An exploratory study on teacher talk and students’ learning opportunities in a primary school context

iii ABSTRACT In the following paper, it was tried to explore the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classroom as well as the influences of teacher talk on the students‟

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

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THỊ LOAN TRANG

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHER TALK AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTEXT

Nghiên cứu thăm dò về cách sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giáo viên

trong lớp học và cơ hội học tập của học sinh

trong bối cảnh trường Tiểu học

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

HANOI, 2018

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

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHAN THỊ LOAN TRANG

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON TEACHER TALK AND STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL CONTEXT

Nghiên cứu thăm dò về cách sử dụng ngôn ngữ của giáo viên

trong lớp học và cơ hội học tập của học sinh

trong bối cảnh trường Tiểu học

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Teaching Methodology Code: 8140231.01

Supervisor: Assoc Prof Le Van Canh

HANOI, 2018

Hanoi, May 2018

Phan Thị Loan Trang

ii

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 some primary schools in Hanoi (Tu Hiep primary school, Yen My primary school, Dong Ngac primary school) 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

iii

ABSTRACT

In the following paper, it was tried to explore the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classroom as well as the influences of teacher talk on the students‟ learning process in primary school context Teacher talk and its consequence on students‟ learning opportunities are put into investigation Within the scope of this paper, three teachers and the students

in six classes coming from three distinctive primary schools in Hanoi participated in the study Data was collected by nonparticipant observation with six video recordings which were transcribed carefully later The different aspects of teacher talk are analyzed according to recognized frameworks As the result, teacher talk was used to serve different pedagogical functions: Question strategies; Encouraging expanded answering; Giving feedback; Elicitation; Repetition; and Code switching The result demonstrates that basically, the teacher talk as indicated in the observational data shows that it matches the pedagogical functions to some extent They tended to repeat the basic linguistic patterns to the students and also tried to elicit as much as possible the students in an attempt to provide them with more opportunities to use English in their own way However, there were not many instances of this pedagogical purpose that were observed In addition, teachers rarely used their talk to provide comprehensible input to the students Particularly, it seems that the teachers used Vietnamese unnecessarily excessive, thus limiting the students‟ exposure to input for learning This has implications both for teachers of English in primary schools and teacher educators

v

LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES

Figure 1 A teaching-learning model (Stern, 1983: 500) 7Table 3.1 Frequency of question types teachers used per lesson 26Table 3.2 Frequency of teacher questioning for 29

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LIST OF ABRREVIATIONS iv

LIST OF FIGURE AND TABLES v

PART ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Research questions 2

4 Scope of the study 2

5 Significance of the study 2

6 Research methodology 3

7 Structure of the study 3

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT 5

Chapter 1: Literature review 5

1.1 Definition of teacher talk: 5

1.2.The role of teacher talk in foreign language learning 6

1.3.The features of teacher talk 8

1.4 Students‟ learning opportunities 8

1.5 Related theories 9

vii

1.5.1.Krashen‟s Input Theory 9

1.5.2.The Interaction Hypothesis 11

1.6.Teacher talk and learner learning 12

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 18

2.1 Research methodology 18

2.2 Data Collection Instruments: 19

2.3 Context and Participants 21

2.4 Data Collection and Data Analysis 23

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 25

3.1.Questioning strategies 25

3.2.Encouraging expanded answers 32

3.3 Giving feedback 33

3.4 Elicitation 35

3.5 Repetition 37

3.6 Code – switching 40

PART C: CONCLUSION 44

REFERENCES Error! Bookmark not defined APPENDIXES I

as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken different form The earliest was interaction analysis… An alternative approach focused only on the language used by the teacher when addressing second language learners It sought to tabulate the adjustments which occur in teacher talk.”

Teacher talk is particularly important to language teaching(Cook, 2000:144) The language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a large degree whether a class will succeed or not Teacher talk is estimated to make

up around 70% of classroom language Teachers pass on knowledge and skills, organize teaching activities and help pupils practice through teacher talk Teacher talk involves many aspects, in which teacher questions have drawn much attention

In recent years, studies on the language that teachers use in language classroom has gradually drawn people‟s attention However, few researches have explored the effects of teacher talk on second language acquisition, even hardly there are many researches exploring both positive and negative influence on students‟ learning, especially in a primary school context

In addition, I am myself an English teacher in a primary school Thus, to

2

push the situation of learning language of the student, it is necessary for me to

do some researches on teacher talk which can facilitate or hinder the learning process of my own students Ultimately, I can pursue more suitable ways of teaching for the enhancement of student learning

