A Research on Collaborative Nature of Teacher-Stud

A Research on Collaborative Nature of Teacher-Student Interaction Based on Meaning Construction:

A Case Study of Online Classes for English Majors

of GCUJiahui Chen, Yawen Chen, Wanshan Lv, Jiamin YangSchool of Foreign Languages, Guangzhou City University of

Technology, Guangzhou, ChinaAbstract: Online teaching, with decades’ rapid development, has currently gained

tons of attention from diverse fields since the outbreak of COVID-19. It is well-established that teacher-student interaction is well-maintained with technical

support. This study, with 10 online classes as samples, aims to analyze the

collaborative nature of teacher-student interaction, based on meaning construction,

attempting to classify interactive discourse and improve interactive ds: Interactive Discourse of Classroom Online; Meaning Construction;

English MajorDOI: 10.47297/wspiedWSP2516-250005.202206061. IntroductionAs the education reform deepens, scholars and relevant departments have

devoted to the innovation of teaching modes. The emergence of Massive Open

Online Course (MOOC), is one of the attempts to combine Online resources with

teaching (Yin, 2016). In the wake of the outbreak of COVID-19, with the regular

epidemic prevention and control, online teaching has become a mainstream mode

of teaching. However, in practice, the shift brings a great challenge to teacher-student interaction. It is necessary to conduct studies on online teaching to benefit

its reform and development.

2. Meaning ConstructionLyu, in The Construction of Discourse Meaning, interprets the meaning

construction as the cognitive processing of subjects of communication, including

the speaker and the hearer. He clarifies the hierarchical procedures of it. In terms of

that of the speaker, Lyu proposes four phases that work in sequence:23

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

The input of communicative intention→The formation of

hypotheses→Choosing Hypotheses→The formation of discourse/utteranceNevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that there might be backtracking during

processing. And the 2nd and 3rd phases might intertwine on some occasions.

As for that of the hearer, the sequence would be:The input of discourse/utterance→The formation of hypotheses→Choosing

Hypotheses→The formation of communicative intentionThe encoding and decoding of message make up a dynamic cognitive

processing. Hence, interactivity is one of the design features of meaning

construction in that the perceiver does not merely receive message passively but

also interpret it on his own initiative. Another one is the constructive nature of

communication. Discourse’s meaning is the product of the subjects’ cognitive

processing, and the outcome of the interplay of psychology and reality.

Since there is a gap between intention and utterance for subjects to determine

how to interpret the discourse, meaning construction is cognitive and intention-centered, reflecting the activating, connecting and reorganizing of relevant

knowledge of subjects.

3. Research DesignThe study mainly tries to answer the questions as follows:(1) What are the most common types of interactive discourse in online

classes？(2) In what way does the cognitive processing of both teachers and students

function in constructing meaning?(3) In what way do teachers and students reorganize knowledge to construct

meaning?This study is a qualitative study, based on meaning construction theory put

forth by Lyu (2015), aiming to analyze the cognitive processing of the meaning

construction in teacher-student interaction in online classes conducted by 9 teachers

for English Majors in GCU.

24

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

Table-1 Basic information about sample classesTeachers

T1T1T2T3T4T5T6T7T8T9Name of classesComprehensive English ⅣLanguage Testing and EvaluationEnglish Teaching MethodsComprehensive English ⅣEnglish WritingⅠEnglish Grammar and WritingEnglish Visual-audio SpeakingIntroduction of LinguisticsBEC TrainingEnglish Grammar and Writing4. Data Analysis and Discussion(1) Classification of Interactive DiscourseThis paper adopts the classification of improved Flanders interaction analysis

system (iFIAS, developed by Prof. Fang and his colleagues, 2012) according to the

authentic teacher-student interaction in online classes (see Table-2).

Table-2 Classification of Discourse of Teacher-Student InteractionClassifications

Open-ended

questionsAsking questionsClose-ended

questionsTeachers’

talkPraising/ EncouragingExamples

I would ask one of you, what the differences

between speaking and writing?Do you still remember the two approaches to

writing?这里大家还做了一个时态的转换，非常好哈。Students’

Talk她提出了一个：能否产出一个完整的句子，Accepting/ Using Ideas of Students实际上它跟我们的思维是相关的。Ok,

这个就很有意思了噢。Conditioning Equipment/ Assisting

Please sent me the request for connection,

Others to Condition Equipmentalright.这一共有四句话，大家把每句话的modifierGiving Direction都把它画出来好吗?I think … in my elementary school … I think

