Thái độ của sinh viên đối với việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giáo viên trong các lớp học nói tại khoa tiếng anh trường đại học ngoại ngữ đại học huế

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES FACULTY OF ENGLISH NGUYEN HO BAO TRAN STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHER TALK IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES AT UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LAN

HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

FACULTY OF ENGLISH

NGUYEN HO BAO TRAN

STUDENTS' ATTITUDES TOWARDS TEACHER TALK

IN ENGLISH SPEAKING CLASSES

AT UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES,

HUE UNIVERSITY

GRADUATION THESIS

SUPERVISOR: HOANG THI LINH GIANG, PhD

Hue, Academic year: 2017-2021

LỜI CAM ĐOAN

Tôi xin cam đoan kết quả đạt được trong khoá luận này là sản phẩm của riêng cá nhân, không sao chép lại của người khác Tất cả các tài liệu tham khảo đều có xuất xứ rõ ràng và được trích dẫn hợp pháp

Huế, ngày 23 tháng 5 năm 2021

Sinh viên thực hiện

Nguyễn Hồ Bảo Trân

ABSTRACT

Teacher talk in second and foreign language classrooms has been extensively researched due

to its major impact on learners' linguistic development The aim of this study is to present an overview of teacher talk in EFL speaking classes at University of Foreign Languages, Hue University Specifically, the characteristics of teacher-learner interaction episodes teachers' questions and feedback, and students' perceptions of these elements of teacher talk were investigated The participants include 130 first-year English majors and three teachers at the Faculty of English, University of Foreign Languages, Hue University Data were collected by classroom observation with audio-recording and field notes, questionnaire and interview After transcripts of observation were produced, a questionnaire was given out and interviews with six students were conducted to obtain triangulation information Data were qualitative and quantitatively analysed according to recognised frameworks

Main findings demonstrated that the types of teacher-student interactions differed between classes depending on the lesson purpose, which led to varied amounts of teacher talk in the three observed speaking classes Teacher's question, the first move in IRE or IRF models all created many opportunities for learners to produce output However, students had more positive attitudes towards Referential questions Teachers’ feedback, either in the form of Evaluation or Follow-up, provided extra motivation for students to demonstrate speaking skills However, students sometimes reported feeling interrupted by constantly posed questions by teachers Pedagogical recommendations and propositions for future research are then presented at the end of the study

TÓM TẮT

Việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giảng viên đối với các sinh viên học tiếng Anh như ngôn ngữ thứ hai hoặc ngoại ngữ trong các lớp học Nói đã được nghiên cứu rộng rãi do tác động lớn của nó đối với sự phát triển ngôn ngữ của người học Mục đích của nghiên cứu này là để trình bày tổng quan về việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giảng viên trong các lớp học phần Nói tại trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Huế Cụ thể, các loại tương tác giữa người dạy và người học, các loại câu hỏi và hình thức phản hồi của giáo viên,

và nhận thức của sinh viên về các đặc điểm này trong việc sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giảng viên đã được nghiên cứu Khách thể nghiên cứu gồm gần 130 sinh viên chuyên ngành tiếng Anh năm thứ nhất và 3 giáo viên tại Khoa tiếng Anh, Trường Đại học Ngoại ngữ, Đại học Huế Dữ liệu được thu thập bằng cách quan sát lớp học và ghi âm và ghi chép, phát bảng câu hỏi khảo sát và phỏng vấn Sau khi dữ liệu từ bản ghi âm trong khi quan sát lớp học được phân tích, một bảng câu hỏi và các cuộc phỏng vấn với sáu sinh viên được tiến hành để thu thêm thông tin để phân tích, mô tả, và đối chiếu dữ liệu Dữ liệu được phân tích định tính và định lượng theo các mẫu được công nhận trong các nghiên cứu trước đây thuộc lĩnh vực này

Các phát hiện của nghiên cứu đã chỉ ra rằng tỷ lệ các kiểu tương tác trong lớp học Nói khác nhau giữa các lớp tùy thuộc vào mục đích bài học, dẫn đến thời lượng nói của giảng viên trong ba lớp nói được quan sát là khác nhau Việc đặt câu hỏi của giảng viên, yếu tố đầu tiên trong mô hình IRE và IRF đều tạo ra nhiều cơ hội cho người học thể hiện kỹ năng nói của mình Tuy nhiên, sinh viên có thái độ tích cực hơn đối với dạng câu hỏi mở Phản hồi của giáo viên, dưới dạng đánh giá hoặc mở rộng, đã tạo nhiều động lực cho sinh viên thể hiện kỹ năng nói Tuy nhiên, một vài sinh viên cho biết họ cảm thấy việc các câu hỏi được giáo viên đặt ra liên tục đôi khi làm gián đoạn câu trả lời của họ Các kết luận và đề xuất sư phạm cho các đề tài nghiên cứu trong tương lai cũng được trình bày ở phần cuối của nghiên cứu

TABLE OF CONTENTS LỜI CAM ĐOAN I ABSTRACT II TABLE OF CONTENTS IV LIST OF ABBREVIATION VII LIST OF TABLES VIII LIST OF FIGURES IX

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1.BACKGROUND 1

1.2.RATIONALE 3

1.3.SIGNIFICANCE 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1.CLASSROOM INTERACTION 5

