An exploratory case study of classroom interaction from conversation analysis perspectives

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES TRẦN THỊ PHƯỢNG AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF CLASSROOM INTERACT

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯỢNG

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION

FROM CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVES

(Một nghiên cứu trường hợp tìm hiểu về sự tương tác trong lớp học

sử dụng đường hướng phân tích hội thoại)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Methodology Code: 8140231.01

Hanoi, 2020

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST - GRADUATE STUDIES

TRẦN THỊ PHƯỢNG

AN EXPLORATORY CASE STUDY OF CLASSROOM INTERACTION

FROM CONVERSATION ANALYSIS PERSPECTIVES

(Một nghiên cứu trường hợp tìm hiểu về sự tương tác trong lớp học

sử dụng đường hướng phân tích hội thoại)

M.A MINOR THESIS

Field: English Methodology Code: 8140231.01

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Dr Lê Văn Canh

Hanoi, 2020

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis: “An exploratory case study of classroom interaction from conversation analysis perspectives” is my own work and effort

and has not been submitted anywhere for any award Moreover, the contributions of

my colleagues and students are involved Other sources of information have been used and acknowledged

Hanoi, January 2020

Tran Thi Phuong

I also would like to express my gratefulness to the participants of this study students from class 10E1 and 10 A1 and the teachers at Le Hong Phong high school

-in Nam D-inh prov-ince for their whole-hearted participation

I feel a deep gratitude to my family My thankfulness goes to my parents who have patiently supported me to complete the research, and to my husband who have stood by me as an enthusiastic supporter

ABSTRACT

This study was designed to explore the classroom interaction observed in class 10 E1 and 10 A1 at Le Hong Phong high school in Nam Dinh After the observation of some periods, data were collected and analyzed from conversation analysis perspectives Then, major findings were drawn Specifically, different patterns of interaction were analyzed in great details These included interaction between students and teachers and between students and students It is hoped that this research will help Vietnamese learners and teachers have a better understanding

of the nature of classroom interaction to improve the teaching and learning of English

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

CA: Conversation analysis T: Teacher

S: Student

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Description of the teachers 23

Table 2 Description of the students 23

Table 3 Description of speaking lessons observed 25

Table 4 The approach to study adjacency pairs 27

Table 5 Turn Distributions in class 10 E1 for ‘Turn Giving” Categories 30

Table 6 Turn Distributions in class 10 A1 for ‘Turn Giving” Categories 31

Table 7 Turn Distributions in both classes for ‘Turn Giving” Categories 31

Table 8 Turn Distributions in class 10 E1 for ‘Turn Getting” Categories 32

Table 9 Turn Distributions in class 10 A1 for ‘Turn Getting” Categories 33

Table 10 Turn Distributions in both classes for ‘Turn Getting” Categories 34

Table 11 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class 10 E1 35

Table 12 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class 10 A1 36

Table 13 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the First Pair Part in class both classes 37

Table 14 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in class 10 E1 38

Table 15 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in class 10 A1 39

Table 16 The occurence of Adjacency Pairs Type Response of the Second Pair Part in class both classes 40

Table 17 Different patterns of repair practices in both classes 41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Classroom interaction 6

Figure 2 Different interactional practices 12

Figure 3 The approach to study turn taking organization 26

Figure 4 The approach to study repair organization 29

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study 1

1.2 Aims of the study 2

1.3 Research questions 2

1.4 Scope of the study 2

1.5 Method of the study 3

1.6 Significance of the study 3

1.7 Organization of the thesis 4

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 5

2.1 Classroom interaction 5

2.1.1 Definitions of interaction 5

2.1.2 Definitions of classroom interaction 5

2.1.3 The roles of classroom interaction 6

2.1.4 Aspects of classroom interaction 7

2.1.5 Types of classroom interaction 8

2.1.6 Interactional practices 10

2.2 Conversation analysis 10

2.2.1 Definition of conversation analysis 10

2.2.2 Principles of CA 11

2.2.3 Conversation analysis and interaction practice research 12

2.2.4 CA as a research method researching classroom interaction 17

2.2.5 Related studies on classroom interaction 18

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 19

3.1 Research approach 19

3.1.1 Overview of case study 19

3.1.2 Rationale for the use of a case study 19

3.1.3 Steps of a case study research 21

3.2 The research design 21

3.2.1 Research context 21

3.2.2 Research participants 23

3.2.3 Research procedures 23

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 30

4.1 Overview 30

4.2 Findings 30

4.2.1 Turn taking organization 30

4.2.2 Sequencing pracices and adjacency pairs 34

4.2.3 Repair practices 41

4.3 Discussions 42

4.3.1 Turn taking organization 42

4.3.2 Adjacency pairs 48

4.3.3 Repair practices 55

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 61

5.1 Recapitulation 61

5.2 Major findings and conclusion 61

5.3 Implications for teaching 62

5.4 Limitations of the study 62

REFERENCES 63

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Statement of the problem and the rationale for the study

Over the past few decades, foreign language teaching, which is a complex process, has witnessed extensive changes in methodologies Many approaches have been come and gone so far However, communicative competence remains to be the ultimate goal Accordingly, students should be encouraged to get engaged in interactive activities in classroom such as pair work or group work

