Does “Experience” Bring about Any Significant Difference in EFL Teacher Talk? | Doqarun | BEYOND WORDS 1 SM
125
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
Does “Experience” Bring about Any Significant Difference in EFL Teacher Talk?
Vahid Rahmani Doqaruni
[email protected]
English Language and Literature Department,
Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Iran
&
Ebrahim Khodadady (Corresponding author)
[email protected]
English Language and Literature Department,
Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
The rationale for the present study is based on the fact that understanding the teaching process and the development of teachers is incomplete unless the teachers' classroom behavior,
especially their talk, is objectively explored. To this end, four male teachers offering En glish as a foreign language (EFL) were recruited and divided into two groups, namely inexperienced and experienced. To secure the objectivity in data collection they were observed
in their classes and one lesson of each teacher was audio-recorded. The audio-recordings
were then fully transcribed and analyzed through micro structural approach of schema theory. The approach is based on the assumption that any word uttered by the teacher represents
a specific concept commonly known as a schema. The schema enters into a hierarchical r elationship with other schemata to constitute species, genera and semantic, syntactic and
parasyntactic domains of language. The teachers’ talks were thus parsed into their constitu ting schema types, species, genera and domains and certain codes were assigned to them to
run statistical analyses. The findings showed that the inexperienced teachers significantly
outnumbered their experienced counterparts in all schema categories and thus challenged
“experience” as an effective variable in EFL teaching.
Keywords: Teacher talk, schema theory, novice and experienced teachers
Introduction
Teaching English as a second language
has witnessed an expanding development
(L2) in general and as an EFL in particular
and modernity in the last two decades. A
Beyond Words Vol.4, No. 2, November 2016
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
126
large number of books and articles which
Seedhouse, 2004; Thornbury, 1996; Walsh,
examine different aspects of teacher educa-
2002; Yanfen & Yuqin, 2010), little atten-
tion and behavior from professional, cogni-
tion has been paid to teacher talk from a
tive, social, as well as contextual perspec-
schema-based perspective.
tives is presently accessible (e.g., Bartels,
A schema is defined as a single or
2005; Borg, 2003; Burns & Richards, 2009;
phrasal word, whether uttered or written, in
Johnson, 2000, 2005, 2009; Richards,
an authentic text which comes along with
1998; Richards & Farrell, 2005; Richards
other words to be heard or read at a specific
& Lockhart, 1994; Tedick, 2004; Tsui,
place and time (Khodadady & Seif, 2006).
2003; Woods, 1996). The point of all these
In line with the previous research (e.g.,
studies has been to furnish us with a gen-
Khodadady & Eslami, 2013; Khodadady &
eral picture of what teachers do in the class-
Khosravany, 2014; Khodadady & Lagzian,
room. As Gatbonton (1999, p. 35) stated,
2013), this study analyzed teachers' talk in
"it is clear that these studies have contribut-
the classroom context by categorizing their
ed greatly to the current understanding of
spoken words into three linguistic domains:
the teaching process, its procedures and
Semantic,
methodologies and as a result have had an
They were further broken into the subcate-
impact on teacher training". However,
gories of genera and species to account for
keeping in mind the end goal to pick up a
their specific linguistic functions in teach-
more profound understanding of the teach-
ers’ talk (see Appendix A). The reason be-
ing process, these studies of teachers' class-
hind such an analysis is that "the ac-
room practice should be supplemented with
ceptance of schema as the building block of
studies of teachers' talk inside the class-
authentic textual products provides lin-
room context. Since all dimensions of
guists and language teachers alike with an
classroom process involve teacher talk and
objective measure to form their analyses
it assumes numerous parts in L2 class-
and
rooms, studying teacher talk has always
(Khodadady, 2008a, p. 434).
syntactic,
pedagogy
and
on,
parasyntactic.
respectively"
been one of the most vital parts of class-
Meanwhile it is interesting to know
room research (Rahmani Doqaruni, 2015).
that most of the previous studies have ap-
Nevertheless, despite the fact that teacher
proached teacher talk by using either expe-
talk has been of extensive enthusiasm for
rienced or inexperienced teachers as sole
understanding and attempting to develop
subjects. However, as Gatbonton (2008, p.
language
163) suggested,
teaching
pedagogy
(e.g.,
Chaudron, 1988; Cullen, 1998, 2002;
127
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
Although one can gather insight from
1.
