Introduction
Classroom interaction plays a crucial role in students' learning within second and foreign language education, as highlighted by various researchers (Allwright, 1984; Walsh, 2011) It is essential for facilitating practice and enhancing language acquisition, as noted by River (1987) and supported by Mackey's findings (1999) Engaging in interactive activities not only fosters language development but also aligns with Long's (1990) assertion that language acquisition stems from the interplay between learners' cognitive abilities and their linguistic environment.
For learners of English as a foreign language, particularly in non-English speaking environments, the classroom serves as a crucial space for practicing the language Typically, opportunities to practice English occur primarily within the classroom setting, making it essential for students to engage in interactive activities Consequently, classroom interaction plays a key role in developing language proficiency, especially in enhancing speaking skills.
In an English as a foreign language class, the teacher plays a vital role in establishing a conducive learning environment that promotes effective student participation According to Hall (1998), teachers can create classroom conditions that either encourage or hinder student engagement It is essential for teachers to initiate and manage ongoing communication, employing strategies such as asking questions and providing feedback to enhance student interaction and involvement.
Learners play a crucial role in language acquisition, as highlighted by Swain (1988), who asserts that students learn effectively through classroom interaction To produce "comprehensible output," they must utilize their existing language resources By engaging in verbal interactions, learners employ various strategies, such as speaking slowly and paraphrasing, to clarify their viewpoints and ensure understanding among their peers and teachers (Chadia, 2011).
To enhance teaching and learning, educators must prioritize not only effective teaching methods and subject knowledge but also the importance of teacher talk and interaction in the learning process It is crucial for teachers to encourage verbal interactions among students by posing thoughtful questions and emphasizing the value of discussion in learning Simultaneously, students are expected to actively contribute to the dialogue This collaborative approach fosters a respectful environment where both teachers and learners engage in language tasks, listen to one another, and appreciate each other's input.
Problem Statement and Rationale
Research on classroom interaction in Vietnam remains limited, with notable studies such as Dung (2004) and Thu (2008) primarily focusing on teacher questioning strategies These studies often overlook the impact of teacher feedback on student participation and fail to adequately explore students' language use Additionally, while interaction is known to facilitate language learning, the specific effects of different interaction types on language acquisition are still unclear Recent studies by Kouicem (2009) and Bouraya (2011) have relied solely on student questionnaires and teacher interviews, lacking audio or video recordings to provide comprehensive insights into the relationship between classroom interaction and learners' speaking skills.
This study aims to explore classroom interaction in greater depth, motivated by current educational challenges Specifically, it investigates the relationship between teacher-student interactions and their impact on students' speaking skills, utilizing a variety of data collection and analysis methods.
Objectives and Significance
Classroom Interaction: A definition
Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas between two or more people, leading to a mutual effect on each other as River
Interaction in the classroom can be categorized into two main types: non-verbal and verbal interaction Non-verbal interaction involves behavioral responses such as head nodding, hand raising, body gestures, and eye contact, allowing participants to communicate without words In contrast, verbal interaction encompasses both written and oral forms; written interaction occurs when students express their ideas through writing, while oral interaction involves dialogue between teachers and students through questions, comments, and discussions As summarized by Robinson (1994), interaction is a "face-to-face" process that can be conveyed through verbal channels, such as spoken or written words, or through non-verbal means like touch, proximity, eye contact, and gestures.
(2004), is an interaction occurring in the learning and teaching process between teacher and students and among students in the classroom This definition is used to guide this study.
The role of interaction in second language learning
According to River (1987), interaction in the classroom enhances students' language acquisition by allowing them to utilize their language skills Swain (1997) emphasizes that the target language serves as both a medium for learning and a key educational goal, enabling instructors and students to collaboratively construct language knowledge while creating practice opportunities Tsui (1995) asserts that engaging in communicative tasks, listening to instructions, and articulating viewpoints are essential for mastering the target language Students learn to understand language structures and functions, actively applying their knowledge in interactions with peers and teachers Mackey (1999) highlights that learners who participate actively in interactive courses demonstrate better performance, with those who take more turns in practice showing faster language development Furthermore, Hall & Walsh (2002) note that the dynamics of oral interactions shape the roles and relationships between instructors and students, influencing whether the classroom environment is teacher-centered or learner-centered.
Theoretical perspectives on classroom interaction
Classroom interaction has been researched from two main theoretical traditions: the cognitive interactionist tradition and the sociocultural theory tradition These two positions will be discussed briefly subsequently
Cognitive interactionist advocates believe that learning a second language involves receiving comprehensible input, which is processed through negotiation of meaning, before producing comprehensible output (Long, 1981)
The relationship between classroom interaction and second language acquisition (SLA) is grounded in two key concepts: reception and production theories Reception theories emphasize the importance of learners' comprehension and reception of the target language (TL) during interaction, as highlighted by Krashen and Long's input theories from the 1980s In contrast, production-based theories, associated with Swain's output theory from the same period, focus on the significance of learners' efforts to produce the TL Understanding these theories is essential for enhancing SLA through effective classroom interaction.
In language learning, input refers to the language that learners hear or receive, which is essential for their acquisition of the target language (Richards & Schmidt, 1992) According to Krashen (1982), input serves as a crucial medium for language learning, emphasizing that comprehension of this input is vital for effective acquisition He asserts that exposure to comprehensible target language input is sufficient to facilitate learning, while incomprehensible input does not contribute to this process (Richards & Renandya, 2002) Therefore, interactions between teachers and learners are primarily designed to provide learners with comprehensible input, allowing them to acquire language through the input they receive In essence, such interactions enable instructors to deliver ample amounts of understandable language, supporting the learners' acquisition journey.
Long (1981) expanded on Krashen's input theory by emphasizing the importance of interactional modifications in making input comprehensible for learners Unlike Krashen, who advocates for pre-modified input, Long argues that intentionally modified input is more effective for language acquisition When learners indicate difficulty in understanding, instructors can adapt their explanations or terminology, employing techniques such as confirmation checks, clarification requests, and reformulations These interactional modifications enhance comprehension, thereby facilitating second language (L2) acquisition.
In 2008, Thoms reviewed the interaction hypotheses proposed by Krashen and Long, highlighting that interaction is essential for transmitting language knowledge and competence Essentially, interaction serves as a crucial tool in the language learning process, ultimately leading to language acquisition Johnson (1995) critiques Krashen's hypothesis for overemphasizing the importance of comprehensible input, which prioritizes meaning over form In contrast, Pica & Young and Doughty (1987), as cited in Ellis & Barkhuizen (2005), argue that comprehension is more effectively achieved through intentionally derived and modified input rather than relying on pre-modified content.
The theoretical perspectives on input have highlighted its importance but fail to fully capture the role of interaction in second language acquisition (SLA) Specifically, these views link interaction primarily to input delivery, implying that language learning is merely a byproduct of exchanges between speakers A notable critique of Long's Interaction Hypothesis, as pointed out by Swain, emphasizes this limitation.
In 1985, Swain highlighted that Long and Krashen assert that language acquisition primarily occurs through exposure to comprehensible input, neglecting the significance of comprehensive output in the learning process.
Swain emphasizes the importance of output in language learning, particularly in classroom communication When misunderstandings arise, learners strive to express themselves clearly and effectively, utilizing various strategies (Ellis, 1985) Her output hypothesis (1985) highlights that while input is vital for target language (TL) acquisition, opportunities for learners to produce the TL are essential for achieving fluency She argues that negotiating meaning involves pushing learners to articulate their messages (Swain, 2005) Furthermore, output plays a critical role in enhancing learners' awareness of their linguistic gaps, prompting them to recognize deficiencies in vocabulary or syntax As learners attempt to convey their ideas, they become conscious of their existing knowledge and can employ strategies such as consulting dictionaries, seeking assistance, or focusing on input to address these gaps This process allows learners to formulate and test hypotheses about the TL, especially when they receive corrective feedback from teachers, motivating them to refine their output to align with TL structures (Swain, 2000).
Producing output in second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) learning is a challenging task that requires significant effort and determination from learners According to Swain, it is essential for students to take the initiative in generating their own output rather than merely responding to prompts Active participation and interaction are crucial; learners should not be limited by their conversation partners The more freedom students have to initiate discussions, take risks, and select topics, the more enriching and beneficial their verbal interactions will be.
Hall & Verplaetse (2000) argue that while exposure to comprehensible input is important, it is not enough for second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) learners They emphasize the necessity of producing output in the classroom to advance their target language (TL) skills Rather than viewing Krashen and Long's input hypotheses and Swain's output theory as opposing concepts, they should be seen as complementary elements that work together to enhance language learning.
The cognitive interactionist tradition emphasizes that interaction facilitates individual knowledge construction by activating prior knowledge In this framework, the teacher's role is crucial; they must ensure that input is comprehensible, create opportunities for student output, and offer constructive feedback on that output.
The sociocultural theory, rooted in Vygotsky's (1978) work, highlights the significance of social interaction in cognitive development, positioning classroom engagement as a vital social activity facilitated by open communication Walsh (2006) supports this perspective, asserting that social interaction and context are integral to the learning environment A key concept within this theory is Vygotsky's (1978) zone of proximal development, which underscores the potential for learning that occurs through social collaboration.
