Abstract
In this research, our purpose is to come up with some implications for the interactive class of English as a Second Language (ESL). We scrutinize interactive classes and do our research from microanalysis (from a perspective of individuals) to macro-analysis (from a perspective of the whole class and a sense of classroom community). We analyze individual differentiations to get implications for setting up simple group relations. Then we extend the group to a two-layer-relation network. Based on the first two parts, we analyze relations among groups---another layer of the classroom relations network. We suggest that Cooper’s “empathy” model and Rovai’s “sense of classroom community” being utilized in arranging an interactive class of ESL, and argue that a balanced and organic relations network is crucial in the teaching-learning process. We also explain Chinese cultural elements reflected in an interactive classroom setting and argue that cultural awareness is very important in the arrangement of an interactive class of ESL.
Keywords:Interactive Class, ESL Individual differentiations, Setting up relations, Simple group discussions, Large group discussions, Relations among groups,
Cultural elements, Relations network, Sense of classroom community, Empathy,
Research Background
Student-centered classrooms have long been advocated, and how to meet with students’ needs has become one of the issues in the pedagogical field. One concept should be held when a student-centered course is being planned is that students are far from identical. Many pedagogical experts and educational psychologists have been doing a large amount of research studies on the differentiations among the students. Items including age, previous education, attitude towards education, preferred learning style, previous language learning, and personality make each student a unique person (Peck, 1974; Willis, 1996; Dewaele, 2005; Chung, 2005). Peck also argues that even if the students in one class are all from the same language group, they inevitably have different learning styles and needs (1974). In our research, although all the students have the same cultural background, differences in learning needs, expectations, emotions in the classroom will be raised to support this point of view.
Changes in the concepts of the teachers and experts have led to goals of meeting with the expectations and needs of each student. Since school psychology has long been influenced by clinical psychology, it concerns much about individual differences (Medway, Cafferty, 1992). Thus many individualized programs with their advantages for curriculum and course planning have been discussed since 1960s, but those individualized models have a drawback in that it gives “heavy burdens for the teachers in planning curriculums and difficulties in deciding when to treat the students as specialized individuals”(Chung, 2005. pp.2). Experts, from the educational field and the psychology realm have been struggling to figure out models to alleviate this drawback of those individualized programs.
Another flow of views on the classroom setting is to regard the classroom as a community formed by all kinds of relations among the students and the teacher. In this sense, a classroom is a relations network with information and emotion flowing through. This attracts many socio-psychologists to apply views in social psychology to curriculum planning (Chung, 2005). Using a social psychological perspective to examine the classroom setting can be actually more legitimate (Medway & Cafferty, 1992). A classroom can be evaluated with the standard of being ecological (Wang, 2006) which was previously used only in a social context. According to Wang (2006, p.57), “the essence of ecology is life and its diversity, integrity, openness and coexistence.” As we look at a classroom with diversified students, well-organized formation, harmonious interaction and opened goals, it can be regarded as an ecological community. How the interaction network alleviates the drawback of individualized programs will be discussed in our paper.
If we take the classroom as a social context, then the questions we are interested in are as such: How are the students and the teacher connected together? In what way does this social context influence the students? How can these influences be measured? In what way will the students’ needs be met in this context? A large number of studies have been done to answer these questions. The classroom context can affect students’ uptake (Ellis, Basturkman, & Loewen, 2001) and diversified forms of interaction can be valuable resources for students to make use. The essential elements of community refer to mutual interdependence among members, connectedness, interactivity, overlapping histories among members, spirit, trust, common expectation and shared values and beliefs (Rovai, 2002a).
In Rovai’s paper, he defined four essential components of classroom community: spirit, trust, interaction and learning. Spirit, simply speaking, is a feeling of involvement and belongingness in the class; trust is “the feeling that community can be trusted and feedback will be timely and constructive” (2002a, p. 42). To combine these two components together, we figure out a simple definition: positive emotions that can enhance learning activities. Interactions in the classroom setting can be instructor-generated or learner-generated, task-driven or socio-emotional driven. Students set up relations and realize learning purposes through interaction. On the other hand, relations in the context and realization of learning purposes influence the spirit and trust. Since the appearance of distance education, and computer technologies used in education, many experts have done research in order to figure out models and implications for the community sense in asynchronous learning and distant learning classes (Gunawardena, 1995). Based on the rationales and past researches, Rovai also invented an instrument for sense of classroom community measurement (for computer-based distance learning though): Classroom Community Scale (CCS) (Rovai, 2002b). When a traditional classroom is evaluated, it is not appropriate to apply this CCS directly since these two kinds educational ways are somewhat different, which was acknowledged by Rovai (2002b).However, the basic principles and standards can be drawn upon. In our paper, our group modifies this CCS to evaluate sense of community in an oral English class for English majors at their sophomore year.
The importance of a sense of community and standards for evaluating its levels being recognized, the question becomes that if a well-organized community can have positive effect on students’ uptake and learning process, how to make full use of the resource in the classroom and set up all possible positive relations? Cooper brought forth an “Empathy” model that gives implications for teaching and learning. Empathy, simply speaking, is to go attach oneself mentally and emotionally to another. Empathy “develops over time and with frequency of interaction and which is highly dependent on the actors and context of the interaction” (Cooper, 2004, pp.12). In that research, three different levels of empathy (fundamental empathy, profound empathy and functional empathy) and the positive effects to the interactions were found and discussed from interview data and classroom observation. Among the three sorts of empathy, profound empathy can raise enthusiasm and connection in a most successful way, but this kind of empathy is restricted by factors including the size of class, limited time, and rigorous curriculum (Cooper, 2004).The theoretical significance of Cooper’s model in our research lies in that an interactive class for ESL is an ideal place to apply “Empathy”.