The increasing importance of classroom interaction has been proved and demonstrated in many researches According to Ellis (1985), classroom interaction plays a central role in the process of acquiring a language It encourages students to participate in classroom activities and hence, produces more outputs He also claimed that communication would break down in the absence of interaction Despite the acknowledged importance of interaction to the learners’ communicative competence, there has been little research on classroom interaction in Vietnamese high schools

Therefore, there arises a need to analyze interaction in the classroom on which, according to Betsy Rymes, it is worth spending time because it might

1 help both teachers and students acquire a deeper understanding of each other

2 enable teachers to realize differences in classroom talks among different groups of students

3 to some extent improve students’ academic performance

4 inspire teachers themselves in the process of teaching

In researching classroom interaction, conversation analysis (CA) has been promoted as an appropriate research method According to Seehouse (2011), CA helps to “ investigate various dynamics of classroom talk-in-interaction and shed light on teaching and learning practices”

CA originated from ethnomethodology - “the study of how people use social interaction to maintain an ongoing sense of reality in a situation” in the 1960s and

1970s It laid a solid foundation for the development of CA Initially, CA was used

to analyze ordinary conversations in daily life Later on, it was adopted to study interaction in second language acquisition (SLA)

Realizing the essential roles of interaction in SLA and the importance of analyzing interaction in such institutional contexts as schools, I would like to have a more thorough understanding of how interaction occurs and is maintained throughout in the environment of classroom, which therefore serves as an implication for future teaching and learning

All of these aforementioned factors have inspired me to conduct the study

titled “An exploratory case study of classroom interaction from conversation analysis perspectives”

1.2 Aims of the study

This study aimed to explore what actually takes place in a particular case, which

is, in this study, a Vietnamese high school The purpose of this exploration is to identify the relationship between classroom interaction patterns and learners’ learning through the lens of conversation analysis (CA)

In addition, the study was carried out to shed light on the possibility that interaction within class would open up opportunities for SLA and the extent to which students’ communicative competence would be improved through interaction

It is intended that the findings of the study can provide useful information on how teachers can improve the classroom interaction for students’ better learning outcomes, which are, in this study, limited to speaking performance only

1.3 Research question

In the light of the aforementioned aims, the study is intended to answer the following research question:

How does interaction occur in class in a high school in Nam Dinh province?

1.4 Scope of the study

Classroom interaction is a matter of global concern so many researchers all

over the world have been doing researches on this issue Moreover, it extensively covers so many aspects in SLA that a great deal of work needs to be done to fully understand it Therefore, this research paper has no intention of exploring the entire problems To limit the scope of the study, the researcher made an effort to study conversational interactions in several English classes The study was conducted on a male teacher, his students from class 10E1, a female teacher and her students from class 10A1 at a high school in Nam Dinh province They had two speaking lessons including unit 2 – your body and you and unit 3 – music All speaking activities were recorded in order to examine patterns of interaction happening during these classes The study just focused on two classes of grade 10 students so the results could not be applied for all students at high schools

1.5 Method of the study

Basically, the researcher conducted a case study on classroom interaction between teacher – students and students - students As Jabcobsen (2002) stated that the study is intended for interaction between a specific context and a phenomenon

to be analyzed, then the use of case studies is optimum Therefore, qualitative method is adopted during the process of the study

In order to get data for analysis and discussion, a number of steps were taken including:

- Gathering materials on related studies

- Finding a suitable theoretical framework based on which the analysis was performed

- Observing classrooms and audio-recording

1.6 Significance of the study

The findings of this case study are believed to be useful for both researchers and teachers Firstly, once completed, it will provide a theoretical foundation for further study to investigate classroom interaction Secondly, will be much beneficial

to EFL teachers as they can thoroughly understand the nature of interaction in the school context from a new perspective Therefore, they can make some adaptations

to enhance the effectiveness of communication

1.7 Organization of the thesis

The thesis consists of three main parts namely Introduction, Development and Conclusion

Chapter ONE: Introduction introduces the rationale, aims, research

question, hypothesis, scope, significance, and method of the study

Chapter TWO: Literature Review elaborates on relevant theoretical

background including interaction, classroom interaction and its importance, conversation analysis approach and reviews of related studies

Chapter THREE: Methodology gives a description of the case of the study

at a high school

Chapter FOUR: Findings and Discussion presents the findings together

with data analysis and discussion

Chapter FIVE: Conclusion, recapitulates the major findings of the study,

puts forward recommendations for further study and acknowledges its limitations of the study

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

In this part, an overview of literature background related to the study is exposed, laying the solid foundation for the next parts Key concepts of interaction, classroom interaction, types of classroom interaction are defined Furthermore, a critical outlook of conversational analysis – the theoretical framework for the data analysis and related studies are attached for a better understanding of the research problems

2.1 Classroom interaction

2.1.1 Definitions of interaction

Verbal interaction is regarded as an inseparable part in daily life because people need to interact with others to satisfy their needs and achieve their goals (Amin, 2015)

Brown (2001) also shared the same viewpoint with Amin, in which he agreed that interaction is considered as “the heart communication; it is what communication is all about.” Interaction occurs during the process of communication when people exchange messages Therefore, it helps prevent

“communication breakdown” (Ellis, 1990)

According to Robinson (1994) (as cited in Tuan & Nhu, 2010), 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.” By this he meant interaction can be performed both verbally and non-verbally

