riview of journal linguistic

                          review of linguistic input and interaction in the content classroom

 Margaret early

INTRODUCTION

until recently very little educational research has been based on direct observation and recording of the teaching process as it happens in the classroom.  This paper looks at the language of the classroom. Specifically, it looks at various features of teacher-talk in two distinct educational settings: the English as a Second Language (ESL) classroom and the regular native speaker classroom. description of the linguistic register particular to the classroom speech of ESL teachers. Specifically, in addressing its aim, it seeks to do three things. First, it describes and quantifies various features of classroom conversational interaction between native speaker ESL teachers and students ofESL. Second, it describes andquantifies variouscharacteristicsof the speech addressed by ESL teachers to second language learners, i.e. the input. Third, it investigates the degree to which the properties of foreigner-talk (FT) in this corpus are representative, by comparing them with the results of Long's investigation of patterns of input and interaction outside the classroom (1980).

PURPOSE

A review ofthe literature (see Long 1980; Early 1985) reveals thatwhile the corpus of information on foreigner talk has increased steadily since Ferguson's (1975) article, there is, as Long (1980, p. 62) points out,"stilla need for description ofmany aspects oflinguistic input and interaction in SLA and for research on variables related to each.

Research question (1)

How do regular teacher - NSstudentandESL teacher- NNSstudent classroom interactions differ in structure? It is hypothesized that ESL teachers' speech in NNS classroom interaction will employ:

(1) different relative frequencies ofquestions, statementsandimperatives in t-units

 (2) different relative frequencies of Wh, Yes-No, uninverted intonation and tag questions in T-units (3) more conversational frames

 (4) more confirmation checks

(5) more comprehension checks

 (6) more clarification requests

 (7) more self-repetitions

 (8) more repetitions of the interlocutors' utterances

(9) more expansions of the interlocutors' utterances

Research question (2)

What are the differences infeatures oflinguistic input between regularteacher - NS and ESL teacher - NNS classroom talk? It is hypothesized that ESL teachers' linguistic input will be less complex as indicated by:

(10) a shorter length of T-units in words

 (11) a lower number of S-nodes per T-unit

(12) a lower type-token lexical ratio

 METHOD

(A)   The ESL Classroom

Subjects for the study were 8 experienced ESL teachers and their students. Each ESL teacher also hadexperience in teaching social studies. The students were taught English for specific purposes; they attend forexample, English through Science classes, English through Social Studies, English through Physical Education and Home Economics classes as an integral part of their schooling. They spend only two blocks out of an eight-block schedule in English language classes per se.

All teachers were teaching their regular class. Four ofthe classes were designated beginner and four were designated intermediate. The assignment of students to classes was relatively arbitrary, however, and all classes had, or so it seemed to the author, a mixture of beginner and intermediate students. Class sizes ranged from 15 to 20 with students from predominantly Cantonese, Punjabi and Vietnamese language backgrounds. Most had been in Canada less than a year. All hadbeen inCanadaless thantwo years. The classes were mixed in age, ability and previous education experience.

(B)   The Regular Classroom

 Subjects for this part were 8 experienced Social Studies teachers. Three teachers taught grade 8 Social Studies, three taught grade 9, and two taught the senior students (grades II and 12). All classes were highly integrated both racially and linguistically. All students were either NS or NNS fluent in their second language, English. Class sizes ranged from 25 to 33.

Data Collection

All teachers were eager to co-operate. The only specification made to the teachers was that the lessons to be observed would have student-teacher interaction, not 50 minutes ofseatwork. In some sessions the teachers talked non-stop for 50 minutes, while in others seatwork was assigned at short intervals throughout or at the end. The tapes ranged in length, therefore, from 30 to 45 minutes.

ANALYSIS

Defenition

Following Long (1980: 81-83) the following definitions were applied: conversationalframes are boundary markers, such as well, so, ok, now which precede or follow utterances,

but which are not semantically related to that utterance; confirmation checks are any expression by the NS immediately following an utterance by the interlocutor which was designed to elicit confirmation that the utterance had been correctly understood orcorrectly heard by the speaker.

Statistical Analysis            

Chi-square tests were performed on those ofthe above computations which resulted in proportional relative frequency data. Another nonparametric test, Mann-Whitneyu-Wilcoxon Rank Sum W test, was employed for all other variables. Due to the fair number oftests being performed on the same corpus and the probability that five texts in one hundred would attain probability by chance, a probability level of .005 was set for rejection of the hypothesis.

RESULTS

The results are presented around the two research questions:

Research question (1): How do regular teacher - NS students and ESL teacher - NNS students classroom interactions differ in structure?

Table 1

 shows percentages of questions, statements and imperatives in T-units in NS-NS and NS-NNS classroom conversations.

	Q	s	i	total
Regular Teacher-    NS Students	19.25	72.50	8.25	100
ESL TeacherNNS Students	30.01	51.42	18.57	100
Questions X Statements X Imperatives 2 = 18.24 X df = 2, P < .001.

Table 2

 shows the percentages of four-question-types in T-units in NS-NS and NS-NNS classroom conversations.