Since our research is under a Chinese context, the background of English teaching in China should be provided. For a long time, memorization and teacher-centered class were valued in Chinese ELT, but changing practices have taken place, altering the focus on linguistic ability to the practical use of English in real contexts, emphasizing student-centered class, active participation in English learning and teacher as a “conductor” rather than a “performer” (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006). Some models do bring implications for curriculum design, such as the multidimensional participation model for English Teaching (Jin & Cortazzi, 2006) containing student engagement from different perspectives; however, there exist some difficulties to implement the theories because of lack of willingness to communicate (WTC) in Chinese class of ESL. This lack of willingness can be traced back to rooted Chinese cultural origins such as other-directed self, face-protected orientation (Wen & Clement, 2003).In fact, Asian students including Chinese students have similar problems in the interactive class of ESL. In a qualitative research done in two New Zealand Language Schools, the results indicate that Asian students have negative attitude towards the interactive teaching approach (Li Mingsheng, 2004).
A new direction of English Teaching is to integrate Chinese culture into ELT (Yun Wei, 2005) and it is understandable that a cultural frame under Chinese classroom context needs to be drawn before implications can be got for ELT (Chen Min, 2005).In order to get a better understanding of cultural characteristics that influence ELT in China, we review the cultural elements in the classroom in order to better analyze the interactions, students’ needs and emotions. Confucianism and Taoism are two major cultural codes in Chinese education, broadly speaking, in a whole Chinese society. In Confucian code, two key concepts guide human relationships: hierarchy and obedience (Yang Hu & Stacey, 2003). This gives implications for the teachers to arrange classroom settings that match Chinese cultural awareness. In Chinese classrooms, teachers are often regarded as the most important persons and students need to show respect to them; and good teachers are expected to play the role of a mentor or parent, who are caring, helpful, willing to pass on their experience to the students(Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). Chinese students, though not the only ones around the world, seek safety more eagerly and appreciate group belongingness in the classroom. Face saving is the typical manifest of safety seeking(Yabuuchi, 2004). In Chinese society, self is defined by others, and Chinese people internalize the requirements from the outside world and turn them into their own behavior norms and values (Liu Chenghua, 2003). We can regard a class as a miniature of the society.
The students play their roles carefully and are very concerned about the relations with others and others’ opinions about themselves. In Chinese culture, people tend to be more close to the members that belong to the same group and keep away from the people that are in another group. The close and harmonious relations within a group are an important characteristic in a collective and high-context society (Mcfeeters, 2003). This Chinese cultural item has impact on the students. In a survey done by the staff of Chinese University of Hong Kong among Chinese college students, it was found that the interpersonal relationship and perceptions of social contexts were significantly related to life satisfaction (Chen, Cheung, Bond& Leung, 2006). In Chinese classrooms, this cultural item cannot be ignored because this collectivism has effects on learner’s recall, transfer and attitudes toward different methodologies of teaching in the class (Mcfeeters, 2003; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). For example, Chinese students may prefer collaborative learning to individualized learning. We also argue that a positive group context could drive Chinese students to perform more actively.
Interactive class of ESL accords with the educational policies for ELT. The aim of the curriculum is to improve students’ English proficiency in communication. The purpose of our paper is to come up with a feasible model for the interactive class of ESL in a Chinese context.
Research Questions
4.1 In what way are the students different from each other?
4.2 How are these differentiations reflected in the group discussions?
4.3 How to set up different layers of relations to organize a whole interactive class
of ESL?
Methodology
Research Question 1 (RQ1)
It would be a heavy task for the teacher to systematically analyze students’ individual differences including various aspects such as personality, learning styles and gender; moreover, characteristics of a certain classroom context or a certain student are not fixed. The teacher, as the only person to observe the process of the class and to make the class arrangement, would find it much easier to improve a class according to students’ behaviors and emotions in the real context. In this sense, holding “empathy”on mind, and observing the differentiations through observation and teacher-student interaction would be of great importance.
In this part, we will not be able to give very detailed analysis on the differentiations of students. We analyze some cases to provide some implications and perspectives. In fact, this question itself is an open-ended one in view of its countless possibilities.
We interview two students from an oral English course which is a typical interactive class and in which group discussion and task-based interaction is the main form. Totally, there are nine groups in this class, and all students are sophomore English majors. We first observe comprehensively the performance of the students for 20 minutes before we choose two students to be our interview participants. These two students respectively bear the characteristics of passiveness and activeness. The first interview is recorded and analyzed while the second one is analyzed based on the notes. Interview questions are not strictly preplanned; rather, we try to ask related questions according to the students’ answer to the former question. In this way, students can provide us information that is more credible with ease. (Two interviews are shown in Appendix 1, pp. 23)
RQ 2
Setting up simple relations in a small group
RQ2 deals with setting up simple relations in an interactive class. We step up on the basis of the first part and begin to focus on interaction taken place in the classroom. Whether high quality of the discussion can be realized also depends on the composition of the group (Storch, 2002). In Storch’s research, he found four kinds of pair work. The figure below is cited from Storch’s paper, which shows four different kinds of pair work and their level of mutuality and equality.
“Equality describes more than merely an equal distribution of turns or equal contributions but an equal degree of control over the direction of a task” (Van, Lear, 1996, cited from Storch, 2002). Mutuality refers to the level of engagement with each other’s contribution. In Answering RQ2, we measure the first two discussions’ characteristics based on Storch’s two-dimensional scale.
We record the discussions taken place in another oral English class for sophomore English majors in the same campus. It is a task-based interactive class. Every three students who form a group act as three roommates expressing some complaints and are asked to reach a final agreement. In this task, the teacher gives each student an instructing paper listing several items for them to negotiate. Through the interview with the teacher, we learn that the purpose of the task is to drive every student to engage in the group discussion and try to reach a solution. This dorm room situation is familiar to all the students so this task accords with the theory of constructivism, which emphasizes the importance of former experience to the class performance (Sternberg& Williams, 2003). Through analyzing the tones, interaction process, performance and emotions of the group members, we compare differentiations among students and come up with implications for the group forming.
