ArticlePDF Available




Teacher talking time refers to the amount of class time the teacher spends speaking to the class, either as part of a lecture or in discussions. Particularly in ESL classes, more time needs to be given to students so they can speak more—foreign language learners improve more rapidly when they are able to practice what they’ve learned more often.Some EFL/ESL researchers say that students should speak for 70% of the lesson. Teachers should speak for 30% of the time. Of course, some lessons may require longer explanations on the part of the teacher. Or other lessons may only require a minimal amount of explanation, and 90% or more may be devoted to conversational activities. But this 70/30 figure works well as a goal in most classroom situations.The aim of the paper is to show whether this percentage is true and achievable and whether this percentage is applicable for both literature and linguistic content. The results will be achieved through a research conducted with the teachers of English in both elementary and high schools in Bitola, who will answer a series of questions regarding how much they talk in class and how much time they dedicate to Q&A sessions.
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
LEARNER-CENTERED CLASSROOM Bisera Kostadinovska-Stojchevska, PhD
Faculty of Education-Bitola, University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Macedonia
Lecturer MA Ivana Popovikj, PhD candidate
Faculty of Philology “Blaze Koneski”. Univeristy Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Macedonia
Corresponding Author
Bisera Kostadinovska-Stojchevska, PhD. Faculty of
Education-Bitola, University “St. Kliment Ohridski”,
Macedonia. E-mail:
is work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International license. e article is
published with Open Access at
Abstract. Teacher talking time refers to the amount of class time the teacher spends speaking to the class,
either as part of a lecture or in discussions. Particularly in ESL classes, more time needs to be given to students
so they can speak more—foreign language learners improve more rapidly when they are able to practice what
they’ve learned more often.Some EFL/ESL researchers say that students should speak for 70% of the lesson.
Teachers should speak for 30% of the time. Of course, some lessons may require longer explanations on the
part of the teacher. Or other lessons may only require a minimal amount of explanation, and 90% or more may
be devoted to conversational activities. But this 70/30 gure works well as a goal in most classroom situations.
The aim of the paper is to show whether this percentage is true and achievable and whether this
percentage is applicable for both literature and linguistic content. The results will be achieved through a research
conducted with the teachers of English in both elementary and high schools in Bitola, who will answer a
series of questions regarding how much they talk in class and how much time they dedicate to Q&A sessions.
Keywords: Teacher talking time, student talking time, ESL/EFL.
© 2019 IJALSC. All rights reserved.
The English language has come to be
the second most spoken language in the world
in terms of native speakers and speakers as
second language (BBC, 2013). Most of this
uncontrolled spread of and necessity of com-
munication among people from all over the
world has been possible due to the dierent
technological inventions created in this ad-
vanced era, also named as Globalization1.
Communicating across the globe has become
essential in order to develop international eco-
nomic and political relationships, and even
though the geographical barriers have been
left aside by technology, language barriers can
only be successfully overcome by a common
language. The English Language has become
the representation of progress in a variety of
aspects related to communication. The concept
of ‘global language’ (also named as ‘lingua
franca’) has emerged to play a relevant role in
the way in which English language functions
and also the inuences it makes on the rest of
the globe. David Crystal (2003) considers that
a language can be named as ‘global’ when it
can be recognized all over the world (p. 3);
moreover, stating that “the statistics […] sug-
gest that about a quarter of the world’s popula-
tion is already uent or competent in English”
(p. 6).
The development of the Communicative
Language Teaching (CLT) method brought
with it a methodology which emphasized
communication in the classroom, pair and
group activities and student involvement in
the learning process. Teacher Talking Time
(TTT) often means that the teacher is giving
the students information that they could be
nding out for themselves, such as grammar
rules, the meanings of vocabulary items and
corrections. Teacher explanations alone are
often tedious, full of terminology and di-
cult to follow. There may be no indication of
whether the students have understood.
On the other hand, if the teacher takes
the dominant role in classroom discourse in
terms of initiating the topic, allocating turns
and evaluating comments, the student’s role
is only that of respondent. Opportunities for
developing the speaking skill are therefore
severely limited. If the teacher is constantly
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
dominant and controlling, the learners take no
responsibility for their own learning but learns
what the teacher decides and when. Student
autonomy is thus limited.
At the simplest level, teacher talk time
(TTT) refers to how much the teacher talks
during a lesson. However, this will vary ac-
cording to the stage of the lesson. For example,
the teacher needs to speak more when provid-
ing explanations of and examples for the tar-
get language early in the lesson. Elsewhere he/
she may speak less as students need ample op-
portunity to practice the new material. Over-
all, however, the teacher should roughly limit
his speaking to 20% to 30% of the class time,
with the remainder devoted to speaking/use of
the language by the students.
