Luận văn thạc sĩ VNU ULIS exploring the use of teacher’s questioning and students’ interaction in speaking classes at tran hung dao high school

INTRODUCTION

Rationale of the study

English has been seen as the most important foreign language in Vietnam since the 6 th National Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1986 initiated an overall economic reform known as “Doi moi” Young people realize the need of learning English for a plenty of reasons such as getting jobs in foreign companies, studying abroad, and travelling Nevertheless, according to Van (2006), the quality of teaching and learning foreign languages at both general and tertiary levels in Vietnam is still very low, which is far from meeting the present country‟s demand of socio-economic development

“Though the aims of the curriculum at secondary school are to train the four skills and students‟ required language proficiency is upper- intermediate level However, their real level is just somewhere between elementary and lower-intermediate Many school leavers cannot read simple texts in English nor communicate with English speaking people in some most common cases Actually the real focus of teaching and learning English in both lower secondary and secondary schools is completing English grammar and vocabulary exercises, in order to pass the final exams (even the entrance exams of many universities and colleges in Vietnam) which mainly consist of grammar and vocabulary tasks only” (Tien, 2013, p.66)

This situation is true in my teaching context at Tran Hung Dao High School in Nam Dinh Our students learn English to pass the compulsory exams, so they practise doing exercises relating to the tests such as grammar, vocabulary, reading skills and pronunciation Although teaching methodology has changed from translation method to communicative method, students do not focus on speaking and listening skills For them, these skills will be practiced later when they have entered university The consequence is that students cannot communicate despite the fact that they have been learning English for many years This way of students‟ thinking has an influence on teaching and learning speaking in class As a teacher, I realize the need to help students master speaking skill as well as find out how to teach students this skill effectively

There exist a number of techniques useful for teaching speaking skill, one of which is teacher‟s questioning Questioning plays a pivotal role not only in teaching speaking skill in particular but also in teaching learning English in general (Gall,

1970) “Questioning has been considered as one of the most essential and important techniques during instructional processes since Socrates times Questioning takes up most of teacher talk and it has been proved to have a great influence on classroom interaction”( Xiaoyan, 2008, p.93) Obviously, many studies (Long & Sato, 1983;

Brock, 1986; Shomooshi, 1997; Camak, 2009) have focused on the use of questioning as a universal pedagogical approach Despite these studies and their findings, how teachers ask effective questions to create students‟ interaction is an under-researched issue in my context My big concern is whether teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School effectively use teacher‟s questioning in speaking classes or not My interest in finding out teacher‟s questioning and students‟ interaction in speaking classes has inspired me to do a study titled “Exploring the Use of

Teacher’s Questioning and Students' Interaction in Speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School”.

Significance of the study

Theoretical significance of the study : The study synthesized the understanding of teacher questioning in terms of the types of question, functions of questions and the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction in speaking Moreover, the study suggested how to effectively use teacher‟s questioning in speaking classes in English 10 to stimulate students‟ interaction

Practical significance of the study : The study was conducted with the expectation that its results would be useful for myself, for my students and for my colleagues at Tran Hung Dao (THD) High School Based on the findings, conclusion can be made on what types of questions should be applied and how to use them in speaking classes in English 10 to enhance students‟ interaction Hence, it can be a considerable contribution to teaching and learning speaking skill effectively and enjoyably at THD High School More importantly, findings in this project can, hopefully, be first steps to further study or discovery to encourage students to speak English with confidence The research might inspire students to speak English-the skill used to be challenging with them.

Aims, objectives of the study and research questions

The research aims to explore the use of teacher questioning and students' interaction in speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School Thus, the objectives of the thesis are:

1 finding out question types used by teachers in speaking classes with specific purposes;

2 determining the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction and

3 giving suggestions and recommendations in using teacher questioning in order to raise teacher‟s effective questions at Tran Hung Dao High School

Based on the objectives of the thesis, the research questions are:

1 What question types are used by teachers in speaking classes?

2 What are the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction?

Scope of the study

There are a variety of techniques to stimulate students' interaction in class activities However, because of the time and length constraint of the study we only focused on teacher questioning, which is considered to occur in almost every lesson and to be teachers‟ important technique

Among performance indicators for language skills, reading, speaking, writing, and listening, speaking was chosen for our study We chose this skill because of the following reasons Firstly, it is the skill that my students need improving and do not pay enough attention to Secondly, it is the best in expressing the students' verbal interaction Lastly, it is easy to observe and record

The study focused on the student-instructor interaction only

The study was conducted with 3 teachers and 3 classes of grade 10 in 6 periods Each period lasted 45 minutes.

Method of the research

The study was conducted in the following procedures:

First , class observation was designed to study teacher questioning including the types of questions, functions of questions and students‟ interaction to teacher questioning in speaking lessons

Then , the data were collected, sorted and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to obtain realistic results

Finally , pedagogical implications for the use of teacher questioning to raise teacher‟s effective questions were proposed based on the results found from the data collection instrument

The thesis consists of five chapters, appendices, and references

Chapter 1, Introduction, states the reasons why the study is carried out, the significance of the study, the target, research questions, the scope, the method of the study and an overview of the thesis

Chapter 2, Literature review, presents the relevant theoretical basis for the study, relating to student interaction and teacher‟s questioning in language classroom, and previous studies relating to the field

Chapter 3, Methodology, describes the research methods and instruments used for the completion of the work, that is the description of how the study is implemented, namely the setting, participants, data collection instruments, data collection procedures and methods of data analysis

Chapter 4, Findings and Discussions, presents, analyzes and discusses the findings

Chapter 5, Conclusion and Implications, presents three sections The first section presents the conclusion of our study The second section gives some implications for using teacher‟s questioning effectively in speaking classes The last section discusses the limitations of the study and suggests further studies.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Interaction in class

In the era of communicative language teaching (CLT), students learn to communicate through interaction in the target language Interaction is the heart of communication and it is what communication is all about (Brown, 1994) So far, it has been defined in a number of different ways

First of all, Ellis (1994, p.11) defines interaction as "when the participants of equal status that share similar need, make an effort to understand each other"

Interaction, based on Brown's (2007) definition, is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people resulting in a reciprocal effect on each other Sharing the same view, Wells (1981) believes that interaction is a collaborative activity involving a triangular relationship between the sender, the receiver and the context of situation In brief, interaction relates to a collaborative effect between two or more participants in a specific context

Applying the understanding about interaction in a language classroom context, Hall (2000) claims that classroom interaction is simple It is the talk that occurs in the classrooms between teachers and students and among students Long

(1980, p.47) gives a clearer definition: "Interaction is used in general sense, referring to any sort of classroom interaction, student-student or teacher-student interaction, group discussions, and any type of classroom participation"

While the above views of classroom interactions were considered, we take Brown's (2007) view because it is salient in our classroom context when speaking skill is taught It means that in the context of this study classroom interaction is defined as the communication between the teacher and the students to exchange thoughts, feeling or ideas about any topic in the lessons in classroom context This study focuses on the teacher student interaction because “the quality of this interaction is thought to have a considerable influence on learning" (Ellis, 1986, p.395) Ellis (1986) argues that successful learning depended more on the type of interaction than the method used

While interaction amongst learners is also a vital issue, this area is not the focus of the current study

2.1.2 The role of classroom interaction in L2 acquisition

Interaction is the key to L2 learning and it is really necessary for second language acquisition (Ellis, 2008) There have been a number of other studies about the role of interaction in L2, Brown (2007) finds that interaction is an important word for language teachers; it is the heart of language teaching and learning

