Journal Pre-proof

Role of EFL teachers’ beliefs in speaking practice: The case of a Mexican university

Edgar Emmanuell Garcia-Ponce, Caroline Tagg

PII: S0346-251X(20)30736-3
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102376
Reference: SYS 102376

To appear in: System

Received Date: 13 April 2019

Revised Date: 23 September 2020
Accepted Date: 24 September 2020

Please cite this article as: Garcia-Ponce, E.E., Tagg, C., Role of EFL teachers’ beliefs in speaking
practice: The case of a Mexican university, System, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2020.102376.

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition
of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of
record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published
in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that,
during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal
disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

 June 26th 2020

CRediT author statement

Article title: Role of EFL teachers’ beliefs and contextual factors in speaking
practice: The case of a Mexican university

Dear editors of the System Journal,

of
The accurate and detailed description of our roles in the study and article are summarized
below:

ro
Names Roles
Edgar Emmanuell Garcia-Ponce
-p
Conceptualization, Methodology,
re
Validation, Formal Analysis, Investigation,
Writing - Original Draft, Supervision.
lP

Caroline Tagg Conceptualization, Validation, Formal

Analysis, Writing – Review and Editing.
na
ur
Jo
Role of EFL teachers’ beliefs in speaking practice: The case of a
Mexican university

Garcia-Ponce, Edgar Emmanuell

Departamento de Lenguas, Universidad de Guanajuato, Mexico
ee.garcia@ugto.mx

Tagg, Caroline
School of Languages and Applied Linguistics, The Open University, Milton Keynes,
England

Abstract

of
In English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, learners’ communicative

ro
opportunities are maximised when they practise speaking. However, in the context of
Mexican teacher education, teachers have been seen to adapt speaking practice in
response to contextual factors in a way which limits learners’ speaking competence
-p
development (Garcia Ponce, 2016). Drawing on evidence which shows that teacher
beliefs strongly influence classroom practices (Pajares, 1992), the study firstly
re
measures and describes interactional features of three EFL teachers and learners
during speaking practice in this Latin American context. It then explores the teachers’
lP

beliefs about speaking practice in interviews. In combining these data, it aims to

examine the role of their beliefs in speaking practice. The findings suggest that the
teachers’ decisions and teaching practices may be shaped by their attempts to
na

reconcile communicative principles with their continuing beliefs in the importance of

traditional grammar teaching and their perceptions regarding practical constraints
ur

(class time and size). In particular, these belief systems may encourage display
questions over referential questions, speaking activities focused on grammar or
Jo

vocabulary, and teacher dominance of talk. These findings provide an opportunity to

understand the potential role of beliefs in shaping speaking practice in EFL contexts in
Mexico.

Key words: communicative approaches, English as a foreign language, teacher education, teacher beliefs,
speaking practice.

Dr. Edgar Emmanuell currently works in the Department of Languages at the University
of Guanajuato. His research interests are classroom interactions and teacher cognitions.
He has recently worked on projects funded by the British Council. He is a member the
Sistema Nacional de Investigadores, and coordinates the BA in ELT at the Universidad
de Guanajuato.

Dr. Caroline Tagg is a lecturer in English Language and Applied Linguistics in the
School of Languages and Applied Linguistics at the Open University. Her research
interests are in language and social media, including multilingualism, audience design,
and online language play, with a focus on text messaging (and, more recently
WhatsApp) and Facebook.
Role of EFL teachers’ beliefs in speaking practice: The case of a Mexican
university

Abstract
In English as a foreign language (EFL) classrooms, learners’ communicative opportunities
are maximised when they practise speaking. However, in the context of Mexican teacher
education, teachers have been seen to adapt speaking practice in response to contextual
factors in a way which limits learners’ speaking competence development (Garcia Ponce,
2016). Drawing on evidence which shows that teacher beliefs strongly influence classroom
practices (Pajares, 1992), the study firstly measures and describes interactional features of
three EFL teachers and learners during speaking practice in this Latin American context. It
then explores the teachers’ beliefs about speaking practice in interviews. In combining these
data, it aims to examine the role of their beliefs in speaking practice. The findings suggest
that the teachers’ decisions and teaching practices may be shaped by their attempts to

of
reconcile communicative principles with their continuing beliefs in the importance of
traditional grammar teaching and their perceptions regarding practical constraints (class

ro
time and size). In particular, these belief systems may encourage display questions over
referential questions, speaking activities focused on grammar or vocabulary, and teacher
dominance of talk. These findings provide an opportunity to understand the potential role of
-p
beliefs in shaping speaking practice in EFL contexts in Mexico.
re
Key words: communicative approaches, English as a foreign language, teacher education, teacher beliefs,
speaking practice.
lP

1. Introduction
na

Over the last 40 years, there have been attempts to shift from traditional to more
ur

communicative approaches in language teaching – e.g. Communicative Language Teaching

Jo

and Task-Based Language Teaching. These approaches have required a move from teacher-

to learner-centred practices where learners are encouraged to benefit from communicative

resources and develop an awareness of their involvement in classroom communication.

According to these approaches, communicative opportunities and resources can be maximised

when learners have opportunities to engage in meaningful interactions (García Mayo & Pica,

2000). This is because these interactions can provide learners with opportunities for language

input, oral production, corrective feedback concerning their utterances, and negotiation for

meaning (García Mayo & Pica, 2000). However, in practice, it has been claimed that

communicative approaches have arguably had little impact on the way English is taught and

learned in language classrooms (Bax, 2003), resulting in limited opportunities for learners to
develop speaking skills (Walsh, 2002). This lack of success is due to several factors, some of

which may be the failure to take into account how teachers understand communicative

practices and principles, their prevalent adherence to more traditional teaching approaches,

institutional and cultural factors, and, the focus of the study, the role of their beliefs (Busch,

2010; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999).

In the last few decades, teachers’ reliance on their beliefs as cognitive constructs to

make sense of their everyday practices and to make decisions in specific teaching situations

has been extensively documented (Borg, 2003; Pajares, 1992; Sato & Oyanedel, 2019). In

of
other words, there is robust evidence which explains how teachers’ beliefs are transformed

ro
into interactional behaviour in the language classroom. However, despite the importance
-p
attributed to teachers’ beliefs in influencing classroom practices, there is little empirical
re
research which investigates the interplay between teacher beliefs and communicative
lP

practices in EFL classrooms, particularly that which combines observable (from recorded
na

classroom interactions during speaking practice) and non-observable data (from individual

interviews). Such evidence is necessary in order to understand how teachers’ beliefs are
ur

directed or constructed towards maximising learners’ opportunities to practise and develop

Jo

speaking skills. Moreover, drawing on the claim that beliefs are contextually dependent

(Pajares, 1992), there has been no detailed investigation of the relationship between English

teachers’ beliefs and classroom speaking practice in EFL contexts – the focus of this study.

