1

Amisse Age Miguel

A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School

“The Case of Nampula Secondary School – Grade 9/ Stream B/ Day shift”

Universidade Pedagógica

Nampula

2016
 ii 2

Amisse Age Miguel

A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School

“The Case of Nampula Secondary School - Grade 9/ Stream B/ Day shift”

Monograph presented to the Department of

Language Sciences, Communication and Arts in
fulfilment of the requirements for Licenciatura
Degree in English Language Teaching.

Supervisor: dr Bernabé Cachele

Universidade Pedagógica

Nampula

2016
 iii 3

Table of Contents
List of Appendices……………………………………………………………………..…………v
List of Tables, Charts and Graphs...……………………………………………………………....v
Abbreviations………………………………………………………………………….………....vi
Declaration……………….……………………………………………………………………....vii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………..…...viii
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………ix
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………………x
CHAPTER I: Introduction .............................................................................................................10
1.1. Background of the study .........................................................................................................10
1.2. Statement of the problem........................................................................................................12
1.3. Merit of the study ...................................................................................................................12
1.4. Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 13
1.4.1. General objective..............................................................................................................13
1.4.2. Specific objectives............................................................................................................13
1.5. Critical questions ....................................................................................................................14
1.6. Hypothesis ..............................................................................................................................14
1.7. Scope of the study ..................................................................................................................14
1.8. Methodology...........................................................................................................................15
1.8.1. Methods of data collection ............................................................................................... 15
1.8.2. Target population .............................................................................................................16
1.8.3. Sample ..............................................................................................................................16
1.8.4. Procedures ........................................................................................................................16
1.9. Limitation of the study ...........................................................................................................17
1.10. Structure of the work ............................................................................................................17
CHAPTER II: Literature Review ..................................................................................................18
2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................19
2.2. Significant changes in language learning ...............................................................................19
2.3. Classroom talking time ...........................................................................................................20
2.3.1. Talking time in teacher-based class .................................................................................21
2.3.1.1. Positive forms of teacher-based learning ...................................................................21
2.3.1.2. Negative aspects of teacher-based learning ............................................................... 22
2.3.1.3. Strategies for minimising teacher-based learning ......................................................23
 iv4

2.3.2. Talking time in student-based class .................................................................................25

2.3.2.1. Why to enhance SBL in the curriculum .....................................................................26
2.3.2.2. How to enhance SBL .................................................................................................27
2.3.2.3. Disadvantages of student-based learning for ELT .....................................................29
2.4. Factors influencing teacher-based learning in Mozambique ..................................................30
2.4.1. Teacher and student’s beliefs ...........................................................................................30
2.4.2. Students may be less interested in attending school ........................................................30
2.4.2.1. Difficulties of attending school ..................................................................................30
2.4.2.2. Lower educated parents .............................................................................................31
2.4.2.3. Less support of parents ..............................................................................................31
2.4.3. Teacher’s qualification ....................................................................................................31
2.4.3.1. Difficulties of school access ......................................................................................31
2.4.3.2. Low salaries and lack of materials .............................................................................32
2.4.3.3. Less access of training centres ...................................................................................32
2.4.3.4. Governments may find it more difficult to supply quality educational services .......32
CHAPTER III: Data Analysis, Results and Findings ....................................................................33
3.1. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire ....................................................................33
3.1.1. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire for teachers ........................................33
3.1.2. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire for students ........................................37
3.2. Analysis and interpretation of the interview from teachers ....................................................39
3.3. Analysis and interpretation of the observation instrument .....................................................42
3.4. Analysis and interpretation of the findings.............................................................................43
3.5. Examining hypotheses ............................................................................................................43
CHAPTER IV: Proposal and Implementation ..............................................................................45
4.1 Proposal ...................................................................................................................................45
4.2. Implementation .......................................................................................................................48
CHAPTER V: Recommendations and conclusion ........................................................................49
5.1 Recommendations ...................................................................................................................49
5.1.1. Ministry of Education.......................................................................................................49
5.1.2. Teachers and school staff .................................................................................................49
5.1.3. Students ............................................................................................................................49
5.1.4. Parents ..............................................................................................................................50
 v5

5.2. Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................50

Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................51
Appendices ....................................................................................................................................53

List of Appendices
Appendix 1: Questionário para Estudantes…………………….………………..……………….54
Appendix 2: Questionnaire Instrument for Students..............................................................…...55
Appendix 3: Questionnaire Instrument for Teachers.....................................................................56
Appendix 4: Interview Instrument from Teachers.........................................................................57
Appendix 5: Classroom Observation Instrument...........................................................................58
Appendix 6: Sample Activity........................................................................................................60
Appendix 7: Sample Activity........................................................................................................61
Appendix 8: Sample Activity........................................................................................................62
Appendix 9: Sample Activity........................................................................................................63
Appendix 10: Sample Activity......................................................................................................64

List of Tables and Charts or Graphs

Table1: Target population.............................................................................................................16
Table 2: Sample.............................................................................................................................17
Table 3: Teachers involved in the questionnaire...........................................................................33
Table 4: Students involved in questionnaire..................................................................................37
Table 5: Teachers involved in interview........................................................................................39
Chart 1: Adequacy of CLT in local school....................................................................................34
Chart 2: Students classroom participation.....................................................................................36
Chart 3: Student’s appreciation in relation to English class..........................................................38
Graph 1: P-P-P Lesson Cycle (talking time).................................................................................25
Graph 2: Group and pairs in production/practice stage.................................................................35
Graph 3: Training at Nampula Secondary School.........................................................................38
 vi 6

Abbreviations

CLT – Communicative Language Teaching

ELL – English Language Learning
ELT – English Language Teaching
GW – group work
IFPN – Instituto de Formação de Professores de Nampula
IW – individual work
L1 – Native language (mother tongue)
L2 – Second language
PW – pair work
SBL – Student-based Learning
SCL – Student-centered Learning
SNE – National System of Education
SPEJT – Serviços Provinciais de Educação, Juventude e Tecnologia
STT – Student talking time
T/class – Classroom Interaction initiated by Teacher
TBL – Teacher-based Learning
TTQ – Talking time quality
TTT – Teacher talking time
UP – Universidade Pedagógica (Delegação de Nampula)
 vii7

Declaration

I declare, in my honour, that the present monograph was entirely elaborated by me according to
the orientation of my Supervisor, its content is original and all resources used are directly
mentioned in the text and in the final bibliography.

In additional to that, it has never been presented in any teaching institution for any academic
purposes.

Nampula, March 2016

______________________________________

Amisse Age Miguel

 8
viii

Dedication

Every page, letter, word or symbol of this academic paper is dedicated to my grandmother,
Latifa Juma, who deserves all my gratitude for kindly having supported me from my childhood
until get the opportunity of doing the course. I also extend my dedication to my lovely wife Tina
Chauale and my daughter Nia Miguel who are the reason my life, and my parents, Hágira Simão
Alfredo and Belarbino Alfredo, for all their remarkable finance, encouragement and patience.
 9ix

Acknowledgements

I would like to address my acknowledgements to all who directly or indirectly contributed for the
completion of this academic paper.

Firstly, I am immensely grateful to the Department of Language Science, Communication and

Arts of Nampula for the opportunity and all the conditions created for me doing the course.
Then, I would like to extend my gratitude to my supervisor, dr Bernabe Cachele, for his patience,
support, critical and generous guidance, valuable suggestions and encouragement.

Secondly, I would like to address a gesture of great gratitude to my colleague Anísio João
Manhiça who kindly has helped me in all critical moments of this work.

I also appreciated the great involvement of my boss MA Orlando Avelino, who has provided me
a job and fulfilled all my needs for the last four years.

I would like to thank my friends and course mates for their noble contribution, helpful criticism
and generosity. My thanks are also delivered to all English teachers of Nampula Secondary
School involved in this research.
Finally, my special thanks go to my brothers Simão Jaime Pereira and Alfredo Belarbino, and
my sisters, Nélcia Carolina Jaime Pereira, Rábia Amade and Latifa Belarbino, and to the whole
family, for their support and belief during the hard moments of my life.
 10
x

Abstract

The present monograph entitled ‘A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary
School in the case of Nampula Secondary School”. Its overarching objective was to delve the factors that
stimulate teachers of English language on incessantly teacher-based language teaching approach. The
research besieged about 680population, being 6 teachers and 674 students. In addition, from this figure, 4
teachers of English language and 10 students of grade 9 were sampled. For an in-depth research process,
it was held through qualitative and quantitative methodology paradigms and backed by questionnaire,
observation form and interview research instruments. Additionally, the probability sampling technique
was a reasonable leeway to probe the teachers and students at that setting. The findings unveil that
teachers grimly epitomize students` opportunities to practise the language, they hardly grab students to
work cooperatively in groups or pairs and they scarcely provide communicative activities that promote
student-centered learning. To overcome all these hitches, it is recommended to the teachers to epitomize
communicative language teaching in order to cope with students-centered language learning in which
students are engaged in real life interaction setting.

_______________________________________________________________________
Key words: minimising, exceeding, teacher-based learning, talking time, lower education

CHAPTER I: Introduction

1.1. Background of the study

Richards (2006:23) claims that since the 1990s the communicative approach has been widely
implemented. Because it describes principles grounded in the notion of communicative
competence as the goal of second and foreign language teaching, and a communicative syllabus
 11

and methodology as the way of achieving this goal, communicative language teaching has
continued to evolve as our understanding of second language learning has developed. Current
communicative language teaching theory and practice draws on different educational paradigms
and traditions and since it draws on a number of diverse sources, there is no single or agreed
upon set of practices that characterize it. However, the current CLT depends on the teaching
context, the age of the learners, their level, and their learning goals.

Richards (2006:27) explains that these changes in thinking have not led to the development of a
single syllabus model of CLT that can be applied in all settings…so a language syllabus today
needs to include systematic coverage of the many different components of communicative
competence, including language skills, content, grammar, vocabulary, and function.

As a strategy to improve the English language proficiency in secondary school, “many African
countries, like Mozambique, issued the communicative competence based English syllabus in
2005 to replace the old syllabus that was claimed to be structure-based and hence could not
produce communicative competent learners”, unveil Sane and Sebonde (2014:1). Therefore,
these countries advocate a syllabus that encourages:

“The use of authentic materials based on real life like signs, magazines,
advertisements, newspaper, maps, picture, symbols, charts, etc. and task-based
materials with variety of games, role plays, simulations in terms of exercises, cue
cards, and pair communication, to promote communicative language use and
influence the quantity of classroom interaction and language use. So the teacher
facilitates the communication process between all participants in the classroom,
and acts as an independent participant within the learning and teaching
process…A teacher also acts as a researcher and learners’ needs analyst,
counsellor and group process manager”, explains Bhushan (2010:1-5).

