1

Part one: Introduction

1. Rationale.
Language teaching is a complex process involving many interrelated factors. Many
studies have been done to find out suitable and effective methods of teaching language.
However, many researchers have showned that teaching methods dont play a decisive role in
language classroom. Interest in EFL has shifted away from the consideration of teaching
methods in isolation towards a focus on classroom interaction as the most vital element in
second language learning process. Classroom interaction is important because interaction is
the essential criteria of classroom pedagogy. Interaction is the process whereby lessons are
accomplished.
In classroom interaction analysis, teacher talk was pointed to be particular important to
language teaching. According to pedagogical theory, the language that teachers use in
classrooms determines to a large degree whether a class will succeed or not. Teacher talk is
estimated to make up around 70% of classroom language. Teachers pass on knowledge and
skills, organize teaching activities and help pupils practice through teacher talk. Teacher talk
involves many aspects, in which teacher questions have drawn much attention.
It is now generally agreed that questioning is an important methods of teaching.
Aschner (1961), for example, calls the teacher a professional question maker and suggests
that question asking is one of the basic ways by which the teacher stimulates student thinking
and learning (quoted in Gall 1970: 707). Given the importance to education, it is not
surprising that questions have been the focus of research attention in both content classrooms
and language classrooms for many years (Nunan, 1990:187). In content classroom, cognitive
levels of questions have been studies in relation to student achievement (Winne, 1979;
Redfield & Rousseau, 1981). In the language classroom, questions have tended to be
examined as a means of eliciting more or less linguistic output and involving students in
interaction.
While these studies have shed much light on the relationships between teacher
questions and student performance, they have not exhausted the subject. In Vietnam, most
people learn English in classrooms. Classroom language is the chief source of foreign
language learning. It functions not only as the main source of language learning but also a tool
by which a foreign language is taught. However, as far as I know, there are not many
 2

researches carried out in this area in Vietnamese EFL classrooms. Since a better understanding
of the use of teacher questions and classroom interaction in EFL classrooms can undoubtedly
help teachers and students improve their teaching and learning.
As an EFL teacher, this study is an excellent opportunity to help me bridge theory and
practice which otherwise remains nebulous. Observing and describing classroom events make
it possible for me to critically examine improvement needed in my teaching. Ultimately, I can
pursue more suitable ways of teaching for the enhancement of student learning.
2. Aims of the study.
The study aims at:
*Investigating the relationships among these four variables in the ESL classroom in Ly
Thai To school: (1) question types, (2) questioning strategies, (3) student attitudes, and (4)
patterns of interaction
*Giving suggestions and recommendations to teachers at Ly Thai To school.
3. Research questions.
Question 1. What is the frequency of display questions and referential questions used by
different teachers in different classes?
Question 2. What questioning strategies do teachers use?
Question 3. What are the patterns of classroom interaction?
4. Scope of the study.
To limit the scope of the study, I will investigate interactions in four class in English
periods by focusing on types of teacher questions and students attitudes toward these
questions. The study considers only conversational interactions as the goal is to assess the
direct effects of interactions on oral competence improvement.
5. Methodology.
The method applied in this study are both quantitative and qualitative The data which
this study draws on come from audiotape, note taking and observation of four English
language lessons by four teachers who are teaching at Ly Thai To school.
Subjects of my study are four classes in Ly Thai To School in Bac Ninh Province.
Number of pupils level Time of learning English
Class 1 45 10th At least 4 years
Class 2 45 10th At least 4 years
Class 3 50 10th At least 4 years
Class 4 50 10th At least 4 years
 3

Table 1: Description of classes observed.

English is a compulsory subject and they have three English periods per week. Ly

Thai To is not a gifted school, however the quality of teaching and learning is quite high in

comparison with other schools in this area.

 4

Part two: Development

Chapter 1: Literature review

1. 1 What is classroom interaction?

Brown (1994) defines interaction as the collaborative exchange of the thoughts,

feelings, or ideas between two or more people resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other

(p:159). In fact, at the heart of CLT, interaction is considered an important factor for CC

achievement. Having the same idea, Rivers, who sees interaction as the key to teaching

language for communication, wrote:

Part of the teacher art is to create, or stimulate student creation of,

the types of situation in which interaction naturally blossoms and in which

students can use for actual communication what they have been learning in

a more formal fashion. In this way, they are already engaging in the central

activity for which languages is used in human relations. (1987:4).

1.2 The role of classroom interaction in L2 acquisition

Language classroom can be seen as sociolinguistics environments (Cazden, 1988) and

discourse communities (Hall and Verplaetse, 2000) in which interaction is believed to

contribute to learners language development. The authors state that the role of interaction is

very important.

In addition, language learning is especially important. It is in their

interaction with each other that teachers and students work together to

create the Intellecture and practical activities that shape both the form and
 5

the content of the target language as well as the processes and outcomes of

individual development (Hall and Verplaetse, p.10)

According to Allwrights (1984, p.158) claims on the importance of classroom

interaction in language learning in FL lesson, it is inherent in the very notion of classroom

pedagogy itself.

The language environment needs to turn a language classroom into an acquisition-rich

setting. But how might a teacher turn a classroom into an acquisition-rich setting? One of the

ways teachers can do to make the classroom a rich input environment is establishing a non-

threatening environment in the classroom, which encourages meaningful learning and creative

use of English. Teacher can achieve this by establishing informal and warm-hearted interaction

between teacher and learners, as well as among learners themselves. This friendly interaction

has been approved to be the most essential factor in successful language learning in numerous

studies on classroom interaction. Wilga Rivers (1987) emphasized the importance of

interaction as follows.

