1.

Aim of the Subject

Aim of the Subject

Teaching can be likened to juggling. It takes a while to learn how to juggle

without dropping balls all over the place, and even when you are fairly
proficient, there is always the challenge of adding new balls to your repertoire.
The same can be said of teaching. When teachers start out teaching they
usually only focus on a couple of 'balls' - what activities shall I give my
students? How can I stop them speaking in their first language in class? How
can I motivate my adolescent classes? How long shall I let them do that reading
activity?

As we know, there are many more 'balls' involved in teaching than this. The
proficient juggler seems to handle a large number of balls with ease, and by
analogy the proficient teacher is able to manipulate a large number of
techniques simultaneously; a thorough knowledge of the principles behind
teaching practice forms the backdrop.

Knowing how to 'manage' a class is one of the most important 'balls' in our
teaching repertoire. It's one of the balls that we probably least want to drop. If
we can't manage a class effectively, how can learning take place? Surely chaos
will ensue? We often equate classroom management with controlling a class,
particularly in secondary school contexts (more on this in Unit 5). However,
there is great deal more to the area of classroom management than this.

Classroom management is in fact about handling a multitude of balls all at the

same time. It includes how we speak to our students, and how we get our
students to speak to each other. It's about what we say when we speak to them.
Even more importantly, it's about being aware of the way in which what we say
and how we say it affects our students - what their perceptions of our actions
are. It's even about the sometimes hidden motives behind how and why we act
the way we do as teachers.

In this subject the aim is to look at all the 'balls' that make up classroom
management and to get you thinking about specific classroom practice. We look
at some of the theory behind our speech acts in the classroom and consider
how this benefits (or otherwise) our students. This issue is covered by a
consideration of teacher talk (in Unit 1) and corrective feedback (Unit 2). We
also look closely at how learners interact in the classroom through an
examination of group work (Unit 3) and the related area of mixed ability classes
(Unit 4) and discipline (Unit 5). This latter unit has been kept fairly short as it is
an issue which does not affect all of you as teachers equally. Those teachers for
whom discipline is major issue will find an extensive appendix and readings,
plus suggestions for further reading that will enable you to broaden your
knowledge of this thorny issue.
We will also be focusing on the language that learners produce in the
classroom, specifically in terms of the use (or abuse) of L1 (Unit 6) and forms of
interaction in groups (Unit 1).

Finally we will be taking a brief look at an important recent area of research -

that of 'Teacher Thinking' (Unit 7) - which focuses on uncovering some of the
mechanisms behind our classroom decision making and wider classroom
practice.

The aim of this subject is to help you to take a closer look at some of the 'balls'
involved in classroom management, and if simply reading these materials is
unlikely to make you a more proficient 'juggler', it is hoped that an awareness of
the nature and number of balls needed in your repertoire will lead to practice
that will enhance and develop your teaching.

2.1. 1.1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction
Learning a language is essentially an individual activity. Ultimately the learner
has to come to terms in his/her own mind with the L2 system, grappling with
meanings and creating a new linguistic frame of reference. However, this
personal or individual task does not take place in isolation: the learner is
typically a member of a class, as in EFL situations, or perhaps 'picking up' a
new language in the L2 environment itself, as in many ESL cases.

Our concern is with the EFL situation, specifically the language classroom and
what goes on in it. In this context the individual process of learning an L2 is
mediated by the external interactions which take place in a classroom, between
teacher and learner on the one hand, and between learners themselves on the
other hand. Given that the supposed role of the classroom and the teacher is to
facilitate learning for the individual learner, being aware of what actually
happens in that classroom - what is said and done, to who and how, and what
effect this has on learners - is of vital importance when trying to assess the
effectiveness of classroom instruction. According to Malamah Thomas
(1987:vii):

The question is: what kind of classroom interaction, what kinds of participation
of teacher and learners, are most likely to provide conditions whereby the
exercise of individual learner initiative can lead to effective learning?

In this unit we will explore what is meant by classroom interaction, and the
different forms which it may take. We will also be examining how effective
certain types of interactions are considered to be in terms of promoting 'learning
outcomes' (Chaudron 1988), that is, in promoting students' actual learning of
the L2.

2.2. 1.2 What is classroom interaction?

1.2 What is classroom interaction?
Interaction in the classroom involves the process of communication. This can
take place between teacher and student(s), between individual or groups of
students, or even between student(s) and a textbook or cassette. However, we
will be concerned with human interaction, and particularly with the spoken
interaction between teacher and student(s) in this unit. In other words, we will
be concerned with classroom talk.

Classroom interaction may take several forms, and it is not necessarily always
teacher directed. Penny Ur (1996:228) gives a useful summary of the most
typical interactions which occur in a language classroom:

 Group work
Students work in small groups on tasks that entail interaction: conveying
information, for example, or group decision-making. The teacher walks
around listening, intervenes little, if at all.
 Closed-ended teacher questioning
Only one 'right' response gets approved. Sometimes cynically called the
'Guess what the teacher wants you to say' game.
 Individual work
The teacher gives a task or set of tasks, and students work on them
independently; the teacher walks around monitoring and assisting where
necessary.
 Choral responses
The teacher gives a model which is repeated by all the class in the
chorus; or gives a cue which is responded to in chorus.
 Collaboration
Students do the same sort of tasks as in 'Individual work', but work
together, usually in pairs, to try to achieve the best results they can. The
teacher may or may not intervene.
 Student initiates, teacher answers
For example, in a guessing game: the students think of questions and
the teacher responds; but the teacher decides who asks.
 Full-class interaction
The students debate a topic or do a language task as a class; the
teacher may intervene occasionally, to stimulate participation or to
monitor.
 Teacher talk
This may involve some kind of silent student response, such as writing
from dictation, but there is no initiative on the part of the student.
 Self-access
Students choose their own learning tasks, and work autonomously.
 Open-ended teacher questioning
There are a number of possible 'right' answers, so that more students
answer each cue.

2.3. 1.3 Transactional versus Interactional Communication

1.3 Transactional versus Interactional
Communication
Communication in the language classroom has been defined as being either
transactional (i.e. information is transmitted, as in the case of the teacher
explaining a grammar point or giving the definition for a new word) or
interactional (i.e. communication for personal, real, communicative purposes,
as in the case of a teacher asking a student if he or she had a good weekend).
In transactional communication the purpose is primarily pedagogic - the teacher
wished to 'teach' something about the language -, whereas in interactional
communication the purpose is primarily social - the teacher wishes to establish
communication on a meaningful, personal level. What actually happens in the
classroom is that the two types of communication sometimes overlap, and a
teacher may decide to use language in order to achieve a social purpose, as in
the following example.

Imagine a teacher wants the furniture in the classroom moved, and decides that
this is a good chance to provide learners with some listening practice in
furniture vocabulary or instructions, so she gets learners to move the furniture
giving them instructions in the L2. Both a social and a pedagogic purpose have
been achieved simultaneously.

Nevertheless, traditional views of language teaching tended to emphasise the

importance of transactional communication in the classroom, the underlying
rationale being that the knowledgeable teacher transfers information to the
passive, "empty" student. This idea is reflected in, for example, the Grammar-
Translation and Audiolingual Methods (see the subject Methodological
Approaches). However, in recent years increasing importance has been placed
on the interactive features of classroom communication. Thus there have been
a number of studies which have focused on elements in classroom interaction
such as turn-taking, questioning and answering, negotiation of meaning, and
corrective feedback. We will be exploring these features in more detail later in
this subject.

2.4. 1.4 Interaction analysis

1.4 Interaction analysis

Why all this fuss about classroom interaction? Classroom interaction is
considered to be particularly significant in SLA research for several reasons
(Chaudron 1988:10):

1. Only through interaction can learners decompose the target language

structures and derive meaning from classroom events.
2. Interaction gives learners the opportunities to incorporate target
language structures into their own speech.
3. The meaningfulness for learners of classroom events of any kind,
whether thought of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to
 which communication has been jointly constructed between the teacher
and learners.

These concepts will become clearer as we explore the issue of interaction

analysis below.

2.4.1. 1.4.1 Models for interactional analysis

1.4.1 Models for interactional analysis

Interaction analysis is concerned with the observation of classroom language in

order to find out about teaching and learning in the classroom, thus is has a
formal educational aim. (Note that it is not concerned with observing classroom
language to find out more about how language works. This would be a linguistic
aim).

One of the problems with analysing exactly what happens during classroom
interactions is that many events are taking place at the same time. An observer
who wishes to analyse interactions in a classroom is faced with a vast,
potentially very confusing job, thus he/she tends to focus on only on one (or a
few) events which he/she considers to be significant for his/her purposes.

The question now arises: exactly what do we look at or for during classroom
interactions? How do we decide what features to focus on and what features to
ignore?

The conceptual framework within which interaction analysis has been

developed originally comes from classroom observation in mainstream
educational research, not specifically from L2 research. In the 1950s Flanders
developed a classroom observation framework which reflected the concerns of
social sciences of the time with attempting to assess the social climate of
classrooms. The basic idea behind the Flanders framework was that a
'democratic' classroom is preferable to an 'authoritarian' one, thus the focus of
observations reflected this belief. Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories
(FIAC, 1970) was firmly established as a research tool in mainstream education
by the early 1970s. See Appendix 1.1. which shows this framework.

Flanders' model, although aimed at school subjects such as social studies or

science, was adapted by L2 researchers in order to cater to the specific
conditions of the language classroom more appropriately. Probably the best
known of these adaptations is that of Moskowitz (1967), called FLINT (Foreign
Language Interaction Analysis System). One of the key items which she added
to Flanders' original scheme was that of whether the first or second language
was used in class. Another important modification Moskowitz made was that of
allowing for the importance of the affective domain, by making specific provision
for observing elements such as smiling and laughter in a language lesson.

A second well known model is that proposed by Fanselow (1977), called

FOCUS (Foci for Communication Used in Settings), which was developed
specifically with the foreign language class in mind. According to Fanselow's
scheme, communication in the language class needs to be considered under
five categories (from Stern 1983: 494):

1. source: who communicates?

2. for what pedagogical purpose?
3. in what medium?
4. how is that medium used?
5. what content is communicated?

There are many other interaction analysis schemes, some of which include
areas like topic or content in their models (eg.Ullman and Geneva's TALOS and
COLT 1984; Mitchell and Parkinson's scheme 1979), on the assumption that it
is important to know what is to be taught or learned in any lesson, not just the
kinds of interaction that take place.

However, it has been pointed out that interaction analysis models are culturally
specific. In other words, each interaction analysis model will reflect the concerns
of a specific classroom setting, and therefore not be easily applicable to all
cultural contexts. It may not be appropriate to use the same classroom
interaction analysis model in an EFL class in Spain as in China or in Chile.
According to Malamah-Thomas (1987: 30), every interaction analysis model:

assumes the context it was devised in, and, being based on the sort of
classroom practice carried out in specific contexts, is, as a result, applicable
only in similar contexts.

A further consideration with interaction analysis models is that they will

necessarily only reveal part of the story of what goes on in a language class. By
observing small, separate elements of a lesson, there is a danger that the
'whole' lesson is lost - and that we get a distorted picture of what the classroom
is really about. On this point Malamah-Thomas (ibid.) adds:

Moreover, these (models) tend to concentrate on the various parts of the

lesson. In order to analyse, they must fragment. And, in stressing the parts,
they all overlook the whole; the whole lesson which is greater than the sum of
its parts. For the crux of any classroom lesson is the learning that occurs in it.
The crucial factor is whether the teacher gets his or her message across,
whether the students learn what the teacher sets out to teach them.

With this reservation in mind, we will now turn to look at some of the different
types of classroom interaction under two main headings: Teacher Talk and
Learner Talk.

2.5. 1.5 Teacher Talk

1.5 Teacher Talk

Research into teacher talk in the classroom has become increasingly
fashionable in the EFL/ESL world. Although 'teacher talk' and 'pupil talk' were
two of Flanders' main interactional analysis categories as early as 1970, the
research question of teacher talk seems to have been taken up with particular
enthusiasm in the last 10 or 15 years.

2.5.1. 1.5.1 Why is teacher talk important?

1.5.1 Why is teacher talk important?

The question now arises: why are researchers so interested in this topic?

Because, as we considered earlier, what the teacher says, and the way he/she
says it, is assumed to aid learners' comprehension in the classroom, and
therefore their learning. This is based on the idea predicated by Krashen's
Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (see the subject Methodological
Approaches), namely that the development of a second language occurs when
learners are exposed to language which is comprehensible to them and which
contains grammatical features which are one level of complexity beyond their
current second-language ability (i+1). If this is the case, and most studies into
teacher talk have started from this basic hypothesis, studying classroom
interactions is obviously an important area in SLA research, and of equal
concern to practising teachers. Nunan (1995:189) identifies two main reasons
for the importance of focusing on teacher talk:

Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organisation of the
classroom but also for the processes of acquisition. It is important for the
organisation and management of the classroom because it is through language
that teachers either succeed or fail to implement their teaching plans. In terms
of acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is probably the major source
of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.

We will now take a look at the main features of teacher talk in order to consider
its effect on the learning process, and also to consider what the practical
classroom implications for the teacher are. The features of teacher talk which
we will focus on are: the quantity of teacher talk which learners are exposed to;
the modifications which teachers make to their speech in the classroom; and
the types of questions which teachers put to learners. Corrective feedback,
which is another feature of teacher talk, will be dealt with separately in Unit 2.

2.5.2. 1.5.2 Quantity

1.5.2 Quantity

It would seem that in most L2 classrooms, as in L1 classrooms, teachers tend

to dominate classroom speech. In L1 classrooms, research has shown that
teachers speak about 60% of the time, and L2 research has generally reflected
these findings, putting the percentage of teacher talk even higher in most cases
- around 70% to 80% (Legaretta 1977; Enright 1984; Ramirez et al. 1986).

Obviously when considering the quantity of teacher talk in a language class it is

important to keep in mind the proviso that there will be considerable variation
depending on the type of class (e.g. a skills or language work focus), the size of
the class, the teacher, and so on.