2 Aims of the study

The study aims at:

* Exploring the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classroom

* Exploring the influences of teacher talk on the students‟ learning process

4 Scope of the study

In the context of a primary school, the research is only focusing on analyzing the critical episodes of teacher talk in the lesson which either facilitate or hinder students‟ learning In deep, I will investigate teacher talk through six lessons of three teachers from three different primary schools in Hanoi

5 Significance of the study

The results of this action research will help the author as well as the Engllish teacher in primary schools can realize the current situation of teacher‟s using language in the classroom and its influences on students‟

7 Structure of the study

The research consists of three main parts: Part one, Part two and Part three

Part one : Introduction

It consists the rationale, the research question, the scope of the study, the significance of the study, the methodology of study, the research procedure and the structure of the study

Part two: Development

There are three chapters presented

Chapter one reviews the literature relevant to the study including

definition of teacher talk, the role of teacher talk in foreign language learning, the features of teacher talk and some discussion of students‟ learning opportunities This chapter also presents some related theories such as Krashen‟s input theory, the interaction hypothesis The IRF Cycle (Initiation-Response-Feedback) with the researches relating to Interaction in the classroom and the outstanding characteristics of very young learners as well

are also mentioned in the last part of this chapter

4

Chapter two discusses the method used in the study It presents a

thorough justification for the use of qualitative research and the research‟s components

Chapter three presents the findings and discussion of the study This part

is apparently important because it justifies the effectiveness of the research

Part three: Conclusion

It provides summary of the findings, implication, limitation and suggestions for further studies

5

PART TWO: DEVELOPMENT Chapter 1: Literature review 1.1 Definition of teacher talk:

It is no doubt that language teaching is a complex process involving many interrelated factors Before 1960s, teaching methodology has been explored and an effective teaching method is tried to be found to apply for language teaching Since teaching methods don‟t play a decisive role in language classrooms, the focus has shifted from teaching methods to teachers‟ talk in classroom process Ellis (1985:143) pointed out: “ Classroom process research, as Gaies calls the study of communication in the classroom, has taken different form: interaction analysis; teacher talk; discourse analysis” All dimensions of classroom process, from giving instruction to questioning or disciplining students, providing the feedback, involve teacher talk Study on teacher talk has become one of the most important parts of classroom research There are many definitions of teacher talk given by many authors For this

term, Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics

defines it as “that 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” (Richards, 1992: 471) This view is similar to what Rod Ellis (1985) considered teacher talk as the special language that teachers use when addressing L2 learners in the classroom He also commented “the language that teachers address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own specific formal and linguistics properties” (Ellis, 1985: 145)

Consided as a general term for different types of teacher talk, Ellis (1998) stated that, teacher talk is a general term for different types of teacher talk

6

which refer to as “special language the teacher uses when addressing second language learner in the classroom.” It can be categorized according to the linguistic aspects and functions

In another aspect, according to Poppi (n.d), teacher talk referred to the modifications in teachers‟ speech which can lead to a special type of discourse By using „teacher talk‟, teachers are trying to make themselves as easy to understand as possible by the students, and effective teacher talk may provide essential support to facilitate both language comprehension and students‟ production In the scope of this study, teacher talk referred to the kind of language used in the classroom rather than in other settings It is the oral form of teacher talk that is under this investigation

1.2 The role of teacher talk in foreign language learning

Teacher talk is considered as a special communicative activity to communicate with students and develops students‟ foreign language proficiency Teacher talk is used in class when teachers are conducting instructions, cultivating their intellectual ability and managing classroom activities (Feng Qican, 1999: 23) Teachers make use of the target language

to promote their communication with learners In this way, learners practice the language by responding to what their teacher says As the result, the communication between learners and teachers is encouraged Therefore we can say teacher talk is a kind of communication-based or interaction-based talk

By the way, talk makes up around 70% of classroom language (Cook, 2000; Chaudron, 1988; Zhao Xiaohong, 1998) As Nunan (1991) points out:

“Teacher talk as discussed by (Cook, 2000:144), teacher talk is particularly important to language teaching According to pedagogical theory, the language that teachers use in classrooms determines to a larger degree whether a class will succeed or not Many scholars found teacher is of crucial

of the course, but also the medium to achieve teaching objective Both the organization of the classroom and the goal of teaching are achieved through teacher talk Thanks to Stern with his teaching-learning model which reveals the important role of the language teacher and teacher talk during the process

of language learning

Figure 1 A teaching-learning model (Stern, 1983: 500)

