DOCUMENT RESUME ED 396 557 FL 023 915 AUTHOR Nicholls, Jane TITLE Exchange Struccure in the ESL Classroom: Q-A-C and Q-CQ-A-C Sequences in Small Group Interaction. PUB DATE 93 NOTE 14p.; In: "Pragmatics and Language Learning," Volume 4. Selected papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Conference on Pragmatics and Language Learning (6th, Urbana, IL, April 2-4, 1992); see FL 023 905. PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143) Speeches/Conference Papers (150) EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Classroom Communication; *College Instruction; Discourse Analysis; English (Second Language); *Group Dynamics; Higher Education; Interpersonal Communication; Language Research; Linguistic Theory; *Pragmatics; *Questioning Techniques; Second Language Instruction; *Small Group Instruction IDENTIFIERS *Turn Taking ABSTRACT A study investigated patterns of interaction in college classroom discourse involved in small group work. Specifically, it looked at two discourse sequences: Question-Answer-Comment (Q-A-C) and Question-Counter Question-Answer-Comment (Q-CQ-A-C). Instances of the latter are closely considered in the context in which they occur, and an attempt is made to link the nature of classroom talk to the larger concern of classroom dynamics. Data are drawn from two transcribed university-level English-as-a-Second-Language (ESL) classes. An opinion is that despite the fact that students in small group are able to self--elect freely, the exchange structure characteristic of this interaction remains traditional in nature. Examination of one case within the data in which the counter-questioning move in Q-CQ-A-C sequence is generally absent, and the resulting classroom discourse becomes markedly less traditionally pedagogical in nature. Contains 12 references. (Author/MSE) ********************************************************* Reproductions supplied by EDRS * are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** 1 Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, Vol. 4, 1993 Exchange Structure in the ESL Classroom: Q-A-C and Q-CQ-A-C Sequences in Small Group Interaction Jane Nicholls University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND ,ird Olite ,,,Fclucilhonam DISSEMItqATE THIS MATERIAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION HAS BEEN GRAN1 CENTER (EP.ICI RY /his document has been reproduced as , received from the person or organization t.._ 1 originating it 0 Mmoi changes have been made to improve reproduction quality ..11t lOU( f ro THE EDUCAT IONAL B Points ot view or opinions slated in tt.w, document do not necessarily !consent INFONMAi If Ill CEN FEH IF WC) official OERI position or policy -) BEST C6i'Y AVAILABLE Pragmatics and Language Learning Monograph Series, Vol. 4, 1993 Exchange Structure in the ESL Classroom: Q-A-C and Q-CQ-A-C Sequences in Small Group Interaction Jane Nicholls University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign This paper begins by briefly reviewing the literature related to classroom discourse structure and proceeds to explore how specific findings in the literature are reflected in two transcribed university-level ESL classes which were involved in small group work. More specifically, "Question-Answer-Comment" (Q-A-C) sequences are identified, as are a significant derivation thereof: "Question-Counter Question-Answer-Comment" (Q-CQ-A-C) Instances of the latter are closely considered in the sequences. contexts in which they occur, and an attempt is made to link the nature of classroom talk to the larger concern of classroom dynamics It is argued that despite the fact that students involved in small group work are able to freely self-select, the exchange structure characteristic of this interaction remains traditional in nature. Finally, one case within the data is enamined where the counter questioning move in the Q-CQ-A-C sequence is generally as a result, the classroom discourse here becomes absent; markedly less traditionally pedagogical in nature. To communicate in the classroom is to play a kind of language game: this game "is a goal-oriented activity involving moves by one or more players, mutual dependence and constraint amcag moves, and [it involves] the need for strategy and tactics" (Jacobs, 1986, p. 151). Inherent in our ability to identify classroom talk as one of many "games" included