Teacher student interaction and students speaking a study on listening – speaking classes with first year students at FELTE – ULIS VNU

For English foreign language learners, especially those are studying English in a non-English speaking setting, classroom is often considered a prime educational institution where they c

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ THANH DUNG

TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION AND STUDENTS’ SPEAKING:

A STUDY ON LISTENING – SPEAKING CLASSES

WITH FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AT FELTE – ULIS - VNU

Tương tác giữa giáo viên – sinh viên

và kỹ năng nói của sinh viên năm thứ nhất trong các buổi học Nghe – Nói tại Khoa sư phạm Tiếng Anh – Đại học Ngoại ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

HANOI, 2016

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

ĐỖ THỊ THANH DUNG

TEACHER-STUDENT INTERACTION AND STUDENTS’ SPEAKING:

A STUDY ON LISTENING – SPEAKING CLASSES

WITH FIRST YEAR STUDENTS AT FELTE – ULIS - VNU

Tương tác giữa giáo viên – sinh viên

và kỹ năng nói của sinh viên năm thứ nhất trong các buổi học Nghe – Nói tại Khoa sư phạm Tiếng Anh – Đại học Ngoại ngữ - ĐHQGHN

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 60140111

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Le Van Canh

DECLARATION

I hereby certify that the thesis entitled “Teacher-student interaction and students’ speaking: A study on listening – speaking classes with first year students at FELTE – ULIS - VNU” is the result of my own research for the

Degree of Master of Arts at the University of Languages and International Studies, Viet Nam National University This thesis has not been previously submitted for any other degrees The work was done under the guidance of Associate Professor

Le Van Canh, at the University of Languages and International Studies

Hanoi, June 2016

Đỗ Thị Thanh Dung

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express the deepest gratitude to my supervisor, Associate Professor Doctor Le Van Canh for his encouragement, supervision and support all along the course of research This paper would not have been accomplished without

his expert, constant and valuable guidance and criticism

My special thanks also go to my colleagues and students at Division 1, Faculty of English Language and Teaching Education, ULIS – VNU for their enthusiastic participation during the process of data collection

Finally, I would also like to express my sincere thank and love to my family who gave me time and encouragement to overcome all obstacles during the completion of this study

ABSTRACT

Due to its significant influence on learners' linguistic skills, classroom interaction has been widely discussed by researchers of the field This present research aims to present an analysis of teacher-learner in-class interaction at speaking-listening classes in the context of Vietnam Interaction patterns, teachers‟ question and feedback and learners‟ talk are put into investigation The participants include 75 first year students and three teachers at Faculty of English Language Teaching Education, University of Languages and International Studies Data is collected by classroom observation with audio-taping and field notes After transcripts are produced, interviews with three teachers and six students are implemented to obtain more information Interaction patterns are categorized, different aspects of teacher talk and learner talk are analyzed according to recognized frameworks The result demonstrates that the structure of classroom interactional mechanism is characterized by Initiation-Response-Follow up pattern,

in which most of the first and the third moves are taken by teachers Teachers‟ questioning creates many opportunities for learners to produce output, whereas their feedback sometimes interrupts learners‟ flow of talk Although students do not take initiatives to make questions, they fully participate in discussions Pedagogical recommendations and propositions for future fields of research are offered at the end of the study

LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS

CLT: Communicative Language Teaching

EFL: English as a Foreign Language

ELT: English Language Teaching

LIST OF FIGURES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

Figure 1 Time spent on major episodes in a roughly 60-minute lesson 34

Figure 2 Patterns used in Teacher-Student Interaction 37

Figure 3 Number of turns students speak in exchanges with Teacher 38

Figure 4 Initiating Questions 39

Figure 5 Teacher's Feedback 43

Figure 6 Teacher's Follow-up 45

Figure 7 Lexical density and Mean of Responses to Display questions and Referential questions 56

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF FIGURES v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Introduction 1

2 Problem Statement and Rationale 2

3 Objectives and Significance 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 5

CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

1.1 Classroom Interaction: A definition 5

1.2 The role of interaction in second language learning 5

1.3 Theoretical perspectives on classroom interaction 6

1.3.1 The cognitive interactionist tradition 6

1.3.2 The sociocultural theory tradition 10

1.4 Approaches to studying classroom interaction 11

1.4.1 Discourse analysis approaches 11

1.4.2 Conversation analysis approaches 13

1.5 Types of classroom interaction 15

1.5.1 Teacher - student interaction 15

1.5.2 Student - student interaction 16

1.6 Teacher Talk 17

1.6.1 Teacher Questioning 17

1.5.2 Teacher‟s Feedback 19

1.6 Interaction patterns 20

1.7 Learner talk 23

1.8 Turn taking 24

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY 27

2.1 Context and Participants 27

2.2 Methodology 29

2.3 Data Collection Instruments 29

2.4 Data Collection Procedure 30

2.5 Data analysis instruments 31

CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS 34

3.1 Episodes 34

3.2 Interactional Patterns 36

3.3 Teacher‟s Initiating Questions 39

3.4 Teachers' Feedback 43

3.5 Learner Talk 55

CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION 65

4.1 Interactional patterns 65

4.2 Teachers‟ Initiating Questions 66

4.3 Teachers‟ Feedback 67

4.4 Learner Talk 69

PART C: CONCLUSION 72

REFERENCES 77 APPENDIXES I

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Introduction

The influence of classroom interaction on students‟ learning in the context of second/foreign language education has been researched from different theoretical perspectives (e.g Allwright ,1984) It has been documented in the literature that classroom interaction is noticeably central to all classroom activities that make up classroom practices (e.g Walsh, 2011) For example, River (1987) states that students have opportunities to practice their possess of the target language and increase their language store This is also confirmed in Mackey‟s research (1999) about the relationship between interaction and language acquisition The participation in the interaction could facilitate learning development Furthermore, Long (1990) asserts that language acquisition is the result of an interaction between the learners‟ mental abilities and the linguistic environment

