ENCUESTA A LOS EXPERTOS
5. Análisis de Resultados
5.1. Análisis de resultados del cuestionario
5.1.6 Síntesis global de los análisis anteriores
T h e key p articip an ts in classroom o rg an izatio n are th e teacher, th e te a c h e r aide o r tra in ee , the individual s tu d e n t a n d gro u p in g s o f students, the class as a w hole, the language p re se n ta tio n m aterials used (e.g., textbook. AY m edia), an d any visitors or outsiders. C om binations of these result in particular structures in class organization a n d effects on language learn in g processes.
T h e d o m in a n t view o f second language classro o m pro cesses toclav favors stu d e n t- c e n te re d le a rn in g in stead o f th e tra d itio n al te a c h e r-d o m in a te d classroom (X u n an 1988b).
T h e te a c h e r-d o m in a te d classroom (“teacher- fro n te d ”) is c h aracterized bv th e te a c h e r speak
ing m ost o f the tim e, lead in g activities, a n d constantly passing ju d g m e n t on stu d e n t p e rfo r
m ance; in a stu d e n t-c e n te re d classroom , stu
d e n ts typically will be o b se rv e d w o rk in g individually o r in pairs an d small groups, each on distinct tasks a n d projects.
L earn er-cen tered instruction has the b e n e fits of g rea ter individualization of lea rn in g objec
tives. increased stu d e n t o p p o rtu n itie s to p e rfo rm using the target language (w hether receptivelv o r productivelv), a n d increased p ersonal sense of relevance and achievem ent, thus relieving the tea c h e r o f the n e e d to constantlv supervise all students. S tudents often will pav m o re a tte n tio n a n d learn b e tte r from one a n o th e r since th eir p erfo rm an ces an d processes o f neg o tiatio n o f m ea n in g are m ore closelv a d a p te d to o n e an o th er's level o f abilitv. Teachers should thus be p re p a re d to develop fewer teach er-d o m in ated activities an d tasks, while rem aining conscious of th eir students' n eed for guidance in setting objec
tives. for a p p ro p riate m odels of an d feedback ab o u t the target language, a n d for constructive and supportive evaluation of th eir progress.
In general, the m ost a p p ro p ria te a n d effec
tive classroom o rganization is p air a n d g ro u p work. T raditional teachers still h a rb o r negative views o f th e o u tcom es of lea rn er-d o m in a te d activities, b u t a small a m o u n t of im p o rta n t class
ro o m -c en te re d research has d e m o n stra te d th at w hen stu d e n ts h a te m o re o p p o r tu n itie s to em plov the target language, thev m anage to p e r
form equallv successfullv in term s o f g ram m ati
cal accuracv as w hen th e te a c h e r is lea d in g the discussion (D oughtv and Pica 1984; Pica an d D oughtv 1983; cf. discussion in C h a u d ro n 1988, pp. 151-152).
G roup work has been shown to result in m any advantages for SL learners (see, for exam ple, Long et al. 1976; Pica an d Doughtv 1983; Pica et al.
1996): lea rn ers speak m o re frequentlv a n d with lo n g er stretches o f speech; thev p ro d u c e m o re in te ra c tio n a l m o d ific a tio n s d ire c te d at o n e a n o th e r; a n d thev utilize a w ider ran g e o f lan guage. An especially im p o rta n t effect rela te d to cu ltu ral differences is th a t the observable in h ib i
tions to speak in larg e r classes te n d to d isa p p e a r in small g ro u p work.
It should also be recognized that group work results in diversity of p e rfo rm a n c e betw een groups. This suggests th a t ju s t as individuals contribute to a group, the different groups in a classroom can be linked through different tasks, roles, an d shared responsibilities to g en erate whole-class tasks a n d objectives. A lth o u g h
com petitive m odels can be em ployed in this way (as described in Kagan 1986), m any favor whole-class cooperative learning projects.
4.2 Aspects of the Teacher-Fronted Class
A lthough we em phasize th e relative productivitv of the small g ro u p over the tea c h e r-fro n ted class, te a c h e rs so m e tim e s n e e d to o p e ra te in a
"lock-step" m ode. We will discuss two g eneral characteristics o f te a c h e r-s tu d e n t in te ra c tio n which can fairlv easilv be m a n ip u la te d u n d e r these c o n d itio n s to the advantage o f SL lea rn ing: qu estio n tvpe a n d wait tim e.
4.2.1 Question Types
Studies (Brock 1986; L ong a n d Sato 1983) have shown that ESI. tea c h e rs' classroom q u estio n in g pattern s are tvpicallv differen t from those used bv native speakers conversing casuallv with ad u lt non-native speakers. SI. teachers ask m ore displav questions (those to which the qu estio n er alreaclv knows the answer) th an do orclinarv XSs talking to NNSs. T he latter usuallv use referential ques
tions (those to which the qu estio n er does not already know the answ er). This difference mav be because teachers ten d to act as if the SL were inform ation which they m ust transm it to students, testing w h eth er it has been u n d e rsto o d bv using display questions.