Opinion on the value of teacher talk in the classroom will also depend on what
one believes about the role of language input in acquisition. If a teacher
believes that learners learn the target language best by using it in class - i.e.
through practice - then that teacher will probably try to keep his/her talk to a
minimum and try to include many activities in which learners practice in pairs or
groups. If, on the other hand, a teacher believes that his/her talk is a valuable
source of comprehensible input, then the dominance of teacher talk in the
classroom will be perceived as a positive contribution to learners' target
language acquisition.

What is perhaps of particular importance is not so much the quantity but the
quality of teacher talk. If there is a lot of teacher talk which aids learner intake,
then well and good, but if there is a lot of teacher talk which does not enhance
learning, then this is bad news for learners. But what kind of teacher talk is
'good' and what kind is 'bad'? The answer to this question will almost always
tend to be a matter of subjective judgement, but, nevertheless, there are a
number of factors which we need to take into account when deciding how
appropriate (or not) teacher talk is.

Nunan (1995: 190) identifies three factors:

1. The point in the lesson in which the talking occurs.

2. What prompts the teacher talk: whether it is planned or spontaneous,
and, if spontaneous, whether the ensuing digression is helpful or not.
3. The value of the talk as potentially useful for acquisition.

2.5.3. 1.5.3 Speech modifications

1.5.3 Speech modifications

There has been a great deal of research into the area of speech modifications.
This attempts to identify exactly what features of their speech teachers modify,
and the effects that this has on learners. This area of research takes its cue
from FLA (First Language Acquisition) research, which has focused on the
speech modifications of caregivers to children ('motherese') and of native
speakers to non-native speakers ('foreigner talk'). What, you might ask, is the
difference between 'foreigner speech' and a native speaker teacher addressing
a group of learners in an EFL classroom - surely they are one and the same
thing?

In fact, an important difference between these first language and L2 speech

modifications has been pointed out by Chaudron (1988:55-6):
...on various comparisons teacher talk in L2 classrooms differs from speech in
other contexts, but the differences are not systematic, nor are they qualitatively
distinctive enough to constitute a special linguistic domain, as has been argued
for the case of foreigner talk. Rather, it appears that the adjustments in teacher
speech to non-native-speaking learners serve the temporary purpose of
maintaining communication - clarifying information and eliciting learners'
responses - and do not identify the interaction as an entirely different social
situation. This is an important finding, which indicates that if teachers' efforts to
modify their classroom speech have any effect on L2 learners, it is more likely
that the effects contribute to comprehension and learning than that they mark
classroom events as unusual or stigmatized.

Dozens of studies have been carried out, and the following modifications to
teachers' speech have been identified (Chaudron 1988: 85):

1. Rates of speech appear to be slower.

2. Pauses, which may be evidence of the speaker planning more, are
possibly more frequent and longer.
3. Pronunciation tends to be exaggerated and simplified.
4. Vocabulary use is more basic.
5. Degree of subordination is lower.
6. More declaratives and statements are used than questions.
7. Teachers may self-repeat more frequently.

The obvious question which now arises is: to what extent does modifying
teacher speech help comprehension and thus help learners to incorporate more
features of the target language into their own developing interlanguages? That
is, to what extent does it help them to learn?

To take point 1 above, studies have shown that a slower rate of speech will
improve learners' comprehension in tasks such as dictation (Kelch 1985), but
that learners' perceptions of whether speech is really slower are also influenced
by other characteristics such as clarity of articulation, or conciseness of
information (Dahl 1981). Thus we cannot say simply that if teachers talk more
slowly their learners will learn more.

To complicate the picture even further, studies have been carried out into the
effects of simplified input (points 4, 5 and 6 above), in which both the linguistic
and cognitive load on learners is reduced, while other studies have looked at
the effects of elaborated input (partly point 7 above).

Elaborated input contains redundant, or excess, information. Redundancy is

achieved through, for example:

 repetition,
 paraphrase,
 slower speech,
 rhetorical markers (words which signal a specific function in discourse
e.g. in conclusion, As I was saying.. etc.),
 pauses,
  the use of fillers (words like Um, Well...).

Summarising the conclusions reached by a range of studies in these two areas,

Chaudron and Parker (1987: 6) conclude that:

linguistic simplifications such as simpler syntax and simpler vocabulary do not

have as significant an effect on L2 comprehension as elaborative modifications
(=elaborated input).

So it would seem that when talking to L2 learners teachers should try to use
elaborated language, by way of including paraphrase, pauses etc., rather than
merely slowing down their speech, or using simplified grammar and vocabulary.

2.5.4. 1.5.4 Teacher to class questions

1.5.4 Teacher to class questions

This is the area of classroom interaction that has probably received most
attention over the years, partly because questions are a fundamental part of
pedagogy, but also because they are easy to observe and document for the
researcher. Why do teachers use questions in the language classroom - why
are they such a fundamental part of pedagogy? Probably because, as Long
(1981) points out, they make interaction in the classroom easier by clearly
establishing the topic, by forcing students to speak (and therefore their L2
knowledge can be assessed by the teacher), and by clearly showing who is
expected to speak next. However, ironic as it may seem, the types of questions
which teacher use have been shown to severely limit learners' potential for
acquiring the language. We will now turn to a consideration of the main types of
questions found in the L2 classroom and the effects which these seem to have
on learners.

1.5.4.1 IRF

Observation has shown that the most common type of interaction is what is
known as 'IRF' ('Initiation - Response - Feedback' - Sinclair and Coulthard
1975). In 'IRF' the teacher initiates an exchange, which is usually in the form of
a question (=Initiation). A learner then answers the question (=Response). Then
the teacher gives feedback, for example in the form of assessment, correction
or comment (=Feedback). Thus a typical classroom IRF exchange might look
like this:

Teacher: "What did you do this weekend?"

Student:: "I went to the cinema"
Teacher: "Good"

or

Teacher: "What did you do this weekend?"

Student: "I goed cinema"
 Teacher: "Not 'goed' - went"

Thus it would seem that despite their professed adherence to a communicative

approach to teaching, many if not most teachers in fact deny their students a
chance to interact communicatively in the classroom. Legutke and Thomas are
quite damning of so-called 'communicative' practices:

In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers' manuals, very little is

actually communicated in the L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not
seem to stimulate the wish of learners to say something, nor does it tap what
they might have to say...Learners do not find room to speak as themselves, to
use language in communicative encounters, to create text, to stimulate
responses from fellow learners, or to find solutions to relevant problems
(1991:8-9).

1.5.4.2 Display versus referential questions

A display question occurs when a teacher asks a student a question for which
he/she (the teacher) already knows the answer. The question is thus merely for
the purpose of 'displaying' language. A referential question, on the other hand,
is one to which the teacher does not know the answer. It appears that display
questions occur far more in language classrooms than referential questions
(Long and Sato 1983; Pica and Long 1986), probably because the language
classroom is often more concerned with linguistic content ("What's the past
tense of 'go'?") than with real communication.

The implication is that it is somehow 'better' for teachers to use referential

questions rather than display questions in the language classroom. Why is this
so?

It needs to be borne in mind that research has shown that students who are in
groups where significantly more referential than display questions are used,
give longer, more syntactically complex responses. This fits in with the view that
SLA is enhanced by output (for example, Swain's Output Hypothesis, which is
explained in the subject Methodological Approaches, Unit 4). In other words, the
more English students are encouraged to produce, the more English they will
be likely to learn.

Aside from the fact that display questions tend to elicit short answers from
learners, they also tend to only elicit information which is for pedagogic
purposes (as in the 'go' example above). The implication here is that learners
will be less involved in a communicative sense in supplying the answer and
therefore less motivated in their use of the target language. And lower
motivation means less learning.

However, there are those who disagree with this view. Van Lier, for example,
argues that there is no value in drawing a distinction between display and
referential questions, as both types are useful in eliciting learner language:
Such (display) questions have the professed aim of providing comprehensible
input, and of encouraging 'early production'. I suggest that, by and large, what
gives such question series their instructional, typically L2-classroom character
is not so much that they are display rather than referential, but that they are
made with the aim of eliciting language from the learners.
(1988:223)

1.5.4.3 Open versus closed questions

It is also interesting to note that even when referential questions are asked, they
tend to be 'closed' questions (i.e. questions which require no more than a one
word or a yes/no answer) as opposed to 'open' questions (i.e. questions which
require learners to elaborate in a response). Below is list of typical closed
referential questions which teachers ask:

- Hello, Monica, how are you?

- Last Wednesday you went to the cinema, didn't you?
- Was it a good film?
- Paul, did you go?
- Did you enjoy it?

and so on.

But, one might argue, students are still practising English by responding to
these closed questions, and it means that the weaker students are not
intimidated, and are able to respond. So why not use 'closed' questions?

Certainly Van Lier (quoted above) would agree with this position, and it is a valid
one. However, if one considers that greater effort is demanded on the part of
the learner in answering an open referential question (as opposed to a closed
referential or display question), it could be argued that the learner will have to
process the L2 input and his/her own output more, and therefore learn more. As
Nunan puts it:

...it is not inconceivable that the effort involved in answering referential

questions prompts a greater effort and depth of processing on the part of the
learner. This, in turn, may well be a greater stimulus to acquisition than the
answering of display questions. However, it is also obvious that other factors
such as the topic area, the learner's background knowledge, and contextual
and interpersonal variables will also be operating, and thus having an effect.
(1989:30-1)

1.5.4.4 More complex question types

Apart from the question types discussed above, teachers also use questions
that have a more complex function: comprehension checks, confirmation
checks and clarification requests. Comprehension checks involve the teacher
checking that the student has understood the message by eliciting a short
response (e.g. "How many sentences do you have to write?" etc.).
Confirmation checks directly ask the learner for confirmation that the message
has been understood (e.g. "Do you understand?" "Is that clear?") and
clarification requests are much more open-ended, and ask the learner to
elaborate or clarify an answer ("Why do you think we use the present here?"
"Why is it important to include x in a formal letter?" etc.).

The importance of these types of question (which can be both open and closed)
lies in the belief that they represent an attempt by the teacher and student to
negotiate meaning to some extent in the classroom (of course, they are not the
only interactions which imply a negotiation of meaning). Some theorists (e.g.
Long 1981, 1983; Ellis 1984) regard the interactive modifications made during
the negotiation of meaning (e.g. through such question types as these) as
crucial for promoting L2 acquisition. We will explore this theory more fully in the
next section of the unit.

The idea of the learners having to negotiate meaning being central to the
acquisition of the L2 is now widely accepted, and is indeed the central tenet of
the communicative approach to teaching. However, this negotiation of meaning
does not necessarily only have to take place between learner and teacher. It
can equally fruitfully take place between learners. This leads us on to a
consideration of 'the other side of the coin' in classroom interaction: that of
learners interacting with other learners.

2.5.5. 1.5.5 Wait time

1.5.5 Wait time

The importance of 'wait time' research in interaction analysis is justified on the

grounds that it is important for students to have a sufficient amount of time to
think about the answer to a question that has been asked; thus the teacher
needs to wait a short time for that answer. Hence the term 'wait time'. One only
needs to think about the greater demands put upon the L2 learner in terms of
processing input in a foreign language to see the logic of this.

Studies (e.g. Rowe 1974, 1986) have shown that after asking a question,
teachers tend to wait less than a second before nominating a student to
respond, and then only one second more for the response before either giving
the answer themselves, or rephrasing the question, or calling on another
student to answer the question.

By comparing classes where wait time was increased from one second to three
to five seconds after asking a question, the following effects were observed:

 an increase in the average length of student responses;

 unsolicited (but appropriate) student responses increased;
 failures to respond decreased;
 an increase in speculative responses;
 inferential statements increased;
 student-initiated questions increased;
  students generally made a greater variety of verbal contributions to the
lesson.
(Nunan 1995:193)

These results are significant once again in the light of Swain's Output
Hypothesis. If one believes that acquisition will be enhanced if learners are
pushed to the limits of their competence, then we as teachers should ensure
that our wait time is sufficient to do our students justice.

2.6. 1.6 Learner Talk

1.6 Learner Talk

One crucial idea in SLA research is that learners will develop their grasp of the
target language by having the opportunity to produce that language frequently.
This is not a new notion, but it found coherent expression in Swain's Output
Hypothesis:

One function of output is that it provides the opportunity for meaningful use of
one's linguistic resources. (It has been argued) that one learns to read by
reading, and to write by writing. Similarly, it can be argued that one learns to
speak by speaking.
(Swain 1985:248)

Hence the concern of researchers, examined in the previous section, with

examining how teachers give learners the opportunity to speak (to create
output) during classroom interactions.

In addition to Swain's hypothesis, there are a number of other factors to take

into account when considering learner talk. Firstly, the idea that learners
develop their L2 competence by generating input from others, and secondly that
learners develop their L2 competence by engaging in communicative tasks that
require the negotiation of meaning (we briefly touched on this latter point
above). We will look at these hypotheses one by one.

2.6.1. 1.6.1 Scaffolding

1.6.1 Scaffolding

The notion of 'scaffolding' comes from cognitive psychology and L1 research,

and was first applied to L2 learning by Hatch in 1978.

Scaffolding takes place when a learner helps another to produce a spoken

form in the target language which is just beyond his/her present level of
competence. The learner individually does not possess the necessary linguistic
knowledge to produce the utterance, but jointly they are able to 'construct'
(hence the scaffolding metaphor) a more complex utterance. The following
example from Ellis (1997:48) will make this form of interaction clear:

Mark: Come here.

Homer: No come here.
Homer, the L2 learner, produces a negative utterance with the common 'no +
verb' pattern by repeating his interlocutor's utterance and attaching the negator
'no' at the front. Scaffolding of this type is common in the early stages of L2
acquisition...

In Ellis' example the learner has generated output from the interlocutor's input,
thereby arriving at a slightly higher level of linguistic competence. The premise
here is that the learner may now incorporate the new linguistic information into
his developing interlanguage system. This has been done through "vertical
discourse" (the sequence of turns taken by the speakers) which is meaningful,
rather than, say, through mechanical repetition drills or long monologues. Note
that the scaffolding principle will relate to any piece of L2 information, not just to
structure or vocabulary, but also to elements such as sounds, functions etc.

