Department of English Language Teaching, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to investigate the effect of metatalk activity on Iranian Advanced EFL Learners’ knowledge of passive tenses. 60 advanced level institute learners who participated in this study, were randomly selected via a language proficiency test (TOEFL). Those who got ±1SD in the test were chosen. They were randomly assigned into two experimental and control groups with 20 participants in every group. An English grammar test related to the usage of passive tenses was administered to both groups in the pre and post-tests. Treatment sessions lasted for 8 sessions but with different methodologies. Teacher in both groups explained about different passive tenses in every treatment sessions. However, learners in the experimental group were treated with metatalk activity and they tried to complete exercises collaboratively with their peers and teachers. They have to complete a dictogloss task with the help of their peers due to focus on learning passive verb tenses. While the control group did not received dictogloss as a metatalk activity and completed the exercises at home and the next session checked the answers. A posttest of grammar was then administered to both groups. The data of the study were analyzed using the independent samples t-test to compare the means of grammar knowledge in both groups. The results revealed that Iranian EFL learners in the experimental group received higher score in the grammar test after being treated with metatalk activity for 8 sessions. It can be conclude that metatalk is an effective method for teaching grammatical knowledge and teachers can use it in their classes.
Key Words: EFL learners, Grammar Learning, Metatalk, Passive Tense
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
- Introduction
Swainʼs (2001, p. 50) defines metatalk as “the metalinguistic function of her output hypothesis: a learner uses language to indicate an awareness of something about their own, or their interlocutor’s use of language”. Similarly, Vanderheijden (2010) mentions that an example of metatalk could be asking the partner a simple question like, ―Shouldn’t that word have X ending? Swain did not mention of L1 or L2 use in metatalk; it means that the language of expression is also irrelevant. Another assumption made by Swain is that metatalk is a cognitive tool. She characterizes metatalk as problem-solving language process. Accordingly, it not only helps learners in language learning, but also serves researchers in cognitive processes. Metatalk in this way is related to sociocultural learning. Typically, many skills that we master become easier as our mastery increases, in terms of both physical and cognitive skills – for example, riding a bike, doing long division, or decoding phonemes into words. However, writing is atypical in that the demands of writing increase as writers’ mastery of writing grows. While the more basic skills of handwriting and spelling do indeed become easier with maturity, ‘as writers mature and gain expertise, they invest more effort and reflective thought in the task’ (Kellogg, 1994, p. 204). As our capacity to create text on the page develops, so too does our expectations of what that text can achieve. These increased cognitive and social demands on developing writers require, among other things, increasing metalinguistic understanding about writing to inform the choices they make in composing written text. Yet, theoretical consideration of metalinguistic understanding has rarely addressed the issue in the context of writing, other than in relation to early years writing development where there is a substantial body of work. Unlike oral development which occurs naturally through social interaction, writing is a learned process, and has to be taught; thus, a particular instructional issue is the role of the teacher in supporting the development of metalinguistic understanding. Critical to the development of this metalinguistic understanding is how teachers manage ‘metatalk’, talk about language in writing, during instructional interactions around writing. This paper reports on data from a study investigating a pedagogical intervention linking the teaching of writing with the teaching of grammar, in which teacher facilitation of high-quality talk about language choices was a key pedagogical principle. The paper will show how teachers’ management of discussion about metalinguistic choices in writing frames students’ capacity to think metalinguistically about their writing, and will argue that constructive metatalk in writing occurs in dialogic spaces created by the teachers’ adoption of open dialogic discourse roles.
