Get it together
Smit, Nienke
DOI:
10.33612/diss.160498701
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2021
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Smit, N. (2021). Get it together: exploring the dynamics of teacher-student interaction in English as a
foreign language lessons. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.160498701
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
1.1. The art of language teaching
It is a Friday afternoon in a small village in the north of the Netherlands. Gina, an English as a foreign language teacher and a group of 16-year-old learners of English are discussing a newspaper article about 21st century skills. The author of the text points out why he
thinks that communication, collaboration, creativity and critical thinking are crucial skills for global citizenship. Teacher Gina is keen to find out whether or not her learners share the author’s ideas and asks one of the boys what he thinks: “Why do you think communication is an important skill?” The student responds by asking “Can I say that in Dutch?”. Gina agrees and the boy continues in Dutch to say that it is very important that people can use language to express themselves clearly. Gina nods, acknowledges what the boy says with “yeah” and continues the whole class discussion in English.
Gina is one of the teachers who participated in this study. She is an enthusiastic and experienced teacher with excellent classroom management skills. Gina clearly loves teaching this group. Her lessons are well-organized and she has great rapport with her students. The students are engaged and at ease during her lesson. Before the class starts, some students come over to her to share stories about themselves. However, when we limit the focus of our observation to the question Gina asked and the answer the boy gave, we can see that the student answered the teacher’s question, but not in English. This is rather remarkable considering the content of the question and answer.
Jaap works as an English teacher at a school in Amsterdam. It is a Wednesday morning and he has planned to discuss Neil Gaiman’s Anansi Boys with a group of 17-year old teenagers. The learners had to read parts of the novel in preparation for the lesson. Teacher Jaap talks about Charlie, the main character of the story and asks his learners “Why does Charlie decide to sing?” Jaap lets the student who has been wiggling in his seat for a while answer his question: “I didn’t read it, but I think because he sees his brother like eh.. so his brother dies but for a… so he realizes he has to do something. So he tries...” Jaap listens
patiently and gives his student a friendly smile and then tells the boy and the rest of the group that trying to answer a question about something you have not read might not be the best idea. “If you do not know what you are talking about, maybe you should not answer the question….”
Jaap is also an experienced teacher who also participated in this research project. He uses the English language consistently throughout his lesson and clearly understands the motley crowd he is teaching: his classroom is organized and the atmosphere might be best described as a combination of good vibes and “don’t mess with me”, which seems to be exactly what the teenagers from Amsterdam need. Zooming in on the teacher question and student answer interaction patterns, it can be observed that the teacher asked a complex question and the student gave an extensive answer in English. However, what the student was saying did not make any sense.
These two classroom snapshots from Dutch secondary education illustrate how we might view language teaching as an art: organized and messy, serious and funny, predictable and unpredictable and often challenging and surprising. According to James (1899), it is crucial for readers of educational research to understand the distinction between the art of teaching and the science of psychology:
I say moreover that you make a great, a very great mistake, if you think that psychology (…) is something from which you can deduce definite programmes and schemes and methods of instruction for immediate schoolroom use. Psychology is a science, and teaching is an art; and sciences never generate arts directly out of themselves. (James, 1899, p.3)
This dissertation acknowledges the art of teaching and the impossibility to capture it in a single research design. At the same time, this study aims to contribute to the science
of language teaching by developing observation instruments and presenting empirical results from naturalistic classroom observations.
1.2. The science of language teaching: language teaching
methodology
Foreign language learning in the classroom has benefited from insights gained from both psychological and linguistics research (Ellis, 2019). Many teaching methods for language learning were at some point controversial, because underlying sets of teaching principles were based on changing assumptions about cognitive development and assumptions about the nature of language learning. Criticism on language teaching methods has focused on the limited applicability of a fixed set of procedures and principles in varying contexts (Richards & Rodgers, 2014). According to Thornbury (2011), language teaching methodology concerned with the “how” of language teaching, aims to identify and describe similarities in language classrooms across the globe. However, he also stressed that it is crucial to acknowledge differences in classroom practices that may exist in or possibly due to teaching contexts. How foreign language teachers teach language has been “a clear and classic applied linguistics problem” (Cook, 2003, p.38). The aim to provide a description of the “how” of language teaching in English as a foreign language (hence EFL) lessons in Dutch secondary education forms the starting point of the research presented here. Structured classroom observation was the primary tool for conducting the studies focusing on language teaching methodology. Classroom observation was used to analyze teaching strategies for scaffolding and real-time interaction patterns that are formed by teacher questions and students’ answers.
