Unplanned classroom

language and teacher training

Jill Cadorath and Simon Harris

This article uses classroom data to discuss how an emphasis on lesson

planning and communicative activities in teacher training sessions, and
the dominance of a coursebook as a source for these activities, have had
unintended consequences in three specific areas, leading to the inhibition
of interaction between teacher and student, the avoidance of genuine
communicative opportunities available in unplanned language, and the
loss of aspects of local knowledge and experience as topics for classroom
talk. The article goes on to describe the measures taken to make a place fo
unplanned language in future training sessions and in teachers' classroom
practice.

Introduction For the past four years, we have been working on teacher training
programmes in south-east Mexico's state universities and preparatory
high schools. In these, as in other training courses, writing lesson plans,
micro-teaching, and assessed observations, contribute to a strong
emphasis on thinking before doing. In this article we will note some
negative effects of this emphasis. Using two short classroom transcripts,
we will discuss the linguistic and sociocultural advantages of allowing
time for unplanned teacher-student interaction, as a source of authentic
language, language learning opportunities, and teacher training materi-
als.

Lesson planning: In a recently observed university class in the south-east of Mexico, the
a cautionary note following exchange was noted down (see Note for transcription
symbols).
Extract 1
[After taking the register the teacher starts chatting to students]
T: well then, Jorge . . . did you have a good weekend?
S: yes
T: what did you do?
S: I got married.
T: [smiling] you got married. (0.7) you certainly had a good weekend
then. (5.0) [laughter and buzz of conversation]
T: now turn to page 56 in your books. (1.6) you remember last time we
were talking about biographies . . . [T checks book and lesson plan
while other students talk to Jorge in Spanish about his nuptials.]
Would the teacher, Jorge, and the class have spent time talking about his
wedding in English if the observer hadn't been there? 'How do you
know if the light is on when the fridge door is closed?' was the famous
188 ELT Journal Volume 52/3 July 1998 © Oxford University Press 1998
 observer's paradox posed by Labov (1972). In this case, the post-
observation feedback confirmed that the teacher was nervous, and
worried about the lesson plan, so hardly registered Jorge's response.

Organized chaos: a Consider now an extract from a preparatory classroom in a high school
case study on the Yucatan Peninsula, serving a city neighbourhood where students
do not come from wealthy families:
Extract 2
(The teacher is conducting a past-tense question and answer drill with an
elementary class)
1 T: where did you go on your last vacation.
2 SI: huh?
3 T: where did you -
4 SI: (xxx)
5 T: where?
6 SI: Alameida?
7 T: I went to Alameida.
8 (3.0)
9 T: (pointing) where did you go on your last vacation.
10 S2: Cancun.
11 T: in Cancun?
12 S2: yes. .
13 T: I went to Cancun.
14 T: where did you go on your last vacation,
15 S3: mi casa.
16 SS: (laughter)
17 T: he didn't go anywhere, he stayed at home.
18 T: Jesus, where did you go on your last vacation.
19 S4: Acapulco. < «
20 SS: (loud laughter)
21 T: DID you go . . . uh, DID you go to Acapulco? (laughter and
shouting)
22 T: shhh! shhh!
23 S5: yes I did.
24 S4: =yes I did.
25 T: yes?
26 S4: =yes, I -
27 S6: no he didn't.
28 T: yes?=
29 SS: =//yes he didn't//no I didn't//no he didn't -
30 T: did you . . . DID you - go to Acapulco?
31 SS: yes he did//no they didn't,
32 T: huh?
33 T: (appeals to class) DID Jesus go to Acapulco on his vacation?
34 SS: //no she didn't//yes he isn't//no I didn't//yes she did//yes we
didn't.
35 T: (standing over Jesus) DID you go to Acapulco?
36 S4: no -
Unplanned classroom language 189
 37 T: no I . . . ? < «
38 S4: no I didn't.
39 T: no I didn't.
40 T: Jesus didn't go to Acapulco on his last vacation.
If we examine this extract closely, it is both interesting and instructive.
The drill has an element of unpredictability in the personal responses,
but the teacher does not follow up any of the responses in lines 1-18
(does not treat them as communication), merely acknowledging
acceptability through repetition of the student response, or modelling
a complete sentence answer (in line 17 the teacher reports the answer
himself, perhaps because he considered that the structure required was
too hard for the students to produce). From lines 1-18 we have a fair
approximation of the well-established classroom pattern of teacher-
student-teacher (TST) or Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) (Sin-
clair and Coulthard 1975).
In line 19, Jesus's response changes the whole rhythm and nature of the
exchanges up to and including line 37. It not only elicits a change of
question type from the teacher (yes/no instead of wh-) but also an
authentically stressed auxiliary, to express doubt and disbelief. That a
student from this kind of class might go to Canciin, a bus journey of
about four hours, was quite possible (lines 9-13). Much more likely was
that a student would stay at home (lines 14-17). But that a student from
their class would be able to afford even to travel to Acapulco, let alone
have a holiday there, brought laughter and disbelief from students and
teacher, turning a drill into a game-like chat or conversation (with
echoes of the well-known classroom activity, Alibi).
The exchanges in lines 20-34 break the TST mould, with widespread
student contributions directed towards Jesus, the teacher, and each
other. There is a lot of overlapping talk, and both teacher and students
use a significantly greater variety of structures and intonation patterns.
This may appear to be a somewhat generous interpretation of those
lines, but it was based on the evidence of observation, a tape, a post-class
talk with some of the students, and an interview with the teacher. It was
clear that the students had taken the expectations of a drill and turned
them into a kind of conversation game, to the extent that they were not
only offering possible candidate answers for and about Jesus, they were
also consciously proposing ungrammatical responses. In other words,
students were manipulating forms (pronoun, verb, affirmative, nega-
tive), meanings (Jesus did or didn't go to Acapulco, Jesus was or wasn't
a boy, Jesus did or didn't go by himself), and use (instead of responses in
a drill, student responses had become more conversational, and were
now part of a lively chat called 'Did Jesus go to Acapulco for his
holidays?').
The teacher 'pursues' his response until Jesus finally says 'no' (line 36);
the teacher then indicates through intonation and a cloze elicit in line 37
(no I . . . ?) that he expects a full sentence, which he gets from Jesus in
190 Jill Cadorath and Simon Harris
 line 38, and signals acceptance of through the repetition in line 39. The
closure of the sequence comes with the teacher's report to the whole
class in line 40. Lines 36-9 are a return to the IRF format, and signal a
move back from chat to drill.

