An investigation into teacher student verbal interaction in english classes at ca mau continuing education centre

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 answeri

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY OPEN UNIVERSITY

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 NGUYEN DINH THU, PhD

ABSTRACT

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

atmosphere, students’ linguistic knowledge, their anxiety and shyness to foster the teacher-student verbal interaction, resulting in students’ learning opportunities

TABLE 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

2.3.2 Interaction increases opportunities for praCfiC€ -c <s< c2 9 2.3.3 Interaction promotes refÏ€CtiOI - Ă 5 12221119 12v ng, 19 2.4 Socio-cultural theory and language Ïearning - - «+ +ssxssssesseeerssersse I1 2.4.1The zone of proximal development (Z.PD) - - Go re 12 °“ˆ VN tt) ì 07 13 2.5 The role of teacher in classroom Inf€raCfIO - -s c Si gyrey 13

2.6 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

3.8.1 Textual data arnaÌyS15 - sọ Họ nh HH HT HH ng ng 35 3.8.2 Descriptive statIstics data artaÏYS1S - c cv vn nếp 36 3.9 Chapf€T SUITTTAAYFV G - G0 TT ng 0 1e 37 CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION 38

4.1 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

4.2.3 Summary of observation data anaÌySIS 7c sex 71 4.3 Studenfs” quesflonnaIr© af1aÌÏWS1S <5 + 33191 191 1 9 1 0 1g Hiệp 73 4.3.1 Students’ viewpoint on the importance of teacher-student verbal ITIẨ€TACÍẨIOH G- SG ni HH HT ng kg 73 4.3.2 Students’ attitudes towards the participation in interacting with the f€aCH€T- - - Án HT HH HH Hệ 74 4.3.3 Students’ perception of obstacles to raising and answering 0 5ấs113i00i221177 ¬¬šn 76 4.3.4 Students” perception of teacher taÌk In €ÏaSS 5 «<< <£<<<x+sxsss2 79

4.3.5 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

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 103 5.1 IntroductiOn - - - 1s s20 99 ng ve e 103 5,2 Con€ÏUSIOTI - - G G G0000 9 6S n9 cv v24 103

5.3 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

Appendix H: Full transcription of audio-recording of periodlin class l 161 Appendix I: Full transcription of audio-recording of period1in class 2 177 Appendix J: Transcription convenfions for classroom điSCOUTSe - . - 192

Table 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

Teacher’s suggestions on fostering teacher-student interaction 91

LIST 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

Figure 4.12: Students’ suggestions on promoting teacher-student interaction 83

L2: Second language/ English

Chapter 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

know or express their opinions in real-life conversations In the same way, classroom interaction, as articulated by Hall (2003), is considered crucial in language learning since most learning opportunities are accomplished through face- to-face interaction, and hence creating effective learning environments and ultimately shaping learners’ development Besides, it can be seen that without

Chapter 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)

Actually, the teacher-student interaction in the classroom plays a key role in creating an interactive classroom and fostering students’ learning opportunities However, this effectiveness only happens when there is a two-way interaction between teachers and students in the classroom where students have plenty of chances of interaction and language practice activities In a traditional language classroom, the teacher spends most of the time lecturing or explaining the lessons

Chapter 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

interaction

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:

Chapter I introduces the background to the study, the statement of purpose, the research questions, the significance of the study and the outline of the thesis Chapter IT reviews the literature relevant to the topic of the study Chapter III presents the research methodology employed to conduct this research in terms of study design, research site, participants, data collection methods, data collection procedures and analytical framwork Chapter IV analyses and interprets the data collected from the observations, questionnaires and the interviews Chapter V discusses the main findings obtained from the data analyzed and interpreted, then draws conclusions, makes recommendations and implications, finally presents limitations of the study and suggests further research

Chapter 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

between individuals, particularly when they are negotiating meaning in order to prevent a breakdown in communication” Interaction is defined in another way by Brown (2001) as “the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings, or ideas between two or more people, resulting in reciprocal effect on each other” (p 165) Kumaravadivelu (2006) refers to interaction as “conversational exchanges that arise when participants try to accommodate potential or actual problems of understanding, using strategies such as comprehension checks or clarification

Chapter 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

Interaction plays a very significant role in classroom language learning Allwright (1984, cited in Kumaravadivelu, 2006) affirms that “the importance of interaction is not simply that it creates learning opportunities, it is that it constitutes learning itself’ (p.35) Similarly, Gass (2005) claims that interaction may act as

“priming device” that sets up the learning since learning may take place during the interaction The role of interaction is also highlighted by Long (1996) in his Interaction Hypothesis that interaction through negotiation promotes comprehension and production, leading to facilitating SLA Besides, interaction helps learners notice the gap between target language forms and their interlanguage (Kumaravadivelu, 2006) Moreover, Mackey (2007) suggests that interaction is helpful in providing learners with the opportunity to receive comprehensible input and feedback on L2 form and to produce modified output These researchers’ positions on the important role of interaction in SLA could be seen clearly through three hypotheses by Walsh (2006) They are (1) “interaction facilitates SLA; (2) interaction increases opportunities for practice and (3) interaction promotes reflection.” (p.22)

