Sociocultural Influences on Classroom Interactional Styles by Sullivan (1996)

  Sullivan, P. (1996). Sociocultural Influences on Classroom Interactional Styles. TESOL Journal, 6, 32-34.

     In an English as Second Language (ESL) classroom, various behavior can be observed among the students. Sociocultural factors, as the present shift of understanding takes us, provides an informed assessment to these interactional behaviors than a go-to judgment of a student’s conformity or non-conformity in a particular learning setting.

     Sullivan (1996) drew insights from her documented observations in Vietnamese university-level English language classrooms. She picked two instances that recorded their interaction in the class. These revealed presence of (a) high noise levels from individual and overlapping question-answering practice and (b) widespread repetition and ‘playful’ interjection of other students between the student being asked and the teacher who is asking. This behavior is contextually ‘supportive’ and not seen as debilitative to learning.

     This classroom interactional style for the Vietnamese immigrant student is somehow inhibited in a new setting. The importance of ‘verbal support’, and much of it, which is present in the Vietnamese ESL classroom, has been more felt in an interview. Furthermore, the student experiences disconnectedness in activities, such as divided grouping, and shock in a ‘silent’ U.S. classroom.

     Values and cultural practices are seen to have reinforced this feeling of connection and support from the learning community of the subjects being studied. Shared lives inside and outside the campus among the Vietnamese are contrasted with that of the U.S. college experience. This contrast showed that the former set-up fostered strong life relationships and obligations, which transcends beyond the classroom. According to Sullivan, these connections are rarely cultivated in the U.S. since the university is viewed to be a transitory setting.

     In Vietnam, the teacher-student relationship is comparable to a father and his son, where the father teaches his son and the son has the task to complete his learning in obeisance, as in a family. With regards to group dynamics, the U.S. and Vietnam have differences in the purpose of groupings. The former purposes it to bde an opportunity to express various opinions without the necessity to agree while the latter sees its purpose as a group with a “consensus, or at least all agreeing to agree” (p. 34).

     The silence of a Vietnamese student in a U.S. classroom is not a matter of indifference but of ‘acceptable verbal interaction’. If transferred in a new setting, the student’s interactional style might even be seen as interrupting than contributing. Moreover, one-to-one recitation is perceived as putting the student on the spotlight.

     The student’s classroom behavior, which he built from his native learning community, can be reflected through his interaction in a new setting. This interaction may be externally pronounced or muted. I affirm the idea that one’s silence in a new classroom is not an antagonistic expression but, as presented, an initial manifestation of shock brought by being in a new classroom with a different interaction expectation default. Ideally, the student should not singularly cope with this. In establishing an inclusive classroom, the teacher’s orchestration is highly demanded. It is also important to point out that this can only be possible through the teacher’s active and informed decisions.

     Moving beyond the case of the Vietnamese student, Sullivan does not raise into question the interactional style in the U.S. This juxtaposition only demonstrates that learning communities learn differently but this difference is specific to how they learn effectively. In addition, the gradients of familial ties among teachers and students across cultures are not less ideal than others. However, the strength or weakness of this connection will surface as a student interacts in a new learning community.

     Finally, sociocultural factors, as stated above, influence the classroom’s interactional styles. In the field of education, differences in the students’ classroom participation can be attributed to their former learning community’s social and cultural conventions. Taking this lens to view such challenges will help the ESL teacher appropriate methods to advantageously position a diverse classroom towards a fruitful interaction and learning.