Initially, Swain (1985) introduced the term metatalk (MT) in relation to the Comprehensible Output Hypothesis. She mentioned the Krashen’s (1982) Input Hypothesis and concluded that input is not sufficient for achieving native-like proficiency in the L2. She focused on output. Swain mentioned three functions of output in L2 learning: noticing, hypothesis-testing, and metalinguistic reflection (or metatalk). She concluded that in output production, L2 learners may notice the gaps between what they want to say and what they can actually say, they may experiment with the language and test their own hypotheses, and may engage in metalinguistic reflections on their use and knowledge of the target language (Swain, 1998). Our view of the central role of metalinguistic understanding in writing is underpinned by a social cultural view of grammar represented by Hallidayian functional linguistics. This framework adopts a meaning-oriented theorisation of grammar, concerned to explore the relationship between text and context, and looking not simply at lexical or syntactical aspects of grammar but also the discourse elements of organization, development and cohesion (Halliday, 1994). It regards language as basically a social semiotic system, as ‘abstract semiosis’ (Halliday, 2004, p.5): the concern is with understanding how language works to make meaning. Halliday argues that any act of communication requires the making of choices and that ‘the power of language resides in its organization as a huge network of interrelated choices’ (2003, p.8). Accordingly, grammar and grammatical meta language are conceptualized as resources to assist students in learning how to shape meaning. This stands in stark contrast to traditional views of grammar with their emphasis on identification and labelling of grammatical features and their preoccupation with error eradication and notional rules (Marenbon, 1994; Macdonald, 1995). Instead a functional approach draws attention to the possibilities of language choice in shaping meanings and nuances. Developing learners’ understanding of how language shapes meaning is at the heart of our thinking about metalinguistic understanding in writing, and the role that dialogic talk plays in supporting metalinguistic thinking. Gombert (1992) distinguishes between declarative and procedural metalinguistic knowledge: declarative knowledge being the knowledge of and ability to state rules and principles, whilst procedural knowledge is the ability to put this knowledge into action (1992, p.191). Bialystok’s distinction (1994) between analysis and control develops this further. She argues that analysis and control are key cognitive functions in language development. The process of analysis involves the transformation of everyday, informal knowledge about meanings into ‘explicit representations that are organized around formal structures’, in particular how meanings are signified (1994, p.159). Relevant to the argument in this paper, she notes that analysis is more difficult and complex for written language than for oral language because mental representations of meaning in writing involve ‘such symbolic relations as the connection between letters and sounds’ (1994, p.159). The process of control is the execution of selective attention, a ‘processing choice about where attention should best be spent’ (1994, p.160) for a given task. As control develops to a higher level, learners are able to make better use of their knowledge and understanding to fulfill language tasks. In the context of writing and consistent with a Hallidayan theorization of language, declarative metalinguistic knowledge relates both to the knowledge of the grammatical system itself, and to how it shapes and creates meaning in written text, whilst procedural knowledge relates to the capacity to draw on and execute that knowledge in the process of writing. It is important to acknowledge at this point that learners can demonstrate declarative metalinguistic knowledge without the use of grammatical terminology, using their own everyday language. However, our primary interest in this paper is the role of the teacher’s talk in scaffolding and enabling explicit grammatical metalinguistic understanding. This concern for the facilitating capacity of teachers’ talk in the context of teaching writing draws on contemporary theories of talk as a socially constructed tool for meaning-making (Wells, 1999; Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Wegerif, 2011). Specifically, it draws on Vygotsky’s argument that moving from thought to written language requires ‘deliberate semantics—deliberate structuring of the web of meaning’ (Vygotsky, 1986, p.182): the repetition of deliberate is salient here, as it signals the importance of explicitness and thus of metalinguistic understanding in writing development. Our own argument is that learners’ capacity to think metalinguistically about writing and to enact that thinking in the composing of text is enabled through high-quality classroom talk. Vygotsky (1986) also maintained that talk is both a cultural tool that allows knowledge to be shared and developed within communities, and a psychological tool that structures the processes and content of individual thought. In other words, potentially, classroom talk can be the cultural tool which supports the construction of shared declarative metalinguistic knowledge and the psychological tool which supports writers’ cognitive capacities to use that knowledge procedurally in the shaping of their own written texts. One element of such classroom metalinguistic talk is metatalk. The origin of the concept of metatalk is usually ascribed to Swain (1995, 1998), who identified three kinds of output in second language (L2) learning: noticing, hypothesis testing, and metalinguistic reflection, which she termed metatalk. Fundamentally, metatalk involves learning using language to reflect on language use. Swain describes it as ‘a surfacing of language used in problem solving; that is, language used for cognitive purposes’ (Swain, 1998, p. 69) and argues that giving learners’ opportunities for metatalk is a purposeful method for supporting language learning. Swain also emphasises the importance of metatalk occurring ‘in contexts where learners are engaged in meaning-making, that is, where the language being used and reflected upon through metatalk is serving a communicative function’ (Swain, 1998, p.69). Thus metatalk is more than recognising and understanding the form of language; it is a ‘deeper level of attention’ which supports learners’ developing knowledge about the relationship ‘between meaning, form and function’ (Storch, 2008, p.96). Roehr and Gutierrez (2013) argue that the value of metatalk lies in permitting ‘the examination of the nature of … the mental representations that learners resort to’ (Roehr &Gutierrez 2013), signalling the place of metatalk in allowing teachers to see how learners are thinking about language.
