See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/31356128

Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom

Article in ELT Journal · April 2006

DOI: 10.1093/elt/cci100 · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS

92 1,893

1 author:

Steve Walsh
Newcastle University
31 PUBLICATIONS 2,507 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Steve Walsh on 27 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Talking the talk of the TESOL
classroom
Steve Walsh

This paper considers ways in which a detailed understanding of classroom

discourse can be achieved through the use of reflective practices and
professional dialogue. For the teacher, understanding classroom
communication, being able to ‘shape’ learner contributions and making
strategic decisions in the moment-by-moment unfolding of a lesson are
regarded as being crucial to developing SLA in the formal, L2 classroom context.
The study reported here makes extensive use of a research instrument and
a metalanguage designed to enable teachers make ‘good’ interactive decisions
online by using samples of their own data. The collaborative process of
interpreting data and ‘meaning-making’ in a reflective feedback interview
provides teachers with a means to uncover the interactive details of their
classes and make conscious changes to classroom actions.

Background This study took place in the TEFL Centre, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Northern Ireland over a two-year period. The Centre offers intensive and
part-time EFL classes to approximately 400 international students, who
take general English classes, exam classes or more tailor-made courses in
EAP and ESP. Classes are organized either intensively (15 hours per week)
or part-time (at least 2 hours per week) and at a range of levels from
elementary to advanced. Tutors come from a variety of backgrounds and
have a range of experience from three to thirty years. All have worked
outside the UK at some stage in their careers and all have recognized
TESOL qualifications.
Eight tutors, each with a minimum of five years’ teaching experience,
agreed to participate in the study; the decision to invite them was based on
the assumption that experienced tutors are more likely to be in a position
to both describe their verbal behaviour and account for it. As Nunan
(1996: 86–7) remarks, ‘Teachers with training but with little or no
classroom experience will have a limited store of schemata [. . .]’. It is the
schemata, mental representations of classroom experiences and events,
which are crucial to both understanding and being able to verbalize that
understanding. The selection of teachers was thus based, in the first
instance, on their willingness to participate; second, on their experience.
The researcher’s relationship with the teachers is as colleague and head
of teacher education in the TEFL Centre. All the teachers had known
the researcher for at least four years.

ELT Journal Volume 60/2 April 2006; doi:10.1093/elt/cci100 133

ª The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.

articles welcome
The study The study was based on a framework involving the self-evaluation of
teacher talk (SETT). There were three phases.

Phase 1 In the first phase, audio-recordings of the teachers’ classes were made and
analysed in order to provide a descriptive framework. The aim was to
assess the relationship between language use and pedagogic purpose in
specific classroom micro-contexts, called ‘modes’ (McCarthy and Walsh
2003—see Appendix for a brief description). In particular, the concern was
to acknowledge that any analysis has to take account of shifts in classroom
discourse by recognizing that the language used by participants varies
according to their pedagogic purpose at a given point in a lesson. For
example, the language used in classroom context mode, where the concern
is to encourage students to express themselves, is very different to that used
in managerial mode, where the focus is on giving instructions or
monitoring feedback

Phase 2 The second phase comprised an activity which involved the same
group of teachers in working further with the recordings collected in
Phase 1. Initially, teachers and researcher worked collaboratively on
this data to construct a framework which could be used to analyse
teacher language. The resulting ad hoc coding system, the self-
evaluation of teacher talk (SETT) framework, comprised four classroom
modes and thirteen interactional features. (See Appendix.) This
instrument was used, firstly, to enable teachers to analyse their own
classroom data; secondly, to facilitate participation in reflective feedback
interviews. Essentially, teachers made a series (5 or 6) of ‘snapshot’
recordings of their own lessons (each lasting about 15 minutes); analysed
their recordings by (a) identifying modes and (b) transcribing examples
of interactional features using the SETT grid; finally, they discussed
their evaluations with the researcher in a post-evaluation feedback
interview.

Phase 3 In the final phase, occurring some 12 months after Phase 2, the study
focused on evaluating the extent to which teacher-researchers had
developed an enhanced awareness of their teacher talk. A stimulated recall
methodology was used, whereby teachers justified their interactive
decision-making while watching a video-recording of one lesson during
an interview with this researcher. Interactive decision-making considers
the ways in which teachers make decisions ‘online’ as they teach. Some
decisions are likely to promote interaction and facilitate the construction
of learning opportunities, while others may impede interaction and
obstruct learning opportunities. The aim was to derive an understanding
of what I call ‘L2 Classroom Interactional Competence’ (CIC) by
examining teachers’ use of language in relation to stated pedagogic goals.
To what extent was language use congruent with pedagogic goals? Were
teachers able to promote opportunities for learning by more careful, more
conscious language use? Did, for example, an awareness of ‘wait-time’
(the delay between a teacher initiation and a learner response) facilitate
learner involvement?
The remainder of this article focuses on Phase 2.

