Literary Discussions and Advanced Speaking Functions: Researching the (Dis)Connection

Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 183

Richard Donato University of Pittsburgh Frank B. Brooks Florida State University

Abstract: This study investigated the discourse of class discussion in the advanced undergraduate Spanish literature course. Motivating this study was the need for research to determine how discussion in advanced undergraduate literature courses provides discourse opportunities to students to develop advanced language functions, as defined in the ACTFL Guidelines. Despite claims that literature classes play an additional role in developing language proficiency, this issue has not received serious research attention. In this study, classroom transcripts were analyzed for the following features: (1) discourse structure of the literary discussion; (2) the use of teacher questions; (3) verb tense distribution; and (4) student uptake. The analysis attempted to uncover how literary discussion afforded opportunities for students to describe, to narrate in major time frames, to use extended discourse, to share opinions and arguments, to explore alternatives, and to hypothesize—all advanced and superior level speaking functions. The study also included instructor and student interviews to determine their views of foreign language literature classes and to see if what was observed could be explained by the goals the instructor and students had expressed. The findings suggest that simply having a literary discussion does not ensure that students will be pushed to use the language in advanced ways even when faced with tasks requiring critical thinking and advanced language use. One issue that this study reveals is that, for students to experience speaking in the advanced ranges of proficiency, discussions must enable complex thinking in complex language. Other findings suggest that literature instructors should be aware of the discourse opportunities that arise in literary discussions, should make speaking expectations and advanced functions clear to students, and should monitor student language use during discussions. Introduction This study investigated the discourse of class discussion in the advanced undergraduate literature course. Motivating this study was the need for research to determine how discussion in advanced undergraduate literature courses provides discourse opportunities to students to develop advanced language functions, as defined in ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for Speaking (Breiner-Sanders, Lowe, Miles & Swender, 2000). This study addressed an area in our profession that has not received serious research attention. In the past, studies in the context of literature instruction have focused on reading comprehension of cultural texts (e.g., Bernhardt, 1990; Davis, 1992; Fecteau, 1999; Kramsch, 1985). This line of research appears to be the most systematic and is connected to the larger second language reading research agenda. In the profes-

Richard Donato (PhD, University of Delaware) is Associate Professor of Foreign Language Education at the University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Frank B. Brooks (PhD, The Ohio State University) is Associate Professor of Multilingual/Multicultural Education at Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida. 184 Summer 2004

sion’s recent history, only one academic volume has tains that reading literature and conducting literary analysis addressed the potential of dialogue between second lan- have no psycholinguistic validity to support the claim that guage acquisition research and the teaching of literature the study of literature contributes to developing language (Scott & Tucker, 2002). In this volume, one empirical proficiency (see Widdowson, 1985 and Edmondson, 1995 study was published (Burnett & Fonder-Solano, 2002) that for the debate on essentialist vs. nonessentialist perspec- examined teacher beliefs in literature courses and how tives). In this paper, however, we maintain that for under- these beliefs shaped course organization and teaching prac- graduate foreign language majors and for the liberal arts mis- tice. The only investigation to our knowledge related to sion of foreign language and literature departments, the class discussion in literature classes was a recent research development of advanced language proficiency and the study by Mantero (2002a, 2002b) on the discourse dynam- knowledge of literary traditions and analysis are not dichoto- ics of literary discussion. mous educational goals. Rather, learning language and liter- Although some claim, albeit anecdotally, that the study ature study are mutually constituting and supporting experi- of literature in the collegiate curriculum is useful to devel- ences. As Bernhardt (2002, p. 197) asserted, “each is an act oping foreign language proficiency, it is clear there is little of text construction and reconstruction based on the con- research to provide evidence for this time-honored assump- ceptualization of available linguistic and cultural data.” tion. Conversely, numerous pedagogical articles and research What is needed, however, is empirical research to studies on the use of literature in language classes have been examine this linkage rather than a polemical debate published (e.g., Adair-Hauck & Cumo-Johanssen, 1997; defending either side of the issue. Adair-Hauck & Donato, 2002a, 2002b; Brumfit & Carter, 1986; Carter & McRae, 1996; Kramsch, 1993; Lafayette, The Need for Research into the Language–Literature 1993; Lunn, 1985; West & Donato, 1995). Thus, although (Dis)connection the use of literature in the foreign language class is routinely In an article documenting major directions of the foreign presented and investigated in a language teaching context, language teaching profession, Davis (2000) concluded that language acquisition in the context of the institutional disci- the year 1967 marked the beginning of a separatist era for pline of teaching literature is not fully understood and has language instruction and literary studies. Through his not been widely researched (Bernhardt, 2002; McRae, analysis of the Northeast Conference Reports from 1954 to 1996).1 1998, Davis discovered that 1967 was a watershed year that This imbalance in the research record needs to be divided our profession into the teaching of language and addressed. If the study of literature is a useful context for the teaching of literature. In that year, the Modern developing language proficiency and cultural knowledge Language Association (MLA) founded the American (and research and practice provide evidence for this claim), Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) then there must be similar investigations of the literature and thus marked symbolically and professionally a clear class as a site for developing advanced language competence. division of responsibility between language instruction and We argue that these investigations are urgently needed for a literary studies (see also Bernhardt, 1995, for a further dis- comprehensive understanding of literature courses in the cussion of this division). In her capstone chapter in the undergraduate foreign language major and their contribu- same volume, James reflected upon Davis’s findings and tion to the development of language proficiency. asserted that this historical and professional rift was indeed Although this study and the questions it poses may raise a catastrophic phenomenon. The catastrophe, in her view, some concerns, it is not our intention to engage in a con- was not that literature was removed from basic language tentious debate on the pros and cons of literature study in the courses, nor because it ceased to be the primary objective undergraduate education of foreign language majors. We of much language teaching, but because literature teachers acknowledge that the study of literature is an important at the universities . . . began their disastrous withdrawal component of a liberal arts education and a necessary part of from a sense of responsibility for language teaching, choos- the undergraduate foreign language curriculum. However, it ing to believe that this could be done at the lower levels and is necessary to point out that—aside from its cultural, intel- that students would come to them with language compe- lectual, and humanistic value—some have argued that study- tence as a foundation and could then be taught literature. ing literature has little to do with the acquisition of second (2000, p. 247) language proficiency. This perspective, referred to as the The situation described by Davis and James has been nonessentialist position, questions the status of the literature recognized as an important professional issue through ini- course in the undergraduate foreign language curriculum. As tiatives, such as the MLA Teacher Education Project the argument goes, the study of literature is nonessential to (1999). According to Fein (1999) and Kadish (1999), the foreign language study and merely a remnant of a historical language–literature dichotomy in our profession exists in movement to justify the teaching of foreign languages in most research universities and, thus, the profession needs schools and universities. The nonessentialist position main- to accept and confront some realities. Many undergraduate Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 185

