Cake025 001-6


Published on

Lets make ELT attaractive

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Cake025 001-6

  1. 1. Teacher Talk as Strategies in theClassroomShim, Jae-Hwang*《ABSTRACT》The purpose of this study is to identify the interaction patterns between teacher and studentsand teacher skills in the real classroom lesson. The data in this research identify the patterns ofteacher talk in eliciting, questions, and giving feedback to students during the class. The datawere collected from the middle school classrooms in Seoul. Two teachers, one female and onemale, led the 2nd grade middle school English classes for two weeks. The classroom interactionsbetween teacher and students in the two classrooms were recorded on cassette recording tapeswithout any visual supports. The 16 class recordings for two weeks were transcribed by meansof transcription symbols and analyzed based on the taxonomy of foreign language interactionanalysis system. The results show that teacher utterances are quite dominant in every pattern oftasks during the class, while student responses or other attributes are relatively low in volume ina teacher-focused classroom. The analysis also shows that elicitation, response, and feedback areused systematically by teacher, and students are part of the structure of classroom discourseactivities. The pattern, however, can be changed depending on the teacher intention or the periodsof lesson that students learn.Key words: classroom interaction, teacher talk, teacher strategy* 중앙대학교 사범대학 영어교육과 강사한국교육문제연구제25호 pp. 73-88- 73 -
  2. 2. 한국교육문제연구 제25호I. IntroductionThis research focuses on the frequency and rate of teacher talk and students reactionsthrough the topics of ‘speaking a foreign language or ‘teaching English through English(TETE). The researcher analyzes classroom interaction in EFL middle school classrooms.The 2nd grade middle school classroom was chosen as a sample to get reliable databecause the teachers of the school thought that the students can react to the teachersmore actively than other grades in the real classroom context. The topics in this studyare the features that the researcher look for as meaningful consequences: attributesdominant in EFL middle school English classrooms, patterns of teacher talk in each periodof class, and teacher strategies of feedback in order to elicit students reaction.To find out the results on the topic, the researcher first present some literaturesrelated on teacher talk and strategies in the classroom. Second, the researcher explainsthe research methods. The chapter covers the research method on data collection fromsubjects or participants, and research process including the transcription of data, the wayof analysis. After analyzing the data based on the guideline of classification for categories,the researcher treats the limitations of the research and the problems of EFL classroominteraction, especially in a natural setting, and summarize the result of this research.II. Literature ReviewSinclair and Coulthard (1975) established an analytic framework to describe classroominteractions. Their analysis covers interactions rather than the intent or goal of theparticipants. One of their main roles is the use of language pattern in an Englishclassroom. That is, the pattern of language use, or the plan of class teaching create inaffirmative or negative effects on the students.Studies of teacher talk can be divided into two types of language. One is theinvestigation of language that teachers use in their language classrooms, and the other isthe investigation of language that they use in subject matter lessons. Gaise (1977, 1990)found that teachers utterances were simpler on a range of measures of syntactic- 74 -
  3. 3. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the Classroomcomplexity when they addressed pupils than when they were talking among themselves.Tudor (1993) emphasizes the teachers role in the learner-centered classroom. He insiststhat the teachers role should be reconsidered in the recent trend of learner-centeredteaching and the basic issues in the classroom. Ellis (2003) makes a list of classroomenvironments depending on the types of participants, and compares them with naturalsetting. Fotos (1998) observes that the instruction pattern of a class shifts the focus fromform to form in the EFL classroom.Cadorath and Harris (1998) observe classroom language