INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
Since the 6th National Congress of the Vietnamese Communist Party in 1986, which launched the "Doi Moi" economic reforms, English has become a crucial foreign language in Vietnam Young individuals recognize the importance of learning English for various reasons, including employment opportunities in foreign companies, studying abroad, and travel However, Van (2006) highlights that the quality of foreign language education at both general and tertiary levels in Vietnam remains inadequate, failing to meet the current demands of the country's socio-economic development.
The secondary school curriculum aims to develop students' four language skills to an upper-intermediate level; however, most students only achieve an elementary to lower-intermediate proficiency Consequently, many school leavers struggle to read simple English texts or communicate effectively with English speakers The primary focus of English teaching in lower and secondary schools is often on completing grammar and vocabulary exercises to prepare for final and entrance exams, which predominantly emphasize these areas (Tien, 2013, p.66).
At Tran Hung Dao High School in Nam Dinh, students primarily learn English to pass compulsory exams, focusing on grammar, vocabulary, reading, and pronunciation exercises Despite a shift from traditional translation methods to communicative approaches, students neglect speaking and listening skills, believing they will develop these abilities later in university This mindset results in students struggling to communicate, even after years of English study As an educator, I recognize the urgent need to enhance students' speaking skills and explore effective teaching strategies to support their development.
Effective techniques for teaching speaking skills include the strategic use of teacher questioning This approach is crucial not only for enhancing speaking abilities but also for facilitating overall English language learning (Gall).
Questioning has long been recognized as a vital instructional technique, dating back to Socratic methods, and significantly influences classroom interaction (Xiaoyan, 2008) Numerous studies (Long & Sato, 1983; Brock, 1986; Shomooshi, 1997; Camak, 2009) have examined questioning as a universal pedagogical strategy However, the effectiveness of teachers' questioning techniques in fostering student interaction remains underexplored, particularly in the context of Tran Hung Dao High School This gap has motivated my research on the dynamics of teacher questioning and student engagement in speaking classes.
Teacher’s Questioning and Students' Interaction in Speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School”.
Significance of the study
This study explores the theoretical significance of teacher questioning by analyzing various types of questions, their functions, and their impact on student interaction during speaking activities It also provides practical recommendations for effectively employing questioning techniques in English 10 speaking classes to enhance student engagement and interaction.
The practical significance of this study lies in its potential to enhance the teaching and learning of speaking skills at Tran Hung Dao (THD) High School The findings aim to identify effective question types and their application in English 10 speaking classes, fostering greater student interaction This research aspires to serve as a valuable resource for educators and students alike, contributing to a more engaging and effective learning environment Ultimately, it seeks to encourage students to speak English with confidence, transforming what was once a challenging skill into a more accessible and enjoyable experience.
Aims, objectives of the study and research questions
The research aims to explore the use of teacher questioning and students' interaction in speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School Thus, the objectives of the thesis are:
1 finding out question types used by teachers in speaking classes with specific purposes;
2 determining the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction and
3 giving suggestions and recommendations in using teacher questioning in order to raise teacher‟s effective questions at Tran Hung Dao High School
Based on the objectives of the thesis, the research questions are:
1 What question types are used by teachers in speaking classes?
2 What are the effects of teacher‟s questioning on students‟ interaction?
Scope of the study
To enhance student engagement in classroom activities, various techniques can be employed This study specifically concentrated on teacher questioning, a fundamental strategy that is prevalent in nearly every lesson and plays a crucial role in facilitating interaction between teachers and students.
In our study, we focused on speaking as the key language skill among reading, writing, and listening This decision was driven by several factors: firstly, our students require significant improvement in their speaking abilities, which often receive insufficient attention; secondly, speaking is the most effective means of showcasing students' verbal interactions; and finally, it is a skill that can be easily observed and recorded for assessment.
The study focused on the student-instructor interaction only
The study was conducted with 3 teachers and 3 classes of grade 10 in 6 periods Each period lasted 45 minutes.
Method of the research
The study was conducted in the following procedures:
First , class observation was designed to study teacher questioning including the types of questions, functions of questions and students‟ interaction to teacher questioning in speaking lessons
Then , the data were collected, sorted and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively to obtain realistic results
Finally , pedagogical implications for the use of teacher questioning to raise teacher‟s effective questions were proposed based on the results found from the data collection instrument
The thesis consists of five chapters, appendices, and references
Chapter 1, Introduction, outlines the rationale behind the study, highlighting its significance and objectives It presents the research questions guiding the inquiry, defines the scope of the research, and details the methodology employed Additionally, this chapter provides a comprehensive overview of the thesis, setting the stage for the subsequent analysis.
Chapter 2, Literature review, presents the relevant theoretical basis for the study, relating to student interaction and teacher‟s questioning in language classroom, and previous studies relating to the field
Chapter 3, Methodology, outlines the research methods and instruments utilized in this study, detailing the implementation process It covers the research setting, participant selection, data collection tools, procedures for gathering data, and the analytical methods employed to interpret the findings.
Chapter 4, Findings and Discussions, presents, analyzes and discusses the findings
Chapter 5, Conclusion and Implications, is divided into three key sections: the first summarizes the main findings of our study, the second explores the effective use of teacher questioning in speaking classes, and the final section addresses the study's limitations while recommending areas for future research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Interaction in class
In the era of communicative language teaching (CLT), the focus is on enabling students to communicate effectively through interaction in the target language Interaction lies at the core of communication, emphasizing its fundamental role (Brown, 1994) This concept has been defined in various ways throughout its development.
Interaction is defined as a collaborative exchange among participants of equal status who share similar needs, aiming to understand each other (Ellis, 1994) According to Brown (2007), this exchange involves thoughts, feelings, or ideas that create a reciprocal effect among individuals Wells (1981) emphasizes that interaction entails a triangular relationship between the sender, the receiver, and the situational context In summary, interaction is fundamentally a collaborative process that occurs between two or more individuals within a specific context.
Classroom interaction, as described by Hall (2000), is a fundamental aspect of language learning, encompassing the dialogue that takes place between teachers and students, as well as interactions among students themselves This communication is essential for fostering an engaging and effective learning environment.
Interaction in the classroom encompasses a broad range of activities, including student-to-student and teacher-to-student exchanges, group discussions, and various forms of participation According to a clearer definition provided in 1980, interaction refers to all these dynamics that contribute to the learning environment.
In this study, we adopt Brown's (2007) perspective on classroom interactions, particularly in the context of teaching speaking skills Classroom interaction is defined as the communication between teachers and students, facilitating the exchange of thoughts, feelings, and ideas related to lesson topics The focus is on teacher-student interaction, as its quality significantly impacts learning outcomes (Ellis, 1986) Ellis emphasizes that successful learning relies more on the nature of these interactions than on the instructional methods employed While peer interactions among students are important, they are not the primary focus of this research.
