Teacher-Learner Negotiation in Content-Based Instruction: Communication at Cross-Purposes?

Abstract

This research looks at teacher-student exchanges in three content-based language classrooms The data reveal persistent archetypal patterns of classroom interaction, teachers speak most of the time and they initiate the majority of the exchanges by asking display questions, whereas student-initiated requests are referential In addition, teachers modify their own speech in response to students' signals of non-understanding regardless of activity type (whole class, small group, one-to-one), but students prefer to verbally request help only in small group or one-to-one interactions with the teacher Moreover, although teachers repeatedly modify their speech in response to students' requests (verbal or non-verbal), they rarely request modifications oj the students' speech Sustained negotiation-in which teachers and students verbally resolve incomplete or inaccurate messages-occurs rarely or not at all in these classrooms The research differs from earlier work on L2 teacher talk and negotiation in that it attempts to shed light on why these patterns of interaction persist The discussion of the data includes the participating teachers' explanations of their own behaviors Students' reactions to negotiation in content-based instruction are gleaned from end-of-semester evaluations of both the teacher and the course Overall lack of linguistic negotiation is attributed to teachers' and learners' expectations for appropriate classroom behaviors, teachers' sensittvity to affective variables in second language learning, power relationships, and time management considerations While the present research supports previous experimental studies in which learners' clarification requests result in teacher-modified input, they also challenge the feasibility of promoting more negotiation in content-based instruction BACKGROUND Research in content-based instruction has firmly established that even earlystage second language (L2) learners can acquire significant amounts of subject matter knowledge through instruction conducted solely in the L2 (Lapkin and Swain 1984, Bnnton, Snow, and Wesche 1990, Musumeci 1993) In addition particularly in the areas of listening and reading, classroom learners L2 competence can become native-like in content-based instructional settings The success of this type of instructional approach has been attributed to the fact that learners are exposed to copious amounts of comprehensible input, in contrast

The influence of context on patterns of corrective feedback and learner uptake: a comparison of CLIL and immersion classrooms

“…Twenty-five years ago, Swain (1988) proposed that content teaching on its own was not necessarily good language teaching and needed to be complemented and manipulated to maximise language learning; since then, researchers have concurred that for CBLT to be effective, it must be language-rich and discourse-rich (e.g. Allen et al 1990;Dalton-Puffer 2007;Duff 2001;Genesee 1987;Hoare and Kong 2008;Lyster 2007;Musumeci 1996).…”

Teachers’ Help of Students to Use English in Selected Secondary Schools at Nekemte, Ethiopia

“…Another study that was conducted by Musumeci (1996) describes typical classroom interaction as dominated by teachers who ask display questions, receive reference questions from students, and modify their speech when they get signals of non-understanding without giving a chance to students to speak. Musumeci also reported that in interviews and questionnaires, teachers and students evaluated their classroom interaction as appropriate classroom behaviour, linked to the teachers" time management (ibid.).…”

Examination of Relationships between Factors Affecting on Oral Participation of ELT Students and Language Development: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach

“…The findings of a study of teacher-student interaction conducted by Musumeci (1996) showed that the teacher talk time occupies about 66% or 72%. Having a supportive relationship with the teacher influences the students' sense of belonging thereby affecting student effort, achievement, self-efficacy and even long-term goals (Walker & Greene, 2009); (Anderman, 2003).…”