in order to search for theeffect of consequences during a lesson. They make use of two transcripts from highschool and university classrooms in ESL, and analyze teacher students interaction. Theyconclude that lesson planning and communicative activities have unintended results in theteacher-centered classroom. The principle of triangulation(Sinclair and Coulthard, 1975;Long, 1983; Allwright, 1983; Allwright,& Bailey, 2004) can simply mean the combinationof observation and introspection for a variety of observers: ask learners, and not justteachers, for their recollections and interpretations of classroom events. With thesemethods of data, a researcher can make three points of view so as to understandclassroom language learning.Recently Korean researchers have carried out research on teacher talk as a classroominteraction. The researches are largely based on various EFL classroom settings, whichcan reflect on the real classroom teaching through teacher talk and students reaction. Leeet al. (1999) and Ryu and Sung (2005) analyze of teacher talk in a college EFLclassroom. Three articles treat the teacher concern on EFL classroom setting and thequality of teacher in Communicative Language Teaching(CLT) practice. Choi (2000) isinterested in teachers beliefs about communicative language teaching and their classroomteaching practices. The study argues that other researches have been little conductedfrom the empirical aspect such as what language teachers actually believe about CLT.Pae (2002) requires the conditions of teaching English through English (TETE) and theroles of teachers in Korea.Studies on authentic classroom interaction are conducted by the researchers who aremostly concern with teacher talk and students response in the real context. First, Kimand Suh (2004) study teacher talk in Korean English classroom. They analyze recorded- 75 -
  4. 4. 한국교육문제연구 제25호data from six middle school teachers in Busan. The result shows that the teachersaccount for about 60% of the classroom talk on average and talked about 17 times aminute, which is 4.5 times more than the student talk. The findings also show that theteacher talks in the teacher-fronted class more than those using the student-centeredgroup work. Second, Park (2005) analyzes teacher talk in primary EFL classrooms. Heconcludes that most of teachers talks are display questions, direction and evaluativefeedback. Lee (2005) compares teacher talks from three different primary school teachers(one native speaker of English and two Korean teachers). The results show that manyexisting differences between teachers depending on their proficiency levels in English.III. Method1. Participants and MaterialsThe participants in this study consisted of two middle school English teachersteaching the 2nd grade middle school students in Seoul. The school uses Middle SchoolEnglish II, published by Doosan Publishing Company(Chang, et al., 2005). The scope ofstudying contents treated by the teachers was due to one chapter in lesson 4 and lesson5 for two weeks as their normal course of the first semester. They have four periods ofEnglish class each week: three hours are compulsory and one is optional, but most middleschools have four periods of English class in order to improve the students competencein English.The teachers utilized a potable cassette recorder but avoided using other technicalinstruments such as an MP3 or a stereo phone because they did not catch the responseof students sitting in the back. Any extra instruments to aid for catching sound such asa microphone or a speaker set might be hindrance factors in a natural classroom setting.Other methods to process data collection from the classroom are the following fourelements: visual recording, audio recording, field notes, and interview with participants inthe classroom. Some studies show results from the four methods of analysis data, andothers make use of three without visual recording. The researcher thinks that the method- 76 -
