Proceedings of the - British Association for Applied Linguistics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Impact of Applied Linguistics: Proceedings of the 44th Annual Meeting of BAAL University of the West of England wider context. To correct or evaluate their students’ responses, the teachers: � repair without evaluation: S: Normal. T: Normally. � repair with evaluation: S: Twenty-sixth. T: Twenty-sixth of June. Right. � repeat the incorrect answer with rising intonation: S: To the Frankfurt. T: The Frankfurt? � reject the answer: Sixty? Hmm. It isn´t right. � reject the answer and provide explanation: Not a workbook. A workbook is what you write things in. � provide clues to the student to be able to self-correct: S: He told that their songs are rubbish.T: Yeah, he told them, posuneš (showing by a gesture that there will be a tense shift), their songs… Apart from correcting or evaluating students‘ responses, the teachers also use explanation in their F-move to: � correct spelling: Only one T. Writing only one T. � point out grammar: Homework buď bez členu nebo her homework. � explain vocabulary: Regularly. Pravidelně. � show context and provide examples: So when you want to get some money back for something that’s wrong and you had bought it before…yeah? � give facts: In Washington, yeah, all the political bodies are in Washington. As far as the F-move with the discoursal function is concerned, various sub-types were identified in the three types of discourse: 1. The teacher accepts the answer but expands on it, in other words incorporates it into a wider context, or uses a better phrasing: T: Where is that? East, West? S: Middle. T: Middle. OK. Hmm. It´s in the middle. In the middle of Slovakia. 2. The teacher adds a kind of evaluative comment but not concerning the form, but content of the student’s response, showing thus interest in what the student has said: T: Where did you go, Anna? S: Ireland. T: To Ireland. Great. 24
25 Teacher Follow-up Move within Classroom Discourse Lucie Betáková 3. The teacher adds a personal comment concerning the content of the message, especially where the student’s response is only minimal. The teacher thus demonstrates an interest in what the student is saying and at the same time expands on the answer and thus provides comprehensible input to the rest of the class: T: You like your uncle? S: Yeah. T: Yeah, so you’ll have fun the next time. (examples from Betáková 2010) It has been found out, in accordance with Cullen’s findings, that the Fmove with the discoursal function typically emerges from referential questions. Evaluative function is usually connected with display questions but there are exceptions in both cases. The main concern of the study was to investigate the types of feedback (follow-up) from the perspective of promoting effective communication in the classroom. Even though, as has been pointed out earlier, natural conversation in the classroom requires F-move with the discoursal function (which could be referred to as communicative feedback) , it should be stressed that both types of the F-move are important for language learning. Learners expect the teacher to correct their mistakes and thus improve their language accuracy. This is done through evaluation and effective ways of correction. The F-move with the discoursal function also plays a significant role. Commenting on what people say is a very natural part of everyday discourse, since it shows the speaker that the listener is interested in what he/she has said and in the classroom it is a very important source of comprehensible input. References Lucie Betáková (2010). Discourse and Interaction in English Language Teaching. Charles University: Prague, Czech Republic. Richard Cullen (2002). Supportive teacher talk. In ELT Journal vol. 56/2. Hugh Mehan (1985). The structure of classroom discourse. In T. Van Dijk, Handbook of Discourse Analysis, volume 3 – Discourse and Dialogue. Academia Press, London, UK. Steve Walsh (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. Routledge: Hove, UK.
Page 1: The Impact of Applied Linguistics P
Page 6 and 7: The Impact of Applied Linguistics P
Page 8 and 9: Chapter Authors Page 9 British Appl
Page 10 and 11: The editorial team would like to th
Page 12 and 13: The Impact of Applied Linguistics:
Page 84 and 85:
The Impact of Applied Linguistics:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138:
show all

Proceedings of the - British Association for Applied Linguistics

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?