Despite of it, during the teaching practice at Nampula Secondary School in 2015, the researcher
openly noticed that students have little involvement and teachers do speak excessively in the
classrooms. The exposure does not exist and the discussions do not even happen. Therefore,
these teaching problems are justified with the following teachers’ beliefs:
 12

 Teachers look at CLT principles as a waste of time and far from the aims of teaching
foreign language in Mozambican context;
 They assume that if they try to open a session for discussion, they will not reach their
aims and it will spoil their lesson;
 They believe that students will face many problems to produce English language
utterances, and they are not interested on learning it, as they have Portuguese and their
local languages.

1.2. Statement of the problem

In the past years, before the national independence, the national education system did not
integrate English as a subject matter to be taught at local schools. After the proclamation of
Independence on 1975, the country faced many challenges – the government introduced the SNE
through the Law 4/83 of March 23, and it was replaced by the Law 6/92 of May 6, thus
integrating English Language as subject to be taught from grade 8, and then, from grade 6
onwards, in 2004. However, in 2005, Mozambique issued the communicative competence based
English syllabus to replace the old syllabus that was claimed to be structure-based, in order to
improve the English language proficiency in secondary school – CLT, a method for second
language teaching and learning process, intended to be suitable for local learners.

It means that students start learning English from a very young age until grade 12, about four
years of contact and exposure to English before moving to grade 9. Until grade 9, it is expected
that students produce some English utterances and construct their own learning, as they are
actively involved in a communicative classroom, in pair and group activities and various
language situations. For this research, however, the question addressed is: Why do English
teachers continue exceeding teacher-based learning at lower secondary schools?

1.3. Merit of the study

Vithal and Jansen (1997:11) define merit of the study as the justification of the topic that serves
as a concise statement explaining unmistakably how an author came to develop an interest
proposal topic and why she/he believes the anticipated research is worth doing.
 13

The choice of this topic is due to the purpose of communication assumed by the policy of the
education for Mozambican learners. It is relevant on the way that giving learners a greater choice
over their own learning will make them competent speakers of English.

Nevertheless, a further discussion about strategies to minimise teacher-based learning will

enhance the students’ exposure to English and will bring visible results for the effective
classroom learning tasks and exercises that provide opportunities for students to negotiate
meaning, expand their language resources, notice how language is used, and take part in
meaningful interpersonal exchange, as learning is not an individual or private activity, but a
social or cooperative one that depends upon interaction with others.

By involving students in English lessons, they will also improve their participation in other
subjects, because the problem of excessive teacher talking time involves all areas of study. This
involvement in making decisions, in sharing their ideas in groups will not only reflect on the
classroom setting, but also on their real lives. However, these advantages and positive results,
which this study will bring, served as starting point and empowered me to seek further for
solutions about the minimisation of teacher-based learning.

1.4. Objectives

According to Findlay et al (2006:15), objective constitutes “the part in which the researcher
formulates his/her purposes towards the research. He defines, clarifies and reveals his research
focus”. The objectives are divided into general objective and three specific objectives.

1.4.1. General objective

 The general objective of this study is to find out the reasons why English teachers at
Nampula Secondary School are keen on teacher-based learning.

1.4.2. Specific objectives

 Identify the factors involved in excessive teacher-based learning;

 Propose feasible methods and techniques on student-centered learning;
 Propose strategies of minimizing teacher-based learning.
 14

1.5. Critical questions

For Nunan (1992:2), research is a process of formulating questions and articulating problems
related to the practice and collecting relevant data that might have a bearing on such questions.
In relation to that, the researcher formulated the following four guiding questions:

 Why do English teachers continue exceeding teacher-based learning at lower secondary

school?
 Are the teachers aware of the strategies of CLT?
 Are the teachers aware of cooperative learning?
 Are the students motivated enough?

1.6. Hypothesis

Tuckman (1990:38) defines hypothesis as a testable statement of an anticipated answer to the

problem which contains variables that can be or not operated by the researcher. Therefore, the
researcher presupposes that:

 Teachers might assume that Mozambican students are ‘Zero English’, so they should
overuse their English to make them understand what is being taught;
 Teachers might be aware of CLT strategies, but they find it a harsh work;
 Teachers might be aware of cooperative learning, as they set groups or pair works in the
classroom;
 Students might be motivated enough to learn English, but the input created by teachers
might be ineffective.

1.7. Scope of the study

The present study relies on the perspective of time used in the classroom by the teacher and by
the student at lower secondary schools. The time analised involves the classroom participation
and involvement of the students. It looks at how English teachers involve the learners and how
these learners make part of this lesson. Therewith, this study, which occurred at Nampula
 15

Secondary School, proposes strategies of minimizing teacher-based learning, explaining the

essential moments of the lesson that require more teacher centeredness and its limitations.

1.8. Methodology

According to Kelvin et al (2006:16), methodology is the process of selecting the type of

technique for data collection depends on the type of research that the researcher is carrying out,
which should lead him or her to different research methods. For this study, the researcher
employed mixed mode methodologies (both qualitative and quantitative) in the way that it would
explore the respondents’ perception making sense of statistics to the research focus. It employed
the explanatory methodology because it reflects an interesting problematic area in a structured
way, in order to improve the professional action and practice.

1.8.1. Methods of data collection

Kelvin et al (2006:17) conceptualise data as the “information gained through a research to

respond questions or hypotheses that are being examined”. So a researcher needs to ensure that
the methods used are suitable to answer the critical questions formulated.

For this research, the process of data collection used three different instruments: interview,
questionnaires and direct observation. These techniques were used to certify reliability and to
validate the information gained from the interaction with the target population. The interview
was used for teachers of different sexes (women and men), to understand the different situations
of excessive teacher-based learning with regarded to gender/sex.

It used two distinctive questionnaires: one question form for students (girls and boys) presented
in two versions (Portuguese and English) to facilitate their comprehension; and another one for
English teachers.

The direct observation was employed for the target population, during different periods, to
understand the real situation of excessive teacher-based learning. For this instrument, the
researcher was an overt observer.
 16

1.8.2. Target population

According to Cohen et al (2000:98), the target population constitutes the participants selected
appropriately to represent a researchable topic and their involvement will influence the research
focus. Therefore, in this study, the target population involves students of Nampula Secondary
School, grade 9 day shift and their English language teachers.

Grade
Gender Others Grade 9/B English teachers Total
Female 339 62 2 403
Male 223 49 4 276
Total 562 111 6 679
Table1: Target population [Source (Adapted by the Author, 2016)]

1.8.3. Sample

Nʼkapa (1997:34) argues that sample is a group selected from the target population used to
estimate the characteristics of the whole population. For this research, the sample involves 10
students (6 girls and 4 boys) of grade 9/stream B/dayshift, and 4 grade 9 English teachers from
different streams.

The researcher used a simple random probability sampling method, where the students were
randomly selected from the target population and their responses were logically esteemed and
deeply analysed. The teachers were selected according to their availability.

Gender Grade 9/B Selected students English Teachers Total

Female 6 1 8
Male 4 3 6
Total 10 4 14
Table2: Sample [Source (Adapted by the Author, 2016)]

1.8.4. Procedures
 17

The procedures for data collection followed five main steps:

 Stage1: In order to fulfil the institutional requirements, the researcher submitted the UP
Credential to the Nampula Secondary School direction and then he agreed with the staff.
 Stage 2: After the agreement, the researcher met English teachers and students clarifying
the reasons of carrying out a research on Minimising Teacher-based Learning.
 Stage 3: Soon after the clarification, two questionnaire instruments designed for 10
students and 4 teachers of grade 9. The 10 students were randomly selected and their
responses were logically esteemed and deeply analysed.
 Stage 4: To certify and validate evidences from questionnaires, a structured interview
involving 4 English teachers were personally conducted.
 Step 5: The researcher also validated evidences after conducting direct observation
carried out in the classroom in order to confirm evidences in relation to the topic.

1.9. Limitation of the study

The present study encountered some difficulties on finding information because of the following
reasons:
 Dishonesty of the target population;
 It is a challenge for teachers;
 Teachers do not want change their beliefs towards ELT;
 Students’ unawareness of importance of the study.

1.10. Structure of the work

The present academic paper is structured as the following sequence:

 Chapter I (Introduction) provides a wide range of information about the background of

the study, the statement of the problem, objectives, critical questions, hypothesis, merit of
the study, scope of the study, methodology, methods of data collection, target population,
sample, procedures, limitation of the study and its structure.
 18

 Chapter II (Literature Review) focuses on different perspectives of writers related to

teacher-based learning and student-based learning.

 Chapter III (Interpretation and Analysis) clarifies that data were collected from interview,
questionnaire and direct observation and analyzed through a percentage study and
represented in their respective charts to illustrate the respondents’ opinion in regard to the
questions addressed to them.

 Chapter IV (Proposals and Implementations) addresses some proposals and its

implementation to Ministry of education, teachers, school authority and parents.

 Chapter V (Recommendations and Conclusion) focuses on the recommendations,

conclusion, bibliography and appendices respectively.

CHAPTER II: Literature Review

Tuckman (1990:62) unveils that literature review is an examination of the research that has been
conducted in particular field of study involving the selection of available documents (both
published and unpublished) on the topic that contain information, ideas, data and evidence
written from standpoint to fulfil certain aims or views on the nature of the topic. In relation to
 19

that, this chapter discloses different viewpoints from writers in the field of teacher and student-
based learning to sustain the interpretation of research data.

2.1. Introduction

In traditional education methodologies, teachers direct the learning process and students assume
the receptive role in their education. This kind of education is more teacher-based, emphasizes
teacher talking time, ignores the responsibility of the learners and they only practise the language
when the teacher asks or commands, since they have no authority in the classroom. According to
Richards and Rodgers (1986:64), this view changed with the advent of progressive education in
the 19th century and influences of psychologists, when some educators started replacing
traditional curriculum approaches with ‘hands-on’ activities and ‘group work’. They explain that
the understanding of these approaches is that a child determines on his own what he wants to do
in class, with the premise that students actively construct their own learning (64). They state that
the current approaches are student-based and focus on each student’s needs and abilities,
interests and learning styles placing the teacher as facilitator, as teachers do not need the
language practice, but students do (65).

In progressive education, it is noticeable that the vital ingredient in the learning of any language
is exposure to it. By means of it, students need something or someone to provide comprehensible
language to them. As teachers, “we are ideally placed to provide appropriate input, since we
know the student can react appropriate to our input rather than a course book or an audio track
input. For that, we should know how to talk at just the right level because our students only
understand the meaning of what we say, not every words. As a result, it may be a good idea to
consider not just how much the teacher talks but also teacher talking quality (TTQ), the quality
of what we say that really counts, as to when we say depends on how it fits in with the students’
needs and all aspects of the curriculum”, explains Harmer (1983:118).
2.2. Significant changes in language learning
Our understanding of the processes of second language learning has changed considerably in the
last 30 years and CLT is partly a response to these changes in understanding. Larsen-Freeman
(2008:11-12) argues that in earlier views of language learning focused primarily on the mastery
of grammatical competence, language learning was viewed as a process of mechanical habit
 20

formation. Good habits were formed by having students produce correct sentences and not
through making mistakes, since errors were avoided through controlled opportunities for
production (either written or spoken). By memorizing dialogs and performing drills, the chances
of making mistakes were minimized. Learning was under the control of the teacher.

