Teacher questioning strategies and Classroom interaction in Ly Thai To school

ching. 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) Having studies the SLA for many years, Rod Ellis (1985) has formulated his own view about teacher talk: “ Teacher talk is the special language that teacher uses when addressing L2 learners in the classroom. There is systematic simplification of the formal properties of the teacher’s language … studies of teacher talk can be divided into those that investigate in the type of language they use in subject lessons.” He also commented “ the language that teachers address to L2 learner is treated as a register, with its own specific formal and linguistic properties” (Ellis, 1985: 145) From the definitions above, we can see that teacher talk in English classroom has it own special style because of restriction of physical setting, special participants as well as the goal of teaching. Moreover, teacher talk is a special communicative activity. Its goal is 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 adopt the target language to promote their communication with learners. In this way, learners practice the language by responding to what their teacher says. Besides, 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. Teacher talk has attracted attention because of its potential effect on learns’ comprehension, which has been hypothesized to be important for L2 acquisition. There is no learning without teaching. So as a tool in implementing teaching plans and achieving teaching goals, teacher talk plays a vital role in language learning. Nunan (1991) points out that: “Teacher talk is of crucial importance, not only for the organization and management of the classroom because it is through language that teachers succeed or fail in implementing their teaching plans. In terms of acquisition, teacher talk is important because it is probably the major source of comprehensible target language input the learner is likely to receive.”. The amount and type of teacher talk is even regarded as a decisive factor of success or failure in classroom teaching. 1.4 Teachers’ questions Questioning is one of the most common techniques used by teachers (Jack C.Richard & Charles Lockhart, 2000) and serves as the principal way in which teachers control the classroom interaction. The tendency for teachers to ask many questions has been observed in many investigations (Chaudron, 1988). In some classroom over half of class time is taken up by question-and-answer exchanges. Teachers’ questions have attracted considerable attention from researchers of language classroom. 1.4.1. Definition of question The Longman Dictionary of English language provides the following definition for a question: a command or interrogative expression used to elicit information or a response, or to test knowledge. Lynch (1991), however, criticizes the last aspect of it, i.e. to test knowledge. In non–education settings, people seldom ask questions to which they already have an answer. Although, there are a number of exceptions such as jokes (e.g. what’s the difference between – and - ?), quizzes (e.g. Which country will host the next Olympics?) and courtroom discourse (e.g. And what did the defendant say to you then?). Lynch characterizes a question as an utterance with a particular illocutionary forces; and Quirk et al. (1970 and 1985) define a question as a semantic class used to seek information on a specific subject (Lynch, 1991) In classroom settings, teacher questions are defined as 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. What are the purposes of teachers' classroom questions? A variety of purposes emerge from analysis of the literature, including: 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 1.4.2. Function of teachers’ questions From the development of the Socratic method, to the 1860 edition of Barnard’s American Journal of Instruction that states, “to question well is to teach well”, educators have long known that questioning is a useful way to aid the transfer of knowledge from instructor to pupil (Ross, 1860). Multiple –based studies have focused on the use of questioning as a successful and universal pedagogical approach. Questioning plays a critical role in the way instructors structure the class environment, organize the content of the course and has deep implications in the way that students assimilate the information that is presented and discussed in class. Question- answering is predominant and pervasive in classrooms of most subjects, since it is the easiest way to establish oral interaction between teacher and student. By asking students questions, teachers are able to elicit utterances from students and guarantee student talking time, because a question “compels, requires, may even demand, a response”(Goody 1978:23). This verbal exchange is expected to play an important role in classroom language acquisition of students in terms of input, interaction, and output. Questions are also important, in that they represent a major source of a student's linguistic input. White and Lightbown (1984) recorded a teacher asking 427 questions in a single 50-minute class. Presumably this is not typical of questioning patterns in all classrooms, but, undoubtedly, questions represent a key aspect of teacher talk. With input being widely accepted as an essential prerequisite for language learning, it is no exaggeration to conclude that the nature of teacher's questions, per se, has a direct impact on second language acquisition. Research indicates that in most classrooms someone is talking most of the time. Generally it is the teacher who talks and the students who listen. One way to switch from teacher –centered instruction to student- centered instruction is through the use of questions. Thus skill in questioning becomes a vital component of effective teaching (Brown &Wragg, 1993; Wilen, 1991) Questioning is basic to good communications. However, proper questioning is a sophisticated art, one at which few people are proficient despite having asked thousands of questions in their lifetimes. Questions lie at the heart of good, interactive teaching. Questions must be at the appropriate level, be of appropriate type, and above all, be worded properly. We will now look at the different level at which questions can be asked. 