1

Name : Bouguerra Chahinez

Teacher : Dr.Sellam

Group : 01

The Essay

Just like Walsh indicates in his book, Investigating Classroom Discourse, language
class differs in no way from any other social contexts in the ‘real world’ as it is also made up
of giving and taking in speech. Classroom discourse, an essential component of instruction in
teachers’ classrooms, is defined as “the interactions between all the participants that occur
throughout a lesson” (Van de Wale, Karp, Lovin, Bay Williams, 2004, p.20). The interaction
includes all participants because having a healthy exchange of ideas made of different points
of view, let it be opposing or aligning, demands creating a classroom community that is both
supportive and inclusive of all its members (Sanchez, 2008). The following essay will discuss
the history of classroom discourse, its significance, it’s types, its nature, the role of talk in
students’ learning, and the role of the teacher.
The earliest systematic study of classroom discourse was reported in 1910 and used
stenographers to make a continuous record of teacher and student talk in high school
classrooms. The first use of audiotape recorders in classrooms was reported in the 1930s, and
during the 1960s there was a rapid growth in the number of studies based on analysis of
transcripts of classroom discourse. In 1973, Barak Rosenshine and Norma Furst described
seventy-six different published systems for analysing classroom discourse. It soon became
clear from these early studies that the verbal interaction between teachers and students had an
underlying structure that was much the same in all classrooms, and at all grade levels, in
English-speaking countries. Essentially, a teacher asks a question, one or two students answer,
the teacher comments on the students' answers (sometimes summarizing what has been said),
and then asks a further question. This cyclic pattern repeats itself, with interesting variations,
throughout the course of a lesson.
Being one basic means of teaching, talk is ‘arguably the true foundation of learning’
(Alexander, 2004:5). The significance of classroom discourse can be seen clearly in the
classroom through the clarity it radiates and the fact that classroom talk not only mediates
teaching and learning but the wider culture. While interacting, teachers can easily obtain the
scope to identify their learners’ intelligence, excellence, and also talents. Learners, through
interaction, can be encouraged and motivated to engage themselves in the subject area.
Learners can also acquaint themselves with many topics after having tackled them in speech.
Beside this, and in a more scientific point of view, talk is necessary for “the building of the
brain itself as a physical organism and thereby expanding its power” (Alexander, 2004:9).
Moreover, the quality of classroom discourse is of great importance because it sets a suitable
climate for learning and transmitting teachers’ expectations for their pupils’ thinking.
When it comes to the types of classroom discourse, we can distinguish two, traditional
and non-traditional classroom discourse. The former refers to the use of a three parts sequence
that is made up of the teacher initiation, student response, and teacher evaluation or follow up
(IRE/IRF). Lemke describes this format as ‘triadic dialogue’ (Wells, 1999:167). Non-
 2

traditional lessons; however, mean the sequence of talk in classrooms does not fit an IRE
structure on account of a changed educational goal (Cazden, 2001:31). These two types have
been further described by Bakhtin in 1981 as “authoritative discourse” and “internally
persuasive discourse”. To be more clear, the former means ‘someone who knows and
possesses the truth instructs someone who is ignorant of it and in error’; while the later hints
at more students’ responses, students’ self-selection and students’ topic expansion (Skidmore,
2000). Hence, it is obvious that traditional lessons are teacher-centered.
When it comes to the nature of classroom discourse, a lot can be said. First, the power
in the class is shared by both the teacher and the students who are considered to be as
indispensable elements of the class. Also, both these two play a part in bringing a list or
outline of things to be considered or done. Also, students’ and teacher’s interaction creates a
context which allows more interaction to occur. Another unique feature related to the nature
of classroom discourse is the fact that classroom discourse is considered to be a way or a
resource that teachers and students use to build and later tighten up their relationships.
Being one basic means of teaching, talk is ‘arguably the true foundation of learning’
(Alexander, 2004:5). It is through talk that children actively engage and teachers
constructively intervene (ibid). In Alexander’s (2004) classroom research conducted around
the world, it is found that most teachers basically use three kinds of classroom talk: ‘rote’
means mechanically practicing facts, ideas and routines; ‘recitation’ refers to the
accumulation of knowledge and understanding through questions to test the pupils’ previous
knowledge or to apply them clues in the question to work it out; ‘instruction/exposition’
concerns ‘telling the pupil what to do, imparting information and explaining facts, principles
or procedures’. Still, some teachers apply two additional kinds of classroom talk which have
greater cognitive potential: discussion and scaffolded dialogue. The former, existing between
teacher-class, teacher-group or pupil-pupil, means the exchange of ideas in sharing
information and solving problems (Alexander, 2000:527). While the latter refers to ‘achieving
common understanding through structured and cumulative questioning and discussion which
guide and prompt, reduce choices, minimize risk and error, and expedite ‘handover’ of
concepts and principles’ (ibid)
As for the role of the teacher, it is fairly described as significant. Teachers make sure
the learning environment is congenial. Also, they encourage the students to go for some
innovative ideas as well as plans and strategies. They further have the chance of sharing the
advantages of group interactions. A teacher must be caring enough to study the gesture and
body language of the students. Teachers play a major role in a classroom as they control the
learning activities of students in and even outside the classroom. Teachers can affect their
students’ behaviour and mood by changing their style of communication or, in other words,
what kind of tone of voice they use and what kind of content their speech has.
In the light of hat is said above, we conclude that that the quality of student learning is
closely associated with the quality of classroom discourse. Thus, teachers should attach more
importance to spoken discourse during classroom interaction. They should manage to act
more often as consultants but not just mere transmitters of information. They should
recognize various group-based discussions as real work; and should also encourage students
to generate their own questions and to explore alternative answers.
 3

References

Alexander, R. J. (2000). Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary

Education, Oxford: Blackwell

Alexander, R. J. (2004). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom talk, Cambridge:

Dialogos

Cazden, C.B. (2001). Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning,
Portsmouth, (2nd ed.), NH: Heinemann

Sanchez, R. (2008). Integrating Community in Culturally Conscientious Classrooms.

Education Digest, 63(7), 53–57.

Skidmore, D. (2000)..From pedagogical dialogue to dialogical pedagogy. Language and

Education, 14(4), pp. 283-296

Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., Lovin, L. H., & Bay-Williams, J. M. (2014). Teaching
studentcentered mathematics: Developmentally appropriate instruction for grades 3–5
(2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of

Education, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.