2.1.2 The role of classroom interaction in L2 acquisition
Interaction is essential for second language (L2) learning, as highlighted by Ellis (2008) Brown (2007) emphasizes that interaction is crucial for language teachers, serving as the core of effective language teaching and learning Similarly, Hall and Verplaetse (2000) stress the significance of collaboration between teachers and students, which fosters intellectual and practical activities that influence both the structure and content of the target language, as well as the individual development of learners through their interactions.
Thomas (1987) highlights the crucial role of interaction in establishing effective pedagogy for L2 instruction He asserts that interaction is essential for developing communicative linguistic skills, which are the primary goal of L2 curricula By fostering interaction within the language classroom, learners can enhance their learning experience and activate their linguistic competence An increase in classroom interaction significantly aids foreign language learners in acquiring the target language more efficiently and effectively.
Interaction is crucial in second language (L2) learning, influencing communication dynamics within the classroom and providing students with opportunities to engage with the language for both learning and acquisition The subsequent section will outline various interaction patterns.
Moore (1989) identifies various forms of interaction in education, including learner-learner, learner-content, and learner-instructor interactions Learner-learner interaction occurs between students, either individually or in groups, regardless of the instructor's presence In contrast, learner-content interaction focuses on the engagement between students and the study material Learner-instructor interaction involves communication between students and teachers Additionally, Thomas (1987) categorizes interaction into verbal and pedagogic types Verbal interaction is a dynamic process involving speech acts and social actions aimed at influencing the listener, while pedagogic interaction specifically addresses the relationship between teaching and learning.
The three-move initiation-response-feedback (IRF) pattern, first identified by Sinclair and Coulthard in 1975, is a key focus in classroom discourse literature This interaction pattern consists of three components: the teacher initiates a dialogue by posing a question to a chosen student, the student responds, and the teacher provides feedback Studies indicate that the IRF pattern is widespread and a crucial element of classroom communication (Liu, 2008).
Our research centers on teacher questioning within the classroom, emphasizing the dynamics of teacher-student oral interaction This project specifically investigates the verbal exchanges between teachers and students to enhance educational engagement.
Teacher‟s questioning in interaction
For thousands of years, questioning has been a fundamental teaching technique, serving as the primary method for teachers to manage classroom interactions A significant portion of class time is dedicated to this practice This article will define questions, explore the functions of teachers' questions, categorize the types of questions they use, and discuss the effects of these questions on student learning.
Questions can be defined in various ways, primarily serving as tools for information-seeking that stimulate mental activity (Hunkins, 1989) Broadly, a question is any sentence that takes an interrogative form or function (Riegle, 1974) Additionally, questions act as instructional cues that convey essential content and guide students on how to engage with the material (Levin & Long, 1981) Overall, we align with Hunkins' (1989) definition of questions as it effectively fits our teaching context.
There are many distinct functions for the various questions that are used in classrooms It is important to actively consider the functions for the questions asked
Teachers can enhance student engagement and participation in lessons by utilizing effective questioning techniques, as highlighted by Ur (1996) These strategies not only encourage active learning among all students but also provide opportunities for less confident learners to contribute, fostering self-assurance and a more inclusive classroom environment.
Kauchak and Eggen (1989, cited in Xiaoyan, 2008, p.93) categorize the functions of classroom questions into three main types: diagnostic, instructional, and motivational, with a single question often serving multiple purposes As a diagnostic tool, questions provide teachers insight into students' understanding and thought processes regarding a topic Additionally, the instructional function of questions aids in facilitating the acquisition of new knowledge during the learning process.
As to motivational function, skillful use of questions can effectively involve students in the classroom discourse, encouraging and challenging them to think
According to Kindsvatter and Ishler (1988), the questioning process serves as a two-way interaction that enhances student engagement, critical thinking, and learning By incorporating questions, teachers can transform their monologues into dynamic discussions, fostering active participation among students and significantly contributing to the development of their language skills.
In summary, questions serve as essential tools for diagnosis, instruction, and motivation in the educational process Understanding the purposes and functions of questions is crucial for teachers, as it enables them to effectively scaffold their questioning techniques.
There are different question forms in teaching-learning process Grouping questions differs according to different authors
In one of the earliest taxonomies, Bloom (1956, cited in Brown, 2007, p
172) categorizes questions into the following groups:
1 Knowledge: the recalling of formerly-learned material
2 Comprehension: the ability to understand the meaning
3 Application: the ability to use learned materials such as rules, methods, concepts, principles, laws and theories in new and concrete situations
4 Inference: the ability to form conclusions that are not directly stated in instructional materials
5 Analysis: the ability to breakdown material into its elements so that its organizational structure may be understood This may involve the classification of parts, exploration of the association between them, and identification of organizational principles
6 Synthesis: the ability to collect different parts and put them together to create a new whole Synthesis encourages learners to form something new and rely on innovative and creative thinking
7 Evaluation: the ability to assess the value of materials, the explanation to problems or the details about particular cultures
From another perspective, Barnes (1976, cited in Ellis, 2008, p.797), for instance, distinguishes four types of questions: (1) factual questions (e.g What?),
Reasoning questions, such as "How?" and "Why?", encourage critical thinking, while open questions allow for multiple acceptable answers and foster discussion Additionally, social questions influence learner behavior by either controlling or appealing to their emotions Barnes (1976) further categorizes questions into closed questions, which have a single correct answer, and open questions, which invite a variety of responses.
Display and referential questions play a crucial role in classroom interaction, as highlighted by Tsui (1995) Display questions are posed by teachers who already know the answers, aiming to assess students' knowledge, while referential questions seek information from students, with teachers unaware of the answers Research indicates that display questions typically yield short, mechanical responses, whereas referential questions encourage more elaborate and complex answers (Ho, 2005, p.298) Additionally, yes/no questions are classified by Thompson (1997) based on their grammatical structure.
Open or referential questions are favored in education because they reflect the types of inquiries students encounter outside the classroom (Long & Sato, 1983) However, a gap exists between theoretical best practices and actual classroom dynamics, as noted by Banbrook and Skehan (1989) In traditional language classrooms, factual questions dominate, while open questions are rarely utilized (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006) This discrepancy highlights the need for a shift towards more engaging questioning techniques in language education.
A 2004 research study analyzed fifteen-minute episodes from 54 lessons in Year 2 and Year 6 classes, revealing that factual questions were the most frequently asked by teachers, accounting for 64% of the inquiries.
In our study, we utilized Tsui’s (1995) and Thompson’s (1997) classifications to analyze three types of questions: display questions, referential questions, and yes/no questions Display questions, where the teacher already knows the answer, restrict responses to brief answers, while referential questions encourage students to share their thoughts and engage in meaningful dialogue, fostering confidence and critical thinking (Tsui, 1995; Xiaoyan, 2008; Chi, 2010; James & Carter, 2006) Yes/no questions serve various purposes, such as seeking information or testing knowledge, but their frequent use may hinder students from initiating communication, potentially affecting their overall skill development (Thompson, 1997; Chi, 2010) Our research focused on how these question types influence student interaction in speaking classes and whether they promote extended conversations.
