International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

Vol. 9 Issue 10, October 2019,

ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081
Journal Homepage: http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
Double-Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Open Access International Journal - Included in the International
Serial Directories Indexed & Listed at: Ulrich's Periodicals Directory ©, U.S.A., Open J-Gage as well as
in Cabell‟s Directories of Publishing Opportunities, U.S.A

The Effect of In-service English Teachers’ Talk on Pre-Service

English Teachers: A Case Study in Yangtze Normal University

Jiang Zhaoxia

Abstract

The purpose of this present research was to analyze and compare the features
of in-service English teacher‟s talk and that of pre-service English teachers‟
talk in class. To what extent did in-service English teachers hinder or facilitate
pre-service English teachers‟ contributions by their use of language? It has
Keywords: found that in-service English teachers‟ talk in class lacks authenticity and
improper echo (frequently use of “ok”) or the improper time of echo students‟
Teacher talk;
answer would decrease pre-service teachers‟ involvement. While their ways to
In-service English teachers;
error correction and content feedback could facilitate pre-service teachers‟
Pre-service English teachers;
involvement in class. It has suggested improving their teaching methodologies
Effect.
to make pre-service teachers have better performance in their internship class.

Copyright © 201x International Journals of Multidisciplinary Research

Academy. All rights reserved.

Author correspondence:

Jiang Zhaoxia,
Lecturer
Yangtze Normal University, Chongqing, China
Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction
Teacher talk refers to the language used in the process of teaching by the teacher in class. Based on
the research findings of caretaker speech in first language development [24] and foreigner talk [9], Rod
Ellis points out TT addressed to L2 learners share its own unique formal and linguistic characteristics
because of the particular physical setting, participants and teaching goals[8]. For second language
teaching, it is a means through which the teaching content is delivered, and it is “the major source of
comprehensible target language input that the learner is likely to receive” [21].
Pre-service English teachers refer to the students who get the pre-service teacher training in
university and will be English teachers in high, middle or primary schools after graduation. The

45 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

pre-service training in university plays a crucial role in their future professional development because
they shoulder the same responsibilities in their future careers as their university teachers do, so in-service
English teachers‟ talk in class has a significant influence on that of pre-service English teachers.
Although many researchers have focused on the TT of in-service English teachers, little attention has
been paid to the TT of pre-service English teachers and the influence of the TT of in-service English
teachers on pre-service English teachers.
The purpose of this present research is to analyze and compare the features of in-service English
teacher‟s talk and that of pre-service English teachers‟ talk in class. To what extent do in-service English
teachers hinder or facilitate pre-service English teachers‟ contributions by their use of language?
Therefore, this research is of great practical and theoretical significance. From the perspective of
theory, the usage of the teacher‟s professional language can be shown and elaborated, from which the
further linguistic research can be promoted; from the perspective of practice, teachers‟ language usage
ability can be enhanced, which can help their students improve their language proficiency.

2. Literature Review

2.1 Research in western countries

In the 1970s, the study on teacher's language has emerged [10]. In the 1980s, considerable attention
has been attached to the description and understanding of foreign language class research methods again,
which exposed the problems in the process of language acquisition more directly and revealed the
significance of classroom interaction[2]. In the 1990s, more empirical studies on language features of
teacher talk such as speech, speed, vocabulary, syntax, and discourse have been explored. The
importance of effective input of teacher talk and classroom interaction have been emphasized which may
guide students to take an active part in all kinds of class activities to promote language acquisition
through communication and meaning negotiation [14]. In the 2010s, researchers started to research
teacher talk's quality and quantity within the framework of the communicative approach from different
language levels [19],[20],[22].
The research in western countries also can be categorized into three groups. Firstly, research on
quantity. Some western scholars, such as Bellack et al. and Dunkin and Biddle focused on the study on
the quantity of teacher talk; it is found that the time of teacher talk accounts for high ratio in classroom
discourse which is up to 70%. However, these researches just revealed the quantity and distribution of
teacher talk without taking some factors such as teachers, courses, and learners into consideration[3],[6].
Second, research on the purpose and functions of oral discourse in the classroom. This can be
classified as explain, control, asking questions, feedback, etc. It has be found that the different levels of
teaching contents and teaching objects lead to the different ratio of function of teacher talk which is
23.7% for explaining, 17.6% for question and 15.8% for control. However, the findings from this
research area are just different data in the context of language learning without a full report of the raw
data. Thus, it is hard to do the effective comparison and evaluation of the teacher's classroom behavior
through these data. Third, research on comprehensible input of teacher talk. It could be assumed that one
of the main modifications that teachers make to their speech is that of delivery rate. It could be argued
that a lower speech rate would increase the amount of comprehensible input available to students. Some
research indicates that the delivery rate is slower in L2 classrooms [4]. Meanwhile, it is shown that native
language teachers do more speed modification than non-native language teachers do. There is another
argument that in order to increase the amount of comprehensible input, words modification of teacher
talk may work. It has been found that both native and non-native language teachers in second language