Thus, drawing on a combination of data from recorded classroom interactions during

speaking practice and from individual teacher interviews, this case study provides insights

into how three teachers’ beliefs in one Mexican EFL context are translated into teaching

practices and decision making around speaking practice. In particular, this study provides

further support for the existence of ‘hybrid teachers’ in this Latin American context (see

Burke, 2011); that is, teachers who adhere to and carry out elements of a communicative
teaching approach but whose practices are also shaped by their concern for practical

classroom needs and more traditional teaching practices. In doing so, this study departs from

the findings of investigations which show how communicative teaching practices can be

rejected by teachers because of their conflicting beliefs (for example, Andon & Eckerth,

2009; Basturkmen, Loewen & Ellis, 2004; Borg & Burns, 2008). As such, we contribute to

the existing literature by demonstrating how the three Mexican EFL teachers’ attempts to

implement communicative principles during speaking practice combine with their ideas about

the practical constraints they face, as well as persistent beliefs in more traditional teaching

of
methods and priorities. This combination potentially results in ways that encourage them to

ro
adopt teaching and interactional practices which may be detrimental to the learning of
-p
speaking skills. Specifically, by using both interactional and perceptual data, the importance
re
of this study lies in revealing how activity design, use of (display) questions, and teacher
lP

dominance of talk during speaking practice may be used as strategies to accommodate an

na

array of beliefs about lack of time and large class size, among others, whilst also adhering to

communicative principles such as the importance of speaking.

ur
Jo

2. Background

During and after language teacher education, teachers are expected to carry out teaching

practices whilst simultaneously reflecting upon them with a view to developing theoretical

and practical knowledge that is informed by and, in turn, will inform classroom practices

(Calderhead & Robson, 1991). However, teachers’ instructional practices and interactional

decisions in classrooms are influenced by complex, practically oriented, personalised, and

context-sensitive networks of psychological constructs (Borg, 2003), including teachers’ own

beliefs about their practices and immediate contexts. In some cases, these beliefs may be

compatible with current teaching approaches (e.g. Communicative Language Teaching and

Task-Based Language Teaching), but in others they may not.

 In the field of Second Language Acquisition, the construct of ‘belief’ has been

conceptualised in several ways. For example, beliefs are claimed to be propositions which are

grounded not only in teachers’ past knowledge (Borg, 2011) but also in their practical

knowledge or personal experience (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999).

Beliefs are also constructed based on teachers’ more emotive or affective stances (Borg,

2011), and they can be long lasting and deeply entrenched (Pajares, 1992). Importantly,

beliefs can shape current thinking and practices in response to contextual factors (Barcelos &

Kalaja, 2011; Basturkmen et al., 2004; Pajares, 1992). In line with these ideas, we define

of
beliefs as an array of propositions that are called on by a teacher to justify or explain their

ro
teaching behaviour and decisions, recognising that these propositions may be grounded not
-p
only in experience, knowledge and emotive responses but also in locally situated needs.
re
An emerging body of research has corroborated the observation that teacher beliefs
lP

about locally situated needs or constraints (e.g. beliefs about class time constraints, large
na

classes, institutional requirements, learners’ poor language proficiency) can heavily influence

the way teachers teach a language, often encouraging them to rely on more traditional
ur

pedagogic approaches, such as translation methods, drills and explicit grammar teaching
Jo

(Borg & Burns, 2008; Burke, 2011; Miller & Aldred, 2000). Evidence for this, for example,

comes from Andon and Eckerth (2009), who investigated the relationship between four

teachers’ beliefs about Task-Based Language Teaching and its pedagogical principles. They

found that only a limited number of principles consistent with this approach were actually

reflected in their teaching practice despite the teachers’ claims to both endorse and adopt the

approach. Similarly, Borg and Burns (2008), through administering questionnaires, found that

176 out of 231 teachers from 18 countries perceived explicit grammar instruction negatively

and claimed to value meaning-focused tasks following a grammar-integrated approach.

However, their teaching practices indicated a reliance on instructions focused on isolated and
discrete grammar structures, which appeared to be informed by the teachers’ beliefs grounded

in their personal experiences and with no reference to the relevant research literature.

The relationship between beliefs and practices may be marked by tension where

teachers’ beliefs contradict their knowledge (Basturkmen et al., 2004; Busch, 2010; Pajares,

1992; Yoshida, 2013). This tension can be exacerbated when beliefs about locally situated

needs and constraints derail teachers’ ability and/or willingness to teach in ways that are

consistent with their pedagogic beliefs and theoretical knowledge (Miller & Aldred, 2000).

These beliefs are considered to be “one of the biggest obstacles in language teaching practice”

of
(Musumeci, 2002, p. 161), and, in some cases, in implementing communicative approaches

ro
(Sato & Kleinsasser, 1999).
-p
The potential importance of teacher beliefs in shaping teaching practices, as indicated
re
in the research literature, informs the focus of the current research on the interplay between
lP

teachers’ beliefs and speaking practice. The context of the study is a Mexican university
na

which has designed institutional policies and pedagogical strategies to implement a

communicative approach to teaching English but which has seen limitations in terms of
ur

learners’ language proficiency, particularly their speaking skills (Garcia Ponce, 2016;
Jo

Velázquez & García-Ponce, 2018). Following the claims that any full understanding of a

teaching context requires an investigation of classroom interactions (Walsh, 2013) and

teachers’ underlying beliefs (Burke, 2011), the present study draws on a combination of

observational data collected from three English classes and self-report data from interviews

with the three teachers in order to shed light on the speaking and teacher practices in this

context and on the beliefs that teachers hold about speaking practice. Taking up Borg’s (2003)

call for investigations that address specific aspects of language teaching, we focus on teacher

beliefs about speaking practice in particular, rather than teaching aspects in general, since

these perceptual factors may play an important role in enabling teachers to provide
opportunities for learners to focus on and maximise meaningful communication during

speaking practice (Cohen & Fass, 2011; Yoshida, 2013). To understand the nature of the

interactions in the classroom, we focus on identifying the teachers’ elicitation techniques, the

fluency and complexity of learners’ responses, the amount of teacher and learner talk, and the

type of activities they use to practise speaking in the classroom. The rationale behind the

selection of these features is twofold: firstly, they are generally prevalent in all classroom

interactions (Walsh, 2013) and relate particularly to speaking practice (Jarrín & Kim, 2019),

and, secondly, they were highlighted as potentially relevant to understanding and improving

of
speaking practice in this particular context (Velázquez & García-Ponce, 2018). Despite the

ro
small size of the interactional data set, our quantitative approach to these features enables us
-p
to gain a holistic picture of the nature of classroom talk in these specific classes. By
re
combining the interactional data with perceptual data from interviews, the present study
lP

contributes to the research literature by showing how three Mexican teachers appear to adapt
na

certain teaching strategies during speaking practice in response to their beliefs. The study is

guided by the following three research questions (RQs):

ur

RQ1 What is the nature of classroom interaction in the three EFL classes in relation to
Jo

teacher questions (display or referential), the fluency and complexity of learner

responses, and amount of teacher and learner talk across different speaking activities?

RQ2 What beliefs do these teachers express about speaking practice in interview?

RQ3 What relationship does there appear to be between these teachers’ stated beliefs

and their teaching strategies during speaking practice?

3. The study

The study is part of a larger research project which was conducted to investigate several

aspects of classroom interactions (e.g. negotiation for meaning; discourse functions; levels of
complexity, accuracy and fluency) between EFL teachers and learners in an English teacher

education programme in a Mexican university. In this context, learners are expected to learn

English to a high proficiency level (C1, according to the Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages) that allows them to work as EFL teachers after completing the

degree programme in five years, and the development of communicative skills such as

speaking is a requirement to progress through the programme. In the curriculum, it is claimed

that pedagogical practices adopt a communicative approach with the intention of developing

learners’ English language skills. However, with data collected from proficiency tests and

of
interviews with learners, English teachers and administrators, Velázquez and García-Ponce

ro
(2018) found that the learners were not developing speaking skills as stated in the curriculum.
-p
Based on their findings, the authors suggest that there is an array of factors which influence
re
teachers from fully implementing speaking practice in line with communicative principles and
lP

thus limit learners’ speaking skill development. Velázquez and García-Ponce’s (2018) study
na

was a timely attempt to understand the implementation of the curriculum in this Latin

American teaching context. However, in order to understand better how to address limitations
ur

concerning speaking practice and learners’ language skills in this context, the present study
Jo

adopts a multiple data-gathering approach with combines data from classroom interactions

during speaking practice and perceptual data from interviews to understand the relationship

between beliefs and speaking practice.

