MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY
wD
AN INVESTIGATION INTO TEACHER-STUDENT VERBAL INTERACTION IN ENGLISH CLASSES_AT CA MAU
CONTINUING EDUCATION CENTRE
TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC MỦ TP.HCM THƯ VIỆN
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS (TESOL)
Submitted by NGUYEN THI MAI DUNG, BA
Supervisor
Trang 2ABSTRACT
According to Vygotskyan theorists (1978), learning opportunities are enhanced through cooperation and negotiation with more capable peers Teacher-student interaction is of crucial role in English teaching and learning process The present study focuses on investigating the reality of teacher-student interaction in English classrooms at Ca Mau Continuing Education Centre (CMCEC) in order to find out factors influencing this interaction
The subjects of this study are 65 pre-intermediate students and 4 teachers of English Through a detailed description and analysis of the collected data by the methodological triangulation - non-participant observation, questionnaires and
interviews, the problems of teacher-student interaction were made clear, and some
factors affecting this interaction were identified
The results of this investigation reveal that (1) the limited vocabulary of students is the biggest obstacle to their joining in the interaction with the teacher through asking and answering the questions, (2) inadequate time to process the questions prevents students from interacting with the teacher, (3) students’ shyness and anxiety are also hindrances to students’ involvement in class The results also show that teacher’s scaffolding, friendliness and closeness in the interactional process as well as a friendly and relaxing learning atmosphere are factors positively affecting the teacher-student verbal interaction Besides, teachers’ use plenty of L1, display questions and echo and teacher-directed IRE pattern restricts students’ learning opportunities through this interaction
From the study findings, it is suggested that teachers should take notice of some factors affecting the teacher-student interaction like teachers’ language use, teacher
questions, teacher echo, teachers’ attitude, wait-time, interactional patterns, learning
Trang 3TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Statement Of AUthOFity A0072 a i
š 0(9i6102-101989.5ã9)01/158ii131- 2000818788 ii
Acknowledgements TA ill v10 1 IV EU 50v 0 Vv List 8ua 15.111 x List of figures - ¬ xl [0x 2110:2007 xii CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION - 1 1 INN› {2á ni 0 1 I2 9a 80) 3 1.3 Research Questions 6 4
1.4 Significance of the Study 0.0 4
I9 (sv (2 (000i 1 0 4
CHAPTER H: LITERATURE REVIEW Q HH HH kệ, 5 2.1 Introduction 01 5
2.2 Definitions Of Inf€fACfIOTA - cọ ng ni nu nh 5 2.3 The role of interaction in SÏA - s9 HH rkc 6 2.3.1 Interaction facilitates SLA 7
Trang 42.6 Patterns of the teacher-student interactiOn .- 2Q c s1 vs 15
PIN .J á on 19
2.8 Factors affecting teacher-student verbal interaction . -‹ 21
"PIN vác co ch 21
2.8.2 Student factors nu C19111 10kg TT TT TH nh 24 P0 (00) sát: o0 25
2.9 Chapf€r SurmmrV - ĩc < LH ng Họ Hư 27 0:7 0341921 0700-0//10909.19))9)09 Ca 28
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Study €SIBTI HT HH TH ve 28 3.3 Research Site 0n A1 28
3.4 Teaching mmaf€T14ÌS .- - - 5 + 31 ng TH ng ng kg 28 khWz ¿(1 a Ơ 29
3.6 Data collection methods 0n 29
S869 co nh 29
3.6.2 QUESTIONNAILE an 31
3.6.2.1 Questionnaire for sfUd€nfS c - ĂGQ SH ng se, 31 3.6.2.2 Questionnaire for t€aCh€FS - - - G S1 9v ng sec 31 3.6.3 ÏnCTVICWS LH nh HH in nọ TH go TH HT 32 3.7 Data collection DfOC€CUF€S Q0 SH HH HH TH TH ng ng 32 3.7.1 Conducting Do saci10i0 1 4 33
3.7.2 Administering the questlO'air€S -Ă ve, 34 3.7.3 Conducting the ITI{CTVICW LH TH TH ng TH ng vn ngư Hiện 34 3.8 Analytical framework 0n 35
Trang 54.1 InfroducfIOTi - - - - - - G- H9 ng nu TT ST cv 38
4.2 Observation data analysis 18 38
4.2.1 Class 1’s observation dafa anaÌYSIS .- nghệ, 38 “VAN N vo vo na 40
4.2.1.2 Teacher’s use of LAM guage oo ccc 42
“UP No na 43
ĐÀ A5 44
4.2.1.5 Modification SÍraf†€1€S SH HH nh tư 45 4.2.1.6 The patterns of classroom communication in teacher-student verbal interaction and the role of the teacher in this interaction 48
4.2.1.7 Teacher involvement and teacher Immediacy -. 52
4.2.2 Class 2°s observation dafa anaÏYSi§ ¿-¿- 5c s1 x ve E1 1E reo 53 ,/ AN vá on hố 55
4.2.2.2 Teacher”s use of langU4B€ - Án HH ng re, 58 4.2.2.3 Teacher €CO . - - <- 11213 v19 111 1H ng ng Hy 59 L7 0n nh 60
LÝ N06 62
4.2.2.6 The patterns of classroom communication in teacher-student interaction and the role of the teacher in this interaction 64
4.2.2.7 Teacher involvement and teacher immediacy - ‹‹ - «+: 68
Trang 64.3.5 Studenfs” sugeestions on promoting this Interaction .- ‹ -+++ 83 4.3.6 Summary of data analysis from students” questionnaire §5 4.4 Teacher’s questionnaire and interview data anaÌySIS - + s-cc+<xsssxsss 85 4.4.1 Teacher’s questionnaire data analysis c.ccccscsssssssseseeseesestetetesseesseeeesee 85
4.4.1.1 Teachers’ views of the importance of teacher-student verbal
Interaction 1M ClASS AT 86 4.4.1.2 Teachers’ perception of students’ participation in interaction with
the teacher In CÏ3SS s1 ng rkc §7 4.4.1.3 Teachers’ perception of students’ obstacles to asking and answering