The effects of display questions on students‟ discourse patterns were generally considered to be negative but positive for referential questions (Chi,
In a study by Brock (1986), the impact of referential questions on adult ESL classroom discourse was examined, involving four experienced teachers and twenty-four non-native speakers at the University of Hawaii's English Language Institute Two teachers received training on using referential questions, while the other two did not The results revealed that trained teachers asked significantly more referential questions, leading to longer and more complex student responses compared to the control group This indicates a positive correlation between the use of referential questions and the production of target language by students In contrast, Ernst (1994) found that display questions resulted in brief student responses with minimal elaboration, highlighting the importance of question types in fostering student engagement.
Pupil responses are often brief, with teachers not promoting further elaboration during display questions According to Thompson (1997), yes/no questions, as noted by Gower, Philips, and Walters (1995), are simpler for learners to answer, requiring minimal language output.
Previous studies indicate that teachers predominantly use display questions in the classroom, while referential questions are seldom employed Responses to display questions tend to be brief and lack elaboration, whereas referential questions typically elicit longer and more complex responses Our research aims to explore the types of questions frequently posed by teachers during lessons and their impact on student interaction.
METHODOLOGY
The setting of the study
Tran Hung Dao High School, located in Nam Dinh city, is a prominent public institution with 35 classes and 1,460 students for the 2014-2015 school year, averaging 45 students per class Recognized as one of the best schools in Nam Dinh province, it receives significant support from the Nam Dinh Department of Education and Training and the Vietnamese Ministry of Education and Training The school boasts modern facilities, including computers, projectors, and language labs, which enhance English learning Its classrooms are well-insulated from road noise, providing a conducive learning environment The principal prioritizes English education by organizing competitions like public speaking contests and Olympic contests, making English a mandatory subject in all exams Additionally, students benefit from interactions with native speakers through volunteer programs, reflecting the administration's commitment to effective English teaching and learning.
In general, students have good studying condition
3.1.2 English teachers in Tran Hung Dao High School
During the 2014-2015 school year, Tran Hung Dao High School employed nine English teachers, all of whom hold degrees from pedagogic universities and possess several years of teaching experience Their ages range from 31 to 52 years.
Eight out of nine English teachers hold a C1 certificate, with each instructor averaging fifteen to seventeen lessons per week, alongside responsibilities like preparing and grading tests and training students for various competitions Due to the pressure from students, parents, and school administrators to achieve high exam results, many teachers prioritize exam preparation over effective communication skills This focus leads to a reliance on traditional teaching methods, where knowledge is delivered by the teacher and students primarily engage in note-taking and drills While the teachers possess adequate English proficiency for general courses, their teaching methodologies remain a significant concern.
3.1.3 The syllabus of teaching and learning English 10 in Tran Hung Dao High School
At Tran Hung Dao High School, English is a mandatory subject in the curriculum, aligning with national educational standards The "Tiếng Anh 10" textbook, developed by the Ministry of Education and Training, is specifically designed for a comprehensive seven-year English language program.
“Tiếng Anh 6” to “Tiếng Anh 12” “Tiếng Anh 10” was introduced in the whole country in 2006 and has been applied in teaching and learning English since then
The "Tiếng Anh 10" curriculum comprises sixteen theme-based units, structured into 105 forty-five minute lessons over 35 weeks, although Unit 15 has been removed to alleviate student pressure The units explore engaging themes such as daily life, social issues, sports, and music, capturing students' interest Each unit features five components: reading, speaking, listening, writing, and language focus, primarily utilizing task-based teaching methods This approach effectively covers all four language skills, promoting integration before and after lessons, and enhancing communicative competence compared to traditional methods that emphasized reading and grammar Additionally, a consolidation session follows every three lessons to assess students' understanding and progress.
The teaching procedure for a speaking lesson encompasses three key stages: Pre, While, and Post speaking Initially, teachers introduce the topic and prompt students to share their knowledge or utilize useful expressions related to it In the second stage, both teachers and students engage in discussions and complete speaking tasks from the textbook, often incorporating group or pair work Finally, the last stage encourages students to express themselves freely through activities such as role-play, games, and discussion questions, fostering their oral production skills.
The new textbook "Tiếng Anh 10" introduces an innovative approach to teaching English at Tran Hung Dao High School, replacing the previous curriculum While the implementation of this textbook presents challenges for teachers, they have been supported through workshops to exchange ideas and receive guidance on its effective use If utilized properly, this new resource has the potential to enhance students' English proficiency across various levels.
Methods of the study
This section presents the participants of the study, the data collection instruments, the data collection procedures and the method of data analysis
3.2.1 The participants of the study 3.2.1.1 The teacher participants
The participants of the study include three teachers of English teaching grade
At Tran Hung Dao High School, three out of five teachers instructing grade 10 English were selected for this study, using pseudonyms Teacher A, Teacher B, and Teacher C to protect their privacy Among these teachers, two are younger, enthusiastic about implementing new teaching methods, and hold a C1 certificate, while the third teacher, aged 52, adheres to more traditional approaches and does not possess a C1 certificate The disparity in professional skills and teaching philosophies among these educators may lead to variations in their questioning techniques.
A total of 132 students from Tran Hung Dao High School participated in the research, selected based on the convenience of the teachers The classes, designated as Class A, Class B, and Class C, consist of fifteen-year-old students who have studied English for at least four years Most students hail from Nam Dinh city, Nam Dinh province Class A and Class B follow route D, emphasizing Maths, Literature, and English, while Class C follows route A, focusing on Maths, Physics, and Chemistry, in preparation for university entrance exams Students in route A have three English periods weekly, whereas those in route D benefit from an additional optional period tailored to their needs.
Students in two different groups exhibit varying interests and attitudes towards English, influenced by their backgrounds and academic abilities Those in route D show a keen interest in learning English and recognize its significance, while students in route A display indifference Consequently, route D students generally perform better in English Despite their motivation for the entrance exam, the varying skill levels within each class lead teachers to occasionally use Vietnamese for explanations, which, while aiding comprehension, limits English communication Route A students often neglect English, but a new policy from the Vietnamese Ministry of Education has heightened awareness of the subject's importance across the school Overall, students tend to excel in grammar, vocabulary, and reading, yet struggle with speaking and listening skills, with many 10th graders at Tran Hung Dao High School unaware of the crucial role of speaking proficiency.
This study aimed to gain a deeper understanding of teacher questioning and teacher-student interaction in language classrooms by employing a qualitative approach Through class observations, the research sought to uncover the nature of teachers' questions and describe the patterns of classroom interaction This method was deemed appropriate for contextually analyzing the impact of teachers' questioning practices on student interactions, effectively addressing the study's research questions.
