Individual vs group learning; Investigating the most beneficial form of classroom interaction

(1)

UNIVERSITY OF WROCŁAW FACULTY OF LETTERS INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH STUDIES

Małgorzata Serafin

Individual vs group learning; Investigating the most beneficial form of classroom interaction

Doctoral dissertation written under the supervision of Prof. Anna Michońska-Stadnik

(2)

(3)

UNIWERSYTET WROCŁAWSKI WYDZIAŁ FILOLOGICZNY INSTYTUT FILOLOGII ANGIELSKIEJ

Małgorzata Serafin

Praca indywidualna a praca w grupie; poszukiwanie najbardziej korzystnej formy interakcji w klasie

Praca doktorska napisana pod kierunkiem prof. dr hab UWr Anny Michońskiej-Stadnik

(4)

(5)

Figure 5. 2. The visual representation of the results of second questionnaire which concerned students’ preferences with regard to interaction patterns in the classroom ... 162 Figure 5. 3. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; first question, which concerns students’ concentration on a given task ... 164 Figure 5. 4. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; second

question, which concerns students’ safety and comfort during the work ... 164 Figure 5. 5. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; third question, which concerns students’ motivation to complete the task ... 165 Figure 5. 6. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; fourth question, which concerns students’ feeling of anxiety during the work ... 166 Figure 5. 7. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; fifth question, which concerns students’ distractions during the work ... 166 Figure 5. 8. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; sixth question, which concerns students’ eagerness to ask for help ... 167 Figure 5. 9. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; seventh

question, which concerns students’ participation in the classroom ... 168 Figure 5. 10. The visual representation of the results of the third questionnaire; eighth

question, which concerns the beneficial effects of interaction patterns ... 168 Figure 5. 11. The visual representation of students’ engagement rate during the first part of the study ... 171 Figure 5. 12. The visual representation of students’ engagement rate during the second part of the study ... 173 Figure 5. 13. The visual representation of the number of volunteers in each lesson during the first part of the study ... 174 Figure 5. 14. The visual representation of the number of volunteers in each lesson during the second part of the study ... 176 Figure 5. 15. The visual representation of the observable features of anxiety during the first part of the study ... 178 Figure 5. 16. The visual representation of the observable features of anxiety during the second part of the study ... 179 Figure 5. 17. The visual representation of the nature of participation during the first part of the study ... 181 Figure 5. 18. The visual representation of the nature of participation during the second part of the study ... 182 Figure 5. 19. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to

correctness in individual work pattern ... 185 Figure 5. 20. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to

correctness in group-work pattern ... 186 Figure 5. 21. The comparison of means and standard deviations in relation to correctness in individual and group-work patterns ... 187 Figure 5. 22. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to fluency in individual work pattern ... 188

(11)

Figure 5. 23. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to fluency in group-work pattern ... 189 Figure 5. 24. The comparison of means and standard deviations in relation to fluency in individual and group-work patterns ... 190 Figure 5. 25. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to

engagement in individual work pattern ... 191 Figure 5. 26. The visual representation of the normality of distribution in relation to

engagement in group-work pattern ... 192 Figure 5. 27. The comparison of means and standard deviations in relation to engagement in individual and group-work ... 193

(12)

List of tables

Table 1.1. Long’s (1983 in Majer, 2003: 103) taxonomy of native speakers’ interactional

modifications in foreigner-talk discourse ... 22

Table 4.1. Main topics of the lessons and types of written activities in the first phase of the study ... 151

Table 4.2. Main topics of the lessons and types of written activities in the second phase of the study ... 152

Table 5.1. The results of the third questionnaire. ... 163

Table 5.2. Main topic of the lessons and students’ participation in the first phase of the study ... 170

Table 5.3. Main topic of the lessons and students’ participation in the second phase of the study ... 172

Table 5.4. The number of volunteers in the first phase of the study. ... 174

Table 5.5. The number of volunteers in the second phase of the study ... 175

Table 5.6. Observable features of anxiety in the first phase of the study ... 177

Table 5.7. Observable features of anxiety in the second phase of the study. ... 179

Table 5.8. The nature of participation in the first phase of the study ... 180

Table 5.9. The nature of participation in the second phase of the study. ... 182

Table 5.10. Sign test for individual and group correctness. ... 186

Table 5.11. T-test for dependent samples ... 187

Table 5.13. Sign test for individual and group engagement ... 192

(13)

12

Introduction

It is in human nature to want to interact with one another; from the very beginning we pursue communication with family and friends. There is a strong need for interaction on every level of human existence. Scott Peck (2012: 179) wrote that “All human interactions are opportunities either to learn or to teach.” This quote may refer to life in general, as well as to the classroom setting. Both the teacher and his students aim to achieve effective interaction during a lesson.

Gass and Mackey (2007: 175) define interaction as the conversations that learners take part in;

it is enormously important since in this context students receive feedback about the correctness or incorrectness of their utterances. The way in which the teacher interacts with students influences how they respond to it; consequently, it affects the students’ language proficiency in the target language. Classroom interaction in the early years can be a foundation for later language development. When it comes to learning in the formal context, interaction in foreign language classrooms is even more crucial than in classrooms of other subject areas, since it is not only a language facilitator, but also a vital source of information which students learn from.

According to Thoms (2012), interaction can be perceived as both the tool and the object of language learning, whereas the language itself is viewed as the medium as well as the goal of the learning process.

This paper deals with different interaction patterns in the classroom and investigates which one is the most beneficial for students’ language proficiency. In the context of this study, the term the most beneficial interaction pattern is understood to be a pattern that has a positive effect on three areas: students’ language proficiency which is represented by high scores in short written tests, students’ willingness to participate in the lessons and general atmosphere in the classroom. In order to avoid repetitions the term beneficial will be sometimes replaced with its synonyms like profitable or effective, nevertheless they will also concern the above mentioned definition. The historical perspective and recent studies will be presented as an introduction to this discussion on interaction patterns.

