International Teacher Education Conference 2014 1

International Teacher Education Conference 2014
Teachers' classroom discourses were coded using the following coding scheme: teacher categories, teacher’s
instructional language (Korean/English), speech acts (declaratives, interrogatives and imperatives), question
types (wh-/yes-no questions, display/referential), types of instructional language
(regulative/instructional/feedback), interactive feedback types (clarification/confirmation
requests/comprehension checks) and discourse complexity in terms of numbers of c-units, s-nodes and words.
All 24 classes of transcription were analyzed by these coded criteria and presented in a descriptive statistics
for comparison and analysis. Chi-square verification was used to infer the statistical significance between and
among different groups of teachers.
Result
The analysis result is addressed to the questions: the proportion of Korean teacher’s instructional language
using L1 and L2 in team teaching, the proportions of different speech acts and question types between Korean
teachers and NEATs, the proportions of different pedagogic registers between Korean teachers and NEATs and
the complexities of pedagogic discourses between Korean teachers and NEATs. This section is organized into
discussions for the listed questions in the order as presented.
Analysis of Instructional Languages
Korean teachers are encouraged to use only English when they are in English classes, but they use both
English and Korean to meet the instructional needs whenever and wherever appropriate and efficient the choice
language is in complex instructional contexts. Table 2 shows the mean utterance frequencies of using each
language by English teachers in team teaching and the baseline sole Korean teachers.
Table 2. Instructional Languages
Teacher English Korean Total
Korean
NEAT
Baseline
Freq 1132 282 1414
% 80.1% 19.9% 100%
Freq 1301 0 1301
% 100% 0% 100%
Freq 2741 215 2956
% 92.7% 7.3% 100%
Korean teachers of English in team teaching shows an average of 1,132 English utterances and 282 Korean
utterances for the recorded four class hour sessions while NEATs utter an average of 1301 English utterances for
the same period. Korean teacher’s classroom utterances consist of 80.1% of English and 19.9% of Korean. On
the other hand, solo Korean teachers of English make an average of 2,741 English utterances and 215 Korean
utterances which translate into 92.7% of English and 7.3% of English.
The result indicates that Korean teachers in team teaching use a smaller percentage of English in average
compared to the baseline Korean teachers. The English utterances made by NEATs can work toward the
increase of English utterances students are exposed in team teaching of English. This will balance out 89.5% of
English and 10.5% of Korean uttered in team teaching, but Korean teachers still use substantially more Korean
compared to the baseline Korean teachers. The difference of 3.2% Korean between team teaching and the
baseline solo Korean teaching is attributed to the meditational utterances done by Korean teachers to facilitate
the communication between NEATs and students. It includes Korean translations and explanations help students
better understand their NEATs.
Whether the discrepancy in the utterance frequencies obtained is of statistical significance or not is tested
using chi-square test. The result is shown in its value, degree of freedom, the probability of confidence interval
and post-hoc grouping as in table 3.
Table 3. chi-square and post-hoc of teacher's languages
89