Is there any significant difference in
novice teachers' thinking and behavior in-
the number of common and distinct
dependently of experienced teachers and
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
vice versa, examining both sets of teachers
domain types employed by inexpe-
together in the same study allows one to
rienced vs. experienced teachers?
compare them on very specific points and
2.
Is there any significant difference in
identify more clearly how they differ or
the number of common and distinct
how they are similar to each other.
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
genus types employed by inexperience-
Thus, the purpose of the present study
ed vs. experienced teachers?
is to address the association between teachers' experience and different types of sche-
3.
Is there any significant difference in
mata they use in their talk in EFL class-
the number of common and distinct
room contexts. To meet this objective, the
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
following research questions were formu-
species types employed by inexpe-
lated.
rienceed vs. experienced teachers?
Literature Review
The researchers have explored the rela-
with the experienced teachers who pro-
tionship between teachers' experience and
gressed more slowly. Akyel's (1997) com-
different aspects of their behavior inside the
parative investigation of experienced and
classroom context from different perspec-
novice ESL teachers demonstrated that ex-
tives in the field of L2 education. Mok
perienced teachers managed a more exten-
(1994), for example, conducted a case
sive scope of instructional options in re-
study with experienced and inexperienced
sponse to their students in contrast with
ESL teachers to examine their real concerns
novice teachers who translated learner re-
and changing discernments after some time.
sponses as deficiencies. In addition, it was
She identified five common categories of
found that inexperienced teachers favored
concern such as teachers' self-concept, atti-
the flow of instructional activities but were
tudes, teaching strategies, materials used,
worried about the suitability of their in-
and expectations. She also asserted that the
structional strategies. The findings were in
diverse views expressed by the inexperi-
accordance with the past literature as the
enced teachers on teaching suggested that
research in L2 teacher education had sug-
they gradually moved beyond the class-
gested that less experienced teachers were
room and viewed their profession in a more
worried about classroom administration and
extensive context more quickly in contrast
keeping up the flow of instructional rou-
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
128
tines (Johnson, 1992; Numrich, 1996).
results of her study showed that the peda-
Richards et al. (1998) were interested in
gogical knowledge of novice teachers were
how novice and experienced teachers plan
comparable to that of experienced teachers
the same reading lesson. They found that
regarding major categories such as lan-
novice teachers were not able to see the ad-
guage management, procedural issues, and
vantages of using a story as a part of a read-
handling student reactions and attitudes but
ing lesson because of their restricted com-
not in terms of details within these catego-
prehension of the nature of L2 reading.
ries. She then claimed that the fact that the
Tsui's (2003) study of four ESL teach-
novice teachers were similar to the experi-
ers with various levels of experience and
enced teachers may suggest that they had
expertise showed that novice and experts
already been in the process of acquiring
are qualitatively distinguished on numerous
many skills expected of experienced teach-
critical viewpoints such as planning and
ers. Pouriran and Mukundan (2012) report-
decision-making processes. In light of this
ed the findings of an empirical study that
finding, she proposed that one can form
examined whether EFL teachers' use of in-
hypotheses about inadequacies in the nov-
cidental focus on form techniques was af-
ice teachers' pedagogical knowledge by
fected by their level of experience. They
recognizing what parts of pedagogical
found that experienced teachers were dif-
knowledge are lacking in the novice teach-
ferent from less experienced teachers in
ers' repertoire however existent in their ex-
terms of type and frequency of corrective
perienced counterparts. This in turn may
feedback types they used in their classes.
lead to revising teacher training programs
Moreover, the results revealed that experi-
to fill the gaps. Mackey et al. (2004)
enced teachers used incidental focus on
claimed that teachers' use of incidental fo-
form techniques more frequently than nov-
cus on form techniques is affected by
ice teachers which has previously been re-
teachers' experience to a substantial degree
ported in the literature (e.g., Mackey et al.,
as experienced ESL teachers make use of
2004).
more incidental focus on form techniques
than novice teachers.