For a considerable amount of time there have been conducted numerous studies concerning the subject areas of students’ interaction in the classroom, different grouping patterns, and their influence on the language learning process. Language teaching pedagogy has a long history; Stern (1983:452) discloses that the question of how to teach foreign languages

(14)

13 has already been debated for over 25 centuries. On the contrary, the detailed and intensive study of interaction in second language classrooms only just began in the 1960s with the advent of audio and later, video recording technology. There was, however, some kind of interest in the topic of interaction before that; Sauveur’s report of a ‘natural method’ lesson in the 19th century, as an example, includes a transcription of a typical lesson (Howatt and Widdowson, 2004: 219). Nevertheless, such rapid development in technology gave precedence to the production of data for serious intensive research of classroom interactions (Seedhouse, 2013:

229).

The first phase of the growing interest in defining and analysis of second language classroom interaction was characterized by the appearance of the coding schemes from the 1960s. Coding schemes can be described as a form of interaction where an individual is making one move on a level at a time; the teacher’s move is specified as a pedagogic move. The first coding scheme which was deeply influential was called Foreign Language Interaction (FLint), (Moskovitz, 1976); whereas some of the coding schemes created in the 1980s are still used today such as Communicative Orientation of Language Teaching instrument (COLT), (Froehlich, Spada and Allen, 1985), and Target Language Observation Scheme (TALOS), which was introduced by Ullman and Geva (1984). An interaction which develops from coding schemes includes a series of pedagogical moves made by the teacher and response moves made by the learner (Seedhouse, 2013: 230).

The second phase of considerable development in investigating classroom interaction was the use of discourse analysis (DA) in the 1970s. It uses “principles and methodology typical of linguistics to analysis classroom discourse structural-functional linguistic terms”

(Seedhouse, 2013: 230). After plotting sequences of speech acts or moves, some rules can be formulated, which illustrate how the units fit together and form coherent discourse. Some hierarchical systems which show the general organization of classroom discourse can be developed. The most interesting study which takes the DA approach is that of Sinclair and Coulthard (1975). Their most crucial finding is the identification of the popular, three-part sequence classroom interaction, which is called IRF (Initiation, Response, Follow-up). In the 1980s and 1990s most of the classroom research was based on discourse analysis. DA methodology depicts classroom interaction as an entity which consists of successions of sequences as is the IRF pattern, however, it has a tendency to hide the complexity of the interaction. With the appearance of coding schemes and discourse analysis in the 1980s, the understanding of the importance of interaction in the classroom setting has grown. Throughout

(15)

14 this period Van Lier (1988) introduced an approach to study L2 classroom interaction which was named ethnography. Allwright (1984:159) comments on the new perspective on interaction that emerged in the 1980s and 1990s by concluding that without interaction there is no pedagogy and successful pedagogy includes effective management of classroom interaction.

By the end of the previous century, a new methodology to analyse L2 classroom interaction called conversation analysis (CA) was introduced. It is a multi-disciplinary methodology which is still applied within the scope of professional and academic areas. When it began emerging in the 1960s, it was exclusively used for monolingual native interactions;

however, in the period of 1995-2005 publications began to address the relationship between conversation analysis and instructed second language learning. CA could be distinguished by its extremely detailed system of transcription and its capability to portray the complexity of interaction. It asks the question “why that, in that way, right now?,” which contains the outlook on interaction as action (why that), which is precised by linguistic forms (in that way) in a growing sequence (right now). CA methodology gives a perspective of L2 classroom as being a very complex, fluid, and dynamic interactional environment (Drew and Heritage, 1992).

Seedhouse (2013: 231) claims that there is also a ‘linear’ approach to classroom interaction which makes a direct link between constructs and their appearance in interaction.

There was an important stream of SLA research in relation to classroom interaction which used this methodology. The first crucial wave of these studies was Long’s (1985) Interaction Hypothesis which is described in detail in section 1.4. In his work in quantitative treatment he chose clarification requests, comprehensions checks, confirmation checks, and self-repetitions.

The second wave focused mainly on recast, whereas the most recent collection deals with explicit and metalinguistic feedback. The linear approach perceives interaction as an entity which combines specific phenomena that are interesting from a learning perspective; these phenomena are linked with more effective acquisition.

Nowadays, researchers not only use those approaches which have been mentioned above, but also critical discourse analysis, socio-cognitive approach, or socio-cultural approach.

This paper will use some of the concepts of discourse analysis. In general, this paper deals with different forms of interaction patterns. There have been many studies concerning this issue;

nevertheless, many researchers agree that still too little is known about the connection between interaction and learning. Łęska (2008:1) claims that the question of which interaction type has the most significant influence on language acquisition remains. She acknowledges that there is still some debate on whether the learner’s progress is ensured by group work which includes

(16)

15 real interaction and interlanguage talk, or by having conversations with the teacher who is an experienced second language user and is capable of providing students with comprehensible input. There are some outstanding works in this area which should be mentioned in relation to the current research on the topic.

Ellis (1992: 93; 2012: 814-816) enumerates many researchers who tried to establish whether group work produces more negotiation of meaning than traditional teacher-directed lessons (Pica and Doughty, 1985; Rulon and McCreary, 1986; Porter, 1986; Ellis and Rathbone, 1987). Those studies gave some mixed results, often complex and hard to interpret. In many cases lockstep teaching provided the students with the same amount of modified interaction as group work. Long and Porter (1985:128) state that group work is possibly more beneficial because there is plenty of negotiation of meaning. However, their claims are not supported with any research indicating that interlanguage talk promotes interaction in the classroom. The only two studies that have struggled to investigate the relation between participation type and learning outcomes (Fillmore, 1982; Ellis and Rathbone, 1987) claim that group work is not necessarily more profitable. Their results do not constitute categorical support for interlanguage talk, even though there is a strong educational rationale for using group work in the classroom (Brumfit 1984). In addition, Williams (2008: 585) lists some limitations of group work; she claims that group work may not be profitable for the students who pay attention to form. She discovered that beginner and intermediate learners seldom focused on form during communicative tasks. It happened usually when the teacher was present; advanced learners targeted form more often. Ellis (2012: 817) also mentions the problem with interlanguage talk;

as it was confirmed by Porter (1986: 220), it is always less grammatical than teacher talk.