Analysis of the interactions was conducted using data from three EFL classes at basic

(A2), intermediate (B2), and advanced (C1) levels in order to explore the nature of speaking

practice at different proficiency levels and thus draw conclusions relevant across the teacher

education programme. In this institution, courses at basic and intermediate levels involve six

hours of English study per week, where three hours are centred on promoting what we

describe as ‘accuracy’ (i.e. grammar and vocabulary practice) and the other three on
practising speaking, writing, reading and listening. In English courses at advanced levels,

learners are taught new grammar structures and vocabulary for two hours per week, and

practise the four language skills for three hours per week.

3.1 Participants

Three teachers were invited to participate. Complying with their right to be protected from

identification, pseudonyms are used in this paper to refer to them. Table 1 summarises their

language and teaching backgrounds.

of
ro
Table 1 Teacher participants’ background
No. of years
Teacher Class Teaching qualifications

María A2 (basic)
-p
teaching English
12 years
BA in Teaching Languages
re
Teacher training certificate (TKT)
BA in Languages
Tanya B2 (intermediate) 11 years
lP

Teacher training certificate (TKT)

BA in English Teaching
na

Aranza C1 (advanced) 17 years MA in Applied Linguistics

Teacher training certificate (TKT)
ur

The three teachers are female, originally from Mexico, and speak Spanish as a mother
Jo

tongue. They were informed of their right to withdraw at any time. They all provided consent

to participate.

3.2 Data collection and processing

This study collected two data sets: classroom interactional data which were exploited

quantitatively to determine the nature of teaching practices in this context; and interview data

designed to elicit teacher beliefs about speaking practice. In response to Borg’s (2008) and

Pajares’ (1992) call for research which adopts a multiple data-gathering approach to better

understand the relationship between beliefs and classroom practices, this approach allows for

a combination of interactional and perceptual data which in turn enables the researchers to
identify both beliefs and the actions that they potentially trigger in classroom practices (Miller

& Aldred, 2000).

3.2.1 Interactional data

To collect the interactional data, one researcher was present in the three classes as a non-

participant observer to better understand how speaking was practised, the kind of speaking

activities that were used, and whether/how communicative principles were implemented by

the teachers. In line with Foster’s (1998) argument regarding the need for naturalistic

of
classroom data, we did not request any changes concerning teaching style, nature of the

ro
speaking activities, number of learners, and class time. The full interactional data set
-p
consisted of six audio recorded lessons, two from each class, of 50 minutes each
re
approximately. The total 300 minutes of recording (the whole dataset) was transcribed in its
lP

entirety. After the recorded lessons, the observer had a brief meeting with the three teachers to
na

confirm and help him identify in the transcriptions the activities during which speaking was

practised (see Appendix A). A speaking activity is here defined as purposeful classroom
ur

procedures which involve learners doing something that relates to the goals of speaking
Jo

practice and the development of oral communicative skills. Interestingly, and as shown in

Appendix A, the interactional and interview data pointed to a largely clear distinction between

speaking activities that could be defined as primarily ‘meaning-focused’ or ‘accuracy-

focused’ depending on the intended purpose of the activity (as explained by the teacher in

both the classroom and interview) and its structure. Broadly speaking, the meaning-focused

activities for speaking practice required communicative language use, and were designed to

attain a real-world objective, e.g. to discuss opinions or negotiate and agree on choices. One

example of a teacher-led speaking activity from the data of the B2 level is illustrated in the

following:
 1. T: Yes L20 tell us … Why was it easy? Do you think … the same? Do you have the same views?
2. L20: No, I don’t want to get married.
3. T: But what?=
4. L20: =Because she- … she want a- she want to … get married=
5. T: =Yes.
6. L20: And I don’t want to=
7. T: =Oh!
8. L20: We want to: have children. We want … to have childrens … I don’t wanna get married =yeah
and the worst … is having pets. I just … wanna have fun but … not marriage.

In this speaking activity, the objective was to discuss the learners’ perceptions and

of
opinions about types of personal relationships. As a teacher-led speaking activity, the

ro
learners’ role was to respond to her elicitations, which she used to engage them in the activity.
-p
As can be seen in these data, by using open-ended questions (lines 1 and 3), the teacher
re
encourages L20 to construct extended and creative oral constructions (see lines 2, 4, 6 and 8).
lP

In contrast, we describe accuracy-focused activities as those focused on practising

specific and discrete grammar structures or vocabulary items; for example, to practise
na

vocabulary related to sleeping habits. The following example of another teacher-led activity
ur

in the A2 level class illustrates part of an accuracy-focused activity:

Jo

1. T: Okay [2] alright … good! So let’s see … L6 and L14 … can you … tell us or can you give us a
suggestion? … yes? Okay.
2. L14: I want to go to … Place 1.
3. L6: Why don’t you go to:- … by taxi.
4. T: Okay … can you repeat your ans- your suggestion?
5. L6: Why … don’t you go: … by- by taxi?
6. T: Why don’t you go by taxi? Now with intonation.
7. L6: Why don’t you- heheheh Why don’t you go by taxi?
8. T: Okay alright very good! L1 and L9?
9. L1: Why don’t we go to [1] Place 8?
10. L9: That’s a good idea.
11. T: Alright!
 The objective of this activity was to practise the use of suggestions and responses by

using formulaic expressions. This activity is focused on accuracy in the sense that the learners

were provided with a number of formulaic expressions which they had to practise to give

suggestions. We can see that the teacher leads the activity by initiating questions (lines 1 and

4), allocating turns (lines 1, 4 and 8), and providing feedback and signalling acceptance of

learners’ responses (lines 4, 6, 8 and 10). For the purpose of this study, we analysed both

meaning- and accuracy-focused activities. This decision also allows us to examine whether

the teachers’ beliefs may have played a role in shaping their decisions to carry out one or the

of
other type of activity (see Pajares, 1992).

ro
As explained in Section 2 and in line with our research questions, we selected the
-p
following classroom interactional features for analysis on the basis of their role in the
re
language learning classroom more generally and in this context in particular. Specifically,
lP

counting and calculating percentages and ratios of these features allows us to understand the
na

interactions in which the teachers and learners engage to practise speaking and develop oral

skills as evidenced by the kind of questions that the teachers use to encourage participation
ur

during the speaking activities (the relationship between questions and the complexity and
Jo

fluency of learners’ responses) and the opportunities that learners have to contribute to the

classroom communication (amount of teacher and learner talk). This study is unable to

encompass a comprehensive list of classroom interactional features; however, our choice of

this small number of features was guided by previous research in the context which

highlighted that they are potentially relevant to understanding and improving speaking

practice (Velázquez & García-Ponce, 2018). The classroom interactional features of the study

are:

1) Display and referential questions. Teachers’ questions have been widely investigated

to understand their structure, benefits, and limitations to language learning. Following

 this, we explored the use of teachers’ display and referential questions during speaking

practice. Display questions are defined as questions whose answers are already known

by teachers (Walsh, 2013). These questions are useful for promoting the practice and

communication of structures and vocabulary (Chaudron, 1988). Referential questions,

in contrast, are elicitation techniques whose answers are not yet known by the teacher

and are satisfied by learners’ creative and genuine oral constructions. This type of

question promotes “greater learner productivity” (Chaudron, 1988, p.127). In this

study, display and referential questions were identified by looking at the interactional

of
context in which the questions were formulated and their apparent aims. It was

ro
possible in each case to assign the questions to one or other category. Then, the
-p
number of display and referential questions as a percentage of the total number of
re
questions was calculated, respectively.
lP

2) Fluency. In this study, fluency, as well as complexity (see below), were included to
na

understand the extent to which teacher questions (display or referential) shape the
ur

learners’ responses. According to Foster (2020), fluency can be measured in a number

Jo

of different ways. Following Skehan (1998), we measured fluency in terms of the

mean number of syllables per minute; that is, counting the total number of learners’

syllables (unit of production) in their responses, and dividing them by the total number

of minutes. We chose this temporal measure of fluency because it has been recognized

as a reliable measure which reflects speed of performance and highlights the degree of

automaticity in L2 speakers’ speech (Foster, 2020; Kormos & Denes, 2004; Tavakoli,

2019).

3) Complexity. As suggested in Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005), complexity can be indexed

by clausal subordination. We selected this metric because it is reported as one of the

most reliable measures of complexity (Norris & Ortega 2009). In this study, the
 complexity of learners’ responses was calculated by the total number of subordinate

clauses in learner talk per the total number of clauses (independent and dependent).

4) Amount of teacher and learner talk. The total number of the teachers’ or learners’

words was counted and divided by the total number of words in the interaction, then

multiplied by 100.

For each feature, the two researchers first analysed the interactional data on their own

and then compared their analyses to increase the reliability of these calculations.

of
ro
3.2.2 Perceptual data
-p
Following Basturkmen et al.’s (2004) claim that teachers may not be aware of their own
re
beliefs and/or may state beliefs that are socially acceptable, we opted to conduct in-depth
lP

semi-structured interviews. These interviews aimed to access indirectly the teachers’ beliefs

by eliciting statements which show 1) their understanding of communicative principles, 2) the

na

nature of their beliefs about speaking practice, and 3) how these may have influenced their
ur

instructional and interactional decisions during speaking practice. The interviews were
Jo

conducted by one of the researchers in Spanish, audio recorded, and held at the teachers’

convenience, after the recorded interactions (in the same week). During the interviews, a list

of 10 open-ended questions was used (see Appendix B for the questions). The interviews

lasted from 25 to 30 minutes each, were transcribed in their entirety, and translated into

English by one native speaker of Spanish and then checked by a native speaker of English.

To analyse these data, we carried out thematic analysis by firstly identifying and

demarcating extracts in which the teachers appeared to be voicing their beliefs (alongside

other themes not considered in this article) and then using a matrix in which these extracts

were listed. As with the interactional data, both researchers analysed the data individually and

then compared their analyses.

 4. Findings: Interactional data

In this section, the findings into the three teachers’ questions and the fluency and complexity

of learner responses, as well as the amount of teacher and learner talk, are discussed with the

aim of addressing RQ1 (i.e. what is the nature of classroom interaction in the three EFL

classes in relation to teacher questions (display or referential), the fluency and complexity of

learner responses, and amount of teacher and learner talk across different speaking

activities?).

of
4.1 Teacher questions and learner responses

ro
In general, the interactional data revealed that teacher questions were highly prevalent across
-p
speaking practice in the three classes. Because teachers’ questions shape learners’ responses
re
(Walsh, 2013), we then explored the kind of questions that the teachers asked and the fluency
lP

and complexity of learners’ responses, as detailed respectively in Tables 2 and 3.

na

Table 2 Types of questions during speaking practice in the three classes

A2 B2 C1
ur

María Learners Tanya Learners Aranza Learners

Jo

Display Questions 129 (69.4%) 0 (0.0%) 93 (52.0%) 0 (0.0%) 48 (69.6%) 0 (0.0%)

Referential Questions 46 (24.7%) 11 (5.9%) 50 (27.9%) 36 (20.1%) 14 (20.3%) 7 (10.1%)
Total 186 (100%) 179 (100%) 69 (100%)

Table 2 reveals that the most frequent elicitation technique during speaking practice in

the three classes was teachers’ use of display questions (ranging from 52.0% to 69.6% of all

the questions). In stark contrast, teachers’ referential questions ranged from 20.3% to 27.9%

of the questions. This apparent interactional strategy – the reliance on display over referential

questions – appeared to have influenced learners’ responses in terms of fluency and

complexity, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3 Learners’ responses to display and referential questions: fluency and complexity
 María (A2) Tanya (B2) Aranza (C1)
Display Referential Display Referential Display Referential
Fluency 10.5 22.2 14.3 29.5 3.7 19.2
(syllables per minute)
Complexity 0.06 0.2 0 0.2 0.1 0.2
(dependent clauses per
total number of clauses)

Table 3 shows that the teachers’ display questions during speaking practice motivated

lower fluency and complexity levels than the referential questions. Thus, Tables 2 and 3

of
suggest that the use of display questions during speaking practice in the three classes limited

ro
learners’ opportunities for oral production and complexity in their spoken utterances. The

-p
observation that display questions motivated limited learner output is supported by Ho (2005),
re
who finds that this type of question restricts learners’ responses and exposure to the target

language.
lP
na

4.2 Amount of teacher and learner talk

Teachers’ dominance of classroom talk has been documented in the research literature
ur

(Walsh, 2013). In this study, the teachers’ dominance of talk was no exception. However, the
Jo

data show that the amount of teacher and learner talk tended to vary according to the focus on

meaning or accuracy of the activities. Table 4 outlines the amount of teacher and learner talk

at the basic level.

Table 4 Amount of talk (A2 class)

Words Percentage
Total Focus
María Learners María Learners
SA 1 79 77 50.6% 49.4% 156 Meaning
SA 2 277 79 77.8% 22.2% 356 Accuracy
SA 3 302 132 69.6% 30.4% 434 Accuracy
SA 4 290 160 64.4% 35.6% 450 Accuracy
 SA 5 79 140 36.1% 63.9% 219 Meaning
SA=Speaking activity; Words=Total number of words by the teacher or learners.

Table 4 shows that María dominated the talk during most of the speaking activities

with a higher number of words than the learners (ranging from 50.6% to 77.8% of the total

number of words). As can be seen in Table 4, SAs 1 and 5 motivated more learner talk than

SAs 2-4. This result may be explained by the fact that the amount of learner talk appeared to

rise in the SAs whose focus was on meaning, giving learners more opportunities to contribute

to the interaction than the SAs focused on accuracy during which the teachers tended to

of
dominate the talk more. This pattern was also found at the intermediate level, as shown in

ro
Table 5.

Table 5 Amount of talk (B2 class)

-p
re
Words Percentage
Total Focus
lP

Tanya Learners Tanya Learners

SA 1 550 161 77.4% 22.6% 711 Accuracy
na

SA 2 505 319 61.3% 38.7% 824 Meaning

SA 3 758 704 51.8% 48.2% 1,462 Meaning
ur

SA 4 425 210 66.9% 33.1% 635 Meaning

SA=Speaking activity; Words=Total number of words by the teacher or learners.
Jo

It can be seen from this table that the amount of talk was also dominated by Tanya,

who accounts for 51.8% to 77.4% of the total amount of talk. Similar to the basic level, there

is a decrease in the amount of the learners’ talk in SA 1 which was focused on accuracy.

