Việc sử dụng câu hỏi bởi các giáo viên bản ngữ và giáo viên dạy tiếng anh như một ngoại ngữ

VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES ***************** KHUẤT MAI AN THE USE OF QUESTIONS BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE EFL TEACHERS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÂU HỎI BỞI CÁC GIÁO VIÊN BẢN NGỮ VÀ GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU SO SÁNH VỀ CHỨC NĂNG M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111 Hà Nội- 2015 VIET NAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES & INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST – GRADUATE STUDIES ***************** KHUẤT MAI AN THE USE OF QUESTIONS BY NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE EFL TEACHERS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÂU HỎI BỞI CÁC GIÁO VIÊN BẢN NGỮ VÀ GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU SO SÁNH VỀ CHỨC NĂNG M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS Field : English Teaching Methodology Code : 60140111 Supervisor: Dr Trần Hoài Phương Hà Nội- 2015 CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT I certify my authority of the Study Project Report entitled The use of questions by native and non-native EFL teachers: a comparative analysis of functions To total fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Khuất Mai An 2015 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my deepest thanks to Dr Tran Hoai Phuong for her assistance, encouragement as well as her guidance she gave me while I was doing my research I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all my lecturers at the Faculty of Post-Graduate Studies, University of Languages and International Studies, Vietnam National University, Hanoi whose academic program and support have enabled me to pursue the course I would also like to express my thanks to the teachers at Popodoo school who helped me in providing the materials, taking an active part in interviews and making constructive comments I am also thankful to my students in classes Dopapa and Popodoo at Popodoo school for their whole-heated participation in the study Last but not least, I owe my sincere thanks to my father, my younger brothers, my husband and my kind-hearted friend – Ms Do An, who have always inspired and encouraged me to complete this study ii ABSTRACT A number of young Vietnamese students take extra English lessons at cram schools where classes are taught in English by native speakers of English; however, not much has been studied in such settings in previous literature The research in this minor thesis was carried out to compare and contrast types of question functions which four teachers used to teach two classes of EFL students in a private language school during lessons The variables include the language backgrounds of the teachers, i.e., NS teachers and NNS teachers, and the proficiency levels of the students, i.e., high- and low-proficiency (level D and level B) By recording twenty audio lessons, observing two classes and interviewing NS and NNS teachers, eight types of question functions used by teachers were analyzed and compared in terms of the teacher‟s language background and the students‟ proficiency levels The study found that the class level and the teacher‟s language background, influenced how the teachers formed questions The teachers of high-level students (level D) used more communicative question types, while the teachers with low-level students (level B) preferred instructional questions In addition, it was found that using the target language as the sole medium in the classroom did not guarantee a communicative learning environment When instructional questions dominated the classroom discourse, the students became passive in the interaction The study suggests that both NS teachers and NNS teachers should monitor the functions and effects of their questioning skills so as to facilitate genuine interaction, even with lowlevel EFL learners The thesis consists of three parts The first part is an introduction to the thesis The review of related literature, methodology used in the research study and the findings are all presented in the second part The final part is the pedagogical implications and conclusion of the study, which concurrently concluding remarks and suggests some solutions for teachers Moreover, the limitations of the thesis are pointed out and the areas for further study are put forward in the final part It is hoped that this thesis will be useful for teachers at Popodoo school in their teaching iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY OF STUDY