students in literature courses have not yet developed the tion and anecdotal observation. Thus, research evidence is linguistic capacity or range of vocabulary to read and dis- necessary to support claims for pedagogical interventions cuss literary texts in the target language. The expectation and to test assertions, such as the ones above, that the for linguistically prepared students of literature has been study of literature contributes to the development of “lin- tempered by the realization that students, even at advanced guistic facility” of undergraduate majors. stages of literature study, remain language learners until the The purpose of this study was to examine the dis- end of their undergraduate majors (Byrnes, 1998; Byrnes & course of a literature class through the qualitative research Kord, 2002). In short, literature instructors must address lens of theory and practice.3 From a theoretical perspec- linguistic issues or be confined to present shallow literary tive, we drew upon sociocultural theory (Donato, 2000; exercises of plot recall (Fein, 1999), to conduct class in Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Wells, 1999; English, or to have discussions only with international stu- Wertsch, 1985) and its focus on the discursive origins of dents or heritage language learners in the course. competence in the conduct of human goal-directed action, The solution to this issue is not easy, given that the here the goal of discussing literature while simultaneously preparation of future literature instructors and the in- experiencing advanced-level speaking tasks. For the pur- service professional development of university literature poses of this study, we maintained that the discursive con- faculty rarely, if ever, address issues of additional language ditions of the literature class created or inhibited opportu- acquisition. Individuals centrally concerned with the nities for learners to participate in language interactions teaching of literature do not receive, either in their gradu- that reflect advanced levels of language functioning. From ate training or beyond, substantive knowledge of second the perspective of practice, we limited our investigation to language acquisition or language learning pedagogy to suf- text-based discussion, a hallmark of the literature class, ficiently address the challenges of integrating language and and one area where learners’ functional competence may literature.2 This situation does not suggest, however, that be pushed beyond their current level of ability.4 Thus, this all literature programs are indifferent to issues of language preliminary research opens the way to rational inquiry and acquisition or relegate the responsibility for teaching lan- future empirical research into the relationship and possible guage exclusively to instructors in lower level courses. contribution of literature study to a student’s functional Indeed, restructured programs exist that make use of a lan- competence in a foreign language. guage-based pedagogy in literature courses (see Barnes-Karol, 2000, 2003; Brynes & Kord, 2002; Kramsch, 1993; Murti, Advanced-Level Speaking Functions and the Literary 1993; Tesser & Long, 2000, for excellent examples). Where Discussion the discussion on the language and literature connection has Our descriptions of advanced-level speaking functions not led, in our view, is to the need for systematic classroom- were taken from the ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines for based research studies that illuminate the dynamics of a liter- Speaking (Breiner-Sanders, et al., 2000). Additionally, we ature course and its relationship to language development. In drew from superior-level functions given that performance turn, these studies will provide empirical evidence for at one proficiency level implies the ability to perform func- informed pedagogical recommendations and suggestions for tions with varying degrees of success at the next higher curricular innovation in literature courses. level. For example, advanced high speakers handle tasks The lack of attention to language issues in literature pertaining to the superior level but lack the ability to sus- courses was clearly visible in the volume resulting from the tain performance at that level in terms of the quality and MLA’s teacher education project, Preparing a Nation’s quantity of their speech. We also limited the speaking func- Teachers (Franklin, Laurence & Wells [Eds.], 1999), in tions to those that we thought would arise during literary which only two chapters were devoted to this topic. discussions. To this end, we opted for examining literary Moreover, the chapters did not recommend solutions to discussion for its potential to provide occasions for describ- the problems discussed above based on an understanding ing, narrating in major time frames, using extended discourse, of second language acquisition theory and research or on providing opinions and arguments, exploring alternatives, and theories of learning and development. Rather, they sug- hypothesizing. Throughout the analysis, we refer to these gested traditional pedagogical practices, well-known in the functions, the extent to which the literary discussion literature classroom, albeit with some modifications—lec- offered discourse opportunities to perform at an advanced ture and explication de texte—as the way to allow “students level, and the students’ ability to use advanced functions to gradually build the vocabulary, the linguistic facility, and when contributing to the discussion. the self-confidence to discuss the text.” (Fein, 1999, p. 395) This observation is not to denigrate these suggestions Study or the good intentions of instructors committed to resolv- This study closely analyzed one aspect of the literature ing the language–literature gap. Rather, it underscores the class: teacher-directed target language discussions of liter- need for research-based conclusions rather than specula- ary texts. The overarching research question of the study 186 Summer 2004

was “Does a senior-level literature course for Spanish lan- readers’ perspective, the ideas presented in this study guage majors provide occasions during group discussion may transfer to their own observations of literature for participation in advanced speaking functions as defined courses. Thus, findings develop an internal conceptual in the ACTFL Speaking Proficiency Guidelines?” understanding of the construct of “literature class and Two questions relate to this topic: Does literary dis- language learning” rather than generalize to an external cussion in this class reflect functions of advanced-level population of all literature instructors, students, and uni- speaking?, and, if yes, does the discussion offer opportu- versity courses and seminars. From the researchers’ per- nities that challenge a learner to perform and develop spective, patterns within and across data sets permit advanced-level speaking functions? To answer these ques- detailed descriptions and findings that potentially trans- tions, we analyzed the discourse of literary discussion in fer from a given context to other possible contexts. this class for four features: (1) the discourse structure of Interviews of the instructor and several students who the literary discussion, (2) types of questions used by the participated in the course served as important data teacher during discussion, (3) use of verb tenses, and (4) sources to gather insights into events that occurred and student uptake. These categories were established with a their views on the purposes of studying literature in a view toward uncovering whether the discussions provid- foreign language classroom. The transcripts, interviews, ed opportunities for students to elaborate, narrate, and class notes were the sources of data used to triangu- hypothesize, describe, argue points, and defend opinions late findings and arrive at emergent ideas. Identification (all speaking functions described in the advanced and of recurring patterns in the discourse and interviews sup- superior proficiency range). The course instructor was plied the groundwork for constructing implications and also interviewed on two different occasions. These inter- recommendations in the conclusion. views yielded important information about the instructor’s expressed course goals and her perceptions regard- Data Sources ing the role of literature classes. Several students were Discourse data were gathered during a representative sam- also interviewed to gain their perspectives on the goals of ple of class meetings of a senior-level undergraduate litera- the course and on their own participation in this and ture course entitled “Masterpieces of Modern Spanish other literature courses. All interviews were transcribed Literature.” The course, taught at a U.S. research university,5 in their entirety and became important sources of data for took place during the spring semester, 2000, and met on a the study. Monday–Wednesday–Friday schedule from 2:30–3:20 p.m. for a total of 50 minutes each class meeting. The works used The Qualitative Nature of the Study during the course included poetry, plays, and novels.6 Qualitative research explores social interaction as After having gained entry into the course at the expressed in everyday life in varied settings, such as in beginning of the semester through permission from the foreign language literature classrooms. These, like other instructor and students, researchers observed the majori- classrooms, are thus characterized as emerging and ty of the class meetings during the 15-week semester. dynamic cultures (Brooks, 1993) within which academic These classes were audio recorded to capture as much of content is taught and learned. Research in a qualitative a class period as possible.7 This process yielded 11 audio- paradigm, as is used in this study, is pragmatic and inter- recorded class meetings out of a possible 45 class meet- pretive and is grounded in the lived experiences of the ings.8 For the purposes of transcription and analysis, five participants (Marshall & Rossman, 1999). Findings from days were selected from the latter half of the course for a qualitative study are typically emergent and revelatory detailed discourse analysis (3/15, 3/20, 4/3, 4/5, and rather than anticipated and predictive. 4/21). We were interested in target language discussion on In this study, we were interested in the patterns of literary texts and we were assured that students were talk that transpired during a frequently recurring inter- familiar with this genre after nearly a full semester of par- active practice (Hall, 1995), that is, discussions that ticipation and practice. Additionally, we were assured, revolved around literary texts in a university senior-level because of videotapes from the beginning of the semester Spanish literature course. As such, we did not set out to and regular classroom observations, that these five days design an experiment to manipulate variables in any were representative and typical of discussion at other way. Rather, we sought naturally occurring data sets to times during the term. examine classroom talk using the ACTFL Proficiency The selected tapes were transcribed following a mod- Guidelines for Speaking as a framework for analysis. The ified version of the conventions found in Green and criterion of generalizability is not relevant to this study. Wallat (1981) for systematic transcription. Since the Rather, the transferability of findings, or the belief that recordings were audio recordings, we were unable to everything that is studied is context bound, is the appro- describe nonverbal interaction; however, because of the priate criterion required of qualitative studies. From the nature of the study, this was not a serious limitation. The Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 187