Through interaction, students can increase their language store as they listen to or

read authentic linguistic material, or even the output of their fellow students in discussions,

skits, joint problem-solving tasks, or dialogue-all they have learned or casually absorbed in

real life exchanges Even at an elementary stage, they learn in this way to exploit the

elasticity of language.

Thus in order to improve students learning outcomes, it is necessary to engage students

in meaningful interactions with teachers and other students. When learners are given

opportunities to take part in conversational interaction, they have to negotiate for meaning.

This term refers to those modifications, which speakers make during the interaction in order to
 6

be understood or to understand each other. This process of negotiation is thought to lead to L2

development specifically communicative abilities.

1.3 Teacher talk

For foreign language learners, classroom is the main place where they are frequently

exposed to the target language. The kind of language used by the teacher for instruction in the

classroom is known as teacher talk (TT). For this term, Longman Dictionary of Language

Teaching and Applied Linguistics defines it as that variety of language sometimes used by

teachers when they are in the process of teaching. In trying to communicate with learners,

teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and

other simplified styles of speech addressed to language learners (Richards, 1992:471)

Having studies the SLA for many years, Rod Ellis (1985) has formulated his own view

about teacher talk: Teacher talk is the special language that teacher uses when addressing L2

learners in the classroom. There is systematic simplification of the formal properties of the

teachers language studies of teacher talk can be divided into those that investigate in the

type of language they use in subject lessons. He also commented the language that teachers

address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own specific formal and linguistic

properties (Ellis, 1985: 145)

From the definitions above, we can see that teacher talk in English classroom has it

own special style because of restriction of physical setting, special participants as well as the

goal of teaching. Moreover, teacher talk is a special communicative activity. Its goal is to

communicate with students and develops students foreign language proficiency. Teacher talk

is used in class when teachers are conducting instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability

and managing classroom activities (Feng Qican, 1999:23). Teachers adopt the target language

to promote their communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the language by
 7

responding to what their teacher says. Besides, teachers use the language to encourage the

communication between learners and themselves. Therefore we can say teacher talk is a kind

of communication based or interaction based talk.

Teacher talk has attracted attention because of its potential effect on learns

comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition. There is no

learning without teaching. So as a tool in implementing teaching plans and achieving teaching

goals, teacher talk plays a vital role in language learning. Nunan (1991) points out that:

Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organization and management of the

classroom because it is through language that teachers succeed or fail in implementing their

teaching plans. In terms of acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is probably the

major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.. The

amount and type of teacher talk is even regarded as a decisive factor of success or failure in

classroom teaching.

1.4 Teachers questions

Questioning is one of the most common techniques used by teachers (Jack C.Richard

& Charles Lockhart, 2000) and serves as the principal way in which teachers control the

classroom interaction. The tendency for teachers to ask many questions has been observed in

many investigations (Chaudron, 1988). In some classroom over half of class time is taken up

by question-and-answer exchanges. Teachers questions have attracted considerable attention

from researchers of language classroom.

1.4.1. Definition of question

The Longman Dictionary of English language provides the following definition for a

question: a command or interrogative expression used to elicit information or a response, or to

test knowledge. Lynch (1991), however, criticizes the last aspect of it, i.e. to test knowledge.
 8

In noneducation settings, people seldom ask questions to which they already have an answer.

Although, there are a number of exceptions such as jokes (e.g. whats the difference between

and - ?), quizzes (e.g. Which country will host the next Olympics?) and courtroom discourse

(e.g. And what did the defendant say to you then?). Lynch characterizes a question as an

utterance with a particular illocutionary forces; and Quirk et al. (1970 and 1985) define a

question as a semantic class used to seek information on a specific subject (Lynch, 1991)

In classroom settings, teacher questions are defined as instructional cues or stimuli that

convey to students the content elements to be learned and directions for what they are to do

and how they are to do it.

What are the purposes of teachers' classroom questions? A variety of purposes emerge

from analysis of the literature, including:

To develop interest and motivate students to become actively involved in lessons

To evaluate students' preparation and check on homework or seatwork completion

To develop critical thinking skills and inquiring attitudes

To review and summarize previous lessons

To nurture insights by exposing new relationships

To assess achievement of instructional goals and objectives

To stimulate students to pursue knowledge on their own

1.4.2. Function of teachers questions

From the development of the Socratic method, to the 1860 edition of Barnards

American Journal of Instruction that states, to question well is to teach well, educators have

long known that questioning is a useful way to aid the transfer of knowledge from instructor to
 9

pupil (Ross, 1860). Multiple based studies have focused on the use of questioning as a

successful and universal pedagogical approach.

Questioning plays a critical role in the way instructors structure the class environment,

organize the content of the course and has deep implications in the way that students

assimilate the information that is presented and discussed in class. Question- answering is

predominant and pervasive in classrooms of most subjects, since it is the easiest way to

establish oral interaction between teacher and student. By asking students questions, teachers

are able to elicit utterances from students and guarantee student talking time, because a

question compels, requires, may even demand, a response(Goody 1978:23). This verbal

exchange is expected to play an important role in classroom language acquisition of students

in terms of input, interaction, and output.

Questions are also important, in that they represent a major source of a student's

linguistic input. White and Lightbown (1984) recorded a teacher asking 427 questions in a

single 50-minute class. Presumably this is not typical of questioning patterns in all classrooms,

but, undoubtedly, questions represent a key aspect of teacher talk. With input being widely

accepted as an essential prerequisite for language learning, it is no exaggeration to conclude

that the nature of teacher's questions, per se, has a direct impact on second language

acquisition.