As the literature reviewed within the
context of L2 shows, despite the fact that
Gatbonton (2008) examined the cate-
teaching experience has been regarded by
gories of pedagogical knowledge of novice
applied linguists as an important variable in
ESL teachers and compared these catego-
language teaching, no study, to the best of
ries to those found for experienced teachers
our knowledge, has ever tried to explore the
in her earlier study (Gatbonton, 1999). The
relationship between teachers’ experience
129
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
and their talk in classrooms from an empir-
whether experienced and novice teachers
ical perspective. By resorting to the micro-
differ significantly from each other in the
structural
schemata they employ to teach EFL to their
approach
of
schema
theory
(MICAST) the present study was therefore
learners.
conducted to fill the gap and find out
Methods
Participants
The participants were four EFL teach-
the institutes in which they were teaching.
All the participants consented to taking part
ers who were teaching general English
in the study.
courses in two private language institutes in
Data Collection
Babolsar, northern Iran. All teachers were
To collect the required data for this
male and their ages ranged from 23 to 47.
study, one of the researchers observed the
The literature in L2 teacher education has
classrooms as a non-participant and made
revealed that experienced teachers are those
audio-recordings from one lesson of each
with many years of teaching behind them,
teacher. One class at pre-intermediate level
with many interpreted in various studies as
was selected from each teacher. Each class
at least four to five years (e.g., Gatbonton,
had between 10 to 15 students who were
1999; Tsui, 2003, 2005). Novice teachers
between 14 and 20 in age. A tape-recorder
are those who are still undergoing training,
was used for making the audio-recordings
who have just completed their training, or
of the whole class. An MP3 Play-
who have just commenced teaching and
er/Recorder was also placed near the teach-
still have very little (e.g., less than three
er in each class both to record whole-class
years) experience behind them. In accord-
interaction and to capture teacher's voice
ance with the previous literature, the partic-
more clearly. Using the above-mentioned
ipants' teaching experience in this study
method, seven hours of naturally occurring
varied from less than 3 to more than 15
data was obtained from the four teachers
years; two of the teachers with less than
participating in this study. The audio-
three years of pedagogical practice were
recordings were then fully transcribed and
labeled as less experienced and the other
analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
two teachers with more than fifteen years
Theoretical Foundation
of pedagogical practice were viewed expe-
This study employs the MICAST to
rienced. All four teachers had completed
explore the experienced and inexperienced
their B.A degree in English language and
teachers’ talk. It provides researchers with
gone through Teacher Training Courses in
a more precise tool for the analysis of dis-
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
130
The
pendix A provides the schema species and
MICAST treats single and phrasal words
genera semantic, syntactic and parasynt-
constituting authentic texts as schemata
actic domains employed by teachers.)
(Khodadady, 1997) and assigns them into
Procedure
course
than
other
approaches.
three main domains: semantic, syntactic
After transcribing the audio-recordings
and parasyntactic. Each domain is hierar-
of the teachers’ talk, their talk was broken
chically formed by its genera, which are in
into single word and phrasal schemata. Fol-
turn composed of species and types. The
lowing Khodadady (1997, 2008a), the
semantic domain, for example, consists of
parsed schemata were assigned to three
four genera, i.e., adjectives, adverbs, nouns,
domains,
and verbs, which are open in type. Similar-
parasyntatic. The genera and species of the-
ly, each genus contains specific species.
se domains (see Appendix A) were then
The genus of nouns is, for example, sub-
specified and codified in Microsoft Office
sumed under adjectival, complex, com-
Excel.
pound, conversion, derivational, gerund,
Data Analysis
i.e.,
semantic,
syntactic
and
nominal, and simple noun species. And fi-
In order to find out whether experi-
nally each species comprises schema types
enced and novice teachers differ from each
such as “age”, “belt” and “box”, to name a
other significantly in terms of the schema
few. The syntactic domain which is closed
tokens and types they use in their talk, Chi-
in nature includes conjunctions, determin-
Square test was employed. SPSS software
ers, prepositions, pronouns and syntactic
was used to run the statistical analyses. In
verbs. As the last linguistic category,
addition, the data were analyzed qualita-
parasyntactic domain consists of abbrevia-
tively to find out why they differed in their
tion, interjection, name, numeral, para-
talk.