1.2.1. The process of language learning and teaching
Studies into instructed language learning have found that effective teachers support language development by providing calibrated and adaptive support in which they combine attention to language form, meaning and use (Spada & Tomita, 2010; Norris & Ortega, 2006; Lyster, 2007; Gass & Mackey, 2006). However, language teaching has often been compared to managing a process that cannot be controlled, because many factors play a role at the same time (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996) introduced the idea of negotiation of meaning, which is a useful frame when considering classroom interactional processes between learners and between a teacher and learners. According to Long, negotiation of meaning contributes to language development. What happens in a language lesson might be influenced by the cultural context in which the lessons take place, by curricular demands, by teaching materials and technologies, by learning outcomes and backwash effects of examinations, by teachers’ views of learning in general and of language learning in particular (Thornbury, 2011). These factors make studying language teaching methodology complex and have even encouraged some researchers to announce “the end of language teaching methods” (Bell, 2007; Brown, 2002; Kumaravadivelu 1994). Other researchers were less radical in their claims about the practicality and usefulness of language teaching methodology and made a plea for “principled eclecticism” (Larsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Thornbury, 2011). The term principled eclecticism was introduced to suggest that the teacher is not limited by a fixed set of techniques, but instead may take the responsibility to draw from a range of teaching methods. Principled eclecticism suggests some kind of “method to the madness”, based on context-specific important teaching principles. It implies that a teacher may select relevant learning activities or tasks based on the teacher’s analysis of the learners’ needs. However, a good understanding of the teaching context and the purpose of the language course (e.g. general English, immersion programs, academic English) is a prerequisite for an appropriate selection of learning activities. Moreover, the answer to the question what works best in a language classroom and what is the purpose
of the language course might vary between different educational contexts, but also from school to school, teacher to teacher or year to year. For some researchers and teachers, a principled eclecticism perspective might result in a sense of paralysis triggered by a responsibility to decide what works. How can a teacher know what is best, if in theory anything might work, but when simultaneously there is also always the risk that a certain way of teaching might not work in the teacher’s specific context? Principled eclecticism might therefore ultimately not be a very helpful frame to understand language learning or language teaching.
The deadlock emerging from this debate about “the end of language teaching methods” and “principled eclecticism” might be avoided by adopting a complex dynamic systems research perspective of language learning and teaching. According to Larsen-Freeman and Cameron (2008):
“…a resourceful teacher will need to call upon a wide range of activities and techniques that support learning. However, we are not simply saying that (…) anything goes. (…) Almost anything goes in the abstract, but any particular moment in a lesson can be rich with learning potential and some directions to take may be better than others...” (p.198).
The above stresses the importance for teachers to have a flexible repertoire of teaching techniques and teaching skills to these techniques at the right moment in time. This perspective calls for a holistic and context-specific approach. Before we turn to a discussion of some key constructs that are relevant for a complex dynamic systems view of language learning and teaching, we will first introduce the concept of scaffolding.