- Literature review
Moreover, Kuiken and Vedder (2005) discussed about metacognition and its facilitative effect on L2 acquisition as it helps learners understand relations between meaning, form, and function. In addition, metacognition is facilitated by interaction. Language production has been described as enabling learners to deepen their awareness of grammatical and lexical matters, test hypotheses with others, receive feedback and reprocess their output. In this manner, learners engage in co-constructing their L2. Furthermore, Ellis (2000) discussed the nature of tasks and interaction in connection with metacognition. She addressed production tasks in which learners are prompted in problem solving tasks. It is in these settings that metacognitive verbalization arises as learners are engaged in meaningful interactions. Such verbalizations may lead learners to understand the relationship between meaning, form, and function. At the same time, these verbalizations allow researchers to observe learners working with hypotheses as they experience the language learning process. Like other forms of speech, MT can serve individuals first and foremost by mediating knowledge as they negotiate with an interlocutor. Even if language is used for mediation in a social context, individuals take advantage of it differently and will organize their own thoughts in a unique manner, as compared to their peers in the same social task. Grammar is ‘a difficult term to define’, because of the diversity of phenomena it refers to and the disagreements among grammarians concerning its nature (Byram, 2000; p. 248). It is defined as “That department of the study of a language which deals with its inflectional forms or their equivalents, and with the rules for employing these correctly; usually treating also of the phonetic system of the language and its representation in writing” (Little et al., 1985; p. 878). Within communicative language teaching theory, as language learning is considered a social and cognitive process, learners must acquire both knowledge of grammatical structures and the knowledge of how to use the grammatical structures in discourse interaction (Widdowson, 1978). A useful pedagogical grammar, developed according to the principles of the language teaching theory it refers to, and its critical assumptions about the nature of language and its relationship to language learning, is needed by language teachers to access to details the regularities of linguistic aspects in native speaker discourse (Tomlin, 1994). VanPatten and Benati (2010) argue that the meaning of the term grammar depends on the users and the contexts where it is used. In instructional settings, grammar refers to the rules and formal traits of language that learners must master as part of coursework.
This kind of grammar is often called pedagogical grammar and the focus tends to be on supporting accurate use of grammatical structures in speech and writing.
Linguistics is concerned with providing an explanation about the language structure and function in the process of human communication. In this respect, “grammarians account for sentences which are well-formed or grammatical (formally correct), acceptable (meaningful) and, in some models, contextually appropriate” (Byram, 2000; p. 248). Linguistics illustrates how grammar is subdivided in morphology and syntax, and that it is “one of four ‘levels’ of language, [with] phonology, lexis and semantics. In Linguistics, ‘grammar is often used to refer to the mental representation of language that native speakers possess regarding the formal aspects of language’ (VanPatten & Benati, 2010; p. 91). Grammar as such is the representation of native speaker’s competence; it refers to abstract features of language and how they are manifested in the actual language. This difference in thinking about grammar is, in essence, about the difference between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. Descriptive grammar refers to ‘how people actually use language’; prescriptive grammar instead wants to be connected with the imposition of ‘good language use’ on others’ ‘bad grammar’ (VanPatten & Benati, 2010; p. 91). Myhill (2011a; pp. 9-10) observed the following:
“Modern linguists all operate with a conceptualization of grammar as descriptive: a way of describing how language works. They analyze and examine language in order to describe language structures and patterns of language use. Descriptive linguists do not attempt to determine what ‘correct’ usage is or to make judgments of language use. In contrast, many non-linguists hold a prescriptive view of grammar: that there is a set of rules for how language should be used which are outlined and set down for common reference. A prescriptive grammar establishes a norm and sets a value on that norm, and critiques, as inherently inferior, usages which do not conform to that norm. Just as different understandings of the word ‘standard’ are at the heart of the Standard English debate, so too is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive perspectives at the heart of the grammar debate. One way to look at the language debate about Standard English and grammar is to see it as a fundamental difference in understanding between academic linguistic discourses and political and public discourses”.
With regard to descriptive/prescriptive views of grammar and standard language varieties are contrasting views of grammar as fixed or changing. Myhill (2000; p.155) noted that “There exists a belief that grammar is a monolithic entity; just as many non-linguists find it hard to appreciate that Standard English and dialects each have their own equally systematic and organised grammar, so many non-linguists are also unaware that grammars vary from one language to another”. Likewise, Bybee (2012; p. 61) stresses the constant flux of grammar, noticing that while the ‘Language Police always deplore the loss of grammar’, it is ‘barely noticed that languages also develop new grammar’.
There is a considerable impact of grammar instruction on noticing and the grammatical points and using them accurately and creatively, inhibiting fossilization, and encouraging classroom participation actively. Initially, Hinkel and Fotos (2002, pp. 6-7) state that if learners are continuously exposed to a certain grammatical structure in formal instruction, they are more likely to notice the structure and realize the difference between grammatically correct speech and their current speech. Thus, the students’ observation will help them to use the structure in communication automatically (Cited in Yu, 2013).