Setting up two-layer relations in a large group discussion
Another group discussion containing six students is formed deliberately after class rather than in a classroom context. Members are all sophomore English majors. This discussion simulates a negotiation between the company representatives and farmer representatives. Two students act as the company side, two as the farmer side, and another two students become the government representatives. The certain situation is like this: the company is trying to buy the land from the farmers. Then the negotiation is held to reach an agreement about money and other conditions. The government side acts as mediators.
RQ3
In answering this question, we try to extend relation network analysis to the class as a whole. Four teaching-learning forms can be seen in an interactive class for ESL: teacher-centered instruction, student presentation, and group discussion (main form). Since the first form is a secondary one in the interactive class, we will not discuss it in depth.
Student presentation
In an interactive language class, sometimes the students are required to give presentations to the whole class. Rovai’s Classroom Community Scale (Rovai, 2002b) yields two interpretable factors: connectedness and learning. This questionnaire has 20 items with 10 related to connectedness and other 10 learning. According to his method, we draw a questionnaire (see Appendix 2, p. 24) to see the pertinences among different factors in a student presentation thus to get some implications for better arrangement of this presentation form. The first three items are about connectedness and another three are related to learning purposes. The seventh question is to test our hypothesis that familiarity with the presenter may influence the degree of learning and connectedness.
We choose another oral English class for sophomore English majors in which the students are required to give presentations as their final examination. Totally 23 students deliver presentations in three consecutive weeks (one class each week). Other students are asked to evaluate the presenter’s performance according to the items on the questionnaire. The specific average scores of each student on all the elements are shown in Appendix 3 (p. 25). The pertinences among the seven factors are produced from SPSS analysis shown in the “Result& Data Analysis”.
Group discussion
Based on RQ2, we focus on the establishment of relations network of an interactive class. We do the observation for six weeks in an Advanced English class for non-English majors. (One class each week) These students come from a variety of majors with comparatively good English proficiency. This class has fixed groups with 2-3 students within each group. The course’s procedure (except two classes in the middle of that semester) is like this: the teacher gives a task at the end of each class for them to prepare and perform in the next period. The tasks usually require the group members work together after class, which builds up friendship and privities. These tasks extend group working to after-class time and provide more opportunities for the students to get a sense of classroom community. In each class, usually there are two students acting as hosts who have been in charge of contacting with other students before class and hosting the whole process of group performances. We choose this class because the relations network is complicated but has clear relation layers and we will discuss this network in the “Result” part.
Moreover, in this class, group work has been done before class and thus during the class, relations among groups become the most obvious relation layer in the classroom network, and is our focus in this part. When we are doing the observation, we concentrate on the following factors: 1. Level of cooperation in the performance according to the aspects like their turns-taking, eye contact with the other members and repair. 2. Response of the other groups (mind concentration, eye contact, questions, debate), 3. Competitions and cooperation among the groups. We do observations during six class periods, and will present one period as a case study. In addition to that, we draw a relations network based on interactions among all the members of the class and the teacher. At the beginning of a class, we draw a picture of the classroom setting and add lines, which stand for interactions taken place.
Results & Data Analysis
Results of RQ1
S1 is a male student who does not like group discussion in the class. When asked why he feels so reluctant in the discussion, his answer is because he feels that he has nothing to talk about. He says he does not feel very nervous even if the other members are competitive because at this time he just keeps his mouth shut and let others talk. However, he feels very nervous when he is talking something to the group for he is very afraid of making mistakes and losing face. That means his anxiety (Kitano, 2001; Sprinthall, Sprinthall & Oja, 1994) does not come from the outside competition, but his self-perception and the fear of negative evaluation. He says he prefers one to one conversation and hopes the teacher can pay more attention to each individual student, which means he has the need and expectation of being noticed and cared about. To use Cooper’s “empathy” model, this student appreciates profound empathy, which can be most easily realized through one-to-one conversation (Cooper, 2002). The inner conflict is his willingness to impress others and his fear of negative evaluation.
The extrinsic obstacle is that group discussion is not an ideal environment to him and he does not receive enough attention. S1 is sensitive to the environment and is afraid of low evaluation thus it is difficult for him to adapt to a group context with low empathy. Once these extrinsic obstacles are too strong, he refuses interaction for self-protection, but this can consequently isolate him, which on the other hand prevents him from having a sense of community. To look at this case in another way, the student is in a vicious circle, which can be broken down if he could receive profound empathy from this environment and get a sense of community. Suppose S1 talks to an empathetic teacher face to face or discusses with a peer student who encourages him to express his views and shows much interest and enthusiasm in the discussion, he would restrain his inner conflict and gradually goes into a favorable circulation.
S2 is female student who is very active and confident in the class, who plays the “president role”. She says she likes this kind of discussion and she wants to catch every opportunity to express her ideas. When the members in her group are very competitive, she feels a little pressed but she will still try her best to engage in the discussion. Through her words, we can see that she has strong intrinsic motivation, which can last for a very long time and facilitate her learning process (Sprinthall, Sprinthall& Oja, 1994; Sternberg & Williams, 2003). That’s why she strives to be active even if the competitive environment brings pressure. S2 acts the role of a leader in a group discussion and tries to motivate less active students to talk and at the same time, she hopes to get some feedback, if not, she feels frustrated. Reflected in her words, S2 is a democratic leader (see Sprinthall, Sprinthall,& Oja, 1994, chapter 17 about leadership) who pays much attention to the cooperation and cohesion of a group discussion. She tries to motivate other members and create an ideal atmosphere in the group. Rather than adapting to the environment, S2 actively sets up interactions and connections. If we compare an interactive class as an organic body, students like S2 feel much easier to get a sense of community thus belong to a group that can act as the “spine” of the whole class.