1.2.2. Scaffolding in EFL teacher-student interaction
In the research literature, the adaptive and flexible ways in which teachers may support and foster language learning are referred to as scaffolding (Wood et al., 1976; Van de Pol et al., 2010). In their overview of approaches and methods in language teaching, Richards and Rodgers (2014) mention that scaffolding plays a major role in teaching approaches such as communicative language teaching, task-based language teaching, text-based language teaching, content-based language teaching and content and language integrated learning. The scaffolding metaphor is analogous with the temporary structure in construction work and providing temporary support makes intuitive sense to language teachers, researchers and educators (Gibbons, 2015). Too much support and too little challenge in a learning process could lead to boredom, whereas too little support and too much challenge might make language learning too daunting. The former could for instance be observed in lessons in which the teacher does all the talking and students are inactive, the latter might be observed in lessons about difficult and abstract topics in which students are not engaged. Scaffolding presupposes active engagement in the learning process from both teachers and learners. Both teacher and learners share a responsibility for shaping the learning process together in which the level of teacher support is adjusted to what the learners need. Depending on a teacher’s assessment of the learners’ needs, the nature, amount and extent of the support in the learning process might vary from moment to moment (Van de Pol et al., 2010). In a classroom situation, scaffolding requires from teachers to be conscious of and skilled in the balancing act of providing just the right amount of challenge in the right way at the right moment in time. Guiding and structuring the interactive process of scaffolding, however, is complex (Kirschner et al. 2006). Zooming in on the language classroom, an important contribution from applied linguistics researchers such as Gass and Mackey (2006) was that they pointed out the relations between processing linguistic input, classroom interaction and producing meaningful output. Interaction can help learners to direct their attention and notice relevant language features (Long, 1996). According to Nuttall (2005), some
language teachers use interactional scaffolding intuitively, but many other have to learn how to do this. It is a highly complex business for one teacher to find out the right amount of challenge, autonomy and support, especially when there are around 25 language learners who are simultaneously trying to develop the language competence and who all need this kind of support. Therefore, assuming that teachers understand what scaffolding means and that researchers or educators can merely observe the presence or absence of scaffolding in a language lesson oversimplifies the interactive nature of this concept. Scaffolding is an interactive process, which implies that many different factors respond to each other. Additionally, scaffolding is multi-faceted and therefore complex, as well as dynamic and adaptive because the type of support is contingent upon the achievement and effort and adjusted from moment to moment (Van de Pol et al., 2011). The scaffolding metaphor combines cognitive, meta-cognitive and affective elements, which makes it appealing but very complex to study (Van de Pol et al., 2010). Observational research into scaffolding therefore needs to address the complex and the dynamic nature of the construct. On the one hand this can be done by focusing on observations of teaching strategies aimed at providing calibrated support in the learning process. On the other hand, this can be done by studying the interactive process, by focusing on how teacher and students respond to each other in real-time.
1.2.3. A complex dynamic systems approach to teacher-student interaction
Promoting learning is the general aim of any real-time teaching process, but how this can be best done remains an ongoing focus of educational research (Muijs et al., 2016). Complex dynamic systems theory provides a framework that can be used to analyze and describe learning-teaching processes (De Bot et al., 2007; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). The foreign language learning process could be regarded as a complex dynamic system in which teacher, students and lesson content interact (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016). This dissertation takes a learning-centered approach, a process in which both teacher
and learners are involved and mutually influence each other (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008).
Figure 1.1
Didactic triangle
The most basic representation of the language classroom as a complex dynamic system is the didactic triangle (Figure 1). The ways in which students and teachers respond to each other from moment-to-moment and how this behavior self-organizes have been acknowledged as important factors in classroom research (Douglas-Fir Group, 2016). Interactions between the three elements of this basic system are dynamic in the sense that they influence each other continuously across different timescales (Thelen & Smith, 1994). This implies that the way teachers and their learners respond to each other from moment to moment during a single lesson, or from week to week, month to month and year to year are different levels of granularity for studying intertwined processes of classroom interaction. An important assumption in complex dynamic systems theory is that developmental processes such as language learning and language teaching emerge from interacting elements across multiple nested timescales. The scope of the present study is limited to interactions between teachers and learners at the micro timescale
of the lesson. Returning to the basic representation of the didactic triangle (Figure 1), instructed language learning can thus be conceived as complex dynamic process that emerges from interactions between the elements (here teacher, student and content) of the system.
In a complex dynamic system, the position of the interacting elements on a particular moment can be defined as the state of the system. The state space of a system consists of all the possible states (i.e. positions) in a dynamic system. Through an interactive process of self-organization in the state space, flexible or rigid behavioral patterns might emerge. Applying this theory to the teacher-student interaction in the language classroom, this implies that theoretically any teacher and a group of students might always respond to each other in numerous ways. In reality, however, as soon as teachers and learners start responding to each other and build classroom routines, some potential interaction patterns might occur less often. Sometimes fixed patterns of classroom interaction form attractor states, which is the dynamic systems term for dominant patterns. An important characteristic of an attractor state is that this is a (positive or negative) pattern that reproduces and maintains itself. This also means that an attractor state can be viewed as behavior that emerges without a lot of effort, but requires substantial effort to change.