Research indicates that in most classrooms someone is talking most of the time.

Generally it is the teacher who talks and the students who listen. One way to switch from

teacher centered instruction to student- centered instruction is through the use of questions.

Thus skill in questioning becomes a vital component of effective teaching (Brown &Wragg,

1993; Wilen, 1991)

 10

Questioning is basic to good communications. However, proper questioning is a sophisticated

art, one at which few people are proficient despite having asked thousands of questions in their

lifetimes. Questions lie at the heart of good, interactive teaching. Questions must be at the

appropriate level, be of appropriate type, and above all, be worded properly. We will now look

at the different level at which questions can be asked.

1.4.3. Levels of questions.

Questions may be categorized as narrow or broad. Narrow questions usually require

only factual recall or specific, correct answer. Broad questions, however, can seldom be

answered with a single word and often do not have one correct answer. Broad questions

usually require that students go beyond simple memory and use the thinking process to

formulate answer. Although both kinds of questions are useful in the learning process, teachers

traditionally rely too heavily on narrow questions.

Effective teachers adapt the level of questions to their teaching objectives

(Dillion,1983, 1990). If learning specific information is the objective, then narrow questions

are appropriate. If thinking processes are the objective, then broader questions are needed.

Since thinking can take place at several levels of sophistication, it is important that teachers be

able to classify and ask questions at these levels

There are many classification systems for describing the different levels of questions.

Most of them are useful only to the extend that they provide a framework for formulating

questions at the desired level within a classroom environment. The first system I would like to

focus here is the system of classifying questions as convergent or divergent.

Convergent questions are those that allow for only one right response, whereas

divergent questions allow for many right responses. Questions about create facts are

convergent, while questions dealing with opinions, hypothesis, and evaluations are divergent.
 11

Questions about concrete facts (who, what, when, and where questions) that have been

learned and committed to memory are convergent. For example:

Who is the President of the United States?

What is 5 +3?

Where is the White House located?

Convergent questions may also require students to recall and integrate or analyze

information to provide one expected correct answer. Most alternative-response questions, such

as those that can be answered yes or no or true or false, are also classified as convergent, since

students response is limited. Examples are:

Is 3+2 = 5?

Is this a picture of a farm animal or a house pet?

Is this logic statement true or false?

Conversely, questions calling for opinions, hypotheses, or evaluations are divergent,

since there are many possible correct responses. Examples include:

What would be a good name for this story?

Can you give me an example of the use of this word in a sentence?

Why is it important to protect our environment?

Whom do you consider the greatest scientist that ever lived?

Divergent questions should be used frequently because they encourage broader

responses and are, therefore, more likely to involve students in the learning process. They

require that students think. However, convergent questions are equally important in that they

deal with the background information needed to answer divergent questions. In the classroom

it is generally desirable to start with convergent questions and move toward divergent

questions.
 12

In summary, convergent questions limit student responses to only one correct answer,

whereas divergent questions allow for many possible correct responses.

Another system of classifying questions is based on Mental Operation Systems. The

table below offers a review of the Mental Operation System for classifying questions.

Levels of Classroom Questions.

Category Type of thinking Examples

Factual Student simply recalls Define

information. Who was ?

What did the text say ?

Empirical Student integrates and Compare

analyzes given or recalled Explain in your own words

information. Calculate the

Student thinks creatively and What will life be like ?

Productive imaginatively and produces Whats a good name for ?

something unique How could we ?

Student makes judgment or Which painting is best?

expresses values. Why do you favor this ?

Who is the best ?

Evaluative
Table 2. Mental Operation System for Classifying Questions

The Mental Operation System of classifying questions will give you the needed

framework for improving your questioning skill. You should be asking questions at all levels

of the system instead of at only the factual level, as many teachers tend to do. It is especially
 13

important that you ask more productive and evaluate questions than is common practice.

These questions give students the opportunity to think.

1.4.4. Types of teachers questions

As said above, effective teachers adapt the level of questions to their teaching

objectives. Besides that, they must also ask the right type of questions. For example, you may

want to ask questions to determine the level of your students learning, to increase their

involvement and interaction, to clarify understanding, or to stimulate their awareness. These

purposes all call for different types of questions. Teachers ask a great number of questions in

their lessons and each question can be seen as setting up a mini-learning task. For this reason,

the type of questions we ask impact heavily on the learning process.

Like the classification of level of questions, there are many way to identify the types of

questions. With the growth in concern for communication in language classrooms, a further

distinction has been made between display and referential questions by Long and Sato

(1983).

In Long and Satos terms, display questions refer to those that teachers already know

the answers, while referential questions are ones to which the teachers asks for information he

or she does not know.

Display questions

Suppose you ask your students something you already know. The answer coming from

the students will not satisfy the basic criterion of providing information. For instance, if you

hold up your pen and ask learners What is this? the answer will not solve a problem, which

is required for learning to take place.

Of even less are those questions to which the answers are provided beforehand. Some

teachers give their students the information and then try to ask them questions. For example,
 14

This is a pen. What is this? Such questions, at best, test something of the students memory,

not their comprehension. In addition, such questions are not harmony with conversational

maxims.

Examples of typical display questions include:

What is the past tense of the verb to come?

What does the text tell us about the man?

Can you use since with past simple?

Is true the answer to question 3?

