Việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giáo viên tại trường thpt lý tử tấn hà nội và những gợi ý để đạt được sự tương tác hiệu quả trong lớp học

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************

LÊ THANH HOA

TEACHER TALK AT LY TU TAN HIGH SCHOOL,
HANOI AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE
CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS
(VIỆC SỬ DỤNG NGÔN NGỮ CỦ A GIÁ O VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜ NG
THPT LÝ TỬ TẤN, HÀ NỘI VÀ NHỮNG GỢI Ý ĐỂ ĐẠT ĐƯỢC
SỰ TƯƠNG TÁ C HIỆU QUẢ TRONG LỚ P HỌC)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Field:

English Teaching Methodology

Code:

601410

Hanoi, 2012


VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES
FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES
*****************

LÊ THANH HOA

TEACHER TALK AT LY TU TAN HIGH SCHOOL,
HANOI AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE
CLASSROOM INTERACTIONS
(VIỆC SỬ DỤNG NGÔN NGỮ CỦ A GIÁ O VIÊN TẠI TRƯỜ NG
THPT LÝ TỬ TẤN, HÀ NỘI VÀ NHỮNG GỢI Ý ĐỂ ĐẠT ĐƯỢC
SỰ TƯƠNG TÁ C HIỆU QUẢ TRONG LỚ P HỌC)

M.A. Minor Programme Thesis
Field:

English Teaching Methodology

Code:

601410

Supervisor: Nguyen Thi Bich Ngoc, M.A

Hanoi, 2012


iii

ABBREVIATIONS

CLT = Communicative Language Teaching
EFL = English as a Foreign Language
FLT = Foreign Language Teaching

IRF = Initiation/Response/Follow-up
T1: Teacher 1
T2: Teacher 2
T3: Teacher 3
TTT = Teacher Talk Time
STT = Student Talk Time


iv

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Description of the teachers ................................................................................. 18
Table 2: Description of the subjects of the study.............................................................. 19
Table 3: Students‟ opinion on lecture mode ..................................................................... 25
Table 4: Students‟ opinion on their paticipation in class .................................................. 26
Table 5: Students‟ opinion on wait-time........................................................................... 26
Table 6: Students‟ opinion on the teacher‟s correction .................................................... 27

LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 1: Amount of teacher talk, student talk and other activities ................................... 21
Chart 2: Percentage of teacher talk in total class time ...................................................... 22
Chart 3: Ways of Initiation ............................................................................................... 23
Chart 4: Ways of Follow-up to No and Incorrect Answer ................................................ 24
Chart 5: Ways of Follow-up to Correct Answer ............................................................... 25


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... i
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. ii
Abbreviations .................................................................................................................... iii
Lists of tables and charts ................................................................................................... iv

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1
I.

Rationale of the study ..................................................................................... 1

II.

Purpose of the study ........................................................................................ 2

III.

Scope of the study ........................................................................................... 3

IV.

Method of the study ........................................................................................ 3

V.

Significance of the study................................................................................. 3

VI.

Organization of the study ................................................................................ 4

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT ................................................................................... 5
CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 5
1.1....................................................................................................................... The
oretical background of classroom research ........................................................... 5
1.1.1. Interactions in EFL classes ......................................................................... 5
1.1.2. The structure of classroom discourse.......................................................... 6
1.2. Theoretical background of Teacher Talk .................................................................. 7
1.2.1. Definition of teacher talk ............................................................................. 7
1.2.2. Role of teacher talk ...................................................................................... 8
1.2.3. Framework of teacher talk ........................................................................... 8
1.2.4. Amount of teacher talk ................................................................................ 12
1.2.5. Features of teacher talk ................................................................................ 13
1.3. Summary .................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY ............................................................................. 16
2.1. Setting of the study .............................................................................................. 16


vi

2.2. Method of the study ............................................................................................. 17
2.3. Data collection ..................................................................................................... 18
2.3.1. Participants................................................................................................... 18
2.3.2. Data collection instruments ......................................................................... 18
2.3.3. Data collection procedures........................................................................... 20
2.4. Methods of data analysis....................................................................................... 20
2.5. Summary ............................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER THREE: DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ........................................... 21
3.1. Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 21