Besides, there is a range of authors like Richards( 2015: 113) Ellis (2005) believed that teacher talk is affected by language proficiency Teachers with a high level of target language proficiency are to be more competent in providing extensive input for learners, which, as states, is a key principle for successful instructed language learning The same idea with Kim and Elder (2008), Freeman et al., (2015) maintain that the relationship between teachers‟ target language proficiency, their classroom teaching and student

8

learning is really complex With the scope of this research, this relationship will be discussed concentratively on the teacher‟s ability to use language ( even mother tongue through the oral form of talk) to support student learning

in the L2 classroom

1.3 The features of teacher talk

Basing on the definitions, we can see that teacher talk in English classrooms is regarded as one special variety of the English language with its own specific features as well as special style In the researches of some scholars (Hu Xuewen, 2003; Dai Weidong & Li Ming, 1998), teacher talk is discussed in double features The first one refers to the form of teacher talk, such as the speed, pause, repetition, modifications of teacher talk The second one, which refers to the features of the language that teachers use to organize and control classes, includes the following aspects: the quality and quantity of teacher talk; the questions teachers use; interactional modifications and teachers‟ feedback In this study, these features are going to be discovered in the English teachers‟ talk in the primary schools

1.4 Students’ learning opportunities

There is no learning without input that is used to describe the way in which learning opportunities are created in the L2 learning environments It

is defined as a consequence of participation and use (Van Lier, 2014: 92) or

“Where language use and pedagogic purpose coincide, learning opportunities are facilitated; conversely, where there is a significant deviation between language use and teaching goal at a given moment in a lesson, opportunities for learning and acquisition are, I would suggest, missed.” stated by Wale( 2002:5) He also presented the features of teachers‟ classroom language use that can facilitate learning include direct error correction, content feedback, checking for confir- mation, extended wait-time, and scaffolding In addition,

9

from a conversation analysis perspective, Wong and Waring (2010: 278) suggest teachers to be highly alert and deeply reflective about their instructional practices so as not to shut down opportunities for student participation with their language use

As Musumeci (1996: 314) suggests: „teachers speak more, more often, control the topic of conversation, rarely ask questions for which they do not have answers, and appear to understand absolutely everything the students say, sometimes before they even say it!‟

The work of Musumeci and others (see also Love (1991)) has clear relevance to the EFL classroom where the ability by learners to formulate, re-formulate, clarify and seek clarification are important indicators not only that language acquisition has taken (or is taking) place but also that something is being understood and eventually learnt By „filling in the gaps‟, teachers may facilitate a coherent and flowing discourse, but they may be denying their learners opportunities to get to grips with the subject matter and to identify potential problems in understanding In the words of Scott Thornbury (2000: 28): “Moreover, language classrooms are language classrooms and for the teacher to monopolise control of the discourse – through, for example, asking only display questions – while possibly appropriate to the culture of geography or maths classes, would seem to deny language learners access to what they most need – opportunities for real language use.”

1.5 Related theories:

1.5.1 Krashen’s Input Theory

Input plays a critical role in language learning There is no learning without input The language used by the teacher affects the language produced

by the learners, the interaction generated, and hence the kind of learning that takes place The problem is what type and how much of input is appropriate

10

and useful for language learners in classrooms

In Krashen‟s view, learning only takes place by means of a learner‟s access to comprehensible input “Humans acquire language in only one way

by understanding messages or by receiving comprehensible input Learning will occur when unknown items are only just beyond the learner‟s level It is explained in detail “i+1”structure “i” stands for the learners‟ current linguistic competence, and “1” stands for the items the learners intend to learn The Input Theory also has two corollaries (Krashen, 1985: 2):

Corollary 1: Speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause; it emerges as result of building competence via comprehensible input

Corollary 2: If input is understood and there is enough of it, the necessary grammar is automatically provided The language teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order it will be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviews if the student receives a sufficient amount of comprehensible input

By examining the idea of comprehensible input and the two corollaries, one can find that comprehensive and right quantity input is the central concern with which learners are able to learn language It is the foundation or premise

of the occurrence of learning This provides implications for language teaching: teacher talk should be comprehensible in different forms and in right quantities But how could teachers know whether their input is enough or not? How could they make their input comprehensible? Krashen describes two ways: the linguistic resources are insufficient for immediate decoding Simplified input can be made available to the learner through one-way or two- way interaction, with the former including listening to a lecture, watching television and reading, and the latter occurring in conversations Krashen stresses that two-way interaction is a particularly good way of providing