2.1.1 Definition 5

2.1.2 The role of classroom interaction in foreign language teaching 5

2.1.3 Interaction pattern (IRE - IRF) 6

2.1.3.1 IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation) 6

2.1.3.2 IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback) 8

2.1.4 Turn talking 9

2.2.TEACHER TALK 10

2.2.1 Definition 10

2.2.2 The role of teacher talk in foreign language teaching 10

2.2.3 Characteristics: 11

2.2.3.1 The amount of teacher talk 11

2.2.3.2 Teacher’s questioning 12

2.2.3.2.1 Display questions 13

2.2.3.2.2 Referential questions 14

2.2.3.3 Feedback 15

2.3.LEARNER TALK 16

2.4.PREVIOUS STUDIES 18

2.5.RESEARCH QUESTIONS 19

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 21

3.1.INTRODUCTION 21

3.2.CONTEXT AND SUBJECTS 21

3.3.DATA COLLECTION 23

3.3.1 Instrument 23

3.3.1.1 Classroom observation (Audio recording and Field notes) 23

3.3.1.2 Questionnaire 24

3.3.1.3 Interview 24

3.3.2 Data Collection Procedures 25

3.4 D ATA ANALYSIS 26

3.4.1 Classroom observation (Audio recording and field note) 26

3.4.2 Questionnaire 30

3.4.3 Interview 30

3.5.SUMMARY 30

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 31

4.1.RESEARCH QUESTION 1:EPISODE - TEACHER TALK TIME AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION 31

4.1.1 Episode and teacher talk time 31

4.1.2 Students’ perception on episodes and teacher talk time in class 35

4.2.RESEARCH QUESTION 2:TEACHER’S QUESTION AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION 39

4.2.1 Teacher’s question 39

4.2.2 Students’ perception on teacher’s question 44

4.3.RESEARCH QUESTION 3:TEACHER’S FEEDBACK AND STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION 49

4.3.1 Teacher’s feedback 49

4.3.2 Students’ perception on teachers’ feedback 59

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 67

5.1.INTRODUCTION 67

5.2.CONCLUSIONS 67

5.3.PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS 70

5.4.LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 71 5.4.1 Limitations of the study 71

5.4.2 Recommendation for further research 72

REFERENCES 74

APPENDICES 80

APPENDIX1:QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (VIETNAMESE VERSION) 80

APPENDIX2:QUESTIONNAIRE FOR STUDENTS (ENGLISH VERSION) 85

APPENDIX3:INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR STUDENTS 90

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

EFL: English Foreign Learners

HUFL: Hue - University of Foreign Languages

TTT: Teacher talk time

STT: Student talk time

DQs: Display questions

RQs: Referential questions

IRE: Initiation – Response – Evaluation

IRF: Initiation – Response – Feedback

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: Participants’ Demographic 21 Table 3.2: Linguistic features of students’ utterances by Patthey-Chavez (2002) 29 Table 4.1: Students’ perceptions on the effectiveness of different episodes 35 Table 4.2: Lexical density and Mean length of Responses to Display questions and Referential questions 46 Table 4.3: Teacher’s feedback 49 Table 4.4: Teacher’s follow-up 52 Table 4.5: Students’ perception on effectiveness of evaluation methods by teachers 59 Table 4.6: Students’ perception on effectiveness of follow-up methods by teachers 61 Table 4.7: Students’ perception on effectiveness of the way teachers ignore students’ answer 65

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Developing inquiring communities in education projects (DICEP) 28 Figure 4.1: The distribution of episodes in observed classes 31 Figure 4.2: The distribution of teacher talk time and student talk time in observed classes 34 Figure 4.3: Students’ perceptions on the effectiveness of different episodes 36 Figure 4.4: The attitude of students on the current teacher talk time amount 38

Figure 4.5: Students’ perceptions about the proper amount of teacher talk time.

38 Figure 4.6: Teacher’s question in observed classes 40 Figure 4.7: The type of questions students prefer to response to 44 Figure 4.8: The students’ perception on effectiveness of different type of teacher’s questions 45 Figure 4.9: Students’ perception on effectiveness of evaluation methods by teacher 60 Figure 4.10: Students’ perception on effectiveness of follow-up methods by teachers.62

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background

Language teaching is undeniably a dynamic process that requires many interconnected variables Teaching technique has been investigated and an appropriate teaching approach was tried to be found for language teaching since a long time before As teaching methods are not quite as critical in language classrooms as they once were, the emphasis has changed from teaching methods to teachers' talks in the classroom The importance of teacher talk in language teaching has been undeniable The language that teachers use in the classroom has a big impact on whether or not a class succeeds Around 70% of classroom language is supposed to be used by teachers Teachers use teacher talk to pass on experience and skills, organize classroom practices, and assist students in practicing Teacher talks cover a wide range of matters, with teacher questions receiving a lot of consideration (Consolo, 2000:93)

Furthermore, teacher talk is one of two elements of classroom interaction,

“classroom process refers to the study of communication in the classroom, which has taken many forms”, as Ellis (1985:143) points out “Interaction analysis was the first

A different approach centered solely on the teacher's language when approaching second language learners Its aim was to keep track of the changes in teacher discourse.” Then, from various theoretical viewpoints, the impact of teacher talk on students' learning in the context of second/foreign language education has been investigated (Allwright, 1984, as cited in Zhang (2012:980)) Teacher talk is clearly fundamental to all classroom tasks, classroom interaction that make up classroom procedures, according to the literature (Walsh, 2011) River (1987) claims, for example, that students have chances to learn their target language skills and expand their language skills This is also supported by Mackey's (2007) (cited in Lyster et al., 2013) research on the link between interaction and language acquisition Participation

of students in the interaction can aid in the growth of learning Gass (2013) also claims

that language learning is the combined effect of the learners' cognitive abilities and the linguistic setting

The classroom is also considered a significant educational institution where EFL learners can practice the target language, particularly for those who are learning English in a non-English speaking environment To put it another way, much English

as a foreign language practice takes place in the classroom As a result, classroom activity is found to be crucial for developing the language in general and speaking skills in particular

The teacher's role in an English foreign language class is critical because teachers incorporate all elements within their role in order to build or promote an effective learning atmosphere in the classroom They have the ability to create classroom environments that promote or discourage active student engagement (Hall, 1997) In reality, it is the teacher's responsibility to facilitate, control, and maintain dialogue and conversation Teachers should use two powerful methods to engage students in classroom interaction: posing questions and providing feedback on students' answers Learners, of course, play an important part in their language learning According

to Swain (2000), students are learning while interacting in the classroom To generate