3.1.1. Analysis on teacher talk amount ................................................................... 21
3.1.2. Analysis on ways of teacher talk preferred by teachers and students ........... 23
3.1.3. Analysis on students‟ opinion for effective teacher talk ............................... 25
3.2. Findings and Discussions..................................................................................... 29
3.2.1. The amount of teacher talk time (TTT) of the total class time ..................... 29
3.2.2. Ways of teacher talk preferred by teachers and students .............................. 30
3.3. Summary .............................................................................................................. 32
CHAPTER FOUR: IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................. 33
4.1. Implications for educational administrators ........................................................ 33
4.2. Implications for the teachers ................................................................................ 33
4.3. Implications for the students ................................................................................ 37
4.4. Summary .............................................................................................................. 37

PART THREE: CONCLUSION ................................................................................... 38
I.

Summary of main findings ............................................................................. 38

II.

Limitations and suggestions for further study ................................................ 39

References………………………………………………………………………………I
Appendices ................................................................................................................. IV


1

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale of the study

Language teaching is a complex process involving many interrelated factors. LarsenFreeman (2000) points out: language teaching can be summarized into three fields:
language

learner/learning

(How

to

learn);

language/culture

(What

to

Learn);

teacher/teaching (How to teach). Since the 1960s, the research on classroom discourse has
grown rapidly. Before that, teaching methodology has been explored and an effective
teaching method is tried to be found. Since teaching methods don‟t play a decisive role in
language classrooms (Long, 1981a), the focus has shifted from teaching methods to
teacher talk in classroom process. Just as Ellis (1985:143) points out: “Classroom process
research, as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken a different
form. The earliest was interaction analysis … An alternative approach focused only on the
language used by the teacher when addressing second language learners. It sought to
tabulate the adjustments which occur in teacher talk. ”
Teacher talk is an indispensable part of foreign language teaching in organizing activities,
and the way teachers talk not only determines how well they make their lectures, but also

guarantees how well students will learn (Cook, 2000: 144). According to pedagogical
theory (Cook, 2000; Chaudron, 1988; Zhao, 1998), the language that teachers use in
classrooms determines to a larger degree whether a class will succeed or not. In English
classrooms, teachers‟ language is not only the object of the course, but also the medium to
achieve the teaching objective. Both the organization of the classroom and the goal of
teaching are achieved through teacher talk. Appropriate teacher talk can create harmonious
atmosphere and, at the same time, promotes a more friendly relationship between teachers
and students and, consequently, creates more opportunities for interactions between
teachers and students.
Learning English in Vietnam takes place mainly in classrooms and is usually done under
the guidance and supervision of teachers. Classroom language is the chief source of foreign
language learning and, in some places, the only source. It functions not only as a major
source of language learning but also as a tool by which a foreign language is taught. Until


2

recently, teacher talk in the EFL classroom was considered to be a problematic area for
language teachers. For one time, it was thought that “good” teacher talk meant “little”
teacher talk, since too much teacher talk deprived students of opportunities to speak.
However, it should be the “quality” rather than the “quantity” that counts. “Good teacher
talk” should be judged by how effectively it was able to facilitate learning and promote
communicative interactions in the classroom. Since a better understanding of the use of
teachers‟ language can undoubtedly help students improve their learning, and students can
make a better use of teacher talk to learn the target language, it is necessary to do some
research on teacher talk from both theoretical and practical perspective.
Personally, the researcher always thinks that teacher talk is one of the most important keys
to success in the teaching and learning of a foreign language, so she devoted her time
researching for the thesis: “Teacher Talk at Ly Tu Tan High School, Hanoi and its
implications for effective classroom interactions” with its application to her and her

colleagues‟ teaching of English at Ly Tu Tan High School, where she is working.
II. Purpose of the study
The aim of the research is to investigate the nature of teacher-student interaction in English
classes at Ly Tu Tan High School. In general, it has three purposes. First of all, it is to
investigate the current situation of the teacher talk amount at Ly Tu Tan High School,
Hanoi. Secondly, it aims at finding ways of teacher talk preferred respectively by teachers
and students. Finally, it is to provide teachers with some implications for effective
teaching.
The study aims at answering the following research questions:
1. What is the amount of teacher talk time (TTT) of the total class time in English classes at
Ly Tu Tan High School?
2. What are the ways of teacher talk preferred respectively by teachers and students?
3. What should be done to improve classroom interactions?