On the other hand, Student Talk Time
(STT) should be around 80% during the
course of the lesson. Their use of the language
should further promote qualitative thought.
For example, this means that oral drills, sub-
stitution drills, and other exercises remain im-
portant because students need these activities
to become familiar with and absorb the target
language. However, too many drills or other,
similar activities result in students who switch
o their brains. The fail to critically observe,
analyze, and practice with the new language.
Active use of the target language (further
reered to as L2) by students is considered to
be an integral part of the language acquisi-
tion process (Nunan, 1999: 241). An eec-
tive learner-centered L2 classroom, therefore,
should provide an environment in which stu-
dents can contribute to learning activities and
maximize their use of the language (Van Lier,
2001: 103). In an English-as-a-foreign-lan-
guage (EFL) classroom, in particular, the op-
portunities to practice verbal communication
outside the classroom are often signicantly
limited (Paul, 2003: 76).
Teacher talk time (TTT) within the EFL
classroom has been critically evaluated in the
process to increase students’ L2 practice time
(Willis, 1990: 57; Paul, 2003: 137). Much
research on TTT has focused on its quantity
(amount) and/or quality (eectiveness). These
studies have provided new insights into the
ways EFL teachers teach in the classroom. Re-
search has shown that the most common class-
room exchange has three ‘turns’: (1) teacher
asks, (2) learner answers, (3) teacher evaluates
the answer. This sequence is repeated thou-
sands of times a day in classrooms all over
the world. It is what passes for teaching and
learning. Morgan and Saxton question this as-
sumption: “The classic concept of learning is
that it occurs when the teacher asks the ques-
tions and the students can answer them, but
the reality is that learning does not occur until
the learner needs to know and can formulate
the question for himself.” (1991:75).
Teacher talking time is the time which
teachers spend while instructing, lectur-
ing, managing or/and organizing the lesson.1
However, the amount of talk time the teachers
use in a given lesson is not the same, it varies
depend up on both the specic goals of the syl-
labus adopted and their pedagogical principles
(Nilton, 2005).For instance, introducing new
topic may require much more time than sum-
marizing the lesson. On the other hand, Stu-
dent Talk Time (STT) is the amount of time
student use while in classroom interaction. A
lot has been said so far regarding the teacher’s
talk time. For students, the most eective use
of their time occurs when they are actively us-
ing the target language (Darn, 2007).
Negative eects of teachers talking for an
excessive amount of time have been observed
in a number of studies. Allwright (1982: 10)
claimed that teachers who ‘work’ too much in
the classroom were not teaching eectively.
He commented that a good language teacher
should be able to ‘get students to do more
work’ in the classroom. Ross (1992: 192-93
cited in Nunan, 1999: 209) also indicated that
constant teacher talk during the lessons did not
signicantly improve students listening com-
prehension and communication skills. These
studies suggested, at least indirectly, that the
amount of TTT might be inversely correlated
to the degree of students’ active learning op-
portunities, i.e. the greater the amount of TTT,
the less the students get to practice L2 in a
classroom and therefore, the less the eective-
ness of the lesson (Paul, 2003: 76). In order
to further explore such a relationship between
TTT and the student’s learning process, vari-
ous TTT analyses have been conducted (Mc-
Donough and McDonough, 1997). Many of
the studies have highlighted that the amount
of TTT predicted by the teachers prior to the
1 Nilton, H.(2005). Teacher Talking Time
in the EFL Classroom. Prole Issues in
Teachers` Professional Development (6)
pp 97-106)Colombia: Universidad Na-
cional de Colombia . Retrieved from: http://
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
analyses alarmingly diered from the actual
measurement. As a result of these studies, a
number of teaching techniques and approach-
es have been proposed to curb excessive TTT
and to optimize the balance between TTT and
STT in EFL classrooms. These techniques and
approaches include:
a) Management of error correction (Wil-
lis, 1990: 61-62; Allwright and Bailey: 1991;
Richards and Lockhart 1994: 191-192),
b) Management of responses and elicita-
tion (Chaudron, 1988; Skehan, 2001; van Lier,
2001: 94-95),
c) Student pair work and group work
(Richards and Lockhart, 1994: 153; Long,
1976 cited in Nunan, 1999: 54; Paul, 2003:
41-42; Willis, 1990: 60),
d) Sucient wait-time after elicitation
(Richards and Lockhart, 1994: 188; Paul,
2003: 19), and
e) The clarication of instructions and
expectations for the students (Rosenshine and
Stevens, 1986; Mercer, 2001: 255).
