Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
INVESTIGATING TEACHER VS. STUDENT-CENTERED
ELT CLASSES IN PRIVATE INSTITUTES AND AZAD
UNIVERSITY
Shatery, Hafez
Islamic Azad University (Sirjan Branch), Iran (hshateri@iausirjan.ac.ir)
ABSTRACT
The present study empirically investigated teacher vs. student-centered classroom interaction in two different
educational settings that are Private English Institutes and Azad University. The participants of the present study
were teachers and students in 20 EFL classes. 10 classes were selected from the Private English Institute of
Zabansara; another 10 classes were selected from Islamic Azad University, Sirjan Branch. In each of the classes
under study a total of sixty minutes of classroom interaction was tape-recorded, thirty minutes of which was
randomly chosen for the sake of the present study. The tape-recorded data were later analyzed based on Brown’s
Interaction Analysis System (BIAS). The findings of the survey were analyzed using SPSS software. It was
revealed that Azad University’s English classes were more teacher-centered than the English classes in Private
English Institutes suggesting that students in Azad University should have a bigger role in classroom discourse.
KEYWORDS
1. Student vs. teacher-centered 2. Classroom Interaction 3. Educational settings
INTRODUCTION
Interpersonal interaction is thought of as a fundamental requirement of Second Language
Acquisition (SLA). Many researchers have stated that language instruction requires the
development of interactional competence and interaction is a fundamental element of
language teaching for communication (Kramsch, 1986; Rivers, 1987; Ellis, 1988). The
interactionist perspective in SLA have considerably emphasized on the role of interaction in
general, and meaning negotiation in particular, with respect to the conditions which are
theoretically important for SLA. Pica (1994) stated that meaning negotiation, as a way of
modifying interaction, enhances SLA by helping learners make input comprehensible and
modify their own output, and by providing opportunities for them in order to access second
language (L2) form and meaning. In accordance with the interactionist perspective, the
conditions for SLA are substantially enhanced by helping L2 learners negotiate meaning with
either native speakers (NS) or non-native speakers (NNS) (Long & Robinson, 1998). It is
very important that L2 teachers construct an interactive learning environment in which
learners can communicate with each other in the target language and negotiate meaning by
means of interaction; the more learners participate orally and the more they engage in the
negotiation of meaning, the better they will acquire the language. Research shows that this
kind of learning may result in (a) higher students’ achievements and greater productivity, (b)
more caring, supportive and committed relationship among students, and (c) greater
psychological health, social competence and self-esteem.
1
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Observations of many different classes both in content area subjects and in language
instruction consistently show that teachers typically do between one half and three quarters of
the talking in the classroom. Several research reports indicate that the teacher dominates the
classroom discourse. Allwright (1980), using audio taped data from two parallel UCLA lowlevel ESL classes, concluded that the teacher has a vastly disproportionate number of turns
compared with other participants and that most of them have the function of "discourse
maintenance", that is, taking an unsolicited turn, when a turn is available. He added that the
teacher also does almost all the interrupting, and is even among those guilty of turn stealing.
Coulthard (1985) studied classroom interaction structure; he found that teachers dominate the
classroom discourse and students share a little portion of it. Shehadeh (1999) investigated the
role of NNS-NNS interaction and the role of self-initiation in providing opportunities for the
production of comprehensible output. He investigated the ability of NNSs to modify their
output toward comprehensibility in the context of NS-NNS and NNS-NNS interactions and
the degree to which such modified comprehensible output was other or self initiated. The
results showed that most repairs were self initiated and that NNS-NNS interactions produced
more other initiations and other initiated modified comprehensible outputs. He claimed that
the frequencies of these modified comprehensible outputs support the importance of
modification toward Gass & Varounis (1994) examined NS-NS, NS-NNS, and NNS-NNS
conversations. They observed that negotiation of meaning is most prevalent among the NNSNNS pairs. Similarly, Shehadeh's study (1999) showed that a greater amount of extended
negotiation work took place in NNS-NNS interactions than in NS-NNS interactions for the
modified comprehensible outputs produced.