In recent years, language learning has been viewed from a very different perspective. Richards
(2006:4) arguments that it is seen as resulting from processes such as:
 Interaction between the learner and users of the language;
 Collaborative creation of meaning;
 Creating meaningful and purposeful interaction through language;
 Negotiation of meaning as the learner and his or her interlocutor arrive at understanding
learning through attending to the feedback learners get when they use the language;
 Paying attention to the language one hears (the input) and trying to incorporate new
forms into one’s developing communicative competence;
 Trying out and experimenting with different ways of saying things.
It means that the current CLT implies new roles in the classroom for teachers and learners, in
which, as Richards (2006:12) discloses, “Learners now participate in classroom activities based
on a cooperative rather than individualistic approach to learning; become comfortable with
listening to their peers in group work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a
model. While teachers now had to assume the role of facilitator and monitor, developing a
different view of learners’ errors and of her/his own role in facilitating language learning”.

2.3. Classroom talking time

Harmer (1983:117) affirms that an issue that confronts many teachers in the classrooms is how
much they should talk, and what kind of talk it should be. Of course, there are times when
teachers have to take the register, ask for quiet or suggest that students should get into pairs and
groups. But there are also times when teachers simply talk to groups, engage in conversation
with them, discuss the topic under consideration or ask them about their weekend, etc.

Richards (2006:4) claims that CLT brought a movement away from traditional lesson formats
toward the use of pair work activities, role-plays, group work activities and project work, since
“all communicative competences should be developed very carefully and effectively in children
 21

and people” disclose Patel and Jain (2008:97), and the teacher should reduce his hegemony as
much as possible, to allow learners opportunities to speak, and learn from speaking.

As a result, Richards (2006:4) believes that teachers should also be aware of each teaching
method they use in the classroom. For example, a teacher using CLT will monitor students
working in groups completing a discussion and will probably do little talking, limiting him to
clarification of the task and offering language when requested. The same teacher using
traditional approach will lead an inductive grammar presentation and will probably talk more, as
he explains, illustrates and checks understanding.

From these viewpoints, it is important to emphasize the limited talking by the teacher, because it
allows the teacher restrict his speech to vital areas of the lesson, makes students become familiar
with the new material and have chances to experiment if anyone personalises the language, and
better prepares the students for real world, where they cannot rely on the teacher for help.

2.3.1. Talking time in teacher-based class

The relative value of TTT and STT is a complex area. Learners need to produce language in real
time conversation, to give them a chance to notice their own mistakes, and for the class to be
student-centered. They also need input from an effective language user in order to form
hypotheses about language rules, and the teacher may be one of the main sources of this input.
Teachers can start exploring this area by taping themselves and finding out when, why and how
much they and their students talk. A consequence of this is the belief that the teacher’s presence
in the classroom should be reduced. [https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time]

In recent years, other approaches than CLT have suggested that TTT may not always be
counterproductive and can be used to good effect. As stated before, the teacher provides good
listening practice which is not inhibited by the sound quality of a tape or CD player and which is
accompanied by visual clues to aid comprehension.

2.3.1.1. Positive forms of teacher-based learning

From https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time, it is evident that despite

of the need of minimising teacher talking time, some of its forms are clearly beneficial:

1) Personalised presentations: Language should be presented in context, and this can be

provided by the teacher rather than through a reading or listening. Therefore, “listening to the
 22

teacher talking about real issues is more motivating than listening to or reading texts talking
about people, places or events, which, for the students, have no personal interest”, clarifies
Scrivener (2005:23). It means that the students are more likely to pick up knowledge, which
is content, rather than language based by listening to the teacher introducing a topic.

2) Questioning: every teacher’s question asked during a lesson demands a student response.
Questions need not be language related, and are often the basis of ‘brainstorming’ a topic
with the class. Frequent questioning holds students’ attention and increases learner
involvement in the class.

3) Natural conversation: conversations taking place during pair and group work are often
loaded towards certain language items or based on an imposed theme, affirms Ur (1996:125).
Natural conversation initiated by the teacher encourages questioning, asking for clarification,
commenting and changing the subject as well as introducing functional and everyday
language, which is often overlooked in course materials. Chats outside the classroom are also
valuable and often more memorable to students than lessons. In these circumstances, teachers
should remember to continue to use graded but natural language rather than to use simplified
language to ensure understanding.
4) Anecdotes: can be the basis of a presentation, and also used at the start of a lesson, rather
than using a ‘warmer’ activity, as a natural way of engaging the students. Anecdotes and
jokes may also be used to stimulate interest during a lesson. Anecdotes do not need to be
monologues, and students can be encouraged to interrupt and ask questions.
5) Storytelling: is an ongoing theme throughout a course and is as appropriate to adult classes
as it is to young learners. There is a whole methodology surrounding storytelling, which is
often a stimulating alternative to the use of a graded reader in the class.

2.3.1.2. Negative aspects of teacher-based learning

According to https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time, many training

courses based on CLT insisted that teacher-talking time was counterproductive and teachers
should reduce TBL for a number of reasons that negatively affect the English language teaching,
more specifically at lower secondary levels:
 23

a) Excessive TBL limits the amount of SBL. If the teacher talks for half the time in a 60-
minute lesson with 15 students, each student gets only 2 minutes to speak.
b) A large amount of TTT results in long stretches of time in teacher-to-class (T/class) mode
and a monotonous pace. Student under-involvement inevitably leads to loss of
concentration, boredom and reduced learning.
c) TBL often means that the teacher is giving the students information that they could be
finding out for themselves, such as grammar rules, the meanings of vocabulary items and
corrections. Teacher explanations alone are often tedious, full of terminology and difficult
to follow. There may be no indication of whether the students have understood.
d) If the teacher takes the dominant role in classroom discourse in terms of initiating the
topic, allocating turns and evaluating comments, student’s role is only that of respondent.
e) If the teacher is constantly dominant and controlling, the learners take no responsibility
for their own learning, but learn what the teacher decides and when (with a limited
autonomy).

2.3.1.3. Strategies for minimising teacher-based learning

The overuse of TBL is often the product of the under-use of communicative techniques in the
classroom. Many activities do not need to be teacher led: pair work or group work can be used
instead. An activity might be set up in T/class mode, demonstrated in open pairs (students doing
the activity across the class), and done in closed pairs (all the students working at the same time).
Some mechanical activities need to be done individually (IW) but can be checked in pairs. What
is most important is that activities and interaction patterns (T/class, PW, GW, and IW) need to be
varied. [https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time]
The amount of time spent in T/class mode will depend on factors such as students and how much
they know, the stage of the lesson, the time of day and what is being taught, but a useful
guideline is a limit of 30% of a lesson, no more than 10 minutes at one time. However, according
to https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time, other common strategies for
minimising TBL are:
 24

1) Using elicitation rather than explanation: If the topic matter is presented to students with
clear examples and guiding questions, the students often do not need to be “told”. This kind
of guided discovery leads to better understanding and more successful learning. Organising
activities also means that all the students have the chance to work on the new language.
2) The use of body language, mime, gestures and facial expressions rather than words: The
position of the teacher in the classroom can also indicate to the students what is expected of
them at a particular stage of the lesson.
3) Getting students to give feedback on tasks to each other rather than to the teacher:
Student nomination, whereby one student nominates another to answer a question, is also a
useful technique. Feedback involving the teacher is therefore limited to problematic
questions rather than every question in an exercise.
4) Eliminating unnecessary TTT: Grading language is important, but over-simplification can
lead to unnatural models from the teacher. Instructions should be kept simple, while
explanations need to be carefully worded and repeated if necessary rather than paraphrased.
Simple concept questions should be asked to check understanding. If explanations are clear
and concept checking is effective, there should be no need for re-explanation or interrupting
an activity to reteach or re-instruct.
5) Tolerating silence: Inexperienced teachers tend to fill silences by unnecessary talking.
Silence is important not only when students are working individually, but also provides
‘processing time’ between instructions, during explanations, while waiting for a student to
respond, and during monitoring of activities. However, prompting, providing clues and
rephrasing the question are often counterproductive when the student merely needs time to
answer.

In certain cultures, there is also a tradition of ‘chalk and talk’, which influences the expectations,
and behaviour of both teachers and students. Therefore, bearing in mind the nature of the
communicative classroom, teachers should perhaps be aware of the quality of the talking time
and how to use it rather than trying to reduce it to a bare minimum.
In a normal P-P-P lesson cycle, the STT increases at every stage, whereas teachers tend to
minimise their talking time along the lesson (see the graph below).
 25

100%
80%
60% Teacher
40% Students
20%
0%
Presentation Practice Production

Graph1: P-P-P Lesson Cycle (talking time).

2.3.2. Talking time in student-based class

According to Harmer (1991:58), theorists like John Dewey, Jean Piaget and Vygotsky, whose
collective work focussed on how students learn, are primarily responsible for the move to
student-based learning. Carls Roger's ideas about the formation of the individual also contributed
to student-based learning. He explains that student-based learning means inverting the traditional
teacher-based learning and putting student at the centre of the teaching/learning process.

This approach has its fundamentals on the basis of CLT principles that “encourage distinctive
learning styles and provide students with variety tools, such as tasks and learning conscious
methodologies, creating a better environment for students to learn. With the use of valuable
learning skills, students are capable of achieving life-long learning goals which can further
enhance student motivation in the classroom”, states Larsen-Freeman (2008:61-62). So teachers
should “make real communication the focus of language learning, provide opportunities for
learners to experiment and try out what they know, be tolerant of learners’ errors as they
indicate that the learner is building up his/her communicative competence, provide opportunities
for learners to develop both accuracy and fluency, link the different skills together, since they
usually occur so in the real world and let students induce or discover grammar rules”, argues
Richards (2006:13).

Another aspect to consider is self-determination theory, which focuses on the “degree to which
any individual's behaviour is self-motivated and self-determined”, claims Vygotsky (1978) qtd in
Harmer (1991:59). So Harmer clarifies that when students are given the opportunity to gain their
 26

learning, learning becomes an incentive in being active agents in their learning, students
corroborate Carls Roger's theory that “the only learning which significantly influences behaviour
and education is self-discovered”, states Vygotsky (1978) qtd in Harmer (1991:59).

Armsrong (2012) claims, “Because learning can be seen as a personal growth, students are
encouraged to use self-regulation practices, in order to reflect on their work. For that reason,
learning can also be constructive in the sense that students are in full control of their learning,
and they now research material to the success of their academic and knowledge production”, qtd
in Harmer (1991:59).