To effectively produce the target language in the classroom, learners must encounter comprehensible input that slightly exceeds their current knowledge This principle aligns with Vygotsky's concept of the "zone of proximal development," which emphasizes the importance of providing learners with input that serves as a model for the target language.
In 1978, it was emphasized that the gap between a learner's current problem-solving abilities and the potential guidance from more knowledgeable individuals is crucial for effective learning As a sociocultural theorist, the focus is on learning as a social activity rather than an individual endeavor It is important that the support provided to second language (SL) learners aligns with their existing knowledge of the target language (TL); assistance should neither be overly advanced nor too simplistic, as this can hinder cognitive development Consequently, educators should not treat language as a mere object of study Instead, they should facilitate dialogic activities that allow learners to utilize the language as a tool, thereby improving their oral performance (Lantolf, 2005).
Krashen's "i+1 hypothesis" suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners are exposed to language input that is slightly above their current proficiency level Here, "i" represents the learner's existing language competence, while "1" denotes the new linguistic functions and forms they need to grasp To effectively implement this, teachers must understand their students' proficiency levels and provide input that is just beyond their current abilities By doing so, educators create opportunities for verbal interaction and communication, enabling learners to better comprehend and assimilate the new language input.
The cognitive interactionist and sociocultural theories differ significantly in their views on the role of interaction and social contexts in learning The cognitive interactionist theory sees interaction as a factor influencing learning, where learning outcomes are linked to the characteristics of interaction and an individual's social background In contrast, the sociocultural theory posits that interaction and context are intrinsically connected, viewing the individual and their environment as part of a dialectical relationship Consequently, individual actions are understood as contributions to the social construction of shared understanding This study adopts the sociocultural theoretical perspective.
Approaches to studying classroom interaction
Discourse analysis examines spoken or written texts, emphasizing the use of words and utterances beyond the sentence level Its primary objective is to explore how words and phrases operate within specific contexts For instance, it investigates the patterns and meanings that emerge in communication, revealing the intricate relationships between language and social interaction.
The phrase "Could you turn to page 36?" is a clear request that can be classified under direct action (DA) In contrast, the utterance "the window's open" can serve multiple functions in a classroom context, such as a request to close it, an explanation for the cold temperature, an instruction for a drill, or a definition illustrating the meaning of "open."
Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) are pioneers in the analysis of classroom discourse, employing a structural-functional linguistic approach to identify twenty-two speech acts that characterize the verbal interactions of teachers and students in primary classrooms Their key contribution lies in the identification of the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) structure, which reveals that for each student move, teachers typically respond with two moves This IRF framework, consisting of three moves with multiple speech acts, highlights that teachers dominate classroom discourse, often controlling the conversation and speaking significantly more than students.
A significant limitation of the Sinclair and Coulthard system is its foundation in data from traditional primary school classrooms in the 1960s, where distinct power dynamics between teachers and students were evident, as acknowledged by the authors.
The discussion followed a clear structure primarily focused on question and answer exchanges In today's second language (L2) classrooms, which emphasize greater equality and collaboration in the teaching-learning process, it is uncertain if this framework effectively captures the dynamics of classroom communication.
Discourse Analysis (DA) approaches are both descriptive and prescriptive, aiming to categorize natural interaction patterns based on a discourse hierarchy They begin with structural-functional linguistics, analyzing classroom data by their structural patterns and functions For instance, the question "What time does this lesson end?" can serve multiple functions, such as a request for information or a prompt However, analyzing classroom data through DA often oversimplifies the complexity of communication, as matching utterances to categories can be challenging due to multifunctionality and the lack of a direct form-function relationship Additionally, DA approaches tend to overlook subtle influences like role relations, context, and sociolinguistic norms, which are crucial in understanding classroom dynamics Ultimately, DA methods inadequately address the socially constructed nature of classroom interaction and the diverse contexts that shape pedagogic language use.
The origins of conversation analysis (CA) come from an interest in the function of language as a means for social interaction (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974)
Conversation Analysis (CA) posits that social contexts are dynamic, shaped by participants through their language use and management of interaction elements such as turn-taking, openings, closures, and act sequencing The examination of interaction focuses on the interplay of meaning and context, highlighting the importance of how actions are sequenced in the communicative process.
The relevance of Conversation Analysis (CA) in the second language (L2) classroom is evident, as it seeks to understand the practices that help participants make sense of interactions Similar to classroom discussions, effective communication relies on smooth transitions and clear expectations to ensure explicit understanding Notably, CA's primary strength lies in its ability to interpret data organically, rather than imposing pre-existing structural or functional frameworks.
The Conversation Analysis (CA) approach to examining second language (L2) classroom interaction focuses on the structural organization determined by participants, avoiding preconceived categories It is strictly empirical, emphasizing the importance of interaction patterns that emerge from the data, rather than relying on prior assumptions (Seedhouse 2004) Observers adopt an insider perspective, aiming to understand the experience from the participants' viewpoint Additionally, context is dynamic and co-constructed, constantly evolving throughout a lesson based on local demands Finally, CA analysis is multi-layered, highlighting the significance of both context and the sequential nature of utterances, enabling a deeper understanding of the complex structure of classroom interactions.
However, it cannot be denied that CA approaches do have a number of limitations
Critics of Conversation Analysis (CA) argue that it can be overly selective, as snippets of discourse may seem randomly chosen without assessing their relevance to the overall conversation This selection process can create an impression of contrived or idealized data aimed at supporting a specific argument, often neglecting the broader context of the exchange Additionally, a significant critique of CA is its limited ability to generalize findings due to its focus on specific, narrow contexts While this limitation is common in many qualitative research methods, it is particularly pronounced in CA due to its emphasis on context However, it is important to recognize that context-specific data can still be valuable, as the primary goal of classroom-focused research is to enhance understanding and enable replication in different contexts rather than to generalize findings broadly.
Types of classroom interaction
Teacher-student interactions can occur in both one-on-one and group settings, where teachers engage with learners by negotiating course content, asking questions, and utilizing students' ideas They manage speaking turns by either designating specific students to respond or inviting contributions from the entire class This turn allocation is categorized as "personal solicit" when specific students are nominated or gestured to, and "general solicit" when questions are posed to the class as a whole (Allwright and Bailey, 1991, as cited in Tsui, 1995) A common classroom dynamic involves teachers beginning with a general solicit, and if no students volunteer, they shift to a personal solicit to maintain engagement.
Teacher-learner interactions play a vital role in the educational process, as students aim to showcase their speaking and listening abilities in front of their teachers Therefore, it is essential for educators to recognize the significance of their interaction methods, as they directly impact both learning and teaching outcomes.
Teachers who understand the strong connection between teaching techniques, interaction, and students' learning opportunities are more likely to enhance the educational experience According to Harmer (2009), effective communication with students involves three key considerations: first, teachers should ensure that their language is comprehensible to all students; second, they must carefully plan their speech, recognizing that it serves as a valuable resource for learners; and third, teachers should be mindful of their delivery, including voice, tone, and intonation, to foster better understanding and engagement.
In L2/FL classrooms, particularly within the framework of Communicative Language Teaching, learners frequently participate in pair or group work that fosters interaction among peers Johnson (1995) emphasizes that well-structured learner-learner interactions significantly contribute to cognitive development, educational success, and the cultivation of social skills Collaborative activities enhance learners' capacities, while Naegle Paula (2002) notes that peer discussions effectively reinforce acquired knowledge However, students may struggle to respond to their peers' inquiries and may feel hesitant to provide corrections, leading to potentially inaccurate feedback Therefore, it is essential for teachers to encourage and properly guide such interactions to maximize their benefits.
Classroom interaction is crucial for language development, as it fosters collaborative exchanges and negotiation of meaning It serves as an authentic input source for learners to grasp specific language usages and offers original communication opportunities The ongoing enhancement of students' linguistic skills is influenced by the frequency and quality of their contributions during discussions with teachers and peers While both learners and instructors can create opportunities for participation, it is the teachers who ultimately control the dynamics of classroom talk, determining who participates, when, and how the discussions are structured.
This research analyzes classroom modes by examining the detailed interactions between teachers and students, highlighting their characteristic features The study will present a theoretical overview of these modes in the Methodology section and provide practical examples in the Findings section.
Teacher Talk
Questioning is a fundamental communication behavior in teaching, as it captures learners' attention and encourages verbal responses, essential for assessing their progress In language classes, questions allow students to express their thoughts and ideas, serving as valuable linguistic input and providing opportunities to practice the target language Additionally, teachers' questions offer pedagogical benefits such as stimulating recall, enhancing understanding, fostering creativity, and promoting problem-solving skills Consequently, Walsh & Sattes (2005) identified questioning as a core component of effective teaching in the classroom.
In classroom settings, two common types of questions are display questions and referential questions Display questions, also known as known information questions, focus on assessing students' recall of specific information, while referential questions encourage deeper thinking and personal engagement with the material.