adverb, particle and symbol genera. (ApFindings
General Patterns
Table 1 presents the domain tokens
the schema types employed by inexperi-
and types by teachers cross-tabulation. As
enced teachers (985) are almost 10% more
can be seen, experienced teachers have
than those of experienced teachers (811).
used
and
The difference becomes more obvious
parasyntactic schema tokens. This number,
when semantic schema types are taken into
however, rises to 6378 for their inexperi-
consideration. The experienced teachers,
enced counterparts. As it can also be seen,
for example, have used 93 different adjec-
5795
semantic,
syntactic
131
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
tives among which “good” has a token of
i.e., 108, but in less frequency. For exam-
24. Their inexperienced counterparts have,
ple, they have used “good” 19 times.
nonetheless, employed more adjectives,
Table 2 shows the number of schema
domain types used by experienced teachers
place. The fewest schema types employed
by teachers are syntactic in domain.
and their inexperienced counterparts. In
The data presented in Table 2 above
order to take into account schema types
also reveal that most of the schema types
common to both experienced and inexperi-
shared by both experienced and inexpe-
enced teachers and explore the significance
renced teachers are semantic (n=216,
of their difference, a third category was
57.6%), highlighting their superiority over
added to the analysis, i.e., common, as
their syntactic and parasyntactic counter-
shown in Table 2. The overall pattern
parts in teachers’ talk. The Pearson Chi-
which emerges from Table 2 is that the in-
Square p-value shows that inexperienced
experienced teachers have outnumbered
teachers have used significantly more se-
their experienced counterparts in all do-
mantic, syntactic and parasyntactic domain
main types. However, as can be seen, most
types than experienced teachers have
of the distinct domain schema types em-
(x2=1.522, df=4, p
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
Does “Experience” Bring about Any Significant Difference in EFL Teacher Talk?
Vahid Rahmani Doqaruni
[email protected]
English Language and Literature Department,
Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Iran
&
Ebrahim Khodadady (Corresponding author)
[email protected]
English Language and Literature Department,
Faculty of Letters and Humanities, Ferdowsi
University of Mashhad, Iran
Abstract
The rationale for the present study is based on the fact that understanding the teaching process and the development of teachers is incomplete unless the teachers' classroom behavior,
especially their talk, is objectively explored. To this end, four male teachers offering En glish as a foreign language (EFL) were recruited and divided into two groups, namely inexperienced and experienced. To secure the objectivity in data collection they were observed
in their classes and one lesson of each teacher was audio-recorded. The audio-recordings
were then fully transcribed and analyzed through micro structural approach of schema theory. The approach is based on the assumption that any word uttered by the teacher represents
a specific concept commonly known as a schema. The schema enters into a hierarchical r elationship with other schemata to constitute species, genera and semantic, syntactic and
parasyntactic domains of language. The teachers’ talks were thus parsed into their constitu ting schema types, species, genera and domains and certain codes were assigned to them to
run statistical analyses. The findings showed that the inexperienced teachers significantly
outnumbered their experienced counterparts in all schema categories and thus challenged
“experience” as an effective variable in EFL teaching.
Keywords: Teacher talk, schema theory, novice and experienced teachers
Introduction
Teaching English as a second language
has witnessed an expanding development
(L2) in general and as an EFL in particular
and modernity in the last two decades. A
Beyond Words Vol.4, No. 2, November 2016
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
126
large number of books and articles which
Seedhouse, 2004; Thornbury, 1996; Walsh,
examine different aspects of teacher educa-
2002; Yanfen & Yuqin, 2010), little atten-
tion and behavior from professional, cogni-
tion has been paid to teacher talk from a
tive, social, as well as contextual perspec-
schema-based perspective.
tives is presently accessible (e.g., Bartels,
A schema is defined as a single or
2005; Borg, 2003; Burns & Richards, 2009;
phrasal word, whether uttered or written, in
Johnson, 2000, 2005, 2009; Richards,
an authentic text which comes along with
1998; Richards & Farrell, 2005; Richards
other words to be heard or read at a specific
& Lockhart, 1994; Tedick, 2004; Tsui,
place and time (Khodadady & Seif, 2006).