T h e re are reasons to be c o n c e rn e d ab o u t this. First, it is generallv a c cep ted that the m odel o f the targ et language p rovided bv the teach er in the classroom sh o u ld n o t deviate greatlv from th atlik e lv to be e n c o u n te re d in real life. Second, if teach er-stu d en t in te rac tio n is p red o m in an tlv th ro u g h displav questions, relativelv little real c o m m u n ic a tio n is g o in g on. As L o n g a n d C rookes observe,
Displav questions bv d efinition p re clude stu d en ts a tte m p tin g to co m m u n ic a te new, u n k n o w n in fo rm a tio n . Thev te n d to set the focus o f the e n tire ex ch an g e thev in itiate on accuracy ra th e r th a n m ea n in g . T h e te a c h e r (a n d usuallv th e s tu d e n t) a lre ad y
knows w hat th e o th e r is saving o r trv- ing to say, so th e re is n o m e a n in g left to n e g o tia te (1987, p. 181).
W ithout negotiation o f m eaning it is ques
tionable w h ether students addressed by a teach er are actuallv receiving useful in p u t, in term s of ap propriateness to th eir c u rre n t level of com p r e h e n s io n a n d / o r la n g u a g e d e v e lo p m e n t.
F u rth e rm o re , less com plex language is likelv to be p ro d u c e d bv lea rn ers who know th a t the te a c h e r is onlv asking th e qu estio n to check th e ir know ledge, r a th e r th an really w anting a p ro p e r a n d co m p lete answ er to a real question.
A fu rth e r distinction is relevant: closed ref
eren tial questions versus o p e n refe re n tia l ques
tions. T h e fo rm e r are questions to w hich the speaker does n ot know th e answer, b u t to which th ere is e ith e r onlv o n e or a very lim ited set o f possible answers; the la tte r are questions to w hich the speaker does n o t know the answ er an d to w hich a large varietv o f answers are possible (see the the distinctions am o n g activitv tvpes in Section 3.1). L ong et al. (1984) fo u n d th a t op en refe re n tia l questions p ro d u c e d m o re com plex stu d e n t responses th an did closed referen tial questions, with com plexitv m ea su red bv n u m b e r o f words p e r stu d en t tu rn .
4.2.2 Wait-Time
W ait-time refers to the len g th of the pause which follows a teach er's question to an individual stu
d ent or to the whole class. This lasts until e ith e r a stu d en t answers o r the tea c h e r adds a co m m e n t o r poses a n o th e r question. It can also apply to the p e rio d betw een one stu d e n t's answ er to a q u estion an d the response o f th e te a c h e r or a n o th e r stu d en t. A n u m b e r o f investigations in general ed u catio n have fo u n d th at wait-times can be a lte re d bv teachers b u t ten d to be short, a ro u n d one second (e.g., Rowe 1969; for a review see Tobin 1987). W h en wait-time is in creased to th re e to five seconds, th ere is im p ro v e m e n t in learn in g and in the qualitv o f classroom dis
course. T h e principal SL study o f wait-time (Long et al. 1984) fo u n d that increased wait-time after tea c h e r questions resulted in lo n g er SL stu d en t utterances. It did not result in m o re u tte ran c e s
p e r stu d e n t tu rn , however, w hich mav have been cine to the low proficiency level of the students in th e studv o r possiblv to an in te ra c tio n b e tw e en cognitive level o f q u e stio n s a n d w ait-tim e. W hen ask in g " h a rd e r" q u e stio n s, teach ers te n d e d to wait longer, b u t the difficulty o f such questions was n o t alwavs co m p en sated fo r by p r o p o r tio n a te d lo n g e r wait-tim e. We advance the m a tte r o f wail-time h e re as an exam ple o f a classroom p ro c e d u re w hich is easv to m a n ip u la te a n d w hich w arrants fu rth e r class
room investigation. T eachers m ight want to trv th e effects o f simply waiting lo n g e r as thev in te r
act with th e ir SI. students, know ing th at th e ir findings, if co m m u n icated , could aid th e ir col
leagues a n d fu rth e r substantiate (or p erh ap s dis
prove) th e p o ten tia l o f in creased wait-time in SL teaching.