PROJECT REPORT i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE OF CONTENTS iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vi LIST OF EXCERPTS vi LIST OF FIGURES vii LIST OF TABLES vii PART A: INTRODUCTION 1 Rationale The aim of the study 3 Research questions 4 Significance of the study Scope of the study Organization of the study PART B: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature review 1.1 Native and non- native teachers of English and classroom interaction 1.2 Teacher talk and questions 1.3 Studies about EFL teachers‟ and students‟ questioning 18 Chapter 2: Methodology 21 2.1 The aim and research questions 21 2.2 Background of the research site 21 2.3 Materials and teaching approaches 22 2.4 The participants 23 iv 2.5 Data collection 24 2.6 Data analysis 26 2.7 Coding procedures and reliability 26 Chapter 3: Results 27 PART C: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION 39 Concluding remarks 39 Pedagogical Implications 41 Limitations and suggestions for further research 43 3.1 Limitations of the study 43 Suggestions for further research 43 References 44 APPENDIX I v LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS o Class-H: _High-level class o Class- L: _Low-level class o EFL: English as a Foreign Language o NNS: Non-native speaking teacher o NS: _Native speaking teacher o I-R-F: _Initiating-responding-feedback o T: Teacher o S: _Student o Ss: Students o L1: _First language LIST OF EXCERPTS Excerpt 1: Ms Elena-NS (L_voice5) 16 Excerpt 2: Ms Kathy- NNS (L_voice4) 30 Excerpt 3: Ms Elena – NS (H_voice3) 31 Excerpt 4: Ms Nancy- NNS (H_voice6) Error! Bookmark not defined Excerpt 5: Ms Elena-NS ( H_voice10) Error! Bookmark not defined vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Communicative levels of the eight question functions 18 Figure 2: The percentage use of the four teachers‟ question vs non-question discourses 28 Figure 3: The four teachers‟ percentage use of the eight question functions 29 Figure 4: The distribution of the four teachers‟ instructional vs communicative questions 30 Figure 5: The percentage use of question functions between the NNS teachers and NS teachers 32 Figure 6: The percentage use of question functions between the Class-L and Class-H teachers 34 Figure 7: Class-H‟s percentage use of question functions with NNS-H and NS-H Error! Bookmark not defined LIST OF TABLES Table 1: The Raw Numbers and Percentage Question Use of the Two Classes with the Four Teachers Error! Bookmark not defined vii PART A: INTRODUCTION The rationale, the aim of the study, the research questions, the significance and the scope of the study as well as organization of the study are all dealt with in this part Rationale Nowadays, learning at least a foreign language is necessary in human‟s life: “Language is arguably the defining characteristic of the human species and knowledge of language in general, as well as ability to use one‟s first and, at least one other language, should be one of the defining characteristics of the educated individual” (Nunan, 1999: 71) The world has become smaller It is said it has turned into the size of the so-called “global village” We are living in the time of immense technological inventions where communication among people has expanded way beyond their local speech communities (Ellis, 1997: 3) Today receiving education, language education not excepting, is not an issue connected exclusively with schools; the time requires everyone to learn throughout their lifetimes Therefore, learning a second language has become a means of keeping up with the pace of the rapidly changing world English language has gained its significance among a number of foreign languages such as French, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, etc on the world English is the official language in fifty three countries as well as in all the major international organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union and the International Olympic Committee It is the most used language on the Internet, and is currently the language most often taught as a second language around the world (Shahi & Pang, 2009) Moreover, since Vietnam joined WTO in 2006, English has become very important to Vietnamese people to enrich their PART C: PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSION This part will deal with concluding remarks and pedagogical implications Furthermore, the study limitations and suggestions for further research will also be discussed Concluding remarks This study aims to compare and contrast types of question functions which four teachers used to teach two classes of EFL students