Consequently, an exposure to flawed peer input may lead to fossilization; however, Porter (1986:220) reported that in her study, in most of the cases the learners did not repeat their colleagues’ mistakes.

On the other hand, there were many studies which promote group work as the more beneficial interaction pattern. Long et al. (1967) reported that individuals working in small groups not only produced a larger quantity of language, but also much better quality of language than students who were in a lockstep classroom setting. Small-group work ensured students with more opportunities for language production and greater diversity in language use in initiating discussion, competing for the floor, asking for clarification, interrupting and joking.

Additionally, Pica and Doughty (1985) conducted one of the most influential studies in the topic concerning interaction patterns; their study will be described in detail in section 2.12. They

(17)

16 focused on one-way and two-ways tasks, which are defined by Ellis (2003: 88) as “required information exchange tasks that are distinguished in terms of whether the information to be shared is split on-way, i.e. held by a single person or between two or more people.” When it comes to one-way tasks the responsibility for completing the task successfully falls on the participants who possess the information, however other students can contribute by showing their level of comprehension. On the contrary, in two-way tasks all the students are required to take part in order to complete the task. Pica and Doughty (1985) found no difference in the quantity of interactional adjustments in a one-way task conducted in group work and a whole class setting, however, when they responded to this analysis by using a two-way task, they found some significant differences. These two studies reported that group work produces more negotiation but only if the given task is within the required-information exchange type.

Moreover, Rulon and McCreary (1986) investigated the impact of interaction patterns on the negotiation of content. They reported little difference between small-group work and teacher- led discussion in reference to syntactic complexity, length of utterance, or interactional features.

Nevertheless, they found that considerably more negotiation of content appeared in small- groups discussions.

On the basis of the studies mentioned above it seems reasonable to state that group work can generate the interactional conditions which have been hypothesised to have some significant influence on acquisition more readily than teacher-fronted lessons. A meta-analysis of L2 studies concerning the impact of group-based interaction on second language acquisition (Keck et al., 2006) found some convincing evidence that group interaction is facilitative of acquisition. Bygate (1988: 63) claims that group work facilitates language attainment by creating opportunities to produce utterances through the use of satellite units. These are described as words, phrases, or clauses that compose either some utterances that do not have a finite verb or a syntactically dependent unit, as in the example:

“S1 at the door

S2 yes in the same door I think S3 besides the man who is leaving S4 behind him” (Bygate, 1988).

Bygate (1988: 64) found plentiful examples of those units in the speech produced by students working in small groups. He states that the use of satellite units enables flexibility in

(18)

17 communication, provides the learner with some time to prepare messages, and helps to extend the individual’s capabilities by building the messages collaboratively. In addition, Ellis (2012:

815) adds that during group work learners are capable of internalizing the structures that were produced collaboratively during group work and then producing them independently at different times. Moreover, adult learners can easily engage with metatalk which facilitates task performance. When discussing these current studies concerning the issue of interaction patterns and their influence on second language acquisition, there still appears to be room for further research in this area. This paper attempts to address this idea and explore what makes an interaction pattern the most beneficial.

The first and second chapters provide a theoretical basis for this paper’s empirical research. In the first chapter the concept of interaction is defined; it is presented in general and in relation to the language classroom. This chapter provides a detailed description of different approaches and hypotheses such as: Interaction Hypothesis, a case for comprehensible output and negotiated interaction, and classroom discourse analysis (DA). Moreover, the first chapter includes the characteristics of an interactive classroom and introduces the most important SLA research concerning the topic of interaction.

The second chapter contrasts three interaction patterns; group work, individual work, and whole-class learning. It outlines definitions of a group, grouping, and its different forms, provides linguistic justification for group work, and discusses the advantages and drawbacks of group work. When it comes to individual learning, this chapter provides a list of individual differences that influence language learning in the classroom; it also introduces the concept of individualization of language learning. Furthermore, it also explains the benefits and disadvantages of learning in a whole class grouping. This chapter ends with the description of some crucial studies concerning individual and group work.

The third chapter lists and describes interactive patterns that are used in the classroom both in individual and group work.

The fourth chapter presents research on what is the most beneficial interactive pattern.

It includes: the description of the study: the research method, design, data collection methods and procedures, participants, instruments, linguistic targets, and ethical considerations. In order to test the efficacy of interaction patterns the researcher conducted a complex study which makes use of students’ questionnaires, focused observation, and the experiment.

(19)

18 The fifth chapter reveals the results of the study and the last chapter contains conclusions and recommendations for English language teachers as well as SLA researchers. It lists ideas for further study in this area and gives practical tips for teachers. For the purpose of this paper, the researcher will use the generic pronoun “he” for all English language teachers, male or female. It is a necessary procedure for the sake of brevity of the text. All translations from Polish into English have been done by the author of this dissertation.

(20)

19

Chapter One: Classroom Interaction

The term interaction consists of two morphemes, inter and action. It stands for acting reciprocally. It is a kind of action that happens when two or more objects have an influence on one another. Sundari, Rafli and Ridwan (2017: 100) describe it as dual communication acts that happen between two or more people that have certain implications among them. In the language context interaction may be used for learning or communication. According to Hall (2011: 109), interaction is a cooperative engagement in which two or more speakers negotiate meaning. In the context of the classroom, this term points out the language used to continue conversation, teach or act in some other form with the participants of the learning process. It describes form and content of behaviour as well as social relationships in the classroom among all the participants- the teacher and the students (Malamah-Thomas, 1987:2). Thoms (2012) highlights that interaction can be regarded as the tool as well as the object, in which language used in interaction can be perceived as both the medium and the goal to be learned.