1.4.3. Levels of questions. Questions may be categorized as narrow or broad. Narrow questions usually require only factual recall or specific, correct answer. Broad questions, however, can seldom be answered with a single word and often do not have one correct answer. Broad questions usually require that students go beyond simple memory and use the thinking process to formulate answer. Although both kinds of questions are useful in the learning process, teachers traditionally rely too heavily on narrow questions. Effective teachers adapt the level of questions to their teaching objectives (Dillion,1983, 1990). If learning specific information is the objective, then narrow questions are appropriate. If thinking processes are the objective, then broader questions are needed. Since thinking can take place at several levels of sophistication, it is important that teachers be able to classify and ask questions at these levels There are many classification systems for describing the different levels of questions. Most of them are useful only to the extend that they provide a framework for formulating questions at the desired level within a classroom environment. The first system I would like to focus here is the system of classifying questions as convergent or divergent. Convergent questions are those that allow for only one right response, whereas divergent questions allow for many right responses. Questions about create facts are convergent, while questions dealing with opinions, hypothesis, and evaluations are divergent. Questions about concrete facts (who, what, when, and where questions) that have been learned and committed to memory are convergent. For example: Who is the President of the United States? What is 5 +3? Where is the White House located? Convergent questions may also require students to recall and integrate or analyze information to provide one expected correct answer. Most alternative-response questions, such as those that can be answered yes or no or true or false, are also classified as convergent, since students’ response is limited. Examples are: Is 3+2 = 5? Is this a picture of a farm animal or a house pet? Is this logic statement true or false? Conversely, questions calling for opinions, hypotheses, or evaluations are divergent, since there are many possible correct responses. Examples include: What would be a good name for this story? Can you give me an example of the use of this word in a sentence? Why is it important to protect our environment? Whom do you consider the greatest scientist that ever lived? Divergent questions should be used frequently because they encourage broader responses and are, therefore, more likely to involve students in the learning process. They require that students think. However, convergent questions are equally important in that they deal with the background information needed to answer divergent questions. In the classroom it is generally desirable to start with convergent questions and move toward divergent questions. In summary, convergent questions limit student responses to only one correct answer, whereas divergent questions allow for many possible correct responses. Another system of classifying questions is based on Mental Operation Systems. The table below offers a review of the Mental Operation System for classifying questions. Levels of Classroom Questions. Category Factual Empirical Productive Evaluative Type of thinking Student simply recalls information. Student integrates and analyzes given or recalled information. Student thinks creatively and imaginatively and produces something unique Student makes judgment or expresses values. Examples Define … Who was …? What did the text say …? Compare … Explain in your own words … Calculate the … What will life be like …? What’s a good name for …? How could we …? Which painting is best? Why do you favor this …? Who is the best …? Table 2. Mental Operation System for Classifying Questions The Mental Operation System of classifying questions will give you the needed framework for improving your questioning skill. You should be asking questions at all levels of the system instead of at only the factual level, as many teachers tend to do. It is especially important that you ask more productive and evaluate questions than is common practice. These questions give students the opportunity to think. 1.4.4. Types of teacher’s questions As said above, effective teachers adapt the level of questions to their teaching objectives. Besides that, they must also ask the right type of questions. For example, you may want to ask questions to determine the level of your students’ learning, to increase their involvement and interaction, to clarify understanding, or to stimulate their awareness. These purposes all call for different types of questions. Teachers ask a great number of questions in their lessons and each question can be seen as setting up a mini-learning task. For this reason, the type of questions we ask impact heavily on the learning process. Like the classification of level of questions, there are many way to identify the types of questions. With the growth in concern for communication in language classrooms, a further distinction has been made between “display” and “referential” questions by Long and Sato (1983). 