Classroom Talk - Making Talk More Effective in the Malaysian English Classroom

7/22/2019 Classroom Talk - Making Talk More Effective in the Malaysian English Classroom

1/51

University of St Mark & St John

Muhammad Safwan Bin Mohd Fuad

20031719

Dissertation submitted in part-fulfillment of the requirements for

B. Ed (Hons) Teaching English as a Second Language

2013

Classroom Talk: Making Talk More

Effective in the

Malaysian English Classroom


2/51

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Statement of Originality................................................................................... iiiAcknowledgements......................................................................................... ivAbstract............................................................................................................ vCHAPTER 1: CLASSROOM TALK THE SITUATION IN MALAYSIA ............6

1.1 Introduction............................................................................................. 61.2 Personal Experience .............................................................................. 7

1.3 The Malaysian English Classroom ......................................................... 9

1.4 Student Learning .................................................................................. 10Conclusion ................................................................................................. 12

CHAPTER 2: CLASSROOM TALK FOR LEARNING..................................... 132.1 Effective Classroom Talk ...................................................................... 132.2 Classrooms as Contexts ...................................................................... 142.3 Learning through Classroom Talk ......................................................... 162.4 The Role of the Teacher....................................................................... 17

2.4.1 Extending Understanding............................................................... 182.4.2 Model of Language Use ................................................................. 182.4.3 Valuing Students Response .......................................................... 192.4.4 Managing Interaction ..................................................................... 19

Conclusion ................................................................................................. 20CHAPTER 3: CLASSROOM TALK IN PRACTICE ......................................... 21

3.1 Approaches to Classroom Talk ............................................................. 213.1.1 Ground Rules for Talk .................................................................... 213.1.2 Interactional Decision-Making........................................................ 23


3/51

ii

3.1.3 Extending IRF ................................................................................ 243.2 Strategies for Effective Classroom Talk ................................................ 26

3.2.1 Scaffolding ..................................................................................... 273.2.2 Wait-time and Listening ................................................................. 273.2.3 Questioning and Checking for Clarification .................................... 283.2.4 Feedback ....................................................................................... 29

Conclusion ................................................................................................. 29CHAPTER 4: TOWARDS A MORE ARTICULATE MALAYSIAN ENGLISH

CLASSROOM................................................................................................ 314.1 Possible Challenges in the Malaysian English Classroom ................... 314.2 Approaches .......................................................................................... 314.2.1 Ground Rules .................................................................................... 31

4.2.2 Interactional Decision Making ........................................................ 34

4.2.3 Extending IRF ................................................................................ 35

4.3 Strategies ............................................................................................. 364.3.1 Scaffolding ..................................................................................... 364.3.2 Wait-time and Listening ................................................................. 374.3.3 Questioning and Checking for Clarification .................................... 394.3.4 Feedback ....................................................................................... 41

Conclusion ................................................................................................. 42References .................................................................................................... 43Appendices .................................................................................................... 46

APPENDIX 1 Ground Rules for IRF exchange........................................ 46APPENDIX 2 Ground Rules Task............................................................ 47APPENDIX 3 Transcription Symbols ....................................................... 49


4/51

iii

STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY

I confirm that I have fully acknowledged all sources of information and help

received and that where such acknowledgements is not made the work is my

own.

Signed: .

Dated: ...


5/51

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank Allah for granting me the inspiration in

the process of writing this dissertation. I would like to express my utmost

gratitude to my supervisor, Risn N Mhochin, for all the support and

guidance she gave me, as well as the patience she showed me during the

course of writing this dissertation. I really appreciate all the support and it

really means a lot to me.

Many thanks to Tracey Gilpin, my personal tutor for the encouragements she

gave me. I would also like to thank my family members, namely my mother

and my two sisters for giving me encouragements to keep pursuing my

educational journey. They have all gave me the motivation and inspiration to

work harder.

My gratitude also goes to all the lecturers of the Centre of InternationalLanguage Teacher Education (CILTE) for all the support and guidance they

gave me during the course of writing. Last but not least, I would like to thank

all my friends for being very supportive to me and have given their

cooperation in the management of the cohort even though they have got their

own dissertations to write. I truly am grateful and I wish the best for all of

them.

Dedicated with gratitude to the memory of my father

MOHD FUAD BIN AHMAD/HAMZAH (1961-2012)

Who exposed me to English language and supported me fully in my journey to

be an English teacher

*Note: MOHD = short form of MUHAMMAD
http://www.marjon.ac.uk/aboutmarjon/stafflistandprofiles/name_21081_en.htmlhttp://www.marjon.ac.uk/aboutmarjon/stafflistandprofiles/name_21081_en.html


6/51

v

ABSTRACT

In the language classroom, interaction plays an important part of the teachingand learning process. Talking in the classroom is one of the main means of

interaction between teachers and students. Despite that, based on personal

experience and opinion, I think classroom talk is not fully utilized in the

Malaysian English classroom. The aim of my dissertation is to look at ways

that teachers can use classroom talk to facilitate student learning, especially

in the Malaysian English classroom. My dissertation is divided into four

chapters. The first chapter will look at the current situation of English teaching

in Malaysia in relation to classroom talk and identify the challenges to make

classroom talk more effective. In the second chapter, I will define what I mean

by Effective classroom talk, and I will look at how classroom talk relates to

student learning and how teachers can play certain roles in the classroom talk

context. The third chapter will look at approaches and strategies teachers can

apply to make classroom talk effective. The final chapter, Chapter 4 will then

show examples of the approaches and strategies in Chapter 3 and shows

how Malaysian teachers can use them in classroom talk.


7/51

6

CHAPTER 1: CLASSROOM TALK THE SITUATION IN

MALAYSIA

1.1 Introduction

In the language classroom, the language used is not only the means of acquiring new

knowledge, it is also the goal of study: the vehicle and object of study (Long 1983,

quoted in Walsh 2011). In my opinion, being able to interact in the target language is a

fundamental skill, and is often a main goal for learning the language. Having a good

command of a target language in speech will enable people to reach the wider world

and interact with other speakers of the language.

In classrooms, interaction is very important as everything that occurs in the classroom

requires the use of language (Walsh 2011: 2). The particular type of interaction I am

interested in is the spoken interaction in the classroom that happens during the course

of educational activities (Mercer & Littleton 2007: 1), which is referred to as classroom

talk. The interaction between teacher and students can either facilitate or hinder the

learning process. The types of talk and talk strategies will influence the effectiveness of

the interaction. In teaching, teachers have the chance to exploit classroom talk to

manage and facilitate the classroom interaction. In other words, what the teacher says

and do will either encourage students to respond or stops them from responding. My

aim for this dissertation is to find out the teaching strategies teachers are able to use

that can best facilitate classroom talk and make talk more effective.

My aim for this chapter is to explore the current situation of classroom talk in Malaysian

English classrooms, especially in whole class teaching. I will explore how classroom

talk is usually exploited in teaching and how this affects students learning. I will begin

by describing my personal experience when I was in school and then will explore the

Malaysian context in greater depth. I will also explain the challenges to practice

classroom talk effectively in Malaysia. In Chapter 2, I will explain how the use of

classroom talk can facilitate the learning process. I will be focusing on the more


8/51

7

theoretical aspects of classroom talk and how it influences student learning. As I

continue into Chapter 3, I will focus more on the practical side of classroom talk,

specifically the approaches and strategies teachers can use to make classroom talk

more effective. These refer to what teachers do or utter in the classroom to manage

classroom talk or in other words, their teaching. Finally, in Chapter 4, I will present

some examples from the approaches and strategies which I deem suitable for teachers

to apply in Malaysia through a few classroom talk extracts and rationale of the

approaches and strategies.