The primary goal of this chapter is to introduce and define classroom interaction in language learning. The next aim is to review relevant literature on the topic of classroom communication. Additionally, this chapter deals with language interaction in the classroom, classroom discourse analysis, and it presents other studies that have been conducted on this topic.

This discussion will lead to the issue of the role of interactional patterns in different grouping arrangements in the classroom and will become a theoretical background for the research of this paper.

1.1. Language Interaction

Language interactions occur in every sphere of our lives. In this chapter, the focus is on language interactions that happen inside the classroom where English is taught. Sundari, Rafli and Ridwan (2017: 100) state that “In the English language enterprise, interaction has a prominent role in language acquisition and learning process.” This part of the paper includes the description of classroom interaction, classroom language, interaction participants, interactive patterns, and interactive classrooms.

(21)

20 Schiffrin (1994:137) names three constituents of communication. The first one is a code, where a sender passes a message to a receiver with the usage of a shared code. The second one is inferential; the intentions of a sender are recognised by means of both a shared code and deductive strategies. The last one is called interactional and it encompasses situations when a sender displays some message which is interpreted by a receiver. This model of communication is nearest to the subject matter of this work. Within this model, the author describes three approaches to discourse; interactional sociolinguistics points out that there can be many interpretations of one utterance; they can be altered by different social backgrounds and various social identities. The second approach is called ethnography of communication and it focuses on culture and its impact on people’s behaviour. The third one is conversation analysis; it is a study which focuses on actual spoken dialogue, it focuses on the production as well as organization of speech in spoken interaction (Mayr, 2015: 762).

According to Kramsch (1993: 34; cited in Majer, 2003: 217) the notion of context of communication has many dimensions. The first one is called linguistic context and it relates to the verbal environment in which a given phrase is used in a text. The next one, situational, is connected with gestures, expressions, and body language visible during communication.

Interactional context is created by interaction itself and it is constructed by both interlocutors during the conversation. Cultural context facilitates communication for the users of the same community because of the shared knowledge about their topic. The last one is called intertextual and it is “described as arising from friction between the text that people generate and the contexts that are thereby shaped by them, that is the relation of a text with other texts, assumptions and expectations” (Majer, 2003: 217).

The term interaction may be defined differently depending on the circumstances. Wells (1981: 29) defines interaction as “labelled exchange, such a two-part structure is considered by a number of researchers to be the basic unit of discourse, and the two moves of which an exchange is constituted are labelled initiate and respond”. He adds, that linguistic interaction involves triangular connection between the sender, the receiver, and the context of the situation.

This rule applies both to written and spoken interaction. It concerns not only expressing one’s own ideas but also understanding the ideas of the interlocutor and responding to them in the correct way. The information is always understood in a context and it is often supported by non- verbal clues.

Having defined the term interaction, it is then appropriate to define interaction in the foreign language.

(22)

21 1.2. Interaction in the foreign language

1.2.1. Foreigner talk

1.2.1.1. Defining foreigner talk

For English language learners, there are three accessible forms of input. There is teacher talk, interlanguage talk which stands for speech used by other second language learners, and foreigner talk which is used by native speakers of English to communicate with non-native speakers. It is directed at effective communication and not on language accuracy (Dhority, 1991: 26). Usually, native speakers use a great number of repetitions and accept ungrammatical structures on the non-native speaker’s side in order to convey the message. The language that is used by a native speaker is simplified in order to facilitate communication. Ferguson (1971, in Majer, 2003: 100) presents a definition of foreigner talk as “native speakers’ imitation of non-native speakers’ speech for the purpose of enhancing communication. As a simplified code, it shares certain features with other reduced language systems such as pidgins, creoles, or caretaker speech, thus reflecting universal tendencies toward simplicity observed in language contact and language acquisition situations.”

According to Majer (2003: 98), the language which is used by native speakers during the interaction with non-proficient non-native speakers is sometimes ungrammatical. He presents many examples where the speech is reduced to the lowest level of difficulty; therefore, it becomes ungrammatical.

“T: What time you finish?”

“T; What time you finished breakfast?”

“T: What is the answer here? Anybody knows?” (Majer, 2003: 99).

There are more characteristics which define foreigner talk. These are segmental and suprasegmental phonological changes such as slower speech, careful enunciation, higher volume, clearer word boundaries. There are morphological and structural modifications such as restrained use of contracted verb forms, underrepresentation of inflections and function words, lower syntactic complexity and wh-questions simplified by the lack of do support or tense marking. Semantic adjustments are characterised by the use of popular and common vocabulary and avoidance of idioms and unique structures. Finally, there are interaction adjustments such as repetitions, clarifications, paraphrases, reduction (Majer, 2003: 100).

(23)

22 1.2.1.2. Strategies and tactics used by foreigners to communicate with a non-native speaker According to Majer, (2003: 102) foreigners utilise three popular strategies when communicating with non-native speakers. These are confirmation checks, used to confirm if they are understood correctly by non-native speakers; clarification checks, when the non-native speakers ask for assistance, and comprehension checks when the native speaker makes sure that the other speaker understood his utterance. Native speakers tend to simplify their input; these modifications of interaction are supposed to prevent possible communication troubles and overcome those problems when they appear (Majer, 2003: 102).

Long (1983 in Majer, 2003: 103) presents a broad description of strategies that are used during conversation with a non-native speaker at an intermediate level of proficiency.