  5. 5. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the Classroomof using four elements is somewhat unnatural in the interaction of a real classroomsetting. Interview technique may not give any reliable information, for the middle schoolstudents in a teacher-centered classroom are usually not active in front of a teacher oran interviewer. Furthermore, they do not have enough confidence to express their ideasorally.<Table 1> Recording Time of Classes2. Transcription SymbolsIn addition to a number of ways of classroom discourse, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)have coding system. Their transcription systems largely have their own strengths andweaknesses in cording the scripts. Most systems, however, focus on the ESL setting thatgenerally has a long turn of transcript. The EFL middle classroom setting demonstrates arelatively slow interaction between teacher and students. In a teacher-centered classroom,a teacher usually spends most of time trying to elicit students response. Therefore, ateacher can speak many tasks in his/her turn of talk. In this research, some examplessimilar to EFL setting were considered in order to meet the simple and short turn ofutterance. The transcription notation symbols are from Studies in Language Testing 14:A qualitative approach to the validation of oral language tests by Lazaraton (2002, pp.203-204). Though the system is for the candidates of speaking test in ESL and EFL, it israther simple to note for the middle school classroom interaction.Excerpt (Tape 04 A)Period 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Class A 24:06" 24:34" 23:25" 28:09" 22:31" 25:32" 19:50" 23:26"Class B 33:21" 32:14" 32:07" 30:03" 25:58" 32:18" 32:12" 33:00"Line Scripts Classification102 T: Do you mind if, or is it okay? 5103 Okay, very good. 3104 If you want to do something you can use expressions. 8105 Uh, so, if you want to open the window, 8106 How can you say? 11- 77 -
  6. 6. 한국교육문제연구 제25호In the excerpt above, a turn spoken by the teacher can be divided into some tasksthough she takes only one turn after a student utterance. Line 102 tells ‘confirming onstudent reaction in the course of explaining new information to students. Line 103 means‘praising as an affirmative feedback to students. Lines 104 and 105 can be divided intotwo lines, for the teacher takes a long unit of time with a full stop between thesentences. The teacher has a kind of ‘display question in line 106 to check studentsattention on the contents that the teacher tries to initiate.IV. Analysis and Discussion1. Frequency of InteractionThree parts can be observed in the English classroom activities: teacher talk, studenttalk, and tape listening. Tape listening means the native speakers speaking recorded onthe textbook contents, which is an essential classroom aid during the lesson.Mean time of tape listening(12.06%) is the second in each class, which is a little morethan the amount of student talk that the researcher has expected before experiment. Theresult indicates that students strongly rely on the role of teacher tasks during the class.<Table 2> Talk Time in RecordingTeacher talk consists of two languages in the classroom. Though teachers try tospeak English in order to meet the requirement of their English class, they havesometimes decide to speak Korean so that students may understand the context. Englishspoken by teacher has two types of teacher task: reading English lines in the textbookand speaking in English to interact with students. L2 spoken by the teacher should beTeacher Student Tape ListeningClass A 81.40% 7.11% 1.49%Class B 86.08% 9.27% 12.64%Total (Mean) 83.74% 08.19% 12.06%- 78 -
  7. 7. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the Classroomincluded in English language though the teacher reads English words or sentences of thetextbook, and L1 spoken by teacher be included in Korean language. A turn dominant inL2 is also classified into English language.<Table 3> Teacher Talk in Languages2. Teacher UtterancesBrown (2001) introduces the guidelines that help look into teacher and students rolesas initiators of interaction in the classroom. The introduction of list is from the work ofMoskowiz (1971, 1976) known as the FLINT(Foreign Language Interaction) model, whichgives us some categories in the classroom observation. The list is a little revised to meetthe EFL middle classroom context. For example, category 26 is added to explain the taskof teacher lecturing, and student talk is also revised according to the reaction to teachertalk in the classroom.<Table 4> Patterns of Classroom InteractionAdapted Foreign Language Interaction Analysis (FLINT) system from Moskowiz (1971, 1976)Korean English TotalTeacher A 16.6% 83.4% 100%Teacher B 18.4% 81.6% 100%Teacher Talk Student ReactionNo Tasks No Tasks No Tasks1 accepting 14 correct mistakes 27 accepting2 discussing 15 order 28 affirmative answer3 praising 16 request 29 negative answer4 encouraging 17 giving direction 30 question5 conforming 18 directing drills 31 request6 joking 19 criticizing 32 rejection7 making fun 20 rejection 33 surprising8 explaining 21 anger 34 laughter9 clarifying 22 smile 35 noise10 repeating words 23 silence 36 silence11 display question 24 monolog12 giving information 25 borrowing13 referential question 26 translation in L1- 79 -