1.2 Personal Experience

Firstly, I will begin by describing my experience of being a student in English

classrooms. I was taught English language and exposed to it from when I was in

kindergarten until secondary school. As the years passed, I came to realize that

classroom talk is not exploited to full potential in Malaysian English classrooms,

especially in whole class teaching.

Usually, teachers questions or initiation will usually be followed by one word responses

that the teacher expects the students to give and later followed by a simple feedback

from the teacher. The exchanges or conversation usually follows the IRF Exchange

pattern, which consists of Teacher Initiation (I), Student Response (R), and Teacher

Feedback (F) (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975, quoted in Hall 2009: 202). In my

experience, I think Malaysian teachers tend to overuse the IRF Exchange pattern in

classroom talk. I find this really boring and repetitive, which makes learning

uninteresting. Having been taught some English by my late father at home, I developed

an interest in English and can speak quite fluently, but some of my friends are not able

to speak much in the classroom. This is partly caused by not having confidence to

speak, but also partly by the teachers teaching in the classroom, which did not give

them opportunities to speak. As soon as they answered the teacher with one word

answers, the interaction ended and then followed by other activities (grammar drills,

writing etc.). There seems to be a loss of momentum on the students part. If the


9/51

8

students have a response or contribution, the sudden stop will make them feel their

contribution is not valued by the teacher.

Other than the short interactions I described, there was a dominance of my teachers

using questions involving just simple yes/no answers and not following up the

interaction with other types of questions to expand the interaction. The content of the

lesson might be the reason for the use of yes/no questions, for example if the content is

factual, then the use of yes/no questions will be reasonable. Despite that, I strongly feel

that although the lesson content can determine the questioning strategies needed for

the lesson, the teacher actually has the freedom to change the types of questions used

for the lesson in order to make the interaction more appealing to students.

In my experience, we the students are expected to always give the correct answers as

what the teacher expects or as what the teaching materials needs. This condition can

limit students opportunities in engaging in classroom talk as students will have the fear

of giving wrong answers. Any mistakes or wrong answers given will be laughed at by

other students and will be corrected by the teacher directly, without any feedback or any

encouragement after trying to answer. This condition has made me and some of my

friends feel reluctant to give any response to the teachers questions. When wrong

answers were given, the teacher rarely prompted us to give a better answer and

seldom directed us to obtain the correct answer. There were also some instances

where the teacher accepted one students response and then continued with other

drilling activities while there are other students who would like to give their answer or

even ask questions.

The experience of being in English language classrooms myself have made me realize

that there needs to be more instances of classroom talk, involving spoken interactions

between the teacher and students in whole class teaching. I am not saying that the

experience I described is the case all over Malaysia, but this is what I have experienced

and I feel there is a need to change them in order to make the most out of it. That is

why I have chosen to focus my dissertation on classroom talk.


10/51

9

1.3 The Malaysian English Classroom

As I have described earlier, in my experience of being in English classrooms when I

was in secondary school, classroom talk is not given much emphasis and the teachers

teaching is not really effective in facilitating students learning. This condition might be

caused by the lessons focusing on objective elements, such as grammar and language

systems. A report from GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies suggests that one of

the reasons for the focus of such elements is possibly the high importance placed on

national examinations, which made teachers concentrate more on teaching grammar

and neglect the communicative aspects of language learning in their teaching (Che

Musa et al. 2012: 38). This suggests that students rarely have the chance to engage in

classroom talk due to the emphasis on other language elements. Of course this

situation might not happen all the time, but all I am saying is that sometimes teachers

might put too much emphasis on examinations and neglects classroom talk.

Of course, the focus on examinations is not all to blame, but simply this condition has

become a contributing factor for this type of teaching. Besides the focus on

examinations, it is reported that language teaching in Malaysian classrooms is highly

characterized by teacher-centred approaches and chalk-and-talk drill method (Ministryof Education 2003 quoted in Che Musa et al. 2012: 38). These approaches to teaching

English do not give students the necessary opportunity to engage in classroom talk with

the teacher and other students. The report adds that the strong emphasis on the

teaching of reading and writing skills as well as grammatical rules have made learning

English solely as learning a subject (Che Musa et al. 2012: 39). This emphasis have

also made the practical usage of English language to a be a bit neglected as learning

English as a subject focuses on the mechanics of the language and not how the

language can be used in real communication events (Che Musa et al. 2012: 39), which

in this case is classroom talk, which involves spoken interaction. The report also

showed that there is a mismatch between policy and practice in schools, in which the

policy envisaged in the school curriculum cannot be fully implemented because of the

over-riding concern for examination (Che Musa et al. 2012: 39). This shows that the

curriculum policy focuses on all the aspects of language, including classroom talk, but


11/51

10

teaching in schools might not be carried out to address all of the aspects, one of them

being classroom talk.

In another study on English teaching in the Malaysian English classroom, the findings

suggest students expect the teacher to be the provider of knowledge and their role is

just to accept (Kabilan & Raja Izzaham 2008: 87). The teacher is also expected to be

an authoritarian figure that has total control in all that happens in the classroom and

students do not have any say at all (Kabilan & Raja Izzaham 2008: 87). These

expectations are possibly caused by students viewing English as a difficult subject,

which causes them to presume that teachers will teach them all they need to know

(Che Musa et al. 2012: 41). These expectations have probably made students reluctant

to engage in classroom talk in lessons.

These findings might not represent the way all teachers teach English in Malaysia or

how students expect teaching to be like, but it does represent a common teaching

shortcomings or issues for a majority of teachers. A report by Hiew suggests that some

students thought some of their teachers lessons were non-interactive i.e. the lessons

were textbook-based, lacked pair or group discussions and presentations (Hiew 2012:

16). I am also not saying that the lessons in Malaysian English classrooms need to

focus on classroom talk for most of the lesson, but simply teachers need to provide

some opportunities for classroom talk in order to enable students to interact with them

and to enable students to speak when it is appropriate.

1.4 Student Learning

Earlier in this chapter, some of the descriptions of classroom talk through personal

experience, as well as some findings from research have been presented. In order to

further discuss the subject of classroom talk, this section will focus on the effects of the

teaching practice described in the previous sections towards students in Malaysian

English classrooms.


12/51

11

A report by Hiew has shown the findings that some students hesitated to speak in

English in or outside the classroom as they are afraid of making mistakes, feel

embarrassed of low proficiency and receive negative physical response (smirk) (Hiew

2012: 11). This is probably caused by a teacher-centred approach to classroom talk

which involves teachers dominating the interaction. Afraid of getting a negative

response, students will feel reluctant to speak in the classroom and they will not have

the chance to use the language in its real practical for and function. This will make

language learning more difficult for students.

Again, classroom talk seems to be neglected as the emphasis in lessons is given to the

teaching of reading, writing and grammatical rules (Che Musa et al. 2012: 39) which

then causes students to view English language as merely a subject for passing

examinations. If students are still forced to view English just a subject, then English

language will arguably be alien to the students language repertoire (Che Musa et al.

2012: 39). This simply means that students will continue to view English as a difficult

subject or language to learn and will rely on expectations of teacher authority to learn

the language. This will not give students much opportunity to use the language in a

practical way.

Although one of the causes of students not using English practically is probably the

limited exposure to the language outside the classroom, for example lack of vocabulary

in English as mother tongue is dominant in interactions (Che Musa et al. 2012: 42), the

lack of classroom talk in the classroom might also influence the students learning

process. The challenges explained in this section, and the previous sections have

made it clear that in such a rigid environment, students will not have much opportunity

to learn English in its real practical function. Students could be able to pass

examinations and score good grades, but will lack the more communicative skills of the

language, particularly speaking, in the case of my dissertation.