Non-participant observation served as the primary data collection method, providing direct insights into teacher questioning and its impact on student interactions within the classroom This approach, as highlighted by Nunan and Bailey, emphasizes the significance of understanding the dynamics between students and lecturers during their interactions.
(2009), the classroom observation data can be both manually and electronically collected
In this study, I conducted observations of three teachers' lessons using field notes, video recordings, and audio taping The 10th-grade students have one speaking skills lesson per unit, totaling eight lessons each term I began my observations in April 2015, after the teachers completed unit 12, resulting in two observations per class from April until the end of the second term In total, I observed six lessons.
Table 1: The summary of the class observation data
Teacher Class Number of students Type of lesson Duration
An observation sheet was developed to evaluate teacher questioning during speaking lessons, emphasizing the interactions between teachers and students This tool documented exchanges, types of questions posed by teachers, and the length of student responses across six periods at Tran Hung Dao High School, focusing solely on teacher-student interactions while excluding private conversations during group or individual work The procedure involved categorizing selected data to facilitate analysis, as observation categories help direct observers' focus and address specific research questions (Nunan & Bailey, 2009).
One week prior to classroom observation, I engaged with the participating students to help them feel comfortable with my presence During the observations, I meticulously documented the classes from start to finish, noting the teachers' questions while simultaneously recording audio and video I focused on quantifying teacher-student interactions and analyzing students' responses to various question types After each lesson, I categorized the collected data based on exchanges between teachers and students, the types of questions asked, and the length of students' responses.
The researcher employed Bouma's (1996) method, utilizing categories and tables to analyze qualitative data collected from observation sheets The percentages of questions and responses from class observations were systematically organized into tables, categorized under specific sub-headings corresponding to each main area of focus.
• Students' responses Based on these analysis, interpretation, and discussions were then given
In a quantitative analysis of lesson transcripts, the study examined the types of questions posed by three teachers, categorizing them into yes/no questions, display questions, and referential questions.
Table 2: Examples of different types of teacher’s questions
Display question - What does “tournament” mean?
( Unit 13, Teacher A) Referential question - What kinds of films do you know?
(Unit 13, Teacher C) Yes/No question - Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?
3.2.4.2 Effects of teacher’s questions on students’ interaction
To investigate the impact of different types of teacher questions on students' target language production, a quantitative analysis of lesson transcripts was conducted by measuring the average length of student responses in terms of word count (Chi, 2010) Consistent with Brock's (1986) research, this study focused exclusively on responses that directly followed the teachers' eliciting questions, with any subsequent teacher speech marking the conclusion of those responses.
This chapter outlines the methodological aspects of the study, detailing its theoretical foundation and design aimed at addressing the research questions To facilitate exploration and understanding, class observations were employed as the primary data collection method Additionally, the chapter describes the research setting, participants involved, data collection procedures, and the analysis of the collected data.
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Findings
This section presents findings from observations categorized by types of questions and students' responses The analysis involved counting three types of questions in each lesson and measuring the word count of students' responses Notably, some questions were designed solely to elicit non-verbal reactions, such as raising hands, without expecting verbal answers Additionally, teachers wrote textbook-style questions on the board to capture student attention, yet these did not require responses Furthermore, teachers directed students to refer to textbook questions for tasks, but these instances were excluded from the count, as the focus was on verbal interactions between teachers and students.
4.1.1 Types of questions the teachers asked frequently in the investigated lessons
Our study focused on identifying the frequently asked question types by teachers in speaking classes The results, detailed in Table 3, indicate that the types and functions of questions differ among teachers and across various lessons.
Table 3: Types of questions asked by the three teachers
Teacher A Teacher B Teacher C Total questions of 3 teachers
Unit 13 Unit 14 Unit 14 Unit 16 Unit 13 Unit 16
Total of 3 types of questions
The analysis revealed that display questions were the most frequently used by the three teachers, accounting for 44.4% of all inquiries Yes/no questions followed closely behind at 36.7%, while referential questions comprised only 18.9% Notably, the frequency of questions varied across lessons, with teacher B asking the most in unit 16 (30 questions), compared to just 6 questions from teacher C in the same unit Overall, teacher B led in total questions asked with 52, followed by teacher A with 22, and teacher C with the least at 15.
The analysis reveals that each teacher employed distinct questioning techniques and had varied objectives for their inquiries, highlighting the individuality in teaching styles (Shomoossi, 1997) Notably, Teacher B stood out by asking significantly more questions than her peers, averaging 26 questions per class compared to 11 and 7.5 questions from the other two teachers Furthermore, the data indicates that Teacher B predominantly utilized display questions during the unit.
In unit 16, the distribution of questions revealed that 54.6% were yes/no questions (14 out of 30), while 36.4% were display questions (8 questions), and only 9% were referential questions (2 questions) Teacher C, in contrast to Teacher B, posed the fewest questions overall, with a total of 30 questions, of which 17 were yes/no, 12 were display, and just one was referential.
The distribution of question types in units 13 and 16 varied significantly due to their differing topics, with unit 13 focusing on Films and Cinema, a familiar subject for students, while unit 16 covered Historical Places, which lacked student interest and background knowledge In unit 13, 55.6% of the questions were referential, whereas unit 16 included no referential questions at all Additionally, 33.3% of questions in unit 13 were display questions, and 11.1% were yes/no questions Conversely, unit 16 featured an equal number of display and yes/no questions Teacher A's approach mirrored that of two other teachers, as she varied the number of questions asked in each unit and demonstrated distinct distributions of question types, with referential questions being predominant in unit 13 at 53.8%, followed by yes/no questions at 30.8%, while display questions were minimal.
14 ( 89%) In unit 14, there was 1 referential question and no yes/no questions
Yes/no questions serve multiple purposes in assessing students' knowledge and experiences For instance, a question like "Have you ever seen 'the war between stars'?" illustrates how educators gauge student familiarity with specific topics.
“Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?”(Teacher B – Unit 16) and
The President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum is a significant site that prompts curiosity and engagement among students, as illustrated by Teacher C's inquiry about their knowledge of it Similarly, Teacher B uses questions to clarify vocabulary, distinguishing between terms like "winner" and "runner-up" to enhance understanding Additionally, Teacher C encourages students to seek clarification on vocabulary, ensuring comprehension of the textbook material These yes/no questions serve as effective tools for assessing students' grasp of both content and vocabulary.
“Can we take photos inside?” (Teacher C – Unit 16) In brief, yes/no questions were used as motivational and diagnostic tools
Teachers utilized display questions for various purposes, primarily to assess students' knowledge For instance, Teacher B asked, “Who can tell me which football team is in picture 1?” while Teacher A inquired, “What teams are there?” Additionally, display questions were employed to evaluate students' understanding of vocabulary, such as Teacher B's question, “Citadel, what does this mean?” and Teacher A's inquiry, “What does ‘tournament’ mean?”
