论文部分内容阅读
摘 要：教師话语是英语课堂上教师组织课堂活动的重要工具，也是学生学习语言的内容，教师对使用语言的选择可能会促进或是妨碍学生在课堂上的学习机会，本文分析了提问策略的作用，重新评价了IRF模式和介绍运用教师话语自我评价框架提高教师话语质量。
关键词：教师话语 提问策略 重新评价 IRF模式 教师自我评价框架SETT
中图分类号：G633.41 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1672-8882（2013）02-121-03
Introduction
“Language is both the message and the medium”. In classroom settings， most important activities performed by English teachers are to model target language for their students. In many cases in China， where English input is mainly limited in a few hours a week in the English classroom， this may be the only exposure to the language that learners receive. Teacher talk is the language teachers typically use in the foreign language classroom. Listening to teacher talk in English can provide students with comprehensible input. Johnson （1995） identifies that teacher influences learner participation by the ways in which they use language and by what they bring to the classroom， adds further weight to the argument for increasing teacher awareness of language use. Many studies on classroom discourse in western countries focused on interaction analysis， discourse analysis， conversation analysis （Seedhouse， 2004， Walsh， 2006）， modified speech， modified interaction（Lynch， 1996） and how teachers engage their students in talk in the form of certain interaction patterns， for instance IRF patterns， or by asking students different kinds of questions. As Van Lier （1996） points out， learning can only be optimized when teachers are sufficiently in control of both their teaching methodology and language use. Therefore， how teachers talk to learners is a key element in organizing and facilitating learning in a Second language classroom where the medium of instruction is also the lesson content. In this article I attempt to analyze two patterns of teacher talk to explore how teacher talk may affect learning opportunity in a Second language classroom in the middle school setting and introduce SETT framework for teachers’ self evaluation of teacher talk.
Teachers’ awareness of questioning strategies
Tsui states that ‘the role of the teacher is to make knowledge accessible to students’ （1995：30）. What kind of teacher talk is both appropriate and facilitates language learning？ In most English language Classroom in China， though Communicative Language Teaching and Task-based Teaching and Learning are widely accepted， teacher talk still takes up a great deal of time by giving instructions or explanation， asking questions， organizing activities and interacting with students. Chaudron （1988， Hall， 2011） concluded that teacher talk represents nearly two-thirds of classroom speech， among which questions asked by teachers and answered by students tend to dominate the classroom interaction. To some extent questions asked by teachers help to elicit information， activate students’ prior knowledge， check students’ comprehension， attract students’ attention， and provide students a language practice opportunity when they answer. The problem is that teachers are not well aware what kind of question might ask. For example， closed question that has only one acceptable answer and produce shorter and simpler answer from the learner is less likely to encourage continuing interaction compared to open question with a range of possible answers； likewise， display questions to which teachers already know the answer as they ask are very unusual in communication outside the classroom （Nunan and Lamb， 1996）， while referential questions are more likely to lead to genuine communication （natural response） in the classroom （Tsui， 1995）. In other cases， teacher’s instructions and explanation even cause students’ confusion. As Walsh （2006） puts it ‘the use of appropriate questioning strategies requires an understanding of the function of a question in relation to what is being taught’. Re-evaluate IRF exchange
Since teachers’ choice of language use could either facilitate or hinder learning opportunity， it’s important for English language teachers to have some basic knowledge about some typical patterns about talk between teachers and students in the English language classroom. The IRF exchange is one of the common patterns in the English language classroom， where teachers initiate an exchange and requires a student response. Yet according to Mercer and Dawes， （2010） ‘many teachers （even those who qualified in recent decades） have not heard of it [the IRF pattern of classroom discourse]’ （p. 1）. In the IRF exchange I is teacher initiation， R is learner response， F is an optional feedback or evaluation by teacher （Sinclair and Coulthard， 1975， Hall， 2011）. For example：
Teacher： Now， who wrote a play called Romeo and Juliet？ I
Learner： William Shakespeare. R
Teacher： Shakespeare. Yes， that’s right. Does anyone know any other plays that Shakespeare wrote？ F
（Hall， 2011：17）