Passively Responding… umm, this part of English is ignored.老师，我是文学方向的，点名册上没有我的Actively Responding名字。Conditioning Equipment/ Assisting

右下角有一个“切换模式”Others to Condition EquipmentIt has been found that a type of discourse – conditioning equipment or

assisting others to condition equipment – has been employed more frequently

in online teaching. The probable contributors might be the latency of network,

25

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

the disconnection of equipment, and the limitations of remote communication,

which creates the needs of teachers to check the functioning of equipment and to

incidentally check students’ attendance by more equipment-related questions, and

the needs of students to make sure they could be “danmu”, is very useful and commonly seen in online teaching, like

Tencent Classroom, Ding Talk, and etc. Participants can express thoughts without

interrupting others verbally; and the message could be reserved on the screen. It can

encourage introverted students to get involved, and help to emphasize something or

check if students could follow teachers.

(2) Case StudiesThe activation of relevant knowledge fosters the meaning construction

(Lyu, 2015). And as pointed by Emel Ültanır (2012), individuals’ experience and

knowledge stem from their sensation and cognition. Various exiting knowledge

would exert great value in thinking and problem-solving (as illustrated by Figure 1).

Figure 1 The dynamic process of constructing discourse meaning with background knowledge

In online teaching, teachers and students collectively construct meaning

through communicative intentions, proposing and screening hypotheses,

verifying and constantly modifying them. Such cognitive processing presents the

collaborative nature reflected in the following e 1T2:黄雨柔，are you there?

S4:

听得到吗？T2：嗯，ok，听得到的。How do you develop your speaking, when you are

saying … English?

S4: I … Umm, I will watch some video. I try to imitate…T2: Try to imitate

26

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

S4: Imitate the intonation and the speed, the speed of speaking. YeaT2: Ok. So, let’s look back on primary or elementary school. How were you

talk to learn a language at that time? Especially, umm, speaking English like these?

S4: I think … in my elementary school … I think … umm, this part of English

is ignored.

T2: Ignored. (laugh)S4: Yes, I think … Because I … like … I studied … I studied English like …

my … in my …初一，maybe？T2：On first grade

S4: And I was in … umm, I was in

海南。So, maybe they ignored this part.

T2: Ok. So, you are, you are from Hainan.S4: yea

T2: So that’s why. (1s) So, at that time, your teachers, they did not pay much

attention in speaking, right?

S4: Yep, they pay attention to writing, and…T2: Writing, and like the writing structure, and the grammar, yes? How come

can you speaking English now?

S4: Umm, just try to say it.

In Example 1, T2 intended to invite students to share experience of practicing

oral English, and S4 was chosen. Before asking “黄雨柔，are you there?”,

T2 has put forth at least two hypotheses: (1) S4 was willing and able to join in

verbal communication; (2) The teacher-student relationship lays a foundation for

them to engage in interaction. And S4 took it as an invitation or request to start

a conversation rather than merely checking attendance; so, she said “听得到吗？” to indicate her willingness to interact with T2 and check whether there were

conditions to continue the conversation (for network connection and equipment

might interfere with oral conversation). The cognitive processing kept working

during their conversation — S4 must have left T2 an impression that her oral

English was good enough to share some experience about developing speaking

skills, which is the activation of T2’s knowledge.

Then T2’s hypotheses changed several times:27

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

(1) S4 had made efforts to facilitate her oral English;

(2) S4’s speaking proficiency might be influenced by the education she

received previously;

(3) S4’s speaking proficiency was mainly enhanced after she entered college.

In this process, S4 was an active participant involved in meaning construction

by providing knowledge and negotiating with T2. But the hearer’s communicative

intention was sometimes not instantaneous, clarification became necessary. In this

example, S4 proposed that the teaching of speaking was ignored when she was

in Hainan. T2’s question “So, you are, you are from Hainan.”, was mistakenly

interpreted as a Y/N question. With T2’s further enlightenment, she finally realized

more details are required about the relationship between statements “learning in

Hainan” and “the teaching of speaking was ignored.”Hence, it can be concluded that constant modification of the hypotheses and

the activation of the prior knowledge is helpful for better common understanding.

It provides evident proof for the teacher-student collaboration of meaning

construction.

