The teaching of speaking in the EFL classes of Greek state junior high school

THE TEACHING OF SPEAKING IN THE EFL CLASSES OF GREEK STATE JUNIOR

HIGH SCHOOL

ABSTRACT

The present study reflects a renewed interest in the

issues of coursebook material evaluation and EFL

teachers’ teaching approaches in the context of Greek

state school education. The study sets out to investigate

how the teaching of speaking is administered in the

context of Greek state junior high school EFL classrooms

on the basis of classroom observations in three state

schools and interviews with the teachers observed. It

focuses on the speaking materials of the first grade

(advanced) coursebook for the junior high school,

launched in 2009 and how these are exploited in practice

in an attempt to draw conclusions about the achievement

of designated syllabus aims and outcomes. Interview data

complement observations as teachers reveal their motives

for following certain practices in their teaching. Study

findings indicate that even though teachers highly value

and prioritize speaking as a skill, they are negatively

disposed towards certain aspects of the speaking

materials design and consider syllabus guidelines

impractical. As a result, they supplement or change the

activities design to cater for the needs of their

students. The indicated mismatch between syllabus aims

and actual classroom practices in the light of teacher

approaches and fulfillment of proposed learning outcomes

signifies the need for a reassessment of the coursebook

speaking syllabus and suggests a more effective

cooperation between teachers and syllabus designers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Abstract

Table of contents

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

1.1 Context of the research and purpose of the study 3

1.2 Structure of the dissertation 3

Chapter 2: Literature review

Introduction………………………………………………………………………….. 4

2.1 Speaking knowledge and speaking

skill…………………………………………. 4

2.2 Communicative and non-communicative activities/

fluency vs accuracy……….. 5

2.3 The ‘speaking’ syllabus and speaking

activities…………………………………..7

2.3.1 Types of syllabi…………………………………………………………….. 7

2.3.2 Types of speaking

activities…………………………………………………8

2.4 The importance of teaching speaking……………………………………………

10

2.5 The process of teaching speaking-teacher

roles………………………………… 10

2.6 Types of speaking skills………………………………………………………….11

2.7 The Greek EFL context…………………………………………………………. 12

2.8 The EFL coursebook in junior state

school………………………………………13

2.9 The speaking syllabus and types of speaking

activities and skills in the first grade (advanced)

coursebook……………………………………………………………14

2.10 Teacher roles and the process of teaching speaking

in thefirst grade

coursebook…………………………………………………………………….. 15

2.11 Relevant studies……………………………………………………………….. 16

Conclusion………………………………………………………………………….. 18

Chapter 3: Methodology

3.1 Context of data collection and

participants……………………………………...20

3.2 Ethical considerations……………………………………………………………21

3.3 Materials Evaluation……………………………………………………………..21

3.4 Classroom observations………………………………………………………… 22

3.5 Interviews………………………………………………………………………...24

3.6 Ensuring validity, reliability and triangulation of

data………………………….. 27

3.7 Data analysis techniques…………………………………………………………28

Chapter 4: Research findings and discussion

4.1 Introduction- Data

overview………………………………………………......... 29

4.2 Importance of teaching speaking for teachers:

interview findings……………….31

4.3Exploitation of speaking activities and completion of

coursebook aims: observation and interview

findings…………………………………………………. 32

Chapter 5: Conclusions

5.1 Key findings…………………………………………………………………….. 50

5.1 Study implications and suggestions……………………………………………..

54

5.2 Study limitations………………………………………………………………... 55

References…………………………………………………………………………...56

Appendices

Appendix I: Classroom observations for Teacher

1…………………………………59

Appendix II: Classroom observations for Teacher

2…………………………………87

Appendix III: Classroom observations for Teacher

3………………………………104 Appendix IV: Classroom observations for

Teacher 4……………………………... 127

Appendix V: Interview transcripts………………………………………………… 136

List of tables

Table 1: Teacher profiles……………………………………………………………20

Table 2: Classes observed………………………………………………………… 20

Table 3: Codes for teacher actions………………………………………………….

23

Table 4: Codes for student actions…………………………………………

…………23

Table 5: Overview of findings for classroom

observations…………………………30

Table 6: Overview findings of

interviews………………………………………….. 31

List of figures

Figure 1: The communicative continuum……………………………………………5

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Context of the research and purpose of the study

In an attempt to implement the EU policies in language

teaching and learning, English language instruction has

been and is still considered of primary importance in

Greek state school education. English being a compulsory

subject from the third grade of primary school and

onwards, instruction is based on the syllabus and

courseware provided by the Ministry of education. Within

this context, Greek EFL teachers have to follow the

particular syllabus and the designated aims which are

expected to help students develop all four skills that

will enable them to become autonomous users of the

language in the future.

Yet, irrespective of what a syllabus prescribes, EFL

teachers have a decisive role as mediators of the

content. In this respect, it is significant to shed light

to teacher classroom practices to be able to track the

progress of students in different language aspects and

define specific learning outcomes.

There have been a number of recent studies carried

out for the Greek state school context some of which are

cited in the Literature review chapter. These studies are

mainly concerned with state school teachers’ beliefs

about certain aspects of teaching English as a foreign

language (see Sifakis & Sougari, 2010, Sifakis & Sougari

1

2005 on the status of pronunciation teaching, Griva &

Iliadou, 2011).

In addition, following the introduction of the new

EFL coursebook series for state primary and junior high

schools, launched by the Ministry of Education in 2009,

interest has been raised in the evaluation of coursebooks

(see Sifakis & Tsagari 2014 on evaluation of primary

school coursebook series).

This body of literature might seem sufficient enough

in that it covers and responds to important issues and

challenges EFL teaching in Greek state education is prone

to. However, a common element to all these studies is

that researchers have used a quantitative instrument

(structured questionnaires) to investigate the topic

mostly from the perspective/scope of the EFL teachers.

Teachers are either asked to rate their preferences and

practices in teaching on a scale or to agree/disagree on

particular given items.

Apart from the fact that questionnaires as a

research instruments tend to be closed (in terms of the

options offered), they do not offer teachers the chance

to provide detailed accounts of their teaching approaches

and the reasons for them. Precision of answers is

another issue as it is difficult to know if the teachers

have understood questionnaire items. In interviews on the

other hand, the researcher directly interacts with the

teacher and can use prompts or ask follow up questions to

trigger more thorough responses. This in turn leads to

2

data which is more detailed and illuminating. However,

teachers’ descriptions of their practices in interviews

cannot be said to purely reflect a classroom situation

unless the researcher gains a personal view of these

practices. Similarly, a closer look into the classroom

teaching can provide useful information about how a

coursebook is used in practice to address issues of

effectiveness.

On the basis of these observations and considering

the scarcity of studies which use other instruments other

than questionnaires, the present study puts forward

classroom observations as a primary method of data

collection. Observations combined with the data from

follow up interviews with teachers are expected to give

us a comprehensive picture of the teacher actions and

choices and the reasons underlying them.

The chosen focus of the study is speaking in the

state junior high school EFL classroom. Speaking tends to

be a rather neglected in state school education, partly

because of limited instruction time. Even so, given that

communicative competence in one of the primary goals of

any foreign language teaching there is a need for

investing in this skill.

To make any claim about the status of speaking in

this context it is necessary to look at how the teaching

of speaking is administered following the guidelines of

the coursebook for the junior high school (“Think teen”).

It is assumed that observation of how coursebook speaking

3

activities are taught and work in practice and

consideration of teachers’ attitudes to the coursebook

materials and aims will yield valuable information about

the functionality of the coursebook speaking syllabus as

a whole. More importantly, the study will highlight any

potential mismatches between what is expected in the

syllabus to happen and what actually happens in the

classroom reality. The results of this research will be

of great value both for syllabus designers and teachers

as a starting point for reassessment of the present

coursebooks.

The aims of the study will be investigated in terms of

the following research questions:

1. Is the teaching of speaking highly valued by

teachers and syllabus designers?

2. How do teachers exploit the speaking activities in

the ‘Think Teen’ coursebook?

3. Does classroom practice match the aims of the

speaking activities as indicated in the coursebook

syllabus and guidelines?

1.2 Structure of the dissertation

The second chapter of this dissertation includes

definitions of key terms which need to be clarified for a

better understanding of the context and the purposes of

the study. It also covers previous literature that is

4

relevant to the topic being investigated such as studies

focusing on the Greek state school context and EFL

teacher classroom activity.

Chapter 3 provides a description of the methods used

for data collection which include classroom observations

and interviews with the teachers. Reasons and rationale

for choosing this particular methodology and the

processes of designing and piloting the two instruments

are explained step by step.

Chapter 4 focuses on reporting the findings from the

classroom observations and teacher interviews. Emerging

patterns from teacher and student actions during each of

the observed lessons are analyzed to reveal individual

teacher approaches. Teachers’ responses to interview

questions are also categorized and compared with the

observed classroom activity to draw conclusions about the

issues in question. The chapter ends with a discussion of

the findings with an aim to provide answers to the three

research questions laid out at the beginning of the

study.

Chapter 5 begins with an overview of the most

significant findings. Implications for teaching and the

evaluation of the coursebook speaking syllabus which

arise from the findings are then addressed and the

limitations of the study are acknowledged.

Chapter 2: Literature review

5

Introduction

At this point, it is vital to outline and gain a full

understanding of some key terms concerning speaking and

the teaching of speaking in the EFL context before

proceeding with our research. This chapter briefly

introduces readers to important concepts in speaking such

as fluency and accuracy, different types of speaking

activities and their relation to the communicative

continuum, types of speaking syllabi and teacher roles

and processes in teaching speaking. The chapter carries

on with a presentation of the Greek state school EFL

context and provides information about the speaking

syllabus of the coursebook to be evaluated. The chapter

ends with an overview of relevant studies conducted for

the same context which have focused on teacher practices

in different aspects of EFL in the Greek. Finally,

attention is drawn to reasons for attempting the current

research.

2.1 Speaking knowledge and speaking skill

Bygate (1987) makes a distinction between “knowledge

about a language and skill in using it” (p.3). To speak

the target language a foreign language learner needs to

know a sufficient amount of grammar and lexis as well as

how to combine them to form sentences. However, speaking

6

is not merely a matter of putting sentences together but

also adjusting speech to different circumstances and

making the right decisions when conversing with other

speakers. Therefore the differentiation between speaking

knowledge and speaking skill is of great importance in

decisions about what to include in the teaching of

speaking. Bygate (1987) suggests that there are two basic

skills involved in speaking, the motor-perceptive skills

which have to do with the learners’ perception and

accurate articulation of sounds and structures of the

target language and the interaction skills which refer to

the learners’ linguistic choices to communicate

successfully. Interaction skills enable learners “to use

language to satisfy particular demands” (Bygate, 1987,

p.7). In this context we have to differentiate between

structured activities which help students develop and

practice speaking knowledge and activities which allow

students to build up the skills necessary for real time

communication.

2.2 Communicative and non-communicative activities/

fluency vs accuracy

Harmer (1983) underlines that for an oral activity to be

considered truly communicative it must have a real

communicative purpose. Students should be focusing on the

content of what they are saying and pay less attention to

the form of saying it. Their linguistics choices should

7

not be limited on the particular structures presented to

them in the materials but should be rather open-ended. He

proposes a communicative continuum with two ends along

which different activities can be placed according to

their purpose.

Generally, non-communicative activities tend to have

a special focus on form, practicing specific language

features. Communicative on the other hand, are usually

built around a distinct realistic purpose and students

are allowed to be charge of their own productions and use

more varied language.

Non-communicative activities

Communicative activities

Figure 1. The communicative continuum (Harmer 1983,

p.70).

Gower, Philips & Walters (2005) and Baker & Westrup

(2003) further divide speaking activities in terms of the

type of control into: controlled, guided and creative or

free communication activities. Controlled activities are

8

no communicative

desire

no communicative

purpose

form not content

a desire to

communicate

a communicative

purpose

content not form

usually drills (individual or choral) or written

dialogues where the form of responses is already provided

and thus the language to be used is designated by the

teacher or the materials. Most of the controlled

activities have “one correct answer” (p.44). In guided

activities, students are given more freedom to speak even

though the set of linguistic resources is still led by

the teacher or the materials. Students may need for

example to adapt a ready-made dialogue to their own

situation or needs. Controlled and guided activities are

set up to practice particular language items whereas the

free communication activities practice fluency skills giving

the students complete freedom to use and try out language

structures and manage communication themselves (Gower,

Philips & Walters, 2005 and Baker & Westrup, 2003).

Here it is vital to refer to the distinction between

fluency and accuracy in speaking. These terms are quite

easily distinguishable as both have clear aims and

functions. According to Brumfit (1984) accuracy “refers to

the focus by the user on formal elements of language as a

result of the pedagogical context created or allowed by

the teacher” (p.52). These elements are typically

grammar, syntax and pronunciation. Accuracy-based work is

usually in the form of exercises where the main aim is

the quality of produced language, the accurate use of

specific structures already taught. Fluency can be

described as “the ability to keep going when speaking

spontaneously with all available linguistic resources and

9

regardless of grammatical mistakes” (Gower, Philips &

Walters 2005, p.100). “Fluent speakers can express

themselves appropriately and without hesitation” (Baker &

Westrup, 2003, p.7).

However, we may often argue for an interactive

relationship between fluency and accuracy especially if

we associate with the speaking skill-speaking knowledge

dichotomy mentioned before. It seems thus that the level

of accuracy or in other terms the linguistic knowledge a

student has attained affects fluency (Chambers, 1997).

There is need to differentiate between the speaking

activities which aim at the development of accuracy,

correctness of grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation in

speech and the ones which expect students to use language

as fluently as possible with no particular focus on form

(McDonough & Shaw, 2003). The role of the teacher in

these two kinds of speaking activities differs widely as

well. In accuracy activities, teachers will normally

intervene to correct any mistake produced by the

students. To do so, they will use different techniques

such as on the spot correction, recasting the students’

utterances or providing hints so as the students will

correct themselves. In fluency activities on the other

hand, teachers will be much more tolerant to mistakes

concerning formal aspects of language and will not

interrupt the students’ flow of speech as this will

demotivate them and inhibit their autonomy (McDonough &

Shaw (2003, Thornbury, 2005 and Harmer, 2003). It is

10

thought that even when the teachers make some suggestions

to supply students utterances, they may “remove the need

to negotiate meaning denying the students a learning

opportunity” (Harmer, 1983, p.143). Fluency work requires

teachers to be as discreet and gentle as possible. Thus

they will intervene whenever is absolutely necessary, for

example in the case of breakdown in the communication or

to give a prompt whenever the students are stuck to keep

conversation going (Thornbury, 2005 and Harmer, 2003).

Providing feedback (on the board or individually) after

the completion of the speaking activity is also a good

way to point out important mistakes and help the students

learn from them (Thornbury, 2005 and Harmer, 1983).

2.3 The ‘speaking’ syllabus and speaking activities

Types of syllabi

The content of a speaking syllabus cannot be limited to a

list of grammatical and lexical structures to be taught

especially when the aim is the development of speaking

skills. The communicative approach which has been quite

popular the last years has brought about a new type of

speaking syllabus that can be described as “multilayered”

Thornbury (2005, p.116). This speaking syllabus has been

quite influential and has been largely incorporated in

many mainstream EFL coursebooks. Apart from grammar

components (simple past, future tenses, conditionals) in

11

each coursebook unit, the syllabus lists the different

speaking skills that are taught and practiced accordingly

e.g. how to make a complaint, how to discuss plans etc.

Some syllabi have a very detailed description of

different aspects of speaking skills taught in the

coursebook e.g. conversation skills may encompass

subskills such as supporting what to say, summarizing to

show understanding etc (Thornbury, 2005, p.117).

Other organization schemes for speaking syllabi

include the task based syllabus which is thought to

integrate other skills with speaking. Task types that

involve speaking among other skills are clearly specified

in the syllabus, for example surveys where learners

cooperate to construct a questionnaire or carry out a

survey, research tasks, imaginative tasks (Thornbury,

2005, p.119). For instance, a design task of this kind

of syllabus will have a clear aim: that is the students

work collaboratively on a particular topic (e.g.

environment), prepare and present their arguments to the

whole class.

In other instructional contexts such as English

classes for immigrants, a genre-based organization of a

speaking syllabus might be more effective. A genre based

syllabus will aim “to meet the practical needs of

students as they integrate in the target culture”

(Thornbury, 2005, p.121). Therefore, it will contain all

language and speaking skills students need to use in

12

order to operate successfully in different speech events

eg conducting a job interview, opinion giving etc.

Apparently, regardless of the approach adopted in

each speaking syllabus speaking skills are more likely to

develop when communication is a high priority in the

classroom.