'So what?' you may be asking yourself. Quite simply, the implication for us as
classroom teachers seems to be that meaningful interaction not only between
teacher and learner, but also between learner and learner, can enhance L2
acquisition.

2.6.2. 1.6.2 Interaction in communicative tasks

1.6.2 Interaction in communicative tasks

When learners are interacting in order to clarify meaning, they are not
interacting for the mere sake of it, as in the case of answering display
questions. Rather, learners need to react to previous discourse (for example, a
classmate's question about a task), perhaps modifying, clarifying, asking for
clarification, explaining, repeating (and so on) their own discourse. The
important point here is that the learner needs to be comprehensible in the L2 in
order to achieve a communicative result, thus in a sense their linguistic (or
semantic or pragmatic) knowledge is being put to the test: if the learner is
accurate enough, he/she will communicate successfully and the communicative
purpose of the conversation will have been achieved.

Thus it would seem that the task type is crucial in determining the types of
learner - learner interaction that take place in the classroom. Information gap or
problem solving tasks are the ones that appear to generate the most useful type
of learner - learner interaction because they provide plenty of opportunity for
learners to negotiate meaning, by sharing or negotiating information, and thus,
according to the hypothesis discussed above, provide learners with more
opportunities to actually 'learn' the target language.

2.7. 1.7 Conclusion

1.7 Conclusion
In this unit we have examined in depth the way in which teachers and learners
interact in the classroom, and how this affects learning. We have made
reference to several important SLA theories in order to try to assess how
teachers and learners should ideally interact in the classroom. However, we
have seen that the gap between the idealised world of the SLA researcher and
the reality of the classroom teacher is, in this area as in so many other FLT
areas, potentially large.

Nevertheless, we now hopefully have a little more awareness of some of the

basic issues at stake when we are managing our classes. An awareness of this
type is seen by many as a prerequisite for change. According to Burns
(1990:57):

...if CLT is to become more 'communicative'...teachers need to be encouraged

to gain greater understanding of the interactional processes of their own
classrooms.

Such an awareness, it is argued, can help to root out what Maingay (1988) calls
"ritualized behaviours" in the classroom. In other words, by being more overtly
aware of how we interact with learners, we may begin to see areas in our
teaching which could benefit from experimentation or improvement.

For this reason we have attempted in this unit to familiarise you with some of
the basic principles and theories involved in the area of classroom
management. As a way of summing up this unit, and in order to encourage you
to reflect on what you have read, we pose a final task.

3.1. 2.1 Introduction

2.1 Introduction
In our day to day life, we are surrounded by feedback. It is not something that is
only specific to language classrooms, but something which is present in any
communicative exchange. Thus in any conversation, the speaker is constantly
receiving information from the listener on the reception and comprehension of
his/her message, which may be actively solicited (for example through the use
of comprehension checks by the speaker), or implicit (for example in the
listener's look of blank incomprehension, interjections, "backchannel clues" like
"Oh, I see, uhm hm" and so on) (Chaudron 1988: 132).

Feedback in the language classroom, however, is obviously different in a

number of ways. In this context,

feedback is information that is given to the learner about his or her performance
of a learning task, usually with the objective of improving this performance.
(Ur 1996: 242)
Thus in the foreign language classroom, feedback is primarily given by the
teacher, and may be given in a number of ways: the teacher may say "Yes,
good!" to a learner who has answered a question correctly; a grade or mark
may be given to a piece of written work, or an exam, or an oral activity; a
teacher may write comments in the margin of learner's essay; a teacher may
say "goed?" in response to a learner saying "I goed to football practice
yesterday" instead of "I went...". And so on. The list is almost endless, as we
give feedback in a myriad of ways, some very explicit (as in the case of a grade
or comment) and some much more subtle (as in the case of a raised eyebrow at
a grammar mistake, or ignoring a student contribution in class).

3.2. 2.2 Errors and mistakes

2.2 Errors and mistakes

Before we look at how and why corrective feedback can be given in the
classroom, we need to clarify a couple of important terms: error and mistake.

Although we tend to use the term interchangeably, there is in fact an important

difference between the two, which has implications for classroom practice. A
mistake is a kind of 'slip of the tongue'. A learner, or a native speaker, makes a
mistake when he/she says something incorrect but which the learner is capable
of correcting. In other words, he/she 'knows' the correct form, but merely makes
an absent-minded 'mistake'. An error, on the other hand, cannot be self-
corrected, simply because the learner does not 'know' the form. It is not part of
that learner's current interlanguage.

This is all well and good, but it is in fact sometimes extremely difficult for a
teacher to know which the learner has made: an error or a mistake. A rule of
thumb seems to be that the teacher gives the learner a chance to self-correct,
for example by pointing out the existence of an error and waiting to see whether
the students can self-correct or not. If the learner can correct him/herself, then it
is obviously a 'mistake'. If not, then it may be an 'error'.

In this subject we will be using the terms 'mistake' and 'error' interchangeably.
We will be looking at specific practical ways of approaching corrective feedback
later in this unit, but before we go any further, it might be a good idea to have a
look firstly at different types of errors and then at different attitudes to errors.

3.3. 2.3 Types of error

2.3 Types of error

Errors are usually categorised under four broad areas:

 grammar
 pronunciation
  meaning
 appropriacy

There are a number of far more detailed taxonomies for error description, but
for the purposes of this subject (and the following task) we will focus on this
simplified version.

3.4. 2.4 Different views on errors and correction

2.4 Different views on errors and correction

Before we look at what different language learning theories have to say about
corrective feedback, it might be useful to clarify your own position as regards
error correction.

3.4.1. 2.4.1 Behaviourist learning theory and corrective feedback

2.4.1 Behaviourist learning theory and corrective feedback

In terms of the L2 classroom, the study of feedback dates back to behaviourist

learning theory: as behaviourism saw language learning as the formation of
correct 'habits' (see the subject Methodological Approaches), feedback was
equated with positive or negative reinforcement of language habits. If the
teacher gave a student positive feedback, correct language habits would be
reinforced, while negative feedback would have the opposite effect, so the
thinking went. Thus in the audiolingual approach, advocated by, for example,
Lado (1957) or Brooks (1964), positive feedback took the form either of verbal
praise - "Very good!" - or the teacher repeating the student's correct response.
Negative feedback took the form of grammatical explanations and/or the
modelling of the correct response.

The main problem with this approach to negative feedback was that it assumed
that learners would not only be able to recognise the difference between the
teacher's model and their errors, but would be ready to incorporate this
information into their interlanguage, a fact which subsequent language research
and theory has shown to be false. In fact, most language teachers are familiar
with the phenomenon of learners repeatedly making the same errors, despite
having been corrected many times. Thus the behaviourist view on feedback has
now been largely discredited.

3.4.2. 2.4.2 Cognitive code-learning theory and corrective feedback

2.4.2 Cognitive code-learning theory and corrective feedback

In the cognitive code-learning view of language acquisition (see the subject

Methodological Approaches), mistakes are seen as an unfortunate but
unavoidable part of the learning process. Therefore mistakes should always be
corrected, with a view to preventing their recurrence. However, the function of
feedback is not only reinforcement, as in the behaviourist model, but also to
provide learners with information which they can use to actively modify their
linguistic knowledge.

We will develop this view of errors in the following section.

3.4.3. 2.4.3 Interlanguage theory and corrective feedback

2.4.3 Interlanguage theory and corrective feedback

The aspect of learner mistakes and subsequent feedback as supplying learners

with the opportunity for testing their hypotheses about language, and of
therefore developing their own interlanguage, fits in more readily with current
SLA research and interlanguage theory (see the subject Second Language
Acquisition). In Chaudron's words (1988: 135):

The information available in feedback allows learners to confirm, disconfirm,

and possibly modify the hypothetical, "transitional" rules of their developing
grammars, but these effects depend on the learner's readiness for and attention
to the information available in feedback. That is, learners must still make a
comparison between their internal representation of a rule and the information
about the rule in the input they encounter.

Thus, according to interlanguage theory, mistakes are not at all regrettable, but
rather are an integral and important part of learning a language. Giving learners
feedback on mistakes (and correct language use) is seen as directly
contributing to their L2 development, enabling them to bring their language
closer to target language norms.

3.4.4. 2.4.4 Monitor theory and corrective feedback

2.4.4 Monitor theory and corrective feedback

Krashen draws a distinction between 'learning' (the explicit, conscious study of

language systems) and 'acquisition' (the unconscious, natural, 'picking up' of a
language without formal study) - see the subject Second Language Acquisition.
According to his Monitor theory, corrective feedback from the teacher does not
help a learner 'acquire' the language, it only contributes to the learner's
conscious 'monitoring' of output. Hence the main activity of the teacher,
according to Krashen's model, should be not to correct, but to provide the
learner with plenty of comprehensible input from which he/she can acquire the
language.

Many researchers (and teachers) disagree with Krashen's learning/acquisition

distinction, and his views on corrective feedback are thus not reflective of
current mainstream thinking on this issue.
3.4.5. 2.4.5 Communicative approaches and corrective feedback

2.4.5 Communicative approaches and corrective feedback

With the advent of the communicative approach (see the subject

Methodological Approaches), attitudes to learners' mistakes shifted once again.
In communicative language teaching, the main aim is to convey and receive
meaningful messages - i.e. to communicate. Perfect linguistic competence
(knowledge of grammar, lexis etc.) is not strictly necessary in order to be able to
communicate successfully, thus not all mistakes which learners make need to
be corrected. Rather, correction should focus on those mistakes which impede
communication (use), not merely on mistakes of 'grammar' (usage).

However, it is worth noting that learners often expect to be given feedback by

the teacher on mistakes of both use and usage. It can be frustrating for a
learner who is seeking feedback on a particular instance of usage - for example
by trying out the word "buyed" instead of "bought" in a sentence to see whether
it is correct (i.e. the student is testing a hypothesis about the language) - merely
to have the teacher either ignore it or gloss over it, as it does not impede
communication. Several studies (e.g. Cathcart and Olsen 1976; Chenoworth et
al. 1983) investigating learners attitudes to and desire for correction have
shown that learners have a strong preference for having all their errors
corrected. This issue can lead to difficult choices in classroom management for
the teacher: when do we (or don't we) correct?:

The multiple functions of feedback and the pressure to be accepting of learners'

errors lead, however, to the paradoxical circumstance that teachers must either
interrupt communication for the sake of formal TL (target language) correction
or let errors pass "untreated" in order to further the communicative goals of
classroom interaction.
(Chaudron 1988: 134)

3.5. 2.5 The affective dimension of corrective feedback

2.5 The affective dimension of corrective

feedback
How do learners feel about being corrected? Despite claims by learners that
they would like all their errors to be corrected (referred to above), there is a lot
more at stake than the mere giving of information by the teacher during
corrective feedback. It has been pointed out (e.g. Vigil and Oller 1976) that
corrective feedback will affect a learner along a positive, neutral or negative
emotional continuum. The emotional (or affective) effect will interact with the
learner's cognitive strategies, and influence the learner's attempts to 'take on
board' the correction. For example, the learner may attempt to reformulate the
utterance, and 'learn' from the error, if the affective state is mainly positive, or,
he/she may refuse and 'clam up', resenting the teacher and probably not
learning anything, if the affective state is negative. And so on, along a
continuum.

Krashen too lays great emphasis on the importance of minimising learners'

"affective filters" if language is to be 'acquired' successfully (see the subject
Second Language Acquisition). The humanist methodologies (see the subject
Methodological Approaches) also emphasise that a crucial function of giving
feedback or assessment is to maintain and promote a positive self-image of the
learner as a person and a language learner. Non-judgmental feedback is
considered to be an effective way of doing this.

Thus it is vitally important that corrective feedback is not interpreted by learners

as evidence of 'failure' (MacFarlane 1975), if correction is to be motivational in
the classroom, which it has the potential to be. Annett (1969), for example,
identifies 3 separate functions which feedback performs: "reinforcement",
"information" and "motivational".

The problem for the teacher is: how can this motivational aspect of feedback be
enhanced? How can a positive learning environment with regard to errors be
encouraged in the classroom?

One idea for marking students' written work might be: instead of using red pen
to underline or correct mistakes, or instead of giving a mark out of 10, the
teacher could use a more humourous approach, shown, for example in these
faces below:

Figure 2.1: Prodromou (1995) Mixed ability classes. Prentice Hall, p. 22.

This example is one of number included in Prodromou book, and which

teachers can use in order to try to promote this positive affective attitude to error
in their own classrooms.

3.6. 2.6 The corrective feedback process

2.6 The corrective feedback process

We will now take a look at some of the mechanics of corrective feedback - the
who, how and when of correcting students.

3.6.1. 2.6.1 Who corrects?

2.6.1 Who corrects?

As we saw earlier in this unit, the teachers' job appears to be to encourage self-
correction where possible. We saw that this would only be possible if the
student had made a 'mistake' rather than an 'error'. Getting a student to correct
him/herself gives the teacher information about the student's state of
interlanguage (if he/she can't correct him/herself, the item does not yet form a
part of his/her interlanguage), and also can be argued to encourage the student
to monitor his/her output more closely for accuracy.

The point is that self-correction is preferable to direct teacher correction, where

the teacher immediately gives the correct form -this has the danger of merely
being 'water off a duck's back' - that is, the student hardly notices that he/she is
being corrected and learns nothing from it. According to Stevick:

When you have the student simply repeat the sentence after you...you are
demanding of her only the most rudimentary kind of competence...it contributes
little towards making that competence grow. You are..demanding a very shallow
kind of competence.

Also preferable to direct teacher correction is peer-correction, which has the

added advantage of promoting group independence and communication. The
teacher is not the only one who ever gets it 'right' seems to be the message
here. In addition:

...communicative interaction in group work may provide as much, and possibly

more, appropriate corrective feedback to learners as teacher-fronted class
tasks.
(Chaudron 1988:152)

3.6.2. 2.6.2 How do we encourage self-correction?

2.6.2 How do we encourage self-correction?

It is all very well making sweeping claims about the benefits of self-correction
for students, but exactly how is the teacher to promote this in the classroom? In
Appendix 2.1. we have included a detailed table by Chaudron (1988) of the
various ways in which teachers tend to give feedback to students on their oral
performance.