Sharing the same viewpoint, Hall and Verplaetse (2000) insist on the importance of interaction that teachers and students work together to create the intellectual and practical activities that shape both the form and the content of the target language as well as the processes and outcomes of individual development through their interaction with each other

Another role of interaction emphasized by Thomas (1987) is that it is interaction that forms the basis of an effective pedagogy for L2 instruction

Interaction itself fosters the acquisition of communicative linguistic skills-the major objective in the L2 curriculum He stresses that interaction in language classroom will lead learners to better learning and will activate their competence; an increase in the amount of classroom interaction will help foreign language learners learn the target language easily and quickly

Considering all different views about roles of interaction in L2 learning presented above, we could conclude that interaction plays an important role not only in shaping the patterns of communication in L2 classroom but also in creating opportunities for students to use language for classroom learning and L2 acquisition Different interaction patterns will be described in the next section

Given interaction patterns, Moore (1989) reports that interaction comes in many shapes and factions They include learner-learner interaction, learner-content interaction and learner-instructor interaction While learner-learner interaction is defined as interaction between one learner and other learners alone or in groups with or without the real time presence of an instructor, learner-content interaction is referred to as interaction between the learner and the content of the subject of the study Learner-instructor interaction is defined as the interaction between the learner and the teacher Looking at interaction from another perspective, Thomas (1987) believes that there are two kinds of interaction: verbal interaction and pedagogic interaction Verbal interaction is a continuous, shifting process of speech acts, social actions performed through language by addresser, and intended to have some sort of effect upon the addressee Pedagogic interaction parallels verbal interaction but the difference is that pedagogic interaction is the interaction between teaching and learning

In the literature on classroom discourse, among interaction patterns, the three-move (or triadic) initiation-response-feedback (IRF) pattern, originally described by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975), is traditionally considered as the basic unit of analysis This pattern is made up of three turns: the teacher initiates a linguistic interaction (generally directing a question to a selected child), the pupil provides a response, and the teacher replies with feedback Research on classroom interaction shows that IRF is a pervasive and dominant pattern, and a fundamental feature of classroom talk (Liu, 2008)

Our study is conducted in the classroom and the focus is teacher questioning; therefore, the focused interaction in this project is teacher-student oral interaction or teacher-student verbal interaction.

Teacher‟s questioning in interaction

Questioning has been, for thousands of years, one of the most popular techniques of teaching and serves as the principal way in which teachers control the classroom interaction and much class time has been devoted to it In order to make teacher‟s questioning understood clearly, we are going to present definition of questions, functions of teachers‟ questions, types of teacher‟s questions and effects of teacher‟s questions herein

Questions have been given different ways of definition Questions are generally concerned with information-seeking and stimulate some kind of mental activity or thinking (Hunkins, 1989) A question is broadly defined as any sentence having either an interrogative form or function (Riegle, 1974) Questions are instructional cues or stimuli that convey the content elements to be learned and directions for what they [students] are to do and how they are to do it ( Levin&

Long,1981) In summary, we support Hunkins‟s (1989) view on the definition of questions because it is suitable for our teaching context

There are many distinct functions for the various questions that are used in classrooms It is important to actively consider the functions for the questions asked

According to Ur (1996), teachers can use questions to attract students in the lesson and make them participate actively through speech By using questioning techniques, teachers can get students to be active in their learning and they not only provide poor students with a chance to take part in but also encourage students to be self-confident

According to Kauchak and Eggen (1989, cited in Xiaoyan , 2008, p.93), the functions can be basically grouped into three categories: diagnostic, instructional and motivational, but a single question can usually serve more than one function As a diagnostic tool, classroom questions allow the teacher to glimpse into the minds of students to find out not only what they know or don‟t know but also how they think about a topic The instructional function means that questions can be used as a technique to facilitate learners to learn the new knowledge in the learning process

As to motivational function, skillful use of questions can effectively involve students in the classroom discourse, encouraging and challenging them to think

Kindsvatter and Ishler (1988) claim that as a two-way interaction, questioning process has its potential to stimulate students‟ interaction, thinking and learning The use of questions can thus change the way of teacher monologue and involve students in the active classroom interaction, which is much helpful to the development of their language competence

To sum up, questions can function as tools of diagnosis, instruction and motivation It is vital to determine the purposes and functions of questions before making questions because they can help teachers scaffold their types of questions

There are different question forms in teaching-learning process Grouping questions differs according to different authors

In one of the earliest taxonomies, Bloom (1956, cited in Brown, 2007, p

172) categorizes questions into the following groups:

1 Knowledge: the recalling of formerly-learned material

2 Comprehension: the ability to understand the meaning

3 Application: the ability to use learned materials such as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws and theories in new and concrete situations

4 Inference: the ability to form conclusions that are not directly stated in instructional materials

5 Analysis: the ability to breakdown material into its elements so that its organizational structure may be understood This may involve the classification of parts, exploration of the association between them, and identification of organizational principles

6 Synthesis: the ability to collect different parts and put them together to create a new whole Synthesis encourages learners to form something new and rely on innovative and creative thinking

7 Evaluation: the ability to assess the value of materials, the explanation to problems or the details about particular cultures

From another perspective, Barnes (1976, cited in Ellis, 2008, p.797), for instance, distinguishes four types of questions: (1) factual questions (e.g What?),

(2) reasoning questions (e.g How?, Why?), (3) open questions, which require no reasoning, (4) social questions, that are questions that affect learner behavior through controlling or appealing Barnes (1976) also makes a distinction between closed questions (i.e questions that are structured with just one acceptable answer in mind) and open questions (i.e questions that permit a number of different acceptable answers)

The next category of questions, display/referential questions, relates to the nature of interaction generated (Tsui, 1995) For display questions, the teacher already knows the answers They are asked in order to check if the students know the answers On the contrary, for referential questions, the teacher does not know the answers and the students answer the questions in order to give the teacher information (Tsui, 1995) It is believed that closed or display questions elicit “short, mechanical responses” while open or referential questions elicit “lengthy, often complex responses” (Ho, 2005, p.298) Another type of questions, the yes/no questions, is categorized by Thompson (1997) according to “the grammatical form of the question”

It seems that open or referential questions are more preferred on pedagogical grounds because they are the questions commonly asked in the „real world‟ of students outside the classroom (Long & Sato, 1983) However, “there is a divergence between what theorists would consider to be good practice and what is actually going on in classrooms”(Banbrook & Skehan, 1989, p.142) In a traditional language classroom, factual questions are the most common while open questions are the least common (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006) Also, in Burns and Myhill‟s

(2004) research study in which episodes of fifteen minutes from 54 lessons were drawn from Year 2 and Year 6 classes, the analyses showed that the most common form of questions asked by the teachers is the factual questions (64%)

In general, each author has their own way of classifying questions In our study, we use both Tsui‟s (1995) categories and Thompson‟s (1997) types to code our data, which means that we use 3 types of questions: wh-questions including display questions, referential questions and yes/no questions The reason for our choice of display questions, referential questions and yes/no questions is that they signal the types of responses related to meaningful communication in the language classroom Display questions refer to questions whose answers the teacher knows whereas referential questions are those that students answer to give the teacher information (Tsui, 1995; Xiaoyan, 2008) Moreover, display questions limit students‟ responses to one word or phrase answers In contrast, referential questions provide opportunities for students to express their thoughts and ideas, listen to divergent opinions from fellow classmates and develop their confidence to move beyond conventional patterns of thinking (Chi, 2010; James & Carter, 2006) For yes/no questions, they can be used for a number of purposes, for example, to request information, to display or test knowledge or as rhetoric (Thompson, 1997)