11

comprehensible input because it enables the learner to obtain additional contextual information and optimally adjusted input when meaning has to be negotiated because of communication problems

In Krashen‟s view, acquisition takes place by means of a learner‟s access

to comprehensible input He comments that the input, which is totally incomprehensible to learners, is not likely to cause learning to tack place Teacher talk, actually serves as main sources of input of language exposure

as well as the opportunities for students to take part in the lesson, then achieve new knowledge by themselves in classroom learning, is more important for foreign language learning So teachers should make their input comprehensible and in right quantities

1.5.2.The Interaction Hypothesis

The Interaction Hypothesis claims that it is in the interaction process that acquisition occurs: learners acquire through talking with others (Johnson, 2002: 95) In recent years, a great deal of researches (Allwright, 1984; Ellis 1990; Long, 1983; 32; Swain, 1985) in the field of L2 acquisition reveals to a great extent the importance of classroom interaction that involves both input and output According to Allwright and Ellis, classroom teaching should be treated as interaction Now, it is clear that the language used in classroom affects the nature of the interaction, which in turn affects the opportunities available for learning, the study of interaction is therefore critical to the study

of language classroom learning Van Lier (1988) pointed out that if the keys to learning are exposure to input and meaningful interaction with other speakers,

we must find out what input and interaction the classroom can provide… we must study in detail the use of language in the classroom in order to see if and how learning comes about through the different ways of interaction in the classroom He also pointed out that interaction is essential for language

in their own classrooms In another word, teachers use the language to encourage the communication between learners and themselves Therefore we can say teacher talk is a kind of communication – based or interaction – based talk Successful outcomes may depend on the type of language used by the teacher and the type of interactions occurring in the classroom We can say how a lesson progresses and whether it is successful largely depend on the interaction between the students and the teacher

Thus in order to improve students learning outcomes, it is necessary to engage students in meaningful interactions with teachers and other students When learners are given opportunities to take part in conversational interaction, they have to “negotiate for meaning” This term refers to those modifications, which speakers make during the interaction in order to be understood or to understand each other This process of negotiation is thought

to lead to L2 development specifically communicative abilities The result of the negotiation of meaning is that particular types of input and interaction result (Ellis, 1985:142) Teachers carry out all his teaching tasks by teacher talk, an understanding of the aspects of teacher talk and their functions in the classroom interaction is, therefore, very important

1.6 Teacher talk and learner learning

As mentioned above, this paper is based on the theory of Interaction hypothesis Therefore, in this section, I will discuss the most common feature

of teacher-student interaction which is found in the classroom and often

13

mentioned in research on classroom interaction (e.g., Macbeth, 2000; Walsh, 2011): Initiation-Response-Feedback (IRF) Next, the outstanding characteristics of very young learners who are at the age of primary school will be made clear in this interaction

Firstly, the IRF Cycle(Initiation-Response-Feedback) in language teaching which is first described by Sinclair and Coulthard (1975)is the familiar sequence of teacher-student-teacher turn-taking in the classroom In the “initiation” (I) phase the teacher usually asks a question, to which the student responds (R) Then, it is followed by some sort of feedback by the teacher In other words, the role of teachers in IRF is asking students known-answer questions (Heritage, 2005; Hosoda, 2014; Lerner, 1995; Schegloff, 2007), to which students respond, and teachers give feedback based on the accuracy of the student's response IRFs are an important feature of classroom

discourse As discussed by Van Lier(2001: 94), three factors in the cycle have

great influences on each other, in detail, “depending which questions are asked, the initiation stage may „…require students merely to recite previously learned items.” On the contrary, he goes on to say: “ At the most demanding end of IRF, students must be articulate and precise; they are pushed by successive probing questions, to clarify, substantiate, or illustrate a point that they made previously.” While the IRF format may not be inherently ineffective, it could be considered restrictive, in that students aren‟t able to initiate themselves (Van Lier, 95) The IRF sequences have been blamed for constraining the development of authentic discourse in classrooms For example, van Lier (1996: 151) states,

At times the IRF structure makes it unattractive and unmotivating for students to participate in classroom interaction, since their responses may be evaluated or examined publicly, rather than accepted and appreciated as part of a joint conversation