3.6.3. 2.6.3 When?

2.6.3 When?

The answer to the question "When do we correct our learners?" seems to be "It
all depends." Basically it depends on the aim of the activity in which they are
engaged, and on the activity type. According to Chaudron, "when instructional
focus is on form, corrections occur more frequently". (1988:139). Thus, if the
focus of the activity is on accuracy, there will be a tendency to correct learners,
while if the focus is on fluency, teachers are generally more loathe to interrupt
communication, unless the error is a 'global' one (an error which impedes
communication) rather than a 'local' one (an error which does not impede
communication).

A second consideration is that of whether it is written or oral output that is

subject to correction. In Appendix 2.1. we saw ways in which a teacher might
intervene in spoken discourse. Obviously corrective feedback on written
discourse will be different in a number of ways

A further consideration is that of whether feedback is given immediately or

whether it is delayed. By not giving immediate feedback on oral errors, the
teacher avoids having to interrupt the learner while he/she is in mid-flow, and
this may also give the teacher time to consider which errors are more
'representative' and therefore more useful to focus on, say at the end of the
activity. Feedback may even be delayed to the point where it provides the
content focus for a future lesson, and thus is not explicitly focused on as error.

3.7. 2.7 How effective is corrective feedback?

2.7 How effective is corrective feedback?

An important issue to consider is whether or not correcting (or helping learners
to self-correct) errors actually leads to their learning the target language more
effectively. Several researchers have studied the effect of error correction in the
classroom (eg. Chaudron 1977; Salica 1981; Wren 1982), and found that
teacher-led correction aids learners in being able to supply the correct
response. However, one serious criticism that may be levelled against these
studies - all of which focused on the immediate effects in the classroom of
teacher- prompted correction - is that they merely show that students can be
good parrots, getting something right 'on the spot' if the teacher shows them
how, but perhaps not getting it right next time.

Nevertheless, some studies (e.g. Long 1980) do show that the task or activity
type may be crucial in influencing the extent to which corrective feedback is
incorporated into learners' production. It appears that tasks which involve
learners in meaningful collaboration, where 'correct' or appropriate use of the L2
will result in the success of the activity rather than in failure, corrective feedback
will be more readily incorporated by learners. As Nunan puts it:

...what patterns of classroom organisation and types of classroom tasks are

most beneficial for language acquisition? It has been argued that those tasks in
which learners are required to negotiate meaning among themselves in the
course of completing an interactive task are particularly suited to language
development (1992: 4).

This idea is one of the bases of communicative language teaching: that learners
will 'learn' the language more effectively by communicating meaningfully in that
language, through negotiating and constructing meanings.

The role that correction plays in this process is important. According to Revell:
When a learner acquires a new word or structure or function, he can only find
out what the boundaries of its use are by trying it out in different contexts...
Students then should be encouraged to try out language without the fear of
being shouted at if they happen to be wrong. This type of 'hypothesis-testing'
mistake must of course be corrected so that the learner can widen or narrow
boundaries, but this needn't be done on the spot...

3.8. 2.8 Conclusion

2.8 Conclusion
We have seen in this subject that there are a number of arguments for and
against using corrective feedback with our students. We have also seen that we
need to pay attention to who, how, when and why we correct. As classroom
teachers we need to be aware of these issues, and to keep them in mind when
working with our learners in the classroom.

4.1. 3.1 Introduction

3.1 Introduction
With the advent of the communicative approach to teaching, group and pair
work became one of the pillars of the modern English language classroom. As
such it is a fundamental factor when we consider other classroom management
factors such as interaction, the use of L1, or classroom discipline. So, although
we have included a separate unit which deals with group work, it is a topic
which we have already come across several times in this subject.

We have seen, for example, that Swain's Output Hypothesis supports the notion
that extended practice (or output) is necessary for successful SLA, and we have
seen that negotiating meaning is also considered to enhance SLA, as is
scaffolding (Unit 1), and that all of these can be encouraged in small group
work. Thus the theoretical case for group work has already been made.

For the purposes of this unit we will be using the word 'groups' to refer to
between 2 and 4 students working together. However, there are some obvious
differences between pairs and groups of learners working together.

There are some obvious advantages to group and pair work, and the literature
on the topic typically identifies five:

 Students have more opportunity for using the target language than in
open class interactions, thus they get more practice.
 Group work fosters learner responsibility and independence.
 Group work provides a less threatening environment for the learner to
use the L2 in, so it can enhance motivation and contribute to a feeling of
co-operation and warmth in the classroom. Thus it plays an important
role in the affective realm of the classroom .
  Group work can contribute to learners' L2 acquisition through processes
such as scaffolding (see Unit 1). It is also argued (e.g. Long 1990) that
group work provides learners with the opportunity to use 'better'
language in that by negotiating meaning in groups, learners will use a
greater variety of functions.
 Teachers are able to individualise their teaching more because they are
free to monitor and observe students using language in groups.

4.2. 3.2 Disadvantages to group work

3.2 Disadvantages to group work

However, there are also potential disadvantages to group and pair work.
Students may only use their mother tongue, discipline may be a problem, the
noise level may be too high when using group work, students may do the task
badly or not at all, stronger students may dominate while weaker students sit
back and do nothing...

From the above litany it may sound like group work in the language class is a
desirable but unachievable option. In fact, several factors will influence the
effectiveness (or otherwise) of pair and group work:

 The surrounding social climate or cultural context.

 Whether the class is used to pair and group work or not.
 The task type: is it relevant to the students' needs and interests? is it
stimulating and intrinsically motivating?, etc.
 Whether the pair or group work is effectively set up by the teacher.

4.3. 3.3 Managing group work in the classroom

3.3 Managing group work in the classroom

The last point above is particularly important from the point of view of classroom
management. Below Penny Ur (1996:234) provides what she considers to be
some important guidelines for setting up and managing small group work in the
L2 classroom:

1. Presentation

The instructions that are given at the beginning are crucial: if the students do
not understand exactly what they have to do there will be time-wasting,
confusion, lack of effective practice, possible loss of control. Select tasks that
are simple enough to describe easily; and in monolingual classes you may find
it cost-effective to explain some or all in the students' mother tongue. It is
advisable to give the instructions before giving out the materials or dividing the
class into groups; and a preliminary rehearsal or 'dry run' of a sample of the
activity with the full class can help to clarify things. Note, however, that if your
students have already done similar activities you will be able to shorten the
process, giving only brief guidelines; it is mainly in the first time of doing
something with a class that such care needs to be invested in instructing.

Try to foresee what language will be needed, and have a preliminary quick
review of appropriate grammar or vocabulary. Finally, before giving the sign to
start tell the class what the arrangements are for stopping: if there is a time limit,
or a set signal for stopping, say what it is; if the groups simply stop when they
have finished, then tell them what they will have to do next. It is wise to have a
'reserve' task planned to occupy members of groups who finish earlier than
expected.

2. Process

Your job during the activity is to go from group to group, monitor, and either
contribute or keep out of way - whichever is likely to be more helpful. If you do
decide to intervene, your contribution may take the form of:

 providing general approvement and support;

 helping students who are having difficulty;
 keeping the students using the target language (in may cases your mere
presence will ensure this!);
 tactfully regulating participation in a discussion where you find some
students are over-dominant and others silent.

3. Ending

If you have set a time limit, then this will help you draw the activity to a close at
a certain point. In principle, try to finish the activity while the students are still
enjoying it and interested, or only just beginning to flag.

4. Feedback

A feedback session usually takes place in the context of full-class interaction

after the end of group work. Feedback on the task may take many forms: giving
the right solution, if there is one; listening to and evaluating suggestions; pooling
ideas on the board; displaying materials the groups have produced; and so on.
Your main objective here is to express appreciation of the effort that has been
invested and its results. Feedback on language may be integrated into this
discussion of the task, or provide the focus of a separate class session later.

4.4. 3.4 Collaborative learning

3.4 Collaborative learning

In the previous section we have considered some of the mechanics of the
classroom management of group work, the nuts and bolts if you like. One
important element which seems to be missing from Ur's guidelines above,
however, is exactly what it is that makes a group work - the fuel or driving power
(to continue the machine metaphor) behind the effective 'working' of a group.
Thus, apart from the actual setting up of group activities, we also need to bear
in mind a range of other factors which may affect the learning process in
groups. These are summarised in the table below:

Figure 3.1: Factors influencing group work.

We will now focus on the emotional and co-operative element in group work.
What is it that makes a group co-operate (or not), makes students participate
(or not) in group work, makes them want (or not) to work in groups at all?
Simply putting students to work together in groups is no guarantee that they will
actually work together. It is often a lack of understanding of the dynamics of
group work that makes teachers say that they simply won't work.

This whole area, it would appear, is something a bit more diffuse and more
difficult to put one's finger on than the mechanics we have just examined.

Recent years have seen a certain amount of research into classroom goal
structures. Goal structures are the ways in which learning is set up or
organised in the classroom. Goal structures specify:

the type of interdependence among students as they strive to achieve

educational objectives.
(Johnson 1979)

The literature points to three main classroom goal structures, which are:

Individual work
learners work alone on tasks at their own pace. It is important to realise
that individual goal structures can be in place even when the teacher has
ostensibly set up group work, but the group members simply, for
example, sit in a circle and work on a task alone.
Competitive goal structure
here learners work against each other in order to succeed. This might be
the case, for example, in a competitive brainstorm (who can remember
the most words for furniture?), and it is institutionalised in systems like
norm-referenced grading. Norm-referenced grading refers to a grading
system whereby a student's work is graded according to the work
produced by the class as a whole. The best work produced by a student
receives the highest mark, and the weakest receives a fail.
 Collaborative goal structure
in this case learners work together in small groups towards a common
goal. The participation of all the group members is crucial to the
successful outcome of the task: nobody can succeed unless everybody
succeeds. An example of this might be a jigsaw activity, where each
member of the group has a different piece of information which needs to
be pooled for the group to complete a common task.

Evidently each of these three goal structures has a role in the classroom.
However, it has been suggested that not enough attention has been paid to
collaborative goal structures, particularly as research seems to point to the key
role which interaction plays in SLA, as we saw in Unit 1. In order to be able to
interact effectively, the argument goes, you need to collaborate. Hence the
increasing interest in collaborative (also known as co-operative) learning.

4.4.1. 3.4.1 Making collaborative learning work

3.4.1 Making collaborative learning work

We have seen that collaborative learning is a type of group work. It has been
shown that using collaborative group work with classes does seem to increase
learning among students (e.g. Johnson & Johnson 1987; Slavin 1990). If this is
the case then we as teachers need to be aware of some of the principles behind
it.

For collaborative learning to be successful, five important factors need to be

taken into account:

a) Positive interdependence. Students all have to succeed for a task to

succeed, and students realise that they have this common goal.
b) Individual accountability. Each member of the group has to make an
active contribution. This avoids 'lazy' team members who do nothing or
the opposite, 'dominating' team members who do all the work.
c) Verbal interaction. Students need to interact verbally, and this
interaction needs to be meaningful. That is, it must involve a genuine
communicative exchange of information.
d) Sufficient social skills. Students need the relevant social skills, such
as communication skills, leadership skills, or conflict resolution skills so
that the groups can function. The teacher may have to explicitly teach
some of these skills.
e) Team reflection. Students need to be able to see whether the team is
functioning effectively, and to think about how it might do better.

4.4.2. 3.4.2 Collaborative learning groups

3.4.2 Collaborative learning groups

The obvious point now arises: what exactly does a collaborative learning group
consist of? How many students? What types of students? How long should they
work together in these groups? We will now try to answer these questions.

Collaborative learning groups consider 2 to 4 students to be the optimal

number, rather than bigger groups. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly,
if the numbers of participants is kept relatively low, there is more chance for
individuals to participate more. Secondly, the group management is less
complex. More than 4 students in a group starts to get unwieldy in terms of
simply functioning adequately.

Ideally, collaborative groups should be heterogeneous. In other words, they

should be made up of a mixture of students: one high-achiever, one or two
middle achievers, and one low-achiever (in a group of 3 or 4). The high-
achiever will consolidate his/her understanding of issues by having to explain
them to the lower achiever(s), who will benefit from getting repeated exposure
and peer tutoring. Studies have shown that the high-achiever will often use a
more simplified, more accessible language with low-achievers in order to get
points across.

As far as the length of time spent working together is concerned, collaborative

groups can work within any time frame, from that of a few minutes, to hours or a
lesson, to longer periods of time such as several weeks, terms or even years.
The length of time the group stays together will depend on the activity type, the
aim of the activity, and so on. Long-term base groups can be set up, which meet
at regular intervals (during class time) to discuss and plan progress, while
members go off and work in different groups in shorter time frames.

Now that we have looked at group work in depth, we will finish off this unit with
a look at its 'opposite' - ways of promoting individualisation in the classroom.

4.5. 3.5 Individualisation

3.5 Individualisation
Although the concept of 'individualisation' in education is often identified with the
use of a self-access centre, or even a full self-access programme, it can also be
present within the more structured environment of the classroom.

Why should individualisation be a desirable thing? Individualisation in the

language learning classroom is concerned with giving learners a certain degree
of freedom to choose how and what they learn. This view of 'teaching' implies
less direct teacher control or supervision and more learner autonomy and
responsibility for learning than the traditional 'lockstep' model of teaching, where
all the learners in the class, in principle are expected to 'learn' the same thing at
the same time in the same way.

If SLA research has shown anything, it has shown the fallacy behind the
suppositions of the 'lockstep' model. Good language learners tend to assume
responsibility for their own learning (Naiman et al 1978), and this is one of the
aims of individualisation: to promote learner independence and responsibility.
Another aim is to be able to cater to a variety of learner styles (see the subject
Individual Factors in the Learner's Development).

The question is, how can we achieve some degree of individualisation within a
conventional classroom? When thinking about this, we need to bear in mind the
following factors (Ur 1996:235):

 Speed: how fast or slowly does the individual work on a task?