Another benefit of grammar instruction is to hinder fossilization. CelceMuricia and Hills (1988; p. 149, cited in Yule, 2013) define fossilization as using “a broken, ungrammatical, and pidginized form of a language”. Moreover, they comment that purely meaning-based instruction, which does not focus on grammar, can facilitate this fossilization because some complicated structures cannot be acquired by natural conversation (Cited in Yu, 2013). Furthermore, Vasilopoulos (2012; p. 8, cited in Yule, 2013) in his essay titled Adapting Communicative Language Instruction in Korean Universities mentioned that “Korean EFL students may have difficulty developing grammatical form through an unfocused approach, especially if a large part of their exposure to L2 comes in the form of their classmates’ production of L2, which may contain many errors”. In other words, Korean students’ exposure to English is insufficient for language fluency; this environmental limitation inhibits their ability to self-correct their own grammatical errors. Due to this, teaching grammar hinders the fossilization of students’ language use.
In spite of the mentioned points regarding teaching grammar, it also helps learners to use language more accurately and innovatively. Littlewood (1981; p. 172, cited in Yule, 2013) also argues that if EFL students learn grammar in CLT classes, “they can not only use set phrases or insert alternative words into fixed patterns, but also make choices within the grammatical system itself”. All in all, teaching grammar is beneficial for EFL students’ actively classroom participation. In this respect, Vasilopoulos (2012; p. 3) comments that “EFL learners who are already familiar with grammar instruction can speak English with confidence only when they are convinced that their speech is grammatically correct. Specifically, EFL learners can be strongly motivated when they can prepare notes before inviting oral responses” (cited in Yule, 2013).
Verb tense as an aspect of grammar receives a great deal of attention in English instruction. The tense, as a primary feature of the English verb, is generally identified as the inflectional affix of the verb and also causes the syntactic or morphological change of the verb in expressing time relation (Jacobs & Rosenbaum, 1970; Lester, 1976, cited in Mardani & Azizifar, 2014). Mardani and Azizifar (2014) mentioned that this inflection or morphological change also characterizes modals and aspect. They added Tense errors are the most common ones that students make and teachers of English find it difficult to solve it among students. According to Mardani and Azizi (2014, p. 418) “Verbs in English have two parts: the time and the aspect, or way of looking at that time”. Time, as a universal concept, is realized variously as past, present, future. Although in most languages it has not been claimed yet about relationship between time and tense, in English it has been, i.e., time and tense bear explicit relation, especially, the past time (VáclavNovák, 2008, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014).
The notion of tense is syntactic while that of time is semantic. The definition of the term ‘tense’ can be found in many dictionaries or grammar books. “The verb- Forms which show differences in time are called tenses” (Swain, 1992; p.605, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014). “Tense is any of the forms of a verb that show the time, continuance, or completion of an action or state that is expressed by the verb” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 2000, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014). Based on Carter and McCarthy (2007; p. 405, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014) “tense gives information about time while aspect gives information about the speaker’s perspective on time. Thus it could be said that aspect expresses how the speaker views an action.” “Aspect is a grammatical category that reflects the way which the action of a verb is viewed with respect to time” (Greenbaum & Quirk, 1990; p. 51, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014). According to Mardani and Azizi. Swain (1992) emphasizes the fact that when we want to express whether the action is continuing or a past situation is connected with the present moment, we speak about changes in verb-forms. “Changes of this kind are often called changes of aspect” (Swain, 1992, p. 605, cited in Mardani & Azizi, 2014).
This study aims to investigate the effects of using Metatalk Activity on Iranian advanced EFL learners’ knowledge of tense. The main question for this study is as follows.
Does students’ knowledge of passive tense change according to the using of metatalk?
- Method
3.1Participants
The sample of this study included 40 learners studying EFL at the advanced level in a language institute. They were selected based on a modified TOEFL test. The participants whose scores were at least one standard deviation below or above the mean score were selected. Then, the participants were divided into two groups, one the experimental (N= 20) and the other the control (N=20). All of the participants were males and their ages varied from14 to 25. Their first language was Turkish.
3.2. The Instruments
To select homogeneous participants for the current study a modified TOEFL test from (Barron TOEFL Preparation Book) was administered. This test contained 50 items. This test consisted of reading comprehension (20 items in forms of Multiple-choice items), grammar (27 items in the form of multiple choice), and writing (3tems including three topics for writing) for homogenizing their language proficiency. The allocated time for answering the questions was 1 hour. After correcting the papers, 40 students were selected as the advanced learners out of 58 students. The score for the proficiency test was out of 100.The dictogloss was used as another instrument of data collection. The dictogloss is an activity where learners are introduced to a topic and are supposed to work through the reconstruction of a text on the same topic with a partner. A grammar test was used as both for the pretest and the posttest.