14

However, Van Lier uses „at times‟ meaning for many teachers, eliciting is heavily ritualised, and virtually the only way they know how to talk to learners It might be possible to conclude, therefore, that this form of interaction could be viewed as more pedagogically sound if the teacher were

to ask more referential questions vs display questions, which would give IRF the purpose of scaffolding, as Van Lier (2001: 96) suggests: „The initiation-response-feedback exchange, at least when it moves beyond mere recitation and display, can be regarded as a way of scaffolding instruction, a way of developing cognitive structures in the zone of proximal development, or a way of assisting learners to express themselves with maximum clarity.‟ Perhaps he is advocating that we design our questions with consideration to Vygotsky‟s (1978: cited in Van Lier, 2001: 96) “zone of proximal

development.”

According to Walsh (2011), the IRF exchange structure is "the most commonly occurring discourse structure to be found in classrooms all over the world" (p 23) Ohta (1999) examined instances of IRF sequences in teacher-student interaction, and student-student interaction in Japanese language classrooms and reported that the IRF sequences have power in the language socialization of classroom interaction (p 1495) Similarly, in another study Ohta (2001) reported that “ne-marked” assessments (i.e assessments followed by the word “ne” which is used to show agreement or emphasis a prior word or sentence) in the third turn of IRF sequences were frequent and explicitly worked as an agreement token to the ongoing interaction, or an affiliation to the talk the student is producing Nassaji and Wells (2000) argue that the IRF structure has several functions and can take various forms This paper investigates how IRF sequences are performed in a team-teaching context involving a native-and non-native speaking English

15

teacher” It also examines the different forms that the IRF can take, detailing exactly what happens before and after as well as between each of the turns in the IRF sequence In classroom interaction the teacher often controls the topic and the amount of attention that each student receives, and allocates turns (Erickson, 2004) On occasions where a teacher proceeds with the interaction without providing feedback, Seedhouse (2004) argues that the lack of the F turn (i.e., the feedback part of IRF) implies a positive assessment even though one is not explicitly given Sometimes sequence closing thirds, words such as

"oh" and "okay," which minimally expand the preceding adjacency pair, occupy the F position in the IRF sequence (Schegloff, 2007) However, minimal responses in classroom interaction sometimes work as feedback and demonstrate the convergence of pedagogical goals (Walsh, 2012) Beach (1993) points 178 Jeffrie Butterfield and Baikuntha Bhatta out that "okay" can signal an activity shift This paper describes not only how IRF sequences are co-constructed between teachers, but also what happens at and after the F position, and how teachers close the sequence or begin a sequence closing sequence It also explicates how sequence closing sequences are dependent on the nature and goal of the activity

Most of the researches of the sequence of interaction in the classroom are commonly applied on adult learners In the paper, I will discuss in deep this aspect in the context of primary school; in another words the interaction between teacher and very young learners who have special characteristics in learning as well as dealing with teachers in the classroom In the following part, these features related to the interaction process will be made clear

Piaget( 1970) pointed out that children are active learners and thinkers Except for through their own individual actions and exploration, They construct knowledge from actively interacting with the physical environment

16

in developmental stages and learn through social interaction This view is

similar to what Vygotsky (1962) stated that children construct knowledge

through other people, through interaction with adults Adults/teachers work actively with children in the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) = difference between the child's capacity to solve problems on his own and his capacity to solve them with assistance Children learn effectively through scaffolding by adults (Bruner, 1983) The adult‟s role is very important in a child‟s learning process Like Vygotsky, Bruner focused on the importance of language in a child‟s cognitive development He shows how the adult uses “scaffolding” to guide a child‟s language learning through finely-tuned talk (Cameron, 2001) Effective Scaffolding (Bruner, 1983) includes the following conditions: creating interest in the task; broking the task down into smaller steps; keeping child

“on task” by reminding him of the purpose or goal; pointing out the important parts of the task; controlling the child‟s frustration during the task; modeling the task, including different ways to do the task It is obviously that all of them belong to the circle IRF, especially in the first stage where teacher talk happens the most

Adopting the position that maximizing learner involvement is conducive to second language acquisition, Walsh (2002) examined the ways in which teachers, through their choice of language, construct or obstruct learner participation in face-to-face classroom communication Walsh concluded that teachers‟ ability to control their use of language is at least as important as their ability to select appropriate methodologies, because teacher talk can either facilitate and optimize or obstruct learner contributions has implications for both teacher education and classroom practices According to Walsh,