Example 2:T3:那这个句子我标出来的，先看其他成分，ok，标出来的这个地方，while引出的什么成分？“While we usually…”

这个是什么成分？大家敲一下答案。因为我们的主语在这里的话那我们的主句，这一部分是主句啊，那其他部分就是从句，while引导的是什么成分？大家把答案敲一下，在公屏上敲一下，把它翻译成什么呢？while从大的上面去讲是个什么成分呢？它是一个，怎么没有人敲，这个答案应该比较明显*S6：让步状语T3：对，大的方面上讲它就是个状语从句。*S7：状语*Ss：状从T3：那如果细分的话我们有九种，那这一个是什么状语从句呢？不要被那个XXX的答案影响了啊哈，他说它属于那个让步状语从句，是不是呢？虽然，这里可以翻译成虽然，虽然怎么样，所以这是一个什么状语从句呢？让步状语从句ok，这里有一个and,

逗号，and in fact there are many such jobs

in that settings所以这是个完整的句子，事实上额，在那个环境下有很多这样的工作，他是一个完整的句子，所以这是个什么句？由这个引导的什么句型？28

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

先告诉我是什么句型？什么句型我在语法课上已经讲的很清楚了是吧？就是我们句子的种类，由什么分类？简单句，并列句和复杂句对吧？那这里的话它应该是属于哪个？大家把答案敲一下。这是网络延迟吗，应该不至于吧，因为没有看到大家的答案，但是答案应该非常明显了。(Discourses with asterisk were sent by “danmu”.)In this excerpt, since the communicative intention of T3 was to check students’

mastery of specific grammatical knowledge, little space was left for students to put

forth and verify their hypotheses. The distribution of power in communicating was

not in balance. The cooperativity of meaning construction here did not function

well. It’s a pity that such problems emerge in most of the samples collected. The

interaction becomes a mere formality, with students passively responding to

teachers but seldom really participating in meaning construction.

5. Conclusion and EnlightenmentIn online teaching, “danmu” becomes a vital form of interactive discourse

without the limitations of time and space and teacher-student interaction still runs

well. Questioning and answering is commonly adopted to put forth and modify

hypotheses. Nevertheless, some suggestions are proposed to enhance the teacher-student interaction:(1) Space for students to construct meaning is required. Teachers should apply

open-ended questions could be applied more.(2) “Danmu” should be used more often to enhance the participation. Teachers

could encourage students to express their ideas through sending “danmu” and more

time should be spared for them to organize answers.

(3) The impact of one-to-one interaction to reach more students should be

emphasized. With the assistance of “danmu”, teachers are able to involve more

students in meaning construction at one r, owing to the limitations of online teaching, with little access

to observe and evaluate students’ emotions and their mastery of knowledge,

researchers could only verify the effectiveness of interaction by analyzing the

discourse transcribed from the record; and in future research, more samples should

be involved to get an all-rounded picture of teacher-student interaction in online

classes.

29

Journal of International Education and Development Vol.6 No.6 2022

References[1] Bereket Merkine, Yohannes Bisa & Aklilu Ayele(2019). The Relationship be-tween Student-Teachers Interaction and Academic Achievement of Trainee

Teachers in Dilla College of Teacher Education. Global Journal of Human-So-cial Science: A Arts & Humanities-Psychology.[2] Emel Ültanır(2012). An Epistemological Glance at the Constructivist Approach:

Constructivist Learning in Dewey, Piaget, and Montessori (pp.195-212). Inter-national Journal of Instruction.[3] Luce C. A. Claessens, Jan van Tartwijk, Anna C. van der Want, Helena J. M.

Pennings, Nico Verloop, Perry J. den Brok & Theo Wubbels(2015). Positive

Teacher-Student Relationships Go beyond the Classroom, Problematic Ones

Stay Inside(pp.478-493). The Journal of Educational Research.[4] Tisome Nugent(2009). The Impact of Teacher-Student Interaction on Student

Motivation and Achievement.[5] Lv Run-cheng(2018). The Analysis of English Teaching of Art Students in the

Constructivism Context (pp.242-244). Oversea English.[6] Radden Gu¨nter, Ko¨pcke Klaus-Michael, Berg Thomas, Siemund Peter

(Eds.), John Benjamins, Amsterdam(2007). Aspects of Meaning Construc-tion(pp.2575-2578). Journal of Pragmatics.[7] Qiong Jia(2010). A Brief Study on the Implication of Constructivism Teach-ing Theory on Classroom Teaching Reform in Basic Education(pp.197-199).

International Education Studies.[8] Senada Laçi (2015). The Impact of Teacher-Student Interaction on Student Aca-demic Outcomes(pp.8347-8362).European Academic Research.[9] Zheng Weizhen (2019). Teacher-Student Interaction in EFL Classroom in Chi-na: Communication Accommodation Theory Perspective (pp.99-111).Canadian

Center of Science and Education.30