In the realm of questioning, there are two primary types: display questions and information-seeking questions Display questions, as noted by Richards and Lockhart (1998), do not aim to elicit new information but rather showcase the knowledge the questioner already possesses In contrast, information-seeking questions, also referred to as divergent questions or higher cognitive questions by Mills et al (1980), are designed to uncover new information and foster genuine communication, as the questioner is in pursuit of knowledge that is unfamiliar to them.
Display questions serve a dual purpose in education, as highlighted by McCarthy (1991); they allow teachers to assess students' knowledge while also offering opportunities for practicing language forms However, this approach has faced criticism from various researchers Ernst (1994) points out that students often provide brief responses to display questions, lacking in elaboration, a concern echoed by Brock.
Research indicates that responses to display questions (DQs), which require recognition or recall of factual information, are typically shorter than those to referential questions that invite interpretation or opinion (Smith, 1978; 1986) Mehan (1979) describes DQs as a one-way flow of information from teachers to students, as they often seek a single correct response, while students provide varied answers in hopes of validation Despite their limitations, Shomoossi (2004) found that teachers use DQs 4.4 times more frequently than referential questions, with DQs comprising only 0.12% of all questions in Native speaker-Non-native speaker conversations outside the classroom, indicating that classroom communication remains artificial (Long & Sato, 1983) Teachers often resort to DQs due to students' low language proficiency and time constraints imposed by strict curricula, a point supported by Allwright & Bailey (1991), who argue that DQs allow lower-level learners more opportunities to engage and participate.
Example: What‟s the opposite of “up” in English?
Teachers use referential questions (RQs) to elicit first-hand information from students, promoting deeper processing and engagement in language acquisition (Nunan, 1989) Research by Brock (1986) indicates that RQs lead to longer and more complex responses in adult ESL classrooms, enhancing students' use of logical connectors and overall communication skills This suggests that producing original messages in the target language encourages learners to focus on effective expression Consequently, incorporating RQs into teaching practices is highly recommended, particularly in environments where students have limited opportunities to practice the target language However, answering RQs requires more time and cognitive effort, which can limit students' ability to engage in extended conversations with instructors.
Example: Is fashion important to students?
Research indicates that display questions are more frequently posed in classrooms compared to referential questions However, responses to display questions tend to be brief and straightforward, whereas answers to referential questions are typically longer and more syntactically intricate.
Effective teacher feedback is crucial in the classroom, as it encourages student interaction and engagement with questions posed by the teacher This feedback not only acknowledges students' contributions but also motivates them and fosters a stimulating learning environment It can focus on either the content or the form of students' oral performance, and teachers must be mindful of their learners' cognitive realities To deliver impactful feedback, educators should possess a deep understanding of their students' personalities and language proficiency levels By doing so, teachers can offer constructive feedback that enhances learning outcomes (Chadia, 2011).
Teachers in second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) classrooms employ various strategies to provide positive feedback on students' oral contributions One effective method is repetition, where the teacher reiterates the correct answers given by students Another common approach is rephrasing, allowing teachers to acknowledge students' responses while potentially introducing new information, phrases, or structures These strategies enhance student engagement and reinforce learning.
Negative feedback, also referred to as corrective feedback, is essential for helping learners improve their language skills by addressing problematic utterances (Dekeyser, 2007) It highlights the discrepancies between a learner's interlanguage and the target language (TL), as emphasized by Schmidt This feedback can be delivered in either explicit or implicit forms, depending on the teacher's approach and intention to correct errors directly or subtly.
Teachers can enhance classroom discussions by providing follow-up questions that encourage students to elaborate on their responses This approach focuses more on content rather than syntax, using solicitation to gather additional information By maintaining the conversation through targeted questions, teachers can deepen understanding Furthermore, incorporating personal and cultural knowledge—referred to as Extension, Association, or Connection—allows educators to share their experiences, making complex concepts more accessible to students.
Interaction patterns
The Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) and Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequences, first introduced by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975, are fundamental discourse patterns in classroom interactions Researchers continue to reference and expand upon these models, with the final move playing a crucial role in defining the type of interaction that occurs.
The following conversation best describes IRE pattern of classroom interaction between teacher and students
The teacher initiates a conversation by asking a factual question to check the time, to which the student responds with a descriptive two-word answer The teacher then offers positive feedback, concluding the interaction This exchange exemplifies the I-R-E pattern (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) identified by Cazden (1988), Lemke (1985), and Mehan (1979), where the teacher starts with a known-answer question, students provide responses, and the teacher evaluates the answers positively or negatively.
Research indicates that prolonged participation in the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequence can hinder students' ability to engage in extended discourse Barnes (1969) notes that while teacher questions may appear open, they often seek specific answers, limiting the scope of student responses Hall (1995) supports this view, stating that such interactions restrict students' communicative development to basic recall and labeling Lin's (1999) findings reveal that the factual nature of teacher questions and minimal evaluative feedback stifle students' creativity Adhering strictly to the IRE model may distance students from developing a genuine interest in English as a language and culture for personal expression Nonetheless, the IRE pattern can be useful for checking simple comprehension or in time-constrained situations Ultimately, students' opportunities for meaningful communication are largely determined by the instructor's approach.
In 1993, Wells introduced the IRF pattern, which redefines the traditional IRE framework In this model, the instructor initiates the dialogue with a question, followed by student responses Unlike IRE, where responses are typically evaluated narrowly, IRF encourages teachers to engage further by asking students to elaborate or clarify their answers, fostering a more equal and collaborative dialogue This approach values student contributions as integral to the ongoing discussion, promoting deeper interaction in the classroom For example, in Chapter 14, the teacher prompts students to identify significant moments, inviting meaningful participation.
S: I think when Angel goes and tries to see his family R
S: Because he wants to visits his father It's an important moment R
In the excerpt, the teacher's approach of asking follow-up questions allows the student to elaborate on their initial response, fostering an environment where their voice can be heard Cazden (1988) highlights strategies for enhancing classroom discussions by clarifying, confirming, affirming, and extending student responses This method enables teachers to orchestrate classroom dialogues that promote active student participation, a perspective supported by Wells.
(1993) strongly believes that the third element creating a significant change If
Evaluation often limits students' learning opportunities, while effective feedback can enhance them Engaging in extended discussions helps students better grasp new vocabulary and concepts Unlike traditional question-answer sessions where the instructor already knows the answers, the Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern fosters meaningful dialogue and shared inquiry between instructors and students (Van Lier, 1998) However, some students may feel embarrassed if they struggle to keep the conversation going Additionally, in larger groups or under time constraints, teachers must skillfully manage discussions to ensure equitable participation among all students.
Learner talk
Speaking is the act of producing oral language to communicate effectively in various contexts, as defined by Lindsay and Knight (2006) It is a productive skill that integrates all elements of language, enabling individuals to express ideas, exchange information, and respond to others Ur (1996) emphasizes that speaking is central to language proficiency, as those who know a language are often identified primarily as its speakers Key components of speaking include lexis and grammar, pronunciation, stress, vocabulary, syntax, fluency, and accuracy.
Oral interaction is a key objective in language learning and serves as a vital tool for achieving educational goals Speaking is often viewed as a means to an end, with formal activities like storytelling, group discussions, debates, information gaps, and role plays providing students with opportunities to practice Whole class discussions, including teacher-led warm-up and follow-up activities, also enhance students' oral production However, learners may encounter challenges and make mistakes, such as mispronunciation, inappropriate word choices, grammatical errors, or lack of fluency, due to factors like mother tongue interference, fossilization, overgeneralization, and distraction from content, as noted by Brown (2000) Consequently, simply providing speaking opportunities does not ensure improved performance, highlighting the importance of appropriate teacher correction.
To effectively assess learner speaking skills, it is essential to consider key features of this ability, with vocabulary being the most significant factor in differentiating language proficiency levels, as highlighted by Higgs and Clifford (1982) Their research indicates that high proficiency participants demonstrate a broader vocabulary than their low proficiency counterparts Experienced educators agree that vocabulary is crucial at lower proficiency levels, while the importance of pronunciation, fluency, and grammar increases with proficiency At advanced levels, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency contribute equally to oral proficiency, with sociolinguistic factors playing a lesser role Ultimately, vocabulary range is the primary indicator of proficiency, while other aspects of oral proficiency vary depending on the learner's level.
Turn taking
Effective conversation analysis hinges on understanding the turn-taking system (Chadia, 2011) This system involves the allocation and acquisition of speaking turns during interactions (Hutchby & Wooffit, 2008) Turn allocation refers to how speakers are given opportunities to speak, while turn acquisition focuses on how they receive these turns Key methods for allocating turns include asking questions, making eye contact with specific individuals, and directly addressing them by name Participants can take their turns by responding to verbal cues or by self-selecting when to speak.
Turn-taking is a key feature of classroom conversations, differing from natural interactions In a typical classroom setting, teachers initiate turn-taking by posing questions or providing instructions, while students take their turns by responding Occasionally, students may also self-select to contribute to the discussion.
In classroom interactions, the teacher predominantly controls the speaking turns, determining who speaks and when interruptions occur (McHoul) Conversely, students rarely take the initiative to speak or choose their peers to contribute to the discussion.