researcher who sat in the classes was able to recognize all tence-level utterances to paragraph-level discourse, charac- the participants’ voices on the tapes and was able to teristic of advanced speakers. Specifically, we discovered assign names to transcribed utterances. On a few occa- that approximately 20% of the turns that took place fol- sions, because some student contributions were not audi- lowed a three-part sequence composed of teacher initiation ble or were not comprehensible, question marks were (I), usually in the form of a question; student response (R); added to the transcript to indicate an unknown source. and teacher evaluation (E) or feedback (F)—referred to as IRE or IRF (Cazden, 2001; Mantero, 2000a, 2000b; Mehan, The Instructor 1979; Wells, 1996, 1999). Research into classroom dis- The instructor of this senior-level Spanish literature course has shown that the use of IRE is one of the most course was an associate professor of Spanish affiliated pervasive forms of interaction in American schools across with her university for over 10 years. She completed a all grade levels and in all subject areas (Tharp & Gallimore, bachelor’s degree in secondary education, a master’s 1988). Numerous studies have also found that when a degree in elementary education, and PhD in Spanish lit- teacher’s response to a student’s contribution is an evalua- erature. She had also taught Spanish at all levels of tion, students are inhibited from further elaboration, expla- instruction, that is, from kindergarten to the doctoral nation, and clarification. Because evaluation serves as an level. Her area of literary expertise was 20th century lit- indicator to terminate the exchange, evaluative responses erature of Spain. She was selected to participate in the constrain rather than sustain the discussion. study because of her enthusiasm for this research topic, Table 1 indicates the percentage of turns in five class- and her accomplished teaching record recognized es that were coded as IRE sequences. We arrived at this per- through two teaching incentive awards and a nomination centage by dividing the total number of turns in each class by her students for the prestigious University Teaching by the turns that were coded as an initiation, a response, or Award program. Thus, for this study, we selected an an evaluation. This procedure allowed us to determine the accomplished literature instructor identified through student and university acclamation. Table 1 IRE SEQUENCES PER CLASS The Students Eight students (five males/three females) were enrolled in no. of IRE % of turns the Spanish literature course and the majority of these Date sequences coded as IRE students were Spanish majors. One graduating senior had 3/15 12 .21 been accepted into graduate school for the master’s degree 3/20 12 .27 in Spanish literature at a major northeastern university 4/3 15 .23 and another had received a scholarship from the lan- 4/5 8 .20 guages department to attend a program of her choice in a 4/21 10 .12 Spanish-speaking country during the summer 2000. Two of the students were heritage language speakers. percentage of turns that were part of larger IRE exchanges. Findings When IRE exchanges were not used, accounting for The Discourse Structure of the Literary Discussion the remaining 80% of the turns, teacher-elaborated com- We were interested in determining to what extent class dis- mentary and reactions to student comments were observed. cussion provided opportunities to extend and elaborate Thus, when the teacher was not providing direct instruction utterances. As defined in the speaking guidelines, the or lecturing, and interaction between students and teacher advanced-level speaker demonstrates the ability to narrate occurred, it followed a predictable pattern of IRE. and describe in paragraph-length discourse. If literary dis- Example 1 illustrates the three-part IRE structure of cussion pushes students to use advanced language func- discourse. The instructor asked the students to identify tions, we should find examples of extended student turns the recurrent question in the play El Tragaluz. In this and elaborated language use. Thus, our analysis depicts the example, the instructor was searching for the correct teacher–student interactions during discussion and its response (“Who is this?”) to determine if the students effects on the quantity of language used by the students knew this fact from the novel. A student responded with during their participation in the discussion.9 the correct answer (“¿Quién es ése?”), following a recast The following four examples were selected from the of the instructor’s original question. The instructor react- five days of class used in this analysis. These examples ed with a repetition of the student’s response, and ended illustrate how the predominant discourse pattern of dis- the three-part exchange with “perfecto” indicating her cussion inhibited elaboration of responses and prevented evaluation of the reply and the termination of the students from moving beyond isolated word-level and sen- exchange. 188 Summer 2004

Example 1 T EL PREMIO NOBEL EXACTO TVAMOS A TERMINAR CON EL POBRE UM AHORA ESO PUEDE SER ALGO MATEO CON TODOS SUS PROBLEMAS POSITIVO IT ¿CUÁL ES LA PREGUNTA EN EL I ¿LES PARECE QUE UH QUE LE TRAGALUZ? INTERESA MUCHO MÁS LA FAMA Ss no response PERSONAL O EL BIENESTAR DE LA IT ¿HAY CIERTA PREGUNTA REPETIDA HUMANIDAD? EN LA OBRA? RS3 personal RS ¿quién es ése? RS1 fama personal ET ¿QUIÉN ES ÉSE? PERFECTO ET (CHUCKLES) ESTE ES EL PROBLEMA ESTE ES EL PROBLEMA BIEN Immediately following this exchange, the instructor posed another question to begin the onset of another IRE In this example, the instructor used three questions to search exchange: for the correct response, “fama personal,” leading to her ter- minal evaluation. S7, one of two heritage language speakers Example 2 in class, offered a full-sentence reply and justification, fol- IT Y ¿QUIÉN HACE ESA PREGUNTA? lowed by teacher approval, “exacto.” Appropriating lexical RS el padre items embedded in the teacher’s question, S3 responds with ET EL PADRE EL PADRE . . . BIEN a single adjective “personal” and S1 adds the noun “fama” to S3’s one-word response. What is interesting, however, is that As in the first example, the student responded correctly exploring the topic of personal fame versus humanitarian with “el padre” followed by instructor evaluation—“bien.” service has been eclipsed by the goal of responding accurate- These two examples, illustrating approximately 20% of the ly. Comprehension checking is clearly visible in the dis- types of teacher–student exchanges across five days of course revealed with the use of two IRE sequences. The focus instruction, inhibited elaboration on the part of the stu- on a convergent answer resulted in abbreviated student dent, reduced responses to word-, phrase-, and sentence- utterances rather than opinion, justification, and elaboration level utterances, and served primarily to evaluate factual (i.e. an actual discussion on the protagonist’s motive). recall of story detail. It is clear that the instructor attempted to engage stu- Example 3 further illustrates the discourse-constrain- dents in critical discussion of important issues. However, ing effects of IRE. Here the class discussed the motivation divergent thinking was subverted by these IRE exchanges, of the novel’s protagonist for openly criticizing the Royal as seen in Example 3. When critical thinking emerged, it Academy of Science in Spain. This topic of discussion was produced in largely word-, phrase- and sentence-level offered the potential to express opinions, arguments, and constructions by the students. Evaluation of responses counterarguments—all advanced to superior language shaped student utterances into staccato responses even functions. What is striking in this exchange, however, is when the discussion provided topics for elaborated person- how the teacher’s use of IRE excluded these functions from al points of view. Example 4 illustrates how an engaging surfacing in the discussion. The IRE pattern dominated the topic requiring hypothesizing is truncated by the use of discussion over several turns, preventing students from teacher evaluation. With the exception of S3, a heritage lan- exploring in extended utterances the topic of motivation. guage student, all contributions to the topic of humanitarian service versus personal notoriety are word- or phrase- Example 3 length utterances. IT Y HASTA AHORA, ¿CUÁL ES EL ÚNICO ÚNICO MOTIVO QUE Example 4 SABEMOS POR PARTE DEL T UM PUEDE SER QUE SERÍA UN SEGUNDO NARRADOR? BENEFICIO ESO DE DE AYUDAR A LA GENTE RS7 fama^ (rising intonation) PERO QUE MÁS LE INTERESA ES LA FAMA Y I T ¿QUÉ ES LO QUE LE LE LE MOTIVA? EL PREMIO. RS7 fama de ser el persona que encontré S3 pero así igual como presidente que aquí que eso la cura de cancer no es porque quiere ayudar el país eso es porque RS3 sí el nombre ‘yo soy presidente del estado’ ET EXACTO [S3 is a heritage language student] S3 (incomprehensible) T EL PRESTIGIO, EL PODER S1 debe tener la la um Nobel Prize^ S3 el poder Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 189

T EXACTO because questions have the power to stimulate thought and S2 ¿ese ese libro recibió mucho mucho crítica? discussion, we hoped to find question types that encour- T UUUU SÍ aged divergent thinking and sharing of ideas unknown to S2 porque parece que está está abusando el el those in the class, including the instructor. ciencia contemporáneo, ¿no? We reviewed the transcriptions, noting all instances of T REALMENTE ESTÁ CRITICANDO instructor questions, and coded them as display, informa- ABSOLUTAMENTE TODO tion, or clarification questions—the only three types of S3 la economía questions that were used over five days of analysis. We also T ECONOMÍA UH EL ESTADO DE LA tallied the number of each question type for each of the five ACADEMIAEN ESPAÑA classes. Display questions are defined as those questions to which the instructor already knows the answer (Cazden, Evaluations of opinion do not provide students with 2001; Mehan, 1979). Typically, this type of question is opportunities to produce extended commentary on the lit- asked as a form of assessment to determine if students erary issue under discussion. When an instructor asks stu- know factual information in the text (Tharp & Gallimore, dents to interpret an event (e.g., Puede ser que sería. . . ), 1988). By contrast, information questions are those that instructor evaluation of personal points of view emerges in solicit information unknown to the instructor, such as a the discourse (“exacto” to S3’s response of “el poder”). It student’s opinion about a character’s actions, an interpreta- appears, therefore, that simply “having a discussion” or tion of an event, or textual evidence for an assertion. asking for student opinions in literature courses does not Clarification questions are those that ask students to explain categorically guarantee a discourse opportunity for extend- what was said (e.g., “Excuse me, could you explain your ed utterances. Nothing intrinsically beneficial to advancing point a little bit more?”). Of these three types of questions, proficiency arises in a literary discussion, if this discussion display questions would most likely not elicit perfor- is routinely cast in three-part triadic discourse culminating mances required of advanced-level speakers. Table 2 classi- in teacher evaluation and lecture.10 Rather, the teacher’s fies the questions used by the teacher across five days of orchestration of the discussion is what enables the practice instruction. of advanced language functions, a point we will address in As Table 2 indicates, the instructor asked the students the conclusion. 118 questions across the five class meetings. These data show a clear preference by the instructor for display ques- Question Types tions. Ninety-six of the questions (81%) during the five The second analysis that we performed concerned the use days of discussion were display questions. This large per- of the instructor’s questions during literature-based discus- centage clearly indicates the instructor’s attempt to deter- sions. Here we look more closely at the initiation phase of mine whether students knew specific information located an IRE sequence. The use of questions as cognitive tools in the literary pieces under discussion. This finding is also for activating critical thinking and verbal elaboration of consistent with the instructor’s goal for the course—build- ideas has been investigated extensively in the literature ing comprehension of the text—as we will present later in (e.g., Cazden, 2001; McCormick & Donato, 2001; Tharp this article. & Gallimore, 1988; Wells, 1996, 1999, to name a few). We Example 5 illustrates the constraining effects of dis- selected questions as a way to determine whether the play questions on promoting discursive abilities at the instructor asked students to state an opinion, cite condi- advanced level. In this example, we observe how answers tions, narrate, describe, or explain, as described in the to display questions moved the instructor’s (rather than the advanced/superior ranges of oral proficiency. Additionally, students’) discourse forward. As was found in the Mantero