As can be seen above， in an IRF exchange teacher controls the topic， turn-taking， waiting time and the way of the interaction， confirm and evaluate the learner’s response before moving on to the next stage. Besides， as is often the case in an IRF exchange， teacher often makes two ‘moves’ for every one made by a learner， which lead to more teacher talk time in the classroom. Therefore， IRF exchange has been found limiting learners’ opportunities for interaction and controlling the topic of class discussion and preventing students from extending and reformulating their speech. Though IRF exchange is often associated with teacher control and high level of teacher talk， Nassaji and Wells （2000） suggested that teachers may be able to create discursive patterns of interaction between themselves and students when teachers ask meaningful questions in the follow-up slot of the IRF pattern， as Thoms （2012） indicates one way that teachers can promote learners’ participation in classroom discourse while creating a positive discursive space is through thoughtful and meaningful teacher questions. In that way， learners’ meaning can be clarified and encouraged to participate in class discussion through teachers’ follow-up approaches such as repetition， confirmation， completion （finishing a learner’s contribution， or backtracking （returning to an earlier part of a dialogue）. Swain （2005） identifies that requests for clarification by the teacher compel learners to rephrase or extend a previous contribution， leading them towards ‘pushed output’. She also suggests that ‘learning takes place as learners produce language’. For example， in the following exchange that takes place between the teacher and learner. Apparently， the third exchange is not evaluative feedback， focusing more on the content of the message instead of language used to express it. What’s more， learners have more space and freedom in both what they said and when they said it. T： I agree do you do you believe in this kind of stuff？ We talked UFOs and stuff yesterday.
L： no---
L： well， maybe---
T： maybe no why not？
L3： um I am not a religious person and that’s the thing I associate with the religion and believe in supernaturals and things like and believe in god’s will and that’s so far from me so no=
T： I understand so and why maybe Monica？---
L4： well I’m also not connected with religion but maybe also something exists but I erm am rather skeptical but maybe people who have experienced things maybe=
T： uh huh what about you （do you）？
（Walsh， 2006：9-10）
IRF can be used to mediate and facilitate learning opportunities when appropriate. Instead of evaluating students’ responses in the third turn， the teacher provides the question ‘why not’， which encourages students to expand on their response by clarifying their opinions. In the follow-up exchange， the teacher elicits student’s personal experience by offering a positive feedback ‘I understand so and why…’. In this IRF exchange， the focus of the exchange is a real-world topic related to students’ personal experience， therefore， they are willing to take risk with language use and negotiate meanings with teachers in the classroom discourse， which in turn enhances their learning by doing. In the words of Ellis （1998， Walsh， 2006） ‘when students are in control of the topic， the quality of the discourse is markedly richer than when the teacher is in control’.
Using SETT to improve the quality of teacher talk
Given that in the English language classroom， the essential goal for teachers is to teach the tools of language and provide opportunities for learners to use their language tools in real-time， real-world communication. （Arndt， Harvey & Nuttall， 2000：96） Mercer （2003） highlights that all aspects of teachers’ responsibilities are reflected in their use of language as the principle tool of their responsibilities. Therefore， how do teachers improve the quality of language use in class in order to facilitate learning opportunity？ For example， help teachers incorporate less evaluative and more meaningful and discourse-sustaining feedback to students. In the words of Walsh （2006， 2011） ‘Any attempt to capture what really happens in classrooms usually means making a recording， either audio or video， and then transcribing that recording， either fully or partially’. Walsh（2006）， based on his corpus of 14 lessons， identifies four modes of teacher talk characterized by specific patterns of turn-taking. a. managerial mode， where the interactional features are a single extended teacher turn which uses explanations or instructions， the use of transitional markers， the use of conformation checks， an absence of learner contributions； b. classroom context mode， where the interactional features are extended learner turns， short teacher turns， minimal repair， content feedback， referential questions， scaffolding， clarification requests； c. skills and systems mode， where the interactional features are the use of direct repair， the use of scaffolding， extended teachers’ turn， display questions， teacher echo， clarification requests， form-focused feedback； d. materials mode， where the interactional features are predominance of IRF pattern， extensive use of display questions， content-focused feedback， corrective repair， the use of scaffolding； Walsh （2011） presents a framework SETT （Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk） which is made up of four modes with fourteen interactional features for language teachers to study their talk in the classroom. According to Walsh （2011） the framework has been used extensively to promote awareness and understanding the role of interaction in class-based learning and to help teachers improve their practices. The SEFT procedure is as follows. Procedure
Make a 10-15 minutes audio recording from one of your lessons. Try and choose a part of the lesson involving both you and your learners. You don’t have to start at the beginning of the lesson； choose any segment you like.