Depending on this factor, a learner may be expected to do more or less
of a task, or even an extra add-on task.
 Level: what level of competence does the individual have in relation to
the rest of the class? More difficult or easier versions of the same task
could be provided to deal with this factor.
 Topic: is the topic interesting/relevant to the individual? Providing a
selection of topics (based on the same language skill or teaching point)
for the learner to select from could ensure this. This point has wider
connotations in terms of the possibility of negotiating course content and
materials with learners. It is a point that will be explored in depth in the
subject Curriculum and Course Design.
 Language skill or teaching point: what linguistic knowledge is the
learner ready to acquire? Each learner may choose to work on a quite
different aspect of language: e.g. listening, or grammar, or reading
literature, and so on.

4.6. 3.6 Conclusion

3.6 Conclusion
In this shorter unit we have looked a little more closely at the use of pair and
group work in the language classroom. The theoretical basis for the use of
group work has been laid out, and we have examined some of the advantages
and disadvantages associated with group work. We have also looked at the
area of collaborative or co-operative learning, and that of individualisation in the
classroom.

There is no doubt that pair and group work are now firmly established in the
language classroom as desirable and useful for students for all of the reasons
mentioned in this unit. One issue which we have not addressed, however, is
that of the cultural appropriacy of group work for all educational contexts. As
you may remember, this is fully dealt with in the subject Methodological
Approaches.

4.7. 3.7 Suggestions for further reading

3.7 Suggestions for further reading

 Geddes, M. & Sturtridge, G. (eds.) (1982): Individualization. Oxford:
Modern English Publications.
Gower, R. & Walters, S. (1983): Teaching Practice Handbook. London:
Heinemann, pp.31-59.
Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1987): Learning Together and Alone:
Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning. Hemel
Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Kagan, S. (1989): Cooperative Learning. Resources for Teachers,
Chapters 3 and 4.
Long, M.H. & Porter, P.A. (1985): "Group work, interlanguage talk and
second language acquisition". TESOL Quarterly, 19/2, pp. 207-228.
Sheerin, S. (1989): Self-access. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
especially pp. 3-7, 22-26, 54-55, 89-90.

5.1. 4.1 Introduction

4.1 Introduction
The term 'mixed ability' has become a buzzword in EFL over the last few years,
and we can now find teachers' resource books writen exclusively on the subject.
However, we need to bear in mind that 'mixed ability' is nothing new. It is, in
fact, a factor which needs to be taken into account in any teaching situation. No
two learners are ever the same in any class, thus 'heterogeneity', or
'heterogeneous classes', as Penny Ur prefers to call them, are what all teachers
face, whatever context they may be teaching in.

The term 'mixed ability' has come in for some criticism. For many it has
connotations of a fixed quantity. That is, that students come to class with an
immutable language 'ability' that teachers are powerless to change or influence.
Thus the term 'mixed ability' smacks of 'good' students versus 'bad' students:

It is difficult even to talk about the mixed ability class without seeming to
subscribe to a kind of fatalism about the abilities of the less confident,
outspoken or high-achieving. They are condemned to failure simply because
there seems to be no way of talking about them which does not suggest
deficiency of some kind. We constantly slip into the habit of thinking about them
in terms of their weaknesses rather than their strengths.
(Prodromou 1995:1)

A more enabling metaphor for considering mixed ability (enabling for both
teachers and the learners themselves) is the following one supplied by Jim
Rose:

A metaphor of a mixed ability class which works for me is to think of the class
as a lift (elevator). Everyone needs to get into the lift to start with. Some
students will run into the lift, some will have to be dragged in. Some students
will travel right to the top of the building, some may stop at the third floor and
some may only reach the first floor, but everyone will have travelled somewhere
successfully.
(1997:3)
You may be wondering why we are spending time looking at metaphors, but
metaphors (indeed all language) are a fundamental part of the way in which we
perceive experience. By perceiving something in a new, perhaps more positive
light through language, we are able to relate to it differently, and change our
attitudes and/or our behaviour towards that phenomenon:

New metaphors have the power to create a new reality. This can begin to
happen when we start to comprehend our experience in terms of a metaphor,
and it becomes a deeper reality when we begin to act in terms of it.
(Lakoff and Johnson 1980:145)

Penny Ur argues (1996:302) that learners bring far more to the classroom than
the term 'mixed ability' implies:

...the implications of the words 'ability' include not just the immediate
observable 'ability to perform' of the learners, but also their 'potential learning
ability'; the former is not likely to be a simple one-to-one result of the latter.
learners' present proficiency may have been influenced by various other factors
such as different previous opportunities for learning, better or worse previous
teaching, higher or lower motivation. Even if we rephrase the term 'mixed ability'
and say 'mixed proficiency', this still does not cover all the aspects of
heterogeneity as applied to a class of language learners. Learners are different
from one another in all sorts of other ways that affect how they learn and need
to be taught.

5.2. 4.2 Why mixed ability?

4.2 Why mixed ability?

In the above task we have focused our attention on some of the problems
associated with teaching heterogeneous classes, perhaps fulfilling Prodromou's
criticism above that we often associate the idea of mixed ability with problems
or failure. However, clearly this is not the only spin-off of teaching
heterogeneous groups.

The advantages of weaker and stronger students working together has already
been briefly mentioned in the subject Developing Language Skills in the
Classroom - Unit 3. To briefly recap, we saw that research has pointed to
benefits for both weaker and stronger students during activities such as oral pair
work, as:

the more proficient learner gets practice in producing comprehensible output;

the weaker partner gains experience in negotiating meaning.
(Lynch 1996:115, quoted in the subject Developing Language Skills in the
Classroom, p.62)

The promotion of heterogeneous classes in current educational thinking comes

partly from research into the pernicious effects of 'streaming' (dividing learners
into classes according to their perceived abilities) in mainstream education.
Thus research carried out in 1979 (Good) into low-ability reading groups in
elementary schools in the United States, found that learners in these low-ability
groups

received very little challenge, thus perceiving of themselves as being unable to

read. In addition, a long-range result of interacting most frequently with only
other students of low-ability in such groups was an inability to respond to the
demands of more complex instructional activities... Low-ability students were
not learning to respond to high level demands that would help them participate
completely in their regular classrooms.
(Tikunoff 1985:56)

Students, it appears, can be educated into failure.

The advantages of heterogeneous classes are also backed up by findings in

SLA research. It has been found that practice in the negotiation of meaning
during tasks (Long 1985), which is likely to occur with learners of different
language levels rather than between same-proficiency learners, is extremely
beneficial for learning a foreign language. Of course, the ideal situation is that of
learners not sharing the same native language, so that the mother tongue is not
resorted to while solving problems or negotiating meaning. Nevertheless, Long
claims that monolingual groups also benefit from the kind of negotiation of
meaning which arises in heterogeneous groups:

...the research shows clearly that the kind of negotiation work of interest here is
also very successfully obtained in groups of students of the same first language
background. Things simply seem slightly better with mixed language groups.
(1985:224)

5.3. 4.3 Advantages to teaching mixed ability groups

4.3 Advantages to teaching mixed ability groups

Penny Ur (1996:305) details some of the advantages of teaching
heterogeneous classes as follows:

1. Such classes provide a much richer pool of human resources than do

similar or less mixed classes. The individuals have between them far
more life experience and more knowledge, more varied opinions, more
interests and ideas - all of which can be used in classroom interaction.
2. There is educational value in the actual contact between very different
kinds of people: co-students get to know each other's values,
personalities and perhaps cultures, and thereby increase their own
knowledge and awareness of others, as well as tolerance and
understanding.
3. The fact that the teacher is very much less able to attend to every
individual in the class means that in order for the class to function well
the students themselves must help by teaching each other and working
together: peer teaching and collaboration are likely to be fairly common,
fostering an atmosphere of co-operation.
 4. These classes can be seen as very much more challenging and
interesting to teach, and provide greater opportunity for creativity,
innovation and general professional development.

5.4. 4.4 Classroom implications

4.4 Classroom implications

We will now turn to the classroom and look at exactly how teachers can deal
with mixed ability learners in their actual teaching practice.

The literature on dealing with mixed ability points to several techniques which
teachers can use in their classes. These include:

 Group work (to encourage co-operation and peer teaching).

 Use the same material, but with a range of tasks for different levels of
proficiency.
 Use extension or optional extra activities for learners who finish tasks
early.
 Remedial work (for example, recycling activities which review and
consolidate linguistic elements such as grammar, vocabulary and
pronunciation).
 Self-access (that is, allowing learners to choose their own activities, then
monitor and check their own progress).
 Use open-ended activity types (that is, activities that have a range of
possible answers which learners can develop to the best of their abilities,
rather than one correct answer).
 Tasks can make use of non-linguistic as well as linguistic knowledge
(for example, the teacher may use a non-linguistic element such as
drawing, music, miming or sharing world knowledge in the L1 as a
starting point for an activity).

In terms of specific classroom-based simple teacher-designed activities, Penny

Ur suggests several which teachers of mixed ability groups can regularly make
use of in her book A Course in Language Teaching. She suggests five main
activity types, which are summarised in the figure below.
 Figure 4.1: Activities which can be used with large heterogeneous classes.

Apart from techniques and task types, teachers of particularly large mixed ability
groups need to be aware of factors such as grouping and focus (how are
students seated? who is able to talk to whom?), personal body language (where
and how do I stand, sit etc.) and use of voice, among other things. Luke
Prodromou's book Mixed Ability Classes has a good section on this, suggesting
ways in which teachers can become increasingly aware of these all-important
elements in their own teaching contexts.

5.5. 4.5 Conclusion

4.5 Conclusion
In this unit we have examined some of the implications of teaching
heterogeneous groups. We briefly explored the theoretical rationale which
argues for the benefits of teaching mixed ability groups for both teachers and
learners; benefits for teachers in terms of providing opportunities for innovation
and professional development, and benefits for learners in terms of not only
enhancing SLA, but also in terms of learning how to interact and collaborate
with peers. We have also briefly looked at techniques and activity types which
the teacher can draw on in order to maximise the potential which working with
mixed ability classes brings.

5.6. 4.6 Suggestions for further reading

4.6 Suggestions for further reading

Prodromou, L. (1995): Mixed Ability Classes. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International.
Ribé, R. & Vidal, N. (1995): La Enseñanza de la Lengua Extranjera en la
Educación Secundaria. London: Longman, Chapter 7.
 Rose, J. (1997): "Mixed Ability: an inclusive classroom" in English
Teaching Professional, Issue Three.
Ur, P. (1996): A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Module 21.

6.1. 5.1 Introduction

5.1 Introduction
Another important area of classroom management is that of 'discipline'. We
generally associate this topic with large, probably heterogeneous classes, often
of secondary school age. The concept of discipline is intimately bound up with
factors such as learners' ages, the social and institutional context in which
learners study, the perceived roles of teacher and learner, the emotional
relationship between the teacher and learners and so on.

Thus the question of discipline is a fundamental consideration in many teaching

contexts, and most of us will have had experience of it either as teachers or as
learners (or as both). As this topic applies more to teaching young learners than
teaching adults, we propose to examine 'classroom discipline' fairly briefly in the
unit itself, outlining the main considerations, but we have supplied several
appendices and readings which focus on this area, plus detailed suggestions for
extra reading, so that the reader may pursue the topic further if he/she so
wishes.

6.2. 5.2 Classroom discipline: What and Why

5.2 Classroom discipline: What and Why

Ur (1996:270) offers the following definition of discipline:

Classroom discipline is a state in which both the teacher and learners accept
and consistently observe a set of rules about behaviour in the classroom whose
function is to facilitate smooth and efficient teaching and learning in a lesson.

She goes on to state that "the relationship between discipline and learning in a
lesson is a crucial one" (ibid:260), not least because if a teacher can get
learners to do what he/she wants, they will presumably be spending time on
task, thus getting valuable exposure to language, and consequently, (so the
argument goes) learning it. There are problems with this assumption, however,
as Ur herself points out, in that unless the tasks are themselves meaningful and
useful to the students, learning may not be taking place, despite there being an
orderly or 'disciplined' atmosphere in the classroom.

Nevertheless, most teachers would agree that discipline plays a central role in
many classrooms:
...there is universal agreement that the teacher must establish and keep
sovereignty over classroom affairs... beginning teachers soon learn that if their
capacity to maintain 'classroom control' is in doubt they may be fired.
(Lortie 1975:51)

Interestingly, sociological research into the question of classroom discipline has

revealed that it is so central a concern in many teachers' lives, that it shapes
and moulds teachers beliefs, and may even affect their personalities. Claxton
(1989) quotes a teacher writing in Time Out magazine:

I decided that I had to get out of teaching when, walking down the corridor, I
heard myself screaming 'tie!' at some kid I didn't even know. I suddenly realized
that I wasn't myself anymore...
(Claxton 1989:33)

Thus teachers are socialised by the necessity to maintain classroom control in

many teaching contexts, and they are socialised 'on site' i.e. at the school
where they work, rather than by any previous training. Frightening as this may
sound - a sort of school version of 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers' - there are
teachers who are capable of what the jargon calls 'strategic redefinition' (Lacy
1977). That is, some teachers are able to salvage some of their ideals in the
face of the reality of the school situation, incorporate these into their everyday
work at school and change this work. Nevertheless, 'strategic compliance' - that
is, abandoning one's ideals and becoming socialised against one's intentions,
as we saw above - is often seen to be the norm.