Drills We are not suggesting here that drills are to be avoided. Indeed, in our
experience teachers and trainers pay insufficient attention to this area of
classroom expertise. As a result, teachers often have a restricted idea of
what a drill is, and a limited and halting repertoire of drilling techniques.
It is interesting to note that the drill in Extract 2 does not produce full
sentence answers, as intended, but more natural single-word responses.
The teacher has effectively mixed up two kinds of drill. The restricted
complete sentence practice he wants needs a different prompt, such as
pictures or words. The less controlled, more conversational drill he gets
accepts one-word answers, and should lead quite naturally to further
prompts and questions from the teacher or other students. Both types of
drill have their place in a teacher's repertoire, but a teacher needs to be
clear about the purpose and structure of each. Teacher questions and
follow-ups of the type seen in line 21, signalling a conversation drill,
were sequentially relevant at lines 7,13, and 17, but were not produced.
The belated and sequentially inappropriate production in line 21
triggered a student-initiated breakdown of both drill sequences. This
was beneficial linguistically, but so are both types of drill, if they are
appropriately structured and deployed; and, of course, the conversation
drill can serve as a springboard for unplanned interaction.

Language We came to believe that Extracts 1 and 2 and other less striking
planning and examples of both kinds of teacher-student interaction provided a
classroom context in which to examine questions of planning and improvization in
interaction the language classrooms with which we were concerned.

Pressures to plan For our Mexican trainees, in their university language centres, and in the
preparatory schools attached to the universities, there were practical,
pedagogic, and training pressures on them to stick to a script—invariably
taken from the textbook—in the classroom.
In practical terms, there were administrative pressures to complete a
certain number of coursebook units per month or semester. Pedagogi-
cally, many of the teachers were having their first contact with a broad-
based communicative methodology and related techniques. An up-to-
date coursebook (two had just been introduced in south-east university
language centres) provided some security, and a structured context in
which to try out new ideas. Finally, there was the benevolent
dictatorship of a teacher training course. Although far from daily
realities, the weight given to lesson-planning sessions on our course, the
presence of a practical teaching component, and the requirement that a
plan be given to observing tutors, with aims, background information,
main steps, timing, and organization, meant that lesson plans tended to
be viewed by teachers rather like strong medicine—unwanted, but
Unplanned classroom language 191
 probably good for you in small doses. Certainly they were the order of
the day in observations. Our training course added significantly to
existing pressures on teachers to make sure that everything went
according to plan.
This emphasis on planning, the structuring role of the coursebook (see
Hutchinson and Torres 1995), and the increasing amount of student
talking time provided by coursebook activities were, for the most part,
positive developments, methodologically and linguistically; but after
observing teachers on a number of training courses, we decided that
there was at least one important lesson to be learnt from an uncontrolled
drill.