13/51

12

Conclusion

In conclusion, the major challenges for teachers to use classroom talk effectively are

the focus on examination, teacher-centred approaches, students expectations, as well

as mother tongue interference. These challenges cause the overuse of IRF, the

dominance of short interactions, as well as students reluctance to talk.


14/51

13

CHAPTER 2: CLASSROOM TALK FOR LEARNING

In the previous chapter, I explained the situation of classroom talk in Malaysian English

classrooms. The shortcomings of classroom talk in teaching in Malaysia have made me

eager to find out how classroom talk can actually be used for learning. In this chapter, I

will explain what I mean by effective classroom talk and explain how the classroom

context can influence classroom talk. I will also explain how classroom talk can help

facilitate students learning in the classroom and explain the role of teachers in

classroom talk. This chapter will focus more on the conceptual side of classroom talk in

the language classroom. The next chapter will explore the strategies in which these

concepts can be used in teaching.

2.1 Effective Classroom Talk

The term effective can have many meanings depending on the subject or personal

perception. Before exploring the ways classroom talk can facilitate learning, it would be

better to understand what I mean by Effective classroom talk. In the course of

classroom interaction, classroom talk can be exploited in ways that can benefit

students. Walsh (2011: 3) suggests that effective classroom talk is the use of language

that promotes learning; the use of language that facilitates learning and does not hinder

the learning process. This suggests that classroom talk is effective when the language

used makes it easier for students to understand lessons or acquire new language.

Walsh (2011: 3) adds that teachers can influence learning through their choice of

language and interactional decision-making. For instance, if the teacher intervenes too

early in students speech, the student will lose the momentum of speech and will makethem feel demotivated. As explained in the first chapter, the one word responses that

teachers elicit from students does not help the learning process in the classroom as it

limits students contribution in classroom talk. The yes/no questions also make lessons

boring and students will lose interest to learn. These are some examples of how the

classroom talk is not effective in the sense that it makes learning difficult for students.


15/51

14

Then, classroom talk is deemed effective when teachers and students are involved in

meaning making and language production. Classroom talk is not really effective when

the teacher is the only one speaking, leaving the students just listening and uninvolved

in the interaction. Indoshi (2009: 218) suggests that it is necessary for students to

engage in the production of the target language for classroom talk to be effective in a

language classroom. Simply put, effective classroom talk needs to involve the teacher

as well as the students and not just dominated by teachers, increasing opportunities for

student talk. The interaction involving teacher and students will make classroom talk

effective as Mercer and Littleton (2007: 4) suggests that when teacher and students

interact, they think together, combining their intellects in creative ways that may

achieve more than the sum of the parts. Teachers and students can interact through

talk and think together to achieve the aims of the lesson. This equality in two way -

interaction is what I think will make classroom talk effective coupled with the

appropriate use of language.

My opinion from this is, in order for classroom talk to be effective the language used

should make it easier for students to understand the lesson, enable students to acquire

and practice the target language and involves a more equal two -way interaction with

teachers and students having the same opportunities to talk in the classroom.

2.2 Classrooms as Contexts

Classroom talk is supported by having a positive classroom environment. In order for

classroom talk to work effectively, teachers need to treat the classroom as a real

environment, where the language used is the language of the real world, and not make

students feel that they are confined to a limited repertoire of classroom talk. Students

should not feel that the classroom is different from the real world. Walsh (2011: 24)

suggests that context can be used to describe a set of circumstances accomplished

through language. Walsh (2011: 50) also holds that classrooms are social contexts just

like any other contexts involving human interaction. In other words, through classroom

talk, the interaction in the classroom needs to be realistic. The classroom should not


16/51

15

only be treated as a place where lessons take place, but also a place to communicate

using the target language. For example, the IRF exchange pattern explained earlier in

Chapter 1 is not exactly the way that people naturally speak in the real world and

teachers need to make students aware of this. The IRF exchange pattern has elements

of the language used in the real world, but the overuse of and the dependency towards

the pattern will make the interaction unrealistic.

As the classroom is a part of the real world, students need to be made aware that they

are allowed to make mistakes. They should be made aware that they can freely

respond to the lesson and their mistakes can be corrected. Teachers should not just

interrupt students once they made a mistake in their responses. Harrison (2006: 74)

holds that a teacher needs to prevent cutting off classroom talk by withholding their

judgments about students answer so that students can identify the difference in their

answer with the teachers. Teachers must not make early judgments about students

responses that will make students feel less confident to respond. Students should just

need to be made aware that they are allowed to make mistakes. They can respond

without being laughed at by other students or frowned upon by the teacher.

The classroom should also be treated as a social setting, for example the students own

homes or the grocery store etc. where there is a need to interact with people.

Classrooms should be treated like such places so that students can talk with their

friends, the teacher and learn from each other as they do in real life. Students can also

share their opinions with their friends and practice new language. They can think

collaboratively as well as discuss their ideas with the class members. They should be

made aware that they can freely agree and disagree in classroom discussion. In

Malaysia, most of the students are not really exposed to English, at home or even

outside. There might be instances where spoken English is demonstrated by the media,

but this condition is probably not sufficient to enable students to practice the language.

Mercer and Littleton holds that:


17/51

16

Social experience does not provide all children with the same languageexperiences, se we cannot assume that all children naturally have access to thesame opportunities for developing their use of language as a tool for learning,reasoning and solving problems

(Mercer and Littleton 2007: 2)

This is especially true in Malaysia, where English is a second language. Some students

in Malaysia might be exposed to English by speaking with parents of professional

background, such as doctors or businessmen, but this opportunity is not available for

the rest. Sometimes, the only social setting for students to practice the target language

is the classroom. The teacher needs to expose students to the language thoroughly in

the classroom, especially in terms of talking in the target language. If students might not

have much opportunity to talk using the target language outside of the classroom, then

the teacher needs to make these opportunities available in the classroom.

Teachers need to be especially aware of the notion of classroom as contexts as this will

influence their teaching and how they manage the classroom. The classroom should

not be a different environment from the real world; what happens in the real world

needs to happen in the classroom and teachers should not make students feel they are

on another planet.

2.3 Learning through Classroom Talk

In any classroom, classroom talk plays a very important part in facilitating the teaching

and learning process. Walsh (2011: 2) suggests that the language used in classroom

talk can enable the people in the classroom to access new knowledge, acquire and

develop new skills, identify problems of understanding, deal with breakdowns in the

communication, establish and maintain relationships and so on. Mercer and Littleton

(2007: 4) also suggests that through classroom talk, there will be a dynamic

engagement with ideas among partners; partners can test out possible solutions and

can try to reach some agreement. This suggests that classroom talk can enable the

teacher to identify what the students are thinking and then build on the students ideas

to make sure they understand the lesson.


18/51

17

In my opinion, classroom talk can really help students in their learning process,

whether it be to understand the content of the lesson, or to acquire the language used

to communicate, especially in a language classroom. Hall suggests that the:

Key aspects of ones experiences that contribute to the development of languageknowledge are their recurring nature and the distribution of frequency with whichspecific linguistics components of actions, turns and sequences are encounteredin the interactional practices constituting their experiences.

(Hall 2009: 205)

This suggests that the language used in classroom talk can enable students to acquire

the target language. The recurrence and frequency of the interaction can help students

to learn new language and expose them to the context in which the language is used.

Hall (2009: 205) adds that the frequent use of the linguistic components can enable

students to store and remember them. This will then enable students to practice the

target language acquired through classroom talk.

In a more general classroom context, classrooms talk will enable students to engage

with new knowledge and try to understand it within their own personal view through

interactions with other students and their teacher (Harrison 2006: 70). In other words,

students can compare their personal understanding of the knowledge they acquired

with their friends and teacher through classroom talk which will enable them to learn

together and share their knowledge. From a language classroom point of view, this

means that by using talk in the classroom students can develop their target language

by generating input from others (Indoshi 2009: 218).

