Group dynamics in the language classroom: embodied participation as active reception in the collective Zone of Proximal Development

Abstract

This article explores the notion of ‘active reception’ during small-group collaborative interaction in the foreign language classroom, focusing on the embodied participation of a secondary (nonspeaking) interactant, Diane. Drawing on Vygotskian sociocultural theory, we argue that within small-group work, a Zone of Proximal Development can form in which individuals pool their collective resources to push the group’s developing understanding of a problem or task while at the same time potentially benefiting individual members of the group. Through the analysis of video-recorded small-group work, we illustrate how Diane attends to the primary interactions driving the group’s solving of a problem, and we suggest that this form of active reception has the potential to help her develop her analytic abilities.

Keywords:

• sociocultural theory
• zone of proximal development (ZPD)
• collaborative interaction
• second/foreign language learning
• conversation analysis
• embodied action

Notes

1. Here, we follow Levinson’s (1988) recast and critique of Goffman’s (1981) ideas specifically regarding the terminology used to describe speaker and hearer roles in terms of production roles and reception roles, where Goffman uses the terms production format and participation framework. As Levinson points out, these terms are somewhat confusing, most notably because Goffman also uses participation as a general term to describe both production and reception roles.

2. We would like to point out that classrooms do not exist in isolation from other structures, but are instead embedded within larger systems (e.g., departments, colleges, universities, state systems of education) that participate in the construction and perpetuation of educational objectives, expectations for teachers and students, rewards and consequences and so on at multiple levels. Our current age of accountability and assessment in schools creates an environment in which teachers are seen as fully responsible for ensuring that learning and development take place (cf. the ‘rickshaw puller’) rather than creating the conditions under which development may take place. Our view is that the current emphasis on accountability and (standardised) assessments in education is in fact detrimental to – or at least massively constrains options for – creating developmentally rich educational environments. Unfortunately, space does not permit a fully fleshed-out discussion of this important and highly consequential issue.

3. Elsewhere (Williams and van Compernolle 2009), we have presented an expanded analysis of the results of this interaction, which lasted approximately 30 minutes, showing how the learners and mediator cooperatively solved the task to expand their awareness of variation in French. Engaging these students in this task proved to change the course of their future development (i.e. ZPD), in that the task instructions/design and cooperative interaction supported them in developing new understandings of the meaning of variation in language. In Diane’s case, the interaction helped her not only to develop an understanding of variation through active reception (the focus of the present article) but also later to push the group forward as they encountered different problems in interpreting the social meaning of variation. In short, Diane’s active reception during one segment of the interaction set up the potential for her to lead the group to new understandings in a subsequent part of the task.

4. We use the term ‘preference’ (e.g., preferred and dispreferred responses) in the CA sense, which is a structural issue, not a psychological one. A preferred response completes the action projected by a preceding turn (e.g. a relevant answer is projected by a preceding question). A dispreferred response does not (e.g. Chris’s nonanswer-response is said to be dispreferred because it is not the type of utterance made relevant by Anne’s question). No claim is made about the psychological preference (i.e. want, desire) of the participants.

5. The term parallel attention may be more appropriate here because Diane is not the addressed recipient. As such, her attention is parallel with Chris’s but not necessarily joint (that is, there is no indication that Chris is aware of Diane’s attention). The distinction between joint and parallel attention certainly deserves treatment in future research.

6. Compare, for example, the possibility of Diane disengaging from the interaction altogether by sitting upright and looking at the blackboard behind her or some other object in her visual field that is not relevant to the group’s solving of the problem.

7. Sacks (1995) distinguished between ‘claiming understanding’ and ‘demonstrating understanding.’ Claims of understanding include such utterances as yes, yeah, right, okay, and so forth, whereas demonstrations of understanding include correctable information. Diane’s utterance in line 60 is a demonstration of understanding because its content is open to others’ assessment and possible correction of it (cf. the possibility of her simply saying right).

8. Vicarious responses, while self-directed, are in our view also forms of participation. In other words, as an extension of Vygotsky’s analysis of private and social speech, vicarious responses may simultaneously function on both private and social planes. Our interpretation of vicarious responses as a form of participation is evidenced by the fact that Diane’s head nodding demonstrates cognitive alignment with the other group members as she attends to their talk as a secondary participant/unaddressed recipient. In short, although she is not an addressed recipient, she nonetheless has a ratified recipient role in the interaction.