Types of speaking activities

There are a number of different types of speaking

activities which can be employed in the classroom whether

coursebook based or teacher initiated or designed. Acting

out written dialogues in front of the class or in pairs is a

quite common controlled activity. Students are usually

given some time to prepare themselves or rehearse before

they perform the dialogue. Dialogues can be of great

value to beginner level students as “they provide them

with ready-made meaningful exchanges that can perform

fluently making them more confident about communicating

in English” (Ur 1991, p.125).

Other guided activities include information gap games

where students usually have “to work in pairs and

exchange information to solve a puzzle, give directions,

find similarities and differences in pictures, put things

in order etc” (Harmer, 1983, p.349) and surveys where

students have to fill in a questionnaire or survey going

around the class and asking each other questions on a

topic (Nation & Newton, 2009 and Thornbury, 2005). In

13

these activities there is a real need for communication

as the information gap has to be bridged in a way.

Simulations normally require students to get into a

situation or a problem and react as they would in real

life discussing suggestions and solutions (Gower, Philips

& Walters, 2005).

Similarly, in role plays students have to take on

roles of different personalities and act out a

conversation in various set contexts (McDonough & Shaw,

2003 and Gower, Philips & Walters, 2005).

Discussions that arise in the classroom are also really

important for improving language fluency. For example,

teachers may set up a discussion as a warm up for a

listening text or reading text to familiarize students

with the topic. Alternatively, they may ask students to

comment on a text after reading it to assemble different

opinions or encourage the students to express the views

and reach an agreement on a given topic. Students are

more likely to become productive when the topic is of

immediate interest or relevant to their needs and

preferences (Harmer, 1983 and Gower, Philips & Walters,

2005). Harmer (2003) suggests that engaging the students

in a discussion, having them play a role of someone they

could normally have as an interlocutor in an everyday

situation gives them the chance to practice real-life

events they will soon need to deal with once they are out

of the classroom.

14

Apart from designated speaking activities and

teacher prompted discussions, a lot of productive

speaking may take place unplanned. Unplanned

conversations may come up spontaneously at any time

during the lesson either when a learner has to share a

personal experience or during intervals between

practicing different skills (reading, listening) and can

be exploited as valuable opportunities for speaking

(Thornbury, 2005). Any point that could stimulate

discussion could be useful.

Ur (1991) suggests that a speaking activity can be

considered effective or successful when it adheres to the

following principles:

Students talk a lot which means that teacher

talk is less dominant

All students participate and contribute to the

lesson evenly

Students are motivated and engaged with the

topic

The language of the activity is comprehensible

and manageable by the students attending to

their needs and level.

(Ur, 1991, p.120)

Similarly, Harmer (2003) points out that students

can truly benefit from speaking activities and develop

oral proficiency when these are properly set up by the

teachers and are motivating enough for them to

participate and get practice. The kind of support the

15

teacher will provide at all stages is also of key

importance.

2.4 The importance of teaching speaking

Why is speaking the most important component of any

foreign language course? According to Ur (1991) “people

who know a language are referred as ‘speakers’ of a

language this implying that speaking includes all other

kinds of knowing” (p.120). We should also consider that

becoming a good English speaker is the key to

professional development and success. As nowadays the

majority of companies and employers internationally

search for employees with good oral skills, students who

have developed this capacity have greater chances in the

workplace (Baker & Westrup, 2003). Under these

circumstances, the achievement of oral proficiency in the

target language has turned into the primary concern of

most foreign language learners.

2.5 The process of teaching speaking - teacher roles

The key to successful teaching of speaking “is the way

teachers organize and respond to students’ work” (Harmer

1983, p.275). Normally, there are distinct stages in the

teaching of designated speaking activities: First is the

lead in, an introductory stage where the teacher attempts

to arouse the interest of students in the topic giving

16

information, relating it to the students’ experience,

asking questions etc. The next stage is the setting of

the task where the teacher gives instructions to the

students about what they have to do, checks for

comprehension and arranges the classroom accordingly (for

example for pairwork). Monitoring the students while they

are engaging with the task comes next. The teacher

supports students if facing difficulties and controls

their progress. In the last stage, the teacher gives

feedback for the students’ oral performance. Depending on

the type and the purpose of the activity, the teacher

will respond to errors on the content or on the language

that has been used to express meaning. In case the

speaking task is integrated with another skill, it may

lead to a follow up reading, writing or listening task

(Harmer 1983).

2.6 Types of speaking skills

As McDonough & Shaw (2003) suggest “speaking is not the

oral production of written language but involves students

in the mastery of a wide range of subskills which overall

constitute what we call communicative competence”

(p.133). The communicative approach to teaching supports

the view that “the structure of language reflects its

17

functional and communicative uses” (Richards & Rodgers,

2001, p.161). Under this view, speaking is always driven

by a concrete purpose and serves a particular function

that is either to express our intentions to do something

or thank someone for his/her help, find the solution to a

problem etc. For this reason, it is important for

students to build up a number of speaking skills to

become communicatively competent in the target language.

The Common European Framework (CEFR) provides a good

point of reference as it “describes in a comprehensive

way what language learners have to learn to do in order

to use language for communication and what knowledge and

skills they have to develop to be able to act

effectively” (The Common European Framework of Reference

for Languages, Learning, Teaching, Assessment, 2001,

p.1). For example, beginner learners of English will

need to know “how to use some basic greetings, say yes

and no, apologize, answer simple questions about

themselves such as where they live, people they know, and

things they have etc” (The Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages, Learning, Teaching, Assessment,

2001, p. 33). Learners placed at a Waystage level,

which is normally a level above, will need to develop

more complex skills such as “to use simple everyday

polite forms of greeting and address, handle very short

social exchanges, ask and answer questions about what

they do at work and in free time, make and respond to

invitations, discuss what to do/where to go and make

18

arrangements to meet or make and accept offers” (The

Common European Framework of Reference for Languages,

Learning, Teaching, Assessment, 2001, p.33). It seems

therefore that skills and competencies to be practiced

and learned are associated with the level of a learner

and new skills gradually build upon the current as the

learner advances from one stage to another.

After clarifying some important concepts concerning

the teaching of speaking in terms of speaking activities,

target skills and speaking syllabi we should now narrow

down the discussion to the teaching of speaking of

English as a foreign language in the Greek state school

context.

2.7 The Greek EFL context

Foreign language learning is a priority in Greek

educational system. English is the primary foreign

language taught in state schools and is introduced from

the third grade of primary school (around eight years

old) onwards. Typically, state school students receive

three hours of instruction in primary school and two-

three hours in high school. Private schools have

different norms concerning English language instructions

which depend on the policy of each individual school.

Even so, the situation for EFL teaching in Greece is

quite complex compared to other European countries.

19

The last decades there has been a great demand for

EFL students to get a certification of proficiency in

English as early as possible. A proficiency certificate

(C2 level according to the CEFR) whether state or by a

British-American University is seen as an essential

qualification and a prerequisite for employment or pursue

of a career abroad (Sifakis, 2009 and Alexiou &

Mattheoudaki, 2011). This view is backed up with evidence

from the students’ own perspectives as in the study by

Griva & Iliadou (2011) in which the “increased access to

professional opportunities” is stated as the main reason

for learning English as a foreign language.

For this reason, the vast majority of students, who

aim towards obtaining their first certificate (normally

of B2 level) around the age of thirteen/fourteen, feel

the need to intensify their studies by attending English

language classes in private language institutions or

receiving tutoring at home. As Sifakis (2009) notes “

since the dominant belief is that effective EFL teaching

should aim at helping learners to pass exams and obtain

certificates, it is assumed that foreign languages are

taught and learnt more effectively in private

institutions” (p.6). This view has largely underrated the

role of English as a school subject and EFL learning in

the state school context has acquired a subsidiary status

for students. State school EFL teachers often have to

teach mixed-ability classes as the level of the students

will depend on how much instruction they have received

20

outside the school classroom. Certain students may find

the first year in the junior high school “too easy”

whereas others will still have to cope with difficulties

(Alexiou & Mattheoudaki, 2011). The current status

English instruction in the state school is one of the

reasons that warrant this study and highlight the

importance of the findings.

2.8 The EFL coursebook in junior state school

To get appointed in the state schools EFL teachers have

to be academically trained that is to hold a university

degree in English Language and Literature. Until very

recently, the Ministry provided EFL high school teachers

with a list of state approved EFL coursebooks-published

either in Greece or Great Britain-and the teachers had to

select themselves the coursebook that would better suit

the needs of the students. In 2009-10 a new coursebook

series (“Think teen”) for the three grades of junior high

school was launched by the Pedagogic Institute, Ministry

of Education. The innovation of the renewed EFL

curriculum for the junior high school lies in the fact

that it provides schools with two coursebooks (beginner

and advanced) to account for different proficiency

levels. Thus for the first and second grade, students

have to sit for placement tests at the beginning of the

school year to be streamed on the basis of results into

classes of beginners (A1 level according to the CEFR) and

21

classes of advanced (A2 level). This way, the new

curriculum is bound to solve problems of mixed ability

classes where students with different proficiency levels

had to cope with the same coursebook and facilitate the

transition from the primary school to the junior high

school. The ultimate goal of the curriculum is to enable

students to reach the C1 level by the end of the third

grade of junior high school (Integrated Curriculum for

Foreign Languages, Pedagogic Institute, Ministry of

Education p. 1-45).

Since my research is small scale, I decided for

reasons of practicality and economy of time to focus only

on the first grade and the first grade coursebook for

advanced students. The advanced coursebook corresponds to

the A2 proficiency level of the CEFR.

The coursebook series consists of the teacher’s

book, the student’s book and the workbook along with an

Audio CD. The teacher’s book generally contains some

useful information and guidelines on how to teach each

skill in each unit. There are proposed plans of how to

introduce each activity and how to organize learners to

engage with it. Finally, the workbook contains extra

activities which complement the ones on the student’s

book and offer further practice.

2.9 The speaking syllabus and types of speaking

activities and skills in the first grade (advanced)

coursebook

22

In the introduction part of the coursebook, the authors

acknowledge that the Think teen coursebook is designed

along the current methodological and pedagogical

principles of literacy, plurilingualism and

pluriculturalism as these are established by the Common

European Framework of Reference (2001) and the Cross-

curricular UnifiedFramework (2003) (1st Grade of Junior

High School Teacher’s book, p.2).

Regarding speaking, the principal aim is to help

students develop communication skills that will enable

them to function in different linguistic environments and

achieve various communicative purposes (1st Grade of

Junior High School Teacher’s book, p.2).

In specific, the speaking activities of the coursebook

are expected:

to encourage encouraging pairwork or groupwork among

students and allow less controlled practice of

language as in the case of class discussion.

to involve students in performing roles for

particular functions eg through role plays.

to allow students to act as mediators when

interacting with monolingual speakers through

practice in mediation tasks.

to trigger genuine language behavior through the use

of games especially when there is an element of

competition “which can cleverly divert the learners'

attention from conscious learning to unconscious

23

language acquisition” (Krashen, 1982, cited in the

1st Grade of Junior High School Teacher’s book,

p.8 ).

to enable students to bridge communication gaps

exchanging or asking their peers for information in

information gap activities. These activities create a real

need for interaction and therefore bear resemblance

to real world exchanges.

to integrate speaking with other skills since

reading and listening can be used as a lead in for

speaking.

Finally, the authors point out that the speaking

activities practice “not only the transactional aspect of

communication, i.e. the exchange of information, but also

its interactional aspect, i.e. the creation and

maintenance of social roles (1st Grade of Junior High

School Teacher’s book, p.8).

2.10 Teacher roles and the process of teaching speaking

in the first grade coursebook

The coursebook authors provide some basic principles that

teachers should follow in teaching speaking to meet the

expected aims. The role of the teacher therefore is to

organize speaking activities putting students into pairs

or groups and making sure that the students cooperate

with each other in a constructive manner. Weaker students

should also be encouraged to work with the advanced ones

24

so that everyone participates and picks up something.

Confident students may also be asked to speak first to

act as models for the less confident classmates. A basic

aim for the teacher is to create a setting where all

learners will feel safe, confident and motivated to work

in (1st Grade of Junior High School Teacher’s book).

It seems that the coursebook authors place emphasis

on speaking suggesting that teachers should avoid rushing

speaking activities as time allotted for speaking is an

important part of the lesson. They also suggest the role

of the teacher as a monitor during speaking activities in

order to provide help whenever is needed.

Finally, the coursebook syllabus proposes a model

which emphasizes fluency over accuracy in speaking.

Teachers are expected not to correct on the spot and

resist intervening during student speaking time (1st Grade

of Junior High School Teacher’s book, p.8).

It is evident from what is mentioned above that the

coursebook syllabus aims reflect a communicative approach

to teaching speaking. Emphasis on less controlled

communication in the classroom and on genuine use of

language to serve a particular purpose point to this

direction. The syllabus also very clearly spells out the

different speaking skills students are expected to

develop at this level (A2) which are largely based on the

descriptors of the CEFR for the communicative competence.

Therefore, at this level students should be able:

25

to interact with their interlocutors to talk about

their everyday activities plans, hobbies etc

to describe their everyday habits (where they

usually spend their free time, what they buy etc.)

to describe a person (real or imaginary) using

specific lexical and grammatical features

to propose and discuss solutions to a simple

problem

to summarize the content of one or more texts making

use of the lexical and grammatical text elements

to be able to explain the meaning of Greek words or

sentences or give short definitions in the target

language

to listen to dialogues or read a simple text in

Greek and be able to answer simple comprehension

questions in the target language

2.11 Relevant studies

There have been a number of studies conducted for the

Greek state school context which cover a variety of

issues around English language instruction. An example

would be a study by Sifakis & Sougari (2010) which

addressed Greek primary and secondary state school EFL

teachers’ beliefs and self-perceptions about their

professional role and the implications for teaching. The

26

participants of the study were 388 state school EFL

teachers. The instrument used for data collection was a

questionnaire with items related to the qualifications of

teachers, their degree of mastery of the English language

and their beliefs about their duties as teachers.

Variables such as gender, affiliation (primary-

secondary), age and teaching experience were correlated

with the findings from the questionnaires to draw

conclusions about any substantial differences in

attitudes. Both qualitative and quantitative (SPSS)

analyses were carried out. The study findings revealed no

statistically significant difference between primary and

secondary school teacher’s beliefs. As a result, the

teaching context cannot be professed as a key factor in

shaping teacher attitudes towards teaching practices.

Perhaps here what is relevant to our study is the

responses of the secondary state school EFL teachers in

that we are focusing on the junior high school context.

It seems therefore that secondary school teachers

are highly concerned with the needs of weaker students

and try to be as inclusive as possible in their teaching.

Finally, coursebooks are highly valued for learning but

are not considered restrictive. Teachers report that

despite having to follow a set coursebook they feel free

to supplement materials to meet students’ needs.

Moreover, Griva & Chostelidou (2011) investigated,

among other issues, primary and secondary state school

EFL teachers’ beliefs about the most important skills and

27

leaning strategies students need to develop learning a

foreign language. The aim of the study was to reach a

better understanding of the teacher practices and the

reasons underlying them. Data were collected through

questionnaires with Likert-type questions which were

distributed to 150 EFL teachers. Regarding teacher’s

views on the teaching of skills the majority of teachers

prioritized listening and reading. However, speaking was

also valued. The ability of students to “interact and

exchange ideas” was ranked as the most significant

speaking skill to be developed whereas the practice of

role plays was also considered needed. Even though it is

the common feeling of all teachers that fluency in speech

is essential, teachers in secondary schools place tend to

give greater emphasis on the development of accuracy than

the primary teachers (Griva & Chostelidou, 2011).

Another important study for our research is Tsagari

& Sifakis’s (2014) evaluation of the new EFL coursebook

series for the primary state school introduced in 2009.

The aim was to assemble teachers’ views on strengths and

weaknesses in the design of EFL materials for the fourth

and fifth grade in order to better understand their needs

and identify areas for improvement. Questionnaires with

items covering design characteristics of reading,

listening, speaking, writing materials contained in the

coursebook and their relevance to students were

distributed to the teachers asking them to rate their

satisfaction and provide reasons for it with their

28

comments. The authors of the two coursebooks were then

interviewed about the rationale and expected aims behind

the design of the materials. They were asked to give

their opinions about areas which were highlighted by

teachers as problematic in the questionnaires. The basic

reason for that was to pinpoint any differences between

the teachers’ and the coursebook writers’ perspectives.

Teachers’ attitudes towards both coursebooks were

shown to be quite negative (even though the fourth grade

coursebook was more favored). Regarding coursebook tasks,

teachers report a lack of variety, unclear aims and an

increased level of difficulty for students of this

particular level. Coursebook authors on the other hand

seem to place great emphasis on the role of the teachers

in adapting or choosing the suitable tasks to meet the

needs of their own classroom situations. They favor a

differentiated approach to teaching even though no actual

guidelines are provided in the coursebook for that. They

most probably assume that every teacher can act

autonomously. However, they support teachers’

dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the materials

design stating a number of restrictions imposed upon them

by the Pedagogic Institute (PI). They also report lack of

communication and cooperation between external evaluators

of PI and the coursebook writing teams which accounts for

inadequacies in the design.