2.4 The Role of the Teacher

The teacher plays very important roles in classroom talk. These roles involve the

teacher giving input and feedback through talk in the classroom, as well as teachers

managing the course of the lesson in the classroom through classroom talk. In the

classroom, the role-relationship between the teacher and students plays a very


19/51

18

important part in the learning process. Walsh (2011: 4) suggests that the roles of the

teacher and students are not equal, but rather asymmetrical, in which case make the

teacher a central figure in the learning process. Due to the centrality of the teachers

role in the classroom, the teacher should make full use their roles. The asymmetrical

role does not mean that teachers can do as they please in the classroom, but need to

carefully help students with learning.

In Malaysian English classrooms, students usually think of the teacher as the authority

figure and knowledge transmitter and they think of themselves as receivers of the input.

This condition might be caused by the dominance of the teacher-centred approach as

described in Chapter 1. Teachers can change this negative classroom environment by

carrying out a few roles to make classroom talk effective. Listed are a few roles the

teacher can play to make classroom talk more effective which I adapted from my

reading. These roles are not absolute and may change accordingly, but the list

suggests these roles need to be emphasized and taken seriously.

2.4.1 Extending Understanding

First and foremost, the teacher needs be the facilitator, ensuring that students

understand the lesson through classroom talk. If the students are struggling to

understand or give response to the lesson, the teacher needs to play the role as a

facilitator and help students understand through talk. One of the concepts that teachers

can use to facilitate students learning is Scaffolding. This term has been used a lot in

education, but for the classroom talk context, scaffolding means teachers can take an

active role in guiding their students understanding of how talk can be used for learning

and thinking collectively (Mercer 2008: 65). This can possibly be done by promptingstudents when they are having difficulties in finding the right words to say.

2.4.2 Model of Language Use

In a language classroom, the target language is often the aim of the lesson and the


20/51

19

medium of instruction. In this respect, teachers need to play the role of a role -model of

language. In other words, teachers need to model useful ways of using language that

children can appropriate for use themselves (Mercer and Littleton 2007: 36). Teachers

are considered as the ones having control in the classroom and students will usually

follow what teachers do, and in this situation, the language they use in classroom talk.

Hall (2009: 205) suggests that cues used in the actions-in-interaction by the more

expert participants that make transparent, and call the novices attention to, particular

components and their context-form role relationship are key to language acquisition

through classroom talk. From this, it can be gathered that the teachers language

choice can influence the learning process and will enable students to acquire the target

language.

2.4.3 Valuing Students Response

Another role that the teacher should play in order to make classroom talk more effective

is being the listener and the mediator. The listener means the one who listens to

students contribution and the mediator in the one who mediates the interaction

between students. The teacher also invites students into generative and productive

discussion in the classroom, giving some space for students to make mistakes and their

mistakes are not frowned upon but rather appreciated, and feedback to the mistakes

are made constructive and not demotivating. Kumaravadivelu (2003: 49) suggests that

one way of maximizing learning opportunities in the classroom is to seriously listen

when language learners speak, and build on what they say. This suggests that teacher

need to recognize the learners voice. For example, even if the students suggestion or

answer is far removed from the topic, they might still be creating learning opportunities

(Kumaravadivelu 2003: 49).

2.4.4 Managing Interaction

Classroom talk is especially important in a language classroom as language is

simultaneously the aim of the lesson and the means of achieving those aims (Walsh


21/51

20

2006: 3). In other words, the language used in classroom talk can influence the success

of the lesson. If the language used in classroom talk is not carefully exploited or the

interaction is not appropriately managed, then the classroom talk will not be effective.

The role of the teacher in a language classroom is also to be the manager. In this

context, the element that the teacher manages is the interaction in classroom talk.

Walsh (2006: 3) adds that rather than simply handing over to a group of learners by

emphasizing pair- and group-work, it is the teachers ability to manage learner

contributions which will, arguably, determine the success of a lesson. According to

Cazden, some of the features of the language classroom context include: teachers

control the topic of discussion; teachers control who may participate and when;

students take their cues from teachers (Cazden 1986 quoted in Walsh 2006: 6). The

teacher needs to control the interaction in the classroom in a positive way, but this does

not mean that the teacher is the only one who talks in the classroom. Interactional-

decision making is also one of the aspects of management which will help teachers

manage the interaction effectively, as well as giving students the opportunities to talk.

Conclusion

Teachers need to be aware that the classroom needs to be a real world setting, and not

an entirely different environment. In order to achieve that, the type of talk used in the

classroom should be realistic. The teacher roles in the classroom setting will help

facilitate classroom talk and ensure that students can learn through talk.


22/51

21

CHAPTER 3: CLASSROOM TALK IN PRACTICE

In Chapter 1, I described the issues surrounding classroom talk in Malaysian English

classrooms and in Chapter 2, I discussed the important concepts that relates to

classroom talk and the learning process. In this chapter, I will discuss practical

approaches and strategies for making classroom talk effective in the classroom and

how students can interact and learn through these means. These approaches and

strategies are drawn from reading of various resources.

3.1 Approaches to Classroom Talk

In the context of my dissertation, I use the term approaches to refer to acts of

organising the classroom talk by the teachers in the learning process. A teachers role

in the classroom is to organise the social setting so that classroom talk is likely to be

fruitful and also working with the students to ensure that their learning moves forward

(Harrison 2006: 71). Organising the classroom setting to facilitate classroom talk is one

of the roles of the teacher of being a manager in the classroom, managing the

interaction for the benefit of the learning process (refer to Chapter 2.4.4).

The approaches listed below are some of the many ways for teachers to manage

classroom talk. These approaches are listed here so as to highlight their importance in

their own rights to enable classroom talk to be more effective. I think they are really

important ways to facilitate classroom talk that are sometimes neglected in teaching in

Malaysian English classrooms, which make the lessons uninteresting and boring.

3.1.1 Ground Rules for Talk

Firstly, a vital approach in organising classroom talk is the establishment of ground

rules of talk. These ground rules refer to conversational rules that both the teacher and

students need to follow and agree on in the classroom (Mercer and Dawes 2008: 56).


23/51

22

Rules might sound a little formal or restricting in terms of classroom talk, but these rules

are actually useful in order to make students aware of how they should interact in the

learning process, and will actually make the classroom talk more fruitful. The ground

rules are important as they reflect the need for social order of certain kind to be

maintained in classrooms, and the teachers responsibility for ensuring that any talk and

other activity follow an appropriate curriculum-relevant agenda and trajectory (Mercer

and Dawes 2008: 58). This suggests that ground rules can ensure that classroom talk

does not deviate from the whole purpose of the lesson while also giving students the

opportunity to talk. This also suggests that the rules are actually guidelines of expected

behaviours in the classroom and can vary accordingly.

In an article, Mercer and Dawes pointed out that Sinclair and Coulthards, 1975;

Mehans, 1979 findings of the IRF Pattern (refer to Chapter 1) established a pattern of

ground rules, which is more of a guideline of expected behaviours in the classroom that

are typical in the IRF context, which do not quite reflect effective classroom talk (Refer

to Appendix 1). Despite that, the whole idea of establishing ground rules is important as

ground rules can create a mutual understanding between participants in talk and

creates a context for talk (Mercer 2000 quoted in Lambirth 2006: 60). In other words,

the teacher and students are able to work collaboratively in making classroom talk

fruitful with the establishment of ground rules for talk.

Established ground rules in the classroom can enable the teacher and students to

ensure that the classroom talk is well-managed and beneficial for the learning process.

An example of a ground rule can be:

Any language mistakes in speech or response will not be frowned upon or

laughed at, but will be looked at and solved together in the classroom

The example of ground rule, in my opinion, can make students more eager to respond

to the lesson without the fear of making mistakes. As I have explained in Chapter 1,

some students in Malaysia are afraid to talk in the classroom because the teachers

always expect students to give correct answers.