"comprehensible production," they must use the language resource they have already learned Chadia (2011) suggested that by communicating orally, students are able to use a variety of techniques such as speaking slowly, repeating when clarifying their statements, and paraphrasing to ensure that their classmates and instructors understand them, as cited in Boufiala (2020)

Teacher talk in the language classroom is one of the issues that has piqued the attention of second language methodologists and applied linguists for many years Perspectives on teacher talk have shifted, as different language teaching approaches have come and gone (Gass, 2013; Howatt and Widdowson, 2004) Advocates of the Communicative Approach, for example, argue that teachers can spend less time talking

in the classroom so that their pupils can spend more time speaking the foreign language Furthermore, the problem at hand is not that of quantitative differences between teaching and learning, or who can tell more in the classroom than whom; rather, the question is whether the content and intent of the talk is useful in achieving the desired result in the classroom

Apart from devoting a great deal of time to teaching styles and subject information, teachers should be well conscious of the importance of teacher talk, the phase of conversation, and their connection to learning in order to enhance teaching and learning They should therefore encourage students to communicate orally and provoke their thinking by posing sincere questions in practice Prior to starts, it is important to ensure that students understand the importance of discussion in the classroom activities Students, on the other hand, are bound to be encouraged to make their own contributions As a consequence, when coping with language activities, teachers and students collaborate, listening to one another respectfully and appreciating the contributions of others

1.2 Rationale

Studies on the language that teachers use in language classes have increasingly drawn people's interest in recent years However, few scholars have looked into the impact of teacher talk on second language learning, and still fewer have looked into student attitudes toward teacher talk Moreover, the subject in Vietnam has remained understudied EFL teachers' classroom instruction in a Vietnamese university (Grant, 2017), teacher questioning, feedback, language approaches and students' attitude in Nguyen Trai school (Son, 2013) are some of the current studies These studies appear

to focus on the impact of teachers' language use practices rather than teachers' input as

a factor affecting learners' speaking The use of vocabulary by students is often less analyzed than most would expect Furthermore, while evidence exists that students can learn the target language through classroom interaction, it is unclear to what degree

various types of interaction contribute to language learning Another limitation identified in recent studies such as Kouicem's in 2010, Luz’s in 2015, Boughazzoula's

in 2016, is the use of a common source of data from students' questionnaires and/or teachers' interviews to investigate the relationship between teacher talk and learners' speaking This data collection instrument does not have enough detail and documentation to uncover the concern without audio-recorded or video-taped lessons Motivated by the actual situation, the current research aims to use a variety of data collection and interpretation tools to analyze classroom activity in greater depth

To be more precise, we would look at the relationship between teacher-student contact and how it affects students' speaking abilities

1.3 Significance

The results of this research would ideally contribute to the existing knowledge in the field of teacher talk by supplying more scientific data More specifically, the findings of this study will help teachers become more mindful of their current use of the target language in an EFL context, which informs more rational language use in the tertiary speaking class among EFL teachers Pre-service teachers like the researcher can notice more on classroom interaction when taking teacher-training courses and conducting their practicum Finally, language teaching approach researchers and teachers can perform additional research in the field to improve English language teaching methods and techniques in the EFL classroom

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Classroom interaction

2.1.1 Definition

According to Brown (2000), interaction is the sharing of emotions, opinions, or insights between two or more individuals, resulting in a reciprocal impact on each other Meng (2011) describes nonverbal contact and verbal interaction as the two forms of interaction that exist and behavioral reactions are linked to nonverbal activities Participants engage nonverbally in the classroom by shaking their heads, lifting their hands, making body movements, and making eye contact Verbal discourse, on the other hand, includes both written and oral communication Written interaction is a form of interaction in which students express themselves by writing down their ideas and feelings It means they communicate with others using written language, notes, and other means Oral activity, on the other hand, entails teachers and students asking and answering questions, voicing remarks, and participating in conversations According to Walsh (2013) , classroom interaction involves any type of classroom participation occurring in the classroom between teachers and students as well as among students in the classroom during the learning and teaching phase

2.1.2 The role of classroom interaction in foreign language teaching

Through classroom interaction, students can enhance their language ability by being exposed to teacher’s explanations, group discussion, and so on, then they have chances

to practice the language they process (Brown, 2000) The target language is not just the objective which learners achieve in a language classroom, but it is also the pedagogical goal (Agneta M., 2018) In other words, within the framework of the classroom, teachers and students collaborate to build language skills while also providing opportunities for language practice Sukarmi and Ulfah (2015) claim that learning the target language entails performing communicative activities, listening to instructor

explanations and orders, voicing one's point of view in an argument, and answering questions Students learn the structures and features of language before putting what they have learned into practice in the classroom with their classmates and instructor Instead of becoming passive participants and receivers during class hours, students are encouraged to take involvement in the process of improving their linguistic skills According to Huriyah (2018), learners who participate in an interactive course during their practice of the targeted structure perform better Specifically, students who take more turns practicing the target language improve their language faster than those who are hesitant to communicate with their peers and instructor

As a result, Hall and Walsh (2002) believed that how teachers and students communicate in the classroom influences whether the classroom environment is teacher-centered or learner-centered Learner-centered is when students have several opportunities to present their points of view in class, to lead discussions, to engage in class by debating in groups, to ask questions of the instructor, and so on In comparison, a teacher-centered classroom also exists when the instructor's speaking time is high, implying that the teacher leads much of the classroom experiences through continuous instruction

2.1.3 Interaction pattern (IRE - IRF)

In the classroom, there is a common exchange series The basic discourse which was first stated by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) and later regularly revisited and developed upon by classroom investigators is Initiation - Response - Feedback (Evaluation/Follow-up) The form of interaction is determined by the last step IRF stands for Initiation-Response-Follow-up, while IRE stands for Initiation-Response-Evaluation