Here, it is important to note that al-
though excessive TTT in the classroom has
been criticized by many researchers, they
usually do not advocate minimizing TTT as
an objective (van Lier, 2001: 104). Instead, a
number of studies have emphasized the qual-
ity or eectiveness (contents) of TTT rather
than the quantity (Paul, 2003; Ellis, 1984; van
Lier, 2001: 104). TTT should be allocated to
relevant interactions between the teachers and
students. At the same time, teacher’s utteranc-
es need to be explicit and level-appropriate for
the students in the classroom. Only by doing
this, can listening to the teacher’s authentic L2
potentially become a signicant impetus to L2
acquisition (Allwright, 1982: 8; Willis, 1990:
63; Rost, 1994: 141-42 cited in Nunan, 1999:
200; Paul, 2003: 71). There are many dier-
ent variables which could aect the amount of
TTT in the classroom (e.g. level, experience,
and number of students) and TTT can vary
among classes of the same teacher. However,
Richards and Lockhart (1994) argued that in-
dividual teachers should become more aware
of their TTT by measuring and analyzing it in
a specic class, which in turn, may help them
assess the eectiveness of their teaching ap-
proach in general.
There is less previous research which
uses the quantitative observation method than
qualitative method in order to see classroom
observation. Many studies focus on types of
teacher talk, for example, types of questions,
which are referential or display questions, or
yes/no, either/or, or Wh-questions. Of great
interest to classroom researchers is the ques-
tion of how teacher talk is distributed, that is,
how it diers in function. Whereas researchers
tend narrowly to investigate teachers’ linguis-
tic and pedagogical production, learners have
been viewed in a slightly broader perspective
(Chaudron, 1988). As to amount of teacher
talk, Chaudron (1988) reviews that ‘research
in rst language classrooms has established
that teachers tend to do most of the talking
about 60 % of the moves’. J. D. Ramirez et
al.’s (1986) study found teacher and student
utterances are attributable to program type,
grade levels and the teacher.
Research on Classroom Talk2
What follows next are some of the most
notable research conducted in the eld of
classroom talk, Teacher talking time and Stu-
dent talking time, which present the backbone
and guidelines for the research conducted for
the sake of this paper.
One such research is the Paideia Model
presented in From Mindless to meaningful
(Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2014)).Using the
Paideia model is one way teachers can ef-
fectively increase the amount of meaningful
student talk in classrooms. Successful whole
class discussions include “three important fea-
tures: text selection, questioning strategies,
and ongoing assessment of speaking and lis-
tening skills” (Billings & Roberts, 2014, p.
60). In Paideia discussions the text can also be
an artifact or other source document. What is
important is that the text or item can generate
several layers of questioning, usually prompt-
ed by the teacher, who serves as a facilitator.
Before, during, and after, the students are able
to set and assess goals related to speaking and
With the advent of Common Core,
(Ripp, P., 2014), teachers face the challenge
of meeting standards without minimizing stu-
dent participation. In fact, “some feel that a
standards-driven curriculum sties creativity”
(Ripp, 2012, p. 12). Student-driven projects,
lessons around problem-solving, and student
input on learning plans are all ways to increase
both student engagement and student talk in a
standards-driven classroom. Also, setting the
tone of discussion and participation expecta-
tions early in the school year will provide all
students enough time to transition to a more
collaborative learning environment.
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
Student-led discussions can provide an
active learning environment and even increase
retention in learning. However, good discus-
sions take work and eective facilitation, and
not all students are ready to lead discussions.
Furthermore, student-led discussions often
fall prey to the two most common problems in
any discussion-which hardly anyone partici-
pates, or, one individual monopolizes the con-
versation. In this research, Soranno (Soranno:
2010) describes ways to conduct productive
student-led discussions. She suggests struc-
ture for student-led discussions, how to se-
lect discussion items (like literature or other
sources), setting discussion goals, setting clear
assessment criteria, and how to evaluate the
eectiveness of the discussion. When these
factors are considered, Soranno notes a wealth
of positive outcomes--better participation
(which means better student talk, as opposed
to excessive teacher talk), greater student mo-
tivation to learn beyond what is expected, con-
sistent student preparation, and that students
demonstrated a higher investment in their own
The aim of this research is to examine
the TTT in the classroom among English lan-
guage teachers who teach English as a foreign
language in Macedonia. Here, we shall raise
the rst expectation: The teacher will talk more
than the students in the Listening class, while
the students will talk more than the teacher in
the Speaking class. And the second expecta-
tion is TTT and STT will vary by dierent
kinds of tasks or stages. The instrument or the
questionnaire was consisted of both open end
questions and multiple choices. The answers
given by the professors and teachers will be
given in the analysis.
