(LUẬN văn THẠC sĩ) teacher student interaction and students speaking a study on listening – speaking classes with first year students at FELTE – ULIS VNU

Introduction

Classroom interaction plays a crucial role in second and foreign language education, as highlighted by various researchers (Allwright, 1984; Walsh, 2011) It is essential for facilitating classroom activities and practices River (1987) emphasizes that such interactions provide students with opportunities to practice the target language and expand their linguistic repertoire This notion is supported by Mackey's (1999) findings on the link between interaction and language acquisition, indicating that participation in these interactions promotes learning development Additionally, Long (1990) argues that language acquisition results from the interplay between learners' cognitive abilities and their linguistic environment.

For English language learners in non-English speaking environments, the classroom serves as a crucial space for practicing the language Typically, opportunities for practicing English outside the classroom are limited Therefore, classroom interaction becomes essential for mastering the language, particularly in developing speaking skills.

In an English as a foreign language classroom, the teacher plays a vital role in creating an effective learning environment by integrating various elements of instruction According to Hall (1998), teachers can either encourage or hinder student participation through their classroom management techniques It is essential for teachers to initiate and maintain communication, ensuring active engagement among students Effective strategies for promoting classroom interaction include asking questions and providing constructive feedback on students' responses.

Learners play a crucial role in language acquisition, actively engaging in classroom interactions to enhance their learning According to Swain (1988), students utilize their existing language resources to generate "comprehensible output." Through verbal interaction, they employ various strategies such as speaking slowly, repeating, and paraphrasing to clarify their viewpoints, ensuring effective communication with 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 interactive processes It is crucial for teachers to encourage verbal interaction among students and stimulate critical thinking through thoughtful questioning Additionally, students should understand the significance of discussion in their learning journey and actively contribute their insights This collaborative approach fosters a respectful environment where both teachers and learners engage meaningfully in language tasks, listening to and valuing each other's contributions.

Problem Statement and Rationale

Despite extensive research on classroom interaction, there is a notable lack of studies focused on this issue within the Vietnamese context Previous studies, such as Dung (2004) and Thu (2008), primarily examine teachers' questioning strategies, overlooking the impact of teachers' feedback on student dialogue Additionally, the exploration of students' language use remains limited While evidence suggests that classroom interaction facilitates language acquisition, the extent to which various interaction types contribute to this learning remains unclear Recent studies, including those by Kouicem (2009) and Bouraya (2011), rely solely on student questionnaires and teacher interviews, which may not provide comprehensive insights into the relationship between classroom interaction and learners' speaking skills, especially in the absence of audio or video recordings.

This study aims to explore classroom interaction in depth, particularly focusing on the relationship between teacher-student interactions and their impact on students' speaking abilities By employing a range of data collection and analysis tools, the research seeks to provide valuable insights into how these interactions influence student communication skills.

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, facilitating communication without words In contrast, verbal interaction includes both written and oral forms Written interaction allows students to express their ideas through written words and documents, while oral interaction involves direct communication where teachers and students engage in asking questions, making comments, and participating in discussions As Robinson (1994) summarizes, interaction encompasses both "face-to-face" verbal communication, conveyed through written or spoken words, and non-verbal communication, expressed through touch, proximity, eye contact, facial expressions, 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

Interaction in the language classroom enhances students' language acquisition, as they actively utilize their language skills (River, 1987) The target language serves both as a medium for learning and as a key educational goal (Swain, 1997), fostering a collaborative environment where knowledge is co-constructed by instructors and students Engaging in communicative tasks, listening to explanations, and expressing viewpoints are essential for mastering the target language (Tsui, 1995) Students are encouraged to take initiative in their language development, moving away from passive learning to active participation Research indicates that learners who engage more frequently in interactions demonstrate faster language development compared to those who are less willing to participate (Mackey, 1999) Furthermore, the dynamics of oral interactions shape the roles and relationships between teachers and students, influencing whether the classroom is teacher-centered or learner-centered (Hall & Walsh, 2002).

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) involves two key concepts: reception and production Ellis (1990) highlights that "reception-based theories" focus on how learners acquire a second language through comprehension and reception of the target language (TL) In contrast, "production-based theories" emphasize the importance of learners' efforts to produce the TL While reception theories are exemplified by Krashen and Long's input theories from the 1980s, production theories align more closely with Swain's output theory from the same period.

In language learning, input refers to the language that learners receive, which is crucial for their acquisition process (Richards & Schmidt, 1992) According to Krashen (1982), input serves not only as a social and educational goal but also as a primary medium for learning the target language (TL) Language acquisition occurs when learners understand the input they encounter, as Krashen asserts that exposure to comprehensible TL input is sufficient for triggering acquisition (Richards & Renandya, 2002) Conversely, incomprehensible input does not facilitate learning Thus, the interactions between teachers and learners primarily aim to provide comprehensible input, enabling learners to acquire language effectively Ultimately, this interaction allows instructors to supply learners with the necessary input for successful language acquisition.

Long (1981) expanded on Krashen's input theory by emphasizing the importance of interactional modifications to make input comprehensible Unlike Krashen, who advocates for pre-modified input, Long argues that intentionally modified input enhances language acquisition When learners indicate they do not understand, instructors can adjust their explanations or terminology, employing techniques such as confirmation checks, clarification requests, and reformulations These modifications facilitate better comprehension for the learner, ultimately promoting second language acquisition.

In 2008, Thoms reviewed Krashen and Long's interaction hypotheses, highlighting that interaction is essential for transmitting language knowledge and facilitating the language learning process Johnson (1995) critiques Krashen for overemphasizing the importance of comprehensible input, which prioritizes meaning over form In contrast, Pica & Young and Doughty (1987) argue that comprehension is best achieved through intentionally derived and modified input, rather than relying solely on pre-modified input.

The emphasis on input in theoretical views of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) may overlook the crucial role of interaction in language learning These perspectives link interaction primarily to input delivery, implying that language acquisition is merely a byproduct of exchanges between speakers A notable critique of Long's Interaction Hypothesis, as pointed out by Swain, highlights this limitation, suggesting that a deeper understanding of interaction is essential for a comprehensive view of language learning.

In 1985, Swain highlighted the perspective of Long and Krashen, who assert that language acquisition predominantly occurs through exposure to comprehensible input However, they overlook the significance of producing comprehensive output in the learning process.

Swain emphasizes the importance of output in language learning, particularly in classroom settings where communication breakdowns occur Learners strive to express themselves clearly and effectively, employing various strategies to convey their messages (Ellis, 1985) While acknowledging the role of input in second language acquisition, Swain's output hypothesis (1985) asserts that opportunities for learners to produce the target language (TL) are essential for achieving fluency She argues that negotiating meaning involves being pushed to articulate messages (Swain, 2005) Output not only fosters fluency but also enhances learners' awareness of their linguistic gaps, as they may recognize difficulties in expressing their ideas due to limited vocabulary or syntactic knowledge This awareness prompts learners to seek resources such as dictionaries or assistance from peers and teachers to bridge these gaps By identifying their knowledge deficiencies, learners generate hypotheses about the TL and test them, especially in response to negative feedback from instructors, motivating them to refine their output to align with TL structures (Swain, 2000).

Producing output in a second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) 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 their output production rather than merely responding to prompts Active participation and interaction are crucial, as learners should not be limited by their conversation partners The greater the 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 merely being exposed to comprehensible input is not enough for second language (SL) or foreign language (FL) learners; they must also produce output to effectively advance their target language (TL) skills in the classroom They emphasize that Krashen and Long's input hypotheses and Swain's output theory should not be viewed in opposition, but rather as complementary elements essential for language acquisition.

The cognitive interactionist perspective emphasizes that interaction facilitates individual knowledge construction by activating prior knowledge In this framework, the teacher's responsibilities include making input understandable, creating opportunities for students to express their ideas, and offering constructive feedback on their outputs.