3

III. Scope of the study
Teacher talk is such a broad and interesting theme that it requires the work of generations
of scholars and researchers if it is to be thoroughly investigated. Therefore, within the
framework of this paper, the researcher has no ambition of touching upon all aspects of
this fascinating segment of FLT. In this thesis, an attempt was made to study teacher talk
in speaking classes, especially a speaking period of Unit 15: CITIES in the English 10
textbook to investigate the amount of teacher talk in the process of interactions between
teachers and students and to discuss ways of teacher talk in initiating an interaction and
following up a student‟s response preferred respectively by English teachers and 10th-form
students at Ly Tu Tan High School.
IV. Method of the study
Both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to carry out the study. That is, the
data serving analysis and discussion were collected by means of:

-

Reviewing the related document on interactions in language classes, structure of
classroom discourse, amount of teacher talk and features of teacher talk.

-

Observing classrooms and audio-recording

-

Conducting questionnaires

V. Significance of the study
Teacher talk has always been given a significant position in language teaching.
Nevertheless, how to make teacher talk enhance foreign language teaching and learning
effectively often poses great problems to both teachers and students.
This study is important in some aspects. First, it may serve as an empirical study to
investigate teacher talk. Then, it can also be taken as a reference for teachers to get a better
understanding of classroom interactions. Finally, some suggestions for making the
classroom interactions more communicative are provided.


4

VI. Organization of the study
This study is composed of three parts:
Part One: The Introduction presents the rationale, purpose, scope, method, significance
and the organization of the study.
Part Two: The Development consists of four chapters.

- Chapter One: Literature Review establishes the basic theoretical background from the
literature on classroom research and teacher talk.
- Chapter Two: Methodology describes the overall picture of how the research was carried
out from the first step of determining the research design to the last step of gathering the
results. Specifically, this chapter contains details of the setting, the collection of the data
for the research and methods of data analysis.
- Chapter Three: Data Analysis and Findings interprets the results of the study. This
chapter attempts to provide answers to the posed research questions and present the
findings with some comments as well.
- Chapter Four: Implications suggests some ideas for educational administrators, teachers
and students so that teacher talk in class can be improved.
Part Three: The Conclusion summarizes the main findings in the study, emphasizes
implications for more communicative teacher talk and points out the limitations and
provides some suggestions for further study on the field.


5

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1. Theoretical background of classroom research
1.1.1. Interactions in EFL classes
It is acknowledged that the FL classroom differs from other subject classrooms in that the
target language is both what is being taught and the means by which it is being taught
(Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Taking the language as the learning target, competent learners
are expected not only to be good at the linguistic knowledge, but also to be competent in
language use, which requires adequate exposure to the language. “In situations where the
target language is seldom used outside the classroom, the students exposure to the target
language is therefore mainly in the classroom” (Tsui, 1995:12). It is, therefore, crucial to

have a communicative FL classroom.
A common theme underlying different methods of language teaching is that second
language learning is a highly interactive process (Richards & Lockhart, 1994: 138). In
language classroom settings, the teacher-learner interactive pattern is the most traditional
pattern. In this pattern of interaction, the teacher plays the role of an expert, providing
learners with direction and doing most of the talking and commenting (Lemke, 1990). In
consequence, such communication in the classroom influences students‟ perception of and
participation in classroom activities (Farrell, 2002). Through their interactions with each
other, the teacher and students construct a common body of knowledge. They also create
mutual understandings of their roles and relationships, the norms and expectations of their
involvement as members in their classrooms.
Malamah-Thomas (1987) points out that classroom interaction is not a one-way action and
reaction but a reciprocal process. Only when the participants constantly adjust their
reactions to each other‟s previous actions can communication go on. He illustrates the
mutual reactions between the teacher and the student(s) in the following figure:


6

(Malamah-Thomas, 1987: 39)
1.1.2. The structure of classroom discourse
In their research, Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) find that most interactions that take place
in the classroom follow a three-part pattern, i.e. the question (Initiation), the answer
(Response) and the feedback (Follow-up), and later widely referred to as the IRF model by
Mc Carthy and Walsh (2002). This exchange model is typically initiated by the teacher,
followed by a response from the student, and then followed by the teacher‟s feedback. The
interaction for one topic may involve more than one IRF cycle. For example, in a class
after the students discussed an essay written by one of them, the teacher tried to pull the
students back to the teacher-class format so as to allow students to “share” the fruits of
their labours in groups (Katz, 1996: 68).

Although classroom interactions may emerge in a variety of ways, IRF seems to be a most
common exchange pattern in classroom discourse. This tends to be a teacher‟s “default
option” unless the teacher makes a deliberate change and uses some other interactional
patterns. Van Lier (1996) commented that the IRF sequence was effective in enabling the
teacher to lead students in carefully designed direction and progression, to provide students
with immediate feedback on their performances and to maintain an orderly lesson.
However, IRF sequence is not without its criticism. It is thought to limit meaningful
student participation because teachers have the rights to initiate speech, to distribute turns
and evaluate students‟ utterances, whereas students have much more restricted
participation rights, opportunities to ask questions and negotiate meaning (Cullen, 2002;
McCarthy, 1991).


7

In a word, the IRF model has its place in language classrooms; however, it should not be
made the norm of classroom interaction. A less controlling discourse mode has to be used
if teachers desire to raise the quality of teacher-student interaction. It may be appropriate to
engage in typical teacher talk at one time and it may be advisable to get students to
exchange real information about themselves and their words at some other time.
Appropriateness in the classroom lies in a balance between language as “display” and
language as genuine communication (Mc Carthy and Walsh, 2002).
1.2. Theoretical background of Teacher talk
1.2.1. The definition of teacher talk
Many definitions of teacher talk have been given from different perspectives. Sinclair＆
Brazil (1982) says that teacher talk is the language in the classroom that takes up a major
portion of class time employed to give directions, explain activities and check students‟
understanding. According to Ellis (1985), teacher talk means the language teachers address
language learners that are different from the way they address other kinds of classroom
learners. They make adjustments to both language form and language function in order to

facilitate classroom communication. These adjustments are referred to as “teacher talk”.
Cook (1989) thinks that teacher talk refers to the amount of speech supplied by the teacher
rather than students. Sometimes teacher talk can be called teachers‟ language, teachers‟
speech or teachers‟ utterances.
In all the above linguists‟ opinion, teacher talk share the same characteristic, that is, the
words spoken by the teachers in class. As an indispensable part of foreign language
teaching, teacher talk has its own features in that both the content and the medium are the
target language. The language employed by teachers in language classes is served as the
source of input of language knowledge, and also used to instruct language communication
and organize classroom activities. Moreover, teacher talk plays a very important role in the
teaching process as an interactive device which would be evoking more interactions
between teachers and students.


8

1.2.2. The role of teacher talk in foreign language learning
Classroom research in recent years has proved that teacher talk has positive effects that
could be exploited. As Nunan (1991) points out: “Teacher talk is of crucial importance,
not only for the organization of the classroom but also for the processes of acquisition”.
Similarly, Cullen (1998: 179-180) highlights some of the advantages of teacher talk are
“the valuable source of comprehensible input for the learner” or “the kind of questions
teachers ask, [which] can significantly affect the quantity and quality of student interaction
in the lesson”. Moon (2000: 63) also emphasizes that teacher talk “increases the amount of
exposure pupils get to English” and that it “provides real reasons for using English to
communicate, e.g., in giving instructions, getting information from pupils”.
Myhill, et al., (2006), following Vygotskyan‟s (1962) notions of scaffolding, argue that in
addition to transmitting knowledge, teacher talk must also provide cognitive assistance and
challenge at an appropriate level for children to progress in their learning. Alexander
(2004) emphasizes the importance of teaching as discussion and dialogue where there is an