134 Steve Walsh

articles welcome
Promoting One of the purposes of Phase 2 of the study was to help teachers develop
interactional a clearer understanding of the relationship between teacher talk,
awareness interaction and learning. The use of the SETT framework and subsequent
feedback interview were designed to help teachers gain a more detailed
awareness of their decision-making in the moment-by-moment unfolding
of a lesson (‘online’ decision making), and to raise awareness of their
teacher talk. By ‘awareness’ is meant a more conscious use of language;
noticing the effects of interactional features on learning opportunity
(Walsh 2002); understanding that teachers and learners jointly create
learning opportunities; a realization of the importance of using appropriate
teacher talk, adjusted not only according to level but also to pedagogic goals.
In short, developing awareness can be seen as an increase in what van Lier
(2000) terms ‘mindfulness’, a conscious process of ‘making the right
choice at the right time’; here, based on making good interactive decisions.
Assessing awareness, or more specifically, changes in awareness is
notoriously difficult, based as it is on an ‘insider’ view of what teaching is
(Willis 1992). Yet, as Nunan (1996: 55) recognizes, understanding changes
in awareness has to begin with the teachers themselves, considering the
ways in which ‘the processes of instruction [are] illuminated by the voices of
the teachers’. The ‘collaborative enterprise’ (ibid.) of classroom research is
crucial not only to gaining insights and understandings, but also to
assessing change. In the words of Freeman (1996: 55):
Questions of what teaching is and what people know in order to teach
are central . . . when these questions are ignored, the immediate, daily
and intimate knowledge of teachers and learners is belittled because
it [knowledge] is overlooked and trivialised.
Here, the ‘immediate and intimate’ knowledge of teachers is studied
through a consideration of the ways in which levels of interactional
awareness could be identified in the SETT process.
Interactional awareness is described here in relation to teachers’
a use of metalanguage,
b critical self-evaluation, and
c more conscious interactive decision-making.

Use of One of the concerns at the beginning of the study was the absence of
metalanguage a metalanguage both to describe interactional processes and to comment
on changes in them. If teacher-participants are to become more conscious
of the ‘interactional architecture’ (Seedhouse 2004) of their classes and
learn to make principled use of language, they must have a metalanguage
to facilitate reflection, evaluate interactive actions and prompt reaction.
Here, the metalanguage is largely provided through the SETT grid which
was co-constructed by participating teachers and the researcher.
There are several advantages in being able to use an appropriate
metalanguage:
a It facilitates description and reflection on practice.
b It enables new levels of understanding to be attained.
c It allows teachers to construct, interpret, and modify their environment.

Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom 135

articles welcome
 d It helps direction and control of teaching behaviour.
e It promotes, through collaborative dialogue, changes in practice.
In extract 1 (below) the metalanguage relating to interaction and
teaching/learning has been highlighted.

Extract 1
There were quite a lot of display questions which I think is appropriate
for low level classes, pre-intermediate, you tend to use a lot of display
questions so I had plenty of examples of those like ‘How do you spell
exciting?’ and then later I was asking questions based on the text ‘Does
she like Rome?’ of course were questions I knew the answers to ‘What’s
the adjective for the noun ‘pollution? There would be more referential
questions if it was more a discussion with a higher level group so that’s
one thing that came out. I used referential polluted?’ ‘Is your city in
China polluted?’ to Lee which enabled them to use a bit more free sort of
speech. But these were very limited the referential questions questions
to extend or reinforce the vocabulary. (Teacher 2, interview 1)
This confirms that the teacher understands not only what display and
referential questions are, indicated by the examples she provides, but also
how they function. The comments indicate that the teacher is able not
only to ‘talk the talk’ to describe the interactional features of this particular
mode, but more importantly, to connect her pedagogic goal (‘to extend or
reinforce the vocabulary’) and use of language. Her comments suggest
that she is using appropriate teacher talk, language which is convergent to
the mode in light of her stated teaching objectives. The valid point is made
too that interactional strategies are highly context dependent: display
questions are used more at lower levels and referential questions are more
appropriate to a discussion class with a higher level.
The use of an appropriate metalanguage is, arguably, an important
indicator of interactional awareness since it allows interlocutors to
verbalize their understanding of key concepts. There are parallels here
with studies of content-based subjects which confirm that learners who
are able to use the specialist language of a particular speech community,
for example, science, are more effective (Moje 1995). Second language
teachers too need to be able to comment on the interaction taking place in
their classes. The absence of a meaningful and yet user-friendly discourse
results in bland description which typically focuses on an evaluation of
teacher talking time (TTT). In very few of the interviews in the present
study were the terms ‘high’ or ‘low TTT’ used, possibly owing to the
existence of a more sophisticated terminology. Given an appropriate
framework and corresponding metalanguage, teachers are able to gain
detailed insights into interactional processes at work in their classes.
There is also evidence of metalinguistic awareness in teachers’ written
comments, included on the SETT grids. Consider extract 2, for example.