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. Display questions Suppose you ask your students something you already know. The answer coming from the students will not satisfy the basic criterion of providing information. For instance, if you hold up your pen and ask learners “What is this?” the answer will not solve a problem, which is required for learning to take place. Of even less are those questions to which the answers are provided beforehand. Some teachers give their students the information and then try to ask them questions. For example, “This is a pen. What is this?” Such questions, at best, test something of the students’ memory, not their comprehension. In addition, such questions are not harmony with conversational maxims. Examples of typical display questions include: What is the past tense of the verb to come? What does the text tell us about the man? Can you use since with past simple? Is true the answer to question 3? As these examples show, display questions can be closed (the answer is yes or no) or open. Their purpose is exclusively pedagogical, they are intended to check learning, and, for this reason, they are rarely found in discourse outside the classroom. In answering such questions, the student has limited scope. Specific information is expected in the reply, and in linguistic terms, many display questions are answered with a word or phrase, especially those of the closed variety. Display questions normally require the respondent to produce the right answer, and as Tsui (1996) points out, this itself may generate more anxiety and less participation. Referential questions However, real language does not consist solely of questions from one party and answers from another. Real language circles around referents or world knowledge in order to create messages and therefore is not form based but meaning based. Thus, questions in the language classrooms should be referential or meaning based, and not focuses only on form. The following examples are meaning – based questions: 1. Suppose you win $50,000. What are you going to do with it? 2. How do you usually spend your weekends? Teachers may give students contexts. Teacher (holding up a pen): “This is my pen. Where is yours?” (Pointing to a student) In this situation, students may either hold up his pen and answer “Here’s mine!” or “This is my pen”, or at least show that he understands by making an appropriate gesture. These answers will be acceptable in real situations. The teacher then has clearly created an information gap which has been filled by the learner. This is how real communication takes place. The answer to these questions would be difficult to predict as they refer to personal experiences, attitudes, opinions and so on. However, it should be noted that referential questions can also be closed and quite possibly answered with one word. Later reference will be made to whether this does in fact happen. In answering a referential question, learners may be pushed to use language at the limits of their competence in order to make their output comprehensible (Swain 1985). Additionally, listeners frequently request clarification and ask questions to check understanding in an effort to make input comprehensible (Long 1983). Both processes are regarded as particularly helpful in promoting language acquisition. Display vs. referential According to the study carried out by Long and Sato (1983), ESL teachers used significantly more display questions (51% of total of 938 questions) than referential questions (14%) in classrooms. In contrast, in informal NS – NNS conversations outside classrooms, 76% of total of 1,322 questions were referential questions and only 0,2% were display. This result suggests that, contrary to the recommendations of many writers on second language teaching methodologies, communicative use of the target language makes up only a minor part of typical classroom activities. “ Is the clock on the wall?’ and “ Are you a student?” are still the staple diet, at least for beginners. Further qualitative distinctions were made by Long and Sato (1983) who suggest that learners’ responses will differ not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, depending on the type of questions. Referential questions, which seek information unknown to the speaker, were thought more likely to elicit longer, more authentic responses than display questions, for which responses are predetermined by lesson, contend. This hypothesized effect of a process variable was tested both in a simulated classroom interaction (Brock, 1986) and in a natural classroom experiment (Long, 1983). The results suggested that referential questions elicited slightly longer and more students utterances. Van Lier( 1988) believes that classroom questions of whatever sort are designed to get the learners to produce language. Brock (1986) contends that referential questions increase the amount of learner output. Learners’ responses were more than twice as long and more than twice as syntactically complex in response to referential questions, as compared to display. Therefore, an increased use of referential questions by teachers may create discourse which can produce a flow of information from students to the teacher, and may create more near- normal speech. However, it is believed that display questions require short or even one- word answers and hence are less likely to get learners to produce large amounts of speech. Chapter 2: Research methodology Chapter 2 will present the research methodology including research questions, subjects of the research and methods for data collection. 