As these examples show, display questions can be closed (the answer is yes or no) or

open. Their purpose is exclusively pedagogical, they are intended to check learning, and, for

this reason, they are rarely found in discourse outside the classroom. In answering such

questions, the student has limited scope. Specific information is expected in the reply, and in

linguistic terms, many display questions are answered with a word or phrase, especially those

of the closed variety. Display questions normally require the respondent to produce the right

answer, and as Tsui (1996) points out, this itself may generate more anxiety and less

participation.

Referential questions

However, real language does not consist solely of questions from one party and

answers from another. Real language circles around referents or world knowledge in order to

create messages and therefore is not form based but meaning based. Thus, questions in the

language classrooms should be referential or meaning based, and not focuses only on form.

The following examples are meaning based questions:

1. Suppose you win $50,000. What are you going to do with it?
 15

2. How do you usually spend your weekends?

Teachers may give students contexts. Teacher (holding up a pen): This is my pen.

Where is yours? (Pointing to a student)

In this situation, students may either hold up his pen and answer Heres mine! or

This is my pen, or at least show that he understands by making an appropriate gesture.

These answers will be acceptable in real situations. The teacher then has clearly created an

information gap which has been filled by the learner. This is how real communication takes

place.

The answer to these questions would be difficult to predict as they

refer to personal experiences, attitudes, opinions and so on. However, it

should be noted that referential questions can also be closed and quite

possibly answered with one word. Later reference will be made to whether

this does in fact happen.

In answering a referential question, learners may be pushed to use language at the

limits of their competence in order to make their output comprehensible (Swain 1985).

Additionally, listeners frequently request clarification and ask questions to check

understanding in an effort to make input comprehensible (Long 1983). Both processes are

regarded as particularly helpful in promoting language acquisition.

Display vs. referential

According to the study carried out by Long and Sato (1983), ESL teachers used

significantly more display questions (51% of total of 938 questions) than referential questions

(14%) in classrooms. In contrast, in informal NS NNS conversations outside classrooms,

76% of total of 1,322 questions were referential questions and only 0,2% were display. This
 16

result suggests that, contrary to the recommendations of many writers on second language

teaching methodologies, communicative use of the target language makes up only a minor part

of typical classroom activities. Is the clock on the wall? and Are you a student? are still

the staple diet, at least for beginners.

Further qualitative distinctions were made by Long and Sato (1983) who suggest that

learners responses will differ not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, depending on the

type of questions. Referential questions, which seek information unknown to the speaker, were

thought more likely to elicit longer, more authentic responses than display questions, for

which responses are predetermined by lesson, contend. This hypothesized effect of a process

variable was tested both in a simulated classroom interaction (Brock, 1986) and in a natural

classroom experiment (Long, 1983). The results suggested that referential questions elicited

slightly longer and more students utterances.

Van Lier( 1988) believes that classroom questions of whatever sort are designed to get

the learners to produce language. Brock (1986) contends that referential questions increase the

amount of learner output. Learners responses were more than twice as long and more than

twice as syntactically complex in response to referential questions, as compared to display.

Therefore, an increased use of referential questions by teachers may create discourse which

can produce a flow of information from students to the teacher, and may create more near-

normal speech. However, it is believed that display questions require short or even one- word

answers and hence are less likely to get learners to produce large amounts of speech.
 17

Chapter 2: Research methodology

Chapter 2 will present the research methodology including research questions, subjects

of the research and methods for data collection.

2.1 Research questions

Although the studies of teacher questioning behavior are numerous in western cultural

settings, not many studies of teacher questioning have been carried out in Vietnam. What are

the features of teacher questioning in our classes? Do they satisfy students expectations? Do

they prompt the students foreign language learning? Are there any differences between

Vietnamese cultural classroom interaction and other cultural classroom interaction? For such

purposes and for providing some suggestions for Vietnamese English language teachers, based

on the principals and facets we have discussed in previous chapter, this study is designed to

answer the following questions:

 18

Q1. Whats the frequency of display questions and referential questions used by different

teachers in different classes?

Q2. What questioning strategies do teachers use?

Q3. What are the patterns of classroom interaction?

2.2 Subjects

The subjects of this study consisted of four EFL classes taught by non-native speaking

teachers in Ly Thai To school, where the researcher is teaching. In comparison with other

schools in this area, it is a high standard one although it is not a gifted school. However, as the

school is located in a rural area of Bac Ninh Province, the teaching and learning equipments

are not sufficient. It is not equipped with an overhead projector and teachers do not use

electronic teaching plans or lesson plans. In English lessons, the main materials used are

simply a blackboard, textbooks and in the recent two years teachers have been using radio

during listening periods. However, the sad fact is that students do not see the importance of

English and hence do not appreciate the language. Most of the students just focus on learning

subjects for their entrance exam such as mathematics, physics or chemistry. They limit their

English learning in order to pass the national exam at the end of their High School.

These classes were randomly selected. The size of these classes varied from 40 to 45

students. All of the students are in 10 grades and have at least four years of learning English

in secondary school. In high school they have three English periods per week. However,

according to their teachers and from the researchers observation, they are not good at English

communicative skills , namely speaking and listening. In English lessons, they are used to

speaking Vietnamese most of their time. Their immediate use of language is not obvious so

they are not highly motivated. Their textbook is English 10, a new textbook which is

considered as an innovation in teaching methodology that encourages students to practise

 19

communicative skills. During the observation period, the pupils are in the second semester of

their 10 grades.

All the four teachers are Vietnamese and have obtained their Barchelor degree in

English. The youngest teacher has three years of teaching English. And the oldest one has been

teaching English for 20 years. All these teachers are female. They can represent the main

constituents of the teaching faculty. In the following part, they are represented as T1, T2, T3

and T4.