For English foreign language learners, especially those are studying English

in a non-English speaking setting, classroom is often considered a prime educational institution where they can practice the target language In other words, practicing English as a foreign language usually occurs inside the classroom To put

it differently, students are rare to practice the target language outside the classroom Accordingly, classroom interaction is considered a vital means to master the language and speaking skills in particular

In English foreign language class, the teacher‟s role is crucial since teachers integrate every element under their role to create or facilitate an appropriate learning environment in the classroom They can foster classroom conditions that encourage or restrict successful student participation (Hall, 1998) In fact, the teacher is expected to initiate, manage, and keep conversation and communication going To involve students in classroom interaction, asking questions and giving feedback to learners' responses are two of effective measures that teachers could utilize

Obviously, learners also play an integral role in their language acquisition Swain (1988) considers that students are learning while participating in classroom interaction They need to use the language resource they have already acquired to produce "comprehensible output" By interacting verbally, learners manage to use diverse strategies as speaking in a low pace, repeating while clarifying their view points throughout paraphrasing to make themselves understood by their colleagues and teacher (Chadia, 2011)

In order to improve teaching and learning, apart from devoting a considerable amount of time to teaching methods and to subject knowledge, teachers are suggested to be well aware of the significance of teacher talk, the process of interaction and their nexus with learning They, in practice, need to stimulate students to interact verbally and arouse their thinking by asking genuine questions Beforehand, it is essential to make students comprehend how important and significant discussing in the process of learning is On the other hand, students are supposed and expected to provide contributions of their own As a result, teachers and learners work collectively when dealing with language tasks, listening

to one another in a respectful way, and valuing others' contribution

2 Problem Statement and Rationale

Despite a large body of research on classroom interaction, the issue remained under-researched in the context of Vietnam Some of studies are Classroom interaction in a Vietnamese university English class (Dung, 2004), Teacher questioning strategies and classroom interaction in Ly Thai To school (Thu, 2008) These research tends to concentrate on effects of teachers‟ questioning behaviors, without examining teachers‟ feedback as an influencing factor on learners‟ talk Students‟ use of language also receives less investigation than expected In addition, while there has been evidence that students could learn the target language through interaction in classroom, it has not been known properly to what extent different kinds of interaction lead to language learning Another drawback could be found in

recent studies such as Kouicem's in 2009, Bouraya‟s in 2011 is the single source of data from students‟ questionnaire and/or teachers‟ interview to examine the relation

of classroom interaction and learners' speaking Without audio-recorded or taped lessons, this data collecting instrument might not provide adequate information and evidence to reveal the concerned topic

video-Motivated by the current situation, the present study proposes to investigate classroom interaction with a larger focus by utilizing various data collection and analysis instruments To be more specific, it is to examine the nexus between teacher – student interaction and its effects on students‟ speaking

3 Objectives and Significance

The current study was conducted at the Faculty of English Language Teaching Education - University of Languages and International Studies While the overall aim of the study was to explore classroom interaction patterns in speaking-listening lessons and the extent to which those interaction patterns engaged the students in practicing speaking English, it was designed to achieve the following objectives:

1 to identify the teachers‟ question and feedback as a form of interaction that involves the students into the process of negotiation of meaning;

2 to identify the degree of students‟ engagement in classroom interaction as the result of the teachers‟ approaches to classroom interaction

In order to achieve the above aim and objectives, the study seeks answers for the following questions:

1 What are features of teacher - student interactions in the lessons?

2 To what extent do teacher - student interactions influence students' speaking?

The findings of the present study hopefully enrich reference in the area by providing more empirical evidence More importantly, the results of this study could contribute to the teacher‟s awareness of their present use of the target

language, its critical role and preparing the ground for a more reasoned language use in class To put it differently, teachers are encouraged to adjust the appropriate language use in class when they understand it more comprehensively This also means that learners can benefit, for instance, by being given more interactive learning opportunities or being provided effective feedback Holding no less importance, teacher-trainers may take classroom interaction analysis into consideration while attending teacher-training courses and doing their practicum Last but not least, language teaching methodology researchers and teachers might conduct further research in the area to advance English language teaching methods and techniques in the EFL classroom

PART B: DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER ONE: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Classroom Interaction: A definition

Interaction is the collaborative exchange of thoughts, feelings or ideas between two or more people, leading to a mutual effect on each other as River (1987) In general, interaction consists of two types: non-verbal interaction and verbal interaction Non-verbal interaction is related to behavioral responses In classroom, participants interact nonverbally through their behaviors such as head nodding, hand raising, body gestures, and eye contact Verbal interaction, on the contrary, contains written interaction and oral interaction Written interaction is the style of interaction in which students write out their ideas, thoughts It means they interact with others through written words, documents and so forth By contrast, oral interaction implies that teachers and students interact by asking and answering questions, making comments, and taking part in discussions These two types of interaction are summarized by Robinson (1994): “Interaction is the process referring to “face-to-face” action It can be either verbal channeled through written

or spoken words, or non-verbal, channeled through tough, proximity, eye-contact, facial expressions, gesturing, etc.” Classroom interaction, according to Dagarin (2004), is an interaction occurring in the learning and teaching process between teacher and students and among students in the classroom This definition is used to guide this study

1.2 The role of interaction in second language learning

According to River (1987), students can increase their language store through interaction because they can use all their possess of the language In a language classroom, the target language is not only the means by which learning is accomplished but also the pedagogical objective (Swain, 1997) In other word,

within the classroom context, instructors and students mutually construct knowledge of language and simultaneously create opportunities for language practice Tsui (1995) believes that accomplishing communicative tasks, listening to teacher's explanations and instructions, expressing one‟s point of views in arguing, answering asked questions mean learning the TL Students grasp language structure and functions and then they put what they are acquiring into practice by using it in classroom with their peers and teacher Indeed, students are suggested to take initiatives in the process of advancing their linguistic skill instead of being passive consumers and recipients during the lesson As Mackey (1999) finds out, those learners involving in an interactional course all along their practice of the targeted structure, perform better Specifically, the language development of those students who take more turns to practice the TL is faster compared to those learners being reluctant to interact with their peers and teacher Additionally, Hall & Walsh (2002) state that instructors and students establish their roles and relationships through oral interactions within the classroom A teacher-centered or learner-centered environment is partly determined by the way teachers and students communicate in the classroom