Tsagari & Sifakis (2014) conclude that “coursebook

writers bring to the coursebook tasks their personal

29

philosophies and theories which are not however shared or

understood by teachers who try to implement these

coursebook” (p.9). These contrasting expectations

actually provoke dissatisfaction among teachers.

Researchers also point out that policy makers, PI in that

case, in the attempt to ensure consistency of coursebook

material design with the CERF descriptors and current

foreign language curricula excluded the authors from the

decision making process. The failure to cooperate and

develop the materials in commonly agreed terms is liable

for gaps in the design.

Finally, they suggest that the first step should be

the alignment of policy makers’ decisions with those of

coursebook authors and the production of “a comprehensive

curriculum that draws specifications for different

grades” (Tsagari & Sifakis, 2014, p.9). Secondly, it is

essential to monitor the implementation of materials by

teachers, consider their needs and provide guidance and

training where needed. Learners’ response to the

materials should also be taken into account.

Conclusion

The existing literature discussed above provides

interesting insights into teachers’ choices and

underlying attitudes in the EFL state school classroom

and more importantly stresses the need for consistency

between the various stakeholders involved in courseware

development and implementation. It also leaves space for

30

further exploration of the issue of consistency in

specific domains (in that case speaking) from another

scope.

In particular, what needs to be investigated is

whether the aims and expected learning outcomes for

speaking in the first grade EFL coursebook are actually

attained in classroom practice. Answering this question

on the basis of teacher perspectives and actual

observation of how the teaching of speaking is carried

out will enable us to draw some conclusions about the

effectiveness of the speaking activities and the design

of the speaking syllabus as a whole. To this end,

classroom observations and interviews with the teachers

will be conducted and data will be collected for further

analysis. A more detailed description of these two

instruments used in the research can be found in the

Methodology Chapter.

31

Chapter 3 Methodology

3.1 Context of data collection and participants

Considering that the research aim is to gain an insight

into the EFL teaching in the state education, only state

school teachers were selected to participate in the

study. The participants were five Greek EFL teachers

working in junior high state schools in Thessaloniki,

Southern Greece. Four of the five teachers were observed

while teaching and then interviewed and one was

interviewed over the telephone. All of the teachers had a

degree in English Language and Literature from a Greek

University. The profiles of the teachers and the number

of students in the classes observed are illustrated in

the tables below.

Teacher Gender Years of

32

teaching

experience Teacher 1 Male 22 Teacher 2 Female 20Teacher 3 Female 20Teacher 4 Male 27Teacher 5 Female 20

Table 1. Teacher profiles

Class Number of

studentsClass1 23Class 2 25Class 3 9Class 4 10Class 5 3

Table 2. Classes observed

It should be noted here that two of the five teachers

work in experimental state high schools, schools which

are distinguished for their innovative curriculum and

“best practices”. Experimental schools have close ties

with Universities and research is being conducted so that

mainstream educational innovations are piloted in the

classrooms. Students enter these schools after taking

33

exams in Maths, Language and other subjects including

English.

3.2 Ethical considerations

The teachers who participated in the study and whose

classes were observed were acquaintances of my relatives

and were contacted after permission was granted by the

directors of each school. They were interviewed during

the break between classes or after their last class at

the end of the school day.

To account for all ethical issues involved in

research with human participants, an ethical approval

form, approved and signed by the Ethics Officer of the

University of Essex was handed out to all school

directors. This document includes the title of the study

and briefly describes all processes by which anonymity of

the subjects taking part in the study and confidentiality

of the data collected is to be maintained. According to

Cohen et al. (2007) “anonymity is ensured by not using

the names of the participants or other personal means of

identification” (p.91) whereas confidentiality refers to

keeping the participants’ personal information private.

For this reason, numbers were assigned to each teacher

(Teacher 1, Teacher 2 etc). In addition, before being

interviewed, all teachers were requested to give their

consent to the process by signing a consent form. The

form informs the participants about the aims of the study

34

and their rights (eg. the right to withdraw from the

study) and guarantees that answers will be held

confidential and the participants’ identity will not be

traceable.

3.3 Materials evaluation  

Before proceeding to the observations and interviews, I

completed an evaluation of the coursebook speaking

syllabus and activities. I created a grid where I made an

account of the speaking activities of the coursebook and

the expected aims and outcomes. I also examined the

overall objectives of the syllabus for the development of

different speaking skills and the guidelines for teachers

to teach speaking. All these are described in the

literature review chapter. The reason for such an

evaluation was to become aware of the way activities are

supposed to be presented and practiced in order to have a

reference point for comparisons to my observations.

3.4 Classroom observations

The first instrument used for the collection of data was

classroom observations. I went to three state schools and

observed the first grade’s class. In one of the schools

there were two groups for the first grade (the beginner

and the advanced) so I observed both groups. The other

two schools had only an advanced group. The reason I

35

decided to observe the beginner group as well is that in

that particular school EFL teachers and the director have

decided to use the advanced coursebook (A2) for the

beginner group only slowing it down to match the lower

level of the students. Thus, I thought it would be

interesting to find out how the coursebook under study

works with the beginner level.

The main advantage of using observation as a primary

instrument is that “it offers the investigator the

opportunity to gather live data from naturally occurring

situations without him having to rely on second hand

accounts” (Cohen et al., 2011, p.457). In this sense, an

immediate observation is more likely to yield authentic

data which will in turn substantiate the validity of the

findings and the results of the research. In addition,

being an actual observer of a classroom incident, the

researcher is able to discover aspects of teaching that

the teachers would not feel secure enough to talk about

or justify in interviews in fear of losing face. As Cohen

et al. (2011) suggests, observation helps the researcher

“to move beyond perception-based data and access personal

knowledge” (p. 456).

Before conducting the observations I had constructed

a structured observation form to report the teacher and

student actions during speaking activities to find out

how speaking is taught in the classroom and if the

expected learning outcomes (as specified in the syllabus)

are apparently met. More specifically, I created a list

36

of codes for various teacher and student actions based on

relevant literature on the teaching of speaking (see

Harmer, 1983).

The codes are:

Symbols Description

G

V

P

Giving explanations about grammar

Giving explanations about

vocabulary

Giving explanations about

pronunciationI Giving instructions about the

activityE

Q

N

Eliciting language or opinions

Asking questions

Nominating individual students to

answer a questionEx

Pr

Giving examples

Prompting, offering suggestions to

help studentsC Correcting the students’ utterances

instantlyM Monitoring the students while they

are working on the activityF Providing feedback about the

student performance

37

Table 3. Codes for teacher actions

Symbols DescriptionL Listening to the

instructions/explanations/examplesR

(R)

ra

Responding

Responding in Greek

Reading aloudQ

(Q)

In

Asking questions about the activity

Asking questions about the activity

in Greek

Starting an interaction with a

commentPI

(PI)

PF

(PF)

Students working/interacting in

pairs

Students working/interacting in

pairs in Greek

Peer feedback

Peer feedback in Greek

Table 4. Codes for student actions

I was planning to use the table in the observation form

to code teacher and student actions during observing.

Time allotted for each of these actions would also be

noted down. The observation form was then piloted in an

EFL classroom of colleague teacher. The purpose was to

test how the observation form would be used in real time.

The EFL classroom was of mixed cultural backgrounds and

38

was preparing to sit for the IELTS exam. I observed the

speaking practice part of the lesson. The piloting of the

form highlighted some practical issues such as the timing

of the teacher-student activity. I found out that it

would be too difficult to catch up with the lesson and

note down codes for different activities at the same

time. I decided to slightly change my plan and

audiorecord the lessons I would be observing upon the

informed consent of the teachers. As a result, I finally

observed the lessons keeping field notes while recording.

Making field notes ensured that no important aspect

of the lesson went missed. They served as “first-hand

information and aide-memoire to be studied conveniently

at a later time” (Hopkins, 1985, p.103). The combination

of both recording and keeping notes reduced the

subjectivity of the observation. During the observation,

I also highlighted specific points of the lesson or

specific teacher attitudes which I asked the teachers to

justify in the interviews that followed.

3.5 Interviews

Interviews with teachers were conducted after the

observations in each class were completed. Four of the

teachers were interviewed in person and one was

interviewed over the phone as face to face communication

was not possible at that time. All interviews were

recorded in order to be transcribed and processed.

Teachers had to answer eight questions. The first two

39

were personal or factual and the rest of them were content

questions followed by various probes to enable teachers to

elaborate on certain aspects and “increase the richness

and depth of responses” (Dörney, 2007, p. 138). The

interview questions are cited below:

1. How long have you been teaching English?

2. How long have you been using the ‘Think Teen’

coursebooks? Which levels? (A1? A2? B1?).

3. Which of these skill and knowledge areas does your

coursebook help to improve? Listening? Speaking?

Reading? Writing? Grammar? Vocabulary?

Pronunciation?

Prompts: In general? In this particular lesson?

4. What is your opinion concerning the speaking

activities in your coursebook? For example… Prompt 1:

do your students have any difficulties understanding aims and

instructions?

Prompt 2: which types of speaking activities do they find most difficult?

Why?

Prompt 3: Are these speaking activities usually integrated or stand-

alone?

Prompt 4: Do you think the activities help to improve their spoken

fluency? And what about accuracy?

40

5. Could you please rate some of these factors on a

scale of 1-5 with 5 being the most positive.

Relevance to their needs

Level of interest

Appopriate level of difficulty

Clear aims

Clear instructions

Integration with other activities

6. Do you supplement the speaking activities in the

coursebook? How and why?

Prompts: Did you do this for this particular lesson? Did you add any

materials? Did you change anything?

7. Do you usually allow them to use Greek during

speaking activities? Why/why not?

Prompts: What happened in this lesson?

8. How important is it for your students to develop

their spoken English? And how important is it for

you as their teacher to help them do this?

The reasons that warranted the choice of interviews

instead of questionnaires to assemble teachers’ views on

the teaching of speaking are rather practical. It’s a

fact that questionnaires are fairly easier to fill in and

are usually less time consuming for respondents. However,

in questionnaires “it is difficult to include questions

41

that explore an issue in depth and the quality of the

answers depends a lot on the comprehension of the item by

the respondent as certain items may have different

meaning for different people” (Hopkins, 1985, p. 113). In

an interview, the researcher can make sure that responses

are as explicit and detailed as possible by extensively

asking and probing the respondents or clarifying key

items to avoid miscomprehension (Cohen et al., 2011). In

addition, questionnaires tend to be fixed in that

questions cannot be supplemented or changed after a

classroom observation whereas post-observation follow up

questions can be added in to an interview to draw

attention to specific points in the lesson. Interviews

are direct, personalized and dynamic and therefore

constitute a more accurate research technique for

understanding teachers’ attitudes and motivations for

their practices.

The interview questions were designed on the basis of the

research questions each one addressing the issues under

study. In short, they can be categorized thematically in

the following way:

a) teaching experience and affiliation with the first

grade advanced coursebook

b) teacher views on the effectiveness of the coursebook

overall

c) teacher views on the effectiveness of coursebook

speaking activities

42

d) supplementing of coursebook activities

e) use of the target language during speaking

activities

f) teacher views on the importance of teaching speaking

and the development of spoken fluency for students

Interview findings for these categories, especially these

concerning teacher practices in the classroom will be

compared and contrasted with data from observations data

in order to construct a picture of the way teaching of

speaking is administered in the classroom and the reasons

for that.

3.6 Ensuring validity, reliability and triangulation of

data

Overall, the study draws upon three sources of data to

answer the research questions laid in the first chapter:

coursebook materials evaluation, observation data and

interview data. This combined use of two or more methods

of data collection is defined as triangulation (Cohen et

al. 2011, p.195). Triangulation helps researchers

generate multiple perspectives on the questions under

study and triangulated findings can yield more valid

result than the use of a single method. In this case, the

Ministry viewpoint emerging from an evaluation of the

coursebook speaking syllabus is compared with the

43

viewpoint of the teachers in the interviews and the

viewpoint of the researcher as an observer of teacher

classroom practices.

Another effective way to demonstrate validity in

qualitative research is the piloting of instruments.

Piloting forms an important stage of the research as

“there is need to ensure the high quality of an

instrument (in terms of reliability and validity) of the

outcomes in the specific context” (Dörney, 2003, p.75).

As mentioned above, the observation form was piloted to a

speaking class in order to be tested in real time and it

was found to be rather dysfunctional and difficult to

fill in. This lead to a change in the method design and

an audiorecording of the lesson was used in place. In

addition, even though interview questions were not

piloted, there was an attempt to minimize unreliability

in the responses of the teachers by conducting the

interviews after the classroom observation. The most

prominent weakness of interviewing is that respondents

and especially teachers may often try to tell researchers

what they want to hear or present an idealized version of

what they do in the classroom in fear of losing face or

their status. This can lead to data that is inevitably

unreliable or that is contradicting the real practices of

the teachers (Roulston, 2010). Observing the teachers in

real practice and asking them about their actions in the

follow up interviews accounted for this phenomenon.

44

3.7 Data analysis techniques

Observations

As mentioned above, for the purposes of the research a

number of structured observations were carried out. These

observations were systematic in that decisions about what

to record were made a priori and preplanned

“observational categories or coding schemes” (McDonough &

McDonough, 1997 p.105) were used for that matter. The

use of a coding system whether in real time or on a

recording is “ a good way of separating significant

events from the mass of data, spotting patterns and

interpreting the structure of what has been observed”

(McDonough & McDonough, 1997, p. 107). In addition,

coding of classroom behavior facilitates the reduction

and analysis of data.

As a result, transcripts of the recordings of the

lessons supplemented by field notes were studied

carefully and set codes were assigned to student and

teacher activity in the classroom. Coded transcripts were

then used to discover specific patterns for teaching

speaking characteristic to each teacher. Findings from

the analysis are expected to be illuminative for the

45

practices of teachers as opposed to the syllabus and

teacher guide specifications for the teaching of

speaking.

Interviews

Once the interviews were transcribed a content analysis

was carried out with an aim to reduce the data to what is

important for answering the research questions. Content

analysis involved reading of all responses and

categorizing or coding them. Coding is defined by

Kerlinger (1970) as the translation of question responses

and respondent information to specific categories for the

purpose of the analysis (cited in Cohen et al., 2011,

p.428). As a result, specific pieces of data from

teacher responses were slotted into the corresponding

categories labels described above (see Appendix V)

The triangulation of data from different sources enabled

us to hand over to the findings of which are presented in

the chapter that follows.

Chapter 4: Research findings and discussion

4.1 Introduction-Data overview

46

In this chapter data from both observations and

interviews are reported, reduced, analyzed and finally

compared to provide answers to the research questions.

Detailed lesson transcripts can be found in Appendices I-

IV and interview data tables in Appendix V.

Observations

As mentioned earlier in the chapters, four of the five

participant-teachers were observed while teaching.

Teacher 1 and 3 were observed three times, Teacher 2

twice and Teacher 41 once as there were practical

difficulties for more visits to the school. All teachers

worked in regular state high schools except Teacher 1 who

worked in an Experimental School2. Observation focused on

a number of different designated coursebook speaking

activities, teacher-student interaction and other kinds

of undesignated speaking that occurred throughout the

lesson. Teacher activity in terms of specific patterns of

behavior in each case was carefully traced and analyzed.

These findings helped us answer the question of how

individual teachers manage the teaching of speaking and

more explicitly how they exploit coursebook materials to

meet speaking aims. Student responses to all forms of

1 Teacher 4 was observed teaching the beginner group of the first

grade (level A1) as this school provided streaming for different

levels. However, he still used the advanced coursebook2 Students in Greek Experimental schools tend to be quite advanced in

English as they have to pass through exams on different school

subjects including English to enroll in the school. 47

classroom speaking were also closely examined to make any

claims about whether coursebook speaking aims are

attainable in practice.

Interviews

All four teachers had a considerable teaching background

which extended up to 20 years of experience. Some of them

had worked for many years with students of that age and

level. Teacher 1 had the least experience with the Think

teen coursebook as it was his first year in junior high

school. The rest of the teachers used the coursebook

since its introduction in 2009. Results from a rating of

the coursebook speaking activities (in terms of relevance

to student needs, level of interest, level of difficulty,

clear aims and instructions and integration with other

activities), indicate that the majority of teachers are

not satisfied. Teacher 2 seems to be the least negative

whereas teacher 5 evidently reports the lowest rate. A

more detailed analysis of interview responses will shed

light to significant issues raised in the research

questions such as the importance of teaching speaking for

teachers and their own practices to ensure successful

learning outcomes.