Table 2 INSTRUCTOR’S QUESTION TYPES ACROSS FIVE DAYS OF INSTRUCTION Date Question Type 3/15 3/20 4/3 4/5 4/21 Display questions 17 (.73) 22 (.88) 25 (1.00) 16 (1.00) 26 (.89) Information questions 6 (.26) 3 (.12) 0 0 1 (.3) Clarification questions 0 0 0 0 2 (.7) Note. Total of 118 questions in 5 days. 190 Summer 2004

study (2001b), student responses to display questions were was that, for students to experience speaking in the often followed by extensive instructor commentary on advance ranges of proficiency, questions need to enable their answers. We also found that responses to display complex thinking in complex language beyond mere dis- questions provided the teacher with an invitation to take play of short factual knowledge. the floor, rather than an opportunity for student contributions to the discussion. Example 5 illustrates this point. The Use of Major Time Frames A characteristic of an advanced speaker is the ability to narrate Example 5 and describe events in all major time frames (past, present, and T OKAY, ¿SE ACUERDAN DE DE CÓMO future) in paragraph-length discourse. To determine if class LA EXPLICACIÓN QUE DAN EL Y discussion contained major time frames, we examined the ELLA AL PRINCIPIO DE LA OBRA? range of verb tenses that students employed during their ¿REALMENTE ESTÁ OCURRIENDO LA discussion with the instructor. Discourse reflecting a range of ACCIÓN DE MARIO Y VICENTE? verb tenses would indicate the presence of various time frames (e.g., narration in the past, description in the present) Ss no and functions (e.g., hypothesizing using counterfactual Ss ?? utterances). Conversely, a failure to see a range of verb tens- S? proyec- es una proyección es would indicate limited opportunities for students to prac- T EXACTO BIEN ES UNA HISTORIA DEL tice temporal relationships or possibly the students’ lack of PASADO UH LITERALMENTE RECREADA A control of the Spanish tense-aspect system. TRAVEZ DE PROYECCIONES OK NO We examined the corpus of transcribed discussions turn TOTALMENTE DISTINTO DE LA TELEVISIÓN by turn and counted all inflected verbs in Spanish produced EN QUE LA ACCIÓN QUE VEMOS HA by the students. We did not count verb or phrase repetitions; OCURRIDO EN ALGÚN LUGAR EN ALGÚN these were counted as only one instance of an inflected verb. MOMENTO PERO NO ESTÁ OCURRIENDO We also did not concern ourselves with the accuracy of the EN LA PANTALLA. verb form constructed in a specific tense. For example, if a student uttered “Carlos tuve . . . tuve . . . tuve un buen amigo,” In this example, the instructor asked the students a rhetor- we counted the inflected verb as one instance of a verb in the ical question to prompt recall of the explanation given in preterite tense and ignored the repetition of the form and the the opening of the work, followed by the question “Is the inaccurate subject–verb agreement. action of Mario and Vicente really occurring?” Students As shown in Table 3, the total number of inflected responded “no” to this second question and one student verbs produced by students in the corpus was 488. The built on the class’s negative reply by explaining that the majority of inflected verbs in five days of instruction, or action was “a projection.” The instructor responded with 393 (81%) verb forms, were in the simple present tense an evaluation of the accuracy (“exacto”) of the student’s while only 44 (9%) were in the preterite tense. The present answer and commented upon the notion that the past is a progressive was used a total of 20 times, some 4.09% of the projection in this novel. In her reply, the instructor total, followed by the imperfect, which students used only explored the literary device present in this work; however, 13 times, representing 2.7% of verb forms produced by the at no time did the students discuss the use of projection to students during discussion. Students used the present per- recreate the past in El Tragaluz. By assuming responsibility fect tense 8 times (1.6%), the future tense 6 times (1.2%), for the explanation of the literary device, the instructor ostensibly prevented the students from offering their own Table 3 opinions and interpretations of the text. What we observe USE OF VERB TENSES ACROSS in this episode also corroborates Mantero’s (2001b) finding FIVE DAYS OF DISCUSSION in the literature class that he analyzed. He described classroom discourse in the literature class as largely teacher cen- Tense no. % tered and student supported. More specifically, student Present 393 81 responses to display questions served as venues for the Preterite 44 9.0 teacher to position herself or himself as the authority and Present Progressive 20 4.09 to lecture. The analysis of questions also supported previ- Imperfect 13 2.7 ous arguments on the limiting effects of IRE on student Present Perfect 8 1.6 exploratory talk. That is, the use of initiating questions Future 6 1.2 seeking convergent answers resulted in teacher evaluation Imperfect Progressive 4 0.8 and lecture, rather than mental exploration and verbal elab- Note. Total 488 inflected verbs produced by students. oration by the student. One issue that this finding revealed Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 191

and the imperfect progressive only 4 times (0.8%). It is clear Como su su imagen de sí mismo y como from the percentages of tense use that the range of time ella está enlocada’ con con con ello y frames was limited and that the predominant tense used [??] (chuckles) was the present. A closer analysis of the transcription also reveals that preterite tense use was largely concentrated in a In the discussion about how Antonio saved himself in the single class (14 out of 44 total uses) where the instructor novel, the time frame shifts unpredictably from the past to asked “¿Cómo se murió?” prompting the students to follow the present. This shift takes place in both student and the time frame established in the instructor’s question. instructor contributions and, it could be argued, that both Other uses of the preterite tense were dispersed across the students and instructor used the historical present in this five days in isolated teacher questions and student answers. discussion. However, upon closer analysis, we observed an Literary discussions are a potential area for experienc- inaccurate change of tense to the present tense. Although at ing discourse in major time frames (e.g., What happened the sentence level the use of tenses in the discussion is to the protagonist? What do you think will happen next in appropriate, when viewed in the context of the ongoing dis- the novel? How will the problem be resolved? Why did course, the shifting appears aberrant and indicates lack of this situation occur? What would you have done if you tense-aspect control. Further, this exchange took place on had been in this situation?). What we found, however, the last day of the course (4/21) indicating that semester- was the dominant use of the present tense over all others. long participation in these literary discussions did not One possible explanation for this finding is students’ use appear to contribute to helping students control tense- of historical present for narrating past actions. We have aspect relationships. evidence, however, that shifting to present tense for past narration was not the case. The more plausible explana- Uptake tion for the dominance of the present tense is the students’ In our analysis, we found several examples of discussion top- inability to control tense and aspect. Evidence for this ics where the opportunity to push students toward advanced interpretation was found in the corpus when analyzing and superior speaking functions was possible. What we dis- discussions that require the use of a verb tense other than covered, however, was that, even though the topic and con- the present tense or present historical narration. It was tent of a discussion provided an occasion to discuss a text at found that the students shifted unexpectedly to the pre- the advanced level (e.g., defend an opinion, hypothesize, sent tense when other time frames had been established explain) students did not uptake appropriate speech func- and were required in their responses. Example 6 illustrates tions modeled explicitly by the teacher.11 The term uptake the students’ inaccurate tense shifting. was introduced by Lyster and Ranta (1997, 1998) and is used to refer to the revoicing of a correct language form or func- Example 6 tion after instructor modeling or recasting of the student’s T: ¿CÓMO SE SALVÓ? (referring to utterance (Cazden, 2001). The idea that students need to Antonio in the novel) notice salient forms and functions in the input, attend to S2: el el accidente o algo un freak them, compare them to their language production, and incor- T: OKAY SE SALVÓ OH OKAY porate them in subsequent utterances is fundamental to S2: que cuando cayó no murió porque progress in second language acquisition. Consistent failure to normalmente [??] morir uptake forms and functions may indicate a lack of growth in T: UH HUH developing one’s proficiency. S1: al fin de todo eso él dice que ‘sin mi nariz Student uptake can only occur when literature instructors no soy nada’ are vigilant to the ongoing discourse, are aware of the language T: (Laughing) functions being used, and are attentive to ensuring that stu- BUENO SU PROFESIÓN ES SER dents attend to and incorporate these forms and structures into HOMBRE NARÍZ EM? their contributions (i.e., uptake). In the data, several missed S1: pero todo lo que pasó ??? pensar “oh, mi opportunities for student participation in advanced-level naríz.” speaking tasks were found. More precisely, as the following T: (whispers something to a student here) examples will show, the literary discussion presented an ideal S2: y y es es irónico como se habla… arena for using an advanced-level function. However, students [Here the instructor makes a humorous bypassed these advanced functions while still maintaining par- remark concerning the symbolism of the ticipation in the discussion. Although instructor and students character’s nose.] focused on meaning and constructed understanding together, S3: Oh, I caught that they did so at an intermediate-level while circumventing more S2: pero es irónico cómo se habla cómo el de advanced ways of speaking about the topic. la experiencia con con la Bella allí al final In the following example, the instructor asked a question 192 Summer 2004