Extract 2
Display questions were used to initiate a discussion about newspapers
and referential questions used (a) to ask learners to express opinions
and (b) to find out about newspapers in their countries. I think that this

136 Steve Walsh

articles welcome
 kind of questioning was suitable given that in this part of the lesson
I hoped to build ‘learner’s schemata’ prior to a relatively difficult
reading and writing comprehension exercise. (Teacher 4, written
self-evaluation from SETT grid)
Here the teacher comments on display and referential questions. The
comments indicate not only that he was able to relate the academic task
structure of the lesson, his teaching/learning objectives, to the language
used to accomplish it, but also that he has the jargon to verbalize the
actions taken. Evidence of metalinguistic awareness is potentially an
indicator that teachers’ actions are becoming more conscious, more
explicit, that interactional choices are being made deliberately. Absence
of metalanguage, on the other hand, not only makes awareness
difficult to judge, it creates an impression of reduced consciousness,
of impoverished decision-making.

Critical Critical self-evaluation, based on teacher-generated data, is of considerable

self-evaluation value as a process of consciousness-raising and enhancing understanding.
With a framework (like the SETT grid), teachers are able to make a more
detailed analysis of their decisions and use of language in relation to their
stated pedagogic goals. Their observations are voiced to an independent
listener who has no evaluative role, as is often the case during a post-
teaching feedback interview. The process eliminates the need for lengthy
transcription; with a task to focus attention and selective transcription,
teachers, are, arguably, just as likely to develop an understanding of
their own classes as they would by using full transcripts of lessons.
In extract 3, a range of brief comments is included by way of illustration of
the importance of self-appraisal in reflective practice.

Extract 3
Yes I was very I was aware of [reading from completed SETT Grid]
‘turn completion’ whether I was finishing things for them or not . . . I’ve
become more aware of that recently and try not to do it. (Teacher 3)
I think maybe 50% of mine [teacher echo] are for a good reason and
50% of it is real habit they give me an answer and I answer the answer.
I’m kind of trying to cut down on a bit. (Teacher 5)
Also I noticed that there was quite a lot of extended teacher turn
maybe too much you know when I was listening to it perhaps there were
one or two occasions when I needn’t have used it. (Teacher 2)
All the above are taken from the first feedback interview with three
different teachers. Each comment evaluates three different features of
classroom discourse: turn completion, teacher echo, extended teacher
turn. (See Appendix for a full list.) The comments indicate quite clearly
a reflective process of noticing (e.g. ‘I was aware’; ‘I noticed’), evaluating
(‘50% of it is a real habit’, ‘I needn’t have used it’) and setting new objectives
(‘I try not to do it’; ‘I’m trying to cut down’). This reflective cycle is of
considerable value both as a means of demonstrating awareness and as
a procedure for self-help, providing it is supported with the follow-up
interview which is essential in order to clarify or re-align misconceptions.

Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom 137

articles welcome
 In addition to evaluative comments based on reflection, the interview data
reveal some evidence that teachers became more strategic in their online
decision making.

Strategic online One of the concerns in Phase 2 was to help teacher-participants become
decision-making more conscious of the interactive decisions taken in the moment by
moment unfolding of a lesson. As demonstrated by other researchers
(see, for example, Ellis 1998), interactional decisions can have an adverse
or positive effect on learning opportunities and teachers need to be
sensitized to this. Furthermore, within the parameters of the SETT grid,
there is scope in the feedback interview to explain why certain decisions
were taken and analyse their effect on the lesson. In extract 4, for example,
the teacher justifies his interactive decisions in relation to his stated
pedagogic goal (‘to improve oral fluency’).