When we compare the characteristics of S1 and S2, in terms of their different psychological states and expectations, we raise a question: Whether can students with different characteristics be compatible in the same group? How can a group be formed with high quality that can meet the members’ expectations to the most extent?
Graph 1 is a comparison between S1 and S2, through which we may be curious about whether S1 and S2 can be compatible in the interaction.
Whether high quality of the discussion can be realized also depends on the composition of the group (Storch, 2002). We hypothesize that if S2 meets with S1, the pair work will not be of very high quality since S2’s way of motivating may not work on S1. Their expectations and needs are not compatible. We will discuss the group formation in details in the next section. S2 has an expectation of setting up connections thus she may be very active in talking to S1, and S2 acts actively while S1 acts passively. While her competitiveness may give S1 pressure and S1’s reluctance to give feedback may frustrate S2. Whether S2 can break S1’s extrinsic obstacle depends on in what way their interaction is going on, that is to say, whether S2 can provide profound empathy is the crucial factor for a successful discussion between S1 and S2. In the next part of this paper, our group focuses on the group forming and characteristics of the interaction in different groups.
|
|
|
Manifestation |
English Proficiency |
S1 |
less proficient |
not competitive |
|
S2 |
proficient |
very competitive |
Activity |
S1 |
passive |
needs to have more extrinsic motivation for interaction |
|
S2 |
active |
enough inner motivation for interaction |
Inner conflict |
S1 |
fear of losing face |
feels it difficult to interact naturally |
|
S2 |
not too much inner conflict |
feels it easier to talk in the class |
Extrinsic obstacles |
S1 |
competition and pressure |
anxious and nervous in interaction with a competitive peer student with low empathy |
|
S2 |
students who do not give feedback |
frustrated if no feedback gotten in interaction |
Attitude towards pressure |
S1 |
negative |
very passive/refuse to get involved in the competition/not willing to interact |
|
S2 |
less negative |
still active under pressure/joins the competition willingly |
Expectations |
S1 |
profound empathy from the environment |
prefers one-to-one conversation/easy to be hurt or frustrated |
|
S2 |
feedback and more interaction |
actively expresses ideas/eager to set up as many connections as possible |
Graph 1.
RQ2
Simple relations in small group discussions
In this part, we will first analyze how a certain discussion atmosphere is created and which positions on Cooper’s coordinate (Cooper, 2002) the discussions are at. Students’ expectation, motivation and emotion throughout the interaction are also discussed.
Below is a conversation between two students in one group simulating the situation of roommates negotiating the problems in a dorm room. (Actually, there are three members in the discussion, but we transcribe the beginning of the conversation handled by two students.)
1 S3: First I will discuss about you. Eh…I’m very sorry to say that you always smoke in the
2 bedroom and I really do not like someone is smoking when I am in the room. I can allow
3 that you smoke, eh… smoke outside the room.
4 S4: Ok. (laughs, a little embarrassed)
5 S3: OK?
6 S4: Ok!
[5 seconds silence]
7 S3: And the second thing is, you know, I like to…get up…I like to go to bed earlier, eh, early
8 and get up earlier, early in the morning. But you know you always stay up late, quite late,
9 and…
10 S4: Because my job, I have my job.
11 S3: Yeah, you can do your job, but I really hate the lights from your, eh…这个怎么说？
How to say this?
12（Looking at the item on the instructing paper）The lights… Because…
13 S4:XXX lights?…
14 S3: No. You have your lights, eh… with the lights on in the bedroom, yeah, the lights.
15 S4: I can use the lamp, not the lights.
16 S3: Maybe a lamp?
17 S4: Yeah.
18 S3: But you must make sure that I can not see the lamp because with the lights in the bedroom
19 can not sleep at all.
20 S4: Maybe I can use the lamp…
21 S3: Maybe we can have a balance about the time. Maybe you can go to bed…er…go to bed a
22 little earlier and I can get up a bit later.
23 S4: Ok! (laughing embarrassedly)
Transcript 1
It is a typical dominant/passive conversation according to Storch’s research (2002). S3 controls the direction of the conversation while S4 acts in a rather passive way. We have argued in the first section that whether needs and expectations can be met decides the student’s attitude and emotion, and affects performance. Then we will analyze the needs of S3 and S4, and the interaction proceeding. S3 here is relatively more proficient in English and has the willingness and ability to manipulate others (one kind of leadership, see Sprinthall, N., Sprinthall, R, & Oja, S. Chapter 17, 1994). From line1 to 6, we can see that S3 initiates the conversation in a very competitive way. Words like “always”, “really do not like”, “I can allow” make her statements very aggressive, and she tries to stress these aggressive words while speaking.
The atmosphere of the negotiation becomes not very friendly at the very beginning. Her expectation of impressing other members (Sprinthall, Sprinthall,& Oja, 1994) is realized throughout the conversation, and that’s why she can maintain her ardor even though she does not get much feedback from S4. It is legitimate to say that S3 is far from empathetic. The sense of connection has not been set up, which seems less important to S3 in that her needs have been met already. To S4, who are passive and less competitive however, effect of this dominant/passive pattern of interaction is rather negative. In line 6 and 7, we can see that S4 only says “ok”, but this passive feedback is enough to motivate S3 to keep on talking at length. In addition to that, S3 does much self-repair. In line 7, she makes several mistakes and does the repairs in a very swift way. In line 11, she makes a code switch to inquire a certain expression that she cannot figure out. However, before S4 can finish her feedback, S3 gives a refusal to S4’s help with a “No”. From S3’s attitude towards mistakes in language, we can find that she does not like other-repair. In line 15 to 19, S4 makes a suggestion about “using a lamp”, but S3 only gives a “maybe…?” as so called feedback and makes her own decision and imposes it to S4 (in line 21 and 22), which makes S4 a little embarrassed at last. S3’s motivation comes from her own inner need and S3 shows competence in the group. She belongs to the category of paying more attention to the competition than to the community cooperation. According to the anxiety theory in the classroom, this kind of students are not likely to have anxiety in a high-competitive group and can also well adapt to the low-competitive group.
