Focus on the

Teacher:
• Classroom Management • Teacher-Student Interaction
 Key questions addressed in this discussion
include:

What does classroom research say about the amount

and type of teacher talk?

Do some types of teacher speech modifications

facilitate comprehension more than others?

How can teachers improve the effectiveness of their

questioning technique?
 Key questions addressed in this discussion
include:

What types of question stimulate students to maximize

their output?

How can teachers provide effective feedback to students

on their behavior and language?

What is the effect of digressions and extemporisations?

 Amount and Type of Teacher Talk

Normative statements sometimes appear that

teacher talk is “bad” and while it can be argued
that excessive teacher talk is to be avoided,
determining what is or not “excessive” will always
be a matter of judgment.
 Amount and Type of Teacher Talk

Whether or not it is considered a good thing for

teachers to spend 70 to 80 per cent of class time
talking will depend on the objectives of the lesson
and where it fits into the overall scheme of the
course.
 Amount and Type of Teacher Talk

It can also be argued that in many foreign

language classrooms, teacher talk is important in
providing learners with the only substantial live
target language input they are likely to receive.
When determining the appropriateness or otherwise of
the quantity of teacher talk, we need to take into
account a variety of factors including:
1. The point in the lesson in which the talking occurs.

2. What prompts the teacher talk: whether it is planned or

spontaneous, and, if spontaneous, whether the ensuing
digression is helpful or not.

3. The value of the talk as potentially useful input for

acquisition.
Another issue of concern is code switching
between the first and target language by the
teacher and the effect of this on pupil talk.

In many foreign language classrooms, it has

been found out that teachers and learners
make far greater use of their mother tongue
than they do of the target language.
Zilm (1989), in an investigation of target language use
in her German classes, discovered code switching
was affected by the following factors:

1. The nature of the activity.

1. The teacher’s perceptions of how students learn.

1. Teacher’s perceptions of the role and functions of

the native and target language. (English was used
exclusively for disciplining students)
Zilm (1989), in an investigation of target language use
in her German classes, discovered code switching
was affected by the following factors:

4. Student perceptions of the role of the target and the

native language (students regarded German as the ‘end’
rather rhan the means to learning, and tended only to
value its use in controlled situations such as set tasks and
manipulative drills).

4. The use of English by the teacher.

In his extensive review of literature, Chaudron (1988)
summarizes the research on teacher speech in language
classrooms which shows that the following modifications
occur:

1. Rates of speech appear to be slower.

2. Pauses, shich may be evidence of the speaker planning
more, are possibly more frequent and longer.
3. Pronunciation tends to be exaggerated and simplified.
4. Vocabulary use is more basic.
In his extensive review of literature, Chaudron (1988)
summarizes the research on teacher speech in language
classrooms which shows that the following modifications
occur:

5. Degree of subordination is lower.

6. More declaratives and statements are used than
questions.
7. Teachers may self-repeat more frequently.

(Chaudron 1988:85)
Speech Modifications on Comprehension

simplified input

elaborated input
SIMPLIFIED INPUT

The cognitive and linguistic load on the

learner is reduced.
ELABORATED INPUT

contains redundant information, the

redundancy being achieved through
repetition, paraphrase, slower speech,
and so on
 Parker and Chaudron (1987)

conclude that the studies seem to indicate

that, “linguistic simplifications such as simpler
syntax and simpler vocabulary do not have as
significant an effect on L2 comprehension as
elaborative modifications”.
 TEACHER QUESTIONS

Borg, et. al (1970) point out that factual questions

to determine whether or not students know basic
information are far more frequent than higher order
questions which encourage students to reflect on
their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs, or which
require them to follow through and justify a
particular line of reasoning.
Good and Brophy (1987)

discussions are boring and accomplish a little

other than assessment of student’s factual
knowledge
students may come to perceive that the teacher
is interested only in finding out who knows the
answers
discussion becomes a fragmented ritual rather
than a meaningful, enjoyable process
Good and Brophy (1987)

students often do not perceive a clear logical

sequence to factual questions
such questions seem more like an oral test than a
lesson intended to teach content or to engage
students in a meaningful discussion.
“Wait Time”

length of time teachers wait after asking a

question

it is important for students to have sufficient

time to think about questions after they have
been asked before attempting to answer
them.
 Rowe (1974, 1986)

found that, on average, teachers waited less than

a second before calling on a student to respond,
and that only a further second was then allowed
for the student to answer before the teachers
intervened, either supplying the required response
themselves, rephrasing the question, or calling on
some other student to respond.
Observed effects on having more wait time
(3-5 seconds extension)

1. There was an increase in the average length of

student responses.
2. Unsolicited, but appropriate, student responses
increased.
3. Failures to respond decreased.
4. There was an increase in speculative responses.
Observed effects on having more wait time
(3-5 seconds extension)

5. There was an increase in student-to-student

comparisons of data.
6. Inferential statements increased.
7. Student-initiated questions increased.
8. Students generally made a greater variety of
verbal contributions to the lesson.
Holley and King (1971)

found that the length and complexity of students’

responses increased
Distribution of Questions

It is generally considered desirable to distribute

questions among all students rather than restricting
them to a select few.
Good and Brophy (1987)

In teacher-fronted interactions, by

distributing response opportunities
widely, all learners are kept alert and
given an opportunity to respond.
Jackson and Lahaderne (1967)

found out that some students were up to 25 times

more likely to be called upon to speak than others.
it is generally the most abled students who get
called upon.
 Display Questions vs
Referential Questions

Display questions are those to which we

know the answer.

Referential questions are those to which

the asker does not know the answer.
 Long and Sato (1983)

looked at forms and functions of teachers’ questions

they found significant differences between the types of

questions that learners encountered in class and out of
class: for example, teachers asked more display
questions and fewer referential questions.
 Brock (1986)

discovered that teachers could be trained

to increase the number of referential
questions they ask, and that this prompted
students to provide significantly longer and
syntactically more complex responses.
 Nunan (1987a)

also found that the use of referential

questions by the teacher resulted in more
complex language by students.

Student interaction was also more like

natural discourse.
Elicitation methods

are designed to extract from students

information which might otherwise have
been provided by the teacher
FEEDBACK ON LEARNER PERFORMANCE

For many years, behaviorist-inspired

research has found that positive feedback
is much more effective than negative
feedback in changing pupil’s behavior
Positive feedback has
two principal functions:

to let students know that they have

performed correctly

to increase motivation through praise

Guidelines for Effective and Ineffective Praise (Brophy, 1981)
Good! Right! Okay! Yes!

Very
Good! All Nice!
Right! Correct!

That’s That’s
Right! Correct! That’s it! Excellent!
 High achievers VS Low achievers

High-achieving students were praised 12% of the time.

Low-achieving students were praised only 6% of the time
following a right answer.
Low achievers were more likely to be criticized for wrong
answers. They were criticized 18% of the time.
High achievers were criticized 6% of the time.
 Role of Feedback (Gattegno)

argues that praise and criticism as conventionally

delivered breeds a dependency relationship between
teacher and learners
learners strive to provide appropriate responses to earn
the approval of the teacher, and that this inhibits the
development of their own internal criteria for judging the
correctness or otherwise of their attempts at using the
target language.
FEEDBACK

It is extremely difficult not to provide corrective

feedback in the classroom.
Learners expect feedback.
Error correction by the teacher was one of the
most highly valued and desired classroom
activities (Willing, 1988).
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT IN ACTION

extemporisations
digressions

refer to handouts for examples