Although answering to yes/no questions is quick and efficient, the posing of such questions does not allow students to become initiators of communication However, there is a tendency to commonly use this type of questions The tendency to rely on such questions will affect students‟ performance in other areas of skill development (Chi, 2010) In our study, we investigated students‟ interaction in speaking classes; therefore, we intended to explore how the three types of questions asked by the investigated teachers would influence students‟ interaction and whether these questions could stimulate long conversations in speaking classes

The effects of display questions on students‟ discourse patterns were generally considered to be negative but positive for referential questions (Chi,

2010) Brock (1986) conducted a research study in which the effects of referential questions on adult ESL classroom discourse were investigated In this study, four experienced ESL teachers and twenty-four non-native speakers (NNSs) enrolled in classes in the University of Hawaii‟s English Language Institute were involved

Two of the teachers were trained to use referential questions in classroom activities while the other two teachers were not provided with any training The findings showed that the treatment-group teachers asked more referential questions than did the control-group teachers Each teacher was randomly assigned to teach six students for a period of forty minutes The findings also indicated that the students‟ responses in the treatment-group classes were significantly longer and syntactically more complex than those in the control-group classes This suggests a positive correlation between asking referential questions and students‟ production of target language In Ernst‟s (1994) research, it was found out that when the teacher asked display questions, students‟ responses were brief, with little elaboration Lastly, Goodwin (2001, p.11, cited in Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006, p.15) argues that

METHODOLOGY

The setting of the study

Tran Hung Dao High School, where the study was conducted, is a public school situated in Nam Dinh city in Nam Dinh province It has 35 classes with 1460 students in the school year of 2014-2015 The average number of students in each class is 45 Being one of the best schools in Nam Dinh province, it is cared and invested by both Nam Dinh Department of Education and Training and the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training The school is equipped with modern facilities supporting for learning and teaching English effectively such as computers, projectors, cassette players and language teaching labs The classrooms are separated from the road; therefore, the students are not disturbed by noise The principal of the school always pays attention to English subject; therefore, she organizes English competitions such as English public speaking contest, and Olympic contest Moreover, English is a compulsory subject in any exam of the school Students also have opportunities to communicate with native speakers thanks to native volunteers coming to work at school The above information partly reflects the administrators‟ attitude to English teaching and learning at the school

In general, students have good studying condition

3.1.2 English teachers in Tran Hung Dao High School

In school year 2014-2015, there are nine English teachers at Tran Hung Dao high school, all of whom have graduated from pedagogic universities and have English teaching experience for years, aged from 31 to 52 Among nine teachers of

English, two had chances to go to Singapore for improvement in Methodology

Eight out of nine teachers have a C1 certificate On average, one teacher gives fifteen to seventeen lessons per week along with a great deal of such work as preparing and marking tests, training gifted students, training students for IOE and English public speaking contest organized every year Since students‟ demand is to pass the exams and the principal, as well as the parents of the students judge the teachers basing on the students‟ results, many teachers focus on teaching for exams

They pay more attention to providing exercises to help students practise skills for exams than teaching students skills for communication Moreover, some teachers adopt old-style methods in which teachers provide knowledge and students take notes and do drills In brief, the teacher‟s English language is recommended to be good enough to teach English for general courses, but their method of teaching is still problematic

3.1.3 The syllabus of teaching and learning English 10 in Tran Hung Dao High School

Like other high schools in the country, English is a compulsory subject in the curriculum at Tran Hung Dao High School “Tiếng Anh 10” prescribed by the Ministry of Education and Training are edited for the seven-year program from

“Tiếng Anh 6” to “Tiếng Anh 12” “Tiếng Anh 10” was introduced in the whole country in 2006 and has been applied in teaching and learning English since then

“Tiếng Anh 10” includes sixteen units which are theme-based and divided into 105 forty-five minute periods during 35 weeks of a school year Nevertheless, according to the Ministry of Education and Training, Unit 15 is omitted in order to decrease pressure on students Sixteen units deal with different themes such as daily life, social issues, sports, music which may interest students more in the subject Each unit consists of five parts namely reading, speaking, listening, writing and language focus The content of most five parts is presented through task-based teaching

More importantly, units cover all four language skills adequately and allow for an integration of skills before and after stages Thus, it seems to look more communicative than the old one which focuses almost on reading and grammar

After every three lessons, there is a consolidation to check students‟ achievement in the previous lessons

The teaching procedure of a speaking lesson consists of three stages: Pre, While and Post speaking Following is a brief description of what usually occurs during the speaking lesson In the first stage teachers introduce the topic and ask students to talk about it; what they know about the topic, or guide to use some useful expressions In the second stage, teacher and students discuss and complete speaking tasks in the textbook Group work or pair work may be used in this stage In the last stage, students' oral production is freely encouraged in activities such as role- play, games, questions for discussion

In short, the new textbook “Tiếng Anh 10” brings a new way of teaching and learning English at Tran Hung Dao High School compared to the old curriculum It is obvious that when a new textbook is applied, it will cause teachers some challenges However, teachers were provided workshops to share opinions and provided with useful instructions on how to use this new textbook effectively If this new textbook is effectively used, it can help students reach their English proficiency at some levels.

Methods of the study

This section presents the participants of the study, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedures and the method of data analysis

3.2.1 The participants of the study 3.2.1.1 The teacher participants

The participants of the study include three teachers of English teaching grade

10 at Tran Hung Dao High School The teachers were given pseudonyms as Teacher A, Teacher B and Teacher C because we do not want to use their real names in order to keep their private rights The reason for my choice of these participants is that there are five teachers teaching grade 10 but only three of them teach the standard syllabus and textbook Two of them teach the experienced textbook which is a new textbook in the experiencing process to consider the practicability This experienced textbook is applied in some classes in specific schools Among three teachers of English, ranging from 32 to 52 years with 9 to 28 years‟ teaching experience, two are young and eager to apply new methods in teaching English The two teachers have a C1 certificate The rest one is 52 years old and rather traditional in teaching method This teacher has not got a C1 certificate To sum up, the professional skill of the three teachers is not equal This may result in the difference in their questioning

A group of 132 students from 3 classes in Tran Hung Dao High School are chosen to participate in the research The criterion of choosing the three classes observed for this study was mainly on the basis of convenience of the chosen teachers

The three classes were also given pseudonyms as class A, class B and class C in order to match with the teachers teaching these classes All of the students are at the age of fifteen and have been learning English for at least 4 years Most of the students, who enrolled in our school, come from Nam Dinh city, Nam Dinh province Two classes (class A and class B) follow route D and one class (class C) follows route A The students following route D focus on Maths, Literature, English while the students following route A focus on Maths, Physics, Chemistry They prioritize these subjects for their university entrance exam While students following route A had three periods of English per week, students following route D had an extra period per week called an optional period in which teachers can make lesson plans based on their students‟ need

The students of the two groups have different interests, attitude towards English, background and academic ability While the students who follow route D are interested in studying English and see the importance of English, the students following route A seem to be indifferent to English Because students choose the route basing on their interests, background and academic ability, the students of route D are generally better at English than those of route A Even though the students of route D are interested in English and they are motivated to study it for the entrance exam, the level of students in each class is different Due to working with different level students, the teachers cannot avoid using Vietnamese to introduce a new item or explain what the students do not understand in the classroom This may help the students understand the lesson more but it may reduce the number of oral exchanges in English between the teachers and their students The students who follow route A do not pay enough attention to English However, due to the new policy of the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training which considers English to be the compulsory subject of the National Exam, the students in the whole school care this subject more Generally speaking, students are better at grammar, vocabulary and reading skills than at speaking and listening skills In addition, a large number of 10 th grade students at Tran Hung Dao High School may not be aware of the importance of speaking skill