Advocates of sociocultural theory, grounded in Vygotsky's (1978) work, highlight the significance of social interaction in cognitive development, viewing classroom interaction as a vital social activity that arises from open public communication Walsh (2006) supports this by emphasizing that social interaction and context are integral to the learning environment A key concept within this theory is Vygotsky's (1978) idea of the zone of proximal development, which underscores the potential for learning through guided interaction.

To effectively produce the targeted language in the classroom, learners must be exposed to comprehensible input that slightly exceeds their current knowledge of the target language (TL) This approach 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 TL.

In 1978, it was noted 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 emphasis is on learning as a social rather than an individual endeavor It is essential that the support provided to second language (SL) learners is appropriately challenging—not too advanced to hinder understanding, yet not too simplistic to stifle cognitive growth Consequently, in teaching first, second, or foreign languages, educators should focus on facilitating dialogic activities that utilize the language as a tool, rather than treating it merely as an object of study, to enhance learners' oral performance (Lantolf, 2005).

Krashen's "i+1 hypothesis" suggests that language acquisition occurs when learners encounter language input slightly above their current proficiency level Here, "i" represents the learners' existing language skills, while "1" denotes the additional linguistic functions and forms they need to grasp To effectively implement this, teachers must understand their students' language abilities and provide input that is just beyond their current competence By doing so, educators create opportunities for verbal interaction, enabling learners to better comprehend and assimilate new language structures.

The cognitive interactionist and sociocultural theories differ significantly in their views on the role of interaction and social context in learning Cognitive interactionist theory regards interaction as a factor influencing learning, where learning outcomes are linked to the characteristics of interaction and the learner's social background In contrast, sociocultural theory integrates interaction and context, emphasizing a dialectical relationship between individuals and their environments This perspective frames individual actions as part of a broader social construction of shared understanding, which is the theoretical stance adopted in this study.

Approaches to studying classroom interaction

Discourse analysis examines spoken and written texts, emphasizing the significance of words and utterances beyond the sentence level Its primary goal is to explore how words and phrases operate within various contexts, revealing their functional roles in communication.

The phrase "Could you turn to page 36?" serves as a clear request within discourse analysis (DA) However, other expressions can be more ambiguous For instance, "the window's open" in a classroom context may function variously as a request to close it, an explanation for the cold temperature, a prompt for a drill, or a definition demonstrating the meaning of "open."

Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) are recognized as pioneers in the analysis of classroom discourse, utilizing a structural-functional linguistic approach to identify twenty-two speech acts that characterize the verbal interactions of teachers and students in primary education Their key contribution is the identification of the IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) structure prevalent in classroom exchanges, where for every student contribution, teachers typically respond with two moves This IRF framework, consisting of three distinct moves with multiple speech acts in each, underscores the dominance of teacher talk in classrooms and highlights their role in controlling discourse.

The Sinclair and Coulthard system has significant limitations, primarily because it was developed from data collected in traditional primary school classrooms in the 1960s The authors acknowledge that this context allowed for the clear identification of status and power dynamics between teachers and students.

The discussion in modern L2 classrooms is characterized by a clear structure focused on question-and-answer interactions However, given the increased equality and collaborative nature of the teaching-learning process today, it is uncertain if this traditional framework effectively represents the dynamics of classroom communication.

Discourse Analysis (DA) approaches are both descriptive and prescriptive, aiming to categorize natural interaction patterns within a discourse hierarchy Grounded in structural-functional linguistics, these approaches analyze classroom data based on 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 interactions through a DA lens often oversimplifies complex utterances, as they may possess multifunctionality and lack a straightforward relationship between form and function Furthermore, DA approaches typically overlook critical factors like role relations, context, and sociolinguistic norms, failing to capture the dynamic and socially constructed nature of classroom interactions Additionally, they do not adequately address the various contexts at play during lessons or the connection between pedagogical goals and 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 language use It focuses on how turn-taking, openings, closures, and the sequencing of actions are locally managed during interactions The examination of interaction emphasizes the significance of meaning and context, highlighting that the order of actions plays a crucial role in the communicative process.

The relevance of Conversation Analysis (CA) in second language (L2) classrooms is evident, as it focuses on the practices that help participants understand and engage in conversations Classroom interactions involve multiple participants, requiring smooth transitions and clear expectations to ensure explicit meaning A key strength of CA lies in its ability to interpret data rather than impose pre-defined categories, enhancing our understanding of classroom discourse.

The Conversation Analysis (CA) approach to analyzing L2 classroom interaction focuses on the structural organization determined by participants, avoiding preconceived categories It emphasizes empirical research, compelling researchers to concentrate on interaction patterns rather than preconceived notions (Seedhouse, 2004) Observers are viewed as 'members' of the interaction, aiming to provide an insider perspective Context is dynamic and co-constructed by participants, constantly evolving throughout the lesson Additionally, CA analysis is multi-layered, considering both context and the sequentiality of utterances, which allows for a comprehensive interpretation of the complex structure of classroom interaction.

However, it cannot be denied that CA approaches do have a number of limitations

Critics of Conversation Analysis (CA) argue that it is overly selective, often presenting snippets of discourse without adequately assessing their relevance to the overall conversation This selective data presentation can seem contrived, aiming to support a specific argument while neglecting the broader context A significant concern is CA's limited ability to generalize findings due to its focus on narrow contexts, a common issue in qualitative research While context-specific data may lack broader applicability, they remain valuable for enhancing understanding and enabling replication in different settings Thus, the goal of classroom-specific research is not necessarily to generalize but to foster comprehension and facilitate application in various contexts.

Types of classroom interaction

Teacher-student interactions can occur between a teacher and either an individual learner or multiple students In these interactions, teachers negotiate course content, pose questions, incorporate student ideas, deliver lectures, provide directions, and respond to student comments with criticism or justification They manage speaking turns by either designating specific students to answer or inviting responses from the entire class This turn-taking can be categorized as "personal solicit" when it involves direct nomination or gestures, and "general solicit" when it consists of open questions directed at the class (Allwright and Bailey, 1991, as cited in Tsui, 1995) A typical classroom pattern involves the teacher initiating with a general solicit; if no students respond, the teacher may shift to a personal solicit to maintain engagement.

In teacher-learner interactions, students aim to showcase their speaking and listening abilities, making the teachers' approach to interaction a vital component of the learning process.

Teachers who recognize the vital connection between teacher talk (TT), interaction, and students' learning opportunities are more likely to enhance learning outcomes Harmer (2009) emphasizes that educators should prioritize three key aspects during student interactions First, they must ensure that the language used is comprehensible for all students' levels Second, teachers should carefully consider their message, as their speech serves as a valuable resource for learners Lastly, it is important for teachers to be mindful of their delivery, including voice, tone, and intonation.

In L2/FL classrooms, especially within Communicative Language Teaching, student interaction through pair or group work is crucial for cognitive development and social skills Johnson (1995) highlights that well-structured learner-learner interactions significantly contribute to educational success and collaborative skill-building Naegle Paula (2002) emphasizes that peer discussions effectively reinforce learning However, students may struggle to respond to questions or feel hesitant to correct peers, and feedback may lack accuracy Therefore, it is essential for teachers to properly encourage and guide these interactions to maximize their benefits.

Classroom interaction, characterized by collaborative exchanges and negotiation of meaning, is crucial for language development It serves as an authentic input source for learners to grasp specific language usages and creates original communication opportunities within the classroom (Allwright, 1984) The ongoing enhancement of students' linguistic skills relies on the frequency and quality of their contributions during discussions with instructors and peers While both learners and teachers can foster participation, it is ultimately the instructors who control the dynamics of classroom talk, including who engages, when, and how discussions are structured (Thoms, 2008).