Nevertheless, a group with members like S3 is hard to go on with cooperative work. On the other hand, S4 belongs to a category being in the less active position and expecting motivation from others. For such kind of students, a democratic leader is needed. Let’s see the reaction of S4 from the very beginning. From the line 1 to line 6, she does not say anything except “Ok”. Her anxiety comes from the uncertainty and doubt about her own language competence and fear of low evaluation. (Kitano, 2001) This competitive atmosphere increases this uncertainty. In line 13, 16, S4 uses an inquiring tone. In line 20, she uses “maybe” to shows her uncertainty. In this kind of groups, the mutuality and equality are both low, and is not a good environment for the students who have the same characteristics as S4 and whose performance depends on the extrinsic motivation. The implication for the group discussion is that a competitive student with low empathetic ability is better to stay with other competitive ones. Dominant/dominant discussion is better than dominant/passive one, because it at least has high equality although the discussion will not be in a friendly atmosphere.
Here is another discussion formed by another three students talking about the same topic.
1 S5: I am a little allergic to smoke, so every time you smoke in the room I’m very
2 uncomfortable. (laugh)Eh…maybe you can change your habit and make sure that you
3 don’t smoke in the dorm room.
4 S6: Oh, I…I’m sorry. I think I will accept your advice. But I really want…when I really want
5to smoke, where shall I go?
6 S5: (laugh) I think you can just go to the balco-…balcony and smoke there. It is quiet there
7 and I think it’s a nice place for you… to smoke.
8 S6: OK, I will think about it.
9 S6: You know you always borrow clothes and music books from…from me, but you didn’t
10 even ask me whether I…would like borrow( (should be “lend”) )it to you. (code switch to
11 Chinese to make the problem clear) It is something that I really cares ((should be “care”)).
12 S7: Oh, I’m sorry. I think sometimes I…eh… I want to borrow your things but you are not in
13 your dormitory, so I used them and not ask for your permission. I think next time I want to
14 use your things, I…will ask for your permission. ((There are some mistakes in S7’s expression))
15 S6: Ok, that sounds good. (laugh)
Transcript 2
This discussion has a friendlier atmosphere. For one thing, compared to the first discussion, the students here have high equality in the turns taking. S5, S6 and S7 make almost the same amount of contribution to the discussion. They learn from each other in a friendly atmosphere, which is an important factor to establish a sense of community. In line1 to line 3, S5 states the problem in a relatively moderate way. She uses words like “a little”, “maybe” to reduce the aggression. That means she has the attempt to create a collaborative atmosphere and uses her words carefully. In line 4, S6’s response to S5 begun with “I’m sorry”. Through line1 to line 6 we can see that the interaction between S5 and S6 are controlled and directed by both.
First S5 states the smoking problem and provides a solution. Then S6 gives a feedback and brings forth another problem raised by S5’s suggestion. This leads to another solution from S5. Each of them tries to get the information from the other and contribute their own share to the solution. We can see the same thing happens in the interaction between S6 and S7 (line9 to line15). This discussion has some characteristics of a collaborative one. In such a context, students feel less pressed and the anxiety is low because of the low level of competition. Since the three of them engage in others’ contribution in a certain scale, the discussion also bears some mutuality. Nevertheless, this mutuality is not obvious and the motivation from the partners is not enough. In line5, S6 uses a question to motivate S5’s contribution and this works quite well. S5 gives a constructive suggestion later. However, we can see in line7 to line8, and line14 to line15, the feedbacks seem to be a little passive, which show that this discussion is not completely collaborative. Given passive feedback, students will feel disappointed or frustrated consciously or subconsciously. If they did not have enough intrinsic motivation, say, the willingness and desire to impress others, they would give up trying. Let us look at relations set up in this discussion as a whole; we might find the emotions are relatively positive. Two dimensions of sense of classroom community-learning from each other and setting up connections-are realized.
More than one layer of relations in a larger group discussion
This group has 6 students in it. More details about this group can be seen in 5.2.2. Below is a part of the transcript.
1 S8 (Company Side): I came here to buy the land and…the farmers have raised two questions
2 why we XXX and what benefits that we can bring to them, and I can…
3 S9 (Farmers Side): What compensations, not benefits.
4 S8 (CS): Compensations?
5 S9 (FS): Yeah.
6 S8 (CS): Simply we came here to buy the land…This is the main purpose, and secondly, I…I
7 think…eh…I just wanna point out why you are so poor? Because you just live on this poor
8 land…[3 seconds]
9 S10 (Government Side): Ok, I hope the company will…will pay attention to their words, thank
10 you! And I…
11 S10 (GS): Ok, you government (should be “company”) part…
12 All the other students: Company part…
13 S10 (GS): Yeah! Would you please say how much compensation you can give the farmers if
14 if you wanna buy their land?
15 S11 (GS): I also…(laugh) want you to…to…eh…introduce your plan of the constructions…
16 How much do you want to lose ((very low voice)) and what compensations…
17 S12 (CS): We can give them money and give them jobs, of course, we…we will still build...
18 their houses…(turn to S8)
19 S8 (CS): And XXX
Transcript 3
This discussion has relatively high cohesion and is more task-driven. Different from the former two groups, this group is larger which means the relations are more complicated. Every member in the group has one companion and both act as belonging to a party in the negotiation. Three parties also form a second layer of relations. This is more like a social context with different layers of relations. During the observation, we find that two students in the same party discuss in a low voice from time to time and then provide an idea to other two parties. (These are not reflected in the transcript) Here a Chinese cultural element is reflected. Chinese people appreciate to stay within a small group in which the members are fully reliable and have many common grounds with them. Confronted with a problem, Chinese people prefer to have someone to discuss with before getting into the outside competition. This also reflects the importance of group belongingness to Chinese people. When it comes to an interactive class, we argue that the teacher should undergird students’ sense of group belongingness, which can reduce anxiety coming from competition.
