CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.0. Background to the Study
Language is an essential tool in the course of human activity. Myriad of scholars have made rigorous attempts to study and understand the phenomenon of language across different levels, and different contexts. Before further explications on those levels of language analysis, and the eventual focus of this study, it is imperative to look at some of these definitions of language.
John Algeo (2010) defines language as “a system of conventional vocal symbol by means of which human beings communicate emotions, ideas through voluntarily produced signs”. This definition emphasizes some important notions viz., “system”, “convention”, and of course “communication”. In the same vein, Crystal (1993) defines language as “human vocal noise (or its graphic representation in writing) used systematically and conventionally by a community for purpose of communication”. This definition attempts to include the transmission of language through the written medium.
Akinnawonu (2004) defines language as “a powerful tool by which meanings are conveyed through the process of communication”. Onuobia (1992:237) describes language as “a successful combination of syntax and semantics”. It is on the basis of this combination that not only meaningful communication is guaranteed. These definitions provoke the thought that although scholars disagree on the definition of the phenomenon of language, they however agree on some concepts such as, “Language is a system” (which suggests that language is not haphazard) “language is conventional” and “language is used for communication”. This last point leads to the enquiry on the nature of the concept of “communication”. It is essential to define communication because it is the essence of any human interaction in any field; education, legal, political, religious, etc.
E,C,Eyre (1983) defines communication as “the transferring of a message to another party so that it can be understood and acted upon.” (Quoted from Adeyemo, 2007). In the same vein, Udall and Udall (1979) define communication as “the process by which one person shares and impact information to another person so that both people clearly understand one another.” (Quoted from Adeyemo et-al 2007). Wilbur Scram (1971) sees communication as “a relationship, an act of sharing rather than something someone does to someone else”. These definitions recognize and share similar intentions, they agree on the point that the essence of communication is to pass across intentions. Also, they recognize the presence and essence of participants or interlocutors before communication can take place, it is important to state that people communicate in a social environment. During this process of communication, so many structures come into play to enable the communication process more effective. Although these structures are not immediately obvious in the conversations, but then, the essence of analysis is to unravel these structures that make communication more effective.
It is however important to state that the structure of talk vary from context to context. This is the focus of institutional talk. Institutional talk emerged in the late 1970s to the early 1980s. It emerged as a result of the observation in conversational analysis that the pattern of ordinary conversation is not constant, most especially in relation to talk held in specialized context such as news interviews, courtroom, or classroom settings as the case maybe. Drew and Heritage (1992) define institutional talk as involving “a reduction in the range of interactional practices deployed by the participants, restrictions in the contexts they can be deployed in, and it frequently involves some specialization and re-specification of the interactional relevance of the practices that remain”.
This definition implies that against ordinary talk that can feature without restrictions and endless change of turns, there are certain restrictions in institutional talk, as against ordinary talk. The implication of this is that each of these institutional talks will have features that will make its turn-taking peculiar in the specialized context it occurs. For instance, in a news interview, it is expected that the interviewer controls the distribution of turns among interviewees. So also against the practice of turn distribution in ordinary discourse, in the classroom context, the teacher dominates the distribution of turns. Hence, because of the scope of this research, it is therefore imperative to define classroom discourse.
As earlier stated, conversation takes place in different context. This implies that the mode of conversation in classroom discourse is quite different from the mode of conversation in the legal, religious or the media discourse. Kramsch (1985; as cited in Rezaie and Lashkarian, 2015, p.449) considers classroom discourse as composed of “a continuum extending from pedagogic to natural discourse poles”. This definition emphasizes the importance of the transmission of knowledge in the process of communication. In other words, the definition suggests the point that what is happening in a classroom discourse is the transmission of knowledge from one person to another during talk. In another attempt, Nunan (1993) defines classroom discourse as “a special type of discourse that occurs between teacher and students and among the students in classrooms.” This definition identifies the participants in a classroom discourse to be either “teacher and student” or “student and student”. Rezaie and Lashkarian (2015) discuss some of the features of classroom discourse as consisting of “explanations, instructions, descriptions and arguments”.
Depending on some factors such as age, culture, context, every conversation has some structures that are not immediately obvious in the conversation, that aid and dominate conversational exchange. The same also applies to classroom discourse. As identified by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) there is a peculiar pattern that follows the interaction of classroom discourse. They refer to this pattern in classroom discourse as IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): in this pattern, “the teacher initiates asking a question to check a learner's knowledge, the learner answers the question, and the teacher gives feedback” (Richards et al., 1992 cited in Rezaie and Lahkarian 2015). This suggests that in classroom discourse, the dominant speaker, or the one who decides who takes the floor when it comes to turn taking is the teacher.