All viewpoints have a premise that in learner-centered classrooms, teachers set instructional
goals with learners’ needs, backgrounds, and interests in mind. Using the portfolio system,
teachers guide students in self-assessment, help them document their learning and track their
progress toward achieving goals and challenging goals. They also provide maximum
opportunities for students to use authentic materials, and students feel comfortable asking
questions, as they have maximum opportunity to communicate in the target language. The
classroom is arranged in a manner that is easy for students to work together and also easy for the
teacher to move around to facilitate conversations among student groups.

2.3.2.1. Why to enhance SBL in the curriculum

In essence, the teacher's goal in the learning process is to guide students into making new
interpretation of the learning material, thereby ‘experiencing content’, reaffirms Rogers “noting
that significant learning is acquired through doing”, poses Vygotsky (1978) qtd in Harmer
(1991:59).

Student-centered learning/teaching has advantages for both students and teachers. Students
develop learning and other skills and gain meaningful knowledge that will help them throughout
life, and discover that learning is interesting and fun. Teachers have less traditional work to do,
as students are more attentive and willing to participate in the class.

For Harmer (1991:89), SCL is very important for the development of learning process because:
 It provides opportunities for students to work in pairs and small groups and use multiple
modes of communication (e.g., discussions, making presentations, seminars, etc).
 27

 It encourages students to work together as a class to contribute to a comprehensive

answer to an open-ended problem.
 It devotes a significant proportion of class time (15-30% of the total lesson time) to
student interactions.
 It encourages in-depth conversations among students (and students and lecturer).
 It features several students explaining their ideas to a respectful class that listens well.

2.3.2.2. How to enhance SBL

Student learning process is greatly enhanced when the students participate in deciding how they
may demonstrate their competence in a body of knowledge or performance of skills. So this
learning focus on each student’s need that can be successful approached through a positive
interaction, created by the teacher with students, which makes students more proactive rather
than reactive. Harmer (1983:114-115) mentions the following strategies on how to enhance SBL:

1) Recognising student. Students want their teacher to know who they are. They would like
their teachers to know their names. They also appreciate when teachers have some
understanding of their characters. It is extremely difficult for teacher to know all their
students, especially at the beginning of a term. As result, teachers should develop a
number of strategies to help them cope with this situation. Many teachers use the register
to make notes about individual student. Some teachers study the register or class seating
plan before the lesson start, when it is finished to try to fix students' names in their heads.
There is not an easy way of remembering students’ names, yet it is extremely important
that we do so if good rapport is to be established with individuals. We need, therefore, to
find ways of doing this that suit us best.
2) Listening to student. Students respond very well to teachers who listen to them.
Although there are many calls on our time, nevertheless, we need to make ourselves as
available as we can to listen to individual students' opinions and concerns, often outside
the lessons themselves. We need to listen properly to student in lessons, too. We need to
show that we are interested in what they have to say. Nothing lets a student sad more than
when the teacher is dismissive or uninterested in what they have to say. We should be
able to convince students that we are listening to what they say with every sign of
 28

attention. As far as possible, we also need to listen to student comments on how they are
getting on, and which activities and techniques they respond well or badly to. Finally, we
should point out that listening is not just done with the ears, we need to show that we are
listening and paying attention to our students, and this will mean approaching them,
making eye contact and generally looking interested.
3) Respecting Students. Correcting students is always a delicate event. If we are too
critical, we are at risk of leading them to not be motivated. Yet, if we are constantly
praising them, we risk turning them into ‘praise junkies’. The problem we face is that
while some students are happy to be corrected robustly, others need more support and
positive reinforcement, as students have different learning styles and intelligence. They
have different preferences when it comes to be corrected. Whatever method of correction
we choose, whoever we are working with, students need to know that we are treating
them with respect, and not expressing despair at their efforts. Teachers who respect
students do their best to see them in a positive light. They do not react with anger or
ridicule when students do unplanned things, but use a respectful way to solve a problem.
4) Being even-handed. Most teachers have some students that they warm to more than
others. For example, many teachers react well to those who take responsibility for their
own learning and do what is asked of them without complaints. Sometimes teachers are
less enthusiastic about those who are less forthcoming and who find the learner
autonomy. The reason that some students are not forthcoming may be many and variety
ranging from shyness to their cultural or family backgrounds. Sometimes students are
reluctant to take part overtly because of other stronger characters in the group. In
addition, these quiet students will only be negatively affected when they see for more
attention being paid to their more robust classmates. At the same time, giving some
students more attention than others may make those students more difficult to deal with
lecture since they will come to respect special treatment, and may take over interest as a
licence to become over-dominant in the classroom. Treating all students equally not only
helps to establish and maintain rapport, but is also a mark of professionalism.
5) Promoting student-student classroom interaction. It addresses how well students
communicate with one another in class. Classes where students have opportunities to
communicate with each other help students effectively construct their knowledge. By
 29

emphasizing the collaborative and cooperative nature of scientific work, students share
responsibility for learning with each other, discuss divergent understandings, and shape
the direction of the class. In contrast, a more student-focused class provides multiple
opportunities for students to discuss ideas in small groups and may support a whole class
discussion.

Cameron (2001:32) points out three major groups of activities that are suitable for enhancing
SBL:

 Free-discussions activities – involve students in talking about a range of topics which

reengage their interests opinions, histories and experiences;
 Role-play activities – action in which the setting, the situation and the roles are
constrained by the teacher or material but within these, student choose the language they
will use. They may also develop the personalities and situation they wish;
 Gap activities – Involve each student in pair or group possessing information, which the
other learners do not have. The learners’ information must be shared to achieve outcome.

2.3.2.3. Disadvantages of student-based learning for ELT

According to http://wwwemmalynombayan-daymalyn.blogspot.com/2009/09/advantages-and-
disadvantages-of-student.html, the learner-centered approach has some disadvantages for
education system due to the students and teachers´ beliefs, as follow as:

1) There are students who do not relate well student-centered learning in spite of
teacher's best efforts. Many students believe that the teacher who exposes them to
different activities with his less involvement is lazy and he doesn’t master the subject.
They appreciate teachers who talk much presenting, explaining and writing notes.
2) Students have to work in teams. Many students complain and find it difficult to work in
teams because they have not been taught team skills. Most teachers in agriculture and
natural resources are not trained to teach team skills.
3) Teachers are worried about the time. Teachers believe if they keep exposing students to
many activities trying to fulfil each student’s need, they will not reach their aims and
students will not learn all the course book contents according to the time planned.
 30

2.4. Factors influencing teacher-based learning in Mozambique

Mulkeen and Chen (2005:10) claim that many factors contribute to lower educational
participation in rural countries like Mozambique. Some of these factors are teachers and
student’s beliefs, teacher’s qualification and difficulties of the government on supplying quality
education services.

2.4.1. Teacher and student’s beliefs

In Mozambique (and most likely in other multilingual countries too), what teachers and students
believe determines their learning strategies and teaching practices in general, claims Baiyinna,
2001 qtd in Nhapulo (2013:84). He argues that it is important to know what beliefs and
expectations teachers and, especially, learners bring into the classroom setting, since the
perceptions, beliefs, attitudes, and metacognitive knowledge that students bring with them to the
classroom has a significant influence on the learning process and ultimate success (2013:84).

2.4.2. Students may be less interested in attending school

According to Mulkeen and Chen (2005:10), children in rural countries may be considered more
difficult to educate. They are likely to have less parental encouragement to go to school and
more alternative demands on their time. When they attend school, they may find the curriculum
less relevant to their lives, and they may receive less support for their learning from the home
environment.

2.4.2.1. Difficulties of attending school

According to Lockheed and Verspoor (1991:158), the opportunity costs of attending school are
often higher and many households depend on their children for help at busy times of the
agricultural year such as during the harvest. Like Taylor and Mulhall (2001:136) defend that
schools are usually designed to follow a rigid schedule in terms of both time of the day and term
dates and often expect children to be in school during busy periods in the agricultural calendar.
 31

2.4.2.2. Lower educated parents

Taylor and Mulhall (2001:137) unveil that many Parents in Mozambique often have a lower
level of education and may attach a lower value to schooling. This perceived lack of relevance of
schooling may be enhanced by a rigid curriculum, often designed for a context (and sometimes
culture) removed from that in rural areas. They clarifies that many national schools rarely adapt
the curriculum to make use of local examples or to link the curriculum to local needs.

2.4.2.3. Less support of parents

Taylor and Mulhall (2001:139) affirm that even when parents place a value on schooling, they
may be less able to help their children to learn. Many parents are less likely to be educated
themselves and thus have less ability to provide educational support for their children. Some
report that they are embarrassed to discuss school topics with their children because of their own
lack of knowledge. Furthermore, homes are often ill equipped to meet the educational needs of
children and often lack facilities like electricity.

2.4.3. Teacher’s qualification

Mulkeen and Chen (2005:11) reaffirm that even when teachers are teaching, the quality of their
work maybe lower due to less access they have to support services and fewer opportunities to
attend in-service courses. In some cases, they may have difficulty accessing books and materials.
In addition, parents tend to be less educated and therefore less likely to monitor the quality of
teaching or to take action if the quality is poor.

2.4.3.1. Difficulties of school access

Any trip away from the rural area — to visit a doctor or family member, collect pay, and attend
in-service training — may involve long journeys and missed school days. In addition, where
teachers walk long distances to school, they tend to start class late and finish early. As transport
difficulties often make supervisory visits from inspectors less frequent in isolated schools, there
is little to prevent a gradual erosion of instructional time during the school year, unveil Mulkeen
and Chen (2005:11).
 32

2.4.3.2. Low salaries and lack of materials

Nhapulo (2013:84) unveils that the lack of skilled teachers, low salaries, as well as a lack of
materials have been pointed out as the problems English teaching faced in the 80s, and some are
still the reason for students’ weaknesses today. He comments that the few skilled teachers prefer
working in private institutions to public ones, because usually the private sector pays higher
salaries and has better working conditions. For him, what students are supposed to master does
not always match their learning outcomes, because they still lack the English language skills
required for academic purposes.

2.4.3.3. Less access of training centres

Mulkeen and Chen (2005:11) argue, “For those who do not have enough money to pay for
private schools, to access the internet and to buy learning materials – which is the majority of
Mozambicans – there is little chance of achieving a high level of linguistic competence, with the
exception of those who are already involved in self-directed learning activities and resource
centres”.

2.4.3.4. Governments may find it more difficult to supply quality educational services

Mulkeen and Chen (2005:10) claim that in many African countries, teachers prefer to teach in
urban areas. As a result, rural schools may be left with empty posts or have longer delays in
filling posts. Even if posts are filled, rural schools may have fewer qualified teachers, if the
better qualified teachers have a greater choice of jobs. Sometimes the rural schools have less
experienced teachers, as the more experienced teachers find ways to obtain a post in a more
desirable school.
 33

CHAPTER III: Data Analysis, Results and Findings

This chapter deals with data presentation and analysis. The sample of this research includes four
teachers and ten students from Nampula Secondary School. The researcher used questionnaire,
interviews and direct observation to collect the data, presented in their respective charts to
illustrate the respondents’ opinion in regard to the questions addressed to them.

