ETHNOGRAPHY AND CLASSROOM DISCOURSE

Amy B M Tsui

(to appear in Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis)

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE DATA ANALYSIS

The classroom discourse data presented in this section is taken from a study of whether

class size makes any difference in the quality of teaching and learning in the classroom

(Harfitt 2010)1. The study was conducted in the context of an ongoing debate between the

teachers‟ union and the government in Hong Kong on the reduction of large class size

(mostly consisting of 40 students) and whether smaller class size would lead to better

student learning. Four cases were selected for investigation, consisting of one large class

(around 40 students) and one small class (around 25 students) at the same level taught by

the same teacher on the same topic over a series of ESL lessons covering all four

language skills. This design controlled the variables that would have an impact on

classroom interaction and classroom learning, namely, the teacher, the content of the

lesson (including the topic and the language skills) and the academic standards of the

students. The theoretical assumption was that learning is mediated by a number of factors

and class size is only one of them. The classroom is an arena for learning but the setting

of the activity of teaching and learning is shaped by the way it is experienced by the

teacher and the learners, and the learning communities that are created (Lave 1988). In

the data collection and data analysis processes, this theoretical assumption was invoked

and tested.

The macro context of the study was investigated through an analysis of local media

coverage of the issue, the debates in the Legislative Council, the law-making body in

Hong Kong, and an external consultant report commissioned by the government on class

size and classroom learning. The data set collected by Harfitt (2010) consisted of

videorecordings of classroom teaching, lesson observations, observations of students‟

interaction outside of lesson hours, interviews with the teachers and the students, and a

questionnaire survey of students‟ perceptions of their learning experiences, including

English language learning anxiety, attitudes and motivation towards learning,

interpersonal relationships, opportunities for interaction and conditions for learning.

In the rest of this section, I will present two excerpts of classroom discourse taken from

Harfitt‟s data set, one from each class taught by the same teacher. I will provide a micro-

analysis of these two pieces of data which is informed by interviews with the teacher and

the students, providing an emic perspective on the discourse. The topic of both classes

was food and healthy eating.

The extract below was taken from a lesson in a small class. The teacher gave the students

a worksheet and asked them to work in groups to fill out the food groups and the table.

She gave them two minutes to finish the task and the first five groups to complete the

task would get chocolates. In the following excerpt, two minutes were up and the teacher

stopped the class.

Excerpt 1 - SC 1

Ex 1 1 I S2: Missie (waving a completed worksheet)

2 R T: Yes, I‟m coming my darling (laughs) 5 already! (meaning 5

groups have handed in their worksheets)

Ex 2 3 I Pens down now. Jonathon, I‟m sorry.

4 R J: (puts pen down)

Ex 3

Ex 4

5

6

I

I

T: Let‟s check the answers together.

(gives out the candies to the winners).

Who else won?

7 R S3: Here! We won.

8 F T: Not you… you did not win (laughs)

Ex 5 9 I So shout out the answers. Name of the food at the top.

10 R Ss: Chocolate, soya sauce.

11 F T: Chocolate, soya sauce. Yes.

Ex 6 12 I T: Why do we need that food?

R Ss: Tastes good.

Ex 7 I T: What about the next (one)?

R Ss: Fish tuna…tuna fish…meat

Ex 8 I T: Why do we need meat? Yes Stefanie?

R St: To grow cells.

Ex 9 I T: Next one? What else? What else? Ben?

R B: Milkshake and ice-cream.

F1

F2

T: Thanks Ben.

Karen also has beancurd here. Good.

The data was coded according to elements of an exchange proposed by Sinclair and

Coulthard (1975), Initiation (I), Response (R) and Follow-up (F). The interactions were

typical of those found in this small class. They were spontaneous, as evidenced by the

absence of incomplete exchanges, that is, exchanges in which an Initiation failed to elicit

a Response, and the absence of Re-Initiations, meaning the teacher did not have to re-

initate the exchange in order to draw out a response from the students. The brisk pace of

the lesson was evidenced by a series of two-part exchanges from Ex 6 to Ex 8 which is

typical of bound exchanges contributing to the accomplishment of a goal or a task

(Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). This kind of exchange also occurs when the interlocutors

share a large common ground, hence rendering the third part to acknowledge the response

not necessary until the end of a sequence of exchanges (see Tsui 1994). The informal

atmosphere is evidenced by the fact that the teacher deviated from the norm in Hong

Kong classrooms of requiring the students to put up their hands to bid for a turn (see line

9, Ex 5). The relaxed and friendly atmosphere can also be seen from Ex 4 in which the

student joked with the teacher. The close relationship between the teacher and the

students can be seen from the teacher addressing the students by their names and also

calling one of the students “my darling” (line 2).

The above analysis of the data was informed by the interviews with the teacher and the

students. The teacher pointed out that she had made an effort to create a relaxed

atmosphere because she wanted the students to “feel comfortable about the class” in

order to alleviate their anxiety of speaking English in class and fear of making mistakes.

She said, “They don't feel nervous speaking English at all or taking part in class. … Yes,

the boys joke…they know I can accept (it) … many times they make fun of me and each

other.” Students being able to “make fun using English” (as in Ex 4) frequently occurred

in this class. According to the teacher, there was a strong “class spirit” and a close

relationship between herself and the students as well as amongst themselves. Not only did

she know the names of every student, she also had good knowledge of their personalities

and their thinking. She further explained, “I know their character. I know their thinking

quite well so when I give feedback I also know what they need to hear. It also helps me to

get everyone involved in the smaller class.”