requiring students to construct hypotheses to explore alternate propriate in the context of the discussion. In this example, endings to the novel. The students used present tense, or no verb the instructor asked the students if the novel had ended in at all, to respond to the teacher’s question despite the fact that the Antonia’s favor, in what situation would she find herself. The question framed the discussion in the past perfect subjunctive students’ responses neither explored alternate possibilities and conditional perfect. The instructor responded in turn to the nor showed elaborated thinking and justification for their meaning of the discussion and accepted the inappropriate verb responses. As in the above examples, students simplified forms in the hypothesis. the language, used prepositional phrases, and failed to construct a hypothesis using the conditional perfect tense for Example 7 expressing counterfactual utterances. T ESPERE UN SEGUNDO SI ESTA OBRA PUDIERA HABER Example 9 TERMINADO CON UN FIN ALEGRE, EH? T ELLA SI HUBIERA TERMINADO LA NOVELA COMO QUER MOS TODOS COMO PARA LA A SU GUSTO, EN QUÉ SITUACIÓN ESTARÍA? BELLA ¿QUÉ HABRÍA PASADO? S2 con Damián S2 ella (??) va con Poco S1 con Damián S1 con Poco T CON DAMIÁN S4 con Poco T AL AL TROPICANA In their responses, neither S1 nor S2 uptook the instructor’s S5 sí use of the conditional in estaría, and both students responded with an ellipsis. In turn the instructor echoed In this exchange, the instructor introduced a hypothe- their elliptical answer indicating approval of their interpre- sizing function, calling for the use the conditional perfect, tation and, at the same time, tacitly endorsing a minimal as indicated with “¿Que habría pasado?” (What would have response to a question that potentially required critical happened?). S2, S1, S4 understood the question and were thinking, evidence, and justification, as well as more com- able to respond, but no student uptook the verb form to plex grammar. In short, the students were not pushed to incorporate it into their own responses, using rather pre- advance in their self-expression during this discussion that sent tense of the verb to go and the prepositional phrase could have easily been accomplished with a follow-up “con Poco.” What is interesting is that the instructor did not question, such as “Why?” or “Please explain why you remodel or recast the utterance to push the students from would say this.” semantic to syntactic processing (Swain, 1995) or provide Examples 8 and 9 show how literary discussion pro- the implicit cue to attend to verb tense use. Curiously, the vides a context for high level language functions and cog- teacher uptook the student’s use of the prepositional phrase nitive tasks. In the next example, we see a student’s attempt and “al Tropicana” in her contribution to the discussion. In to expand on her alternate ending by using a verb rather the lines that follow, we note that the instructor continued than using the telegraphic style that characterized the stu- to ask for alternate explanations using the conditional per- dents’ contributions in the above two examples. We see the fect (habría sido) to determine what would have been the instructor posed a similar question to the one before, here ideal arrangement. to determine how students thought things would have turned out for Damian rather than Antonia. The instructor, Example 8 as in the previous examples, posed her question in the form TPARA EL POCO, ¿CUÁL HABRÍA SIDO EL of a counterfactual using the conditional perfect for the ARREGLO IDEAL? hypothesizing function. S1 con Vanessa S2 oh las dos Example 10 S4 o con la primera chica T NO, ¿Y DAMIÁN? S2 las dos ¿CÓMO TERMINA? T EXACTO, BIEN BUENO IDEALMENTE PARA EL, ¿CÓMO HABRÍA TERMINADO? We observe that S1, S2, and S4 responded with verbless S1 será con Antonia phrases that were accepted and ironically confirmed as cor- T YEAH, PARECÍA QUE HABÍA REALMENTE rect by the instructor. CARINO ENTRE LOS DOS, EM? A PESAR DE An additional example taken from the same day of LA DIFERENCIA DE EDAD (??) A PESAR DE class illustrates the lack of student uptake, and the instruc- LA DIFERENCIA DE SITUACION ASÍ TODO, tor’s acceptance of utterances that were incorrect and inap- EM? Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 193

S1 responded using a future tense verb rather than the cor- Shared Goals of Instructor and Students rect counterfactual conditional perfect modeled in the Remarkably, both instructor and students expressed similar instructor’s question. Additionally, S1 used the incorrect orientations to the literature course. Both reported that the form of the verb to be, confusing the distinction between course should deal with “basic stuff” meaning, in their ser and estar. Moreover, the instructor used the imperfect terms, “who wrote what and what happened in the works tense in her elaborated response to S1, using parecía and . . . you know that basic stuff.” This orientation to know- había, but did not negotiate the choice of verb or tense with ing the fundamentals of the literary works connected to a the student. second goal of both instructor and students: coverage of The presence of advanced-level functions in the dis- the content in the syllabus in a participatory discussion- course does not guarantee uptake by the student, requests oriented setting. Students and instructor reported knowing for clarification by the instructor, or negotiation of form that coverage of works on the syllabus was a goal but both between student and instructor. The conclusion of the expressed frustration with the amount of material studied. analysis of uptake is clear. Direct attention to the linguistic One student expressed this frustration clearly with the component of discussion is required, for any serious claim remark that he “was turned off most at the end with the on the usefulness of literary discussion to language profi- quantity of works . . . I don’t think we should have gone ciency. Advanced-level functions may not develop in stu- through so much.” The instructor also related that she was dents as a result of mere exposure to them in the instruc- frustrated with the need to cover so much material. She tor’s model. As Lyster and Ranta (1997) pointed out, stu- also observed that the goal of coverage influenced the par- dent uptake in language classrooms is brought about ticipation patterns of the class. She stated “when we get to through the instructor’s explicit intervention and the the end of the semester and realize we have not done all request for students to repair, to reformulate, and to extend that we were supposed to have done . . . I jump in when I utterances. Clearly, this type of verbal interaction is also shouldn’t because of time.” The frustrations and instruc- needed during literary discussion among foreign language tional decisions that derived from time constraints and learners, as the above examples show quite dramatically. material coverage explain clearly the structure of discussion we observed during the last five days in this class. As Analysis of Instructor and Student Expressed Goals we reported, classroom discussion was largely instructor A final analysis we conducted concerned uncovering the dominated and student participation was often elicited course and learning goals as expressed by instructor and through IRE patterns of talk, limiting the students’ possi- students. The purpose of the interviews was to see if what bility for elaboration and expansion. The instructor goes we observed could be explained by the goals that the on to state that “I hate those days [when she jumps in and instructor and students expressed about their literature gives more information] because if [the students] have not class. We interviewed the instructor and two students near read [the text] or if they read it [the text] and it was too dif- the end of the term. The instructor was interviewed twice ficult, or there were questions, somehow it has to be put during the course of the semester and the two students together . . . and again the time constraints.” were selected based on their high degree of participation Time constraints explain some of the interaction pat- and willingness to participate in the study. Students and terns we observed in this class. The issue of time and instructor were asked what they perceived as (1) the major amount of content interestingly was of concern to student goals of an advanced-level literature course, (2) the types and instructor alike. The dilemma for the literature of knowledge and abilities that were to result from this instructor seemed to be creating a classroom where stu- course, and (3) the challenges and problems that instruc- dents actively and discursively explored literary themes tor and student faced in a course of this type. and topics in an academic system that constrained time We organized responses to the interview questions in and a curriculum that expanded content. From the per- the form of a matrix using two intersecting axes (see Figure spective of the need to produce competent speakers of the 1). The vertical axis represents the instructor and the hor- target language upon completion of the language major, izontal axis represents students. Each end of the axis is the dilemma is exacerbated because it results in restricted labeled with a + or a – indicating information that was language use opportunities for students and increased gained in the interview (+) or lack of an explicit reference speaking time for the instructor (Davis, 2000; James, to a particular issue (-). When the two lines intersect, four 2000). quadrants result allowing us to plot visually the reported goals by: Goals of Instructor Not Expressed by Students (a) both instructor and students The instructor included in her discussion of goals issues of (b) instructor but not students language. Her orientation to the language component of a (c) students but not instructor literature course dealt with “models of [written] language, (d) neither instructor nor students seeing it on paper . . . you have time to look at it and think 194 Summer 2004