3.3. Procedure
To do this research, the researcher selected two classes at advance level to do the research. A proficiency test was administered to be sure of the homogeneity of the participants. A grammar test as a pretest was administered to measure students’ grammar knowledge before the treatment. In the treatment, some selective tenses including all types of passives were taught during eight sessions in one month. In each of the 8 sessions, one special passive tense was instructed. This paper set out to compare the performance of EFL learners of advance proficiency on completing grammatical sentences either in the form of multiple choice or cloze test. Each task in the experimental group was completed collaboratively. It means that students in the experimental group after getting the grammar explanation by the teacher; they were supposed to complete the exercises collaboratively by the help of their peers or even the teacher. Students in the experimental group received a dictogloss activity. It is a text passage of approximately 250 words which contained the special instances of the L2 structure in this study. The focus was on passive tenses to be reconstructed in the experimental group. The texts were selected from Cambridge TOEFL book. The teacher read the passage at normal speed twice. The first time students just listened, the second time they made notes. Students had to share what they remembered and attempted to reconstruct the text in pairs or small groups. The instructor reminded the participants to pay attention to the usage of the L2 forms especially passive tenses in the text. The purpose of this metatalk task was working together with the partner in reconstructing a text. These learners were encouraged to notice linguistic problems and then engage in discussing language forms so that the structure could be made correct. They discussed the content and shared their ideas in order to reconstruct the text. The time allocated to the task performance was 25 minutes in each session. At the end of the dictogloss activity, teacher collected their papers and tried to review the papers and gave feedback about the correct use of the passive verb forms which was the intention of the language learning. In control group teacher as the researcher explained the selected grammatical items on the board. After the instruction, students had to answer the exercises individually at home or in the class. The next session they reviewed the answers in the class. Finally, the same grammar test in the pre-test was administered to both groups of the study in the posttest to find out the possible effect of metatalk activity as the independent variable on the learners’ grammar knowledge as the dependent variable. This grammar test included 60 items. There were 30 items in the multiple choice form and 30 items in the fill in the blank form. The focus of the test was passive verbs. The grammar test was selected from a Cambridge TOEFL Preparation book for the pretest and the posttest. The scores of the posttest were compared with the pretest scores through independent t-test analysis.
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
- Results and Discussion
The data in this study was obtained through calculating the descriptive statistics as well as the inferential statistical method of independent samples T-test for determining the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable and the degree of progress of the participants from the pretest to the posttest. The results of t-test on TOEFL test for homogenizing two groups are shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Independent sample t-test for TOEFL scores
| group | N | mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | Sig(2-tailed) | F | t | df |
| control | 20 | 64.75 | .01350 | .04235 | .810 | 1.583 | -.244 | 38
37.217 |
| experimental | 20 | 65.61 | .07624 | .04377 | .810 | -.244 |
As Table 1 shows, scores in the TOEFL test for the control group are (M =64.75, SD =.013) and experimental group (M=65.61 SD =.076), t (38) =-.244, P>.05. The results show that there isn’t a significant difference between two groups in the beginning of the study.
Table 2
Independent Sample t-test for the Grammar Test in the Pre and Post Tests
| group | N | mean | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean | Sig(2-tailed) | F | t | df |
| Pre control | 20 | 24.65 | .09150 | .02135 | .750 | 1.383 | -.194 | 38
37.236 |
| experimental | 20 | 23.61 | .07624 | .04177 | .750 | -.194 | ||
| Post control | 20 | 30.84 | .24583 | .01218 | .000 | 25.925 | -1.259 | 38
36.669 |
| experimental | 20 | 51.19 | .26576 | .03325 | .000 | -1.259 |
As Table 2 shows, scores in the pre-test for the control group are (M =24.65, SD =.091) and experimental group (M=23.61 SD =.076), t (38) =-.194, P>.05. The mean score shows that two groups grammar knowledge in the pre-test were the same. In the post-test, scores for the control group (M =30.84, SD =.24) and the experimental group (M=51.19, SD = .26), t (38) = -1.259, P=.000. The results show that there is a significant difference between two groups in the post-test. In the post-test, the experimental group outperforms the control group in the grammar test. It seems that Meta talk can be helpful for teaching grammar and should be considered in teacher’s curriculum.