17

Where [teachers‟] language use and pedagogic purpose conincide, learning opportunities are facilitated; conversely, where there is a significant deviation between language use and teaching goal at a given moment in a lesson, opportunities for learning and acquisition are, I would suggest, missed

(Walsh, 2002: 5)

In the literature, teacher talk is used for the following pedagogical functions:

 Presenting, clarifying, checking, modeling new or revised language;

 Setting up activities or giving instructions and feedback;

 Providing language input

 Establishing report by chatting

(Gower et., 1995: 33) While the relationship between teacher talk and learner learning has been a concern to language educators and researcher for many years (Walsh, 2002), not much of classroom-based research on this issue has been reported

in the context of Vietnamese primary school This study is an attempt to occupy the research void

18

CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter first explains the methodologies that are employed in this dissertation in order to collect and analyze the essential data to answer the research questions In addition, it also provides details regarding the research setting, the teachers and students who participated in this study

2.1 Research methodology

In order to achieve the aims of the study, a qualitative approach will be employed in the research According to Steven J Taylor, Robert Bogdan, Marjorie (2015), qualitative methodology refers in the broadest sense to research that produces descriptive data - people‟s own written or spoken words and observable behavior As Ray Rist ( 1977) pointed out, it is more than a set of data- gathering technique It is the way of approaching the empirical world

Bogdan,& Biklen (1992) presented five main features of qualitative:

- Naturalistic Coming to a particular setting with either pad and pencil, or video/audio recording equipment, researchers feel that action can be understood when it is observed in the setting in which it occurs Each act, word and gesture is considered significant

- Descriptive data The data in qualitative research takes the form of words or pictures rather than numbers Data can include: transcript, field notes, photographs, video recordings, audio recording, personal document and memos Researchers notice gestures, jokes, tone of voice, verbiage, descor, style of dress, response time, body language and a multitude of other details

of their studies

- Concern with process Qualitative researchers are concerned with process rather than simple outcomes

19

- Inductive: Qualitative researchers analyze their data inductively They do not set out to find data to prove or disprove hypotheses that they have prior to their study

- Meaning: The data can be shown in the form of transcripts and recorded material to the informants to make sure the interpretations of what the informants said/did is accurate/true

These features were reflected in the study First, the aims of the research is to explore the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classroom and the influences of teacher talk on the students‟ learning process Thus, the research was applying basing on the real classes of English that the researcher observed Second, the data in this paper was taken from the video recordings which were transcribed fully and clearly including the notices of gestures, response time, the modes of speech…Third, the data was taken from

2400 minutes of six periods of three different teachers in six classes from three primary schools Therefore, this concerned with long process of teacher talk in her real classes Finally, this study was not carried out to prove or not prove any theories, just to explore teacher talk and its influences on students‟ learning opportunities in a primary school context

In conclusion, qualitative research is a good choice for this study on account of suitability in target, design and characteristics of the study

2.2 Data Collection Instruments:

The major instrument of data collection used in this study is participant observation Among a range of the instruments in qualitative research such as interview, focus groups, case study and narrative, observation was selected as the technique to collect data in this study As a means of gathering information for research observation is defined as perceiving data through the senses: sight, tastes, touch and smell The data

non-20

collection method is applied due to the following purposes:

- To enable the researcher to gather empirical data which are difficult to obtain by other means

- To enable the researcher to gather sufficient data to supplement or verify information gathered by other means

- To enable the researcher to gather information or data needed to describe the aspect of a variable being studied which cannot described accurately without observation

- To enable the researcher to gather directly primary data or first-hand information for his study for a more accurate description and interpretation

- To enable the researcher to gather data from the laboratory or elsewhere through experimentation

There are a variety of types of observational research, each of which has both strengths and weaknesses However, I would like to refer to naturalistic (nonparticipant observation) which was used as data collection instrument in the scope of this paper It has no intervention by a researcher It

is simply studying behaviors that occur naturally in natural contexts, unlike the artificial environment of a controlled laboratory setting Importantly, in naturalistic observation, there is no attempt to manipulate variables It permits measuring what behavior is really like

In the current study, the teaching-learning process in the completed periods were recorded by the cameras so that the data are not biased Video recordings are, in many ways, the easiest means of capturing not only spoken interaction but also gestures, descor, the mode of response, body language and

a multitude of other details 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