Finally, the students are arranged in rows of desks facing the front of the classroom. The

observation revealed that the classroom is physically overcrowded, with limited space for the

teachers to freely move around their classes. The common pattern in the classroom is that of

an active teacher and passive learners. The teaching and learning is characterized by a set

syllabus and textbook required to be completed within a limited time and to serve for the

purpose of preparing for end of term exam. .

2.3 Methods for data collection

This qualitative quantitative study is conducted as a classroom research. The only

way to collect useful data was non- participant observation with the focus being on the

teachers use of questions and its effect on classroom interaction. Four classes from Ly Thai

To school were randomly selected for observation. The classes were observed as carefully as

possible for 45 minutes . The researcher carried out the observation personally by sitting in the

classes from the beginning to the end of each session, taking notes of teachers questions, their

number and functions (e.g. comprehension check, talk initiation, etc), listening to the

discussions of the students, writing down the freequency of student student or teacher

student interaction, length of the learners responses to different types of questions, and other

noticeable patterns.
 20

During classroom observation, the researcher observed the teaching sequence without

informing the subject teachers in advance. So aspects of the teachers performance in the

classroom are recorded completely naturally. Therefore, the data gathered are representative of

the normal practices of the teacher. Details about the school and the level, type, and duration

of classes selected from each teacher are given ibelow:

Teacher Class Number of Level Type of lesson Duration

pupils
T1 Class 1 45 10th Speaking 45 minutes
T2 Class 2 45 10th Reading Comprehension 45 minutes
th
T3 Class 3 40 10 Reading Comprehension 45 minutes
th
T4 Class 4 43 10 Language focus 45 minutes
Table 3. Description of the subjects of the research

The researcher used a tally sheet as a most appropriate technique to collect

quantitative as well as qualitative data. It is done in real time and it does not require a complex

coding or grid work, therefore, it helps to reduce the chance of the observer making certain

influences about what was going on the class in which observation was made

(Nunan,1989:77). Furthermore, the tally sheet can protect the classrooms natural flow

because the observer, theoretically, sits in silence in seat off to the side or back of the

classroom checking tallies as utterances are observed in the classroom.

The tally sheet consists of four parts, each describing different types of utterances

expected in the classroom. The parts are as follows: teacher initiated; student initiated;

disorder or non- utterances; and notes.

The Frame: Part I

The first part of the tally sheet considers classroom teacher utterances such as

questions (display or referential questions), explanations, motivation, and criticism. It also

 21

considers how the teacher deals with students inability to understand and student errors by

tallying modifications the teacher uses when learners do not understand and the type of

feedback the teacher provides students.

The Frame: Part II

Part II provides information on the kind of language production generated by learners, the

second part of the tally sheet incorporates student initiated utterances such as student question

(display or referential) and student responses.

The Frame: Part III

This part takes into consideration any noise or non- utterances that might occur during

the class such as silence due to focused attention on teaching materials or confusion due to

lack of understanding to provide insight into any low tally totals in the first two divisions.

The Frame: Part IV

Although this part is not a division for collecting tallies, it is an essential part of the

tally sheet. This is the documentation of any note- worthy findings or examples of the tallied

data prepared by the researcher herself. Information gathered in this part could include a) the

repeated use of Good job, b) group /pair work, c) the length of any activity or intermission,

and d) the general atmosphere or attitude in the class.

 22

Chapter 3. Results and discussion

Chapter 3 will present the results of the research analysis with related to the 3 research

questions mentioned in Chapter 1. The follow up discussion will be presented after the

research results.

3.1 Results

3.1.1 Results of research question 1

Q1: Whats the frequency of display questions and referential questions used by different

teachers in different classes?

As discussed in Chapter 1, some previous studies have shown that the teachers use of

display questions and referential questions is not equal. Teachers use display questions more
 23

often than referential ones. What is the distribution of the two kind of questions used in an

EFL class in Vietnam? The data I have collected will answer this question.

In terms of display questions vs. referential questions, the four teachers in the sample,; asked

more display questions than referential questions. This is corresponding to what have been

discussed in the literature review. The detail data are shown in the following table:

Teacher Display questions Referential questions

No % No %
T1 39 86.7% 6 13.3%
T2 24 75% 8 25%
T3 53 76.8% 16 23.2%
T4 47 92% 4 8%
Totals 163 82.7% 34 17.3%
Table 4. Frequency of display questions and referential question and the percentage in the

total sum.

From the table, it can be seen that there is a preference for display questions over

referential questions in the classes under this investigation. Though the observed teacher

varied in many aspects, they shared the similarities and common tendency in teaching. Most of

the questions they used were display questions. 163 questions out of the total 197 questions

were display questions (about 82.7%), and only 34 referential ones (about 17.3%). They used

questions to check or test understanding, knowledge or skill; to get learners to review and

practice previously learnt material. For examples:

Teacher: Is this right? (T asked the whole class to check the pupil s task)

What does this word mean?

How to ask the age of someone?

How do you make the sentence to ask the age of Yang Liwei?

Whats the question 2?

Whats the part of speech of the word mark in this sentence?

 24

Or Why dont you use auxiliary in this sentence?

The observation showed that the teachers frequently explained meaning of a word,

phrase or sentence whenever they thought that it is new or difficult for pupils to understand.

Moreover, it seems that the teachers used display questions for facilitating the explanation of

words, phrases and statements about the text focused. The responses teachers received from

pupils were often short, one-word answers such as:

Example 1:

Teacher: Is this right? ( ask the whole class to check the pupil s task)

Pupils: Yes

Teacher: What does this word mean?