3.1. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire

This part analyses and interprets two questionnaire instruments used for teachers and students.
The questionnaire instrument for teachers consists of seven (7) questions answered by four grade
9 teachers from different streams. The questionnaire instrument for students consists of six (6)
questions answered by ten grade 9 students selected randomly.

3.1.1. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire for teachers

Target Gender Age

Male Female
Teachers 3 1 28-42
Total: 4 Average: 33
Table3: Teachers involved in the questionnaire

Question 1 – Is the English syllabus (CLT as teaching method) stimulating and adequate?
The objective of this question was to find out the reasons why teachers continue using traditional
methods, neglecting CLT method. So two teachers corresponding 50% said English syllabus is
stimulating and adequate for Mozambican context, and teachers should have creativity of
teaching the same contents in both rural and urban areas, adjusting the syllabus to the real
situation of the school and students. While others (50%) affirmed that it is not stimulating, as the
programmed hours, contents, activities and course books are not implementable in all
Mozambican contexts. Students of the areas with less technology tools (computer, mobile,
internet, photocopier and printing machines) easily develop their handwriting (writing skills)
than those who live in urban areas.
 34

Adequate

50% 50%

Not Adequate

Chart1: Adequacy of CLT approach in local schools

Question 2 – Is the time allocated for English lessons enough for emphasizing STT?
The objective of this question was to conclude whether English hours influence on excessive
teacher talking time. For this question, all teachers corresponding (100%) said the time for
English lessons isn’t enough for emphasizing student talking time. Teachers need to explain well
before setting activities and it implies more talking time for them until students understand the
content. Teachers affirmed that they normally run to fulfil the time (to teach all planned
contents), even if students yet face some difficulties. Notwithstanding, the strategies of how
minimising teacher-based teaching proposed in this work can, for example, help teachers
eliminate unnecessary teacher talking time, personalise their presentations, elicit from students
and set groups.

Question 3 – How often do you ask students for practising the language?
The objective of this question was to measure the times teachers involve their students. Teachers
assume that students are the guilty of the negative results of English language learning, as all of
them (100%) said they always ask students to practise the language. They believe that if students
were interested on learning English, they would give a positive response to the teachers’ effort in
the classroom. Looking attentively at results, they always involve students, provide
opportunities, and assign tasks but many students are not willing to react to that input.
 35

Question 4 – How often do you set up pair/group work in practice/production stage?

This question is more concerned with individual participation rather than in group or pair works.
In relation to number of students asked to speak per lesson, teachers said it depends on the time
of the lesson (45 or 90 minutes) and the content. Three teachers (both males) corresponding 75%
always set up group works in production stage and sometimes pairs in practice stage, while a
female teacher (25%) said she usually sets up group and pair works in both practice and
production. This shows that female teachers are less talkative than males; as they give more
opportunities many students develop their cooperative skills. This strategy of setting up groups
“increases the number of talking opportunities for individual student”, claims Harmer
(1983:166), and allows teachers recognise their students and distinguish them from their learning
styles.

80%
70%
60%
50%
40% Practice
30% Production
20%
10%
0%
Pair and Group Group work Pair work
works

Graph2: Group and pairs in production/practice stage

Question 5 – How do your students participate the lesson?

The objective of this question was to know the different ways students involve themselves in the
lesson. The chart below shows that the students classroom participation is controversial, as each
teacher pointed out his/her own way on how students participate the lesson. Two teachers said
their students participate the lesson speaking Portuguese and performing activities (50%), one
said only listening (25%), and other one said drilling (25%).
 36

Drilling

25% 25%
speaking Portuguese and
performing activities

50%
only listening

Chart2: Students’ classroom participation

Question 6 – Do your lesson plans reflect the objectives of the teaching syllabus?

The objective of this question was to know teachers’ source when planning lesson. All four
teachers (100%) said their lesson plans reflect the objectives of teaching syllabus, as they plan
lessons thinking on their student’s needs and what the national syllabus advocates (objectives,
activities, course books and other aids). They follow all the contents of course books proposed
for a certain grade they teach. But they can also plan thinking about their desire of seeing their
students improving in a certain language skill they believe students yet face problems.

Question 7 – Which activities/techniques do you think are suitable to promote cooperative

learning at lower secondary school?

The raising of this question is due to the need of emphasizing activities that promote cooperative
learning rather than individualistic one. Two teachers (50%) think that dialogues through reading
are suitable activities to promote cooperative learning at lower secondary school because it
follows different sub stages (pre-reading, while reading and post reading) that engage students in
intensive reading and interaction. A female teacher (25%) believes that role-plays involve all
students and make them interactive in all lesson stages, as they enjoy games and funny
environments. Another teacher corresponding 25% said that classroom group discussions are the
 37

most suitable communicative activities that involve all students during the whole lesson. He
believes that any answer during a discussion raises another discussion and the topic keeps
unsolved until the end of the lesson, which promotes the cooperative learning.

3.1.2. Analysis and interpretation of the questionnaire for students

Target Gender Age

Male Female
Students 4 6 16-18
Total: 10 Average: 16
Table4: Students involved in questionnaires

Question 1 – Do you like learning English?

This question tends to relate the students´ interest in learning English to their classroom
performance. Therefore, 8 students like learning English and 2 said NO. Between this number, 5
girls and 3 boys said YES and 1 girl and 1 boy said they hate learning English. This answer
clarifies that students enjoy learning English due to the use of technology tools and internet. So
teachers should positively respond to this students’ interest, by involving them, integrating their
needs and providing them different opportunities to practise the language. And for some who
dislike learning it, teachers should use motivational strategies to grasp their interest to English.

Question 2 – How do you find your English lessons?

The objective of this question was to understand students’ view in relation to the environment
created in their English classes. Seven students (2 boys and 5 girls) corresponding 70% find their
English classes interesting, two (20%) find it monotonous and one (10%) finds it boring. These
answers show that many girls like learning English and find the lessons interesting as they like
their teachers. This assertion is sustained in the way that boys, whose teacher is a man, dislike
English lessons and they find it monotonous as well as the girl, whose teacher is a woman, said
she finds English classes boring.
 38

10%
20%

Boring

70% Interesting
Monotonous

Chart3: Students appreciation in relation to English Class

Question 3 – Does your teacher give you time to speak in the classroom?
The objective of this question was to ensure what teachers said in relation to the time they give
their learner to practise the language in the classroom. The results show that 8 students
corresponding 80% said that their teachers sometimes let them speak, as teachers are the ones
who always speak, answer questions, ask questions and open a session for the students say
something in the classroom. Only one (10%) student said her teacher always allows students
speak, which shows that teachers select students they find intelligent. And another one said his
teacher never lets him speak, the reason way he dislikes English classes and find it monotonous.
However, teachers seldom give time to their students speak in the classroom.

Question 4 – What kind of activities does your teacher like giving you mostly?
The objective of this question was to clarify what teachers have said about the activities they
assign. Eight students corresponding 80% said their teachers like giving fill-in-the-blanks
exercise through the use of blackboard or exercise books, and games/role-plays. One (10%) said
that her teacher always gives her writing activities and composition (production stage or
homework). And other (10%) said reading texts and completing sentences using a structure in
brackets. It is obvious that students like communicative activities because they enjoy games and
interactive competitions, although teachers do not like giving them continuously. Therewith,
teachers should assign activities like gap, role-plays and free-discussions. However, they should
create a good atmosphere that motivates learners’ active participation.
 39

Question 5 – How do you participate the lessons?

The objective of this question was to ensure what teachers said about students’ participation.
Basing on the results, four students corresponding 40% speak Portuguese to ask for permission,
questions or share their ideas; five students (50%) perform some learning activities; and one
(10%) only drills. These results show that students enjoy classroom activities and teachers are
responsible to plan at least one communicative activity per a lesson.
Students speak their local languages at home and outside of the classroom and speak Portuguese
in all other subjects, except English and French. Bearing in mind that students have 3 hours a
week for English, teachers should prevent their students from speaking Portuguese in the
classroom, because it is the unique English landscape for them.

Question 6 – What do you like doing during the English classes?

The objective of this question was to understand the activities that students like doing in English
classes. Five students corresponding 50% find interesting when the class practises the language
through several communicative activities, such as games, role-plays and reading a text and
dialogues. And others (50%) consider it funny when they play games; everyone tells his/her
story and when they drill vocabulary in chorus. So it is evident that all students enjoy games,
debates, role-plays, simulations, writing on the board or perform other else activities in the
classroom, even when they seem to dislike English classes. However, the lack of motivational
activities might be the reason why students don’t either attend English classes or show interest in
learning it. Teachers are responsible to provide that input.

3.2. Analysis and interpretation of the interview from teachers

The interview was addressed to four teachers of different grades in the context of lower
secondary education, aged from 28 to 42 years at Nampula secondary school.

Target Grades Gender Age

Male Female
Teachers 8 1 42
9 1 1 28 and 33
10 1 32
Table5: Teachers involved in interviews
 40

Many teachers working at Nampula Secondary School were trained at UP and some are yet
attending training course at the same university. Two teachers corresponding 90% said that they
have training course and one (10%) was trained at Instituto de Línguas and is now attending ELT
training course at UP.

This aspect tells that teachers did not minimise teacher-based learning because they probably
lack creativity of adjusting the teaching principles to the real life of their students, and they find
easy and simple using traditional approaches. Another reason is that students appreciate teachers
who make lot effort in the classroom and who overwhelms his English explaining everything.

80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Trained at UP Under Training

Graph3: Training at Nampula Secondary School

Question 1 – How long have you been teaching English?

The objective of this question was to relate the teachers´ experience to their performance in the
classroom. Three teachers corresponding 75% said they have been teaching 10 years ago. They
started teaching after they did their training course at IFPN until they graduate at UP. The female
teacher corresponding 25% started teaching English after doing English course at UP in 2010.
Although the difference, they now have enough experience in ELT and they should use tools
they possess to inverting the scenario of excessive teacher-based learning.

Question 2 – What are the challenges in your job?

The objective of this question was to identify the challenges that probably make them be keen on
teacher-based learning. All teachers pointed out many challenges they face in their job,
 41

consisting of internal problems and policies of education towards English language teaching in
Mozambique. Two teachers (50%) said large classes, less students’ participation and lack of
teaching materials are the major challenges they face in their job. Others (50%) added more two
items, saying that the Automatic Progression at primary school and programmed hours for
English difficult their daily job.

Question 3 – Do you think your students are interested in learning English?

The objective of this question was to ensure what students said about their interest in learning
English. All teachers share the same idea, some students are interested in learning English but
others not. Even those who are not interested force themselves to learn it because English is
compulsory. Therefore, they learn English to pass the exams and tests, to be successful on the
internet and to be employed for jobs that require English.