2003; Woods, 1996). The point of all these
In line with the previous research (e.g.,
studies has been to furnish us with a gen-
Khodadady & Eslami, 2013; Khodadady &
eral picture of what teachers do in the class-
Khosravany, 2014; Khodadady & Lagzian,
room. As Gatbonton (1999, p. 35) stated,
2013), this study analyzed teachers' talk in
"it is clear that these studies have contribut-
the classroom context by categorizing their
ed greatly to the current understanding of
spoken words into three linguistic domains:
the teaching process, its procedures and
Semantic,
methodologies and as a result have had an
They were further broken into the subcate-
impact on teacher training". However,
gories of genera and species to account for
keeping in mind the end goal to pick up a
their specific linguistic functions in teach-
more profound understanding of the teach-
ers’ talk (see Appendix A). The reason be-
ing process, these studies of teachers' class-
hind such an analysis is that "the ac-
room practice should be supplemented with
ceptance of schema as the building block of
studies of teachers' talk inside the class-
authentic textual products provides lin-
room context. Since all dimensions of
guists and language teachers alike with an
classroom process involve teacher talk and
objective measure to form their analyses
it assumes numerous parts in L2 class-
and
rooms, studying teacher talk has always
(Khodadady, 2008a, p. 434).
syntactic,
pedagogy
and
on,
parasyntactic.
respectively"
been one of the most vital parts of class-
Meanwhile it is interesting to know
room research (Rahmani Doqaruni, 2015).
that most of the previous studies have ap-
Nevertheless, despite the fact that teacher
proached teacher talk by using either expe-
talk has been of extensive enthusiasm for
rienced or inexperienced teachers as sole
understanding and attempting to develop
subjects. However, as Gatbonton (2008, p.
language
163) suggested,
teaching
pedagogy
(e.g.,
Chaudron, 1988; Cullen, 1998, 2002;
127
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
Although one can gather insight from
1.
Is there any significant difference in
novice teachers' thinking and behavior in-
the number of common and distinct
dependently of experienced teachers and
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
vice versa, examining both sets of teachers
domain types employed by inexpe-
together in the same study allows one to
rienced vs. experienced teachers?
compare them on very specific points and
2.
Is there any significant difference in
identify more clearly how they differ or
the number of common and distinct
how they are similar to each other.
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
genus types employed by inexperience-
Thus, the purpose of the present study
ed vs. experienced teachers?
is to address the association between teachers' experience and different types of sche-
3.
Is there any significant difference in
mata they use in their talk in EFL class-
the number of common and distinct
room contexts. To meet this objective, the
semantic, syntactic and parasyntactic
following research questions were formu-
species types employed by inexpe-
lated.
rienceed vs. experienced teachers?
Literature Review
The researchers have explored the rela-
with the experienced teachers who pro-
tionship between teachers' experience and
gressed more slowly. Akyel's (1997) com-
different aspects of their behavior inside the
parative investigation of experienced and
classroom context from different perspec-
novice ESL teachers demonstrated that ex-
tives in the field of L2 education. Mok
perienced teachers managed a more exten-
(1994), for example, conducted a case
sive scope of instructional options in re-
study with experienced and inexperienced
sponse to their students in contrast with
ESL teachers to examine their real concerns
novice teachers who translated learner re-
and changing discernments after some time.
sponses as deficiencies. In addition, it was
She identified five common categories of
found that inexperienced teachers favored
concern such as teachers' self-concept, atti-
the flow of instructional activities but were
tudes, teaching strategies, materials used,
worried about the suitability of their in-
and expectations. She also asserted that the
structional strategies. The findings were in
diverse views expressed by the inexperi-
accordance with the past literature as the
enced teachers on teaching suggested that
research in L2 teacher education had sug-
they gradually moved beyond the class-
gested that less experienced teachers were
room and viewed their profession in a more
worried about classroom administration and
extensive context more quickly in contrast
keeping up the flow of instructional rou-
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
128
tines (Johnson, 1992; Numrich, 1996).