Taken all of the preceding discussion into account, the importance of classroom interaction in
promoting students’ second language acquisition seems to be crucial. It helps learners in
general, and second language learners in particular, in the process of negotiation of meaning,
exposing themselves to further input, and in using the language communicatively both with
each other and with the teacher. However, research has shown that teachers monopolize the
classroom discourse, and pupils as a one-headed participant contribute little to classroom
interaction. In spite of the fact that many researchers have addressed the issue of classroom
interaction, none have investigated second language classroom interaction across different
educational settings, that are, Private Institutes and Azad University. As such, the present
study aims at investigating second language classroom interaction regarding teacher vs.
student-centeredness at different educational settings, that are, Private Institutes and Azad
University to see if the degree of teacher vs. student-centered interaction varies from one
educational setting to another.
METHODOLOGY
This study sought answers to the following questions:1) Do teachers show more initiating
behavior than students during ELT class activities at different educational settings, that are,
Private Institutes and Azad University? 2) Do students show more responding behavior than
teachers during ELT class activities at different educational settings, that are, Private
Institutes and Azad University? 3) Is there any period of silence or non-talk during ELT class
time at different educational settings, that are, Private Institutes and Azad University? 4) Do
different educational settings, that are, Private Institutes and Azad University affect the
degree of teacher vs. student- centered interaction in ELT classes? With regard to the
2
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
research questions, the following four hypotheses were set forth: 1) Teachers show more
initiating behavior than students during ELT class activities in Azad University compared to
Private Institutes. 2) Students show more responding behavior than teachers during ELT class
activities in Private Institutes compared to Azad University. 3) There are periods of silence or
non-talk during class activities. 4) The ELT classroom interaction varies at different
educational settings; in other words, in Private Institutes compared to Azad University, ELT
classroom interaction is less teacher-centered and students have a bigger share in classroom
discourse. In order to find answers to the above-mentioned questions, the following
methodology was used.
PARTICIPANTS
The participants of the present study were teachers and students in 20 EFL classes.10 classes
were selected from the Private English Institute of Zabansara; another 10 classes were
selected from Azad University, Sirjan Branch. The same number of classes in each of the two
educational settings was chosen so that the collected data and the findings of the study render
reliable results.
MATERIALS
Information obtained through tape-recorded data from classes under study constituted the
materials for the present study. In each of the classes under study a total of sixty minutes of
classroom interaction was tape-recorded; thirty minutes of which was randomly chosen for
the sake of the present study. The tape-recorded data were later analyzed based on Brown’s
Interaction Analysis System (BIAS) (Brown, 1975) (see Appendix 1).
INSTRUMENTATION
Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS) (Brown, 1975) was used as the instrument of
the present study. Unlike other systems (FOCUS, for example) which are unreasonably
elaborate for practical purposes and in which the researcher is called upon to identify, judge,
and record various events simultaneously, this system is fairly simple and can be usefully
applied to analyze verbal interaction in second language classes. In order to implement the
BIAS system, a tally sheet (see Appendix 2) is used and marked every three seconds for the
duration of the observation. Once the whole lesson has been coded in this way, percentages
can be calculated for each of the categories noted, and a
In order to determine the inter-rater reliability in the identification of different categories, a
second rater tallied 10% of the data (totaling 54 minutes) which was chosen randomly. This
was done because it was not possible for a second rater to tally all of the recorded data. Based
on Spearman’s formula for calculating correlation, a resulting agreement rate of 83% was
reached.
3
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
DATA ANALYSIS
As it will be discussed in chapter four, the percentage of time being spent in each category of
BIAS was calculated. Percentages of teacher talk (categories 1-3), student talk (categories 3
& 5), and silence (category 6) as well as unclassifiable (category 7) were calculated. The
frequency, the proportion, and the mean score of teacher talk vs. student talk were calculated
and compared to see if there was a difference in the degree of teacher vs. student-centered
ELT classes at different educational settings, that are, Private Institutes and Islamic Azad
University. Chi Square was run in order to spot the differences. Pearson’s Contingency
Coefficient was further run to provide the researcher with more detailed information about
those differences.
FINDINGS AND RESULTS
The first research question posed in the present study is on whether or not teachers show
more initiating behavior than students during ELT class activities at different educational
settings, that are, Private Institutes and Azad University. As Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1
(Appendix 3) show, it was revealed that teachers showed more initiating behavior in Azad
University compared to that of Private English Institutes. In other words, students showed
less initiating behavior in Azad University compared to that of Private English Institutes.