Extract 4
I didn’t do any completing of turns, form-focused feedback didn’t fit in
really and there was no direct repair really because I suppose it was
fluency rather than accuracy and didn’t given anybody any extended
wait-time because I didn’t think it was necessary but I would have
done it if they had needed it.
It is clear from his comments that the intention was to elicit longer turns
from the learners and give them more interactional space—‘it was fluency
rather than accuracy.’ There is a suggestion here that certain interactional
features are more appropriate to a fluency-focused lesson than others. For
example, the teacher mentions his avoidance of form-focused feedback
and direct repair and recognizes that extended wait-time might be needed.
His comments underline an interactional awareness which is manifested
in the decisions taken during the lesson and then verbalized quite
clearly in the feedback interview. This kind of consciousness is central
not only to creating learning opportunities, but also to the reflective
practices of Phase 2.
In extract 5, the discussion centres on teacher interruptions.

Extract 5
Sometimes I interrupted to change the mode, to change from one part
of the lesson to the next to move on, but I also interrupted in several
stages when they were talking to each other about things that I knew
something about and I wonder about the value of that because in one
way it sort of added to the easy-going atmosphere, but in another way,
even though what I said added to the conversation, maybe it wasn’t my
part, wasn’t my role. (Teacher 4, Interview 2)
Teacher 4 attempts to justify decisions taken to interrupt learners during
a classroom context mode where a group of intermediate learners was
discussing favourite films. Two aspects of this extract are of interest.
Firstly, there is again an indication that the teacher is able to justify the
interactional decisions taken during the course of a lesson; secondly, there
is an evaluative dimension to the comments, with teacher 4 expressing
some concern about his precise ‘role’ in the interaction. Put simply, while

138 Steve Walsh

articles welcome
 teacher 4 is able to explain why a particular decision was taken, he is also
able, at a slight distance and on reflection, to question the validity of that
decision, to assess its educational ‘value’. Standing back from an
interactional moment and commenting on its appropriacy is highly
relevant to the self-evaluation process, a crucial aspect of reflecting on
action.
The notion of the teacher as decision-maker is certainly not new. (See, for
example, Scrivener 1994; Bailey 1996.) Many pre- and in-service L2 teacher
education programmes address the process of methodological decision-
making in the post-practice feedback interview. The notion of helping
teachers to understand and rationalize the interactional decisions taken in
the course of a lesson is something different, focusing as it does on the
relationship between language used and teaching/learning outcomes. It is
equally important and yet neglected. Once a variable perspective of
classroom interaction is adopted, under which modes are characterized
according to pedagogic goals and interactional features, the process of
rationalizing interactional decisions becomes much more straightforward:
teaching and learning objectives are aligned with the language used to
achieve them rather than with the teaching method, giving a totally
different understanding of the decision-making process.

Conclusions If we accept the interdependency of interaction and language learning,

then we must also accept that a closer understanding of that relationship is
needed. Here, it is argued that developing interactional awareness has to
begin with teachers’ own data, analysed by teachers using an appropriate
framework and verbalized in a reflective feedback interview. By making
available appropriate research tools—tools designed by teachers for
teachers—the intention is that reflection on practice can develop. In the
data, participating teachers’ interactional awareness is exemplified in their
use of metalanguage, critical self-evaluation, and more conscious
interactive decision-making. Rather than being an all-encompassing
research tool, the SETT framework is intended to provide a point of
departure, a springboard to facilitate discussion and to enable some sense
to be made of the interactional organization of the L2 classroom.
There is no doubt that the instrument and procedures could be refined
and would probably need to be adjusted for use in different contexts. The
SETT framework was only ever designed to handle teacher-fronted
interaction; consequently, the voices of the learners are therefore notably
missing. Nonetheless, the overall evaluation was positive as evidenced in
the following sample of teachers’ comments.
a It’s doable, definitely, as long as these ones [SETT categories] are
explained right the way through. (Teacher 5)
b The idea of listening to it all through first is good and then going back,
that’s fine. But I think if you were to do all this and then re-write it,
people wouldn’t do that—it would take too long. I mean I wouldn’t do
it. I think the best bit about this is the talking about it because that’s
when it becomes more clear. (Teacher 3)

Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom 139

articles welcome
 c It was easier than the first time I did it. In the beginning, I found it
a bit [difficult] What’s scaffolding, what’s extended wait-time, what’s
referential questions, what is teacher interruptions and so forth?
Then once I had the practice, it became much easier so I had no
problem with the last one, at least I don’t think I did. (Teacher 6)
Final revised version received August 2004