14) The next purpose of display questions was to check students‟ understanding of information in the text book, then guide them to do the task The examples are
In Unit 16, Teacher B posed the question, "How long did it take to build this construction?" while Teacher C inquired about the location of the President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum and its first floor's purpose Additionally, Teacher C utilized display questions to examine the textbook model, asking, "How many people take part in the dialogue?" from Unit 13 Furthermore, Teacher C engaged students by writing the model question, "Which do you prefer: war films or detective films?" on the board Overall, display questions served primarily diagnostic and instructional purposes in the classroom.
Referential questions serve to gather students' opinions and insights based on their personal experiences For instance, questions like “What is your favourite football team?” and “When did you last visit Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?” encourage students to share their thoughts and experiences, fostering engagement and discussion in the classroom.
In Unit 16, Teacher B engages students by asking, "What do you know about these football teams?" Meanwhile, Teacher A in Unit 14 explores students' film preferences with questions like, "What kinds of films do you know?" and "What kinds of films do you watch in your free time?" Additionally, Teacher C in Unit 13 employs referential questions to gauge students' feelings, fostering a deeper understanding of their interests and emotions.
“How do you feel when you watch these kinds of films?” (Teacher A – Unit 13);
Teachers often use referential questions, such as "How much do you like it?" and "What do you think of cartoon films?" to encourage students to elaborate on their responses By prompting students to explain their reasoning with questions like "why?", educators aim to foster deeper engagement and personal connection to the material Overall, these questions serve as an effective motivational tool, helping to gather information about the students while enhancing their participation in class discussions.
In the analysis of six lessons, display questions were the most frequently used, serving both diagnostic and instructional purposes Yes/no questions followed closely, functioning as diagnostic and motivational tools Conversely, referential questions were infrequently utilized, with the exception of teacher C's lesson, and were intended to engage students by eliciting personal information.
4.1.2 Effects of the types of questions teachers asked on the students’ interaction
Previous studies by Brock (1986) and Ernst (1994) indicated a positive correlation between referential questions and students' target language production, while display questions were linked to shorter responses (Chi, 2010) However, the current study revealed a different trend The impact of various question types posed by three teachers during whole-class instruction on the length of students' responses is detailed in Table 4 below.
Yes/No questions Display questions Referential questions
Length of students’ responses No of
Length of students’ responses No of
TIEU LUAN MOI download : skknchat@gmail.com
Discussion
From the findings given above, this section focuses on discussing the types of questions asked and their effects on the students‟ interaction
4.2.1 Types of questions the teachers asked frequently in the whole class teaching portion of the lessons
The study found that display questions were asked significantly more often than referential questions, comprising 44.4% of total inquiries compared to just 18.9% for referential questions These findings align with previous research by Burn and Myhill (2004) and Myhill, Jones, and Hopper (2006), which indicated that in traditional language classrooms, factual questions dominate while open questions are the least frequent.
Research by Burns and Myhill (2004) indicates that teachers predominantly ask factual questions, comprising 64% of inquiries Wong-Fillmore (1985) argues that open-ended questions are more effective than those requiring one-word responses Despite this, our investigation revealed that 36.7% of the questions posed in lessons were yes/no questions, often resulting in brief or unanswered replies.
The types of questions used by teachers were largely influenced by the instructional context, as highlighted by Banbrook & Skehan (1989) In this study, all three teachers relied on the textbook for their pedagogical approach to teaching speaking Initially, they employed referential and yes/no questions to gauge student opinions and experiences However, as the lesson progressed, a significant number of display questions were utilized to analyze textbook models, provide task instructions, and assess students' understanding and vocabulary knowledge This reliance on display and yes/no questions indicated a challenge in effectively using questions to foster speaking skills, as the teachers occasionally resorted to referential questions to encourage student participation The findings underscore the need for improved questioning techniques in foreign language teaching in Vietnam, suggesting necessary changes in speaking lesson strategies.
4.2.2 Effects of the types of questions teachers asked on the students’ interaction
Effective communication in language classrooms relies on a questioning process that fosters student interaction, thinking, and learning (Kanchak & Eggen, 1989) However, Nettles (2006) highlights that teachers often ask questions that do not enhance student learning, as many inquiries seek answers already known to the teacher, limiting genuine communication This teaching method can significantly impact learners' comprehension and hinder opportunities for interaction and negotiation in the classroom (Ellis, 1994) Findings indicate that the prevalence of display questions leads to brief responses that fail to promote meaningful interaction and learning, ultimately diminishing students' motivation and language acquisition.
Display questions are typically used for comprehension checks, while referential questions aim to fill information gaps, enhancing interaction and making it more engaging (Brock, 1986; Long, 1981) Research indicates that students provide higher quality and quantity responses to referential questions, often producing longer and more complex sentences However, our study revealed that the referential questions employed in the lessons were not as effective as anticipated This ineffectiveness stemmed from the simplicity of the questions, which failed to challenge students to synthesize information and elaborate in their responses Instead of encouraging longer answers, these questions primarily prompted brief responses, as evidenced by the findings.
Referential questions do not always facilitate effective interaction in the classroom, suggesting that they may not promote more engagement than display questions (Chi, 2010).
Research by Smith and Higgins (2006) suggests that the way teachers respond to student answers significantly influences the quantity of student responses, rather than just the questions posed For instance, in unit 13 of teacher C, the teacher's approach of prompting students to elaborate on their answers led to more extensive responses Additionally, Black and Harrison (2001) emphasize that the quality of teachers' questions is crucial for fostering deeper thinking and extending students' ideas, making effective feedback and follow-up questions essential However, many teachers tend to overlook the importance of follow-up questions and feedback, often accepting brief answers without encouraging students to elaborate further.
As can be seen in the data, the teacher seldom asked the only follow-up question in unit 13 Besides, feedback encouraging students to elaborate students‟ answers rarely occurred
According to Gower, Philips, and Walters (1995, cited in Thompson, 1997), yes/no questions are easier for learners to answer due to minimal language output required Findings from extracts 1 to 5 in section 4.1.2 demonstrate that students provided short responses, and many questions went unanswered Consequently, yes/no questions proved ineffective in fostering communication between teachers and students.
In conclusion, this article analyzed the types of questions posed by teachers at Tran Hung Dao School, comparing our findings with those of other global researchers We also examined the impact of teacher questioning, revealing that its effectiveness at our school was limited, as most questions led to brief responses rather than fostering extended dialogues between teachers and students.
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Conclusion
Teacher questioning plays a crucial role in the educational process and is essential for effective classroom learning Our research examined the types of questions used in speaking classes at THD High School and their impact on student interaction The findings reveal significant insights into the influence of teacher questioning on student engagement and participation.
The study found that speaking classes predominantly utilized display questions and yes/no questions, with referential questions making up a minor portion Display questions primarily served diagnostic and instructional purposes, while yes/no questions functioned as motivational and diagnostic tools In contrast, referential questions aimed to elicit students' opinions and draw on their experiences to encourage speaking.
