Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis of EFL Teachers and Students at the Department of English Language and Literature - Batna 2 University

Abstract

This study sheds light on how English as a foreign language (EFL) teachers implement linguistic and paralinguistic features in the classroom. It also investigates students’ preferences and awareness related to the aforementioned characteristics. This investigation used a mixed-methods research approach, collecting data from teachers via observation grids and interviews, and from students via questionnaires. Fairclough’s approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) was employed to draw findings about the use of modality, personal pronouns (PPs), teacher talking time (TTT), and teachers’ body language (TBL). The study reveals that the teachers in the Department of English Language and Literature at the University of Batna 2 had varying approaches to using modal verbs and PPs. Additionally, they tended to establish a casual rapport with their students by dropping formality in their speeches on alternate occasions. Furthermore, they asserted their authority through their body language and the amount of time they spent speaking. Over 50% of students, accordingly, were aware of their teachers’ authority display in the classroom and generally preferred formal and polite communication. This emphasised that it is crucial to consider students’ viewpoints in this area of endeavour as education is not only about teachers and how they provide material, but also about students who reflect any teaching style, method, or technique. Additional investigation is required in the domain of classroom discourse as well as teachers’ use of linguistic and paralinguistic features and their relationship with power and authority to achieve more precise outcomes in the field of English as a foreign language.

Keywords

• Critical Discourse Analysis
• Critical Classroom Discourse Analysis
• Classroom Discourse
• EFL
• Language Teaching
• Language Learning.

Batna 2 Üniversitesi İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümü Öğretmen ve Öğrencilerinin Eleştirel Sınıf İçi Söylem Analizi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, İngilizceyi yabancı dil olarak (EFL) öğreten öğretmenlerin sınıfta dilsel ve dil ötesi özellikleri nasıl uyguladıklarını incelemekte ve ayrıca öğrencilerin bu özelliklere ilişkin farkındalıklarını ve tercihlerini araştırmaktadır. Araştırmada, öğretmenlerden gözlem formları ve görüşmeler, öğrencilerden ise anketler yoluyla veri toplanmıştır. Karma yöntemler yaklaşımı benimsenmiştir. Fairclough’un Eleştirel Söylem Analizi (CDA) yaklaşımı; kiplik, kişi zamirleri (PP’ler), öğretmen konuşma süresi (TTT) ve öğretmenlerin beden dili (TBL) kullanımını analiz etmek için kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, Batna 2 Üniversitesi İngiliz Dili ve Edebiyatı Bölümü’ndeki öğretmenlerin modal fiiller ve PP’leri kullanma konusunda farklı yaklaşımlar sergilediklerini ortaya koymaktadır. Ayrıca, öğretmenler, konuşmalarında resmiyet ve gayri resmi dili değiştirerek öğrencileriyle samimi bir ilişki kurmaya eğilimlidirler. Bunun yanı sıra, beden dilleri ve konuşmaya harcadıkları süre aracılığıyla otoritelerini ortaya koymaktadırlar. Öğrencilerin %50’den fazlası, öğretmenlerinin sınıftaki otorite gösterilerinin farkındadır ve genellikle daha resmi ve kibar bir iletişimi tercih etmektedir. Bu durum, öğretmenlerin dilsel ve dil ötesi özelliklerini kullanırken, öğrencilerin bakış açılarını dikkate almanın ne kadar önemli olduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Çünkü eğitim, sadece öğretmenlerin materyal sunumuyla ilgili değil, aynı zamanda öğrencilerin öğretim stillerine, yöntemlerine ve tekniklerine verdiği yanıtlarla da ilgilidir. Ek araştırmalara ihtiyaç duyulmaktadır, özellikle öğretmenlerin dilsel ve dil ötesi özellikler kullanımı ile bunların güç ve otorite ile ilişkisini incelemek ve yabancı dil olarak İngilizce alanındaki daha net sonuçlara ulaşmak için.

Keywords

• : Eleştirel Söylem Analizi
• Eleştirel Sınıf Söylem Analizi
• Sınıf Söylemi
• Yabancı Dil Öğretimi
• Dil Öğretimi
• Dil Öğrenimi.

References

1. Azar, B. S. (2002). Understanding and using English grammar (3rd ed., with answer key). Pearson Education.
2. Bellack, A. A. (1963). The language of the classroom: Meanings communicated in high school teaching. Harper & Row.
3. Bramley, N. R. (2001). Pronouns of politics: The use of pronouns in the construction of ‘self’ and ‘other’ in political interviews (Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University). https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/d7884ba2-0c62-4336-91d8-154d44b92f84/content
4. Dailey, A. (2010). An analysis of classroom discourse: The usefulness of Sinclair and Coulthard’s rank scale in a language classroom. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/11294581/an-analysis-of-classroom-discourse-university-of-birmingham
5. Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315836015
6. Fairclough, N. (2010). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Routledge.
7. Frye, N. (1979). The teacher’s source of authority. Curriculum Inquiry, 9(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1979.11075587
8. Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. Routledge.

9. Håkansson, J. (2012). The use of personal pronouns in political speeches: A comparative study of the pronominal choices of two American presidents. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2%3A531167/fulltext01.pdf
10. Handayani, E. A. (2018). Critical discourse analysis of teachers’ language in learning interaction. KnE Social Sciences, 3(9), 613–618. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i9.2725
11. Kirch, M. S. (1979). Non‐verbal communication across cultures. The Modern Language Journal, 63(8), 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1979.tb02482.x
12. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1999). Critical classroom discourse analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 33(3), 453. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587674
13. Lee, S., & Lee, K. (2019, March). Reconceptualising a good teacher in SMART education: A Foucauldian Critical Discourse Analysis. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1911-1916). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
14. Lial, M. L., Hornsby, J., & McGinnis, T. (2013). Intermediate algebra. Pearson Higher Ed.
15. Pennycook, A. (1994). Incommensurable discourses? Applied Linguistics, 15(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/15.2.115
16. Peters, R. S. (1966). The authority of the teacher. Comparative Education, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050068.1966.11771997
17. Rogers, R. (2011). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education (2nd ed.). Routledge.
18. Rymes, B. (2016). Classroom discourse analysis: A tool for critical reflection. Routledge.
19. Siumarlata, V. (2017). Analysis of interactional and transactional language used by the English lecturers in learning process at English Department of FKIP UKI Toraja. Jurnal Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, 6(2), 1497–1520. https://doi.org/10.47178/jkip.v6i2.69
20. Tamersit, H., & Mouas, S. (2024). Critical classroom discourse analysis: A case study of teachers and students at the Department of English Language and Literature, Batna 2 University [Unpublished master’s dissertation]. Batna 2 University.
21. Tan, Ş. (2009). Misuses of KR-20 and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Education and Science, 34(152), 101-112.
22. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (1997). Discourse as structure and process (Vol. 1). Sage.
23. Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage.
24. Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge University Press.
25. Wodak, R., & Chilton, P. A. (Eds.). (2005). A new agenda in (critical) discourse analysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity. Benjamins.
26. Zhao, C., Kormos, J., Rebuschat, P., & Suzuki, S. (2021). The role of modality and awareness in language learning. Applied Psycholinguistics, 42(3), 703–737. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716421000023