The questionnaire was distributed via
email to the teachers; it did not require name,
age, sex. The email addresses of the teachers
were retrieved from the websites of the ele-
mentary and high schools in Bitola. The time
for collecting the answers was two months,
that is, from the time that the questionnaire
was sent, it was closed or the answers were
read and analyzed two months after the ini-
tial sending date. The time of the sending of
the questionnaire was in the middle of the rst
semester of the academic 2018-2019 year that
is in the period of September until November
2018. The answers were collected right after
the ending of the time and analyzed in the
month of December 2018.
The teachers whom the questionnaire
was sent were teachers of English in the fth,
sixth, seventh, eighth and ninth grade elemen-
tary school and teachers who taught in the
four years of high schools. Excluded were the
teachers who taught English from the rst un-
til the fth grade. Another important factor is
the years of experience in teaching English as
a foreign language. The teachers that received
the questionnaire all had over 10 years of
teaching experience that could be seen from
their CV attached on the school website.
The questionnaire was sent to 50 teach-
ers that were required to answer the following
questions. 43 of them responded.
3.1 How much time do you spend in
talking in class? Please assess yourself.
3.2 How much time do the students talk
in class? According to Your experience.
3.3 How much time do you spend in
frontal work?
- 50% of the time of the lesson
- 10% of the time of the lesson
- Very rarely
- Often
- Other…
3.4 What type of content requires more
Teacher talking time?
- Linguistic content
- Literature content
3.5 How much time do you wait for stu-
dents’ answers?
- not long
- one minute
- two minutes
- 1 minute and 37 second
- I elicit the answer
- I supply the answer almost immedi-
3.6 Which of these types of questions
are more present in your class?
- yes-no questions
- open-ended questions
3.7 According to you, which approach
should prevail in the classroom?
- student-centered
- teacher-centered
3.8 Which approach increases students’
- student-centered
- teacher- centered
3.9 Which approach enables the teacher
to monitor students’ progress?
- student-centered
- teacher- centered
3.10 Which approach increases the im-
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
mediate retention of information?
- student-centered
- teacher- centered
3.11 What is your belief about students’
expectation concerning this issue? Do students
expect the teacher to present the new informa-
tion most of the time or do they expect to be
actively involved in the classroom activities?
- They expect the teacher to be the one
who presents everything
- They expect to be actively involved in
the classroom activities
- Other
The questionnaire was distributed anon-
ymously via email and it was supposed to be
answered anonymously. Target groups were
teachers of EFL from both elementary and
high schools. So it can be said that the popula-
tion was deliberately chosen. As said before,
no other variables were included like age, sex
and number of years of experience.
The analysis was conducted by reading
through the questionnaires and given answers.
No software tool was used. According to the
analysis most of the teachers stated that they
spent around one third or less of the class time
talking. By analyzing this question it could be
stated that the approach is student centered.
This approach emphasizes the importance of
the student talking time and the signicance
of communication in class. Methods such the
communicative approach are based on the
idea that communication and interaction are
crucial in second language acquisition. More
precisely, people use the language to express
certain idea or meaning (such as persuasion,
arguments, promise, etc.). This implies that
speakers adapt the way they express them-
selves according to their emotional state and
their relation with the co-speaker (Andersen
1990, Richards and Rodgers 1986). Larsen-
Freeman (1986) suggests that minimal teacher
instruction is crucial in the second language
acquisition process as the student should be
the one that is involved in meaningful interac-
tion. Approaches which emphasize the impor-
tance of student talking time dene the teacher
a class mediator. This implies that the teacher
is the initiator of most of the in class activities
(Klein 1986). Essential for this method is that
the students are those who communicate with
each other during the class. In addition, the
teacher, who has the role of advisor and mod-
erator, answers questions and monitors stu-
dents’ success. The pupils, however, have the
goal of transmitting the message. Moreover,
they have to indicate that the received mes-
sage has been successfully or unsuccessfully
received. In other words, students learn how
to communicate through communication. For
this purpose, it is desirable for the teacher to
plan activities in which authentic (everyday)
language is used.
In most of the cases, teachers who stated
that they spent less than one third of the class
time talking, have also reported less than 15%
frontal work. As previously stated, the ap-
proaches that place emphasis of student talk-
ing time, underline the importance of mini-
mal instruction (Klein 1986, Pinker 1994).