Hadfield and Hadfield introduced a broader definition of the term interaction which is not just meaning-focused by stating that “the word interaction involves more than just putting a message together; it involves also responding to other people This means choosing the language that is appropriate for the person you are talking to (interlocutor), responding to what others say, taking turns in a conversation, encouraging people to speak, expressing interests, changing the topic, asking people to repeat or explain what they say and so on.” (as cited in Taous, 2012)

2.1.2 Definitions of classroom interaction

Interaction can be classified according to places, time and people involved in and the one which occurs in the classroom including teacher and students can be called classroom interaction

According to Dagarin (2004), classroom interaction is a series of reciprocal actions carried out by both teacher and students in the classroom It means that one’s action has certain effects on the others’ reactions; therefore communication will be maintained

Having the same idea, Malamah-Thomas (1987) pointed out that classroom interaction is a two-way action and reaction He illustrated how teacher and students interact with each other in classroom in the following figure:

Figure 1 Classroom interaction

Interaction that takes place in the classroom can follow different patterns including pair discussions, group discussions and whole class discussions In other words, it occurs during the process of exchanging knowledge between teachers and students Students give corresponding responses to teacher’s instruction, which is considered pedagogic interaction as stated by Sarosdy et al (2006):

“The classroom or pedagogic interaction is a continuous and ever changing process and the factors of context shift from minute to minute The teacher acts upon the students to cause a reaction The reaction includes a response to a question, an item in a drill, a word pronounced and a sentence written.”

2.1.3 The roles of classroom interaction

Admittedly, classroom interaction is of utmost importance because it can be used as an educational strategy to enhance students’ performance in class They are provided with language input which is beyond the current level of their linguistic

competence to convey meanings according to Saville-Troike (as cited in Mulyati, 2013) They stand chances of getting feedback from the teacher or other students in order to improve their language system Brock (1986) also agreed that the more students are exposed to classroom interaction, the more easily and quickly they can learn the target language Brown (2001) stated that interaction can motivate leaners

to take risks to produce the target language

Moreover, classroom interaction means not only the active involvement in the teaching and learning activities but also the established relationships with others

in the classroom Khadidja (2009) claimed that classroom interaction offers learners opportunities to participate in collaborative learning requiring a certain amount of talk to each other, therefore fostering mutual understanding Only when the understanding is created can teachers and students attain their goals

In addition, learners’ communicative success can be measured through their exchanging information with the teachers or with their peers (Lyster, 2007)

More importantly, classroom interaction acts as a stimulus to active participation in class Runmei (2008) believed that students will be encouraged to communicate with others in a real situation as long as good classroom interaction is established It depends on how teachers give chances to students to talk Khan (2009) noted that classroom interaction is a contributing factor to students’ activeness in the learning process

2.1.4 Aspects of classroom interaction

2.1.4.1 Teacher talk

Teacher talk, literally, means any kind of language that teachers use in the classroom Richards (1992) provided a definition of this term in Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, which is “variety of language sometimes used by teachers when they are in the process of teaching In trying to communicate with learners, teachers often simplify their speech, giving it many of the characteristics of foreigner talk and other simplified styles of speech addressed to language learners”

It is undeniable that teacher talk in foreign language classrooms has always been a topic for research among linguists According to Nunan (1991), it plays an important role and has certain effects on “not only the organization of the classroom but also the processes of acquisition”

Brown (2007) associated teacher talk with seven aspects including dealing with feelings, praising and encouraging, using ideas of students, asking questions, giving information and criticizing student behavior

Similarly, Celcia-Murcia (1989), as cited by Hidayat in his thesis,

“distinguishes teacher talk into indirect and direct teacher talk Indirect teacher talk covers four areas of teaching and learning process, that is (1) accepting students’ feeling, (2) stimulating students’ motivation and interest, (3) using students’ perception, and (4) offering questions Direct teacher talk may come out in terms of (1) informing something, (2) giving direction, and (3) justifying students’ authority”

2.1.4.2 Student talk

On the other hand, student talk means any kind of language that students use

in the classroom Students initiate talks when asking questions, creating talk exchanges, repeating and answering teacher’s or peers’ questions Students’ participation in classroom activities is as important as teacher’s However, many of them find it reluctant to get involved, consider themselves as “passive recipients” rather than “active speakers” according to Tsui (1985) Therefore, the issue of how

to increase students’ talking time is becoming a matter of concern

2.1.5 Types of classroom interaction

Malamah-Thomas (1987) divided classroom interaction into seven types depending on participants involved

2.1.5.1 Teacher speaking to the whole class

According to Dagarin (2004), the language classroom is often dominated

by this type of interaction It typically follows a structure in which teacher initiated, students respond and the pattern of IRF (Interaction – Response – Feedback) exchange structure is applied Teachers take on the role of a controller

who is totally responsible for what and how students act in class Harmer (1991) believes that teachers, fulfilling this role, “[ ] control not only what the students

do, but also when they speak and what language they use.” For example, teachers give instructions, introduce a new grammatical item or assign tasks

2.1.5.2 Teacher speaking to an individual student with the rest of students of the class as hearers

This second type of interaction is easily noticed in almost every class Dagarin (2004) stated that “the second arrangement is conducted when the teacher refers to the whole class, but expects only one student or a group of students to answer” It is considered a useful tool to access individual students It can occur, for example, when teachers raise a question and expect answers to that question

