DOCUMENT RESUME FL 024 995 ED 415 688 AUTHOR El-Koumy, Abdel Salam A. Review of Recent Studies Dealing with Techniques for TITLE Classroom Interaction. PUB DATE 1997-00-00 NOTE 27p. PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070) EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Classroom Communication; Classroom Environment; Classroom Techniques; *Cooperative Learning; Error Correction; Interaction; *Questioning Techniques; *Reading Instruction; Second Language Instruction; *Second Languages; *Teacher Student Relationship IDENTIFIERS *Scaffolding ABSTRACT Theory and research on techniques for second language classrooms are reviewed in five areas: the scaffolding technique; questioning techniques; cooperative learning; techniques for promoting student interaction with text (reading instruction); and error correction. It is (1) while there is some conflicting evidence, the majority of concluded that: studies reviewed support the notion that reciprocal teaching improves reading and listening skills and fosters positive student attitudes toward reading; (2) studies of questioning show that teacher questions promote classroom interaction when open-ended, challenging, and interpretational, increasing teacher wait time after questions improves the quality and quantity of interaction, teacher encouragement and immediacy increase student questions, and the number of student questions in student/student interaction is much greater than in teacher/student interaction; (3) allowing students to interact freely in cooperative learning without close monitoring improves (4) heterogeneous grouping promotes interaction of language skills; (5) task differences influences interaction among group low-ability students; (6) interaction with prior knowledge and student-generated questions members; improve reading comprehension; and (7) error correction, even computer-generated, improves learning. Contains 103 references. (MSE) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** Review of recent studies dealing with techniques for classroom interaction Abdel Salam A. El-Koumy Faculty of Education in Suez Suez Canal University, Egypt Recent years have seen a substantial increase in the theoretical and empirical literature of classroom interaction. Techniques for classroom interaction have dealt been with many theorists and by researchers with of varied points view and methodology. The purpose of this paper is to review this literature over the past ten years and offer conclusions for teaching practice. Defining classroom interaction As defined by Celce-Murcia (1989: 25) the term classroom interaction is "a system of giving and receiving information." According to Malamah-Thomas (1987: 7), classroom interaction "means acting reciprocally." She maintains that, "The teacher acts upon the class, but the class reaction subsequently modifies his next action, and so on." van Lier (1988: 93) has divided classroom interaction into two types: 1) social interaction, and 2) cognitive interaction. He maintains that both types mediate between input and intake and the social type involves interaction with people whereas the cognitive one involves interaction with knowledge systems such as prior knowledge. EDUCATION U.S DEPARTMENT OF PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND and Improvement Off ice of Educational Research INFORMATION DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES CENTER (ERIC) HAS BEEN GRANTED BY reproduced as NA.This document has been organization Atep\ received from the person or c 2).\o-rf-N originating it. made to 0 Minor changes have been quality. improve reproduction stated in this Points of view or opinions TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES represent document do not necessarily INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) official OERI position or policy. REST COPY AVAILABLE Techniques for classroom interaction (1) The Scaffolding technique The instructor/student interaction unlike student/student interaction is based on superior knowledge and authority. That is, instructor as the language expert knows more than the the student, and is thus in a superior position (Prabu 1987). This superiority, however, does not prohibit effective interaction Instructors who wish to interact with their (Comeau 1987). students can use the scaffolding technique. This technique reciprocal teaching, provision of activities such as includes contextual cues, and use of half-finished examples. These activities are temporary supports that help the teacher to interact with his students (Rosenshine and Guenther 1992). Scarcella and Oxford (1992) also claim that such activities should be gradually withdrawn as students become more independent. Research on scaffolds A review of research on scaffolds has revealed that recent research studies done in this area are limited to investigating the effects of reciprocal teaching on language teacher/student These studies showed that achievement and proficiency. reciprocal teaching: 1) enhanced the lecture comprehension and skills of college students (Spivey comprehension monitoring 1995), 2) improved reading comprehension with educationally at- risk pupils (Dao 1994), and 3) fostered students' attitudes toward reading (Karlonis 1995). However, Bradford (1992) reported that poor readers who received reciprocal teaching did not improve more than those students who continued in regular basal reading instruction. (2) The questioning technique Questioning has been one of the most common techniques for classroom interaction (Andersen and Nussbaum 1990). Both teacher and student questions constitute most of the classroom interaction. As Daly et al. (1994: 27) point out, "In classrooms, questioning on the part of teacher and students takes up a 3 Across all grade levels, of portion the significant day. approximately 70% of average school day interaction is occupied with this activity. . ." Chaudron (1988) claims that teachers' questions may be either helpful or inhibiting of interaction. To encourage student (1991) suggest that teachers' Udall and Daniels interaction, questions should be open-ended and the wait time should be at least ten seconds. Carlsen (1991) suggests that