Often, however, interactive behavior in a complex dynamic system is unpredictable because interactions between multiple elements on one moment, form the input for interactions between these elements on the next moment (Steenbeek & Van Geert, 2013). Iterative behavior which forms the input for the next moment in the interactional process has important consequences for understanding the direction of causality. From a complex dynamic systems perspective, the outcomes of a complex dynamic process are caused by the process itself. This is referred to as mutual or process causality (Van Geert & Steenbeek, 2005b), which implies that variables have a reciprocal influence on each other over time and should not be studied separately. Therefore, researchers studying
interactive patterns have suggested to use study variables together, which is sometimes referred to as studying a collective variable as a unit of measurement (Hiver & Al-Hoorie, 2016; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). According to complex dynamic systems theory, in the analysis of a collective variable, levels of variability and stability may provide relevant information about the process, and should therefore not be considered as noise. A specific form of mutual causality in a process in which teacher and learners continuously adapt to each other has been described as co-adaptation (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008). Currently, however, empirical studies describing ecologically valid real-time interactive processes between teachers and learners in English as a foreign language lessons are scarce.
This section has provided a general explanation of a complex dynamic systems research perspective and introduced some of the key terms. In the following section, the intended outcome of the process of instructed second language learning will be elaborated on.
1.2.4. Co-construction of meaning in language learning and teaching
An important outcome of communicative language teaching is that learners can use the foreign language in different cultural, educational or professional contexts. An important shift in the practice of language teaching has been the introduction of policy documents like the Common European Framework of References, hence CEFR, (Council of Europe, 2001; Council of Europe, 2018) and the World Readiness Standards for Language Teaching, hence ACTFL (The National Standards Collaborative Board, 2015). Both documents stress the importance of effective communication and being able to connect in a multicultural and multilingual world, and therefore suggest that the central underlying general aim of language learning is co-construction of meaning (CEFR 2001, p.23). This aim is closely related to the previously mentioned idea of negotiation of meaning (Long, 1996; Gass, 2003). Co-construction of meaning puts the emphasis on co-creating meaning, through modifications of verbal output, during the interactive process. Although a focus on
co-construction of meaning conveys a powerful political message, the practical side of how to learn or teach this is more difficult to grasp. The documents operationalize language learning outcomes at varying levels of proficiency in “can-do statements”. An illustration of a can-do statement for speaking at level A2 from CEFR (2001) is: “I can ask and answer questions and respond to simple statements” (p.18). CEFR can-do statements are currently often used by administrators, materials writers and teachers in order to determine outcomes of the language learning process. An important benefit of the increased attention for standardizing language learning outcomes is that it provides a clear focus on what is taught. In the Dutch curriculum, the implementation of CEFR (Council of Europe, 2001; Council of Europe, 2018) has helped to formulate what might be expected from learners in terms of language accuracy and adequacy. A clear example of the impact of international standards for language learning is the alignment of the CITO national standardized exams1 for modern foreign languages in secondary schools
with CEFR. However, the question of how language learning aimed at achieving the desired outcomes might be best supported and fostered is understudied. Descriptive observational research provides insight in how language lessons evolve and aims to improve our understanding how language learning outcomes are met.
Classroom discussions around texts are often used as a springboard or starting point for promoting co-construction of meaning (Murphy et al., 2009). Texts, both fiction and non-fiction, are often used as a source of authentic input in the foreign language lesson (Grabe, 2009; Lyster, 2007; Lightbown, 2015). Outside the educational context, people usually have a clear purpose for reading. This is not necessarily reading for the sake of reading, but reading for entertainment, information, forming an opinion, or more generally reading for work or study (Grabe, 2009). In an educational context, classroom discussions about texts can prepare learners for these real-life purposes of reading. In
1 CITO is a Dutch institution which specializes in reliable assessment for learners in Dutch pri-mary and secondary education. Standardized national exams in the Netherlands are designed
a language lesson, a text can be used as the starting point for a discussion in which students practice understanding the text, understanding other people in the classroom and making themselves understood (Gibbons, 2015; Gass & Mackey, 2006). Returning briefly to the didactic triangle (Figure 1), this means that all lessons analyzed in this dissertation involve reading fiction or non-fiction.