2.1.5.3 Teacher speaking to a group of students

This type of classroom interaction requires teachers’ involvement in students’ group work Teachers can play the role of organizers to offer students suggestions regarding the way students may progress in an activity However, such help should be available only when necessary Moreover, when students are struggling to generate the ideas or getting stuck on some questions, teachers can serve as a prompter It is a way to encourage students to keep going

2.1.5.4 Student speaking to teacher

Students take the initiative in communicating with teachers According to Mingzi (2005), this kind of interaction commonly happens in “learner-centered classrooms” Students raise questions whenever they are not clear about the information provided or encounter an elusive problem

2.1.5.5 Student speaking to student

This kind of interaction is associated with activities involving pair work Two students make conversations with each other or act out role plays which are effective means of simulating real-life situations These activities help to expand students’ talk to practice producing target language

2.1.5.6 Student speaking to group members

The interaction happens within the group when students come up with an idea and try to communicate it to the other group members In addition, students can rehearse before making a presentation in front of the class This kind is also pervasive in languages classroom as the communicative language teaching is paid more attention

2.1.5.7 Students speaking to the whole class

The activity of presentation often trigger this type of interaction when a student has a talk at the front and when another student gives comments on his/her presentation

2.1.6 Interactional practices

According to Wong and Waring (2010), interactional practices are defined as

“the systematic verbal and nonverbal methods participants use to engage in social interaction” Having the same idea, Seedhouse (2011) stated that interactional practices are what “interactants use normatively and reflexively both as an action template for the production of their social actions and as a point of reference for the interpretations of their actions.” In other words, interactional practices are considered strategies employed by interlocutors to construct interaction

2.2 Conversation analysis

2.2.1 Definition of conversation analysis

Conversation analysis is a major area of study in the analysis of discourse Many researchers of applied linguistics and sociologists have studied the definitions

of the term Conversation Analysis (CA)

Psathas (1995) states that conversation analysis studies “the order/organization /orderliness of social actions that are located in everyday interaction, in discursive practices, in the sayings/telling/doings of member of society” In other words, CA aims to clarify how participants arrange and maintain the interaction and how they show their understanding of each other during the talk

Ian Hutchby and Robin Wooffitt (1998) shared the same viewpoint when

saying that CA is “the systematic analysis of the talk produced in everyday situations of human interaction: talk-in-interaction” According to them, talk-in-interaction is the primary object of CA study Therefore, attempts “to discover how participants understand and respond to one another in their turns at talk, with a central focus on how sequences of action are generated” are becoming the major aim of CA To put it another way, the objective of CA is to discover the implicit process in which competencies regarding sociolinguistics and reasoning are shown

to produce and interpret talk in certain sequences Concerning this, Schegloff and Sacks added that the organization of talk should be analyzed from the perspective of participants themselves who orient to the achievement of an orderly and organized interaction

2.2.2 Principles of CA

Seedhouse (2005) briefly discussed four principles underlying CA as follows According to Sack (1984), the first principle of CA is that “there is order at all points in interaction” This concept stands in total contrast to the widespread linguistic presumption in the 1960s when CA first emerged, of the fact that conversations were disordered This, accordingly, forms the idea of “rational design”, which regards human interaction as an “emergent collectively organized event” (ten Have 2007, p 9)

The second principle of CA is that “contributions to interaction are shaped and context-renewing” (Seedhouse, 2004) It means that an utterance produced will be based on the sequential environment and also shape the next turn

context-of the participants Hutchby & Woodffitt (1999) refer to this principle as a turn proof procedure” in which speakers show their understanding of the prior turns through their subsequently next turns

“next-The third principle states that “no order of detail can be dismissed a priori as disorderly, accidental or irrelevant” (Sert and Seedhouse, 2011) They place great importance on “recorded, naturally occurring conversations”, which play the role of the primary source of data for CA It means that the researchers should not deliberately distort the data Additionally, Sacks (1984) adds that transcripts of the events happening in a natural setting not only facilitate researchers in the process of

producing in-depth and publishing them but ensure the reliability of the method as well (as cited in Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998)

The final principle is that “analysis is bottom up and data driven” (Seedhouse 2005) In other words, analysis should start with details and then later helps researcher draw more general conclusions Moreover, data should be interpreted without “prior theoretical assumptions” To put it different, exterior factors such as power or gender are not mentioned in CA unless interlocutors direct themselves towards them

There is another way in which the principles of CA can be explained It is to answer the question posed during the process of CA analysis of data “Why that, in that way, right now?” (Seedhouse, 2004) To put it simply, analysts should consider interaction as “action (why that) which is expressed by means of linguistic forms (in that way) in a developing sequence (right now)”

Although CA has certain principles, it is not necessary to stick to them and apply them in an inflexible way Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998) claimed that “ it is essential to adopt a conversation analytic mentality which involves more a cast of mind, or a way of seeing, than a static and prescriptive set of instructions which analysts bring to bear on the data.”