I0 <1: T0 88 4.4.1.4 Teachers’ viewpoints on teacher talk in class . 89 ae 4.4.1.5 Viewpoints of teachers on promoting teacher-student interactions
IN C1ASS 91 4.4.1.6 Summary of data analysis from teachers” questionnalre 92 4.4.2 Teachers” intervIiew data anaÏYSIS 2S SH rveg 93
4.4.2.1 Teachers’ comments on the students’ participation in interacting with the teacher in the ClaSSTOOM eee eeeseeseeeseeseneeseeeeeneceaeeeesees 94 4.4.2.2 Teachers` viewpoints on [RE / IRE pafterns -.-«<<<+5 94 4.4.2.3 Teachers’ viewpoints on referential / display questlons._ 96 4.4.2.4 Teachers’ viewpoints on the role of teacher in the interaction with
the students in Class 0 eeeeeseceseeeseeeessecseeeeeeaecnseeseaterseesseenecseees 98 4.4.2.5 Teachers’ perspectives on factors affecting the interaction between
the teacher and the studenfs 1n! CÏASS 55 55+ s2 99 4.4.2.6 Teachers’ suggestions on how to enhance teacher-student verbal
ITIẨCTACẦÏOIN SG G G G0031 ng vn 101
4.5 Summary of data analyS1S CÏADf€T - - - 1 11129 9 1 ng ng ngu 102
Trang 75.3 RecommendatiOn$ - - - - - - - G - 09 0g v1 n1 1 cg 105
“NI 105 5.3.1.1 Create a friendly and relaxing learning environment - 106 5.3.1.2 Bring students into the interaction ccccccecsscesseeeseceteetseeeseesees 106 5.3.1.3 Encourage students to produce oufput 1n L2 - - 107 5.3.1.4 Pay attention to teacher”s use of language -«cc-<s+ssss 107 5.3.1.5 Help students increase their vocabulaTy - «+ cs<ssssssses 108 5.3.1.6 Give shy students special encouràemerI† ««<-« 108 5.3.1.7 Encourage students to take the initiative in the learning process 109 5.3.2 Students 109
5.3.2.1 Be active in participating with the teacher through asking and
answering QU€SẦÏOTNS - - + - S119 v39 9 1 ng ng gi ng 109 5.3.2.2 Improve and widen theIr vocabulary c+ c<csssse 110 h Si 1n 110 5.5 Limitations of the 217 111 5.6 Suggestions for further SfUỦ|y - - HH TH ng ng dư ne 112 ;30139140 100008888 113 1dd00)0)/02 5108 120 Appendix A: Questionnaire for students (English VersIon) -‹-<-<<<<<«e 120 Appendix B: Questionnaire for students (Vietnamese version) - 127
Appendix C: Questionnaire for teachers (English verSion) .- -«««ss«sx««+ 134
Appendix D: Questionnaire for teachers (Vietnamese Version) -‹ ‹- 141 Appendix E: Interview with English teachers (English version) - 148 Appendix E: Interview with English teachers (Vietnamese erSIon) .- 149
Appendix G: Interview T€SỤ(S -.- 5 5 HH HH HT nh HH rà 150
Trang 8Table 3.1: Table 4.1: Table 4.1.1: Table 4.1.2: Table 4.1.3: Table 4.1.4: Table 4.1.5: Table 4.1.6: Table 4.2: Table 4.2.1: Table 4.2.2: Table 4.2.3: Table 4.2.4: Table 4.2.5: Table 4.2.6: Table 4.3: Table 4.4.1: Table 4.4.2: Table 4.4.3: Table 4.4.4: Table 4.4.5: Table 4.4.6: LIST OF TABLES Page The observation times of the two €ÌSS€S SH se 33 Summary of Class 1 obServation ccecceessecesseeesseeeeseeeseeeeseeeseeens 39 Frequency of types Of teacher questiOns - s55 s2 40 Teacher’s use of ÏanUÀ€ Gv ng ng như 42
Comparison of Teacher echo and Turn of interaction b/t T & Ss 43
Mean values for Wait time cccccccssccessscesseeeeeseessseeesseesenesesseeeeseeenes 44 Distributions of Wait-time and 1†s ©fÍ€Ct - - 5c cv +sxssseses 45 Distribution o£ Teacher”s modification strafeg1es .-.-‹+-«<+- 46 Summary o£observation data for Class 2 - cccSà- 54 Frequency of types of teacher Questions .cccessecsseeeeceeeeenseeenecenes 55 Teacher’s use Of ÏanØÙ€ 5+ 1s ng 58 Comparison of Teacher echo and Turn of interaction b/t T & Ss 59
Mean values for Wait time cee ccscsssesseecessessceesscesesesseessessecetaeesaes 60 Distributions of Wait-time and its effect ec ceseeseeeteeetsesseeseenees 60 Distribution of Teacherˆs modification strafeg1€s -. 62
Summary of observation data anaÏVS1S .- 5c se sceeseres 71 Teachers’ opinions on the benefits of teacher-student interaction 86
Teachers’ perception of students’ participation in interaction with the Iv:19(192812891 TT 87
Teachers” perception of obstacles to student response 87
Teachers’ perception of obstacles to student raising the questions .88
Teacherˆs Interference 1n students” replying difficulties 90
Trang 9LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 4.1: Students’ opinions on the benefits of teacher-student interaction 74
Figure 4.2: Students’ preference for asking and answering the teacher’s 0011928007177 5 74
Figure 4.3: Students’ frequency in participating with the teacher - 75
Figure 4.4: Students” preference for teacher”s qu€sfiOnS .- «<< c+xc<«e 76 Figure 4.5: Obstacles to studenfS” r€SDOTIS€S .- 2S ng ng 76 Figure 4.6: Hindrance to students’ asking queSfIOTIS «+ sss+ + rsrske 77 Figure 4.7: Students” perception ofteacher queSfIOIS s S2 xssvesse 79 Figure 4.8: Types of questions used by the teacher In cÏaSS, «<< c++ 79 Figure 8 0020050088 80
Figure 4.10: Frequency of teacher’s feedback on students” answers 81
Figure 4.11: Teacherˆs interference In students” replying difficulties 81
Trang 10ABBREVIATIONS BA: Bachelor of Arts
B/t: Between
CMCEC: Ca Mau Continuing Education Centre EFL: English as a foreign language
ELT: English language teaching IRE: Initiation-Response-Evaluation
IRF: Initiation-Response-Feedback/Follow up L1: First language/ Vietnamese
L2: Second language/ English M: Mean
MA: Master of Arts SD: Standard Deviation
SLA: Second language acquisition Ss: Students
Trang 11Chapter I: Introduction
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study