Figure 1

Teacher + Reading fluency Personal perspective Basic stuff Models of language Participation Coverage/content Culture

Students Students + –

Vocabulary Advanced-level Language practice Authorial perspective language Saying more Written literacy Teacher –

Interviews of Teacher and Students +=Expressed as goal -=Not expressed as a goal

about it, change it around, go back to it in ways that you Guidelines and the nomenclature used for describing lev- can’t if you hear it.” The interviewer asked the instructor els of language growth. Second, the observation that what to comment upon the functions that learners might devel- students could gain “at this point” is the ability to op in an upper-division literature class, such as persua- describe, analyze, and personalize was quite ironic. In the sion, argumentation, speculation, and conjecture. The five classes we observed and transcribed, no student was instructor stated such speaking functions could be devel- ever observed to engage in sharing their expanded descrip- oped in a literature class calling them “medium-high level tions or analyses of a literary work with one another or the on the proficiency exam.” However, she concluded that instructor. Rather, their contributions to discussion were “mostly what they get at this point is the ability to discuss mainly word, phrase, and sentence-level factual recollec- what happens to someone else, to describe, to analyze, and tion of plots (“the basic stuff”) and some speculation lack- then bring it back to themselves (personalize) . . . I want ing in textual support. This finding cautions us that what is them to be able to expand on it [the text] by sharing what expressed as a goal may not be realized in practice. they got with other people and with me.” These two state- ments point out a critical issue for the teaching of litera- Goals of Students Not Expressed by Instructor ture and its connection to language development in profi- The interviews of the two students revealed goal conflict ciency. First, the instructor was unaware of what advanced with the teacher. When asked about the goals of the litera- proficiency means. Referring to the functions enumerated ture class, one student argued that expressing one’s person- as “medium high” reveals a lack of understanding of the al perspective on literature was not the overarching goal of Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 195

the course. Rather, he stated that “we [the students] are here courses in the undergraduate programs, with rare excep- to understand why it [the text] is pertinent to the author’s tion, do not reflect language proficiency goals in their cur- life and why they [the authors] wanted to get across this ricular design or in the minds of instructors and students message. I mean like in high school where you read a bunch (James, 2000). of coming-of-age stories, well it was obvious it was meant [the text’s inclusion in the curriculum] for the public and Discussion and Implications the audience to get them interested in literature. Now I’ve This preliminary exploration into the discourse of a litera- already expressed interest in Spanish literature. We are ture class raises several issues for further discussion and studying their culture.” This student’s comment stood in research. First, discussions that take place in literature cours- contrast to the instructor’s expressed goal of wanting stu- es have the potential to incorporate advanced proficiency dents to personalize the literature they were studying. goals. The data suggest that language functions at the A second theme of the students’ goals for literature advanced to superior levels emerge in the literary discus- study concerned the issue of language. In response to the sion. That is, literary discussion affords discourse opportu- question “Has this class had any impact on your Spanish nities to hypothesize, defend opinions, elaborate, and proficiency?” one student compared his study of Spanish speak beyond words and phrases. What is critically needed literature to language study in his elementary textbook. He is an understanding of the relationship among literary dis- stated that literature presented him with opportunities to cussion, the teacher’s orchestration of classroom discourse, see language used in contexts that went beyond language and the students’ attention to advanced proficiency func- textbooks. “There are only so many little situations you can tions in the framework of an interpretive literary discus- go over in a standard textbook. It [literature] presents more sion. Given the time and out-of-classroom language expe- situations to think about different situations in life.” Clearly riences needed for developing advanced proficiency, it is this student perceived a direct link between the contexts unlikely that any program will prepare students complete- presented in a literary work and how these contexts provide ly in a few language courses to assume the weighty task of illustrations of life contexts constructed in language beyond discussing literary ideas in the target language. When the the standard textbook lessons. However, when asked how literature curriculum fails to address language objectives these literary contexts have improved his Spanish he replied and is reduced to summaries of literary facts, the question “definitely more vocabulary.” This was echoed in another stu- will need to be asked: What are the students learning and dent’s remark that literature study improved “definitely what intellect is being developed in advanced literature vocabulary” adding “it is hard to quantify just how much.” 12 courses? (See Glisan, 1999.) It is interesting to note that among all the potential benefits Second, literature classes need to include a variety of of using the target language in content-based instruction, interaction patterns to provide opportunities for elaborated such as a literature class, the only linguistic contribution responses, one feature of an advanced speaker. Large group identified was vocabulary expansion. If this was the case, discussion may not be the ideal context for enacting students’ participation in these classes would not result in advanced speaking functions, specifically the develop- stronger speaking skills. To know a language requires more ment of claborated utterances. As we observed in the than vocabulary knowledge and entails active linguistic data, many concepts developed across turns and among construction of cultural practices in the conduct of one’s several participants and, therefore, ideas were spoken as everyday life (Hall, 1995, 1998). short phrases to be later combined and summarized by We reflected on the interviews and reviewed them for the teacher. One caveat is in order, however. In this study, not just what was reported but what seemed conspicuous- only eight students were enrolled in the class, hardly reply absent. We noted that neither students nor instructor resentative of what is meant by a large class discussion. conveyed the idea without prompting that participation in Small group discussion can provide more time for talk, a literary discussion could advance one’s speaking skills but the addition of small group discussions does not and ability to communicate in the interpersonal mode. imply that whole class interpretive discussion in Opportunities for talking in extended texts and increasing advanced literature courses is not possible. The point is the quantity of what one says was not salient in the minds that a variety of interaction patterns provide multiple of the respondents. Additionally, the issue of literacy and speaking opportunities for students to engage in account- focus on linguistic form was not raised by the instructor or able talk using extended discourse. students. The comments of the respondents pertained Third, the potential of literary discussion to move stu- more to issues of curricular coverage, culture, time con- dents into advanced speaking tasks needs to be raised in the straints, and vocabulary. It is not surprising that these minds of instructors and students. Additionally, these fea- issues would be raised. What the interview data revealed tures of discussion need to be salient to instructors and stu- clearly supports what many already know—literature dents as one goal of the course. In this study, it appears that 196 Summer 2004