in a private language school during lessons The variables included the language backgrounds of the teachers, i.e., NS teachers and NNS teachers, and the proficiency levels of the students, i.e., high- and low-proficiency The participants were two NNS teachers and two NS teachers with the two classes (class-L and class-H) they taught In order to collect the data, 20 audio-taped lessons from two classes were recorded and the data were then transcribed verbatim In addition to the audio recordings, the observations and the interviews were employed to record factual, descriptive information and obtain greater insight which the audio recording did not show The findings indicate that the use of question functions depends on the teachers‟ language backgrounds and the proficiency levels of the students The language backgrounds of the teachers It is clear that all four teachers used questions extensively The NNS teachers raised more instructional questions, while the NS teachers seemed to use both instructional and communicative questions Thus, the teachers‟ first language seem influential in term of their questioning patterns Moreover, the observations and the interviews also showed that the NNS teachers used questions to help students understand more about knowledge related to topics, while the NS 39 teachers emphasized on communication by giving daily life situations for students to practice English Finally, there were some differences between NNS teachers and NS teachers in case of ambiguity in question-answer sequence The NNS teachers tended to repeat the question or translate the question into Vietnamese; they also used both English and Vietnamese when teaching grammar Contrast to NNS teachers, NS teachers usually rephrased the question if students did not understand what they asked and they used the rule “English- only” when teaching in both classes The proficiency levels of students The students in two classes, regardless their proficiency levels, showed a desire to take part in open communication In case of high level students, the teachers used more communicative types of questions, especially information, confirmation questions, and reduced the use of instructional questions, such as pseudo questions The teachers also devoted more class time to discussion In return, the high-level students also raised much more questions to their teachers than the low-level students did and they wanted something more innovative and more challenging in class time than language games in the textbooks On the contrary, the teachers relied heavily on pseudo and understanding check questions with the Class-L students because the students‟ limited level restricted their expression, although the class-L teachers said that the students also showed their interest in “real” discussion or any outside topics In addition, language games that required mostly physical reactions with very little verbal production were adopted for Class-L to promote student participation and learning motivation Thus, teacher‟s questioning patterns and the quantity of questions asked in the classroom seem to depend on teachers‟ background knowledge and the students‟ proficiency level 40 Pedagogical Implications Asking questions is the second most frequent strategy (after lecturing) used by EFL instructors in the classroom (Ellis, 2003; Foster, 1998) because teacher question functions are used as target language input for the students and form an integral part of classroom interaction (Ho, 2005) and the teachers use questions to elicit information, check understanding and to control behavior of the students (Nunan, 2007) Understanding the importance of questions, four teachers in this research seemed to use questions effectively in their lessons However, types of question functions that they used was quite different because of their language background and the students‟ level Though English was used as the main medium in the two classrooms and the course objectives were to teach conversational skills, the classroom interaction seemed to be more instructional than communicative from the general questioning patterns of NNS teachers Though they also used information questions to some degree, they rarely used other types of communicative questions to extend the exchanges with their students When the teachers rely on instructional questions in the classroom, as found in this study, the question-answer exchanges are usually short and reflect the typical I-R-F pattern In this aspect, the interaction is mostly controlled by the teachers Even though the students use the target language to respond to the teachers, the students have