Pupils: Nhan tao

Example 2:

Teacher: How to ask the age of someone?

Pupils: How old?

Or sometime, the pupils kept silent. In these cases, teachers themselves often answered the

questions.

The result was that pupils did not have to work hard. They just remembered what have

been taught. If they did not know the answers or could not remember the information given,

the often said No or kept silent. Even, when they were called by their teacher, their friends

often told them the answers. So in the classes, only some active pupils really involved in the

lesson. It was felt that the interaction between teachers and their pupils was not natural and

rather boring.

In contrast, there was a low frequency in using referential questions by all observed

teachers (17.3%). Not all teachers made attempts to incorporate referential questions in the
 25

lesson. It could be that referential ones often require more time and effort to be answered so

teachers did not focus on this. The good point in using referential questions is that it limits the

teacher talk and hence teachers could spend more time with individual pupils. With one

referential question, teachers can ask some pupils because each one has different answer and

the conversation is longer. For example:

Teacher: Can you tell me some historical places in Vietnam?

Have you ever visited Temple of Literature?

What are special things about this place?

Pupils seem to participate morein the lesson when they are asked referential questions

because they have to try to give the full answer in their own way.

3.1.2 Results of research question 2

Q2: What questioning strategies do teachers use?

Questioning strategies refer to strategies that teachers use to elicit verbal responses

from pupils. The following categories were found in the data:

(1) Rephrasing: A question is expressed in another way. For example

T: What is the name of the first Chinese spaceman?

Ps: (silent)

T: Who is the first Chinese spaceman?

(2) Simplification: This may be regarded as a kind of rephrasing by means of which a situation

is simplified so that pupils can cope with it. For example:

T: What was the function of Temple of Literature?

Ps:

T: Ok. What was it built for?

 26

This is an instance of linguistic simplification which pertains lexical substitution, i.e. was

built for is used instead of function.

(3) Repetition: A question is repeated in the hope that a verbal response will be elicited. For

example:

T: What is the last question?

Ps:

T: (point to a girl) What is the last question?

(4) Decomposition: An initial question is decomposed into two or more parts so that an answer

may be obtained. For example:

T: Now, the last sentence It marked the beginning of Space Age. Tien, make question for

this sentence.

Tien:

T: Ok! What does the word mark mean?

Tien: It means nh du

T: What is kind of word family of mark?

Tien: it is a verb

T: Ok. What is your question?

(5) Probing: A question is followed up by one or more other questions so that the teacher can

solicit responses from a student.

T: This sentence is True or False?

Ss: False

T: Why? Why is it false?

Rephrasing Simplification Repetition Decomposition Probing

T1 10 2 13 1 1
T2 10 3 11 2 0
 27
T3 5 3 0 1
9
T4 12 3 15 3 3
Table 5. Number of questions asked by teachers under each category

Through the classroom observation, it was found that teachers direct their questions to

nearly all the pupils in the class. Generally, in English classrooms, teachers always let pupils

answer their questions in four ways: 1) nominating; 2) chorus answering; 3) volunteering; 4)

teacher self answering. There were about three or five pupils in each class who liked

volunteering, the rest of the class usually kept silence. Therefore teachers always prefer calling

or nominating the students to give answers. It is the way to make all pupils work. However too

much nominating would make students more passive. Sometimes, in order to save time,

teachers often answered the questions by themselves. In this way, students will become more

dependent on their teachers. They expected to receive information passively instead of

thinking about them actively. In addition, the classroom atmosphere would be duller.

3.1.3 Results of research question 3

Q3. What are the patterns of classroom interaction?

Classroom interaction is different from interaction in other contexts. It is characterized

by the inequality in turn taking distribution. In normal classrooms the pupils are supposed to

speak only to the teacher, and the teacher will address either all the pupils or a particular

selection of them. This can be easily identified as there are three basic moves in the whole

interaction. A move is the smallest contribution made to an interaction by any one particular at

a time.

An initiating move (I)

A responding move (R)

A follow up move (F)

In normal classroom the pattern is as follows:

 28

T: I

P: R

T: F

In this way, the teacher makes two moves to each move of the learner; the learner is restricted

to the responding move only.

The findings of this study confirm the dominance of the IRF pattern of teacher pupils

discourse. This three parts structure of classroom conversations is illustrated below:

T: Is that right? I

P: Yes. R

T: Yes. F

In this exchange, the teacher asks a display question in the first utterance. It elicits an

answer from the students in the second utterance, which is then evaluated positively by the

teacher. Here is another example:

T: Have you ever been to Van Mieu?

P: No.

T: No.

In this exchange, the teachers referential question elicits a negative reply from the

pupils. The teachers follow up move acknowledges that this response has been heard.

A record of the exchanges in the four lessons reveals that in all of them, initiative lies

largely with the teacher. For example:

1. T: Make question for sentence 1. Who can?

2. Ps: (silent)

3. T: Mi. Can you?

 29

4. P: What is the name of Chinas first astronaut?

5. T: Is that right?

6. Ps: (silent)

7. T: Is that right?

8. Ps: Yes.

9. T: Yes. Now move to the sentence 2. What is the question to ask the age?

In this example, the teacher asked questions, and nominated pupils to answer them.

She chose the topic for discussion, closed it and introduced another topic for conversation. In

short, she was in complete control of turn takings and the direction of classroom discourse.

The students had no influence over its development.

The submissive role of the pupils was also evident from the fact that in the four

recorded lessons, no pupils took the initiative to seek clarification or check confirmation from

the teachers. In addition, there was not a single learner question. There is no doubt that power

distribution was unequal in all lessons.