results of her study showed that the peda-
Richards et al. (1998) were interested in
gogical knowledge of novice teachers were
how novice and experienced teachers plan
comparable to that of experienced teachers
the same reading lesson. They found that
regarding major categories such as lan-
novice teachers were not able to see the ad-
guage management, procedural issues, and
vantages of using a story as a part of a read-
handling student reactions and attitudes but
ing lesson because of their restricted com-
not in terms of details within these catego-
prehension of the nature of L2 reading.
ries. She then claimed that the fact that the
Tsui's (2003) study of four ESL teach-
novice teachers were similar to the experi-
ers with various levels of experience and
enced teachers may suggest that they had
expertise showed that novice and experts
already been in the process of acquiring
are qualitatively distinguished on numerous
many skills expected of experienced teach-
critical viewpoints such as planning and
ers. Pouriran and Mukundan (2012) report-
decision-making processes. In light of this
ed the findings of an empirical study that
finding, she proposed that one can form
examined whether EFL teachers' use of in-
hypotheses about inadequacies in the nov-
cidental focus on form techniques was af-
ice teachers' pedagogical knowledge by
fected by their level of experience. They
recognizing what parts of pedagogical
found that experienced teachers were dif-
knowledge are lacking in the novice teach-
ferent from less experienced teachers in
ers' repertoire however existent in their ex-
terms of type and frequency of corrective
perienced counterparts. This in turn may
feedback types they used in their classes.
lead to revising teacher training programs
Moreover, the results revealed that experi-
to fill the gaps. Mackey et al. (2004)
enced teachers used incidental focus on
claimed that teachers' use of incidental fo-
form techniques more frequently than nov-
cus on form techniques is affected by
ice teachers which has previously been re-
teachers' experience to a substantial degree
ported in the literature (e.g., Mackey et al.,
as experienced ESL teachers make use of
2004).
more incidental focus on form techniques
than novice teachers.
As the literature reviewed within the
context of L2 shows, despite the fact that
Gatbonton (2008) examined the cate-
teaching experience has been regarded by
gories of pedagogical knowledge of novice
applied linguists as an important variable in
ESL teachers and compared these catego-
language teaching, no study, to the best of
ries to those found for experienced teachers
our knowledge, has ever tried to explore the
in her earlier study (Gatbonton, 1999). The
relationship between teachers’ experience
129
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
and their talk in classrooms from an empir-
whether experienced and novice teachers
ical perspective. By resorting to the micro-
differ significantly from each other in the
structural
schemata they employ to teach EFL to their
approach
of
schema
theory
(MICAST) the present study was therefore
learners.
conducted to fill the gap and find out
Methods
Participants
The participants were four EFL teach-
the institutes in which they were teaching.
All the participants consented to taking part
ers who were teaching general English
in the study.
courses in two private language institutes in
Data Collection
Babolsar, northern Iran. All teachers were
To collect the required data for this
male and their ages ranged from 23 to 47.
study, one of the researchers observed the
The literature in L2 teacher education has
classrooms as a non-participant and made
revealed that experienced teachers are those
audio-recordings from one lesson of each
with many years of teaching behind them,
teacher. One class at pre-intermediate level
with many interpreted in various studies as
was selected from each teacher. Each class
at least four to five years (e.g., Gatbonton,
had between 10 to 15 students who were
1999; Tsui, 2003, 2005). Novice teachers
between 14 and 20 in age. A tape-recorder
are those who are still undergoing training,
was used for making the audio-recordings
who have just completed their training, or
of the whole class. An MP3 Play-
who have just commenced teaching and
er/Recorder was also placed near the teach-
still have very little (e.g., less than three
er in each class both to record whole-class
years) experience behind them. In accord-
interaction and to capture teacher's voice
ance with the previous literature, the partic-
more clearly. Using the above-mentioned
ipants' teaching experience in this study
method, seven hours of naturally occurring
varied from less than 3 to more than 15
data was obtained from the four teachers
years; two of the teachers with less than
participating in this study. The audio-
three years of pedagogical practice were
recordings were then fully transcribed and
labeled as less experienced and the other
analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively.