At the advanced level, the two speaking activities were focused on accuracy (Table 6).

Table 6 Amount of talk (C1 class)

Words Percentage
Total Focus
Aranza Learners Aranza Learners
SA 1 156 46 77.2% 22.8% 202 Accuracy
SA 2 448 58 88.5% 11.5% 506 Accuracy
SA=Speaking activity; Words=Total number of words by the teacher or learners.
 This table indicates that Aranza considerably dominated the amount of talk during the

two SA (77.2% and 88.5%, respectively), even more so than the other two teachers. This is in

part because of the lack of meaning-focused activities, which appeared to encourage more

learner talk in the other classrooms, although this does not entirely explain the teacher

domination of the talk in this classroom, particularly in SA 2, where learners contributed only

11.5% of the overall talk. Nonetheless, the data supports the overall conclusion that these

classrooms were dominated by teacher talk, as well as teacher questions, particularly in

activities labelled as accuracy-focused.

of
In summary, the quantitative analysis of the interactional data suggests that the three

ro
teachers considerably dominated the classroom discourse during speaking practice in terms of
-p
questions and amount of talk. Learner talk, in contrast, appeared to be shaped by the kind of
re
questions asked, display or referential. Specifically, display questions motivated lower
lP

fluency and complexity in the learners’ responses than referential questions. Moreover, the
na

amount of learner talk tended to vary depending on the focus of the speaking activities, with

less talk taking place in the accuracy-focused than in the meaning-focused speaking practice.
ur

As we will see in the remainder of this paper, the perceptual data suggest that the three
Jo

teachers’ intersecting beliefs regarding pedagogic principles, locally situated needs and

practical constraints may have had a bearing on these and other teaching practices.

5. Findings: Perceptual data

This section addresses RQ2 (i.e. what beliefs do these teachers express about speaking

practice in interview?) and RQ3 (i.e. what relationship does there appear to be between these

teachers’ stated beliefs and their teaching strategies during speaking practice?) by drawing on

the interview data. For this purpose, we draw somewhat narrowly on those aspects of the

interviews of most relevance to these research questions, showing how the teachers’
responses informed our overall conclusions regarding the possible interplay between teacher

belief and classroom practice.

5.1 Beliefs about communicative principles and limitations to speaking practice

In their interviews, the three teachers’ responses suggested their awareness of a number of the

main tenets underlying a communicative teaching approach (e.g. providing students with

communicative opportunities). The teachers indicated that they endorsed these

communicative principles and mentioned them, among other factors, when asked to comment

of
on the perceived benefits of speaking practice (Extracts 1-3).

ro
Extract 1 Quote by María (A2 class) -p
“[While speaking] they practise what they are learning, expressions, structures
re
and pronunciation […] they are continuously looking for strategies for
communicating and getting across their intent.”
lP

([Cuando hablan] practican lo que están aprendiendo, expresiones,

estructuras, pronunciación […] están continuamente buscando estrategias
para comunicarse y comunicar sus ideas.)
na

Extract 2 Quote by Tanya (B2 class)

ur

“I place great importance on their [oral] communication. I also think that

vocabulary and useful expressions are important, not those from the textbook.”
Jo

(Pongo mayor importancia en su comunicación. También creo que el

vocabulario y expresiones relevantes son importantes, no las que vienen en el
libro.)

Extract 3 Quote by Aranza (C1 class)

“[Speaking] activities in my class are communicative. When the activities are
personalised and adapted to their reality, they become communicative because
sometimes activities in the textbooks do not happen in real life […] [In
speaking activities] they practise what they learn regarding structures,
vocabulary. I would like to think that they are being trained to become
language teachers.”

(Las actividades de speaking en mi clase son comunicativas. Cuando las

actividades están personalizadas y adaptadas a su realidad, se vuelven
comunicativas porque las actividades que trae el libro normalmente no
ocurren en la vida real […] [En las actividades de speaking] ellos practican lo
que aprenden en cuanto a estructuras, vocabulario. Me gustaría pensar que
están siendo preparados para ser maestros de lengua.)
 In the above extracts, the three teachers point to the importance of oral communication

and speaking practice in their classrooms. Specifically, they suggest that speaking practice

provides opportunities for learners to develop communicative competence (e.g. María

suggests they are “continuously looking for strategies for communicating”, and Tanya that

they use “vocabulary and useful expressions … not those from the textbook”), as well as

knowledge of language forms (e.g. Maria suggests they practise “what they are learning,

expressions, structures and pronunciation”) and the ability to “become language teachers”

(Aranza) and teach the language. Also, in line with a communicative approach, there is a

of
recognition of the need for personalised activities that reflect “real-life” (Aranza). Of course,

ro
although the three teachers were able to express their alignment with principles of
-p
communicative approaches, it was not possible to determine whether, or the extent to which,
re
these objectives were fully internalised. The above claims may have been motivated by, for
lP

example, the teachers’ attempts to come across in the interviews as understanding, endorsing
na

and implementing communicative principles in their classroom, whether or not they actually

believed in or adhered to them in real practice. Evidence that the teachers’ claims are not
ur

necessarily reflected in their classroom practice can be found in the interactional data, which
Jo

suggested that 1) the opportunities for students to speak were limited, 2) the speaking

activities served different pedagogic purposes (meaning or accuracy practice), and 3) the

features initiated by the teachers were not consistently centred on the communicative aspects

of speaking practice. In fact, the three teachers themselves also went on to suggest that the

amount of speaking practice they carried out was limited. For example, Aranza stated that

“there is little opportunity to practise” and Tanya suggested that the productive (speaking and

writing) skills were “neglected.”

 In the interview data, the teachers’ responses suggested that the limited opportunities

to practise speaking emerged from a set of beliefs about the immediate teaching context, as in

the following examples.

Extract 4 Quote by María (A2 class)

“The productive [speaking and writing] skills, I think that they need more
practice, and we have not had enough time to develop them.”

(Las habilidades productivas [producción oral y escrita], creo que necesitan

más práctica y no hemos tenido tiempo suficiente para desarrollarlas.)

Extract 5 Quote by Tanya (B2 class)

of
“We supposedly need to have classes of no more than 20 learners. That is in
theory, but in practice, I have 23 learners. Speaking practice is not the same
[…] learners’ production is obviously greater when you have fewer learners

ro
[…] I don’t carry out speaking practice because of time constraints. I honestly
have to practise the four language skills, activities for the language certification
and cover the textbook up to Unit 8.” -p
re
(Supuestamente, necesitamos tener clases de no más de 20 estudiantes. Eso es
en teoría, pero en la práctica, tengo 23. La práctica del speaking no es la
lP

misma […] la producción de los estudiantes es mayor cuando tienes menos

estudiantes […] no realizo la práctica del speaking por limitaciones de tiempo.
Honestamente, tengo que practicar las cuatro habilidades, actividades para la
certificación y cubrir el libro hasta la Unidad 8.)
na

Extract 6 Quote by Aranza (C1 class)

ur

“The problem in my class is the number of learners and time constraints […]
What you want sometimes is not to waste time in speaking practice.”
Jo

(El problema en mi clase es el número de alumnos y problemas de tiempo […]

Lo que a veces no quieres es desperdiciar tiempo en la práctica del speaking.)

