| Sarah Hickman
Since the time of Socrates, the pursuit of knowledge has been characterized by the skillful use of language and patterns of questioning to examine understanding and discover truth. Some twenty-four centuries later, language remains the primary medium and discourse the primary method of teaching and learning. While language is a valuable tool for exploration of most fields of study, the prevalence of oral communication in our lives often leads teachers and students to take language for granted. Educators would benefit from a more conscious understanding of the features and functions of oral communication in the classroom. Once we are made aware of the roles of language in the classroom, we can begin to more closely examine the patterns of language use in the classroom and the effect those established patterns have on the learning process. Realizing the effect of classroom discourse patterns, particularly patterns of questioning, on the material to be learned and the learning process itself is crucial to making appropriate adjustments conducive to achieving the maximum benefits of education in a classroom environment. Courtney B. Cazden, author of Classroom Discourse, asserts that "any social institution can be considered a communication system" by virtue of its very existence (2). The construction of any "institution" implies that communication is taking place between various people for a common purpose. However, the issue of understanding the elements and processes of communication within the system is especially important when discussing the function of education; as Cazden points out, "while other institutions such as hospitals serve their clients in non-linguistic ways, the basic purpose of school is achieved through communication" (2). Cazden goes on to discuss three general features and functions of language which "make communication so central" in schools (2-3). To begin with, language transmits curriculum; despite the wealth of technological advancements available for presenting information in the classroom, spoken language remains the primary medium for providing instruction and demonstrating what has been learned. Language is used to initiate, monitor, adjust, and evaluate cognitive processes. Secondly, language communicates control; classrooms are "crowded human environments" in which one person -- namely the teacher -- is responsible for preventing and coping with disruptions, as well as and encouraging and enhancing learning processes (Cazden 2-3). While naturally occurring crowded environments are characterized by numerous "simultaneous autonomous conversations" (Cazden 2), the classroom situation relies on language rights and mores -- usually created by the institution and enforced by the teacher -- to establish and maintain social relationships. Finally, language reflects personal identity; language is such an integral part of culture and socialization that students experience the sensation of vulnerability when asked to put themselves and their speech "on the line," so to speak, in front of peers and superiors. School is often the first place where children are expected to communicate independently (without help from parents) and publicly (in a forum where their performance or competence may be judged by outsiders). The increasing prevalence of diverse linguistic backgrounds and levels or types of cultural literacy combined in one classroom only further complicates the matter. Additionally, teachers, like students, bring personal perspectives and anxieties with them in their classroom talk. These issues of communication are brought to the forefront, as the primary way in which speakers express their identity and attitudes within the classroom setting is through language. Linguistic communication in the classroom serves multiple functions. Teachers must make themselves aware of the language patterns in their classrooms and the function of those patterns of discourse in the educational process. Cazden notes that "the three-part sequence of teacher initiation, student response, teacher evaluation (IRE) is the most common pattern of classroom discourse at all grade levels," and that the teacher usually initiates the interaction using question form (29). This pattern of questioning has some very powerful implications in terms of both lesson content and classroom structure. Joseph Lukinsky and Lifsa Schachter address two primary concerns in their article "Questions in Human and Classroom Discourse" about what the IRE-type structure of questioning communicates about the structure of the classroom environment: "First, it establishes a power relationship with the teacher on top. . . . second hidden lesson . . . is the reinforcement of the idea that there must be an answer to every question." The IRE structure of discourse sets up an imbalance of power in a number of ways. Most obviously, all interactions are teacher initiated; this sends a message to the students that teachers have the right to speak at any time, while students must wait to be engaged and recognized by the teacher. Students are subordinate to the teacher in the classroom, and this is made clear by the cycle of talk which mandates that they will participate in strict accordance with the pattern established by the teacher -- namely they will speak only when invited to respond to the teacher's question (Dillon 13). In addition to setting up a painfully inequitable index of speech rights, this IRE pattern communicates that the teacher decides what knowledge is valuable and at what pace the lesson should move; students are cut off from raising related issues or personal concerns or even difficulty in processing previous information because the model for language interaction focuses on teacher priorities and actions rather than making room for student needs and insights. Despite a teachers good intentions toward checking for understanding, this pattern of questioning does little to verify if any real learning has taken place; more often then not, the question is aimed at eliciting an answer predetermined