Similarly said, teachers who believe that they
should spend as little as possible time in fron-
tal work are believed to be willing to promote
communication and linguistic competence.
Thus it can be concluded that reducing the
teacher talking time reduces teachers’’ frontal
work and thus requires the students to be ac-
tively engage in class (Ellis:2014).
In most of the methods that promote
student-centered approach, it is expected from
the teachers to try to elicit students’ answers.
By doing this, the student is encouraged to use
the target language and become independent
from the teachers (Flege, 2002). Contrary to
this statement, the analyzed teacher’s answers
have indicated that the majority of them (85%)
do not provide enough time for their students
to answer the question. Even though the same
teachers have indicated that student-centered
approach prevails during their classes, not
enough answering time is evident in their
classroom. From the survey it is also evident
that those teachers who allow for most stu-
dents talking time also tend to elicit students’
answers. As stated in the literature the student-
centered approach is usually accompanied by
open-ended questions (Flege:2002).
On the other hand, it is interesting to note
that 3 teachers reported the highest teacher
talking time in their classes, or more that 70%
of the time of the class, and they also stated
that they spend half of that time engaged in
the frontal method. It can be assumed that the
teachers place greater importance on instruc-
tion than on meaningful interaction. This be-
lief originates from traditional approaches in
which the teacher is the one that orally pres-
ent the material in front of the class. This ap-
proach denes students as passive learners
who are to receive the grammatical input and
are immediately expected to produce correct
output. The teacher is the authority in the class
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
and decides which linguistic structure is cor-
rect and accurate. In case of errors, the teacher
supplies the accurate form. The teacher dur-
ing the whole teaching is the one who speaks
the most. The students answer only the given
questions and do not participate in interaction
(Pavlov 1927, Larsen-Freeman, 1986). Stu-
dents accustomed to this approach also expect
the teacher-oriented approach. Moreover, such
a belief is evident in the teachers’ answers.
Most of the teachers believe that the students
expect the teacher to be the one who presents
new information. Since two of three teachers,
who promote teacher-talking time, answered
that teacher-talking approach enables monitor-
ing of the students success, it can be assumed
that they are promoting traditional teaching
approach. In the traditional approaches formal
instruction is essential while students’ prog-
ress is evaluated by the frequency of their mis-
takes (Odlin:1989, Krashen:1987).
However, it is interesting to note that be-
sides the predominance of the traditional ap-
proaches in their classes, the same participants
are aware that student-centered approaches in-
creases students’ motivation and therefore in-
creases the language acquisition levels. Even
thought they have stated that students-cen-
tered approach should prevail in the English
classroom, their belief does not coincide with
their teaching practice. The discrepancies be-
tween teachers’ belief and practices indicated
the need of a survey on teachers’ metalinguis-
tic abilities.
When it comes to students expectations
of teaching grammar most of the teachers be-
lieve that students are accustomed to the tra-
ditional approach in which the teacher is to
instruct and explicitly explain the grammar
rules. Only 4 of the teachers indicated that
students “expect to be actively involved while
presenting new information”. It is interesting
to note that no correlation between teachers’
belief about students’ expectation and teacher
vs. student talking time and required time for
students answer can be provided. As the teach-
ers talking time in these cases varies from 20
minutes to half of the class, there is also a
variation in the belief about students’ expec-
tations. Similarly, there is no clear indication
if the survey presents correlation between the
belief about students’ expectations and the
preferable teaching approach.
The teacher’s responsibility is to cre-
ate atmosphere favorable for learning. The
student-centered approach requires minimal
teacher talking time which allows for students
to become active participants in the classroom.
Eliciting students’ responses and promoting ac-
tivities that encourage communication allows
students to integrate the foreign language with
their personality and to feel more secure while
using the language. Also, students should have
the opportunity to decide for themselves how
to express and communicate the given idea.
At the same time, speakers should be given
the opportunity to develop strategies for inter-
preting the language. In this way, students are
given the opportunity to choose which gram-
matical form they will use depending on the
social context in which the speakers are at that
particular moment. The speakers through a se-
ries of negotiations should be able to success-
fully deliver and understand the main message
of communication. The teacher’s role in this
process is to monitor and guide the students
in achieving meaningful interaction but in
the meantime he/she should avoid adapting
the role of a frontal speaker (Ellis:2014). As
previously mentioned, the aim of the survey
was to present the percentage of the teacher
talking time. Even though the survey indicates
that most of the participants’ answers dem-
onstrate that student-centered approach pre-
vails within which the teacher talking time is
leveled down to a minimum, the subsequent
questions reveal that this belief is not evident
in their teaching methods. This implies that
teachers’ answers of which approach should
prevail in the classroom is not justied by the
subsequent answers. Besides the opinion that
the class should be student-centered, teachers
lack the awareness that open-ended questions,
minimal frontal work and allocated answering
time. The discrepancies between the chosen
approach and its core principal indicate that
there might be a lack of knowledge of the main
teaching methods. Moreover, these discrepan-
cies could indicate that there are other factors
that inuence the teachers’ behavior in class.