Taken together, the three teachers’ statements point to intersecting beliefs about 1)

time constraints (María and Aranza) and 2) class size constraints (Tanya and Aranza). María,

for example, claims not to have time for speaking practice, while Aranza’s suggestion that she

does not want to “waste time in speaking practice” suggests a prioritisation of other aspects

given the classroom constraints. We also see the potential influence of this set of beliefs on

the teachers’ decision making; as Tanya says, “I don’t carry out speaking practice because of

time constraints”.
 There is some evidence in our interactional data to show that these perceived

constraints were very real. For example, in the observed classes, we noted a high number of

learners in the three English classes (around 20 learners). Moreover, it was evident that the

time spent on speaking practice in the three classes was varied but generally short, suggesting

that teachers may not have had time to carry out longer speaking sessions. However, whilst

not rejecting the existence of these constraints, we argue that the teachers’ beliefs about the

local constraints (and other pedagogic beliefs and commitments) and actual practical

constraints and needs can be seen as limiting the opportunities for speaking practice. The

of
interactional data and the above statements (in Extracts 4-6) appear to suggest that speaking

ro
was avoided or limited because it was influenced by practical factors (i.e. class time and size
-p
constraints), and seen as being time consuming and less important than other language skills
re
or practices. In support of this argument, the following sections look in more detail at some of
lP

the decisions which the teachers claimed to make: the type of questions that they used in
na

speaking practice and their prioritisation of grammar practice.

ur

5.2 Question-and-answer routines

Jo

In interview, two of the three teachers mentioned that they use questions as a teaching

strategy to practise speaking with learners.

Extract 7 Quote by María (A2 class)

“I generally ask learners two or three questions during speaking practice as an
ice breaker. In the second part, they practise speaking in pairs. There [in pairs]
they have more time.”

(Normalmente, les pregunto a los alumnos dos o tres preguntas durante la

práctica del speaking como un ice breaker. En la segunda parte, ellos
practican el speaking en parejas. Ahí [en parejas] tienen más tiempo.)

Extract 8 Quote by Tanya (B2 class)

“Speaking is neglected due to the high number of learners, but in the first part
of my class, I practise speaking with open-ended questions or […] I try to ask
each learner one question.”

(El speaking se descuida por el gran número de alumnos, pero en la primera

 parte de mi clase, practico el speaking con preguntas abiertas o […] trato de
preguntarle una pregunta a cada alumno.)

María’s and Tanya’s statements suggest that their conflicting beliefs about the

importance of practising speaking and about practical matters (Maria points to time

constraints and Tanya mentions class size) may have encouraged them to rely on questions as

a way to promote speaking practice despite the constraints. During the interviews, these two

teachers’ responses suggested a positive attitude towards this practice. For example,

elsewhere in the interview data, Tanya suggests that requiring students to provide oral

of
answers to a written grammar or vocabulary exercise complies with her understanding of a

ro
communicative approach: “through speaking, that is, they communicate their answers [to an

-p
exercise] […] and yes, everything follows a communicative approach”. In fact, the use of
re
questions about grammar or vocabulary, the answers to which are already known by the
lP

teachers, may limit the students’ opportunities to construct elaborate and creative utterances

(Ho, 2005). As we have seen, the interactional data support the elicited data in evidencing a
na

high number of teacher questions during speaking practice. It also shows that most questions
ur

initiated in the three classes were display, rather than referential, questions. It is possible that
Jo

the teachers’ inability to fully incorporate communicative principles during speaking practice,

which they put down to locally situated constraints, may explain the high use of display

questions during speaking practice, in the sense that display questions may be seen as quicker

for classroom interactions and better suited for including more students. The problem is that

display questions were not found to advantage learners’ fluency and complexity, suggesting

that the teachers’ decisions in response to their beliefs (as outlined above) may not be

beneficial for developing learners’ speaking skills. What this suggests is that, although

teachers may initiate question-and-answer routines during speaking practice that follow their

stated pedagogic principles concerning a communicative approach, other more pressing

constraints and beliefs may compel them not to fully address these principles by, for example,

using display rather than referential questions during speaking practice.

5.3 Prioritising of grammar teaching

The three teachers’ responses suggested that they had to carefully balance the practising of the

four language skills and the teaching of grammar and vocabulary, and that they did not always

devote equal time to each. For example:

Extract 9 Quote by María (A2 class)

of
“I am not able to practise the four skills equally because there is a couple of

ro
things that I need to consider: covering the syllabus, carrying out other
activities, attending academic events. Well, from my point of view, I do not
dedicate enough time on them [productive skills].”
-p
(No puedo practicar las cuatro habilidades de igual forma porque hay algunas
re
cosas que tengo que tomar en cuenta: cubrir el programa, realizar otras
actividades, asistir a eventos académicos. Bueno, desde mi punto de vista, no
lP

les dedico tiempo suficiente [a las habilidades productivas].)

Extract 10 Quote by Tanya (B2 class)

na

“The practice of the four language skills in a language class is obviously

difficult; you neglect one for the other. You need to choose one of each skill
ur

group.”

(La práctica de las cuatro habilidades en una clase de lengua es difícil sin
Jo

duda; descuidas una por otra. Necesitas elegir una de cada grupo.)

Extract 11 Quote by Aranza (C1 class)

“In my class, I feel that the productive skills have been neglected because the
learners should develop deep knowledge of the language forms [grammar and
vocabulary]; they are going to teach them.”

(En mi clase, siento que las habilidades productivas se han descuidado porque
los estudiantes deberían desarrollar conocimientos profundos de la forma de
la lengua [gramática y vocabulario]; ellos la van a enseñar.)

While Tanya points to difficulties in focusing equally on each language skill, Maria

and Aranza suggest that the teaching of particular vocabulary and grammar structures (i.e. the

need to cover “the syllabus” and “develop a deep knowledge of the language forms”) are

prioritised over language skills. This prioritisation may be motivated by an apparent belief
that teaching grammar is more important than practising speaking, as further suggested in

Tanya’s and Aranza’s statements below.

Extract 12 Quote by Tanya (B2 class)

“In my class, I tend to carry out grammar activities […] because I noticed that
in both groups there are serious grammatical problems.”

(En mi clase, tiendo a realizar actividades de gramática […] porque noté que
en ambos grupos existen serios problemas gramaticales.)

Extract 13 Quote by Aranza (C1 class)

“I admit that my class is mainly focused on grammar […] I think that learners

of
need to know the language structures; they will be teaching them.”

(Admito que mi clase se enfoca principalmente en la gramática […] Creo que

ro
los estudiantes necesitan saber las estructuras de la lengua; ellos las van a
estar enseñando.)
-p
Interestingly, Aranza felt that speaking practice in her classroom was not only limited
re
because time was spent instead on grammar practice but was itself also characterised by a
lP

focus on accuracy: she told us that “speaking practice is carried out in relation to grammar”
na

and claimed that the goal of speaking activities is for learners to master and use grammar

structures (Extract 14).

ur

Extract 14 Quote by Aranza (C1 class)

Jo

“That is the purpose of speaking activities; learners need to use the [grammar]
structure during speaking practice, in their conversation or whatever they are
doing.”

(Ese es el propósito de las actividades de speaking; los estudiantes necesitan

utilizar la estructura [gramatical] en la práctica oral, en su conversación o
cualquier cosa que hagan.)