Question 4 – Which strategies do you use to involve your students in the lesson?
The objective of this question was to identify the strategies teachers use to involve their students.
Teachers assumed they use different communicative activities in the classroom to grasp the
attention of their students, such as discussions, role-plays, fill in the blanks or gaps, listening
activities and dialogues through reading. But two teachers corresponding 50% declared that
students face difficulties when the instructions for the activities displayed on the board are not
translated into a language they easily understand. So they use Portuguese when they feel students
do not understand the content or what is being taught, and they normally accept those students
who speak Portuguese to ask question or share their ideas.

Question 5 – As an experienced English teacher, are you optimist on minimising teacher-based

learning at lower secondary school?
The objective of this question was to understand the teacher’s view towards to the value of this
study. Although lower secondary students are yet under preparatory stage, teachers are optimist
on minimising teacher-based learning, because it will help them teach with less effort. So they
believe it is possible if learner show interest on constructing their own learning with self-
determination, and if learners actively get advantage of all opportunities that the teachers
provide.
 42

Question 6 – If you were a proponent, which teaching methods would you think to be more
suitable for minimising teacher-based learning at Mozambican lower secondary school?

The objective of this question was to understand the teacher’s opinion in relation to methods for
the implementation of this study. Teachers believe that there is no need of introducing other
methods for minimising teacher-based learning, as CLT is an eclectic method and fits on the
students’ needs, the economic and social situation of the country. The requirement is that the
teachers, students and other participants involved in learning process should change their beliefs
towards English Language Teaching. In addition, the education policies should improve training
courses for better teachers’ qualification, as it directly influences on teachers’ performance.

3.3. Analysis and interpretation of the observation instrument

The observation instrument was conducted during different days and contained three parts. The
first part was about teacher/student talking time, in which the researcher tended to measure the
proportion of classroom talking used by the teacher and by the student. So teachers talk more
than their students. The presentation stage is where teachers spend more than 25 minutes (about
55% of the lesson) explaining structures, translating and making students drill the selected
vocabulary. In this stage, learners are passive listeners. There is no individual performance and
students only act when the teacher opens a brief section for group or pair works.

The second part focused on the techniques/activities used to involve students. Teachers seldom
elicit from students, they only present or explain the topic. Students spend much time (40%)
using Portuguese to interact each other or with the teacher.

Finally, the last section tended to check whether teachers implement strategies to minimise
teacher-based learning. So teacher prompts more teacher-students interaction rather that student-
student feedback, which makes students be more dependent on their teacher. With regard to
strategies, the teacher uses more words than realia or body language, uses explanation rather than
elicitation, but he tolerates silence and asks volunteers to practise the language.
 43

3.4. Analysis and interpretation of the findings

The questionnaire for teachers, concretely questions 1, 2 and 6, confirmed that the teachers do
not believe the applicability of CLT principles at lower secondary education, because they still
assume that Mozambican lower students are not ready to communicate in English, they spend
much time speaking Portuguese and the programmed hours for English classes disallow them
expose students to various communicative activities. Zero English learners are unable to interact
in English language, as communication consists of competences (e.g. grammatical) that a
speaker should possess to use it fluently and accurately.

The student´s answers to the questionnaire contradicted teachers when they said that they always
ask students to perform some activities. They affirmed that their teachers do not involve all of
them and they are not exposed to real communicative situations; teacher keeps speaking and
doing everything alone. However, the researcher confirmed during observation that learning is
not successful because the learners are not the responsible of their own learning.

It also has been concluded during classroom observation that some students’ attitudes influence
the excessive teacher-based teaching, like when they always come late and they rarely do
homework, what makes teachers jump the correction of homework. Students only speak
Portuguese and they usually shy themselves. Many of them, those who sit far from the teacher,
don’t pay attention and they play even when the teacher speaks. Notwithstanding, teachers do
not work hard to change this situation. Nevertheless, the researcher believed that if English
teachers change the way they teach, and become keen on giving learners autonomy, the students
will be strongly motivated and cope with such new strategies.

3.5. Examining hypotheses

Soon after finishing the research, data analysis and interpretation of the results, the researcher
measures how much the hypotheses have precisely reached the results.
i. Teachers might assume that Mozambican students are ‘Zero English’
The results (question 4 of the questionnaire for teachers) provide clear evidences that the
teachers at lower secondary school believe that their students are not ready for practising the
language by their own. So they should overuse their English to make them understand what is
being taught.
 44

ii. Teachers are aware of CLT although they find it a harsh work
From the analysis of the results made through the questionnaire for teachers (question 2), the
researcher concluded that major number of teachers do not believe that the principles of CLT are
applicable in Mozambican context, because for students interact or communicate in target
language (English) implies much explanation from the teachers, which disallows them involve
partially the students. In addition, the questionnaire for teachers (question 4) confirmed that the
teachers are aware of CLT principles, but they fail implementing it because they believe it is a
harsh work, as lower education students will not give a positive response to these strategies. So
they prefer use traditional methods to prevent their students from mistakes and errors.

iii. Teachers might be aware of cooperative learning, as they set up groups or pairs

The results of the questionnaire answered by teachers (question 4 and 7) confirmed that the
teachers involve their students in a cooperative learning, through the use of pair or group works
(discussion, dialogue and role-plays). But they have clarified that it depends on the time (45 or
90) and the topic matter. However, the classroom observation conducted in different days
contradicted this view, as the observer concluded that teachers ask the same students to speak or
read, because they believe these students facilitate them reach their lesson objectives, and they
neglect others who they assume spoils their time.

iv. Students might be motivated enough to learn English, but the input is ineffective

The results of questionnaire answered by students (question 3 and 6) show that they like learning
English and practise it in the classroom, through dialogues, drills, stories, role-plays and games,
but the input created by teachers is not effective. Teachers rarely expose their students to a real
life situation, which would help them to be familiar with a range of language context. The
teaching of foreign language requires student’s exposure to it, as they would use the language
fluently and achieve communicative goals.
 45

CHAPTER IV: Proposal and Implementation

This chapter deals with some proposals to be implemented by teachers in the classroom for the
success of English language learning. For its implementation, these proposals can be addressed
to school libraries, UP departments and SPEJT.

4.1 Proposal
For teachers to achieve the aims teaching/learning process, they need to invest effort, time and
creativity so that its results should reflect on the positive side. Therefore, an effective
minimisation of teacher-based learning requires teachers to select suitable activities that may
foster and promote student’s classroom participation and get students motivated to actively
construct their own learning in different situations.

In the following steps, the researcher proposes a sample of five activities that should be upheld
by teachers of English language in the classroom in order to minimise teacher-based learning.

1) What do you know about?

Aim: To promote classroom interaction and encourage students work in groups, integrating all
language skills.
Material: Sample of worksheet produced by the teacher with the basis of course book.
Procedures:
T: Presents a list of 11 sentences in present simple tense. These sentences bring some
information about three politic parties in the parliament (FRELIMO, RENAMO and MDM);
T: Divides the class into three groups and organise the classroom in a way students interact face-
to-face. He stays in the centre of the class and guides the task;
Ss: In groups, they name themselves as FRELIMO, RENAMO and MDM respectively.
T: Distributes the lists to groups and asks them write only the sentences related to their parties;
Ss: A group representative, chosen by the group, reads the sentences;
Ss – T: After presenting their answers, the class and the teacher discuss and correct the answers.
The teacher is a simple monitor, he/she only corrects if the students can’t.
The researcher proposed this activity because students can enjoy performing as deputies and
discussing about their real life situations.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)
 46

2) Correct to me
Aim: To promote student-student interaction and leave students select their partner of their
preference to correct them.
Material: Sample of worksheet produced by the teacher with the basis of course book
Procedures:
T: Writes 7 sentences on the board with 15 blank spaces numbered 1-15. At right, he/she writes a
word list to be used for filling in the blanks;
T: Asks a volunteer to fill in the blank 1;
S: Stands up and fills in the blank 1. This volunteer points another student by leaving the chalk
on his/her desk;
S: Stands up and fills in the blank 2 and so on.
T: Provides a feedback with class in correcting the activity. For the blanks with wrong answers,
the teacher or the class points the students who answered that number;
S: Shows up him/herself, takes the chalk and leaves on the desk of another student who did not
fill in any blank. This correction continues until the time set for the activity.
The researcher proposed this activity because it will help students to practice the language
among themselves with less effort of the teacher. It also grasps all students’ attention as
everyone expects to receive the chalk from the partner.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016).

3) Whisper Race
Aim: To enhance students’ skills in reading, listening, memorisation and writing of “Th” sound.
Material: Pieces of paper containing one selected vocabulary form the word rail

Procedures:
T: Guides students to stand up and form 3 cues of 6 students. Then, teacher selects 3 students to
stay at the back of each group.
Ss: Get in group cues looking at the board direction and between the 3 selected students, each
one stays at the back to command the group.
T: Gives the piece of paper containing a word to each commander of each group and
demonstrates the activity;
 47

Ss: The commanders receive the paper and the whole class pays attention to the instruction;
T: Asks the commanders to read for the first student of the group and this listener quickly says
the word to next and so on. The last student runs to write the word he listened on the board;
Ss: Continue playing the game. The winning group is the one that writes correctly the word
listened. The losers stay out and give chance to other 6-students groups.
The researcher proposes this activity because it keeps all students actively participating the
lesson as they enjoy competitions in games and everyone in the classroom strives to win fun
environment. It also encourages them to pay attention, since the activity requires active listening,
speed reading, good memorisation and spelling. So, teachers should use games to motivate
students be interested in learning English.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016).

4) Dialogue (partnered reading)

Aim: To encourage students perform a dialogue through reading aloud accurately and
expressively with a partner.
Material: Short texts at students’ reading level
Procedures:
T: Presents the dialogue (text) and asks students to form pairs and instruct to read silently for
two minutes and then aloud;
Ss: Form their pairs and prepare their dialogue through silent read, the fluent student may help
the partner decode any unfamiliar words;
T: Asks any volunteered pair to perform the dialogue while the others are listening and preparing
to their right time.
Ss: Listen to the selected pair. The evidence is that the fluent reader makes fast progress through
these activities. The lower reader benefits by being coached by his/her partner.
This type of reading activity has a dual benefit. The lower reader makes progress by being
supported and the fluent reader makes progress by teaching. So, for language teachers, it is
supreme to pair up students and expose them to natural conversations or communicative
situations.

Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)

 48

5) Pick and Read

Aim: To help students to study the chronological sequence of paragraphs within the text.

Material: Wall charts and pieces of papers which indicate directions.

