NATURE OF TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION

Week 11

Objectives

Proceed process drama Take a reflective activities. Break Lecture about conducting interaction

analysis of Drama Activities Based lecture in relation to

Four researches Kao’s research paradigm Practices

Process drama

Will be video taped.

Reflection

Let student aware of the learning Through extended activities:

writing, drawing and map-making Writing a letter, diary,

newspaper, etc in role What else could be done for our

process drama?

04/21/23copyright 2006 www.brainybetty.com

4

Teachers’ roles in

Role-plays and scenario

Sets the assignment

Gives instructions Suggests roles Monitors the

results

Process drama

04/21/23copyright 2006

www.brainybetty.com5

Researches about Drama Activities1. Mostly about technical procedures for

using different kinds of dramatic activities are described in detail

2. And about the rationales behind the pedagogical recommendations are mostly based on intuition or experience rather than

3. No empirical evidence

Researches in Drama activities should

1. Identify the significance of particular drama approach in language learning

2. Explore what actually happens in classrooms 3. Find valid and reliable research instruments4. Be able to demonstrate that the relationships

between this drama approach and student’s learning outcomes are in some way causal (Ellis, 1990)

Classroom Teacher initiation pupil response

Seldom address questions to the teacher.

Almost never address questions to the teacher.

Almost never initiate new topics Seldom react (but teacher)

To generate real communication (Coyle and Bisgyer, 1984)

The language of the verbal interaction must be unrestricted

In the pattern of discourse, the initiative must lie with the learners rather than with the teacher.

Competitive vs Cooperative Classroom Interaction (Mjorslev, 1987)

InteractionInteraction CompetitiveCompetitive CooperativeCooperative

Turn Turn takingstakings

violatedviolated Usually followedUsually followed

ExchangesExchanges Teachers give Teachers give Both teachers Both teachers and studentsand students

Amount of Amount of speechspeech

Teachers take Teachers take 2/3 of speech2/3 of speech

½½ both teacher both teacher and studentsand students

Choice of Choice of topic and topic and coherencecoherence

Only teacherOnly teacher Both teachersBoth teachers

Instructional discourse Natural discourse<--------------------------------

Role: Fixed Negotiated

Tasks: Teacher –Oriented Group oriented

Position-centred Person-centred

Knowledge:

Focus on content Focus on process

Accuracy of facts Fluency of interaction

Researches

Strategic Interaction(Robert Di Pietro, 1982, 1985) Subjects: University students in ESL

program Language level: beginning or intermediate

–level. RQs: the utility and impact of Strategic

Interaction Methods: Students’ verbal interactions

during the performance stage in various scenarios were transcribed and analyzed.

Vygotsky’s self-regulation

Strategic Interaction(Robert Di Pietro, 1982, 1985) Vygotskys :Object, other, and self Object regulated speaker: one whose

discourse is strongly constrained by the rules and conventions of the language in use. grammatical drills, teacher directions

Other: Regulated by others: one’s verbal

performance is directed by another person. Regulating others: but from other

individuals’ point of departure.

Self regulation

: one speaker feels free to express personal thoughts, positions or feelings.

Communicative strategiesHesitation, repair, repetition, counter

question, body language. Reduction strategies Achievement strategies.

Wilburn’s study, 1992

Topic: language teaching and learning in immersion schools in America

RQ: to understand how the inclusion of drama affects classroom discourse in an immersion setting.

Methods: records of the classroom activities and the researcher’s field notes

Duration: 8 months Subjects: three elementary classes of

different grades in a Spanish immersion schoold in the midwestern United States.

Wilburn’s study, 1992

Back ground study: Mostly, participants’ language produced in drama tends to be more authentic and native-like than that evoked by traditional tasks.

Many studies about immersion schools show that classroom dialect or pidgin characterizes the speech (Green & Harker, 1988)

Very fluent but often lack authenticity.

Wilburn’s study, 1992

Findings: Discourse in process drama activities The syntactical structure and style of their

language was generally more natural than in traditional tasks.

Teacher’s function changes from a message deliverer to an information sharer

Students are responsible for making themselves understood and for making meaning from others’ utterances

Students are able to extend their word choices, language functions, registers, and stylistics in drama, more authentic and communication oriented.

Shacker et al., 1993

Topic: the implementation and frequency of occurrences of four language functions, informative, directive, expressive and imaginative.

Subjects: three elementary school Methods: Transcribed video and audio

records Analyzed according to a coding

system.

Shacker et al., 1993

Four language functions1. Informative: to obtain or give information, 2. Directive: to request help, give permissions, or

make commands. E.g. Come with me, quickly.3. Expressive: to express personal feelings,

opinions or ideas, for example, I had a sore finger.