teachers should rather than rote memory ones to ask challenging questions encourage students to take part in classroom interaction. "in contrast with interactions in Nunan (1989) notes that, the world outside, classroom interaction is characterized by the total exclusion of use of display questions to the almost referential questions" (p. 29). According to van Lier (1988: 222), questions and instructional distinction between the conversational (non-instructional) ones is not their referential or display nature, but rather their eliciting nature. He wrote: Such [display] questions have the professed aim of providing comprehensible input, and of encouraging I suggest that, by and large, what 'early production'. gives such question series their instructional, typically L2-classroom character is not so much that they are display rather than referential, but that they are made with the aim of eliciting language from the learners (p. 222). Research on classroom questions There has been much research on classroom questions in over the past ten years. The issues which were investigated questions, teacher wait time, and area include teacher this student questions. The writer found that only two studies addressed teacher questions in recent years. One of them was conducted by Albert (1987) who found that most active student 4 participation occurred in lessons where: 1) teacher's questions were personal or interpretational (rather than factual), and 2) the teacher did not evaluate student responses. In the other study, Dillon (1988) found that questions took up 67 'Yo of teachers' turns at talk. The second issue centered on teacher wait time after questions. Rowe (1987) found that the average teacher waited one second. In his review of the studies dealing with wait time, Tobin (1987) concluded that increasing teacher wait time had a number of effects including: a decrease in the amount of teacher talk, an increase in the amount of student utterances, fewer low cognitive-level questions, and more high level questions. The third issue dealt with student questions from a variety of perspectives. Aitken and found that Neer (1991) encouragement from teachers was related to increases in student questions. Daly et al. (1994) reported that: 1) there was a significant relationship between question-asking comfort and grades in reading, 2) question-asking comfort was positively to related family socioeconomic status, English income, language proficiency, self-esteem and locus of control, and 3) males felt more comfortable in asking questions than females. Darling (1989) found that questions were often utilized as verbal strategies by students to signal a lack of comprehension or an attempt to gain peer or teacher assistance. EI-Sakran and Ankit (1995) found that Arab EFL students resorted to wh-questions when they asked for details, clarification, and repetition. Good et al. (1987) found that kindergarten females asked two or one-half times fewer questions than males. As they grew older, females gradually increased their frequency of question-asking each year until seventh grade. However, after this stage, females questions fell below those of males. This decline was explained by the investigators as follows: Numerous studies show that adolescent females are reluctant to compete in the classroom, generally want to they appear less apparently because aggressive than male students, or they are hesitant to questions because of their concern about how ask teachers and peers will perceive their questions (e. g., its appropriateness) (p. 194). In the same study, Good et al. (1987) also reported that, across grade levels, elementary students who were low achievers the classroom. This passivity, question-asking avoided in according to the investigators, was caused as well as reinforced by certain teacher behaviors. They wrote: For example, many teachers call on students perceived to be low achievers less often, wait less time for them to respond, give them answers rather than try to help them improve their responses when they answer incorrectly, are less likely to praise their success, and are more likely to criticize their failures. Because low likely to answer correctly and achievers are less because their mistakes occur in public, they have to ambiguity and risk when they deal with of levels respond. Under the circumstances, a good strategy for them is to remain passivenot to volunteer and not to respond when called onand possibly to ask fewer questions and approach the teacher less often (p. 183). H. Abdel Samie and M. Abdel Samie (1996) found that the number of student questions in student/student interaction was much greater than in teacher/student interaction. Finally, West (1991, cited in Daly et al. 1994) reported that high levels of teacher immediacy elicited more questions from students than low teacher immediacy. 6' (3) The cooperative learning technique refers to a set of The cooperative learning technique instructional activities in which students work in learning groups or dyads. For group or peer involvement in language learning, some language teaching methodologists suggest the use of problem solving to promote interaction and divergent thinking (e. g., King 1989, Palincsar and Brown 1988, Sadow 1987). Others suggest the use of drama (improvisation, role-play, simulation) and language games for group or peer involvement in classroom interaction (e. g., Chang 1990, Crookall and Oxford 1990, Kim 1995, McDonough and Shaw 1993, Sharim-Paz 1993). Benefits of cooperative learning Student/student interaction has a valuable role to play in second/foreign complement with language learning in teacher/student interaction. It provides students with a different context in which they can use the new language. Ford (1991: 45) outlines the theoretical advantages of cooperative learning in the following way: Cooperative learning provides students with greater interact with each other, opportunities to: 2) 1) negotiate for meaning, 3) work in a variety of projects that are of interest to them, 4) participate in real-world more frequently than communicative activities in traditional teacher-fronted classrooms... Christison (1990: 9) agrees with Ford when she says: Through