Procedures:
T: Fixes up two charts on the board (A and B) and keeps 8 pieces of papers (1AB, 2AB, 3AB,
4AB, 1BA, 2BA, 3BA, 4BA) on the desk, in front of the class. The numbers indicate the clauses
sequence whereas the letters show from where the student should start reading;
T: Asks a volunteer and demonstrates the activity;
S: Stands up, picks up one piece of paper, shows the class and reads from A to B or vice-versus,
depending on the papers he/she picks;
Ss: Continue doing. If a student fails to read, the class corrects by reading aloud in chorus.
This activity was proposed due to the use of teaching aids in the classroom and the need of
enhancing students’ learning skill without blocking them in case of committing an error or
mistake. Students appreciate draw competition to show the luck they have in their real life.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)

4.2. Implementation

The implementation of these findings will be through copies of this work that will be sent to the
library of Nampula Secondary School where the study was conducted so that the students and
teachers can have access to the paper.

Another copy will be saved at the Department of Language Sciences, Communication and Arts
and at UP library to be read by current lecturer and their trainees.

It would be valuable, if one copy was sent to the SPEJT because it is the part of government that
is responsible for setting rules for the teachers and supervises the its correct implementation.

This research should be also placed in public libraries to open a window of opportunities for
readers seeking for similar information for education sake or any other purpose.
 49

CHAPTER V: Recommendations and conclusion

This chapter focuses on the recommendations, conclusion, bibliography and appendices
respectively. The researcher addresses some recommendations to all participants involved in
English language learning, and gives the concluding remarks for this work.

5.1 Recommendations
It is obvious that teachers have many challenges in teaching English to speakers of other
languages and beliefs. They are trained with recent principles, methods, techniques and strategies
on how to be successful at local school, but when they get in contact with the real educational
situation, they end up materialising the same traditional techniques of their earlier teachers.
Therefore, they can be successful if all entities involved in learning process keep on encouraging
them so that they feel motivated. Some recommendations are addressed to the Ministry of
Education, teachers and staff of the school, the students and their parents.

5.1.1. Ministry of Education

The Ministry of Education should schedule seminars, workshops and scholarships for teachers
annually whereby teachers of English language should discuss useful aspects of their career and
how to design different activities that minimise TBL in order to make learning more effective.

5.1.2. Teachers and school staff

The school staff should promote peer observation among English teachers at least 4 times/term.
It would help them change to better because of being observed, as they would start:
 Treating students according to their level, age, learning styles and needs;
 Collaborating with students to bring learning material (realia) in the classroom;
 Increasing a personal rapport with their students by taking students’ learning seriously;
 Providing students opportunities to learn English through real communicative situations;
 Doing all their best to make their students more participative than passive.

5.1.3. Students
Students should value English language as an important subject because it can enrich their lives.
They also should show interest on learning English so that their teachers can have good reasons
 50

to facilitate their learning. If students pretend to construct their own learning, they should avoid
being late, pay attention to the teacher, do all classroom activities and home tasks and develop
their self-esteem. However, teachers and students should be friends, work together and
collaborate so that the learning process can be victorious.

5.1.4. Parents

Many parents prefer enrolling their children at private schools rather than public. They believe
that in the public schools, the learning process it not seriously managed. To solve it, they should:
 Stop blaming teachers/schools for every wrong things and start play their own roles;
 Provide basic conditions to their children attend school (books, pen, school uniform, etc);
 Control children’s exercise books whether they participate classes and they may find a
skilled person to explain the children and follow their learning process at home;
 Propose a meeting with the staff to see what is going wrong with the learning process.

5.2. Conclusion
The results of the data analysis showed that teachers continue talking more in the classroom
because they did not allow students speak and practise the language through activities, the reason
why students are unable to develop their skill and use English language communicatively.

In recent teaching approaches, teachers should now have to assume the role of facilitator and
monitor, and they have to develop a different view of learners’ errors and of her/his own role in
facilitating language learning. Learners now participate in classroom activities based on a
cooperative rather than individualistic approach to learning. They become comfortable with
listening to their peers in group work or pair work tasks, rather than relying on the teacher for a
model. They are expected to take on a greater degree of responsibility for their own learning.

The researcher is aware that learning a language is a long-term task, however, he still advices
teachers to make use of the strategies of minimising teacher-based learning proposed in this
study, in order to help their students make progress in learning English language. Students also
need to actively participate the classes, which would enable them to become autonomous in their
learning and gain English as a tool for their daily communication in different learning and
working setting.
 51

Bibliography

Bhushan, R (2010). Communicative Language Teaching.

CAMERON, L (2001). Teaching Language to young learners, First edition, Cambridge

University Press

COHEN, L et al (2000). Research Methods in Education, 5th Edition, London: Routledge

Falmer. Print

FINDLAY, E; Costa, M and Guedes, S (2006). Guia para Elaboração de Projectos de Pesquisa,
– Joinville, SC: UNIVILLE.

HARMER, J (1983).The practice of English Language Teaching, 4th Edition, New York:
Longman. Print

http://wwwemmalynombayan-daymalyn.blogspot.com/2009/09/advantages-and-disadvantages-
of-student.html Accessed at 12:11 2016/03/01

https://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/article/teacher-talking-time written by Steve Darn, Izmir

University of Economics, Turkey. Accessed at 09:43 2016/05/04

HARMER, J (1991).The Practice of English Language Teaching, New Edition, New York:
Longman.

KELVIN, T et al (2006). Research for Educators, Australia: Thomson/Social Sciences Press

LARSEN-FREEMAN, D (2008). Techniques and Principles in Language Teaching, Fifth

Edition, Oxford: University Press

LOCKHEED, M and VERSPOOR, A (1991). Improving Primary Education in Developing

Countries. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank. Malawi, National Statistical
Office. 2000. 1998 Malawi Population Housing and Census Report. Zomba.

MULKEEN, A and CHEN, D (2005). Teachers for Rural Schools: A Challenge for Africa.
Association for the Development of Education in Africa: Working paper, Biennale on Education
in Africa. Print
 52

NHAPULO, M (2013). Teacher and learner beliefs andexpectations about English language
teaching and learning at Mozambican university. Afrika focus - V26, Nr. 2, Maputo: University
Press.

NʼKAPA, N. (1997). Educational Research for Modern Scholars, Nigeria: Fourth Dimension
Publisher Co, Ltd. Print

NUNAN, D. (1992). Research Method in Language Learning; Cambridge: Language Teaching

Library. Print

PATEL, M F and JAIN, P M (2008). English Language Teaching (Methods, Tools &
Techniques); First edition, Jaipur: Sunrise Publishers & Distributors. Print

RICHARDS, J C and RODGERS, T S (1986). Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching

– A description and analysis; First Edition, Cambridge University Press

RICHARDS, J C (2006). Communicative Language Teaching Today, First Edition, Cambridge

University Press

SANE E, SEBONDE, R Y (2014). Suitability of Communicative Approach in Teaching English

Language in Tanzania Secondary Schools. Arts Social Sci J5: 74.

SCRIVENER, J (2005). Learning Teaching, 2nd Edition, Macmillan.

TAYLOR, P and MULHALL, A (2001). Linking Learning Environments through Agricultural

Experience: Enhancing the Learning Process in Rural Primary Schools. International Journal of
Educational Development 21 (1): 135–48

TUCKMAN, B W (1990). Conducting Educational Research, 4thed, Unknown Place and

Publisher

UR, P (1996). A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory, Cambridge University
Press

VITHAL, R and JANSEN, J (1997). Designing your first Research Proposal, Cape Town
 53

Appendices
 54
APPENDIX 1

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

Departamento de Ciências de Linguagem, Comunicação e Artes

Licenciatura em Ensino da Língua Inglesa

Questionário para Estudantes (versão portuguesa)
“Proposta para a Minimização da Aprendizagem Centrada no Professor no Ensino Secundário Básico”

Escola: ___________________________________________________________________________

Género: (Masculino _____/Feminino _____); Idade: _______ anos; Data ______/_______/2016

O presente questionário foi produzido para compreender a visão dos estudantes sobre o Ensino de
Língua Inglesa em Moçambique, com vista a encontrar as implicações da excessiva Aprendizagem
Centrada no Professor para sua aprendizagem.
Leia atentamente as perguntas e marque (X) uma opção que achares correcta. Por favor, seja honesto!

1. Gostas de aprender a Língua Inglesa?

Sim Não
2. O que acha das tuas aulas de Língua Inglesa?

Aborrecidas Interessantes Cansativas

3. O teu professor dá-te tempo para falar na sala de aula?

Sempre Às vezes Raramente Nunca

4. Que tipo de actividade teu professor gosta de dar mais?

Escolha múltipla Preencha espaços brancos Composições Jogos interactivos

5. Como tu participas as aulas?

Realizando algumas actividades Repetindo o que o professor diz

Escrevendo no quadro Falando Português Somente escutando

6) O que gostas de fazer durante as aulas de Inglês?

Praticar jogos Ler textos Escrever composições

Contar historias Discutir um tema

Obrigado pela tua colaboração!

 55

APPENDIX 2

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

Department of Language Sciences, Communication and Arts

Licenciatura Degree in ELT

Questionnaire Instrument for students (English version)

“A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School”

School___________________________________________________________________________

Gender: (Male_____/Female_____); Age: _______ years old; Date______/_______/2014

The present questionnaire instrument was designed to understand how students view the ELT in
Mozambique, in order to find out the effects of excessive teacher-based learning on their learning.
Read the questions carefully and cross (X) in one option you think is suitable for you. Please, be honest!

1. Do you like learning English?

Yes No
2. How do you find your English lessons?

Boring Interesting Monotonous

3. Does your teacher give you time to speak in the classroom?

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

4. How do you participate the lessons?

Performing some activities Repeating after the teacher

Writing on the board Speaking Portuguese Only listening

4. What kind of activities does your teacher like giving you mostly?

Multiple choice fill-in-the-blanks Writing composition Games/role-plays

5. What do you like doing during the English classes??

Playing games Reading texts Drilling vocabulary

Telling stories Discuss a topic

Thank you very much for your collaboration!

 56

APPENDIX 3

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

Department of Language Sciences, Communication and Arts

Licenciatura Degree in ELT

Questionnaire Instrument for teachers

“A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School”

School__________________________________________; Teacher______________________________
Gender: (Male/Female)______; Trained(yes/no)___; From:(University/Institute)____________; Age____

Grade_____; Stream____; Shift_______; Students (male______/female______) Date:____/_____/2016

The present questionnaire instrument was designed to understand how teachers view the ELT in
Mozambique, with the purpose of finding out the reasons why they continue exceeding teacher-based
learning at lower secondary school.
Read the questions carefully and cross (X) in one option you think is suitable for you. Please, be honest!

1. Is the English Program (CLT as teaching approach/method) stimulating and adequate?

Yes No
2. Is the time allocated for English lessons enough for emphasizing Student Talking Time?
Yes No
3. How often do you ask students for practising the language?