If co-construction of meaning is understood at the most basic level as working together and helping each other to verbalize thoughts and feelings, there are many ways to organize “co-construction of meaning” during communicative language lessons: from pair and small group work, to whole class interaction (Mercer & Dawes, 2014; Long, 1996; Gass & Mackey, 2006). In this dissertation the focus is on observing co-construction of meaning during whole-class interaction and the scope is limited to teaching strategies and teacher-student interaction patterns emerging from teacher questions and student answers. The four studies presented in this dissertation describe current EFL teaching practice in the highest levels of Dutch secondary education in order to investigate what happens in these EFL lessons when teachers and learners are engaging in a process that aimed at achieving mutual understanding of a written text.
1.3. English as a foreign language in the Dutch secondary
educational context
According to the historical overview of foreign language teaching in the Netherlands presented by Hulshof et al. (2015), the “how” of teaching learners to communicate effectively and meaningfully communication has been operationalized in the curriculum in different ways. At present, English is a mandatory subject in Dutch secondary education and students are expected to be able to communicate at CEFR B1+ and B2 level. The official label of EFL as a secondary school subject is “English language and literature” (Meijer & Fasoglio, 2007) and has a predominantly communicative curriculum with attainment
targets aligned with CEFR scales for reading, listening, writing and speaking. Additionally, there are three separate attainment targets for literature education. Dutch EFL learners are required to read a minimum of three works of fiction in the foreign language (Meijer & Fasoglio, 2007).
Being a proficient user of the English language is an important entrance requirement for higher education. After secondary education, when learners enter higher education in the Netherlands, students are expected to be able to learn from reading English texts. This implies that students are expected to have sufficient language proficiency to understand relatively complex and long texts and respond to these inputs by expressing themselves in the English language in speech or writing. In the current curriculum, a national standardized reading comprehension exam determines 50% of the final result for English. The standardized reading exam is currently the benchmark to assess whether students have actually achieved this CEFR level. A national study (Fasoglio & Tuin, 2017) revealed that most Dutch teenagers achieve the attainment levels listed in the national curriculum, not only for reading but also for the other language skills. Despite the supposedly high proficiency levels of Dutch teenage learners combined with ample out-of-school exposure to the English language (Fasoglio & Tuin, 2017), teachers and researchers report limited levels of an active use of the English language by students in the classroom (Dönzelmann, 2019; Fasoglio, et al., 2015). Moreover, the introduction of English as a core curriculum subject in 2013 has led to an increased classroom focus on training for the standardized national reading comprehension exam. Scores on the national reading comprehension exam are not only important for individual learners, a school’s percentage of students who pass the standardized national exam also forms an important quality criterion for both prospective students and parents, as well as for the Dutch inspectorate of education. This situation has encouraged schools to train their students for the final multiple-choice reading exams. As a result of these trends, Fasoglio et al. (2015) have reported that currently there is little attention for meaningful classroom
interaction focused on developing learners’ literary and intercultural competences. The authors also indicated a marginal role for language awareness.
In 2018, a curriculum reform was initiated by the Dutch Ministry of Education (Curriculum. nu, 2020). The primary objective of the curriculum reform is to rewrite the existing curriculum from 2007 in a way that it can prepare new generations for future challenges. The most recent proposal for modern foreign languages does actually incorporate an explicit focus on effective communication, creative use of languages, intercultural competence, multilingualism and language awareness (Curriculum.nu, 2020). At the time of writing the new curriculum has not been fully developed and implemented. All observational data in this dissertation are gathered in EFL language lessons taught according to the existing curriculum (Meijer & Fasoglio, 2007).
1.4. Aims of the dissertation
1.4.1 Descriptive observational research
The aim of this dissertation threefold. In order to understand what is happening in language lessons, accurate and adequate observations are needed (Allwright, 1998). This research intends to contribute to research methodology for observing classroom interaction from a complex dynamic systems perspective. The second and empirical aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the real-time process of co-construction of meaning. Two different observation protocols were developed in order to capture scaffolding behavior in the EFL classroom. The first is the English Reading Comprehension
Observation Protocol (ERCOP), which is an event sampling protocol that can be used to
identify strategies teachers are using to activate and support learners during the lesson. The second is the Questions and Answers in English Language Teaching (QAELT) coding scheme: a coding system that can be used to quantify patterns that emerge from a
series of teacher questions and student answers. Whereas the ERCOP protocol aimed to operationalize means to scaffold discussions between teachers and learners about texts and focuses on the behavior of the teacher, the QAELT instrument zooms in on behavior of both teacher and students. The third and practical objective of this dissertation addresses the research-practice gap and focuses on how research findings about the language learning process might be interpreted by and shared with teachers.