2.2.3 Conversation analysis and interaction practice research

Different interactional practices are clearly presented in Figure 2

Figure 2: Different interactional practices

It can be clearly shown in the model there are four contributing components

to the happening of interaction namely overall structuring practices, sequencing practices, turn-taking practices and repair practices The first three components have

an interrelationship with each other Turn-taking practices are the fundamental factors that form sequencing practices Then more sequences can be arranged in overall structuring practices to create conversations The practices of repair can be taken during the process to address possible problems of the talk

2.2.3.1 Turn-taking practices

Lying at the base, turn taking is central to conversation analysis According

to Wong and Waring (2010), turn taking practices “refer to the way of constructing

a turn and allocating a turn” Liddicoat (2007) stated that there are three main constructs of turn taking The first component is turn-constructional units (TCU) which may be words, phrases, clauses and sentences used to complete a communicative act The second component is transition relevance place (TRP) It is possible completion point (PCP) at which speaker transition is made relevant and a new turn could occur TCUs have “the property of projectability” (Hutchby and Wooffitt, 1998) By this, they mean that participants in conversations are able to predict the PCP using grammatical, intonation, or pragmatic resources The last component is turn allocation It is the way in which turns at talks are distributed According to Sacks et al (1974), there are two fundamental ways to allocate the next turn It is decided by either the current speaker or the next speaker themselves

Institutionalized turn taking

In most institutional contexts, question-answer exchanges are exploited to construct turn taking system Especially, in classrooms, questioning is among the most widely used strategies to monitor classroom interaction Therefore, in recent years it has become a matter of concern to many researchers and a field that is worth investigating

According to Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries, question is generally defined as

“a sentence, phrase or word that asks for information” Kathleen narrowed down the

definition of question in classroom settings by stating that teacher questions are

“instructional cues or stimuli that convey to students the content elements to be learned and directions for what they are to do and how they are to do it” He also mentioned the utmost importance of teachers’ questioning as follows:

 To develop interest and motivate students to become actively involved in lessons

 To evaluate students’ preparation and check on homework or seatwork completion

 To develop critical thinking skills and inquiring attitudes

 To review and summarize previous lessons

 To nurture insights by exposing new relationships

 To assess achievement of instructional goals and objectives

 To stimulate students to pursue knowledge on their own

Morgan and Saxton (1991) added that the act of asking questions encourages students’ participation in lessons, offers them opportunities to “openly express their ideas and thoughts” Additionally, teachers also benefit from using questions as a way to assess students as well as keep them under control

Many researchers distinguished between two types of questions namely

“known-information questions” and “information-seeking questions” which were used in the classroom Specifically, according to Long and Sato (1983), questions are classified into two categories including “display” and “referential” questions Display questions are posed to require students to show information whereas teachers often raise referential questions with a view to getting unknown information

Display questions do not have the quality of being communicative However, they are widely used in classroom context and seemingly dominate classroom interaction because they play a pivotal role as a means to assess students’ knowledge and understanding Therefore, students are expected to give correct answers These are some typical examples of a display question:

 What is the past simple form of leave?

 What is the reading text about?

 What is the synonym of “exciting”?

 How can you distinguish between “ go” and “ come”?

 How do you pronounce this word?

By contrast, referential questions are meaning-oriented not form-oriented , therefore, pervasive in daily conversation outside classrooms Nevertherless, their importance in language leanring classes are undeniable They are helpful in promoting language acquisition as teachers require learners to use language in order

to make comprehensible output

Several classroom activities in which referential questions can be used include quizzes (setting and answering questions), interviews, discussion of work

 What did you do at the weekend?

 If you won a lottery ticket, what would you do?

 How are chores in your family divided?

 What can you benefit from travelling?

 How do you understand this saying?

In general, no matter what the questions are, Van Lier (1988) supposed that both are made use of to produce chances for learners to produce language

2.2.3.2 Sequencing practice

During the process of interaction, turns are ordered and arranged to form sequencing practices which Wong and Waring (2010) refered to as “participants’ ways of connecting two or more turns, for example, in making and responding to a request, telling a story or managing a topic”

Adjacency pairs are the core of sequence organization Schegloff (2007) defined them as “units of two turns by different speakers that are placed next to each other, are relatively ordered, and are of the same pair type” That is, the second turn, also called the “second pair part” will be produced corresponding to the first

turn or “the first pair part” He also gave some examples of adjacency pairs such as greeting-greeting, question-answer, assessment-(dis)agreement, and offer-acceptance/rejection However, the second pair part does not necessarily occur, which is called an “official absence”

Preference is a “structural organization in which the alternatives that fit in a certain slot in a sequence are treated as non-equivalent (i.e preferred or dispreferred)” (Wong and Waring, 2010) It means that adjacency pairs have certain favored or + response and disfavored or – response For example, a request may be granted or rejected; being granted is preferred and being rejected is dispreferred The + response represents support whereas the – response does not

2.2.3.3 Overall structuring practices

Wong and Waring (2010) stated that “overall structuring practices refer to ways of organizing a conversation as a whole, as in openings and closings” As regards openings, because it is very difficult to gather data on how to start a direct conversation, the data on telephone openings are used There are four main opening sequences including the greeting sequence; the how-are-you sequence; the identification-recognition sequence and the summons answer sequence (Garcia, 2013) With regard to closings, they are composed of two adjacency pairs, a preclosing sequence to signal an upcoming closing and a terminal exchange to end a conversation (Wong and Waring 2010)