The study revealed that the types of questions posed significantly influenced student responses, with most answers being brief, typically one to three words for display questions and often just one word or silence for yes/no questions While longer responses of four to nine words were occasionally elicited from display questions, they represented a small fraction of total responses, indicating a lack of interaction stimulation Additionally, the use of referential questions was found to be ineffective, as they were often too simplistic and failed to encourage students to synthesize information or provide longer answers Instead of fostering meaningful dialogue, these questions led to short responses, demonstrating that not all referential questions enhance classroom interaction more than display questions Ultimately, the teachers' questioning strategies did not significantly support students' language learning in speaking classes at Tran Hung Dao High School.
The teacher's approach of prompting students to explain their answers encouraged them to elaborate and provide more detailed responses However, many teachers overlooked the importance of follow-up questions and effective feedback techniques.
The results suggest that teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School require strategies to enhance their questioning techniques In the following section, we will outline several effective approaches for improving teacher questioning.
Implications
This article offers valuable insights into the role of teacher questioning in speaking classes Drawing from relevant theories and research findings, it presents practical implications for foreign language classrooms aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of teacher questioning, ultimately benefiting learners' engagement and comprehension.
Teachers should minimize the use of display and yes/no questions in the classroom, as these do not encourage students to provide lengthy responses Instead, they should focus on referential questions, which foster negotiation of meaning and fill information gaps, thereby enhancing student engagement and communicative abilities While display questions can facilitate interaction, particularly for less proficient students, over-reliance on them can hinder language development Planning key questions can help teachers become more aware of their questioning techniques, allowing them to reduce the frequency of less effective questions and promote opportunities for students to enhance their second language skills.
The current study reveals that referential questions do not consistently enhance the quantity and quality of student interactions This suggests that educators should carefully consider the construction and implementation of questions to foster better student engagement In addition to focusing on the types of questions, teachers must emphasize the content of these questions to encourage students to provide more detailed responses.
Teachers must recognize the significance of follow-up questions in their teaching methods and incorporate them into their questioning techniques Additionally, they should prioritize effective feedback strategies, encouraging students to expand on their answers rather than settling for short and simplistic responses.
Different types of questions serve distinct functions in language teaching and learning, enhancing teachers' understanding of effective questioning techniques and positively influencing student learning (Cakmak, 2009) Teachers primarily employed display and yes/no questions to assess students' comprehension of the textbook, vocabulary, and knowledge, while using referential questions to gather students' opinions and experiences However, they overlooked the motivational function of questions, which is crucial for developing students' speaking skills Therefore, it is essential for teachers to incorporate the motivational aspect of questioning to encourage greater student interaction and engagement.
Asking effective questions is crucial for enhancing student communication and learning, yet teachers at Tran Hung Dao High School struggle with this skill To improve their questioning techniques, educators must recognize the essential role questions play in the learning process and understand how their questioning impacts students Implementing a training course or conference focused on effective questioning strategies could significantly enhance teachers' abilities and ultimately benefit student engagement and understanding.
Limitations and suggestions for further studies
This small-scale qualitative study aimed to understand the relationship between teacher questioning and students‟ interaction Some limitations should be aware to interpret the findings
The study involved a small sample of 132 tenth-grade students and three English teachers, with only 270 minutes of observation across six lessons, which limits the data's applicability Consequently, the findings cannot be generalized to represent English teaching practices across the entire school or other institutions Future research should involve larger student groups over an extended period and across various educational levels Additionally, the focus was primarily on teachers' questions and students' responses, neglecting the significance of teachers' follow-up questions, which warrants further exploration in subsequent studies.
In this study, observation was the sole method of data collection Future research could benefit from incorporating additional techniques, such as interviews and questionnaires, to facilitate a more comprehensive exploration of the subject.
This study aims to enhance questioning techniques among teachers at my school, despite its limitations Additionally, it seeks to inspire further research on teacher questioning by other scholars.
1 Banbrook, L., & Skehan, P (1989) Classrooms and display questions In C
Brumfit & R.Mitchell (Eds.), ELT Documents 133 (pp 141-152) London: The British Council
2 Black, P., & Harr ison, C (2001) Feedback in questioning and marking: The science teacher‟s role in formative assessment School Science Review, 82(301), 55–61
3 Bouma, G.D (1996) The Research Process( 3 rd ed) Oxford: OUP
4 Brock, C (1986) The effects of referential question on ESL classroom discourse
5 Brown, H D (2007) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching ( Fifth
6 Burns, C., & Myhill, D (2004) Interactive or inactive? A consideration of the nature of interaction in whole class teaching Cambridge Journal of
7 Camak, M (2009) Pre-service teachers‟ thought about teachers‟ questions in effective teaching process Elementary Education Online, 8(3), 666–675
8 Chi, C R Y (2010) Teacher questions in second language classrooms: An investigation of three case studies The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 12(1), 181–201
9 Dallimore, E J., Hertenstein, J H., & Platt, M B (2004) Classroom participation and discussion effectiveness: Student-generated strategies
10 Edwards, A D., & Westgate, D P G (1994) Investigating classroom talk
11 Ellis, R (1986) Theories of second language acquisition Making it happen in the second language classroom New York: Longman
13 Ellis, R (2008) The study of second language acquisition (2nd ed.) Oxford:
14 Ernst, G (1994) “Talking Circle”: Conversation and negotiation in the ESL classroom TESOL Quarterly, 28(2), 293-322
15 Gall, M D (1970) The use of questions in teaching Review of educational research, 40, 707-721
16 Hall, J.K, & Verplaetse, L.S (2000) Second and foreign language learning through classroom interaction London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
17 Ho, D G E (2005) Why do teachers ask the questions they ask? Regional
18 Hoàng Văn Vân, Nguyễn Thị Chi, Hoàng Thị Xuân Hoa (2006) Đổi mới phương pháp giảng dạy tiếng Anh ở trường trung học phổ thông Việt Nam Hà Nội: NXB Giáo dục
19 Hunkins, F P (1989).Teaching Thinking Through Effective Questioning Mass:
20 James, I & Carter T.S (2006) Questioning and Informational Texts:
Scaffolding Students Comprehension of Content Areas Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/archivesum07/james.rev.pdf
21 Kanchak, D & Eggen, P D (1989) Learning and Teaching Mass: Allyn and
22 Kindsvatter, R.,Willen.W.& Ishler, M (1988) Dynamics of Effective Teaching
23 Long, M.H (1980) Input, interaction and second language acquisition The doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles
24 Long, M H (1981) Questions in Foreigner talk discourse Language Learning