The ultimate aim of learning a second or foreign language is to use it in communication in spoken and written forms How to help students reach that goal is an issue that has so far interested many researchers and theorists in the field of foreign and second language education There have been a lot of theories of foreign and second language teaching and learning with the aim of best promoting learning opportunities and achievement for students Socio-cultural theory developed by Vygotsky (1978) emphasizes the importance of social interaction in the development of individual mental processes Under this perspective, learning occurs through the interaction between the learner and others who are more knowledgeable Supporting this viewpoint, Richard and Lockhart (1996) state “second language learning is a highly interactive process” (p.138) Similarly, Brown (2001) puts it that “the best way to learn to interact is through interaction itself” (p 165) Indeed, a good interaction in the classroom will create a good interpersonal relationship between the teacher and students and among the students in order to promote students’ achievement in language acquisition
According to Rivers (1987), through interaction, students can enhance their knowledge by listening to or reading authentic materials or the output their peers
share in discussions or tasks, and in interaction, students can exchange what they
Trang 12Chapter I: Introduction
interaction the teaching-learning process in the classroom can hardly meet
communicative needs for learners
In classroom settings, interaction can occur between teachers and students,
students and teachers and among students themselves However, most interactions in the classroom are teacher-student and student-student interactions Each kind of interaction has certain effect on learning It cannot be denied that student-student interaction can not only maximize interaction but also increase co-operative learning in language classroom, but the interaction between teachers and students is also considered an essential part of teaching-learning process Tsui (1995) claims the development and success of a class depends on to a greater extent the interactions between the teacher and students In Ellis’ vieW'(1998, cited in Walsh, 2006), “interaction is regarded as being central to language acquisition, especially the interaction which occurs between teachers and learners” (p.20) According to Jarvis and Robinson (1997, cited in Walsh, 2006), opportunities for second language acquisition are increased when students directly participate in interacting and negotiating the meaning with the teacher Pica’s study (1987, cited in Walsh, 2006) also indicates quite conclusively that learners who interact with their teacher gain higher scores in a listening comprehension test than learners who use a similar version but have no interaction with their teacher The importance of teacher- student interaction is confirmed by Walsh (2006) that “the quality of the interaction in the classroom is largely determined by teachers in their face to face communication with learners” (p.20)
Trang 13Chapter I: Introduction
while the students listen and receive the knowledge from the teacher rather passively Sometimes students are required to participate in the learning process by answering questions which the teacher already knows the answers The students often have very little time to answer or ask questions since the classroom interaction is usually initiated and controlled by the teacher Consequently, the teacher has received very little verbal feedback from the students, and the students do not have many opportunities to produce the target language and communicate in the
classroom In other words, the teacher cannot seek the interaction with the students
and this is a one-way interaction, where the teacher talks much of the time in class Nunan (1989) showed that in some language classrooms teachers occupied 89% of the class time talking In a study of teacher-student verbal interaction pattern at the
tertiary level classrooms in Pakistan, Inamullah, et al (2008) also found that more
than two-thirds of the classroom talking time was for teachers’ talk (80%) Likewise, in a latest study conducted at Nguyen Tat Thanh College in Ho Chi Minh city in Vietnam, Nguyen (2011) realized that teacher’s talking time is over 75% of the class period
Although the teacher-student interaction has been examined and found its lack of interaction between the teacher and students, this problem was conducted mostly
in ELT in other countries and at tertiary level In addition, there has not virtually
been any investigation into the teacher-student interaction in English classes at foreign language centers in Vietnam and the factors influencing this interaction This issue, thus, captures the researcher’s interest in conducting this study
1.2 Statement of purpose
This study is carried out to investigate the reality of the teacher-student verbal interaction in English classrooms at Ca Mau Continuing Education Centre, to identify the factors affecting this interaction in class and to make suggestions on how to promote effective learning and teaching through the teacher-student verbal
Trang 14Chapter I: Introduction
1.3 Research questions
1 What is the reality of the teacher-student verbal interaction in the English classes at Ca Mau Continuing Education Centre?