5. C O R R E C T IO N A N D FE E D B A C K
In Section 2.3 we n o te d th at a focus on form al aspects o f the SL has again becom e a c o n c e rn of m eth o d o lo g ists a n d p ractitioners. E rro r c o rre c tion a n d feedback have tvpicallv been consid
e re d to be p a rt o f such a focus. As C h a u d ro n n o tes in his review o f feedback in language teach in g
In any co m m u n icativ e ex c h an g e , speakers derive from th e ir listeners inform ation on the recep tio n an d com p reh e n sio n o f their message. . . . From the language te a c h e r’s p o in t of view, the provision of feedback . . . is a m ajor m eans bv which to inform learners of the accuracv o f bo th th eir form al target language p ro d u ctio n an d th eir o th e r classroom behavior a n d know ledge.
From the learners' p o in t o f view, the use of feedback in rep airin g th eir u tte r
ances, and involvem ent in rep airing th e ir in te rlo c u to rs ’ u tte ran c e s, mac- constitute the m ost p o te n t source of im p rovem ent in b o th target language d ev elopm ent a n d o th e r subject m atter know ledge (1988, pp. 132-133 ).
W hile th e re is no reason to associate fee d back a n d c o rre c tio n solelv with a form al focus, ap p ro a c h e s to language teach in g will vary in the degree to which the teach er is expected to be the source of "correcting" behavior. A traditional notion is that the teach er or m aterials provide a co rrectio n o f everv (im p o rtan t) le a rn e r error, while a m ore c u rre n t view em phasizes the im p o r
tance o f learners ob tain in g feedback (an d pos
sible correctio n ) onlv w hen the m eanings thev attem p t to convex are n o t u n d ersto o d ; even then, the feedback should be a natural o u tcom e of the com m unicative interactio n , often betw een learn ers. Even in th e m ost le a rn e r-c e n te re d in stru ctio n , lea rn ers n e e d feedback in o rd e r to d ifferen tiate betw een acceptable a n d u n a c ce p t
able target language use. (See th e ch a p te rs bv L arsen-F reem an an d Fotos in this volum e for fu rth e r discussion.)
T h e provision o f feedback, o r even "correc
tions." does not m ean that the inform ation pro vided m ust be staled in form alized gram m atical or o th e r descriptive term s. T he teacher has inanv options available, from simple indicating lack of co m p reh en sio n or otherw ise signaling the occur
rence o f an e rro r and getting the le a rn e r to self-correct, to the most elaborate gram m atical explanation and drill of correct forms.
T eachers frequently m ake th e m istake of th in k in g th at bv providing a c o rre c t “m o d e l,” bv rep e a tin g stu d e n t statem ents with som e slight change in the gram m atical form , learners will per
ceive the correction and incorporate it into their developing gram m ars. This is the form of feedback known as "recasts," which is a relatively implicit focus on form (see Long, Inagaki, and O rtega
1998). As C haudron (1977) notes, and Lester (1998a) argues further, such feedback is likelv to be perceived bv the learner not as a form al change, but rath e r as a confirm ation, rephrasing, or clarifi
cation o f the functional m eaning. For example:
Student: I can no go back ho m e today early.
Tetcher: You c a n ’t go ho m e early todav?
Student: \ o.
If th e re is in fact reaso n to provide form al feedback in such a case, it helps to focus on the specific c o rre c tio n by em phasizing a n d isolating
the m o d e le d form s (C h a u d ro n 1977): I can't go home, o r earlv toda\. But it ap p ears evident from studies o f recasts th at thev are in fact effective 20-25 p e rc e n t o f th e tim e. This effectiveness mav be because th e r occu r w hen th e le a rn e r has rea c h e d a stage of gram m atical c o m p e ten c e that allows him o r h e r to perceive th e slight differ
ence in use.
In som e recen t research on F rench lan
guage im m ersion classroom s in C anada, Lvster an d Ranta (1997: see also Lvster 1998a. 1998b) illustrate a wide varietv o f fee d b a c k events, fre q u e n tlv in th e m id d le o f c o n te n t-b a se d exchanges. Thev argue th at th e ir data illustrate the positive value o f explicit co rrectio n and neg o tiated feedback in guiding learn ers' to the cor
rect use o f target form s, since "uptake" of correct gram m atical form s o ccu rred m ore frequentlv fol
lowing such corrective m or es. It should Ire no ted th at a considerable h ig h er rate of uptake of p ro n u n ciation a n d lexical errors o ccu rred in their data w hen the teachers provided onlv im plicit feedback in the form of recasts.
O n the o th e r h an d , such practices mar be less effective th a n e n c o u ra g in g le a rn e rs to self-correct (see Tom asello a n d H erro n 1988) or having o th e r learn ers assist in corrections. Peer co rrectio n has the p o ten tial advantage of being at th e right level of d ev elopm ent in the lea rn er's in te rla n g u a g e gram m ar.
As we n o ted in Section 2.3. an im p o rtan t lim itation on the effectiveness of feedback and correction, especially with respect to gram m atical d ev elopm ent, is the n atu ral o rd e r o f acquisition o f a given stru ctu re o r function. Ultimatelv.
teachers m ust rem ain c u rre n t with findings of research in SL acquisition, to b e tte r u n d e rsta n d when it m ight be useful to correct.