1.3 Theoretical perspectives on classroom interaction

Classroom interaction has been researched from two main theoretical traditions: the cognitive interactionist tradition and the sociocultural theory tradition These two positions will be discussed briefly subsequently

1.3.1 The cognitive interactionist tradition

Cognitive interactionist advocates believe that learning a second language involves receiving comprehensible input, which is processed through negotiation of meaning, before producing comprehensible output (Long, 1981)

In regard to the relationship between classroom interaction and second language acquisition (SLA), two fundamental concepts - reception and production

should be taken into consideration According to Ellis (1990), "reception-based

theories" of classroom interaction are centered on the idea that interaction takes part

in SLA via learners' comprehension and reception of the SL "Production-based

theories", on the other hand, consider that SLA is strongly linked to learners'

attempt at producing the TL While the former are well-presented by Krashen and Long in their input theories in 1980s, the latter are more assimilated with Swain's output theory in 1980s

In language learning, input is defined as the language that learners hear or receive, from which they can learn (Richards& Schmidt, 1992) As Krashen stated

in 1982, Input is seen not merely as a social and pedagogical aim; it is rather a medium through which a great deal proportion of the TL is learnt In other words, language acquisition can take place when learners comprehend the input they are exposed to Krashen argues that the exposure to comprehensible TL input is in itself sufficient to trigger acquisition (Richards & Renandya, 2002) Additionally, incomprehensible input is not expected to cause learning to take place From this theoretical perspective, the main purpose of interactions between teacher and learner is that one interlocutor feeds the other input The consumer of this input therefore acquires language by taking in the input that is given to her In short, interaction from this theoretical viewpoint functions as a way in which instructors supply learners with ample amounts of comprehensible input

Expanding Krashen‟s ideas of input, Long (1981) suggested that one way interlocutors make input comprehensible is through a variety of interactional modifications One of the major points distinguishing Krashen's theory from Long's one is that the latter believes that intentionally modified input is more beneficial for acquisition than the pre-modified input as suggested by Krashen When a learner signals a lack of comprehension while interacting with the input provider, the instructor is able to modify the way in which he is expressing an idea or naming an object to provide input to the learner that the learner can understand Some of these modifications are themselves interactional in nature, such as confirmation and comprehension checks, clarification requests, reformulations, topic-focused and

elaborated questions, and recasts (Long, 1981) As a result of the modifications, the learner is better able to comprehend the input, which promotes L2 acquisition

Krashen and Long's interaction hypotheses were reviewed by Thoms in 2008 that they viewed interaction as to transmit language knowledge or competence Put

it in plain words, interaction is viewed as a necessary means to an end It is primarily conceptualized as a tool that facilitates the process of language learning and culminates in the end product of acquisition Johnson (1995) considers that in presenting his hypothesis, Krashen overstresses the role played by comprehensible input which focuses on meaning rather than form Conversely to what Krashen emphasized; Pica & Young and Doughty (1987) (cited in Ellis& Barkhuizen, 2005) view that comprehension can be achieved when input is intentionally derived and modified rather than when being pre-modified

The aforementioned input theoretical views have given prominence to input which may not provide a comprehensive understanding of the role of interaction in the process of SLA In other words, interaction as understood from the above perspectives is closely associated with the delivery of input and assumes that language learning is a result or product of interaction between interlocutors In fact, one of the criticism addressed to Long Interaction Hypothesis is suggested by Swain (1985) (cited in Chadia, 2011) Swain accentuates that Long and Krashen claim strongly that acquisition arises relatively entirely through access to comprehensible input while they fail to admit the value of comprehensive output

Swain views that output is crucial in several ways For instance, when a kind

of communication breakdown occurs between interlocutions in the classroom, learners would do their best to make themselves comprehended using different means and strategies to convey messages precisely, coherently and appropriately (Ellis, 1985) In her output hypothesis (1985), Swain does not neglect the significance of input in enhancing the TL acquisition but she stresses the fact that learners must be offered the chance to produce the TL so as to become fluent speakers: "Negotiating meaning needs to incorporate the notion of being pushed

toward the delivery of a message." (Swain, 2005) In her point of view, language production, namely output, is a kind of TL production that leads to and enhances learners' fluency More significantly, she considers that output has the function of enhancing noticing as it has a triggering function While language learners try to produce TL, whether in written or oral form, they may simultaneously notice that they have a problem of not knowing how to say the idea or the meaning they want to convey due to lack of vocabulary items or the ignorance of the syntactic structure…etc In these cases, learners become conscious of their linguistic actual knowledge Observing the existence of a hole in their interlanguage, learners are then going to use different strategies to fill in these gaps using dictionaries, grammar books, asking for help from their peers or teachers or trying to concentrate more on the input to get what they want To Swain, noticing the gap in their knowledge about the TL, and while producing this latter, learners are actually making hypotheses about

it and testing them simultaneously Especially when they receive negative feedback from the part of their teacher; students then will do all their best to modify their output, so as to make it fit the TL structures (Swain, 2000)

Yet it is paramount to note that producing output is not a trouble -free task and certainly it needs huge efforts and will from the part of learners As far as the kind of output which should be generated by SL/FL learners, Swain believes that students are preferred to initiate by themselves output production rather than responding That is to say, SL learners need to participate and interact actively; they should not be restricted by interlocutors in the discourse In fact, the more students feel free to initiate participation, take turn, take risk, and choose the topic, the more their verbal interaction would be beneficial and richer