This research analyzes classroom modes by emphasizing detailed interactions between teachers and students It will provide a theoretical overview of typical episodes in the Methodology section and present practical insights in the Findings section.

Teacher Talk

Questioning is a fundamental communication strategy in teaching, as it captures learners' attention and encourages verbal responses, which are essential for assessing their progress In language classes, questions provide students with the opportunity to express their thoughts and ideas, facilitating active participation Furthermore, questions serve as a valuable source of linguistic input, allowing students to practice the target language through idea exchange Beyond language acquisition, teachers' questions enhance pedagogical outcomes by stimulating recall, deepening understanding, fostering imagination, and promoting problem-solving skills Consequently, Walsh & Sattes (2005) identified questioning as a core component of effective teaching in classroom environments.

In the classroom, the two most common types of questions are display questions and referential questions Display questions, also known as known information questions, focus on assessing students' recall of previously taught material, while referential questions encourage deeper thinking and personal responses.

In educational contexts, questions can be categorized into two types: those that seek to display existing knowledge and those that aim to elicit new information The former, known as divergent questions, focus on the responder's knowledge, while the latter—referred to as information-seeking or higher cognitive questions—encourage authentic communication by prompting the questioner to seek information they do not already possess.

Display questions serve a dual purpose in education, allowing teachers to assess students' knowledge while also offering opportunities for language practice (McCarthy, 1991) However, researchers like Ernst (1994) criticize these questions, noting that students often provide brief responses with minimal elaboration This critique is further supported by Brock's observations on the limitations of display questions in fostering deeper engagement.

Research indicates that display questions (DQs), which require recognition or recall of factual information, elicit shorter responses compared to referential questions that invite interpretation or opinion (Smith, 1978; 1986) Mehan (1979) argues that DQs facilitate a one-way flow of information from teachers to students, as there is typically one correct answer, leading teachers to seek this answer while students experiment with various responses for validation Despite this limitation, Shomoossi (2004) found that teachers employed DQs 4.4 times more frequently than referential questions Furthermore, DQs account for only 0.12% of questions in Native speaker-Non native speaker conversations outside the classroom, highlighting the artificial nature of classroom communication (Long & Sato, 1983) Teachers often resort to DQs due to students' lower language abilities and the constraints of a strict curriculum, a point supported by Allwright & Bailey (1991), who note that DQs provide lower-level language learners with more opportunities for interaction and participation in class.

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 (Nunan, 1989) RQs can enhance language acquisition more effectively than display questions (DQs), as they encourage learners to draw on their background knowledge and context Research by Brock (1986) demonstrated that RQs lead to longer and more complex student responses in adult ESL classrooms, allowing learners to use more logical connectors and improve their expression in the target language This suggests a strong positive correlation between RQs and student language production, highlighting the importance of incorporating RQs into teaching practices, especially when classroom interaction is the primary opportunity for language use However, answering RQs requires more time and cognitive effort from students, which can limit their opportunities for 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 Additionally, responses to display questions tend to be brief and straightforward, whereas answers to referential questions are generally longer and more syntactically intricate.

In a classroom setting, after posing a question, teachers expect students to engage and respond, followed by the teacher providing feedback that reflects understanding and agreement This feedback, essential in teaching and learning (TT), not only assesses student performance but also motivates learners and fosters a dynamic classroom environment Teachers can focus their feedback on either the content or the form of students' oral responses It's crucial for educators to recognize students' cognitive realities and possess insight into their individual characteristics and language proficiency to deliver effective feedback By doing so, teachers can ensure that their feedback is constructive and beneficial for student growth (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 teachers reiterate the correct answers given by students Another common approach is rephrasing, allowing teachers to acknowledge students' responses while also incorporating additional information or new structures These techniques help reinforce learning and boost students' confidence in their language abilities.

Negative feedback, also known as corrective feedback, is essential for helping learners address problematic utterances, as highlighted by Dekeyser (2007) This type of feedback signals to students where their output falls short, allowing them to recognize the discrepancies between their interlanguage and the target language (TL), as suggested by Schmidt Depending on the teacher's intention, negative feedback can be delivered either explicitly or implicitly, reflecting their preference for overt correction versus subtle guidance in addressing learners' errors.

Teachers can enhance student engagement by continuing conversations through follow-up questions that focus on content rather than syntax This solicitation encourages learners to provide more information, while teachers maintain the dialogue with questions similar to those used in the initial conversation Additionally, by sharing their personal and cultural experiences, teachers create connections that help students better understand the material This practice, known as Extension/Association/Connection, enriches the learning experience and fosters deeper comprehension.

Interaction patterns

The Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) exchange sequence, originally identified by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975, remains a foundational framework in classroom discourse analysis This model highlights the critical role of feedback, which can take the form of Evaluation (IRE) or Follow-up (IRF), in shaping the nature of classroom interactions Researchers continue to reference and expand upon this pattern to better understand communication dynamics in educational settings.

The following conversation best describes IRE pattern of classroom interaction between teacher and students

In the described interaction, the teacher initiates a conversation by asking a factual question to check the time After receiving a brief two-word response from the student, the teacher offers positive feedback, concluding the exchange This interaction exemplifies the I-R-E pattern (Initiation - Response - Evaluation) identified by Cazden (1988), Lemke (1985), and Mehan (1979), where the teacher poses a known-answer question, students respond, and the teacher provides evaluative feedback, which can be either affirmative or corrective.

Research indicates that prolonged participation in the Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) sequence diminishes students' ability to engage in extended language discourse Barnes (1969) notes that while teacher questions may appear open-ended, they often seek specific responses, limiting the complexity of communication Hall (1995) agrees, suggesting that such exchanges restrict students' communicative development to basic recall and listing Lin's 1999 study highlights that the factual nature of questions and minimal teacher feedback stifle students' imaginative engagement Adhering strictly to the IRE model can hinder students' interest in English as a language and culture for personal expression Nonetheless, this approach can be effective for simple question checks or time-constrained scenarios Ultimately, students' meaningful communication opportunities largely depend on the instructor's choices.

In 1993, Wells introduced the IRF pattern, which reconceptualizes the traditional IRE model While the first two components of IRF involve the instructor initiating a question and students responding, the key difference lies in the third part Instead of simply evaluating responses, teachers engage students by encouraging them to elaborate and clarify their answers, fostering a more equitable dialogue This approach values student contributions and promotes a richer, ongoing discussion in the classroom.

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 after a student's response allows the student to elaborate on their answer, thereby giving them a voice in the discussion Cazden (1988) emphasizes the importance of developing further discussions by clarifying, confirming, affirming, and extending students' responses This method enables teachers to orchestrate classroom discourse that fosters active student participation and engagement, as supported by Wells.

(1993) strongly believes that the third element creating a significant change If

Evaluation can limit students' learning opportunities, whereas feedback enhances them Engaging in extended discussions facilitates students' understanding of new vocabulary and concepts Unlike traditional question-answer sessions, which often have predetermined responses, IRF patterns foster meaningful dialogue between instructors and students, promoting collaborative inquiry (Van Lier, 1998) However, students may feel embarrassed if they struggle to keep the conversation going Additionally, in large groups or under time constraints, teachers must carefully manage discussions to ensure equal participation among all students.

Learner talk

Speaking, as outlined by Lindsay and Knight (2006), is the act of producing oral language to effectively communicate messages in various contexts, allowing individuals to express ideas, share information, and respond to others Recognized as a productive skill, speaking integrates essential language components to convey intended messages Ur (1996) emphasizes that among the four language skills—listening, speaking, reading, and writing—speaking is paramount, as it signifies proficiency in the language Key elements of speaking include lexis, grammar, pronunciation, vocabulary, syntax, fluency, and accuracy, all of which contribute to effective communication.