Because the purpose of this study was to obtain a deeper understanding of teacher questioning and teacher-student interaction in the language classroom, a qualitative approach was employed to discover their questions in the classroom context and to describe the classroom interaction pattern More specifically, to meet the purpose of the study and answer the two research questions, the class observation -a technique of a qualitative study is methodologically appropriate for the researcher to contextually unfold the teachers' questioning practice and its effects on students‟ interaction

Non-participant observation was the data gathering method It supplied direct data of teacher questioning and its effects on students‟ interaction when the students and lecturers were together in the classroom According to Nunan and Bailey

(2009), the classroom observation data can be both manually and electronically collected

In this study, I observed the lessons taught by the three teachers using field note, video recording and audio taping Because the 10 th students have only one lesson of speaking skill per unit, there are 8 lessons of speaking in each term However, I started to observe in April, 2015 when the teachers finished teaching unit 12 Thus, I could only carry out 2 observations in each class from April, 2015 to the end of the second term of the school year The total lessons observed were 6 lessons

Table 1: The summary of the class observation data

Teacher Class Number of students Type of lesson Duration

An observation sheet was designed to assess teacher questioning in speaking lessons It was organized in note forms (Appendix ), focusing on interaction between the teachers and their students: exchanges between teachers and students occurred in speaking classes, types of questions used by the teachers, and length of students‟ responses This observation sheet was used repeatedly in speaking lessons taught by the three teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School during the six periods Only the teacher- student interaction was transcribed in the observation sheet and coded by observation categories, with private talk among the teachers and their students during group, pair or individual work being excluded The procedure involved identifying selected bits of data as belonging to a certain class or category I chose observation categories for analyzing teacher-student interaction because observation categories can be useful in focusing the observers' attention and in addressing some research questions (Nunan & Bailey, 2009)

For classroom observation, one week before observing, I talked to the students who participated in the study about my attendance in the classroom in order to make the students feel comfortable and familiar to me During the observations, I observed the classes from beginning to the end of each session, taking notes of teachers‟ questions and video-recording or audio-recording at the same time with note-taking, writing down the amount of teacher-student interaction, the learners' responses to different types of questions on the observation sheet At the end of the lesson, observation data were categorized into exchanges between teachers and students, question types and length of responses from students

The researcher used the method advocated by Bouma (1996), i.e categories and tables to deal with the qualitative data gained from the observation sheets All the percentage of questions and that of responses from the class observations were counted into tables under sub-headings of each main area

• Students' responses Based on these analysis, interpretation, and discussions were then given

To identify the questions asked by the three teachers, through the quantitative analyses of the lesson transcripts, the number of different types of teacher including yes/no questions, display questions, and referential questions was counted

Table 2: Examples of different types of teacher’s questions

Display question - What does “tournament” mean?

( Unit 13, Teacher A) Referential question - What kinds of films do you know?

(Unit 13, Teacher C) Yes/No question - Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?

3.2.4.2 Effects of teacher’s questions on students’ interaction

In order to find out the effects of the types of questions the teachers asked on students‟ production of the target language, the lesson transcripts were analyzed quantitatively by calculating the average length (that is, the number of words) of the students‟ responses to the three types of teacher‟s questions (Chi, 2010) Similarly to Brock‟s (1986) study, for the purpose of this study, only those responses that immediately followed the teachers‟ eliciting moves were considered Once the teachers spoke again, the responses were considered to have ended

In summary, the whole chapter has presented the methodological issues of the study It described the theoretical foundation of the study and how the study was designed to answer the research questions For the purpose of exploration and comprehension, class observations were used to collect data The setting, participants, data collection procedures, and data analysis were also described.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Findings

This section presents findings from observation under such categories as the types of questions, students‟ responses The data were analyzed by counting three types of questions in each lesson and the number of words of the students‟ responses to the three types of teachers‟ questions When analyzing the data, I encountered the following situations First, there were some questions asked in the lessons that only aimed to elicit students‟ non-verbal reaction For example, “Who can make up a dialogue with me Raise your hand, please” (Teacher C) or “Who can answer my question?” (Teacher A) Here, though the teacher did not know the answers of the questions, she expected students‟ non-linguistic reaction only (i.e raising their hands) Second, the teachers wrote the questions in the model of the textbook on the board to instruct students and get their attention, but they did not require students to answer these questions Third, the teachers asked students to look at the questions in the textbook and base on them to do the task In order to calculate exactly how many questions were asked by the teachers, these types of questions were not counted in our study because we focused on the verbal interaction between teachers and students

4.1.1 Types of questions the teachers asked frequently in the investigated lessons

We aimed to find out the types of questions the teachers asked frequently in speaking classes The findings of our study are presented in table 3 Generally, the question types and functions vary across teachers and lessons

Table 3: Types of questions asked by the three teachers

Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total questions of 3 teachers

Unit 13 Unit 14 Unit 14 Unit 16 Unit 13 Unit 16

Total of 3 types of questions

Indeed, the three teachers used display questions the most often (44,4%) The yes/no questions ranked second with 36,7% while the referential ones accounted for only 18,9% In addition, the number of questions varied among lessons The questions were asked the most often in unit 16 of teacher B (30 questions) while only 6 questions were used in unit 16 of teacher C The table indicates that some teachers asked more questions than others Teacher B asked the most questions (52 questions), followed by teacher A (22 questions ) and teacher C asked the fewest questions (15 questions)

It can be found from the table that each teacher had their own way of using types of questions as well as determining the purposes of their questions This seems to be natural since not all teachers think alike, and not all of them teach in the same way (Shomoossi, 1997) For example, teacher B asked much more questions than the two other teachers On average, she asked 26 questions per class while the average number of questions of the others was 11 and 7,5 questions per class It can be seen from the table that teacher B asked the majority of display questions in unit

14 (54,6%), 8 (36,4%) yes/no questions and only 2(9%) referential questions In unit 16, she asked 30 questions; however, more than half of the questions asked were yes/no questions (17 questions), followed by 12 display questions and 1 referential question Contrary to teacher B, teacher C asked the fewest questions in

2 units (15 questions) Her distribution of types of questions in unit 13 was different from that of unit 16 The difference of distribution of types of questions in two units resulted from the topics of these units Unit 13 is about Films and Cinema, which is familiar to students, but topic of unit 16 is Historical Places, which does not interest students The students also lacked background of Historical Places She asked 5 referential questions (55,6%) in unit 13 but no referential questions were used in unit 16 33,3% of questions belonged to display questions and only 11,1% of questions were yes/no questions in unit 13 However, the number of display questions was the same as that of yes/no questions in unit 16 The similarity of teacher A with the two other teachers is that she asked the number of questions in each unit differently; moreover, the distribution of types of questions in each unit was different In unit 13, referential questions were asked most frequently (53,8%), followed by yes/no questions (30,8%) Only 2 questions asked in unit 13 belonged to display questions whereas display questions were asked most frequently in unit