3.2 Discussion

3.2.1 Types of teacher question and interaction

Research question 1 reveals that in the lessons under this investigation, there is a

tendency for the teacher to employ more display questions than referential question. The

finding supports the conclusion made by Long & Sato (1983b: 217), Pica & Long (1996). In

Long & Sato, Pica & Longs study, they found that teachers used more display questions than

referential ones in the classroom. Therefore, Long & Sato drew a conclusion that the second

language classroom offered very few opportunities for the learners to practice genuine

communicative uses of the target language. Pica & Long drew a similar conclusion that there

was less negotiation of meaning in classroom settings and suggested that, as a result, there was
 30

less target language output. In a study undertaken by Brock (1986), he found that higher

frequencies of referential questions asked by teachers would have some effects on classroom

discourse: students responses to display questions would be shorter and syntactically less

complex than their responses to referential questions; confirmation checks and clarification

requests by the teacher would occur more frequently following referential questions than

following display questions, and this would lead to more negotiation of meaning which is

crucial to the target language acquisition. A teacher was encouraged to focus on the use of

referential question in a communicative language lesson in order to relate the content of the

lesson to the students own life.

However, this study showed that the use of referential questions in four lessons was not

successful as expected. Pupils did not produce more target language than being asked by

display questions. Evenly, no pupils volunteered to give answers to referential question. The

following is a typical example of what happens when the teacher asks referential questions:

T: Have you ever been to the Temple of Literature?

Ps: Yes. 9(some pupils say).

T: What do you know about this place?

Ps: (Keep silence)

T: Any special about this place?

Ps: (Keep silence)

T: Ok. When was it built? Giang

Giang: It was built in 1017

T: Ok. What was its function?

The example shows that referential questions are less effective than display questions

in eliciting pupil responses. First, they were asked more often to individuals than to the whole
 31

class. Second, it is possible that answers to referential question often require more time and

effort, which may result in the lack of interest of other pupils. Moreover, teacher may not be

patient enough to wait for the pupil responses. They paraphrase, decompose or change their

question into more simple display questions and move to other pupils. On the other hand, the

success of using referential questions depends much on pupils level as referential questions

require longer and complex syntactical responses and relate to pupils life. If pupils lack

general knowledge or vocabulary or structures, they will have difficult to express their ideas.

Therefore, beside types of teacher questions, other factors that affect classroom

interaction such as pupils attitudes towards questioning and answering behavior in the

classroom and the questioning strategies used by the teacher; need to be considered, too.

3.2.2. Pupil attitudes and interaction.

Pupil attitudes play a significant role in shaping the patterns of classroom interaction.

Vietnamese pupils are considered passive and unconfident. They are reluctant to volunteer to

answer questions in class although they know the answer. The observation shows that they like

to give the answers in chorus or wait to be called up. When pupils are appointed to respond,

they may prefer to hesitate and give short answer where possible so that they do not give their

peers the impression that they are showing off. Another reason is that they are not confident.

They are afraid of giving a wrong answer and being laughed or criticized by friends and the

teacher.

The results of this study indicate that the classes under this investigation are still

teacher centered classroom. Influenced by Vietnamese culture, the teachers still play a

dominating role and hardly consider/take into consideration the learners needs. The teacher is

more directive in making decisions about what goes on in the classroom. And pupils can talk
 32

when the teacher allows them to talk. Therefore the interaction in class is mainly one way

flow.

3.2.3. Questioning strategies and interaction

If teachers are concerned with the quantity of the pupils output, it is not enough to just

focus on the types of teacher questions. Questioning strategies must also be taken into

consideration.

An ineffective strategy is to ask a series of questions before a pupil is given the chance

to speak. If this strategy is used, only the last question is likely to elicit any answer. The other

questions are often ignored. For example:

T: Have you ever been to Van Mieu Quoc Tu Giam? What is it? When was it built?

What was its function?

In fact, these series of question may confuse the pupils rather than help them to recall what

they know.

Two effective questioning strategies are identified in the data. The first one is

decomposition. This involves breaking down an initial question into several parts so that a

response may be obtained. The following example, which was quoted above, indicates how

the strategy can help pupils to respond to questions they find difficult to answer.

T: What is special about the Temple of Literature?

Ps: Silent

T: So, when was it built?

P: In 1017.

T: Yes. So is it the oldest university in Vietnam?

P: It is the first university in our country.

 33

Another effective questioning strategy identified in the data is probing, which encourage

pupils to elaborate on their answers.

T: What is the ideal number of children in a family?

P: One I think.

Yes. You think one is enough. Why?

P: No more fighting.

T: No more fighting. Then, what other advantages do you think you may have, if you

were the only child in the family?

P: Its quieter for my study.

The teacher follows up her initial question with two related questions. This enables the pupil

to have more chances to speak.

Part three: Conclusion and implications

for teaching
1 Implication for teaching.

The small sample of teachers, pupils and school involved in this study can not

generalize for all teachers, pupils and schools in Vietnam. However, a few implications for

English teachers and teacher educators are worth discussing.

 34

First, both display and referential questions have important functions to perform in

language teaching and learning, and will thus always have a place in the ESL classroom.

However, the use of different types of teacher questions does not guarantee that the quantity

and quality of classroom interaction will be improved. Attention must also be paid to

questioning strategies, which this study suggests should be better made use to elicit oral

responses from students and develop their grammatical competence. In this connection, Swain

(1985) contends that for grammatical competence to develop, it is insufficient for learners to

receive comprehensible input only. They must also be encouraged to produce output so that

their hypotheses about their second language (L2) can be tested. She suggests that when

learners produce output, they will pay attention to grammar or the means of expression.