in the larger entity that is discourse is the fact that we understand how this game as distinct from others is played. The purpose of this paper is to examine how specific findings in the literature are made manifest in two transcribed ESL lessons.' I am particularly interested in how certain "rules of the game" are or are not adhered to by the players and I will, as a result, pay close attention to what are referred to by McHoul (1978) as "Question-Answer-Comment" (QAC) exchange sequences, and, importantly, the derivations thereof. It is my contention that they exist in the data cases of 183 184 Jane Nicholls interactional modifications which result in a variant of the QAC sequence; namely that of the Q-CQ-A-C sequence, or "Question-Counter Question-Answer- Comment" sequence. I would like to suggest ways in which these two exchange Finally, I will conclude by structures may relate to classroom dynamics. examining one case in the data where the exchange structure looks decidedly less pedagogic than conversational in its orientation. This example is significant in that it suggests a quite different dynamic in the classroom. Classroom talk, as part of a larger domain known as institutional or formal It is via this talk, is best understood as it exists in relation to ordinary talk. comparative focus that the features unique to classroom talk are brought into In keeping with Goffman's (1974) observation that utterances are relief. "anchored in the surrounding, ongoing world" (p. 500), recent studies of institutional interaction reveal that while resembling ordinary talk in many ways, institutional talk is governed by considerations of "task, equity, efficiency, etc. in ways that mundane conversational practices manifestly are not" (Heritage, 1988, Significantly, what becomes central to the identification of institutional p. 34). talk as distinct from ordinary talk is its turn-taking system. Like ordinary conversational interaction, institutional interaction is understood This form of as being managed on a turn-by-turn basis (Zimmerman, 1987). management, however, is modified in an institutional setting Where factors such as "rights and obligations and differential patterns of opportunity and power" (Heritage, 1988, p. 34) have a strong bearing upon the interaction. Thus, rooted in the resulting modification is a situation whereby, according to Heritage (1988), the incumbents of particular roles lawyer, doctor, teacher, (e.g. interviewer) ask questions and, where relevant, select next speakers, while others (e.g. patients, pupils, witnesses, interviewees) are largely confined to answering them (p. 34). How this role-related "question-answer-mediated-turn-taking" (Heritage, 1988, p. 34) influences the management of classroom talk is of key importance here. McHoul (1978) maintains that the management of classroom talk is ruled by the distribution of differential participation rights in classrooms. He argues that "only teachers can direct speakership in any creative way" (McHoul, 1978, p.188). Notably, this does not mean that students cannot direct speakership they after having can but the nature of student-directed speakers14 is not creative: typically been first selected by the teacher, they can then select only to continue their turn, or select the teacher; the student is thus not granted the permutability which allows the teacher to creatively select any speaker (McHoul, 1978). Therefore, as Heritage (1988) asserts, the "relatively restricted patterns of conduct 4 f '- , 185 Exchange Structure in the ESL Clauroom: the product of turn-type pre- characteristic of Rhe classroom] are primarily alone has what Long (1983) refers allocation" (p. 34). In other words, the teacher Jacobs control topic and speaker" (p. 11). to as the "predetermined ability to tacitly aware of these rules and (1986) notes that both teacher and student are the game" (p. 151). "have the ability to more or less artfully play rhythm which again works to This conversational dance assumes a particular More specifically, where turns in distinguish classroom talk from ordinary talk. (Q-A) utterance or adjacency ordinary talk are often organized as question-answer in the classroom are most often pairs (Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974), turns "utterance triads" (McHoul, organized as question-answer-comment (Q-A-C) the right to importantly, McHoul