Now let us look at how the group work is going on. In line 3, S9 gives a repair to S8’s statement, and in line4, 5, S8 and S9 reach an agreement on a word choice. In Line7 to line8, S8 uses an inappropriate expression. This inappropriateness does not come from syntax mistakes but the aggressive words, which are not supposed to appear in a negotiation between a company and the farmers. Then S10, acting as a government official, plays her role to ease the ambience, pointing out the company part should not use these words. The students fully understand their own roles in the group and motivate themselves to fulfill the task. In a discussion that is put in a certain social situation, students are given social roles and this kind of tasks, which, if well used, can promote students’ involvement. In 6 to 8, S8’s verbal behavior put “company side” in a higher position, which will either lead to an unfriendly argument between two sides or control over the “farmers’ side”, but either will raise anxiety and damage the positive motivation in the group. Here, S10 acts as not only a government representative but also a mediator in the negotiation. First, she asks “company side” to pay attention to the word. This behavior recreates a balance between the other two parties and motivates the “farmers’ part” to state their ideas. At the same time, she uses a “thank you” to show that the “company side” is still respected thus to avoid decreasing the motivation of the “company side”. In line11 to 13, there comes another repair, which is initiated by S10 and done by all the other students. This kind of repair can increase the cohesion of the group. In line 13 to 14, S10 raises a question for the“company side” with “would you please say”.
Expressions like this will strengthen the cohesion and reduce the competition among the group members because “would you please?” means one passes the opportunity of contribution to the other with respect and friendliness. Being respected and noticed is a basic need of the members of same rank, and it is true of the group work. In line 15 and 16, S11 contributes to the discussion by adding another creative item. “Also” means she pays attention to S10’s suggestion and regards herself as on the same side with S10. This shows that S11 knows her role quite well and abides by the rules of a negotiation. Dependence that happens in the group enhances the cooperation (Sprinthall, Sprinthall,& Oja, 1994). In 18 and 19, S12 turns to S8 for help and S8 then continues to talk. Help brings more cooperation and drives the whole group work to go on. In this group discussion, members are all engaged in the task and the contribution of others. With questions, repair, friendly dictions and certain direction shifting to a balance, the atmosphere in the group is a harmonious one, in which anxiety is low and the interactions in the group are successful.
In this group, the first layer of relations are highly cooperative, provides the students with safety and belongingness. In the second layer, relation between “company part” and “farmers’ part” is competitive, but “government part” moderates this competition and leads the discussion to be a more cooperative one. A common goal and shares of contribution make this two-layer relation network cohesive.
Extending relation network to the class as a whole
Based on the third part, we extend relations within a group to a relations network of a whole class. Before that, several network forms should be brought forth first for a better understanding of the interactive class. Usually, these networks can appear in the same class in the teaching-learning process.
Teacher-centered instruction
This form usually appears at the beginning of the class when the teacher introduces the tasks and curriculum arrangement. In a class made up of Chinese students, teacher-centered teaching model is still highly applicable since China is a hierarchical society and the students are brought up in such context. However, the teacher needs to keep two other factors on his mind. The first is “empathy” emphasized all through our paper and the other is equality. The teacher needs to show sincerity, respect, and enthusiasm to be empathetic. Empathetic observation is a very important tool for the teacher to understand students’ needs and expectations. For example, when giving instructions, if the teacher notices a confused facial expression of a student, he might need interact with him since confusion can abate sense of community (Rovai, 2002b).
It is true that the relationship between the teacher and the students can be hierarchical, while among the students, equality should be highly emphasized. In some classes, the teacher shows partiality to certain students, and then the consequence is that only several relations can be set up successfully while most students will lose sense of classroom community. That is to say, when it comes to the teacher, relations to all the students should be balanced. For instance, eye contact should touch every student especially those sitting far from the teacher, and some passive students who appreciate more profound empathy should call on the teacher’s attention.
Students Presentation
Graph 3 shows the correlation among the 7 items (see pdf)
We present this figure to show several points:
- “Sincerity” has highest correlation to “credibility” and “connectedness”. This shows being sincere is of much importance in terms of setting up emotional connections. It has obvious correlation to the 3 items related to learning dimension, although the pertinence is not very high.
- “Credibility” has very high correlation to the learning dimension.
- The items within the same dimension has very high correlation with each other
- The “familiarity” has very low correlation levels with other items except “connectedness”.
Implications drawn from these points:
- In our observation, we notice that sincerity can be shown in several aspects: eye-contact with the audience, the way the student delivers the speech (talking to the audience or just reading). A practical method for the teacher to use is to require the students to pay more attention to these aspects and take these elements as important standards when evaluating the students’ performance
- When it comes to the content of the presentation, the teacher can give instructions about topic choosing and emphasize how to make the presentation logic and credible.
- Since items within the same dimension have high correlation with each other, improvement in any aspect can highly enhance the presentation.
- Familiarity that plays an important role in the group discussion turns out to be of not so much importance in student presentation.
Group performance or competition between groups
In this Advanced Oral English Class, a creative arrangement needs to be presented: groups with 3 or 2 members in each are required to perform a task in front of the class, using PPT and other available facilities. Two students are the hosts, another two students form a “Consultative Group” who collect information from every group before class and provide the audience with explanations to some difficult expressions in the class. That is to say if there are eight groups, six are involved in the competition, while the other two groups act in a role of facilitating the class. Three layers of relations exist in this classroom: cooperation within the group, competition among the groups, and control and facilitation of the other two groups (See picture 2).