As soon as possible after the lesson， listen to the tape. The purpose of the first listening is to analyze the extract according to classroom context or mode. As you listen the first time， decide which modes are in operation. Choose from the following：
1 Skills and systems mode （main focus is on subject content， skills and knowledge）
2 Managerial mode （main focus is on setting up an activity）
3 Classroom context mode （main focus is on eliciting feelings， opinions attitudes etc.）
4 Materials mode （main focus is on the use of text， tape or other materials）
Listen to the tape a second time， using the SETT instrument. Write down examples of the features you identify.
Evaluate your teacher talk in the light of your overall aim and modes used. To what extent do you think that your use of language and pedagogic coincided？ That is， how appropriate was your use of language in this segment， bearing in mind your started aims and modes operating.
The final stage is a feedback interview with another colleague.
If you are not sure about a particular feature， use the SETT key to help you. （see Appendix）
Conclusion
In the class-based English language classroom， the language used by teachers is not only the vehicle for students to acquire knowledge and develop language skills but also the goal or object of study. As Wright （2005） observes， ‘any action in the classroom by teachers or learners， can elicit a variety of possible responses， and these elements of classroom interaction provide learning opportunities that teachers and learners can exploit’. In conclusion， many research and case studies about classroom discourse analysis have taken place in western cultural context， if the English teachers of middle school in China can have a detailed understanding of the relationship between teacher talk and learning opportunity， pay more attention to question strategies， for example， using referential questions to encourage genuine communication more consciously and apply some approaches to improve the quality of classroom interaction， if possible， employ a number of approaches to analyze their own teacher talk in the English classroom deliberately in order to make the best of teacher talk， in which way opportunities for learning will be enhanced. Moreover， in the words of Coultas （2012） ‘Productive talk can not be imported or imposed on teachers in the classroom’. Teacher’s level of proficiency needs to be taken into account. If teachers are less proficient in the spoken English in the L2 classroom， it is more or less hard for them to get students engaged in the talk.
关键词：教师话语 提问策略 重新评价 IRF模式 教师自我评价框架SETT
中图分类号：G633.41 文献标识码：A 文章编号：1672-8882（2013）02-121-03
Introduction
“Language is both the message and the medium”. In classroom settings， most important activities performed by English teachers are to model target language for their students. In many cases in China， where English input is mainly limited in a few hours a week in the English classroom， this may be the only exposure to the language that learners receive. Teacher talk is the language teachers typically use in the foreign language classroom. Listening to teacher talk in English can provide students with comprehensible input. Johnson （1995） identifies that teacher influences learner participation by the ways in which they use language and by what they bring to the classroom， adds further weight to the argument for increasing teacher awareness of language use. Many studies on classroom discourse in western countries focused on interaction analysis， discourse analysis， conversation analysis （Seedhouse， 2004， Walsh， 2006）， modified speech， modified interaction（Lynch， 1996） and how teachers engage their students in talk in the form of certain interaction patterns， for instance IRF patterns， or by asking students different kinds of questions. As Van Lier （1996） points out， learning can only be optimized when teachers are sufficiently in control of both their teaching methodology and language use. Therefore， how teachers talk to learners is a key element in organizing and facilitating learning in a Second language classroom where the medium of instruction is also the lesson content. In this article I attempt to analyze two patterns of teacher talk to explore how teacher talk may affect learning opportunity in a Second language classroom in the middle school setting and introduce SETT framework for teachers’ self evaluation of teacher talk.