2 What factors have influenced the teacher-student verbal interaction in the English classes at CMCEC?
1.4 Significance of the study
The study is expected to help teachers identify factors affecting teacher- student interaction in English classes at CMCEC From these factors, this study tries to seek effective ways to promote students’ learning opportunities through this interaction More importantly, this study can hopefully increase teachers’ awareness of the interactional exchange between the teacher and students in the classroom in order to maximize students’ learning opportunities
1.5 Overview of the thesis
The thesis is composed of five chapters as follows:
Trang 15Chapter IT: Literature review
CHAPTER I
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
This chapter presents the theories and empirical researches relevant to classroom interaction, especially teacher-student verbal interaction in order to have a critical look at this interaction and to find out the answers for the research
questions This chapter, therefore, focuses on the following issues First, definitions of interaction are mentioned, and then come the role of interaction in SLA and the
role of teacher in classroom interaction Next, principles based on socio-cultural theory are revealed Additionally, the patterns of teacher- student interaction as well as teacher questions are examined Finally, factors affecting teacher-student verbal interaction are presented
2.2 Definitions of interaction
There are many definitions of interaction According to Thomas (1987),
Interaction means acting reciprocally, acting upon each other The teacher acts upon the
class, but the class reaction subsequently modifies his next action and so on The class
reaction becomes in itself an action, evoking a reaction in the teacher, which influences his subsequent action (p.7) And “interaction is a two-way process” (p.8)
Ellis (1999, cited in Moss & Feldman, 2003) defines interaction as “communication
Trang 16Chapter I: Literature review
checks” (p 66) According to Johnson (1995), classroom interaction or classroom communication is “a process of negotiation between teachers’ meanings and students’ understandings that are constructed through face-to-face communication in the classroom” (p.89)
From the above definitions, despite the various interpretations it is apparent that interaction has certain characteristics: (1) it is a two-way exchange of information between participants through face-to-face communication; (2) it is a process of negotiation between the participants in order to avoid and overcome the
communicative breakdowns
2.3 The role of interaction in SLA
Trang 17Chapter IT: Literature review
2.3.1 Interaction facilitates SLA
In interactional process, learners are pushed to modify their speech in order to ensure that the messages can be understood Long (1996) claims that SLA is enhanced when learners negotiate meanings through communication breakdown
Pica et al, (1996, cited in Gibbons, 2006) also state that “when learners have
opportunities to negotiate meaning, opportunities for language learning appear to be increased” (p.45) Long (1996) defines negotiation as:
“The process in which, in an effort to communicate, learners and competent speakers provide and interpret signals of their own and their interlocutor’ s_ perceived comprehension, thus provoking adjustments to linguistic form, conversational structure, message content, or all three, until an acceptable level of understanding is achieved (p
418)
Negotiation takes place when learners and their interlocutors experience difficulty in understanding messages, and they want to solve communication difficulties In the process of negotiation, learners not only pay attention to incomprehensible input but also attempt to produce output since they can acquire new linguistic knowledge and reformulate their contributions to make their interlanguage in the same way as the target language via assimilation and accommodation processes Long (1996) contends that negotiation which triggers interactional modifications by native speakers or more competent interlocutors helps to make input comprehensible, provides corrective feedbacks, and assists learners in producing their output
Researchers, for example, Tsui (1995), Gass (2005) and Kumaravadivelu
(2006) identified a number of ways in which teachers modify their interaction during the negotiation Tsui (1995) points out six modification strategies in
interaction between the teacher and students, including confirmation checks,
Trang 18Chapter IT: Literature review
like confirmation check, comprehension check, clarification request, reformulations,
topic-focused questions, elaborated question and recasts Kumaravadivelu (2006)
proposes other communicative activities such as clarification, confirmation,
comprehension check, requests, repairing, reacting and turn-taking From the above
interactional modification strategies, it can be seen that although their classifications
are somewhat different, they have three similar strategies worth concerning, consisting of confirmation checks, clarification requests and repetition requests
Long (1983b) claims confirmation checks, clarification requests and repetition requests are devices which teachers use to understand students’ input and also create opportunities for learners to develop their target language However, if these modification devices are used by learners, they show that thie learners are involved in the negotiation of comprehensible input Muranoi (2007) adds two functions of the request for repetition like “a flag to an incorrect form” and “a facilitator” that helps learners produce modified output In other words, the repetition request can be considered as a strategy for teachers to remind learners to recognize their mistakes and correct by themselves without disrupting the flow of the interaction
As for clarification requests and confirmation checks, Walsh (2006) suggests that they are skills that can greatly facilitate learning opportunities Walsh argues that “by seeking clarification and requesting confirmation, by getting learners to reiterate their contributions, learners’ language development is fostered” (p.13) Put simply, by seeking clarification and by negotiating meaning, the teacher can help students express their own ideas more fully and more clearly as well as provide them with more opportunities to participate in the learning process Ellis (1997)
states that
Trang 19Chapter II: Literature review
Walsh (2006), in examining the extract in an upper-intermediate class, realized that students produce longer and more complex utterances when the teacher seeks to clarify, elicits from the students and is unwilling to accept the student’s first contribution He concluded that “clarification requests are extremely valuable in promoting opportunities for learning” (p.14) since they force students to rephrase or extend their previous contribution, resulting in fostering a longer turn and higher quality output
In another study carried out by Liu and Zhao (2004) in six College English classes in Nanjing Normal University, China in order to investigate the effect of conversational modification devices on immediate output The finding reveals that the clarification request is the most effective way of yielding students’ enhanced output as well as eliciting information from them
In short, negotiated interactions through interactional modifications help learners avoid and solve communication difficulties in order to maintain the flow of the conversation More importantly, they push learners to generate, modify the output from the teacher’s or their interlocutors’ feedback and make the input more comprehensible, ultimately facilitating L2 development
2.3.2 Interaction increases opportunities for practice
Trang 20Chapter IT: Literature review
Gass & Mackey (2007) claim that output helps learners notice and identify the gap between their interlanguage and the target language as well as the hole in their interlanguage By trying to communicate in L2, learners may encounter some of their linguistic problems and realize that they are not able to say what they want to say Such recognition of their lack of L2 knowledge may raise their awareness of modifying the output in order to convey the message exactly, coherently and suitably Besides, output allows learners to test different hypotheses about their interlanguage In other words, when getting involved in negotiated interaction, learners may use their output to test new language forms to see whether they succeed in communicating their message or not Moreover, the metalinguistic function of output may help learners to internalize linguistic knowledge order to produce utterances that are linguistically correct and communicatively appropriate (Kumaravadivelu, 2006)