14 ( 89%) In unit 14, there was 1 referential question and no yes/no questions

Regarding the purposes of questions, yes/no questions were used for various purposes They aimed to ask students‟ knowledge and their experience For example, “Have you ever seen “the war between stars”?” (Teacher A – Unit 13);

“Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?”(Teacher B – Unit 16) and

“President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum Have you ever been there? Do you know about it?” (Teacher C – Unit 16) This type of questions was also asked to check the students‟ knowledge of the vocabulary items and to teach the vocabulary items For example, “Look at the example and the table Do you know the “runner-up”? Do you know the “winner”? The “winner” is the first rank and the “runner up” is the second rank” ?” (Teacher B – Unit 14) and “Have you got any questions about vocabulary?” (Teacher C – Unit 16) The next purpose of yes/no questions was to check students‟ understanding of the information in the textbook For instance,

“Can we take photos inside?” (Teacher C – Unit 16) In brief, yes/no questions were used as motivational and diagnostic tools

Display questions were asked for a number of purposes First, the teachers aimed to check students‟ knowledge For example, “Who can tell me which football team in picture 1?” (Teacher B – Unit 14); “What teams are there?” (Teacher A – Unit 14) Second, they asked display questions to check the students‟ knowledge of the vocabulary items For example, “Citadel, what does this mean?” (Teacher B – Unit 16) Another example is “what does “tournament” mean?” (Teacher A – Unit

14) The next purpose of display questions was to check students‟ understanding of information in the text book, then guide them to do the task The examples are

“How long did it take to build this construction?” (Teacher B – Unit 16); “Where is President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum situated/ located?” and “What is the first floor used for?” (Teacher C – Unit 16) Next, display questions were asked to analyze the model in the textbook such as “Study the model in the book Look at the model

How many people take part in the dialogue?” (Teacher C – Unit 13) Final, the display questions aimed to provide the model Teacher C in unit 13 was reading and writing the model on the board “which do you prefer: war films or detective films?” To sum up, display questions were mainly asked with diagnostic and instructional functions

Referential questions were asked for the following purposes Firstly, the referential questions were used to ask students‟ opinion and get information from students‟ experience For example, “What is your favourite football team?”

(Teacher B – Unit 14); “When did you last visit Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?”

(Teacher B – Unit 16) and “What do you know about these football teams?”

(Teacher A – Unit 14); “What kinds of films do you know?”, “What kinds of films do you watch in your free time?” (Teacher C – Unit 13) Secondly, the teachers used the referential questions to ask about students‟ feeling with such questions as

“How do you feel when you watch these kinds of films?” (Teacher A – Unit 13);

“How much do you like it?”, “What do you think of cartoon films?” (Teacher C – Unit 13) Another purpose of asking referential questions was to expand the student‟s answer by requiring him to explain the reason for his answer For example, the teacher asked “why?” (Teacher C – Unit 13) In general, the teachers asked referential questions to ask information about students themselves Thus, these questions functioned as a motivational tool

In summary, in the whole class teaching portion of the six investigated lessons, the display questions were asked most frequently with diagnostic and instructional functions Yes/no questions ranking second in the frequency of appearance aimed to function as diagnostic and motivational tools On the contrary, except for the lesson of teacher C, referential questions were rarely asked The purpose of referential questions was to motivate students by asking information about students themselves

4.1.2 Effects of the types of questions teachers asked on the students’ interaction

Discussion

From the findings given above, this section focuses on discussing the types of questions asked and their effects on the students‟ interaction

4.2.1 Types of questions the teachers asked frequently in the whole class teaching portion of the lessons

The findings in this study revealed that display questions were asked more frequently than referential questions The display questions accounted for 44,4% of total while the referential ones accounted for only 18,9% These results are similar to those of the previous studies done by Burn and Myhill (2004); Myhill, Jones, and Hopper (2006) In a traditional language classroom, factual questions are the most common while open questions are the least common (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper,

2006) Also, in Burns and Myhill‟s (2004) research, the analyses showed that the most common form of questions asked by the teachers is the factual questions (64%) Wong-Fillmore (1985, p 41) claims that “questions which elicit one-word answers are not as good as open-ended ones which call for longer and more complex responses” However, a number of yes/no questions (36,7%) which mostly elicited one-word responses or were not answered were asked in the lessons under our investigation

The types of questions were mainly determined by “the nature of the instruction that is being provided” (Banbrook & Skehan, 1989, p 147) This saying is partly true in my context where all of the questions in the textbook were used by the three teachers In other words, they relied on the textbook for pedagogies for teaching speaking and for the kinds of questions they asked to assist in teaching speaking Moreover, in the lead-in part of the lesson, referential questions and yes/no questions were employed to ask students‟ opinion and get information from students‟ experience However, in the next part of the lesson, the teachers used many display questions to analyze the model in the textbook, to give instructions on the task, to check students‟ understanding of the information in the textbook, and to check the students‟ knowledge of the vocabulary items However, there is a problem in determining the functions of questions in teaching speaking The teachers used a great number of display questions and yes/no questions to check students‟ knowledge and understanding the content of the textbook whereas they sometimes asked referential questions to motivate students to speak Obviously, they had some trouble in using questions and required assistance The study provided important information about the practice of teacher questioning in a foreign language context in Vietnam and put forward implications for changes in speaking lessons

4.2.2 Effects of the types of questions teachers asked on the students’ interaction

Accoding to Kanchak and Eggen (1989), for meaningful communication in the language classroom to occur, the questioning process needs to stimulate students‟ interaction, thinking and learning However, Nettles (2006) reports that the type of questions asked by teachers failed to develop and stimulate students‟ learning Because many of the questions used involved those whose answers are already known, there is no genuine communication between teacher and student since what constitutes as an answer has already been predetermined by the teacher

This approach of teaching has a potential effect on learners‟ comprehension and learning which may prohibit or promote opportunities for interaction and negotiation in the classroom (Ellis, 1994) The examples (see 4.1.2) in the findings of the study supported the conclusion of these researchers, which means that a lot of display questions asked elicited brief responses which could not develop and stimulate students‟ interaction and learning Thus, the teachers‟ questions neither motivated students‟ responses nor contributed to students‟ language learning

While display questions are usually asked for comprehension checks, confirmation checks or clarification requests ( Brock, 1986), referential questions are usually used to fill in the information gaps Therefore, motivation and interest causes the interaction to be more „life like‟ (Long, 1981) Brock (1986) also points out that students improved their answers both in quality and quantity when they were asked referential questions In other words, learners tend to produce longer and more syntactically complex sentences when responding to referential rather than display questions However, the findings of our study showed that the use of referential questions in the investigated lessons did not seem to be successful and effective as expected The possible reason is that the teachers asked simple referential questions which did not challenge the students to synthesize information and produce long responses (see 4.1.2) These questions aimed to ask about students‟ experience Nevertheless, they required the students to answer shortly

They did not encourage them to prolong their answers The examples in the findings proved that there were no longer responses when referential questions were asked

In addition, these referential questions did not help initiate a well-formed interaction Therefore, it is better to say that not all of referential questions create more interaction in the classroom than display questions do (Chi, 2010)

According to Smith and Higgins (2006), it may not be the questions asked that determine the amount of student responses but how the teacher responds to the student‟s answer This phenomenon can be illustrated in unit 13 of teacher C (see extract 16 in section 4.1.2) It was, in fact, the way that the teacher responded to the student‟s answer by asking them for explanation of the answers that made the students expand on their responses and produce longer responses Moreover, Black and Harrison (2001) point out, since the quality of teachers ‟ questions can affect the degree to which the questions do or do not extend students‟ thinking and prolong their ideas, both the actual content of the questions and the ways of following up on the responses , i.e feedback, become remarkable However, most of the teachers did not focus on follow-up questions or the ways of giving feedback