Picture 1
In this part, we have to emphasize Chinese cultural elements reflected in this classroom. Chinese people prefer to have group belongingness, and to seek safety in a competitive environment. In Picture 2 we can see that the first layer meets this expectation. (We have already mentioned this in 6.2.2, pp.11-13) When performing in front of the class, they feel less nervous than performing alone. China is high context society in which people’s identity and value are most likely to be defined by other people and the environment, so do those small groups. Without competitions (the second layer of relations), the groups’ identity and ability cannot be defined, which would lower the motivation. Another cultural element is the Chinese hierarchy, which can be reflected in the third layer of this relations network. The hosts and the other two consultants are above the competition and control the process. Since the students take turns to be hosts through the semester, this hierarchical relation layer does not threat the equality which we emphasized in 6.3.1. (pp.13-14).
In one period, five groups are asked to deliver simulative “Enterprise Proposals” which have been full prepared before class. We describe the performance based on the notes taken in the observation and do the analysis at the same time. Apart from the questions we raise in this part, we also add some phenomena that can give implications for improvement of pedagogical methods.
Two students who are required by the teacher review what they have done in the last class. Since they just read the sentences on the computer without much eye contact with the audience, only the students sitting nearest to the platform look at the screen. Most groups are preparing their own presentations. We draw three views from this situation: First, this proved what we argued in 6.3.2 (student presentation form, pp. 14-15) that the sincerity of the presenter contributes to a sense of classroom community, which is reflected in the phenomena of successful interaction and relations establishment. Second, distance plays an important role in setting up relations. To compare the relations to information cables, the distance between two members of the classroom is like the length of the cable, while the quality of the interaction is like the strength of the signal. Third, relations network needs to be complete and organic to be brought into full play. Here only two layers of relations exist, the first and the third without competitions among groups. It is just as if the groups are still separated, and this can be one of the reasons that the members concentrate on their own work. We do not mean that the three-layer network is the best one or can be applied to any interactive class, but we argue that this network is in accordance to Chinese culture thus can be well applied to a Chinese interactive class of this kind.
Then two hosts go to the platform. The host begins with “Thank you for our reporters, they did a really good job!” and then start to state the rules of the group’s presentations. This transitional sentence not only addresses the two reporters but also draw the attention of other groups.
We now describe the process of 3 group presentations:
Group 1: The topic is “Wedding Planning Company Proposal”. Three female students stand in a line, speak one by one and each is in charge of one part of the presentation. Their presentation can be regarded as a rough combination of three separate presentations because they just divide the content into three parts and not so much cooperation can be seen. Within the group, no repair or turn taking is made when one is talking, even no eye contact with the other two members. As to the presentation,it is comparatively successful in terms of sincerity and information. The presenters speak rather than read and make full eye contact with the audience.
Response of other groups: Almost all the students look at the presenters and seem to be interested in the presentation. After the presentation, no question is raised.
Group 2: The topic is “Christmas Party Planning Proposal”. And their ways of presenting the performance is similar to Group 1. While their voice is comparatively lower and they are less confident than the students of Group 1 are. After the presentation, the teacher asks a question, the three students give the answer together.
Response of other groups: Most of the students listen to them and look at the screen carefully and a couple of students sitting far from the platform do their own work. When the teacher asks a question, almost all students pay attention to the interaction between the performing group and the teacher.
Group3: The topic is about “Consulting Service Proposal”. One of the students has very proficient oral English and acts as the leader in this group. These three students cooperate relatively better than Group1 and 2 in that they make the turn-takings and repairs, and try to modify other members’ statements. They seek support from each other by eye contact and some non-verbal language. A student raises a question; the group members deliver the answer in a cooperative way and try to make their contribution on the basis of other member’s ideas, and this question leads to more questions and later a hot debate among the students is generated.
Response of other groups: All the students pay much attention to the presentation, and later half of the class join in the debate.
In the picture above, we can see the differences among the three group presentations. We assess the relations establishment according to eye contact, line of sight concentration, and verbal interaction. Group 1 does not deliver the presentation in a cooperative way. Group 1 sets up the strongest relations with the groups nearest to it, and strength of the relations reduces as the distance increases. This also proves what we have argued that distance plays an important role in relations establishment. Group 2’s performance is actually similar to Group 1, but establishment of relations is intensified by the teacher’s involvement. This is understandable in a Chinese interactive class in which the teacher’s authority is not likely to be challenged. This implicates that although the teacher plays a less crucial role in the interactive class than in other classes, it is still important for the teacher to get involved in the relations network to facilitate the learning process. Group 3 is more successful in terms of relations network establishment. When the relations are intercrossed, interactions in the classroom become open-ended and can extend to a large scale.
Implications for improving the interactive class of ESL
For the teachers: Being empathetic when observing the process of the class and arranging the classroom setting
In an interactive class, the teacher speaks less than in a traditional teacher-centered class. That does not mean that the teacher is less important, rather, the teacher need to observe the students performances, empathetically get to know the expectations and difficulties of the students, and then facilitate the relations network establishment, which can increase students’ sense of classroom community. As we argued in answering RQ1 (pp. 4), students have so many differentiations that lead to a variety of expectations. It is rather difficult for the teacher to talk to every student and provide each with profound empathy, but it is possible to care more about those who act passively in the group work by only talking to them for a few minutes, encouraging them to be engaged in the relations network. Another important aspect is how to arrange all the students into groups. As we argued in RQ2 (pp. 5-6), students may act differently in different groups. Some teacher may ask the students to form the groups themselves. It is true that a group within which all the members are familiar with each other might reduce students’ anxiety, but in terms of learning process, it does not always work, since familiarity does not equal compatibility. An effective approach might be that the teacher keeps observing the atmosphere and cooperation of each group, judges the compatibility of the members, and discovers the problems in relations establishment. After a certain period, the teacher may be able to understand the class better thus can make some changes in the group forming. For example, those students who are very competitive and also very aggressive (like S3, pp. 9-10) are better to stay with the students who have the same characteristics, those who are competitive and also can act as democratic leaders can stay with those who are passive in the discussion and in need of much extrinsic motivation. However, here we only provide some implications and reference, and our research has not been able to lead to a systematical framework for group forming.