there was a naïve understanding of the nature of proficien- introduced to the research literature on human learning cy and language development by both the students and the and language acquisition. Additionally, she stated that they instructor. In the students’ comments, language develop- should be required to relate these concepts to the act of lit- ment was reduced to vocabulary knowledge; for the erature learning and teaching.13 Finally, good models of lit- instructor, her misconceptions about language learning erary discussion are needed that address both literary and were revealed in her implicit understandings of what con- language goals. stitutes a proficiency level and what comprises a literary Finally, an obvious implication of this study is the criti- discussion with students in a foreign language class. The cal need for more research into the literary discussion and its data reveal, that during discussion the instructor was relationship to developing functional language abilities at the unable to move beyond the IRE script to push students to advanced level. Because of the time and effort that students say and do more in Spanish. Indeed, if literature classes are spend in literature courses and the amount of financial to be placed on equal footing with language classes as sites resources given to hiring foreign language literature faculty for language learning, then literature instructors need to relative to faculty in applied linguistic science, asking the possess more than strong literary content knowledge and hard questions and seeking research-based answers is a pro- textual analysis skills. As we noted in the introduction, lan- fessional obligation. The teaching and learning of literature guage classes have routinely drawn upon literature as core in a foreign language, as we presented in our introduction, material for language lessons (Adair-Hauck & Donato, has not been approached with the same empirical scrutiny 2002a, 2002b; Adair-Hauck, Donato, & Cumo, 2000; Carter as other language teaching endeavors.14 Without research & McRae, 1996; Kramsch, 1993). The opposite has not been attention to the role of literature in the formation of an the case, however (i.e., literature courses have not drawn undergraduate major and serious implementation of its upon language learning theories, research, and practices). As findings to curriculum and teaching practice, literary stud- James stated “we need to create properly coordinated lan- ies in the undergraduate foreign language curriculum may guage, culture, and literature upper-level college programs be placed in serious jeopardy. Through classroom-based now... ” (emphasis in original, 2000, p. 259). She went on to research on literature teaching, folk notions on the value of argue that university language departments need to under- literature instruction to language learning can be verified stand that there is an intersection and seamless relationship and principled recommendations for practice can be made. between applied linguistics, second language acquisition, In conclusion, we ask if the type of discussions and literature study. The lack of articulation between lan- observed in this literature class transfers to other literature guage and literature courses and knowledge about the learn- classes conducted in other universities. The qualitative ing of literature and the learning of an additional language nature of this study leaves this answer to the readers who are clearly visible in the findings of this study. may or may not be able to transfer the findings to their per- Fourth, literature instructors need to know the sonal experiences and observations. Lack of transferability Proficiency Guidelines for Speaking, the range of functions at of the findings does not diminish the contribution of this each level of proficiency, and the modes of communication as analysis to a deeper understanding of the construct of liter- described in the National Standards in Foreign Language ary discussions and language use in advanced courses. Education. In this way, literature instructors can monitor Additionally, in qualitative research, this study opens more language use during the course, assess the level of speaking questions than provides answers and offers more research during discussion, and set goals for integrating advanced possibilities than definitive conclusions. Mending the cata- functions into discussion topics and communicative tasks. strophic rift between language and literature instruction Students also need to be made aware that the study of lit- (described by James, 2000, and noted in the introduction to erature does not categorically exclude attention to language this article) requires careful and systematic research atten- growth, as their comments during the interviews suggest- tion to the issue. Achieving the connection of language ed. Based on the Proficiency Guidelines, literature instruc- goals and literature instruction also requires a sharing of tors can make discussion expectations clear to students and knowledge among language teaching pedagogy, second inform them of the advanced-level functions needed for language acquisition research, and literary scholarship participating in talk about text. The literature course, with within departments of world languages and literatures and its concomitant focus on close textual reading and inter- within the profession (Scott & Tucker, 2002). Forward- pretative discussion, is an ideally suited arena for raising looking programs that address principles of learning and the students’ awareness concerning what it means to be an development and integrate language objectives into the advanced speaker of an additional language. By extension, study of literature need to share their successes and chal- and related to our fourth recommendation, Bernhardt lenges in the professional journals. Because this linkage has (2002) suggested that graduate students of literature (we not occurred in many university departments, exemplary include in-service faculty members as well) need to be literature programs, such as the ones cited in the introduc- Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 197

tion, need to describe to the professional community what not enacted in the literature class. Clearly, many literature an advanced literature course looks like where goals for classes actively incorporate group presentations and projects, and pair and group discussions. We focus on lecture and dis- speaking proficiency are incorporated into the curriculum. cussion in the literature class first, because it is the most fre- It is our hope that this study has shed light on this issue quent mode of instructional delivery in this context. As Fein and will serve as a foundation for other reports and empir- pointed out, “It is clear that the lecture mode of instruction is ical studies of the language and literature (dis)connection. still alive and well in many literature classes” (1999, p. 392). Second, literary discussion is ostensibly interpersonal commu- Acknowledgments nication, as defined in goal area one of the standards for foreign language learning (1996), contrasted to student prepared Our sincere thanks are extended to G. R. Tucker (Carnegie presentations (presentational mode of communication) or lis- Mellon University) and Amanda J. Godley (University of tening to lectures and note taking (interpretive mode of com- Pittsburgh) for their thoughtful comments on this study. munication). Third, teacher-directed classroom discussion has We also thank Miguel Mantero (University of Alabama) for largely gone unexamined in light of the anecdotal claim that literature study is connected to the language development of his assistance in transcribing the audiotapes. Finally, spe- undergraduate majors. cial thanks and deep gratitude go to the instructor of this course. Without her willingness to allow us to observe and 5. The catalog description of this literature course states: “Prerequisite: One SPW 3000-level course or equivalent. analyze her class discussions, this study would not have Poetry, novel, and drama of the Modern Period in Spain. been possible. Her participation in our study is testimony Emphasis on close readings of selected works and literary and to her dedication to the profession and her own desire to artistic movements of the period” (from the course syllabus learn and grow professionally. She is to be admired for her distributed to students on the first day of the spring semester). professional confidence and personal openness to research 6. Works of poetry read were: Llanto por Ignacio Sánchez Mejías on her own practice. In no way is our study intended to (Federico García Lorca), Nanas de la cebolla (Miguel diminish the work of this instructor or to criticize her skill Hernández), Inomnio (Dámaso Alonso), La poesía es un arma cargada de futuro (Gabriel Celaya), A la inmensa mayoría (Blas and ability. de Otero), Telegramas de urgencia escribo and Sale caro ser poeta (Gloria Fuentes), Arde el mar and La muerte en Beverly Hills Notes (Pere Gimferrer), Chico Wrangler and Se penso como speso male il mio tempo (Ana Rosetti). Plays read were: La casa de Bernarda 1. We refer here to literature courses where class discussion on Alba (Federico García Lorca) and El tragaluz (Antonio Buero literary texts is conducted in the target language. Vallejo). Novels read were: La familia de Pascual Duarte (Camilo José Cela), Tiempo de Silencio (Luis Martin-Santos) 2. One reviewer pointed out that this assertion was disturbing and Te Trataré como a una Reina. and irritating. The reviewer stated that university foreign language departments offer at least one teaching methodology 7. It was deemed unnecessary to videotape the course sessions course and supervision during master and doctoral programs. since we were not interested in doing a complete ethnography This is precisely our point. One course in teaching methodol- of the literature course, rather we were interested in capturing ogy complemented with classroom observations cannot fully as much as possible teacher-directed discussions on the liter- prepare instructors with the specialized professional knowl- ary works of the course. Because of where the researcher sat on edge to understand language learning research, theory, and any given day he was in the class, it was not possible to cap- practice, nor can it prepare them to teach the diversity of ture clearly every student contribution. The instructor’s voice, courses in the undergraduate curriculum. The classic intro- by contrast, was clearly audible and comprehensible the vast ductory methods course is often intended to prepare untrained majority of the time. teaching assistants to deliver quality instruction in elementary 8. Dates of classes audio recorded were 1/28, 1/31, 2/2, 2/7, and intermediate courses. Instructional issues for teaching 2/11, 2/14, 3/15, 3/20, 3/24/ 4/3, 4/5, 4/19, 4/21. advanced classes are rarely presented. Indeed, this negative and incredulous reaction to the assertion that individuals from 9. We are concerned here with quantity as opposed to quality. graduate programs in literature may possibly not possess the Although quality of production plays a role, quantity is impor- necessary background to address issues of language acquisi- tant when assessing learners’ ability to elaborate and quite tion is endemic to foreign language teaching in higher educa- independent of how well they produce. In a study of young tion. That is, the attitude tacitly grants an instructional exper- foreign language learners, quantity was found to be useful in tise where it may not exist and wrongly equates interest in the assessing levels of proficiency (see Igarashi, et al., 2002) topic with knowledge and skill. 10. Cazden has pointed out that “IRE is often criticized as a 3. In this study, we are not interested in proficiency outcomes teacher’s way to co-opt students to participate in what could of a single course. Indeed, this question would be misguided otherwise be a lecture and transform a monologue into a dia- given that participation in one course could not bring about logue by eliciting short items of information” (2001, p. 46). major leaps in proficiency (Liskin-Gasparro, personal commu- She maintained that these criticisms are oversimplified and nication). Of interest in this study is documenting the miss important dimensions of IRE. For example, IRE allows advanced-level speaking opportunities and experiences that teachers to make students’ knowledge public and assess it and are realized in literary discussion. to build upon their understandings for direct instruction. Although not disagreeing with this assertion and the impor- 4. This is not to suggest that other pedagogical practices are tance of direct instruction in a literature class, the exclusive 198 Summer 2004