They accepted short answers without motivating students to extend their answers

As can be seen in the data, the teacher seldom asked the only follow-up question in unit 13 Besides, feedback encouraging students to elaborate students‟ answers rarely occurred

For the yes/no questions, Gower, Philips, and Walters (1995, cited in Thompson, 1997) indicate that these questions are easier for learners to answer as they do not need to produce much language output The examples in the findings illustrate their saying (see extracts from 1 to 5 in section 4.1.2) It can be seen that the students‟ answers were short In addition, many yes/no questions were not answered Obviously, yes/no questions were not useful to creating communication between the teachers and the students

To sum up, we have discussed the types of questions asked by the teachers at Tran Hung Dao School by comparing the results of our study with the results of some other researchers in the world The effects of teacher‟s questioning have also been discussed in this section It seemed that the use of teacher‟s questioning at my school was not effective because most of the questions elicited short responses and did not create long conversations between the teachers and the students.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Conclusion

Teacher questioning has been seen as a critical part of teachers‟ work

Moreover, it is vital to classroom learning Our research focused on the types of questions in speaking classes at THD High school and the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction There are some salient findings that can be drawn from the research

First, the study revealed that the majority of types of questions used in speaking classes were display questions and yes/no questions whereas the referential questions accounted for a small percentage Regarding the purposes of questions, the display questions were mainly asked with diagnostic and instructional functions Yes/no questions aimed to function as motivational and diagnostic tools

The purposes of referential questions were to ask students‟ opinion and get information from students‟ experience to motivate them to speak

Second, for the effects of the types of questions asked on students‟ responses, the findings of this study indicated that most of the students‟ responses were very brief, with one to three words when display questions were asked, and with only one word or with quietness when yes/no questions were asked Longer responses of four to nine words could be elicited when some display questions were used However, these longer responses accounted for a small percentage It means that the types of questions asked did not develop and stimulate students‟ interaction

The findings also pointed out that the use of referential questions in the investigated lessons did not seem to be successful and effective The possible reason is that the teachers asked simple referential questions which did not challenge the students to synthesize information and produce long responses (see 4.1.2) These questions aimed to ask about students‟ experience Nevertheless, they required the students to answer shortly They did not encourage them to lengthen their responses There were not many longer responses when referential questions were asked Obviously, the referential questions did not help initiate a well-formed interaction Thus, we can say that not all of referential questions create more interaction in the classroom than display questions do (Chi, 2010) In short, the teachers‟ questions did not contribute much to the students‟ language learning in speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School

Third, the way that the teacher responded to the student‟s answer by asking them for explanation of the answers that made the students expand on their responses and produce longer responses However, most of the teachers did not focus on follow-up questions or the ways of giving feedback

These findings indicated that the teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School need some implications to improve their questioning Several implications for more effective teacher questioning will be given in the next part.

Implications

What we have been discussing provides some practical insight into teacher questioning in speaking classes Based on the theories and the findings discussed in this research, some implications for foreign language classroom are given in order to make teacher questioning more effective and more profitable for learners

First, related to questions types, the teachers should not use too many display and yes/no questions because they did not stipulate students to produce long responses The teachers should employ more referential questions Referential questions can involve students in more negotiation of meaning between teachers and students because they fill in information gaps Thus, referential questions will not only raise students‟ interests but also help to develop their output - their communicative ability However, it does not mean that display questions should not be used in class This form of question helps initiate interaction in the language classroom especially for students who are not proficient in the target language The more students interact, the more confident they become which results in better learning ( Dallimore, 2004) The students will make the best use of this form of question before developing communicative skill when referential questions are asked To develop teachers‟ questioning technique, planning key questions is a good way to raise teachers‟ awareness of the types of questions they ask so that they may avoid asking too many yes/no questions and display questions which inhibit students‟ opportunities to develop their second language skills

Second, the present study showed that the use of referential questions did not always improve the quantity and quality of students‟ interaction Therefore, an implication of the present study would be that teachers ought to think about how questions can be constructed and implemented to develop students‟ interaction In other words, beside paying attention to the types of questions, teachers should focus on the content of the questions which can motivate students to produce long responses

Third, teachers should realize the importance of the follow-up questions and apply them to their questioning Also, they ought to focus on the ways of giving feedback Those teachers should encourage their students to elaborate further on their responses rather than just accept brief and syntactically simple answers

Next, each type of questions has its own functions in language teaching and learning Focusing on the various functions of asking questions can develop teachers‟ knowledge on effective questioning techniques while having a positive impact on students‟ learning (Cakmak, 2009) The teachers used the great number of display questions and yes/no questions for purpose of checking students‟ comprehension of the textbook, vocabulary and knowledge whereas they used some referential questions to ask students‟ opinion and get information from students‟ experience This means that they did not focus on the motivational function of questions to develop students‟ speaking skill In other words, the use of this function was not their main concern despite the fact that it is of great importance to motivate students‟ speaking Thus, another implication of the present study would be that teachers need to make use of the motivational function of questions in order to inspire students to interact more with teachers

Last but not least, asking a good question is cognitively demanding The findings showed that the teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School were not skillful in asking questions to give students opportunities to communicate with teachers In order to improve their questioning, they need to recognize the fundamental role that questions play in their students‟ learning process Furthermore, the teachers would need to be made aware of using questions in an effective way so that they will have a better understanding of their own use of questions and the impact of these choices on their learners Therefore, a training course or a conference about teacher‟s questioning should be provided to improve this technique at my school.

Limitations and suggestions for further studies

This small-scale qualitative study aimed to understand the relationship between teacher questioning and students‟ interaction Some limitations should be aware to interpret the findings

Firstly, the study was conducted with the small sample of 132 students of grade 10 and 3 teachers of English Moreover, the total time of observation was 270 minutes (6 lessons) which is considered to be too short to collect data for the study

Thus, the findings cannot be generalized to reflect the whole picture of the current practice of English in the whole school and at other schools Further study with larger groups of students for a longer period of time at different levels of students is recommended Next, the study focused on teacher‟s questions and students‟ responses with little care for teacher‟s follow-up questions The characteristics of this kind of question can be taken into consideration in future studies

Secondly, I only used observation as the only data collection method within the scope of the study Other data collection methods such as interview and questionnaire in further studies could be used to provide deeper exploration

Despite the limitations, I hope this study will help the teachers in my school to improve their questioning It is also hoped that this study will inspire other researchers to do further studies on teacher questioning

1 Banbrook, L., & Skehan, P (1989) Classrooms and display questions In C

Brumfit & R.Mitchell (Eds.), ELT Documents 133 (pp 141-152)

2 Black, P., & Harr ison, C (2001) Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher‟s role in formative assessment School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61

3 Bouma, G.D (1996) The Research Process( 3 rd ed) Oxford: OUP

4 Brock, C (1986) The effects of referential question on ESL classroom discourse

5 Brown, H D (2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching ( Fifth

6 Burns, C., & Myhill, D (2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching Cambridge Journal of

7 Camak, M (2009) Pre-service teachers‟ thought about teachers‟ questions in effective teaching process Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 666–675

8 Chi, C R Y (2010) Teacher questions in second language classrooms: An investigation of three case studies The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(1), 181–201