- Conclusion and implication(s)
The present study aims to investigate the effect of metatalk activity on improving knowledge of passive verbs. The results revealed the effectiveness of the metatalk activity over the traditional method in teaching the grammar structures. The results showed that there was a significant difference between the students’ performance before and after raising the L2 learners’ awareness about English passive verb tenses. In other words, metatalk can be influential in acquiring passive tenses. It can be concluded that the metatalk activity could positively affect L2 learning when they had a specific linguistic focus. The results in the posttest scores revealed that in the experimental group participants improved their production of the L2 forms better than the control group. It might be because of the reception of immediate feedback from their peers on their linguistic choices. In the framing article for this Special Issue, dialogic space is defined as one ‘where multiple meanings are explored and developed’ (Jesson et al: this issue) and in the context of the study reported here, our interest is in how teachers create these dialogic spaces which enable and facilitate the exploration of the multiplicity of meanings available to writers in making language choices and support them in thinking metalinguistically about written text. While L2 research on metatalk has shown its learning benefit (eg., Ishakawa 2015; Schaeffer-Lacroix 2016), the data generated by this study offers a detailed understanding of the nature of such metatalk in L1 classrooms, and of the notion of dialogic space in this context. The analysis presents teachers involved in this study actively engaged in trying to use metatalk productively. Results show that students were modelling metatalk through signalling explicit connections between grammar and writing, and regarding thinking around writer choices and reader awareness. This kind of metatalk most strongly represents ‘the space of possibilities that opens up in dialogue’ (Wegerif 2013:32) and is most closely oriented towards developing metalinguistic understanding about writing. It sets out to make visible to learners the linguistic choices they can make in writing and encourages learners to see themselves as writers with access to a repertoire of choices, and to consider their potential readers. The interactions do not steer towards pre-determined right answers but towards consideration of authorial possibilities and explicit understanding of how grammatical choices are part of the ‘huge network of interrelated choices’ (Halliday 2003:8) which enable meaning creation in written text.
The teacher talk which was concerned with word choice and vocabulary, or which made non grammatical connections, or initiated a talk sequence but did not develop it was arguably less successful in creating dialogic space. Nonetheless, in general, the metatalk in these interactions did not steer towards ‘right’ answers; they represent interactions where opportunities were missed for making connections between language choices and authorial intentions or possibilities. They may be important, however, as interactions which offer clear potential for opening up dialogic space for developing metalinguistic talk about writing. The opportunity for exploring multiple meanings as a community of writers was obvious, but not exploited: what was missing was the questioning and feedback which ‘build into coherent and expanding chains of enquiry and understanding’ (Alexander 2003:36). It is possible that the metatalk here was constrained because these teachers were on a professional learning curve themselves, mastering a new pedagogical approach. On the other hand, the metatalk which encouraged writers to ‘deploy’ grammar represent interactions which did not open up dialogic space for developing metalinguistic talk about writing. It did not enable learners to develop understanding of the linguistic choices they could make in writing, and tended to close down responses, strongly geared towards right answers, and to a norms-driven, formulaic view of writing choices. This kind of metatalk is a more monologic discourse, which is ‘authoritative’, and which is ‘not open to question or alternative perspectives’ (Wells 2007:256), thus narrowing the space for metalinguistic thinking about writing. teacherʼs role in orchestrating classroom talk is a crucial one and one, indeed, which has been a sustained focus for pedagogical research (Alexander, 2008; Cazden 1988; Edwards & Westgate 1994; Galton et al., 1999).
However, what is important in the context of this study is the role that teachers play in the creation of dialogic spaces for the exploration of semiotic mediation in writing, and how they initiate and develop metalinguistic talk about writing. There is a tendency in the broader field of research into dialogic talk to contrast and counterpoint monologic and dialogic discourses as binary opposites. While it is possible to explain the interaction patterns revealed in this study as a contrast between high-quality metatalk, characterized by an open dialogic discourse, and less effective metatalk, characterized by more controlled, monologic closed discourse around writing, such dichotomies may be unhelpful, and miss some of the subtleties of what is happening. Firstly, they play into a value-laden view of the dialogic as inherently ‘better’ talk, ‘where direct instruction or unidirectional transmission of knowledge is often pitted against open-ended, student centered inquiry’ (O’Connor & Michaels, 2007, p.276). Although, Wells (2007) argues that there is a need for both the monologic and the dialogic in classroom discourse, and in metatalk about corect decision-making, there is sometimes a need for the teacher to be authoritative, for example, around the identification of a particular grammatical construction. Similarly, in the context of Science classrooms, Scott, Mortimore, & Aguiar (2006) position ‘transitions between dialogic and authoritative interactions as being fundamental to supporting meaningful learning of disciplinary knowledge as different teaching purposes are addressed’ (2006, p.623). More significantly, however, binary oppositions can over-simplify the complexity of leading metatalk.