Chapter 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,

clarification requests, repetition requests, decomposition, comprehension checks

and self-repetition Gass (2005) identifies seven interactional modification devices

Chapter 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

When learners have the chance to clarify something that has been said they are giving themselves more time to process the input, which may help them not just to comprehend but also to acquire new L2 forms (p 48)

Chapter 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

According to Krashen’s input hypothesis (Ellis, 1997), L2 acquisition takes place when learners are exposed to and understand the comprehensible input (i.e the input that is beyond their current level of competence) However, Swain (1995) claims that understanding of input is not sufficient, and learners must produce comprehensible output (i.e the opportunity for learners to produce and convey the message precisely, coherently, and appropriately) Swain also argues that the comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition because learners can learn from their own output

Chapter 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

Quality interaction can create opportunities for learners to reflect on their output, notice the gap in their current linguistic knowledge and identify what knowledge is new to them and what knowledge they have already acquired (Walsh, 2006) In the interaction, learners may meet difficulties in conveying the message correctly and appropriately At that time they may receive the corrective feedback

Chapter 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

Socio-cultural theory of learning emphasizes the importance of social interaction to an individual’s development (Walsh, 2006) This view of learning

Chapter 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

ZPD is considered to be of central importance for both effective language learning and cognitive development In order to promote students’ ZPDs, the teachers should be aware of what is happening to their students and know what help

is needed next since good learning occurs when it is in advance of learners’ actual level of development (Vygosky, 1978)

Chapter 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

In order to maintain and promote the quality of interaction in class, the role of the teacher is very essential and important Johnson (1995) puts it that,

Chapter 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

According to Walsh (2006), the teacher can act as a ‘model’, correcting the errors and modeling the correct form, as a ‘support’, reinforcing learners’ contribution and making it available and comprehensible for other learners, as a

‘source of linguistic input’ in response to learners’ prompt and in supplying necessary knowledge when learners are in need Moreover, the teacher can play a

“scaffolding role”- monitoring, supervising and feeding in language as it becomes

Chapter 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)

Although this sequence is widely regarded as a typical pattern in classroom interaction, it has been criticized by many researchers, for instance, Barnes (1992)

Chapter 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

Chapter 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

Nassaji and Wells (2000) conducted a six-year collaborative action research project to examine the changes to the third part of the three-part pattern They found

Chapter 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

Summing up, there have still been many different ideas about the three- exchange interactional patterns in the classroom, mainly about the third part in the sequences The third part “evaluation” in IRE pattern or “feedback” in JRF can inhibit students’ involvement and their learning opportunities meanwhile the third part “follow-up” in IRF pattern can create more chances for students to produce the language and increase students’ interaction in the classroom

Chapter I: Literature review

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

There have been many researchers carried out studies on teacher questions, e.g Long and Sato (1983), Shomoossi (2004), Walsh (2006), Tan (2007), Sadeghi (2010), to name but a few Most of them found that display questions are used much

Chapter 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

classroom

Chapter 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

Chapter 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

Rodriguez et al (1996, cited in Wen & Clement, 2003) claim that immediate teachers who are close, warm and friendly to the students can minimize students’ anxiety and increase student participation in classroom activities The positive influence of teacher immediacy on student outcomes has been found by many

Chapter 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

more careful language use

Chapter 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

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,

learning can be impaired or even rendered ineffective” (p 215-216) In the same study to find the correlation between students’ attitudes towards their teachers and their proficiency in speaking and writing, Maniruzzaman (2010) realized that the teacher’s evaluation, rapport, competence and inspiration have a considerable

| 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

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

considered as the key to successful interaction (Walsh, 2006) In his view,

Chapter 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

From reviewing investigations of wait-time by some researchers, it can be seen the positive effects of the extended wait-time after teacher questions since it may enhance student learning opportunities and the interaction with the teacher and

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

the teacher and students in the classroom

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

At the centre, two kinds of textbooks are applied in English classes One is a series of books named New Headway, third edition by Liz and Soars (2003) The

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

In order to explore the issues from all feasible perspectives, resulting in the same research findings as well as to enhance the validity and reliability of the

eter III: Methodology

Bc pendent sources to support the study and its conclusions” (p.181)

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)

The observation was employed to find out activities going on in class through the interaction between the teacher and students It was carried out in two pre- intermediate English classes in a total of eight observational visits (four visits for each class) The observed English lessons all aimed at developing students’ English proficiency and communicative competence by carrying out activities of listening, reading and speaking in class The average length for each observation was about one and a half hour during which the researcher acted as an unobtrusive observer, sitting at the back of the class, taking notes and audio-recording what was happening in class