9 Dallimore, E J., Hertenstein, J H., & Platt, M B (2004) Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies

10 Edwards, A D., & Westgate, D P G (1994) Investigating classroom talk

11 Ellis, R (1986) Theories of second language acquisition Making it happen in the second language classroom New York: Longman

13 Ellis, R (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.) Oxford:

14 Ernst, G (1994) “Talking Circle”: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 293-322

15 Gall, M D (1970) The use of questions in teaching Review of educational research, 40, 707-721

16 Hall, J.K, & Verplaetse, L.S (2000) Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

17 Ho, D G E (2005) Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional

18 Hoàng Văn Vân, Nguyễn Thị Chi, Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa (2006) Đổi mới phương pháp giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở trường trung học phổ thông Việt Nam Hà Nội: NXB Giáo dục

19 Hunkins, F P (1989).Teaching Thinking Through Effective Questioning Mass:

20 James, I & Carter T.S (2006) Questioning and Informational Texts:

Scaffolding Students Comprehension of Content Areas Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivesum07/james.rev.pdf

21 Kanchak, D & Eggen, P D (1989) Learning and Teaching Mass: Allyn and

22 Kindsvatter, R.,Willen.W.& Ishler, M (1988) Dynamics of Effective Teaching

23 Long, M.H (1980) Input, interaction and second language acquisition The doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles

24 Long, M H (1981) Questions in Foreigner talk discourse Language Learning

25 Long, M., & Sato, C (1983) Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers‟ questions In H W Selinger & M H Long (Eds.),

Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp 268-

26 Long, M (1984) The effects of teachers‟ questioning patterns and wait-time on participation in public high school classes in Hawaii for students of limited proficiency Technical Report Honolulu: Center for Second

Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute

27 Liu, Y (2008) Teacher-student talk in Singapore Chinese language classrooms:

A case study of initiation/response/follow up (IRF) Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 87–102

28 Moore, G M (1989) Editorial: Three Types of Interactions The American

29 Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R (2006) Talking, listening, learning:

Effective talk in the primary classroom Maidenhead, UK: Open

30 Nettles, D H (2006) Comprehensive literary instruction in today’s classrooms: The whole, the parts and the heart Boston: Allyn and Bacon

31 Nunan, D & Baily, K.M (2009) Exploring Second Language Classroom

Research: A Comprehensive Guide Heinle, Cengage Learning

32 Riegle R P (1974) The Logic of Classroom Questions Ph.D diss., Ohio State

33 Shomoossi, N (1997) The effect of teacher's questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction: A classroom-based research Master‟s thesis:

University of Allameh Tabatabaee, Deparment of English, Faculty of Literrature and Foreign Languages

34 Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R M (1975) Toward an analysis of discourse The

English used by teachers and pupils Oxford : Oxford University Press

35 Smith, H., & Higgins, S (2006) Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485-502

36 Thomas, M.A (1987) Classroom Interaction Oxford: Oxford University Press

37 Thompson, G (1997) Training teachers to ask questions ELT Journal, 51(2),

38 Tien, L.H ( 2013) ELT in Vietnam general and tertiary education from second language education perspectives VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(1),

39 Tsui, A B M (1995) Introducing classroom interaction London: Penguin

40 Ur, P (1996) A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory

41 Wells, G & Arauz, R M (2006) Dialogue in the classroom The Journal of the

42 Wong-Fillmore, L (1985) When does teacher talk work as input? In S M Gass

& C G Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 17-50)

43 Xiaoyan, M (2008) The Skills of Teacher‟s Questioning in English Classes

Course book: English 10 Number of students:

Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: ………

Unit: ……… Topic of the lesson: ………

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words)

Date: 24/4/2015 Class: 10 A Course book: English 10 Number of students: 43 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher A Unit: 13-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Films and Cinema

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm- up Exchange: Teacher was leading in the new lesson

She wanted to introduce kinds of films and adjectives to describe films

T: What kinds of films do you like most? Who can answer my question Raise your hand

S1: Cartoon T: Cartoon Exactly, what is its name?

S1: Tom & Jerry T: Ok A famous cartoon film Anything else? Other people, What are your opinions?

S2: Horror films T: Oh, Horror films I am afraid of horror films Other people?

S2: Action films T: Oh Action film It is often made in US Other people?

S3: Detective films T: Oh, detective films For example, Shelock Homes

“Titanic”? Have you seen it?

What kind of film is it?

T: OK, very good A love story romantic film Very good

T: Have you ever seen “the war between stars?”

S: Chiến tranh giữa các vì sao

T: Ok: What kind of film is it? You, Đức Anh

S1: Action film T: I don‟t think so Yes, you please

T: Science fiction film Very good I have told you some kinds of films Answer my next questions How do you feel when you watch these kinds of films? Use adjectives to describe these kinds of films Cartoon films?

S1: They are very interesting T: Oh Interesting Anything else?

T: This kind of film is also lively

T: Horror film How do you feel? It is very…

S: ( silent) T: Oh This kind of film is very terrifying

T: Action films The speed is very quick because many scenes happen after and after You can say that the action film may be thrilling and may be interesting ,too

Maybe this kind of film is

1 mysterious Do you know mysterious ? You have to wait until the end of the film to see what happens

T: Moving You can say that moved into tears Moving not boring

T: And next, science fiction film? Tell me an adjective to describe this kind of film

Ss: (quiet) T: It is imaginative

Task 1 Teacher called on a student to role play with her The student asked a question and the teacher answered it

S: How much do you like science fiction films?

T: I like it very much or I can say I don‟t like it very much or I don‟t like it at all

Task 2 Teacher wrote the model on the board

A: what do you think of horror films?

B: Oh, I find them very terrifying

C: I don‟t agree with you I think them very interesting

She asked 2 students to role play with her The two students were A and B while she was C

Task 3+4 Teacher required students to ask her questions about a film

T: I am thinking about a film Please ask me questions and find out the film I am thinking about

S1: What kind of film is it?

S2: When did you see it?

S3: Who are the main characters?

T: They are lovers between a man and a woman

S4: What do you think about it?

They love each other but their parents hate each other

In the end, both of them die

Date: 29/4/2015 Class: 10 A Course book: English 10 Number of students: 43 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher A Unit: 14-Speaking Topic of the lesson: The world Cup

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm up Exchange : After the teacher asked students to work in pairs to list words relating to the World cup, Teacher was calling students to go to the board to write words

T: How many words have you got? Who can write more than 10? Raise your hands

(SS raised their hands and went to the board to write words)

Teacher was checking the result of the game

Ss:( quiet) T: Vòng đấu loại T:What does “ runner-up” mean in Vietnamese?

Task 1 Teacher was asking students about pictures in the book

T: Look at the pictures What do you know about these football teams There are 4 pictures What teams are there? The first picture?

T: Very good The second picture?

T: Oh, very good Who are the famous players in the French team?

T: Italian football team Who is the famous player?

Ss: (quiet) T: And the last one?

Task 2 The teacher calls on 2 students to read out the model Then she required students to base on the model and choose 3 examples in the table in the text book and practise them in pairs No questions relating to content of Task 2 were asked by the teacher

Task 3 The teacher asked students to do Task 3 as required in the textbook No questions were employed in Task 3 by the teacher

Date: 29/4/2015 Class: 10 B Course book: English 10 Number of students: 45 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher B Unit: 14-Speaking Topic of the lesson: The world Cup

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Task 1 Exchange : Teacher was asking about the football teams in the pictures

T: Who can tell me which football team in picture 1?

T: England , so you can say English football team Picture 2? Uyen, please S2: French

T: French? Do you agree with her? Number 2

S3: French T: Why do you know that?

