Читать книгу Classroom Discourse Competence - Группа авторов - Страница 19

A high level of CDC can be acquired if teachers are also able to activate, relate and transfer their theoretical knowledge to classroom discourse realities – both in terms of analytical approaches to classroom discourse (e.g. analysis of video-recorded or transcibed classroom data) and practical implementations in the language classroom (e.g. one’s own teaching practices). For both areas teachers need CD-specific skills which however can only be developed if a solid knowledge base has been built up first. Drawing on the competence-as-continuum paradigm, the point of view shared here is that “some [cognitive] dispositions have to be in place before […] specific skills can be acquired” (Blömeke et al. 2015: 7). This, however, does not imply that CDC development is a linear process. Rather, it is a dynamic, reciprocal process in which further CD knowledge can be acquired at all stages of teacher professionalization and in which CD skills can be further improved and broadened in the course of time. In Fig. 4, the dynamic, dialectical nature of gaining CDC is indicated by the arrows connecting the two dimensions.

For achieving a high level of CDC, language teachers would have to acquire a skill set that comprises analytical skills, anticipation skills and adaptation skills. Analytical skills are those which enable teachers to critically analyze, reflect upon and evaluate classroom discourse processes on the basis of their expert knowledge and with regard to specific criteria. Such analytical and reflective processes might focus, for instance, on a teacher’s choice of certain error correction or corrective feedback techniques in a particular classroom situation. A teacher, then, would have to be able to identify and categorize the type of error (or mistake) that has occured, consider the lesson phase and its respective teaching goal(s), take into account the specific needs and capabilities of the learner group (or of individual students) and – against this background – opt for the most appropriate approach to error treatment in this context. Especially when these analytical and reflective processes take place while teaching (i.e. ‘online’, reflection-in-action) – as opposed to post-lesson analysis (‘offline’, reflection-on-action) –, teachers need to be highly flexible, attentive and simply extremely quick in grasping the classroom complexities in a given situation.

Anticipation skills relate to teachers’ abilities to carefully consider and anticipate the potential positive/negative effects and ramifications that their own (or another teacher’s) classroom discourse decisions and actions may have on (individual) students’ FL learning, classroom interaction/communication as such, but also on teacher-student relationships and class climate. Being able to do this requires not only expert CD knowledge but also far-sightedness and the ability to look at classroom discourse processes from the language learner’s point of view. Conversational scaffolding, for instance, is arguably more effective when teachers are able to listen attentively to what a student is trying to say, draw logical inferences from the learner’s utterances about his/her intended message, identify the learner’s competence or knowledge gap so as to be able to provide the language support that is actually needed. Anticipating both the specific linguistic needs and the effects of providing such language support can be beneficial to the learner’s achievement gains and motivation in FL learning. Not being able to do all this, however, may eventually lead to learner frustration or a learner’s lack of motivation to negotiate meaning. Similarly, error correction/corrective feedback can be considered constructive when it really enables students to proverbially learn from their mistakes. Thus, overcorrection or the use of error correction techniques that are not adjusted to a learner’s cognitive capabilities, language proficiency or self-concept will most likely not result in repaired uptake but may cause language anxiety instead or lead to a decrease in the learner’s willingness to participate in classroom discourse. And, for instance, anticipating that complex, open questions would most likely be too overwhelming for a certain student who struggles with foreign language learning in general, it would be an inappropriate decision to ask divergent or referential questions in this case, even if the goal was to initiate a class discussion. Instead, using questioning techniques (such as alternative questions or the two-step questioning technique) that are linguistically and/or cognitively less challenging and more in line with the learner’s current competence level would not only enable him/her to contribute to and participate in classroom discourse; it would – if combined with other supportive (non)verbal discourse strategies – eventually boost this learner’s confidence in using the target language. Teachers mastering anticipation skills are able to consider the whole range of possible discourse actions, gauge how students might react to or be able to deal with those, and in light of the situation at hand, opt for the one action that is most beneficial for the learner(s).