sees only teachers as having 1978, p.191); it has been produced, although this comment on the sufficiency of an answer once his commentary some examples of C-part is ultimately optional. He provides in both teacher and student striking in C-parts, such as the one below, which is for its familiarity: Excerpt 1 Yes Denise T: 1 residential along I think em firstly there proh'ly be 2 13: would the em railway but then -- later on that land 3 prob'ly increase in value and the businesses would 4 buy the people out. 5 6 C T: Very good answer. (1.0) 7 (McHoul, 1978, p. 191) 8 C T: n quite correct. C-part, or evaluative feedback on the As Allright and Bailey (1991) maintain, this normal, non-teaching conversation" form of an utterance "is not what we expect in initial Q-A, recognized as being It is, however, in combination with the (p. 98). spend a classroom talk; as a result, interaction analysts a ubiquitous element in describing the symmetry of the Q-A-C great deal of time identifying and sequence. "particularly applicable to Stubbs (1983) concufs that the Q-A-C sequence is traditional lesson provides teacher-pupil interaction" (p. 131) He argues that the between teachers the basis for a "consensus model" in which there is an agreement inherent in that context (p. 135). and students about the norms and conventions literature surrounding the topic of Certainly, wnat is explicit in much of the classrooms where the teacher is the classroom talk in traditional, teacher-fronted talk is at bottom an expiession obvious "director" or "head" is the attitude that this 186 Jane Nicholls of power inequalities; Long (1983) calls it 'unequal power' discourse" (p. 11). At the root of this power imbalance is the general understanding that there exists an unequal distribution of knowledge between teacher and students. Muller (1988) writes that common expectations which both students and teachers share minimally involve expectations where "the teacher [is] 'the one who knows' (the primary knower) [...] and the students [are] the 'ones who do not know' (the secondary knowers)" (p. 315). Fundamental to the nature of discourse in the traditional classroom, then, is the sense that knowledge is somehow the property of the teacher. Several interaction analysts make reference to the fact that when the teacher is not clearly acting in his or her traditional role as "head" of a teacher-fronted class, and when, instead, the class consists of small group work activities, the nature of classroom discourse may be modified to a certain degree. Stubbs (1983), for example, questions whether or not the organintion of exchanges would be as pronounced in less traditional lessons where "clear status and power relations" are not immediately apparent, if there at all (p. 134); he goes on to suggest the possibility that students and teachers in a leos highly controlled context may have "different views about how discourse could and should develop" (p. 135). It appeals to rarely be the case, however, that the discourse of the classroom traditional or not diverges from the classic model of classroom talk to such an extent that the interaction and thus the participants' roles become unrecognizable. Much of the following will support this contention, although included in the final segment of this paper is a discussion of additional data which is illustrative of a more conversational orientation to classroom discourse. The data in this paper largely works to underscore the fact that, though engaged in small group work, the teacher usually works very consistently at maintaining her role as the "primary knower" whenever there is a chance of becoming, like her students, a hearer and, by extension, a "secondary blower.' She is thus reluctant to relinquish her right to manage the discourse when her students attempt to creatively distribute turns. The exchange structure which results is variant in that it could best be described as Q-CQ-A-C, the CQ being an important move on the teacher's part, whereby her right to direct the discourse is made most explicit. In this way, the class remains in one way quite traditional in that although it is not technically speaking teacher-fronted and students may self-select the capacity to direct the discourse is retained by the teacher. In an attempt to support this finding, let us now take a closer look at the data. What is immediately