little opportunity to experience how conversations are managed back-and-forth among participants in natural social contexts (Sinlair and Coulthad, 1975) Contrary to NNS teachers, the NS teachers used both instructional and communicate questions with nearly the same level of frequency It helped students have chances to communicate and apply what they had learn with native speakers because the main purpose when teaching English is to help students to use English effectively in their real life Thus, NNS teachers can learn from NS teachers the way they formed different 41 types of question functions This study suggests that whether or not a teacher is a native speaker of the target language, the teacher‟s techniques of asking various kinds of questions play a critical role in creating a communicative context for using the target language Furthermore, the findings of the study indicate a danger of enforcing the target language as the sole medium in an EFL classroom, especially with lowlevel students In this study, the students were not allowed to use their native language to express ideas to NS teachers under the “English-only” rule When learning with NNS teachers, students can use mother tongue but with NS teachers, students cannot use Vietnamese because the teachers did not understand and they said “I not understand” or “English, please” Teachers and administrators must not mistake “English only” for “being able to speak English” in a language classroom, because students may choose to remain silent and become passive, like what the Class-L students did in this study EFL teachers can choose to use the target language only, but the students‟ native language should function as an additional means for communication When a student turns to his/her native language to express ideas, the NS teachers can ask other members of the class to help this student by raising communicative questions, such as confirmation, repeat, or agreement questions, to clarify the meanings intended The teachers can then model the students‟ utterances in the target language as a source of input Most importantly, the intended expressions must be taught at the moment when the students have a need to use them for communication This study confirms that the teachers‟ language background and the students‟ level influenced on teachers‟ questions This study also proposes that the types and the quantity of questions determine the interactive level of an EFL classroom Appropriate teacher training can help EFL teachers, native or nonnative, to raise more interactive questions Since questioning is an essential aspect 42 of teaching across all levels and types of classrooms, the teachers should be aware of how questions are formed and responded to in the classroom (Pawlak, 2004) Keeping a visual or audio record of one‟s own teaching can be a very useful tool for understanding the effects of different types of questions Such understanding will help EFL teachers improve their teaching techniques and efficiency Limitations and suggestions for further research 3.1 Limitations of the study Although the study is carefully and clearly designed and based on reliable data, it has the following major limitations: Firstly, not all teachers and the students at Popodoo school were involved in the study, to some extent; the results may not be generalized for all teachers and students Secondly, the study only focused on analyzing the teachers‟ questions in the classroom context generally The researcher did not analyze the use of questions in different activities in the classrooms Finally, the suggestions made in the study focused on the English teachers only, especially on their questions in classrooms There were no suggestions on other aspects such as changes in the school disciplines, improvement of the textbook and so on In spite of the unavoidable limitation, the researcher believes that this study will be beneficial to the teacher when they give questions in the classrooms Suggestions for further research For future research, it would be interesting to explore the question distribution across different types of classroom activities, such as teacher-led 43 discussion, group discussion, and different types of language games, to verify how classroom activities influence the participants‟ questioning patterns References Vietnamese: T.M (2015), “Sinh viên Việt Nam đuối giao tiếp Tiếng Anh”, Hà Nội Mới English Árva, V., & Medgyes, P (2000), “Native and non-native teachers in the classroom”, System, (28), pp 355-372 Beardmore, H B (1996), “Reconciling content acquisition and language acquisition in bilingual classroom”, Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 17(2-4), 114-122 Brock, C A (1986), “The effects of referential questions on ESL classroom discourse”, TESOL Quarterly, 20(1), pp 47-59 Chaudron, C (1993), Second language classroom: Research on teaching and learning, New York, Cambridge University Press Ellis, R (1990), Instructed second language acquisition: Learning in the classroom, Oxford: Blackwell Ellis, R.