A brief overview of the findings for classroom

observations and interviews is presented in the tables

below.

Teache Speaking Think Teen

48

r activities/aims referenceObservation

1

1 survey and role

play

Coursebook p.148,

p.89-90

Observation

2

1

information gap,

description of

pictures and group

discussion

Coursebook p.

151,154

Observation

3

1 no designated

speaking Observation

4

2 pairwork

discussion-

narrating a story

Coursebook p.53

Observation

5

2 reading& speaking

integrated

Coursebook p.49

Observation

6

3 class discussion Coursebook p.63-65

Observation

7

3 class discussion

and pairwork

Coursebook p.40

Observation

8

3 description of

pictures

Workbook p. 40 ex

6Observation

9

4 no designated

speaking

Table 5. Overview of findings for classroom observations

49

Interviewe

e

Experience

Experience

with Think

Teen

Levels

taught

Speaking

activities

overall

ratingTeacher 1 20 years 1 year B2-C2 3.3/5Teacher 2 20 years since 2009 A1-C2 4/5Teacher 3 20 years since 2010 A1-B2 3.8/5Teacher 4 27 years since 2009 A1-B2 3.5/5Teacher 5 20 years 1 year A1-B2 2.8/5

Table 6. Overview of findings for interviews

4.2 Importance of teaching speaking for teachers:

interview findings

Interview findings address the first research question

which is: whether the teaching of speaking is highly

valued by teachers and syllabus designers

Speaking is claimed to be an important aspect in the

coursebook as it is evident from the detailed syllabus

guidelines for teachers cited in the literature review.

It is also stressed that enough time should be allowed

for speaking to take place and fluency is set as a

priority. Teachers also share this concern.

Teacher 1 underlines that spoken discourse is really

important. The role of the teacher in this process is

50

also important as students need input in order to produce

output themselves. However, he is skeptic about fluency

development at that level. “The coursebook has activities which

help students perform specific tasks and achieve production of speech in

certain limited contexts. We can’t say it helps students build fluency as but

they would not have the chance to manage speech in an unfamiliar context”.

Teacher 2 also admits that: “oral practice is an important

lesson component, as a teacher I try as much as I can to give practice to the

students in speaking”

Teacher 3 has an interesting viewpoint as she

advocates the role of the state school in the development

of students’ oral skills. “I can see that students know a lot of

vocabulary and grammar and they are not able to put it into use. This is

mainly due to the fact that students who receive extra curriculum training in

language schools are trained to pass specific exams. The state school should

offer student opportunities to move beyond training for exams, to something

different such as to develop their speaking skills practice speaking”.

Teacher 4 argues that even though teaching speaking

is important, oral practice is not a priority when

dealing with beginner weak students as the ones in his

class.

Finally Teacher 5 highlights the necessity of

helping students develop spoken fluency “to be able to function

in real life situations when they will go abroad”. Interview responses

indicate that speaking is a valuable skill for all

teachers for many different reasons. More importantly, it

is proclaimed to be a skill that is worth teaching and

51

investing. Arguably, only teacher 4 adopts a different

approach in terms of skill priorities.

4.3 Exploitation of speaking activities and completion of

coursebook aims: observation and interview findings

Observation findings address the second and the third

research questions which are : a) how teachers exploit

speaking activities in the ‘Think Teen’ coursebook

and

b) whether classroom practice matches the aims of the

speaking activities as indicated in the coursebook

syllabus and guidelines

Lesson observation transcripts were coded for teacher

and student actions and emerging data was summarized into

key points. Coded lesson transcripts and field notes used

for the analysis along with a summary of the lesson

activities and key points can be viewed in the Appendices

I-IV. The lesson transcripts contain a very detailed and

step by step description of the teacher-student

interaction during the lessons. In this section, we will

look at each teacher separately and we will focus on the

most significant data and patterns arising from each

lesson. A comparison of teacher practices will be the

next step. Interview data also complement the discussion

52

part as they help us understand the reasoning underlying

teachers’ choices in their teaching.

Teacher 1

Key points for lesson 1: Survey and role play (interview)

Lesson speaking aims:

1) survey : to involve students in using the Present

Perfect Simple to ask & answer questions about their

experiences

2) role play: to involve students in talking about

their qualifications to get a job, practice the

skill of interviewing

Short responses: During conducting the survey, half of

the students are giving short responses to the questions

e.g. Have you ever cooked on your own? response: Yes, I

have. Even though the activity requires students to

elaborate and ask more specific questions such as “When

was that? What did you cook?” the majority of them do not

prolong the interaction.

Use of the mother tongue: During the survey, students ask

and provid feedback to each other only in the mother

tongue. Most of their questions to the teacher whether

for help with vocabulary or for clarifications are in

Greek as well [quantitative data indicate 10 instances of

(Q)]. Quite regularly, the teacher insists in them

rephrasing in English.

53

Student participation: In the second speaking activity

(role play) most of the pairs perform the interview in

English but speak a lot of Greek during the intervals or

for exchanging feedback with peers. There are 2-3 pairs

who do not engage with the activity at all. One

particular pair seems to really enjoy the whole process

and uses the target language all way through the

interaction.

Key points for lesson 2: Information gap activity and

group discussion

Lesson speaking aims:

1) information gap activity: to integrate reading with

writing (note-taking) and listening & speaking

(exchanging information)

2) group discussion: to practice exchanging opinions

and reaching a decision about a topic

Student participation: During the information gap activity

(pairwork) some students do not summarize their articles

to their peers as they are supposed to do but keep

talking in Greek. There are two or three pairs who follow

the activity guidelines and converse in English till the

end of the allotted time.

During the group discussion, a few pairs try to discuss

opinions only in the target language whereas others use a

lot of Greek while trying to reach a decision on what

they will report to the teacher in English. 1-2 groups

54

are constantly off task and become fully engaged with the

discussion only when the teacher approaches them to

monitor their progress and prompts them.

Full responses: In the presentation stage, the teacher

uses a lot of questions to elicit longer responses and

asks the students to justify their answers. He addresses

questions to the whole class and four students raise

their hands to share their ideas. One of the four

students talks the most as he is constantly raising hand

to add comments. He is very keen to talk about the topic.

Error correction: The teacher does not correct any of the

students’ grammatical errors and does not intervene at

all while they are sharing their ideas.

Use of mother tongue: Three students ask questions about

instructions and vocabulary in Greek and are asked to

rephrase in English [3(Q)].

Key points for lesson 3

Use of mother tongue/rephrasing: Some students generally

ask questions about vocabulary and instructions in Greek

[3 (Q)]. However, students do rephrase their questions in

English as they are continuously prompted by the teacher

to use English in the classroom.

55

Discussion

In all speaking activities, the teacher makes sure that

instructions and aims are clear to all students. He

offers concrete examples before each activity and gives

prompts and suggestions as in the case of group

discussion. He gives further explanations to the students

who ask for clarifications and vocabulary. This is a

basic step for a successful speaking activity. During all

pair/group work, he walks around monitoring the students

and checking if they are on task or doing the activity

properly.

During the survey, it is evident that students limit

interaction to reading aloud the model dialogue provided

as an example in the coursebook and give short responses.

No further questions which will allow for more speech

production are added. The teacher does not spend more

than five to six minutes for the survey. He goes directly

to the presentation stage possibly because he considers

this as the best way to check students’ progress with the

activity. It should be noted though that only few

students (who raised their hands) are given the chance to

report what they have found for their classmates. This

fact obscures the progress of the rest of the class as no

conclusion can be drawn about how they have performed the

activity.

The role play activity (interview) is a good example of

the supplementation practices of the teacher. When

questioned about supplementing, Teacher 1 reports that:

56

he does a lot of adaptation in the coursebook

speaking activities usually by linking

different activities and skills together so

that they make more sense.

skill integration in the coursebook is not

always effective and supplementing is the best

solution in order to meet the needs of his

class of advanced students

he brings extra activities which would provide

students with more opportunities for oral

practice.

The teacher also confesses that his practices are in line

with the policy of Greek Experimental schools to provide

students with rich input.

In this lesson, he grouped three different reading

and speaking activities of the coursebook in one, to

provide a more motivating and meaningful real life

context for practicing language points, that is the

interview. Through the interview students have the

opportunity to learn about an additional skill

(interviewing) and take on two different roles

(interviewer-interview). The interview worksheet is

gapped and the teacher decides to facilitate the

interaction by asking the interviewees to fill in their

part with information from their CV before performing it.

When asked about the supplementary interview worksheet,

the teacher supports that learning outcomes can be more

57

easily achieved when they students are given a structured

sample of speech to work on. He states that:

“in pairwork, if you allow students of this level a full autonomy of their

productions without a template they will not be able to know what discourse

type they are expected to produce it is quite likely that they will use incorrect

grammatical structures or vocabulary that is a level below the target”.

(Teacher 1, interview)

While the interview-role play seems to be rather

controlled in that fashion, as it involves reading aloud,

most of the students perform their roles quite

successfully and enjoy the process. Yet, there are some

pairs who do not engage with the activity and mess around

and others who finish too early. At this point, the

teacher’s monitoring role becomes too difficult and he

proceeds again to the presentation per pair to check

students’ progress.

In the pre reading speaking (description of

pictures) the teacher gets several raised hands and

responses as students find it rather easy. However, in

the information gap activity (pairwork) not all students

perform the exchanging information task which involves

the skill of summarizing the content of a text (see

speaking aims for CERF A2 in the Literature review). Few

pairs are engaged to the task and there is a lot of Greek

speaking. The teacher himself acknowledges that fact by

stating that:

58

“in a class of non native speakers it is difficult for them to converse in the

target language especially when there the aim of the activity is much easier to

achieve in the mother tongue”. (Teacher 1, Interview)

He also admits that it is a hard task to monitor all

pairs to make sure that they using the target language

because by the time the teacher is away the students

usually switch to Greek.

Group discussion on the other hand, is shown to be

quite successful as there is productive speaking in the

target language in quite a few pairs. Unlike previous

activities, group discussion does not involve a specific

template students can rely on to produce speech but it is

rather open ended. We could categorize it as a free

communicative activity. For this reason, the teacher

does a more careful monitoring to check if students are

on the right track and focuses on particular groups which

can easily get off task. Even so, the presentation stage

does not fully reveal how the activity worked with all

students as the teacher concentrates only on the answers

of students who raise their hands.

What is striking though is the eagerness and

motivation of four students in the presentation stage who

take long turns to express their opinions about the

topic. The teacher allows time for them to share their

thoughts are keeps the conversation going asking

questions. Perhaps it’s the only instance throughout the

lessons where spontaneous speech is produced as the rest

of the activities are controlled.

59

Moreover, a repetitive pattern in the teacher-

student interaction in all three lessons is students

asking questions about instructions or vocabulary in the

mother tongue. The teacher generally tries to discourage

students from using the mother tongue in the classroom.

Presumably due to time limitations he is sometimes

tolerant to questioning in Greek but normally asks

students to rephrase their questions in English. As he

confesses during the interview:

“I mostly do not allow Greek in the classroom except cases where there is a

problem the student cannot express in a different way. I continuously

encourage students to use the target language as much as possible”.

(Teacher 1, Interview)

He also mentions that he has made clear to the students

early on that target language is the classroom language.

A lot of peer feedback in Greek occurs in pairwork

and groupwork activities in all three lessons. Students

find it easier to exchange knowledge in Greek while not

on task. Students usually ask each other for vocabulary

to use in the activity. They also use Greek to make the

decisions about the content they are going to present to

the teacher.

Another important point is that the teacher does not

intervene to correct errors while students are talking,

reporting or presenting in any case. He is more

interested in fluency rather than accuracy so grammatical

mistakes are not pointed out regularly. His role is

limited to elicitation and questioning to get students

60

produce speech. Hardly any prompting takes place as the

teacher allows students enough time to think when

talking. In the interview, the teacher underlines the

affective factor of error correction during speaking

affirming that if a teacher corrects everything a student

says, the student might get discouraged from talking.

Finally, an overview of the three lessons reveals

that monitoring cannot be totally effective in a

classroom of 25 students even if when the pairwork

interaction is controlled. The teacher cannot fully

control the talking in all pairs and the only means of

making sure that students have worked through the

activity is the presentation stage. However, still

presentation of answers is not indicative of how the

students have performed the task as it is basically

reading aloud written discourse. What seems to work

better for students is a class discussion where they

answer teacher’s questions or add points to their

classmates’ responses. This fact suggests that more

productive speaking is likely to take place when the

teacher is in charge. Motivation of course plays an

important role as the more interesting the topic is the

more participants will join.

As far as the coursebook speaking aims are

concerned, observations show that most of the students do

not exchange information in the target language as they

are expected to do in both the survey and the information

gap activity. The main reason for which activity aims are

61

not met probably lies in the assumption of the syllabus

designers that pairwork will be successful in any

classroom context applied. As the teacher reports:

“pairwork and groupwork activities are useful on condition that the pair or

group can accomplish the goal of the activity”. (Teacher 1, Interview)

He argues that in a large class of students it is

practically impossible for the teacher to listen to all

pairs. The only way to find out if the activity has had

the expected learning outcomes is to monitor a few pairs

and ask the rest to present their output in class. As we

have seen in observations, the presentation stage cannot

be totally inclusive and revealing either. In fact,

students do seem to be able to produce speech in the

target language when questioned individually but resort

to the mother tongue when they are left on their own to

organize the talk in pairs. Interest in the topic is an

important aspect as it can increase students’ motivation

to speak. However, even though all students seem to have

a good level of English in terms of accuracy it is

evident that more confident students initiate discussions

and exploit speaking opportunities better than the less

confident.

Teacher 2

62

Key points for lesson 1: Story narration

Lesson aims: to involve students in reading a short

story, asking & answering to exchange information and to

integrate speaking with reading & listening

Teacher initiated interaction: During homework presentation,

the teacher tries to expand on one of the students’

paragraph about a famous person by talking about this

person herself and asking students to share their

knowledge. She uses elicitation techniques too.

Interaction in English with some students who respond is

achieved (3 R).

Use of mother tongue by the teacher: The teacher

translates some of the information about the famous

person in Greek

Short responses and use of mother tongue: The teacher

tries to interact with each student reading aloud by

asking questions and making guesses about the answer. All

students respond with yes or no. The teacher also recaps

the clues in each student’s story to help the rest of the

class find the answer. However, the rest of the class

will generally use Greek when guessing.

Student participation: Almost all pairs talk in Greek

during pairwork discussion. There is a lot of peer feedback in

Greek as students are asking each other for vocabulary to

63

express themselves in English. Only 5-6 out of 12 pairs

seem to be fully engaged with the activity.

Interaction pattern: Most of the students have written

down their experiences and are reading aloud when they

are asked to present them. The pattern followed is:

teacher nominating a student-student reading aloud-

student asking in Greek for vocabulary-teacher helping

[10 N-10ra, 2 (Q)].

Key points of lesson 2 : pre-reading questions

Lesson aims: to integrate reading with listening

&speaking

Use of mother tongue: While students are reading aloud

their paragraphs, the rest of them make their guesses in

Greek.

Full responses: When the teacher asks some pre reading

questions, the two students who raise their hands to do

some guessing use the target language.

Discussion

64

During the interview, teacher 2 reveals that she has to

deal with a mixed ability class where weaker students

need a lot of support especially in speaking. She states

that:

“my priority is to make sure no student is left behind in the classroom. For

this reason, I don’t rush through the coursebook but I prefer to devote time

for practice in all skills to help student get used to the language structures

and improve gradually” (Teacher 2, Interview)

Observations findings corroborate teacher’s attempts to

make both lessons as inclusive as possible. First of all,

the teacher nominates all students to present their

homework and invites the rest of the class to ask

questions to the student presenting and make guesses in

English. However, this is not the case as students are

constantly talking in Greek. At this stage it seems that

she takes most of the speaking time as she does all the

questioning, guessing, recapping of the clues to find the

right answer. The students reading aloud do not

participate in this process as they respond to the

teachers’ questions very shortly.

In lesson 1, the teacher decides to use what the

student has read about this famous person (Nelson

Mandela) as a prompt to initiate discussion with the

class. She first talks about Mandela’s life achievements

to spark interest to the topic and then tries to maximize

contributions by asking students themselves what they

know about him. What is striking is that she translates

some of the information about this person in Greek. This

65

is probably to make sure that what she says about him is

fully comprehensible. Even though, only two to three

students share their opinions giving short responses,

some speaking practice takes place.

The pairwork in this lesson involves the skill of

narrating a story. The teacher reviews the language

points to be used, gives very clear instruction and goes

through the coursebook questions to make sure the

students know exactly what they will be discussing about.

She narrates her personal experience of when she was

grounded to give an example. Being aware of the

difficulty narration will pose for her students the

teacher suggests that they take notes in order to present

their stories in class. The presentation stage seems to

be again necessary as it is considered a more effective

way to assess students speaking performance than

monitoring.