2.1.3.1 IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation)

The following dialogue exemplifies the IRE pattern of teacher-student interaction in the classroom

T: What are some synonyms of the verb “achieve”? I

The instructor starts by posing a factual question to verify the time in the extract The instructor gives constructive feedback after the student gives a detailed two-word response, bringing the conversation to a close This universal format of contact between the teacher and students, according to Cazden (1988), Lemke, (1985), and Mehan(1979) (cited in Lee, Y A (2007), is the I-R-E sequence (Initiation - Response - Evaluation) In this style, the teacher starts a dialogue with a known-answer question, one or more students respond with responses, and the teacher concludes by giving positive (e.g., "Good") or negative (e.g., "No, that's not correct") assessments

A significant number of experiments have looked at the deep effects of participating in the IRE sequence Students' chances of using the language in prolonged conversation have been shown to be reduced as a result of this Teacher's questions in this style, according to Sinclaire and Coulthard (1975), can be open in type but closed

in purpose In other words, the instructor is simply looking for a specific statement from the several options Furthermore, repeated use of the IRE discourages dynamic forms of communication between the teacher and pupils In accordance with this perspective, Markee and Kasper (2004) suggest that extensive student involvement in these types of exchanges can restrict their communicative creation to simple recall, listing, and marking According to Lin’s study from 2003, the concrete set of questions and the teacher's less descriptive assessments left no space for students to use their creativity Teachers pushed students by sticking to the rigid IRE style of conversation further away from any possibility of developing an interest in English as a language and culture that they can appropriate for their own communicative and socio-cultural

purposes This pattern, on the other hand, is better used in such situations, such as testing basic given questions or in a short amount of time

2.1.3.2 IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback)

Wells (1993) proposed the IRF model as a reconceptualization of the IRE pattern The first two moves of IRF are similar to IRE, in which the teacher triggers the interaction (usually by posing a question) and the students answer Instead of concluding the series with a limited assessment of their answers in the third section, teachers often follow up with students, asking them to explain or convey their replies, and treating them as important inputs to the ongoing debate In other words, as students are given more opportunities to contribute, more inclusive dialogues emerge

T: What are some solutions to preserve the endangered languages in

Vietnam?

I

causes dramatic improvement If evaluation seems to limit students' skills development, feedback has the potential to expand those opportunities Participation in lengthy discussions, in particular, facilitates students' acquisition of new vocabulary and concepts In contrast to a question-and-answer session where the teacher already knows the answer, IRF trends will spark discussions between instructors and students

by encouraging mutual curiosity (Nunan, 1991) However, if students do not know how to engage in discussion, humiliation might be a result Furthermore, in the case of

a big group or a time constraint, the instructor must be diplomatic in deciding when to end an interaction in order to ensure that all students participate equally

2.1.4 Turn talking

Generally speaking, the distribution and acquiring of turns or ways of exchanges in a talk or discussion is known as turn-taking (Chalak, 2017) Without the use of a turn-taking framework, it is impossible to thoroughly observe conversation and interaction (Chadia, 2011) Distribution is the process of assigning turns to the next speakers, while turn acquiring is the process of receiving turns Asking a question, looking at a certain individual, and calling him or her by name are all common ways of distributing turns to others Responses to verbal/signal questions or self-selection determine who takes turns

Turn taking is also a feature of classroom discussions, but it differs from those of

natural settings In a normal teaching process, the teacher initiates turn-taking by asking questions or providing instructions, and students gain or recessive turns by reacting to the teacher's requests or guidance Learner self-selection can occur in certain situations In other words, the instructor tends to monitor turns and the speaking surface (Chalak, 2017) To be more specific, the teacher is the one who assigns turns, chooses who speaks, and knows when to interrupt or pause a student Learners or teachers, on the other hand, seldom want to initiate

2.2 Teacher talk

2.2.1 Definition

"Teacher talk" is the term for these modifications Teacher speaking, according to (Walsh, 2002), applies to the amount of speech provided by the teacher instead of by the students Teachers' talk is also known as teachers' speech, teachers' expressions, or teachers' utterances From various viewpoints, several descriptions of teacher talk have been offered According to Yafen, L., & Yuqin, Z (2010), teacher talk is the language used in the classroom to offer instructions, clarify tasks, and evaluate students' comprehension Ellis (2015) refers to teacher talk as how teachers treat language learners in ways that vary from how they address most students in the classroom In order to promote classroom interaction, they make changes to both the structure and function of the language

Teacher talk, in the view of all of the linguists above, has the same feature, namely, the language spoken by the teachers in class Teacher talk, as a crucial component of foreign language teaching, has its own characteristics such that both the message and the medium are in the target language Teachers' speech in language classes acts as a medium of language knowledge input as well as a means of instructing language exchange and organizing classroom events Furthermore, as an immersive method that will elicit more communication between teachers and students, teacher talk plays an important part in the teaching process

2.2.2 The role of teacher talk in foreign language teaching

Teacher talk has been seen to have beneficial results in the classroom in current studies, and may be manipulated “Teacher talk is important, not just for the coordination of the classroom but also for the processes of acquisition,” writes Nunan (1991) Cullen (1998, pp.179-180) cites "the important source of comprehensible feedback for the learner" and "the kind of questions teachers ask, [which] can greatly influence the quantity and intensity of student participation in the class" as some of the

benefits of teacher speaking Moon (2000, p.63) also stresses the importance of instructor interaction which “increases the amount of exposure pupils get to English” and t “provides real reasons for using English to communicate, e.g., in giving instructions, getting information from pupils”

Following Vygotsky's (2012) concepts of scaffolding, Giorgdze and Dgebuadze (2017) suggest that, in addition to sharing information, teacher talk must also offer sufficient cognitive guidance and stimulus for children to achieve in their training Alexander (2004) highlight the role of teaching as engaging in conversations in which students share experiences in class with the goal of exchanging ideas, resolving issues, and gaining common understanding through questioning and facilitated discussion that can involve students, promote and broaden their thinking, and progress their learning and understanding In order for students to improve understanding, analytical skills, and successful language use, an impactful lecturer must guide them to do so