Oral interaction is a key objective in language learning and serves as a medium to achieve educational goals Speaking is often viewed as a means to an end, with various formal activities like storytelling, group discussions, debates, information gaps, and role plays facilitating practice among students Whole class discussions, including teacher-led warm-up and follow-up activities, also enhance students' oral production However, learners may encounter obstacles or make mistakes during speaking, such as mispronunciation, inappropriate word choices, grammatical errors, or lack of fluency, which can arise from factors like mother tongue interference, fossilization, overgeneralization, and distraction with content, as noted by Brown (2000) Therefore, while providing multiple speaking opportunities is essential, it does not automatically ensure improved performance; hence, appropriate teacher correction is crucial.

To effectively evaluate learner speaking skills, it is essential to consider key features, with vocabulary being the most significant factor in distinguishing language proficiency levels, as identified by Higgs and Clifford (1982) Their research revealed that participants with high proficiency exhibited a broader range of vocabulary compared to those with lower proficiency Experienced teachers noted that while vocabulary is crucial at lower proficiency levels, the importance of pronunciation, fluency, and grammar increases as proficiency rises At advanced levels, these four factors—vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation, and fluency—hold equal weight, with sociolinguistic factors playing a lesser role Ultimately, vocabulary range emerges as the primary indicator of proficiency, while other aspects of oral proficiency shift in significance depending on the learner's level.

Turn taking

Understanding conversation and interaction requires a thorough examination of the turn-taking system (Chadia, 2011) Turn-taking involves the distribution and acceptance of speaking opportunities within a conversation (Hutchby & Wooffit, 2008) Turn allocation refers to the process of granting speaking turns to others, while turn acquisition focuses on how individuals receive those turns Key methods for allocating turns include asking questions, making eye contact with a specific person, or directly addressing someone by name Participants take turns by responding to verbal or non-verbal cues or by self-selecting to speak.

Turn-taking in classroom conversations differs from natural interactions, as it is primarily initiated by the teacher through questions and instructions Students typically gain the opportunity to speak by responding to the teacher, although there are instances where learners may self-select their turns.

In classroom interactions, teachers predominantly control the speaking floor by allocating turns and determining when to interrupt or stop students (McHoul) Conversely, students rarely initiate their own turns or select peers to speak, highlighting the teacher's central role in managing dialogue.

Teachers often engage in purposeful actions to meet lesson objectives within a predetermined plan Due to time constraints, the strict flow of turn-taking can hinder negotiation, self-initiation, and competition among learners Seedhouse has noted that the organization of turn-taking is closely related to pedagogical activities, such as form and accuracy, meaning and fluency, as well as tasks and procedural contexts Additionally, Van Lier (1989) emphasizes 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 Conversely, if they see themselves as "facilitators," there is more room for negotiated turns among students Tsui (1996) highlights the complexity of allocating turns to learners, noting that teachers may often give preference to brighter students to prevent long pauses during discussions However, this habitual turn allocation can lead to feelings of neglect among shy or reluctant students, ultimately diminishing their willingness 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 aspects such as teacher talk, input, output, learner talk, and classroom interaction patterns in relation to language development The study emphasizes that interaction primarily serves to provide input and practice opportunities for learners, which are essential for effective language learning The effectiveness of classroom interaction, involving both teachers and learners, is context-dependent, influencing whether it supports or impedes language acquisition The research aims to enhance existing theories by identifying specific instances where 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 to effectively collect and analyze critical data, aimed at addressing the research questions.

To effectively meet the study's objectives, it is crucial to provide a comprehensive analysis of teacher-learner interactions, which are fundamental to the teaching-learning process in English classrooms Consequently, a descriptive qualitative approach is employed to address the research questions.

Context and Participants

The study was conducted at the Faculty of English Language Teaching Education (FELTE) at the University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS), focusing on first-year students and their instructors responsible for teaching essential English language skills Since 2004, entry 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 assessing vocabulary, grammar, reading, and writing, while excluding listening and speaking The four-year bachelor's program for English Language Teacher Education emphasizes English proficiency, particularly in the first two years, through an integrated approach that combines 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- according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR).

The study involves a convenient selection of three teachers (Teacher A, B, and C) and their respective classes, each comprising approximately 25 mainstream freshmen (Class A, B, and C) The objective is not to conduct a comparative analysis but to gain a comprehensive understanding of the discourse utilized by both teachers and learners within the study's context Additionally, it is essential to highlight the unique characteristics of each class and teacher that may impact students' oral production during class.

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 has been teaching for three years after participating in a student exchange program during her senior year In the observed lesson for the second subject, there were 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 Although gender is not the focus of this research, it is noteworthy that most students have been studying for approximately 10 years It wasn't until their first year at university that they began to extensively learn all four language skills According to the course objectives outlined by Division 1 Lecturers (2015), students are expected to achieve a level of speaking fluency that facilitates regular interaction with English speakers with minimal difficulty for both parties.

It is essential to focus on the interaction process between two target subjects rather than evaluating students' speaking abilities At the time of data collection, the students had been studying four skills for nearly six months.

The study focuses on the Academic English Listening-Speaking session utilizing Headway Academic Skills Level 3 and internally compiled materials to gather data It is anticipated that verbal interaction is more prevalent during these classes compared to Reading-Writing sessions Students engage with content modules on various themes, including Education and Agriculture, to enhance their understanding The Listening-Speaking lesson centered on Global Culture was observed in the 10th week of the second semester, employing an integrated approach that seamlessly combines Listening and Speaking tasks.

Methodology

Two primary research methodologies are employed to study classroom interaction Long (1981), a pioneer of the cognitive interactionist approach, utilizes a theory-driven, hypothesis-testing framework that focuses on experimental research This methodology seeks to establish broad generalizations about 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 tradition to explore the language learning and teaching processes of participants, as highlighted by Markee (2015) The primary aim is to gain insights into classroom interaction patterns and student learning, as outlined in Chapter I.

Data Collection Instruments

Classroom observation (Audio recording + Field notes)

Classroom observation serves as the primary method for data collection in this study, with the researcher acting as both an observer and a technician to ensure unbiased data recording during the teaching-learning process Audio recordings are a convenient way to capture spoken interactions, allowing researchers to analyze events multiple times; however, background noise poses a significant challenge for transcription This issue can be mitigated by strategically placing multiple recording devices around the classroom While the researcher refrains from engaging in conversation during recordings, they also take field notes, which offer additional insights that audio recordings may miss These notes can include the researcher's observations and comments related to specific activities or occasions.

After transcribing audio recordings and field notes, Nassaji and Wells' framework (2000) is utilized 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 into their perspectives Nunan (1996) emphasizes that these interviews highlight teachers' active roles in shaping their interpretations of the classroom environment This study employs open-ended questions to explore both teachers' and learners' views on classroom interactions and their impact on teaching and learning Observations of teachers' questioning and feedback, alongside students' responses, are analyzed and compared to their perspectives, revealing potential similarities and differences between theory and practice The interviews aim to uncover explanations for specific classroom phenomena and gather suggestions for improvement from the participants.

Data Collection Procedure

Prior to observing and audio-recording 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 observed sessions.

To familiarize students with the researcher's presence, an initial lesson was observed prior to the official observation phase This phase involved 60-minute classroom observations where verbal interactions between teachers and students were audio-recorded, with the researcher taking non-participant field notes The recordings were transcribed and analyzed following the framework established by Nassaji and Wells (2000), leading to adjustments in the interview questions, including the addition of inquiries regarding teachers' interruptions during solicitation stages The researcher then conducted interviews with both teachers and students to explore the effects of classroom dynamics and interactional features on student learning All interviews were recorded and transcribed for further analysis Ultimately, a comprehensive data set was compiled from field notes, lesson observations, and interview recordings, preparing it for subsequent data analysis and interpretation.