2.2.3.4 Repair practices

“Repair practices” is the last one in the model of interactional practices According to Schegloff et al, repair is “a mechanism that operates in conversation to deal with problems in speaking, hearing, and understanding the talk in conversation” In other words, it is the performance of corrective action in case troubles might come up Four types of repair are classified by Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998)

 self-initiated self-repair (SS): the speaker causing the problem identify and solve it himself

 other-initiated self-repair (OS): the recipient of the information identify the problem and solve it

 self-initiated other-repair (SO): the speaker causing the problem identify

it but the recipient of the information solve the problem

 other-initiated other-repair (OO): the recipient of the information both identify and solve the problem

2.2.4 CA as a research method researching classroom interaction

Many linguistics researchers have been discussing the far-reaching implications of conversation analysis for the teaching and learning of second language Button & Lee (1987) stated that CA had been widely applied in that field due to its ability to illustrate the “social organization of natural language-in-use” which refers to how participants organize and maintain naturally occurring conversations CA serves as a source of authentic teaching materials; using such materials in language classes helps expose students to real life language There will

be no longer classrooms with traditional teaching methods Based on the analysis of talk-in-interaction, students can thoroughly understand the nature of interaction; therefore they are enabled to “anticipate, interpret and produce relevant conduct in the target language”, according to Thorsten Huth and Carmen Taleghani-Nikazm Schegloff (2007) also mentioned the relevance of CA to second language teaching:

“One element of this attraction, I have come to believe, is the role CA plays

in their progressive mastery of English Most of our graduate students have gone about as far as they can go in mastering English by the end of their first year of graduate studies, building, of course, on their previous course work and lived experience devoted to learning the language; their efforts to make further progress

by the traditional methods of language pedagogy seem to have been frustrated It has occurred to me that one attraction CA has had for them – aside (of course) from its appeal as a method of research – has been analytically-informed access to how language is actually employed in the course of mundane, daily activities.”

CA research also has a strong effect on the design of tasks and materials

Teachers are provided with an approach to the teaching of interactional competence based on authentic talks in real life

2.2.5 Related studies on classroom interaction

There is no denying the fact that interaction is of utmost importance to the teaching and learning a foreign language It is the core factor that helps maintain all other activities in class Realizing its pivotal role, many researches on this issue have been carried out Sundari, Rafli & Ridwan (2017) studied interaction patterns

in English as foreign language classroom at lower secondary schools They found out that teachers followed different interactional patterns in EFL classroom modifying IRF structure Another research conducted by Skuse (2017) on interaction within an EFL class information gap task showed that every aspects regarding interaction including repair and turn taking during the discourse provided opportunity for learning

Classroom interaction is also a matter of concern in Vietnam Dung (2004) did a research on classroom interaction in only one classroom at Military Technical Academy It mainly focused on teacher talk and the strategies of using questions by teachers The results showed that teacher talk occupied most of class time and the number of display questions outnumbered that of referential questions, most of which received no students’ answers

The literature review presented in this chapter shows a big gap regarding classroom interaction in the context of Vietnamese high schools Particularly, not many studies use CA as a research method to investigate classroom interaction in Vietnamese foreign language classrooms This study, thus, is a small contribution to the attempt to narrow the gap

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

The aim of this chapter is to provide background information about case study, the specific case study at a high school in Nam Dinh province and a description of the methodology employed to collect data for the study

3.1 Research approach

3.1.1 Overview of case study

This study was conducted using the approach of case study It is pivotal to have a thorough understanding of case study as it results in a more efficient and reliable way of analyzing the problem Therefore, the researcher finds it important

to justify the employment of this type of research

Over the past few decades, the case study research design have been widely used

as an effective tool with the aim of carefully exploring real situations in many areas

As regards the definitions of case study, several have been proposed Starman (1997) defined case study as “the exploration of an individual, group or phenomenon” Mesec (1998) narrowed down the definition in the field of social work when claiming that case study is a means to either specify fundamental natures of interaction in a certain setting including its “variables, structures, forms and orders” or make an overall assessment of work performance Sharing the similar viewpoint, Sadagin (1991) as cited by Mohajan (2018) stated that “a case study is used when we analyze and describe, for example each person individually […], a group of people […], individual institutions or a problem (or several problems), process, phenomenon or event in a particular institution.”

3.1.2 Rationale for the use of a case study

Cohen and Manion (2007) stated that case study was designed to “portray

‘what it is like’ to be in a particular situation, to catch the close up reality and ‘thick description’ (Geertz 1973b) of participants’ lived experiences of, thoughts about and feelings for a situation”

Hayes (2000) mentioned four defining characteristics of a case study Firstly,

it should be as highly descriptive as possible Secondly, it is “narrowly focused”, or

in other words it is particularistic Thirdly, both objective and subjective data are collected Finally, it is “process oriented” Merriam (1988) added that case study can be characterized as being “heuristic” It means that the study conducted helps readers fully understand the phenomenon

These features were reflected in this study carried out by the researcher herself, a teacher of English The study drew much of its inspiration from the recognition and observation of a real problem in the classes that my colleagues and

I have taught in the past few school years Patterns of classroom interaction varied from class to class and they had certain effects on students’ speaking skills This study was conducted with a view to delving into classroom interaction in different classes and how it affects students in the process of acquiring a second language With this purpose, this study fulfills the requirement of the approach of case study Firstly, all activities during the class were recorded using cameras, so a comprehensive description of what actually went on was provided In addition, the study focused on certain groups of students and their interaction Moreover, the depiction of interaction in several classes was the main source of data, based on which the researcher made some personal interpretations

