Читать книгу Classroom Discourse Competence - Группа авторов - Страница 18

In this model, classroom discourse knowledge, as a specific type of professional knowledge, is further divided into two knowledge repositories: ‘surface CD knowledge’ and ‘deep CD knowledge’ (see Fig. 5). The two types are supposed to represent different forms of declarative, theoretical expert knowledge. While ‘surface knowledge’ relates to knowledge of key terms, definitions, concepts, features of CD phenomena (i.e. What are features of classroom discourse and teacher talk in foreign language education?), ‘deep CD knowledge’ aims at gaining a deeper understanding of the interrelatedness and complexity of these phenomena and how these may affect teachers’ classroom discourse decisions and actions (i.e. What does X have to do with Y and Z? How are these connections relevant to the efficacy of teachers’ discourse practices and students’ language learning?).

Fig. 5:

Conceptualization of CD knowledge

The ‘surface knowledge’ that language teachers need to acquire refers to theoretical knowledge of common features and phenomena in classroom discourse, learner language and teacher talk. Particularly focusing on the characteristics and complexity of teacher talk, FL teachers need to possess knowledge of essential concepts including, for instance (!), echoing, wait time, code-switching, discourse markers (such as sign-posts, transition markers, backtracking, connectors, hesitation markers, hedges etc.), Long’s speech modification techniques (such as clarification requests, confirmation requests, comprehension checks, paraphrasing, reformulation, shaping), elicitation techniques, types of teacher questions and questioning techniques, types of feedback and teachers’ feedback and error correction techniques, teacherese (including aspects like grammatical/lexial simplification, adjustment of pace, voice modulation, pausing, repetition, articulation and enunciation etc.), scaffolding, prompting, rich and comprehensible input, zone of proximal development, negotiation of meaning, non-verbal aspects of classroom discourse (e.g. gestures, facial expressions, eye contact, gaze, proximity, posture, spatial motion within the classroom) etc. etc. Language teachers also need to know about typical discourse patterns and mechanism that often occur in language classrooms. These include, for instance: turn-taking patterns like in adjacency pairs or IRF patterns, insertion sequences, discourse techniques for taking/holding the floor, handing over, turn/sequence completion, speaker nomination techniques etc.

Furthermore, for classroom discourse to be effective, teachers need to have a clear understanding of the different levels of classroom discourse (content level, managerial level) and the respective teacher tasks connected to these levels. For instance, with regard to the content-related level of CD, teachers need to have knowledge of the discursive approaches to shaping classroom discourse processes in the context of teaching literature, culture, foreign language skills (i.e. listening, writing, speaking etc.) and aspects of the language system (i.e. grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, orthography). Tapping into their PCK and CK repositories, language teachers need to know how didactic, methodological and pedagogical principles in language teaching can inform and manifest themselves in teachers’ discourse actions when, for example, analyzing and interpreting a poem, discussing critical cultural incidents or exploring the meaning of unknown vocabulary with students. This is to say that simply ‘having’ PCK and CK is not the same as knowing the implications of transforming this knowledge into classroom discourse practices that are conducive to student learning.

As regards the managerial level of classroom discourse, teachers – first and foremost – need to know about the multitude of teacher tasks in L2 classroom management (CM) and have a clear understanding of how these can materialize (non-)verbally in classroom discourse (see Thomson, “L2 Classroom Management Competence” in this volume). That is, FL teachers ought to acquire knowledge of the discursive approaches to performing CM teacher tasks in ways that ensure comprehension, promote L2 learning and help create a warm classroom climate. Such CM teacher tasks include, among many others: providing smooth transitions, giving clear task instructions, starting/ending activities, reacting to unforeseen classroom situations and lesson disruptions, providing clear explanations as to how to change seating arrangements and spatial configurations in the classroom, explaining goals and purposes of activities explicitly, face-saving ways of reprimanding disruptive students and employing clear desists etc.

For a solid knowledge base that fosters CDC development, ‘deep CD knowledge’ has to be acquired as well. ‘Deep knowledge’ relates to one’s expert understanding of how those classroom discourse phenomena are intertwined and how they enhance (or hinder) language learning. In the model proposed here, ‘deep knowledge’ goes beyond technical definitions and (prospective) teachers’ ability to explain what X or Y is. Having acquired ‘deep CD knowledge’ means being able to also understand how X and Y affect classroom discourse and how X and Y can be implemented effectively in classroom discourse so as to promote student learning. It is, I would argue, the type of knowledge that FL teachers need to have in order to arrive at a profound pedagogical understanding of CD- and teacher talk-related phenomena. It is through the acquisition of ‘deep CD knowledge’ that teachers’ CDC gains the professional, pedagogic dimension that is key to foreign language teaching. I agree with Widdowson (2002) who argues that “[t]his [specialist] knowledge […] gives warrant to the idea that they [i.e. language teachers] are practicing a profession” (67) and that this knowledge “is not something teachers just naturally acquire but something they have consciously to learn about. That is what teacher education is for: to guide teachers into an understanding of the principles that define their subject […] [and] to establish a general rationale for their particular practices.” (80). Thus, it is arguably the acquisition of ‘deep CD knowledge’ that enables (prospective) teachers to fully understand the complex – and perhaps at first sight less visible or obvious – relationships between effective classroom discourse, teaching objectives, individual learner differences and student learning.

For instance, merely having knowledge of the different types of teacher questions (e.g. display questions, referential questions, divergent questions, convergent questions, alternative questions, leading questions, rhetorical questions etc.) is not sufficient for actually being able to choose and use them appropriately in a specific classroom situation. For effective use of questioning techniques, teachers also need to understand, for example, how the choice of a question type impacts the complexity of a student’s response, what teachers’ questioning techniques have to do with individualization/differentiation in the language classroom and how certain question types affect teachers’ wait time, or students’ speech production, or students’ participation in/exclusion from classroom discourse.10 The distinction made in Fig. 4 and 5, respectively, thus aims to emphasize that it is this expert knowledge of such complex connections that provides a solid basis for developing CDC. Thus, the purpose of acquiring ‘deep CD knowledge’ is to enable student teachers to develop a heightened awareness of the potential effects and consequences that each of their CD decisions/actions may have on (individual) learners in a particular lesson context. Acquiring ‘deep CD knowledge’ can also lead to a more profound understanding of teachers’ responsibility in classroom discourse and their crucial role in either promoting or impeding students’ language learning.