UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL

IEXPRO

Chapter 1
CLASSROOM TALK

1.1. INTRODUCTION

Learning a language is essentially an individual activity. Ultimately the learner has to come
to terms in his/her own mind with the L2 system, grappling with meanings and creating a
new linguistic frame of reference. However, this personal or individual task does not take
place in isolation: the learner is typically a member of a class, as in EFL situations, or
perhaps 'picking up' a new language in the L2 environment itself, as in many ESL cases.

Our concern is with the EFL situation, specifically the language classroom and what goes
on in it. In this context the individual process of learning an L2 is mediated by the external
interactions which take place in a classroom, between teacher and learner on the one hand,
and between learners themselves on the other. Given that the supposed role of the
classroom and the teacher is to facilitate learning for the individual learner, being aware of
what actually happens in that classroom - what is said and done, to whom and how, and
what effect this has on learners - is of vital importance when trying to assess the
effectiveness of classroom instruction. According to Malamah Thomas (1987:vii):

The question is: what kind of classroom interaction, what kinds of participation of teacher and learners,
are most likely to provide conditions whereby the exercise of individual learner initiative can lead to
effective learning?

In this chapter we will explore what is meant by classroom interaction, and the different forms
which it may take. We will also be examining how effective certain types of interactions are
considered to be in terms of promoting 'learning outcomes' (Chaudron 1988), that is, in
promoting students' actual learning of the L2.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

1.2. WHAT IS CLASSROOM INTERACTION?

Interaction in the classroom involves the process of communication. This can take place
between teacher and student(s), between individual or groups of students, or even between
student(s) and a textbook or cassette. However, we will be concerned with human
interaction, and particularly with the spoken interaction between teacher and student(s) in
this chapter. In other words, we will be concerned with classroom talk.

Classroom interaction may take several forms, and it is not necessarily always teacher
directed. Penny Ur (1996:228) gives a useful summary of the most typical interactions which
occur in a language classroom:

 Group work
Students work in small groups on tasks that entail interaction: conveying information,
for example, or group decision-making. The teacher walks around listening,
intervenes little, if at all.

 Closed-ended teacher questioning

Only one 'right' response gets approved. Sometimes cynically called the 'Guess what
the teacher wants you to say' game:

 Individual work
The teacher gives a task or set of tasks, and students work on them independently;
the teacher walks around monitoring and assisting where necessary.

 Choral responses
The teacher gives a model which is repeated by all the class in the chorus; or gives
a cue which is responded to in chorus.

 Collaboration
Students do the same sort of tasks as in 'Individual work', but work together, usually
in pairs, to try to achieve the best results they can. The teacher may or may not
intervene.

 Student initiates, teacher answers

For example, in a guessing game: the students think of questions and the teacher
responds; but the teacher decides who asks.

 Full-class interaction
The students debate a topic or do a language task as a class; the teacher may
intervene occasionally, to stimulate participation or to monitor.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

 Teacher talk
This may involve some kind of silent student response, such as writing from dictation,
but there is no initiative on the part of the student.

 Self-access
Students choose their own learning tasks, and work autonomously.

 Open-ended teacher questioning

There are a number of possible 'right' answers, so that more students answer each
cue.

1.3. TRANSACTIONAL VERSUS INTERACTIONAL

COMMUNICATION

Communication in the language classroom has been defined as being either transactional
(i.e. information is transmitted, as in the case of the teacher explaining a grammar point or
giving the definition for a new word) or interactional (i.e. communication for personal, real,
communicative purposes, as in the case of a teacher asking a student if he or she had a
good weekend). In transactional communication the purpose is primarily pedagogic - the
teacher wished to 'teach' something about the language -, whereas in interactional
communication the purpose is primarily social - the teacher wishes to establish
communication on a meaningful, personal level. What actually happens in the classroom is
that the two types of communication sometimes overlap, and a teacher may decide to use
language in order to achieve a social purpose, as in the following example.

Imagine a teacher wants the furniture in the classroom moved, and decides that this is a
good chance to provide learners with some listening practice in furniture vocabulary or
instructions, so she gets learners to move the furniture giving them instructions in the L2.
Both a social and a pedagogic purpose have been achieved simultaneously.