1.4.2. Structure of the dissertation
The context described above led to the design of a descriptive observation-focused research project, which is guided by the following research questions:
1. What are observable teaching strategies for scaffolding EFL reading comprehension?
2. What are the characteristics of interaction patterns formed by teacher questions and student answers?
3. Do students and teachers adapt to each other in question and answer sequences? 4. How stable are teacher-student interaction patterns during English as a foreign
language lessons?
5. How do teachers perceive the observed patterns of classroom interaction?
These research questions are addressed in four empirical studies. The introductory chapter (this chapter) and the general conclusion (chapter 6) frame the empirical studies (chapters 2 to 5). Across the different studies, a total number of 76 classroom observations of EFL lessons were analyzed. All lessons were collected by the author of the thesis in three waves of data collection and coded by nine independent and trained observers. Table 1 describes an overview of the methods of the separate studies.
Table 1
Overview of the dissertation
Chapter Type of study Participants # lessons Type of instrument Design 2 Static observational 5 teachers 20 event sampling quantitative 3 Dynamic
observational
4 teachers 16 time-sampling quantitative 4 Dynamic
observational
40 teachers 40 time sampling quantitative 5 Validation of
observational results
57 teachers N.A. questionnaire mixed-methods
In the following sections the design of the four studies is elaborated on.
1.4.3. Study 1: Teaching strategies for scaffolding
Classroom discussions about texts may support all sorts of cognitive processes, such as problem solving, and argumentation (Murphy et al., 2009). An interesting classroom discussion of a text between teacher and students might also foster engagement and eventually lead to co-construction of meaning, the central overarching aim of learning a foreign language. The first observational study focused on strategies teachers use to scaffold their learners’ reading comprehension. An event-sampling protocol will be developed based on categories of teaching behavior derived from a scaffolding review study (Van de Pol et al., 2010), namely asking questions, modelling and giving instructions, explanations, hints and feedback. The aim of the first study was to operationalize the multi-faceted construct of scaffolding in order to scaffolding observable. Data from classrooms of five different teachers, all teaching two different groups of learners twice, were used in a generalizability study with five trained observers. In order to explore the multi-faceted nature of scaffolding, this study builds on the assumption that the observed teacher behavior is a random sample of what a teacher normally does. Generalizability theory (Shavelson & Webb, 1991) was used to disentangle sources of variation in the
observational data, in order to analyze to what extent a teacher uses a stable repertoire of teaching strategies during their lessons.
1.4.4. Study 2: Dynamics of co-adaptation between teacher questions and student answers
The first study resulted in an overview of the teacher’s teaching repertoire. This second study zooms in on the role of one of the most common communicative and interactional strategies: teacher questions and student answers. Whereas in study 1 the focus was on multi-faceted nature of scaffolding, this study makes an in-depth dynamic analysis of interaction patterns that emerge from teacher questions and student answers. Besides the primary empirical aim of describing the interaction patterns, a secondary aim was to develop a methodology to analyze the dynamics of how teachers and students co-adapt during question and answer sequences. Teacher questions and learner answers play an important role in the scaffolding process and are common verbal behavior in the language classroom and can be identified by independent observers relatively clearly. Moreover, this type of real time behavior is important for language learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991).
A coding scheme for Questions and Answers in English Language Teaching (QAELT)2 was
developed to generate time series data. The time series data enable us to study patterns of co-adaptation between teacher and learners in real-time interactive processes. Teacher questions and student answers can be identified as building blocks in the language learning process. The study used data from four different teachers, recorded whilst teaching two different groups on two different occasions. This resulted in a data set of 16 EFL lessons. The State Space Grid visualization technique (Lewis et al., 1999) was used to analyze time series data. Correlational analyses were used on the teacher-student interaction data to gauge the extent to which teachers and students co-adapt and to analyze intra- and interindividual variability.