To sum up, producing output may help learners to notice the gap in their interlanguage, test their existing knowledge, reflect consciously on their own language, and process the language syntactically Hence, learners need chances to push their output because only when learners are pushed will production aid acquisition (Swain, 1995) In order to acquire L2 through generating comprehensible output, it is necessary for learners to participate in the negotiated interaction with the teacher in the classroom since it is the two-way interaction that enhances practice opportunities for learners in L2 learning
2.3.3 Interaction promotes reflection
Trang 21Chapter I: Literature review
from the teacher, helping them reflect on their contributions to understand new language and make it their own Additionally, in communication when the
interlocutors signal that they cannot get the message because it is incomprehensible or ill-formed, learners may reflect on their language and modify their output to be linguistically correct and comprehensible It is the feedback that helps learners realize the success or failure of their utterances in communication and create more chances for learners to generate and modify the output in the negotiated interaction Corrective feedback, as proposed by Walsh (2006), is one of the ways teachers can employ to help learners monitor, reflect on and self-correct their contributions In order for reflection to take place in the interaction, learners should be afforded space to reflect on their contributions The teacher, therefore, has a responsibility not only to make sure that learners are getting involved in classroom interaction, but also that they have time to reflect on and learn from their interaction
It can be said that the teacher has an important part in facilitating learners’ learning opportunities, yet by reflecting on production, learners also play a role in the interactional process to become active participants and active learners so that they can get success in L2 classroom interactive processes Opportunities for language acquisition can be enhanced when the teacher leaves more space for learners to reflect on their production and when learners actively engage in the learning process
2.4 Socio-cultural theory and language learning
In the previous section, the role of interaction is seen as central in the L2
learning Such an affirmation is based on socio-cultural theory of learning Thus, this section provides a brief overview of socio-cultural perspective on language learning
Trang 22Chapter IT: Literature review
sees that learning occurs through the interaction with others and the world around us through the use of symbolic tools like language Under this theory, learners must actively participate in exploring knowledge in cooperation with the teacher or their peers rather than work separately Also, they must consider language as a means for engaging in social and cognitive activities The point here is that how the teacher can get students to be involved in the classroom interaction and create opportunities for students to produce the language Doing so, the teachers have to be aware of two key principles in the socio-cultural theory, namely the zone of proximal development and scaffolding
2.4.1The zone of proximal development (ZPD)
- Ưng
The notion of "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) developed by Vygotsky (1978) is the best known in socio-cultural theory The term ZPD has been interpreted and defined in various ways by many researchers such as Lantolf (2000), Gibbons (2006), Murphy et al (2009) Yet, it can be seen as the distance between what a learner can do without any help and with the help of more capable peers or teachers According to Murphy et al (2009), to facilitate students’ cognitive growth and language acquisition, the teacher has to recognize where the learner’s ZPD lies and provide classroom activities or ask questions which are neither too difficult nor too easy It is obvious to see that questions at too high level of difficulty can discourage students whereas the oversimplified ones cannot challenge students’ knowledge and stimulate their learning as well as cognitive development
Trang 23Chapter IT: Literature review
2.4.2 Scaffolding
Scaffolding is considered as a strategy for helping students to learn through interacting with the teacher as well as their peers and for facilitating students’ comprehension processes Walsh (2006) defines scaffolding as “the ways in which teachers provide learners with linguistic ‘props’ to help self-expression” (p 120) Put differently, scaffolding provides students with linguistic and cognitive support when they participate in activities that may be beyond their abilities According to Walsh scaffolding has its own value only when learners have an opportunity to express themselves and clarify what they want to say Teachers can scaffold students in variety of ways such as providing focusing activities, encouraging rehearsal, reminding and modelling Walsh proposes thrée types of scaffolding as follows
e Reformulation, where a learner’s contribution is reworked using language which is more appropriate
e Modelling, where a learner’s contribution is simply restated with appropriate
pronunciation, stress or intonation
e Extension, where an utterance is extended, made more comprehensive or
more comprehensible to other students
(Walsh, 2006, p 120)
It is clear that each type of scaffolding has a different purpose Therefore, in a classroom context, what scaffold support the teacher gives to students in order to develop their involvement, and when scaffolds are removed to leave students to do the tasks by themselves should be taken into consideration
2.5 The role of teacher in classroom interaction
Trang 24Chapter IT: Literature review
The teacher plays a critical role in understanding, establishing and maintaining patterns of communication that will foster, to the greatest extent, both classroom learning and second language acquisition (p.90)
Similarly, Long (1996) highlights the crucial role of the teacher, the more competent interlocutor, in making input comprehensible, in promoting learner involvement, in drawing learner attention and in pushing learner output through negotiation
The interaction in the classroom is shaped by both the teacher and learners, so learners also play a significant role in interactional process; however, “it is the teacher who has prime responsibility” (Walsh, 2006, p.21) According to Mackey (2007), the role of the teacher cannot be underestimated ‘in classroom interaction since the teacher can provide learners with opportunities for reflection on their output such as giving feedback or encouraging learners to pay attention to ungrammatical forms during the interaction
In a teacher-centered L2 classroom, the teacher has a central role and
domination The teacher is seen as the one who holds the power to control both the content of the lesson and the interaction in the classroom whereas learners are often passive participants Realizing the drawbacks in the interaction between the teacher and students in teacher-centered L2 classrooms, Walsh (2006) proposes that the teacher should perform variety of different roles in preserving the flow of the interaction while still keeping the pedagogic goals
Trang 25Chapter IT: Literature review
necessary Similarly, Pritchard and Woollard (2010) state that the teacher can support the learner to achieve higher levels of development by acting as a
‘scaffolder’ like a motivator, a support, a prompt, a simplifier or a model
In brief, the role of the teacher is acknowledged as crucial in keeping the flow
of the interaction The teacher, therefore, needs to take on different roles in order to
facilitate as well as enhance learners’ learning 2.6 Patterns of the teacher-student interaction
As mentioned by Johnson (1995) in the previous section, for teachers, understanding, establishing and maintaining the patterns of interaction will foster both classroom learning and second language acquisition Accordingly, in this section the patterns of the teacher-student interaction in the classroom will be explored
Initiation-Response-Evaluation (IRE) pattern
The IRE pattern by Mehan (1979), that is, the teacher initiates a question (1), the student responds (R) and the teacher evaluates that response (E), is known as the most common pattern of classroom interaction (Johnson, 1995) However, the IRE is also considered as a teacher-centred pattern of communication in the teacher- student interaction since in this interactional pattern the teacher always takes control of the content of classroom interaction and the distributions of speaking turns in the interactional process Hall and Walsh (2002) state that