Nevertheless, traditional views of language teaching tended to emphasise the importance

of transactional communication in the classroom, the underlying rationale being that the
knowledgeable teacher transfers information to the passive, "empty" student . This idea is
reflected in, for example, the Grammar-Translation and Audiolingual Methods (see the
subject Methodological Approaches). However, in recent years increasing importance has
been placed on the interactive features of classroom communication. Thus there has been
a number of studies which have focused on elements in classroom interaction such as turn-
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

taking, questioning and answering, negotiation of meaning, and corrective feedback. We will
be exploring these features in more detail later in this subject.

1.4. INTERACTION ANALYSIS

Why all this fuss about classroom interaction? Classroom interaction is considered to be
particularly significant in SLA research for several reasons (Chaudron 1988: 10):

1. Only through interaction can learners break down the target language structures and
derive meaning from classroom events.

2. Interaction gives learners the opportunities to incorporate target language structures

into their own speech.

3. The meaningfulness for learners of classroom events of any kind, whether thought
of as interactive or not, will depend on the extent to which communication has been
jointly constructed between the teacher and learners.

These concepts will become clearer as we explore the issue of interaction analysis below.

1.4.1. MODELS FOR INTERACTIONAL ANALYSIS

Interaction analysis is concerned with the observation of classroom language in order to find
out about teaching and learning in the classroom, thus it has a formal educational aim. (Note
that it is not concerned with observing classroom language to find out more about how
language works. This would be a linguistic aim).

One of the problems with analysing exactly what happens during classroom interactions is
that many events are taking place at the same time. An observer who wishes to analyse
interactions in a classroom is faced with a vast and potentially very confusing job, obliging
him/her to focus on only one (or a few) events which he/she considers to be significant for
his/her purposes.

The question now arises: exactly what do we look at or for, during classroom interactions?
How do we decide what features to focus on and what features to ignore?

The conceptual framework within which interaction analysis has been developed, originally
comes from classroom observation in mainstream educational research, not specifically
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

from L2 research. In the 1950s Flanders developed a classroom observation framework

which reflected the concerns of social sciences of the time with attempting to assess the
social climate of classrooms. The basic idea behind the Flanders framework was that a
'democratic' classroom is preferable to an 'authoritarian' one, thus the focus of observations
reflected this belief. Flanders' lnteraction Analysis Categories (FIAC. 1970) was firmly
established as a research tool in mainstream education by the early 1970s. See Appendix
1.1. which shows this framework.

Flanders' model, although aimed at school subjects such as social studies or science, was
adapted by L2 researchers in order to cater to the specific conditions of the language
classroom more appropriately. Probably the best known of these adaptations is that of
Moskowitz (1967), called FLINT (Foreign Language lnteraction Analysis System). One of
the key items which she added to Flanders' original scheme was that of whether the first or
second language was used in class. Another important modification Moskowitz made was
that of allowing for the importance of the affective domain, by making specific provision for
observing elements such as smiling and laughter in a language lesson.

A second well-known model is that proposed by Fanselow (1977), called FOCUS (Foci for
Communication Used in Settings), which was developed specifically with the foreign
language class in mind. According to Fanselow's scheme, communication in the language
class needs to be considered under five categories (from Stern 1983: 494):

1. source: who communicates?

2. for what pedagogical purpose?
3. in what medium?
4. how is that medium used?
5. what content is communicated?

There are many other interaction analysis schemes, some of which include areas like topic
or content in their models (eg. Ullman and Geneva's TALOS and COLT 1984; Mitchell and
Parkinson's scheme 1979), on the assumption that it is important to know what is to be
taught or learned in any lesson, not just the kinds of interaction that take place.

However, it has been pointed out that interaction analysis models are culturally specific. In
other words, each interaction analysis model will reflect the concerns of a specific classroom
setting, and will therefore be difficult to apply to all cultural contexts. It may not be appropriate
to use the same classroom interaction analysis model in an EFL class in Spain as in China
or in Chile. According to Malamah-Thomas (1987: 30), every interaction analysis model:
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

assumes the context it was devised in, and, being based on the sort of classroom practice carried out
in specific contexts, is, as a result, applicable only in similar contexts.

A further consideration with interaction analysis models is that they will necessarily only
reveal part of the story of what goes on in a language class. By observing small, separate
elements of a lesson, there is a danger that the 'whole' lesson is lost - and that we get a
distorted picture of what the classroom is really about. On this point Malamah Thomas (ibid.)
adds:

Moreover, these (models) tend to concentrate on the various parts of the lesson. In order to analyse,
they must fragment. And, in stressing the parts, they all overlook the whole; the whole lesson which is
greater than the sum of its parts. For the crux of any classroom lesson is the learning that occurs in it.
The crucial factor is whether the teacher gets his or her message across, whether the students learn
what the teacher sets out to teach them.

