A new method has been applied in the traditional and obligatory Language practice section for a group of English major students in the second semester of the year 1995-96: one that above the facilitation of further development of all four major language skills (as well as undertaking to assist students in stregthening skills necessary for passing the end-of-semester Proficiency Exam) focuced attention on itself. By itself we mean both the programme of the section and the group.
The classes were held in the Arizona Room of the University Library, equipped with computers, hence permitting the familiarisation and/or the regular use of computers for students. The themes of the sessions were the following: listening comprehension, speaking (describing, analysing, brainstorming and convincing), reading and writing (group writing, peer editing, proofreading and commenting). It is important to note that the group - with only one exception - had already worked together and with the same teacher during a whole semester: a fact that explains how and why it was easy for them to work with new techniques and in new circumstances.
The fact that all members of the group knew each other and that the sessions were held at a location with modern, high tech equipment, created an agreeable, free ambiance which enabled the realisation of the aims of the programme. A complex interactive prosess between teacher and the group as well as within the group could develop throughout the term.
From the point of view of interaction two basically different situations succeded during the sessions, that can be best demonstrated by the description of the "setting": 1. the group (including the teacher) sitting in a circle, everybody in contact with everybody, 2. the students sitting each in front of a computer, in two rows forming an "L", in front of the teacher and the main computer screen. (Shorter periods of movement, pauses etc. interrupted the longer periods mentioned above.)
II. THE FOCUS OF THE OBSERVATION
When observing group interaction in a classroom setting, the goal of the observation should be decided: observing interaction, the roles being played, the leadership, the problem-solving process and the overall effectiveness would be an overestimated enterprise. Hence, I shall focus my attention on the verbal behaviour of the group and for this I shall profit of the classic interaction analysis system of Flanders'.
I decided to attend only to the verbal behaviour present in the student-teacher interactions because verbal behaviour can be more reliably measured than nonverbal behaviour.
III. FEEDBACK - WHY FLANDERS?
In any form of communication there is need for feedback - indeed so in language practice, or preferably 'teaching practice' in our case. "Feedback is the idea that, so far as communication systems are conscerned, one participant's response helps to correct and control another's message by an ongoing feedback process.” 1 Feedback differs widely in kind. Present essay is one of a sort and what is proposes can be a continous and reliable feedback system in the future.
Flanders' observational system, often reffered to as "the most sophisticated technique for observing classroom climate” 2 is particularly appropriate for the foreign language field because it is concerned with verbal behaviour. The categories of the various patterns of verbal behaviour help both to observe and to analyse. These categories were used first to determine normative patterns of classroom interaction between teachers and students, and later in the inservice training of teachers as a tool for self-analysis and self-improvement. Still, interaction analysis is primarily a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour. Although I am not a trained observer, I have personal experience since I was an active part of the group. Since my active participation has not allowed me a consecutive observation up to now, my proposal of an observational system is not other than an alternative to acquire further systematic feedback in the future.
IV. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF FLANDERS' INTERACTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM
(After Dick Allwright)3
The interaction analysis, a method of providing a feedback system to the teacher about his classroom behaviour is based on a category-system. The observations of teacher-student verbal behavior must fall into one of the ten categories which in brief consist: of teacher talk of an indirect form (1) accepting feelings, (2) praising or encouraging, (3) accepting ideas, and (4) asking questions; or of a direct nature (5) lecturing, (6) giving directions, (7) criticizing or justifying authority. Student talk is classified as either (8) responding to teacher or (9) initiating talk. A final, multi-purpose category (10) is labelled silence or confusion.
"The method of observation includes recording, by three second intervals in a consecutive tally, the category number of the behavior just observed. Category numbers are repeated if the behavior, regardless of duration, calls for a different category classification.(...)