46 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

learning classroom tend to use more basic, simple words for learners to understand. Neutral words and
concrete proper nouns are the priorities for the teacher talk, and indefinite pronouns and terminologies
are rarely used[5],[12].
2.2 Research in China
Till the 1990s, Chinese scholars began to research teacher talk from different angles in different
levels; it can be summarized into the following groups:
2.2.1 The research on teacher talk and second language acquisition
Domestic classroom discourse analysis mainly focuses on the teacher talk in English class. In the
language class, language is a tool of communication between teachers and students and also is the target
language for students to learn, so the classroom discourse and SLA become the focus of discourse
analysis which is of great teaching significance [1].
2.2.2The research on teacher talk and pedagogy
The voice of teachers and students in class is the key concern with regard to the pedagogy; some
issues such as the approach to realize the dialogue between teachers and course text are investigated [28].
2.2.3 The microcosmic research on teacher talk
Many scholars began to have an in-depth discussion of some specific field of teacher talk. For
example, the research object focuses on teacher talk in an intensive reading class, oral English class, and
extensive reading class. In addition, other fields such as question strategy , markup language , body
language, and the influence of gender differences on English classroom discourse have been
investigated[29].
2.2.4 The comparative research on teacher talk
The comparative analysis of teacher talks between western teachers and Chinese teachers, and
between domestic teachers have been the heated issue for scholars to concern. However, most of the
comparative studies are derived from the material of one class, and the effect of variables such as
teaching content on teacher talk has not been taken into consideration[26].
The research in recent years emphasized the quantity and types of teacher talk, the role of teacher talk
in language learning, teacher questions, feedback, error correction, and so forth. Wang points out the
importance of teacher talk for learners‟ language output in foreign language teaching. There is a big
difference between teacher talk in foreign language teaching class and that in other teaching classes in
that teacher talk is not only a medium for teaching but also a purpose for learning[26]. Zhou&Zhou did a
quantitative survey on the three stages of teacher talk in student-centered teaching model class, which
include the quantity of teacher talk, different forms of feedback and auxiliary evaluation of class
feedback form[28]. Hu discusses the functions and characteristics of teacher talk and holds the belief that
teachers still play a dominant role even in the popular trend of “student-centered” context. Xu analyses
the polite diction used by teachers in a foreign language class. He discusses the cognitive thinking
orientation of teacher talk in primary and secondary school. Tang &Liu analyzes the function of teacher
language in terms of pragmatics. Hu advocates the techniques, contents, and forms of questioning[29].
Liu made a case study on discourse communication in oral English classroom and systematically
analyzed discourse forms and language output of teachers and students, the type and length of statement
between teachers and students, the quantity and ratio of turn-taking between teachers and students, the
type, number and function of code-switching between teachers and students, as well as the features of the
distribution and relations of the discourse power in classroom context. It is advisable that teacher should
give students more chance to use the target language in class and let students enjoy more autonomous
right to control turn-taking, so as to improve students' quality and quantity of oral English output[27].