The need to maintain classroom control, according to Appel (1995:13), comes

from the fact that classroom situations are inherently uncertain and
unpredictable, particularly with younger learners. In these cases the emotional
climate, or the relationship between teacher and learners, may be of
paramount importance in the classroom, not the materials or tasks used. Appel
claims that teachers need to pay attention to this, the arena of the emotions,
more than to any other area when trying to establish some form of classroom
control:

....beginning teachers, when encountering difficulties in the classroom, tend to

respond to them with strategies they are familiar with from university or college.
Such strategies are in essence cognitive ones, e.g. more and better
preparation. In following these strategies they pay too much attention to the
'task side' of their job and therefore fail to address what might have caused their
difficulties in the first place: the emotional relations in the classroom. Their
increased effort may well yield no better result because it has the wrong target.
(ibid:14)

6.3. 5.3 Discipline and classroom methodology

5.3 Discipline and classroom methodology

...it should not be forgotten that teachers work in a situation which is in itself a
constant challenge and therefore fosters a craving for some form of stability and
security...Unfortunately, student autonomy will initially appear as a threat to this
stability. A lot of innovative attempts in language teaching - both communicative
language teaching and the 'humanistic' approaches... - have learner autonomy
at their core. However, if approaches that rely on learner autonomy are put to
work in a school context they must work in an environment where control
features prominently and where the granting of autonomy may therefore be
perceived as a threat to classroom control.
(Appel 1995:17)

The point being made above, that the tenets of various teaching methodologies
may be in direct contradiction to what are perceived of as the ground realities in
schools, is a vital one. It helps to explain the resistance of teachers to certain
classroom practices which are seen as threatening within a paradigm of control.

Early proponents of communicative language teaching, however, such as

Wilkins (see the subject Methodological Approaches, Unit 4) were well aware of
the difficulties inherent in a communicative methodology in many educational
contexts:

(CLT) demands a situation in which the teacher is free and willing to break
down the conventional organisation of the class...Overall this suggests an
educational environment in which innovation and flexibility are encouraged...
(1983:36)

6.3.1. 5.3.1 Classrooms and control

5.3.1 Classrooms and control

It has been pointed out (Grell 1974:131) that teachers tend to see what they do
in the classroom in terms of their own intentions, and not in terms of what these
intentions do to students. Reading 4.1, which we mentioned above, makes the
case for a change in teachers' perspectives on classroom practice in order to
take students' views into account, and provides a framework for doing so.

As we have seen in Unit 1, classroom interactions -the actual exchanges

between teacher and learner - tend to be dominated and led by the teacher. In
Appel's words:

Control, therefore, is not only part of teachers' values and wishes, it is a

prominent feature of observed classroom interaction.
(1995:18)

There is the risk that students will not feel involved in these kinds of
interactions, seeing them as irrelevant to their needs and interests, and, as a
result, learning may suffer.

Teacher control may also be exerted through the language itself, not only
through an insistence on correctness of form and vocabulary, but also through
the teaching of the structure of the language itself. There is a debate in English
teaching which questions the role of teaching grammar in the classroom, and
has occasioned comments such as:

Grammar rules in the classroom too...teachers use grammar to prop up a

benign classroom autocracy...grammar is order. But grammar is not just order.
Grammar is power. Grammar invests EFL teachers with transmittable
knowledge, thereby propping up a status that is often felt to be dodgy, to say
the least.
(Thornbury 1998:20)

Excessive teacher control, then, some argue, can alienate learners from what is
happening in the classroom, and seriously inhibit learning. An extreme example
of an inhibiting classroom would be one in which students:

are under the impression that there is no point in them saying anything in
certain lessons because the teacher has decided beforehand what is right and
what is wrong. Especially if they make a grammar mistake in what they say,
their statement is immediately invalidated by the teacher.
(Appel 1995:19)

Michael Swan in a recent article (April 1998) points out one of the pitfalls of an
excessive emphasis on grammar teaching in the classroom in similar terms:

Some teachers - fortunately, a minority - enjoy the power. As a teacher you can
get a kick from knowing more than your students, from being the authority, from
always being right. In language teaching, grammar is the area where this
mechanism operates most successfully. A teacher may have a worse accent
than some of her students; there may be some irritating child in the class with a
vast vocabulary of American pop idiom of which the teacher knows nothing; but
there is always grammar to fall back on, with its complicated rules and arcane
terminology. Even if you have a native-speaking child in your class, he or she
won't be able to speak confidently about progressive infinitives or the use of
articles with uncountable nouns. If you can, you win.
(Swan 1998:4)

This reminds us of Thornbury's statement above, in which the classroom

becomes a kind of arena for the display of power by the teacher. Although
Thornbury above is making the case for a more task-based approach to
language teaching, the question still remains: if teaching grammar is politically
incorrect because of its association with power and excessive control, and
controlling the classroom is alienating, what exactly are teachers supposed to
do in the classroom?

6.3.2. 5.3.2 Coping with discipline in the classroom

5.3.2 Coping with discipline in the classroom

Extensive research in mainstream education has been carried out in the field of
'reinforcement'. External reinforcers such as praise, rewards or merit marks are
often considered to be good ways of motivating underachieving or reluctant
learners. Conversely, negative reinforcers such as punishments (e.g. extra
homework, detention, even physical punishment) have traditionally been
assumed to encourage 'good' behaviour among students, or at the very least to
discourage 'bad' behaviour. Burden and Williams have this to say about this
issue:

There can be no doubt that in some circumstances, for some individuals,

external rewards do work, at least in the short term and with regard to the
specific situation in which they are applied. However, the evidence for any
generalisation effect is considerably more limited. Moreover, the evidence on
punishments or sanctions tends to reveal that not only are they ineffective in
bringing about positive change, but they can often have the opposite effect.
(1997:134-5)

Punishment may be ineffective partly because by attracting consistently

negative feedback, a learner's self-image as negative is repeatedly reinforced.
Certainly researchers are in general agreement that:

rewards, such as praise, are far more effective than punishment.

(ibid:135)

We have included a reading which teachers who are interested in pursuing the
topic of discipline in the classroom can now refer to: Reading 5.1, which is a
chapter from Appel's excellent book and includes specific classroom techniques
for the besieged classroom teacher. In addition, we have included a short
appendix on the topic, Appendix 5.1: Extract 1 offers 10 ways to achieve
silence with a group of learners, and Extract 2 offers 10 ways to build rapport,
both by Jim Wingate.

6.4. 5.4 Conclusion

5.4 Conclusion
We have focused on the difficult question of discipline in the classroom in this
unit, but we certainly have not provided any easy answers.We have seen that
problems of discipline which arise in classrooms are very context specific,
relating not only to the ages of learners, but also to the learning environment as
a whole, and to wider social issues. As such, there are no easy answers.

We have also seen that the issue of what is taught in the classroom (for
example, grammar) and how it is taught (e.g. through teacher-fronted IRF
exchanges) can be linked to wider issues of social control, with the classroom
being seen as a microcosm of society at large.

Michael Swan summarises this argument eloquently:

Societies like grammar. Grammar involves rules, and rules determine 'correct'
behaviour. Education is never neutral, and the teaching methods in any society
inevitably reflect attitudes to social control and power relationships. In countries
where free speech is valued (up to a point), language classes are likely to let
students talk, move about, and join in decision-making (up to a point). In more
authoritarian societies, students are more likely to sit in rows, listen, learn rules,
do grammar exercises, make mistakes and get corrected (thus demonstrating
who is in control). Examination design follows suit, showing whether authorities
want future voters who are good at expressing themselves or ones who are
good at obeying rules.
(1998:4)

Finally, we very briefly considered the role of reward structures in maintaining

classroom discipline.

We hope that this unit has given you some food for thought, even if it cannot
'solve' any discipline problems you yourself may come across in your teaching
career.

6.5. 5.5 Suggestions for Further Reading

5.5 Suggestions for Further Reading

Burden, R.L. & Williams, M. (1997): Psychology for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 6.
Ur, P. (1996): A Course in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, Module 18.

7.1. 6.1 Introduction

6.1 Introduction
The uses and abuses of the mother tongue in the foreign language classroom
has been a topic of debate in our field for a very long time, and it is a debate
which is still not entirely settled.

By way of an introduction to the main issues, we would like to do a preliminary

task which will make you aware of your own attitudes and practices as regards
this important question.

7.2. 6.2 The L1 - L2 debate in historical perspective

6.2 The L1 - L2 debate in historical perspective

7.2.1. 6.2.1 The origins of the debate

6.2.1 The origins of the debate

In times past there was no debate. The Grammar Translation method which had
been dominant in language teaching for centuries saw the learning of a foreign
language as intimately bound to the student's first language. However, when the
Direct Method made its appearance at the turn of the last century, things
changed dramatically. With its emphasis on a more 'natural' way of learning an
L2, the mother tongue was practically banned from the classroom (although it
was still used to a limited extent to formulate rules and gloss new words).

This new direction in FL teaching reflects a parting of the ways whose

repercussions are still being felt today. Two opposing views arose, the
fundamentals of which are captured in Stern's question:

Should the learner be encouraged to exploit his first language knowledge and
learn the new language 'crosslingually', that is, through his first language, or
should he keep his second language learning completely separate and learn
the target language entirely within and through the second language, that is,
'intralingually'?
(1983:402)

The Grammar Translation method advocated a crosslingual approach, while the

Direct Method advocated an intralingual approach.

The intralingual viewpoint found its maximum exponent in the Audiolingual

Method of the fifties and sixties. The theory of language learning as habit-
formation meant that the use of the L1 was seen as a 'bad habit' which was to
be discouraged at all costs. 'Good' habits would be formed by focusing
exclusively on the L2. Nevertheless, the importance of the L1 was recognised in
Audiolingualism, albeit implicitly, with the emphasis on a thorough study of
contrastive analysis and negative transfer for syllabus design (see the subject
Second Language Acquisition for a review of Contrastive Analysis).

7.2.2. 6.2.2 Coordinate and compound bilingualism

6.2.2 Coordinate and compound bilingualism

Psycholinguistic theory of the 1950s gave credence to the

crosslingual/intralingual distinction. Investigating bilingualism, Ervin and Osgood
(1954) distinguished between what they called co-ordinate bilingualism and
compound bilingualism.

Ervin and Osgood were interested in how bilinguals (who can use two
languages) stored the two different linguistic codes. Two different systems of
storage were hypothesised:

a) The bilingual stores the two languages separately as two independent

systems. This is co-ordinate bilingualism, and is typical of 'true'
bilinguals i.e. those who acquire two languages simultaneously from
birth. In Spain, this might be true of Catalans, Basques or Galicians who
speak not only their regional language, but also Spanish. In South
 America, the case of Paraguay, where many poeple are fluent in both
Guaraní and Spanish, is another well-known example.
b) With compound bilingualism, the bilingual has learnt the second
language through reference to the first, for example by translation
methods in an EFL classroom. In countries such as Spain, or Peru, or
Chile, this might be the case of most EFL learners (and many of you
reading this subject).

It is important to note that the distinction between the two systems was not seen
as absolute, but rather as a continuum, with individuals varying in degrees of
'co-ordinateness'.

Nevertheless, despite these concepts being seen as a continuum, psychologists

of the time seemed to favour a co-ordinate approach as superior to a compound
one. It fitted in very well with a Behaviourist view of language learning. Thus
Brooks, who wrote an extremely influential book called Language and
Language Learning in 1960, adopted the stance that L2 teaching should
encourage in the learner a completely 'co-ordinate' (separate) language system,
and, obviously, that this should be done without any reference to the mother
tongue whatsoever in the language classroom.

7.2.3. 6.2.3 Towards a more moderate view

6.2.3 Towards a more moderate view

Until fairly recently socio-political reasons continued to influence the case for
the exclusion of the L1 from the classroom:

The development of ELT as a casual career for young people visiting Europe
encouraged teachers to make a virtue of the necessity of using only English.
Added to this, the subsequent growth of a British-based teacher training
movement out of the need to provide training for teachers working with
multilingual classes served to reinforce the strategy of mother tongue
avoidance.
(Harbord 1992:350)

Nevertheless, in SLA research circles from about 1970 there was a shift
towards accounting for second language learning in crosslingual terms.
Interlanguage theory, for example, backed up the idea that we learn a foreign
language by developing a system based on our first language system. (see the
subject Second Language Acquisition for a review of interlanguage theory).
According to O'Malley and Chamot:

...L2 learners activate L1 knowledge in developing or using their

interlanguage ... The process may either support (positive transfer) or detract
(negative transfer) from learning... There are strong elements of inferencing and
hypothesis testing involved in transfer insofar as learners use linguistic
knowledge to build a representation of the second language skills.
(1990:148)
Given these views, and also theories of SLA such as Universal Grammar (see
the subject Second Language Acquisition), it would seem more sensible to pose
a model in which there is a certain common ground between the L1 and the L2.
Cummins, for example, refers to the 'dual-iceberg' phenomenon, in which
certain underlying common as well as language-specific elements appear:

Figure 6.1: Cummins' (1980) 'Dual-iceberg' model.

If it is the case that learners build a representation of the L2 by referring to

features of their L1, then it would seem that there is a place for L1 use in the
classroom. The key question for teachers is how much L1 to use, and when. We
will now turn to a consideration of this area.

7.3. 6.3 Code switching

6.3 Code switching

An interesting area of investigation has been that of how the teacher code
switches (changes languages) between the first and target language, and what
effect this has on learners' talk. Research has shown that in many foreign
language settings teachers and learners use their first language far more than
the target language. Exactly when and why the mother tongue is used in the
EFL classroom seems to depend on the following factors:

 The type of activity.

 How the teacher believes the students learn best.
 How the teacher views the role of the first and the target language. For
example, a teacher may use only the first language for disciplining
students.
 How the students view the role of the first and the target language. For
example, the students may want to only use English in controlled
practice situations (i.e. they see English as an 'end' rather than the
means to learning).

Research into code switching has also revealed that if the teacher uses more of
the target language in class, the learners' proportion of target language use also
increases (Strong 1986; Zilm 1989).
This begs the question: what is considered an acceptable amount of use of L1
in the classroom? When is L1 use considered acceptable? We will look at this
issue in the next section.

7.4. 6.4 Using the L1 in the classroom

6.4 Using the L1 in the classroom

There are no hard and fast rules for L1 use or non-use in CLT, and teachers are
encouraged to respond flexibly to students' needs. In Prodromou's words:

...there will be times when the use of L1 can provide support and security for
the less confident learner, as well as acting as a launching-pad for
communicative activities...The learner's mother tongue can be viewed as a
source of strength rather than a skeleton in the cupboard, and its potential as
an aid to both student and teacher alike should be maximised.
(1995:63)

Three possible reasons for allowing limited L1 use in the classroom have been
outlined (Atkinson 1987:422):

1. It is a 'learner preferred strategy'. Given the opportunity, learners will

choose to translate without encouragement from the teacher, particularly
at lower levels. Translation and transfer appear to be natural
phenomena, an inevitable part of SLA. Thus teachers should try to work
with this natural tendency rather than against it.
2. Allowing students to use their L1 is a humanistic way of teaching
because it allows students to say what they want, thus avoiding
frustration. Nevertheless, this does not mean that a major return to L1
use in the classroom is called for, rather that students should be
encouraged to use the L2 as far as possible to explain themselves, but
that L1 use should not be 'banned'.
3. Use of L1 explanations, for example of grammar points, or the giving
of complex instructions can be justified on the grounds that it saves
time.

