Читать книгу Classroom Discourse Competence - Группа авторов - Страница 13

Classroom communication and classroom interaction have been in the focus of researchers for a considerable amount of time (Schwab et al. 2017). Theoretical conceptualizations of these constructs and their respective competences have emerged from this. Existing concepts such as Johnson’s (1995) classroom communicative competence (CCC) or Walsh’s (e.g. 2011) classroom interactional competence (CCC) certainly offer valuable conceptual frameworks which allow for a deeper understanding of the processes involved in foreign language classroom communication and interaction as well as of the skills and competences required to participate in these. They do not, however, relate exclusively to FL teachers’ professional discourse competence (also see Thomson, “Introduction” in this volume).

Johnson’s notion of CCC, for instance, clearly denotes a language learner competence which enables them “to participate in and learn from their second language classroom experience” (1995: 6). Johnson defines CCC as “the knowledge and competencies that second language students need in order to participate in, learn from, and acquire a second language in the classroom” (ibid.: 160), and adds that CCC needs to be understood as “students’ knowledge of and competence in the structural, functional, social, and interactional norms that govern classroom communication” (ibid.: 160 and 168).

Shifting the focus from language learners to both language learners and teachers, Walsh’s CIC relates to “interactional strategies” (2011: 177) which enable “teacher[s] and learner[s] […] to use interaction as a tool for mediating and assisting learning” (ibid.: 158 and 165, also 2012: 1 and 5, 2013: 46 and 51, 2014: 4, Walsh/Li 2016: 495). Thus, these strategies, Walsh explains, are “open to both teachers and learners to enhance interaction and improve opportunities for learning” (Walsh 2012: 1). Defining CIC as a competence that both learners and teachers need to acquire, CIC, hence, is not exclusively conceptualized as a professional competence of language teachers. “CIC,” Walsh emphasizes, “focuses on the ways in which teachers’ and learners’ interactional decisions and subsequent actions enhance learning and learning opportunity.” (Walsh 2011: 165f.). Walsh, then, is primarily concerned with the question of “how teachers and learners display CIC” in classroom interaction (ibid.: 166).

Language learners having acquired CIC are, for instance, able to recognize a teacher’s pedagogical focus when using a particular type of question and to give relevant, timely, adequate and appropriate answers (ibid.: 174f.). Furthermore, learners displaying CIC are able “to manage turns, hold the floor and hand over […] turn[s] at a particular point in the interaction”, and they recognize and correctly interpret “key signals” in classroom discourse (ibid.: 174; for these examples and quotes also see Seedhouse/Walsh 2010: 144f.).

Language teachers, on the other hand, display CDC through ‘interactional strategies’ such as “us[ing] language which is both convergent to the pedagogical goal of the moment and which is appropriate to the learners” (Walsh 2012: 6, also Walsh 2014: 5). CIC is also demonstrated by teachers who manage to “creat[e] [interactional] space for learning” and are able to “shap[e] learner contributions” (ibid.). These clearly pedagogically motivated strategies certainly play an important role in a teacher’s classroom discourse repertoire.

That said, they are, however, of a much different quality than the interactional strategies of learners mentioned above: for instance, intentionally using language in ways so as to increase opportunities for learner participation in the classroom discourse (i.e. a teacher’s professional classroom discourse strategy) is different from using one’s linguistic resources in order to hold the floor (i.e. a learner’s communicative/interactional competence). The former clearly describes the kind of purposeful, pedagogically informed verbal behavior that is characteristic of language teachers in the FL classroom context, but is usually not to be found in L2 interaction and communication outside the language classroom. The latter, on the other hand, relates to general FL communicative and interactional skills whose use is not restricted to the classroom context. Defining those as learners’ CIC, then, raises the question of (a) how learners’ interactional competence and classroom interactional competence differ from one another, and (b) how learners’ CIC and teachers’ CIC are conceptually linked. Thus, it seems legitimate to ask whether these teacher and learner strategies can and should actually be subsumed under the same term and concept, or whether a more fine-grained differentiation between teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) and learners’ foreign language competence would not be more appropriate ­– also with regard to a competence model to be operationalized in teacher education.

Drawing on existing models of communicative competence (e.g. Canale/Swain 1980), theoretical conceptualizations of learners’ interactional competence have been expanded and further developed in recent years (e.g. Galaczi/Taylor 2018). A precise and accurate conceptualization of teachers’ classroom discourse competence (CDC) as a professional competence of language teachers is, however, still pending.