With this reservation in mind, we will now turn to look at some of the different types of
classroom interaction under two main headings: Teacher Talk and Learner Talk.

1.5. TEACHER TALK

Research into teacher talk in the classroom continues to be of interest to the EFL/ESL world.
Although 'teacher talk' and 'pupil talk' were two of Flanders' main interactional analysis
categories as early as 1970,the research question of teacher talk was taken up with
particular enthusiasm in 1980s and 1990s, probably because the predominance of the new
'communicative' model and the way it re-focused people into considering to what extent
teacher talk encouraged (increased) or discouraged (decreased) student participation.

1.5.1. WHY IS TEACHER TALK IMPORTANT?

The question now arises: why are researchers still interested in this topic?

Because, as we considered earlier, what the teacher says, and the way he/she says it, is
assumed to aid learners' comprehension in the classroom, and therefore their learning. This
is based on the idea predicated by Krashen's Comprehensible Input Hypothesis (see the
subject Methodological Approaches), namely that the development of a second language
occurs when learners are exposed to language which is comprehensible to them and which
contains grammatical features which are one level of complexity beyond their current
second-language ability (i+ 1). lf this is the case, and most studies into teacher talk have
started from this basic hypothesis, studying classroom interactions is obviously an important
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

area in SLA research, and of equal concern to practising teachers. Nunan (1995:189)
identifies two main reasons for the importance of focusing on teacher talk:

Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organisation of the classroom but also for the
processes of acquisition. It is important for the organisation and management of the classroom because
it is through language that teachers either succeed or fail to implement 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 .

Of course, Nunan appears to follow the Krashen line in assuming that teacher talk is as
important, or more important than student talk (because the former is a model and a source)
now we will now take a look at the main features of teacher talk in order to consider its effect
on the learning process, and also to consider what the practical classroom implications for
the teacher are. The features of teacher talk which we will focus on are: the quantity of
teacher talk which learners are exposed to; the modifications which teachers make to their
speech in the classroom; and the types of questions which teachers put to learners.
Corrective feedback, which is another feature of teacher talk, will be dealt with separately in
Chapter 2.

1.5.2. QUANTITY

It would seem that in most L2 classrooms, as in L1 classrooms, teachers tend to dominate

classroom speech. In L1 classrooms, research has shown that teachers speak about 60%
of the time, and L2 research has generally reflected these findings, putting the percentage
of teacher talk even higher in most cases - around 70% to 80% (Legaretta 1977; Enright
1984; Ramirez et al. 1986).

Obviously when considering the quantity of teacher talk in a language class it is important
to keep in mind the proviso that there will be considerable variation depending on the type
of class (e.g. a skills or language work focus), the size of the class, the teacher, and so on.

Opinion on the value of teacher talk in the classroom will also depend, as mentioned above,
on what one believes about the role of language input in acquisition. lf a teacher believes
that learners learn the target language best by using it in class - i.e. through practice - then
that teacher will probably try to keep his/her talk to a minimum and try to include many
activities in which learners practise in pairs or groups. lf, on the other hand, a teacher
believes that his/her talk is a valuable source of comprehensible input, then the dominance
of teacher talk in the classroom will be perceived as a positive contribution to learners' target
language acquisition.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

What is perhaps of particular importance is not so much the quantity but the quality of
teacher talk. lf there is a lot of teacher talk which aids learner intake, then all well and good,
but if there is a lot of teacher talk which does not enhance learning, then this is bad news
for learners. But what kind of teacher talk is 'good' and what kind is 'bad'? The answer to
this question will almost always tend to be a matter of subjective judgement, but,
nevertheless, there are a number of factors which we need to take into account when
deciding how appropriate (or not) teacher talk is.

Nunan (1995: 190) identifies three factors:

1. The point in the lesson in which the talking occurs.

2. What prompts the teacher talk: whether it is planned or spontaneous, and, if

spontaneous, whether the ensuing digression is helpful or not.