2.1 Research questions Although the studies of teacher questioning behavior are numerous in western cultural settings, not many studies of teacher questioning have been carried out in Vietnam. What are the features of teacher questioning in our classes? Do they satisfy students’ expectations? Do they prompt the students’ foreign language learning? Are there any differences between Vietnamese cultural classroom interaction and other cultural classroom interaction? For such purposes and for providing some suggestions for Vietnamese English language teachers, based on the principals and facets we have discussed in previous chapter, this study is designed to answer the following questions: Q1. What’s the frequency of display questions and referential questions used by different teachers in different classes? Q2. What questioning strategies do teachers use? Q3. What are the patterns of classroom interaction? 2.2 Subjects The subjects of this study consisted of four EFL classes taught by non-native speaking teachers in Ly Thai To school, where the researcher is teaching. In comparison with other schools in this area, it is a high standard one although it is not a gifted school. However, as the school is located in a rural area of Bac Ninh Province, the teaching and learning equipments are not sufficient. It is not equipped with an overhead projector and teachers do not use electronic teaching plans or lesson plans. In English lessons, the main materials used are simply a blackboard, textbooks and in the recent two years teachers have been using radio during listening periods. However, the sad fact is that students do not see the importance of English and hence do not appreciate the language. Most of the students just focus on learning subjects for their entrance exam such as mathematics, physics or chemistry. They limit their English learning in order to pass the national exam at the end of their High School. These classes were randomly selected. The size of these classes varied from 40 to 45 students. All of the students are in 10 grades and have at least four years of learning English in secondary school. In high school they have three English periods per week. However, according to their teachers and from the researcher’s observation, they are not good at English communicative skills , namely speaking and listening. In English lessons, they are used to speaking Vietnamese most of their time. Their immediate use of language is not obvious so they are not highly motivated. Their textbook is English 10, a new textbook which is considered as an innovation in teaching methodology that encourages students to practise communicative skills. During the observation period, the pupils are in the second semester of their 10 grades. All the four teachers are Vietnamese and have obtained their Barchelor degree in English. The youngest teacher has three years of teaching English. And the oldest one has been teaching English for 20 years. All these teachers are female. They can represent the main constituents of the teaching faculty. In the following part, they are represented as T1, T2, T3 and T4. Finally, the students are arranged in rows of desks facing the front of the classroom. The observation revealed that the classroom is physically overcrowded, with limited space for the teachers to freely move around their classes. The common pattern in the classroom is that of an active teacher and passive learners. The teaching and learning is characterized by a set syllabus and textbook required to be completed within a limited time and to serve for the purpose of preparing for end of term exam. . 2.3 Methods for data collection This qualitative – quantitative study is conducted as a classroom research. The only way to collect useful data was non- participant observation with the focus being on the teacher’s use of questions and its effect on classroom interaction. Four classes from Ly Thai To school were randomly selected for observation. The classes were observed as carefully as possible for 45 minutes . The researcher carried out the observation personally by sitting in the classes from the beginning to the end of each session, taking notes of teachers’ questions, their number and functions (e.g. comprehension check, talk initiation, etc), listening to the discussions of the students, writing down the freequency of student – student or teacher – student interaction, length of the learner’s responses to different types of questions, and other noticeable patterns. During classroom observation, the researcher observed the teaching sequence without informing the subject teachers in advance. So aspects of the teachers’ performance in the classroom are recorded completely naturally. Therefore, the data gathered are representative of the normal practices of the teacher. Details about the school and the level, type, and duration of classes selected from each teacher are given ibelow: Teacher Class Number of pupils Level Type of lesson Duration T1 Class 1 45 10th Speaking 45 minutes T2 Class 2 45 10th Reading Comprehension 45 minutes T3 Class 3 40 10th Reading Comprehension 45 minutes T4 Class 4 43 10th Language focus 45 minutes Table 3. Description of the subjects of the research The researcher used a tally sheet as a most appropriate technique to collect quantitative as well as qualitative data. It is done in real time and it does not require a complex coding or grid – work, therefore, it helps to reduce the chance of the observer “making certain influences about what was going on the class in which observation was made” (Nunan,1989:77). Furthermore, the tally sheet