Data analysis instruments

To effectively analyze the data, the researcher utilized existing coding systems for their convenience and validity, despite criticisms from Tsui (1995) and Wash (2006) regarding their potential to constrain analysis and interpretation This can lead to misinterpretation as observers may force data to fit predetermined categories Nevertheless, a classification scheme is crucial for identifying dominant interactional patterns in this study To address 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 breaking it down into structured units called Episodes, which consist of Sequences aimed at achieving specific activity goals Episodes include various forms of interaction, such as Teacher's long turns, whole class discussions, and small group discussions Teacher's long turns, which resemble monologues, typically involve launching and lecturing to provide instructions and essential information Discussions can occur among students in small groups or between the teacher and the entire class before, during, or after activities Each Sequence is further categorized into verbal exchanges known as Initiating, Responding, and Follow-up, abbreviated as IRF/IRE This study specifically examines Episodes and the three fundamental moves in these exchanges.

In the initial exchanges of a lesson, teachers often use questions to initiate conversations, gathering information from textbook prompts or handouts These questions fall into several categories: Answer-checking questions seek specific information, Display Questions involve queries to which the teacher already knows the answers, and Referential questions invite students to share their personal opinions on various topics Additionally, requests for students to perform tasks, known as Demanding, are classified as either Display or Referential questions This research focuses primarily on the latter, highlighting that the distinction between Demands and Questions is largely a matter of phrasing Other question types, such as Instructional questions and Comprehension checks, are not examined in this study.

Teachers can respond to students' answers using various strategies categorized as Evaluation or Follow-up Evaluation involves briefly acknowledging or rejecting student responses, while Follow-up provides additional feedback or advances the discussion Confirmation involves reiterating students' answers with added information, whereas Reformation focuses on refining their ideas or expressions Solicitation encourages students to share more by scaffolding and clarifying any confusing concepts Lastly, Extension connects students' responses to the teacher's personal or cultural knowledge, enriching the conversation with further insights.

The article highlights that while the framework thoroughly addresses two main types of teacher turns—Initiation and Evaluation/Follow-up—it lacks adequate representation of learner talk To address this gap, the analysis employs Patthey-Chavez's (2002) framework, which categorizes students' utterances into Filler words, Function words, and Content words The researcher emphasizes the count of Content words to assess Lexical Density, an indicator of students' speaking proficiency Additionally, the study examines the turn-taking system, focusing on randomly selected conversations rather than predefined structures, prioritizing the management of turn-taking over linguistic features.

Episodes

Interactions among participants are structured around three primary instructional episodes: the teacher's long turn, whole class discussions, and small group discussions The methodology distinguishes between two sub-types of the teacher's long turn—launchings and lectures—both resembling monologues aimed at providing instructions and essential information Discussions can occur among students in small groups or between the teacher and the entire class, encompassing 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 various classes, the teacher's long turn accounted for about thirty minutes in Class B and Class C, while over one-third of the time in Class A was dedicated to interactions between the teacher and students Typically, the teacher employed large-group discussions to provide instructions, encourage idea sharing before self-directed activities, and facilitate reporting on small group tasks once completed.

Excerpt 1 is an example of Whole class discussion as warm -up part in Class

During a classroom discussion about culture, the teacher engaged in a dialogue with one student while the rest of the class listened attentively This interaction aimed to activate students' background knowledge on the topic, as noted by three teachers By assessing students' responses, the teachers gained insight into their familiarity with the subject matter, allowing for immediate and ongoing adjustments to lesson plans.

Excerpt 1 is an example of Whole class discussion as warm -up part in Class

During a class discussion about culture, a teacher engaged one student in a dialogue while the rest of the class listened attentively This interaction aimed to activate students' background knowledge on the topic, as noted by three teachers By assessing students' responses, teachers could gauge their familiarity with the subject matter, allowing for real-time adjustments to lesson plans as needed.

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 equated with the distinctive features of a country Key elements that define these features include traditions, customs, language, and social norms Understanding these aspects provides insight into the cultural identity of a nation.

S: Agriculture 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 A had the longest duration of teacher-student interaction, lasting 22 minutes, while Class B featured the most extensive large-class discussions However, Class B also had the least amount of time for student pair conversations, totaling only 6.5 minutes The study primarily focused on teacher-student interactions, which is why pair and group discussions were not documented Teachers typically delivered instructions or lectures for about 10 minutes, with Class B having the longest at 13 minutes and Class C the shortest at 7.7 minutes During these lectures, teachers often introduced essential background knowledge, including terminology and explanations of current cultural phenomena, while students remained mostly silent and occasionally responded to comprehension checks.

The analysis reveals that the class talking time ratio differs across the three classes; however, it is evident that students are often provided opportunities to lead peer discussions, while the majority of the speaking time is managed by the teacher.

Interactional Patterns

This article examines the discourse patterns observed in three lessons, highlighting that the teacher predominantly initiated interactions, prompting student responses followed by further questions (IRF) or evaluations (IRE) Notably, students rarely posed questions to the teacher, and when they did initiate conversation, it was primarily to request clarification on instructions.

In the observed interactions, IRF sequences accounted for nearly 70% of the total, with Class C exhibiting a striking sevenfold increase in IRF compared to IRE 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—due to a greater emphasis on group work.

Figure 2 Patterns used in Teacher-Student Interaction

In discussions with teachers, students typically engaged in multiple speaking turns, reflecting variations of the IRF/IRE patterns The frequency of "R" responses largely depended on the quality of students' prior answers; acceptable responses often led to topic changes or nominations of other students, while inadequate answers prompted teachers to ask clarification questions to elicit further ideas Observations from three lessons revealed that one or two turns of student dialogue were more common than three or four, with no instances of four-turn exchanges noted in Class A.

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 discussions by summarizing and generalizing student responses to reinforce learning for the entire class This structured approach, where the teacher initiates and wraps up conversations while students primarily respond to questions, was prevalent across three classes Students rarely took the initiative to start conversations, typically only doing so to seek clarification on tasks.

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 fostering interaction, focusing on three types: Referential Questions, Display Questions, and Answer-checking Questions It is essential to recognize that demands, while distinct in form, share similarities with questions as they also seek responses from students Consequently, demands are categorized alongside questions in this research, highlighting their significance in the educational context.

Answer- checking Display Questions Referential Questions

In the analysis of classroom interactions, Figure 4 reveals that Referential Questions outnumbered Display Questions across all three classes, with Checking-answer Questions exclusively utilized in Class B This resulted in Class B having the highest total of questions at 25, approximately three times more than Class A's 9 questions Teacher B incorporated a Listening task as a follow-up activity at the end of the first hour, which led to the use of Checking-answer Questions to assess students' comprehension of the listening material In contrast, Teacher A allocated more time to pair discussions, which, while beneficial, contributed to a significantly lower total of initiated questions compared to the other teachers.

Referential Questions (RQs) are designed to gather first-hand information from students, encouraging them to provide genuine, independent responses about their opinions or experiences that teachers may not already know In Class C, the highest number of thirteen RQs was utilized, while other classes employed slightly more than half of that amount Teacher A values RQs for allowing responders greater freedom to express themselves and for provoking deeper thinking She notes that while DQs and RQs share similarities, they differ significantly in wording; for instance, "What do you think about cultural boundary?" invites personal opinions, whereas "What is cultural boundary?" appears to seek a predetermined answer.

In Class C, teacher C utilized a reflective question (RQ) to encourage a student to share her personal views on culture Responses to such questions can differ significantly among individuals To clarify the abstract nature of the topic, the teacher further engaged the student by requesting specific examples, thereby enhancing the conversation's clarity.