21

With the aims of investigating the characteristics of teacher‟s using language in the classrooms observation can give the researcher in depth information with detailed descriptions of participants‟ activities, behaviors, actions and the full range of interpersonal interactions and organizational processes that are part of observable human experience, which help in the exploration of the situation

2.3 Context and Participants

The study is conducted at three different primary schools in Hanoi city ( one school in the urban and two others in the suburban area) The urban school

is a quite big school with about 600 students and 24 teachers of all subjects The students in the school have many chances to take part in the extra classes

of English in the center or are guided by their own parents who have intellectual level quite high A suburban school consists nearly 1200 students with 38 teachers of all subjects but there is only one teacher who is responsible for teaching English The students coming from the gifted classes also have quite good background of English for most of them took part in the English classes out of the school while in the common classes, the number of the students does like that is not big There is also one teacher of English in the rest primary school which has 450 students and 27 teachers in total This school is quite far from the center of the district, so there are mot much students being familiar with English before classes Although the quantity of students and teachers, these schools has the same context that English is an elective subject from Grade 3 to Grade 5 for two 35-minute periods per week As the regulation

of Hanoi Department Education and Training, to the primary school which has under 25 classes, there is only one teacher of English who is in the regular staff Therefore, these three teachers are representative to three schools, three distinctive contexts of teaching English for mainstream primary students

22

Tieng Anh 3, 4, 5 which are approved by the Ministry of Education and Training in August, 2010 are the course books used commonly in the state-owned primary schools in Vietnam in general and in these school in particular The book follows a systematic, cyclical and them-based syllabus with twenty units of familiar topics Each unit consists of three lessons each

of which provides materials for two periods of class contact In the other words, the seri of books is designed for 6 periods/units and 4 periods/week However, in the fact of the three primary school, there are two periods introduced every week for each class The structure in detail of one unit in the textbook series is presented in Appendix 1

The participants of the study are selected conveniently, including three teachers (Teacher1, 2, 3) and six classes with approximately 50 mainstream students/class (Class 4.1, 4.2; Class 4, 3 and Class 5.1, 5.2 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 language used by teachers and learning process of learners in the context of the study

All of three teachers selected in the study appeared to be representative

to the population of Vietnamese primary school teachers of English working

in state-own schools in many aspects Interestingly, they graduated from Hanoi teacher training college to teach English to junior secondary school students (grades 6-9) After graduation, while teacher 1 has had no more course; teacher 2 selected to continue her study for Bachelor‟s degree at Hanoi national university of education and now she is taking part in the MA course of English teaching methodology in university of languages and international studies and teacher 3 also has the qualification of Bachelor‟s

23

degree by Hanoi national university of education No2 However, when this study was conducted, all of them had been teaching English in a Hanoi-based state-own primary school for at least 5 years Now teacher 1 has 12 periods per week for 6 classes, teacher 2 is teaching12 classes with 24 periods per week and teacher 3 is in charge of teaching for 8 classes with16 periods per week All of them reached level 4 on the National Target Language Proficiency Scales (equivalent to B2 on the CEFR) as the requirement for the teacher of English at the primary schools They were married and had one or two small children to look after These are the typical cases of Vietnamese primary school teachers of English who are young, married females, aged 25-

32, and had a similar professional training background

2.4 Data Collection and Data Analysis

Before observing and audio-taping each lesson, I had some informal meeting with the teachers to talk about my intention and ask them for their permission The aim of the study was stated clearly and the teachers were explained that the results of class observation and interview were used for scientific purpose only, not related to their work at school Both of the actions were in order to persuade them to agree to be observed and help them not have a feeling of being assessed during the observed lesson However, I am sure that they can not do their teaching task as in the normal periods they used

to do everyday when I sit on their classes and observe them carefully Because I have ever been in the same situation in another research, which made me run the lesson less natural than I used to teach Thus, I decided not

to come to their classes, let them ask some one in their schools to record their lessons and send me later I also noticed them to focus on teacher talk and students‟ respond rather than the others All the recordings then were transcribed and made ready for the next phase – data analysis and interpretation

24

Flanders (1970) explained that “techniques for analyzing classroom interaction are based on the notion that these reciprocal contacts can be perceived as a series of events which occurs one after another” (Flanders,