24/51

23

Students however need to be made aware of these ground rules and a few ways can

be used by the teacher to ensure students know and understand these rules. In a group

interaction context, students can discuss the ground rules in small groups and make a

poster of the rules for the classroom (Cordon 2000 quoted in Lambirth 2006: 61). After

that, the teacher can discuss with students the rules that best suit the classroom. This

activity can make students aware of the rules and understand them, as well as giving

them a real world opportunity to communicate and use language.

3.1.2 Interactional Decision-Making

In the course of teaching, teachers sometimes miss opportunities to enable students to

talk as well as learn from classroom talk. These opportunities might provide some

space for engaging students with classroom talk. Wright (2005: 125) informs that

opportunity oriented classroom management favours, for instance, more open-ended

questions, greater negotiation of meaning, and is likely to lead to less lockstep

classroom teaching. This suggests that teachers can make use of these opportunities

in the classroom with interactive decisions as Walsh (2011: 4) suggests good teachers

make decisions that are appropriate to the moment, that engage learners and seek out

opportunities to teach, that facilitate learning and learning opportunity. The decisions

can help facilitate classroom talk as the lesson proceeds. Bailey, in a study conducted

in 1996, established six principles of interactive decision-making as listed below:

1. Serve the common g ood. When a few students are having a mutual

problem, the lesson departs from what was planned to solve the problem.

2. Teach to the moment. Lessons may be abandoned completely or partially

when a window of opportunity results in the teaching ofsomething pertinentto the moment.

3. Further the lesson. Decisions pertaining to the organisation of learning may

result in changes to what was originally planned.


25/51

24

4. Acc omm odate learning sty les. Preferences by students about the way

things get done in the classroom may result in departures from what was

planned.

5. Promote students involvement. Students may be encouraged to develop a

contribution that is felt to be particularly valid or relevant to a specific teaching

moment.

6. Distr ibute the w ealth. Ensuring fair and even turn-taking by encouraging

more reticent learners and reining in the more vocal ones

(Bailey 1996 quoted in Walsh 2011: 43)

These principles by Bailey, I believe can facilitate effective classroom talk in the sense

that these principles provide opportunities for the teacher and students to interact in the

classroom rather than just following the normal classroom routine as described in

Chapter 1, for example grammar drills and rote learning. Teachers can play the role as

the manager as well the facilitator of classroom talk (refer to Chapter 2.4.4 and 2.4.1)

by using these interactional decision-making principles in the classroom. Examples of

instances of these principles will be shown in the next chapter.

3.1.3 Extending IRF

A ubiquitous classroom talk pattern is the IRF (Teacher Initiation I, Student Response

- R and Teacher Feedback F) exchange (Sinclair and Coulthard 1975, quoted in Hall

2010: 202). This exchange pattern, as explained in the first chapter tends to be

overused by teachers in Malaysian English classrooms, resulting in students feeling

bored and not obliged to talk as the teachers will usually do most of the talking. Wright

(2005: 225) holds that although the IRF is useful for the purpose of ensuring the lesson

does not deviate from purpose, it provides evidence of teacher control over the

classroom process. I believe that the IRF pattern is useful in in the classroom, but in

Malaysia especially, this pattern can be exploited in a different way by teachers to make

the lesson more appealing to students.


26/51

25

In a recent research by Dashwood, it was found out that the teacher can exploit the

Feedback (F) move to further extend the conversation as the teacher plays a

significant role in in giving voice to students whose roles in discussion is limited by a

less vocal membership category in the class (Dashwood 2005: 144). Instead of just

giving feedback for students in the exchange, teachers can use other strategies to

extend the IRF exchange. Firstly, teachers can follow up IRF by using questions, but

Fisher (2009: 28) argues that if teachers ask too many questions, students cannot learn

to think for themselves. Instead of asking lots of questions that are closed, fewer

questions that are open for response is more helpful in facilitating classroom talk

(Fisher 2009: 28). Teachers questioning will be explained more in the next section of

this chapter.

On the other end, Dashwoods study has drawn out few ways to extend the IRF

exchange, by not using questions, but instead using different types of feedback. These

types of feedback are:

Restatement of the student comment: A Reflective Statement

Reflection of teachers own views on the topic: A Statement of Mind

A thought that occurs as a result of what the speaker was saying:Declarative Statement

Expressing an interest in a persons views: A Statement of Interest

Referring to a previous statement from a speaker: Speaker Referral

(Dillon 1994, quoted in Dashwood 2005: 148)

According to the study, these types of feedback will make a conversation longer, which

will enable effective classroom talk to take place. Instead of just using questions in the

repertoire, teachers can make use of these feedback types to engage students and

interact with them. I am not saying these feedback types are the only fixed alternatives

to questioning, but they are definitely ways teachers can involve students in classroom

talk. Of course these terms by Dillon are general and can be exploited by teachers


27/51

26

using their own creativity and according to the situation. Teachers can carry out the role

of valuing students response (refer to Chapter 2.4.3). Some examples of these

feedback types will be given in the next chapter.

3.2 Strategies for Effective Classroom Talk

In the classroom, the language that teachers use in teaching is very important.

Johnston et al. (2011: 233) perceives that teachers do not often notice that language

choices are decisions made, as they are made on the run and in response to novel

student behaviours. These decisions on language choices will be referred to as

strategies in my dissertation. From the teachers point of view, Johnston et al. (2011:233) adds that:

Our (teachers) words tell students how we think about them, what we notice andvalue, what we think we are doing, how we think about literacy, how we relate toone another, what are normal ways of talking and interacting, and a host of otherinformation that we should not take lightly

(Johnston 2004 quoted in Johnston et al. 2011: 233)

This suggests that the teachers language choices in teaching can affect the students

learning and the classroom environment. Alexander (2004: 22) also argues that

teachers language choices, especially in whole class teaching can encompass talk

which ranges from the exhilarating to the mind-numbingly boring. This shows that

teachers need to exploit some classroom talk strategies appropriately to ensure that

talk in the classroom is fruitful and not boring for students. I have drawn out some

classroom talk strategies from a few authors that I deem important to achieve effective

classroom talk as listed them below. The teachers role mentioned in Chapter 2 can be

carried out using these strategies. These strategies might possibly be well-known to

teachers or not, but the aim of listing them is to highlight that these strategies have their

own importance in the classroom talk context.


28/51

27

3.2.1 Scaffolding

Teachers can facilitate students speech by being a facilitator (refer to Chapter 2.4.1).

One of the strategies that can be carried out by teachers to portray this role is

Scaffolding. This term has been used a lot in teaching in general, but I am talking

about scaffolding in the context of classroom talk. Students sometimes have difficulties

in giving responses when they do not have enough language to use causing breakdown

and teachers need to intervene and feed in the missing language (Walsh 2011: 34).

Walsh adds that scaffolding needs proper timing and sensitivity as many teachers

intervene too often or too early (Walsh 2011: 34). The act of scaffolding classroom talk

can be carried out in various ways. One of them is by prompting students to explore

ideas, often done through questioning (Goodwin 2005: 29). Instead of just stopping

students when they are out of words, teachers need to help them get their responses

right. This is lacking in Malaysian English classrooms as I described in Chapter 1.

Examples of scaffolding in classroom talk will be portrayed in the next chapter.

3.2.2 Wait-time and Listening

Students sometimes need some time to gather their thoughts in order to respond in

instances of classroom talk. Teachers need to allow students to have more time to

respond and not just swiftly intervening every time. Wait-time is the time allowed by

teachers for students to answer their question (Walsh 2011: 34). Teachers can give

students opportunity to talk by providing them with extra wait time. Extended waiting

time can possibly increase the number of learner responses, resulting in more detailed

answers and leads to increased student-student interaction (Walsh 2011: 34). As

described in Chapter 1, the quick IRF exchange between teachers and students inMalaysia most of the time does not lead to effective classroom talk. Teachers in

Malaysia can possibly make the wait-time longer for students to contribute.