STRATEGIES TACTICS (for avoiding trouble) (for repairing trouble)

1. Relinquish topic trouble 1. Accept unintentional topic-switch 2. Select salient topics 2. Request clarification

3. Treat topics briefly 3. Confirm own comprehension 4. Make new topic salient 4. Tolerate ambiguity

STRATEGIES AND TACTICS (for avoiding and repairing trouble)

1. Use slow pace 2. Stress key words 3. Pause before key words

4. Decompose topic-comment constructions 5. Repeat own utterances

6. Repeat other’s utterances

Table 1.1. Long’s (1983 in Majer, 2003: 103) taxonomy of native speakers’ interactional modifications in foreigner-talk discourse

The first strategy, relinquishing topic trouble, means abandoning the conversational topics, escaping from ambiguous structures. It gives non-native speakers the ability to conduct the conversation in a way more viable for them. In some cases, it means rephrasing the original

(24)

23 question by a native speaker in order to elicit response from his interlocutor. The second strategy, selecting salient topics, relies on changing topics of the conversation into more approachable ones for the non-native speaker. In many cases it involves orienting the talk about the present instead of the past or future. The third strategy, which is called treating topic briefly, is aimed at covering a great number of short topics instead of a fewer number of broad ones. It lowers the probability of making errors on the non-native side. It is usually achieved by avoiding wh-questions in favour of yes/no questions which are much simpler and easier for the learners. The last strategy, making new topics salient, is strictly tied with the second one. In practice, it requires slowing-down, pausing and dislocating the topic by a native speaker. Apart from the strategies that have been mentioned above, native speakers need to remember about an important procedure for checking the non-native speaker’s comprehension. A straightforward way to that is to pose questions like ‘Are you following me?’, ‘Is that clear?’

and ‘Shall I repeat?’. If the interlocutor has any problems with understanding, the native speaker should repeat the message to him again, preferably rephrasing it in easier words and uttering it in a slower manner (Majer, 2003: 106).

The list of tactics for repairing the troubles starts with accepting accidental topic-switch.

The native speaker needs to be prepared for the topic-switch in case the interlocutor fails to maintain the conversation in the original topic. He should try to explore a new topic instead of ending the conversation entirely. The next tactic is called request clarification and it involves the native speaker trying to understand a miscommunication made by non-native speaker. By the usage of yes/no questions, tag questions, or intonation questions, the native speaker encourages the non-native to reformulate his message or to add new grammatical structures to it in order to make it more comprehensible; the native speaker may help the non-native speaker in negotiation of comprehensible input by using polar interrogative (yes/no question) or by restructuring the question. Instead of providing the non-native with the correct version of his statement, the native speaker should try to lead him to it (Majer, 2003: 115). The third tactic is about confirming comprehension. After the non-native conveys a message, the native speaker should check if he understands the utterance correctly. The best way to check is to repeat the utterance with interrogative intonation. If a confirmation receives a negative response then this is the time to negotiate meaning. The last tactic, tolerating ambiguity, implies accepting ambiguous structures in order to not interrupt the flow of communication. Oftentimes while speaking with a foreigner, some ambiguity may appear because of the use of different accents

(25)

24 and dialects. This particular problem is often less frequent in the classroom because the students and the teacher eventually get accustomed to each other’s accents (Majer, 2003: 119).

Long (1983) finishes his list with a collection of strategies and tactics for avoiding and repairing communication troubles. They are combined together, because they consist of repeating one’s own or the others’ messages. The most popular among them are repetitions, self-repetitions, or other-repetitions. They provide the learner with additional time for comprehending an utterance (Majer, 2003: 120).

1.2.1.3. Foreigner talk and the classroom

As written above, there are specific strategies and tactics designed for native speakers to facilitate a mutual point of understanding with non-native speakers. Reaching this point is a common goal between the foreigner and non-native speaker. They both use strategies that enable them to reach an agreement on meaning; it is often brought about by the native speaker’s clarification requests and confirmation checks. The interaction that happens between them is the result of common modifications and restructuring of messages.

Regardless of the learning environment, whether it is a naturalistic setting or a mere classroom, the learner has to accept cooperation with the more proficient speaker in order to facilitate mutual understanding. Both of the interlocutors apply some communication strategies.

As far as the native speaker is concerned, the most popular strategies of choice are clarification requests and optimal simplifications. They make the modified input more comprehensible for the learner. Both of the interlocutors apply communication strategies, however, the native speaker still bears greater responsibility for the maintenance of the conversation.

As written before, in order to keep the conversation more viable for the learner, the native speaker would need to use more present-oriented tenses or reduce the complexity of the structures by using devices such as topic fronting, and left or right dislocations. Left-dislocation is a transformation in which the constituent is placed to the left (e.g. Margaret, I can’t stand her) instead of its canonical position (I can’t stand Margaret). Right- dislocation is a mirror reflection of the previous one (Majer, 2003: 123). The native speaker would also need to regularly avoid structural ambiguity.

Native speakers should bear in mind that the best way to communicate with their students is not to overly emphasize complex grammar structures and vocabulary, but to have

(26)

25 the necessary skills to communicate effectively and economically using only available resources (Littlewood, 1981: 4).

1.2.2. Teacher talk

1.2.2.1. Defining teacher talk

The second form of language input is teacher talk. A language classroom is completely different from other types of classrooms. When entering the English-learning classroom, students need to temporarily suspend the mentality associated with their native language and they begin recreating new associations linked with the English language, they start the journey of creating a completely new reality based on the foreign language. The uniqueness of language classrooms is that the language is used in two ways. It is used both for organizational, control issues and it is also the actual subject matter of the learning process. In consequence, the language is taught by the usage of the language. Students learn some grammar structures and vocabulary and then they use them to communicate with their peers and the teacher. The teacher should use simple and comprehensible language to manage the classroom, but more difficult language to train the students and improve their language skills. In addition, teacher talk varies among teachers because of the differing styles and roles adopted by them.

Teacher talk possesses three main characteristics: it is the language of classroom management in the second language classrooms, a major source of comprehensible input, and an occupational register. These features are going to be explained in detail in the following section (Cook, 1991: 121).