In the field of classroom discourse analysis, the following questions have preoccupied scholar’s inquisition: what kind of question pattern is more effective in assessing the understanding of what the student has been taught? Is it display or referential question? Should the power of the teacher to dominate the conversation in the classroom setting be adjusted to be more dialogic than monologic? These among others constitute the focus of researchers in the field of classroom discourse analysis. The argument of these pundits will be examined in the subsequent chapters.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
In terms of the application of the approach of conversational analysis, much has been done. For instance, Sert and Seedhouse (2011) have applied the approach in assessing “classroom interaction, material development, proficiency assessment and language teacher education.” At
another end, in a second language context, Rezaie and Lashkarian(2015) examine conversation in a classroom setting and concluded that against the traditional notion that display questions(or closed questions) limit the ability of the learner to learn more during classroom interaction, “it can also be proficient and more effective as the referential(or open) question.”
Fakeye David (2007) examines teacher’s questioning behavior and ESL classroom interaction pattern of students in selected schools in Oyo and Osun states. She also concludes that the use of display questions provokes students’ interaction than referential questions. Hence, display questions should be adapted in the transmission of knowledge. Brown (2011) examines how the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model for speech discourse is applicable to modern classroom, looking at the point that the model was initially applied to a traditional classroom, which he considered to operate a monotonous initiation-response-feedback speech pattern of discourse. The essence of Brown’s study is to create awareness in the monotony of using the traditional model for classroom discourse pattern to teach in contemporary classroom setting.
Behnam and Pouriran(2008) look at classroom discourse, from the perspective of analyzing teacher/ learner interactions in an Iranian EFL task-based Classrooms. Like Fakeye David, Brown also concludes that display questions can be a viable way to assess student’s knowledge of what they have been thought, and not all referential questions provoke interaction among students. James Nicholson (2014) investigates the communicative roles of participants in classroom discourse. In what he describes as “an impetus for change”, he advises that teachers should be more aware of the choices they make in order to effectively impact on the students.
Derakhshan, Zeinali, Sharbati(2015) investigate the time of “teacher talk, questions in classroom, and different forms of feedback. The findings explained that although communicative approach and classroom reciprocal action are strongly supported, communication in the classroom is mainly teacher-initiated. It is therefore suggested that teachers should provide students with more opportunities to take more roles in the class.” These scholars are among a host of others that have worked in the field of conversational analysis. However, there remains a gap to be filled. This gap is discussed in the next paragraph.
An attempt has not been made to study the conversation that occurs between teachers and students in classrooms in selected secondary schools in Akungba-Akoko, the effects of the
dominant speaker position that the teacher has during learning interaction, and significant actions that take place during learning process has not been examined. The context of turn taking during learning interaction and some of the conditions that affect turn taking such as unnecessary interruption in teacher’s turn, outside distractions, pause, noise making etc. has not been studied in these classroom settings. The pattern of turn allocation in classroom discourse, particularly in the selected secondary schools will characterize the interest of the writer. The effects of the above and how it affects learning has not been studied. It is to this effect that the researcher deems it necessary to undertake this study.
1.2. Objective and Significance of the Study
The general aim of this research is to contribute to the existing knowledge on classroom discourse. The ability to apply the framework of conversational analysis to classroom discourse is going to characterize the main objective of this work.This study is therefore essential – in that it attempts to understand some of the peculiarities of classroom activity. It is hoped that the outcome of this study will provide suggestions that will improve the mode of knowledge acquisition among teachers and students. It is also hoped at the end of this research, suggestions regarding how improved communication between teachers and students can aid learning will emerge.
INTRODUCTION
1.0. Background to the Study
Language is an essential tool in the course of human activity. Myriad of scholars have made rigorous attempts to study and understand the phenomenon of language across different levels, and different contexts. Before further explications on those levels of language analysis, and the eventual focus of this study, it is imperative to look at some of these definitions of language.
John Algeo (2010) defines language as “a system of conventional vocal symbol by means of which human beings communicate emotions, ideas through voluntarily produced signs”. This definition emphasizes some important notions viz., “system”, “convention”, and of course “communication”. In the same vein, Crystal (1993) defines language as “human vocal noise (or its graphic representation in writing) used systematically and conventionally by a community for purpose of communication”. This definition attempts to include the transmission of language through the written medium.