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 all three classes, fewer Display Questions (DQs) were posed compared to Referential Questions (RQs), with Teacher A and C each asking two DQs, while Teacher B asked six Although DQs may lack the communicative depth of RQs, they serve as essential listening practice and allow all students, including those at lower levels, to engage in the lesson by responding to simpler inquiries This perspective is echoed by other educators, with Teacher C highlighting "cultural assimilation" as a key motivator for encouraging students to answer even straightforward questions Ultimately, fostering a sense of community and building confidence in expressing one's voice are valuable outcomes in English-speaking environments.

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 were utilized to verify answers to practice exercises, aimed at assessing students' understanding of reading and listening tasks Short, simple responses were typically sufficient, although the teacher would elaborate if students struggled to provide acceptable answers For instance, during a lesson on distinguishing between factual and anecdotal information, students listened to a conversation to categorize the information Most students responded with one-word answers, and Teacher B employed clarification questions to encourage students to support their choices with evidence.

T: The TV programme now LL: Factual

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 LL: Factual

Teachers' Feedback

In the context of teacher feedback during exchanges, it is essential to distinguish between two types: Evaluation and Follow-up Evaluation involves judging students' responses, which can either acknowledge or reject their ideas, while Follow-up consists of comments and additional questions that encourage learners to expand on their thoughts Data indicates that Follow-up feedback is significantly more prevalent than Evaluation, with a ratio of approximately three to one, despite variations in total feedback across different teachers This trend aligns with the initiation phase, where an increase in questions correlates with a greater amount of feedback from teachers Additionally, questions play a crucial role in the feedback process, enhancing student engagement and understanding.

Evaluating feedback is commonly observed in IRE patterns or the concluding phase of IRF patterns, where teachers affirm students' responses before transitioning to other topics or students As shown in Figure 5, Class B exhibits the highest evaluation frequency at 19 instances, 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 five minutes of discussion, the fastest pair reported their findings, explaining each point in detail The teacher's role was to confirm the reported data and facilitate further discussion, which contributed to Class B receiving higher evaluation scores 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 infrequently used by teachers, as exemplified in Class B, where a teacher chose to end a conversation politely rather than outright reject a student's incomplete response Teacher B suggests that saying “Not really” is a softer alternative to “No,” highlighting the importance of maintaining a positive interaction with students Teacher A emphasizes that preserving students' self-esteem is crucial, which leads many teachers to avoid dismissing irrelevant answers to encourage participation In alignment with this approach, Teacher C prefers to ask opinion-based questions over simple 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 categories, including Confirmation, Reformation, Clarification, Solicitation, and Extension, which serve to enhance student learning Unlike Evaluation, these strategies offer supplementary feedback and facilitate deeper discussions Confirmation involves the teacher reiterating students' responses, sometimes adding extra information When students stray off track, Reformation helps guide their understanding Solicitation encourages students to elaborate by posing additional questions, effectively scaffolding their responses Finally, Extension connects students' answers to the teacher's broader personal or cultural knowledge, enriching the learning experience Detailed information is available in the accompanying table.

Teachers often confirm students' responses by reiterating their answers rather than simply saying "Yes," which helps convey new information to the rest of the class Short responses are typically repeated, while longer ones are paraphrased Statistical analysis shows that Teacher A frequently used this confirmation technique after soliciting responses (9 out of 29 instances), whereas Teachers B and C used it less often, with only 2 out of 50 and 5 out of 49 instances, respectively.

In a recent classroom discussion, Teacher C and her students explored various features of culture, utilizing listing techniques to gather information rather than fostering speaking opportunities Teacher C frequently echoed students' responses, acknowledging their contributions and ensuring the entire class was aware of the answers Following students' brief answers, she prompted them for examples Before directing the key question to another student or group, Teacher C often summarized the points already mentioned, encouraging unique responses from the next participants.

T: Ok So tradition is the way you dress, the way you behave, the way you erm pursue religion What else?

L: Hue festival T: What else? Lunar New Year, Tet holiday Ok What else?

L: Chung cake T: Chung cake, very good

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 class-wide attentiveness, achievable through conscious listening, yet students often speak only loudly enough for the teacher and nearby peers to hear This leads to the practice of Confirmation, where teachers audibly affirm student responses for the entire class, a technique also recognized by other educators as beneficial for classroom management However, this method can be overused, disrupting students' speaking flow with repetitive feedback Teachers interviewed were largely unaware of their tendency to interrupt student dialogue with various forms of feedback Teacher C admitted to being "pushy," often repeating students' phrases due to her high expectations and using Confirmation as a springboard for further questioning, a strategy known as Solicitation.

While teachers generally agree on the benefits of interference in learning, students express varied perspectives A student from class A noted that she feels unable to elaborate on her answers without the teacher's ongoing validation through acknowledgment and follow-up questions This sentiment is echoed by a participant from class C, who realizes the need to provide more detail only when her answers are reiterated by the teacher, as it reassures her that her ideas are valid However, she sometimes adds extra information to ensure clarity Conversely, a student from class B finds teacher repetition disruptive, as it interrupts her train of thought and makes it difficult for her to continue her response, causing her to forget her original point.

For beginner students, a teacher's repetition demonstrates active listening and understanding of their speech In contrast, fluent students may find this approach disruptive and frustrating Therefore, it is essential for teachers to 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 as a positive approach to correcting students' mistakes without directly saying "no." Teachers can highlight errors by stressing key words, 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 frequency and type of mistakes to be corrected in class are determined by individual teachers, with some prioritizing accuracy while others focus on meaning and fluency Teacher C argues that grammatical errors should not be penalized if they do not hinder communication, emphasizing that classroom interactions are spontaneous and that fluency and ideas take precedence over accuracy Additionally, she notes that many questions in class do not have definitive right or wrong answers, except during textbook exercises Teacher B shares this perspective, believing that immediate feedback on lexical or grammatical errors can discourage students and create embarrassment However, both teachers agree that significant mistakes, such as incorrect word choices or collocations, should still be addressed.

Teacher A effectively balances her focus on learners' accuracy, fluency, and ideas during class discussions Observations from field notes and audio recordings reveal that she highlights students' grammatical or vocabulary errors by repeating the correct phrases with increased tone or slower speed, enabling them to self-correct Her motivation stems from her belief that teachers serve as role models, emphasizing the importance for future educators to prioritize both fluency and accuracy in language learning.

All six student interviewees value their teacher's correction of mistakes, as it helps them recognize previously unnoticed errors in their speech Most find the teacher's feedback beneficial for improving their grammar and pronunciation However, one student from Class A expressed fear of public speaking, feeling embarrassed about having their mistakes exposed.

Teachers utilize students' responses to offer supplementary insights based on their personal 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 with two contrasting personal examples to emphasize that not all Westerners are straightforward and open regarding this sensitive topic.

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? Mai: Yes

T: You agree? (ask the whole class) LL: Yes

Learner Talk

This article analyzes the characteristics of student utterances in relation to teacher prompts, focusing on lexical density and mean length To determine lexical density, the number of content items in student responses was counted and divided by the total word count The provided table illustrates the average lexical density for different types of questions, while mean length refers to the average number of words in student responses.

DQ RQ DQ RQ DQ RQ

Figure 7 Lexical density and Mean of Responses to Display questions and

Referential Questions effectively elicit genuine, independent responses from students, revealing insights that teachers may not previously know Research by Brock (1986) demonstrated that students provide longer and more complex sentences when answering these questions The current study supports this finding by analyzing the average word count in student responses, which ranges from 10 to 30 words, with content word frequency between 50% and 60% In contrast, responses to Display questions predominantly consist of content words but are limited to one to three words, highlighting a significant difference in the depth of responses compared to Referential questions.

Students reported that responding to RQs significantly enhanced their explanation skills, with one participant 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 for students to formulate their responses, which can limit opportunities for meaningful discussion Additionally, students with lower proficiency levels may struggle to provide complete answers, leading to long pauses that can disrupt the flow of the class and create feelings of embarrassment.