can protect the classroom’s natural flow because the observer, theoretically, sits in silence in seat off to the side or back of the classroom checking tallies as utterances are observed in the classroom. The tally sheet consists of four parts, each describing different types of utterances expected in the classroom. The parts are as follows: teacher initiated; student initiated; disorder or non- utterances; and notes. The Frame: Part I The first part of the tally sheet considers classroom teacher utterances such as questions (display or referential questions), explanations, motivation, and criticism. It also considers how the teacher deals with student’s inability to understand and student errors by tallying modifications the teacher uses when learners do not understand and the type of feedback the teacher provides students. The Frame: Part II Part II provides information on the kind of language production generated by learners, the second part of the tally sheet incorporates student initiated utterances such as student question (display or referential) and student responses. The Frame: Part III This part takes into consideration any noise or non- utterances that might occur during the class such as silence due to focused attention on teaching materials or confusion due to lack of understanding to provide insight into any low tally totals in the first two divisions. The Frame: Part IV Although this part is not a division for collecting tallies, it is an essential part of the tally sheet. This is the documentation of any note- worthy findings or examples of the tallied data prepared by the researcher herself. Information gathered in this part could include a) the repeated use of “Good job”, b) group /pair work, c) the length of any activity or intermission, and d) the general atmosphere or attitude in the class. Chapter 3. Results and discussion Chapter 3 will present the results of the research analysis with related to the 3 research questions mentioned in Chapter 1. The follow up discussion will be presented after the research results. 3.1 Results 3.1.1 Results of research question 1 Q1: “What’s the frequency of display questions and referential questions used by different teachers in different classes?” As discussed in Chapter 1, some previous studies have shown that the teacher’s use of display questions and referential questions is not equal. Teachers use display questions more often than referential ones. What is the distribution of the two kind of questions used in an EFL class in Vietnam? The data I have collected will answer this question. In terms of display questions vs. referential questions, the four teachers in the sample,; asked more display questions than referential questions. This is corresponding to what have been discussed in the literature review. The detail data are shown in the following table: Teacher Display questions Referential questions No % No % T1 39 86.7% 6 13.3% T2 24 75% 8 25% T3 53 76.8% 16 23.2% T4 47 92% 4 8% Totals 163 82.7% 34 17.3% Table 4. Frequency of display questions and referential question and the percentage in the total sum. From the table, it can be seen that there is a preference for display questions over referential questions in the classes under this investigation. Though the observed teacher varied in many aspects, they shared the similarities and common tendency in teaching. Most of the questions they used were display questions. 163 questions out of the total 197 questions were display questions (about 82.7%), and only 34 referential ones (about 17.3%). They used questions to check or test understanding, knowledge or skill; to get learners to review and practice previously learnt material. For examples: Teacher: Is this right? (T asked the whole class to check the pupil’ s task) What does this word mean? How to ask the age of someone? How do you make the sentence to ask the age of Yang Liwei? What’s the question 2? What’s the part of speech of the word “mark” in this sentence? Or Why don’t you use auxiliary in this sentence? The observation showed that the teachers frequently explained meaning of a word, phrase or sentence whenever they thought that it is new or difficult for pupils to understand. Moreover, it seems that the teachers used display questions for facilitating the explanation of words, phrases and statements about the text focused. The responses teachers received from pupils were often short, one-word answers such as: Example 1: Teacher: Is this right? ( ask the whole class to check the pupil’ s task) Pupils: Yes Teacher: What does this word mean? Pupils: Nhan tao Example 2: Teacher: How to ask the age of someone? Pupils: How old? Or sometime, the pupils kept silent. In these cases, teachers themselves often answered the questions. The result was that pupils did not have to work hard. They just remembered what have been taught. If they did not know the answers or could not remember the information given, the often said ‘No’ or kept silent. Even, when they were called by their teacher, their friends often told them the answers. So in the classes, only some active pupils really involved in the lesson. It was felt that the interaction between teachers and their pupils was not natural and rather boring. In contrast, there was a low frequency in using referential questions by all observed teachers (17.3%). Not all teachers made attempts to incorporate referential questions in the lesson. It could be that referential ones often require more time and effort to be answered so teachers did not focus on this. The good point in using referential questions is that it limits the teacher talk and hence teachers could spend more time with individual pupils. With one referential