Other than that, listening to students is also important in classroom talk. Harrison (2006:

73) suggests that through careful listening of students speech the teacher comes to


29/51

28

understand what students know, what they partly know and what they do not know yet.

Instead of intervening too early, teachers need to be a good listener (refer to Chapter

2.4.3) in order to enable effective classroom talk to take place. Listening to students

can also make the students feel that the teacher is expecting them to think and the

teacher is interested in their thoughts (Johnston et al. 2011: 235). If Malaysian teachers

can practice more listening, I would think students would be more interested to respond

to classroom talk.

3.2.3 Questioning and Checking for Clarification

In classroom talk, the role of teachers questions is vital. Because of that, the types of

questions used by teachers can determine whether classroom talk can be sustained or

not. Fisher (2009: 30) holds that poor questions limit students thinking and

opportunities for classroom talk. These questions include closed or display questions or

as Fisher points out, the guess-what-the-teacher-is-thinking type of questions (Fisher

2009: 30). As a student in Malaysia, these types of questions are very popular in the

classroom and do not help engage students in classroom talk. They usually promote

one word responses and terminate a conversation or exchange. Questions that

teachers need to ask to facilitate classroom talk are more open-ended or referential

questions that permit open ended answers containing new information

(Kumaravadivelu 2003: 50). These types of questions can be more useful in promoting

classroom talk, especially in Malaysian classrooms. The role of the teacher as a

manager of classroom talk can be carried out through effective questioning strategies.

Another type of questioning strategy would be the teacher asking for clarification from

students. Walsh (2011: 34) suggests that teacher checking for confirmation serves tomaintain the flow of conversation and keep opportunities open. Nakamura (2009: 125)

talks about Formulation as a type of confirmation check. Formulation is the act of

rephrasing what has been said and can extend over several turns unlike more typical

two or three turn exchanges (Nakamura 2009: 126). Students will have the opportunity

to talk when the teacher asks for clarification and classroom talk can be facilitated.


30/51

29

3.2.4 Feedback

Last but not least, the feedback given to students is an important strategy to facilitate

classroom talk. Alexander (2004:44) suggests that teacher feedback on responses

should replace the simple negative or positive judgments, and the repetition of the

students answer by using a more informative and constructive type of feedback where

students can be given an opportunity to develop a response from the feedback. In other

words, the feedback given by teachers to students responses should focus more on

meaning of the language and not on the form most of the time. Giving the positive and

negative feedback to errors made by students with a focus on the language form rather

than meaning is usual in Malaysia. The focus on meaning in giving feedback can keep

the conversation open rather than closed with correcting forms of language (Alexander

2004: 44).

The language used by teachers in giving feedback is also important in classroom talk.

Alexander (2004: 43) suggests that the teachers feedback need to address the speech

in depth rather than worry about spotting correct answer. Choudhury (2005: 80) holds

that errors are a necessary manifestation of interlanguage development and teachers

should not be obsessed with constant correction. In Malaysian English classrooms,

teachers place emphasis on correct answers and can give feedback that is

demotivating to students. The teacher possible just want to make a correction, but error

correction of speech even in the best of circumstances is likely to have a negative effect

on the students willingness to express their own ideas (Terrell 1988, quoted in

Choudhury 2005: 80). Although mistakes need to be corrected, feedback needs to be

constructive and not demotivating for students. The language that teachers use for

error correction is a very interesting topic but not the focus of my dissertation

Conclusion

The approaches and strategies teachers use can influence classroom talk. These can

of course overlap in terms of extending classroom talk, as well as the lesson. For

example, the act of reformulating students' answers can be a type of scaffolding as


31/51

30

well. It all comes down to the situation in the classroom (multi-level classrooms etc. or

the purpose of the talk (to check students understanding etc.). The teaching

approaches and strategies will influence the outcome of the students talk.


32/51

31

CHAPTER 4: TOWARDS A MORE ARTICULATE MALAYSIAN

ENGLISH CLASSROOM

In this chapter, I will provide some examples of the use approaches and strategies I

discussed in the previous chapter. The examples highlighted in this chapter are derived

from a few resources and are presented in the original discourse convention as seen in

the original. They are organised based on the sections in the previous chapter. I will

relate these examples with the Malaysian classroom context and provide the rationale

for the approaches and strategies in each example.

4.1 Possible Challenges in the Malaysian English Classroom

Applying the approaches and strategies described in the previous chapter in the

Malaysian English classroom can be quite challenging based on a few reasons, which

are mother tongue interference, cultural perceptions and student reticence. The

examples in this chapter show how these challenges can be minimized or even solved.

4.2 Approaches

4.2.1 Ground Rules

Based on my experience as a student, in the Malaysian English classroom teachers

sometimes make rules for speaking English, for example:

Every student need to pay 10 cents (Ringgit Malaysia) if theyuse one Malay word in the English classroom

In my opinion, this kind of rule is not really appropriate if teachers are to encourage

students to talk. The establishment of the ground rules for talk on the other hand will

prove to be useful in the Malaysian English classroom. A few ways can be carried out to

establish the ground rules. The rules can either be set by the teacher according to the


33/51

32

purpose of the classroom, for example ground rules for discussing ideas, or created by

the students themselves, by carrying out a task (Refer to Appendix 2) (Eberly Centre for

Teaching Excellence, undated). A document produced by the Eberly Centre also

provided some ways in which ground rules can be introduced into the classroom as

follows:

Ground rules should be established at the beginning of the course, and

teachers should explain their purpose

Teachers can ask students to sign a contract for the ground rules or

agree to the rules informally

Teachers need to remind students of the rules periodically, especially

when some problems occur

(Eberly Centre of Teaching Excellence website, undated)

These ways suggest that students need to be made aware of the ground rules at the

beginning as well as during the course so that classroom talk can progress and

students can get the best out of their own thinking and from others in the classroom

(Grugeon and Hubbard 2006: 244).

When it comes to classroom talk, there are specific ground rules that can facilitate the

process. The Thinking Together Project (University of Cambridge, 2013) established

ground rules for Exploratory talk, which in my opinion is suitable for encouraging more

effective classroom talk in the Malaysian English classroom. Exploratory talk is a

concept introduced by Barnes which is a type of talk that is hesitant and incomplete as

is enables the speaker to try out ideas, to hear how they sound, to see what others

make of them and to arrange information and ideas into different patterns (Barnes 2008

quoted in Mercer and Hodgkinson 2008: 4). In other words, exploratory talk lets

students to sort out their thoughts and talk without the fear of giving an incorrect

response. The ground rules established for exploratory talk is as follows:


34/51

33

Ground rules for Exploratory Talk:

Everyone in the group is encouraged to contribute

Contributions are treated with respect

Reasons are asked for

Everyone is prepared to accept challenges

Alternatives are discussed before a decision is taken

All relevant information is shared

The group seeks to reach agreement

(Thinking Together Project, University of Cambridge 2013)

These rules are more like expected classroom conducts which suggest that one of thetypes of classroom talk, which is exploratory talk should be carried out in that manner to

ensure students are able to interact effectively. As I have described in Chapter 1,

students sometimes does not feel obliged to respond or talk in the classroom because

they fear their answers will be incorrect and the teacher or other students will make fun

or give demotivating responses. In my opinion, if the ground rules for exploratory talk

is established and the members of the classroom, teacher and students understand the

rules, students will be more interested in giving response, which in this case they will be

more confident to talk. In Malaysian English classrooms specifically, there will be

students who mix up the use of English and Malay in talking, so the ground rules

established needs to address this matter as well. For instance, a rule that could

possibly address the matter of mother tongue use is:

Use of mother tongue to address certain language items that isdifficult to understand occasionally will be tolerated and appreciated

Some teachers might have done this in the Malaysian English classroom, but some

might not be aware of the importance of this approach for student learning. In order to

make classroom talk more effective, teachers should be conscious of the ground rules

and make students aware of them.