significant with regard to the nature of group work here is that the students and not the teacher are self-selecting in order to ask questions of the teacher. The situation where the teacher directs discussion and allocates 187 Exchange Structure in the ESL Clauroom: questions is thus inverted as the students conduct their own discussions and encounter their own questions. The following example illustrates this process: Excerpt 2 <h> Mary L12: 1 yeah T: 2 3 Q L12: what's the meaning of (+) Ausch[v]itz? 4 CQ d'uhm does anybody here know what Auschwitz was? T: 5 A L6: yeah //concentration camp// //you want to explain it// T: 6 7 (+) //explain it to her// T: 8 L6: //Ausch[v]itz 9 10 explain it to Hiroko T: Note that L12's question at line 3 sets the teacher up, so to speak, to provide an answer; this then leaves the student in the position to comment on or evaluate the The teacher's next turn at line 4, however, works to teacher's response.' fundamentally reshape the structure of the exchange. The teacher responds to L12's question with a counter question which re-allocates L12's question to the groupthis re-allocating move is one which only the teacher has the right to make, and by so doing she thereby re-positions herself within the exchange structure so that she is in the position to comment upon a response and is not, instead, the one whose response may be commented upon. In fact, the teacher does not comment on L6's answer at line 5, although, significantly, her capacity to do so was secured by her counter-questioning move at line 4. The teacher employs this discourse strategy on a number of occasions in the lesson where a Q-A-C exchange is initiated by a student's self-selected question. In the following example (Excerpt 3) we can see that the teacher makes two attempts to modify the potential student-initiated Q-A-C exchange with a second "CQ" part; the first attempt, which involves re-allocating this "CQ" part to the small group at line 3, is unsuccessful as no one within the group can respond; necessarily, then, the teacher re-directs her question once again at line 8, this time to the entire class. What follows is a lather long but not a typical exchange whereby the teacher prompts a student whose reply is incomplete; her turns at lines 11 and 14 are commenting turns insofar as they evaluate the incomplete nature of L5' s answers, and ask for more information. Mehan (1978) writes that when a student gives a partial or incorrect answer, carefully directed teacher- student interaction continuo; until the correct answer appears, which it dues at line 19. 188 Jane Nicholls Excerpt 3 Q L8: uh Mary (+) uhm what's ideology means 1 (++) 2 CQ ideology. (++) does anybody know? (+) here. (+) uh did you T: 3 ask 4 (++) 5 //yeah I//asked (+) I asked her LB: 6 //uh huh// L7: 7 CQ ok who knows what an ideology is? (1) does anybody know what T: 8 an ideology is? 9 thought, L5: 10 a //what7// 11C//Q T: //what?// L8: 12 13 A a kind of thought, L5: a kind of thought 14C//Q T: what kind of u:h- //what kind// of thought 15 LB: //idea?// 16 it be (+) for example (+) give an example of //an ideology// 17 Q T: L7: //((unintelligible))// 18 19 A L5: o:h u:hm socialist, (+) communist, (+) democracy is a- can you hear tell (+) tell her 20 T: Most of the time, as we have seen, when faced with a student's question the teacher is able to modify the ensuing discourse by inserting a "CQ" part into the exchange. Only once does she need to defend, in a sense, her right to manage the discourse. Consider the first part of the extended exchange: Excerpt 4 Mary? ((formally)) L9: 1 uh huh? T: 2 your input plea// (h huh //huh//huh)// L9: 3 //huh// T: 4 L11: // (h huh //huh//huh// huh) <huh> 5 there is this e::h (+) some sort of an idiom you pretend to Q L9: 6 pay us and we pretend to work 7 8 CQ what do you think that could bet (+) do you have any ok. T: idea? 9 do you know what the word pretend means Lll: 10 (++) 11 know what the word pretend means do / T: 12 yeah (+) I- I doubt (+) I don't know that see Lll: 13 oh ok who - do - does anybody know what the word pretend 14 CQ T: means. 15 //pretend?