1970 as cited in Tarricone &Fatherston, 2002) It is a system to code spontaneous verbal communication in classroom (Tarricone & Fetherston, 2002) Data was analyzed according to the pedagogic purposes of teacher talk (Gower et al., 1995) and then interpreted according to Walsh‟s (2002)

suggestions on the matches between teacher talk and the pedagogic purposes

25

CHAPTER 3 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the results of the research analysis with related to the 3research questions mentioned in Chapter 1 The follow up discussion will

be presented after the research results

Data was presented according to the different pedagogical functions of teacher talk

3.1 Questioning strategies

According to Jack C.Richard & Charles Lockhart (2000), questioning is one of the most common techniques used by teachers and serves as the principal way in which teachers control the classroom interaction There are many ways to identify the types of questions With the growth in concern for communication in language classrooms, Long and Sato (1983).has made a further distinction between “display” and “referential” questions In Long and Sato‟s terms, display questions refer to those that teachers already know the answers, while referential questions are ones to which the teachers asks for information he or she does not know It is clear that demands are similar to questions in its nature - requesting students to do or say something Basing on the data in the present research, the form of demands is different to questions, they are still counted and classified into appropriate groups of questions as presented in the following chart

Teachers used questions frequently in the lessons and they used different types of questioning strategies These are illustrated in Table 3.1 below

26

Table 3.1 Frequency of question types teachers used per lesson

Teachers Classes Display questions Referential

Obviously, teacher 3 is the person who used less RQ than two other It seems that she only concerned on letting students practice the vocabulary and structures mentioned in the lesson although the topic in her both periods is about jobs, a familiar topic for students Two periods which RQs were used most are a review lesson – no more new knowledge introduced and a lesson

of daily activities that is not too difficult for teacher to give questions and make students share their own experiences

All three teachers used DPs to elicit the students This was most frequently observed while the teachers were teaching Part I (Look-Listen and Repeat), which introduces the content of the whole lesson in the textbook Below is one example from the observed data

T: Where are they? Who can? NL?

S: They are…(smiling) (some ss say the answer)

T: Ok Sit down please Now, open your book please, pg 36 And you look at part

1 please Listen and number OK, now First, you look at the picture on the TV and tell me who‟s this? … Who‟s this?

28

SS: Mai

T: And Who are they?

Ss: Mai‟s father ( Some say)

Mai‟s mother (Some say)

T: Yes, Mai‟s parents: her mother and her father And Who‟s this?

Ss: Her brother

T: her brother So Where are they? Where are they?

Ss: ( discussing)

T: Where?

SS: family,…house… ( many ideas)

T: Ok They are in the living room So can you guess what day? what day? Ss: It‟s Tet

Ss:[ Ss2: Ôn lại mẫu câu hỏi về tuổi ạ!]

T: [đúng rồi.Vậy về nhà các con hãy tìm thêm thật nhiều từ có chứa âm /s/ và /f/

và hỏi tuổi những người xung quanh bằng Tiếng Anh nhé!]

( Class 3 – Teacher 2)

Table 3.2 Frequency of teacher questioning for

different pedagogical purposes

Classes Paraphrasing Simplification Repetition Decomposition Probing

T: can you guess where is it? Where? Can you?

Ss: Sword Lake ( In Vietnamese)

( Class 4 – Teacher 1)

Lesson extract 6:

T: Good What‟s it in Vietnamese, “ taking photos”?

Đ, taking photos ( including miming the correlative activity) What‟s it in

As the result, teachers always prefer calling or nominating the students to involve all students in learning Nevertheless, students would be made more passive with too much nominating In order to save time, teachers sometimes answered the questions by themselves in the form of rhetorical questions,

31

which might have made the students less pro-active in answering the questions

All three teachers always used Wh-questions “Who ?”, “ What ?”,

“Where ?”, “ When ?” to elicit the students Nonetheless, the ways they dealt with the model were different For teacher 1 and 3, they gave the questions directly and waited for the answers from students or gave the begining of the answer for them to continue

Lesson extract 7:

T: yes.Now you look at this and tell me( point to the picture on the big

screen).(Who are they?)(Who are they?)…T

S: Nam and Quan

T: (point to each character) Quan and Nam So now tell me “Where are they?”… They are in the…

Ss: (some say) canteen

T: ah.they are in the canteen with food and drinks

( Class 4.1 – Teacher 1) With the similar purpose but when the students were stuck, teacher 2 used some Yes- No questions to ask them as the suggestions to lead them to the correct answers

Lesson extract 8:

T: Ok so now whole class look at screen Who are they?

Ok Who know? Minh?

S: They are Linda, Phong and Tony

(T points to each characters mentioned at the same time.)