exchange of ideas in class with a view to sharing information and solving problems as well
as achieving common understanding through structured and cumulative questioning and
guided discussion which can engage children, stimulate and extend their thinking and
advance their learning and understanding. In essence, effective teacher talk must lead to
the development of knowledge, thinking skills, and effective language use by students.
Hence, it is essential that teachers value the importance of their talk and become aware of
its benefits.
1.2.3. The framework of teacher talk
Based on the structure of classroom discourse (Mehan, 1979; Sinclair & Brazil, 1982), the
following framework of teacher talk was drawn as guidance for observation and
questionnaire design for the present study:


9

Questioning
Initiation

Invitation

Inform

Direction

Prompt

to no &
incorrect
answer

Interaction

Encouragement
Criticizing
Ignoring

Initiation
to correct
answer

Acknowledgement
Comment

The focus of the study is on the teacher talk in the process of interactions between teachers
and students, thus, the study is going to describe what types of languages teachers would
use to initiate an interaction and to follow up a student‟s response.
Initiation
Initiation is the move in a teaching exchange which initiates an interaction; teachers will
usually adopt the way of asking questions, invitation, and giving directions.
a. Question:
It is a request for information and it is the commonest and most straightforward way to
make students to talk in the class according to classroom observation. By asking students
some questions, the interaction will be motivated quickly and heatedly. Questions can be
subdivided into referential questions and display questions. Referential questions are
questions with no fixed answer, and display questions are the ones with a fixed answer.
The following one is an example of referential question: “If you have a chance, where
would you like to go, A?”. An example of display question is: “Which is the form of
comparison, B, could you give me the answer?”

10

b. Invitation:
Invitation means that the teacher either uses the presiding languages, act as chairperson or
a host, or uses imperative and interrogative sentences to ask students to do some activities.
For example: “Let‟s welcome the first speaker to present his or her speech.”
c. Direction:
Direction means an authoritative direction to be obeyed, an order of the teacher in this
paper. In the language of the classroom, the teacher is absolutely the authority of class,
there is little need for the teacher to be indirect for social reasons. Here is an example:
“Everyone, go through the card quickly”
Follow-up
Follow-up is the last move of an interactive exchange which aims to give feedback to
students‟ responses. Following different responses from students, teacher would choose to
different ways to respond.


Follow ups to no and incorrect responses

When students provide no response, that is, they may not know the expected answer or
they are reluctant to give any answers, or when they provide incorrect responses, either
linguistically and discoursally incorrect, the teacher would choose to give a follow up in
one of the following ways: inform, prompt, encouragement, criticizing, ignoring.
a. Inform:
Informing is a direct way to help students realize their mistakes. It involves the provision
of explicit information about the linguistic form that is perceived as the problem. It can be
realized by means of giving definition, an example, an explanation or by signaling the
problem. Besides negotiation of forms, inform here also includes negotiation of meaning.
For example: “The correct word you should use here is high, not tall.”
b. Prompt:

It is an attempt to get the participant produce the correct answer by the use of a clue to
indicate the location and/or nature of the error, or requesting the student to make a
clarification of what he has just said, or by the teacher‟s repetition of what the student has


11

said with an emphasis on the incorrect part, so as to arouse the attention of the student to
the error, such as: “A verb isn‟t suitable here, what do you think you can use here?” “Can
you think of another way to say it?”
c. Encouragement:
Encouragement is an act of inspiring with hope, courage, or confidence; the behavior of
heartening. Here is a sample: “Don‟t think too much about grammar; just tell us your
idea.”
d. Criticizing:
Criticizing is to comment on students‟ incorrect response severely. For example: “You‟d
better pay more attention to what I am talking in class, don‟t do any other things in class,
OK?”
e. Ignoring:
Ignoring refers to the situation where he/she pays no attention to students‟ mistake or turns
to another student when the first one cannot give an answer, such as: “OK, sit down, the
next one!”


