Sociocultural Theories:
Analysis of Classroom Interactions
Jordie Struck
June 30, 2021
Introduction
The following presents an analysis of a classroom interaction of a private online French second language (FSL) class, which focuses on how I interact with students as a teacher. The student, Anton*, immigrated to Québec approximately five years ago, he has an intermediate level of spoken French, he is a plurilingual, and he is working to improve his French for professional and personal reasons. I provide him 60-minute private FSL classes once a week for The English Business House (englishbusinesshouse.com). Our classes take place on Zoom, and we focus mainly on oral communication. We speak primarily in French but occasionally, we discuss certain topics pertaining to grammar and Québec culture in English.
The topic of conversation in the analysis is bicycles and biking. In teaching, I use a communicative method, which focuses less on structure and more on communication. However, I provide corrective feedback and grammatical explanations. I also provide a lot of pronunciation correction. Anton explicitly requested to work on vocabulary, pronunciation, and verb tenses, as these are the areas in which he is having most difficulty. In the class (an excerpt will be provided below), we discuss his new bicycle, when his love of biking began, and we review some bicycle related vocabulary.
Following the communicative approach, my goal in class is to provide Anton with a decent amount of comprehensible input, ample opportunity to speak, and limited judicious corrective feedback (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Krashen, 1982). There are times when we review some grammatical structures, but those are far less than communication-based activities.
Strength of Communicative Approach
The strength of the communicative approach to language teaching is that it allows students to focus on the primary purpose of language, communicating, without being too severely limited by reviewing grammatical structure (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Sauvignon, 2005). “[T]he style of instruction places the emphasis on interaction, conversation, and language use, rather than on learning about the language” (original emphasis) (Lightbown & Spada, 2013, p. 124). Instead of starting with or limiting practice to structure, teacher and student communicate in the target language, and the teacher can provide points of grammar as necessary (Sauvignon, 2005). This allows for the student to gain confidence in communicating as they would in everyday interactions and develop their understanding of the language and culture in which it is spoken (Sauvignon, 2005). The teacher is tasked with providing error correction, feedback, and grammar as necessary (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Weakness of Communicative Approach
The weakness of the communicative approach is that some errors may be repeated and become ingrained. Students may also not learn more advanced structures if they are not introduced by the teacher. Students may not understand their mistakes if teachers do not provide meta-linguistic explanations and may feel frustration. However, the communicative approach does not require teachers to totally overlook structure and grammar (Sauvignon, 2005) nor leave all errors uncorrected (Lightbown & Spada, 2013), instead structure-based instruction is provided when the need arises within the communicative process. Another drawback is that unlike the structure-based approach, students may have less opportunities to practice writing (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Having practiced both approaches in different schools, I have developed my own style which incorporates some of both. I believe there is a place for grammar and vocabulary in class, but I also believe that a focus on communication is necessary. Ultimately, every student is different and responds to different techniques, therefore, it is my job to uncover their individual learning style and provide it to the best of my abilities. Some students require meta-linguistic feedback and instruction, while others learn much more quickly when left to communicate without it. As such, I agree with Piccardo & North’s (2019) assertion that “it is no longer viable to apply a ready-made all-encompassing method. Complexity and diversity have increased at the different levels: from societies, to classes to individuals. There is no longer a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution” (p.16).
In the following interaction between Anton and I, I have tried to provide Anton with some correction, but without hindering his ability to effectively communicate his message. The feedback is what Anton has expressed he requires and appreciates. Some errors are left unattended as they would distract from the flow of conversation, and I focus on the most important corrections for Anton.
Interaction:
J : Je trouve que 25 kilomètres à l’heure est vite.
A : Peut-être parce que le vélo est très… light?
J : Léger.
A: Léger. Je pense que c’est un vélo très cher. Le vélo est très bon… parce que… je peux le… (makes lifting motion)
J : Le lever?
A : Oui lever. Avec un … main?
J : Oui une main. Main est féminin.
A : Tous les mécanismes sont Shimano et c’est un … étage … (makes sign for high)
J : Ils sont un niveau haute gamme?
A : Oui. Haute gamme. (puzzled look)
J : It means high quality.
(Short discussion about bike quality follows)
A : Quand je suis allé chez lui, mes jambres (small pronunciation mistake we addressed at the end of class) étaient un peu fatiguées après je fais le vélo. Mais quand je retourne chez moi… (pauses, looking up for words)
J : Quand je suis retourné chez moi.
A : Quand je suis retourné chez moi avec lui vélo?…
J : … Avec son vélo.