Paiwork discussion does not work as expected as no

exchanging of questions between students takes place and

target language use is minimal. Most of the pairs

working, try to write down a version of the story to

present to the teacher. A lot of peer feedback in Greek

between students also occurs. Students have trouble to

find the appropriate vocabulary and have to turn for help

to their classmates as with them they can easily use

Greek. There are pairs who chat around and do not engage

with discussion at all. These pairs find it really

difficult to instantly narrate a story when they are

66

asked to during the presentation stage. The teacher has

to do a lot of prompting to help them come up with a few

sentences. Other students start their narration based on

their notes but switch to Greek whenever they cannot find

the appropriate vocabulary to express themselves. The

teacher provides a lot of support and insists in their

rephrasing in English. Importance of using the target

language is acknowledged in the interviews as well. She

spends quite a lot of time in the presentation stage,

supporting and scaffolding and keeps nominating until

most of the students have come up with a story. This is

concrete evidence of the teacher’s concern about whole

class participation.

In lesson 2 the teacher asks the students to make

guesses about the content of the reading text. The two

students who contribute produce well formulated

sentences. Yet speaking is not extended for long so that

more students can participate. In fact, during the post

reading stage little speaking takes place as the

teachers’ questions to the students are exclusively

related to vocabulary. She chooses to focus on the

explanation of new vocabulary (Greek translations for the

words on the board) to make sure the text was

comprehensible for all students and even repeats in Greek

to highlight important information. Evidently, at this

point the teacher prioritizes the learning of new

vocabulary over using the reading text as a prompt to ask

follow up questions or set up a discussion. However, she

67

does ask the students to produce sentences in order to

practice new vocabulary. Teacher responses during the

interview explain choices to initiate speaking with the

aim of practicing language points. She asserts that even

though she finds no need for supplementation of

coursebook speaking activities, she usually asks students

questions to give them practice in the use of new

grammatical and lexical structures.

The last point to be made is that the teacher

corrects on the spot all grammar and vocabulary mistakes

the students make while narrating. Accuracy thus seems to

be an important aspect for her.

On a final note, the classroom situation reveals

that most of the students need to practice to develop

fluent speech as a free communicative activity

(narrating) seems to be quite daunting. The most obvious

reason is difficulties with the use of grammar (tenses)

and vocabulary as students take time to think before they

can formulate their sentences correctly. Teacher

practices of prompting and scaffolding seem to be

encouraging. More importantly, the teacher shows

determination in creating opportunities for speaking in

the classroom and giving practice to students

individually.

Teacher 3

68

Key points for lesson 1: vocabulary & speaking

integrated

Lesson aims: to allow learners to link the vocabulary

they have just learnt to their experiences

Use of mother tongue: Students asked questions for

vocabulary in Greek [11 instances of (Q)].

Peer feedback: More advanced students provided feedback

(vocabulary) to weaker students when they couldn’t come

up with the words in English [2 instances of (PF)]

Error correction: Teacher does not correct on the spot

any grammatical mistakes.

Student participation: Students did use the target

language during the discussion with the teacher but they

gave only short responses. The teacher elicited a lot to

get more detailed responses. Some students gave immediate

responses after teacher’s elicitation whereas others who

were apparently weaker took more time to formulate their

response.

Use of mother tongue by the teacher: The teacher used the

mother tongue to check vocabulary.

Key points for lesson 2: pairwork discussion

Lesson aims: to involve students in suggesting, agreeing

69

& disagreeing, to provide practice in the language of

comparison, to integrate speaking with reading &listening

Use of mother tongue: Students used Greek to ask

questions but also switched to Greek whenever they cannot

express themselves in English

Peer feedback: A lot peer feedback in Greek occurred

during pairwork

Student participation: Except one pair, students did not

engage in dialogue rather than focused to write a

dialogue down. Speaking in the target language is

limited.

Key points for lesson 3

Use of mother tongue: Students asked questions about

instructions and vocabulary in Greek [7(Q)].

Student participation: Two to three students were shown

to be more fluent than others during both coursebook

speaking activity and informal discussion. These students

willingly raised their hands to answer whereas the rest

of them had to be nominated and encouraged by the teacher

to produce speech. They had to take their time to answer.

70

Discussion

In lesson 1, the teacher introduces the topic of the unit

setting up a discussion with the students (asks if they

like school trips and why) even though there is no

designated speaking at the beginning of the unit. When

asked about supplementing the teacher reports that:

“I supplement the coursebook in all four skills because I feel that it doesn’t

help me, doesn’t provide me with what I need. I usually get some ideas from

the texts and topics in the coursebook but I also get inspired by my own

experiences. I try to give students something that is enjoyable and they can

relate to”. (Teacher 3, Interview)

Students show interest in the topic and respond

willingly but their responses are too short. The teacher

nominates students and asks them to elaborate. There is

an obvious difference as some students find it easier to

come up with answers while others make long pauses and

need time to think before responding. Apparently,

students get stuck whenever they cannot find the

appropriate vocabulary in English to express meanings.

They depend a lot on the teacher for help.

The teacher continues the discussion on this topic

but decides to give students more time to prepare their

responses by letting them work independently. Perhaps

this choice is deliberate to make the task stress free

for weaker students and get longer and more structured

responses. Yet there are students who constantly ask the

teacher for ideas. The teacher insists in them working

71

alone. During the presentation stage, the same students

keep on writing down notes and planning their speech

before reporting to the teacher. This highlights the fact

that weaker students may still not feel comfortable with

communicating without prior planning.

What is particularly interesting is the teacher’s

approach in every stage of the discussion. The teacher

does not instantly prompt to help students rephrase in

English but encourages them to use simpler words to

express his thoughts. She also waits patiently without

intervening until the students work out themselves what

they want to say.

The last part of the lesson speaking occurs only in

terms of vocabulary practice and is rather controlled.

Once more students come up with short sentences with the

teacher eliciting to trigger more detailed responses.

However, we may argue for completion of aims.

In lesson 2, the teacher changes the designated

coursebook questions for introducing the topic to

questions that she perceives as more motivating and

interesting for students and which are expected to

generate longer responses. The students are really keen

on answering the questions as they relate to their

personal experiences but initially respond shortly. The

pattern of short responses-elicitation by the teacher-

more detailed responses is repeated again. The teacher

encourages all students to speak rather than concentrate

only on the students who raise hands. Whole class

72

participation seems to be really important matter

therefore.

She decides however to turn the pairwork speaking

activity into a writing activity by asking pairs to write

down the dialogue after discussing the topic. The

dialogue involves skills such as agreeing, disagreeing

and comparing. During pairwork only one pair of

apparently advanced students communicates only in the

target language. In the rest of the pairs there is a lot

of exchange feedback in Greek and students seem to be

exclusively concerned with writing up the dialogue rather

than discussing. In the presentation stage all students

come up with a well structured dialogue and are praised

by the teacher. Even so, the fact that no actual skills

(agreement/disagreement) are practiced in real time

suggests that speaking aims are not achieved. The teacher

justifies this strategy saying that:

“students of this level prefer to have answers to what the teacher asks written

I think this is probably because students in the first grade have a very mixed

background regarding speaking. Most of them are not familiar with speaking

as they do very little in the primary school”.

She also asserts that:

“pairwork is not always successful as the teacher cannot monitor all pairs to

make sure they meet the aims”. (Teacher 3, Interview)

In lesson 3 the teacher tries to integrate speaking

with grammar to practice specific language points by

having the student carry out a written activity orally.

This adaptation highlights again that oral practice is a

73

priority for her. It is distinguishable though that the

three advanced learners initiate and raise their hands to

speak while the rest of the students still spend time on

working out the activity. The teacher starts nominating

to ensure that everyone will have a turn to speak. The

teacher finally asks me to introduce myself to the

learners and initiate a discussion so that the students

have a chance to practice the language. For this reason,

she encourages them to ask questions only in English.

Students on their part are really interested in knowing

about my work and studies and even weaker students

attempt to raise hands and ask. The teacher at this point

does not intervene to limit the interaction between me

and the students but silently monitors the process.

Target language is used sufficiently by all students

involved in the discussion.

Last but not least, observations from all three

lessons indicate that the teacher is more concerned with

fluency rather than accuracy as she does not interfere to

correct any mistakes during speech production.

“I strongly believe that students have to produce speech again and again in

order to become fluent, the teacher cannot interfere to change his utterances

because they will get discouraged”. (Teacher 3, Interview)

The only instance is when she corrects mispronounced

words. Students mostly use Greek when asking the teacher

for help with vocabulary or switch to Greek whenever they

do not know how to translate their thoughts in English.

The teacher is quite tolerant to questions for vocabulary

74

but insists a lot on the production of well structured

speech in English. As she reports in interviews making

the target language the classroom language is one of her

priorities.

Teacher practices in the three lessons underline

that learner autonomy in speaking is of primary

importance for the teacher as she deliberately avoids

prompting or intervening as much as possible. What she

repeatedly does is eliciting and positively reinforcing

especially weaker learners to use the language as much as

they can.

Teacher 4

Key points for lesson 1

Use of the mother tongue by the teacher : The teacher

uses exclusively Greek in the classroom

Use of mother tongue: The students speak only in Greek in

the classroom

Initiation of responses: Stronger students continuously

initiate the answers to the teacher’s questions wherever

their classmates do not know either by raising their

hands or by intervening. Different strengths in classroom

are apparent.

75

Error correction: The teacher corrects pronunciation

errors.

Discussion

Teacher 4 teaches the beginner group of the first grade

using the advanced coursebook. The most important

observation for this teacher is that he does not use any

speaking activities or initiate any oral practice in his

lesson. Interaction with students almost exclusively

focuses on questions to check knowledge of the

vocabulary. A particular student seems to be rather weak

in vocabulary and fails to remember any of the vocabulary

taught before. The teacher concentrates a lot on him and

constantly nominates him to answer to encourage him to

participate and avoid leaving all answers to the rest of

the students. He insists on eliciting the meaning of

words from the student reminding him of word associations

they have made in previous lessons. He spends quite a lot

of time to help him come up with the meanings before

nominating the other students raising their hands.

Initiation of responses by students other than the

nominated is quite recurring throughout the lesson. Yet,

the teacher advises all students to write down what they

do not know.

The teacher also attempts to make instructions as

clear as possible even asking the students to explain

their meaning in Greek. The use of Greek in the classroom

is generally acceptable for the teacher. He exclusively

76

uses Greek to interact with the students and a lot of

translation for both vocabulary and instructions.

Pronunciation mistakes while the students are reading

aloud are pinpointed. When asked about the use of the

target language, the teacher explains that:

he cannot encourage students to use English

because they have a lot of gaps even in

language comprehension which is quite basic.

he would use English more with an advanced

class, as students of a higher level usually

show willingness to speak the language.

Overall, Teacher 4 approach to teaching is

characterized by a great emphasis on students’

comprehension of exercises and consolidation of taught

vocabulary. As he comments in the interview:

“I usually insist of explaining vocabulary. There are some words which we

have encountered many times but they still don’t know them so I keep

explaining”. (Teacher 4, Interview)

On the contrary, actual use of vocabulary and oral

production is not reinforced. A positive aspect of his

teaching approach is that he tries to make the lesson

inclusive for all three students despite differences in

student strengths. The most prominent drawback in the

lessons however is he does not make use of the target

language which limits opportunities for students to use

the language as well. It should be stressed also that the

small number of the students in the classroom poses a

77

great advantage for pairwork or groupwork or any other

interaction between students and facilitates the

monitoring role of the teacher. Nonetheless the teacher

does not create speaking opportunities even in a more

controlled context to match the level of the students. In

the interview, the teacher gives reasons for this

approach. He asserts that even though likes coursebook

speaking activities and considers pairwork helpful, they

are addressed to students who have reached a certain

level. He admits that:

“there are a lot of activities I drop because the students can cope with them.

There are students who cannot tell between subject and object so there is no

point in making them speak”. (Teacher 4, Interview)

However he usually asks his students to do some very

simple activities as for example to answer some

comprehension questions.

Comparison of teachers’ practices and interview findings

for Teacher 5

A comparison of how teaching of speaking is administered

by each of the four teachers observed, reveals common

elements and patterns but also highlights differences.

Teacher 1, 2 place a greater focus on fluency and are

mainly concerned with getting the students use the

language irrespective of grammar mistakes. Correction on

the spot is therefore avoided in their lessons. Teacher 3

accounts for accuracy a lot more. Teacher 4 mainly

78

corrects pronunciation of words on the spot as no further

speech production takes place.

In addition, Teachers 1, 2 and 3 largely support the

exclusive use of the target language as a medium of

communication in the classroom. They constantly encourage

students to rephrase in English whenever they speak in

Greek even if is not always possible to control student

talk in a large class. Teacher 4 does not share this

approach as he delivers his lessons exclusively in Greek.

In addition, it is observed that teachers 1, 2 and 3

employ a presentation stage after pairwork or groupwork

in order to check student performance as monitoring

cannot be totally effective difficulties especially in

large classes as with teachers 1, 2. They also encourage

students to keep notes presumably to help weaker students

with organizing their speech.

However, it seems that teachers have different approaches

regarding support during speaking. Teacher 2 prompts,

suggests and scaffolds students when they are facing

difficulties with structuring their answers whereas

Teacher 1, 3 limit their interference to eliciting and

encourage students to be autonomous in the process of

producing speech. Apparently, Teacher 4 widely differs

from the other three teachers in terms of priorities and

aims. What is a commonly shared aspect to all of the

teachers is that they devote time to support and cater

for the needs of less advanced learners as well.

79

Finally, even though teacher 5 is not observed

teaching, she provides interesting insights into her

practices during the interviews. Concerning coursebook

speaking activities, teacher 5 admits that “they are not bad

but they have unrealistic purposes. Some of them are quite boring for the

students and practically not of any use to them as they don’t provide practice

to real life situations”. For this reason, she explains that she

supplements a lot the coursebook bringing her own

activities which will enable students to practice more

practical tasks. “10% is coursebook materials and 90% is my own

materials”. She also supports that mother tongue use in the

classroom should be limited as students make errors when

they try to translate between languages. It also deprives

students from getting practice in the target language.

Chapter 5: Conclusions

In this concluding chapter we provide an overview of the

findings which are perceived to be the most enlightening

for the evaluation of the coursebook speaking activities

and aims and for the teaching of speaking overall. We

continue with a discussion of the implications of these

findings for the Greek EFL state school English

curriculum which are followed by concrete suggestions.

80

5.1. Key findings

Communicative activities” not communicative in nature

First of all, some of the coursebook speaking activities

observed do have a communicative purpose but are not

communicative in nature as the purpose of practicing

language points is highlighted in the coursebook

guidelines. Examples are: the pairwork discussion where

students are expected to compare, agree or disagree about

buying a present using the structures in the Language

bank and the survey where students have to use the

present perfect. Therefore, it seems that linguistics

choices of students are guided rather than open ended as

would be the case in free communication activities.

Students are focused on the language. The narration of a

story/personal experience may be the only activity which

involves free communication.

The speaking activities cannot be described as real

life either, as summarizing a text to someone in order to

fill in the blanks is not common every day task. This is

pointed out by some teachers. Teacher 3 states that “some

speaking activities are completely unrealistic and old fashioned, students

cannot relate to them, even the topics are not related to their word and

needs”. Teacher 5 also mentions that: “they tend to have

unrealistic purposes, some of them are quite boring for the students and are

not of any use to them as they don’t provide practice to real life situations”.

Apart from relevance to student needs and level of

81

interest which accumulate the lowest scores in the

speaking activities rating, integration of speaking with

other (mentioned in the coursebook syllabus) also seems

to be problematic for teachers and particularly for

teacher 1. At this point, we should consider that

successful communication in different linguistic

environments is projected as a basic aim of the

coursebook in syllabus. We should also consider the

syllabus statement that activities are designed to

resemble real word exchanges. Evidently, teacher views

and the application of some of the speaking activities in

effect do not point to this direction.

Observation and interview data reveal that the

teachers 1, 2, 3 supplement, adapt and change the

speaking activities to account for the inadequacies in

the coursebook. Most of the supplementing is done to make

topics more appealing and relevant to students and

motivate them to engage in discussion. Teacher 1,5 also

report that supplementing helps them to take their

students a step further and raise their level.

Apparently, teachers set up class discussions where they

can interact with students asking questions. They attempt

to engage students in what we will classify as free

communication. Students get interested to work on the

topics and their willingness to communicate their ideas

is maximized. This is probably associated with the

continuous eliciting and reinforcement they receive from

82

teachers, which is absent during independent work or

pairwork.