Follow ups to correct responses

When students have provided the correct or expected response, teachers usually give some
kinds of comment, or just a brief acknowledgement.
a. Comment:
Comments of some kinds are given by the teacher sometimes to encourage the student

providing the answer, and sometimes to let others notice what is given by the students, and
sometimes to encourage others as well. For example: “Very good, thank you for such a
wonderful talk.”
b. Acknowledgement:
It refers to the very brief feedback from the teacher in response to correct answers, such as:
“OK, good!” “That‟s right!” “Alright! Sit down, please.”


12

1.2.4. The Amount of teacher talk
It is not surprising that in all sorts of classrooms, not only those devoted to teaching
languages, it is the teacher who does by far the most talking. However, teachers who
obtain an objective record of their teaching by recording and reviewing their lessons are
generally surprised by just how much talking they do.
While doing classroom activities, teachers use talk for a variety of purposes and these
purposes shape the talk used. In classroom talk, the teacher is a conductor or controller of
the interaction: he/she sets the topic, orchestrates the responses, determines who
contributes, when, and provides feedback. In consequence, the teacher tends to talk much
more than the students, making classroom talk “asymmetrical” with students offering
contributions which are bounded before and after by the teacher (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper,
2006).
It seems that in order to give students opportunity to speak, the teacher should reduce
teacher talk time (TTT). However, in the EFL setting, where teacher talk is generally
recognized as a valuable source of comprehensible input, simply stressing the reduction of
TTT may not be appropriate or accepted by the learners.
Teachers are estimated to talk between 60-75% of the time (Crandall, 1999: 235), and as
Brown states: „our inclination as teachers…to talk too much!‟ (Brown, 2001: 154).
Whether or not it is considered a good thing for teachers to spend most of the class time
talking will depend on the objectives of a lesson and where it fits into the overall scheme

of the course or program. 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 is not “excessive”, in Nunan‟s (1991:190) opinion, will always be a matter of
judgement. He outlines three factors that ought to be considered when determining the
appropriateness and quantity of teacher talk:
1. The point 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.


13

Evidence tends to suggest that the questions a teacher asks in the classroom can be
extremely important in helping learners to develop their competence in the language. It is
useful to observe whether teachers put questions to learners systematically or randomly,
how long they wait for a response, and the type of question asked from that requiring a
simple one-word reply to higher-order referential questions where learners can provide
information the teacher does not know. Similarly, in the case of feedback and correcting
learners, we can observe how and when the teacher does this, and whether all learners
receive treatment systematically.
1.2.5. The Features of Teacher Talk
Teacher talk is regarded as a special simplified code with features including two aspects:
the formal feature of teacher talk and the functional feature of teacher talk.
The first one involves formal modifications in the language that the teacher uses with the
aim of making teachers‟ language easier. Chaudron (1988) found that speech used in class
is characteristically modified in four areas: phonology, lexis, syntax and discourse.
The second feature of teacher talk is concerned with the function of the language that
teachers use to organize and control classes. This feature of teacher talk derives from the
discourse rights that are conferred on the teacher and these include initiating, deciding on

the length of exchanges, closing exchanges, deciding on the number of turns to be
attributed to each participant, etc.
 The Features of Communicative Teacher Talk
If we pursue real communication in the classroom, there are a number of characteristics of
teacher talk, identified as communicative (Thornbury, 1996):
 Referential Questions
Referential questions are genuine questions for which the teacher does not know the
answers (e.g.

„What did you do at the weekend?)

and therefore has a genuine

communicative purpose. This is in contrast to typical „display‟ questions (e.g.
comprehension questions on a reading text) to which the teacher already has the
answer, and only asks so that the class can display their understanding or
knowledge. Long and Sato‟s (1983) insights from analyses of discourse inside and outside


14

the classroom suggest that in the nowadays classrooms, the vast majority of questions
teachers ask are display questions without communicative purposes. While in real life,
most questions are referential. There is a marked difference between typical classroom talk
and non classroom talk in this respect.
 Content Feedback
Feedback on content involves responding to the content of what learners are saying, rather
than commenting solely on the form (e.g. the correctness of the grammar or
pronunciation). After all, if no attention is paid to the meanings the learner is expressing,
there is no point in asking referential questions.

