The role of teacher talk in young learners’ language process

Data were collected by means of audio-recording and then they were analyzed by Conversation
Analysis Methodology. As a result of this study several characteristics of the participating teacher's
language use were identified. The identified categories were analyzed under two headings;
construction and obstruction. Direct error correction, content feedback, prompting, extended wait
time, repairing are identified as the sub categories of constructive teacher talk. On the contrary,
turn completion, teacher echo, extended use of initiation-response-feedback turn taking are the
subcategories of the obstructive talk.
A review of literature shows that a few studies have been done on the role of teacher talk in young
learners’ language process although it has gained growing interest in the recent years (Bondi and
Alessi, 2002). Thus, the present study aimed to fill in this gap in the literature by benefitting from
the study of Steve Walsh (2002) as it examined the ways of teacher’s language use in which she
constructs or obstructs participation and learning of young learners in Turkish context.

Is Teacher Talk Pernicious to Students? A Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk

The primary purpose is to raise teachers' awareness of the effectiveness or pitfalls of their talk in
classrooms. The focus of the analysis consists of a typewritten script of an audio-taped lesson of
the communication which took place during classroom interactions. Teacher talk was benchmarked
in terms of its alignment or congruence with some authors' pedagogical recommendation and
language learning theories. The finding indicated that the teacher was not successful to create
genuine or authentic communication. The talk was repetitive and monotonous and it followed the
IRF sequence which allowed the teacher more turns and talk. The teacher talk was not consonant
with theories of second language acquisition, i.e. interactionist, functionalist and cognitive
perspectives. The talk was hurtful and stressful and it could block the learning opportunities.

Aim of the study

To what extent do teachers of EFL hinder or facilitate learner contributions by their use of
language? How can teachers enhance the quantity and quality of learner output by more careful
language use? In what ways do teachers deny learning opportunities by ‘filling in the gaps’ or
‘smoothing over’ learner contributions? Adopting the position that maximizing learner
involvement is conducive to second language acquisition. The main purpose of this paper is to
examines the ways in which teachers, through their choice of language, construct or obstruct
learner participation in classroom communication.

Analysis and interpretation of teacher talk

For the purpose of analysis, some turns of the transcript were chosen. They are interesting to be
commented on, either because of their harmful or helpful effects on learning and students '
personality (see Appendix A).
In turn 3, the teacher was threatening and discouraging the student (I give zero this time).
Intimidating either through expertise, or the threat of grades - are but some of the behaviors which
prevent students from engaging in the active processes needed for significant learning to take
place. Security, which is underscored by humanistic approach more than any other theory of
learning, was not ensured by the teacher. He created an unsecure and unfriendly atmosphere in the
classroom.
In turn 8, even though he made explicit correction, not preferred type of correction, the teacher has
used the situation to engage the student in communication (how long did he stay there). This is
true or real communication. According to some language theories, for example, comprehensible
input, comprehensible output and interaction hypotheses, real communication and negotiation of
meaning maximize the opportunities of language acquisition.
In turn 12, the student knew the meaning word and he was able to use it in a meaningful sentence.
However, his answer is not acceptable because he should have done it in the teacher's preference.
He has to follow the teacher style of learning and he has to forget about his own style of learning.
The student was supposed to memorize the definition of the words. To be more specific,
memorization and rote learning was emphasized and meaningful was deemphasized and the
teacher provided the student with metalinguistic feedback.
In turn 43, the teacher provides the students with explicit correction. This type of correction is
problematic for two reasons. First, if the students are given the correct answer, rather being allowed
to self-correct, they will not retain the correct form of the language. Second, correcting the students
explicitly in front of other students- causes negative affective feelings in the learners. Moreover,
self-correction encourages the students to take responsibility for their learning.

The Output Hypothesis: From Theory to Practice

Review the literature on the output hypothesis
Two sample lessons implementing output hypothesis

The Application of Output Hypothesis to College English Teaching

Nowadays, college English teachers not only pay attention to the input of language but also the
output of language. They try to foster students’ skills on the application of knowledge, and excavate
their potential in order to promote their language proficiency. And the effect is quite obvious, so
we should encourage more teachers to use the Output Hypothesis in different ways and improve
students’ English abilities.
The survey confirmed the facilitating role of output in language learning and revealed some
problems in the current English teaching in China. She concluded in the study that the classroom
output should be improved. The teachers should encourage students to produce more language
output in diversified forms and to increase interaction between students and teachers in the process
of producing.
With the development of the Output Hypothesis in China, many English teachers have applied the
hypothesis to English teaching and used diversified ways during English teaching. Such as,
retelling sentences, expressing an idea indirectly, retelling a text and so on.
Swain’s Output Hypothesis is very useful to the college English teaching. In this paper, we have
discussed the Output Hypothesis, the application of it and the implications of the Output
Hypothesis to College English teaching.
Understanding Teacher Talk to Support Students’ Communicative Competence
For foreign language learners, classroom is the main place where they are frequently exposed to
the target language. In the classroom, in trying to communicate with learners, teachers often
simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and other simplified
styles of speech addressed to language learners” (Richards, 1992: 471).
A common theme underlying different methods of language teaching is that second language
learning is a highly interactive process (Richards & Lockhart, 2000:138). In recent years, a great
deal of researches (Allwright, 1984; Ellis 1990; Long, 1983; Swain, 1985) in the field of L2
acquisition reveals to a great extent the importance of classroom interaction that involves both
input and output. The Interaction Hypothesis claims that it is in the interaction process that
acquisition occurs: learners acquire through talking with others (Johnson, 2002: 95). According to
Allwright and Ellis, classroom teaching should be treated as interaction. Now it is clear that the
language used in classroom affects the nature of the interaction, which in turn affects the
opportunities available for learning, the study of interaction is therefore critical to the study of
language classroom learning.
As Nunan (1991) points out “Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organization
of the classroom but also for the processes of acquisition. It is important for the organization and
management of the classroom because it is through language that teachers either succeed or fail in
implementing their teaching plans. In terms of acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is
probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.”

How Content Teachers Interact with English Language Learners

This article reports on a study that investigated how middle and high school content teachers shape
the interaction opportunities of their mainstreamed ESL students. It presents an analysis of the talk
of 3 content teachers who were recommended for the study as highly interactive and sensitive to
the needs of ESL students. The findings, however, indicate that all 3 teachers unwittingly limited
the ESL students’ opportunities to interact verbally. These findings suggest a clear agenda for
research, reflection, and professional development.

We had two research questions for this study:

1. Do native-English-speaking (NS) content teachers interact with their English proficient (EP)
and ESL students differently? Specifically, do teachers modify their discourse strategies in
interactions with ESL students in ways that facilitate or inhibit their opportunities to interact?
2. If teachers’ discourse strategies differ for EP and ESL students, why are such modifications
occurring?

The purpose of this study is to describe specifically where in teacher-student transactions such
prohibitive teacher modifications occur.
1. Do teachers modify their discourse at the beginning of a transaction or in their questions?
2. Are certain teacher interaction patterns less interactive than others?
3. Finally, why are such teacher modifications occurring?
Engaging teachers in language analysis: A functional linguistics approach to reflective
literacy
teachers in history classrooms with English Language Learners and teachers of languages other
than English in classrooms with heritage speakers needed support to develop students’ academic
language development in a second language. The functional linguistics metalanguage and analysis
skills they developed gave them new ways of approaching the texts read and written in their
classrooms and enabled them to recognize how language constructs the content they are teaching,
to critically assess how the content is presented in their teaching materials, and to engage students
in richer conversation about content.