1.2.2.2. Teacher talk as a device for classroom management

According to Majer (2003: 129), teacher talk as a device for classroom management consists of explaining and describing new ideas and concepts to the students, involving the learners in the process of organising the lesson, encouraging different forms of interactions, and providing the learners with constructive feedback. Teacher talk is highly modified by interactional processes that take place in the classroom. Malamah-Thomas (1987: 21) presents a list of basic components of teacher talk. It consists of accepting students’ feelings, praising and encouraging them, accepting ideas from pupils, asking questions, lecturing, giving directions, criticizing, and justifying authority.

The teacher’s language is notably important in the classroom because the students imitate and copy his pronunciation and language structures. What is more, most of the

(27)

26 researchers agree that it makes up approximately 70 per cent of language that is spoken in the classroom (Ellis, 1990; Nunan, 1991). Chaudron (1988: 50) states that it constitutes two thirds of the classroom language. Dunkin and Biddle (1974: 138) present percentage components of teacher talk but they emphasize that it depends on the teacher’s style. In general, classroom interactions include 30% of soliciting, 30% of responding, 30% of reacting, and 10% of structuring. Inside this division, soliciting is done 85% by the teacher and only 15% by students;

the same situation may be noticed with structuring and reacting; on the contrary, students respond in 90% cases.

Teachers should remember that their talking time should be reduced to absolute minimum, because their long statements minimalize students’ talking time. They should organize the classroom work in that manner so that the students could practice the language and not only sit passively without any involvement. According to Allwright (1984: 166), despite careful pre-planning, teacher talk will never be a sufficient source of input if it is not modified by interactions with learners. Squires, Huitt and Segars (1994: 10) claim that not only the teacher’s language but also his behaviour can influence students’ behaviour which may later lead to improvement of their language skills.

There are some characteristics of teacher talk in the classroom. Łęska (2008: 49) states that there are two types of modifications of teacher talk; the first one is called input adjustments and the second one are interactional features which consist of special functional properties.

They make teacher talk definitely different from typical adult to adult discourse; it has several interrogatives and imperative sentences, the utterances are shorter, there are fewer subordinate clauses, fewer marked structures. Teacher talk is much slower than foreigner talk and it involves more pauses which are at the same time a bit longer than in a standard conversation. It is definitely much louder and clearly enunciated (Cook, 1991: 122). Especially at the initial stages of second language acquisition, the teacher needs to provide his learners with a longer wait time and greater tolerance of silence. In her works, Rowe (1974: 291) states that the average wait time lasts only one second; after that amount of silence, the teacher usually repeats the question or asks another student to respond to it. Their follow-up move is performed within 0.9 seconds.

According to her five-years study, it is not enough for a beginner student to create a coherent and cohesive utterance. What is more, it was observed by her, that the teachers whose wait time was a bit longer, from three to five seconds, had observed significant improvements in various areas. The responses of the students became longer, there were more appropriate and inflected answers and less faulty ones, the students asked more questions, and there were more student

(28)

27 to student data comparisons. What is more, there emerged fewer discourse errors and there were fewer questions which did not elicit any answer. Additionally, the elongation of wait-time may also have a positive influence on teacher’s variables. The teacher’s questioning became more varied and the answers were more flexible. Teachers changed their expectations, especially toward the students who were considered as weaker ones. In some cases, instead of silence, verbalised hesitations may be used such as uh, uhm, OK?. They also give the students some additional time to process the question and plan the response. Summing up, a longer wait time has positive impact on classroom communication. Teachers should not be afraid of silence; they should use its advantages and allow students to utilise it as an opportunity to prepare their utterances. Undoubtedly, there are drawbacks of extending wait time as it may slow down the lesson pace, which might lead to boredom and disruption in the classroom. Nevertheless, the advantages outweigh the drawbacks, as this strategy provides the students with more authentic interaction (Rowe, 1974: 293).

Van Lier (1996: 132) describes five types of teacher talk content. The first type of content is called experiential and consists of familiar topics and learner personal experiences.

The second one is named here-and-now and it concerns more current and everyday topics. The third one, simplified, involves simplified vocabulary and grammar structures and it is often used in language classrooms, especially during the first phases of establishing proficiency. The next one is called amplified and it concerns presentations exemplified with additional examples and visual materials. The last one is named scaffolded and it aimed at providing students with support structures.

The choice of vocabulary is adjusted to the student’s proficiency level, the language is accurate and formal, there is a requirement of using full sentences. It is not infrequent of the teacher to simplify the language in order to make it easier to understand by students. He also simplifies the syntax and pronunciation. Sometimes, it may lead to misunderstandings and confusion, as oversimplification might slightly change the meaning (Cook, 1991: 122).

In relation to young learners, the vocabulary range is usually narrower when adults address children. As far as phonology is concerned, the rate of speech is reduced, the articulation is clearer, there is an exaggeration of intonation and stress patterns, and the pauses between words are longer. Additionally to all those characteristics, the language spoken to young children often resembles motherese, because it resembles the language that parents use when communicating with their child in the native language. Nevertheless, the degree of linguistic alternation is adjusted to either the changing age of a child/ learner or the increasing

(29)

28 language proficiency. As the students become older and more proficient, the teacher’s language is less distant from the authentic language used between adults (Allwright, 1988: 215).

Apart from the linguistic characteristics mentioned above there are several language strategies that are used by adults in verbal interactions especially with younger children. They are included in the second type of teacher talk modifications- interactional adjustments.

Allwright (1988: 216) describes the strategies and mentions a study made by Gaies (1977: 205) which concerned linguistic input provided by the teacher in the classroom.