Different strengths may be responsible for student

performance in speaking

Observations indicate, that in every class (of the 3

teachers), stronger and more confident students have

better control of their productions and rely less on the

teachers’ help during speaking practice. To get back to

the literature review, it is argued that “fluent speakers

can express themselves appropriately and without

hesitation” (Baker & Westrup, 2003, p.7). We can claim

therefore that in each class certain students find it

easier to develop fluent speech. However, these are not

the majority. Weaker students will normally feel

uncertain about the correct use of grammar and vocabulary

or they will try to translate from Greek into English.

This is arguably a hindrance to fluent speech. Perhaps

preoccupation of students with accuracy in their

productions may partly account for that.

In the literature review, processes by which

students are streamed into advanced and beginner levels

are outlined. However, the situation is shown to be

different in the four schools. Since teachers 3 and 4

work in the same school, teacher 3 teaches the advanced

group placed at A2 level and teacher 4 the beginner

placed at A1 level. Students in each group are streamed

on the basis of placement tests. Teacher 2 reports that

83

some of her students pertain to a lower level but lack of

resources in the school does not permit two separate

groups. As a result, she has to deal with a mixed ability

class. Finally, teacher 1 acknowledges that all of his

students are at A2 level with one or two exceptions. He

explains that he provides these students with in class

support. Different strengths stand out particularly in

teachers’ 2 and 3 classes. Under these circumstances,

teachers have to assume a new role. They have to

undertake the task of building an inclusive and

supportive environment for weaker students especially

when there is no provision for streaming.

Pairwork poses problems in large classes

Another challenge teachers have to face is the management

of pairwork which is an important element in most of the

coursebook speaking activities. In the syllabus

guidelines for teachers, it is underlined that teachers

should act as organizers of pairwork making sure that

students are cooperating properly to meet the aims of the

activity. Exchange and collaboration between weak and

advanced students and increase in talking time are seen

as major advantages. However, a finding which is quite

prominent in all classroom observations is that pairwork

cannot be successful with a large number of students and

with the teacher not being in control. This fact is

mainly pointed out by teachers 1 and 2 who deal with

classes of more than 20 students. Analysis of students

84

actions during pairwork indicate that the use of target

language is limited and peer feedback is exchanged in the

mother tongue. Of course, if students speak in their own

language, speaking activities are meaningless. Teachers

acknowledge this issue and report that monitoring to

check student performance results impossible. Even when

students have to complete a controlled speaking task

there is no means for the teacher to verify whether all

pairs are on the right direction. To account for this,

teachers 1,2 and 3 ask students to write down their

exchanges or take notes in order to present them in

class. Even though stronger students may not depend a lot

on their notes while presenting, weaker students do.

Inevitably then speaking practice is reduced to a reading

aloud process. In addition, limitations of time do not

allow all students to present. Conclusions about whether

an activity has met the expected aims are therefore vague

in any case. It is necessary to refer to the speaking

skills that students are expected to develop at this

level such as summarize the content of texts, to interact

with interlocutors to talk about everyday activities or

to discuss solutions to a problem. Unsuccessful speaking

activities then imply limited practice in those skills.

Prescribed teacher roles contradict teacher roles in

practice

Coursebook syllabus includes guidelines for teachers

which describe the roles teachers should assume during

teaching speaking. Even so, not all observed teacher

85

practices are in alignment with these suggestions

possibly because some of the roles are impractical. To

give an example, teachers are supposed to monitor

pairwork carefully and collect errors to be highlighted

during the post task feedback session. However, it is

rather impossible to collect mistakes in a large class.

Discipline problems during pairwork have to be take into

account as well. What teachers can seemingly do in

practice is to continuously urge students to use the

target language, provide help with vocabulary and set

students back on task wherever they mess around. It is

also suggested that more confident students are used as

models for the weaker. This is something the teachers do

not follow in practice. Moreover, what is not clear in

the syllabus guidelines is the statement that “teachers

should allow students time to prepare” (1st Grade of

Junior High School Teacher’s book, p.8) as it is not

outlined in what way and in which speaking activity types

preparation should take place. Preparation also contrasts

free communication which is professed as significant in

the syllabus. Last but not least, we observe that teacher

1 and 3 adopt the model of fluency over accuracy (as

described in the guidelines) and avoid correcting

mistakes during student utterances. They intervene only

to keep the students talking. Teacher 2 is more inclined

towards accuracy and prompts more than the other two

teachers during speaking. Teacher 4 is mainly concerned

86

with accuracy as he supports that his students are beyond

achieving fluency at this stage.

The use of L1 can be influenced by teaching style

Finally, we can claim that the amount of target language

use in a classroom by the students depends a lot on the

teachers’ attitude and approach. As Harmer (1983)

suggests “if teachers frequently use students’ language

in the classroom then students will feel comfortable in

doing it too” (p. 131). Observations confirm that student

use of the target language is in some way aligned to use

by the teacher. Teacher 4 for example does not use

English in the classroom and neither do his students as

they have grown accustomed to speaking in the mother

tongue. In any case, it is highly unlikely that the use

of mother tongue will disappear but continuous

reinforcement (particularly during speaking practice) and

setting of rules in the classroom are good methods to

point students to the right direction.

5.2 Study implications

It is acknowledged by all teachers that speaking is a

significant skill to be mastered even from this level.

This attitude is supported by evidence from other studies

investigating state high school teachers’ views on

different skills such as Griva & Chostelidou (2011).

However, given that the state school EFL curriculum is

coursebook-led, teachers still have to teach designated

87

speaking materials which are designed by other

stakeholders that is, syllabus designers. Research

findings reveal a number of mismatches between what is

expected to happen in theory and what can be applicable

in effect. Of course, we have to consider the fact that

the design of speaking materials cannot be tailored to

the needs, strengths or the organization of any

individual classroom. However, any process of designing

coursebook materials should involve careful reflection,

strategic planning and consideration of the

characteristics of the targeted context. In addition,

intentions and guidelines for using materials need to be

understood and embraced by teachers before they can be

implemented. What we propose in the case of the junior

high school (advanced) coursebook is that syllabus

designers take into account practical difficulties

teachers face and attempt to reassess the design of

speaking activities to produce a teacher-friendly

speaking syllabus. Content of speaking activities should

also be reassessed as the need for more communicative and

realistic aims is indicated. To this end, it is

important for designers to specify in the aims of each

speaking activity whether it is practicing fluency and

accuracy or both as this distinction might be critical

for the appropriate organization of the activity. Of

course, it is still the teachers’ principal duty to

mediate the content in a way that will adapt to the

particularities of their classes, however, incorporation

88

of teachers’ concerns in the process of designing

materials might produce a more effective point of

reference for teaching and facilitate teacher decisions.

Above all, it should be made clear to all stakeholders

involved in the EFL state school context that, a

successful completion of aims which will render students

capable of developing the desired speaking skills is

built around successful cooperation.

3.5 Study limitations

First of all, we have to take into consideration the

limited number of teachers which does not allow us to

talk about a representative sample. Limited amount of

time for observations, practical issues such as getting

formal permission from the Greek Ministry of Education to

do research in classrooms and the small scale of a

Master’s dissertation did not allow us to include more

teachers in the study. More participants and examination

of a large number of classroom situations will

undoubtedly give us a more comprehensive picture of the

status of speaking and yield more valid results. As

expected, study findings cannot be generalized for all

classroom contexts and teaching approaches in state

junior high schools. Yet, they do offer an interesting

insight into state school classrooms and pinpoint some of

the problematic areas for teachers and students.

Therefore, they can be used as a starting point for

89

further research which will focus on and consider equally

important variables such as students’ reactions to the

speaking activities. Classroom observation data in this

study are sufficient to cover a wide range of topics if

examined in more detail. The predefined word limit in

this dissertation unfortunately leaves these topics

unexplored but significance of the research conclusions

especially for the coursebook evaluation gives way to

further investment in this context.

Number of words: 18,147

References

Baker, J., & Westrup, H. (2003) Essential speaking skills: A

handbook for English language teachers, Continuum, London.

90

Brumfit, C. J. (1984) Communicative Methodology in Language

Teaching, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Bygate, M. (1987) Speaking, Oxford University Press,

Oxford.

Chambers, F. (1997) ‘What do we mean by fluency?’, System,

vol. 25/4, pp. 535-544.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2007) Research methods

in education, Routledge, London.

Council of Europe (2001a) Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment,

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dörnyei, Z. (2007) Research methods in applied linguistics:

Quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, Oxford,

University Press Oxford.

Gower, R., Phillips, D. & Walters, S. (2005) Teaching

practice: A handbook for teachers in training, Macmillan

Education, Oxford.

Greek Pedagogic Institute (2008) 1st Grade of Junior High School

Teacher’s book, pp.1-168, Greece.

91

Greek Pedagogic Institute (2007) Integrated Curriculum for

Foreign Languages, pp.1-46, Greece.

Griva, E. & Chostelidou D (2011) ‘Language awareness

issues and teachers’ beliefs about language learning

in a Greek EFL context’, In Kitis, E., Lavidas, N.

Topintzi, N., Tsangalidis, T. (eds), Selected Papers from

19th International Symposium of Applied and Theoretical Linguistics,

pp.213-222, Greek Applied Linguistics Association,

Thessaloniki.

Griva, E. & Iliadou, S. (2011) ‘Foreign Language policy

addressed to Greek primary and secondary education:

teachers’ viewpoints and students’ attitudes towards

plurilingualism’, European Journal of Language Policy, vol.

3/1, pp.15-36.

Harmer, J. (1983) The practice of English language teaching,

Longman, London.

Harmer, J. (2003) How to teach English, Longman, Harlow.

Hopkins, D. (2002) A teacher's guide to classroom research, Open

University Press, Milton Keynes.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1970) Foundations of Behavioral Research, Holt,

Rinehart & Winston, New York.

92

Krashen, S.D. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language

Acquisition, Pergamon, Oxford.

Matthaioudakis, M. & Alexiou, T. (2011) ‘Bridging the

gap: Issues of transition and continuity from

primary to secondary schools in Greece’, In Kitis,

E., Lavidas, N. Topintzi, N., Tsangalidis, T. (eds),

Selected Papers from 19th International Symposium of Applied and

Theoretical Linguistics, pp.87-99, Greek Applied

Linguistics Association, Thessaloniki.

McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. (1997) Research methods for

English language teachers, Arnold, London.

McDonough, J. & Shaw, C. (2003) Materials and methods in ELT: A

teacher’s guide, Blackwell, Oxford.

Nation, I. S. P. & Newton, J. (2009) Teaching ESL/EFL listening

and speaking, Routledge, London.

Richards, J. C. & Rogers, T. S. (2001) Approaches and

methods in language teaching, Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Roulston, K. (2010) ‘Considering quality in qualitative

interviewing’, Qualitative Research, vol.10/2, pp.199-

228.

93

Sifakis, N.C. & Sougari, A.-M. (2005) ‘Pronunciation

issues and EIL pedagogy in the periphery: A survey

of Greek state school teachers’ beliefs’, TESOL

Quarterly, vol.39/4, pp.467-488.

Sifakis, N.C. (2009) ‘Challenges in teaching ELF in the

periphery: the Greek context’, ELT Journal, vol63/3,

pp.230-237.

Sifakis, N.C. & Sougari, A.-M. (2010) ‘Rethinking the

role of teachers’ beliefs about their function: A

survey of Greek teachers inner thoughts’, In

Psaltoy-Joycey, A. and Matthaioudaki, M. (eds),

Selected Papers from the 14th International Conference: Advances in

Research on Language Acquisition and Teaching, pp.415-428, Greek

Applied Linguistics Association, Thessaloniki.

Thornbury, S. (2005) How to teach speaking, Longman, Harlow.

Tsagari, D. & Sifakis, N.C. (2014) ‘EFL coursebook

evaluation in Greek primary schools: Views from

teachers and authors’, System, vol. xxx, p.1-16.

Ur, P. (1991) A course in language teaching, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

94

95

APPENDIX I

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS FOR TEACHER 1

59

Teacher 1 Lesson 1

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 1

DATE/TIME: 11/4/2014 1.30

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X - X X X

60

X X X X X XX - X X X XX X X X X X

X -

Number of students: 23

Speaking activity 1, coursebook p.148

Coursebook guidelines Aims and Objectives:

To involve students in using the Present Perfect Simple to ask & answer questions about their

experiences

Guidelines for teachers:

Task 1 : Ask students to take their books, leave their places and walk around the classroom to find

students who have done the activities in the questionnaire. Explain that they must write full

answers not just the names. The person who finishes first is the winner. Point out that if

students reveal their answers, they help someone else to win. Students who finish first, second

61

etc. wait for the other students to finish. Then they read their answers (e.g. George has

cleaned up a beach). If somebody rightly objects to one of their findings, they lose a point

etc.

Task 2 : Students work in groups. Based on the results of their questionnaire, each group has to

decide if the class cares about the environment

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time CommentsGr 1.30-

1.35

Grammar instruction-review of the grammar

I

N

I,

hands out photocopies of p.148

2 sts to read the model

dialogue of the speaking

activity

2 sts read the dialogue,

the rest listening

L

1.35-

1.40

The teacher hasphotocopied the pagefrom the book so thatthe sts don’t have tocarry their books whilemoving around for theactivity

62

Ex reads all activity questions

some ask for

clarifications

st asks about unknown word

some sts ask for

clarifications

(Q)

(Q)

(Q)

M

I to the pairs who didn’t

understand how to do the

activity

working

sts ask each other eg “How

do we say that in

English”?

PI, (PI)

(PF)

(Q)

1.40-

1.46

Sts start walking aroundthe class to findsomeone who… The teacherexplains to the pairswho didn’t understandwhat they have to do,provides help, heinsists that the ststalk in English andreminds them constantly

The teacher encouragessts to ask questions inEnglish wherever hehears them asking inGreek

63

R

Q

N

asks sts to complete their

questionaires and sit down

to check what sts have filled

in in their questionnaires eg

“have you found anybody who

is…?”

some sts ask for

vocabulary

raise hands

R

1.46-

1.50

He is unable to monitorall students as theymove around… too muchnoise.The answer in most ofthe pairs is just “yes”not “ yes I have” asthe example says andthere is no furtherinteraction. Sts seem tobe stuck when they haveto expand

Other sts (NA) + makingnoise as theirclassmates speak. -Sts don’t seem to havea problem reporting thefeedback they got fromtheir students. Theirsentences aregrammatical. However,about 5 students whoraised their hands havethe chance to reportwhat they have found.The rest of them mightnot have come up with

64

N a st

a st

Same procedure followed until

all questions are checked

answers

answers

R

full sentences.

Reading & speaking integrated, coursebook p.89-90

Coursebook guidelines

Aims and Objectives:

To involve students in reading an advertisement for voluntary work, a letter of application & a

CV, skimming & scanning, talking about what voluntary work they would like to do for the zoo.

To integrate reading with speaking.

To present vocabulary and grammar in context

65

Guidelines for teachers:

Task 2: Ask: ‘What kind of work is the advertisement about?' elicit voluntary work (students are

familiar with ‘volunteer’)

EXTRA! : Extra questions :

• Can school children volunteer? (No,they have to be over 18).

• What will volunteers have to do for the zoo? (answer visitor questions about

animals / play games with young visitors etc.)

• What kind of experience would be useful? (library)

Task 3:

• Go through the instructions & the list of topics with the class & check for any difficulties

• Ask students to discuss in pairs.

• Refer them to the Language Bank.

• You can ask a pair to give an example in front of the class.

• When they finish, students report to the class.

Task 4:

Refer to the advertisement & ask:‘What should people who want to do voluntary work for the zoo

send?'

66

• Elicit that they should send a CV.

• Explain that CV stands for CurriculumVitae.

• Refer to Lyn's CV & elicit what a CVis. You can allow L1.

• Ask: ‘What information is there in Lyn's CV? Assist with language. With less confident

students, you can allow L1.

• You can present / elicit qualifications& skills

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

E

Q

I

hands out photocopies with his

own material (interview

worksheet)

the purpose of an interview

asks sts what they expect what

they expect to do in an

interview

sts answer

sts write

R

1.51-

1.55

This speaking activityis a supplementedversion of the speakingactivities on p.89-90.For this activity thestudents have to work inpairs to perform aninterview. Students haveto fill in the missinginformation on theinterviewee templateusing their CVs. Thenone student becomes theinterviewer and asksquestions and the otherthe interviewee and

67

R

R

asks sts to read the interview

part and fill in the blanks

with their information

explains

explains

st asks for clarification

st asks for clarification

(Q)

(Q)

responds. When theyfinish, they switchroles.

V gives definitions in English

preparing for the

interview, taking notes

some sts ask for

vocabulary

a st asks for

(Q)

(Q)

1.55-

2.01

Some students finishearlier and start makingnoise. The teacher triesto keep them quiet untilthe rest of the class isfinished.