Akinnawonu (2004) defines language as “a powerful tool by which meanings are conveyed through the process of communication”. Onuobia (1992:237) describes language as “a successful combination of syntax and semantics”. It is on the basis of this combination that not only meaningful communication is guaranteed. These definitions provoke the thought that although scholars disagree on the definition of the phenomenon of language, they however agree on some concepts such as, “Language is a system” (which suggests that language is not haphazard) “language is conventional” and “language is used for communication”. This last point leads to the enquiry on the nature of the concept of “communication”. It is essential to define communication because it is the essence of any human interaction in any field; education, legal, political, religious, etc.
E,C,Eyre (1983) defines communication as “the transferring of a message to another party so that it can be understood and acted upon.” (Quoted from Adeyemo, 2007). In the same vein, Udall and Udall (1979) define communication as “the process by which one person shares and impact information to another person so that both people clearly understand one another.” (Quoted from Adeyemo et-al 2007). Wilbur Scram (1971) sees communication as “a relationship, an act of sharing rather than something someone does to someone else”. These definitions recognize and share similar intentions, they agree on the point that the essence of communication is to pass across intentions. Also, they recognize the presence and essence of participants or interlocutors before communication can take place, it is important to state that people communicate in a social environment. During this process of communication, so many structures come into play to enable the communication process more effective. Although these structures are not immediately obvious in the conversations, but then, the essence of analysis is to unravel these structures that make communication more effective.
It is however important to state that the structure of talk vary from context to context. This is the focus of institutional talk. Institutional talk emerged in the late 1970s to the early 1980s. It emerged as a result of the observation in conversational analysis that the pattern of ordinary conversation is not constant, most especially in relation to talk held in specialized context such as news interviews, courtroom, or classroom settings as the case maybe. Drew and Heritage (1992) define institutional talk as involving “a reduction in the range of interactional practices deployed by the participants, restrictions in the contexts they can be deployed in, and it frequently involves some specialization and re-specification of the interactional relevance of the practices that remain”.
This definition implies that against ordinary talk that can feature without restrictions and endless change of turns, there are certain restrictions in institutional talk, as against ordinary talk. The implication of this is that each of these institutional talks will have features that will make its turn-taking peculiar in the specialized context it occurs. For instance, in a news interview, it is expected that the interviewer controls the distribution of turns among interviewees. So also against the practice of turn distribution in ordinary discourse, in the classroom context, the teacher dominates the distribution of turns. Hence, because of the scope of this research, it is therefore imperative to define classroom discourse.
As earlier stated, conversation takes place in different context. This implies that the mode of conversation in classroom discourse is quite different from the mode of conversation in the legal, religious or the media discourse. Kramsch (1985; as cited in Rezaie and Lashkarian, 2015, p.449) considers classroom discourse as composed of “a continuum extending from pedagogic to natural discourse poles”. This definition emphasizes the importance of the transmission of knowledge in the process of communication. In other words, the definition suggests the point that what is happening in a classroom discourse is the transmission of knowledge from one person to another during talk. In another attempt, Nunan (1993) defines classroom discourse as “a special type of discourse that occurs between teacher and students and among the students in classrooms.” This definition identifies the participants in a classroom discourse to be either “teacher and student” or “student and student”. Rezaie and Lashkarian (2015) discuss some of the features of classroom discourse as consisting of “explanations, instructions, descriptions and arguments”.
Depending on some factors such as age, culture, context, every conversation has some structures that are not immediately obvious in the conversation, that aid and dominate conversational exchange. The same also applies to classroom discourse. As identified by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) there is a peculiar pattern that follows the interaction of classroom discourse. They refer to this pattern in classroom discourse as IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback): in this pattern, “the teacher initiates asking a question to check a learner's knowledge, the learner answers the question, and the teacher gives feedback” (Richards et al., 1992 cited in Rezaie and Lahkarian 2015). This suggests that in classroom discourse, the dominant speaker, or the one who decides who takes the floor when it comes to turn taking is the teacher.
In the field of classroom discourse analysis, the following questions have preoccupied scholar’s inquisition: what kind of question pattern is more effective in assessing the understanding of what the student has been taught? Is it display or referential question? Should the power of the teacher to dominate the conversation in the classroom setting be adjusted to be more dialogic than monologic? These among others constitute the focus of researchers in the field of classroom discourse analysis. The argument of these pundits will be examined in the subsequent chapters.
1.1. Statement of the Problem
In terms of the application of the approach of conversational analysis, much has been done. For instance, Sert and Seedhouse (2011) have applied the approach in assessing “classroom interaction, material development, proficiency assessment and language teacher education.” At
another end, in a second language context, Rezaie and Lashkarian(2015) examine conversation in a classroom setting and concluded that against the traditional notion that display questions(or closed questions) limit the ability of the learner to learn more during classroom interaction, “it can also be proficient and more effective as the referential(or open) question.”