As a result, it is important that teachers recognize the worth of their speech and become conscious of its advantages

2.2.3 Characteristics:

2.2.3.1 The amount of teacher talk

It is unsurprising that the teacher is the one who does the most of the talking in all types of classrooms, not just those dedicated to teaching languages Teachers that document and review their lessons in order to acquire an analytical objective are often shocked by how much they speak

Teachers use speech for a number of uses in the classroom, and these uses form the talk's purposes The teacher is a controller or operator of the exchange in the classroom: he or she sets the setting, manipulates the responses, and decides who contributes to the interaction before and after the teacher (Myhill, Jones, & Hopper, 2006)

It seems that the teacher should limit teacher talk time (TTT) in order to allow students more chances to talk However, in an EFL classroom, where teacher talk is widely regarded as a reliable source of expected feedback, merely emphasizing the reduction of TTT may not be necessary or acceptable to the students

Teachers speak 62-72 percent of the time (Azhar, Iqbal and Khan, 2019), though most of them perceive that they talk less (Woodall, Hiller and Resnick, 2014) The goals of a lesson and where it works into the curriculum of the course will determine whether or not it is viewed as a positive idea for teachers to spend the majority of class time speaking While it can be argued that excessive teacher talk should be discouraged

in Setiawati (2012)’s view,, deciding what is or is not "excessive," will still be a matter

By far the most frequent interaction action used in teaching is questioning, since teachers' questions activate students' awareness and engage verbal answers, which are one of the most important ways of evaluating students' progression When students are asked a question in a language class, they have the ability to contribute by allowing their voices and thoughts to be understood by others To put it another way, questions are a means of verbal feedback, and answering teachers' questions is an opportunity to exchange thoughts in the target language Questions teachers pose in the classroom

have pedagogical advantages in addition to contributing to language learning, such as promoting memory, enhancing comprehension, fostering creativity, and facilitating problem solving That is why, according to Walsh and Sattes ( 2015), teachers' questions are at the heart of successful classroom instruction

Display questions and referential questions are the two most common categories

of questions in the classroom according to Lei (2009) The former, also regarded as known answer questions and lower cognitive questions, are concerned with the display

of information that the questioner already has The latter, also known as divergent questions, knowledge finding questions, or higher cognitive questions, seek new knowledge and require sincere dialogue since the questioner is finding information that

he or she does not know

2.2.3.2.1 Display questions

McCarthy (1991) argues that display questions (DQs) not only serve as a means for teachers to assess their students' knowledge levels, but also as resources for them to practice language forms A number of scholars, however, have opposed this type of issue Students' answers to display questions, for example, Ernst (1994), are belief-based with no explication Replies to display questions that require the acknowledgment or recollection of factual facts are shorter than responses to referential questions that require explanation or opinion, according to Brock (1986) Since there are limited known correct answers to display questions, Wright (2016) considers the use of display questions to be a one-way exchange of knowledge from teachers to students Teachers frequently find themselves looking for the answer, whilst students have different trial answers in search of confirmation as the correct answer Despite this flaw, Shomoossi (2004) investigated the proportion of teachers' use of display and referential questions, finding that display questions were used 4,4 times more often than referential questions In reality, DQs account for just 0.12% of all questions in native speaker - non native speaker conversations outside of the classroom,

demonstrating that language classroom contact remains unrealistic and far from natural (Long & Sato, 1983) Teachers use DQs for a variety of reasons, including poor language skill of students and time limits imposed by the tight program they must follow Display questions, according to Vebriyanto (2015), provide lower-level language learners more chances to communicate and engage in the classroom

Example: How many ways to pronounce “ed” endings are there ?

The above question is an example of a DQ, where the object of asking the lecturer's question at this time is to test the students' knowledge of pronouncing the ending of ed in the past tense since it belongs to the knowledge of pronouncing the ending of ed in the past tense and the teacher have already known the answer

2.2.3.2.2 Referential questions

Teachers would want to gain very first insights from students by posing referential questions (RQs) RQs, according to Wright (2016), imply an extra effort and deeper thinking on the learner's side RQs can promote linguistic skills more effectively than DQs, despite the fact that the contribution of response varies depending on the subject, the learner's background knowledge, and the context Brock (1986) looked at how more referential issues affected adult ESL classroom debate He looked at the length and sophistication of students' answers and discovered that using referential questions allowed them to speak in longer sentences with more coherent connectors Generating one's own replies in the target language can serve as a base for the student to focus on the way of communication required to effectively express his or her intended message And he found out the number of display questions was much higher than referential questions, with 117 display questions and 24 referential questions of the total 141 A significant link between referential questions and students' development of target language is a key finding of Zohrabi (2014)'s research As a result, teachers are strongly encouraged to use this type of question in their classrooms, particularly in situations where the classroom is the learners' only environment to use the target

language Nevertheless, properly answering RQs necessitates more time, consideration, and effort on the part of the responding (Adril, 2015) Due to time constraints, few students can have the chance to speak with their teachers for an extended period of time

Example: What do you think about the statement “Never spend your money before you have earned it”?