68

R repeats instructions clarifications

R

urges sts to finish up

a st asks for vocabulary

(Q)

M

I

R

to pairs who didn’t

understand what they have to

do

sts start working in pairs

st asks about

pronunciation and

vocabulary

PI, (PI)

(Q)

2.01-

2.08 A few pairs talk inGreek during theintervals but performthe interview dialoguein English. Peerfeedback that is mostlyexplanations about whateach pair is supposed todo or say is given inGreek. 2-3 pairs messaround and don’t engagewith the activity atall. The teacher isunable to monitor allpairs at the same time.

69

Q

to check the sts’ answers,

asks sts to report what they

have found about interviewees

answer pair by pair

R

Lesson activities

1. Before speaking: review of verb tenses

2. Practice session: teacher made sure that students were clear about how they will do the

questioning in the speaking activity by having the students read the model dialogue in the

coursebook and giving examples

3. Speaking activity 1 : students asked to complete a survey (see above) going round the class

asking and answering questions

70

4. Target language: present perfect question forms

5. Pairwork: students moving around and teacher monitoring them and providing help where

needed.

6. Presentation: teacher asked the students to report their findings. Some of the students who

raised their hands were nominated to answer.

7. Before speaking: teacher allowed students some time to prepare for the interviewee part

filling in the gaps with information from their cv

8. Speaking activity 2: students have to perform a role play to conduct a job interview using

information from their CVs (produced in previous lessons)

9. Pairwork: students conducting the interview and teacher monitoring them silently

10.Presentation: teacher nominated a student from each pair to report what the interviewee’s

qualifications were and say if they would employ him/her.

71

72

73

74

Teacher 1 Lesson 2

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 1

DATE/TIME: 14/4/2014 12.45

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X -X X

75

Number of students: 25

Speaking activity, coursebook p. 151,155

Coursebook guidelines

Aims and Objectives:

To involve students in reading students' articles for their school newspaper, jigsaw reading,

scanning texts to locate information

To integrate reading with writing (note-taking) & listening & speaking (exchanging information)

To present vocabulary and grammar in context

Guidelines for teachers:

Task 1

• Discuss the photos with the class.

• You can ask some questions to guide students & elicit some vocabulary: ‘What kind of awards

are they? / How are the winners chosen? / How often do these events take place? /Do you watch

them? /Do you like them? / Why (not)?

76

• Elicit / revise: award, prize, film /music industry / biz, vote, nominate /nomination, annual.

Task 2

• Ask: ‘What are the texts about?'

• Elicit that the first text is about the Oscars and the second about Music Awards.

Read through the instructions with the class & explain that students are going to do jigsaw

reading (students are familiar with this type of task; Unit 5, Lesson1).

• Students A read Susan's article & complete the notes underneath & students B do the same with

David's article.

• Ask students to check their answers with other students from the same group (As with As & Bs

with Bs).

Task 3

• Go through the instructions & the Language Bank in the Speaking

Appendix pp. 151 & 155 and check for any difficulties.

• In pairs, students exchange information & complete their tables.

•Point out that it is important that they don't show each other their notes.

• Encourage them to ask questions / for repetition and/or clarification.

• When they finish, they can compare their notes & check their answers.

77

• You can ask the class some of the questions & get feedback about the students' performance.

Task 4

• Go through the extract and the questions & check for any difficulties.

• Elicit box office hits.

• You can have a class discussion on the topic or ask students to discuss in small groups.

• Assist with language as necessary

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time CommentsN to read the advertisement for

listening lead-in

nominated st reads ra 12.43-

12.46

78

Q to check comprehension: answering the teacher

(all)

R

I

Q

plays listening text

plays listening again,

stopping at each speaker

to correct the st’s answer

listening

listening

raise hands to give

answers

L

L

12.46-

12.48

Q

Pr

asks sts to describe pictures some sts answer R

12.48-

12.51

Task 1description ofpictures

hands out photocopies from the

coursebook pages

12.51-

12.58

Task 2 jigsaw

reading p.118

79

I

M

V

allows sts time to read the

texts and fill in

while the sts are reading

gives definitions in English

sts are reading and

writing

sts ask about unknown

words

(Q)

I asks sts to read the language

bank and check if they have

queries or unknown words

gives them five minutes for

the activity

sts listening L

12.58-

1.00

80

I

again to each pair

individually to make sure

everybody understands

I,

Ex

asks them to rephrase the

questions in English

to the pairs that haven’t

understood what to do

working in pairs

2 sts ask about the

activity

sts rephrase

PI, (PI)

(Q)

1.00-

1.05

Task 3 Reading& Speakingp.151,154

There is agroup of threestudents asone student isleft without apair. Thisgroup isreally noisyand often offtask

-Most of thepairs startspeaking inGreek after

81

the firstminutes ofpairwork. Whenthey finishstart messingaround. Only2-3 pairsstill workuntil the endof the timelimit

Q

I

Ex

to check if sts have the right

answers

sets a topic of discussion and

raise hands

answer R, ra

1.05-

1.08

1.08-The teacheruses apowerpoint

82

divides sts in groups of four

shows sts the powerpoint slide

and makes suggestions about

what they are going to discuss

working/discussing in

pairs

PI, (PI)

1.14 slide wheredifferentcharacteristics of films arelisted egcast,plotmusic.

Most of thediscussion isdone in Greek.Studentsdecide inGreek whatthey are goingto say inEnglish

Q a st from each group to report

what they have discussed sts from each group R

1.14-

1.19

A group offour boys areoff task, theyare playingaround. Theygo back to the

83

E

Q

encourages sts to elaborate,

to justify their answers

to the whole class (to expand

the topic)

respond

4 sts raise hands

share their ideas

R

task only withthe help ofthe teacher.Generally,most of thegroups fullyengage onlywhen theteacherapproachesthem.

There are onlytwo groupswhich speak inEnglish andwork quietly

Sts seem to bevery engaged,they like thetopic, theyare motivatedand interestedto

84

E

the meanings of words from sts

gives synonyms and definition

for the words in English

sts raise hands, answer

R 1.19-

1.25

participate.Fluency workis carried out

The teacherdoesn’tintervenewhile the stsare expressingtheir ideas.

Vocabularyexercise

Lesson Activities

85

1. Pre listening: teacher nominated a student to read aloud the advertisement and gave

instructions for the listening task which followed

2. Listening task: teacher played the listening twice and then checked answers with the class

3. Speaking activity (lead in): teacher asked students to describe pictures (see above)

4. Jigsaw reading: teacher allowed student (group A& B) to read the texts and fill in missing

information in the exercise below (see above)

5. Speaking activity (information gap): students (group A &B) had to work in pairs and

exchange information to complete their tables (see above)

6. Checking of answers: teacher asks students some of the questions in the tables to check if

they have got the right answers.

7. Follow up speaking activity (group discussion): teacher showed the students a powerpoint

slide with a topic and some prompts and asked them to discuss this topic in groups of four.

Students had to decide which characteristics are important for a film to be awarded.

8. Presentation: teacher asked a student from each group to share with the class what the

group decided.

86

87

88

89

90

Teacher 1 Lesson 3

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 1

DATE/TIME: 15/4/2014 1.30

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X XX X X - X X

91

Number of students: 23

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

R

Q,

E

Gr,

sets the plan for the lesson

answers

hands out photocopies

reminds sts of the topic

(recipes) and grammatical

structure used in recipes

(passive voice)

on the board

some sts answer but don’t

guess right

(Q)

R

1.30-

1.35

92

Ex

R

repeats in Greek to ensure

comprehension

a st asks

(Q)

plays a video sts watch

1.35-

1.37

V

asks them to rephrase in

English

st asks about vocabulary

st asks again in English

(Q)

Q

1.37-

1.40

Whenever sts aska question inGreek, theteacher answers

93

R

I,

Ex

Q

Q

does the first sentence as an

example

to check if its clear to

everybody

plays the video again and

stops at key points, asks to

check answers

Sts raise hands and

respond

R

in English. Henominates sts ifthere are notraised hands. Hepicks up studentswho haven’ttalked already tomake sure thateveryone gets aturn.

1.40-end Grammar

exercises

94

Lesson activities

1. Warm up stage : teacher introduced the topic (recipes) and reviewed the passive voice

2. Listening task: students have to listen to the video and complete sentences using the

passive voice

3. Pre listening: teacher gave instructions and after playing the video once did one sentence

as an example.

4. Listening: teacher stopped at key points and allowed students to complete their answers

5. Follow up grammar exercises

95

APPENDIX II

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS FOR TEACHER 2

96

Teacher 2 Lesson 1

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: Teacher 2

DATE/TIME: 31/3/2014 1.25

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

97

SEATING PLAN:

X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X X

Number of students: 24

Speaking activity 1, coursebook p.53

Coursebook guidelines Aims and Objectives:

To involve students in reading a short story, asking & answering to exchange information

To integrate speaking with reading & listening

Guidelines for teachers:

98

Task 1

•Ask: ‘What happens when you break something at home / don't listen to your parents / get low

marks?' Elicit grounded (you can't go out because you've done something wrong).

• Divide the class into As & Bs

As read the story on p. 143 & Bs on p.145. Ask students to read the SpeakingTip!

• As & Bs ask each other and complete the gaps in their stories.

• Ask students to compare their stories at the end and check their answers.

Task 2

• Ask ‘When was the last time you were grounded?' ‘What happened?'

• Students ask each other to find out what happened.

• You can ask some students to report to the class (if their partners agree)

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

orchestrates the st talking

(clue 1 then clue 2) st reads

other st raise hands to

ra

1.39-

1.53

Students had towrite a paragraphproviding cluesabout the personthey are describingand the rest of the

99

N

E

N

Q

N

C

C

st to read

highlights some clues to make

sts think

the st, makes guesses

a st to read

eg the preposition is in

July not on

answer

st reads

sts can’t find the answer

st raises hand to read

other sts guess but not

right

a st finally shouts the

answer

st reads

st notes down the

corrected form

st pronounces a word

ra

R

R

ra

R

sts will guess whothis person is

Sts are reallynoisy, teacher triesto keep them quiet

100

Q

Q

Q,

E

N

Q

tries to elaborate on what

the st read about Nelson

Mandela

talks about Mandela herself

and asks the sts as well

translates to Greek some of

the information to ensure

comprehension

a st to read

rephrases what the st said,

incorrectly

another st finds the

answer

a st raises hand, answers

a st answers

st don’t seem to know more

about it

st reads

R

R

Ra

101

N

summarizes clues to make the

sts guess

to the st that read

makes guesses

sts don’t know the answer

st finally reveals the

answer

st reads

sts shout the answer

ra

G,

Ex

V

I

Q

reviews grammar (past

continuous-pas simple) on the

board

on the board, gives

translations in Greek

Listening

st unclear

L

1.53-

1.58

102

Ex

N

Pr

I

M

Q

N

asks the question to a st to

show an example

gives an example herself

answers the question herself

st to answer the question

helps st to finish his

sentence

asks st to continue in pairs

asks sts to present their

st hesitant

st responds

sts ask each other what

they don’t know in English

st reads

R

PI, (PI)

(PF)

ra

1.58-

2.03

Almost all pairstalk in Greek andask the teacher forvocabulary in Greek.They are writingthem down. From the12 pairs only 5-6are working. Thereis so much noisethat the teachercan’t monitorproperly. She can’thear what they say.Some pairs are bored

103

R

N

C

N

N

Pr

Q,

E

N

E

stories

a st to read

a st to read

many times (recasts)

to make the sts expand

asks for vocabulary

st reads

st reads

st reads

not sure about how to say

sth in English

st rephrases

st answers

st reads

st answers

(Q)

ra

ra

ra

R

R

ra

R

The teacher has toshout for silence asthe sts areconstantly makingnoise.

The teacher showsinterest in allstories. Otherstudents comment onthe stories as well.

Students don’t makea lot of grammarmistakes but theythink a lotbefore...some ofthem have themwritten

Sometimes whenstudents don’t know

104

N

R

N

G

Pr

N

Pr

N

N

“you mean?...”

gives instant feedback eg hie

hid hid

to help st complete his story

st reads

asks for vocabulary

st reads

st reads

st reads

switches to Greek

st reads

ra

(Q)

ra

ra

ra

ra

how to say somethingin English theyswitch to Greek. Theteacher asks them touse only English

105

Pr,

Q insists in her rephrasing in

English

assigns homework

answers R

106

Lesson activities

1. Correction of homework: students were nominated to read the paragraphs they have written

about a famous person, the rest of the class and the teacher guessed who the person is

based on the clues.

2. Before speaking: teacher reviewed of grammar and vocabulary

3. Speaking activity: teacher gave instructions and an example for the speaking activity.

Students had to work in pairs, talk about a day that they were grounded and ask each other

to find out what happened (Task 2)

4. Pairwork: students discussed in pairs

5. Presentation: teacher nominated students to present their stories to the class

95

96

97

Teacher 2 Lesson 2

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 2

DATE/TIME: 3/4/2014 11.00

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X XX X X X X X

98

Number of students: 24

Reading & speaking, coursebook p.49

Coursebook guidelines

Aims and Objectives:

To involve students in

- reading a story from a short story competition

- skimming & scanning

To integrate reading with listening &speaking

To present vocabulary and grammar in Context

Guidelines for teachers:

Task 1

• Ask: ‘Do you like reading stories? / What kind of stories do you like reading?'

99

• Elicit different types of stories (science fiction, mystery, detective, romance etc.).

• Revise character and ending (Ask:

‘Who's your favorite character?' ‘Do you like stories with a happy or sad ending?').

• Allow several students to answer.

• Ask students to cover the story in their books.

• In pairs, they guess the answers to the questions without reading the story. Remind them to

use ‘must', ‘may/might' for their guesses (e.g. The main character may be a woman etc.).

Task 2

• Students read and/or listen to the story and check their guesses.

Task 3

• Students look at the pictures. Elicit some vocabulary: jewelry, police station, ask somebody

out, get married, husband.

• Students read the story again and put the pictures in the right order.

• Ask students to tell the story looking at the pictures. Make sure they use the correct form of

the simple past

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

100

N

I

N

N

Q

Sts to read their stories

(continued from the previous

lesson)

a st to read

another st to continue

asks the sts to guess about

the text,

sts read their stories,

the rest guess

st reads

st reads

a st guesses, answers

another st answers

ra

ra

R

R

L

11.10-

11.25

11.25-

11.38

Students maketheir guesses inGreek

Reading p. 49

There is a lot ofGreek speaking inthe classroom,however there isa student who

101

V

Gr

Q

Gr

reads the text

asks sts to read the first

paragraph and underline

unknown words

writes a Greek translation on

the board

eg panic-panicked

gives synonyms for words

asks sts to give the three

tenses of a verb

listening

sts read

raise hands

ask about words

a st answers

Q

R

answers only inEnglish. He seemsto be advanced

102

N

Q

N

C

Q

Gr

eg lie vs lie

repeats in Greek to ensure

comprehension

a st to make a sentence with

one of the new words

“Whats the difference between

burglar and thief?”

a st to read the text again

pronunciation eg burglar

st makes a sentence

a st answers

st reads

a st answers

R

R

ra

R

11.38-

11.40

103

asks st to give the three

tenses of blow

on the board

Lesson activities

1. Correction of homework (continued from the previous lesson): teacher nominated students to

read their paragraphs in class, the rest of them were guessing.

2. Pre reading speaking (lead in): teacher asked the students to guess what the text is about,

students responded making some guesses.

104

3. Reading: teacher read the text and then asked students to underline unknown words, she

wrote and explained new vocabulary and some grammar on the board

4. Practice of new vocabulary: teacher asked some students to make sentences with the new

words

105

106

APPENDIX III

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS FOR TEACHER 3

107

Teacher 3 Lesson 1

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 3

DATE/TIME: 10/4/2014 11:51

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

108

- X X XX -X XX X

Number of students: 9

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

Q,

E

N

Q

introduces the topic (school

trips)

to set up a discussion

a st to answer

to make the st elaborate

st answers

st answers

sts answer altogether

st is looking for a word

R

R

(Q)

11.51-

11.58

109

R

N another st

encourages the st to use

simple words to say it

st doesn’t know how to

express what he wants to

say in English, uses

Greek, asks T for help

st rephrases in English,

gets stuck again, asks the

T

other sts give feedback

finishes the sentence

(R)

(Q)

R

(Q)

PF

R

110

N

Q

Pr,

E

Pr

another st

encourages st to elaborate,

elicits (can you describe…?)

waits patiently

st gives short response

(..yes)

long pause, st thinks

st starts a sentence

st responds

R

R

LESSON INTERRUPTED BY ANOTHER STUDENT WHO MAKES AN ANNOUNCEMENT

Speaking activity 1 (p.65)

111

Coursebook guidelinesTask 2

• The purpose of this task is to allow learners to link the vocabulary they have just learnt to

their experiences.