The value of While the emphasis in our training courses on more student-centred
unplanned and activities and less teacher talk is important, we feel that the variety of
teacher-centred teacher-student talk seen in Extract 2, lines 20-34, is worth encouraging,
interaction for three reasons.
Firstly, it can promote authentic teacher-student and student-student
interaction. In Extract 2, when meaning and real life intervened in the
drill, the authenticity of the language used by the teacher and the
students also increased significantly, perhaps because of, not despite, the
students' high-spirited playfulness. Carefully planned information-gap
activities at this level, designed to produce similar kinds of yes/no
questions and short answers, might not succeed in eliciting such
authentic intonation and stress or turn-taking initiatives from students,
or teacher.
Secondly, this form of talk can be valuable as a context for student
language learning and teacher language development. Everything that
we know from second language acquisition research suggests that both
outside and inside the classroom, negotiated interaction between native
and non-native speakers, or between more or less advanced non-native
speakers, is an important part of the learning process (Long 1983, Ellis
1990). Lines 20-34 are a very primitive version of conversation, but it is
arguable that exchanges like this, where the amount of negotiated
interaction significantly increases in comparison to what comes before
and after, are a small but important feature in the provision of student
language learning opportunities, as well as being useful to teachers in
developing their own speaking skills.

Thirdly, unplanned teacher-student interaction allows for the introduc-

tion of locally relevant topics and news, with greater immediacy and
flexibility than the coursebook can offer. This helps to develop group
rapport, and also provides teachers and students with ideas for
interesting topics in planned activities.
Planning action The notable absence in observed classes of the kinds of exchanges
illustrated in Extract 2, lines 20-34, suggested that a concentrated
observation programme, where trainees view the classroom as a place
for planned learning activities, runs a danger of overlooking the

192 Jill Cadorath and Simon Harris

 linguistic, learning, and social possibilities of unplanned classroom
interaction. In this last respect, it might be said that a classroom without
chat is a classroom without social organization (see, for example, Boden
and Zimmerman 1991).

Language We decided that our training courses needed to give more time to
awareness language awareness work with unplanned language and classroom
initiatives language. Firstly, we added chatting, or 'social English', as an important
variety of teacher talk which needs to be included in the language
awareness component of a training programme, with a discussion of
possible local topics and ways of developing them (see Doff 1987).
Secondly, the trainees themselves added unplanned language and chatting
as possible subjects of peer observations. The kinds of questions and
activities suggested by Nunan (1989) and Allwright and Bailey (1991)
proved useful as a basis for investigation in projects and assignments.

An introductory The classroom extracts we have discussed were recycled in training

session on sessions. These served as the basis for an introductory session that
unplanned language followed the opening rounds of observation on a course, which raised
topics to be explored collectively or through individual research. (See
Appendix for a copy of the worksheet which accompanied these
extracts.)
The drill is still one of the most controlled and planned kinds of
language activities in a classroom, and Extract 2 seemed a potentially
productive input for a session about unplanned language. The session
had the following awareness aims:
1 Teachers (and their trainers) should give more priority to chatting in
their repertoire of classroom activities.
2 Unplanned situations or unstructured activities can sometimes create
more effective, natural, and memorable communicative opportu-
nities than well-planned communicative activities.
3 These sorts of communicative situations are good for teachers'
language development and confidence.
In the course of using this session and variations on it with a number of
groups, the comments of teachers, and further insights from discussions
with them, produced the following additional points:
Language
a. Language learners are not necessarily slow or stupid, but may be
quite discriminating about what they choose to authenticate (in the
sense of taking communicative initiatives) in the classroom.
b. The quality of teacher and student language in Extract 2 suggests
that, linguistically, both teachers and students can do a lot with very
little.
c. If this kind of language is sometimes more useful as a natural model
than coursebook language, perhaps it would be worth trying to record
and exploit more of it for classroom language focus and skills work.
Unplanned classroom language 193
 Learning and teaching
a. Emphasizing the continued value of forms of teacher talk or teacher-
centred interaction is psychologically reassuring for teachers who are
working in classrooms where they are characteristic features, but are on
a training course where there is a strong emphasis on student-centred
activities.
b. Teachers should do more to encourage their students to 'play games
with English', for this increases the likelihood of unpredictable
interaction and student involvement (telling lies or making mistatements
about yourself, other people, or the matter in hand is a good way of
creating a game-like environment, where students come to expect the
unexpected).
c Chatting is an important forum for drawing on local knowledge (see
Geertz 1983) and social resources, and for adjusting lesson plans to
immediate needs or interests.