 Avoidance of the IRF Sequence
IRF sequence goes like this: the teacher asks a question and the students give the answer;
then the teacher provides his/her comments on the answer as feedback. This is the typical
sequence of the classroom talk. The structure of spoken discourse outside the classroom is
usually more complex and flexible than this. On the other hand, acquisition is facilitated by
the negotiation of meaning in interaction. Teachers should try to negotiate meaning with
students, through asking for clarification and repetition, and giving students opportunities
to interrupt the teachers.
 Student initiated Talk
Although there is usually much less learner initiated than teacher initiated content in
classroom, it is usually from the former that learners claim to have learned the most. Some
teachers give the students absolutely no space meaningful negotiations in fear that the
teaching objectives will not be met. They only allow time for this, if any, in the free
practice towards the end of the lesson, and thus the lesson not at all flowing along the
interactive path.
Then, how should the teacher react if the students ask questions? Does the teacher simply
provide the answer or guide the students to solve the problem by themselves? Providing
the answers promptly deprives the learner of opportunities to learn how to solve problems
and snuff the communication between the teacher and the learner. So, the key question is
often not how to solve the problem itself, but how to make sure that the right person solves


15

it. The teacher should always ensure that she herself and the learners play their proper roles
in problem solving process.
 The Teaching of Value Rather Than Significance
It is necessary to draw a distinction between two different kinds of meaning, one of which
refers to the explicit meanings that language items have as elements of the language
system, and the other is that part of meaning that the language items have when they are

actually put to use in acts of communication. The first kind of meaning is called
significance, and the second kind is value. During the class, it is the value rather than
significance that should be taught. What the students are concerned about is the value,
because they can find the significance in text books and dictionaries easily.
1.3. Summary
Chapter One has presented a thorough review of the literature relevant to the study. First, it
clearly defines theoretical background of classroom research and highlights interactions in
EFL classrooms and the structure of classroom discourse. Second, it focuses on theoretical
backgrounds of teacher talk with the definition, the role, the framework, the amount and
the features of teacher talk. The following chapter will display the methodology and
findings of the research on the basis of the above-mentioned theories.


16

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY

2.1. The setting of the study
The study was carried out at Ly Tu Tan High School, which is located in Thuong Tin
District of Hanoi City. Founded in 2005, the school has experienced six years of teaching
and learning. For the school year 2010-2011, the school has 65 teachers – six of whom are
English teachers - and 28 classes with more than 1,500 students.
In recent years, with the introduction of new TIENG ANH textbook series to high schools,
the Communicative Approach has been introduced in teaching and learning English.
Teachers try to give their students opportunity in studying by asking them to work through
the text or discuss subject matters in groups or in pairs, after giving them some
instructions. However, teachers find it difficult to apply this approach because of large
classes (about 50 students per class) and students‟ inactiveness of English. As a result,
teachers take the key role in class and students remain passive learners.
As for the students, although they have been learning English since Grade 3, English is still

something strange to them. Most of the students do not know what they learn English for,
except for the reason of passing the final examination. In each class, there are only a few
students really learning English and being interested in it. The rest almost forget all the
things they have learnt and become bored with learning it. Once the learners have no
motivation for learning, the learning quality is very difficult to be improved. Another
problem of the students is that most of them do not have the habit of learning
independently and tend to depend on the textbooks with the available answers, and on the
teachers for transmitting knowledge. This fact calls for suitable teaching methods to help
the students become more active in learning English.
The English 10 textbook has been applied in high schools all over Vietnam since the
school year 2006-2007. The book consists of 16 units, each of which is divided into five
sections: Reading, Speaking, Listening, Writing and Language Focus, covering all four
macro language skills and language knowledge. After every three units, there is a test
named Test Yourself. The aims of teaching the English textbook are to help students use
English as a means for basic communication both in spoken and written channels; master


17

basic and relatively systematic knowledge of English suitable to their levels of proficiency
and ages; acquire some general understanding of the people and cultures of some Englishspeaking countries and develop a positive attitude towards the people, cultures and
language of these countries; cultivate the pride in, love for and respect to the Vietnamese
culture and language (Nguyen, 2007:18). General objectives to achieve in Grade 10 for
speaking skill are to ask and answer about the topics covered; perform some basic
language functions such as giving instruction, expressing opinions, asking direction, asking
and giving information, etc (Nguyen, 2007 :17). In particular, by the end of the Speaking
lesson of unit 15: CITIES, students are expected to be able to: describe a city by using the
vocabulary and structures provided in the lesson; compare different cities by using the
comparative structures that they have learned in the lesson; state their preferences and give
the reasons.

