Jiana Brown

FL 507 Fall 2022

Observation #1

Patterns of Classroom Interaction in FLF 102

On September 2nd, the Friday before Labor Day weekend, I observed a FLF 102 course

instructed by Dr. Laura Call every Monday, Wednesday and Friday from 1:55-2:45 pm in

Withers Hall room 135. Before the observation took place, and upon reflecting on the guiding

questions, I thought over the physical layout of the classroom. Having taken a course in the same

classroom, I thought about the potential physical barriers in the room which could present

problems; a significant concern could be around the beam separating the back left corner desk

from the rest of the room with the way the desks are positioned. I also took note of positive

points in the classroom which could aid in the overall classroom environment; there are

moveable desks with two rolling desk chairs at each desk. On the day of the observation, it

seemed that my prior reflections were only partly useful because there were only six students

present out of the only seven students enrolled in the course. In a course with a maximum of

seven students, the physical layout of the room no longer presented a true concern because each

student was easily accessible by the professor and could be positioned to clearly see the course

materials as well as interact with other classmates. Due to the intimate nature of a course with

less than ten students, my observations found that the professor was able to consistently and

frequently interact with each student during individual and partner activities to ensure active

participation throughout the 50 minute class period.

On my printed seating chart I wrote in seven types of interactions: student initiated

responses, professor initiated student responses, student initiated questions, professor inclusion

BROWN, JIANA 1
of a student in a whole group example, professor physical proximity (walking around and

stopping at each desk), professor initiated conversation unrelated to course materials, and

professor initiated eye contact. The one type of interaction that I did not include in my

interaction list was partner activity because each activity within the class period had a partner

scaffolded activity in the second part of the activity and it was predetermined partnering based on

where they were seated. I did not notice a gap between students speaking more within partner

groups but I suspect that is due to the frequency of the professor’s proximity, professor’s ability to

hear each group and the intimate class size. Otherwise, the interactions that I took note of were

all initiated in the moment and not due to the predetermined factor of one’s physical placement in

the room.

Of the noted interactions, the one that was the most persistent was the professor initiated

eye contact which I believe to be a result of the intersection between the class size, layout of the

lesson and speed of the course. I define eye contact as significant holds where the professor

pauses at each student waiting for a clarifying sign that she could continue. Eye contact that I

marked was not just a glance over, it was a contact held in enough time that the student was able

to show some type of sign to the professor that they either understood or were ready to continue

with the lesson. Table 1 received the most eye contact, leading at 23 instances which was seven

more chances than Table 2 received and six more than the two males received. Following

professor initiated eye contact was professor physical proximity where Table 1 also led with 16

instances which was two more opportunities than Table 2 received and three more than the two

males received. Here the added instances at Table 1 correlate with their unique interaction of

professor initiated conversation unrelated to the materials. The other unique interaction was the

professor's inclusion of a female student from Table 2 in the whole group discussion of one of

BROWN, JIANA 2
the activities. Despite Table 1’s lead in professor initiated interactions during partner activities,

Table 2 and the two males led in professor initiated student responses during the whole group

discussion with both groups receiving six separate instances of this interaction which was three

more than Table 1 received. Another shift was in student initiated responses where the male in

the front row led by answering six questions during the whole group discussion of different

activities. Table 1 and 2 followed by answering two questions in total. Student initiated questions

was the only interaction where every student but one asked one question throughout the class

period within the whole group activities.

Before summarizing my conclusions based on the data collected during the observation, a

brief analysis of the lesson layout and course speed will clarify the overall conclusions to follow.

The class started by listening to a song “Il faut prendre le bon vin” which incorporated the use of

the verb “boire” (a primer for the lesson’s focus) and translations of different expressions with

prendre and avoir incorporating the whole group. While the song was an attempt to contextualize

the topic, the course still strongly emphasized grammar based activities focusing on expressions

with avoir vs prendre and incorporation of articles (or lack thereof during negation activities)

which explained the goal of students being able to indicate the food and beverage preferences of

themselves and others. Activities were mixed between closed-ended questions for students to

practice the grammatical functions of the different parts of the phrases and open-ended questions

for students to plug in content specific vocab after properly structuring the beginning of phrases.

There was very little input as the course is flipped-hybrid implying that students receive input

from completing homework activities and then focus on output during class time. Most of class

time was spent in different scaffolded activities where the students started off individually to

have their answers prepared for the second part of the activity where they had to work in pairs to

BROWN, JIANA 3
determine what the other liked or didn’t like. There were four of these types of activities which

were broken into individual sections and partner sections. There were three slides of whole group

activities that were leading students to certain vocab use. There were four input slides where it

discussed a direct grammatical topic that students would then use in mind to complete the lesson

activities.

The implications of my observations are focused on the types of activities and the lesson

layout/goal as having a significant effect on why I saw the certain types of interactions between

the professor and students as well as interactions between student to student. Activities

throughout the lesson all fell into overt instruction1 type activities but heavily based on the CLT

“practice [of] language forms…within an instructor-created context”2 which does not allow for

significant contextualization of material for students. This played a role in the type of

interactions because they were very professor directed and focused despite the short times to

incorporate personal meaning to practice language forms. I believe this adds to what seemed to

be a theme throughout the class period: the professor as the central authority being both the

resource for students and the one leading them through activities focused around improving

communicative skills3. While students had the opportunity to work independently and with

partners, the interactions seemed to still be professor focused; students interacted enough to be

able to respond to the prompts of the professor. I don’t mean to diminish the opportunities where

students were placed into those student-centered information-gap activities where they worked

within pairs but they seemed to ultimately lead to debriefing with teacher-guided corrections. I

feel this greatly reflects the professor as Atlas. Since I only observed one class period, I do want

1
Multiliteracies Framework
2
Paesani, K., Willis Allen, H., & Dupuy, B. (2016). A Multiliteracies Framework for Collegiate Foreign
Language Teaching (p.36). Pearson.
3
Lee, J. F., & VanPatten, B. (2003). Communicating in the Classroom. In Making Communicative
Language Teaching Happen (pp. 49–73). essay, McGraw-Hill.

BROWN, JIANA 4
to recognize the potential of the class period I observed as being a day to improve upon

commonly made mistakes which is why interactions seemed to focus on the professor at the

center.

[Excellent job! +]

BROWN, JIANA 5