In a recent classroom interaction, teacher C encouraged a student to share her perspective on culture, recognizing that interpretations can vary widely To clarify, the teacher prompted the student to provide examples, leading to a response that included the statement, "I think culture includes everything that represents the whole country," which contained seven content words In her follow-up, the student cited "traditional costume" as a cultural example, comprising seven lexical items out of eleven words However, the student failed to elaborate on the significance of traditional dress in different nations, and the teacher shifted focus to listing additional cultural aspects instead of fostering deeper explanations This approach suggests that the skill of listing was emphasized over the ability to explain cultural significance.

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 (RQs), indicating a preference for fact-seeking inquiries that typically have straightforward answers Consequently, students tended to give simpler, one to three-word responses, as shown in the transcription of the current study.

A Class C student emphasized the importance of DQs (Discussion Questions) in enhancing her analytical skills, asserting that responses to Yes/No questions should be definitive rather than neutral However, she noted that some DQs can pose difficulties for students who lack the necessary background knowledge, as evidenced by questions like "Do you know who Jimmy Choo is?" or "Is it true that Westerners are more open about sex than Easterners?" which often led to silence or uncertain responses.

In Class A, Teacher A highlighted common mistakes in students' speaking exam responses, particularly the overuse of the word "about." This issue arises 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 explore alternatives to "about." Various phrases were suggested and refined through teacher feedback, equipping students with new vocabulary for future practice Despite their responses being brief, students recognized their error and began self-correcting, positively impacting their word choice in subsequent discussions.

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”

The observed lesson on "global culture" employs various activities, including listening, reading, and speaking tasks, to help students grasp the concepts of culture and global citizenship These activities encourage students to express their viewpoints and engage in turn-taking by asking and answering questions To analyze the turn-taking behavior among students, typical excerpts from three classes will be selected for examination.

In Class C, a comprehensive discussion on culture highlighted the concept of cultures "collapsing and emerging," as explained by Teacher C She emphasized that globalization often leads to a more westernized perspective, noting that common topics of conversation among diverse nations tend to align with Western influences This critical examination encouraged students to listen attentively and engage with the evolving cultural landscape.

C remained silent but engaged, nodding in agreement with their teacher's viewpoint Following a brief presentation on global culture, the teacher prompted students to engage in group discussions about the essence of culture The subsequent excerpt captures the summary provided by a representative of one group after a three-minute dialogue.

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 guided the interaction by asking the student for specific examples, which clarified the discussion but limited the student's ability to elaborate on important cultural concepts, such as the significance of traditional customs With more time, the student could have provided a more detailed explanation, as evidenced by her later mention that hand-shaking is not always a polite gesture in certain cultures Her argument would have been stronger had she cited specific countries where this behavior is discouraged The teacher, using humor, facilitated further participation by imitating a request for permission to shake hands before engaging another group, ensuring more students had a chance to contribute Overall, the interaction followed a typical Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern, with both participants contributing, though the teacher maintained a dominant role in directing the conversation and managing time.

In both Class A and Class B lessons, teachers faced challenges in encouraging student participation and balancing speaking time Teacher A emphasized the importance of prompting students to expand their responses while managing dominant speakers who tended to monopolize discussions with lengthy examples This often left little room for others to contribute Many students hesitated to answer questions unless directly called upon by the teacher, as seen when Teacher C's attempt to facilitate discussion resulted in no volunteers until specific assignments were made Students rarely asked questions or volunteered answers, typically limiting their inquiries to task-related topics or clarifications To mitigate silence from reserved or less confident students, teachers often called on more capable individuals Additionally, 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 Additionally, factors like students' moods significantly influenced their classroom performance Student C2 noted that her willingness to participate, such as raising her voice, was contingent on her mood, particularly when prompted by the teacher.

The second excerpt from Class C reveals a more engaging atmosphere, as students enjoyed longer speaking turns due to the thought-provoking familiar topic The class participated in a quiz titled “How global are you?”, consisting of 10 questions that assess participants' exposure to various cultural features across different countries According to the quiz, greater exposure in diverse fields indicates a higher level of global awareness While Teacher B utilized the quiz as a framework for evaluating students' global perspectives, Teacher C challenged this notion, arguing that the quiz's focus on superficial aspects like clothing and food overlooks the deeper values of thinking and behavior that define global citizenship This prompted a lively group discussion on whether being global means becoming more alike, a topic that sparked significant engagement in Class C, unlike Class B The dialogue between Teacher C and student representatives was dynamic, as students provided examples to support their views on 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 backgrounds shape our identities, and as Vietnamese individuals, we are deeply rooted in our unique cultural heritage While we embrace global citizenship and appreciate diverse cultures, our distinct qualities and characteristics set us apart from others.

Interactional patterns

The talking time ratio varied across three classes, with students often leading peer discussions while teachers predominantly facilitated whole class discussions Notably, the lessons exhibited two main interaction patterns: IRE (Initiation, Response, Evaluation) and IRF (Initiation, Response, Follow-up) Contrary to previous research highlighting an overreliance on the Evaluation aspect of IRE, a significant 70% of interactions in these classes were characterized by the IRF pattern In IRE, student responses were typically brief and lacked elaboration, whereas the IRF pattern encouraged students to expand their ideas through Follow-up prompts from teachers This approach effectively enhanced student engagement and understanding Ultimately, the choice of interaction pattern is primarily influenced by the pedagogical objectives and educational context.

Research indicates that teachers dominate classroom discussions, often accounting for over 70% of the talk (Chaudron, 1988) While the observed classes did not exhibit excessive teacher talking time, instructors maintained a controlling role in student interactions They frequently delivered lengthy instructions, shared anecdotes, asked questions, and provided feedback, while students mainly responded to inquiries and engaged in pair or group discussions Initiatives to start conversations were rare among students, typically limited to seeking clarification on task requirements Darn (n.d.) suggests that a teacher's constant dominance can hinder learner autonomy, as students may not take responsibility for their own learning and instead rely on the teacher's decisions about content and timing.

Teachers‟ Initiating Questions

The study highlights that teachers play a crucial role in fostering student dialogue during interactions Recognizing the importance of student talk, educators strategically posed questions at the beginning and throughout discussions to encourage participation.

To enhance student participation in class discussions, we examined two commonly used types of questions: Referential questions and Display questions By presenting an initiating question to various students, we aimed to foster a more inclusive dialogue among all participants.

Analysis of lexical density and word length in learners' responses indicates 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 promoting participation in discussions While RQs stimulate critical thinking and enhance explanation skills, they also require more time for learners to formulate and organize their ideas This time constraint limits opportunities for many students to engage in deeper discussions, particularly affecting those with lower proficiency who may struggle to produce complete responses Their extended pauses for vocabulary can disrupt the class and lead to embarrassment, which is why 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 content words, in stark contrast to the more elaborate responses generated by referential questions Interestingly, fewer display questions were posed compared to referential questions across all classes, challenging previous critiques that highlighted an overreliance on display questions in educational settings While display questions may lack the communicative depth and authenticity of referential questions, they serve as a vital source of comprehensible input, which Krashen (1981) identifies as essential for second language acquisition Furthermore, teachers recognize that simpler questions provide opportunities for all learners, especially those at lower proficiency levels, to engage in classroom discussions Importantly, encouraging students to vocalize their answers, even to straightforward questions, fosters cultural learning and builds confidence, a trait highly valued in English-speaking countries.

Questioning plays a crucial role in classroom interaction, serving as a key tool for teachers to elicit information from students while allowing 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 their pedagogical objectives and weigh the advantages and disadvantages of different question types to select the most effective ones for their teaching strategies.