One strand of analysis of the data in this study indicated that individual teachers were scarcely always dialogic, or always monologic, and were more likely to exhibit both characteristics across the discourse of one lesson (Myhill, et al., 2016). Lefstein (2010) has cautioned against such binary oppositions and idealized models of talk, proposing instead a situated model of dialogue, sensitive to the tensions inherent in dialogic interaction and appropriate to contemporary school contexts. The teacher as the researcher in this study was working within contextual constraints, and classroom talk is heavily improvised in the pedagogical moment, thus perhaps particularly amenable to the influence of other factors. The influence of high-stakes national assessments, noted earlier in this article, constitutes a powerful force which drives writing instruction towards the perceived requirements of an assessment regime with apparently prescriptive expectations. At the same time, specific to this intervention, teachers’ grammatical subject knowledge in England is not strong (Myhill, et al., 2013) which, despite the support of the teaching materials, may have influenced their confidence in handling this kind of metalinguistic discussion and precipitated narrowing of discussion. Greater grammatical assurance might have supported more open-ended discourse, where teachers were confident in responding to ‘everyday ideas in attempting to move along the students’ ways of talking and thinking’ (Scott, Mortimore, & Aguiar, 2006). Besides, the nature of talk promoted in the intervention is a new and unfamiliar kind of language talk for most teachers, and the spectrum of interactions may reflect teachers’ own professional learning about how to lead this kind of metatalk. In conclusion, then, teachers themselves may not be monologic or dialogic, and metatalk may be positioned at different points of a continuum from monologic to dialogic, sometimes because an authoritative initiation or response is needed, sometimes becomes other constraints acts as inhibitors. If effective metatalk involves ‘a surfacing of language used in problem solving’ (Doughty & Williams, 1998, p.69), and recognizing that metalinguistic understanding is a more complex activity in writing because of its symbolic nature (Bialystok, 1994), generating classroom talk which enables analysis of how grammatical choices create meanings in written text and which enables writer control through selective attention to their own decision-making makes high pedagogical demands on teachers. This paper has outlined how teachers’ management of discussion about metalinguistic choices in writing frames students’ capacity to think metalinguistically about their writing, and has argued that dialogic spaces for metatalk about writing are created by the teachers’ adoption of more open dialogic discourse roles. As a relatively new area of inquiry, though, further research is needed which explores in detail how dialogic spaces can be opened, widened or deepened (Wegerif, 2013) to enhance metalinguistic thinking about writing and correctly decision-making, and which takes account of teachers’ own professional and pedagogical positioning.
The findings of the present study are in line with Watanabe and Swain’s (2007) claim that when involved in the collaborative dialog, the learners are more probably to get higher posttest scores. This study showed the superiority of the collaborative output task in doing language activities since it promotes noticing to meaning or form. Moreover, metatalk is expected to happen especially during the reconstruction period. Furthermore, Metatalk can raise awareness and promote noticing (Swain, 1998). In addition, metatalk could have a positive effect on the development of learners’ interlanguage. Collaboration which happens in metatalk process directs learners’ attention towards certain linguistic features through reflection and discussion (Kowal & Swain, 1994). As a whole, it seems that using metatalk can be helpful in grammar teaching. Teachers should include this approach in their curriculum designing. In addition, it is recommended to repeat this study for different gender and different levels of language proficiency.
References
Alexander, R. (2008). Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. 4th ed. York:
Dialogos. Alexander, R.J. (2002) Culture and Pedagogy: International Comparisons in Primary Education. London: Blackwell.
Allford, D. & Pachler, N. (2007) Language, Autonomy and the New Learning Environments. Bern: Peter Lang.
Barrs, M., & V. Cork. (2001). The Reader in the Writer: The Influence of Literature upon Writing at KS2. London: Centre for Literacy in Primary Education.
Bialystok, E. (1994). Analysis and Control in the Development of Second Language Proficiency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 157-168.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Doughty, C & Williams, J. (1998) Focus on Form in Classroom Second Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edwards, D. & Mercer, N. (1987) Common Knowledge. London: Methuen.
Ellis, R. (2000). Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 193-220.
Gombert, E. J. (1992). Metalinguistic Development. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf
Halliday M.A.K. (2003) Introduction: On the ‘architecture’ of human language. In: Webster J (ed.) On language and linguistics: Volume 3 in the collected works of MAK Halliday. London and New York: Continuum, pp 1–29.
Halliday M.A.K. (1994) An introduction to functional grammar. London: Hodder.
Halliday, M. A. K. (2004). “Three Aspects of Children’s Language Development: Learning
Language, Learning through Language, Learning about Language”. In The Language of Early Childhood, edited by J. J. Webster, New York: Continuum. pp308-326.
Ishikawa, M. (2015) Metanotes (written languaging) in a translation task: do L2 proficiency and task outcome matter? Innovation in Language Learning & Teaching,9 (2), 115-129.