35/51

34

4.2.2 Interactional Decision Making

The extract below is a transcript of a language lesson in Spain. The teacher is talking

about the picture of doctors she is showing.

Extract 1.1

T An operation, OK. Has anyb ody ever had an has been in hospital?

Have you ever been in hos pi tal for some reason or th e other? Not at

the doctors, at the hospital? Nobody? But youve been at the

doctors?

SS Yes

T OK. Er Arkai tzwhen you went to the doctors the last time, what was

it? Why? Why did you go to the doctors?

S1 Er the last time because 1 have er hurt in my leg.T You had a pain in your leg? How did it happen?

S1 Because, er I was playing football.

T OK. Had a pain in your leg. Other reasons youve been to the

doctors? Mikel?

S2 Er because I had a cold.

T You had a cold. OK. Javi?

(Bampfield et al. 1997: 111)

The teacher practiced interactive decision-making by teaching to the moment (refer to

Chapter 3.1.2) when she asked the whether the students have been to the hospital and

then responds to the answers that they had given. In my opinion, the teacher also did

an effective job in managing turn-taking for the students by eliciting answers from

different students, in which she applied the principle of distributing the wealth (refer to

Chapter 3.1.2). These approaches have actually made the exchange longer and give

students more opportunities to talk. Teachers in Malaysia need to practice more

interactional decision making such as the shown in the above extract to enable

students to talk more.


36/51

35

4.2.3 Extending IRF

Extracts below demonstrates the types of feedback that are highlighted by Dashwoods

study. Instead of using questions to elicit responses from students, the teacher actually

used different feedback types to further the conversation. These extracts are actual

lessons taken from a teacher training course, but would be useful as well when used in

a secondary English classroom such as in Malaysia. These types of feedback can

enable students to respond to the conversation such as portrayed below:

Extract 1.2

T: So her family expected her to be a home person

S3: And they maybe think that she is, doesnt ah finish the program first+++Maybe they criticise her

(Dashwood 2005: 152)

Extract 1.2 demonstrates the use of a reflective statement, where the teacher reflects

on a students comment and restates the comment to elicit a respond from the student.

In the next extract, the teacher uses a statement of interest to elicit a respond from the

student. By showing genuine interest of the students answer, the teacher actually

receives a more developed response from the student as shown below (refer to Extract

1.3):

Extract 1.3

T: Tell me more about why you think that

S: Arh++ because of the environment that she lived in +++is ah + Im mean

simple ah for what she was living in and it was a lot of pressure

(Dashwood 2005: 155)

These are a few examples in which the F move or teacher feedback move in the IRF

sequence can be used effectively to enable students to talk or respond to the

conversation. By using these types of feedback, Malaysian teachers can probably deal


37/51

36

with reticence as students will feel that their responses are appreciated and would

encourage them to talk more.

4.3 Strategies

4.3.1 Scaffolding

Evidence of the teacher using scaffolding to keep the conversation going is portrayed in

the two extracts below. Extract 1.4 is taken from a preparatory book for teacher training.

It shows a lesson in an English language classroom in France (refer to Extract 1.4):

Extract 1.4

T If you wash in the morning, youre clean. All right? Right, now lookthis

one. OK. This is Mr Bernard Tapies car, all right. Mr Tapies car, S1?

S Its tall. [pron: short A)

T Its?

S Tall. [pron: as above]

T You dont say, tall. [pron: as above]

S Tall. [pron: correct]

T Tall, but you sdont say tall for a car. A giraffe is tall, its a tall

animal.

Its?S Big.

T Big, yes its big. OK? Peggy?


In this exchange, the student gives an incorrect response, which is tall, also

pronounced incorrectly. So, the teacher demonstrates scaffolding when she uses the

analogy of the giraffe to elicit the correct response from the student. A different type of

scaffolding is demonstrated in the next extract (refer to Extract 1.5). In this extract, the

teacher demonstrates scaffolding by using related words to elicit the correct response

from the students:


38/51

37

Extract 1.5

T =what do we call Im going to try and get the class to tell you what this

word is that youre looking for er we talk about military (claps hands)

military what?S ((1))=

T =like fight=

SS =kill=

T =no not [kill]

SS [action] action=

T =no ((2)) military?=

SS =power=

T =power think of another word military?

SS ((3)) force=

(Walsh 2006: 50)

When students seem to be struggling with finding the right language, teachers need to

practice scaffolding to get them to respond with the correct or a more developed

response. Walsh (2011: 44) points out that many teachers fear silence in the

classroom, and that is why scaffolding is used to enable students to talk and not be

silent. A reason for Malaysian students reluctance to talk is the teacher does not

support them in classroom talk and stops them even before they finish talking.

Teachers in Malaysia should support students in classroom talk with scaffolding. For

example, even if the students use some Malay, teachers should prompt them to

produce the same word in English, and not just stop them.

4.3.2 Wait-time and Listening

In this extract, the teacher demonstrates the use of extended wait time and the effect

on students responses. This extract is taken from a different context, which is a

Physics lesson, and not a language lesson. Despite that, I think that the use of

extended wait-time here can be used in language lessons as well:


39/51

38

Extract 1.6

T Is the falling rock moving at a constant speed, or is it speeding up or

slowing down? How do you know?

(T allows several seconds to pass before calling on students or

allowing them to answer so everyone has an opportunity to

develop an answer)

S1 The same speed all the way because I saw a film where some guy said

all things fall at the same speed

(T pauses here for 3 to 5 seconds before commenting or calling on

another student so the first student can evaluate her answer)

S1 No wait, thats if two things fall, they both fall equally fast. I dont know

(More wait time-unspecified)

S1 I think the rock speeds up

T What evidence do you have that makes you think it accelerates?

S1 The higher you drop it from, the harder it hits the ground or whatever(More wait time here too)

(Cazden 2001: 95)

The extended wait-time in this extract gave students some time to think and produce a

developed response. When the extended wait time is used in language lessons,

teachers can enable students to produce more composed response, more enriched

language and more interaction between students (Nunan 1991 quoted in Walsh 2011:34). This is what Malaysian teachers should practice. The next extract shows how a

teacher can be a listener to let students have a longer conversation:


40/51


41/51

40

Extract 1.8

T Who can tell me what this wordis (writes Deserts on the

board)Yes?

S1 xx

T Hmm?S Its a fruitor-

T Nothats

S2 Thats a

T Thats(writes Desserts next to Deserts on the board)

S3 Desertsahwithoutwater

T Without what?

SS Water

T OK. Good

SS Sand

T What is it? Dry without watersandwhat do we call it? Dry what?xx.

T Is it a dry fruitdry what?

S4 Dry place.

(Kumaravadivelu 2003: 55)

In this extract, the teacher actually uses a few display questions which generate one

word responses from students. In my opinion, if the teacher used more open questionsin the lesson, the students can talk more than just giving one word responses. An

example of an open question would be Can you describe the desert? What do you

understand about the desert?. The responses to these questions will be more varied

and teachers will give students a chance to talk. The extract below shows an example

of a teacher checking for clarification using a sort of formulation. It was taken from an

English language lesson in Spain:


42/51

41

Extract 1.9

T Right. What about you two?

S2 Erwhat did you use, ertoerspend your holidays?

S1 I used to goEurope

T To Europe?S1 French,and and sometimes, bueno [=well]when I have, era

big time, I,erI pass my holidays on, eron climb mountains.