The students revealed in the interviews that the teacher gave them more attention because

the class was smaller and in return they gave the teacher more attention too. “It‟s like we

are together”, one of the students said. They also felt that they could speak their minds

more easily and they were more ready to ask questions and to contribute in class. They

also had more opportunities to have fun with English. Similar to the teacher, they felt

strongly there was a “class spirit”.

The interaction in the teacher‟s large class was markedly different. The following is an

excerpt from a lesson in that classs.

Excerpt 2 - LC 1

Ex 1 1 I T: Right let‟s see what recipes you have. Do you have them with

you?

2 Ss: (no response)

Ex 2 3 Re-I T: Do you have them? Yes or no?

4 R Ss: Yes.

Ex 3 5 I T: Right, so take them out and put them on your table. On the

table in front of you. OK.

6 R Ss: (students comply with the teacher‟s instruction)

Ex 4 7 I T: So what have we got? Can anyone start?

8 S: (no response)

Ex 5 9 Re-I T: Who would like to start?

10 Ss: (no student volunteered to start)

Ex 6 11

12

Re-I T: What‟s this one? (picking up one worksheet from a desk in

the front row) What‟s this one? Can you see?

13 R Ss: Rice … fish

Ex 7

14

15

F

I

T: Yes there is rice and fish and lots of shell fish as well.

Does anyone know what this is?

16 Ss: (no response)

Ex 8 17 Re-I T: What is it?

18 Ss: (no response)

Ex 9

19

20

R

I

T: Its paella … paella.

Can you say after me?

21 R Ss: PAELLA

22 F T: That‟s right.

The interaction in this excerpt is typical of that found in this large class. Out of nine

exchanges, five of them were incomplete exchanges (Ex 1, 4, 5, 7, 8), that, is an

exchange where a response is not forthcoming. In Ex 8, the teacher had to answer her

own question because no student response was forthcoming. In Ex 3 and Ex 9, the

students merely complied with the teacher‟s instruction. The only two exchanges where

the students provided a verbal response were Ex 2 and Ex 9, but the contributions were

minimal. There were four instances of Re-initiation in which the teacher had to ask the

question again upon getting no response from the students, and there was not a single

instance where students initiated a question or volunteered a response. The teacher did

not address the students individually by name and all questions were directed to the

whole class.

In the interviews, the students referred to what happened in the above excerpt as

“normal” and that most lessons were “full of teacher talk”. The students commented on

the fact that the teacher did not address them by their personal names as follows, “She

(the teacher) does not really ask us questions. She asks questions to everyone together. I

don‟t think she knows who I am…(laughs)…we are quiet in class.” Although they said

“it (not calling them by their names) did not really matter”, they indicated that they would

have liked their teacher to address them by their names in class. Because of the distant

relationship with the teacher, they refrained from asking questions in class. One of them

said, “We don‟t ask for help. Maybe some go to see Miss after school. I ask my friends or

do on my own.” The inactive participation of students in class was due to the students‟

perception of the classroom as a setting where they would not be able to get attention and

support from their teacher. Another student observed, “The teacher does not see us. They

can only see some students so it‟s useless to ask. The teachers only see a small group of

students and not the others.” All the students interviewed concurred with this remark and

indicated that they had to rely on themselves because the teacher could not give them

much attention in a large class. Consequently, they formed their own peer groups outside

of class and they sought help from tutorial schools.

The teacher confessed that she saw teaching a large class as “a burden” and made the

following comment, “With the large class I put more burden on myself and lessons are

more teacher-centred. I provide them with everything which means they are relatively

used to learning passively. I kind of mould their learning habits…I can control the class

and the lecture style is easiest.” In other words, the teacher-centred discourse was

consciously managed by the teacher in order to keep the class under control because of its

large size. She admitted that she did not know the names of all the students. She said, “In

the large class, sometimes I don‟t even know the students‟ names…not all of them. That

doesn‟t mean that I don‟t like them…I do, but it‟s different. It‟s harder to get to know

them because there is too much to do.”

The teacher was aware of the difference in the quality of teaching and learning in the two

classes. She remarked that she had lower expectation of the students in the large class

compared to the smaller class. She said, “I think that many students feel that the lessons

in the large class are boring…I lecture most of the time…they have to learn quite

passively in most lessons but I feel different in the small class. It‟s a different type of

teaching. I know that.” She summarized her role in the small class as “facilitative” and

her role in the large class as “more of a teacher”.

The above data analysis demonstrates, hopefully, how the micro-analysis of the

classroom discourse data was informed by other sources of ethnographic data which

provided the participants‟ perspective of what went on in the classroom, and how, at the

same time, it also identified discourse features which embodied various dimensions of

classroom learning, including students‟ attitudes and motivation, interpersonal

relationships, language learning anxiety and so on.

FOOTNOTE

1 I wish to thank Gary Harfitt, my doctoral student, for allowing me to use two excerpts

from his classroom data and the teacher and student interview data. My illustration of

data analysis has been made possible by the immensely rich data that he collected, and

his deep understanding of the school, the case study teacher and the students gained

through spending hundreds of hours immersing himself in the school and the classrooms.

REFERENCES

Harfitt, G. (2010) „How class size mediates student learning: case studies of Hong Kong

secondary schools‟, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Faculty of Education, University of

Hong Kong.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in Practice: mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life,

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sinclair, J. and Coulthard, M. (1975) Towards an Analysis of Classroom Discourse,

London: Oxford University Press.

Tsui, A. B. M. (1994) English Conversation, London: Oxford University Press.