Setting up relations network in an interactive classroom which is more comfortable for the students
Here “comfortable” means that the relations network need to accord with the cultural awareness and can arouse students’ sense of classroom community. We describe a model in 6.3.3 (pp.15-18) in which several relation layers are discussed. We have argued that these relation layers can work together to join the class together as an organic unity. The implication here is that when arranging the curriculum, the teacher needs to hold the awareness of setting up an organic relations network. Of course, a good relations network establishment is based on empathetic observation and an awareness to reduce obstacles in the process of setting up relations.
Giving instructions and tasks that can facilitate the relations network establishment
The teacher need to give students some instructions that can help them get involved in the relations network and feel more comfortable in the classroom. For example, as we argued in 6.3.2 (pp. 14-15), the teacher needs to emphasize the ways of presentation delivery and topic choosing. The teacher can also ask the students to prepare some material, which can be shared in the classroom community and will not lead to too serious competition.
Conclusions
In this research study, we analyzed an interactive ESL class in a Chinese context comprehensively and systematically. Individual differentiations lead to different expectations and performances of students in a class. When it comes to an interactive class, individual differentiations are reflected in the relations establishment. The teacher needs to observe the class empathetically and arrange the groups in order to provide comfortable group environments to as many students as he can. As to the whole class, an organic relations network is crucial in arousing a sense of classroom community and facilitating the learning process. Group belongingness, competition and the teacher’s control are all very important in setting up relations network in a Chinese interactive class.
However, we do not mean this three-layer relations model is the best one since we figure out this model based mostly on observation, and it hasn’t been tested in other interactive classes of ESL. To testify its validity, more experiments need to be done in various interactive classes of ESL, and comparisons between classes arranged with this model and classes without are also needed in order to clarify its effect. Meanwhile, a model used to arrange the class is just one way to improve the teaching and learning process and is by no means the only one. We argue that teachers can come up with different models in their teaching processes based on empathetic observation, cultural awareness and scientific designs. Our research just provides some implications for the arrangement of classes and more efforts need to be made in order to get a full understanding of relations network establishment in the interactive class of ESL.
Acknowledgements
We would like to extend our gratitude to Mr. Rovai for kindly sending us the Classroom Community Scale and the original research data of this scale.
References
Chen, Min (2005). Learners cultural frame of reference. CELEA Journal, 28(3), 76-81.
Chen Xiao-hua, Cheung, F. M. & Leung, Jin-pang (2006). Going beyond self-esteem to predict life satisfaction: The Chinese case. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 24-35.
Chung, Siaw-Fong (2005). Putting students’differences in perspectives: An introduction to the individual developing model. Asian EFL Journal, 7(2), Article 8.
Cooper, B. (2004). Empathy, interaction and caring: Teachers’roles in a constrained environment. NAPCE, 11-21.
Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. X. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-206). Melbourne:Cambridge University Press.
Dewaele, J. (2005). Investigating the psychological and emotional dimensions in instructed language learning: Obstacles and possibilities. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 367-380.
Ellise, R., Basturkmen, H. & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons. Language Learning, 51(2), 281-318.
Gunawardena, N. C. (1995). Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (2/3),147-166.
Jin, L. X. & Cortazzi, M. (2006). Changing practices in Chinese cultures of learning. Language, Culture and Curriculum,19(1), 5-20.
Kitano, Kazu (2001). Anxiety in the college Japanese language classroom. The Modern Language Journal,85, 559-566.
Li Ming-sheng (2004). Culture and classroom communication: A case study of Asian students in New Zealand language schools. Asian EFL Journal, 6(1), article 7.
Liu Cheng-hua（2003）Culture and personality: A comparison between Western and Chinese culture difference. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China Publishing House.
Peck, S. (1974). Differing needs of ESL students. In M. Murica, &L. McIntosh (Eds.), Teaching English as a second or foreign language. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.
McFeeters, F. (2003). The effects of individualism vs. collectivism on learner’s recall, transfer and attitudes toward collaboration and individualized learning, Unpublished dissertation. Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06162003-181857/unrestricted/05FMcFeetersDiss.pdf
Medway, F.& Cafferty, T. (1992). School psychology: A social psychological perspective.New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rovai, P. A. (2002a). A preliminary look at the structural differences of higher education classroom communities in traditional and ALN courses. JALN, 6(1),41-56.
Rovai, P.A. (2002b). Development of an instrument to measure classroom community. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 197-211.
Sprinthall, A., Sprinthall, R. & Oja, S. (1994). Educational psychology: A developmental approach, (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sternberg, R. & Williams, W. (2003). Educational psychology, Zhang Hou-can (trans.). Beijing: China Light Industry Press.
Storch, N. (2002). Patterns of interaction in ESL pair work, Language Learning, 52(1), 119-158.
Wang Xia, (2006). Is our classroom an ecological place? Frontiers of Education in China, 1(1), 56-69.
Wen, W. P. & Clement, R. (2003). A Chinese conceptualization of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language, Culture and Curriculum,16(1), 18-38.
Willis, J. (1996). Longman handbooks for language teachers: A framework for task-based learning. US: Longman.
Yabuuchi, A. (2004). Face in Chinese, Japanese, and U.S. American cultures. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 14(2), 261-297.
Yang Hu & Stacey, E. (2003). Immigrant Chinese students’use of silence in the language arts classroom: Perceptions, reflections, and actions. Teaching & Learning, 17(2), 55-65.
Yun W. (2005). Integrating Chinese culture with TEFL in Chinese classroom. Sino-US English Teaching,2(7), 55-58.
Appendix -see PDF SWF