To understand the teachers’ beliefs and how
the same are reected in the teaching practice
it can be concluded that a further research in
the eld of teacher’s metalinguistic abilities is
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
Andersen, R. W. (1990). A rational analysis of human
memory. In: Varieties of memory and conscious-
ness: Essays in honor of Endel Tulving (H. L.
I. Roediger, F. I. M. Craik, eds.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 195-210.
Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2014). From Mindless to
Ripp, P. (2014). Cultivating Passionate Learners in
Common Core Classrooms
Ellis, N. C. (2014). Implicit AND explicit learning of
language. In: Implicit and explicit learning of
language (P. Rebuschat, ed.). Amsterdam, Neth-
erlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, R. (2010). Second language acquisition. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Gass, S.M., Nehney, J., Plonsky, L. (2013). Second
Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course.
Abingdon: Routhledge.
Klein, W. (1986). Second language acquisition (Rev.
ed., Bohuslaw Jankowski, Trans.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Klein, W. (2003). Second Language Acquisition. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press, 8th edition.
Krashen, Stephen D. (1987). Principles and Practice
in Second Language Acquisition. Upper Saddle
River: Prentice-Hall International.
Larsen-Freeman, D., (1986). Techniques and Principles
in Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford Univer-
sity Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D., Anderson, M. (2018). Techniques
and principles in Language Teaching. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lightbown, M. L., Spada, N.(2013). How languages
and learned. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ripp, P. (2014). Cultivating Passionate Learners in
Common Core Classrooms. Education Digest,
80(4), 11.
Odlin, T., (1989), Language transfer. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Ourtega, L. (2009). Understanding Second language
Acquisition. Hodder Education.
Pavlov, I.P. (1927). Conditioned Reexes: An investi-
gation of the physiological activity of the cere-
bral cortex. Retrieved from http://psychclassics.
Saville-Troike, M. (2012). Introducing Second Lan-
guage Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity press
VanPatten, B., & Williams, J. (2015). Theories in Sec-
ond Language Acquisition: An Introduction
(Second Language Acquisition Research Se-
ries). Abingdon: Routhledge.
Billings, L., & Roberts, T. (2014). From Mindless to
Meaningful. Educational Leadership, 72(3), 60.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maxi-
mizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Soranno, P. (2010). Improving student discussions in
graduate and undergraduate courses: Trans-
forming the discussion leader. Journal of Nat-
ural Resources and Life Sciences Education,
39(1), 84-91. Retrieved from http://www.soran-
Termos, M. H. (2013). The Eects of the Classroom
Performance System on Student Participation,
Attendance, and Achievement. International
Journal Of Teaching And Learning In Higher
Education, 25(1), 66-78. Retrieved from http://
Vol. 2, No. 2, 2019.
... The methods used by teacher candidates to involve students actively can be identified from the time spent by teacher and student talking. In this study, a studentcentered approach was applied, which emphasizes student talking time as more significant communication in the learning process [15]. ...
... Since teacher talking time was more significant relative to student talking time, it can be said that teachers in all clips tended not to apply the student-center approach stipulated by curriculum [3]. A student-centered approach requires that students talk more than teachers [15]. However, the videos prove that teacher candidates talked more than students, which means that they adopted a teacher-centered approach as their teaching method. ...
... The components of student talking time. Figure 3 demonstrates that the variety of student talking components is less than teachers', which is likely to be the case when a teacher-centered approach is used [15]. Students answer teachers' questions is the most frequent component, followed by students' comments. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This study analyzes videos in which teacher candidates applied the 1994 Indonesian curriculum in the delivery of a history lesson during practice instruction. The curriculum was challenging to implement as it required students to master all the subject lessons. This in turn meant that teachers, including teacher candidates, had to perform a wider range of tasks. Simultaneously, the curriculum required teachers to choose a method that actively engaged with students. Therefore, this study seeks to identify the teaching methods that teacher candidates adopted. The study uses videos of teacher candidates delivering a history lesson in an Indonesian Teacher Education Institution (TEI). The videos were originally intended as a reflection tool. Nonetheless, they can be used as historical sources for pedagogical research, even if such alternate perspectives have been lacking. Moreover, history lessons have rarely been investigated using video analysis. Qualitative content analysis was applied. Using ATLAS.ti software, the teaching methods were examined by comparing the duration of conversation by teacher candidates and students. The results indicate that teachers dominated the talking rather than students, which means that they applied a teacher-centered rather than a student-centered approach.