Fakeye David (2007) examines teacher’s questioning behavior and ESL classroom interaction pattern of students in selected schools in Oyo and Osun states. She also concludes that the use of display questions provokes students’ interaction than referential questions. Hence, display questions should be adapted in the transmission of knowledge. Brown (2011) examines how the Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) model for speech discourse is applicable to modern classroom, looking at the point that the model was initially applied to a traditional classroom, which he considered to operate a monotonous initiation-response-feedback speech pattern of discourse. The essence of Brown’s study is to create awareness in the monotony of using the traditional model for classroom discourse pattern to teach in contemporary classroom setting.
Behnam and Pouriran(2008) look at classroom discourse, from the perspective of analyzing teacher/ learner interactions in an Iranian EFL task-based Classrooms. Like Fakeye David, Brown also concludes that display questions can be a viable way to assess student’s knowledge of what they have been thought, and not all referential questions provoke interaction among students. James Nicholson (2014) investigates the communicative roles of participants in classroom discourse. In what he describes as “an impetus for change”, he advises that teachers should be more aware of the choices they make in order to effectively impact on the students.
Derakhshan, Zeinali, Sharbati(2015) investigate the time of “teacher talk, questions in classroom, and different forms of feedback. The findings explained that although communicative approach and classroom reciprocal action are strongly supported, communication in the classroom is mainly teacher-initiated. It is therefore suggested that teachers should provide students with more opportunities to take more roles in the class.” These scholars are among a host of others that have worked in the field of conversational analysis. However, there remains a gap to be filled. This gap is discussed in the next paragraph.
An attempt has not been made to study the conversation that occurs between teachers and students in classrooms in selected secondary schools in Akungba-Akoko, the effects of the
dominant speaker position that the teacher has during learning interaction, and significant actions that take place during learning process has not been examined. The context of turn taking during learning interaction and some of the conditions that affect turn taking such as unnecessary interruption in teacher’s turn, outside distractions, pause, noise making etc. has not been studied in these classroom settings. The pattern of turn allocation in classroom discourse, particularly in the selected secondary schools will characterize the interest of the writer. The effects of the above and how it affects learning has not been studied. It is to this effect that the researcher deems it necessary to undertake this study.
1.2. Objective and Significance of the Study
The general aim of this research is to contribute to the existing knowledge on classroom discourse. The ability to apply the framework of conversational analysis to classroom discourse is going to characterize the main objective of this work.This study is therefore essential – in that it attempts to understand some of the peculiarities of classroom activity. It is hoped that the outcome of this study will provide suggestions that will improve the mode of knowledge acquisition among teachers and students. It is also hoped at the end of this research, suggestions regarding how improved communication between teachers and students can aid learning will emerge.
HOW TO RECEIVE PROJECT
MATERIAL(S)
After paying the
appropriate amount (#3000) into our bank Account below, send the following
information to our Whatsapp 08061135915 OR bavicola13@gmail.com, edupedia17@gmail.com :
(1) Your project
topics
(2) Email
Address
(3) Payment
Name
(4) Teller Number
We will send the DOWNLOAD
LINK for your material(s) immediately we receive bank alert
BANK ACCOUNTS
Account
Name: Bakare Victor Oladapo
Access Bank 0759882072
First Bank 3077844205
Skye Bank 3023641985
GT Bank 0262146570
Access Bank 0759882072
First Bank 3077844205
Skye Bank 3023641985
GT Bank 0262146570
HOW
TO IDENTIFY SCAM/FRAUD
As
a result of fraud in Nigeria, people don’t believe there are good online
businesses in Nigeria.
But
on this site, we have provided “chapter one” of all our project topics and
materials in order to convince you that we have the complete materials.
Secondly,
we have provided our Bank
Account on this site. Our Bank Account contains all information about the owner
of this website. For
your own security, all payment should be made in the bank.
No
Fraudulent company uses Bank Account as
a means of payment, because Bank Account contains the overall information of
the owner.
CAUTION/WARNING
Please, DO NOT COPY any
of our materials on this website WORD-TO-WORD. These materials are to assist,
direct you during your project. Study the materials carefully and
use the information in them to develop your own new copy. Copying these materials
word-to-word is CHEATING/ ILLEGAL because it affects Educational standard, and
we will not be held responsible for it. If you must copy word-to-word please do
not order/buy.
That you ordered this
material shows you have agreed not to copy word-to-word.
Comments
Post a Comment