In the IRE pattern of interaction it is the teacher who decides who will participate, when students can take a turn, how much they can contribute, and whether their contributions are worthy and appropriate” (p.188)
Trang 26Chapter IT: Literature review
Rymes (2008) and Sohmer et al (2009) They found that the frequent use of the IRE sequence limited the interactions between the teacher and students and their learning opportunities because the teacher talked most of the time, evaluated or expanded students’ responses while the students were restricted in using the target language Hall and Walsh (2002) emphasize that “teachers who consistently use the IRE view teaching as a process of transmission” (p.196) Additionally, Rymes (2008) claims that this pattern makes the lesson less communicative as it includes
the odd third turn “evaluation”, which hardly occurs in most real conversations The
IRE pattern, as stated by Sohmer et al (2009), is typically designed to elicit information from the students, to require the students to give short and correct answers, which limits their opportunities to use the language and to express their
ideas Different from Barnes (1992), Gutierrez (1994), Johnson (1995), from her
examining the excerpts from actual second language lessons, found that there was variability in the structure of the IRE sequence that either inhibited or fostered students’ opportunities to use language for learning, and this variation depends on teachers’ pedagogical purpose of the lesson
Though there has been argument about the IRE pattern, the IRE has been critized as being too teacher-centred, hindering students’ learning involvement in the classroom interaction and lacking of real communication
Initiation-Response-Feedback/Follow up (IRF)
Trang 27Chapter IT: Literature review
According to Wells (1986), in the IRF pattern, the teacher does not simply close down the interaction by supplying an evaluation, but providing a feedback for ongoing interaction, building another sequence into it, creating verbal scaffolds that enable the students to actively participate in the interaction with the teacher and the classroom discussion Contrary to Wells’ position, van Lier (2001) claims that the IRF format discourages student initiation and student repair work since in this sequence the teacher takes the first and the third turns, and the student output is limited to the response in the second turn Similarly, Kumaravadivelu (2003) argues that the IRF pattern rarely provides any opportunity for learners to ask: questions or to express their opinions In this pattern the teacher always controls the interactional process while students have no ample time to use the language for learning It can be seen that the pattern IRF is considered to be the same as the IRE by some
researchers
In reviewing the three-part paterrn, Wells (1993, cited in Hall, 2003) proposed another concept of this pattern called the IRF, including teacher’s initiation (1) and student’s response (R) and teacher’s follow-up (F) This sequence can encourage students’ participation and enhance their learning since instead of evaluating students’ answers, the teacher follows up on students’ responses by asking them to explain or clarify their views From his observation of a numbers of science classrooms and analysis of the transcriptions of teacher-student interaction, Wells (1993) found that with subtle changes to the IRE pattern, mainly in the third part, learning opportunities for students can be fostered Specifically, instead of ending the sequence with an evaluation of the student’s response in the third part, the teachers can follow up on the students by asking them to elaborate or expand their ideas and accepting their contributions in order into bring them to the ongoing
discussion
Trang 28Chapter IT; Literature review
that the choice of follow-up move greatly determined to students’ learning opportunities When the teacher evaluated rather than encouraged students’ response, their participation was limited Conversely, more opportunities for learning were provided when the teacher followed up with additional questions or asked students to expand their responses Rymes (2008) supports Wells’ position that the IRF can provide feedback for going on interaction when the teacher does not simply supply a closed-ended evaluation in the third turn, but a scaffold for students’ ongoing participation
Similarly, Sohmer et al (2009) formed an interactional pattern in the
classroom named a ‘revoicing’ move where the teacher initiates with a question, the
student responds, but then the teacher provides a follow-up, rather than an
evaluation of the response They claim that in the IRE pattern, the roles of students are seen ‘reciters’ or ‘getters of the answer in the teacher’s head’ The students in the revoicing pattern, on the contrary, are considered as thinkers, discoverers and advocates of their own opinions Jt can be seen that though they are called differently, the revoicing move and the IRF sequence are very alike in nature
Trang 29Chapter I: Literature review
2.7 Teacher questions
“Questions” is one of the most common techniques used by L2 teachers in the direct interaction with students in the classroom, mainly in the IRE or IRF pattern It is considered as “the most important key to creating an interactive classroom” (Brown, 2001, p.196) Rymes (2008) also claims that teacher initiation question plays an important role in bringing students into a discussion, changing or extending a topic or closing down an activity Teachers use questions for many purposes such as checking students’ understanding, giving students the stimulus to produce language and interact with each other or providing students with opportunities to present their own opinions Teacher questions can be seen as an essential technique to encourage students to participate in the learning process and foster the interaction between the teacher and students However, what types of questions the teachers pose in order to bring positive effects for student learning
should be taken into account
One of the influential factors in creating classroom interactions is the types of the questions which are asked by the teachers There are various ways to classify effective questions Brown (2001) suggests two common questioning types for the teachers in EFL classrooms: display questions and referential questions According to Brown, display questions are those to which the teacher already knows the answers Such questions are usually asked for comprehension checks, confirmation checks, or clarification requests and demand a single or short response of low level thinking Referential questions, on the other hand, are those to which the teacher does not know the answers from learners and requires more thoughts and generate a longer response
Trang 30Chapter IT: Literature review
more frequently than referential questions in the classroom Yet, Walsh (2006) showed a valid point that display questions are used more at lower levels and referential questions are more appropriate to a discussion class with a higher level Similarly, Long and Sato (1983) and Tan (2007) draw a similar conclusion from their researches that the predominance of display questions diminishes students’ learning opportunities through the interaction in the classroom; even it constrains their contributions to the learning process whereas referential questions increase the amount of learner output Sadeghi (2010) also found that referential questions may be an important tool in the language classroom to stimulate student responses and promote their contributions
Shomoossi (2004) realized that referential questions with high proficiency language classrooms usually required long and syntactically complex answers can lead to producing more classroom interaction However, Shomoossi found out that not all referential questions can create enough interaction It can be seen that referential questions required short answers like “Are you a student?” or “Do you work at the bank?” do not create many opportunities for students to interact with the teacher unless the teacher follows up on students’ responses
In brief, teacher questions undoubtedly have great influence on students’ learning opportunities Referential questions with genuine communicative purposes can give students more chances to share ideas as well as to stimulate a greater quantity of classroom interaction while display questions without communicative purposes can limit students’ contribution to learning process However, it is also necessary to make questions based on the pedagogical purpose, together with a suitable choice of questioning strategies in order to create more learning opportunities for students as well as foster meaningful communication in the
Trang 31Chapter H: Literature review
2.8 Factors affecting teacher-student verbal interaction