cooperative learning techniques students can become real partners in the learning enterprise. Since most consequential problems solved are via collaboration, students who learn to work together in an educational setting are better prepared to meet life's obligations. Through cooperative learning techniques learners are asked to do things in the EFL classroom that they are asked to do in real lifetake charge of and responsibility for their own learning. advantages of cooperation in second/foreign Additional language learning include more student talk, more varied talk, more relaxed atmosphere, greater motivation, and increased amount of comprehensible input (Olsen and Kagan 1992). Oxford (1990) also points to other advantages for cooperative learning. Among them are higher self-esteem and confidence, decreased prejudice, and increased respect for others. Interaction and group composition Some cooperative learning advocates (e. g., Slavin 1990) suggest that students should be grouped heterogeneously. That should include students with diverse group composition is, experiences. The rationale for heterogeneous grouping is based on both affective and cognitive considerations. According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), students encounter wider diversity in heterogeneous groups. Thus, heterogeneous grouping is more likely to improve interpersonal attraction among group members. can help to dismantle social barriers and misconceptions It between the handicapped and non-handicapped, males and females, and the socially advantaged and disadvantaged. Jacobs and Hall (1994) also note that heterogeneous ability grouping benefits both high- and low-ability students. Less able students receive more instructional support from their partners than from the classroom teacher. Concurrently, more able students may also benefit cognitively from explaining lessons to their partners and from the opportunity to practice cooperative social skills. On the other hand, some theorists claim that heterogeneous groups do not challenge high-ability students and less able students benefit at the expense of their more able partners (e. g., Mills and Durden 1992, Robinson 1990). Webb (1989) claims that the effectiveness of cooperative learning is attributed to interaction among group members. To 8 promote interaction among group members, Hooper et al. (1989) suggest increasing individual accountability wherein each group member must demonstrate mastery of the content embedded in the instruction. Contrasted with deriving a team response where less able students might simply defer to those who are more able, or more able students may attempt to dominate, individual accountability may promote qualitatively and quantitatively superior interaction. Supporting Hooper et al., Jacobs (1987) suggests that "when students write group compositions, making each group member responsible for one part of the task can help avoid loafing by less active or less able students" (p. 331). Additionally, some advocates of cooperative learning propose training to facilitate interaction among students. They claim that without training, interaction will be ineffective and students will imitate familiar behaviours which are not related to effective interaction (e. g., Dalton 1990, King 1989, Palincsar et al. 1990). Research on cooperative learning The effects of group ability composition on learning efficiency and interaction were examined in two recent studies. Hooper and Hannafin (1988) found that heterogeneous grouping students low-ability of by achievement the increased approximately 50% compared to their homogeneously grouped homogeneous grouping increased the contrast, peers. In approximately 12% achievement of high-ability students by their heterogeneously grouped counterparts. In compared to the same investigators (Hooper and Hannafin another study, 1991) investigated the effects of cooperative group composition and student ability on interaction, instructional efficiency, and instruction. The results achievement during computer-based interacted more in students low-ability that: showed 1) homogeneous groups, 2) high-ability heterogeneous than in efficiently in instruction more the completed students homogeneous than heterogeneous groups, and 3) cooperation related to achievement for heterogeneous was significantly ability groups, but not for either homogeneous high- or low- ability students. A number of studies examined gender differences in classroom Dalton et (1989) found that the interaction. al. cooperative treatment was more favourable by low-ability females than by low-ability males. Carrier and Sales (1987) found that female pairs verbalized the most while male pairs verbalized the least, and male-female pairs demonstrated the most off-task behaviour. On the other hand, Mavarech et al. (1987) and El- Koumy (1996) found no significant differences in performance between males and females in the cooperative learning condition. Furthermore, many researchers highlighted the value of cooperative learning in the area of language skills. They found that cooperative learning improved: 1) vocabulary and reading comprehension (Radebaugh and Kazemek 1989, Rapp 1992, Uttero 1988), attitudes of poor readers toward reading 2) (Madden 1988), oral language skills (Bejarano 1987, Rosen 1987), 3) fluency in writing (Davis and Omberg 1987, Stevens et al. 1987, Williams 1991), and 4) spelling (Koury 1990, Rangel 1988). The previously-mentioned results led many researchers to examine the effect of cooperative learning with media originally designed for individual learning on achievement and motivation. Some researchers reported that cooperation at the computer produced positive results (Dalton et al. 1989, Hooper et al. 1993), while others did not find a significant effect for cooperative CAI (Carrier and Sales 1987, Mevarech et al. 1987). Similarly, some researchers that reported cooperative learning influenced motivation and achievement when students used the medium of television (Adams et 1990), while others al. indicated that subjects who worked alone were better and expressed more continuing motivation than those who worked cooperatively with the medium of television (Klein et al. 1994). a0