47 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Li points out that the inequality of power between teachers and students exist with regard to the polite
aspect of teacher talk, which arouse the awareness that teachers should use polite words as much as
possible to communicate with students[15]. Zeng and Zhou reveal that the second language acquisition
can be to some extent promoted if the quality of language input is improved and more chances for
learning and participating in classroom activities are provided to students within the limited teaching
time in class[27],[28]. Zhao compared the correction feedback forms for language errors and the impact
of correction feedback forms on students‟ output among three classes of different language levels with
the help of a corpus of 30 English lessons[26]. Xian &Sun discovered a big difference in teacher talk
between experienced teachers based on corpus analysis. The teaching material cannot decide the feature
of teacher talk, and sometimes even the teacher talk in student-centered class may not share the
characteristic of natural conversation[29].

3. Methodology

This research will be conducted by three instruments: classroom observation and video recording,
questionnaire, and interview.
The purpose of classroom observation and video recording is to investigate and analyze the features
of teacher talk from in-service and pre-service English teachers in three dimensions which include time
allotment, questioning, and feedback. Since this is a case study, the investigation of 3 in-service English
teachers will be carried out in Yangtze Normal University. The investigation of 3 pre-service English
teachers will be conducted in the internship period in Shiyan Middle school which is our internship base.
Three lessons of 45 minutes will be recorded.
In order to validly evaluate the feature and quality of teacher talk between them, the criterion should
be established. According to Senior, teachers who want to conduct the successful
communicative–oriented class should establish a good relationship with students, for example, treat
everybody equally, respect students, give a positive comment on students‟ performance, etc. [23] Darn
advises some techniques of questioning, teachers are encouraged to ask open-ended questions and to
keep a balance of referential and display questions[16]. As for the feedback and speed modification,
Thornbury suggests that teachers may focus on what is said, rather than how it is said and give proper
wait time[25]. Clifton advocates „teachers sometimes provide feedback to students with short utterances
such as uhu or yeah‟[16]. Moon thinks in order to maintain a pleasant atmosphere, sometimes jokes of
the target language are needed[18]. The questionnaire and interview will be designed for more detailed
information about their attitudes towards their classroom interaction and the influence of in-service
English teachers on pre-service English teachers. The questionnaire will be handed out to students and
graduates who are teachers in school. Interviewing with both pre-service English teachers and middle
school students is necessary, which can improve the reliability and validity of this research.

4. Findings and Discussion

Table 1 Time allotment of teacher talk and student talk
Teacher Teacher talk Student talk
1 50% 35%
2 65% 28%
3 62% 30%
4 70% 15%

48 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

5 83% 10%
6 75% 12%

As one can see in table 1, it was shown that a range of 50% to 65% of class time was allocated to
teacher talk by first three in-service teachers, while about 70% to 83% of class time has been devoted to
teacher talk by the latter pre-service teachers. It is easily found that teacher talk occupies most of the class
time. The class, to some extent, is teacher-centered. Because the middle school students are on a
preliminary level, the pre-service teachers speak more in class, while the middle school students are
inclined to listen.
Table 2 Types of questions asked by teachers
Teacher Procedural Convergent Divergent
1 14% 20% 66%
2 10% 21% 69%
3 11% 17% 72%
4 24% 49% 27%
5 30% 68% 2%
6 18% 76% 6%

Table 2 displayed different types of questions asked by teachers in class; we could easily find that the
first three in-service teachers mainly focused on divergent questions, which specifically refer to their
view on the texts to cultivate their critical thinking; on the contrary, the latter three pre-service teachers
attached more importance to convergent questions and procedural questions. From the transcript, the
convergent questions asked by pre-service teachers mostly are related to word, phrases and sentence
structure from the textbook, and pre-service teachers prefer to ask the following procedural questions “Is
that clear?” “Are you ready?” “Understand?”