The raw data, collected in tally form during the course of the observations, are entered into a ten-row by ten-column matrix, from which it is possible to retrieve information regarding the sequence of events (i.e., what happened after each event) which occured during the class section observed. It is also proposed that certain categories be compared with one another to yield various ratios, for exemple, between direct and indirect teacher behaviors or between teacher and student talk. Further, the observer can calculate the percentage of each category recorded as compared to all others (for exemple, during the ten minute session 4% of the teacher's verbal behaviour may be classified as category 1, 12% as category 2, etc.)."4
Among the numerous advantages of the interaction analysis observational system are the following: teachers can discover and evaluate to what extent they reached the goals they have established for their teaching. They can also identify themselves as being more or less direct, critical, receptive to ideas, questioning, etc.
Joining the practitioners of interaction analysis who consistently agree that the Flanders system does not judge, interpret, or tell a teacher how to improve his teaching, we are dealing with the system because it is simply a way of looking at teaching; only the teacher can place a value on what he does.
Several researchers have adopted the interaction analysis system in the field of foreign language, among them Gertrude Moskowitz who presented the most extensive work and introduced his new system called Flint (Foreign Language Interaction) which includes twelve additional categories compared to the Flanders' system and also operates with the help of a matrix. Also, numerous alternatives of the Flanders' system and critiques on it have been presented. Bailey's objections are of special interest, being an internal attack on the practicality of using such categories.
However, here - in the limits of the present paper - we shall not deal with the alternatives in detail but propose a new category-system that fits the setting and the work of the classroom of the course 1212.
V. A NEW REFORMATION OF THE FLANDERS CATEGORY-SYSTEM
A closer look at the original ten categories established by Flanders 5 will permit their application to the interactional situation of the course in question.
The first group consist of four categories of teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings - the teacher accepts and clarifies the feeling tone of the students in a non-threatening manner. Feelings may be positive or negative. Predicting or recalling feelings are included. - The category refers to an attitude that is both present and needed in the language practice course.
2. Praises or encourages - the teacher praises or encourages student action or behaviour. Jokes that release tension, not at the expense of another individual, nodding head or saying, 'um hm?' or 'go on' are included. - Similarly to category one, this is an important and frequent situation.
3. Accepts or uses ideas of student - clarifying, building, or developing ideas suggested by a student. As a teacher brings more of his own ideas into play, shift to category five. - This is not only a frequent but a very specific situation to the language practice course.
4. Asks questions - asking a question about content or procedure with the intent that a student answer. - Frequent and important category as well.
The second group consist of three categories of teacher talk with direct influence. Here, certain modifications will have to be made.
5. Lecturing - giving facts or opinions about content or procedure; expressing his own ideas, asking rhetorical questions. - Lecturing is the element that is completely missing in the group work of the section, hence this category shall be left out. Another category shall be introduced instead at the appropriate place.
6. Giving directions - directions, commands, or orders to which a student is expected to comply. - Because a considerable part of the work is done on computers (often interrupted and always followed by verbal comments, discussion, etc.) these directions also include all directions concerning the work on computers.
7. Criticizing or justifying authority - statements intended to change student behaviour from non-acceptable to acceptable pattern; bawling someone out; stating why the teacher is doing what he is doing; extreme self-reference. - This sort of self-reference is not specific to the course, the category can be left out.
Two categories are established for the student talk:
8. Student talk - response - a student makes a predictable response to teacher. Teacher initiates the contact or solicits student statement and sets limits to what the student says.
9. Student talk - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to teacher. Shift from 8 to 9 as student introduces own ideas. - This category is one that refers to an interactive situation very specific to the course. When discussion is taking place, the students usually talk much more than the teacher and often respond to each other expressing new ideas. Category 9 shall be completed and a new category established to mark the difference between the two kinds of student talk:
9*. Student talk to teacher - initiation (the description remains the same).
1O*. Student talk to student - initiation - talk by students which they initiate. Unpredictable statements in response to another student.
The last and separate category is indeed necessary:
1O. Silence or confusion - pauses, short period of silence, and periods of confusion in which communication cannot be understood by the observer.