(1994), The study of second language acquisition: Classroom interaction and second language acquisition, Oxford University Press Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G (2000), “Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons”, Applied Linguistics, 21(3), pp 354-375 Gall, M (1984) Synthesis of research of teachers’ questioning Educational Leadership, 42(3), pp 40-47 44 Grice, H P (1989), Studies in the way of words, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press 10 Gabrielatos, C (1997, April), “A question of function: Teacher questions in the EFL classroom”, TESOL Greece Convention,(18), Glyfada, Greece 11 Hakansson, G & Lindberg, I (1988), “What‟s the question? Investigating questions in second language classroom”, Classroom research, (5), pp.73 12 Hitchcock, G., & Hughes, D (1994), Research and the teacher, London: Routledge 13 Ho, D G E (2005) Why teacher ask questions they ask? RELC Journal, 36(3), pp 297-310 14 Hopkins, D (2006), teacher’s guide to classroom research, United Kingdom, UK: Open University Press 15 Jafari, J (2013), “Elicitation Questions in English and Persian Written Texts: A Comparative Study”, World journal of English language, (3), pp 34-44 16 Long, M H., & Sato, C J (1983), “Classroom foreigner talk discourse: Forms and functions of teacher‟s questions”, Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, (pp.268-286), Rowley, MA: Newbury House 17 Kayaoğlu, M N (2013), “Case Study into the Classroom Questions by a Native Speaker and a Non-Native Speaker Teacher in EFL Classes”, Asian EFL Journal, (69), pp 4-31 18 Lyons, H (1981) Language and linguistics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 19 McNeill, A (1994), “Some characteristics of native and non-native speaker teachers of English”, Language and learning, pp 521-532 Hong Kong Education Department 45 20 Medgyes, P (1992), “Native or non-native: Who‟s worth more?”, ELT Journal, 46(4), pp 340-349 21 Nunan, D (1999), Second language teaching and learning, Cengage Learning 22 Nunan, D (2007), What is this thing called language?, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 80 23 Pawlak, M (2004) “Describing and Researching Interactive Processes in the Foreign Language Classroom” Konin: Państwowa Wyższa Szkoła Zawodowa 24 Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartivk, J (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language London: Longman 25 Rechard, C (1998), “Teacher talk and classroom context”, ELT Journal, pp 179-187 26 Seedhouse, P (1996), “Classroom interaction: Possibilities and impossibilities”, ELT Journal, 50(1), pp 16-24 27 Shahi, G & Pang, E F (2009), Technology in a changing world, Singapore Management University 28 Shomoossi, N (2004), “The effect of teachers‟ questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction: A classroom research study”, The Reading Matrix, 4(2), pp 96-104 29 Shin-Mei-Kao (2012), ““Do You Understand?”: An Analysis of Native and Non-native EFL Teachers‟: Questioning Patterns at a Taiwanese Cram School”, The Ansian EFL Journal 30 Sinclair, J M., & Coulthard, M (1975) Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils Oxford: Oxford University Press 31 Tajino, A & Tajino, Y (2000), “Native and non-native: What can they offer?”, ELT Journal, 54(1), pp 3-11 46 32 Tsui, A M B (1992) A functional description of questions In M Coulthard (Ed.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis London: Routledge, pp 162-82 33 Üstünlüoglu, E (2007), “University students‟ perceptions of native and nonnative teachers”, Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 13(1), 6379 34 Viet Toan (2013), “English teaching in Vietnam: Teacher re-education”, Tuoitrenews.vn, < http://tuoitrenews.vn/education/8231/english-teachingin-vietnam-teacher-reeducation> 35 Wu, K Y (1993), “Classroom interaction and teacher questions revisited”, RELC Journal, 24(2),49-68 47 Appendix Transcription Convention or One dot indicates a pause shorter than 0.3 seconds; two dots indicate a pause between 0.3 and 0.7 seconds / A slash indicates a pause longer than 0.7 second, marking the boundary between two AS-units (( )) Paralinguistic information, such as facial expressions and physical movements, is indicated inside double parenthesis ? A question mark denotes a rising tone ! An exclamation mark denotes a fall tone with emphasis what time is it? No capitalization is used in the transcription, except for “I” and the first letter of a proper noun WHEN Phonological emphasis is denoted by capitalization I A sample about classroom audio transcription Audio transcription (voice 14) Class L (26/9) Teacher Elena (NS) Question functions Transcription T: hello!