3. The value of the talk as potentially useful for acquisition.

1.5.3. SPEECH MODIFICATIONS

There has been a great deal of research into the area of speech modifications. This attempts
to identify exactly what features of their speech teachers modify, and the effects that this
has on learners. This area of research takes its cue from FLA (First Language Acquisition)
research, which has focused on the speech modifications of caregivers to children
('motherese') and of native speakers to non-native speakers ('foreigner talk'). What, you
might ask, is the difference between 'foreigner speech' and a native speaker teacher
addressing a group of learners in an EFL classroom - surely they are one and the same
thing?

In fact, an important difference between these first language and L2 speech modifications
has been pointed out by Chaudron (1988:55-6):

...on various comparisons teacher talk in L2 classrooms differs from speech in other contexts, but the
differences are not systematic, nor are they qualitatively distinctive enough to constitute a special
linguistic domain, as has been argued for the case of foreigner talk. Rather, it appears that the
adjustments in teacher speech to non-native-speaking learners serve the temporary purpose of
maintaining communication - clarifying information and eliciting learners' responses - and do not identify
the interaction as an entirely different social situation. This is an important finding, which indicates that
if teachers' efforts to modify their classroom speech have any effect on L2 learners, it is more likely that
the effects contribute to comprehension and learning than that they mark classroom events as unusual
or stigmatized.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

Dozens of studies have been carried out, and the following modifications to teachers' speech
have been identified (Chaudron 1988: 85):

1. Rates of speech appear to be slower.

2. Pauses, which may be evidence of the speaker planning more, are possibly more
frequent and longer.

3. Pronunciation tends to be exaggerated and simplified.

4. Vocabulary use is more basic.

5. The degree of subordination is lower.

6. More declaratives and statements are used than questions.

7. Teachers may self-repeat more frequently.

The obvious question which now arises is: to what extent does modifying teacher speech
help comprehension and thus help learners to incorporate more features of the target
language into their own developing interlanguages? That is, to what extent does it help them
to learn?

To take point 1 above, studies have shown that a slower rate of speech will improve learners'
comprehension in tasks such as dictation (Kelch 1985), but that learners' perceptions of
whether speech is really slower are also influenced by other characteristics such as clarity
of articulation, or conciseness of information (Dahl 1981). Thus we cannot say simply that if
teachers talk more slowly their learners will learn more.

To complicate the picture even further, studies have been carried out into the effects of
simplified input (points 4 , 5 and 6 above), in which both the linguistic and cognitive load on
learners is reduced, while other studies have looked at the effects of elaborated input
(partly point 7 above).

Elaborated input contains redundant, or excess, information. Redundancy is achieved

through, for example:

 repetition,
 paraphrase,
 slower speech,
 rhetorical markers (words which signal a specific function in discourse e.g. in
conclusion. As I was saying... etc.),
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

 pauses.
 the use of fillers (words like Um, Well...) .

Summarising the conclusions reached by a range of studies in these two areas, Chaudron
and Parker (1987: 6) conclude that:

linguistic simplifications such as simpler syntax and simpler vocabulary do not have as significant an
effect on L2 comprehension as elaborative modifications (=elaborated input).

So it would seem that when talking to L2 learners, teachers should try to use elaborated
language, by way of including paraphrase, pauses etc., rather than merely slowing down
their speech, or using simplified grammar and vocabulary.

1.5.4. TEACHER TO CLASS QUESTIONS

This is the area of classroom interaction that has probably received most attention over the
years, partly because questions are a fundamental part of pedagogy, but also because they
are easy to observe and document for the researcher. Why do teachers use questions in
the language classroom - why are they such a fundamental part of pedagogy? Probably
because, as Long (1981) points out, they make interaction in the classroom easier by clearly
establishing the topic, by forcing students to speak (and therefore their L2 knowledge can
be assessed by the teacher), and by clearly showing who is expected to speak next.
However, ironic as it may seem, the types of questions which teachers use have been shown
to severely limit learners' potential for acquiring the language. We will now turn to a
consideration of the main types of questions found in the L2 classroom and the effects which
these seem to have on learners.

1.5.4.1. IRF

Observation has shown that the most common type of interaction is what is known as 'IRF'
('lnitiation - Response - Feedback' - Sinclair and Coulthard 1975). In 'IRF' the teacher
initiates an exchange, which is usually in the form of a question (= lnitiation). A leamer then
answers the question (=Response) . Then the teacher gives feedback, for example in the
form of assessment, correction or comment (= Feedback). Thus a typical classroom IRF
exchange might look like this:

 Teacher : "What did you do this weekend?"