Teachers often engage in purposeful actions to meet lesson objectives outlined in a predetermined plan However, time constraints can limit the negotiation of turns, self-initiation, and competition among learners for participation Seedhouse has noted that the structure of the turn-taking system is closely related to various pedagogical activities, including form and accuracy, meaning and fluency, tasks, and procedural contexts Additionally, Van Lier (1989) highlights the importance of these dynamics in the learning environment.
Teacher perceptions of their roles significantly impact the turn-taking system in the classroom When teachers view themselves as "knowers" responsible for transmitting knowledge, they tend to organize and regulate turns strictly In contrast, if they see themselves as "facilitators," there is a greater likelihood of negotiated turns among students Tsui (1996) highlights the complexity of turn allocation, noting that teachers may favor more capable students to prevent pauses and silence during discussions However, this habitual practice can lead to feelings of neglect among shy or reluctant students, making them less willing to participate and express their thoughts in class.
This chapter explores the role of interaction in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) and Foreign Language Acquisition (FLA), focusing on teacher talk, learner talk, and classroom interaction patterns in relation to target language development The study emphasizes that interaction primarily serves to provide learners with input and opportunities for language practice, essential for effective language learning The effectiveness of classroom interaction, influenced by both teachers and learners within specific contexts, can either facilitate or hinder language acquisition The research aims to enhance existing theories by identifying the specific circumstances under which teacher-learner interaction positively or negatively impacts student learning.
This chapter outlines the research setting and introduces the instructors and students involved in the study It also details the methodologies utilized in this dissertation for the collection and analysis of crucial data to address the research questions effectively.
To meet the study's objectives, a comprehensive analysis of teacher-learner interactions, which are central to the teaching-learning process in English classrooms, is crucial Consequently, a descriptive qualitative approach is utilized to address the research questions effectively.
Context and Participants
The study takes place at the Division I of the Faculty of English Language Teaching Education (FELTE) at the University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), focusing on first-year students and their English language instructors Since 2004, admission to the university has required students to pass an entrance exam administered by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET), which includes a written English test covering vocabulary, grammar, reading, and writing, while excluding listening and speaking Students enrolled in the four-year bachelor's program at the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education receive intensive training in English proficiency during their first two years, with an integrated approach to teaching the four language skills—Listening, Speaking, Reading, and Writing—across sixteen weekly sessions The course aims to elevate first-year students' English proficiency from level B1 to B1+/B2- as per the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).
The study involves a convenient selection of participants, comprising three teachers (Teacher A, B, and C) and their respective classes of approximately 25 mainstream freshmen each (Class A, B, and C) The goal is not to conduct a comparative analysis but to gain a comprehensive understanding of the discourse utilized by both teachers and students within this educational context Additionally, the study aims to highlight unique characteristics of each class and teacher that may impact students' oral production in the classroom.
Teacher A has six years of teaching experience, including two years spent studying for her MA overseas Teacher B has two years of teaching experience, while Teacher C, who participated in a student exchange program during her senior year, has three years of teaching experience In the observed lesson for the second subject, there are a total of 75 students, although several were absent.
The majority of students in Class C are female, aged 18 or 19, with no male learners present While gender is not a focus of this research, it is noteworthy that most students have been studying English for approximately 10 years However, it was not until their first year at university that they began to extensively develop all four language skills According to the course objectives outlined by Division 1 Lecturers (2015), students are expected to achieve a level of speaking proficiency that allows for fluent interactions with English speakers, facilitating communication without significant difficulty for either party.
It is essential to focus on the interaction process between the two target subjects rather than evaluating the students' speaking proficiency At the time of data collection, the students had been studying the four skills for nearly six months.
The study focuses on an Academic English Listening-Speaking session utilizing Headway Academic Skills Level 3 and internal materials to gather data It is hypothesized that verbal interaction is more prevalent during this session compared to Reading-Writing classes Students engage with content modules covering various themes, such as Education and Agriculture, to enhance their learning The Listening-Speaking lesson centered on Global Culture was observed in the 10th week of the second semester, employing an integrated approach that seamlessly blends Listening and Speaking tasks.
Methodology
Two primary research methodologies are employed in studying classroom interaction Long (1981), a pioneer of the cognitive interactionist approach, operates within a theory-driven, hypothesis-testing, and experimental framework This research tradition seeks to establish broad generalizations regarding cause-and-effect relationships in language learning within the classroom The objective is to uncover the causal links between teaching practices, cognitive processes, and learning outcomes (Markee, 2015).
This study adopts a qualitative and descriptive research approach, as defined by Markee (2015), to explore participants' language learning and teaching processes The primary aim is to gain insights into classroom interaction patterns and enhance understanding of student learning, as outlined in Chapter I.
Data Collection Instruments
Classroom observation (Audio recording + Field notes)
Classroom observation serves as the primary data collection method in this study, with the researcher acting as an unbiased observer and technician during the teaching-learning process Audio recordings are utilized to capture spoken interactions, allowing for detailed analysis as researchers can review events multiple times However, background noise poses a challenge for transcription, which can be mitigated by strategically placing multiple recording devices in the classroom Additionally, while the researcher refrains from engaging in conversation, they take field notes to supplement the audio data, capturing insights that recordings may miss and providing contextual comments alongside descriptions of each activity.
After transcribing audio recordings and field notes, the study utilizes Nassaji and Wells' framework (2000) to analyze classroom interaction patterns A semi-structured interview, as suggested by Dornyei (2007), is conducted with three teachers and students from three classes to gain in-depth insights Nunan (1996) emphasizes that these interviews reflect teachers' active roles in shaping their understanding of the classroom environment This research focuses on open-ended questions to explore the perspectives of both teachers and learners regarding classroom interactions and their impact on teaching and learning Observations of teachers' questioning techniques and feedback, alongside students' responses, are analyzed and compared to identify similarities and differences between theoretical frameworks and actual practice The interviews aim to uncover explanations for specific classroom phenomena and gather insider suggestions for improvement.
Data Collection Procedure
Prior to recording and observing each lesson, the researcher obtained consent from both teachers and students The purpose of the study was clearly communicated to ensure that participants did not feel they were being evaluated during the observation.
To familiarize students with the researcher, an initial lesson observation was conducted a week prior to the official observation The main observation phase involved 60-minute classroom sessions where verbal interactions between teachers and students were audio-recorded, while the researcher took field notes as a non-participant These recordings were subsequently transcribed and analyzed using the framework established by Nassaji and Wells (2000), prompting adjustments to the interview questions, including inquiries about the effects of teachers' interruptions during solicitation Following this, the researcher conducted interviews with both teachers and students to explore how classroom dynamics and interactional features influenced student learning All interviews were recorded and transcribed for further analysis Ultimately, a comprehensive data set was compiled from field notes, lesson recordings, and interview transcripts, preparing it for the next phase of data analysis and interpretation.
Data analysis instruments
To effectively analyze the data, the researcher utilized established coding systems for their convenience and validity, despite criticisms from Tsui (1995) and Wash (2006) regarding the constraints these predetermined categories impose on analysis and interpretation Such constraints can lead to misinterpretation as observers may force data to fit into these categories Nevertheless, a classification scheme is crucial for identifying the dominant interactional patterns in this study To mitigate the limitations of traditional coding systems, the researcher adapted frameworks from Nassaji and Wells (2000) and Patthey-Chavez (2002).
Nassaji and Wells's framework (2000) analyzes classroom interaction by segmenting speech into units called Episodes, which consist of Sequences aimed at achieving specific tasks Episodes include Teacher's long turns, whole class discussions, and small group discussions Teacher's long turns, such as launching and lecturing, resemble monologues meant to provide instructions and essential information Discussions can occur in small groups among students or between the teacher and the whole class during various activity phases Each Sequence is further categorized into specific verbal exchanges, known as Initiating, Responding, and Follow-up (IRF/IRE) This study emphasizes Episodes and the three fundamental moves in these exchanges.
In classroom exchanges, teachers often initiate conversations using various types of questions These include answer-checking questions, where the teacher gathers information from the textbook; display questions, which seek answers the teacher already knows; and referential questions that invite students to share their personal thoughts Additionally, demanding questions, which request students to perform a task or express an opinion, are also categorized under display or referential questions This research focuses primarily on the latter type, noting that the distinction between demands and questions lies mainly in their phrasing Other question types, such as instructional questions and comprehension checks, are not addressed in this study.
Teachers can respond to students' answers using various strategies categorized as Evaluation or Follow-up Evaluation involves briefly acknowledging or rejecting students' responses, while Follow-up provides additional feedback or advances the discussion Confirmation entails reiterating students' answers with or without extra information, whereas Reformation involves rephrasing their ideas or expressions Solicitation aims to elicit more information by scaffolding and clarifying confusing concepts Lastly, Extension connects students' responses to the teacher's personal or cultural knowledge, enriching the discussion with further insights.
The article highlights the inadequacy of portraying learner talk within the framework that primarily focuses on teacher turns, specifically Initiation and Evaluation/Follow-up To address this gap, it employs Patthey-Chavez's (2002) analytical framework, which categorizes students' utterances into Filler words, Function words, and Content words, with a particular emphasis on Content words to assess Lexical Density as an indicator of speaking proficiency Additionally, the study examines the turn-taking system in conversations, selecting them randomly to prioritize the management of turn-taking over linguistic features.
