Nature of Discussions in a Foreign Language Literature Class

Author

Dogan Yuksel

Kocaeli University, Turkey

Bio
Dr. Dogan Yuksel, currently an Assistant Professor at Kocaeli University's Department of Foreign Languages, teaches courses on ELT Research and Methodology in the English Education program. He received his PhD from Florida State University's Multilingual Multicultural Education program in 2007. His research interests include classroom discourse, literary discussions, and Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory. His email address is doganyuksel@yahoo.com
Abstract
Use of literature in foreign language teaching has been viewed as one of the traditional ways of teaching for centuries. However, the research about the use of literature is quite limited compared to the popularity of its use. In this study, I analyzed the discursive structure of classroom talk both academically and socially to identify the nature of literary discussions. A foreign language literature class in Turkey was observed for one semester and qualitative analyses were conducted following a discourse analysis method. The findings of the study revealed mixed results. Possible reasons of the findings were explained with educational implications.

Introduction
Use of literature in foreign and second language teaching is taken for granted for many teachers and researchers. However, how literature is studied and nature of classroom discourse in second/foreign language literature classrooms have not been examined thoroughly (Donato & Brooks, 2004; Kim, 2004; Mantero, 2001). Studies that have investigated what is happening in literature classes are very few in number. As it is often articulated, previous research on the use of literature in second and foreign language teaching has focused mostly on the reading comprehension of cultural texts (Donato & Brooks, 2004), and very few studies have examined the verbal interactions of second/foreign language learners in literature discussions (Kim, 2004). A review of previous studies and books that are devoted to the relationship between literature and language learning demonstrate that the study of literature seems to entail mostly receptive skills: for the most part reading and literacy development, and only sometimes writing or speaking (Akyel & Yalcin, 1990; Carter & Long, 1991; Chen, 2006; Cho & Krashen 1994; Ghosn, 2002; Lao & Krashen, 2000; Lazar, 1993, 1994; Liaw, 2001; McKay, 1982; Parkinson & Thomas, 2000; Shanahan; 1997; Widdowson, 1984).

Use of Literature in Foreign Language Teaching
Most of the studies that examined the relationship between literature and language teaching have articulated four benefits of literature: (1) literature helps developing linguistic knowledge both on usage and use level (Lazar, 1994; McKay, 1982; Parkinson & Thomas, 2000; Widdowson, 1984), (2) literature may enhance students’ motivation (Akyel & Yalcin, 1990; Ghosn, 2002; Lazar, 1993; McKay, 1982; Parkinson & Thomas, 2000), (3) literature has the potential to increase learners’ understanding of the target culture (Akyel & Yalcin, 1990; Ghosn, 2002; Lazar, 1993, 1994; McKay, 1982; Parkinson & Thomas 2000; Shanahan; 1997), (4) literature may help develop skills of cognitive and critical thinking (Ghosn, 2002, Lazar, 1993; Parkinson & Thomas, 2000). Most of these benefits are based on the experiences of teachers and researchers who had substantial background in the teaching of literature; however, none of them is supported by research that is coming from real classroom settings.
Motivated from the lack of research on the nature of discussions in literature classrooms, this study examined the nature of literary discussions in an advanced level English literature class in a Turkish EFL (English as a Foreign Language) setting. The study focused on the discursive features of a foreign language literature course offered at a Turkish university. The discursive structure of classroom talk was analyzed both academically and socially to identify the nature of the literary discussions. Students’ perceptions of the class and on-going discourse, and their views about their roles were investigated as well. In other words, both academic and social aspects of the classroom discourse were addressed to increase the understanding of ‘what-is-going-on’ in an advanced level foreign language literature class.
By conducting this study, the researcher aimed to contribute to the literature by providing naturalistic, uncontrolled data about the nature of literary discussions in an advanced level English literature class at a Turkish university. In other words, by analyzing the nature of whole group discussions in a college level foreign language literature class, this study provided empirical data regarding the nature of discussions in a literature class, which in turn might offer some insights about the validity of the claim that the study of literature in the collegiate curriculum is useful in developing foreign language proficiency.
The discursive structure of the classroom talk, i.e., how the discussion evolves, may help us see the major significant points in a discussion, namely how the discussion is constructed, who starts it, who finalizes it and who contributes to it. Characteristics of discussions may further shed some light on the perception of knowledge and schooling by the teachers and students. Many previous studies demonstrate that most of the schooling in many settings have been built on the traditional IRE (Initiation- Response- Evaluation) routine, which may indicate that, among other things, the teacher have the ultimate control in the classroom (Gutierrez, 1994; Lemke, 1990; Nystrand, 1997). On the other hand, open-ended discussions are less prescribed, including less teacher control, and may be a sign of teachers’ interest in students’ ideas and comments (Nystrand, 1997). The significance of the nature of discussions has been acknowledged by many researchers who deal with classroom discourse in different fields of education (Cazden, 2001; Gutierrez, 1994; Lemke, 1990; Nystrand, 1997; Walsh, 2006; Wells, 1999b).
The following research questions guided this study:
1- What is the nature of literary discussions in an advanced level literature course in a Turkish EFL setting based on the analyses of the discursive structure of the classroom talk?
2- What do students think about this specific literature class and their roles in this class?