There are many factors identified in the literature as having an influence on teacher-student verbal interaction In Liu’s study (2001, cited in Luu & Nguyen, 2010) classroom interaction is influenced by five main categories: cognitive, pedagogical, affective, socio-cultural and linguistic The study of Mustapha (2010) showed three factors strongly affecting students’ participation in the classroom, including lecturer traits, graded participation and classmates’ attitude However, in the present study, the researcher is exploring some aspects of three factors like teacher, student and wait-time to see if they have any great impact on teacher- student interaction in language classrooms
2.8.1 Teacher factors
The teacher, as asserted by Johnson (1995), is instrumental in managing the interaction between the teacher and students in class since it is the teacher that
decides who talks, when, to whom, how long and what is said in this interaction In other words, teachers seem to control most of what is said and what is done in the
classroom
Trang 32Chapter II: Literature review
increase the likelihood of negotiation for meaning in the interaction with the
teachers
Contrary to teacher echo, teacher involvement and teacher immediacy could be regarded as the most effective factors promoting student engagements in the classroom interaction (Wen & Clement, 2003) Reeve (1996, cited in Wen & Clement, 2003) argues that teacher involvement consists of taking time for students’ concerns, showing affection, enjoying interaction with the students, taking notice to students’ needs and feelings and devoting their recourses to students Skinner and Belmont (1993) found that when students perceived teachers to be involved in their progress they engaged in more interactions and showed more enthusiasm Thus, it can be said that that teacher involvement is a catalyst for student engagement, which is significant in the path to student outcomes
Beside teacher involvement, teacher immediacy on students has received considerable attention in the literature The social psychologist Albert Mehrabian conceptualized immediacy as “communication behaviors that enhances closeness to and nonverbal interaction with another” (Witt et al., 2006, p.149) Teacher immediacy involves teacher’s verbal and nonverbal behaviors, which occur during teacher-student interaction that would create physical and psychological closeness between the teacher and students According to Witt et al., verbal immediacy includes such behaviors using terms like ‘we’ or ‘our’, calling the students’ first name and using humour in class Non-verbal immediacy refers to smiles, eye contact, nods, relaxed body posture, movement, gestures, vocal variety and close
physical distance
Trang 33Chapter IT: Literature review
researchers Hsu et al (2007)’s study showed that teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors were correlated positively and significantly with students’ willingness to talk Similarly, in a study on the correlation between teachers’ nonverbal immediacy and students’ motivation for learning English, Hsu (2010) also found out that teachers’ nonverbal immediacy behaviors were correlated positively and significantly with students’ motivation for learning English Her study indicated that nonverbal behaviors like smile, gesture, a relaxed body position, uses of a variety of vocal expression and a monotone voice while teaching were significant predictors to students’ motivation for learning English It can be said that teacher immediacy is the communicative behavior that teachers can use to reduce the psychological and physical distance between the students and themselves, helping the students engage in the interaction with the teacher in a relaxing way
Another factor influencing student contributions in the interactional process is teachers’ use of language because teachers, as articulated by Johnson (1995), control what happens in the classroom mainly through the ways they use language According to Johnson, teachers may use language to control the patterns of communication as well as the content of the lesson in ways appropriate to their pedagogical purpose However, the way they use language may influence students’ use of language during the interaction In an action research on teacher’s language on EFL classroom interaction at Harbin Institute Technology, China, Meng & Wang (2011) also found that the teachers’ language has great influence on the students’ language acquisition Clearly, the teachers’ use of language strongly affects students’ participation and interaction as well as their motivation as Walsh (2006) states that the ability of teachers, through their use of language can facilitate or hinder learning opportunity Hence, to facilitate language learning and create more
interactions between the teacher and students, the teacher should take notice of
Trang 34Chapter I; Literature review
To sum up, there is no doubt about the influential role of teachers in enhancing or limiting students’ participation and learning chances through the teacher-student
interaction Teachers, thus, need pay attention to both their verbal and non-verbal
behaviors to create the most effective learning environment with a good interaction
between the teacher and students
2.8.2 Student factors
One of the factors affecting student interaction in class is anxiety In the L2 learning context, anxiety is characterized by the feelings of self-consciousness, fear of negative evaluation from classmates and teachers and fear of failure to get their goals (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) Zheng (2008) realizes-‘learners with higher language anxiety have the tendency to avoid interpersonal communication more often than less anxious learners” (p 5) In a study of the interaction between the learning situation and the proficiency of EFL learners in their writing and speaking
skills, Maniruzzaman (2010) came to the conclusion that classroom anxiety
considerably hampered learners’ proficiency in the productive skills of the target language It can be seen that in most of classroom contexts, when students experience anxiety they often choose a solution to keep silent and to refuse interacting with the teacher or their peers Anxiety, therefore, is a factor harmful to
students’ involvement in the interaction
Another factor that is crucial to effective learning is the attitude of students towards the target language, the learning situation and their roles in that learning
situation (Nunan & Lamb, 1996) Nunan & Lamb claim that “If the learner has a negative attitude toward the language, the culture, the classroom, or the teacher,
Trang 35| Chapter I]: Literature review
|
Ệ Ệ
“impact on the learner’s proficiency in writing and speaking skills For instance, - when the students feel that the teacher is warm or sensitive to them, they will join in the interaction with him Clearly, the attitude of students towards the target ‘ language or their teacher plays an important part in teacher-student interaction
Personality may be seen as another factor that facilitates or inhibits language learning (Wen & Clemen, 2003) Ellis (1985) states that extrovert students may get benefits from the classroom by having more practice in using the L2 In learning
context, students who are extroverted interact with the teacher more than those who
are introverted Introvert students often keep silent, just listen and take notes what the teacher says in class They are not actively involved in the classroom activities Consequently, their opportunities to use the target language ‘in communication are
limited
Liu (2001, cited in Luu and Nguyen, 2010) found that students’ linguistic abilities and communicative competence are factors affecting students’ participation in the classroom interaction In fact, many students are reluctant to interact with their teacher or peers because their speaking skill is not good while other students whose speaking proficiency is good are willing to participate in oral interaction
activities in the classroom In addition, students’ lack of linguistic knowledge
prevents them from answering the teacher’s questions and discussing the topics in
class
In short, in order to create an effective and interactive classroom, both positive and negative student factors should be taken into consideration The negative factors must be minimized while the positive ones should be maximized
2.8.3 Wait-time factor
Wait time is the pause between a teacher initiation and a learner response It is
Trang 36Chapter II: Literature review
Wait- time gives learners time to think and formulate a response It is a strategy that greatly enhances the quality of a teacher’s talk by promoting confidence among learners and by increasing a learner’s self- respect because it indicates that they are being listened to.”