6. C O N C L U S IO N
This introductory' review o f SL classroom teach
ing as an area of studv an d professional practice could be ex tended; in d eed , m anv o th e r chapters o f this volum e co n tin u e the discussion o f kev areas for classroom practice. N onetheless, it is evident th at teachers still e n c o u n te r m anv areas
of ig n o ra n c e w here ideallv th e re sh o u ld be knowledge. O n the one h an d , teachers should know w hat relatively firm inform ation does exist, and w here th e re is room for investigation. This should aid th eir decision m aking. As the SL p ro fession develops, m ore teachers are qualified to con d u ct th eir own research o r to collaborate with research ers.' O n the o th e r h a n d , teaching trill alwavs be a series o f ju d g m e n t calls; its real-time cognitive com plexity m eans it will never be ju st a science, an d will alwavs rem ain som e
thing of an art (cf. Clark an d L am port 1986;
L einhardt an d G reeno 1986). We have tried here to help the judgm ent calls be educated, inform ed ones th ro u g h the teacher's com bined use of know ledge an d educated professional reflection.
D IS C U S S IO N Q U E S T IO N S
1. Whv should LSL teachers be co n cern ed about keeping up with the results of classroom research an d second language acquis-ition research?
2. Do vou agree that teachers should m ake their lesson objectives clear to th eir students? Can t on think of situations in which this would be inappropriate? Whv?
3. I low m uch place do vou think presentation, ex p la n a tio n , a n d discussion o f rules fo r language use have in the SL classroom? W hat underiving view of language and language learning supports vour view?
4. Discuss the wavs in which one m ight investi
gate the m ost effective wav o f giving feed
back (or correction). W hat data w ould vou collect, and how w ould vou identify successful correction?
S U G G E S T E D A C T IV IT IE S
1. P repare (individuallv) an d com pare (as a group) a mini-lesson. Select a specific point of language form or function, rule o f conver
sation. o r o th e r social use o f E nglish.
Individuallv develop a sequence of activities that vou m ight use to present, develop, and
evaluate this point, a n d th en com pare your suggestions in a group. Develop a jointlv agreed-upon way o f teaching this po in t and practice it with one another.
2. A useful alternative wav o f practicing the first activity is fo r each p e rso n to teach a p o in t in a language unknow n to the oth ers in the group. Discuss your feelings on once again b e in g a second language learner.
3. W orking with a p artn er, discuss tvays in w hich a tea c h e r with a m ulticultural g ro u p o f stu
dents can best m ain tain a positive classroom clim ate, p ro m o tin g s tu d e n t in te re s t a n d m otivation.
FU R T H ER R EA D IN G
Bailey, К. M., and D. Xunan, eds. 1996. Voices from the Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
An extensive and accessible collection of recent classroom SL studies, illustrating the range of current work of a more qualitative nature.
Burns, A. 1999. Collaborative Action Research for English Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A practical introduction to teacher research in SL contexts based on actual investigations by a team of SL teachers in Australia.
Chaudron, C. 1988. Second Language Classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
A comprehensive survey of earlier SL classroom research.
Crookes, G., and S. M. Gass. eds. 1993. Tasks in a Pedagogical Context: Integrating Theon and Practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Multilingual Matters.
An illustrative collection of studies of pedago
gical applications of the concept o f ‘’task” in SL teaching.
Lurch. T. 1996. Communication in the Language Class
room. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
A useful introduction to basic processes of class
room interaction and teacher talk, with clear examples.
E N D N O T E S
1 We are grateful to mam people named for their assistance with the previous version (Crookes and Chaudron 1991) of this paper, and we wish to continue acknowledgement of Marisol Valcarcel, Mercedes Yerclu. and Julio Roca, of the Universidad de Murcia.
- Our discussion is traditional to the extent that we will not deal with approaches to SL teaching that involve going outside the classroom (e.g., Ashworth 1985: Auerbach 1996: Fried Booth 1986).
4 5Vhat "size" the elements are is not at issue here.
That is to saw we are not concerned with whether the units presented are structural or functional, or if the language of a given pedagogical task is an unanalvzed w hole.
4 Though the idea is not a new one— see, e.g., West (I960).
J This is. of course, a problem for the syllabus design
er to be aware of and to resolve bv proper choice of learning targets (see Long and Crookes 1993).
b We should point out that we deliberately avoid the word "method" here: we do not accept its general validity as a term of analysis (cf. Richards 1984).
‘ This is particularly clear in the increased recogni
tion of the importance of action research in the area of SL teaching (Bums 1999; Crookes 1993;
Freeman 1998).