Aranza’s suggestion that she designed speaking practice to have a focus on accuracy –

that is, using a particular recently learned structure or vocabulary – was borne out by the

interactional data which indicated that specific grammar structures or vocabulary were

practised in her speaking activities during which the learners had limited opportunities to

participate, produce extended and creative utterances, or contribute to the teacher-led

discourse even though they were at C1 level. Then, we may conclude that the teachers’ belief
in the importance of grammar alongside their belief in the importance of speaking practice

may have motivated them to carry out speaking practice focused on accuracy. It is thus

possible that the teachers’ beliefs, involving beliefs about class size and time constraints, the

importance of both grammar and speaking practice, and the time-consuming nature of

speaking practice, may have encouraged them to focus on accuracy when practising speaking.

5. Discussion

The perceptual data in this study suggest that various contextual factors – including

of
pedagogical principles (i.e. the importance of practising speaking and providing opportunities

ro
to interact, a communicative approach to speaking practice, and development of learners’
-p
speaking skills), locally situated needs and other demands perceived by the teachers (i.e.
re
language skills other than speaking; importance of grammar; and class size, time constraints,
lP

and the time-consuming nature of speaking practice) – influenced the three teachers’ beliefs

and may in turn have shaped their teaching practices in the classrooms. In other words, the
na

three teachers’ pedagogical beliefs in communicative language teaching combined with

ur

beliefs about locally situated needs and other perceived immediate demands shaped the
Jo

teaching practices, which in turn shaped the classroom interactional features during speaking

practice. The teachers’ beliefs can be seen as conflicting in the sense that their recognition of

locally situated needs and other perceived demands appeared to contrast with their assertions

that they adopt a communicative approach while practising speaking activities. It seems

possible that these teachers felt the need to come across in the interviews as endorsing a

communicative approach in the language classroom. In general, the interactional and

perceptual data suggest a complex picture of the teachers who do not simply avoid

communicative teaching practices but modify them in line with real-world constraints and

their intersecting beliefs.

 Firstly, the analysis of the teachers’ questions indicated that display questions

dominated the speaking practice. It was found that these questions motivated low levels of

fluency and complexity. The fact that the teachers were using display questions is not

surprising because, despite recent learner-centred teaching approaches, question-and-answer

routines are seen to prevail in language teaching, while display questions tend to dominate

over referential questions during classroom interactions (Ho, 2005; Walsh, 2013). The

importance of this study lies in revealing how display questions may be a strategy adopted by

teachers as they seek to accommodate an array of beliefs; that is, to respond to immediately

of
relevant classroom constraints (e.g. lack of time and large class size) whilst also adhering to

ro
communicative principles such as the importance of speaking. In other words, display
-p
questions seem to be a strategy used by these three teachers in order to try to reconcile these
re
potentially competing beliefs.
lP

Secondly, the perceptual data suggested that the teachers’ beliefs in the relative
na

importance of grammar and vocabulary (combined with their perceived need to provide

speaking opportunities) may have compelled them to design speaking activities that focused
ur

on accuracy, a claim that was corroborated by the interactional data. The accuracy-focused
Jo

activities were found to promote fewer opportunities for the learners to contribute to the

classroom communication than meaning-focused activities because, prompted by the

teachers’ simultaneous beliefs in the importance of grammar teaching), the learners were

required to display knowledge of discrete-point grammar or specific vocabulary expressions

in a way which did not encourage their communicative production. The relevance of this

finding is that beliefs may encourage not only a reliance on grammar practice, as claimed by

Burke (2011), but also the reinterpretation/appropriation of speaking practice so that, in this

case, it prioritises the mastery of grammatical accuracy or vocabulary.

 Thirdly, it was also suggested that the teachers’ dominance of the classroom

interactions, as evidenced in the interactional data, may be explained in part by a similar

interplay of teacher beliefs, as they sought to conduct “communicative” activities in a highly

controlled, teacher-led and thus time-efficient way, given what they saw as the constraints on

their practice and their continuing beliefs in more traditional methods.

Based on the perceptual and interactional evidence, then, we suggest that these

teachers have tried to implement communicative principles, but that these principles

combined with beliefs and perceptions of constraints encouraged interactional features and

of
teaching activities which did not provide enough opportunities for learners to practise

ro
speaking. In short, the use of both interactional and perceptual data allowed us to show how
-p
the Mexican teachers’ attempts to implement communicative principles combined with their
re
ideas about the constraints they face – as well as persistent beliefs in more traditional teaching
lP

methods and priorities – in ways that encouraged them to adopt teaching and interactional
na

practices which are generally considered to be detrimental to language learning.

ur

6. Conclusions
Jo

The present study explored classroom interactions in three EFL classes in a Mexican

university in which speaking was practised, drawing not only on explorations of three

teachers’ beliefs, but also on a detailed analysis of their interactions during speaking practice.

We focused on beliefs about speaking practice in particular, rather than teaching and learning

in general (see Borg, 2003). This enabled us to understand the extent to which and how

teachers’ beliefs about speaking influenced the interactions.

The study found that speaking practice and the opportunities for language learning in

this Latin American context were shaped by the interplay between various beliefs held by the

teachers, not only concerning the need to implement communicative principles, but also the

importance of traditional grammar teaching and a range of practical constraints, including

class size and lack of time. The ways in which the teachers behaved interactionally in the

classroom, and the decisions they made, suggest an attempt to reconcile communicative

principles with their understanding of the learners’ needs and the constraints in which they

taught. The attempt to reconcile their communicative principles with their beliefs about

practical constraints appeared to influence the teachers’ decision-making during speaking

practice. Specifically, their intersecting beliefs motivated them to 1) rely on (display)

question-and-answer routines, 2) carry out speaking activities focused on (grammatical or

vocabulary) accuracy rather than meaning making, and 3) dominate the classroom discourse.

of
These pedagogic strategies were borne out in the interactional data and in turn shown to

ro
inhibit the opportunities for a more communicative and effective speaking practice. In
-p
general, our evidence supports the idea of ‘hybrid teachers’ (Burke, 2011, p.9) by
re
demonstrating how communicative methods may be adapted in ways that are shaped by
lP

beliefs about locally situated factors.

na

Drawing on the argument that beliefs are dynamic (Barcelos & Kalaja, 2011; Yoshida,

2013), and in contrast to Basturkmen et al.’s (2004) argument that inconsistencies between
ur

classroom practices and stated beliefs can be resolved through the development of teaching
Jo

experience, we suggest that Mexican education programmes should include procedures which

regularly help teachers make connections between communicative approaches, real-life

contextual factors, and their own beliefs. These procedures should also facilitate opportunities

for hands-on experimentation, personal evaluation, and reflection processes through

implementing speaking activities into their lessons (Burke, 2011; Busch, 2010), in order for

teachers to rationalise their beliefs in relation to their teaching behaviour (Borg, 2001; Miller

& Aldred, 2000), and develop an understanding of more effective interactions in which they

can practise speaking in line with communicative approaches. The benefits of these

procedures would be that, when teachers start perceiving an enhancement in their classroom
behaviour, new beliefs and reflective practices may progressively be promoted to address

context-specific problems (see Yoshida, 2013), having a beneficial impact on subsequent

interactions for speaking practice. Otherwise, we will continue to promote teacher education

in Mexico and elsewhere that trains ‘hybrid teachers’ (Burke, 2011, p.9), that is, teachers who

try to carry out communicative activities, but insist on implementing grammatical accuracy

activities.