The most popular strategy is repetition. This commonly used strategy helps children to process the input. It is used exclusively with beginner students and is not popular among advanced learners. In his study, Gaies (1977: 210) confirms that by finding out that at the beginner’s level, more than 20% of all utterances were repetitions. That gives the students more time to process the knowledge. Researchers have diverse opinions concerning the usefulness of that form of discourse. On the opposing side, repetitions may create a situation where students become disassociated through passivity and by not listening attentively to their peers because they are assured that the teacher will repeat the utterances anyway. However, other researchers, such as Hüllen (1990) state that repetitions may provide the learners with additional practice and feedback from the teacher, such as having their utterances diversified and modified. What is more, it boosts the chances of remembering the structure. It can also give the teacher the possibility to correct an utterance. Repetitions are also a vital part of caretaker speech, which may signify that it is a useful technique for language attainment. In addition, repetitions may signify for learners that the teacher is listening to them and actively involving himself in the interaction; a lack of any response from the teacher might be taken for absent- mindedness on his part. For the teacher, however, this short period of no response might mean that he is simply planning ahead.

The second strategy, prodding, means to encourage a child/ learner to express an opinion, make a comment on a particular issue. Usually the teacher uses structures like ‘Can you please say…’ or ‘That is what?’. Similarly to repetitions, this strategy is also observed on the basic levels of formal instruction.

Thirdly, there is modelling which can take on various forms. It may relate to simple interactions such as supplying the correct lexical item for a learner who cannot do it on his own, but it may also relate to expanding a child’s utterance. The first form is more popular at lower levels of proficiency; it is usually supplied with a long series of short questions which are

(30)

29 created to broaden the student’s utterance. The second technique, which aims to expand students’ utterances, is observed at all proficiency levels. It may serve a purely pedagogical function, but also more a communicative one. It can be highly profitable for learners, as they are supplied with various syntactic structures.

Repeatedly, a teacher needs to answer his own questions or use confirmation checks e.g.

“Is that what you mean?”, comprehension checks e.g. “Do you understand?”. In case of an error, the teacher is obliged to use clarification requests e.g. “What did you say?” to encourage a student to reflect on his utterance and find an error on his own, or recast which means sentence transformation to display the student’s mistake (Nunan, 1991). Moreover, a teacher must be prepared to provide his students with comprehensible feedback in relation to their work, use non-verbal language and additional visual aids. In addition, he is required to switch the first and second language if there is a necessity.

Apart from all interactional adjustments and strategies, teacher talk includes a large degree of monitoring of classroom communication. Teachers constantly check if their students are following the lesson, they explain, comment, and reformulate their statements. This form of communication in the classroom is called metacommunication (Łęska, 2008: 50). In his book, Stubbs (1983) presents eight categories of metacommunicative talk. He starts with attracting and showing attention. It involves structures like “Listen to me now”, “Everybody is looking at the table”, which are intended for drawing students’ attention to the topic of the lesson. The next one is controlling the amount of speech and it includes encouraging students to make a statement or silencing them when they distract themselves from the main focus of the lesson.

Then there is checking and confirming understanding, which includes questions like “Do you know what I mean?”, “Do you understand?”. Summarising, stands for encapsulating the statement in order to make it more comprehensible for students. The next ones are Defining, Reformulating, which are based on structures like “Can you put that in a different way?”. It is used to force the students to modify their sentence or to be more specific. Editing, evaluating are connected with corrective feedback for students if they create some faulty structures. An example of that category can be an imperative “This word is too formal/ too informal.” The next category is called Correcting and it involves all the errors committed by the student, for example “Are you sure this is the right answer?” Specifying topic consists of structures typical for introducing a new topic in the lesson.

(31)

30 1.2.2.3. Teacher talk as comprehensible input

Teacher talk as a linguistic input is an important factor in the second language acquisition process; however, nativist researchers deny that fact. McNeill (1966) states that the kind of language to which a student is exposed is unimportant because each learner has his own innate predispositions to learn a language and they have a huge influence on his acquisition process.

Nevertheless, it had been later proposed by many scientists (Clark, 1974; Landes, 1975) that the nativist position was probably incorrect. It is irrational to ignore the linguistic context in which learning takes place.

When it comes to the form of input, there are two contrasting opinions; the first opinion states that teachers should modify their input so that it is adjusted to the students’ level of language proficiency. It must facilitate communication but also comprehension. All of those strategies mentioned before and teacher’s vocabulary should be rigorously selected as the teacher’s input plays such an important role in second language acquisition. Comprehensible input should include a great number of repetitions in order to give students the frame of reference; it must be grammatical and it should involve a variety of vocabulary. Apart from certain instances, it should be constructed and presented in the second language. The first language must be limited to a minimum. Allwright (1988: 217) provides us with a leading statement that “children incorporate either literally or through recombination sentences or units of speech even larger than sentences into their own linguistic repertoire from the language they hear around them, often without first internally analysing them and deducing the underlying structure.”

On the other hand, discussing the findings of his study, Gaines (1977) suggests that artificial simplification of teacher’s input at the beginner levels of language teaching, may not be profitable for their language acquisition. The language that is used in the classroom should be very similar to the authentic language outside the classroom, both among children and adult learners. Studies conducted by Gaines (1977) also defined teacher talk as a form of foreigner talk; he significantly contributed to the development of an issue concerning linguistic input and interaction.

The theories concerning input and interaction have been moderated since the 1970s.

Long (1996) displays that modifications to discourse structure such as modified input and negotiated interaction, indirectly facilitate second language acquisition. Interactionally

(32)

31 modified input can be described as a type of input which has been modified in conversation with a native or non-native speaker for the sake of comprehension (Long, 1996).

Krashen (1982: 17) states that monitoring the language is highly beneficial in the learning process. In the Monitor Theory his fourth hypothesis is called the Input Hypothesis and it alludes to acquisition. He states, that humans acquire the second language easier when the language incorporates one new item beyond their current level of proficiency. It is expressed by the symbol i+1. The sign i depicts student’s actual level of competence; whereas the sign 1 stands for second language input that is one step beyond the student’s current stage of linguistic competence. According to this hypothesis, students first hear and practise the meaning and later they acquire the structure. However, Krashen’s hypothesis diminishes the value of interaction in the classroom. As the interaction is not a causative variable in the process of second language acquisition, he states that speaking is not the cause of acquisition but its result. Speech cannot be taught directly; conversely, it emerges as a result of language competence by comprehensible input. Besides the input, comprehensible output is also vital for second language acquisition and classroom interaction because it encourages additional input.