A : Oui avec son vélo. Je n’étais pas fatigué. Je pensais parce que le vélo est léger… et… (struggling to find words)
J : …
A : I want to talk about how the gears are better.
J : Est-ce que tu veux regarder le dictionnaire visuel ensemble?
A : Oui.
(We proceed to look at the visual dictionary in the section related to bike parts. Anton reads through all the different part names, and I aid him with pronunciation. I also provide him some local variations as we are using a French (and not Québecois) dictionary. The activity takes about five minutes.)
J : Parfait! Alors, quand tu étais jeune, est-ce que tu faisais beaucoup de vélo?
A : Ah non, pas beaucoup de vélo. Parce que j’habite en centre-ville.
J : J’habitais.
A : Ah oui, habitais. On habitait dans centre-ville et il n’avait pas beaucoup de place pour faire vélo. Mais dans l’été, j’habitais avec mon grand-parents.
J : Mes grands-parents?
A : Oui, mes grands-parents. Dans la compagne. Et durant l’été, je fais du vélo.
J : Je faisais.
A : Oui. Je faisais du vélo. Un peu. Oui, c’est ça. Et aussi au Canada, peut-être quand j’ai eu 16 ou 17 ans. Oui… um… Je faisais du vélo pour aller à l’école. Oui. Donc, tous les jours.
(We continued to speak about bikes, biking, and Québec bike culture for another five ten minutes.)
Analysis
In my analysis, I would like to focus on corrective feedback and turn-taking. What I have learned from observing my interaction with Anton is that I correct some but not all of his errors. My goal is to focus on the most frequently repeated errors and errors of pronunciation. Having watched the recording of our class multiple times, I found that most of my feedback does not hinder the flow of conversation. However, I feel as though I need to limit some of the feedback. There were a few times that the feedback made Anton have to stop and reset. In those instances, it would have been more appropriate to withhold my comments until later. The opinions on whether corrective feedback is constructive (Inci-Kavak, 2019; Lyster et. al, 1999) or detrimental (Truscott, 1999) are divided. However, as stated above, I do not adhere to a one-size-fits-all methodology, and it is natural for my teaching style to adapt as I continue to teach my students.
As for turn-taking, I believe that I provide Anton with ample time to express himself. The goal of my classes is to allow the students to speak 75% of the time. The other 25% I use to ask questions of speak for a few minutes to provide comprehensible input. In those instances, I try to speak at a level commiserate to my students’ level and introduce a new vocabulary, expression, or structure without focusing on it explicitly which allows them to understand but gradually improve (Krashen, 1982). As shown in the transcript, during the middle of the conversation, Anton and I take a few minutes to consult a visual dictionary. Seeing that Anton was struggling with vocabulary associated to bicycle parts, I offered him the option to address that, which he was happy to take. In that way I tried to allow Anton to take control and ownership of his learning by directing the focus of the class so that he could engage with the material in a way that he felt most benefitted him.
Conclusion
I have since had another class with Anton, and from what I learned from this analysis, I limited my corrective feedback and allowed Anton to speak more freely without interruption. The effect was that Anton spoke more and felt as though he had a better chance of communicating. I also took the opportunity to speak a little more so as to raise the amount of input he was receiving. As with the previous class, near the end of class, we took a few minutes to discuss Québec culture and the French language (speaking on this subject in English), and I think it encouraged Anton to engage more with the culture. Language and culture being so intricately intertwined, it is always my goal to help students make the connections between their identity and the culture they are adapting to through the language they are learning.
References
Inci-Kavak, Vildan. (2019). Exploring the Gap between Instructors’ and Learners’ Preferences about Error Correction in ELT. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 13(1), 116-146.
Krashen, Stephen. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned 4th edition-Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. Oxford university press.
Lyster, Roy, Lightbrown, Patsy, & Spada, Nina. (1999) A Response to Truscott’s ‘What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction’. Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 457-467.
Piccardo, E. & North, B. (2019) The Action-Oriented Approach: A Dynamic Vision of Language Education. Bristol: Blue Ridge Summit.
Sauvignon, Sandra J. (2005). Communicative Language Teaching: Strategies and Goals in Handbook of Research in Second Language Teaching and Learning. New York: Routledge.
Truscott, John. (1999). What’s Wrong with Oral Grammar Correction? The Canadian Modern Language Review, 55(4), 437-456.
* Anton is a pseudonym. I also presented my student with a confidentiality agreement in line with the American Anthropological Association’s standards.