  8. 8. 한국교육문제연구 제25호3. Types of Teacher Talk1) Frequency of Teacher TalkTeacher tasks mean the content of lesson that each teacher treats during each periodof the class. Each teacher has his/her own methods of teaching style though they teachthe same content of a textbook. Major types of teacher talks can be selected from the 26tasks of teacher talk type according to the frequency of utterance during classes. Table 5indicates the rank of teacher talk selected from 26 categories.Class A (teacher A) speaks explaining (type 8) more frequently than other task ofteacher talk. She speaks display question (type 11) second time and she frequentlyexplains the topics in L1 translating (type 26) in order to make students understoodeasily.<Table 5> Major Five Types of Teacher TalkIn question types, teacher A asks students ‘display question or ‘request, whereasteacher B usually prefers to ask students in request first and then employs two types ofquestions: display and referential question. To analyze the difference between the classes,the explanation on the main teacher task should be required: elicitation, questions, andfeedback.Teacher A Teacher BRank Talk type Turns Talk type Turns1 explaining 879 explaining 13832 display question 365 request 6693 translating in L1 327 display question 3304 request 213 referential question 2335 conforming 183 conforming 156- 80 -
  9. 9. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the Classroomexplaining50%request20%displayquestion15%conforming8%referential question7%[Figure 1] Frequency of Teacher Talk2) The Frequency of QuestionsLong and Sato (1983) compared the number of ‘display questions (questions thatteachers know the answer to and which are designed to elicit or display particularstructures) and ‘referential questions (questions that teachers do not know the answersto) in naturalistic and classroom discourse. They found that in naturalistic discourse,referential questions are more frequent than display questions, whereas display questionsare much more frequent in whole-class teaching in ESL classrooms.Display questions are usually dominant, which is similar to the results of otherresearchers. Though teacher B (class B) tries to ask referential question in his classes,the rate of frequency is less than the display question. The display question in class A(365 turns: 35%) is the first feature more dominant than any other section.<Table 6> Question in PeriodsTeacher A Teacher BDisplay Referential Display Referential1 st 34 47 72 52 nd 41 12 26 233 rd 51 17 16 324 th 32 7 32 295 th 43 2 21 346 th 50 7 50 767 th 44 2 109 88 th 70 5 4 26Total 365 99 330 233- 81 -
  10. 10. 한국교육문제연구 제25호4. The IRE Pattern1) Types of Initiation(1) Request and Giving DirectionThe data indicate the teacher initiation as a request and giving direction ineach period of class. The rate of giving direction is 4.7% in class A, and 3.5%in class B, which is somewhat similar rate in frequency. The rate of request,however, differs from each class. Teacher B employs request type twice timesmore than teacher A. The rates make it possible to infer that teacher Afocuses on giving information directly to students in order to make themunderstand the teacher intention, while teacher B prefers to lead thecommunicative environment with students so as to react teacher initiation.<Table 7> Request and Giving Direction(2) Confirmation and OrderTeachers speak ‘confirmation task more frequently than ‘order,as minortask. Teachers stress ‘confirmation in order to make sure the text content ortheir ideas, while they hardly speak to the students as an order type. The twokinds of task are implied in questions as an initiation.<Table 8> Confirmation and Order5. Teacher Feedback1) Types of FeedbackTeacher A Teacher BRequest Giving direction Request Giving directionTotal 8.5% 4.7% 19.7% 3.5%Teacher A Teacher BConfirmation Order Confirmation OrderTotal 7.2% 0.2% 4.6% 0.2%- 82 -