		Question-Type
	WH	YES-NO	INTON           TAG	TOTAL
Regular TeacherNS Studen	66.50	24.51	3.49               1.50	100
ESL TeacherNNS Students	68.48	23.55	6.45               1.52	100
WH X Yes-No X Inton. X Tag =;l = 1.49, df =3, p >.10 n.s.

Table 3

 shows the values for seven features ofinteraction in NS - NS and NS - NNS classroom conversation

	Regular Teacher Students         X	ESL teacher- NS NNS Students            X	Z	p<
Conversational Frame	72.66	96.83	2.08	.05 n.s.
Confirmation CheckS	0.63	0.17	-	-
Comprehension ChecKS	2.58	16.17	3.58	.001
Clarification R'qsts	0.17	0.0	-	-
Self-Repetitions	14.00	56.41	3.84	.001
Other-Repetitions	16.33	44.33	3.16	.005
Expansions	0.92	12.41	3.52	.001

 Table 4

 shows the values for three features oflinguisticinputin NS -NS and NS - NNS classroom conversation.

	Regular Teacher Students X	ESL Teacher- NS NNS Students  X	Z	p<
Average Length of T-units in word	11.01	6.96	3.81	.001
Average Number of S-nodes per T-unITS	1.51	1.18	3.75	.001
Type-Token Ratio	37.00	35.10	2.67	.01 n.s.

DISCUSSION

    The first research question asks ifthere is a difference in conversational interaction in teacher-talk with NNS than with NS students. Ofthe nine hypotheses, five found support in the data. ESL teachers employed relatively different frequencies of questions, statements and imperatives than did regular teachers. They also employed more comprehension checks, more self-repetitions, more other-repetitions, and more expansions than regular teachers.

      The second research question asks ifthere are differences in features of linguistic input to NNS students as opposed to NS students. Two ofthe three hypotheses found support in the data. The average length ofT-unit in words and the average number ofS-nodes perT-unit were found to be lower in teacher-talk to ESL students.

     This study also indicates that there are features ofconversation where teachers do not make adjustments to the interactional structure oftheir classroom conversations. One of these features is the distribution of teachers' question-types. As Table6shows, Wh-questionswere considerably higher in both classroom conditions (67% and 68% for NS - NS and NS - NNS classrooms respectively) than the other three question-types.

      The significant findings for differences in comprehension checks, self- and other-repetitions in ESL teacher-talk indicate that teachers, when talking to NNS students, go to even more trouble to avoid conversational breakdowns. Presumablybothgroupsare so successful with their avoidance strategies that the need to repair breakdown seldom occurs in classrooms.

       In both studies the relative frequencies of questions, statements and imperatives differ significantly in NS - NS and NS - NNS conversations: Long's results are: questions X statements X imperatives(X 2 = 62.12, df= 2, P < .001); as reported above (Table 1), the results of this study are: questions X statements X imperatives (i = 18.24; df = 2, P < .001). It should be noted, however, that in both NS - NS and NS- NNSclassroom conversations the absolute frequency of imperatives (8% and 19% NS NS and NS - NNS conversations respectively) is markedly higher than either NS - NS or NS - NNS conversations (2% and 3% respectively) outside of classrooms. The absolute frequencies of questions and statements did not vary so markedly.

     Long (1980) reports that NS - NS and NS - NNS conversations out of classrooms differ significantly in their distribution ofquestion-types(x2 = 16.77, df= 3, p < .001). However, as shownearlier in this paper, NS - NS and NS - NNS conversations in classrooms do not (X2 = 1.49, df= 3, p < .10 n.s.). The finding thatteachers do not use question-typesdifferentlyfrom NS outside classrooms is interesting.       

     Finally,  move to a comparison ofthe findings for three measures of linguistic input in and out of classrooms. In both studies, the average length of T-units is found to be significantly different in NS - NNS interaction. In classroom conversations the average length of S-nodes is found to be significantly different in teachers' speech to NNS than to NS students. This measure is not found to be significantly different in NS - NS and NS - NNS interaction outside classrooms. Perhaps teachers' greater familiarity with their interlocutors encourages them to make greater syntactic adjustments in their linguistic input. In both studies no difference is found in measures of lexical type-token ratio.

STRENGTHS  AND WEAKNESS

INTRODUCTION

This research covers the opinions of experts who previously but there is a weakness of this study discusses only language in the classroom with second Englis clashrom with regular langguage clashrom native speaker did not examine any media that can improve the quality of students in esl Clasroom.

PURPOSE AND R&Q

As said the author this research is to perform a comparison between

How do regular teacher with NS students and ESL teacher with NNS students 

classroom interactions differ in structure .

And What are the differences in features of linguistic input between regular teacher with NS 

and ESL teacher with NNS classroom talk.This research is already serving two different views that can

 be used as guidelines for a comparison in a scientific paper.

Sumary of content

of research on the subject, namely  ESL and NS using the WH-type question, yes-no, this can be used as 

 guidelines in making the comparison in a study in the classroom and is also supported 

by expert opinion as long (1983).

Conclusion 

of the overall results of this study concluded that 
a class taught by a teacher native speaker (Ns)
is superior to a class taught by a teacher english second 

langguage (ESL) but there are some shortcomings in this 

research one of which is the study 
only included opinions of experts in research not a new 
expression in research.