Quite the reverse was true of students’ initiating behavior. They showed more initiating
behavior at ELT classes of Private English Institutes, less initiating behavior in ELT classes
in Azad University. That students’ initiating behavior increased from one educational setting
to the other, is in line with Seliger’s 1983 study in which he showed that there seemed to be a
relationship between learners’ participation patterns and their progress in mastering English,
the higher students’ involvement in classroom activities, the more initiating behavior they
show in language classes. Students at ELT classes of Private English Institutes are more
involved in classroom activities, they have got a bigger share of classroom discourse and this
in turn makes them to show more initiation behavior in their classes.
The second research question investigates if students show more responding behavior than
teachers during ELT class activities at different educational settings, that are, Private
Institutes and Azad University. As Table 4.2 and Figure 4.2 show (Appendix 3), it was
revealed that students showed less responding behavior in Azad University compared to that
of Private English Institutes. In other words, students showed less initiating behavior in Azad
University compared to that of Private English Institutes. This is because when students are
more proficient, they are let into classroom activities, they have developed independence and
through time, they have developed more speaking skills so that they can take longer turns
while answering questions asked by the teachers. Quite the reverse is true of students who are
lacking of responding behavior. They don’t have the necessary skills to answer questions
raised by the teachers in longer turns and this in turn causes them to have less responding
behavior in classes. The differences in the means of responding behavior tend to support
Seliger (1983) who claimed that the more proficient learners have a bigger share of classroom
discourse than the less proficient ones. With regard to teachers’ responding behavior, they
showed much more responding behavior in ELT classes of Private English Institutes than
those of Azad University. The reason is that students’ more initiation in ELT classes of
Private English Institutes automatically causes more responding moves from the part of the
4
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
teachers. This is in opposition with Bellack et al. (1996), and Dunkin and Biddles’ (1974)
studies in which the students uttered most of the responding moves.
The third research question posed in the present study investigates whether or not there is any
period of silence or non-talk during ELT class time at different educational settings, that are,
Private Institutes and Azad University. As Table 4.3 and Figure 4.3 (Appendix 3) show, it
was revealed that there is no meaningful difference between Azad University and Private
English Institutes with regard to periods of silence.
The fourth research question was: Do different educational settings, that are, Private Institutes
and Azad University, affect the degree of teacher vs. student-centered interaction in ELT
classes? As Table 4.4 and Figure 4.4 (Appendix 3) show, it was revealed that English
classes are much more student-centered in Private English Institutes compared to those of
Azad University. In other words, English classes are much more teacher-centered in Islamic
Azad University compared to those of Private English Institutes. This provides support for a
number of studies like Musemeci (1996), Flanders (1985), Coulthard (1985), Tsui (1995),
Bellack et al. (1996), Dunkin and Biddle (1974), and Legarreta (1997) in which in
traditionally taught and handled classrooms, teachers dominated the classroom discourse and
students had a little portion of it.
CONCLUSION
The results obtained from the four research questions addressed in this study all pointed to
the fact that although interaction has long been recognized as a fundamental element in
learners’ language development, today’s classrooms in Iran, particularly those in universities,
have remained teacher-centered. As a concluding note, it can be stated that although it was
revealed that ELT classes of Azad University were much more teacher centered than ELT
classes of Private English Institutes, any generalization based on the results of the present
study should be made cautiously.
Appendix 1:
Brown’s Interaction Analysis System (BIAS)
TL
Teacher questions, about content or procedure,
which pupils are intended to answer.
Initiation
Teacher
Talk
Teacher lectures, describes, explains, narrates,
directs e.g., this is Brown’s procedure for coding
classroom interaction.
TQ
Response
TA
Teacher responds, accepts feelings of the class;
describes past and future feelings in a nonthreatening way; praises, encourages, jokes with
pupils; accepts or uses pupils’ ideas; builds upon
pupils’ responses; uses mild criticism such as ‘no,
not quite’.
5
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Response
PA
Initiation
PV
Student
Talk
S
Pupils respond directly and predictably to
teacher’s questions and directions.
Pupils volunteer information, comments, or
questions
Silence, Pauses, short periods of silence
Unclassifiable.
Confusion
in
which
communications cannot be understood; unusual
activities such as reprimanding or criticizing
pupils; demonstrating without accompanying
teacher or pupil talk; short spates of blackboard
work without accompanying teacher or pupil talk.
X
Appendix 2:
A Tally Sheet
Catego
ry
Tally
Marks
No.