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

4. How do your students participate the lesson?

Performing activities Speaking Portuguese Drilling Only listening

5. How often do you set up pair/group work in practice/production stage?

Always Sometimes Rarely Never

6. Do your lesson plans reflect the objectives of the teaching syllabus?

Yes No

7. Which activities/techniques do you think are suitable to promote cooperative learning at lower
secondary school?

Role-plays Group discussion Dialogue through reading Story telling

Thank you very much for your collaboration!

 57

APPENDIX 4

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

Department of Language Sciences, Communication and Arts

Licenciatura Degree in ELT

Interview Instrument from Teachers

“A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School”

School__________________________________________; Teacher______________________________
Gender: (Male/Female)______; Trained(yes/no)___; From:(University/Institute)____________; Age____

Grade_____; Stream____; Shift_______; Students (male______/female______) Date:____/_____/2016

The present Interview instrument was designed to understand the teacher’s belief towards ELT, with
the purpose of finding out the reasons why teachers continue exceeding teacher-based learning at
lower secondary school.
Read the questions carefully and cross (X) in one option you think is suitable for you. Please, be honest!

1. How long have you been teaching English?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
2. What are the challenges in your job?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
3. Do you think your students are interested in learning English?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
4. Which strategies do you use to involve your students in the lesson?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
5. As an experienced English teacher, are you optimist on minimising teacher-based learning at
lower secondary school?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
6. If you were a proponent, which teaching methods would you think to be more suitable for
minimising teacher-based learning at Mozambican lower secondary school?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

Thank you very much for your collaboration!

 58

APPENDIX 5

DELEGAÇÃO DE NAMPULA

Department of Language Sciences, Communication and Arts

Licenciatura Degree in ELT

Classroom Observation Instrument

“A Proposal to Minimising Teacher-based Learning at Lower Secondary School”

School_______________________________________________________________________________
_Name___________________________ Shift_______ Gender: (Male/Female)_________Age: _____
years old; Grade_____ Stream____; Students (male______/female______) Date:____/_____/2016

The present classroom observation instrument was designed in order to see how teachers implement
their lessons taking into account student’s involvement and student’s talking time.

Part I: Classroom participation (Talking talking)

Key Items Time used (minutes)

0-5 5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25
Presentation of structures (vocabulary, grammar)
Teacher Instructions for clarification
talking Demonstration of activity
time Answering questions
Asking questions for checking understanding
During the classroom activity (task)
Student Listening to the teacher
talking Drilling (repeating after the teacher)
time Asking questions
Answering questions raised by the teacher
Answering questions raised by other students
Individual participation
Group participation
 59

Part II: Techniques/Activities used to involve students

Key Items Yes No

Teacher elicits from students
Teacher only presents/explains
Teacher lets students work in Pairs or groups
Techniques used Teacher asks open-ended questions
Teacher prompts natural conversation, stories and anecdotes
Teacher lets students speak Portuguese
Teachers corrects all mistakes
Teacher lets students correct other’s mistakes
Students perform role-plays/games
Students complete sentences on the board
Activity performed Students answer True or false questions
Students Fill in the blank spaces using a word bank
Student perform a dialogue through reading of a text

Part III: Strategies used to minimise teacher-based learning

Key Items Yes No

Promoting student-student feedback than teacher-students
Using realia than words
Eliminating unnecessary teacher talking time
Tolerating silence
Strategies used Using body language (mime, gestures or facial expressions) than words
Using elicitation than explanation
Using 30% of a lesson (limit of 10 minutes per a time)
Pointing students to practise the language
Asking for volunteers to practise the language
Source (Adapted by the Author, 2016)
 60

APPENDIX 6: Sample Activity

What do you know about?

Aim: To promote classroom interaction and encourage students work in groups, integrating all
language skills.
Material: Sample of worksheet produced by the teacher with the basis of course book.

A. Given the list below, select the sentences which contain some information about your party.
Write FRELIMO, RENAMO or MDM in front of each sentence.
Follow the example: Eduardo Mondlane is the first president of our party. FRELIMO

1. Samora Machel is one of the heroes of our party. _______

2. We are the winners of the last presidential elections of 2014. ___________
3. Our party governs Nampula, Beira and Quelimane cities. ___________
4. Afonso Dhlakhama leads our party to success. ____________
5. Our 2014 elections candidate is the president of Mozambique. ___________
6. We are the majority of the parliament. _________
7. We all trust Davis Simango leadership. _________
8. We are the strong opposition to government in the country. _________
9. This opposition party possesses guns and soldiers for its security. __________
10. We and the government are the signers of Peace Agreement of Rome on 1992. _____
11. This is the youngest party of the parliament. _____________

Procedures:
T: Presents a list of 11 sentences in present simple tense. These sentences bring some
information about three politic parties in the parliament (FRELIMO, RENAMO and MDM);
T: Divides the class into three groups and organise the classroom in a way students interact face-
to-face. He stays in the centre of the class and guides the task;
Ss: In groups, they name themselves as FRELIMO, RENAMO and MDM respectively.
T: Distributes the lists to groups and asks them write only the sentences related to their parties;
Ss: A group representative, chosen by the group, reads the sentences;
Ss and T: After presenting their answers, the class and the teacher discuss and correct the
answers. The teacher is a simple monitor, he/she only corrects if the students can’t.
The researcher proposed this activity because students can enjoy performing as deputies and
discussing about their real life situations.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)
 61

APPENDIX 7: Sample Activity

Correct to me
Aim: To promote student-student interaction and leave students select their partner of their
preference to correct them.
Material: Sample of worksheet produced by the teacher with the basis of course book
1. Fill in the blanks using the appropriate vocabulary of the word list.
Follow the example. WORD LIST:
Her, herself,
a) Matilde is my sister. I saw (15 her) yesterday. he, himself, it,
b) I enjoyed (__1_) at the party. Matilde enjoyed (_2__). We enjoyed (_3). itself, me,
c) Miguel sometimes talks to ( 4) when (___5___) is alone. myself,
d) They pride (_6_) on their skill at football and now win trophies by (_7_). ourselves, us,
e) The airport is very big, but the town (__8__) is quite small. you,
f) As we set off, our mother waved goodbye to (___9__) and said, ‘Take yourselves,
care of (_10_)’. them,
g) The taxi brings me a lot of money. (_11___) paid for (__12__) in its first themselves,
year. Now (__13__) is earning big profits for (__14__).

Procedures:
T: Writes 7 sentences on the board with 15 blank spaces numbered 1-15. At right, he/she writes
a word list to be used for filling in the blanks;
T: Asks a volunteer to fill in the blank 1;
S: Stands up and fills in the blank 1. This volunteer points another student by leaving the chalk
on his/her desk;
S: Stands up and fills in the blank 2 and so on.
T: Provides a feedback with class in correcting the activity. For the blanks with wrong answers,
the teacher or the class points the students who answered that number;
S: Shows up him/herself, takes the chalk and leaves on the desk of another student who did not
fill in any blank. This correction continues until the time set for the activity.
The researcher proposed this activity because it will help students to practice the language
among themselves with less effort of the teacher. It also grasps all students’ attention as
everyone expects to receive the chalk from the partner.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016).
 62

APPENDIX 8: Sample Activity

Whisper Race

Aim: To enhance students’ skills in reading, listening, memorisation and writing of “Th” sound.

Material: Pieces of paper containing one selected vocabulary form the word rail

These
School Path Thanks

Then Mother Birthday

Further Theology Hypothesis

Procedures:
T: Guides students to stand up and form 3 cues of 6 students. Then, teacher selects 3 students to
stay at the back of each group.
Ss: Get in group cues looking at the board direction and between the 3 selected students, each
one stays at the back to command the group.
T: Gives the piece of paper containing a word to each commander of each group and
demonstrates the activity;
Ss: The commanders receive the paper and the whole class pays attention to the instruction;
T: Asks the commanders to read for the first student of the group and this listener quickly says
the word to next and so on. The last student runs to write the word he listened on the board;
Ss: Continue playing the game. The winning group is the one that writes correctly the word
listened. The losers stay out and give chance to other 6-students groups.
The researcher proposes this activity because it keeps all students actively participating the
lesson as they enjoy competitions in games and everyone in the classroom strives to win fun
environment. It also encourages them to pay attention, since the activity requires active listening,
speed reading, good memorisation and spelling. So, teachers should use games to motivate
students be interested in learning English.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016).
 63

APPENDIX 9: Sample Activity

Dialogue (partnered reading)

Aim: To encourage students perform a dialogue through reading aloud accurately and
expressively with a partner.

Material: Short texts at students’ reading level

At School
HELEN: Hi. I’m Miguel. What’s your name?
ASHIYA: I’m Ashiya.
MIGUEL: Nice to meet you. Are you Tanzanian?
ASHIYA: No, I’m not. I’m Mozambican. I’m from Mozambique Island.
MIGUEL: Oh, I love Mozambique Island. It’s My favourite city.
ASHIYA: Where are you from?
MIGUEL: I’m from Lichinga. In which grade are you?
ASHIYA: I’m in grade 9, stream B.
MIGUEL: Oh, me too. Nice to meet you.
ASHIYA: Nice to meet you.

Procedures:
T: Presents the dialogue (text) and asks students to form pairs and instruct to read silently for
two minutes and then aloud;
Ss: Form their pairs and prepare their dialogue through silent read, the fluent student may help
the partner decode any unfamiliar words;
T: Asks any volunteered pair to perform the dialogue while the others are listening and preparing
to their right time.
Ss: Listen to the selected pair. The evidence is that the fluent reader makes fast progress through
these activities. The lower reader benefits by being coached by his/her partner.
This type of reading activity has a dual benefit. The lower reader makes progress by being
supported and the fluent reader makes progress by teaching. So, for language teachers, it is
supreme to pair up students and expose them to natural conversations or communicative
situations.

Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)

 64

.
APPENDIX 10: Sample Activity

Pick and Read

Aim: To help students to study the chronological sequence of paragraphs within the text.

Material: Wall charts and pieces of papers which indicate directions.

A B
1. Rosa will travel... 1. If she has money...
2. If I finish school 2. I will be a teacher
3. If you learn English... 3. You will have a job...
4. will we pass the exams 4. If we prepare hard.

1AB 2AB 3AB 4AB 1BA 2BA 3BA 4BA

Procedures:
T: Fixes up two charts on the board (A and B) and keeps 8 pieces of papers (1AB, 2AB, 3AB,
4AB, 1BA, 2BA, 3BA, 4BA) on the desk, in front of the class. The numbers indicate the clauses
sequence whereas the letters show from where the student should start reading;
T: Asks a volunteer and demonstrates the activity;
S: Stands up, picks up one piece of paper, shows the class and reads from A to B or vice-versus,
depending on the papers he/she picks;
Ss: Continue doing the activity. If a student fails to read, the class corrects by reading aloud in
chorus.
This activity was proposed due to the use of teaching aids in the classroom and the need of
enhancing students’ learning skill without blocking them in case of committing an error or
mistake. Students appreciate draw competition to show the luck they have in their real life.
Source: (Adapted by the Author, 2016)