question, teachers can ask some pupils because each one has different answer and the conversation is longer. For example: Teacher: Can you tell me some historical places in Vietnam? Have you ever visited Temple of Literature? What are special things about this place? Pupils seem to participate morein the lesson when they are asked referential questions because they have to try to give the full answer in their own way. 3.1.2 Results of research question 2 Q2: “What questioning strategies do teachers use?” Questioning strategies refer to strategies that teachers use to elicit verbal responses from pupils. The following categories were found in the data: (1) Rephrasing: A question is expressed in another way. For example” T: What is the name of the first Chinese spaceman? Ps: (silent) T: Who is the first Chinese spaceman? (2) Simplification: This may be regarded as a kind of rephrasing by means of which a situation is simplified so that pupils can cope with it. For example: T: What was the function of Temple of Literature? Ps: Ø T: Ok. What was it built for? This is an instance of linguistic simplification which pertains lexical substitution, i.e. “was built for” is used instead of “function”. (3) Repetition: A question is repeated in the hope that a verbal response will be elicited. For example: T: What is the last question? Ps: Ø T: (point to a girl) What is the last question? (4) Decomposition: An initial question is decomposed into two or more parts so that an answer may be obtained. For example: T: Now, the last sentence “It marked the beginning of Space Age”. Tien, make question for this sentence. Tien: Ø T: Ok! What does the word “mark” mean? Tien: It means “đánh dấu” T: What is kind of word family of “mark’? Tien: it is a verb T: Ok. What is your question? (5) Probing: A question is followed up by one or more other questions so that the teacher can solicit responses from a student. T: This sentence is True or False? Ss: False T: Why? Why is it false? Rephrasing Simplification Repetition Decomposition Probing T1 10 2 13 1 1 T2 10 3 11 2 0 T3 5 3 9 0 1 T4 12 3 15 3 3 Table 5. Number of questions asked by teachers under each category Through the classroom observation, it was found that teachers direct their questions to nearly all the pupils in the class. Generally, in English classrooms, teachers always let pupils answer their questions in four ways: 1) nominating; 2) chorus – answering; 3) volunteering; 4) teacher self – answering. There were about three or five pupils in each class who liked volunteering, the rest of the class usually kept silence. Therefore teachers always prefer calling or nominating the students to give answers. It is the way to make all pupils work. However too much nominating would make students more passive. Sometimes, in order to save time, teachers often answered the questions by themselves. In this way, students will become more dependent on their teachers. They expected to receive information passively instead of thinking about them actively. In addition, the classroom atmosphere would be duller. 3.1.3 Results of research question 3 Q3. What are the patterns of classroom interaction? Classroom interaction is different from interaction in other contexts. It is characterized by the inequality in turn – taking distribution. In normal classrooms the pupils are supposed to speak only to the teacher, and the teacher will address either all the pupils or a particular selection of them. This can be easily identified as there are three basic moves in the whole interaction. A move is the smallest contribution made to an interaction by any one particular at a time. An initiating move (I) A responding move (R) A follow – up move (F) In normal classroom the pattern is as follows: T: I P: R T: F In this way, the teacher makes two moves to each move of the learner; the learner is restricted to the responding move only. The findings of this study confirm the dominance of the IRF pattern of teacher – pupils discourse. This three parts structure of classroom conversations is illustrated below: T: Is that right? I P: Yes. R T: Yes. F In this exchange, the teacher asks a display question in the first utterance. It elicits an answer from the students in the second utterance, which is then evaluated positively by the teacher. Here is another example: T: Have you ever been to Van Mieu? P: No. T: No. In this exchange, the teacher’s referential question elicits a negative reply from the pupils. The teacher’s follow – up move acknowledges that this response has been heard. A record of the exchanges in the four lessons reveals that in all of them, initiative lies largely with the teacher. For example: 1. T: Make question for sentence 1. Who can? 2. Ps: Ø (silent) 3. T: Mùi. Can you? 4. P: What is the name of China’s first astronaut? 5. T: Is that right? 6. Ps: Ø (silent) 7. T: Is that right? 8. Ps: Yes. 9. T: Yes. Now move to the sentence 2. What is the question to ask the age? In this example, the teacher asked questions, and nominated pupils to answer them. She chose the topic for discussion, closed it and introduced another topic for conversation. In short, she was in complete control of turn – takings and the direction of classroom discourse. The students had no influence over its development. The submissive role of the pupils was also evident from the fact that in the four recorded lessons, no pupils took the initiative to seek clarification or check confirmation from the teachers. In addition, there was not a single learner question. There is no doubt that power distribution was unequal in all lessons. 