The above question is an example of RQs, when asking this question the teacher wants to ask about students' opinions and it is highly likely that he/she hasn't known their answers before

In summary, classroom evidence from many surveys shows that display questions are raised more often than referential ones Responses to the former tend to be brief and basic, while those to the latter tend to be broader and lexically more complicated (Brock, 1986)

2.2.3.3 Feedback

Students are expected to engage and reply to the teacher's questions after (s)he asks them, and once the responses are obtained, the teacher is expected to comment on his/her students' efforts by demonstrating his/her comprehension and approval The following remark is referred to as feedback, and it is very popular in language teaching Its function, however, is not limited to valuing students' success in the teaching language; it also serves to inspire students and build a motivating classroom atmosphere The substance or type of the students' oral results will be the focus of the teacher's guidance It is important for teachers not to ignore learners' perceptual realities when providing feedback Furthermore, in order to offer constructive feedback, the instructor should have a clear understanding of his or her students' characteristics as well as their language abilities As a result, the instructor will certainly have useful feedback that will be heard (Chadia, 2011) Feedback, besides

being divided into Evaluation and Follow-up as IRE/IRF interactive patterns, can be categorized into constructive and negative one

In consideration of constructive reinforcement, teachers in an SL/FL classroom may use a variety of techniques to recognize or accept learners' oral contributions These techniques are primarily expressed in the form of good evaluation with positive words for praising, repetition, in which the instructor repeats his/her student's correct response When teachers embrace their students' oral results, they also use rephrasing

as a technique Teachers may sometimes introduce prompting ideas, statements, or structures

Negative feedback, also known as corrective feedback by some researchers, is offered by teachers to help students improve their troublesome utterances (Dekeyser, 2007) Negative feedback, on the other hand, tells of disappointment in learners' performance Depending on the intended purpose, this type of input may be overt or implicit It has to do with the teacher's goal, and whether (s)he prioritizes correcting learners' errors explicitly or indirectly

Teachers could continue the dialogue following students' answers with follow-ups

in addition to offering confirmation or disagreements This section is usually more concerned with meaning than with syntax Solicitation is a technique for gaining more information from students Teachers use questions to keep the dialogue going in this process, which is similar to initiation Extension - Reformation - Solicitation is a term used to describe how teachers offer supplementary information based on their previous personal and cultural experience Teachers can make it easier to understand by expressing their own insights or context information

2.3 Learner talk

Lindsay and Knight (2006) describe speaking as the process of practicing and generating oral language to transmit a meaning in order to interact with other respondents in various circumstances and contexts, such as communicating one's ideas

and feelings, sharing information, and reacting to others The ability to bring all components of language together to conduct, create, or generate the true intent is regarded as a productive capacity Ur (1996) backs up this argument: “Of all the four skills listening, speaking, reading and writing, people who know a language are referred to as speakers of the language, as if speaking includes all other kinds of knowing” Lexis and grammar, emphasis in pronunciation, vocabulary, morphology, fluency, and consistency are among these components

As previously said, oral interaction is not just one of the ultimate aims of language acquisition, but it is also a means of achieving pedagogical goals To put it another way, communicating is most often used as a means to an end Storytelling, information gap, group discussion, dialogues and role play are all structured exercises that students may use to practice speaking with their peers Furthermore, students' oral output is applied in whole-class conversations that include teacher talk as a warm-up/follow-up task Learners, on the other hand, can come across barriers or unintentionally make mistakes or even errors while speaking Mispronunciation and improper word use, besides grammatical inaccuracy or a lack of fluency are examples

of these effects Brown (2000) cites pressure from the mother tongue, a focus on the material as primary causes It may be inferred that providing students with a variety of speaking opportunities can not always result in improved student success As a result, adequate teacher adjustment is needed

Performance principles of learner speaking ability should be considered when assessing this skill; moreover, in Brown (2000)’s study, he cited that Higgs and Clifford (1982) discovered vocabulary is the most important element in distinguishing standards of language proficiency Participants in the high proficiency group developed

a slightly greater range of words than those in the low proficiency group Vocabulary continues to be the most significant at lower levels, according to seasoned teachers, although inputs from pronunciation, fluency, and grammar improve as proficiency

levels rise At higher levels of proficiency, four variables (vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, and fluency) all play a role The sociolinguistic aspect, on the other hand, plays a smaller role In short, the evaluating characteristic of proficiency, according to quantitative data analysis, is vocabulary selection, whereas some characteristics that define oral proficiency differ according to level of proficiency

2.4 Previous studies

Mulyati’s (2013) study aimed at investigating the realization of verbal classroom interaction, especially teacher talk and students talk that occurred during teaching speaking in one primary school Bandung The data were analyzed by the framework adapted from Flanders’ Interaction Analysis Categories (1970) and another by Kumpulaines and Wray (2002) The findings indicated that teachers acted as the most dominant interlocutor during speaking activities Besides, it also revealed the teacher’s roles during interactions as director, manager, and facilitator The study recommended the teachers to support students to have more opportunity to speak during the lesson Zaim and Refnaldi (2019) analyzed teacher talk in classroom interaction at a high school This paper focused on identifying the types of initiation and follow-up used by the teacher in classroom interaction The findings presented that the types of initiation used by the teacher in classroom interaction were display question, referential question, direction, and invitation, while the types of follow-up used by the teacher in

acknowledgement The study proved that teacher talk played an important role in provoking interactions between teachers and students Therefore, teachers should be aware of using variation of initiation rather than giving questions that require students’ short responses which could lead the student disinterested to participate in interacting Nasir, Yusuf, and Wardana (2019) explored teacher talk in an EFL classroom interaction in Acch Tengah, Indonesia This study aimed at analyzing the types of talk employed by the teacher in the classroom interaction, also based on the framework of

Flanders Interaction Analysis Category System (FIACS) promoted by Flanders (1970), similar to Mulyati’s (2013) research The data were collected through audio-recordings and observations for three class meetings, and interviews with the teachers

at the second grade of a senior high school in Aceh Tengah, Indonesia The results showed that all of the seven types of teacher talk were found

* The gap of the previous studies

In general, the previous studies related to teacher talk focused on the analysis of various phenomena about teacher talk, teachers’ perceptions on the amount and types

of teacher talk used by the teachers in English classes, ways of teacher talk preferred

by teachers and the objective description on teacher talk such as its features or the role

of teacher in EFL classes There is not much research concerning students’ attitudes towards teacher talk in the classrooms, specifically in English speaking classes Furthermore, most of the studies concentrated on primary, junior and senior high school students There has been a dearth of research on teacher talk at the university context Therefore, it would be significant and practical to investigate university students’ attitudes towards this topic

2.5 Research questions

Based on the rationale and literature review, the researcher decided that the present research would be carried out at the Faculty of English - University of Foreign Languages, Hue University The ultimate goal of the study was to investigate teacher talk practices in EFL speaking lessons and the degree to which those patterns engaged students in practicing speaking English in the class More specifically, the study seeks

to answer the following questions:

(1) What are the features of episodes of interaction in speaking classes and teacher talk time (TTT) in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of these episodes and TTT?