use of IRE prohibits students from experiencing advanced-level Bernhardt, E. B. (2002). Research into the teaching of literature functions and fails to grant them the discursive responsibility in a second language: What it says and how to communicate it for co-constructing interpretations through verbal elaborations to graduate students. In V. M. Scott and H. Tucker (Eds.), SLA of their opinions. and the literature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. 195–210). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. 11. This finding reinforces the importance of research on the literary discussion. Anecdotal recommendations have been Breiner-Sanders, K. E., Lowe, Jr., P., Miles, J. and Swender, E. made that teacher models serve an important function in pro- (2000). ACTFL proficiency guidelines—speaking, revised viding students with the facility to discuss literary texts (See 1999. Foreign Language Annals, 33, 13–18 Fein, 1999). The discourse data of this study do not provide Brooks, F. B. (1993). Some problems and caveats in commu- evidence for the effectiveness of this practice. nicative discourse: Toward a conceptualization of the foreign 12. It is no secret that many have heard a similar remark when language classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 26, 233–242. literature courses have been discussed as part of a larger lan- Brumfit, C. L. and Carter, R. A. (1986). Literature and language guage learning enterprise. When asked to explain how litera- teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ture study might contribute to the goal of developing spoken proficiency, a common response is that reading literature Burnett, J. and Fonder-Solano, L. (2002). Crossing the bound- expands lexical knowledge. aries between literature and pedagogy: Perspectives on a foreign language reading course. In V. M. Scott and H. Tucker 13. As one reviewer rightly points out, applied linguists should (Eds.), SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. also turn to literary theory for insights. Indeed, many applied 75–106). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. linguists invoke research in semiotics and textual analysis to understand additional language learning across a variety of Byrnes, H. (Ed.) (1998). Learning foreign and second languages: contexts (see Lantolf, 2000). Perspectives in research and scholarship. New York: The Modern Language Association of America. 14. Interestingly, in the field of English Language Arts, much research attention has been given to language use and the Byrnes, H. and Kord, S. (2002). Developing literacy and liter- development of conceptual understanding during literary dis- ary competence: Challenges for foreign language departments. cussions. See, for example, Applebee, et al. (2003). In V. M. Scott and H. Tucker (Eds.), SLA and the literature classroom: Fostering dialogues (pp. 35–73). Boston: Heinle & Heinle. References Carter, R. and McRae, J. (1996). Language, literature, & the Adair-Hauck, B. and Cumo-Johanssen, P. (1997). Meaning learner: Creative classroom practice. New York: Longman. making through a whole language approach. In J. K. Phillips Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of (Ed.), Collaborations: Meeting new goals, new realities (pp. teaching and learning (2nd Ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann 35–96). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. Educational Books, Inc. Adair-Hauck, B. and Donato, R. (2002a). The Pace model: A Davis, J. N. (1992). Reading literature in the foreign language: story-based approach to meaning and form for standards-based The comprehension/response connection. French Review, 65, language learning. The French Review, 76, 265–276. 359–370. Adair-Hauck, B. and Donato, R. (2002b). The Pace model: Davis, J. N. (2000). Perspective on an age: Forty-five years of Actualizing the standards through storytelling: “Le Bras, la NECTFL reports. In R. M. Terry (Ed.), Agents of change in a Jambe et le Ventre.” The French Review, 76, 278–296. changing age (pp. 23–46). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Adair-Hauck, B., Donato, R., and Cumo, P. (2000). Using a Co. story-based approach to teach grammar. In J. Schrum & E. Donato, R. (2000) Sociocultural contributions to understand- Glisan (Eds.) Teacher’s handbook: Contextualized language ing the foreign and second language classroom. In J. Lantolf instruction (2nd Ed.)(pp. 90–111). Boston: Heinle and Heinle. (Ed.) Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. 29–52). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing under- Edmondson, W. (1995). The role of literature in foreign lan- standing: Classroom instruction and student performance guage learning and teaching: Some valid assumptions and in middle and high school English. American Educational invalid arguments. AILA Review, 12, 42–55. Research Journal, 40 (3), 685–730. Available online: http://www.aera.net/pubs/aerj/ Fecteau, M. L. (1999). First- and second-language reading comprehension of literary texts. Modern Language Journal, 83, Barnes-Karol, G. (2000). Revising a Spanish novel class in the 475–493. light of standards for foreign language learning. ADFL Bulletin, 31, 44–49. Fein, D. A. (1999). Challenges of teaching literature: Reflections on the MLA teacher education project. In P. Barnes-Karol, G. (2003). Teaching literature to the undergrad- Franklin, D. Laurence, and E. B. Wells (Eds.) Preparing a uate foreign language major: A framework for a methods nation’s teachers: Models for English and foreign language pro- course. ADFL Bulletin, 34, 20–27. grams (pp. 390–397). New York: The Modern Language Bernhardt, E. B. (1990). A model of L2 text reconstruction: The Association of America. recall of literary text by learners of German. In A. LaBrea and Franklin, P., Laurence, D., and Wells, E. B. (Eds.). (1999). L. Bailey (Eds.), Issues in L2: Theory as practice/practice as the- Preparing a nation’s teachers: Models for English and foreign lan- ory (pp. 21–24). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. guage programs. New York: The Modern Language Association Bernhardt, E. B. (1995). Teaching literature or teaching stu- of America. dents? ADFL Bulletin, 26, 5–6. Foreign Language Annals • Vol. 37, No. 2 199

Glisan, E. (1999). The impact of the standards on higher edu- Marshall, C. and G. Rossman (1999). Designing qualitative cation: For more than just the sake of continuity. ADFL research (3rd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Bulletin, 31, 75–78. McCormick, D. & Donato, R. (2000). The discourse of teacher Green, J. and Wallat, C. (1981). Mapping instructional con- questions as scaffolding in an integrated ESL classroom, In J. versations: A sociolinguistic ethnography. In J. Green and C. Kelly Hall and L. Verplaeste (Eds.), The development of second Wallat (Eds.), Ethnography and language in educational settings and foreign language learning through classroom interaction (pp. (pp. 161–205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 183–201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hall, J. K. (1995). (Re)creating our worlds with words: A McRae, J. (1996). Representational language learning: From sociohistorical perspective of face-to-face interaction. Applied language awareness to text awareness. In R. Carter and J. Linguistics, 16, 206–232. McRae (Eds.), Language, literature & the learner: Creative classroom practice (pp. 16–40). New York: Longman. Hall, J. K. (1998). The communication standards. In J. K. Phillips and R. M. Terry (Eds.), Foreign language standards: Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the Linking research, theories, and practices (pp. 15–56). classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. Murti, K. (1993) Teaching literature at the first-year graduate Igarashi, K., Wudthayagorn, J., Donato, R. and Tucker, G. R. level: The quantum leap from language to literature. ADFL (June 2002). What does a novice look like: Describing the Bulletin, 25, 41–48. grammar and discourse of young learners of Japanese. The National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. Canadian Modern Language Review, 58(4), 526–554. (1996). Standards for foreign language learning: Preparing for James, D. (2000). Kleiner mann, was nun? In R. M. Terry the 21st century. Yonkers, NY: Author. (Ed.), Agents of change in a changing age (pp. 237–270). Scott, V. and Tucker, H. (2002). SLA and the literature class- Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. room: Fostering dialogues. AAUSC Issues in Language Program Kadish, D. K. (1999). Teaching literature in the foreign lan- Direction. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. guage classroom: Where have we been and where do we go Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second lan- now? In P. Franklin, D. Laurence, and E. B. Wells, (Eds.) guage learning. In G. Cook & B. Seidlhofer (Eds.). Principle Preparing a nation’s teachers: Models for English and foreign lan- and practice in applied linguistics (pp. 125–144). Oxford: guage programs (pp. 398–411). New York: The Modern Oxford University Press. Language Association of America. Tesser, C. C. and Long, D. R. (2000). The teaching of Spanish Kramsch, C. (1985). Literary texts in the classroom. Modern literature: A necessary link between the language and literature Language Journal, 69, 356–366. sections of traditional departments. Foreign Language Annals, Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. 33, 605–613. New York: Oxford University Press. Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Lafayette, R. (1993). Subject matter content: What every for- Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. New York: eign language teacher needs to know. In G. Guntermann (Ed.), Cambridge University Press. Developing language teachers for a changing world (pp. Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural prac- 124–158). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Co. tice and theory in education. New York: Cambridge University Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language Press. learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activi- Lantolf, J. and Appel, G. (1994). Vygotskian approaches to sec- ty of learning and teaching. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3, ond language research. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 74–101. Lunn, P. V. (1985). The aspectual lens. Hispanic Linguistics, 2, Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. 49–61. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lyster, R. (1998). Recasts, repetition, and ambiguity in L2 West, M., and Donato, R. (1995). Stories and stances: Cross- classroom discourse. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, cultural encounters with African folk tales. Foreign Language 20, 51–81. Annals, 28, 392–405. Lyster, R. and Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learn- Widdowson, H. G. (1985). The teaching, learning, and study er uptake. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 20, 37–66. of literature. In R. Quirk and H. G. Widdowson (Eds.). English in the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mantero, M. (2002a). Bridging the gap: Discourse in text- based foreign language clasrooms. Foreign Language Annals, 35, 437–456. Mantero, M. (2002b). The reasons we speak: Cognition and discourse in the second language classroom. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.