Episodes
Interactions in the classroom are structured around three key instructional episodes: the teacher's long turn, whole class discussions, and small group discussions The teacher's long turn includes sub-types such as launchings and lectures, which resemble monologues intended to provide instructions and essential information Discussions occur among students in small groups or between the teacher and the entire class, facilitated before, during, or after activities, categorized as pre-activity, while-activity, and post-activity discussions.
With the aim of examining teacher's and student's talk, three primary episodes are presented regarding the amount of time spent on each one in Figure 1 below
Figure 1 Time spent on major episodes in a roughly 60-minute lesson
As illustrated in Figure 1, Whole class discussion accounted for the longest amount of time in all classes, which is followed either by Small group discussion or
In Classes A, B, and C, the teacher engaged in lengthy interactions with students, dedicating around 30 minutes in Classes B and C, and over one-third of the class time in Class A to these exchanges The teacher primarily utilized large-group discussions to provide instructions, stimulate ideas prior to self-directed activities, and facilitate reporting sessions after students completed their small group tasks.
Excerpt 1 is an example of Whole class discussion as warm -up part in Class
During a class discussion about culture, the teacher engaged one student while the rest of the class listened attentively This interaction aimed to activate students' background knowledge on the topic According to three teachers, these dialogues help gauge students' familiarity with the subject matter, allowing for real-time adjustments to lesson plans as needed.
Excerpt 1 is an example of Whole class discussion as warm -up part in Class
During a classroom discussion on culture, a teacher engaged one student while the rest of the class listened attentively This interaction aimed to activate students' background knowledge on the topic According to three teachers, such dialogues help gauge students' familiarity with the subject, allowing for real-time adjustments to lesson plans based on their responses.
T: Ngọc Anh, what do you think is culture?
S: Eh I think it is the feature of eh each country
T: The feature of each country
In North America, culture is often defined by the distinctive features of a country These features encompass various elements that shape a nation's identity, including traditions, customs, language, art, and social norms Understanding these aspects is crucial for appreciating the rich cultural diversity that exists within different regions.
T: Agriculture, uhm Can you give more specific?
S: In Vietnam, err, people plant a lot of rice I think it is the culture of
T: The culture of Vietnam, one of the, one part of the culture of Vietnam includes the planting of rice
S: The agriculture makes it different from other countries
T: uh, so I think rice is also cultivated in many other Asian countries
In the second place, the time spent on discussion in pairs or groups in Class
Classroom context mode recorded the highest engagement time at 22 minutes, with Class B featuring the most extensive large-class discussions led by the teacher However, Class B also had the least partner interaction, clocking in at only 6.5 minutes This study emphasizes teacher-student interaction, hence pair and group work discussions were not documented Teachers typically delivered instructions or lectures for about 10 minutes, with Class B having the longest duration at 13 minutes and Class C the shortest at 7.7 minutes During these lectures, teachers frequently introduced essential background knowledge, including terminology and explanations of current cultural phenomena, while students mostly remained silent, occasionally responding to understanding and answer-checking questions.
The analysis reveals that the class talking time ratio differs across the three classes; however, it is evident that students are frequently provided opportunities to lead peer discussions, while the majority of the speaking time is managed by the teacher.
Interactional Patterns
This section explores the discourse patterns observed in three lessons, highlighting the typical interaction structure where the teacher initiates dialogue, followed by student responses and subsequent teacher follow-up remarks, commonly known as the Initiation-Response-Follow-up (IRF) model Occasionally, students offered evaluations of the teacher's performance, while their instances of initiating conversation primarily involved requests for clarification on instructions.
In the observed interactions, IRF sequences accounted for nearly 70% of the total, with Class C exhibiting seven times more IRF sequences than IRE sequences During one hour, teachers and students engaged in 55 sequences in Class B and 40 in Class C, while Class A recorded only 12 sequences—comprising 9 IRF and 3 IRE—primarily due to a greater emphasis on group work in that class.
Figure 2 Patterns used in Teacher-Student Interaction
In discussions with teachers, students frequently engaged in multiple turns of dialogue, reflecting variations of the IRF/IRE patterns The frequency of "R" responses largely depended on the quality of students' previous answers; acceptable responses often led to topic changes or nominations of other students, while less satisfactory answers prompted teachers to ask clarification questions Analysis of three observed lessons revealed that sequences of one or two student turns were significantly more common than sequences of three or four, with Class A notably lacking any exchanges of four turns.
Figure 3 Number of turns students speak in exchanges with Teacher
Excerpt 2 taken from Class A transcription illustrates a sequence consisting of two student answering turns In this situation, teacher A raised a question that the student could not fully reply so the teacher needed to modify the original question by asking for detailed examples Thanks to the teacher's guidance, the student continued the conversation smoothly and elucidated ideas in the teacher‟s direction
Teacher A concluded the discussion by summarizing the student's response, serving as a reminder for the entire class This structured approach, where the teacher initiates and concludes conversations, was prevalent in three classes Students rarely initiated discussions on their own, typically only doing so to seek clarification on task-related questions.
T: Now, I want you to share the last point, when you listen to your friend and when you ask, erm, no, let‟s talk about when you listen to you friend first When you listen to your friend, what are some main problems with your friend‟s performance? G
L: when I listen to my friend I (?) some problems are about, erm, because the time is limited, so she can think much about, she doesn‟t care about the grammar and pronunciation
T: Uh-huh, so grammar and pronunciation What‟s about grammar? What‟s kind of grammar mistake? Verb tense or word order or sentence structure?
L: About word order and sentence structure
T: Uh-huh, word order like “I don‟t know what is your name” Is that, erm, yeah, I can see that it is a kind of common mistake that you guys often speak, especially when you are so excited or you are so into your content Ok So be more aware of what you speak Thank you.
Teacher‟s Initiating Questions
This study investigates the role of questions in promoting interaction in educational settings, focusing on three types: Referential Questions, Display Questions, and Answer-checking Questions It is important to recognize that demands, which request students to respond or perform tasks, share similarities with questions Although demands may take different forms, they are categorized alongside questions in this research, highlighting their significance in facilitating student engagement.
In the observed classes, Referential Questions were more prevalent than Display Questions, with Class B utilizing Checking-answer Questions, resulting in a total of 25 questions—approximately three times more than Class A's 9 questions Teacher B incorporated a Listening task at the end of the first hour, using Checking-answer Questions to assess students' comprehension of gist and details In contrast, Teacher A's focus on pair discussions, which fell outside the study's scope, led to a significantly lower number of initiated questions compared to the other teachers.
Referential Questions (RQs) are designed to gather first-hand information from students, encouraging them to share genuine independent responses about their opinions and experiences that teachers may not already know In Class C, a total of thirteen RQs were utilized, significantly more than the slightly over six used in other classes Teacher A appreciates these questions as they provide students with the opportunity to express themselves and stimulate their thinking She notes that while RQs and Direct Questions (DQs) are similar in nature, they differ notably in wording; for instance, "What do you think about cultural boundary?" invites personal opinion, whereas "What is cultural boundary?" seeks a predetermined answer.
In Class C, Teacher C employed a relational question (RQ) to encourage a student to share her views on culture Given the abstract nature of the topic, responses differed among students To clarify and deepen the discussion, the teacher prompted further by requesting specific examples, thereby reducing ambiguity in the conversation.
T: Alright Time‟s up Now, What is your definition of culture? Any one volunteer?
No? Ok This group? What is your definition of culture?
L: I think culture includes everything that represent the whole country They're ( )
T: Ok, so give me an example Something belongs to culture
L: The way you, the way you wear such as traditional custom
In the analysis of classroom interactions, it was observed that fewer Display Questions (DQs) were posed compared to Referential Questions (RQs) across three classes, with Teacher B asking the most DQs While DQs may lack the depth and authenticity of RQs, they serve a dual purpose: enabling teachers to assess student understanding and providing essential listening practice This approach allows all students, including those at lower proficiency levels, to engage in the lesson through simpler inquiries Teacher C emphasized the importance of "cultural assimilation" in language learning, highlighting that encouraging students to answer even basic questions fosters a sense of community and boosts confidence in expressing themselves, which is particularly valued in English-speaking contexts.
Excerpt 4 from Class A serves as an illustration of asking and replying to DQs In this case, Teacher A reviewed mistakes students frequently made in their responses to speaking exam questions She required her learners to suggest alternatives in order to make their replies more academic Students proposed different phrases they could include in their coming practices
T:( ) In our daily conversation, “about part-time jobs” you can say thing like that In the test, instead of saying “about”, what are some better ways?
T: So there are different ways which are more formal, more academic than
“about” OK? So there are “in terms of, regarding, with regards to”
In Teacher B's class, inquiries to check answers in practice exercises were utilized effectively to assess students' understanding of reading and listening tasks The purpose of these questions is to identify correct answers, with short and simple responses being sufficient; however, if students struggle, the teacher provides additional explanations For instance, after discussing factual versus anecdotal information, students listened to a conversation and categorized the information accordingly, often responding with one-word answers Additionally, Teacher B employed clarification questions to encourage students to provide evidence for their choices.
T: factual What evidence is given, what number of figure?