Although there may be a role for the use of the L1 in the classroom, it is
important to bear in mind that, as we have seen in Unit 1, interaction in the
target language plays a vital part in promoting language learning. Thus
excessive dependency on the L1 is to be discouraged, as it may result in the
following (Atkinson 1987:426):

1. The teacher and/or the students begin to feel that they have not 'really'
understood any item of language until it has been translated.
2. The teacher and / or the students are unable to see differences
between L1 and L2 uses of words, oversimplifying to the point of using
crude and inaccurate translations.
3. Students speak to the teacher in the mother tongue as a matter of
course, even when they are quite capable of expressing what they mean.
 4. Students don't realise that during many activities it is essential that
they use only English.

It has also been pointed out (e.g. Willis 1990) that the language that the teacher
uses in the classroom may be the only opportunity which students have for
hearing meaningful use of the L2, thus overuse of the mother tongue may
deprive them of valuable 'comprehensible input' (Krashen).

In Reading 6.1, John Harbord examines a number of strategies of L1 use, and

draws some conclusions about this topic. It would be a good idea to look at this
reading now, as it draws together some of the issues we have examined so far
in this unit.

7.5. 6.5 Using the L1 in group work

6.5 Using the L1 in group work

As we saw in Unit 1, using the L2 in group work is considered to promote L2
acquisition. Nevertheless, many teachers are justifiably concerned that, in
monolingual situations, learners will revert to using the mother tongue in groups,
as they consider it 'easier' and more 'natural'. This is certainly a choice which is
open to learners. However, it appears that what actually happens in group work
is somewhat more complex.

Code-switching, or changing languages between the L1 and the target

language, appears to be what often happens in group work where learners
share the same L1. Hancock (1997), for example, discovered that learners use
both the L1 and the target language in group work depending on several
factors; he calls this code-switching 'layering'. Layering depends on the
speakers' definitions or perceptions of the types of activity they are engaged in.

Let us take an example to illustrate this. Imagine that a group of students are
preparing for a role pay, discussing who will say or do what in small groups,
prior to the role play itself. In this instance the L1 may well be used, signalling
that the students are relating to each other as 'real' equals, or appealing to their
'in-group' status.

On the other hand, when these same students actually start doing the role play
itself, a high (or higher) proportion of L2 use may become apparent. The
students are now 'acting' and therefore the use of the L2 is acceptable. Not only
are they 'acting', but an imaginary 'public' is present. As Hancock points out,

...when these learners are speaking English with one another, it is a

performance, which implies an audience. That is, whoever might overhear is
meant to overhear. ...Even when two learners are speaking to one another in
private, a third participant is implied when the two select the L2 - an idealised
native speaker of the L2 or the teacher perhaps (ibid: 220).
Of course, this analysis holds for all activities done in groups in the L2, not just
for role plays. Learners basically construct a 'non-literal frame' of reference, or a
pretend identity, in order to ratify the use of the L2 in such situations. This,
according to Hancock is what makes group work viable in situations where
learners share the same L1.

There may still be plenty of interjections in the mother tongue when students
are working in the L2 in groups, but these may serve specific functions and thus
not be amenable to change. For example, a student may wish to make an 'in-
group' joke in the L1 during the afore-mentioned role play, and may not be able
to achieve this communicative purpose through the L2. Indeed, it is a waste of
time for the teacher to try to eradicate this type of L1 use in group work:

For the teacher who is worried about the quantity of the target language that
learners use in group work, it is significant that not all cases of resort to the L1
will be equally accessible to remedy. I would argue that when learners select
the L1 by default, there is a good chance that awareness-raising activities will
persuade the learners to employ the target language instead. However, when
the learners select the L1 by accident or for a particular communicative
purpose, attempts to squelch the use of L1 are unlikely to yield the desired
result (ibid:233).

7.6. 6.6 Conclusion

6.6 Conclusion
In this unit we have seen that in the history of ELT there has been a change in
the perceptions surrounding the use of the mother tongue in the classroom.
Recent SLA research, as well as the socio-political reality of many teaching
situations, sees language learning as primarily a crosslingual activity, and
debates now tend to centre around the precise role of the mother tongue in the
L2 classroom. The use of translation in the classroom has recovered a certain
amount of credibility after years of being persona non grata, mainly due to its
association with the outmoded Grammar Translation method. Current thinking
now accepts that the Grammar Translation method may have had some
credibility behind it in terms of it reflecting a crosslingual approach.

8.1. 7.1 Introduction

7.1 Introduction
In this final unit of the subject, we will be looking at one area in language
teaching research which has drawn considerable attention recently: that of
'teacher thinking' or 'teacher cognition'.

Before we focus on this topic, a word of warning: we are going to take a fairly
superficial look at the domain of teacher thinking. It is an area that has only
been taken up in ELT in this decade, although it has been around in mainstream
education since the mid-1970s. As such, a lot of research is fairly recent, and
there is still debate about what sort of conceptual framework to use in the
investigation of teacher thinking (Freeman 1996). The Suggestions for Further
Reading at the end of this unit will point those of you interested in a deeper
reading of this topic towards some useful recently published books.

For our purposes it is necessary for you to have a working acquaintance with
the main concepts, bearing in mind that this is a new, and fashionable, area of
research in ELT. It obviously has important implications for any attempt to
analyse classroom management, as we will see below.

8.2. 7.2 What is 'teacher thinking'?

7.2 What is 'teacher thinking'?

In the past, research into teachers has tended to focus on the 'public' domain of
teachers' behaviour. Classroom research has primarily been concerned with the
methods teacher use, with the materials they use, with the specific classroom
management techniques they use. Witness, for example, the immense amount
of research literature generated on topics such as classroom interaction, where
the teacher's 'public', or displayed behaviour is fairly easily identified and
quantified.

Teacher thinking, however, is concerned with the 'private' domain, with the
internal thought and decision making processes which a teacher uses while
doing his/her work. Thus it is concerned with the extent to which a teacher's
previous learning experiences, his/her knowledge of the subject matter and his/
her beliefs about teaching and learning affect classroom practice

Donald Freeman, one of the most important researchers in this field at the
moment, characterises the more traditional 'public' view of the teaching process
(as described above) as focusing on "teaching as doing", while the view of
teaching implied in teacher cognition is that of "teaching as thinking and doing"
(1996:94). In other words teacher thinking research tries to take into account
not only what teachers are doing but what they are thinking about as they do it.
Freeman points out the implications of this shift in perception of what is involved
in the teaching process as follows:

When teaching is seen from a cognitive perspective, one which combines

thought with action, our view is reframed in important ways. Now teaching can
include the crucial cognitive and affective dimensions which accompany, and
indeed shape, the behaviours and actions that teachers and learners undertake
in classrooms. This view also opens up a new realm of inquiry. If teaching has a
cognitive component, one needs to ask, What is it that teachers know? How is
that knowledge organised? How does it inform their actions?
(ibid: 94-5)

Thus teaching is no longer what the teacher does in the classroom, but why
he/she does what she does.
Obviously this a much more nebulous area than any of those which we have
examined so far in this subject about classroom management. It is far more
subjective and elusive than, say, noting down classroom interaction patterns.

And it is clearly very context specific (although this could be- and is - argued to
be true of even the most 'objective' of classroom management techniques which
we have examined in this subject).

8.3. 7.3 Decision making in teacher thinking

7.3 Decision making in teacher thinking

One main conceptual approach to the investigation of teacher thinking has been
that of examining teachers' decision-making processes. In the literature,
teachers' decision making has been divided into three phases: preactive,
interactive and post-active.

 Preactive decisions are those made before the teaching event, and
include processes such as lesson planning, choice of materials and so
on.
 Interactive decisions are those made on the spot, while the teacher is
actually working with the class, and could include the decision to drop an
activity, to react to an emerging discipline problem in a certain way, and
so on.
 Post-active decisions are those that take place after the lesson, and
may, for example, include decisions about the type of activity to do with
the class 'next time' based on the experience of the interactive phase.

However, despite this neat categorising of decision making processes, some

concerns about the reliability of this framework as a conceptual tool have been
voiced. As a construct, decision making reflects a highly structured view of
teachers' mental processes. According to Lowyck:

We divide complex teaching activity into a chronological dissection without

attention to more meaningful categories. We emphasize isolated variable within
the preactive, interactive, and post-active phases without great concern for the
interaction between phases.
(1986:184)

This view leaves many important variables untouched, such as the extent to
which a teacher's past experience may affect decision making, or how a
teacher's on-going experience modifies his/her behaviour over a period of time.

We will now turn to look briefly at some of these other factors that affect teacher
decision making, and teacher thinking in general.

So what is it that makes us do certain things in the classroom in certain ways?

What exactly is it that informs our 'teacher thinking'? Several areas have been
identified as of key importance in shaping our teaching. These include:
  the way in which we were taught;
 teacher beliefs;
 beliefs about learners;
 the affective climate.

We shall now examine them one by one.

8.4. 7.4 The way in which we were taught

7.4 The way in which we were taught

Most of us spent a great deal of our childhood and adolescence being taught in
schools. We have had years of exposure to models of teaching, which, whether
we like it or not, we have to a great extent internalised. This period of exposure
to teachers as models has been called an "apprenticeship of observation"
(Gutierrez Almarza), and it is largely unconscious, and often deeply rooted.
Thus relatively new teachers may often find that, despite their training, they may
start to behave in the classroom against their own training and principles,
particularly in times of stress, as Kennedy points out:

Often, despite their intentions to do otherwise, new teachers teach as they were
taught. The power of their "apprenticeship of observation", and of the
conventional images of teaching that derive from childhood experiences, makes
it very difficult to alter teaching practices and explains in part why teaching has
remained so constant over so many decades of reform efforts (1991:16).

The value of teacher thinking research lies in the view that if we as teachers can
have conscious knowledge of our histories, this may help us to be more aware
of, and thus overcome the tendency to go on unwittingly repeating history by
imitating the behaviour of the teachers we have been exposed to.

8.5. 7.5 Teacher beliefs

7.5 Teacher beliefs

Burden and Williams (1997: 48-9) have this to say about teacher beliefs:

...one of the many facets that teachers bring to the teaching - learning process
is a view of what education is all about, and this belief, whether implicit or
explicit, will influence their actions in the classroom.

In other words, teachers' beliefs about how a second language is learned, and
how that language should be taught, are central to the way in which teachers
behave in the language classroom. Deborah Binnie Smith, who researched this
area with a group of practising teachers, gives the following example to illustrate
this point:
The central role that beliefs played was evident not only in how these teachers
organised curricula and designed lesson tasks, but most significantly in their
approach to instruction. Those teachers who considered grammar and
accuracy to be a priority in instructional goals adopted a structural core for their
curriculum design and developed lesson tasks which emphasized language
code. On the other hand, the majority of teachers in the study were less
concerned with structure and focused more on language for communicative
purposes. They organised curricula with a functional or topical core and
emphasized student interaction tasks... (1996:207).

Now the quote above may not seem to be particularly illuminating, and, indeed,
it could be claimed that it states the patently obvious. If you as a teacher believe
that languages are learned through communication, then you will give your
students plenty of communication activites. If, on the other hand, you believe
that a language is best learned through translating sentences, then chances are
your students will spend a lot of time doing just that in your classes.

The interesting point is that as teachers we are often required to follow a

methodology, syllabus or coursebook which is not of our devising, and which
may reflect an approach which is not in keeping with the way we believe
languages should be or are learned. This is the case of many teachers who, for
example, are confronted with a new educational reform: they simply do not
believe that it can work, because, their students won't and can't learn in a new
'way'. For a teacher who does not believe in the tenets of a new approach, their
only outlet is (often unconscious) sabotage - activities are adapted to fit in with
that teacher's beliefs of how they should be in order for students to learn. It is
this tension which investigation into our own teacher thinking can uncover.

It is an area that Burden and Williams pay particular attention to in their recent
book on Psychology and language teaching (see 'Suggesions for Further
Reading' at the end of this chapter for the reference). They state that there is
frequently a discrepancy between teachers' 'espoused beliefs' (what teachers
say, or think, they believe in) and their 'theories-in-action' (the way teachers
act in the classroom, which may reveal what they really believe in deep down).
Furthermore, the consequences of such a discrepancy can have serious
implications for the learners:

In teaching, if the discrepancy, where it exists, between a teacher's expressed

beliefs and the ways in which that teacher acts professionally is a large one,
then learners are likely to receive confused and confusing messages.
(1997:54)

Burden and Williams thus make a case for the notion of the teacher as
'reflective practitioner' (Schön 1983), as someone who can reflect on and learn
from his/her past experience, ensuring his/her ongoing professional
development. The notions of the reflective practioner and action research will be
fully developed in the subject Observation and Research in the Language
Classroom.
So where do these deep-seated, often unconscious beliefs that teachers have
come from?

Our beliefs about teaching and learning been formed by a multitude of factors,
including, as we have already suggested, our past experiences as learners, our
training, and also our experience as teachers. Beliefs tend to be culturally
bound, and they are formed fairly early in life - as such, they are often resistant
to change.

This does not mean that they are unchangeable. Many of us have probably had
the experience of modifying our views on teaching after several years in the
classroom: through our experience we come to see that things may be a little
different to how they first appeared to us, and we change our views (and
actions) accordingly. Thus our experiential knowledge as teachers also helps
shape our beliefs about teaching.