... A wide range of research on the interactions between teacher-learners and learners-learners in different language learning settings indicates that teachers tend to dominate exchanges and that most of those interactions are ineffective (Donoso & López, 2020). Most of the time, learners passively listen to the teacher in whole-class sessions or work individually (Kostadinovska-Stojchevska & Popovikj, 2019). A participatory pedagogy based on dialogue as a tool for teaching and learning is not new (Mercer, 2000;Alexander, 2008). ...
... A wide range of research on the interactions between teacher-learners and learners-learners in different language learning settings indicates that teachers tend to dominate exchanges and that most of those interactions are ineffective (Donoso & López, 2020). Most of the time, learners passively listen to the teacher in whole-class sessions or work individually 178 (Kostadinovska-Stojchevska & Popovikj, 2019). A participatory pedagogy based on dialogue as a tool for teaching and learning is not new (Mercer, 2000;Alexander, 2008). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Assessment, evaluation, and tests are contested terms in education, where different definitions have been attempted without any achieving consensus. This is possibly one of the reasons why the topic remains interesting and current for teachers whose different views and practices have given rise to innovative approaches where the judgement of learners’ performance is much fairer, equitable, and reliable. In this article, assessment is seen as a cycle where evaluations and tests are set up at a particular moment to elicit a behaviour or a performance to measure learners’ knowledge, competencies, and skills against a benchmark (Green, 2014). The assessment/test distinction is of no minor importance: the meaning of assessment is more encompassing as it highlights its dynamic nature, characterised by continuity and iteration, allowing for reflection and growth (Fulcher & Davidson, 2007). Assessment is a continuous process where the boundaries between a start and a finish stage are not always clear-cut. Therefore, it becomes necessary to acknowledge that it is impossible to separate assessment from learning since they are complementary and cumulative. Additionally, assessment involves reflection, which is a crucial element of learning, mainly when the punitive part, traditionally associated with the judgement of an assessor based on grades and scores, is removed. The purpose of this article is to argue for the benefits of a participatory approach when designing assessment tasks involving the voice of the learners. This stance follows the premises of dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008), claiming that learning emerges from the interactions between teachers and learners where participation involves self-determination, exercised by promoting learner agency. As it happens in dialogue, learners and teachers actively engage in conversations and agree on criteria to determine performance as levels of success, with feedback used developmentally for learners to produce an action plan to improve their language performance.
... Although excessive TT has been criticised by many researchers (see Allwright, 1981;Kostadinovska-Stojchevska & Popovikj, 2019;Paul, 2003;Xiao-Yan, 2006), they do not advocate to minimise it as an objective (Van Lier, 2001). A number of studies (see Paul, 2003;Van Lier, 2001) have emphasised the effectiveness (quality) of TT. ...
Full-text available
This study investigated Teacher Talk (TT) quantity, TT quality, teacher questions and feedback to determine whether the teacher-student interaction practices in a Pakistani language classroom align with ESL (English as a Second Language) principles or not. For this purpose, two lessons in a Pakistani secondary level ESL classroom were recorded and analysed through conversation analysis (CA). TT was observed to dominate in the classroom. The teacher used display questions more than referential questions. There was a slight use of second language (L2) in the classroom that was limited to the use of key terms in the lessons. Feedback was romantic in nature. All of these practices were observed as less effective teacher-student interaction practices. Therefore, the study concluded that teacher-student interaction did not align with ESL classroom management principles. Since TT, teacher questions and feedback were the important forms of teacher-student interaction in an ESL classroom, this study suggested to manage TT, teacher questions and feedback in the Pakistani ESL classroom for effective L2 teaching.1
Full-text available
To build a culture of integrity in a HE institution, innovative approaches are needed to enhance education of research ethics and integrity (REI). In addition to educating students, understanding is needed on how to facilitate for those who lead others. The focus is on early-career researchers (ECRs) as future REI leaders. The current study sheds light on how learning and REI leadership competencies evolve during scaffolded collaborative research ethics training for this target group. The study combines new instruments as part of holistic DBR. Data was collected from 3 groups of experienced researchers attending 3 training sessions in the form of written group reports and group discussion recordings. Qualitative deductive analysis was utilised for monitoring the learning process, scaffolding patterns, and display of REI leadership principles. Also, quantitative analysis was applied to group discussion data, displaying the nature of collaboration. Results imply that collaborative case-based role play format is effective in training future REI leaders. All groups displayed high levels of understanding. Combining ECRs and researchers with leadership experience supported knowledge building in the groups by bringing in various perspectives. Even though groups required different amounts of scaffolding, the nature was similar: maintaining goal orientation, highlighting critical features and redirecting learners. Learning analytics of collaboration indicated that the person with leadership experience was not necessarily the most active participant nor took the role of a ‘group leader’. Still, it was mostly that person who displayed leadership competencies thus supporting other group members to develop leadership aspects.