Teachers’ awareness of questioning strategies
Tsui states that ‘the role of the teacher is to make knowledge accessible to students’ （1995：30）. What kind of teacher talk is both appropriate and facilitates language learning？ In most English language Classroom in China， though Communicative Language Teaching and Task-based Teaching and Learning are widely accepted， teacher talk still takes up a great deal of time by giving instructions or explanation， asking questions， organizing activities and interacting with students. Chaudron （1988， Hall， 2011） concluded that teacher talk represents nearly two-thirds of classroom speech， among which questions asked by teachers and answered by students tend to dominate the classroom interaction. To some extent questions asked by teachers help to elicit information， activate students’ prior knowledge， check students’ comprehension， attract students’ attention， and provide students a language practice opportunity when they answer. The problem is that teachers are not well aware what kind of question might ask. For example， closed question that has only one acceptable answer and produce shorter and simpler answer from the learner is less likely to encourage continuing interaction compared to open question with a range of possible answers； likewise， display questions to which teachers already know the answer as they ask are very unusual in communication outside the classroom （Nunan and Lamb， 1996）， while referential questions are more likely to lead to genuine communication （natural response） in the classroom （Tsui， 1995）. In other cases， teacher’s instructions and explanation even cause students’ confusion. As Walsh （2006） puts it ‘the use of appropriate questioning strategies requires an understanding of the function of a question in relation to what is being taught’. Re-evaluate IRF exchange
Since teachers’ choice of language use could either facilitate or hinder learning opportunity， it’s important for English language teachers to have some basic knowledge about some typical patterns about talk between teachers and students in the English language classroom. The IRF exchange is one of the common patterns in the English language classroom， where teachers initiate an exchange and requires a student response. Yet according to Mercer and Dawes， （2010） ‘many teachers （even those who qualified in recent decades） have not heard of it [the IRF pattern of classroom discourse]’ （p. 1）. In the IRF exchange I is teacher initiation， R is learner response， F is an optional feedback or evaluation by teacher （Sinclair and Coulthard， 1975， Hall， 2011）. For example：
Teacher： Now， who wrote a play called Romeo and Juliet？ I
Learner： William Shakespeare. R
Teacher： Shakespeare. Yes， that’s right. Does anyone know any other plays that Shakespeare wrote？ F
（Hall， 2011：17）
As can be seen above， in an IRF exchange teacher controls the topic， turn-taking， waiting time and the way of the interaction， confirm and evaluate the learner’s response before moving on to the next stage. Besides， as is often the case in an IRF exchange， teacher often makes two ‘moves’ for every one made by a learner， which lead to more teacher talk time in the classroom. Therefore， IRF exchange has been found limiting learners’ opportunities for interaction and controlling the topic of class discussion and preventing students from extending and reformulating their speech. Though IRF exchange is often associated with teacher control and high level of teacher talk， Nassaji and Wells （2000） suggested that teachers may be able to create discursive patterns of interaction between themselves and students when teachers ask meaningful questions in the follow-up slot of the IRF pattern， as Thoms （2012） indicates one way that teachers can promote learners’ participation in classroom discourse while creating a positive discursive space is through thoughtful and meaningful teacher questions. In that way， learners’ meaning can be clarified and encouraged to participate in class discussion through teachers’ follow-up approaches such as repetition， confirmation， completion （finishing a learner’s contribution， or backtracking （returning to an earlier part of a dialogue）. Swain （2005） identifies that requests for clarification by the teacher compel learners to rephrase or extend a previous contribution， leading them towards ‘pushed output’. She also suggests that ‘learning takes place as learners produce language’. For example， in the following exchange that takes place between the teacher and learner. Apparently， the third exchange is not evaluative feedback， focusing more on the content of the message instead of language used to express it. What’s more， learners have more space and freedom in both what they said and when they said it. T： I agree do you do you believe in this kind of stuff？ We talked UFOs and stuff yesterday.
L： no---
L： well， maybe---
T： maybe no why not？
L3： um I am not a religious person and that’s the thing I associate with the religion and believe in supernaturals and things like and believe in god’s will and that’s so far from me so no=
T： I understand so and why maybe Monica？---
L4： well I’m also not connected with religion but maybe also something exists but I erm am rather skeptical but maybe people who have experienced things maybe=
T： uh huh what about you （do you）？
（Walsh， 2006：9-10）
IRF can be used to mediate and facilitate learning opportunities when appropriate. Instead of evaluating students’ responses in the third turn， the teacher provides the question ‘why not’， which encourages students to expand on their response by clarifying their opinions. In the follow-up exchange， the teacher elicits student’s personal experience by offering a positive feedback ‘I understand so and why…’. In this IRF exchange， the focus of the exchange is a real-world topic related to students’ personal experience， therefore， they are willing to take risk with language use and negotiate meanings with teachers in the classroom discourse， which in turn enhances their learning by doing. In the words of Ellis （1998， Walsh， 2006） ‘when students are in control of the topic， the quality of the discourse is markedly richer than when the teacher is in control’.