References Seedhouse, P. 2004. ‘L2 classroom transcripts: data

Bailey, K. M. 1996. ‘The best laid plans: teachers’ in-
class decisions to depart from their lesson-plans’ in
K. M. Bailey and D. Nunan (eds.).Voices from the
Language Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. 1998. ‘Discourse control and the
acquisition-rich classroom’ in W. A. Renandya and
G. M. Jacobs (eds.). Learners and Language Learning.
Anthology Series 39. Singapore: SEAMO Regional
Language Centre.
Freeman, D. 1996. ‘Redefining the relationship
between research and what teachers know’ in K. M.
Bailey and D. Nunan (eds.). Voices from the Language
Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCarthy, M. and S. Walsh. 2003. ‘Discourse’ in D.
Nunan (ed.). Practical English Language Teaching.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Moje, E. B. 1995. ‘Talking about science: an
interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high
school science classroom’. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching 32/4: 349–71.
Nunan, D. 1996. ‘Hidden voices: insiders’
perspectives on classroom interaction’ in K. Bailey
and D. Nunan (eds.). Voices from the Language
Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Scrivener, J. 1994. Learning Teaching. Oxford:
Heinemann.
in search of a methodology?’ TESL-EJ 1/4: A–1.
van Lier, L. 2000. ‘From input to affordance: social-
interactive learning from an ecological perspective’
in J. P. Lantolf (ed.). Socio-cultural Theory and Second
Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Walsh, S. 2002. ‘Construction or obstruction:
teacher talk and learner involvement in the EFL
classroom’. Language Teaching Research 6/1: 3–23.
Willis, J. 1992. ‘Inner and outer: spoken discourse
in the language classroom’ in M. Coulthard (ed.).
Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London:
Routledge.
The author
Steve Walsh is head of External Relations and
Lecturer in Education at The Graduate School of
Education. Queen’s University Belfast, where he
directs and teaches on the MSc TESOL
Programme. He has been involved in teacher
education for more than 15 years in Spain, Hong
Kong, Hungary, Poland, and the Irish Republic.
His research interests include all aspects of second
language teacher education, professional
development and classroom discourse. In
particular, he is interested in the complex
relationship between learning, interaction and
teacher language.

Appendix 1 Make a 10–15 minute audio-recording from one of your lessons. Try and
SETT choose a part of the lesson involving both you and your learners. You
(Self-evaluation don’t have to start at the beginning of the lesson; choose any segment you
of teacher talk) like.
Framework 2 As soon as possible after the lesson, listen to the tape. The purpose of the
first listening is to analyse the extract according to classroom context or
mode. As you listen the first time, decide which modes are in operation.
Choose from the following:
n Skills and systems mode (main focus is on particular language items,
vocabulary or a specific skill)
n Managerial mode (main focus is on setting up an activity)
n Classroom context mode (main focus is on eliciting feelings, attitudes
and emotions of learners)
n Materials mode (main focus is on the use of text, tape or other materials).

140 Steve Walsh

articles welcome
 3 Listen to the tape a second time, using the SETT instrument to keep
a tally of the different features of your teacher talk. Write down examples
of the features you identify.
4 If you’re not sure about a particular feature, use the SETT key (below)
to help you.
5 Evaluate your teacher talk in the light of your overall aim and modes used.
To what extent do you think that your use of language and pedagogic
purpose coincided? That is, how appropriate was your use of language
in this segment, bearing in mind your stated aims and the modes
operating.
6 The final stage is a feedback interview with me. Again, try to do this as
soon as possible after the evaluation. Please bring both the recording
and SETT instrument with you.
In total, these steps need to be completed four times. After the final
self-evaluation, we’ll organize a video-recording and interview.
KEY
Feature of teacher talk Description
A Scaffolding 1 Reformulation (rephrasing a learner’s contribution)
2 Extension (extending a learner’s contribution)
3 Modelling (providing an example for learner(s))
B Direct repair Correcting an error quickly and directly.
C Content feedback Giving feedback to the message rather than the
words used.
D Extended wait-time Allowing sufficient time (several seconds) for
students to respond or formulate a response.
E Referential questions Genuine questions to which the teacher does not
know the answer.
F Seeking clarification 1 Teacher asks a student to clarify something the
student has said.
2 Student asks teacher to clarify something the
teacher has said.
G Extended learner turn Learner turn of more than one utterance.
H Teacher echo 1 Teacher repeats teacher’s previous utterance.
2 Teacher repeats a learner’s contribution.
I Teacher interruptions Interrupting a learner’ contribution.
J Extended teacher turn Teacher turn of more than one utterance.
K Turn completion Completing a learner’s contribution for the learner.
SETT : L Display questions Asking questions to which teacher knows the answer.
Self-evaluation of teacher
M Form-focused feedback Giving feedback on the words used, not the message.
talk

Talking the talk of the TESOL classroom 141

articles welcome

View publication stats