25 Long, M., & Sato, C (1983) Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teachers‟ questions In H W Selinger & M H Long (Eds.),
Classroom-oriented research in second language acquisition (pp 268-
26 Long, M (1984) The effects of teachers‟ questioning patterns and wait-time on participation in public high school classes in Hawaii for students of limited proficiency Technical Report Honolulu: Center for Second
Language Classroom Research, Social Science Research Institute
27 Liu, Y (2008) Teacher-student talk in Singapore Chinese language classrooms:
A case study of initiation/response/follow up (IRF) Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 28, 87–102
28 Moore, G M (1989) Editorial: Three Types of Interactions The American
29 Myhill, D., Jones, S., & Hopper, R (2006) Talking, listening, learning:
Effective talk in the primary classroom Maidenhead, UK: Open
30 Nettles, D H (2006) Comprehensive literary instruction in today’s classrooms: The whole, the parts and the heart Boston: Allyn and Bacon
31 Nunan, D & Baily, K.M (2009) Exploring Second Language Classroom
Research: A Comprehensive Guide Heinle, Cengage Learning
32 Riegle R P (1974) The Logic of Classroom Questions Ph.D diss., Ohio State
33 Shomoossi, N (1997) The effect of teacher's questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction: A classroom-based research Master‟s thesis:
University of Allameh Tabatabaee, Deparment of English, Faculty of Literrature and Foreign Languages
34 Sinclair, J., & Coulthard, R M (1975) Toward an analysis of discourse The
English used by teachers and pupils Oxford : Oxford University Press
35 Smith, H., & Higgins, S (2006) Opening classroom interaction: The importance of feedback Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(4), 485-502
36 Thomas, M.A (1987) Classroom Interaction Oxford: Oxford University Press
37 Thompson, G (1997) Training teachers to ask questions ELT Journal, 51(2),
38 Tien, L.H ( 2013) ELT in Vietnam general and tertiary education from second language education perspectives VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 29(1),
39 Tsui, A B M (1995) Introducing classroom interaction London: Penguin
40 Ur, P (1996) A Course in Language Teaching: Practice and Theory
41 Wells, G & Arauz, R M (2006) Dialogue in the classroom The Journal of the
42 Wong-Fillmore, L (1985) When does teacher talk work as input? In S M Gass
& C G Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp 17-50) Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle
43 Xiaoyan, M (2008) The Skills of Teacher‟s Questioning in English Classes
Course book: English 10 Number of students:
Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: ………
Unit: ……… Topic of the lesson: ………
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words)
Date: 24/4/2015 Class: 10 A Course book: English 10 Number of students: 43 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher A Unit: 13-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Films and Cinema
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm- up
Exchange: Teacher was leading in the new lesson
She wanted to introduce kinds of films and adjectives to describe films
T: What kinds of films do you like most? Who can answer my question Raise your hand
S1: Cartoon T: Cartoon Exactly, what is its name?
S1: Tom & Jerry T: Ok A famous cartoon film Anything else? Other people, What are your opinions?
S2: Horror films T: Oh, Horror films I am afraid of horror films Other people?
S2: Action films T: Oh Action film It is often made in US Other people?
S3: Detective films T: Oh, detective films For example, Shelock Homes
“Titanic”? Have you seen it?
What kind of film is it?
T: OK, very good A love story romantic film Very good
T: Have you ever seen “the war between stars?”
S: Chiến tranh giữa các vì sao
T: Ok: What kind of film is it? You, Đức Anh
S1: Action film T: I don‟t think so Yes, you please
T: Science fiction film Very good I have told you some kinds of films Answer my next questions How do you feel when you watch these kinds of films? Use adjectives to describe these kinds of films Cartoon films?
S1: They are very interesting T: Oh Interesting Anything else?
T: This kind of film is also lively
T: Horror film How do you feel? It is very…
S: ( silent) T: Oh This kind of film is very terrifying
T: Action films The speed is very quick because many scenes happen after and after You can say that the action film may be thrilling and may be interesting ,too
Maybe this kind of film is
1 mysterious Do you know mysterious ? You have to wait until the end of the film to see what happens
T: Moving You can say that moved into tears Moving not boring
T: And next, science fiction film? Tell me an adjective to describe this kind of film
Ss: (quiet) T: It is imaginative
Task 1 Teacher called on a student to role play with her The student asked a question and the teacher answered it
S: How much do you like science fiction films?
T: I like it very much or I can say I don‟t like it very much or I don‟t like it at all
Task 2 Teacher wrote the model on the board
A: what do you think of horror films?
B: Oh, I find them very terrifying
C: I don‟t agree with you I think them very interesting
She asked 2 students to role play with her The two students were A and B while she was C
Teacher required students to ask her questions about a film
T: I am thinking about a film Please ask me questions and find out the film I am thinking about
S1: What kind of film is it?
S2: When did you see it?
S3: Who are the main characters?
T: They are lovers between a man and a woman
S4: What do you think about it?
They love each other but their parents hate each other
In the end, both of them die
Date: 29/4/2015 Class: 10 A Course book: English 10 Number of students: 43 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher A Unit: 14-Speaking Topic of the lesson: The world Cup
In the warm-up exchange, the teacher instructed students to collaborate in pairs to compile a list of words associated with the World Cup Following this activity, the teacher invited students to share their findings by writing the words on the board.
T: How many words have you got? Who can write more than 10? Raise your hands
(SS raised their hands and went to the board to write words)
Teacher was checking the result of the game
Ss:( quiet) T: Vòng đấu loại T:What does “ runner-up” mean in Vietnamese?
Task 1 Teacher was asking students about pictures in the book
T: Look at the pictures What do you know about these football teams There are 4 pictures What teams are there? The first picture?
T: Very good The second picture?
T: Oh, very good Who are the famous players in the French team?
T: Italian football team Who is the famous player?
Ss: (quiet) T: And the last one?
Task 2 The teacher calls on 2 students to read out the model Then she required students to base on the model and choose 3 examples in the table in the text book and practise them in pairs No questions relating to content of Task 2 were asked by the teacher
Task 3 The teacher asked students to do Task 3 as required in the textbook No questions were employed in Task 3 by the teacher
Date: 29/4/2015 Class: 10 B Course book: English 10 Number of students: 45 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher B Unit: 14-Speaking Topic of the lesson: The world Cup
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Task 1 Exchange : Teacher was asking about the football teams in the pictures
T: Who can tell me which football team in picture 1?
T: England , so you can say English football team Picture 2? Uyen, please S2: French
T: French? Do you agree with her? Number 2
S3: French T: Why do you know that?
Say a footballer familiar with you
S3: Italy T: What is your favourite football team?
Task 2 Teacher was guiding students to do Task 2
T: Look at the example and the table Do you know the runner-up? Do you know the winner? The winner is the first rank and the runner
Y/N question Y/N question up is the second rank
She wrote down the questions of the example on the board
2 Which teams played in the final match?
3 Which team became the champion?
T What does “the final match” mean?
S: Trận đấu cuối cùng T:Do you know “ champion”?
Ss: Yes T:Do you know “ score”?
Ss: Tỷ số T: Held is past participle
After the pair presented in front of the class The teacher was checking Ss’ attention
T: What do you think of their performance? Better of worse than the first pair?
T: I agree with you Some girls in the back Can you hear clearly?
T: What are they talking about?