Using SETT to improve the quality of teacher talk
Given that in the English language classroom， the essential goal for teachers is to teach the tools of language and provide opportunities for learners to use their language tools in real-time， real-world communication. （Arndt， Harvey & Nuttall， 2000：96） Mercer （2003） highlights that all aspects of teachers’ responsibilities are reflected in their use of language as the principle tool of their responsibilities. Therefore， how do teachers improve the quality of language use in class in order to facilitate learning opportunity？ For example， help teachers incorporate less evaluative and more meaningful and discourse-sustaining feedback to students. In the words of Walsh （2006， 2011） ‘Any attempt to capture what really happens in classrooms usually means making a recording， either audio or video， and then transcribing that recording， either fully or partially’. Walsh（2006）， based on his corpus of 14 lessons， identifies four modes of teacher talk characterized by specific patterns of turn-taking. a. managerial mode， where the interactional features are a single extended teacher turn which uses explanations or instructions， the use of transitional markers， the use of conformation checks， an absence of learner contributions； b. classroom context mode， where the interactional features are extended learner turns， short teacher turns， minimal repair， content feedback， referential questions， scaffolding， clarification requests； c. skills and systems mode， where the interactional features are the use of direct repair， the use of scaffolding， extended teachers’ turn， display questions， teacher echo， clarification requests， form-focused feedback； d. materials mode， where the interactional features are predominance of IRF pattern， extensive use of display questions， content-focused feedback， corrective repair， the use of scaffolding； Walsh （2011） presents a framework SETT （Self Evaluation of Teacher Talk） which is made up of four modes with fourteen interactional features for language teachers to study their talk in the classroom. According to Walsh （2011） the framework has been used extensively to promote awareness and understanding the role of interaction in class-based learning and to help teachers improve their practices. The SEFT procedure is as follows. Procedure
Make a 10-15 minutes audio recording from one of your lessons. Try and choose a part of the lesson involving both you and your learners. You don’t have to start at the beginning of the lesson； choose any segment you like.
As soon as possible after the lesson， listen to the tape. The purpose of the first listening is to analyze the extract according to classroom context or mode. As you listen the first time， decide which modes are in operation. Choose from the following：
1 Skills and systems mode （main focus is on subject content， skills and knowledge）
2 Managerial mode （main focus is on setting up an activity）
3 Classroom context mode （main focus is on eliciting feelings， opinions attitudes etc.）
4 Materials mode （main focus is on the use of text， tape or other materials）
Listen to the tape a second time， using the SETT instrument. Write down examples of the features you identify.
Evaluate your teacher talk in the light of your overall aim and modes used. To what extent do you think that your use of language and pedagogic coincided？ That is， how appropriate was your use of language in this segment， bearing in mind your started aims and modes operating.
The final stage is a feedback interview with another colleague.
If you are not sure about a particular feature， use the SETT key to help you. （see Appendix）
Conclusion
In the class-based English language classroom， the language used by teachers is not only the vehicle for students to acquire knowledge and develop language skills but also the goal or object of study. As Wright （2005） observes， ‘any action in the classroom by teachers or learners， can elicit a variety of possible responses， and these elements of classroom interaction provide learning opportunities that teachers and learners can exploit’. In conclusion， many research and case studies about classroom discourse analysis have taken place in western cultural context， if the English teachers of middle school in China can have a detailed understanding of the relationship between teacher talk and learning opportunity， pay more attention to question strategies， for example， using referential questions to encourage genuine communication more consciously and apply some approaches to improve the quality of classroom interaction， if possible， employ a number of approaches to analyze their own teacher talk in the English classroom deliberately in order to make the best of teacher talk， in which way opportunities for learning will be enhanced. Moreover， in the words of Coultas （2012） ‘Productive talk can not be imported or imposed on teachers in the classroom’. Teacher’s level of proficiency needs to be taken into account. If teachers are less proficient in the spoken English in the L2 classroom， it is more or less hard for them to get students engaged in the talk.