Adaptation skills, then, enable teachers to make the transition from cognition to discoursive implementation. Adaptation skills, as conceptualized in the model proposed here, refer to teachers’ abilities to make informed CD decisions about how to adjust (their) discourse practices linguistically and pedagogically to the requirements of a specific classroom situation and to the needs of a specific learner (group). It is this skill set that may enable teachers to turn cognitive considerations of what is strategically most effective into concrete (non)verbal discourse actions – both in ‘online’ and ‘offline’ mode. Returning to the error correction example described above, a teacher might, after careful consideration and anticipation of possible effects, decide to give (i.e. overtly verbalize) metalinguistic feedback after all (instead of using recasting, direct correction etc.) because the student having made the mistake does in fact have the metalinguistic knowledge and language proficiency that is required not only for understanding the teacher’s (non)verbal prompts but also for processing those in ways that allow him/her to produce the correct form him-/herself, resulting in self-generated learner uptake (Lyster/Ranta 1997). With another student (e.g. one who lacks metalinguistic competence or one who, in general, struggles with FL learning), or in another lesson phase (e.g. one in which the pedagogic focus is on fluency/meaning), the teacher would most likely have to decide and act differently.

It has become apparent that these classroom discourse skills relate to different components of CDC but are closely intertwined nonetheless. While the fine lines that separate them become blurred in the actual process of teaching (‘online’), they can and should be made visible in the context of teacher education where student teachers can analyze video-recorded/transcribed teaching practices, ponder alternative, possibly more effective discourse actions, and discuss ways of implementing those in L2 classroom discourse (‘offline’). Breaking down ‘CD skills’ into analytical, anticipation and adaptation skills serves to make transparent in what ways ‘CD knowledge’ is essential to acquiring those skills. Like expert CD knowledge, these CD skills, too, are ‘not just naturally acquired’ (Widdowson 2002: 80) but have to be consciously learned and practiced in educational settings that are specifically tailored to the professional needs of foreign language teachers. Creating an interface between both dimensions fosters (prospective) teachers’ classroom discourse awareness (see Fig. 4), which goes beyond the notions of ‘language awareness’ (e.g. Gnutzmann 2016) or ‘teacher language awareness’ (e.g. Andrews 2008). Classroom discourse awareness denotes a cognitive disposition in which teachers are sensitized not only to the complexity of classroom discourse processes but also to the implied meanings of the oft-quoted notion of ‘effective classroom discourse and teacher talk’. Thus, linking both dimensions in pre-service teacher education is crucial for initiating CDC development at university level – a process which however needs to find its continuation in the induction phase of teacher training and beyond.

The proposed conceptualizations of FL teachers’ professional competence (Fig. 3) and FL teachers’ CDC (Fig. 4) in this chapter certainly do not claim to be final or exhaustive. Though still preliminary, they can serve as fine-grained, theoretical frameworks providing teacher educators and (prospective) teachers with a fuller scope of what CDC development entails – possibly also with regard to curriculum and course design at pre-service stage, operationalization in practical teacher education and competence assessment. They also provide the theoretical underpinnings for a technical definition of CDC. Thus, synthesizing the aspects discussed in this chapter, L2 CDC is defined as

the professional competence of foreign language teachers to consciously and reflectively structure, shape and navigate interactional and communicative processes through their own (L1, L2, L+, nonverbal) discourse actions in ways that are potentially conducive to students’ FL acquisition and learning. CDC is informed (i) by teachers’ general foreign language competence, (ii) their professional content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge and classroom discourse knowledge, and (iii) their ability to analyze, anticipate and adapt classroom discourse actions/processes while also taking into account the given circumstances and conditions of a specific classroom situation. These include especially students’ individual differences and language learning needs as well as the concrete teaching/learning objectives of the situation at hand.11