by the teacher, as opposed to a true investigation or discussion of some open ended issue. A student who can provide an acceptable answer has not necessarily mastered the learning -- he or she has merely mastered the structure (Cazden 64); often, a student has figured out what the teacher wants to hear and repeats it to further the discourse, but has not necessarily internalized the knowledge or connected the "answer" to any larger context of meaning. This brings us to the problem of reinforcing that every question has a "correct answer" in the context of the classroom discourse. The evaluation element suggests that each answer can and will be assessed as "right" or "wrong." Because the teacher is the only individual in the classroom given the power to evaluate responses, the structure assumes that the teacher already knows the answers to the questions he or she is asking, and that the teacher is only interested in the limited scope of information which can be accounted for by the question used to initiate. This failure to make room for any in-depth exploration or additional insight communicates to the students a very "simplistic view of fields of knowledge [and] of the enterprise of study" (Lukinsky and Schachter). The kind of learning which lends itself to IRE patterns of instruction is limited to lower cognitive level processes which stress "recall of information," and questions aimed at producing accurate recall or simple identification "do little to promote any real thinking" (Lukinsky and Schachter). Based on Bloom's taxonomy, these knowledge questions are of only minimal value, and should be supplemented by activities which engage more intermediate skills of comprehension and application, as well as the higher cognitive processes fo analysis, synthesis, and evaluation (Brophy and Good). Unfortunately, the IRE model which breaks down into a search for "the answer" does not encourage students to volunteer new ideas, to connect relative experiences, to express critical viewpoints, or to take any risks which might lead to a more comprehensive understanding of the concepts being taught. Lukinsky and Schachter point out that, despite the focus on higher level questioning motivated by Norris Sanders' Classroom Questions and subsequent publications over the past thirty years, "Current research confirms that teachers still mainly ask questions at the lower level of the taxonomy." Brophy and Good approach the problems associated with traditional patterns of questioning in schools by suggesting a change in the content of the questions. While they assert that "it is not true that thought questions are always s better than fact questions, . . . that higher-order or complex questions are not always better than lower-order or simpler questions" (371), they do recognize the need to be conscious of the construction of questions and the varying of cognitive activities. However, Brophy and Good feel that the best way to approach establishing appropriate types of questions is to shift attention away from the questioning process and toward the learning: Issues surrounding cognitive level of questions should take care of themselves if sequences of questions are planned to accomplish worthwhile goals that are integral parts of well-designed units of instruction . . . . A good set of questions is good not merely because it contains a significant percentage of higher-level questions but also because it helps students to think about the topic systematically and emerge from the discussion with connected understandings (372-75). If teachers establish good patterns of teaching, good patterns of questioning will develop within those patterns because the elements which distinguish effective question are often the same characteristics of effective direct instruction. These characteristics are adapted from Groisser's work in 1964: 1) clear, 2) purposeful, 3) brief, 4) natural and adapted to the level of the class, 5) sequenced, and 6) thought provoking (Brophy and Good 373). If teachers consistently present information to students in this fashion and check for understanding with a focus on the same criteria, the questioning and learning processes will be more valuable to the student than if they rely on "cognitive level" labels. While this will serve as an outline for maintaining quality content, additional adaptations must be made so that the students will have an opportunity to benefit from this superior content. Cazden suggests that perhaps the most important change is an increase in wait time for student responses (60-61). Cazden cites research by Rowe (1974, 1986), as do Brophy and Good, that teachers typically wait one second or less for students to start a reply to their question before calling on anther student or supplying information related to the question themselves (60). Interestingly, in studies where teachers were asked to incorporate longer than typical wait times, the action led to "more active participation in lessons by a larger percentage of the students" (Brophy and Good 377). Furthermore, Brophy and Good find that "subsequent research has verified that increasing wait time leads to longer and higher-quality student responses and participation by a greater number of students" (377). While this is a positive trend toward focusing on student participation and more open-ended answers, it still does not compensate for the social implications of the IRE structure in which teachers are initiating learning, students are responding to the teacher as an authority, and teachers are evaluating (rather than investigating or further encouraging) student responses. To begin with, we need to move the focus away from teacher-centered discourse, and provide for a more equitable situation which promotes student initiation and values student knowledge. Even if the IRE paradigm had no other disadvantages, the fact that its structure prohibits student initiated questions is enough to warrant seeking alternatives. J. T. Dillon stresses the importance of student questions in Questioning and Teaching: The questions