LL: He has been in (?) speaking countries
T: (?) he says that that is shown in 60 countries Go on, pizza huts
Teachers' Feedback
In the context of teacher-student exchanges, the third move often involves the teacher's feedback on student responses, categorized into two types: Evaluation and Follow-up Evaluation serves to judge student responses, offering either acknowledgment or rejection, while Follow-up includes comments and additional questions that encourage students to elaborate on their ideas Notably, Follow-up feedback occurs approximately three times more frequently than Evaluation feedback, although the total feedback varies among different teachers This trend aligns with the number of questions posed during the Initiation move, indicating that increased questioning leads to more feedback from teachers Additionally, it is essential to recognize that questions play a crucial role in the feedback process.
Evaluating feedback is commonly observed in IRE patterns or as the concluding step in IRF patterns, where teachers confirm students' responses before transitioning to other topics or students Notably, Class B exhibited the highest frequency of evaluations, occurring 19 times, which is double that of Class A This finding aligns with the interactional patterns and question types, indicating that Class B predominantly utilizes IRE patterns and checking-answer questions.
In Class B's post-discussion activity on "How global are you?", students engaged in pairs to ask and answer ten quizzes related to global culture After a five-minute discussion, the fastest pair reported their results, explaining each point thoroughly The teacher's role was to confirm the reported data and facilitate further discussion, which contributed to Class B's higher evaluation compared to the other classes.
T: Trang first You will talk about, erm, ok, An first Can you talk about your friend? First, tell us the result?
AN: Trang is somewhere between local culture and global culture Erm, she has never eaten sushi
T: Uh, she has never eaten sushi
Rejection feedback is rarely used by teachers, as exemplified in Class B, where a student's incomplete response led the teacher to politely conclude the conversation without outright rejection Teacher B suggests that phrases like “Not really” are softer alternatives to “No,” while Teacher A emphasizes the importance of face-saving in student interactions This reluctance to reject irrelevant answers aims to encourage active participation in discussions Similarly, Teacher C prefers asking opinion questions over True/False ones, reinforcing the idea that all student responses should be welcomed and discussed rather than criticized.
T: Ok, What else? Festival (Write) Anyone has any idea? Huong, do you have any ideas? What makes eh (3) what comprises or what makes the culture of a country?
S: I think that everyone can everything for eg, facebook everyone can use, er (8) people can
T: Okay, so thank you You can sit down and think more about it
Teacher follow-ups encompass various strategies, including Confirmation, Reformation, Clarification, Solicitation, and Extension, which differ from Evaluation by providing students with additional feedback or guiding them into deeper discussions These strategies are utilized more frequently than evaluative feedback Confirmation involves the teacher reiterating students' responses, sometimes adding extra information When students are off track, Reformation helps adjust their understanding Solicitation encourages further elaboration through additional questions, assisting students in reaching expected responses Lastly, Extension connects students' answers to the teacher's personal or cultural insights, enriching their learning experience Detailed explanations of these strategies are provided in the accompanying table.
Teachers often confirm students' responses by reiterating them rather than simply saying "Yes," which serves to inform other students of the new information This technique involves repetition for shorter responses and slight paraphrasing for longer ones Statistical analysis shows that Teacher A frequently employed this method, using confirmation after solicitation 9 times out of 29, while Teachers B and C used it less often, with 2 out of 50 and 5 out of 49 instances, respectively.
In a recent classroom discussion, Teacher C and her students explored various aspects of culture, utilizing listing as a method to gather information rather than promote extensive dialogue The teacher consistently echoed students' short responses to acknowledge their contributions and ensure the entire class was informed After repeating their answers, Teacher C would prompt for examples, and before directing the key question to another student or group, she summarized the points made to encourage diverse responses.
T: Ok So tradition is the way you dress, the way you behave, the way you erm pursue religion What else?
T: What else? Lunar New Year, Tet holiday Ok What else?
Ok, this group Festival, already; food, already Any other different thing ? L: Music
T: Music OK Pop culture This group?
T: Yeah The way you think, right? ( T tried to find the answer she wanted and gave the key herself when no students replied for a few seconds )
Teacher A emphasizes the importance of maintaining class attentiveness through conscious listening, yet students often speak at a volume just sufficient for the teacher and nearby peers This leads to the practice of Confirmation, where teachers audibly confirm student answers to engage the entire class While many educators view this as an effective classroom management strategy, it can disrupt the flow of student dialogue, as teachers frequently interrupt with repeated phrases Interviews reveal that teachers may not recognize how their feedback inadvertently interferes with student communication Teacher C admitted to being "pushy," often repeating students' phrases due to her high expectations, using Confirmation as a foundation for further questions, a technique known as Solicitation.
Teachers generally agree on the benefits of interference in the learning process, but students express differing opinions A student from class A noted that she hesitates to elaborate on her answers without the teacher's ongoing validation through acknowledgment and follow-up questions Similarly, a participant from class C mentioned that she only recognizes the need to provide more detail when her answers are repeated by the teacher, which reassures her that her ideas are valid However, she sometimes adds information to ensure clarity Conversely, a student from class B found the teacher's repetition disruptive, stating that it interrupts her train of thought and makes it difficult to maintain focus on her original point.
For low-level students, a teacher's repetition demonstrates active listening and comprehension of their thoughts In contrast, fluent-speaking students may find this approach frustrating as it interrupts their flow Therefore, teachers should allow students to complete their thoughts before providing feedback.
T: And what is her second main point?
S: The next main point is, erm, global culture will be destroyed Erm, she likes something new, she likes China food, different ways of life
T: So she is in favor of or she is against?
S: She is against of global culture
T: she is against global culture because she likes new things, she likes to try new foods
The excerpt illustrates the concept of Reformation, where teachers positively recast students' incorrect responses without directly saying "no." By stressing target words, teachers highlight mistakes, although some students may misinterpret this as mere confirmation For instance, Teacher B emphasized the phrase "against global culture," noting that the preposition "of" was unnecessary.
The approach to correcting mistakes in the classroom varies among teachers, with some prioritizing accuracy while others emphasize meaning and fluency Teacher A focuses on grammatical precision, whereas Teachers B and C advocate for a more lenient approach, suggesting that minor errors should not be addressed if they do not hinder communication Teacher C argues that classroom interactions resemble impromptu performances, where fluency and the expression of ideas take precedence over accuracy Additionally, many questions posed to students are subjective, lacking definitive right or wrong answers While Teacher B agrees that immediate feedback on lexical and grammatical errors can discourage students, both teachers acknowledge the importance of addressing significant mistakes, such as incorrect word choices or collocations.
Teacher A effectively balances attention to students' accuracy, fluency, and ideas during class discussions Field notes and audio recordings reveal her technique of highlighting grammatical and vocabulary errors by repeating phrases with increased tone or slower speed, enabling students to self-correct Despite the challenges of impromptu teaching, her motivation stems from her commitment to her students' future as educators She firmly believes that teachers should serve as role models, emphasizing the importance of addressing both fluency and accuracy in language learning.
All six students found their teacher's correction of mistakes to be valuable guidance, helping them recognize previously unnoticed errors in their speech Most appreciated the teacher's feedback for improving their grammar and pronunciation However, one student from Class A expressed fear of public speaking, feeling embarrassed about having their mistakes highlighted.
Teachers leverage students' responses to offer supplementary insights based on their personal experiences and background knowledge In Classes B and C, the approach of Extension was utilized significantly more than Confirmation and Reformation A notable discussion in Class C highlighted the contrasts between Western and Eastern cultures, where Teacher C illustrated her point by sharing two contrasting examples from her own life, emphasizing that not all Westerners are straightforward and open regarding sensitive topics.
Mai: For example, in the West, eh they think openly about the sex problem But in the East, especially our parents think about it seriously
T: So you think that in the West they are not as serious as us about sex?
T: You agree? (ask the whole class)
Learner Talk
Lexical Density and Mean Length
This article examines the characteristics of student utterances in relation to teacher prompts, focusing on two key metrics: lexical density and mean length of responses Lexical density is determined by counting the content items in student responses and calculating the density by dividing this number by the total word count The provided table presents the average lexical density for different types of questions Additionally, mean length refers to the average number of words students use when responding to specific questions.
DQ RQ DQ RQ DQ RQ
Figure 7 Lexical density and Mean of Responses to Display questions and
Referential questions are effective in eliciting genuine responses from students, often revealing insights that teachers may not be aware of Research by Brock (1986) indicated that students provide longer, more complex sentences in response to these questions The current study supports this finding, showing that students' replies to referential questions average between 10 to 30 words, with content word frequency ranging from 50% to 60% In contrast, responses to display questions consist mainly of content words but are significantly shorter, averaging only one to three words per response, which is substantially less than those elicited by referential questions.
Students reported that responding to RQs significantly enhanced their explanation skills, with one participant from class C noting that it helped her "choose suitable words and express my own opinions clearly and persuasively." While RQs stimulate critical thinking, they also require more time to complete, limiting opportunities for deeper discussion among students Additionally, those with lower proficiency levels may struggle to formulate full responses, leading to long pauses that can disrupt the class and create uncomfortable situations for themselves.