Nevertheless, in spite of providing students with grammatically correct and well- prepared input, it is not enough for them in terms of linguistic data, since the language acquisition process happens during active interaction and not only by listening to teacher’s input. Consequently, teacher’s input may be perceived as an element of discourse and not as sufficient input. Nevertheless, regardless of the fact that teacher talk is either classified as comprehensible input or just a part of discourse, it still remains a significant part of the lesson and an indispensable factor for classroom communication (Majer, 2003: 155).

1.2.2.4. Teacher talk as an occupational register

The register that is adopted by teachers is highly instructional, grammatical, accurate, precise, and more expository. Clearly, it is simplified in order to facilitate communication in the classroom and to clarify some information. There are many phonological adjustments intended for making the speech more comprehensible. Komorowska (1993: 164) lists them and describes teacher talk “as rather slow and formal, in which consonantal clusters, word and morpheme boundaries, functional words, etc. are made more salient.”

(33)

32 Another feature which highlights the specificity of teacher talk in relation to occupational register is metatalk. Chaudron (1988: 87) defines it as a talk that concerns linguistic code and the content of teaching and it involves error correction, focus on form, and translation. Many researchers perceive this form of talk as a subcategory of metacommunication (Łęska, 2008: 51). Metatalk may be in the second language, but much of it is in the mother tongue. Not infrequently, comments in the mother tongue may have demotivating and obstructive intention. In his study, Majer (2003: 165) has noticed many comments of that kind.

Some of them are “To było jeszcze łatwe, ale zobaczycie jak przyjdą czasowniki nieregularne i pytania” which stands for “That was quite easy but wait until you get irregular verbs and questions” (own translation), or “To jest taki dziwny czas, którego i tak nie zrozumiecie. Jest bardzo trudny, więc słuchajcie, bo nikt wam tego potem nie wytłumaczy” which stands for

“This is such a strange grammatical tense that you will not understand it anyway. It is very difficult, so listen carefully because no one will ever explain it to you again.” These comments consist of false generalisations and needlessly discouraging comments about the difficulty of English grammar.

In summary, the language used by instructors in second language classrooms and the choice of its register depends on genre, purpose, context, environment, or code. Frequently, teachers use caretaker L1 speech when they address the youngest students, using familiar diminutives and affectionate forms. The whole register changes into sub-register baby-talk when the teacher communicates with the youngest learners.

1.2.3. Comparison of caretaker speech, foreigner, and teacher talk

According to Gass (2013: 341), speech directed toward linguistically deficient non-native speakers is called foreigner talk, whereas speech directed toward infants or young children is called baby talk, motherese, child-directed speech, or caretaker speech and it is specially adjusted to the child’s development level. It is crucial for child language acquisition, since it allows young children to acquire a language more easily. However, it will not be thoroughly deliberated in this paper, since it does not apply to the classroom.

Majer (2003: 169) made a comparison of all characteristics of these three registers:

caretaker speech, foreigner, and teacher talk. The summary is based on studies by Ellis (1994), van Lier (1996), Chaudron (1988: 50), and Hatch (1983). There are eight sections of comparison, the first one is purpose of use. All of the registers have a common aim- to communicate in a clear way. Additionally, caretaker speech wants to provide affection and

(34)

33 direct a child’s behaviour, foreigner talk intends to exchange information and establish relationships, whereas teacher talk aims at managing a lesson and teaching the language.

Secondly, teaching functions in both foreigner talk and caretaker speech are implicit, on the other hand, teacher talk is clearly mostly explicit because of the classroom context. Thirdly, phonological and prosodic adjustments are characterised by high redundancy, increased volume, pauses, slower speech and exaggerated intonation contours. As far as some distinguishing features are concerned, caretaker speech encompasses diverse segmental changes, pitch contours, focus marking, and hesitation pauses. Foreigner talk incorporates final stops, heavily voiced final stops, and glottal stops used before vowels at the beginning of words.

Teacher talk includes a small amount of reduction of vowels, extended pauses, simplifications, wait time, and tolerance of silence.

The next parameter is syntactic and morphological adjustments. Caretaker speech is characterised by fewer embedded clauses, limited range of grammatical structures, many imperatives, and display questions. Foreigner talk is reduced as far as complex verb forms are concerned; it consists of fronting of the negative particle, topic fronting, and avoidance of participles ellipsis. Teacher talk combines more canonical word order and many display questions. Similarly to foreigner talk, it uses reduced verb forms, and just as caretaker speech it encompasses imperatives. As far as grammaticality is concerned, teacher talk and caretaker register are seldom ungrammatical, the latter known to sometimes skip articles and possessives.

Foreigner speech might be ungrammatical due to omission of articles, possessives, word ending, and because of the rejection of V+-ing negation.

The next parameter is semantic adjustments. All the registers seem quite similar in this area. All of them are characterised by avoidance of complex and sophisticated vocabulary. Both caretaker and foreigner speech use onomatopoeias and unique lexicon; in the case of the former lexicon is oriented towards the “here and now”. In contrast, teacher talk is directed towards mother-tongue equivalents, it encompasses definitions and fewer colloquial expressions because of the formal environment. Another characteristic is called discoursal, non-verbal and interactional adjustments. Caretakers often incorporate non-verbal patterns designed by their children. Foreigners usually use comprehension checks and clarification requests which were described before. Teachers use them as well and additionally, completion, backtracking, and more verbalisation per function. Finally, in teacher talk there is corrective feedback, while caretakers are more focused on their children’s social behaviour, foreigners rarely correct their interlocutors as it may sound impolite in some circumstances. In sharp contrast to these two

Individual vs group learning; Investigating the most beneficial form of classroom interaction

UNIVERSITY OF WROCŁAW FACULTY OF LETTERS INSTITUTE OF ENGLISH STUDIES