arise in ignorance and perplexity, stimulating the student's thought and empowering his action in an energetic pursuit of inquiry coming to term in an answer. Question and answer conjoin to form knowledge and understanding . . . . In that way, student questions eventuate in learning (7). While the value of student initiated questions seems evident in the way it contributes to the process of student comprehension, the fact remains that students do not often ask questions in classroom situations. Dillon notes that "there is little room for their questions in normal practice, and . . . classroom discourse normatively proceeds in ways that rule out student questions" (7). This is detrimental to student participation in the educational process, not to mention their level of understanding of perplexing curriculum. Students need to feel that the classroom is a safe environment which welcomes their inquiry and supports the entire process of learning, and not just the resulting bits of knowledge which constitute "the right answer." The imbalance of power inherent in the IRE model is not conducive to this feeling (Dillon 13-17). Also, students need to feel that their own knowledge is as valuable as the knowledge possessed by the teacher. This is not to say that students should be encouraged to perpetuate uneducated misconceptions or should be rewarded for inaccurate information; however, students must be allowed to express their ideas by initiating comments and clarify confusion by initiating questions. Also, students should not feel that they will be penalized for "the wrong answer" during the learning process, or they will never gain the confidence to actively participate in the search for gaining understanding. Besides helping students to cultivate their own inquiries and value their own knowledge, teachers have a responsibility to teach students to value each others contributions. The IRE model focuses students on listening and responding to the teacher. Even if educators incorporate an attitude in which teachers value student input the way students value teacher instruction, we are not helping students to realize that they are rich resources of information for each other. There needs to be a shift away from teacher led interaction which forces students to listen to the teacher toward a more genuine model of inquiry and discussion in which students are active participants in their own learning and are encouraged to listen to each other. While teachers may wield a gradebook, students posses the power of peer influence -- why not take advantage of that resource in the classroom to help students focus on the learning? Brophy and Good speak of how cooperative learning discussions cause teachers to adopt a different role from the one they play in IRE structured questioning but can bring greater levels of participation and understanding to the class (79-81). Educators who use cooperative learning practices in addition to direct instruction stress to students that listening and responding to each other requires the same respect and interest as listening and responding to teachers. However, what about the way teachers react to their students? Traditional teacher reaction to students participation is evaluative -- positive, negative, or indifferent -- but is that really affording students the respect they deserve? A trend in replacing evaluative comments which judge with responsive comments which respect is necessary to establish more effective patterns of discourse. Students should feel that their input is interesting or important or related or novel -- not merely right or wrong. The IRE model does not lend itself to this type of response, but the classroom discussion model does. It is important to validate the act of input, not just the information which is shared. Students need to know that effective participation is as valid a success as "getting the right answer" in order for students to remain motivated to participate. Interestingly enough, this is understood in perpetuating worthwhile social interaction but often forgotten when trying to effect productive classroom discourse. Cazden asserts that "one of the most important influences on all talk . . . is the participants themselves -- their expectations about interactions and their perceptions of each other" (67). Participants in classroom discourse are no exception. Perhaps rather than focusing on the communication system of the social institution of education, teachers should be focusing on the social implications of the communication structure of education. The communication structure of a classroom is based on the need to communicate curriculum, in a controlled situation, between people of separate and culturally specific identities. Accordingly, the structure of communication is as socially and educationally relevant as the language itself in a contemporary classroom. Effective teachers must become aware of the social significance which is built into the construction of communication patterns in order to choose patterns of discourse which are best suited to the needs of the people in their classrooms. Brophy, Jere E., and Thomas L Good. Looking in Classrooms. New York: Longman, 1997. Cazden, Courtney B. Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books, 1988. Cooper, Harris M., and Thomas L Good. Pygmalion Grows Up: Studies in the Expectation Communication Process. New York: Longman, 1983. Dillon, J. T. Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press, 1988. Faber, Adele, and Elaine Mazlish. How To Talk So Kids Can Learn. New York: Rawson Associates, 1995. Hyman, Ronald T. Improving Discussion Leadership. New York: Teachers College Press, 1980. Kramarae, Cheris, Willaim M. O'Barr, and Muriel Schulz. "Introduction: Toward an Understanding of Language and Power." Language and Power. Beverly Hills: SAGE Publications, 1984. Lukinsky, Joseph, and Lifsa Schachter. "Questions in Human and
Classroom Discourse." Coalition for the Advancement of Jewish
Education. Yahoo. Available: http://www.caje.org/a_lukin.htm.
March 7, 1998.
|