From their part, Hall &Verplaetse (2000) regard the fact of being exposed to comprehensible input as a factor alone is not sufficient For SL/FL learners are in need to produce output so as to "push forward the wheels" of their TL in classroom According to them, Input hypotheses as introduced by Krashen and Long and the output as exposed by Swain should not be put on converse position Instead, they

need to complement each other

In short, the cognitive interactionist tradition views interaction as supporting the individual‟s knowledge construction, since it helps to activate existing knowledge

of the individuals The teacher‟s role is to make the input comprehensible, provide opportunities for students to produce output, and to provide appropriate feedback on the students‟ output

1.3.2 The sociocultural theory tradition

Advocates of the sociocultural theory tradition rely on Vygotsky‟s (1978) work, which emphasizes the role of social interaction in mental development Thus, classroom interaction is viewed as a social activity emerging in open public communication Walsh (2006) confirms that social interaction and context are not separated from the learning situation Central to the sociocultural theory is Vygotsky‟s (1978) notion of zone of proximal development

In order to produce the targeted language in class, learners need to be exposed to input which is comprehensible and little beyond their current knowledge about the TL for after all input is the model of the TL This is one of the foremost

concepts of Vygotsky "zone of proximal development" It was defined by Vygotsky

(1978) as the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential guidance with more capable individuals As a sociocultural theorist, he stresses the fact that learning is a social activity more than being an individual one He particularly highlights that the assistance offered to SL learners by more experts should neither be too far beyond their actual knowledge about the TL so as to ensure access to the structure of that language Nor it should be too easy to enhance learners' mental abilities In short, in learning first, second or foreign one, teachers should not teach that language as an object They should rather enable their learners participate in dialogic activities using that language as a tool to enhance their oral performance (Lantolf, 2005)

Having the same opinion, Krashen maintains that language acquisition can

be achieved when learners are exposed to language input whose structure is beyond

their current level of language competence This is recognized as "i+1 hypothesis", while the “i” stands for the actual level of learners' language expertise, the “1” symbolizes language function and linguistic forms which are beyond their level Put

it more simply, teachers whose speech might be a source of the input provided for students, must be acquainted with his learners' level in language proficiency Basing

on that, they try to provide a more slightly complex input so the input can be understood and comprehensible to them In doing so, teachers are, in reality, creating opportunities for their learners to interact verbally and communicate more

to understand and assimilate the input they are exposed to

The major difference between the cognitive interactionist and sociocultural theories is seen not only in whether they acknowledge the significance of interaction and social contexts in learning, but in the definition of the relationship between interaction and learning as well For example, the cognitive interactionist theory perceives interaction as an element that has an effect on learning Learning is recognized as a variable that can be explained by the features of interaction and the individual‟s social background In the sociocultural theory, however, interaction and context are not separated from one another The individual and his or her environment are viewed in a dialectical relationship As a result, the individual‟s action is seen as part of the social construction of shared understanding (Walsh, 2006; 2011) This theoretical position is adopted in this study

1.4 Approaches to studying classroom interaction

1.4.1 Discourse analysis approaches

Discourse analysis is the study of spoken or written texts Its focus is on words and utterances above the level of sentence and its main aim is to look at the ways in which words and phrases function in context For example, the frequently used

„Could you turn to page 36?‟ might be interpreted as a request under DA Other

utterances may be less easy to classify The phrase „the window‟s open‟, when

uttered in a classroom, might function as a request (please close it), an explanation (that‟s why it‟s so cold), a drill (everyone repeat), a definition (as a way of showing the

meaning of open)

As far as the methods used to analyzing CD are concerned, the earliest and most well-known proponents of DA probably are Sinclair and Coulthard (1975) who, following a structural-functional linguistic route to analysis, compiled a list of twenty-two speech acts representing the verbal behaviours of both teachers and students participating in primary classroom communication Perhaps the most important contribution of Sinclair and Coulthard to our understandings of classroom discourse is their realisation that most classroom discourse follows an IR(F) structure For every move made by a student, teachers typically make two Thus, we can say that most teaching exchanges follow an IRF structure, made up of three moves, with each move containing one or more speech acts Not only does this help

to confirm the fact that teachers do speak much more than students in most classrooms, it also demonstrates how teachers often control the discourse one utterance can

One of the main limitations of the Sinclair and Coulthard system is that it was derived from data recorded in „traditional‟ primary school classrooms during the 1960s In this context, and by the authors‟ own admission, it was possible to identify very clear status and power relations between teachers and learners Consequently, the ensuing discourse had a very clear structure that was largely dominated by question and answer routines In the contemporary L2 classroom, where there is, arguably, far more equality and partnership in the teaching–learning process, it is doubtful whether the framework could adequately describe the

To summarise, it can be said that DA approaches are both descriptive and prescriptive and attempt to categorise naturally occurring patterns of interaction and account for them by reference to a discourse hierarchy The starting point is

structural-functional linguistics: classroom data are analysed according to their structural patterning and function For example, the interrogative structure „What

time does this lesson end?‟ could be interpreted as a request for information, an

admonishment, a prompt or cue Any attempt to analyse classroom data using a DA approach, therefore, involves some simplification and reduction Matching utterances to categories may be problematic owing to the issues of multi-functionality and the absence of a direct relationship between form and function In general, DA approaches fail to take account of the subtler forces at work such as role relations, context and sociolinguistic norms that have to be obeyed In short, a DA treatment fails to adequately account for the dynamic nature of classroom interaction and the fact that it is socially constructed by its participants By the same token, DA approaches do not adequately account for the range of contexts in operation in a lesson and for the link between pedagogic purpose and language use

1.4.2 Conversation analysis approaches

The origins of conversation analysis (CA) come from an interest in the function of language as a means for social interaction (Sacks, Schegloff and Jefferson 1974)

CA is based on the premise that social contexts are not static but are constantly being formed by the participants through their use of language and the ways in which turn-taking, openings and closures, sequencing of acts, and so on are locally managed Interaction is examined in relation to meaning and context; the way in which actions are sequenced is central to the process