T Yes, you spend your holidays, erpractising exercise you mean?

Climbing up and down mountains?

S1 Yeah.

T With your friends?

S1 Yeah.


The student was giving a response about the climb mountains which seem to be a bit

unorganised, and then the teacher rephrases the students response to check whether

that is what the student means. Walsh (2011: 34) suggests that checking for

clarification can maintain the flow of conversation and keep channels open. It might be

a simple strategy, but checking for clarification of students responses might just help

them to talk more on the classroom and can solve the issue of reticence. In the

Malaysian classroom, the teacher usually checks for clarification by just using normalyes/no questions. I believe that Malaysian teachers can enable students to talk more if

the formulation of students answer, such as the above extract is used. Alternatively,

the teacher in the extract can give the student a question for their response to check for

clarification, such as So, you like climbing mountains, then?. Checking for clarification

can also enable the teacher to carry out the role of the model of language use (refer to

Chapter 2.4.2).

4.3.4 Feedback

The extract shows the teacher giving feedback to a students response. The extract is

taken from a Science lesson. Although not an English lesson, the teacher demonstrates

how feedback can be made constructive and not demotivating:


43/51

42

Extract 1.10

T Right, people with hands up (to S1). Who would want to contribute?S1

Um, S2?

S2 I think its false because when the sun moves round the earth, it shines

on the moon which projects down to the earthT (to S2) Do you want to choose somebody else? That sounds good.

S2 S3

S3 Well, we werent actually sure cos we were (thinking) the actual moon

changes which it never does or if it is in our point of view from earth

which put us in the shadow.

T Thats a good point isnt it, it doesnt actually change, it looks as

if it changes shape to us, thats a really good point

(Mercer and Littleton 2007: 52)

The student was not sure of the answer and told that to the teacher. In my opinion, the

way the teacher gives feedback is constructive and makes the student feel motivated to

talk. Alternatively, if the student gives an incorrect answer, the teacher should give

feedback on the content and give some sort of praise for the student for trying and not

just telling the student the answer is in incorrect, for example Thats a good point.

Before we go to the answer, let us see what others can come up with This situation

is rare in Malaysian English classrooms and teachers should be more conscious aboutthis and provide more constructive feedback to students.

Conclusion

These approaches and strategies can enable teachers to facilitate classroom talk by

giving students opportunities to talk. Extracts shown in this chapter demonstrate how

they can generally be applied by teachers in Malaysia. Malaysian teachers should be

more conscious of these approaches and strategies and should adapt them according

to the purpose of the lesson or the classroom situation.


44/51

43

REFERENCES

Alexander, R. (2004) Towards Dialogic Teaching: Rethinking Classroom Talk. NorthYorkshire: Dialogos.

Bampfield, A., D. Lubelska and M. Matthews (1997) Looking at Language Classrooms:Trainers Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Barnes, D. (2008) Exploratory Talk for Learning. In Mercer, N. and S. Hodgkinson. (eds)Exploring Talk in School. London: SAGE Publications.

Cazden, C.B. (2001) Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning.Portsmouth: Heinemann.

Che Musa, N., Y.L. Koo and H. Azman (2012) Exploring English language learning andteaching in Malaysia [online]. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies,Volume 12(1), pp 35-51. Available from:http://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(1)%20Special%20section%202012/pp_35_51.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2013.

Choudhury, S. (2005) Interaction in second language classrooms [online]. BRACUniversity Journal, Volume 2(1), pp 77-82. Available from:http://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/212005/7.%20INTERACTION%20IN20SECOND%20LANGUAGE%20CLASSROOMS.pdf. Accessed 20 March2013.

Dashwood, A. (2005) Alternatives to questioning: teacher role in classroom discussion.The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, Volume 7(4), pp 144-165.

Eberly Centre for Teaching Excellence (undated) Ground rules [online]. Available from:http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat -dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdf. Accessed 15 Mar 2013.

Fisher, R. (2009) Creative Dialogue: Talk for Thinking in The Classroom. New York:Routledge.

Goodwin, P. (2001) Speak for yourself. In P. Goodwin (ed) The Articulate Classroom.London: David Fulton Publishers.

Grugeon, E. and L. Hubbard (2006) Learning through dialogue. In Arthur, J., T. Graingerand D. Wray (eds) Learning to Teach in The Primary School. Oxford: Routledge

Hall, J.K. (2009) Interaction as method and result of language learning. CambridgeUniversity Press Journals. Volume 43(2), pp 201-215.
http://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(1)%20Special%20section%202012/pp_35_51.pdfhttp://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(1)%20Special%20section%202012/pp_35_51.pdfhttp://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/212005/7.%20INTERACTION%25http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdfhttp://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdfhttp://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdfhttp://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdfhttp://www.cmu.edu/teaching/solveproblem/strat-dontparticipate/groundrules.pxdfhttp://www.bracuniversity.ac.bd/journal/contents/212005/7.%20INTERACTION%25http://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(1)%20Special%20section%202012/pp_35_51.pdfhttp://www.ukm.my/ppbl/Gema/GEMA%20vol%2012%20(1)%20Special%20section%202012/pp_35_51.pdf


45/51

44

Harrison, C. (2006) Banishing the quiet classroom. Education Review, Volume 19(2).Pp 67-77.

Hiew, W. (2012) English language teaching and learning issues in Malaysia: learnersperceptions via Facebook dialogue journal [online].Journal of Arts,Science and

Commerce, Volume 3(1), pp 11-19. Availablefrom:http://www.researchersworld.com/vol3/Paper_02.pdf. Accessed 3 Jan 2013

Indoshi, F.C. J. Bett and F.Y. Odera (2009) The nature of interaction in Englishlanguage classrooms. The International Journal of Learning, Volume 16(7).

Johnston, P.H., G. Ivey and A. Faulkner (2011) Talking in class: rememberingwhat isimportant about classroom talk.The Reading Teacher, Volume65(4), pp 232-237.

Kabilan, M.K. and R.I Raja Izzaham (2008) Challenges faced and the strategies

adopted by a Malaysian English language teacher during teaching practice.English Language Teaching Journal (CanadianCentre of Science andEducation),Volume 1(1), pp 87-95. Availablefrom:http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/514/496. Accessed6 Mar 2013

Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003) Beyond Methods: Macrostrategies for LanguageTeaching.Connecticut: Yale University Press.

Lambirth, A. (2006) Challenging the laws of talk: ground rules, social reproduction andthe curriculum.The Curriculum Journal, Volume17(1), pp 59-71.

Mercer, N. (2008) Classroom dialogue and the teachers professional role. EducationReview. Volume 21(1), pp 60-65.

Mercer, N. and K. Littleton (2007) Dialogue and The Development ofChildrensThinking: A Sociocultural Approach. Oxford: Routledge.

Mercer, N. and L. Dawes (2008) The Value of Exploratory Talk. In Mercer, N. and S.Hodgkinson. (eds) Exploring Talk in School. London: SAGE Publications.

Nakamura, I. (2009) Formulation as evidence of understanding in teacher-student talk.ELT Journal (Oxford University Press). Volume 64(2), pp 125-134.

Walsh, S. (2006). Investigating Classroom Discourse. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 1 Feb2013, from

Walsh, S. (2011) Exploring Classroom Discourse: Language in Action.Oxford:Routledge.
http://www.researchersworld.com/vol3/Paper_02.pdfhttp://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/514/496http://lib.myilibrary.com/?ID=46298http://lib.myilibrary.com/?ID=46298http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt/article/view/514/496http://www.researchersworld.com/vol3/Paper_02.pdf


46/51

45

Wright, T. (2005) Classroom Management in Language Educati

Documents

Classroom Talk - Making Talk More Effective in the Malaysian English Classroom