Name : Halawatil Iman

NPM : 1609200080001
Unit : A MPBEN 2016

My Research Topic :
The Analysis of Teacher Talk in EFL Classroom

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Walsh, Steve. (2002). Contruction or Obstruction: Teacher Talk and Learner

Involvement in the EFL Classroom. Language Teaching Research. 6, 3-23.

This article examines the ways in which teachers, through their choice of language, construct

or obstruct learner participation in face-to-face classroom communication. The author focuses

on the extent to which the teacher of EFL hinder or facilitate learner contributions by their use

of language, how they can enhance the quantity and quality of learner output by more careful

language use, and the ways of teachers deny learning opportunities by ‘filling in the gaps’ or

‘smoothing over’ learner contributions. Furthermore, the author states that the nature of

classroom discourse should focus on quality rather than quantity by recognizing the important

relationship between language use and pedagogic purpose. The author finds the features of

teacher’s language use which facilitate learner involvement and construct potential for learning

include: direct error correction, content feedback, checking for information, extended wait-

time, and scaffolding. Meanwhile, some of the features of teacher’s language use, found by the

author, which hinder learner involvement and restrict or obstruct learning potential include:

turn completion, teacher echo, and teacher interruptions. Therefore, based on those results

found, it becomes quickly apparent that some teachers consistently create opportunities for

learner involvement because their use of language and pedagogic purpose are at one; and from

the lesson extracts emerge a number of ways in which teachers can improve their teacher talk

to facilitate and optimize learner contributions. Finally, the articles conludes teachers’ ability
to control their use of language is at least as important as their ability to select appropriate

methodologies, has implications for both teacher education and classroom practices.

Incecay, Gorsev. (2010). The Role of Teacher Talk in Young Learners’ Language Process.

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2. 277-281.

In the article of Incecay, teacher talk is deemed to play important role in language teaching.

For this reason, the author are intended to examine the role of teacher talk in young learners’

language process which focuses on the construction and obstruction participation and learning

of young learners in Turkish context. In this article, several characteristics of the participating

teacher’s language use are identified. The identified categories are analyzed under two

headings: construction and obstruction by the author. The author indentifies the subcatagories

of constructive teacher talk which include: direct error correction, content feedback,

prompting, extended wait time, and repairing. On the contrary, the subcategories of the

obstructive talk found by the author are turn completion, teacher echo, and extended use of

initiation-response-feedback turn taking.

Rezaee, Mehrdad & Farahian, Majid. (2012). An exploration of discourse in an EFL

classroom: teacher talk. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 47. 1237-1241

In this article, the authors explore the quality of classroom discourse in an EFL classroom with

the purpose of analyzing the kind of teacher talk used by an EFL teacher and the type of student

talk with the teacher and the way they are asked to respond to the teacher talk (questions). The

authors states that teacher talk is very important issue since more than half of the class time is

allotted to it, and students can learn a lot from the class interaction held between them and

teacher to improve their language skills and acquire the second language. Moreover, teacher
talk can range from the questions, as one of the most common techniques used by teachers to

control classroom interaction, to different types of information presented by the teacher about

the course material. In particular, there are some types of questions asked by the teacher in the

class, based on the majority of questions asked, are: divergent, convergent, and procedural;

while the types of questions asked by students are: self-answer questions, volunteering, and in

chorus questions. Thus, the author found that the allocation of such time to teacher talk has

various advantages and flies in the face of the view whcih underplays the role of teacher talk

and encourages teachers to talk less. Meanwhile, it supports the claim that a skilful teacher uses

questions in his teacher talk both to get feedback from the class for what he has taught, get the

attention of the students to what he is going to say or do next, and gain the full control of the

class.

Yanfen, Liu & Yuqin, Zhao. (2010). A Study of Teacher Talk in Interactions in English

Classes. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Bimonthly). Vol. 33. No. 2

The authors of this article believe that the success of teaching depends to a large extent on the

way teachers talk and interactions that occur between teachers and students. The happening of

interaction is affected directly by ways of teacher talk. For this reason, the author investigates

the ways of teacher talk preferred respectively by teacher and students. This study, adopted the

“IRF” model of teacher talk analysis form Sinclair &Brazil (1982), where there are three moves

involved: initiating move (I), a responding move (R), and a follow-up move. Furthermore, the

authors describe some aspects which are examined based on IRF model, they are: question,

invitation, direction, inform, prompt, encouragement, criticizing, ignoring, acknowledgement,

and comment. The focus of this article is on the teacher talk in the process of interactions

between teachers and students. Thus, this study describe what types of language teachers use
to initiate an interaction and to follow up a student’s response based on IRF model which is

aforementioned. Finally, the authors found that in initiating an interaction, invitation is the first

preferred choice by both teacher and students, but the least employed one. Question was more

preferred by teachers and the least by students, but it is the mostly used one in class. Direction

is not preferred by teachers but more used by them in class, and students prefer them to

questions. In ways of follow up, when students produce no answer or an incorrect

answer, teachers usually prefer ways of prompting to get students to work out the answer

by themselves, and this is what teachers really did in class. However, students would prefer

to be informed by the teacher. When students have provided the expected answer, they still

prefer to be commented, rather than being just simply acknowledged. No matter whether

students provide or not provide the expected answer, encouragement is always welcomed.

Gharbavi, Abdullah & Iravani, Hasan. (2014). Is Teacher Talk Pernicious to Students?

A Discourse Analysis of Teacher Talk. Procedia- Social and Behavioral Sciences. 98.

552-561.

The authors’ purpose in writing this article is to analyze the teacher talk’s quality and quantity

within the framework of the communicative approach since there are many communicative

teachers consider teacher talk as an obstacle that restricts students’ learning opportunities. The

primary purpose of this study is to raise teachers’ awarness of the effectiveness or pitfalls of

their talk in classrooms. Moreover, the focus of the analysis consists of a typewritten script of

an audio-taped lesson of the communication which takes place during classroom interactions.

Furthermore, teacher talk is benchmarked in terms of its aligment or congruence with some

authors’ pedagogical recommendation and language theories. Finally, under this investigation
of teacher talk in the classroom interactions, the authors indicate that the teacher is not

successful to create genuine or authentic communication. The talk is repetitive and monotonous

and follows the IRF sequence which allows the teacher more turns and talk; and the teacher

talk is not consonant with theories of second language acquisition. The talk is hurtful and

stressful and it could block the learning opportunities of the learners.