Editorial

The term ‘classroom management’ conjures up such topics as ‘deciding on the classroom layout’, ‘classroom discipline’, ‘organizing pair and group work’, and ‘teaching large and heterogeneous classes’. In fact, though, the term has come to have a much wider application. In his book Classroom management in language education, Wright (2005) defines classroom management broadly as the decision-making involved in planning and organizing teaching and also the online decision-making that is part and parcel of the ‘dynamic and unfolding nature of classroom life’ (p. 3). My first response to Wright’s use of the term in this broad sense was to wonder if it was just another word for ‘teaching’ and, if so, whether anything was to be gained by using it.

In fact, considering the articles in this issue of Language Teaching Research, I think there is. The term ‘teaching’ traditionally refers to the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of teaching. What language or language skills are to be taught? What techniques are available for teaching them? This is the stuff of teacher guides. ‘Classroom management’ evokes a much broader conceptualization of what is involved in language teaching and also positions the teacher (and the students) as agents responsible for organizing teaching–learning activities together in an effective manner.

The articles in this issue all concern ‘classroom management’ in one way or another. They focus on the decisions that teachers take to control or direct activity in classrooms in ways that they hope or expect will be effective for learning. They cover the following management topics:

These are examples of the ways in which teachers seek to manage learning in the classroom. They are indicative of the enormous complexity of language teaching and the breadth of management expertise the language teacher requires.

Wright’s book runs to 497 pages and documents in great detail and at different levels what classroom management involves. It is an illuminating read, and I find myself constantly returning to it. However, in one respect, I also find it somewhat frustrating. Wright makes little attempt to document the effectiveness of the different aspects of management he considers. For example, he explores in considerable depth the management of participatory structures in the classroom, but does not consider how the decisions teachers make affect learning. It seems to me that there is something missing in a discussion of management activities that does not consider their effectiveness.

To my mind, it is the investigation of the effectiveness of teachers’ management styles and activities that is central to language teaching research. ‘Effectiveness’ can, of course, be evaluated in many different ways, and this is very evident in the five articles in the main section of this issue.

One way is to examine the effect that a management decision has on classroom interactions. Storch and Aldorsori’s article examines effectiveness in this way. They investigated different types of proficiency pairing in pair work in a mixed-proficiency English as a Foreign Language (EFL) class. This constitutes a management activity that receives considerable attention in teacher guides. To determine the effect of different types of proficiency pairing they recorded and transcribed the interactions that occurred between pairs of students and then examined the extent to which the learners used the second language (English) and attended to linguistic form. Interestingly they found that proficiency pairing had less effect than the nature of the relationship the different pairs of students formed. Another popular management practice addressed in teacher guides is teacher questions. Mei-Yun Ko conducted a study that explored how a teacher in Taiwan sought to encourage students’ awareness that texts are constructed in ways that serve particular interests. Mei-Yun Ko documents the teacher’s developing ability to formulate critical questions in the classroom interactions that centred on written texts the students had read.

Another way of investigating effectiveness is in terms of students’ reported responses to a management practice. Wolf’s study illustrates this. The management practice he was interested in was the choice of topics for discussion in pair work and whole class (i.e. whether the topic was textbook-assigned or self-selected by the students). He carried out a survey to investigate Japanese university students’ responses in terms of their interest in the topics and their assessment of their difficulty. One of the interesting findings was that the students preferred their own topics in pair and whole-class situations, but considered text-book assigned topics just as satisfactory in group situations.

Ultimately, however, the effectiveness of a management practice depends on whether it results in ‘learning’. Two of the articles in this issue investigated management practices in terms of learning. Nguyen and Gu designed a metacognition training package for an academic writing program, reporting that it had a positive effect on the students’ ability to plan, monitor and evaluate their writing.

Rahimi also reports a training study, this time directed at improving students’ ability to give peer feedback on writing. He then went on to investigate what effect this management activity had on the quality of students’ writing, reporting that those students who had received the training were better able to focus on the content and organization aspects of writing as opposed to just linguistic accuracy.

There are many sides to the study of classroom management. We do need to know how external forces and ideologies impact on management practices. We also need to know how management practices affect classroom processes, and how students respond to different management practices. But, above all, we need to examine the effectiveness of different management practices in terms of the learning to which they give rise.