Say a footballer familiar with you

S3: Italy T: What is your favourite football team?

Task 2 Teacher was guiding students to do Task 2

T: Look at the example and the table Do you know the runner-up? Do you know the winner? The winner is the first rank and the runner

Y/N question Y/N question up is the second rank

She wrote down the questions of the example on the board

2 Which teams played in the final match?

3 Which team became the champion?

T What does “the final match” mean?

S: Trận đấu cuối cùng T:Do you know “ champion”?

Ss: Yes T:Do you know “ score”?

Ss: Tỷ số T: Held is past participle

After the pair presented in front of the class The teacher was checking Ss’ attention

T: What do you think of their performance? Better of worse than the first pair?

T: I agree with you Some girls in the back Can you hear clearly?

T: What are they talking about?

Task 3 T explained the new words in the requirement of Task 3

T: Do you know “ take turns”?

Ss: (quiet) T:”Turn”(n): lượt Take turn to verb: lần lượt làm gì

T wrote on the board” defeat”

T wrote on the board “ A defeated B by 4 to 2.”

S: (quiet) T: “By” is not only used in the passive voice but also used to talk about the score of a match

T called on 1 student to speak about the sixth World Cup After her presentation, the teacher encouraged others to ask the presenter some questions

S1: Where was the sixth World Cup held?

Presenter: in Sweden S2: Which team became the champion?

S2: Which team became the runner-up?

T: very good question Presenter: Sweden

Date: 12/5/2015 Class: 10 B Course book: English 10 Number of students: 45 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher B Unit: 16-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Historical Places

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm - up

“mausoleum” on the board and asked about it

T: Yes The third syllable Do you understand Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?

T: Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?

T: When did you last visit Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?

T: Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?

T: Tell me something about it I have never been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum I am eager to visit it

Is it in Nam DInh?

S2: It is in Ha noi

T: How many floors are there?

T: No I don‟t think so Thank you, sit down, please

Display question Y/N question Display question

Task 1 Teacher read the requirement of task 1 and explained some words

T: Do you know” take turns”?

Teacher read the information about Ho Chi Minh mausoleum and checked Ss’ understanding about it

T: How long did it take to build this construction?

T: Do you understand “important meetings”?

Ss: (quiet) T: Lie: nằm T: How many floors are there?

Ss: (quiet) T: Trừ T: Do you know “maintenance”?

Ss: (quiet) T: Duy trì, bảo dưỡng

Ss: (quiet) T: The second syllable

Teacher read the example and explained some words and phrases

Ss: (quiet) T: It is located/ situated in…: nằm ở T: Where is Tran Hung Dao high school?

S: It is situated in Tran Thái

Ss: Công trình T: Công trình hoặc việc xây dựng công trình

Teacher went around the class and helped the students

S: Cách đặt câu hỏi công dụng của từng tầng ạ

T: Thank you for your question

What is the use of each floor?/

What is the first floor used for?

S: Cách hỏi ngày có thể thăm lăng bác ạ

T: On what day can we visit the mausoleum?

S: Cách hỏi thời gian có thể thăm lăng bác ạ

T: what time can we visit the mausoleum in summer?

Teacher called on the first pair to ask and answer in front of the class

Teacher let a student go back to her seat and kept a student stay in front of the class She encouraged other students to ask her more questions

S1: What are there on the second floor?

Presenter: There is a bed where the late president is lying

S2: Who takes care of the late president?

Task 2 Teacher leaded in Task 2

T: Have you ever been to Hue imperial city?

T: Have you ever been to Hue imperial city?

S2: No T: I am eager to visit Hue, but I haven‟t got any chance Who has ever been to Hue imperial city?

Teacher checked Ss’ understanding about information of Hue imperial city and helped students with some new words and phrases

T: Do you know “to be listed”?

Ss: (quiet) T: Được liệt kê vào

S: Di sản T: How long did it take to build this construction?

T: Citade What does this mean?

T: Imperial What does this mean?

Ss: Thuộc về hoàng gia

T: Yes Thuộc về hoàng gia And the stress?

T: Do you know “admission fee”?

Ss: Vé vào cửa T: Yes, vé vào cửa

F Display question Display question Display question

Date: 24/4/2015 Class: 10 C Course book: English 10 Number of students: 44 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher C Unit: 13-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Films and Cinema

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm- up Teacher was leading in the new lesson

T: What kinds of films do you know?

T: Silent ? What kinds of films do you know? The other? Spoken films, silent films, anything else?

S3: Detective T: Good Go on Hieu

S4: War film T: War film Go on Linh

T: Action, not active Go on

S6: Love story film T: Love story film Go on, anything else?

T: There are many kinds of films you see Các em muốn biết cảm nhận vể các bộ phim này như thế nào chúng ta hãy vào bài

Task 1 Teacher was guiding the Task 1

T: Answer my question Who wants to make up a new dialogue with me, please?

T: What kinds of films do you watch in your free time?

T: How much do you like it?

S: Very much T: Thank you Sit down

T: Can you make a new dialogue like us? Who can? Who can?

( Then, teacher called on 2 pairs of volunteers and pairs of non- volunteers to make up similar dialogues)

Task 2 After the teacher let students read vocabulary in 2 minutes

She was helping them with new words

T: Have you got any questions about vocabulary?

Teacher was analyzing the model

T: Study the model in the book

Look at the model How many people take part in the dialogue?

Ss: 3 T: Yes, there are 3 people Pay attention to the answer of the third person He uses the phrase

“agree with” to show agreement

We can add adverb “quite” or

“absolutely” before “ agree” to raise the certainty

Teacher was modeling a dialogue with two other students

T: Listen to me Who wants to make up a new dialogue with me?

Who, please Hiếu and Chính

T: What do you think of cartoon films?

S2: I agree with you I find them

T: sit down Right or wrong? We should base on the model in your textbook; therefore the third person does not agree with the opinion of the second person Ok, again What do you think of cartoon films?

S2: I don‟t agree with you I find them good fun

Teacher was analyzing the model

T: Look at Task 3 Who can tell me the difference between the dialogue of Task 2 and that of Task 3? Who can? Chính

S: The question is about 2 kinds of films T: Yes The question of preferences for films is used

Teacher was reading and writing the model on the board

A: Which do you prefer: war films or detective films?

B: It‟s difficult to say I suppose I prefer detective films to war ones

While the students were making their dialogue, teacher expanded their dialogue by adding her question

S1: which do you prefer: love story films or cartoon films?

S2: It‟s difficult to say I suppose I prefer cartoon films to love story ones

S2: Because cartoons are very good fun and interesting

S2: love story films are boring

Task 4 Teacher was analyzing Task 4

T: Look at Task 4 Talk about the film you have seen How many questions are there in Task 4 Ss: 6

T: Work individually and use the suggestions to tell about the films

Date: 12/5/2015 Class: 10 C Course book: English 10 Number of students: 44 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher C Unit: 16-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Historical Places

Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm-up Teacher was leading in the new lesson

T: Look at the picture in the book

Name the picture in your book S: Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum T: President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum Have you ever been there?

T: Do you know about it?

Task 1 Teacher was guiding the studetns to do Task 1

T: Where is President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum situated/ located? Short answer Who can? You, please

( Teacher was reading and writing on the board) S1: In Ba Dinh district T: Go on The second question

S2: When did the construction start?

( Teacher wrote on the board) T: Answer?

S3: in 1973 T: Go on One ask, one answer

T: When did it finish? Answer?