4. Imaginative: for diversion, entertainment, or stimulation of the imagination, for example, I have 50 cents, mom, the speaker changes the tone to very childish as to define the role in drama.

Shacker et al., 1993

Findings Informative function occurs in all group

drama sessions with a high frequency. The occurrence rate of directive language

is low across all sessions. Use different types of directive language.

Expressive language occurs most frequently in reflection and problem solving.

The imativative language function is used in all sessions.

Kao (1994), ‘A teacher-student interaction in process Drama Activities’ The objectives① Describe the nature of teacher-student

participation patterns.② Examine the impact of different drama themes

on participants’ performance;③ Understand the relationship between the

learners’ drama experience and the growth of their communicative competence; and ‘

④ Provide evidence for the claim that the classroom context created in process drama is close to natural situations and thus powerful in activating the learners’ linguistic knowledge and developing their spontaneity in communication.

Kao (1994), ‘A teacher-student interaction in process Drama Activities’ Background of the study① Subjects; 33 first year university students in National

ChengKung University, Tainan, Taiwan. (other detail information about students, read p. 53-54)

② Methods; Pre-Survey Questionnaire, to get information about

subjects, (Table 3.2) Experimental lessons using 4 process drama. Audio- and video- records, field notes interaction

types Coding system was used Task based pre- and post course oral proficiency

tests, to describe cartoon-strip (p. 73-4) language achievement

Four ways for interpreting initiatives Topic management. The current turn

introduces something new or denies a request of a prior turn.

Self-selection: One speaker decides to speak without being forced.

Allocation: the current speaker appoints the speaker of the next turn, content to be talked about, or activity to be performed.

Sequencing activity or discourse: the current turn is the opening or closing part of a sequence of turns.

Characteristics of Classroom Interaction: Turn Taking and Participants’ Initiative

Sociolinguist Leo van Lier (1988b; 1988).Turn Taking is the most critical feature

while analyzing classroom discourse because turn taking reveals the level of individual speaker’s involvement in the interaction.

The current speaker may select the next speaker, and the next speaker may decide to speak when certain signals are given by the current speaker to indicate his willingness to yield the floor.

Turn taking = Initiatives?

Initiative is recognized when speakers select or allocate a turn.

Initiated by him/herself or is mainly a response to the teacher’s utterance is important.

Initiative is also reflected in the ways one topic is maintained and or shifted from one to another during the exchanges (e.g. switching the current topic to something else means having control in the conversation, but talking about topics established by previous speakers is mainly to support and to maintain the interaction.

The coding system and analytical procedures for classroom interaction analysis

Raw data were first transcribed, based on turns exchanged between speakers.

A. Topic management;B. Self-selection;C. Allocation; andD. Sequencing.

Individual Speaker’s Total Turn Percentage

Speaker X’s total turn percentage (TT%)== …Speaker X’s total number of turns……. Total number of turns made by the class

Speaker X’s participation level (PL)= …Speaker X’s Participation Value ……. Speaker X’s Total number of turns

Individual Speaker’s Participation Index PI= (PL)(PL)(TT%)

Practice.

p. 56, P. 60

Percentage of students’ versus teacher’s speech turns in four activities. p. 65 table, Overall analysis

Percentage of students’ versus teacher’s percentages of categorical participation in Activity types. p. 68 tables

Summary of Students’ versus Teacher’s participation in Quantity and Quality in Different Drama Themes. Table 3.3 in p. 70.

Discussion and Results

Describe and report the data according to the analysis using codes

Give more descriptive data interpretation according to the important issue found from the analysis

Highlight the interesting findings. E.g. comparison, opposite

Homework

Video tape a whole class lecture or use already recorded drama based class.

Transcribe one part of non drama activities and drama activities.

Use one of analysis method and analyse quantity and quality of student vs teacher interaction

Make a graph type result and discuss in a descriptive manner.

It’s a group study. Make a presentation.

Please include the following procedure.

Purpose of study. The objectives Subjects and background of the study Method of research Analytical Procedures Discussion and results Conclusion

Conclusion

Summarize your findings Re-interprete your findings. Link your findings to the future

implication of the study of this kind Admit the limitation of the study.

Final project

Option 1. (No. words: 3000)1. Select two drama activities and

describe why this is useful for increasing meaningful interactions in your class.

2. Use this drama activities and examine quality and quantity of interactions of your learners

3. Report.

Final project 2

Option 2 (No. words: 1000 for submitting)

1. Select two drama activities related articles and compare in terms of topics, subjects, activities, methods, and findings. Select interaction analysis type and methods analyse video recorded classroom interaction which uses drama activities.

2. Present the result

3. Implication for the future use.

4. Limitations and personal perspectives of using the drama activities.