Case study is divided into different types including exploratory, explanatory,

or descriptive case study The researchers decided to conduct an exploratory case study As its name indicates, exploratory research aims to provide a deeper insight into an existing problem The achieved results differ from cases to cases In addition, explanatory case studies try to find out the answers to “ how [emphasis added] and why [emphasis added]” questions (Yin, 2014, p 10) Also, they help

“ to establish cause-and-effect relationships determine[ing] how events occur and which ones may influence particular outcomes ” (Hancock & Algozzine,

2011, p 37) Therefore, the researcher believe that exploratory case study fit the purpose of this study as, to be more specific, it is intended to seek the answers to the following “how” question:

How does interaction occur in class in a high school in Nam Dinh province?

3.1.3 Steps of a case study research

According to Runeson & Höst (2009), working on a case study requires five major steps as follows:

Step 1 Case study design: objectives are defined and the case study is planned

Step 2 Preparation for data collection: procedures and protocols for data collection are defined

Step 3 Collecting evidence: execution with data collection on the studied case

Step 4 Analysis of collected data

Step 5 Reporting

Meanwhile, Bassey (1999) suggested 7 steps required to carry out a case study including:

Step 1: identifying the research as an issue, problem or hypothesis

Step 2: asking research questions and drawing up ethical guidelines

Step 3: collecting and storing data

Step 4: generating and testing analytical statements

Step 5: interpreting or explaining the analytical statements

Step 6: deciding on the outcome and writing the case report

Step 7: finishing and publishing

Different researchers propose different approaches to conduct a case study They can vary in terms of the number of stages However, they are the same in nature

Case study is employed in this study to explore how interaction in the classroom takes place The author follows the main steps of a case study suggested by Runeson & Höst (2009)

3.2 The research design

3.2.1 Research context

The case study was conducted at a high school in Nam Dinh province The school has 48 classes with an average of 35 students per class The physical condition of the school is considered as a supportive environment for language teaching and learning with favorable facilities such as rooms well-equipped with overhead projector, screen, loud speakers, CD and CD player

The students have three 45-minute periods of English a week, that is, 51 periods in term 1 and 54 periods in term 2

In the past few years, the trend towards globalization and integration has strongly developed That is the reason why foreign languages in general and English

in particular have become indispensable means of communication among countries all over the world Being aware of this problem, Vietnamese government and the Ministry of Education and Training attach special importance to the English teaching and learning and create favorable conditions for it to develop in order to meet the requirements of the society One of the most noticeable facts is the efforts

to make English gradually become a compulsory subject in most schools According to the draft of Vietnam’s educational development strategy 2008 – 2020, English will be a compulsory subject in primary school (from grade 3) In recent years, New English textbook series have been introduced into high schools throughout Vietnam Its content is improved and focuses on not only language knowledge but also language skills New English textbooks covers 10 theme-based units, all of which are subdivided into various sections including vocabulary, pronunciation, grammar, reading, speaking, listening, writing, culture and project Each unit is intended to provide students with knowledge of English in a certain field serving as a base for communication – oriented activities In general, New English textbooks have made remarkable improvements when it centers around the development of students’ communicative competence

Of four English skills taught in high school education, speaking has gained its prominent position due to its good response to social demand In Le Hong Phong

high school, the teaching of speaking seems to be paid enough attention Teachers have adapted different language teaching methods, among which communicative language teaching approach has been widely used as an effective way in order to enhance students’ speaking skills However, there still exists a problem associated with students They are structurally competent but cannot communicate approriately using the target language This poses the questions of what causes this situation and how to solve it

Therefore, the researcher finds it important to carry out the research study with the purpose of providing a general picture of the issue

3.2.2 Research participants

The study is carried out with the participation of two teachers and their classes The subjects chosen for the study can be briefly described in the following tables

Table 1 Description of the teachers

Teacher Gender Age Years of experience Class teaching

Teacher 1 Male 25 3 years 10 E1

Teacher 2 Female 42 19 years 10 A1

Table 2 Description of the students

Classes Number of

students Gender Age

Level of English

Years of learning English

3.2.3.1 Identifying the problem

In the context of the modern society, the teaching of English has dramatically changed, leading to the changes in not only teaching methodolody but also materials used at school The development of communicative competence is put more

emphasis on Therefore, the aim of speaking lessons in text books is to provide opportunites for students to have short talks about a certain topic and act out real life conversations It requires teachers to make adaptations to learning activities and make them more interaction – oriented However, during the process of teaching English for 7 years, the researcher realized that most of the students, though, are structurally competent, they still encounter certain problems when communicating

in English This fact poses some challenging questions of how interaction takes place and therefore provides some implications for teachers

3.2.3.2 Prepararing for data collection

This is a preparatory stage in which the researcher set up necessary conditions for the observation Prior to each class, I had a discussion with the teacher about the lesson plans including which material would be used, which actitivities students would participate in so that it could facilitate me during the process of observation For example, I could make a wise choice of recording devices and suitably arranged them in the classroom

Moreover, all the data obtained are required to occur in a natural way Therefore, in order to guarantee that the appearance of the observer and recording devices had no significant effects on the students’ performance, the researcher observed and recorded several lessons which, definitely, were not used as a source

of data It took about two weeks for the participants to get used to this and they seemed not to be distracted from the surroundings