 Student: "I went to the cinema"

UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

 Teacher: "Good"

or

 Teacher: "What did you do this weekend?"

 Student: "I goed cinema"

 Teacher: "Not 'goed' - went "

Thus it would seem that despite their professed adherence to a communicative approach to
teaching, many if not most teachers in fact deny their students a chance to interact
communicatively in the classroom. Legutke and Thomas are quite damning of so-called
'communicative' practices:

In spite of trendy jargon in textbooks and teachers' manuals, very little is actually communicated in the
L2 classroom. The way it is structured does not seem to stimulate the wish of learners to say something,
nor does it tap what they might have to say...Learners do not find room to speak as themselves, to use
language in communicative encounters, to create text, to stimulate responses from fellow learners, or
to find solutions to relevant problems (1991:8-9).

1.5.4.2. Display versus referential questions

A display question occurs when a teacher asks a student a question for which he/she (the
teacher) already knows the answer. The question is thus merely for the purpose of
'displaying' language. A referential question, on the other hand, is one to which the teacher
does not know the answer. lt appears that display questions occur far more in language
classrooms than referential questions (Long and Sato 1983; Pica and Long 1986), probably
because the language classroom is often more concerned with linguistic content ("What's
the past tense of 'go'?") than with real communication.

The implication is that it is somehow 'better' for teachers to use referential questions rather
than display questions in the language classroom. Why is this so?

It needs to be borne in mind that research has shown that students who are in groups where
significantly more referential than display questions are used, give longer, more syntactically
complex responses. This fits in with the view that SLA is enhanced by output (for example,
Swain's Output Hypothesis, which is explained in the subject Methodological Approaches,
Chapter 4). In other words, the more English students are encouraged to produce, the more
English they will be likely to learn.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

Aside from the fact that display questions tend to elicit short answers from learners, they
also tend to only elicit information which is for pedagogic purposes (as in the 'go' example
above). The implication here is that learners will be less involved in a communicative sense
in supplying the answer and therefore less motivated in their use of the target language.
And lower motivation means less learning.

However, there are those who disagree with this view. Van Lier, for example, argues that
there is no value in drawing a distinction between display and referential questions, as both
types are useful in eliciting learner language:

Such (display) questions have the professed aim of providing comprehensible input, and of encouraging
'early production'. I suggest that, by and large, what gives such question series their instructional, .
they are made with the aim of eliciting language from the learners.
(1988:223)

1.5.4.3. Open versus closed questions

lt is also interesting to note that even when referential questions are asked, they tend to be
'closed' questions (i.e. questions which require no more than a one word or a yes/no
answer) as opposed to 'open' questions (i.e. questions which require learners to elaborate
in a response). Below is a list of typical closed referential questions which teachers ask:

 Hello, Monica, how are you?

 Last Wednesday you went to the cinema, didn't you?

 Was it a good film?

 Paul, did you go?

 Did you enjoy it?

and so on.

But, one might argue, students are still practising English by responding to these closed
questions, and it means that the weaker students are not intimidated, and are able to
respond. So why not use 'closed' questions?

Certainly Van Lier (quoted above) would agree with this position, and it is a valid one.
However, if one considers that greater effort is demanded on the part of the learner in
answering an open referential question (as opposed to a closed referential or display
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

question), it could be argued that the learner will have to process the L2 input and his/ her
own output more, and therefore learn more. As Nunan puts it:

...it is not inconceivable that the effort involved in answering referential questions prompts a greater
effort and depth of processing on the part of the learner. This, in turn, may well be a greater stimulus to
acquisition than the answering of display questions. However, it is also obvious that other factors such
as the topic area, the learner 's background knowledge, and contextual and interpersonal variables will
also be operating, and thus having an effect. (1989:30-1)

With the increase in task-based methodologies and the explosion of CLIL-based approaches
post-millennium, it would also seem (to acknowledge Nunan) that TT is intimately linked to
the content of any given lesson, and more importantly, the procedural choices that the
teacher has made. It seems increasingly futile to examine TT outside of the more concrete
framework of learning objectives. lf a teacher is more focused on topical content as an
integral part of his/her objective, and the language to be used in the classroom becomes
more the 'vehicle' than the object of study, then we would expect to see a different set of
behaviours, in terms of the balance between input and output. Do students speak more in a
CLIL class (where they have been theoretically more involved with the topical content) than
in a conventional communicative language class? Does a task-based approach encourage
a more 'open' class with more referential-type dialogue?