The relevance of a CA approach to the L2 classroom context is not difficult to perceive CA attempts to account for the practices at work that enable participants

in a conversation to make sense of the interaction and contribute to it There are clear parallels: classroom talk is made up of many participants, and there have to be smooth transitions and clearly defined expectations if meanings are to be made

explicit Possibly the most significant role of CA is to interpret from the data rather than impose pre-determined structural or functional categories

The main features of a CA approach to analysing L2 classroom interaction are summarised Firstly, the aim of CA is to account for the structural organisation of the interaction as determined by the participants There should be no attempt to „fit‟ the data to preconceived categories Secondly, the approach is strictly empirical CA

forces the researcher to focus on the interaction patterns emerging from the data,

rather than relying on any preconceived notions which language practitioners may

bring to the data (Seedhouse 2004) Thirdly, the observer is seen as a „member‟ of

the interaction, trying to view the experience through the eyes of the participants The aim is to offer an emic (insider) perspective Fourthly, Context is dynamic and mutually constructed by the participants Contexts are therefore constantly changing

as a lesson progresses and according to local demands and constraints Lastly, the

analysis of the data is multi-layered CA approaches emphasise both context and the

sequentiality of utterances Because no one utterance is categorised in isolation and because contributions are examined in sequence, a CA methodology is much better-equipped to interpret and account for the multi-layered structure of classroom interaction

However, it cannot be denied that CA approaches do have a number of limitations

To begin with, some researchers criticise CA for being over selective Snatches of discourse and their ensuing commentaries may appear to have been selected randomly with no attempt to evaluate their significance to the discourse as a whole Any selection of data may appear contrived or idealised in order to illustrate a particular point with little attempt to relate them to the exchange as a whole Moreover, a more serious criticism of CA approaches is their inability to generalise findings because they focus on one specific and very narrow context While this may be true of many qualitative research tools, it is particularly applicable to a CA methodology owing to the centrality of context That is not to say that context-specific data are not valid or worthwhile; merely that they cannot be extended to other contexts This objection is countered, however, if we acknowledge that the

aim of classroom specific research is not so much to generalise as to promote understanding and facilitate replication to another context 456789

1.5 Types of classroom interaction

1.5.1 Teacher - student interaction

This type of interaction happens between the teacher and one learner or many other learners Teachers negotiate with students the content of the course, asks questions, uses students' ideas, lectures, gives directions, criticizes or justifies student talk responses They allocate speaking turns to students by either specifying who is to answer or by making it open to the whole class These kinds of turn-allocations have been referred as „personal solicit‟, if it is done by nominating or using gestures; and „general solicit‟, when it is done by simply asking questions and looking round the class (Allwright and Bailey, 1991, as cited in Tsui, 1995) A common pattern found in classrooms is the one when the teacher starts off with a general solicit but no student volunteers to take the turn, he resorts to a personal solicit to sustain the interaction

During teacher-learner interaction, the students seek to demonstrate their speaking and listening skills in front of their teachers that is why teachers should consider their way of interacting a crucial element in learning and teaching Walsh (2006) states that teachers who comprehend the strong nexus between TT, interaction and learner's learning opportunities would afford efforts to promote learning According to Harmer (2009) teachers should focus on three things when they talk with their students Firstly, they must pay attention to the kind of the language the students are able to understand, i.e teachers should provide an output that is comprehensible for the level of all the students Secondly, the teachers must think about what they will say to their students, hence the teacher speech is as a resource for learners Finally, teachers also have to identify the ways in which they will speak such as the voice, tone and intonation

1.5.2 Student - student interaction

In addition to interacting with their instructor, learners in L2/FL classrooms, particularly in the context of Communicative Language Teaching, often engage in pair or group work that requires them to interact with other learners Johnson (1995) supports that if learner-learner interaction is well structured and managed, then it can be an important factor of cognitive development, educational achievement of students and emerging social competencies It can also develop the learners' capacities through collaborative works Naegle Paula (2002) adds that students discussing with their peers is a powerful way for them to reinforce what they have

learned On the other hand, learners might not always be able to answer their

interlocutor‟s questions They might not always feel comfortable correcting their peers, not mention that feedback provided by learners might not necessarily be accurate Accordingly, teachers must encourage, instruct such type of interaction properly

In a nutshell, classroom interaction resulting in collaborative exchanges of thoughts or negotiation of meaning is essential for language development Firstly, it acts as an input authentic source for learners to acquire specific language usages Secondly, it provides original communicating opportunities in the classroom (Allwright, 1984) The ongoing development of students' linguistic skills is constructed by the regularity and quality of their contribution in classroom discussions with their instructors and peers Although the opportunities to participate in discussions can be created by both learners and teachers who value their roles in the interactional process, instructors are the ones to determine who participates in classroom talk, when, how much and how the talk is structured (Thoms, 2008)

With a focus on detailed conversations between teachers and students, classroom modes are analyzed according to their typical features in the present research Instead, an overview of typical episodes of these modes will be presented theoretically in Methodology and practically in Findings

1.6 Teacher Talk

1.6.1 Teacher Questioning

Questioning by far is the most common communication behavior used in teaching as teachers' questions engage learners' attention, promote verbal responses which are one of paramount aspects to evaluate learners' progress In language classes, being asked a question gives students the opportunity to participate by making their voice and ideas heard by others Say it differently, questions are a source of linguistic input and answering teachers' questions is a chance to use the target language in exchanging ideas Apart from its contribution to language learning, questions teachers ask in classroom settings also have pedagogical benefits, like stimulating recall, deepening understanding, developing imagination and encouraging problem solving That is why teacher's questions were even regarded a core of effective teaching in a classroom context by Walsh & Sattes in 2005

Two most prevalent types of questions used in classroom are display questions and referential questions The former, alternatively referred to as known information questions (Mehan, 1979) and lower cognitive questions (Mills et al., 1980) do not seek new information but the display of knowledge which the questioner already possesses The latter, also called divergent questions (Richards & Lockharts, 1998), information seeking questions (Mehan, 1979) or higher cognitive questions (Mills at al., 1980) seek new information and are asked to activate genuine communication, since the questioner is asking for information which is not known to him/her