(2) What are the features of teachers' questions in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of their teachers’ questioning?

(3) What are the features of teachers’ feedback in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of the feedback received?

Research Questions:

(1) What are the features of episodes of interaction in speaking classes and teacher talk time (TTT) in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of these episodes and TTT?

(2) What are the features of teachers' questions in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of their teachers’ questioning?

(3) What are the features of teachers’ feedback in speaking classes and first-year students’ perceptions of the feedback received?

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 Introduction

This chapter first presents the research context, as well as the lecturers and students who took part in the study Then, data collection and analysis procedures are described

in detail

To meet the objectives of learning more about teacher talk in the classroom and its influence on students' learning or their attitude, the current research adopts a both quantitative and analytical qualitative research design

3.2 Context and subjects

Table 3.1 presents specific information about the participants of the study

Table 3.1: Participants’ Demographic

Class size (at the time the

class was observed)

Levels of Speaking

proficiency (according to

school’s curriculum)

The research was carried out at the Faculty of English, University of Foreign Languages, Hue University Participants include first-year students and teachers who are in charge of teaching freshmen English language skills, in particular, Speaking 2 course The topics taught in this course include both common and critical themes for students, for example, the topics of observed lessons are tendency of using money, etiquette, endangered languages

Students in the Faculty of English Language Teacher Education complete a year bachelor's degree program in which they are trained in their English skills (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) during the first, second, and third years According to the Common European Framework of Reference, the course goal for first-year students is to achieve competences in the target language equivalent to the CEFR B1 level

four-The study's participants are conveniently chosen, with three teachers (Teacher A,

B, and C) and three classes The aim of observing three teachers and three classrooms

is not to conduct a comparative analysis, but to gain a better and more comprehensive understanding of the language used by various teachers and students in the study's context

The teaching experience of three teachers is different, teacher A for 17 years, teacher B for 6 years and teacher C for 2 years

In terms of participating students, there are over 132 students in total, but many of them did not attend the lesson that was observed (as described in the table 3.1) Most students have been studying English for approximately 7-10 years, but it was not until their first year at university that they began to focus on learning the four skills in depth They had been studying four skills for around six months at the time of data collection However, it is important to remember that the primary goal is to study the interaction process between two target subjects rather than to evaluate students' speaking abilities

Northstar 2 was chosen as the primary textbook for this course, although additional materials in the form of handouts were provided by teachers during the lessons in the observed class

3.3 Data collection

3.3.1 Instrument

In order to achieve the research goals, the current study used the following research instruments and data sources: classroom observation with audio recording and field notes, questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews

3.3.1.1 Classroom observation (Audio recording and Field notes)

The current study's first method of data collection was classroom observation For the data not to be corrupted, the researcher became an observer during how many lessons Since researchers would analyze events while recording and then observe them again while collecting, coding, and reviewing data afterwards, using mechanical recorders increased study time The biggest challenge of audio recordings was the inclusion of background ‘noise,' which was still present and made transcription very challenging In

an attempt to deal with this challenge, several recording devices were placed in the classroom

The shortcomings of using audio recorders were partially resolved by the additional use of field notes taken by the researcher during observation periods The researcher, who was not permitted to speak in the classroom, still made field notes during the recording The researcher took notes of the duration of the lesson based on

how it flowed from the warm-up to the conclusion Field notes can provide evidence

about the attitude of students or the general atmosphere of the class that audio recorders could not collect in observation studies In addition, the researcher's observations on each occasion or activity may be written alongside the summary

3.3.1.2 Questionnaire

Six questions were used in the questionnaires for 132 students which were of three different kinds: multiple-choice, scaling, and open-ended questions The questionnaires were written in Vietnamese to solicit input from students about their preferences for instructor language use The questionnaires were divided into four parts, one for personal information and the other three for surveying respondents' perceptions of teacher talk, as follows

• Part I: About episodes and teacher talk time in class (Add some brief description for each part, not only the name)

• Part II: About teacher’s questioning

• Part III: About teacher’s feedback

3.3.1.3 Interview

Classroom engagement patterns for interpretation are classified after the audio recordings and field notes are transcribed After that, several students from three classes participate in an interview The interview, as suggested by Dornyei (2007), helps researchers to collect in-depth viewpoints of participants in chosen dimensions The current research uses the interview method of open-ended questions to explore the experiences of teachers' talk and its effects on learning of students The use of questions and feedback by teachers, as well as the reactions of students, was observed

and compared/contrasted with their viewpoints It is possible that parallels and/or inconsistencies between theory and reality will emerge During the interviews, it is hoped that explanations for particular phenomena in class can be gathered Last but not least, insider recommendations for change are prompted

3.3.2 Data Collection Procedures

In the first phase, on April 22nd and 23rd, 2021, classroom evaluations and audio recordings were conducted in order to document exact processes that occurred in actual classrooms

The researcher obtained permission from the teachers and students before recording and audio taping each lecture For each class, the researcher attended one lesson in the week before the official observation to familiarize students and the teacher with the presence of the researcher in their class Classroom observation took place in the next process, which lasted 90 minutes per session Classroom verbal contact between teachers and students was audio-recorded during the observation, while the observer acted as a non-participant and took field notes as required The recordings were then manually transcribed, checked for accuracy, and analysed

