64).

Exchange Move Act

1 T Yes^12

Today we are going to treat rearing of what^

I m

el

2 C Chickens R rep

3 T Rearing of what^ R/I ce

4 C Rearing of chickens R rep

5 T Rearing of chicken is our topic, rearing of chickens.

Beware of diseased chickens in our different what^

I s

el

6 C Homes^ R rep

(the acts: m = marker, rep = reply, ce = cued elicitation, s = starter, el = elicitation).

Hence, the use of cued elicitation does not promote extended talk or prolonged discussion that can enhance classroom interaction. Interestingly however, studies found that this type of question occurs extensively in most classroom interaction patterns.

4.7.1.2 The effects of feedback

Feedback or follow-up is seen as essential and inevitable in teacher-initiated classroom exchanges (Jones, 2007). Mohd Noor, Aman, Mustaffaa and Teo (2010) note that feedback informs learners about their ‘work in progress’. It is claimed that how teachers receive and use pupils’ spoken contributions is crucial in shaping how pupils will set about learning, and therefore what they will learn, because appropriate and quality feedback or follow-up can enhance students’ learning. A teacher response to a pupil contribution generally makes it clear whether he or she validates or fails to validate the pupil’s attempt to join in the thinking (Barnes, 2008). Hedge (2000) adds that “getting feedback from the teacher and from other students in the class enables learners to test their hypotheses and refine their developing knowledge of the language system” (p. 13).

A teacher’s follow-up or feedback typically functions to accept and evaluate. The former indicates to the student that the response was appropriate and the latter comments on the quality of the response. ‘Accept’ is usually realized by affirming students’ responses, using expressions such as ‘yes’, ‘ok’ or repetition of a pupil’s reply, with neutral low fall intonation to show that the reply is appropriate. ‘Evaluate’ is an act that is usually realized by words such as ‘good’ or ‘interesting’ which function to praise or comment on the quality of a pupil’s reply or reaction. It can also be a ‘no’, with a high fall intonation and repetition of the pupil’s reply (Sinclair & Coulthard, 1992). This type of feedback or follow-up is reported as being ineffective in a language classroom that aims to build students’ ability to communicate, because employing this type of follow-up or feedback does not result in more active learner participation consisting of longer and more complex turns.

Hardman (2008) emphasizes that the use of constructive feedback, which asks students to expand on their thinking, to justify or clarify their opinions, or to make connections with their own experiences, is likely to enhance active participation by the students in their own learning. Alexander (2006) makes a similar suggestion,

Feedback on responses which: replaces the monosyllabically positive, negative or non-committal judgement (e.g. repeating the respondent’s answer) by focused and informative diagnostic feedback on which pupils can build; uses praise discriminatingly and appropriately, and filters out the routine use of ‘wow’, ‘fantastic’, ‘good boy’, ‘good girl’, ‘very good’, ‘excellent’ etc.; keeps lines of enquiry open rather than closes them down; and encourages children to articulate their ideas openly and confidently, without fear of embarrassment or retribution if they are wrong.

(p. 20)

Cullen (2002) suggests that the use of a discoursal follow-up move which includes the use of reformulation (i.e. teacher repairs a student’s contribution and thus provides the class with the correct model of usage without interrupting the flow of discourse), elaboration (i.e. teacher adds and extends students’ original responses and thus provides a richer source of input to the class), comment, repetition (i.e. teacher repeats an individual student’s contributions) and responsiveness (i.e. the teacher listens and responds with genuine interest), may help to build a meaningful dialogue between teacher and students in the classroom. These types of feedback promote longer discussions and exchanges of ideas and eventually encourage students to speak and use

the language.