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.
340 JOAN SWANNTable 20. INumber and type of student-<strong>in</strong>itiated moves <strong>in</strong> two types of lessonType of class Number of Clarification Mean<strong>in</strong>g of S<strong>in</strong>gle word Longerstudent-<strong>in</strong>itiated seek<strong>in</strong>g words contributions contributionsmovesTraditional 11 3 2 5 0Video Led 38 2 3 0 33Source: Jayalakshmi (1993): 287Chapter 18 <strong>in</strong> this volume provides a more formal and detailed example of quantification.Assia Slimani was <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> the relationship between students’ claims about whatl<strong>in</strong>guistic features they had learnt, and the direct teach<strong>in</strong>g of such features. Table 18.2(p. 296) illustrates this, show<strong>in</strong>g the number of l<strong>in</strong>guistic features that had been explicitlydealt with <strong>in</strong> lessons (identified from audio record<strong>in</strong>gs), and the proportion of these thatwere recalled by students, those that were not recalled, and those that were said to havebeen learned on a previous occasion.By contrast, a qualitative approach tends to be used if the questions that are asked of apiece of data are more open-ended: if you wanted to know, for <strong>in</strong>stance, what happeneddur<strong>in</strong>g a meet<strong>in</strong>g; how students worked together <strong>in</strong> certa<strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>g situations; howrelationships were established and ma<strong>in</strong>ta<strong>in</strong>ed; or how students achieved an understand<strong>in</strong>gof certa<strong>in</strong> concepts. Most of the chapters <strong>in</strong> this volume that look at classroom languageadopt a qualitative approach to the analysis of talk. In Chapter 15, for <strong>in</strong>stance, Neil Mercerdiscusses how teachers use language to guide students’ learn<strong>in</strong>g. While Mercer identifiescerta<strong>in</strong> teach<strong>in</strong>g techniques, these are not systematically coded and quantified. Mercer ismore concerned with analys<strong>in</strong>g the function of the techniques teachers use than withcount<strong>in</strong>g the frequency with which techniques are used, and illustrates this by quot<strong>in</strong>gextracts from transcripts. In Chapter 16 Paul<strong>in</strong>e Gibbons exam<strong>in</strong>es children’s progressionfrom ‘everyday’ language to the use of scientific discourse, focus<strong>in</strong>g on the experiences ofone student. The language used at different po<strong>in</strong>ts <strong>in</strong> a series of lessons is illustrated bytranscripts along with a close l<strong>in</strong>guistic commentary. Angel L<strong>in</strong>, <strong>in</strong> Chapter 17, also usesextracts from transcripts of classroom talk to illustrate the extent to which differentstudents’ ‘habitus’ is compatible with what is required of them <strong>in</strong> school <strong>English</strong> lessons.There have been several debates with<strong>in</strong> educational research about the relative mer<strong>its</strong>of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Features of each approach, and some advantagesand disadvantages that have traditionally been associated with them, are summarised <strong>in</strong> thebox opposite.While some researchers argue for an <strong>in</strong>tegration of quantitative and qualitativeapproaches, it has also been suggested that they embody fundamentally different views ofthe mean<strong>in</strong>g of spoken language (cod<strong>in</strong>g language <strong>in</strong>to discrete categories, for <strong>in</strong>stance,suggests that mean<strong>in</strong>gs are relatively fixed and unambiguous, whereas qualitative approachesoften emphasise ambiguity <strong>in</strong> language and argue that utterances need to be <strong>in</strong>terpreted <strong>in</strong>context). For an overview of this debate see, for <strong>in</strong>stance, Edwards and Westgate (1 994).Wegerif and Mercer (1 997) suggest that it is possible to progress beyond this apparentdivide by draw<strong>in</strong>g on corpus, or computer-based forms of analysis. Corpus-based analysesallow researchers to process huge amounts of spoken or written language and establishquantitative patterns of language use. They have frequently been used to identify mean<strong>in</strong>gsof words and phrases and to aid the compilation of dictionary entries.They may also be used