Table 3 Feedback of students‟ response by teachers

Teacher Positive Negative No
1 80% 16% 4%
2 76% 19% 5%
3 78% 20% 2%
4 53% 47% 0%
5 50% 46% 4%
6 52% 47% 1%
It has indicated that both in-service and pre-service teachers like to give positive feedback to establish
their confidence. The reason for more negative feedback from pre-service teachers is related to the
questions they ask. The questions they ask are the spelling of words, the usage of expressions, phrases,
and the formation of sentence structure, so the answers are fixed.
From the questionnaires, With regard to the communication effect in class, the result shows 88% of
pre-service teachers occasionally use the expressions which are used by their in-service teachers, in the
same way, about 52.54% of the middle-high school students sometimes use the examples in their daily
life listed by their pre-service teachers in class, which indicates that both in-service and pre-service
teachers failed to create authentic communication atmosphere.

49 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

Regarding the influence of questioning on pre-service teachers‟ English proficiency, 90% of

interviewees held a positive attitude that questioning could help them concentrate in class and keep a
good mood for study, especially can urge them to show their ideas critically; 10% of interviewees stated
that questioning might increase their anxiety and is harmful to their output. In comparison, 88.14% of
middle school interviewees support this way to help them grasp the key and essential points, while 8.47%
of middle school interviewees have innocence attitudes toward the questions.
With respect to the feedback, 80% of pre-service participants point out that in-service teachers will
give a specific comment on their answers, while 52.54% of middle school participants point out
pre-service teachers prefer to use some simple words just like “good” “well done” “ok” “yes” “thank
you”, which may not be suitable for their motivation for study. About 50.85% of pre-service teachers will
follow that way if students face the same problem. In regard to the wait time, about 66% of in-service
teachers and 72.88% of pre-service teachers will give less than 30 seconds for students to think. When
students cannot give answers immediately, about 66% of in-service teachers will extend wait time and let
students think more, if the students still cannot get the point, in-service teachers will explain the
questions one more time to evoke the answers. 62% of pre-service teachers mentioned that the proper
feedback on them by in-service teachers occasionally evoke their enthusiasm, in contrast, 73.88% of
middle school participants mentioned the proper feedback on their performance by pre-service teachers
always build their confidence and elicit their desire for study.
Refer to the effect of teacher talk on pre-service teachers, 34% of pre-service participants said
in-service teachers‟ talk has great influence on their talk, 16% of them pointed out their teachers‟ talk has
little effect on their output, 50% of participants are in a middle line. Specifically, Pre-service participants
mentioned the way to error correction, and content feedback can facilitate their involvement in class.
When they made mistakes, most of their teachers do not correct the errors directly and give a right answer
or invite other students instead; in-service teachers would paraphrase the questions again and help them
to repair the answers by themselves, which can construct students learning potential. With regard to the
content feedback, in-service teachers do not give a general comment while making a concrete judge on
their content, which makes students think teachers are listening to their voices and they want to show
more in class. In-service teachers‟ talk also has some adverse effects on pre-service teachers. Improper
echo (frequently use of “ok”) or the improper time of echo students‟ answer would decrease their
involvement.

5. Conclusion

From the data collected, in-service teachers‟ talk plays a constructive and obstructive role in
pre-service teachers‟ learning process. In-service teachers should improve the teaching approach to make
them have better performance in a trial class. There follow some suggestions: teacher talk should be
authentic which is highly related to our real life, and the time allotment of teacher talk should be within
15-20 minutes in 45 minutes‟ class; the feedback should be diversified to facilitate their emotion and
make them know what they have done well and what they should improve.

Acknowledgment

This research was financially supported by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Foundation
of Chongqing Municipal Education Commission (Grant NO. 18SKH142) and the Education and
Teaching Reform Research Funds for Yangtze Normal University (Grant NO.JG201863).