Tallies
of % of Tallies
TL
TQ
TA
PA
PV
S
X
6
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
Appendix 3. Tables and Figures
Table 4.1. Initiating Behavior in Islamic Azad University and Private English Institutes’ Classes
Level of
Significance
0/000
Correlation
Coefficient
0/437
Degree of
Freedom
1
Chi
Square
2254/98
University
Institute
5325
2542
4453/2
3413/8
69
1593
940/8
721/2
Educational Setting
Teacher vs. Student
Observed
Teacher
Frequency
Expected
Frequency
Observed
Student
Frequency
Expected
Frequency
Table 4.2. Responding Behavior in Islamic Azad University and Private English Institutes’ Classes
Level of
Significance
0/000
Correlation
Coefficient
0/191
Degree of
Freedom
1
Chi
Square
81/493
University
242
Institut
e
503
Educational Setting
Teacher vs. Student
Observed Frequency Teacher
160/1
221
302/9
584/9
1188
1106/1
Expected Frequency
Observed Frequency
Expected Frequency
Student
Table 4.3. Periods of Silence in Islamic Azad University and Private English Institutes’ Classes
Level of Significance
Degree of Freedom
Chi Square
University
Institute
0/59
1
0/29
88
81
84/5
84/5
Educational Setting
Teacher vs. Student
Observed Frequency Class
Expected Frequency
Table 4.4. Teacher vs. Student centeredness in Islamic Azad University and Private English Institutes’ Classes
Level of
Significance
0/000
Correlation
Coefficient
0/437
Degree of
Freedom
1
Chi
Square
2759/03
University
Institute
5567
3045
4317/4
290
1539/6
4294/6
2781
1531/4
Educational Setting
Teacher vs. Student
Observed Frequency
Teacher
Expected Frequency
Observed Frequency
Expected Frequency
Student
7
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
6000
5000
4000
Teacher
3000
Student
2000
1000
0
Institute
University
Figure 4.1. Bar graph of Teacher vs. Student initiating behavior in Private Institutes and
Islamic Azad University
1200
1000
800
Teacher
600
Student
400
200
0
Institute
University
Figure 4.2. Bar graph of Student vs. Teacher responding behavior in Private Institutes and
Islamic Azad University
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
Institutes
University
Figure 4.3. Bar graph of Periods of Silence in Private Institutes and Islamic Azad University
1500
1000
Teacher
500
Student
0
Institutes
University
Figure 4.4. Bar graph of Student vs. Teacher centeredness in Private Institutes and Islamic
Azad University
8
Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference of Teaching and Learning (ICTL 2011)
INTI International University, Malaysia
REFERENCES
Allwright, R. L. (1980). Turns, topics, and tasks: Patterns of participation in language
learning and teaching. In Larson-Freeman, Discourse analysis in second language research.
Rowley: Newbury House.
Bellack, Arno A., Herbert M. Kliebard, Ronald T. Hyman, and Frank L. Smith, Jr. (1966).
The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Brown, G. (1975). “Microteaching”. London: Methuem.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An introduction to discourse analysis. Hong Kong: Longman.
Dunkin, Michael J., and Bruce J. Biddle. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Ellis, R. (1988). Classroom second language development. New York: Prentice Hall.
Flander NA. (1970). Analyzing teacher behavior. Addison-Wesly Publishing Co. Reading,
Massachusetts.
Gass, S. & Varounis, E. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition. 16, 283-302.
Kramsch, C.J. (1986). From language proficiency to interactional competence. The Modern
Language Journal, 70, 366-372.
Legarreta, D. (1977). Language choice in bilingual classrooms. TESOL Quarterly 11, 9-16.
Long, M., Robinson, P., C. Doughty & J. Williams. (1988) Focus on form in classroom
second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Musumei, D. (1996). Teacher-learner negotiation in content-based
communication at cross-purposes. Applied Linguistics, 17(3), 286-325.
instruction:
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second language
learning conditions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3). 493-527.
Rivers, M., (1987) Interaction as the key to teaching language for communication. In W.M.
Rivers, (ed.), Interactive language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Seliger, H. (1983). Learner interaction in the classroom and its effects on language
acquisition. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Shehadeh, A. (1999). Non-Native speakers production of modified comprehensible output
and second language learning. Language Learning, 49 (4), 627-675.
Tsui, A. (1985). Analyzing input and interaction in second language classrooms. RELC
Journal 16, 8-32.
9