2.2. Method of the study
The study aimed to investigate the current situation of the teacher talk amount at Ly Tu
Tan High School, Hanoi and to find ways of teacher talk preferred respectively by teachers
and students. Given the purpose of the study, both quantitative and qualitative methods
were employed. The quantitative data were obtained by means of survey questionnaires
while the qualitative data were collected through classroom observations and audiorecording.
Survey questionnaire is one of the most effective instruments for collecting data in social
science. Advantages of using questionnaires that Gillham (2000) highlights are: less
pressure on respondents, not under pressure of bias, and analysis of answers is
straightforward. Classroom observation is a useful way to investigate external factors in L2
learning. Through classroom observations, the researcher can capture a wholistic picture of
the natural setting. Audio-recording was utilized because of the fact that using video-tape
in lesson is infeasible. Class observations and audio-recording were applied to clarify and
test the validity of information about the actual speaking teaching and learning context.


18

2.3. Data collection
2.3.1. Participants
The subjects chosen for the study include three teachers who have been teaching English to
the 10th-form students.
Teacher

Sex

Age

Years of experience

Class teaching

T1

Female

28

2 years

10A6

T2

Female

25

Less than a year

10A7

T3

Female

35

10 years

10A8

Table 1. Description of the teachers
Besides, 102 students from three 10th-form groups: 10A6, 10A7, 10A8 are invited to join
in the research. They are chosen randomly mainly based on students‟ willingness to spend
time in answering the questionnaires.
2.3.2. Data collection instruments
Given the complexity of the issue, is difficult to use one kind of data instrument. In order
to minimize this problem, the study uses the following research instruments and sources of
data: questionnaires, classroom observation and audio-recording.
Instrumentation 1: A set of questionnaires answered by the students
The questionnaires for 102 students consists of eleven questions which are of four kinds:
multiple-choice, ordering, scaling, and open-ended questions. The questionnaires are
written in Vietnamese to elicit from students the information about the current situation of
the teacher talk amount at Ly Tu Tan High School, Hanoi and students‟ preferences to
ways of teacher talk. The set of questionnaires consisted of two main parts:
- Part I: Personal information
- Part II: The eleven questions falls into three subparts:
+ Part A: Questions on students‟ preferences to ways of teacher talk (Questions 1-3)
+ Part B: Questions on students‟ opinions for effective teacher talk (Questions 4-8)
+ Part C: Questions on teacher talk amount (Questions 9-11)


19

Instrumentation 2: A set of questionnaires completed by the teachers
This set of questionnaires for three teachers also consisted of two main parts:
- Part I: personal information of the teachers
- Part II: teachers‟ preferences to ways of teacher talk.
To complete the questionnaires, teachers had to tick the appropriate boxes, give short

answers and put items in a preferred order.
Instrumentation 3: Classroom observations and audio-recording
The observations were carried out in the second semester of the school year 2010-2011.
The author conducted classroom observations at the same unit (Unit 15; part B. Speaking)
in three classes: 10A6, 10A7 and 10A8 at different times. During the lesson in each class,
she acted as a non-participant observer and took notes of the classroom activities and
students‟ involvement in these activities.

Teacher

Class

Number of

Lesson

Date

students

Lesson
Duration

Unit 15. Speaking
T1

10A6

42

(observation + audio

April 11th, 2011

recording)

45
minutes

Unit 15. Speaking
T2

10A7

45

(observation + audio

April 14th, 2011

recording)

45
minutes

Unit 15. Speaking
T3

10A8

40

(observation + audio

April 15th, 2011

recording)

Table 2. Description of the subjects of the study

45
minutes