Jones, S.M. Myhill, D.A. & Bailey, T.C. (2013a). Grammar for Writing? An investigation into the effect of Contextualised Grammar Teaching on Student Writing. Reading and Writing, 26 (8), 1241- 1263.
Jones, S. Myhill, D.A. Watson, A., & Lines, H.E. (2013b) Playful Explicitness with Grammar: A Pedagogy for Writing Literacy, 47 (2), 103-111.
Kellogg, R. T. (1994). The Psychology of Writing Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kowal, M., & Swain, M. (1997). From semantic to syntactic processing: How can we promote metalinguistic awareness in the French immersion classroom? In R. Johnson (Ed.), Immersion education: International perspectives (pp. 284–309). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Kuiken, F., & Vedder, S.C. (2005).Noticing and the role of interaction in promoting language
learning. In A. Housen & M. Pierrard (Eds). Investigations in instructed second language acquisition. Berlin/New York: Mouton De Gruyter. pp: 353-381.
Lefstein, A. (2010) More helpful as problem than solution: some implications of situating dialogue in classrooms. In Littleton, K. & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational Dialogues: Understanding and Promoting Productive Interaction. London: Routledge. pp170-191.
Marenbon, J. (1987) English Our English. London: Centre for Policy Studies.
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the Development of Children’s Thinking: A Sociocultural Approach. Abingdon: Routledge.
Myhill, D.A. Jones, S., &Watson, A. (2013). Grammar Matters: How Teachers’ Grammatical Subject Knowledge Impacts on the Teaching of Writing. Teaching and Teacher Education, 36, 77-91.
Myhill, D.A. (2011). ‘The Ordeal of Deliberate Choice’: Metalinguistic Development in
Secondary Writers in Berninger, V (Ed) Past, present, and future contributions of cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychology Press/Taylor Francis Group. pp, 247-274.
Myhill, D. A. (2000). Misconceptions and difficulties in the acquisition of meta linguistic knowledge. Language and Education, 14(3) 151-163.
Myhill, D.A. Jones, S.M., Lines, H. & Watson A. (2012). Re-Thinking Grammar: the Impact of Embedded Grammar Teaching on Students’ Writing and Students’ Metalinguistic Understanding. Research Papers in Education, 27 (2), 1-28.
Myhill, D.A., Jones, S.M. & Wilson, A.C. (2016) Writing Conversations: Fostering Metalinguistic Discussion about Writing. Research Papers in Education, 31(1), 23-44.
Qi, D.S. &Lapkin, S. (2001). Exploring the role of noticing in a three-stage second language writing task. Journal of second language writing, 10, 277-303.
Scott, P. H., Mortimer, E. F., & Aguiar, O. (2006). The tension between authoritative and dialogic discourse: A fundamental characteristic of meaning making interactions in high-school science lessons. Science Education, 90 (4), 603-631.
Skidmore, D. (2000) From pedagogical dialogue to dialogic pedagogy. Language and Education, 14 (4), 283-296.
Storch, N. (2008) Metatalk in a Pair Work Activity: Level of Engagement and Implications for Language Development. Language Awareness, 17(2), 95-114.
Suzuki, W., & Itagaki, N. (2007). Learner metalinguistic reflections following output-oriented and reflective activities. Language Awareness, 16 (2), 131-146.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235–256). New York, NY: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1992). Practical English Usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). “Three functions of output in second language learning”. In Guy Cook and Barbara Seidlhofer, eds. Principle and practice in applied linguistics, 125–144. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In Focus on Form in Classroom L2 Acquisition, C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), pp. 64-82. New York: Cambridge.
Swain, M. (2000). The output hypothesis and beyond: Mediating acquisition through collaborative dialogue. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 97–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (2001). Integrating language and Content Teaching throughout Collaborative Tasks. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(1), 44-63.
Swain, M. (2006). Languaging, agency and collaboration in advanced second language learning.
In H.Byrnes (Ed.), Advanced language learning: The contributions of Halliday and Vygotsky (pp. 95-108). London: Continuum.
Vanderheijden, V. (2010). “Is That English I Hear Over There?” Rethinking the Prohibition on L1 Use in Foreign Language Learning. Texas Papers in Foreign Language Education (TPFLE), 14(1), 3-17.
Wegerif, R.B. (2011). Towards a dialogic theory of how children learn to think. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(3), 179-190.
Wegerif, R.B. (2013). Dialogic: Education for the Internet age. London; New York, NY: Routledge.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Towards a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wells, G. (2007) Semiotic mediation, dialogue, and the construction of knowledge. Human Development, 50 (5), 244-274.
(To Download PDF File of This Full Article in full Details, Click Here)