// L5: 16 //pretend7// L6: 17 pret(h)e:nd? ((LB sounds disbelieving)) LB: 18 //pretend7// L7: 19 //pretend// to be (+) like you're trying to show something 20 A L6: from 21 you that u:h 22 23 A is not? L9: is actually not you 24 A L6: 25 (+) a::h L11: 26 pretend 27 1,5: ok 28 L11: 189 Exchange Structure in the ESL Classroom. What is surprising in Excerpt 4 is Lll's decision to respond to the teacher's counter question at lines 8 and with a question of his own, "Do you know what the word pretend means9" at line 10. This represents a violation of the turn- taking rules for classroom talk which, as we have seen and according to McHoul (1978), "permit and oblige the teacher and only the teacher to initially instigate a topic or topics and, from there on, to maintain or change that topic or topics" (p. 203). The teacher's response at line 12, "Do I know what pretend means?" another question is asked in an attempt to allow the student to in some way repair the situation, which he does by admitting his ignorance in the matter at line 13. The teacher then exercises her right to go on, securittg her true second "CQ" part at line 14, and the discourse continues smoothly. It is interesting to consider the exchange which immediately folkws Excerpt The teacher, whose role as the primary knower and director of the discourse 4 was momentarily undermined by LI l's apparent disregard for the conventions of classroom talk at line 10, again uses, as in Excerpt 3, a series of prompts to now very carefully manage the direction of the discourse. These occur at lines 10, 15, 19, and 23. As the Q-A-C sequences emerge at lines 15, 17, 19, 22, and 23, the familiar symmetry of the exchange structure typical of the classroom becomes recognizable. By virtue of the teacher's involvement here, the interaction becomes much more traditionally pedagogic in nature insofar as the teacher designates both topic and speaker. Excerpt 5 L11: but I mean //(huh)// I don't know the meaning (h huh huh) 1 2 //<hun>// L9: //(huh huh)// 3 T: 4 //ok// //think// about it think read the sentence //again// 5 //anyway/I Lll: 6 //yeah yeah// with that idea T: 7 yeah yeah, ((louder)) Lll: 8 9 (9) 10 ok (+) Rein- Reinhard it's a criticism of what T: Q (+) d'you . know what it could be possibly a criticism of, 11 12 (+) A Lll: of the communism 13 14 (+) but what aspect 15 C//Q T: 16 (2) A Lll: of not being a free market there 17 18 (+) 19 C//Q T: u::hm (+) yeah (+) but specifically whdt sector 20 (1) //((cough))// Lll: 21 A L9: 22 //<hhh>// the wor- the working class maybe 23 C//Q T: the working class ok (+) when (+) the working class is not 24 in a free market and what happens (+) when you wrk for the state? 25 yeah (+) okay Lll: 26 27 (10) 9 190 hoc Nicholls Despite the predominance of the Q-CQ-A-C sequence in the class transcriptions examined, teacheri did not always respond to students' self-selected questions with a counter question of their own. In other words, they did not always move in sach a way as to grant themselves the opportunity to closely direct the subsequent interaction. What happens when teachers do not employ Q-CQ-AC sequences is also extremely interesting, and, not surprisingly, this particular conversational Consider the following dance also affects the rhythm of classroom. dynamics. exchange: Excerpt 6 1 Q Le. what ehspur ((spur)) means? how do you pronounce it 2 s-p-u-r ((1,6 spells the word out)) 3 A spu:r T: spur= L6: 4 =//uh huh, <h>// T: 5 6 Q L6: //what does this mean.// T: can I see the sentence? 7 sure L6: 8 T: 9 it depends on (1) uh::m (1) where was it again down 10 here somewhere (+) L6: 11 it's supposed to be here (+) uh:m (++) <bhh> 12 (hhhhh) ((L5 laughs under his breath)) 1,5: L6: 13 uh:: oh, oh. (+) yeah its here 14 (1) 15 A T: ok (3) to: in this case it's to encourage 16 (4) L6: 17 to en//courage// 18 T: //to ((unintelligible)) (into)// courage <hh> 19 Q L6 does it have another meaning too 20 A T: yeah you know uh on a ho:rse (+) uhm (+) when you're riding 21 (+) you have on you::r (hh) (+) on your shoe a sp//ur// 22 L6: //yeah/I 23 A T: and you use that to: L6: 24 ok//I understand// 25 A T: //make the horse// go faster <hhh> it comes from 26 //there it's// 27 1,6: //excuse me// 28 A T: called a spu:r (+) and so the verb (1) here to spur would be 29 to encourage 30 Q L6: so is it //a: verb// 31 //<hhh>// 1,5: 32 Q and noun too yeah= 1,6: 33 A T: =yeah a spur (+) //is// 34 1,6: //sp//ur= 35 A on your shoe= T: 36 =is a noun 1,6: 3, (+) 38 A T: and to spur- it could be to spur or to spur on is to 39 encourage 40 so you pronounce it ehspur ((spur)) 1,6: T: 41 spur (+) uh //huh// L6: 42 //ok// 1 0