Teachers‟ Feedback

Teachers' feedback and follow-up are crucial for enhancing students' oral production, alongside initiating questions Evaluative feedback, which includes Rejection or Acknowledgement, typically occurs in the final step of IRE/IRF patterns, where teachers affirm students' responses Additionally, feedback can take the form of Confirmation, Solicitation, Reformation, and Extension, with each type playing a significant role in shaping students' learning experiences.

Rejection feedback is often underutilized by teachers, who fear that a "No" response may discourage student participation in discussions This leads to the "Never say no" strategy, as described by Sunmee (2003), which aims to motivate learners Instead of directly criticizing, teachers typically rephrase questions or provide corrective feedback, keeping interactions flowing while addressing errors However, correcting without awareness can undermine students' efforts, as some may feel embarrassed by their mistakes Teachers should avoid highlighting non-persistent grammatical errors that do not impede communication, prioritizing fluency and idea expression over accuracy in impromptu speaking situations Nonetheless, significant errors, particularly in word choice or collocation, should be addressed Teacher A stands out by balancing attention to both fluency and accuracy, recognizing that students training to teach English must demonstrate a standard of language use for their future learners.

Teachers often show interest in students' ideas by repeating their responses and asking further questions to gather more information While this technique can engage the class, it is sometimes overused, interrupting students' speaking flow and leading to communication breakdowns As noted by Chadia (2011), students perform better when they feel their teachers are genuinely listening Constant interruptions can decrease students' willingness to participate, resulting in reticence and a lack of interest in contributing further The teachers in the study were largely unaware of how their feedback interfered with student conversations, as they frequently repeated phrases and sought additional responses Although this solicitation encouraged students to elaborate, it also fostered a dependency on teacher prompts Such habits can be detrimental, especially in contexts like national English proficiency exams, where elaboration is crucial Moreover, teachers often lacked the patience to allow students time for self-explanation Effective language acquisition requires promoting verbal interaction without excessive prompting, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate wait time for students to formulate their thoughts.

Teachers occasionally share personal experiences in brief lectures to motivate students and encourage them to overcome procrastination While students may seem to listen passively, they report gaining vocabulary, learning strategies, and a broader understanding of academic and social topics However, data from class C indicates that excessive storytelling by the teacher consumed valuable class time, leading to overemphasis on listening skills This raises concerns, as students may rely too heavily on teachers as their primary resource, hindering their ability to brainstorm and develop their own ideas.

Learner Talk

Krashen (1981) emphasized that comprehensible input is essential for second language acquisition However, Swain (1985) argued that input alone is inadequate for developing language production skills She highlighted the significance of comprehensible output, stating that learners must focus more on meaning when producing language than when understanding it.

This study 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 minimal task-related inquiries made The interaction followed a typical Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) pattern, suggesting equal participation on the surface; however, the teacher maintained a dominant role in guiding the discussion and managing time Notably, students rarely posed questions to the teacher and seldom volunteered answers, even when they were aware of them.

Many students hesitate to participate in class discussions due to fear of shame stemming from potential criticism of their ideas or language skills This reluctance leads to a divide where some students actively engage while others remain silent, even when they have valuable contributions This issue highlights the dual challenge of teachers' feedback methods and students' perceptions of classroom interactions While verbal communication with teachers is not the only way to develop speaking skills, it presents a crucial opportunity for foreign language learners to practice and express their knowledge in a supportive environment, which many feel is their primary chance to do so.

Teachers often assigned specific students to share their ideas when silence ensued in the classroom, typically selecting more capable learners to minimize pauses caused by reserved or lower-level students Notably, not all students participated equally; some spoke multiple times while others barely contributed Both more vocal and reserved students acknowledged the importance of teacher interaction for their language development While active students initiated discussions, passive ones struggled to engage in whole-class conversations, a challenge highlighted by Liu (2001) as a common barrier for many Asian students Although some students thrived in pair or group discussions, they felt less motivated to speak in front of the class Despite teachers' intentions to distribute speaking opportunities fairly, they recognized an imbalance in participation Ultimately, while university students are expected to take responsibility for their learning, the decision to engage in discussions rests with the students themselves.

Silence in the classroom can be effectively addressed through brief group discussions, particularly when challenging questions are posed by the teacher The time constraint of approximately two minutes encourages students to share a multitude of ideas, resulting in a more dynamic and engaging classroom atmosphere When learners are presented with relevant and interesting topics, their willingness to participate increases, leading to a greater flow of ideas and more fluent contributions, as they are not preoccupied with generating thoughts while speaking This phenomenon is supported by the findings of Gass and Varonis.

(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, mastering the target language is a primary objective for learners To reach this goal, it is essential for students to receive ample exposure to the language (input) and to have opportunities for language production (output) Classroom interaction plays a critical role in meeting these needs (Long, 1990) Consequently, examining classroom interaction is vital to identify the factors that promote or obstruct learners' language use.

This study examines both teacher talk and learner talk in a Vietnam university classroom, focusing on teachers' questions 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 nature of teachers' initiations and follow-ups Specifically, students tend to provide longer and more complex answers when teachers use open and referential questions, as they strive to clarify their ideas for better understanding Conversely, short and simple responses are common with closed or display questions Notably, the study finds that the frequency of referential questions from teachers surpasses that of other types, thereby creating more opportunities for students to practice the target language effectively.

The IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) pattern is the most commonly used interactional framework in educational settings, significantly more than the IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) pattern In these interactions, teachers frequently pose questions and provide feedback, while students primarily respond to these prompts Teachers effectively encourage students to elaborate on their thoughts by asking referential questions and requesting clarifications However, they also maintain control over the discussion by determining who speaks and when Despite understanding that active participation enhances their oral communication skills, few students take the initiative to volunteer answers or ask questions.

Teachers often restate students' responses or ask follow-up questions to encourage deeper engagement and ensure all learners can hear the answers While they may patiently wait for initial responses, they tend to interrupt students' speaking flow with rapid-fire questions for clarification This can lead to students providing only brief answers, expanding on their thoughts only when prompted by teachers.

The study highlights significant differences in teaching approaches among educators Teacher A emphasizes the importance of mistake correction, viewing it as essential for teaching-majored students who will serve as language models for future pupils In contrast, Teachers B and C prioritize fluency and idea development, with Teacher C frequently organizing small group discussions to assist students struggling with idea generation Additionally, both Teachers B and C utilize extended lessons to enrich students' background knowledge.

This study acknowledges certain limitations, particularly in the critical analysis of learner talk quality While lexical density and mean word length were used to assess the impact of teacher initiation on student responses, these metrics may not fully capture the influence being examined Mastery of vocabulary is important for effective language use, but it may not be sufficient for evaluating the responses required by some teacher questions, which could be answered with concise, simple sentences rather than lengthy ones.

The observational method presented a significant limitation in the research, as the researcher, acting as a passive observer, attended only two lessons per class, with data from the second lesson being analyzed This familiarity may have led to unconscious changes in the teachers' and students' behaviors, including decision-making, speaking, and turn-taking, due to the researcher’s presence and the use of three recorders Furthermore, despite the extensive data collected, the limited number of observed lessons, constrained by time, makes it challenging to generalize the findings to 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 influencing 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 feel hesitant to engage in whole-class discussions To enhance their learning experience, it is crucial for students to actively participate by responding, commenting, and asking questions without the fear of criticism Additionally, teachers play a vital role in fostering a supportive environment by encouraging student contributions, regardless of their relevance or accuracy.

Achieving oral proficiency in learners is unlikely without effective teacher instruction and facilitation The IRE/IRF structures, where teachers control the first and third moves, tend to be more instructional than interactive To enhance motivation and reduce rigidity, teachers must carefully manage the types and quantities of questions and feedback they provide It's essential to justify the use of specific question types and their frequency based on current educational contexts and pedagogical goals Additionally, recommendations for corrective feedback and soliciting questions should focus on maintaining interaction flow while addressing major errors.