50 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

References
1. [1] An, J.l., “Several Factors Affecting English Classroom Discourse on Second Language Acquisition,”
Journal of Beijing University of Chemical Technology, vol.1, 2010.
2. [2] Allwright,R., "The Importance of International Classroom Language Teaching, " Applied Linguistic，
vol.5, 1984.
3. [3] BELLACK. The Language of the Classroom. Institute of Psychological Research, Teachers College,
Columbia University, 1966.
4. [4] Clyne, M., “Culture and Discourse Structure,” Journal of Pragmatics, vol.5 (1), pp61-66, 1981.
5. [5] Chaudron, C., “Evaluating Writing: Effects of Feedback on Revision,” English, vol.26, 1983.
6. [6] Dunkin, M. J. & Biddle, B. J.,”The Study of Teaching,” Study of Teaching, 1974.
7. [7] Deng, L.R., “The Role of Teacher Discourse in the Second Language Acquisition Class,” Journal of
Xichang University, vol. 19(2), pp142-145, 2007.
8. [8] Ellis,R., Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education
Press, 1985.
9. [9] Ferguson,C.A., "Toward a Characterization of English Foreigner Talk, "Anthropological Linguistics, vol.
17(1), pp 1-14, 1975.
10. [10] Flanders, N. A. , "Analyzing Teaching Behavior." American Educational Research Journal , vol8(3),
1971.
11. [11] Gharbavi, A., "Is Teacher Talk Pernicious to Students? A Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk, " Social
and Behavioral Science, vol.98, pp 552-561, 2014.
12. [12] Henzl, V. M., “Foreign Talk in the Classroom,” International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language
Teaching, vol. 17(2), 159-167, 1979.
13. [13] Kosko, K.W.，"A Deeper Look at How Teachers Say What They Say: A Quantitative Modality,
"Teaching and Teacher Education, vol.28, pp 589-598, 2012.
14. [14] Krashen, S.，”What the Research Really Says about Structured English Immersion: A Response to Keith
Baker,”Phi Delta Kappan, vol.80 (9), pp705-706, 1999.
15. [15] Li, J.J., “Analysis of English Teachers' Classroom Discourse from the Perspective of Politeness
Principle,”Asia Pacific Education, vol.30, pp 69-70, 2015.
16. [16] Liu, H.P., “A Review on Classroom Discourse Research of Foreign Language Teachers at Home and
Abroad,”Overseas English, vol. 14, pp54-55, 2016.
17. [17] Mao,Q.P, "On the Class Discourse and Its Solutions of the Pre-service English Teachers, "Journal of
Guangxi Teachers Education University （Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition）, vol.36, pp 88-92, 2015.
[18] Moon, J. A. , “Reflection in Learning & Professional Development,”Theory & Practice, 1999.
18. [19] Moskowitz, G. ， "Interaction Analysis Gives Insight into Student-Teacher Exchanges.” Foreign
Language Beacon ,vol.7, pp10-13, 1972.
19. [20] Nceçaya,G., "The Role of Teacher Talk in Young Learners‟ Language Process, " Social and Behavioral
Science, vol.2, pp 277-281, 2010.
20. [21] Nunan,D., Language Teaching Methodology: A Textbook for Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
21. [22] Rezaee, M.，" An Exploration of Discourse in an EFL Classroom: Teacher Talk, "Social and Behavioral
Science, vol.47, pp 1237-1241, 2012.
22. [23] Senior, R. , “Class-centred Teaching,”ELT Journal, vol.63(4), pp393-396, 2009.
23. [24] Snow, C.E., "Mothers‟ Speech to Children Learning Language, "Child Development, vol.43 (2),
pp549-565, 1972.

51 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]
 ISSN: 2249-2496 Impact Factor: 7.081

24. [25] Thornbury, S. , “Teachers Research Teacher Talk,”ELT Journal, vol.50(4), pp279-289, 1996.
25. [26] Zhao, C.Y., “Comparison of Chinese and Foreign English Teachers' Feedback Discourse,” Journal of
Qujing Normal University, vol. 27(2), pp82-86, 2008.
26. [27] Zeng, R., “A Comparative Study of Multimodality of Teacher Discourse in Online and Offline English
Classroom,” Journal of Taiyuan Urban Vocational and Technical College, vol.210(01), pp143-145, 2019.
27. [28] Zhou, X. "A Research on Teacher Talk in College English Class,” Foreign Language Teaching and
Research, vol.34（1）, pp59-68, 2002.
28. [29] Zhou, X. H., “A Review on Classroom Discourse Research of Foreign Language Teachers in China in
Recent 20 years,” Chinese Education Journal, vol. S2, pp49-50, 2013.

52 International Journal of Research in Social Sciences

http://www.ijmra.us, Email: [email protected]