  11. 11. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the ClassroomLyster and Ranta (1997) analyze the different feedback types in thecontent-based French immersion classes. They say that all teachers employedrecasts more than any other type of feedback. The different feedback types arepresented in order from highest to lowest frequency. They demonstrate thatrecasts accounted for more than half of the total feedback provided in the fourclasses. Repetition was the least frequent feedback type provided comparedwith other types of corrective feedback. They say that some of feedback typesoccur in combination with each other. The order of feedback in theirexperiment is from ‘recast through ‘repetition: recasts→elicitation→clarification requests→ metalinguistic feedback→ explicit correction→ repetition2) Repetition and Mother TongueLynch (1996) has a different idea on the feature of repetition that theteacher uses in the classroom. He introduces some results on repetitionexperimented by other researchers. Different from other studies by Cullen(1998), Lynch (1996), and Chaudron (1983), this research shows that teachersusually do not exploit repetition feature as their classroom feedback. Theteachers in the EFL middle school classroom give repetition to students only0.02% each: teacher A uses it with 52 turns of 2513, while teacher B speaksonly his 76 turns as repetition. They hardly give the feature of correctmistakes, which can be ignored due to its almost zero percent. In the EFLschool setting, the feature of translating in L1 may be a special attributespoken by a teacher to reduce the students burden or anxiety during theclass.<Table 9> Repetition and Mother TongueTeacher A Teacher BTurns / Total turns Turns / Total turnsrepeating words 0.02% 0.02%correct mistakes 0.00% 0.00%translating in L1 0.13% 0.01%Total 0.15% /100% 0.03%) /100%- 83 -
  12. 12. 한국교육문제연구 제25호V. Conclusion and ImplicationsThis study has examined the classroom interaction as it occurred in twoclassroom activities between teacher and students in EFL middle schoolclassroom. The classes targeted in this research are the 2nd grade middleschool students in Seoul. The analysis shows that teacher talk is a lot moredominant than student reaction in the teacher-fronted with a big size classsetting.The analysis also shows that elicitation, response, and feedback are usedsystematically by teacher, and students are part of the structure of classroomdiscourse activities. The pattern, however, can be changed depending on theteacher intention or the periods of lesson that students learn. While the patternof teacher talk can be related to the student reaction, the researcher thinksthat there are some problems or limitation in this research.First, due to the classroom size, the analysis can not give any informationconcerning each student reaction during the classes. A teacher as an instructorand controller speaks his/her own talk without being interrupted, while allstudents as participants can not give their responses at the same time.Second, the classrooms are only two at the same 2nd grade middle schoolstudents. The students participated in the class are 67 (class A: 32, class B:35). The students number means that the data may not be generalized, but itcan be made up for as a setting that represents typical selection in mid-levelmiddle school students in Seoul.Finally, there seems to be a problem in collecting data as it emerged duringthe lesson. Generally, the way of monitoring the aspect of classroominteraction is to audiotape or videotape the setting, allow a friend or acolleague to observe the classroom, and note down the real interaction. Themethods, videotape or field note, might result in the side-effect for thestudents who strive to provide appropriate responses to earn the approval ofthe teacher, and the methods can inhibit the development of students owninternal motivation or otherwise their attempts at using the target language.- 84 -