/ S: teacher!/teacher me first/ Clarifying T: first what? what you want to do?/ Ss: ((chating))/ Informing T: ok, how you feel today?/ S: I am fine/ T: I AM FINE/ me too/ Ss: ((making some noise))/ T: so, we roll the dice/ 10 Ss: yeah/ 11 T: and we are/ 12 S: me!/((rolling the dice))/ two/ Informing 13 T: ok, how you celebrate your birthday?/ 14 S: my birthday is in December/ Repeating 15 T: how you celebrate your birthday?/ you invite your firend?/ 16 Ss: ((making some noise))/ Informing and confirming 17 T: Messi, hey!/who can? will get stickers from me/do you want to get sticker?/ 18 Ss: yes!/ Confirming 19 T: ok I celebrate my birthday in the park/ you make party?/ 20 S: yes, a big party/ 21 T: so, I make a big party and invite my friends/ II 22 S: ((rolling the dice))/ Informing 23 T: ok who is your favorite singer?/ 24 Ss: ((discussing))/ Informing 25 T: who can?/ 26 S: I don‟t like any singer/ Confirming 27 T: ok, you like drinking tea?/ 28 S: no/ 29 T: you can say I don‟t like drinking tea/ 30 S: I DON‟T LIKE DRINKING TEA/ Informing 31 T: and you?/ 32 S: no!no!/ Informing 33 T: how about you?/ 34 S: no, I like coffe/ Clarifying 35 T: you like coffee?/can you like bike?/ 36 S: yes/ Informing 37 T: when did you start riding bicycle?/ which age?/ 38 Ss: biet di xe dap luc may tuoi/ Clarifying 39 T: hum?/ 40 S: it‟s two/ 41 T: ah wheels bicycle/ 42 S: yeah/ 43 T: so I started riding bicycle when I was two/ 44 S: ((rolling the dice))/ Clarifying 45 T: six/ you have brother or sister?/ 46 S: no, I don‟t have brother and sister/ I have a baby brother/ 47 T: yes, so you have a brother/ 48 S: ((rolling the dice))/three/ Informing 49 T: what is your favorite school subject?/ 50 S: It‟s art/ III Committing 51 T: oh woa, can you ask other members about their school subject?/ 52 S: ((silence))/ Informing 53 T: ok come here, ask him/ what is his favorite subject?/ 54 S: me me/ 55 T: ok/ 56 S: I like math/ Informing 57 T: ok/ what is your mother present to your birthday?/ 58 S: bike/ 59 T: ok, Messi/ 60 S: ((rolling the dice))/ Confirming 61 T: you like reading books?/ 62 S: um/yes/ Informing 63 T: what kind of book you like?/ 64 S: story/ I like conan/ 65 T: ((showing a picture))/hiking boots/ 66 Ss: la gi?/giay the thao/ 67 T: ok hiking boots/ 68 Ss: hiking boots/ 69 T: when you go hiking the mountain you have to use special shoes/hinking boots/ 70 Ss: hiking boots/ 71 T: ((showing another picture))/camp fire/ 72 Ss: camp fire/ 73 T: you go to forest/((showing another picture))/campus/ 74 Ss: campus/ 75 T: ((showing another picture))/tent/ 76 Ss: tent/ 77 T: tent/ 78 Ss: tent/ 79 T: ((showing another picture))/backpack/when they travel for a long IV time, they use backpack/ 80 Ss: backpack/ Pseudo 81 T: ((showing another picture))/what is this?/ 82 Ss: flash/ 83 T: flash light/ 84 S: my mother uses flash light when she go camping/ Understanding 85 T: when she go camping/ ok?/ 86 S: the flash light is yellow/ understanding 87 T: so when I go camping I get my backpack and I put my flash light in there/ right?/ 88 S: teacher I am boring/ 89 T: not boring/ I am bored/ok tent/ Committing 90 Ss: tent/ 91 T: can you give a sentence?/ 92 S: me!/ 93 T: ok Messi/ Clarifying 94 S: I like a ten when I go camping/ 95 T: WHEN I GO CAMPING?/I take tent/who can?/ Repeating 96 S: me!/ I pick off the tent/ 97 T: what?/ 98 S: I can pick the tent/ 99 T: ok, camping boots/ 100 Ss: camping boot/ 101 T: no, camping boots/ 102 Ss: camping boots/ 103 T: ok make sentences/ 104 Ss: ((making some noise))/ 105 T: ok quiet! hiking boots/ 106 S: I use hiking boots when I go camping/ V Confirming repeating 107 T: when I go hiking, ok/camp fire/ 108 Ss: camp fire/ 109 T: make sentences/ 110 S: me?/ 111 T: yes/ 112 S: in the tay ban nha/ 113 T: what?/ 114 fire/ S: in the tay ban nha/spain/ah in the spain they have camp 115 T: ok there is camp fire festival in Spain/ 116 Ss: ((silence))/ 117 T: ok goodbye/ 118 Ss: goodbye teacher/ VI ... EFL TEACHERS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FUNCTIONS VIỆC SỬ DỤNG CÂU HỎI BỞI CÁC GIÁO VIÊN BẢN NGỮ VÀ GIÁO VIÊN DẠY TIẾNG ANH NHƯ MỘT NGOẠI NGỮ: MỘT NGHIÊN CỨU SO SÁNH VỀ CHỨC NĂNG M.A MINOR PROGRAMME