8.6. 7.6 Beliefs about learners

7.6 Beliefs about learners

Teachers have beliefs not only about language and teaching, but about who
their learners are. It has been suggested (Meighan 1990) that teachers view
their students in at least seven different ways, and that their conception of their
learners profoundly affects their classroom practice. Meighan points to seven
different metaphors through which teachers may construe their learners:

 resisters
 receptacles
 raw material
 clients
 partners
 individual explorers
 democratic explorers

The first three of these constructs will appear in a very teacher-dominated

classroom, while the last three reflect an increasingly student-centred view of
learning and learners.

8.7. 7.7 The affective climate

7.7 The affective climate

Investigation has shown that the social or affective climate in the classroom is a
top priority for most teachers, and that many teaching decisions (including those
relating to classroom management) are made with this element as a deciding
factor. In fact, teachers often consciously work at building a positive affective
climate in their classrooms. As one of the teachers in Binnie Smith's study
(mentioned above) commented:

Self-image and all those affective domain issues are priority in L2 acquisition or
any kind of learning because if it's not in place, I don't see any kind of potential.
I think that's why building a supportive group environment so they can connect
with people and make friends is so important.
(1996:209)

Small group and pair work is often seen by teachers as particularly beneficial for
students in terms of meeting their affective needs, and again, a teacher's
decision to use such classroom groupings may stem more from his/her belief in
the social benefits of group work than from any strictly 'pedagogical' view.

8.8. 7.8 Conclusion

7.8 Conclusion
By way of conclusion, you will do a task which pulls together the issues which
have been addressed in this unit on teacher thinking

8.9. 7.9 Suggestions for further reading

7.9 Suggestions for further reading

Bailey, K.M. & Nunan, D. (1996): Voices from the Language Classroom.
New York: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 4, 6.
Burden, R.L. & Williams, M. (1997): Psychology for Language Teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapters 3, 10.
Freeman, D. & Richards, J. (1996): Teacher Learning in Language
Teaching. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press, Prologue, Chapters 1,
9, 16.

9. Bibliography

Bibliography

Appel, J. (1995): Diary of a Language Teacher. London: Heinemann.

Atkinson, D. (1987): "The mother tongue in the classroom: a neglected

resource?" in ELT Journal 41/4.
 Bailey, K.M. & Nunan, D. (eds.) (1996): Voices from the Language
Classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bejarano, Y. (1987): "A Cooperative Small-Group Methodology in the

Language Classroom" in TESOL Quarterly 21/3, pp.483-501.

Binnie Smith, D. (1996): "Teacher decision making in the adult ESL

classroom" in Freeman, D. & Richards, J. (eds.) Teacher Learning in Language
Teaching. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Burden, R.L. & Williams, M. (1997): Psychology for Language Teachers.

Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

Chaudron, C. (1988): Second Language Classrooms. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Claxton, G. (1989): Being a Teacher. London: Cassell.

Ellis, R. (1997): Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Freeman, D. & Richards, J. (eds.) 1996. Teacher Learning in Language

Teaching. New York: Cambridge Univeristy Press.

Good, T. L. (1979): "Teaching Effectiveness in the elementary school" in

Journal of Teacher Education, 30/2, pp52-64.

Gower & Walter (1988): Teaching Practice Handbook. London: Heinemann.

Hancock, M. (1997): "Behind Classroom Code Switching: Layering and

Language Choice in L2 Learner Interaction" in TESOL Quarterly 31/2, pp.217-
235.

Harbord, J. (1992): "The use of the mother tongue in the classroom" in ELT
Journal 46/4, pp.350-355.

Harris, T. (1998): "Developing Language Skills in the Classroom". The

Australian Institute.
 Jacobs, G. (1988): "Co-operative goal structure: a way to improve group
activities" in ELT Journal 42/2, pp.97-101

Jones, L. (1984): Ideas. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kennedy, M. (1991): An Agenda for Research on Teacher Learning. East

Lancing, Mich.: National Center for Research on Teacher Learning.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980): Metaphors We Live By. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985): "Group Work, Interlanguage Talk and Second
Language Acquisition" in TESOL Quarterly 19/2, pp.207-227.

Lortie, D.C. (1975): School-Teacher. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lowyck, J. (1986): "Post-interactive reflections of teachers: A critical

appraisal." in M. Ben-Peretz, R. Bromme & R. Halkes (eds.) Advances in
Research in Teacher Thinking. Lisse, Netherlands: Swetz & Zeitlinger, pp.172-
185.

Malamah-Thomas, A. (1987): Classroom Interaction, Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Mohammed, S. & Acklam, R. (1992): Beginners' Choice. London:

Longman.

Nunan, D. (1989): Understanding Language Classrooms. Hemel

Hempstead: Prentice Hall.

Nunan, D. (1995): Language Teaching Methodology. Hemel Hempstead:

Prentice Hall.

O'Malley, M. & Chamot, A. (1990): Learning Strategies in Second

Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Prodromou, L. (1995): Mixed Ability Classes. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice

Hall.
 Rose, J. (1997): "Mixed ability: an inclusive classroom" in English Teaching
Professional, Issue Three July 1997.

Soars, J. & Soars, L. (1993): Headway Pre-intermediate Teacher's Book.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stern, H. H. (1983): Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Stevick, E. (1982): Teaching and Learning Languages. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Swan, M. (1998): "Seven bad reasons for teaching grammar... and two
good ones" in English Teaching Professional, Issue 7, pp. 3-5.

Thornbury, S. (1998): "Grammar, Power and Bottled Water" in IATEFL

Newsletter, Issue No 140, pp19-20.

Ur, P. (1996): A Course in Language Teaching, Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Wilkins, D. (1983): "Some issues in Communicative Language Teaching

and their Relevance to the Teaching of Languages in Secondary Schools" in
Johnson, K. & Porter, D. (eds) (1983), Perspectives in Communicative
Language Teaching. London: Academic Press.

Wingate, J. (1996): "10 Ways to achieve silence in the classroom" in

English Teaching Professional, Issue One October 1996.

Wingate, J. (1997): "10 Ways to build rapport with your students" in English
Teaching Professional, Issue Four July 1997.

10. List of Appendices

See your printed study materials for the contents of these Appendices

List of Appendices
Appendix 1.1:
Flanders' Interaction Analysis Categories (FIAC) in Classroom Interaction.
Malamah Thomas, A. (1987). Oxford University Press, pp.20-21.

Appendix 2.1:
"Features and types of corrective reactions in the model of discourse" in Second
Language Classrooms. Chaudron, C. (1988) Cambridge University Press.
pp.146-8.

Appendix 3.1:
Two Activities from adult Coursebooks:
Extract 1: Ideas. Jones, L. (1984). Cambridge University Press, pp. 53, 90, 108.
Extract 2: Beginner's Choice. Mohamed, S & Acklam, R. (1992). Longman,
p.19.

Appendix 5.1:
Extract 1: "10 Ways to achieve silence in the classroom" in English Teaching
Professional. Wingate, J. (Oct 1996), Issue One.
Extract 2: "10 Ways to build rapport with your students" in English Teaching
Professional. Wingate, J. (July 1997), Issue Four.

Question 1 (0.7 points)

Look at Ur’s list of patterns of interaction below. Decide whether each interaction is
either more student-centred or more teacher-centred.
group work -->
closed-ended teacher questioning -->
individual work -->
choral responses -->
collaboration -->
student initiates, teacher answers -->
full-class interaction -->
teacher talk -->
self-access -->
open-ended teacher questioning -->

Question 2 (0.7 points)

SLA research has attempted to identify exactly what features of teacher talk will
develop their learners’ L2 competence. From the preceding account of interaction
analysis in your study materials, how would an ‘ideal’ teacher, according to SLA
researchers, talk? Complete the following list with as many points as you feel
appropriate:

When talking to his/her learners, an ‘ideal’ L2 teacher would ...

Question 3 (0.7 points)

Categorise each of the following errors under one of these headings: grammar;
pronunciation; meaning; appropriacy.
--
How you come to school?
>
--
I go always to France for my holidays.
>
--
I don’t like travelling by sheep.
>
--
(Mike speaking to his boss) That’s a load of rubbish, mate.
>
--
She suggested us to go home.
>
Oh, of course! - you’re Peter, aren’t you? (rising intonation on --
aren’t you) >
--
(student in pub) Give me a beer.
>
--
She went to the library to buy a book.
>

Question 4 (0.7 points)

Look at the following situations and decide if you would correct or not. If so, say when
you would do so.

1. Students are writing a paragraph about a holiday in ones or twos.

2. Students are discussing the question of pollution in small groups.
3. Students are debating on the rights of women in an open class focus.
4. Students are discussing role-playing a public meeting after reading a text, and are
preparing their side of the argument.
5. Students are giving the answer to a listening comprehension exercise in class
feedback.
6. Students are checking a grammar exercise in open class.
7. Students are giving the teacher examples of the target structure ‘used to’ and the
teacher is writing these examples on the board.

Question 5 (0.8 points)

Look at the two activities from different adult coursebooks in Appendix 3.1 in your
printed study materials. Evaluate both Extract 1 and Extract 2 using the 5 collaborative
learning criteria in your materials. The criteria are:
positive interdependence individual accountability verbal interaction
social skills team reflection
a. Extract 1 is collaborative, on the whole
b. Extract 1 is not collaborative, on the whole
c. Extract 2 is collaborative, on the whole
d. Extract 2 is not collaborative, on the whole

Question 6 (0.8 points)

Below is a list of classroom ‘procedures’ (activity types) which will, in theory, allow for
individualisation in the language classroom. To what extent does each cater for
individualised learning? What advantages and what drawbacks can you identify with
each ‘procedure’ if you were to use them with your own classes? (Ur 1996:236)

1. Readers. Students choose individual simplified readers, of varied level and topic,
from a school library, and read quietly in class.

2. Response to listening. The teacher plays a recorded text on a topical issue, and asks
the class to note down points they understood.
3. Workcards. A pile of workcards prepared by the teacher is put in the centre of the
class, all practising the material the class has recently learned, but each different. Each
student chooses one, completes it and then takes another.

4. Textbook questions in class. The class has been given a set of questions from the
textbook to answer in writing; each students does them on his or her own.

5. Worksheets. The teacher distributes worksheets which all practise the same grammar
point, but containing various sections with different kinds of practice tasks and topics.
The students choose which sections they want to do, and do as much as they can in the
time allotted.

6. Textbook exercises for homework. The teacher gives three sets of comprehension
questions from the textbook, of varying difficulty, on a passage that has been read in
class; each student is asked to select and do one set.

7. Varied tasks. The teacher has prepared a number of workcards based on different
language skills and content. There is a cassette recorder in one corner with headsets for
listening tasks, and another corner available for quiet talk. Students select, work on and
exchange cards freely.

Question 7 (0.8 points)

What are your own views on the issue of mixed ability? Do you think that mixed ability
groups always result in more successful SLA for learners? Or can the opposite seem to
be true? Why?
Question 8 (0.8 points)
To what extent do you agree with each of Ur’s statements in your materials? Draw on
your own experience as a teacher or learner in order to prove or disprove each of her
statements, providing concrete examples of classroom experiences/activities. Can you
add any other advantages to her list?

Question 9 (0.8 points)

What are your views on the issue of the difficulties inherent in introducing students to a
communicative approach to learning? For each of the following statements decide
whether you agree or disagree, and justify your answers.

1. A communicative methodology is simply not suited to the realities of large mixed

ability groups of learners.
2. If the overall school learning environment is strict and disciplinarian, using a
communicative approach in one subject (the English class) is bound to cause problems.
3. Young learners do not have the kind of mature responsible attitude to learning that a
communicative approach needs in order to function.
4. Using a communicative methodology with learners can have implications far beyond
the learning of a language: it can educate them in principles such as tolerance and co-
operation, and as such, it is a methodology which should be used from the earliest
possible age.
5. Learners cannot be expected to accept communicative approaches in the classroom
unless the techniques and activity types are introduced gradually by the teacher.
Question 10 (0.8 points)
Say whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. Justify your
answers.

1. If you give instructions for activities in the mother tongue, you deprive students of an
important opportunity to be exposed to natural L2 use.
2. Students should be allowed to ask the teacher (in English) if they may say something
or ask something in their own language, and all other use of their mother tongue should
be prohibited.
3. Teachers could sometimes use mother tongue texts with students, but comprehension
tasks should always require students to produce English.
4. If students translate the meaning of new vocabulary they will develop the mistaken
idea that there is a one-to-one correspondence between words in English and in their
own language.
5. Instructions should always be given in both languages - but in English first.

Question 11 (0.8 points)

Look at Reading 6.1 by John Harbord in your study mateials. In Table 1 on page 352 of
the reading he gives a list of 3 types of L1 use, Groups A, B and C. Choose 5 of the
strategies which you personally use (or would use) with classes and give your rationale
for using each.

Question 12 (0.8 points)

Obviously the classroom management of a teacher who sees his/her learners as
‘resisters’ will be radically different from that of a teacher who construes his/her
learners as ‘democratic explorers’. Can you think of at least two features of classroom
management that might appear in each of the above cases? The first has been done for
you by way of example:
 resisters

If the teachers construes his/her students as ‘resisters’ then (1) classroom interaction
might be limited to IRF types, and (2) disciplinary action is probably top of the
teacher’s priorities.
 receptacles
 raw material
 clients
 partners
 individual explorers
 democratic explorers

Question 13 (0.8 points)

Are the following statements true or false? Justify each of your answers.

1. ‘Teacher thinking’ refers not just to the way we think as teachers, but also to what
effect the way we think has on our teaching.
2. Our beliefs as teachers affects our classroom management more than any other
element in the classroom.
3. Examining our pro-, inter- and post-active decisions as teachers is the best way to
investigate our thinking as teachers.
4. As teachers we are doomed to repeat teaching behaviour that we ‘learnt’ through our
‘apprenticeship of observation’.
5. There is always a mismatch between a teachers ‘espoused’ theories and his/her real
classroom behaviour.
6. Teachers’ beliefs, which are formed early in life, are very difficult to change.
7. A teacher will usually have a deeply-rooted (possibly unconcious) view about who
his/her learners are, and this view is related to how the teacher believes languages are
learned.
8. Taking into account the affective climate in a classroom is likely to affect a teacher’s
classroom management decisions.