Sufficient output, then, will help learners improve their grammatical knowledge of L2. The

question is How can output be elicited from learners? This study suggests that one way is

through questioning. The analysis presented above demonstrates that referential questions do

not necessarily lead to more output from learners, but appropriate questioning strategies, e.g.

probing, do. The implication of this is that these questioning strategies should be fully

exploited in the classroom to help pupils develop their grammatical competence. Teachers also

need to know that in some classrooms, it may not be too helpful to expect a voluntary answer

to a general solicit. Students, especially the shy ones, may need to be nominated, at least

occasionally.

Second, pupils in general seem to be reluctant to give answers voluntarily or

enthusiastically. This implies that the traditional question answer feedback teaching model

should be supplemented by (but not replaced with) an alternative pattern of discourse. One

possibility is the use of pair work and group work, where students are given chances to engage

in exploratory talk and negotiation of meaning.

 35

To conclude, this study demonstrates that pupil attitudes play a very significant role in

shaping classroom interaction. One reason why some pupils in our class are reluctant to

answer questions in the classroom is that they are afraid of being evaluated negatively by the

teacher in front of their peers. To improve this situation, teachers need to know what follow

up moves are most constructive to second language learning and what are most harmful. This

can be the subject for another piece of classroom based research.

2 Limitations and further study.

The fisrt limitation of the study comes from the limited population of the subjects. Four

teachers in four classes is too small a figure. Besides that, the time of observation is a little

short. Four periods is not long enough to collect a sufficient data. In addition, this research just

covered only one aspect of teacher talk: teacher questions so this research does not provide an

insight from the all round perspectives.

. It is need to do a further research that is concerned with the other aspects of

classroom

interaction besides the ones involved in this study such as teacher feedback, error treatment,

group work,

References
1. Allwright, D. 1983. Classroom-centred research on language teaching teaching and

learning: A brief historical overview, TESOL Quarterly, 17,2,191-204

2. Allwright, D. 1981. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning,

Applied linguistics 5/2:157-71

 36

3. Allwright, D., and K.M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An

Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press

4. Bailey, K.M. Classroom-centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning. In

M. Celce-Murcia (de), Beyond Basics, Issues and Research in TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury

House, 1985.

5. Brown, H. Douglas H. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New

Jersey: Prentice hall.

6. Brock, C.A. 1986. The Efects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom

Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1)

7. Candlin, C. N. Communicative Language Teaching and the Debt to Pragmatic. In C.

Ramch (ed), Greogetown University Roudtable Bulletin, 56 (1976)

8. Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom discourse: The Language Teaching and Learning.

Portsmouth: Heinemann.

9. Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: research on teaching and

learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

10. Cook, V. 2001. Second Language & Language Teaching. Second edition. OUP Inc.

New York.

11. Costas Gabrielatos. 1992.Teaching Communication and Interaction Strategies. An

action reseach project with Greek teenagers at intermediate level. The RSA/ Cambridge

Diploma for Overseas Teachers of English.

12. Costas Gabrielatos. 1997. A question of Function. Teacher questions in the EFL

classroom. The 18th Annual TESOL Greece Convention.

 37

13. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University

Press.

14. Gall, M.D.1970. The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research

40(5)

15. Kam -yin Wu. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC

Journal . 24.(2)

16. Long, M. H. 1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition in H. Winitz

(ed). Native and foreign language acquisition: 159-78. New York: New York Academy of

Sciences.

17. Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition Theory. In S. Gass and

C. Madden (eds), Input and second language acquisition. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House

18. Long, M.H & Sato, C.J. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms &

functions of teachers questions. Classroom oriented research in second language

acquisition, ed by H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long. Newburry House.

19. Lynch, T.1991. Questioning Roles in the classroom. ELT Journal 45 (3).

20. M.R. Talebinezahd. (2004). Effective Questions . English Teaching Forum 37(2),

from

http://English language programs/English Teaching Forum/

21. Nematullah Shomoossi. 2004. The effect of teachers questioning behavior on EFL

classroom interaction : A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix 4(2). 2004

22. Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding language teaching; making it work. ELT Journal

41(2).

23. Nunan, D. 1990. The questions teachers ask. JALT Journal 12(2).
 38

24. Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: a textbook for Teachers.

Cmabridge: Cmabridge University Press.

25. Pica, T. and C. Doughty. 1985a. Input and interaction in the communicative

language classroom: Teacher-fronted vs. group activities, In Input in second language

acquisition, ed. S. Gass and c. Madden. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House

26 Pica, T. The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 4:

(1987).

27. Seliger, H.W & M.H. Long (eds). 1983. Classroom oriented Research in Second

Language Research Acquisition. Rowley. Rowley Mass. Newburry House.

28. Sinclair. J.M.H & Coulthard, R.M.1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford;

Oxford University Press.

29. Redfield, D.L & Rousseau, E.W. 1981. A mental analysis of experimental

research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research 51(2).

30. Richards, J.C & D. Nunan (eds) 1990. Second Language Teacher Education New

York: Cambridge University.

31. Xiao - yan. (2006) . Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. From

http://www.asian-efl-journal.com

32. White, J. & Lightbown, P. M. 1984. Asking & Answering in ESL Classes. The

Canadian Mordern Language Review 40(2).

33. www.edb.utexas.edu/pbl/TIPS/question.html

34.. www.priceless-teaching-strategies.com/
39