Chatting and other One question which sometimes comes up in sessions is whether or not to
classroom activities chat, and if so, how much. Obviously, each lesson will vary in its
potential for chatting and unplanned language. To begin with, we
encourage teachers to allow 5-10 minutes at the beginning or end of a
class for chatting. In the longer term, in most classes, a greater
awareness of distinctions between real questions and display questions,
and a greater capacity for responding to the unexpected, and to student
communication, whatever the activity, will help to produce a natural
balance between planned and unplanned teacher-student interaction.
Chatting to students, and unplanned language, are small parts of a
language class or a training course. In this article we have tried to show
that they have a significant role to play in bringing our classrooms to life,
by bringing more authentic linguistic and social life into our classrooms.
Received September 1997

194 Jill Cadorath and Simon Harris

Note Doff, A. 1987. Teach English. Cambridge: Cam-
The following notations are used in the extracts: bridge University Press.
Ellis, R. 1990. Instructed Second Language Acqui-
1, 2, etc.
line numbers sition. Oxford: Blackwell.
T teacher Geertz, C. 1983. Local Knowledge: Further Essays
SI, S2, S3
identified students in Interpretive Anthropology. New York: Basic
Books.
S unidentified students Hutchinson,T. and E. Torres. 1995. 'The textbook
SS several/all students at once as agent of change'. ELT Journal 48/4: 315-28.
- incomplete or interrupted utterance Labov, W. 1972. Sociolinguistic Patterns. Oxford:
Blackwell.
IIII overlapping/simultaneous responses Long , M. 1983. 'Native and non-native speaker
(1.0) gap in seconds conversation and the negotiation of compre-
? rising intonation (not necessarily a hensible input'. Applied Linguistics 4/2: 126-41.
question) Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding Language Class-
rooms. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
falling intonation Sinclair, J. and M. Coulthard. 1975. Towards an
I animation Analysis of Discourse. London: Oxford Uni-
CAPITALS emphasis versity Press.
(xxx) uninterpretable
The authors
() comments about the transcript, Jill Cadorath works at the University of Yucatan,
including non-verbal actions. and is involved in ODA/British Council teacher
'you finish this' training projects in south-east Mexico. She has
= no gap between one speaker's turn taught English and trained teachers in the UK,
and the next speaker's turn, or the Spain, Portugal, Brazil, Malaysia, and Mexico.
turn continues below at next iden- Her special interests are in teacher development
tical symbol and distance learning.
<« highlight key lines Simon Harris works at the University of Yucatan,
and is involved in a British Council teacher
training project in south-east Mexico. He has
References taught English and trained teachers in the UK,
Allwright, R. and K. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the USA, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Mex-
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge ico. His special interests are in legal and language
University Press. education discourse, ESP, and teacher develop-
Boden, D. and D. Zimmerman (eds.). 1991. Talk ment. The authors can be contacted at
and Social Structure. Cambridge: Polity Press. <harridom@sureste.com>

Unplanned classroom language 195

 Appendix Task 1
Worksheet Examine Extract 1 from the handout. What reasons might the teacher
have for not talking to Jorge about his wedding?
Task 2
1 Look at the first ten lines of the transcript in Extract 2. What kind of
activity is going on?
2 There is a change of activity in the transcript. When does this occur?
3 What effect does this change have on the language and interaction of
the teacher and the students? Give examples.
Task 3
1 Why do you think there is a change of activity? [You may need to
plan a series of questions to ask an informant to help you answer this
question.]
2 Do you think the change was generally positive or negative?
Task 4
1 Imagine that you were the teacher in Extract 1, and that it was an
observed class. What were the options available to you when Jorge
said he had got married at the weekend?
2 You decided to talk to Jorge about his wedding. This went from a
chat between teacher and students about the wedding into an activity
where students discussed local customs for men and women before
the wedding and on the wedding day, and planned Jorge's imaginary
honeymoon (even though he was not thinking of taking one). This
took 30 minutes, which meant that you only got through two of the
five activities you had planned on the worksheet. In the feedback
afterwards, the observer asks you to justify what occurred. Rank the
following possible justifications in order of importance:
a. The students were interested.
b. The subject matter was of personal and local relevance.
c You have read that this kind of exchange is significant in second
language acquisition.
d. You were interested in finding out about Jorge's wedding.
e. This is a very good way to improve students' conversational
abilities.
f. This is a very good way to improve the teacher's conversational
abilities.
g. The language that was produced was more authentic then
anything that came from the other three activities.
h. The students respond better to these kinds of topics than to
coursebook activities.
i. These chats are useful ways of grading students for speaking
ability.

196 Jill Cadorath and Simon Harris