two teachers with more than fifteen years
Theoretical Foundation
of pedagogical practice were viewed expe-
This study employs the MICAST to
rienced. All four teachers had completed
explore the experienced and inexperienced
their B.A degree in English language and
teachers’ talk. It provides researchers with
gone through Teacher Training Courses in
a more precise tool for the analysis of dis-
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
130
The
pendix A provides the schema species and
MICAST treats single and phrasal words
genera semantic, syntactic and parasynt-
constituting authentic texts as schemata
actic domains employed by teachers.)
(Khodadady, 1997) and assigns them into
Procedure
course
than
other
approaches.
three main domains: semantic, syntactic
After transcribing the audio-recordings
and parasyntactic. Each domain is hierar-
of the teachers’ talk, their talk was broken
chically formed by its genera, which are in
into single word and phrasal schemata. Fol-
turn composed of species and types. The
lowing Khodadady (1997, 2008a), the
semantic domain, for example, consists of
parsed schemata were assigned to three
four genera, i.e., adjectives, adverbs, nouns,
domains,
and verbs, which are open in type. Similar-
parasyntatic. The genera and species of the-
ly, each genus contains specific species.
se domains (see Appendix A) were then
The genus of nouns is, for example, sub-
specified and codified in Microsoft Office
sumed under adjectival, complex, com-
Excel.
pound, conversion, derivational, gerund,
Data Analysis
i.e.,
semantic,
syntactic
and
nominal, and simple noun species. And fi-
In order to find out whether experi-
nally each species comprises schema types
enced and novice teachers differ from each
such as “age”, “belt” and “box”, to name a
other significantly in terms of the schema
few. The syntactic domain which is closed
tokens and types they use in their talk, Chi-
in nature includes conjunctions, determin-
Square test was employed. SPSS software
ers, prepositions, pronouns and syntactic
was used to run the statistical analyses. In
verbs. As the last linguistic category,
addition, the data were analyzed qualita-
parasyntactic domain consists of abbrevia-
tively to find out why they differed in their
tion, interjection, name, numeral, para-
talk.
adverb, particle and symbol genera. (ApFindings
General Patterns
Table 1 presents the domain tokens
the schema types employed by inexperi-
and types by teachers cross-tabulation. As
enced teachers (985) are almost 10% more
can be seen, experienced teachers have
than those of experienced teachers (811).
used
and
The difference becomes more obvious
parasyntactic schema tokens. This number,
when semantic schema types are taken into
however, rises to 6378 for their inexperi-
consideration. The experienced teachers,
enced counterparts. As it can also be seen,
for example, have used 93 different adjec-
5795
semantic,
syntactic
131
EXPERIENCE AND TEACHER TALK
tives among which “good” has a token of
i.e., 108, but in less frequency. For exam-
24. Their inexperienced counterparts have,
ple, they have used “good” 19 times.
nonetheless, employed more adjectives,
Table 2 shows the number of schema
domain types used by experienced teachers
place. The fewest schema types employed
by teachers are syntactic in domain.
and their inexperienced counterparts. In
The data presented in Table 2 above
order to take into account schema types
also reveal that most of the schema types
common to both experienced and inexperi-
shared by both experienced and inexpe-
enced teachers and explore the significance
renced teachers are semantic (n=216,
of their difference, a third category was
57.6%), highlighting their superiority over
added to the analysis, i.e., common, as
their syntactic and parasyntactic counter-
shown in Table 2. The overall pattern
parts in teachers’ talk. The Pearson Chi-
which emerges from Table 2 is that the in-
Square p-value shows that inexperienced
experienced teachers have outnumbered
teachers have used significantly more se-
their experienced counterparts in all do-
mantic, syntactic and parasyntactic domain
main types. However, as can be seen, most
types than experienced teachers have
of the distinct domain schema types em-
(x2=1.522, df=4, p