Display questions

McCarthy (1991) claims that display questions not only have function for teachers to check students' state of knowledge but also provide them with opportunities for practicing language forms However, this kind of question is criticized by a number of researchers For instance, Ernst (1994), students' responses to display questions are brief, with little elaboration As noted by Brock (1986) and Smith (1978), responses to display questions which calls for the

recognition or recall of factual information are shorter than responses to referential ones that calls for interpretation or opinion Mehan (1979) considers the use of DQs

as the one-way flow of information from teachers to students mainly because there

is only a single known correct response to display questions, teachers often find themselves searching for that answer, while students provide various trial responses which are in search of validation as the correct answer Despite of its drawback, Shomoossi (2004) examined the distribution of teachers' use of display and referential questions, showing that teachers used display questions 4.4 times more often than referential questions In fact, DQs make up only 0.12 % of all questions

in Native speaker - Non native speaker conversation outside the classroom, which shows that communication in language classroom is still artificial and far from natural (Long & Sato, 1983) The reasons for teacher utilizing DQs typically include low language ability of the students and teachers' time constraints due to the strict curriculum that they have to cover This is also supported by Allwright & Bailey (1991) that display questions enable lower level language learners to have more opportunities to interact and participate in the classroom

Example: What‟s the opposite of “up” in English?

Referential questions

By asking referential questions, teachers want to elicit first-hand information from the students According to Nunan (1989), RQs conceive a greater attempt and deep processing on the part of the learner Although the contribution of response is depended on topic area, learner's background knowledge and context, RQs may stimulate to language acquisition more significantly than the answering of DQs Brock (1986) examined the effects of increased use of referential questions on adult ESL classroom discourse She analyzed the length and complexity of students' responses and found that referential questions enabled students to make longer sentences and use more logical connectors in their speech Producing one's own messages in the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey his or

her intended meaning An important implication of Brock's study is a positive correlation between referential questions and students' production of target language Accordingly, teachers are highly recommended to include this type of question in their teaching practice, especially in those contexts in which the classroom provides the learners their only opportunity to produce the target language Nonetheless, a greater amount of respondent time, thought, and effort are required to answer RQs properly Combining with time strain, few students could have opportunities to make a long conversation with their instructors

Example: Is fashion important to students?

In brief, classroom data from a number of studies points out that display questions are more commonly asked than referential ones On the other hand, responses to the former type appear to be short and simple while those answering the latter are longer and syntactically more complex

1.5.2 Teacher’s Feedback

Once the teacher asks his question, learners are supposed to interact and respond to his questions, and once given the answers, the teacher is expected to comment on his learners' contribution, by showing his understanding, his agreement…etc This following comment is known as feedback, which is very common in TT Yet, its role is not merely to value students' performance in the TL;

it does also motivate students and create a stimulating environment in classroom Teacher's feedback can be either on the content or form of students' oral performance In offering feedback, it is of vital importance for teachers not to dismiss learners' cognitive reality In addition, to provide an effective feedback, the teacher is advised to have a good insight on his learners' characters, and language proficiency as well In doing so, the teacher would undoubtedly provide a fruitful feedback which can be noticed (Chadia, 2011)

In terms of positive feedback, there are some strategies adopted by teachers

in a SL/FL classroom to provide acknowledgements or acceptance of learners' oral

contribution These strategies are mainly embodied in the form of repetition, by

which the teacher reiterates the correct given answer of his student Rephrasing is

another common strategy taken up by teachers when they accept their students' oral performance Sometimes, teachers might add other new information, utterances or structures

As far as negative feedback or corrective feedback, as labeled by some scholars, is concerned, it is provided by teachers to reform learners' utterances which were problematic (Dekeyser, 2007) Saying it otherwise, negative feedback informs

of failure in learners' output It is noteworthy so that SL/FL learners should notice the gap between their actual interlanguage and the structure of the TL as suggested by Schmidt This kind of feedback can be either explicit or implicit depending on intended function It has to do with the intention of the teacher; whether he gives priority to correcting overtly or implicitly the error produced by learners

In addition to providing acknowledgements or rejections, teachers can continue the conversation after students‟ responses by follow-ups This part is more often related to the content rather than syntax Solicitation is employed to elicit more information from learners In this phase, teachers use questions to maintain the conversation, which are the same as initiation Teachers also provide additional information related to their prior personal and cultural knowledge which is called as Extension/Association/Connection By sharing their own experiences or background knowledge, teachers can make things more easily understood

1.6 Interaction patterns

A ubiquitous exchange sequence in classroom is Initiation - Response - Feedback (Evaluation/Follow-up) was the basic discourse first mentioned by Sinclair and Coulthard‟s (1975) that classroom researchers still have frequently referred to and built upon this pattern The last move is the determining factor in type of interaction IRE stands for Initiation - Response - Evaluation while IRF stands for Initiation - Response - Follow-up

IRE (Initiation-Response-Evaluation)

The following conversation best describes IRE pattern of classroom interaction between teacher and students

Jackson: One thirty R T: Very good, Jackson! E

In the excerpt, the teacher begins by asking a factual question to check the time After the student gives a descriptive two-word answer, the teacher provides positive feedback ending a conversation According to Cazden, 1988; Lemke, 1985 and Mehan, 1979, this ubiquitous format of interaction between the teacher and students is I-R-E pattern (Initiation - Respond - Evaluation) In this format, the teacher initiates a sequence of conversation with a known-answer question, one or more students respond with answers, and the teacher ends by providing evaluations, either positive (e.g.,“Good”) or negative (e.g.,“No, that‟s not correct”)

