Teacher's Language Features in Facilitating Learners' Involvement and Providing Opportunities for Learning

CDA is the abbreviation for Classroom Discourse Analysis. This is a terminology that refers to the study of interactions between teachers and students in the classroom to identify patterns of interaction that contribute to a better learning process. Analyzing classroom discourse can help teachers improve teaching abilities, regardless of the subject they teach. However, the use of CDA is specifically emphasized or intended for second language lessons as interaction and communication are highly expected in the second language classroom. 

The controlled use of language by matching pedagogical and linguistic goals is believed to engage better involvement of students and give opportunities for learning. As mentioned above, by analyzing the discourse between teacher and students in particular interaction done within the classroom, the teacher can determine which expressions or unnecessary actions hide the learning purpose. Conversely, the teacher can evaluate which action or interaction patterns cause or stimulate students to express their thoughts about what is being discussed. Therefore, in order to have teaching improvement, especially in facilitating learners' involvement and building opportunities for learning, this article discusses five language features that can be implemented by teachers, including direct error correction; content feedback; checking for confirmation; extended wait-time; and scaffolding. 

Direct Error correction 

The first language feature that can be used by teacher in engaging learners involvement is direct error correction. Direct error correction can be one of the effective ways to maintain learners’ involvement. This can be in the form of misspelled, grammar errors, pronunciation errors, and more. Rather than explaining the correct concept of the error made by the students, delivering direct and quick error correction helps students fix their mistakes immediately. Direct error correction has an immediate effect which results in the immediate revision of the learners. In addition, it is also far more less time-consuming compared with explaining the reason of the mistakes made by the students. However, a thing that teachers have to bear in mind, is that not all of the errors made by students must be corrected within the interaction in order to reduce interruption and maintain the flow of discussion. Furthermore, Ellis (2009) cautions, that teachers must be selective about which errors to correct during interaction as correcting every error can lead to interruptions and hinder the natural flow of discussion. This is an example of error correction adapted from Walsh, 2011.

S:   fortunately, my dad who live in HongKong give eh. . .

T:   gave= 

S:   =gave gave me a credit card = 

T:   =ooh, glad to hear that . . .

S:   but bad news [is] 

Content feedback 

The second language feature is content feedback. Other than giving direct correction, teachers should also consider focusing on giving feedback on the content rather than on the form. Teachers can provide genuine and personal reactions to the comments made by learners within the discussion. Using this feature enables teachers to indirectly give examples in using natural conversational language so that the pedagogic purposes meet the language used by the teacher. Not only do genuine comments made by the teacher provide an example of the conversation in the real situation context, but this also creates a nice atmosphere that may trigger students to be involved in the discussion. An example can be seen in the dialogue adapted from Walsh, 2011:

S:   fortunately, my dad who live in HongKong give eh. . .

T:   gave=

S:   =gave gave me a credit card = 

T:   =ooh glad to hear that . . . 

S:    but bad news [is]

Checking for confirmation

Another strategy to engage learners’ involvement is by checking confirmation. Teachers may, again, ‘genuinely’ seek clarification of students’ utterances. As the example shown, the teacher confirmed if the hour in Japan and the hour at their place were the same. Other than it lessens misunderstanding of the information brought by the students, it also facilitates more interactive exchange. Not only interactive exchange, but also broader topics can be achieved. Those teachers who seek clarification from the students are valued as being better at engaging students’ involvement than those who do not (Musumeci 1996 cited in Walsh, 2011). Here is an example of checking confirmation:

S1:   [at nine] o’clock at nine o’clock you can call= 

S2:   =in Japan same= 

T:     =it’s the same seven hours?= 

S1:   =yeah=

(Adapted from Walsh, 2011).

Extended Wait-time

Another strategy teachers can use to boost students’ confidence in participating in the discussion is extended wai-time. Giving students a longer wait-time to think about a question or prompt, not only able to engage a greater number of students participating in the discussion but also engages the longer and complex answer. In addition of its practice, the teacher can also give a clear wait time, for example announcing that students have two minutes to think or jot down any ideas they have regarding the issues or questions (Leading Effective Discussions, 2016). Subsequently, students have the exact same time to recall their memory as well as arrange words into arguments. As all of the students have the same opportunity to get involved in the discussion, the domination of certain fast or high-achiever students can be handled. For the reasons mentioned, teacher is possible to gradually reduce their participation and let the students drive their own discussion. These are the examples adapted from Walsh (2011), where teacher utterances started to lessen as extended wait-time given.

T:      =he can . . . 

S5:    he can say [you] 

T:       [he can] . . . 

S5:    he can tell your pin number . . . 

T:       yeah he can [tell you your pin number ] 

S4:     but I cannot ehhh call him because ehhh because ehhh the time eh= 

T:       =the time difference?= 

S4:    =yes, the time difference= 

S5:    =you can count it, for example look what what’s the difference time with 

 there. How many hours?

S:      seven hours= 

S5:    =seven hours ok you can call him early in the morning then it

   will be evening in your 

country.

Scaffolding

Finally, the last strategy possible to use in maintaining student's involvement in the discussion is implementing scaffolding. Scaffolding was a concept proposed by Jerome Bruner in 1970. It discusses certain temporary support given by teachers to help students learn, then remove it gradually as students achieve certain competencies to promote students' independence (Brunner, 1983 cited from Atipat Boonmoh & Thidaporn Jumpakate, 2019). This strategy may reduce students’ anxiety as teacher always ready to give language support as and when they needed. Aside from that, this could increase students' understanding of the content as well as the language since teachers exemplify directly certain expressions in real life. Here is an example of the teachers’ support in offering latched modeling, meaning giving quick language needed as shown in the dialogue.

S1:    I don not know the password . . . 

SS:    /the password?/the password?/ (2) 

T:      =pin number . . . 

S1:    what?= 

T:      =pin number pin number= 

SS:   =/ahh yeah, pin number/=

Adapted from Walsh (2011).

In conclusion, EFL or ESL teachers can use CDA to improve their teaching. Direct error correcting; giving feedback on the content; checking confirmation; extending wait-time; and implementing scaffolding could be good features in increasing students' involvement.

References : 

Atipat Boonmoh, & Thidaporn Jumpakate. (2019). Using Scaffolded Instructions to Improve Students’ Skills. REFLections, 26(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.61508/refl.v26i1.199840

Leading Effective Discussions. (2016). Uoregon.edu. http://tep.uoregon.edu

Walsh, S. (2011). Exploring Classroom Discourse. Routledge.