Task 3 T explained the new words in the requirement of Task 3
T: Do you know “ take turns”?
Ss: (quiet) T:”Turn”(n): lượt Take turn to verb: lần lượt làm gì
T wrote on the board” defeat”
T wrote on the board “ A defeated B by 4 to 2.”
S: (quiet) T: “By” is not only used in the passive voice but also used to talk about the score of a match
T called on 1 student to speak about the sixth World Cup After her presentation, the teacher encouraged others to ask the presenter some questions
S1: Where was the sixth World Cup held?
Presenter: in Sweden S2: Which team became the champion?
S2: Which team became the runner-up?
T: very good question Presenter: Sweden
Date: 12/5/2015 Class: 10 B Course book: English 10 Number of students: 45 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher B Unit: 16-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Historical Places
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm - up
“mausoleum” on the board and asked about it
T: Yes The third syllable Do you understand Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?
T: Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?
T: When did you last visit Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?
T: Have you ever been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum?
T: Tell me something about it I have never been to Ho Chi Minh mausoleum I am eager to visit it
Is it in Nam DInh?
S2: It is in Ha noi
T: How many floors are there?
T: No I don‟t think so Thank you, sit down, please
Display question Y/N question Display question
Task 1 Teacher read the requirement of task 1 and explained some words
T: Do you know” take turns”?
Teacher read the information about Ho Chi Minh mausoleum and checked Ss’ understanding about it
T: How long did it take to build this construction?
T: Do you understand “important meetings”?
Ss: (quiet) T: Lie: nằm T: How many floors are there?
Ss: (quiet) T: Trừ T: Do you know “maintenance”?
Ss: (quiet) T: Duy trì, bảo dưỡng
Ss: (quiet) T: The second syllable
Teacher read the example and explained some words and phrases
Ss: (quiet) T: It is located/ situated in…: nằm ở T: Where is Tran Hung Dao high school?
S: It is situated in Tran Thái
Ss: Công trình T: Công trình hoặc việc xây dựng công trình
Teacher went around the class and helped the students
S: Cách đặt câu hỏi công dụng của từng tầng ạ
T: Thank you for your question
What is the use of each floor?/
What is the first floor used for?
S: Cách hỏi ngày có thể thăm lăng bác ạ
T: On what day can we visit the mausoleum?
S: Cách hỏi thời gian có thể thăm lăng bác ạ
T: what time can we visit the mausoleum in summer?
Teacher called on the first pair to ask and answer in front of the class
Teacher let a student go back to her seat and kept a student stay in front of the class She encouraged other students to ask her more questions
S1: What are there on the second floor?
Presenter: There is a bed where the late president is lying
S2: Who takes care of the late president?
Task 2 Teacher leaded in Task 2
T: Have you ever been to Hue imperial city?
T: Have you ever been to Hue imperial city?
S2: No T: I am eager to visit Hue, but I haven‟t got any chance Who has ever been to Hue imperial city?
Teacher checked Ss’ understanding about information of Hue imperial city and helped students with some new words and phrases
T: Do you know “to be listed”?
Ss: (quiet) T: Được liệt kê vào
S: Di sản T: How long did it take to build this construction?
T: Citade What does this mean?
T: Imperial What does this mean?
Ss: Thuộc về hoàng gia
T: Yes Thuộc về hoàng gia And the stress?
T: Do you know “admission fee”?
Ss: Vé vào cửa T: Yes, vé vào cửa
F Display question Display question Display question
Date: 24/4/2015 Class: 10 C Course book: English 10 Number of students: 44 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher C Unit: 13-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Films and Cinema
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm- up
Teacher was leading in the new lesson
T: What kinds of films do you know?
T: Silent ? What kinds of films do you know? The other? Spoken films, silent films, anything else?
S3: Detective T: Good Go on Hieu
S4: War film T: War film Go on Linh
T: Action, not active Go on
S6: Love story film T: Love story film Go on, anything else?
T: There are many kinds of films you see Các em muốn biết cảm nhận vể các bộ phim này như thế nào chúng ta hãy vào bài
Task 1 Teacher was guiding the Task 1
T: Answer my question Who wants to make up a new dialogue with me, please?
T: What kinds of films do you watch in your free time?
T: How much do you like it?
S: Very much T: Thank you Sit down
T: Can you make a new dialogue like us? Who can? Who can?
( Then, teacher called on 2 pairs of volunteers and pairs of non- volunteers to make up similar dialogues)
Task 2 After the teacher let students read vocabulary in 2 minutes
She was helping them with new words
T: Have you got any questions about vocabulary?
Teacher was analyzing the model
T: Study the model in the book
Look at the model How many people take part in the dialogue?
Ss: 3 T: Yes, there are 3 people Pay attention to the answer of the third person He uses the phrase
“agree with” to show agreement
We can add adverb “quite” or
“absolutely” before “ agree” to raise the certainty
Teacher was modeling a dialogue with two other students
T: Listen to me Who wants to make up a new dialogue with me?
Who, please Hiếu and Chính
T: What do you think of cartoon films?
S2: I agree with you I find them
T: sit down Right or wrong? We should base on the model in your textbook; therefore the third person does not agree with the opinion of the second person Ok, again What do you think of cartoon films?
S2: I don‟t agree with you I find them good fun
Teacher was analyzing the model
T: Look at Task 3 Who can tell me the difference between the dialogue of Task 2 and that of Task 3? Who can? Chính
S: The question is about 2 kinds of films T: Yes The question of preferences for films is used
Teacher was reading and writing the model on the board
A: Which do you prefer: war films or detective films?
B: It‟s difficult to say I suppose I prefer detective films to war ones
While the students were making their dialogue, teacher expanded their dialogue by adding her question
S1: which do you prefer: love story films or cartoon films?
S2: It‟s difficult to say I suppose I prefer cartoon films to love story ones
S2: Because cartoons are very good fun and interesting
S2: love story films are boring
Task 4 Teacher was analyzing Task 4
T: Look at Task 4 Talk about the film you have seen How many questions are there in Task 4 Ss: 6
T: Work individually and use the suggestions to tell about the films
Date: 12/5/2015 Class: 10 C Course book: English 10 Number of students: 44 Observer: Pham Thanh Xuan Mung Observee: Teacher C Unit: 16-Speaking Topic of the lesson: Historical Places
Stage Exchange Question types Length of response (Number of words) Warm-up Teacher was leading in the new lesson
T: Look at the picture in the book
Name the picture in your book S: Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum T: President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum Have you ever been there?
T: Do you know about it?
Task 1 Teacher was guiding the studetns to do Task 1
T: Where is President Ho Chi Minh Mausoleum situated/ located? Short answer Who can? You, please
( Teacher was reading and writing on the board) S1: In Ba Dinh district T: Go on The second question
S2: When did the construction start?
( Teacher wrote on the board) T: Answer?
S3: in 1973 T: Go on One ask, one answer
T: When did it finish? Answer?