Running head: TEACHER TALK VS.

STUDENT TALK

Teacher Talk vs. Student Talk

Jennifer McCoy
OTL-5601 Facilitating Learning and Transfer
Colorado State University Global Campus
Dr. Edith Esparza-Young
January 30, 2016

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

Teacher Talk vs. Student Talk
Educators have long understood the importance of verbal communication in the
classroom. Although the use of academic language helps to transmit ideas, the methods of how
educators deliver this communication is crucial. Does the classroom language engage students?
Is there a time during the learning experience to allow for student interaction and language
exchange? Hattie (2012) states, Teachers talk between 70 and 80 percent of class time, on
average (Hattie, 2012, p.80).
Hattie (2012) continues:
One of the difficulties of so much teacher talk is that it demonstrates to students that
teachers are the owners of subject content, and controllers of the pacing and sequencing
of learning, and it reduces the opportunities for students to impose their own prior
achievement, understanding, sequencing, and questions. (Hattie, 2012, p.82)
To examine this phenomenon more closely, an analysis of an actual lesson is of interest.
The following reflection is an observation and analysis of a literacy lesson conducted with first
graders.
Data Collection Results
The observed lesson was written according to Colorado State Standard 2 in Reading,
Writing, and Communicating (2010): students can ask and answer questions about key details in
a text. (CCSS: RL.1.1). The objective of the lesson was to address this standard by reading the
story, Because by Richard Torrey, and prompting the students to ask questions and infer reasons
behind the because statements on each page of the picture book. After recording the lesson
and collecting data on the amount of teacher discourse compared to student discourse the results

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

were that the educator spoke 59 percent of the time while the combined student groups spoke 41
percent of the time.

Seconds Talking
Student Group 6; 10%

Teacher

Student Group 5; 6%

Student Group 1
Student Group 2

Student Group 4; 4%

Student Group 3
Student Group 4

Student Group 3; 7%
Student Group 2; 7%

Student Group 5

Teacher; 59%

Student Group 6

Student Group 1; 7%

Although these results showed a more balanced distribution of talk exchange between the
teacher and the students than Hattie suggests is the norm, perhaps an analysis of what type of
exchange present would be beneficial. What types of questions worked best for student
engagement and understanding as well as what techniques might lead to an even higher
percentage of student talk?
During the lesson, the teacher used a portion of time at the beginning of the lesson to
communicate the objective of the experience as well as connect prior knowledge to the definition
of inference. As the teacher began to read the book to elicit thoughts and responses from the
students, open-ended questions were used to engage student thought. Responsive Classroom
(2007) describes this question style by stating, Instead of predictable answers, open-ended
questions elicit fresh and sometimes even startling insights and ideas, opening minds and

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

enabling teachers and students to build knowledge together (Responsive Classroom, 2007, para
1).
The following is a sample of an observed exchange between the teacher and students.
Teacher (from the book): Because its my spaceship.
(Teacher adds) What is going on here? What do you infer or think is happening?
Student Group 2: He really made a mess in the laundry room.
Student Group 4: His big brother looks mad.
Student Group 5: Why do you think hes wearing a football helmet?
Student Group 1: I think its his brothers, that why he looks mad.
The students were engaged in each page as every illustration was coupled with only an effect
text. Therefore, students were invested and challenged to infer what prior circumstances would
have led to the because statements as the story progressed.
The students were interested and the teacher was able to guide the discussion through the
story, so what could have been done to deepen the conceptual understanding of this lesson?
Suggested Adjustments for Student Engagement
Although the students were engaged, the observer noticed that the thoughts and
exchanges were limited to only one student at a time. Perhaps the use of think-pair-share or
student group reflection would have offered more students the opportunity to share and formulate
ideas of inference.
Fisher, Frey, and Rothenberg (2008) state:
Talk becomes critical when students discuss tasks or ideas and question one another,
negotiate meaning, clarify their own understanding, and make their ideas comprehensible

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

to their partners. It is during collaborative tasks that students must use academic language
if they are to focus on the content. (Fisher, Frey, Rothenberg, 2008, para. 38)
Enlisting as many verbal exchanges between students as possible is the best way to offer
experiences which encourage deep knowledge and conceptual understanding. Watson (n.d.)
suggests eight ways that teachers can talk less and get students talking more.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

Allow for student think time, get comfortable with wait time.
Allow for students to lead the class, get out from in front of the class
Build in understood signals for routine actions to allow for more student topic talk
Try to handle behavioral items non-verbally
Turn statements into questions
Have students restate the main points of the lesson in their words
Stop repeating directions
Be cognizant of summarizing and reviewing instead of asking for student input

(Watson, n.d.)
In addition to these techniques, educators could plan for a percentage of each lesson as
designated dialogue time. The use of timers to limit teacher talk as well as empowering the
students themselves to expect this time by posting the planned lesson schedule, highlighting the
time allotted for collaborative and partner discourse will create an increase of student talk in the
classroom.
Conclusion
Educators must engage learners with challenging tasks and opportunities for meaningful
dialogue, with which there is a clear learning objective. When the teacher is clear about what is
to be the learned, there can be flexibility in the process, allowing students to participate fully in
their learning through the use of language. Romkema and Haase (n.d) suggest that teachers use
this axiom, Dont tell what you can ask; dont ask if you know the answer, tell in dialogue
(Romkema & Haase, n.d., para.3).

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

References
Fisher, Frey, & Rothenberg. (2008). Chapter one: why talk is important in classrooms. Retrieved
from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/108035/chapters/Why-Talk-Is-Importantin-Classrooms.aspx

TEACHER TALK VS. STUDENT TALK

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Routledge
Responsive Classroom. (2007). Open-ended questions. Retrieved from
https://www.responsiveclassroom.org/open-ended-questions/
Romkema, J. & Haase, D. (n.d.). Dialogue education in the university: moving from monologue
to dialogue. Retrieved from
http://www.globallearningpartners.com/downloads/resources/Dialogue_Education_in_the
_University_-_Moving_from_Monologue_to_Dialogue.pdf
Watson, A. (n.d.). Eight ways teachers can talk less and get kids talking more. Retrieved from
http://thecornerstoneforteachers.com/2014/09/8-ways-teachers-can-talk-less-get-kidstalking.html