Methodological Framework
The research questions influenced the choice of the methodological framework, the social interactionist perspective (Green, 1983; Green & Wallat, 1981; Mehan, 1979, 1998) that provided a comprehensive outlook about the classroom discourse. A social interactionist perspective to teaching focuses on the discourse and interaction in the classroom, and uses a discourse analysis framework to analyze the classroom interaction. In his seminal book Learning Lessons, published in 1979, Mehan pointed out the significance of studying interaction in the classroom context by stating “because educational facts are constituted in interaction, we need to study interaction in educational contexts… in order to understand the nature of schooling” (p. 6). After more than 25 years, as Wells (2005) states, many people who study classroom learning and teaching today agree that “the nature of the interaction that takes place in class is one of the most significant influences on the quality of student learning” (p. 1).
From this perspective, a second or foreign language classroom is not only an academic environment, but also it is a social context (Cazden, 2001). Classroom language is analyzed as it pertains to two different functions in classroom life: (a) the communication of propositional information, which is also called as referential, cognitive or ideational function, and (b) the establishment and maintenance of social relationship and identity that refers to the social and affective features of language (Cazden, 2001).

Data Collection Procedures
Following Harklau (2005), the present study can be defined as ethnographic research that involves a case study, which is quite common in qualitative research (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005). Natural and systematic audio and video recordings of the classroom sessions for nine weeks (a whole semester), field notes taken as a non-participant observer during this time, and semi-structured interviews with the instructor, students, and the administrators of the program constituted the primary data sources. Discourse analysis was used as a major research tool to examine the nature of literary discussions. The main aim of using multiple data collection techniques was to get various perspectives of the same classroom phenomenon to increase the credibility of the study. Another concern of the study was to get the insider’s perspective and understanding of the classroom interaction.

Data Analysis

Discourse analysis technique was used while analyzing the data. The following steps were followed prior to data analysis: (i) transcription of the audio and video recordings, (ii) data indexing, (iii) data reduction, and (iv) data coding. Data transcription process involved the transcription of the video and audio-recordings in their entirety. Data indexing was performed by describing the context in which data occurred, in other words, where and when the activity took place in the study. Each teacher-fronted whole group discussion was indexed by providing the context of when and where it took place. The description of the topic, pseudonyms for each participant, and major activities of the lesson in each episode were included in this session as well. After indexing the relevant parts, data was reduced into smaller and manageable chunks of information (episodes) according to the research questions. Finally, the data was coded using a top-down, deductive coding procedure where the analyst pinpointed a set of codes before engagement with data began. The four constructs were already identified by utilizing the findings of the previous literature and theoretical framework.