A large body of studies has investigated into the consequences of prolonged participation in IRE sequence This has been generally found to reduce students' chances to use the language in extended discourse According to Barnes, 1969, teacher‟s questions in this format might be open in form but closed in function In other words, the teacher is clearly seeking one particular statement from all possible responses In addition, complex ways of communicating between the teacher and students are discouraged by frequent use of the IRE In an agreement with this viewpoint, Hall (1995) acknowledges that extended student participation in exchanges of this type could limit their communicative development to simply recalling, listing and labeling In Lin's research in 1999, it is concluded that the factual nature of the questions and less elaborated evaluations by the teacher

contributed little room for students use their imagination By holding to the strict IRE

pattern of interaction, the teachers pushed students “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” However, this pattern is best utilized in certain cases such as checking simple given questions or in a limited time To recap, given these roles in this pattern, students' opportunities to communicate in a meaningful way mostly relies on the instructor's decision

IRF (Initiation-Response-Feedback)

In 1993, Wells proposed a reconceptualization of the IRE pattern which known as IRF The first two parts of IRF are the same as IRE in which the instructor initiates the exchange (usually asking a question) and then the students respond to the question However, instead of closing down the sequence with a narrow evaluation of their responses in the third part, the teachers more often follow

up on them, asking students to elaborate or clarify, treating their responses as valuable contributions to the ongoing discussion In other words, more equal dialogues are developed when students are allowed to make more contributions T: Chapter 14 There is an important moment there A lot of things

happen here, right? For you all, what would be an important thing?

Evaluation tends to constrain students' learning opportunities, Feedback could enhance opportunities for learning Specifically, participation in extended discussion means that students' appropriation of new words and ideas are facilitated Compared to the question - answer session where the answer is already known by the instructor, IRF patterns can trigger conversations between instructors and students by promoting a shared inquiry (Van Lier, 1998) However, embarrassment might be a side effect if students do not know how to continue the conversation In addition, in case of large group or time limitation, the teacher has to be tactful in determining time to stop an exchange to assure that equal participation is encouraged among students

1.7 Learner talk

Speaking, as defined by Lindsay and Knight (2006) is the act of performing and producing the oral language to convey the message in order to communicate with the other participants in different situations/contexts such as expressing their ideas and feelings, exchanging information and responding to someone else Speaking skill is considered as a productive skill for putting all elements of language together to perform, to produce, or to construct the intended message This

is confirmed by Ur (1996): “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” These elements are lexis and

grammar, pronunciation stress, vocabulary, syntax, fluency, and accuracy

As mentioned before, oral interaction is not only one of the ultimate objectives of language learning but also a medium to achieve the pedagogical goals Say it differently, speaking is probably considered a means to an end Several formal activities for students to practice speaking with their classmates are storytelling, group discussion, debate, information gap or role play In addition, students‟ oral production is enforced in whole class discussions engaging teacher talk such as a warm-up/follow-up activity However, learners might naturally face

obstacles or unconsciously make mistakes or even errors during their talk These consequences, for instance, mispronunciation, inappropriate word choice, grammatical inaccuracy or lack of fluency might stem from a variety of causes Brown (2000) regards mother tongue interference, fossilization, overgeneralization and preoccupation with the content as primary reasons It can be concluded that various speaking opportunities given to students may not guarantee better learner performance That is why teacher correction should be provided appropriately

To assess learner speaking skill, fundamental features of this skill had better

be taken into consideration Nevertheless, the major factor that were found to discriminate levels of language proficiency by Higgs and Clifford (1982) is vocabulary The high proficiency group participants produced a significantly greater variety of words than the low proficiency group participants As perceived by experienced teachers in their study, vocabulary appears to be the most important at lower levels while contributions from pronunciation, fluency and grammar increase

as the proficiency level goes up At higher proficiency levels, four factors (vocabulary, grammar, pronunciation and fluency) contribute equally, with the sociolinguistic factor contributing relatively less In short, based on the quantitative data analysis, the determining feature of proficiency is vocabulary range while other features that characterize oral proficiency vary according to proficiency level

1.8 Turn taking

Conversation and interaction cannot be analyzed fully without reference to turn-taking system (Chadia, 2011) Turn-taking consists of the allocation and acquisition of turns or directions of exchanges in a talk or conversation (Hutchby & Wooffit, 2008) Turn allocation is about giving turns to the next speakers, while turn acquisition describes how turns are received Asking a question, gazing towards a particular person, addressing him/her by name are fundamental ways to allocate turns to others Turns are taken by responses to the verbal/signal requests or self-selection

Turn taking also characterizes classroom conversations although it is distinguished from the one in natural contexts In typical classroom interaction, turn-taking is usually initiated by the teacher through asking questions or giving instructions, while learners acquire or receive turns by responding to the teachers‟ questions or instructions In some circumstances, learner self-selection may occur

In other words, turns/the speaking floor tend to be controlled by the teacher (McHoul) To be more detailed, the teacher is the one who allocates turns or selects who to speak and when to interrupt or stop a learner On the other hand, learners or students seldom self-select themselves to initiate a turn of interaction, nor select other peers to speak

This could be the teacher‟s purposeful action to achieve lesson objectives in predetermined plan As a result of time strain, the strict turn flow makes turn negotiation, self – initiation and competition among learners to take a turn become less Seedhouse, for instance, has concluded that the organization of the turn taking system is linked to the pedagogical activities (form and accuracy, meaning and fluency, tasks, and procedural contexts) In addition, Van Lier (1989) (cited in Ellis, 1997) supposes that the teacher perception of his/ her roles somehow influences the

turn taking system If the teacher considers himself a “knower‟ to transmit

knowledge about the TL, turns will be strictly organized and regulated By contrast,

as long as he recognizes himself merely a “facilitator”, more turns will be

negotiated Tsui (1996) admits that allocating turns to learners is complicated Sometimes, teachers allocate turns to brighter students to avoid long pauses and silence which might arise when asking a question However, if this kind of turn

allocation becomes habitual, shy and reluctant students might feel neglected: “The

more they feel retiring, the less willing they will be to express their minds and participate in class”

So far, this chapter sheds light on issues associated with interaction in SLA/FLA, as teacher talk, input, output, learner talk, classroom interactional patterns and their relationship with the target language development In the present

study, interaction‟s primary function is considered to provide input to the learner and language practice opportunities so that language learning can then take place at some later point in time Only the use of classroom interaction by both teachers and learners in specific contexts can determine whether it facilitates or hinders language learning It is expected that the research would contribute to the current theories by specifying on which occasions teacher-learner interaction, as a two-way nexus, enhance/inhibit students‟ learning

CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY

This chapter first provides details regarding the research setting, the instructors and students who participate in this study More importantly, it explains the methodologies that are employed in this dissertation in order to collect and analyze the essential data to answer the research questions

To achieve the goals of the study, it is essential to give a detailed description

of the teacher-learner interaction which mainly constitutes the teaching-learning process in an English classroom Therefore, the descriptive qualitative approach is applied to seek answers for the research questions

2.1 Context and Participants

The study is conducted at Division I - Faculty of English Language Teaching Education (FELTE) - University of Languages and International Studies (ULIS) Division I consists of first year students and teachers who are responsible for teaching English language skills for freshmen To attend the university in 2004, it was compulsory for students to pass the entrance exam organized annually by the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training (MOET) The English test in a written version included multiple choice questions mainly on vocabulary, grammar, reading and writing Listening and speaking were excluded Students of Faculty of English Language Teacher Education follow four-year bachelor program in which their English proficiency is chiefly trained during the first and second year Four language skills are taught in an integrated approach (Listening - Speaking and Reading – Writing combined sessions in Social English and Academic English) for sixteen periods each week The course objective for first year students is from level B1 toward B1+/B2- according to the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR)

The participants of the study are selected conveniently, including three teachers (Teacher A, B, C) and three class with approximately 25 mainstream

freshmen/class (Class A, B and C respectively) The attempt to observe three teachers and three classrooms is not to make a comparative study but rather to have

a more comprehensive idea about the discourse used by teachers and learners in the context of the study It is inevitable to report extraordinary features of each class/teacher that might influence students‟ in class oral production

Teacher A has been teaching for six years She spent two years studying MA oversea within the total working time Teacher B has been teaching for two years Teacher C, who participated in a student exchange course in her senior year as a student, has been teaching for three years With reference to the second subject, there are 75 students in total but several of them did not attend the observed lesson

A mass majority is female in their 18 or 19, there was no male learner in Class C Gender; however, is not a concern of the current research Most of students have been learning for around 10 years but not until their first year in the university did they start learning four skills extensively In terms of speaking skill, as referred in the overall description of the course objectives (Division 1 Lecturers, 2015),

students will be able to “interact with a degree of fluency that makes regular

interaction with speakers of English possible without much strain for either party”

However, it is imperative to remind that the focal tendency is to observe the interaction process among two target subjects but not assess students‟ level of speaking At the time of data collection, they have studied four skills for nearly six months

Academic English Listening – Speaking session, in which Headway Academic Skills Level 3 and internal compiled materials are employed, is chosen to collect data It is presumed that more verbal interaction occur during the class time than that in Reading – Writing session Students expose to content modules in different themes such as Education or Agriculture in English so as to acquire it The Listening – Speaking lesson on Global culture was observed in the 10th week of the second semester As mentioned before, the integrated approach is applied so that Listening and Speaking tasks are blended harmoniously

2.2 Methodology

Two major research methodologies are used in researching classroom interaction Long (1981), the founder of the cognitive interactionist tradition, works within the theory-driven, hypothesis-testing and experimental research tradition This research tradition aims to make large-scale generalizations about cause and effect relationships in classroom language learning The goal is to identify the causal relationships between teaching practices, cognitive processes, and learning outcomes (Markee, 2015)

Another research tradition is labeled as qualitative and primarily descriptive research tradition that seeks to understand participants‟ language learning and teaching processes (Markee, 2015) This latter approach is adopted in this study because the aims of this study as stated in Chapter I is to gain understanding about the classroom interaction patterns and students learning

2.3 Data Collection Instruments

Classroom observation (Audio recording + Field notes)

Classroom observation is the first method to collect data in the current study The researcher becomes an observer and a technician recording the data in the classroom during teaching-learning process so that the data are not biased Audio recordings are, in many ways, the easiest means of capturing spoken interaction in classrooms Using mechanical recorders increases analysis time because researchers may observe events while recording and then repeatedly observe them while processing, coding, and analyzing data later The main difficulty associated with audio-recordings is the presence of background „noise‟ – a constant presence that can make it very difficult to transcribe This can be overcome, to some extent, by positioning several recording devices around the classroom During the recording, the researcher, who is not allowed to make conversation in the classroom, also take some field notes In observation studies, field notes can provide data that audio

recorders cannot capture Moreover, the researcher's comments on each occasion or activity can be written next to the description

Semi-structured interview

After the audio recordings and the field notes are transcribed, Nassaji and Wells‟ framework (2000) are employed to categorize classroom interaction patterns for analysis A semi-structure interview is then conducted with three teachers and some students in three classes Suggested by Dornyei (2007), the semi-structure interview allows researchers to gather in-depth perspectives of the participants in selected domains Nunan (1996) points out that in the interviews, the voices of the teachers demonstrate their active involvement “in the constructions and interpretation of their world” The present study adopts the semi-structure interview within open-ended questions, which focuses on the teacher and learners‟ perspectives of classroom interaction and its influences on teaching and learning Teachers‟ use of questions and feedback and students‟ responses are explored by observation and then compared/contrasted with their perspectives Similarities and/or differences between theory and practice might be revealed Explanations for specific phenomenon in class are hoped to be gathered during the interviews Last but not least, suggestions for improvement are elicited from the insiders

2.4 Data Collection Procedure

Before observing and audio-taping each lesson, the researcher asked the teachers and students for their permission The aim of the study was stated clearly

so that they would not have a feeling of being assessed during the observed lesson

To make them familiar with the presence of the researcher in their class, the researcher observed one lesson in the week before the official observation took place In the next phase, classroom observation was carried out within 60 minutes per lesson During the observation, classroom verbal interaction between teachers and students was audio-recorded while the observer played a non-participant role and took field-notes as necessary All the recordings then were transcribed and