  13. 13. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the ClassroomReferencesAllwright, D. (1983). Classroom-centered research on language teaching andlearning: A brief historical overview. TESOL Quarterly, 17(2), 191-204.Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. M. (2004). Focus on the language classroom.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach tolanguage pedagogy. London: Longman.Cadorath, J., & Harris, S. (1998). Unplanned classroom language and teachingtraining. ELT Journal, 52(3), 188-196.Chang, Yong Hee, et al. (2005). Middle School English 2. Seoul: DoosanPublishing Co.Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Choi, Seonghee. (2000). Teachers’ beliefs about communicative languageteaching and their classroom teaching practices. English Teaching, 55(4),3-32.Cullen, R. (1998). Teacher talk and the classroom context. ELT Journal, 52(3),179-187.Ellis, N. C. (1990). Constructions, chunkings, and connectionism: Theemergence of second language structure. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long(Eds.), (2003). The handbook of second language acquisition (pp.104-129). Oxford: Blackwell.Fotos, S. (1998). Shifting the focus from forms to form in the EFL classroom.ELT Journal, 52(4), 301-307.Gaies, S. M. (1977). The nature of linguistic input in formal second languagelearning: Linguistic and communicative strategies in teachers classroomlanguage. In H. D. Brown, C. A. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77.Teaching and Learning English as a second Language: Trends in research andPractice. Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Gass, S. M. (1990). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty & M. H. Long (Eds.),- 85 -
  14. 14. 한국교육문제연구 제25호(2003). The handbook of second language acquisition, 224-255. Oxford:Blackwell.Kim, Mi-Rae, & Suh, Chun-Soo. (2004). Teacher talk in English classroom. EnglishLanguage Teaching, 16(4), 181-204.Lazaraton, A. (2002). Studies in language testing 14: A qualitative approach tothe validation of oral language tests. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.Lee, Seungbok. (2005). Comparison of teacher talks from three different primaryschool ESOL teachers. English Teaching, 60(2), 161-183.Lee, Young Ja; Kim, Im Deuk; Han, Moonsub; & Koh, So Young. (1999). Ananalysis of teacher talk in a college EFL classroom. English Teaching,54(3), 259-278.Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation in thesecond language classroom. In M. A. Clarke, & J. Handscombe (Eds.),On perspectives on language learning and teaching (pp. 207-225).Washington, D.C.: TESOL.Long, M. H., & Sato, C. J. (1983). Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Formsand functions of teachers questions. In H. W. Seliger, & M. H. Long(Eds.), Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp.268-285). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Lynch, T. (1996). Communication in the language classroom. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake:Negotiation of form in communicative classroom. Studies in SecondLanguage Acquisition, 19. 37-66.Moskowiz, G. (1976). The classroom interaction of outstanding foreign languageteachers. Foreign Language Annals, 9, 125-157.Pae, Doo-Bon. (2002). The conditions of teaching English through English and theroles of teachers in Korea. The Journal of English Language Teaching,14(1). 137-161.Park, Kwang-No. (2005). An analysis of teacher talk in primary EFL classrooms.- 86 -
  15. 15. Teacher Talk as Strategies in the ClassroomForeign Language Education, 12(3), 323-353.Ryu, Young-Sil, & Sung, Kiwan. (2005). Teacher talk in an EFL universityclassroom. English Teaching, 60(1), 41-68.Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis cf discourse.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tudor, I. (1993). Teacher roles in the learner-centered classroom. ELT Journal,47(1), 22-31.- 87 -
  16. 16. 한국교육문제연구 제25호요약영어교실에서의 교사말 전략심재황이 연구의 목적은 실제학습이 이루어지고 있는 교실에서 교사와 학습자사이의의사소통형태와 교사말에 대한 학습자의 반응을 살펴보는 것이다. 연구조사에 있어서연구자는 서울에 소재하고 있는 중학교를 대상으로 하여 실험자료를 수집하였다. 남성과여성 각 두 명의 담당교사가 2005년 6월 중순부터 2주 동안 영어수업을 진행하였다. 두 명의교사에 의한 각 학급의 수업내용은 시각적인 자료 없이 카세트테이프에 녹음되었다. 이것은단순히 수업진행 상황만을 녹음하였음을 의미하며 시각적인 비디오테이프나 면담 등의방식은 활용하지 않았음을 의미한다. 또한 교사나 학습자들의 불안감이나 부담감을 배제한자연스런 교실학습상황을 그대로 자료화 하려는 의도이다. 연구자료의 분류 결과로서교사중심적인 학습환경에서 교사의 발화는 모든 의사소통의 방식에서 상당히 두드러진 반면학습자의 반응이나 그 속성은 대체로 매우 저조했다. 이 결과를 근거로 하여 연구자는교사발화를 더욱 세분화하여 연구하여 교사말이 학습진행 중에 학습자의 학습이해외국어이해도에 영향을 미치는 것을 살펴보았다. Brown(2001)은 교사발화가 학습자에게 직접간접적으로 영향을 주고 있음을 밝히고 있는데, 이러한 이론을 바탕으로 하여 교실에서의교사말이 좀더 자세히 연구할 필요가 있다. 즉 학습내용이나 교사의 학습방식에 상관없이학습자들은 적극적으로 반응하기가 기대되고 있으나 교실에서 영어로 의사교류를 하는 것에대한 효과는 다소 부정적이다. 교사말에 대한 학생들의 학습참여도, 즉 학습자 반응은소극적이며 EFL 학습상황에서의 다른 변이요소도 이러한 결과를 초래하고 있다. 그결과로서 학습자들의 적극적인 반응을 유도하고 효과적인 외국어 학습의 동기를 부여하기위하여 교사의 학습전략이 요구된다.주제어: 교실영어, 교사말, 영어로 말하기 수업, 교사학습 전략- 88 -