(p.132-133)
Rymes (2008) claims that limited wait-time between the initiating question and the student response is a factor which restricts the learning opportunities for students in the IRE sequence since students do not have enough time to process a question and find an answer According to Rymes, if the teachers do not pay close attention to wait-time between the initiating question and the student response, the students can be left out of learning Accordingly, how much time the teacher should spend on waiting the student response after asking the question is a concerned issue
Long et al., (1984, cited in Richards & Lockhar, 1996) suggest that the wait-
time should be three to five seconds In their words, “when wait-time is increased to
three to five seconds, the amount of student participation as well as the quality of that participation often increases” (p.188) Their views are supported by Meng & Wang (2011) when they revealed the similar results on effectiveness of increased wait-time Nunan and Lamb (1996) also found that in the classrooms where teachers managed to wait from three to five seconds after posing a question, there was more participation by more students
In another study, Walsh (2006) examined the extracts from the actual language lessons and realized that the pauses (three seconds) after the teachers asked the questions allowed the students maximum processing time to facilitate responses and construct learning opportunities He came to the conclusion that learning opportunity can be facilitated through the extended wait-time
Trang 37kr
Chapter IT: Literature review
‘encourage their responsibility as well Therefore, wait-time should not be ignored but be considered as an important factor affecting the interactional exchanges between the teacher and students and the quality of the output However, the wait- time should be neither too long nor too short since prolonged wait-time will be harmful to the classroom interaction (Nunan & Lamb, 1996) and make students feel anxious (Tsui, 2001) Additionally, it can take time, slow down the pace of the lesson and lead to boredom and disruption in the classroom
In sum, the point is that the teacher should resist the temptation to fill the silence or answer the question for students Instead, the teacher needs to provide students with sufficient time (e.g three to five seconds) to reorganize their thinking and reduce their nervousness in order to join in the spontaneous interactions that can be instrumental in the learning process
2.9 Chapter summary
This chapter has provided a theoretical and empirical literature instrumental in classroom interaction, especially teacher-student verbal interaction The theory guiding this research is the socio-cultural theory From that theory, the role of interaction in SLA and the patterns of teacher- student interaction have been explored in this chapter Besides, the roles of teacher, teacher questions and factors affecting teacher-student verbal interaction have been examined It is hoped that this research will find out the factors affecting teacher-student interaction in English classes at CMCEC In addition, hopefully, suggestions based on the literature review made by the researcher will have a positive effect on the interaction between
Trang 38
Ropícr III: Methodology
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY b 1 Introduction
This chapter presents the methodology employed for data collection It begins Ì ith the study design Next, the detailed descriptions of research site, participants and data collection methods, including observation, questionnaire and interview will ‘be given After that, the procedures of data collection will be presented in detail Finally, the framework of data analysis is shaped
3.2 Study design
Study design is a procedural plan employed by the researcher to find answers to the research questions under the study (Kumar, 1996) Therefore, with the aims of investigating the reality of the interaction between teachers and students in the English classrooms and identifying the factors affecting this interaction, this study adopted qualitative method as a dominant approach and quantitative as a supplementary one The combined methods are employed in order to obtain more reliable findings than only one method can provide
3.3 Research site
The study was conducted at Ca Mau Continuing Education Centre (CMCEC) located on Phan Ngoc Hien Street, ward 5 in Ca Mau city from late December 2011 to late March 2012 Students come to study at our centre with the aim of getting the
English certificate of level A, B or C
3.4 Teaching materials
Trang 39ge
%
Chapter III: Methodology
mơ
ko
ae
pther is a series of books locally designed by English teachers of the centre The first kind of textbooks is applied for people who want to study from the beginning
of each level, and the latter for those who want to review their previous knowledge of each level
3.5 Participants
With a feature of English evening classes at language centers, students of CMCEC are diverse in age, and they mainly attend courses in the evening since they have to go to college or work in the daytime Therefore, age is a prominent feature of subjects involed in this study Though age has an influence on language learning, it lies beyond the scope of this study aoe
The participants in this study were classified into two groups as students and English teachers The first group was 65 students of two pre-intermediate classes drawn from the population of 103 students who were studying at elementary, pre- intermediate and intermediate English evening classes The participants’ age range is from 21 to 53 with average age of 32 Among them 29 are males and 36 are females These pre-intermediate students were chosen as the participants in this study partly because their attendance was the highest of all and partly because the number of learners mainly enroled on pre-intermediate courses at CMCEC
The second group was 4 teachers who have been teaching English at CMCEC
Their ages range from 28 to 35, of which two are males and two are females Two
of them have less than five years of teaching experience The others have more than five years of teaching experience (7-10 years) In terms of degrees, one teacher has an MA degree and the others have BA degrees in English language teaching
3.6 Data collection methods
Trang 40eter III: Methodology
ation, the researcher employed the methodological triangulation through Rervation, questionnaire and interview as Mackey & Gass (2005) put it that “one Hhod alone cannot provide adequate support It may take two or more Bc pendent sources to support the study and its conclusions” (p.181)
6.1 Observation
Observation is a useful means that provides the researcher with the
bportunity to collect a great deal of in-depth information on the participants’ behavior and actions within a particular context (Mackey & Gass, 2005) Additionally, Kumar (1996) also claims that observation is the most appropriate h ethod of collecting data about the interaction in a group.~Fherefore, in this study, pbservation, specifically non-participant observation was the major method to bather the data Among four ways of recording observation suggested by Kumar 1996) like narrative, scales, categorical recording and recording on mechanical devices, narrative and recording on mechanical devices were adopted since ‘narrative can provide a deeper insight into the interaction and audio-recordings can
allow the observer to replay and examine the data many times and analyze the data
in greater depth before drawing any conclusions (Kumar, 1996)