Interrater Reliability
After I identified 69 episodes of teacher-fronted text-based discussion, and coded them according to the research constructs, two external reviewers were asked to re-code some parts of the data to increase the reliability of the findings. External raters were familiar with classroom discourse research and each coded 10% of the data, which was randomly selected. For the part of the study that was discussed in this paper, external raters coded the level of learner utterances. I prepared a training manual that included the definitions of each level of learner utterances together with at least two examples. After the final codings, there was 98% interrater reliability between the researcher and the first rater, and 97% interrater reliability between the researcher and the second rater.

Context of the Research
The research was conducted in the Drama Analysis and Teaching class offered at the sixth semester of English Education program at a major Turkish University, during the spring semester of 2006, which started on February 27th and ended on June 16th. The class met regularly on Tuesdays between 8:30 A.M. and 11:30 A.M. It had three hours of class with two breaks for ten minutes after each hour. The participants of this study were advanced level English Education majors attending a Turkish public university. I was particularly interested in advanced level learners, because they had adequate English proficiency and the necessary background in literature to carry out the classroom discussions in the target language. The instructor of the course, Dr. Anne, held a PhD in English Literature and had been teaching the same course for more than 10 years. The background survey indicated that the participants ranged in age from 20 to 22, and they had been studying English for 5 to 12 years. Pseudonyms were used to protect the identities of the participants of the study.
During videorecordings, I positioned the camcorder I used to the right corner of the classroom, and kept it at the same place during the whole semester. I sat next to the camcorder, and remained silent as much as I could. My main concern was being as invisible as possible, and I did it as best as I could, even though I needed to talk in the classroom from time to time.

Figure 1. Layout of the classroom.

Findings
Discursive Structure of Classroom Talk
During nine weeks of recordings, I identified 69 whole group teacher fronted text-based discussions. The teacher fronted text-based discussions, i.e., the episodes, ranged between one minute and ten seconds and twenty-six minutes and twelve in duration. In each of these episodes, the focus was the text that had been read, and the teacher asked at least two questions. After each text-based discussion was identified, they were coded based on (a) initiation move of each episode, (b) major patterns of the moves (e.g., initiation, response, evaluation), (c) level of the learner utterances (i.e., word, phrase, sentence, or discourse), and (d) finalization move of each episode.
The average number of episodes per week was 7.6. The first week of the recordings had fourteen episodes, and eighth week had only four. Time spent on discussions in each week varied between 47 and 104 minutes. The average time spent on discussion was 77 minutes. Week 3 had the shortest time with 47 minutes, on the other hand in Week 5, 104 minutes of class time was spent on discussions. The distribution of the episodes in each week is provided in Table 1.

Conclusion
The findings of this study, among other things, reiterated the lack of speaking and practice opportunities that literature classes may provide to foreign language learners. This problem, if taken together with the exploration of new ways about using literary texts to create pedagogically effective environments for the development of proficiency (Carter, 2007), might be a good start to think about specific features of literature and literature teaching that might have some influence on the development of second language skills such as speaking.
As it is widely acknowledged, speaking is a major problem in foreign language contexts and learners do not find enough opportunities to develop their speaking skills. Teachers and students often feel frustrated because of the limited opportunities of “speak[ing], read[ing] and writ[ing] meaningfully in English in a learning situation in which there is little of substance worth talking about” (Handscombe, 1994, p. 334). The findings of this study demonstrated that literature classes in the foreign language curriculum would be a venue to provide opportunities for the meaningful use of language in a context while most other interactions were based on some in-class mechanical drills, repetition, and memorization of chunks. However, in order to do that, foreign language literature teachers should be aware of the tool they have and develop the opportunity for discourse accordingly, which remind us, again, of the suggestions of Gibbons (2006) about the mediation role of teachers in the foreign language teaching classrooms.

.