English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
English Language Teaching in its Social Context
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
LEARNING A NEW REGISTER 265session, the teacher <strong>in</strong>troduces the term repel at a time when students had already cxprcsscdthis mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> familiar everyday language, us<strong>in</strong>g terms such as it pushes away; it feels like astrong w<strong>in</strong>d. There is some parallel here to the pr<strong>in</strong>ciple with<strong>in</strong> bil<strong>in</strong>gual programs whichsuggests that learn<strong>in</strong>g should occur first <strong>in</strong> L1 as a basis to learn<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> L2, but here the issueis one of register rather than language.Stage 2 textsDriver makes the important po<strong>in</strong>t about science education that ‘activity by <strong>its</strong>elf is notenough. It is the sense that is made of it that matters’ (Driver, 1983: 49). In Stage 2 textswe see the teacher work<strong>in</strong>g with the children to ‘make sense’ of the activities <strong>in</strong> which theyhave been engaged, by help<strong>in</strong>g them reconstruct their experiences and develop sharedunderstand<strong>in</strong>gs through language. Wegerif and Mercer suggest that it is through be<strong>in</strong>gencouraged and enabled ‘to clearly describc cvents, to account for outcomes and consolidatewhat they have learned <strong>in</strong> words’ that children are helped to ‘understand and ga<strong>in</strong> access toeducated discourse’ (Wcgerif and Mercer, 1996: 53).Text 2 illustrates one type of situation<strong>in</strong> which this process can occur.The teacher’s role <strong>in</strong> these episodes was crucial; the texts show how her <strong>in</strong>teractionswith <strong>in</strong>dividual students provided a ‘scaffold’ for their attempts, allow<strong>in</strong>g for communicationto proceed while giv<strong>in</strong>g the learner access to new l<strong>in</strong>guistic data. InText 2, the <strong>in</strong>teractionbetween teacher and students is different <strong>in</strong> several small but important respects from thetraditional IRF pattern, but these modifications appear to have significant effects on the<strong>in</strong>teraction as a whole. Typically, the IRF pattern is realised <strong>in</strong> fairly predictable ways,frequently <strong>in</strong>volv<strong>in</strong>g a teacher known-answer question, followed by a student answer (oftenbrief), and followed by a teacher evaluation relat<strong>in</strong>g to the correctness or otherwise of theanswer. InText 2, the <strong>in</strong>teractions approximate more closely what occurs <strong>in</strong> L1 adult-child<strong>in</strong>teractions outside of the formal teach<strong>in</strong>g context (see for example, Halliday 1975; Wells1981 ; Pa<strong>in</strong>ter 1985). The teacher beg<strong>in</strong>s the exchange with <strong>in</strong>vit<strong>in</strong>g students to relate whatthey have learned, rather than with a ‘known answer’ or display question. While teachers’questions are often framed <strong>in</strong> ways which do not allow for students to make extendedresponses (Dillon, 1990), here, by contrast, the teacher sets up a context where it is thestudents who <strong>in</strong>itiate the specific topic of the exchange. As Ellis (1996) shows, when learner?<strong>in</strong>itiate what they wish to talk about, language learn<strong>in</strong>g is facilitated because they enter thediscourse on their own terms, rather than respond<strong>in</strong>g to a specific request for <strong>in</strong>formationfrom the teacher. In &us text, the student takes on the role of what Berry refers to as ‘primaryknower’ (Berry 1981). Although of course it is the teacher who is <strong>in</strong> control of theknowledge associated with the overall thematic development of the unit of work, the<strong>in</strong>dividual exchanges locate that control <strong>in</strong> the student.The reciprocity and mutuality <strong>in</strong> thespeaker roles leads to Hannah produc<strong>in</strong>g longer stretches of discourse than often occurs <strong>in</strong>classroom <strong>in</strong>teraction. As is typical <strong>in</strong> these rcport<strong>in</strong>g sessions, the teacher ‘leads frombeh<strong>in</strong>d’, and whilc follow<strong>in</strong>g Hannah’s lead and accept<strong>in</strong>g as a valid contribution the<strong>in</strong>formation she gives, the teacher also recasts it, provid<strong>in</strong>g alternative l<strong>in</strong>guistic forms toencode student mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> more context-appropriate ways.It is also clear that teacher-guided report<strong>in</strong>g encourages learner language to be ‘pushed’.(As one student commented as she struggled to expla<strong>in</strong> what she had done: I can’t suy itMISS!). Hannah is go<strong>in</strong>g beyond what is unproblcmatic for her but, because she is allowed asecond attempt, she has an opportunity to produce more comprehensible output. Hannah’ssecond attempt at her explanation is considerably less hesitant and syntactically morecomplete than her first, and is produced th~s time without the help of the teacher.Vygotsky’s