In a recent classroom interaction, Teacher C encouraged a student to express her perspective on culture, recognizing that interpretations can differ widely To clarify, the teacher prompted the student for specific examples, leading to a response that identified culture as encompassing everything representative of a country, with a notable emphasis on traditional costumes Despite the student's mention of traditional attire, she did not elaborate on its cultural significance, and the teacher chose to focus on listing additional cultural aspects rather than fostering deeper explanations This exchange highlighted a tendency to prioritize the skill of listing over the skill of explaining in cultural discussions.
T: Alright Time‟s up Now, what is your definition of culture? Any one volunteer?
No? Ok This group? What is your definition of culture?
S: I think culture includes everything that represent the whole country They're ( )
T: Ok, so give me an example Something belongs to culture
S: The way you, the way you wear such as traditional costume (4/11)
In all three classes, fewer Display Questions were posed compared to Research Questions, indicating that students engaged less with fact-seeking inquiries Display Questions typically elicit straightforward answers, leading to simpler responses from students, often consisting of just one to three words, as evidenced by the transcription of the current study.
A Class C student emphasized the importance of Discussion Questions (DQs) in enhancing her analytical skills, advocating for definitive answers to Yes/No questions rather than neutral responses However, she noted that some DQs can pose difficulties for students lacking background knowledge, citing examples such as inquiries about Jimmy Choo or cultural attitudes toward sex, which often led to silence or uncertainty among her peers.
In a recent class, Teacher A highlighted common mistakes in students' speaking exam responses, particularly the overuse of the word "about." This issue stems from the Vietnamese language, where a similar term is frequently used to introduce new ideas To enhance their academic language and reduce repetition, students were encouraged to use alternative phrases The teacher facilitated this by suggesting various options, which students practiced and corrected Although their responses were not lengthy, students became aware of their mistakes and began to self-correct, positively impacting their future vocabulary choices.
T:( ) In our daily conversation, “about part-time jobs” you can say thing like that In the test, instead of saying “about”, what are some better ways?
T: So there are different ways which are more formal, more academic than
“about” OK? So there are “in terms of, regarding, with regards to”
In the observed lesson on "global culture," various activities such as listening, reading, and speaking tasks were utilized to enhance students' understanding of culture and global citizenship The lesson aimed to foster awareness of global citizen characteristics while encouraging students to express their viewpoints on related issues Active participation was emphasized, with students expected to engage in turn-taking by asking and answering questions To analyze the turn-taking behavior of students across three classes, selected excerpts will be examined.
In Class C, a comprehensive discussion on culture highlighted the concept of cultures "collapsing and emerging," as explained by Teacher C during the lead-in stage She emphasized that globalization often leads to a more westernized perspective, noting that many topics of conversation among individuals from diverse countries are increasingly influenced by Western culture The students in Class C engaged attentively in this critical examination of cultural dynamics.
C remained silent regarding their teacher's viewpoint, simply nodding in acknowledgment Following a brief presentation on global culture, the teacher instructed the students to engage in group discussions about the concept of culture Below is a summary of the findings shared by a designated representative from one of the groups after a three-minute discussion.
T: Alright Time‟s up Now, what is your definition of culture? Any one volunteer?
No? Ok This group? What is your definition of culture?
L: I think culture includes everything that represent the whole country They're ( )
T: Ok, so give me an example Something belongs to culture
L: The way you, the way you wear such as traditional custom
L: The way you behave In every culture you shake hand with each other when you meet them In some cultures, it's impolite to shake other‟s hand
T: Really? To shake people's hand is impolite That's the first time I've heard that It's impolite, I need to ask whether, Ok, you know, can I shake hand with you, alright?
Ok What about this group? What is your definition?
The teacher effectively guided the interaction by prompting the student to provide specific examples, which clarified the discussion However, the student was unable to fully express her ideas, particularly regarding the importance of traditional customs in a nation's culture, due to time constraints Given more time, she could have elaborated on her points, as evidenced by her later mention of hand-shaking not being a polite gesture in certain cultures Her argument would have been stronger had she identified specific countries where this behavior is discouraged The teacher employed humor to engage the class further, asking for permission to shake hands before moving on to another group, thereby allowing more students to participate Overall, the dialogue followed a typical Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern, with both the teacher and student contributing, though the teacher maintained a dominant role in steering the conversation and managing time.
In both Class A and Class B lessons, a notable issue arose regarding student participation and response dynamics Teacher A emphasized the importance of encouraging learners to elaborate on their answers while ensuring balanced speaking time among all students Many students relied on lengthy examples to support their responses, which limited opportunities for others to contribute Consequently, the teacher had to intervene to prompt different students to share their thoughts Additionally, students often hesitated to initiate responses to questions unless specifically called upon by the teacher For instance, even when given time to discuss, students in Teacher C's class did not volunteer to define culture until assigned to do so This trend extended to a general reluctance to ask questions or engage, with inquiries typically limited to task requirements or clarifications Teachers often resorted to calling on more capable students to prevent silence from reserved or less confident peers Many students expressed feelings of embarrassment about sharing their opinions, fearing disagreement or making mistakes, which was compounded by a lack of vocabulary and information.
Student B2 expressed a lack of sufficient vocabulary and background knowledge to address abstract questions effectively Additionally, the emotional state of students significantly impacts their classroom performance; for instance, Student C2 mentioned that she only spoke up in class when prompted by the teacher, particularly when she was feeling down.
In the second excerpt from Class C, a more engaging atmosphere emerged as students enjoyed longer speaking turns, largely due to the thought-provoking topic of culture The class participated in a quiz titled "How Global Are You?", which included ten questions designed to assess students' global exposure based on their experiences with various countries While Teacher B utilized the quiz as a framework for evaluating global awareness, Teacher C challenged this approach, arguing that the quiz's focus on superficial aspects like food and clothing overlooks deeper cultural understanding This led to a lively group discussion on whether being global equates to becoming more similar, a topic that sparked significant engagement in Class C, unlike in Class B The dialogue between Teacher C and student representatives was extensive, as students provided examples to support their views on the concept of integration without assimilation.
T: “Hòa nhập chứ không hòa tan” chứ gì? Ok This group please Do you think we are becoming the same?
Cultural diversity shapes our identities, as we are rooted in our Vietnamese heritage While we embrace global citizenship and appreciate various cultures, our unique qualities and characteristics set us apart from others.
Interactional patterns
The analysis of classroom interactions revealed varying talking time ratios across three classes, with students often leading peer discussions while teacher-led sessions featured the longest duration of whole class discussions Two predominant interaction patterns emerged: IRE (Initiation, Response, Evaluation) and IRF (Initiation, Response, Follow-up) Contrary to previous research highlighting teachers' overreliance on the Evaluation component of the IRE pattern, 70% of interactions in the observed classes were characterized by the IRF pattern In the IRE pattern, students tended to give brief responses without elaboration, while the IRF pattern encouraged students to provide more detailed answers due to the Follow-up component This approach allowed teachers to employ various techniques to help students articulate their thoughts more clearly Ultimately, the effective use of these interaction patterns is largely influenced by the pedagogical objectives and the educational context.
Research indicates that teachers dominate classroom dialogue, often accounting for over 70% of the conversation (Chaudron, 1988) While teacher talk time may not be excessively high in some classes, teachers still maintain a controlling role in student interactions They frequently provide lengthy instructions, share anecdotes, ask questions, and offer feedback, while students primarily respond to inquiries and engage in pair or group discussions Students rarely initiate conversations, typically only doing so to clarify task requirements Darn (n.d.) suggests that this dominance can hinder learner autonomy, as students become reliant on the teacher's direction rather than taking responsibility for their own learning.
Teachers‟ Initiating Questions
The study highlights that teachers play a crucial role in fostering student dialogue during interactions Recognizing the importance of learner engagement, teachers strategically posed questions at the beginning and throughout discussions, effectively encouraging students to participate and express their thoughts.
To engage more students in class discussions, a thought-provoking question was posed to multiple participants The study focused on two commonly used types of questions: Referential questions, which encourage deeper thinking and personal responses, and Display questions, which typically assess students' understanding of the material.
The analysis of learners' responses reveals that open and referential questions (RQs) encourage longer utterances, with content word frequency between 50% and 60% and an average word count of 10 to 30 words Both teachers and students recognize the effectiveness of RQs in fostering discussion participation While RQs stimulate critical thinking and enhance explanation skills, they also require more time for students to formulate and organize their ideas, limiting opportunities for deeper engagement Additionally, students with lower proficiency may struggle to provide complete responses, leading to disruptive pauses that can create embarrassment Consequently, more challenging questions are typically directed towards students with stronger speaking abilities.
Display questions typically elicit moderate, simplistic responses, with two-thirds of answers consisting of just one to three words, significantly less than the responses to Referential questions Fewer Display questions were posed compared to Referential questions across all three classes, contradicting previous studies that criticized the excessive use of Display questions in classrooms While Display questions may lack the communicative depth and authenticity of Referential questions, they serve as a vital source of comprehensible input, essential for second language acquisition, as noted by Krashen (1981) Furthermore, teachers recognize that simpler questions provide lower-level students with opportunities to engage in lessons Importantly, encouraging students to voice their answers, even to basic questions, fosters cultural learning and confidence, which is particularly valued in English-speaking countries.