Instinct would suggest that a task-based approach will always provide students with more
to say, since they are no longer responding to artificial questions such as 'Did you go to the
cinema?', but research evidence so far is both scant and inconclusive. Dalton- Puffer (2007)
suggests that even in CLIL classes taught by subject specialists, IRF patterns still
predominate, and longer turns by the students are limited to the contexts of formal
presentations.

1.5.4.4. More complex question types

Apart from the question types discussed above, teachers also use questions that have a
more complex function: comprehension checks, confirmation checks and clarification
requests. Comprehension checks involve the teacher checking that the student has
understood the message by eliciting a short response (e.g. "How many sentences do you
have to write?" etc.). Confirmation checks directly ask the learner for confirmation that the
message has been understood (e.g. "Do you understand?" "Is that clear?') and clarification
requests are much more open-ended, and ask the learner to elaborate or clarify an answer
( "Why do you think we use the present here?" "Why is it important to include x in a formal
letter?" etc.).
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

The importance of these types of question (which can be both open and closed) lies in the
belief that they represent an attempt by the teacher and student to negotiate meaning to
some extent in the classroom (of course, they are not the only interactions which imply a
negotiation of meaning). Some theorists (e.g. Long 1981, 1983; Ellis 1984) regard the
interactive modifications made during the negotiation of meaning (e.g. through such
question types as these) as crucial for promoting L2 acquisition. We will explore this theory
more fully in the next section of the chapter.

The idea of the learners having to negotiate meaning being central to the acquisition of the
L2 is now widely accepted, and is indeed the central tenet of the communicative approach
to teaching. However, this negotiation of meaning does not necessarily only have to take
place between learner and teacher. It can equally fruitfully take place between learners. This
leads us on to a consideration of 'the other side of the coin' in classroom interaction: that of
learners interacting with other learners.

1.5.5. WAIT TIME

The importance of 'wait time' research in interaction analysis is justified on the grounds that
it is important for students to have a sufficient amount of time to think about the answer to a
question that has been asked; thus the teacher needs to wait a short time for that answer.
Hence the term 'wait time'. One only needs to think about the greater demands put upon the
L2 learner in terms of processing input in a foreign language to see the logic of this.

Studies (e.g. Rowe 1974, 1986) have shown that after asking a question, teachers tend to
wait less than a second before nominating a student to respond, and then only one second
more for the response before either giving the answer themselves, or rephrasing the
question, or calling on another student to answer the question.

By comparing classes where wait time was increased from one second to three to five
seconds after asking a question, the following effects were observed:

 an increase in the average length of student responses;

 unsolicited (but appropriate) student responses increased;
 failures to respond decreased;
 an increase in speculative responses;
 inferential statements increased;
 student-initiated questions increased;
 students generally made a greater variety of verbal contributions to the lesson.
(Nunan 1995:193)
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

These results are significant once again in the light of Swain's Output Hypothesis . lf one
believes that acquisition will be enhanced if learners are pushed to the limits of their
competence, then we as teachers should ensure that our wait time is sufficient to do our
students justice.

Again, the methodological consideration might be subordinate to the features of the general
approach. A CLIL-based class will always give students more 'guarantees' (Ball, P. 2007) to
say something significant in a longer turn because the very nature of a 'task ' increases
+task, the less questions a teacher may need to ask, and the less important the concept of
'wait time' becomes. Both unsolicited and speculative language should also increase, since
the nature of the content and the objectives of the class are more open, more inductive.

1.6. LEARNER TALK

One crucial idea in SLA research is that learners will develop their grasp of the target
language by having the opportunity to produce that language frequently. This is not a new
notion, but it found coherent expression in Swain's Output Hypothesis:

One function of output is that it provides the opportunity for meaningful use of one's linguistic resources.
(lt has been argued) that one learns to read by reading, and to write by writing. Similarly, it can be
argued that one learns to speak by speaking.
(Swain 1985:248)

Hence the concern of researchers, examined in the previous section, with examining how
teachers give learners the opportunity to speak (to create output) during classroom
interactions.

In addition to Swain's hypothesis, there are a number of other factors to take into account
when considering learner talk. Firstly, the idea that learners develop their L2 competence by
generating input from others, and secondly that learners develop their L2 competence by
engaging in communicative tasks that require the negotiation of meaning (we briefly touched
on this latter point above). We will look at these hypotheses one by one.