3.2.3.3 Collecting data

It was in the first semester and students started their school year just one month ago I observed four speaking lessons in two classes 10 E1 and 10 A1 I did not participate in any activities during the process of observation, just sat silent and took some notes

Table 3 Description of speaking lessons observed Teacher Class Number of

October

4th,2019 45 minutes

Unit 3: Speaking (observation and audio recording)

October

14th,2019 45 minutes

Unit 2: Speaking (observation and audio recording)

October

3th,2019 45 minutes

Unit 3: Speaking (observation and audio recording)

October

12th,2019 45 minutes

In the first week, I tried to make recordings of classroom interaction using just a mobile phone placed on the teacher’ table As the class was not very large, I supposed I could record all teachers’ and students’ talks However, it turned out to

be of such a poor quality that I could hardly listen to the lesson clearly In the next periods, a recorder was used in group activities It is portable so it can be moved from places to places In addition, a camera was set up at the back of the class with the aim of getting the whole of the classroom interaction However, I still encountered some difficulties transcribing the recordings especially when students worked in groups

3.2.3.4 Analyzing data

As the subject of the study is classroom interaction, it is classified as a qualitative and descriptive research which is undertaken to investigate peoples' experiences and actions Therefore, the study followed the approach of qualitative analysis supported by statistical data analysis The recordings of several lessons were transcribed and then analyzed to have a detaied description of how interaction occured

Data collected were analyzed based on the framwork described in “ Doing

conversation analysis” by Paul Ten Have (2007) According to him, there were four types of interactional organization including

(1.) Turn taking organization

(2.) Sequence organization and adjacency pairs

(3.) Repair organization

(4.) The organization of turn design

He also stated that the turn organization of turn design “ does not have an elaborate, strutured approach in the CA tradition as the previous three” Therefore, the researcher analyzed the data using three first categories Each category was examined from different approaches

As regards turn taking organization, the researcher adopted the model proposed by Allwright’s (1988:175-176) in Milky (2000: 42) However, in order to achieve the aims of the study in the most feasible way, the model was adapted in a way that non- verbal elements were omitted because these are beyond the scope of the study

Figure 3 The approach to study turn taking organization

P = making a personal solicit: giving turns to others by asking a specific person,

Turn giving

Turn getting

AcceptVolunteerTake Make Interrupt

Turn taking organization

mentioning the next speaker

G = making a general solicit: giving turns to others but not a specific person by asking the whole group

Ø = making a turn available without making either a personal or a general solicit often by using terminal makers

Accept = responding to a personal solicit

Volunteer = responding to a general solicit

Take = take an unsolicited turn in order to maintain the discourse

Make = make an unsolicited turn, during the current speaker’s turn, without the intention of gaining the floor

Interrupt = start a turn, during that of the current speaker, with the intention of gaining the floor

For the second category, there are many researchers studying sequence organization and adjacency pairs such as Flowerdew (1951), Levinson (1983), Coulthard (1985), Tylor and Tylor (1990), Paltridge (2000), and Schegloff (2007) They categorize adjacency pairs into 18 types including the responses; however, this study found out

8 main types as shown in the following table

Table 4 The approach to study adjacency pairs

Adjacency Pairs

Questions Expected Answer/ Unexpected Answer Assessment Agreement/ Disagreement Command Compliance/ Incompliance

Complement Acceptance/ Rejection

The following examples illustrate 8 main types of adjacency pairs

Type 1: Questions - Expected Answer/ Unexpected Answer:

FPP: What is the synonym of “big”? (Question)

SPP1: Huge (Expected Answer)

SPP2: Small (Unexpected Answer)

Type 2: Assessment - Agreement/ Disagreement

FPP: In my opinion, it is a good piece of writing It is well-strutured with appropriate language style

SPP1: Yes Thank you (Agreement)

SPP2: Not, many informal words are used (Disagreement)

Type 3: Command - Compliance/ Incompliance

FPP: Do not go out after 8 p.m (Command)

SPP1: Alright (Compliance)

SPP2: It is still early (Incompliance)

Type 4: Summons - Answer/ No response

FPP: Trang, can you give an example to illustrate this?

SPP1: “Where did you stay during the last summer vacation?” is a referential

question (Answer)

SPP2: Sorry, I have no idea (No response)

Type 5: Complement - Acceptance/ Rejection

FPP: You have done a great job! (Complement)

SPP1: Thank you! (Acceptance)

SPP2: Actually, I have made several mistakes (Rejection)

Type 6: Greeting – Greeting

FPP: Good morning!

SPP: Good morning!

Type 7: Request - Acceptance/ Refusal

FPP: Could you help me with this exercise, please! (Request)

SPP1: Yes, of course (Acceptance)

SPP2: I’m sorry I have to go now (Refusal)

Type 8: Leave-taking - Leave taking

FPP: Good bye! See you later

SPP: Bye!

The last category of repair organization were analyzed according to the model by Hutchby and Wooffitt (1998)

Figure 4 The approach to study repair organization

SS = self-initiated self-repair OO = other-initiated other-repair

SO = self-initiated other-repair OS = other-initiated self-repair

Repair Organization

SS

SO

OSOO