1.4.5. Study 3: Patterns of variability and stability in teacher-student interaction
Whereas the first and second study were based on small samples (five teachers in the first study and four teachers in the second study), for the third study a new and larger sample of 40 observed lessons taught by 40 different teachers across secondary schools in the Netherlands was collected. The focus of study 3 was on stability of teacher-student interaction levels throughout EFL lessons in Dutch secondary schools. Using QAELT coding scheme, questions and answers were coded in order to define zones of interaction. Next, sixteen combinations of teacher questions and student answers were reduced to three zones of interaction. The zones are defined in terms of levels of verbal activity. The higher the zone, the more verbal activity from both teacher and students. In this study, co-construction of meaning was operationalized as extended episodes of classroom interaction in zone 3. The study investigated to what extent teacher-student interaction in EFL lessons varied within a lesson. The study also addressed differences between lessons taught by different teachers.
1.4.6. Study 4: Teacher perceptions of observed classroom interaction
Understanding the process of teacher-student interaction in the language classroom is not only important for researchers, but also for teachers. An important problem in educational research, however, is the research-practice gap. A limitation of classroom observational research is that is does not uncover underlying intentions or motivations for the observed behavior. Finding out how teachers perceive the observed interactions can help to validate the observational findings. Participants (n=57) in the validation study were all EFL teachers and therefore familiar with the teaching context in this study. They had not been involved the previous observational studies. It was explained to the participants that classroom interaction pattern had been studied by observations of teacher questions and student answers. Three State Space Grids were shown and explained to illustrate the findings. Participants were then asked to fill out a short digital questionnaire in which the
focus was on whether they recognized the findings, could pinpoint a possible explanation and suggest a possible way to improve classroom interaction. Both quantitative and qualitative analyses of the participants responses are included in this study. This small-scale study aims to combine scientific research methods and research findings with teachers’ practical knowledge.
1.4.7. Organization of the thesis
The ‘PhD by publication’ structure of this thesis explains some of the overlap in the theoretical and methodological sections of the chapters. These studies have been published or submitted for publication as three peer-reviewed journal articles and one peer-reviewed book chapter. In the final chapter (chapter 6) the overall findings are summarized and discussed. This final chapter also addresses the implications of the findings and directions for future research.
1.4.8. Contributions of authors
Glossary of the terms adapted from CRediT Author statements. See http://casrai.org/credit/
Conceptualization: Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research
goals and aims.
Data curation: Management activities to annotate (produce metadata),
scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.
Formal analysis: Application of statistical, mathematical, computational,
or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data.
Investigation: Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically per forming the experiments, or data/ evidence collection.
Methodology: De velopment or design of methodology; creation of
models.
Project administration: Management and coordination responsibility for the
research activity planning and execution.
Software: Programming, software development; designing
computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components.
Supervision: Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research
activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team.
Visualization: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the
published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.
Writing – original draft: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the
published work, specifically writing the initial draft in English.
Writing – review & editing: Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision —including pre- or post-publication stages.
Chapters 1 and 6
Nienke Smit wrote these chapters and made revisions based on feedback provided by Wander Lowie, Marijn van Dijk and Kees de Bot.
Chapter 2
Based on: Smit, N., van de Grift, W., de Bot, K., & Jansen, E. (2017). A classroom observation tool for scaffolding reading comprehension. System, 65, 117- 129. https:www.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.system.2016.12.014
Nienke Smit: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing of the original draft.
Kees de Bot: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Ellen Jansen: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing.
Wim van de Grift: conceptualization, methodology, software, supervision, formal analysis, writing (review & editing).
Chapter 3
Based on: Smit, N., van Dijk, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (2021). The Complex Dynamics of Adaptive Teaching. International Review of Applied Linguistics. https: //doi.org/10.1515/ iral-2021.0023
Nienke Smit: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing of the original draft.
Marijn van Dijk: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, visualization, software, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Kees de Bot: conceptualization, resources, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Wander Lowie: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Chapter 4
Based on: Smit, N., Van Dijk, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (submitted). In the Zone? Analyzing stability of attractor states in teacher-student interaction.
Nienke Smit: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing of the original draft.
Marijn van Dijk: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, visualization, software, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Kees de Bot: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Wander Lowie: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Chapter 5
Based on: Smit, N., Van Dijk, M., de Bot, K. & Lowie, W. (accepted). The Teacher’s Turn: teachers’ perceptions of observed patterns of classroom interaction.
Nienke Smit: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, investigation, methodology, project administration, visualization, writing of the original draft.
Marijn van Dijk: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Kees de Bot: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
Wander Lowie: conceptualization, methodology, supervision, writing (review & editing).