1.6.1. SCAFFOLDING
The notion of 'scaffolding' comes from cognitive psychology and L1 research, and was first
applied to L2 learning by Hatch in 1978.
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

Scaffolding takes place when a learner helps another to produce a spoken form in the
target language which is just beyond his/her present level of competence. The learner
individually does not possess the necessary linguistic knowledge to produce the utterance,
but jointly they are able to 'construct' (hence the scaffolding metaphor) a more complex
utterance. The following example from Ellis (1997:48) will make this form of interaction clear:

Mark: Come here.

Homer: No come here.

Homer, the L2 learner, produces a negative utterance with the common 'no + verb' pattern by repeating
his interlocutor's utterance and attaching the negator 'no' at the front. Scaffolding of this type is common
in the early stages of L2 acquisition...

In Ellis' example the learner has generated output from the interlocutor's input, thereby
arriving at a slightly higher level of linguistic competence. The premise here is that the
learner may now incorporate the new linguistic information into his developing interlanguage
system. This has been done through "vertical discourse" (the sequence of turns taken by
the speakers) which is meaningful, rather than, say, through mechanical repetition drills or
long monologues. Note that the scaffolding principle will relate to any piece of L2 information,
not just to structure or vocabulary, but also to elements such as sounds, functions etc.

'So what?' you may be asking yourself. Quite simply, the implication for us as classroom
teachers seems to be that meaningful interaction not only between teacher and learner, but
also between learner and learner, can enhance L2 acquisition.

1.6.2. INTERACTION IN COMMUNICATIVE TASKS

When learners are interacting in order to clarify meaning, they are not interacting for the
mere sake of it, as in the case of answering display questions. Rather, learners need to react
to previous discourse (for example, a classmate's question about a task), perhaps modifying,
clarifying, asking for clarification, explaining, repeating (and so on) their own discourse. The
important point here is that the learner needs to be comprehensible in the L2 in order to
achieve a communicative result, thus in a sense their linguistic (or semantic or pragmatic)
knowledge is being put to the test: if the learner is accurate enough, he/she will communicate
successfully and the communicative purpose of the conversation will have been achieved.

Thus it would seem that the task type is crucial in determining the types of learner to learner
interaction that take place in the classroom. Information-gap or problem-solving tasks are
the ones that appear to generate the most useful type of inter-learner interaction because
they provide plenty of opportunities for learners to negotiate meaning by sharing or
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

negotiating information, and thus, according to the hypothesis discussed above, provide
learners with more opportunities to actually 'learn' the target language.

1.7. CONCLUSION

In this chapter we have examined in depth the way in which teachers and learners interact
in the classroom, and how this affects learning. We have made reference to several
important SLA theories in order to try to assess how teachers and learners should ideally
interact in the classroom. However, we have seen that the gap between the idealised world
of the SLA researcher and the reality of the classroom teacher is, typically a wide one.

Nevertheless, we now have a little more awareness of some of the basic issues at stake
when we are managing our classes. An awareness of this type is seen by many as a
prerequisite for change. According to Burns (1990:57):

...if CLT is to become more 'communicative '...teachers need to be encouraged to gain greater
understanding of the interactional processes of their own classrooms.

Such an awareness, it is argued, can help to root out what Maingay (1988) called "ritualized
behaviours" in the classroom. In other words, by being more overtly aware of how we interact
with learners, we may begin to see areas in our teaching which could benefit from
experimentation or improvement.

For this reason we have attempted in this chapter to familiarise you with some of the basic
principles and theories involved in the area of classroom management. As a way of summing
up this chapter, and in order to encourage you to reflect on what you have read, we pose a
final task.

TASK 1.1

SLA research has attempted to identify exactly what features of teacher talk will
develop their learners' L2 competence. From the preceding account of interaction
analysis, how would an 'ideal' teacher, according to SLA researchers, talk? Complete
the following list with as many points as you feel appropriate:

When talking to his/her learners, an 'ideal' L2 teacher would...

……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………
……………………………………………………

1.8. WEB READING

[1] Teacher-talk in the language class' (O'Neill, R. 1994)

Web Link: http://www.btinternet.com/-ted.power/esl0420.html
[Read: August 27, 2010 GMT-5].
UNIVERSIDAD DE INNOVACIÓN PARA LA EXCELENCIA PROFESIONAL
IEXPRO

SUMMARY