Questioning plays a crucial role in classroom interaction, serving as a vital tool for teachers to elicit information and for students to practice the target language The complexity of student responses is influenced by the types of questions posed, which can be either facilitative or counter-productive depending on the context Therefore, teachers should be aware of the pedagogical objectives and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different question types to select the most effective ones for their teaching goals.
Teachers‟ Feedback
Teachers' feedback and follow-up play a crucial role in enhancing students' oral production, complementing the impact of initiating questions Evaluative feedback, categorized as either Rejection or Acknowledgement, occurs during the final stage of IRE/IRF patterns, where teachers validate students' responses Additionally, feedback types such as Confirmation, Solicitation, Reformation, and Extension significantly influence student learning outcomes Each feedback type contributes uniquely to the educational process, underscoring the importance of effective teacher-student interaction in fostering oral communication skills.
Rejection feedback is often underutilized by teachers, who fear that negative responses may discourage student participation in discussions This "Never say no" strategy, as described by Sunmee (2003), aims to motivate learners by welcoming all answers rather than criticizing them Instead of outright rejection, teachers often choose to rephrase questions or provide corrective feedback to maintain interaction while addressing errors However, correcting students without their awareness can undermine their efforts, and some may feel embarrassed when their mistakes are highlighted It is important for teachers to avoid pointing out minor grammatical errors that do not hinder communication, as fluency and the conveyance of ideas are more critical in spontaneous speaking situations Nonetheless, significant mistakes, such as inappropriate word choices, should be addressed Unlike other educators, Teacher A emphasizes both fluency and accuracy, recognizing that students majoring in English teaching must use language that sets a standard for their future learners.
Teachers often show interest in students' ideas by repeating their responses and asking further questions, but this technique can disrupt the flow of conversation and hinder effective communication As noted by Chadia (2011), students perform better when they feel their teachers are genuinely listening; however, constant interruptions can lead to reluctance in participating and ultimately result in communication breakdowns Teachers in the study were largely unaware of how their feedback interfered with students' speaking, as their eagerness to elicit responses led to a reliance on teacher prompts While solicitation can encourage students to elaborate, it may also foster dependence on teacher requests, which is detrimental to their speaking skills, especially in the context of national or international proficiency exams where elaboration is crucial Additionally, teachers often lacked the patience to allow students to self-explain, suggesting that effective language acquisition requires a balance of prompting and providing sufficient wait time for students to formulate their thoughts independently.
In certain situations, teachers utilized their personal experiences to deliver short lectures, which effectively motivated and inspired students to think creatively and combat procrastination While students seemed to listen passively, they reported gaining vocabulary, learning strategies, and expanding their knowledge of academic and social topics However, data from class C indicated that the teacher's excessive storytelling consumed valuable class time, leading to an overemphasis on listening skills This reliance on the teacher as the primary source of knowledge may hinder students from brainstorming and developing their own ideas.
Learner Talk
Krashen (1981) emphasized that comprehensible input is essential for second language acquisition, while Swain (1985) argued that input alone is not enough to enhance language production skills Swain highlighted the significance of comprehensible output, suggesting that learners must focus more on meaning during language production than they do during comprehension.
The current research utilized lexical density to analyze the impact of various types of teacher questions on learner talk Findings revealed that students predominantly engaged in "answering" rather than "questioning," with few task-related inquiries made The interaction followed a typical Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern, suggesting equal participation; however, the teacher maintained significant control over the discussion and time management Notably, students rarely posed questions to the teacher and seldom volunteered answers, even when they were knowledgeable about the subject.
Students often hesitate to participate in class discussions due to fear of shame from potential criticism of their ideas or language errors, whether from teachers or peers This reluctance leads many to remain silent, even when they have valuable contributions to make The challenge stems not only from the way teachers manage questions and feedback but also from students' perceptions of classroom interactions While verbal interaction with teachers is not the only method to develop speaking skills, it provides a crucial opportunity for foreign language learners to apply their knowledge and practice in an environment they consider essential for their language development.
Teachers often faced silence from students, leading them to call on specific individuals, typically more capable ones, to encourage participation It was noted that not all students had equal opportunities to speak; some participated multiple times while others remained quiet Both active and reserved students acknowledged the importance of teacher interaction for their language development While proactive students contributed more to discussions, many reserved students struggled to engage, a challenge noted by Liu (2001) as a common issue among Asian students Although some students thrived in pair or group discussions, they felt less motivated to speak in front of the entire class Despite teachers' efforts to distribute speaking opportunities evenly, they recognized that achieving balance was difficult Ultimately, university students, as adult learners, bear the responsibility for their engagement in discussions, making it their choice whether to take turns or not.
Silence in the classroom can be effectively addressed through brief group discussions, especially when challenging questions are posed by the teacher A time constraint of about two minutes encourages students to share a greater number of ideas, resulting in a more dynamic classroom environment When topics resonate with students' experiences, their willingness to engage increases significantly, leading to more fluent contributions and reduced need for idea generation during speaking According to Gass and Varonis, this approach enhances student interaction and learning outcomes.
(1984) that “the listener‟s familiarity with the topic of discourse greatly facilitates the interpretation of the entire message”
In a second or foreign language classroom, the primary goal for learners is to effectively use the target language Achieving this requires not only exposure to the language but also ample opportunities for learners to produce their own output Classroom interaction plays a crucial role in meeting these needs, as highlighted by Long (1990) Therefore, examining classroom interaction is essential to identify the factors that either facilitate or hinder learners' language use.
This study examines both teacher talk and learner talk in a Vietnamese university classroom, focusing on teachers' questioning and feedback, as well as learners' lexical density and turn-taking The findings align with previous research, revealing that students' responses vary based on the type of teacher initiations and follow-ups Specifically, when teachers use open and referential questions, students provide longer and more complex answers as they strive to clarify their ideas for better understanding Conversely, closed or display questions lead to shorter and simpler responses Notably, this study finds that the use of referential questions by teachers surpasses that of other question types, thereby offering students more opportunities to engage with the target language.
The IRF/IRE interactional patterns are predominantly utilized in classroom settings, with the IRF pattern being more common than the IRE In these patterns, teachers frequently pose questions and provide feedback, while students respond to their prompts Teachers effectively encourage students to elaborate on their thoughts by asking referential questions, yet they also maintain control over the conversation by determining who speaks and when Despite understanding the importance of participating in discussions to enhance their oral communication skills, few students take the initiative to respond or ask questions.
Teachers often restate students' responses or ask follow-up questions to encourage further discussion, which acknowledges students' contributions and makes their voices heard among peers However, while teachers patiently wait for initial responses, they tend to rush students with clarifying questions during their speaking, disrupting the flow of conversation This oversight can lead to students providing only brief answers, expanding on their thoughts only when prompted by the teacher.
The study highlights significant differences in teaching approaches among educators Teacher A prioritizes mistake correction, viewing it as essential for modeling proper language use for future students In contrast, other teachers focus more on fluency and idea development Teacher C frequently organizes small group discussions to assist students struggling with idea generation, while both Teacher B and Teacher C utilize extended lessons to enhance students' background knowledge.
This study acknowledges certain limitations, particularly in the analysis of learner talk quality While lexical density and mean word length were used to evaluate the impact of teacher initiation on student responses, these metrics may not fully capture the complexity of language use Although a strong vocabulary is a hallmark of proficient language users, it may not effectively measure the specific influence being examined, as some teacher questions may elicit concise answers rather than elaborate responses.
The observational method posed significant limitations in the research, as the researcher, acting as a passive observer, attended only two lessons per class, which may have influenced both teachers and students due to her presence This could have led to unintentional changes in behaviors such as decision-making, speaking, and turn-taking, despite the use of three recorders to capture data Furthermore, the overall volume of collected data was substantial; however, the limited number of observed lessons, constrained by time, hampers the ability to generalize the findings across a broader context.
The study primarily focused on the interactional context, specifically examining teachers' initiating questions, students' responses, and teachers' feedback However, it overlooked two critical dimensions that influence in-class activities: the social context and individual agency This omission may impact the interpretation of the data.
IMPLICATIONS FOR LEARNERS, TEACHERS AND RESEARCHERS
Following pedagogical implications for both participants and researchers are suggested after classroom interaction has been examined and limitations have been addressed
Students recognize the significance of classroom interaction for improving their oral skills, yet many hesitate to engage in discussions It is crucial for learners to actively participate by responding, commenting, and asking questions, fostering a more interactive environment without fear of criticism Additionally, teachers play a vital role in encouraging student contributions, welcoming all input regardless of its relevance or accuracy to create a supportive atmosphere.
Achieving oral proficiency in learners is unlikely without effective teacher instruction and facilitation The IRE/IRF structure, where teachers control the first and third moves, tends to be more instructional than interactional To enhance motivation and reduce rigidity, teachers should carefully manage their use of questions and feedback It's essential to justify the types and quantities of questions used in current educational contexts for pedagogical purposes Additionally, similar recommendations apply to corrective feedback and soliciting questions, as these follow-ups should maintain interaction flow while ensuring that significant errors are addressed.