In the second phase, 132 students were given questionnaires to fill out through a link to Google form The researcher could quickly import and view the database using Google Forms, without the need to type again for further study The researcher sent the link to the students in the observed classes through the university's LMS system's box chat To capture the nuances of the respondents' individual perceptions and experiences, some key terms in the questionnaires were explained to them simply, directly, and unambiguously

In the third phase, when analyses of the questionnaire data were completed, structured interviews were conducted with 6 students, 2 ones from each observed class The semi-structured interviews include questions about their perception and attitude to different interactive episodes in class, teacher talk time, teacher’s use of questions and

semi-feedback (see Appendix 3) However, during the actual interviewing processes, several un-planned prompting questions emerged to cover issues of relevance to the research For example, during the solicitation stage, concerns about the effect of simultaneous interrupts by teachers were applied to the transcription and first-hand categorization results The researcher then interviewed students to determine the impact of different classroom modes and interactional features on student learning All of six interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed for further analyses

Finally, the data triangle gathered from observations with field notes, questionnaires and interviews is prepared for the data analysis and interpretation process

3.4 Data analysis

Three instruments were used to collect data: observation records with field notes, student questionnaires, and interviews The data from the returned questionnaires was analyzed and converted into percentages to determine students’ perception of teacher talk in their speaking lessons The recordings were made, along with notes from classroom observations and interviews, and then transcribed, analyzed, and used to compare between the ways of teacher talk used by teachers and students' perceptions and those that were actually used in class

3.4.1 Classroom observation (Audio recording and field note)

At first, the investigator transcribed the audio recording into the speeches of the lecturer and the students in chronological order The researcher also relied on the field notes noted during the observation about the activity milestones and the support of many recorders to produce the most accurate transcribe of the lecturer's speech and speaking time of both teachers and students for further analysis

When it comes to the way to analyze the observation records, because of the versatility and validity of the existing coding schemes, the researcher used them to evaluate the results Indeed, Walsh (2006) condemned present definitions in this

approach for restricting the coder's study and understanding More seriously, the observer can try to fit the data into the categories, resulting in misunderstanding However, in order to classify the dominant features of teacher talk and kinds of students' attitudes, the current research needs a classification scheme So, after thoroughly transcribing the raw data from the recordings, the researcher classified the

necessary statistics The researcher adapted Nassaji and Wells's (2000) and Chavez (2002)’s framework to reduce the disadvantages of using only one coding scheme

Patthey-The model developed by Nassaji and Wells (2000) examines the structure and function of classroom interaction This method gives coders a principled framework for segmenting the stream of speech into units for analysis: the largest unit is an Episode, which is made up of Sequences that help accomplish the action or mission objective - Teacher's long turn or teachers’ talk, Whole class conversation, and Small group discussion are among the episodes discovered To put it another way, launching and lecture are two subtypes of the Teacher's long turn, which resemble monologues and are used to give orders and illustrate important facts Although the class process may include many other activities, the current study focuses more on interaction episodes between students in small groups or between the teacher and the whole class before, while, and after activities or teacher’s long turn

Then, from the episodes, especially whole-class discussion, Initiating, Responding, and Follow-up, abbreviated as IRF/IRE, are subcategories of basic verbal exchanges in each Series The recent research focuses on three fundamental moves in exchanges and episodes from the framework

Figure 3.1: Developing inquiring communities in education projects (DICEP)

The instructor often uses questions to initiate discussions in the first step of each exchange (Initiation) He/she merely collects information for questions mentioned in the textbook or handout (Answer-checking questions), asks questions for which he/she already knows the responses (Display Questions), or inquires about students' initial and personal thoughts on certain subjects (Inquiry Questions) (Referential questions) Demanding questions are classified as Display questions or Referential questions when they ask students to do something Demanding is a verb that is used to ask someone to

do or say something The study does not look at other types of problems, such as instructional questions and comprehension checks

Teachers may use a number of categories to refer to students' responses, including evaluation and follow-up (Confirmation, Reformation, Solicitation and Extension) Students' answers can be accepted or declined briefly in the first form

Follow-up methods, in contrast to evaluation, will either provide students with further input or guide them to the next step of the conversation The instructor verifies the students' responses by repeating what they say, with or without any supplementary

Initiating

Move

Responding Move

Follow-up Move

Dependent Exchange

Embedded ExchangeSequence 2 Sequence n

detail (Confirmation) Their responses are otherwise reformed in terms of proposals or phrases (Reformation) In Solicitation, he/she elicits more detail through scaffolding, while in Clarification, he/she clarifies some unclear concepts/requirements Finally, students' responses are linked to the teacher's personal or cultural experience, or also expanded with additional information (Extension)

Although this system extensively describes two main forms of instructor turns (Initiation and Evaluation/Follow-up), learner talk is not properly represented As a result, another analytic approach - Patthey-Chavez's (2002) Characteristics of Students' utterances framework - is used to examine students' responses/initiations This framework divides terms into groups based on their linguistic features (Filler words, Function words, Content words)

Table 3.2: Linguistic features of students’ utterances by Patthey-Chavez (2002)

Filter words The list of filler words is composed of those expressions used to

signal conversational involvement The list was composed by looking

through the transcripts and includes: uh, uh-huh, huh, uuh, um, umm,

oh, ah, mhmm…

Function

words

The list of function words contains modals, pronouns, frequently used

prepositions, simple conjunctions, articles, and "yes" and "no": can,

could, will, would, may, might, must, shall, should, ought, I, you, we,

us, me, my, your, myself, yourself, yourselves, ourselves, our, he, she, they, his, her, hers, himself, herself, themselves, them, their, him, it,

at, above, about, against, around, before, below, between, by, for, from, in, of, on, over, through, to, toward, towards, under, with, out, the, these, those, a, and, or, but, yes, no

Subordinations A very rough count monitoring only occurrences of "because" and

"if", the two most unambiguous subordinators