A Case Study of Teacher Talk Types in Korean Elementary EFL Classrooms

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

The 7th National English Curriculum is based on Communicative Language Teaching that asserts the importance of enhancing (basic) communication skills. In order to help achieve that goal, the SMOE and other local offices of Education have started to officially employ native English teachers. The most effective way of identifying that policy seems to be to analyze teacher talk, because teacher talk is directly related to teacher variables and it has a great influence on students’ language learning.
The purposes of this study are 1) to investigate the differences and the similarities between the NNT-Only class and the co-teaching class, 2) to find out which type of class has more beneficial features in terms of communicative teacher talk. As an analyzing instrument, CLIA, which is adapted from FIAC and FLINT, is used.
According to the results, there were more differences than similarities. The similarities are usually related to input supporting teacher talk whereas the differences deal with interaction supporting teacher talk. Though the co-teaching class turned out to have more beneficial factors than the NNT-Only class, still both classes lacked the features regarding the communicative teacher talk. The results also showed the atmosphere in each class, the degree of rapport between the teacher(s) and students, and a limitation of the NNT-Only class.
To improve the effectiveness of the language classroom, regardless of whether it is NT or NNT, teachers need to be aware of how they use teacher talk. After that, they could improve their teacher talk skills by self-training or official teacher training courses.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• CHAPTER Ⅰ. INTRODUCTION = 2
• 1.1 Motivation and Purpose = 2
• CHAPTER Ⅱ. LITERATURE REVIEW = 4
• 2.1 Teacher talk = 4
• 2.1.1 The features of teacher talk = 5
• 2.1.1.1 Function = 5
• 2.1.1.2 Form = 6
• A. Questions = 7
• B. Directives = 8
• 2.1.1.3 Other features of teacher talk = 9
• 2.1.2 The traits of communicative teacher talk = 9
• CHAPTER Ⅲ. METHODOLOGY = 11
• 3.1 Research Questions = 11
• 3.2 Research Design = 11
• 3.3 Subject = 12
• 3.3.1 Teachers = 12
• 3.3.2 Students = 13
• 3.4 Material and Procedure = 13
• 3.4.1 Classroom observation (Videotaping) (June, 2006) = 13
• 3.4.2 Interaction Analysis (Teacher Talk analysis) = 14
• 3.4.2.1 FIAC (Flanders Interaction Analysis Categories) = 15
• 3.4.2.2 FLINT (Foreign Language Interaction) system = 16
• 3.4.2.3 CLIA (Classroom Language Interaction Analysis) = 18
• 3.4.3 Data Analysis = 22
• Ⅳ. RESULTS = 23
• 4.1 Similarities between co-teaching class and NNT-Only class = 24
• 4.1.1 Input supporting teacher talk = 24
• 4.2 Differences between a co-teaching class and an NNT-Only class = 26
• 4.2.1 Input supporting teacher talk = 26
• 4.2.1.1 The amount of English and L1 = 26
• 4.2.1.2 Correction = 27
• 4.2.1.3 Modelling & Orienting = 28
• 4.2.1.4 Citing instances = 29
• 4.2.2. Interaction supporting teacher talk = 30
• 4.2.2.1 Questions = 30
• 4.2.2.2 Directives = 33
• 4.2.2.3 Eliciting = 34
• 4.2.2.4 Praising = 36
• 4.2.2.5 Correcting student behaviour = 37
• 4.3 Etc = 38
• 4.3.1 Nomination = 38
• 4.4 Communicative features of each class = 39
• CHAPTER Ⅴ. DISCUSSION = 42
• 5.1 Research question 1 = 42
• 5.1.1 The use of echoic question = 42
• 5.1.2 The atmosphere of the class = 44
• 5.1.3 The sign of rapport, how to nominate = 45
• 5.2 Research question 2 = 45
• 5.3 Other factors to discussion = 46
• 5.3.1 The NT as a living component in a co-teaching class = 47
• 5.3.2 L1 in the English class = 48
• 5.3.3 The NNT's use of erroneous expressions = 52
• CHAPTER Ⅵ. CONCLUSION = 53
• 6.1 Conclusion = 53
• 6.1.1 Similarities and Differences = 53
• 6.1.2 Communicative features = 55
• 6.1.3 Suggestions = 56
• 6.2 Limitations = 57
• References = 58
• APPENDICES = 67