As the computer takes a major part in the work - sometime even replaces the teacher in some sense - , one category should be added referring to verbal behaviour in connection with the computer:
11*. Student talk 'to computer' - unpredictable statements, comments by students in response/concerning the work done on computers (for example the comparative analysis of the written responses to a question given via network system). - This kind of verbal behaviour - like the students talk in general - is provoked, initiated by the teacher, still it should fall into this category to be differentiated from other kinds of verbal expression, not directly related to technical instruments.
With the modifications and adjustements the new ten categories are the following:
Teacher talk with indirect influence:
1. Accept feelings;
2. Praises or encourages;
3. Accepts or uses ideas of students;
4. Ask questions;
Teacher talk with direct influence:
5. Giving directions;
Student talk:
6. Student talk - response;
7. Student talk to teacher - initiation;
8. Student talk to student - initiation;
9. Student talk 'to computer';
---
1O. Silence or confusion.
When the tallies are entered into a ten by ten matrix they result in a graphic picture of the lesson. The matrix preserves the general time sequence of the interaction by illustrating which behaviours immediately preceded or followed others. The study of the matrix (calculation of percentages for each categories, for teacher talk and student talk and silence or confusion) permits the discovery and analysis of teaching patterns: ratios of the amount of indirect or direct influence the teacher used are determined, each focusing on a different )relationship. (Here we are not dealing with the techniques of the analysis.)
VI. ESTIMATES - (to be testified in the next semester?)
Without sufficient data I give only estimates for the different relationships - it would be interesting to adapt the interaction analysis system in the next semester course and testify the results.
1. What percentage of the class time does the teacher talk? - 3O %.
2. What percentage of the class do the students talk?
- 7O %.
3. Does the teacher use more indirect or direct influence during a lesson? - 4. Is the teacher more indirect or direct in the way he motivates and controls the class?
- The changes made in the categories, notably the fact that only one category is left for direct influence and all the four are left for the direct influence should still give the right percentage for direct and indirect teacher talk. It is not at all by accident that we got this one-to-four proportion: we are concerned with a university language course, where opposed to the traditional teacher-lecturer, the role of the teacher is much more of a dominating group member, who indirectly initiates the other members of the group. Hence, in my estimation the teacher uses twice as much indirect than direct influence in course 1212 (q3) and is much more indirect than direct in the way he motivates and controls the class (q4). Although he often uses directions, commands to help the work go on, more nuanced indirect influence is needed in most of the cases.
5. What kind of immediate feedback does the teacher give to students after they respond? - The most common immediate feedback the teacher gives is the acceptance and use of ideas of students (category 3). Because students are usually given the possibility of not only presenting their ideas, but - after having heard the teacher's and the other students' comments and opinions - developing them further, the best way to motivate them is by using their ideas: this way they can be sure it was worth telling their thoughts.
6. To what extent do students participate for extended periods of time? - They indeed participate for extended periods of time both individually, in pairs and especially in overall group activities. Here we only deal with verbal behaviour, if written work (computers) was counted, the participation of student should be even more.
7. What behaviours does the teacher use to elicit student response in the class? - He most often accepts and uses ideas of the students and ask questions.
8. To what extent are student responses which are called for by the teacher narrow, predictable ones and to what extent are students given the opportunity to bring in their own ideas? - In most of the cases the students are given the opportunity to bring in their new ideas. The narrow and predictable responses mostly refer to simple matters of the task itself, not discussional topics.
VII. FUTURE APPLICATION IN TEACHER PRACTICE
Are we dealing with language practice or teaching practice? If the latter (or both), why not to apply a systematic feedback-system?
The original Flanders' interaction analysis system was established and applied for trainees: can the members of the group not, in some sense be considered as trainees? Even if not, couldn't active language practice students be observers of the interactive process of their own group and teacher? Wouldn't that be an interesting teaching practice for both students and teacher?
No comments:
Post a Comment