Full-text available
This study aimed to investigate the amount of teacher talk, frequently asked teacher questions, and the quality of teacher talk in terms of facilitation to language acquisition in an ESL classroom. A teacher and 53 students of grade 10, from a public sector school, participated in the study. Data were collected for observation in the form of audio-recording and evaluated through conversation analysis. Resultantly, teacher talk was observed to dominate in the classroom, convergent questions were asked in maximum percentage, and teacher talk was observed being obstructive to language acquisition. These results lead to conclude that: classroom is dominated and directed by the teacher talk; content-based and limited response questions are in teacher's frequent use; and teacher talk poses hindrance to interaction and negotiation process in the ESL classroom. The study proposes to: create a right balance between teacher and student talk; make skillful use of convergent and divergent questions; and enhance the quality of teacher talk to facilitate language acquisition.
Full-text available
This 1986 textbook presents an account of the main concerns, problems and theoretical and practical issues raised by second language acquisition research. Research in this field had been mainly pedagogically oriented, but since the 1970s linguists and psychologists have become increasingly interested in the principles that underlie second language acquisition for the light these throw on how human language processing functions in general. Moreover, it is only through an understanding of these principles that foreign language teaching can become maximally effective. In the first part of his book, Wolfgang Klein provides a critical assessment of the state of the art at the time. The second part, 'from the learner's point of view', is devoted to four central problems which anyone learning a second language (either through everyday communication or in the classroom) is faced with, and whose solution constitutes the acquisition process. This accessible introduction provides students of linguistics and applied linguistics and anyone concerned with foreign language teaching with a real understanding of the fundamental issues in the field.
Written for students encountering the topic for the first time, this is a clear and practical introduction to second language acquisition (SLA). Using non-technical language, it explains how a second language is acquired; what the learner of a second language needs to know; and why some learners are more successful than others. This new edition of Muriel Saville-Troike's bestselling textbook introduces in a step-by-step fashion a range of fundamental concepts, such as SLA in adults and children, in formal and informal learning contexts and in diverse socio-cultural settings. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, it encourages students to consider SLA from linguistic, psychological and social perspectives. Providing a solid foundation in SLA, this book has become the leading introduction to the field for students of linguistics, psychology and education, and trainee language teachers.
Implicit and explicit language learning - an overview the unruly world of language the input hypothesis and its rivals a theory of instructed second language acquisition implicit learning and the acquisition of natural languages implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks implicit learning and the cognitive unconscious - of artificial grammars and SLA vocabulary acquisition - the implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive mediation second language vocabulary learning - the role of implicit processes animal learning and the implicit/explicit distinction - or why what we think of as explicit for us can be implicit for them differences between animal and human learning - implicit and explicit processes language learner and learning strategies neurolinguistic aspects of implicit and explicit memory - implications for bilingualism and SLA connectionism and second language acquisition universal grammar and L1 acquisition the metaphor of access to universal grammar in L2 learning universal grammar and language learnability the lure and language of implicit memory - a developmental perspective representation and ways of knowing - three issues in second language acquisition.
Accession Number: 2012-07127-000. Partial author list: First Author & Affiliation: Hattie, John; Melbourne Education Research Institute, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Release Date: 20120611. Publication Type: Book (0200). Format Covered: Print. ISBN: 978-0-415-69014-0, Hardcover; 978-0-415-69015-7, Paperback; 978-0-203-18152-2, Electronic. Language: English. Major Descriptor: Academic Achievement; Learning; School Based Intervention; Teachers; Teaching Methods. Minor Descriptor: Classroom Management; Meta Analysis; Preservice Teachers; Student Teachers. Classification: Curriculum & Programs & Teaching Methods (3530). Population: Human (10). Age Group: Childhood (birth-12 yrs) (100); Adolescence (13-17 yrs) (200); Adulthood (18 yrs & older) (300). Intended Audience: Psychology: Professional & Research (PS). References Available: Y. Page Count: 269.