Guidelines for teachers

• Go through the example.

• Elicit remind.

• Encourage students to choose words &tell the class what they remind them of

(e.g. some words could remind students of computer / video games they might play or films they

have seen).

• Accept all answers.

I,

Q

R

to the whole class sts ask for clarifications

(Q)

12.14-

12.20

Speaking activity

The teacher has slightlychanged the activityasking students tocomment only on two of

112

E

N

N

E

asks sts to justify his

choice

helps

a st

a st

“and..?” allows time

sts raise hands

st answers

hesitant, asks for

vocabulary

answers

st answers

st answers

continues

R

(Q)

R

R

R

R

the words not four(economy of time)

Some students seem to beweaker than others butthe teacher makes sureeveryone gets a turn tospeak.

Other students are

commenting while one

student is speaking.

113

N

N

N

N

a st

a st

a st

a st

st answers

st answers

st answers

st answers

R

R

R

R

I

Q to check answers

sts work

12.20-

12.25

Reading (p.66-67)

114

Lesson activities

1. Introduction: teacher introduced the topic by setting up a discussion2. Discussion: students worked individually to prepare answers to the topic set by the teacher3. Presentation: students presented their answers one by one4. Reading activity: students worked in pairs fill in the blanks with new vocabulary5. Speaking activity: teacher linked the vocabulary with speaking (task 2)6. Reading: students read texts and filled in the blanks in the exercises

115

116

Teacher 3 Lesson 2

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 3

DATE/TIME: 4/4/2014 12:40

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X X -X XX XX X

117

Number of students: 10Speaking activity 1 (p.40)

Coursebook guidelines

Aims and Objectives

To involve students in suggesting,agreeing & disagreeing

To provide practice in the language of comparison

To integrate speaking with reading &listening

Guidelines for teachers

Task 1

• Discuss the questions with the class.

• Assist with language.

Task 2

• Ask: ‘What clothes can you see in the pictures?' (polo shirt, jacket, sweater).

118

•Read through the task and the boxes with the class & check for any difficulties.

• Explain the meaning of casual (clothes we wear every day), trendy (in fashion,cool)

fashionable (in fashion).

• In pairs, students decide which present to buy.

• You can ask a confident pair to present an example conversation.

• Pairs report their decision to other pairs & justify it

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

Q

E

Q

introduces the topic

( birthdays)

vocabulary related to

birthdays

writes elicited vocabulary on

the board

sts say words related to

birthday

st raises hand and gives a

short response

R

R

12.40-

12.46

Cousebook p.40 speakingactivity task 1

119

Q,

E

Q

Q,

E

E

asks sts to think of the best

birthday party they had

to make the st elaborate

insists that she has to

elaborate

invites the rest of the sts

to speak

tries to encourage more sts

st hesitates

st continues

another st raises hand,

responds

another st raises hand,

responds

a st raises hand, responds

st speaks in Greek, is

stuck

R

R

R

R

(R)

R

120

Q

to speak

insists in the st rephrasing

in English

helps

another st raise hands,

responds

another st initiates in

Greek

rephrases in English

st raises hand, responds,

is stuck, asks for

vocabulary

st asks for vocabulary

(R)

R

R,

(Q)

R,

(Q)

R

R

121

helps

st responds

st responds

I

M

sts have to write a dialogue

and then present it

explains again

writes the words on his

notebook, explains the usage

sts ask for

clarifications

work in pairs

sts in pairs exchange

ideas

st asks for vocabulary

(Q)

(PI),

PI

(PF)

(Q)

12.46-

12.53

speaking activity task 2

Students speak mostly inGreek and try to decidewhat to write. Somestudents in the pairstend to dominate thetalk, they are the onesto decide what to write.There is only one pairwhich is discussing inEnglish about what towrite

Students are generallymotivated and engagedwith the activity. Theyenjoy working together

Some pairs finish earlierand they mess around

122

sets the order in which the

pairs will present

praises a lot

first pair presents

second pair presents

third pair

fourth pair

fifth pair

R

R

R

R

R

12.53-

1.00

Presentation (pair by

pair)

Teacher doesn’t respondto errors and doesn’tintervene at all whilethey are presenting. Shepraises sts performance.

There is a particularstudent who speaksexclusively in English

123

hands out photocopies work on the grammar

exercises

1.00-

1.20

Grammar exercises

Lesson activities:

1. Introduction-lead in: teacher introduced the topic and asked students questions about theirpersonal experiences

2. Speaking activity: students worked in pairs to do task 2 and prepared the dialogue3. Presentation: pairs presented their dialogues in class4. Grammar exercises: teacher handed out photocopies with exercises for practice in the

comparisons

124

125

Teacher 3 Lesson 3

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 3

DATE/TIME: 4/4/2014 1:25

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X X X -X XX XX X

126

Number of students: 10

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time CommentsI allows sts 2’ to do the

exercise

gives a translation in Greek

sts work

st asks about a unknown

words

(Q)

1.25-1.26 Grammar exercise(workbook p.40, ex6 )

N sts one by one to read their

answers

praises sts for right

answers

sts raise hands and answer

R 1.26-1.27 The teacher correctspronunciationrecasting themispronounced word

I reviews vocabulary to check 1.27-1.33 The teacher turns the

127

V

I,

Ex

E

N

for unknown words

“you can say for example….”

asks for more details

helps by providing the words

in English

a st

st asks about vocabulary

st asks for

clarifications about

instructions

st raises hand to answer

st asks for vocabulary

st rephrases in English

answers, gets stuck

(Q)

(Q)

R

(Q)

R

R

workbook writingactivity into aspeaking activity ashe asks the studentsto do it orally.

2-3 students are morefluent than othersand they have a lotof ideas which theyexpress without muchthinking. Others needtime to prepare theiranswers.

The weaker studentsare usually nominatedto speak whereas themore advanced areraising their hands

128

N

N

E

N

N

N

completes his sentence

the st

a st

“ it is small, big …what?”

allows st to think

a st

a st

a st

another st raises hand

st answers

st answers, then is stuck

st carries on

st answers

st answers

st answers

R

R

R

R

R

R

129

N

N

N

N

a st

a st

a st

a st

explains

st answers

st answers

st answers

st answers

sts asks about vocabulary

R

R

R

R

(Q)

130

R

R

R

comes to me and asks me to

introduce myself to the sts

and have a little chat

introduces me to the sts and

tells them to ask me

questions in English

at this point I become the

teacher, I talk about myself

I explain why I am here

T encourages sts to ask more

questions about me

sts ask questions

sts ask questions

st asks about UK

sts raise hands and ask

questions

(Q)

(Q),

Q

Q

1.33-2.00 Informal discussionwith the researcher

Students askquestions both inEnglish and Greek.

There is an advancedstudent who leads theconversation, doesall the questioning,he is very eager tolearn more about lifein UK

131

R

I show them where Uk is on

the map

T intervenes to explain , to

help the conversation, I turn

to the T whenever I am not

sure about something

Q

Lesson activities:

1. Speaking activity: teacher asked students to do a workbook writing activity orally, all students were encouraged to contribute

2. Discussion: I talked to the students about my research and studies in UK and they asked their own questions

132

133

134

APPENDIX IV

CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS FOR TEACHER 4

135

Teacher 4 Lesson 1

OBSERVATION FORM: EL speaking activities in Greek secondary school classes

TEACHER: 4

DATE/TIME: 9/4/2014 1.25

LEVEL of EL PROFICIENCY: A2

SEATING PLAN:

X XX

136

Number of students: 3

T Teacher actions Student actions SS Time Comments

N

N

N

E

a st to give him the meaning

of words

another st

a st

st hesitates

other st raise hands

st answers

st hesitant.

(R)

1.25-

1.30 The teacher speaksexclusively in Greek.He expects thestudents to know theGreek translation ofwords.

Teacher constantlyasks sts for themeaning of words inGreek to make surethey remember them orthey know them.

137

N

E

Q

reminds him that they had

learnt two synonyms

pinpoints the mistake

gives clues/metalinguistic

information (…it’s a noun)

to the same st

another st gives the

synonyms in English

st hesitant

another st answers, gives

the wrong

translation

st still thinks

other sts raise hands

another st gives the answer

finally

(R)

R

The teacher tries toassociate words withevents to make iteasier for sts toremember them

138

Q

E

I,

Q

“ How can we translate x in

Greek?”

reminds them what they have

said in the previous lesson

about vocabulary

allows them time to do the

exercise

st doesn’t know

another st answers

st answers but doesn’t

give the right answer

st gets it right

R

(R)

R

1.30-

1.37

139

Q

I,

Q

V

N

C

to a st

explains why is wrong

encourages sts to write them

down

a st if she has written what

the ex requires

on the board

a st to check the answers

of pronunciation , asks the

sts don’t know

sts work

st doesn’t give the right

answer

another st gives the answer

st finds it difficult to

read

(R)

R

140

N

Q

Ex

N

Q

Q

st to repeat the word

properly

translates the meaning of the

word in Greek

a st

if the st know the meaning,

repeats the meaning

a st

asks the meaning of the word

to a st

encourages the sts to write

down what they don’t know

asks for the meaning of

st doesn’t know, other st

as well

finally another st gives

the meaning

st hesitant

R

141

E

Q

E

N

Q

another word they had

associated in previous

lessons eg incredible-credit

card

the meaning from the

constituents eg

bedtime stories

asks for synonyms of a word

he had taught them in a

previous lesson

the meaning of words again,

helps sts deduce the meaning

sts guess…don’t remember

exactly

sts understand

sts answer altogether

In

142

I

Q,

N

Q

st to read the instructions

if she has unknown words and

if everyone understood the

instructions

reads the listening text (in

a slow pace)

to check answers

st not quite sure

another st initiates and

makes a try to explain but

still not clear

sts listen

st answers

sts start raising hands

L

1.37-

2.00

143

N

N

checks if they know some

words “what does purple mean”

writes on the board, makes

associations again eg the

verb press-- talks about

press room, pressure (n),

insists on them writing down

the words they don’t know

st to read the instructions

and asks if he understood

another st

goes through the questions

sts have to answer, asks sts

st not clear

R

144

to read them and explains the

meaning

reads the listening text

again

Lesson activities

1. Review of vocabulary: teacher asked students for the meaning of certain words2. Vocabulary exercises: students worked on some vocabulary exercises and teacher

corrected with the whole class3. Listening: teacher read aloud the listening texts and students tried to complete the

listening task.

145

146

APPENDIX V

INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS

Interviewee

Q3. Effectiveness of the

coursebook overall

Q4. Effectiveness of coursebook

speaking activities

Q6. Supplementing speaking

activities

147

Quotations

Teacher1

Coursebook more or less coversall areas, writing activitiesthe most interesting, readingis quite limited and texts areeasy

Some nice speaking activitiesbut I often link activitiestogether or supplement them toadapt them to my students’needs

Need for more speaking

activities , some of the

speaking activities quite

simple, pairwork activities

useful on condition that the

pair can accomplish the goal of

the activity, practical

difficulties for monitoring and

checking learning outcomes when

there is a large number of

students

There is some integration but

sometimes activities don’t

follow one another and I

complement an activity with my

I supplement speaking activities

with tasks which provide students

with more opportunities for oral

production, the coursebook

provides quite limited vocabulary

and the variety of tasks is also

limited, the amount of materials

is quite sufficient but

activities seem to be easy

compared to what my students can

do.

I give them extra materials that

can better meet their level which

is quite advanced, it’s also

148

own activity or I link

activities together, there are

things which could be integrated

in the coursebook but they are

not -I have to do it myself

Coursebook has activities which

help students practice language

to perform specific tasks but

has limited themes and limited

variety of contexts so does not

help students build fluency

policy of the experimental school

to provide richer input to

students

Teacher2

Listening, speaking, readingand writing are equally andsuccessfully distributed inthe coursebook. Pronunciationis not covered but it’s thatnecessary because it’s quiteadvanced for this level.

The coursebook has good speaking

activities, I don’t find the

need for more speaking

activities in the coursebook

because the teacher can use a

reading or listening text to

The coursebook is quite adequate

and comprehensive so there is no

need to supplement a lot, I may

bring something extra to make the

lesson more interesting and for

variety because I see that the

149

practice speaking (follow up

questions), teachers can create

opportunities for speaking

themselves

students are getting bored.

Teacher3

All of the coursebook skillsare poor. The coursebook texts(listening and reading) arepoor and they don’t offeropportunities for follow upquestions, discussion,speaking

The coursebook does not have a

lot of activities, so teachers

have to coin their own ideas. I

usually get some ideas from the

texts and topics in the

coursebook but I also get

inspired by my own experiences

to set up my own speaking

activities

Some speaking activities are

completely unrealistic, students

cannot relate to them

I don’t like the topics the

I usually set up my own speakingactivities on events such asApril Fool’s day, Halloween etcto organize speaking as it issomething students can relate toand it is enjoyable.

I supplement because I feel thecoursebook doesn’t help me,doesn’t provide me with what Ineed.

150

organization/presentation of the

activities, students have to be

divide into groups and look at

different pages, it’s hard for

them they get lost, we spend so

much time on explaining, it’s

not practical and disheartening

Coursebook activities do not

promote fluency and for this

reason I try to use events and

my own experiences as prompts

for practicing fluency. Teacher4

The coursebook has limitedgrammar I would like to havemore exercises.

The speaking activities arenot bad but beginner sts findthem difficult.

I like the activities and those

with pairwork are very helpful

but they are addressed to

students who have reached a

certain level. I have to use the

I follow the coursebook

activities. Whichever I feel the

students will find difficult I

leave them out.

151

book with beginners so we only

do some simple activities eg

some questions in present

continuous and the students have

to respond with yes or no. They

could not respond if they had to

do something more complicated

152

Teacher5

The book is not good enoughfor me. It’s reallymessy/chaotic there is a gooddeal of stuff inside the bookbut it’s not easy for thestudent to make sense of itbecause it is not presented inan organized way.

Activities are not bad but have

unrealistic purposes, some of

them are quite boring for the

students of any use to them,

they don’t provide practice to

real life situations.

I like pairwork activities,

students don’t find them

difficult because they have got

used

I usually bring my own activities

as students need more practical

things eg language they will use

when they travel, 10% is

coursebook materials and 90% is

my own materials.

Coursebooks are always

restrictive. I try to take my

students one step further

Interviewee

Quotations

Q7. Use of the target language during speaking

activities

Q8. Importance of teaching speaking and

development of spoken fluency for students

Teacher 1 I mostly don’t allow Greek in the classroom

except cases where students cannot express

Spoken discourse is really important.

Some students come from backgrounds where

153

themselves in a different way.

I continuously encourage students to use the

target language as much as possible. In

speaking activities I never use the mother

tongue or allow students to use it.

If students get used to speaking to me in

English inside the classroom they are more

likely to speak to me in English outside the as

well, the classroom is the only opportunity for

them to speak the target language.

speaking was given precedence over writing and

their writing skills are not that good. Others

have better writing than speaking skills. I try

to help these students.

It’s very important for the teacher to speak in

the target language as students need input in

order to produce output themselves

Teacher 2 I exclusively use the target language but

sometimes I give them the Greek translations

for vocabulary to save time.

The students do speak in Greek in the

classroom. I constantly encourage them to speak

in English but that doesn’t mean that they

Spoken fluency is an important aspect, as a

teacher I try as much as I can to give practice

to the students in speaking.

154

would do. Teacher 3 In speaking I always use English and I ask them

to use English. I try to encourage them to use

English generally. When they answer to or ask a

question in Greek I respond in English

I give a lot of emphasis on speaking because I

think that the state school has an important

role to play concerning this matter. I can see

that students know a lot of vocabulary and

grammar and they are not able to put it into

use. This is mainly due to the fact that

students who receive extra curriculum training

in language schools are trained to pass

specific exams. The state school should offer

student opportunities to move beyond training

for exams, to something different such as to

develop their speaking skills, practice

speaking.

Teacher 4 We mainly speak Greek in the classroom. I

can’t encourage them to use the target language

At this level is quite difficult to develop

oral skills. I can see that they can respond

155

because they face difficulties even in Greek eg

they get confused in Greek grammar usages with

verbs and nouns. With a more advanced class I

would use more English. I can tell from my

experience that advanced students are more

willing to speak.

only to simple things (yes-no questions).

Teacher 5 Translation should not be used inside the

classroom. Sometimes students make errors

because they try to translate from one language

to the other. Teachers don’t need to translate

because students will understand anyway.

English should be used exclusively in the

classroom because otherwise students will not

get enough practice.

It is extremely important for the students to

develop spoken fluency so that they can

function in real life situations when they will

go abroad. We have an e-partnership with a

school abroad and my students have the chance

to exchange messages via mail and skype with

other students of their age. I also try to

expose students to different dialects

156

157