References

of
Andon, N. & Eckerth, J. (2009). Chacun à son gout? Task-based L2 pedagogy from the

ro
teacher’s point of view. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 19 (3), 286-310.
-p
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00240.x
re
Barcelos, A. M. F. & Kalaja, P. (2011). Introduction to beliefs about SLA revisited. System,
39(3), 281-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.001
lP

Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers' stated beliefs about incidental
na

focus on form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 1 243–
272. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.243
ur

Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal,
Jo

57(3), 278-287. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.3.278

Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55(1), 21-
29. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.21

Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what

language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444803001903

Borg, S. (2008, April). How to research teachers’ beliefs and knowledge. Unpublished paper
presented at the 42nd Annual TESOL Convention, New York.

Borg, S. (2011). The impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs.
System 39(3), 370-380. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009

Borg, S. & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied
Linguistics, 29(3), 456-482. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn020
Burke, B. M. (2011). Rituals and beliefs ingrained in world language pedagogy: Defining
deep structure and conventional wisdom. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 2(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.2.1.1-12

Busch, D. (2010). Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: The second language
acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research, 14(3), 318-
337. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168810365239

Calderhead, J. & Robson, M. (1991). Images of teaching: Student teachers' early conceptions
of classroom practice. Teaching & Teacher Education, 7(1), 1-8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051x(91)90053-r

of
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning. New
York: Cambridge University Press.

ro
Cohen, A., & Fass, L. (2011). Oral language instructions: Teacher and learner beliefs and the
-p
reality in EFL classes at a Colombian university. Íkala, 6(1-2), 43-62. Retrieved from
re
https://revistas.udea.edu.co/index.php/ikala/article/view/8562
lP

Ellis, R. & Barkhuizen, G. (2005). Analysing learner language. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
na

Foster, P. (1998). A classroom perspective on the negotiation of meaning. Applied

Linguistics, 19(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.1
ur

Foster, P. (2020). Oral fluency in a second language: A research agenda for the next ten
Jo

years. Language Teaching, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026144482000018X

García Mayo, M. D. P., & Pica, T. (2000). Is the EFL environment a language learning
environment? Working Papers in Educational Linguistics, 16(1), 1-24. Retrieved from
http://repository.upenn.edu/wpel/vol16/iss1/1

Garcia Ponce, E. E. (2016). An analysis of interactions in English as a foreign language

classrooms in Mexico: Implications of classroom behaviour and beliefs for speaking
practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,
UK.

Ho, D. G. E. (2005). Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional Language Centre
Journal 36(3), 297-310. https://doi.org/0.1177%2F0033688205060052
Jarrín, X. & Kim C. (2019). Improving speaking skill using the speaking practice tool
Spacedeck. Revista Espirales, 3(30), 87-89. https://doi.org/10.31876/er.v3i30.619

Kormos, J., & Denes, M. (2004). Exploring measures and perceptions of fluency in the speech
of second language learners. System, 32, 145-164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2004.01.001

Miller, L., & Aldred, D. (2000). Student teacher’s perceptions about communicative language
teaching methods. RELC Journal, 31(1), 1-19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003368820003100101

Musumeci, D. (2002). The use technology in high-enrollment courses: Implications for

of
teacher education and communicative language teaching. In S. Savignon, (Ed.),
Interpreting communicative language teaching: Contexts and concerns in teacher

ro
education (pp. 154-164). New Haven: Yale University Press.
-p
Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2009). Towards an organic approach to investigating CAF in
re
instructed SLA: The case of complexity. Applied Linguistics, 30, 555-578.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp044
lP

Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy

na

construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543062003307
ur

Sato, K., & Kleinsasser, R. C. (1999). Communicative language teaching (CLT): Practical
Jo

understandings. Modern Language Journal, 83(4), 494-517.

https://doi.org/10.1111/0026-7902.00037

Sato, M., & Oyanedel, J. C. (2019). “I think that is a better way to teach, but. . .”: EFL
teachers’ conflicting beliefs about grammar teaching. System, 84(1), 110-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.005

Skehan, P. (1998). A cognitive approach to language learning. Oxford: Oxford University.

Tavakoli, P. (2019) Automaticity, fluency and second language task performance. In: Wen, Z.
E.and Ahmadian, M. J. (eds.), Researching L2 Task Performance and Pedagogy. John
Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 39-52.

Walsh, S. (2002). Construction or obstruction: Teacher talk and learner involvement in the
EFL classroom. Language Teaching Research, 6(1), 3-23.
https://doi.org/10.1191/1362168802lr095oa
Walsh, S. (2013). Classroom discourse and teacher development. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.

Velázquez, V., & García-Ponce, E. E. (2018). Foreign language planning: The case of a
teacher/translator training programme at a Mexican university. Profile: Issues in
Teachers’ Professional Development, 20(2), 79-94.
https://doi.org/10.15446/profile.v20n2.65609.

Yoshida, R. (2013). Conflict between learners' beliefs and action: Speaking in the classroom.
Language Awareness, 22(4), 371-388. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2012.758129

of
ro
-p
re
lP
na
ur
Jo
Appendix A. Objectives and focus of speaking activities

No. Objectives Focus

A2
To talk about perceptions about some illustrated
SA 1 Meaning
actions in the textbook.
To discuss some actions and expressions heard from a
SA 2 Accuracy
listening activity.
To practise the use of suggestions and responses by
SA 3 Accuracy
using formulaic expressions.
To practise the use of suggestions and responses by
SA 4 Accuracy
using formulaic expressions and the verb ‘take’.
SA 5 To discuss past long journeys. Meaning
B2

of
SA 1 To practise specific vocabulary related to relationships. Accuracy
SA 2 To discuss perceptions about types of relationships. Meaning

ro
To discuss perceptions about the importance of certain
SA 3 Meaning
personal relationships.

SA 4
other cultures.
-p
To discuss perceptions about certain relationships in

C1
Meaning
re
SA 1 To practise vocabulary related to skills. Accuracy
SA 2 To practice vocabulary related to sleeping habits. Accuracy
lP
na
ur
Jo
Appendix B. Question guide for teacher interviews

1. What are your priorities while practising speaking with your learners?
(¿Cuáles son tus prioridades cuando practicas la habilidad oral con tus estudiantes?)
2. Do you focus on fluency or accuracy?
(¿Tratas de enfocarte en la fluidez o precisión?)
3. When you prepare a speaking class, what do you consider?
(Cuando preparas una clase de producción oral, ¿qué consideras normalmente?)
4. How do you organise a speaking class?
(¿Cómo organizas una clase de producción oral?)
5. Describe a common speaking session in your class. What activities you normally carry
out? What do your learners have to do?
(Por favor, describe una sesión de producción oral en tu clase. ¿Qué actividades

of
normalmente realizas? ¿Qué tienen que hacer tus estudiantes?)
6. Would you say that your learners’ oral production could meet real life needs? How do

ro
you make sure?
(¿Dirías que la producción oral de tus estudiantes podría satisfacer necesidades de la
vida real? ¿Cómo te aseguras?) -p
7. How do you make sure that your learners are progressing in speaking?
re
(¿Cómo te aseguras de que tus estudiantes estén desarrollando habilidades de
producción oral?)
lP

8. Which benefits do you think your learners obtain when they practise speaking?
(¿Cuáles son los beneficios que crees que tus estudiantes obtienen cuando practican
na

la producción oral?)
9. Would you say that in your class there are enough opportunities to practise and
ur

develop speaking skills?

(¿Dirías que en tu clase hay oportunidades suficientes para practicar y desarrollar
Jo

habilidades orales?)
10. Do you believe that the speaking practice in you class is meaningful for your learners
so they can have a real conversation outside the classroom?
(¿Crees que la práctica oral en tu clase es significativa para tus estudiantes para que
puedan mantener una conversación fuera del aula?)