3.2 Discussion 3.2.1 Types of teacher question and interaction Research question 1 reveals that in the lessons under this investigation, there is a tendency for the teacher to employ more display questions than referential question. The finding supports the conclusion made by Long & Sato (1983b: 217), Pica & Long (1996). In Long & Sato, Pica & Long’s study, they found that teachers used more display questions than referential ones in the classroom. Therefore, Long & Sato drew a conclusion that the second language classroom offered very few opportunities for the learners to practice genuine communicative uses of the target language. Pica & Long drew a similar conclusion that there was less negotiation of meaning in classroom settings and suggested that, as a result, there was less target language output. In a study undertaken by Brock (1986), he found that higher frequencies of referential questions asked by teachers would have some effects on classroom discourse: students’ responses to display questions would be shorter and syntactically less complex than their responses to referential questions; confirmation checks and clarification requests by the teacher would occur more frequently following referential questions than following display questions, and this would lead to more negotiation of meaning which is crucial to the target language acquisition. A teacher was encouraged to focus on the use of referential question in a communicative language lesson in order to relate the content of the lesson to the students’ own life. However, this study showed that the use of referential questions in four lessons was not successful as expected. Pupils did not produce more target language than being asked by display questions. Evenly, no pupils volunteered to give answers to referential question. The following is a typical example of what happens when the teacher asks referential questions: T: Have you ever been to the Temple of Literature? Ps: Yes. 9(some pupils say). T: What do you know about this place? Ps: (Keep silence) T: Any special about this place? Ps: (Keep silence) T: Ok. When was it built? Giang Giang: It was built in 1017 T: Ok. What was its function? The example shows that referential questions are less effective than display questions in eliciting pupil responses. First, they were asked more often to individuals than to the whole class. Second, it is possible that answers to referential question often require more time and effort, which may result in the lack of interest of other pupils. Moreover, teacher may not be patient enough to wait for the pupil responses. They paraphrase, decompose or change their question into more simple display questions and move to other pupils. On the other hand, the success of using referential questions depends much on pupils’ level as referential questions require longer and complex syntactical responses and relate to pupils’ life. If pupils lack general knowledge or vocabulary or structures, they will have difficult to express their ideas. Therefore, beside types of teacher questions, other factors that affect classroom interaction such as pupils’ attitudes towards questioning and answering behavior in the classroom and the questioning strategies used by the teacher; need to be considered, too. 3.2.2. Pupil attitudes and interaction. Pupil attitudes play a significant role in shaping the patterns of classroom interaction. Vietnamese pupils are considered passive and unconfident. They are reluctant to volunteer to answer questions in class although they know the answer. The observation shows that they like to give the answers in chorus or wait to be called up. When pupils are appointed to respond, they may prefer to hesitate and give short answer where possible so that they do not give their peers the impression that they are showing off. Another reason is that they are not confident. They are afraid of giving a wrong answer and being laughed or criticized by friends and the teacher. The results of this study indicate that the classes under this investigation are still teacher – centered classroom. Influenced by Vietnamese culture, the teachers still play a dominating role and hardly consider/take into consideration the learners’ needs. The teacher is more directive in making decisions about what goes on in the classroom. And pupils can talk when the teacher allows them to talk. Therefore the interaction in class is mainly one – way flow. 3.2.3. Questioning strategies and interaction If teachers are concerned with the quantity of the pupils’ output, it is not enough to just focus on the types of teacher questions. Questioning strategies must also be taken into consideration. An ineffective strategy is to ask a series of questions before a pupil is given the chance to speak. If this strategy is used, only the last question is likely to elicit any answer. The other questions are often ignored. For example: T: Have you ever been to Van Mieu Quoc Tu Giam? What is it? When was it built? What was its function? In fact, these series of question may confuse the pupils rather than help them to recall what they know. Two effective questioning strategies are identified in the data. The first one is decomposition. This involves breaking down an initial question into several parts so that a response may be obtained. The following example, which was quoted above, indicates how the strategy can help pupils to respond to questions they find difficult to answer. T: What is special about the Temple of Literature? Ps: Silent T: So, when was it built? P: In 1017. T: Yes. So is it the oldest university in Vietnam? P: It is the first university in our country. Another effective questioning strategy identified in the data is probing, which encourage pupils to elaborate on their answers. T: What is the ideal number of children in a family? P: One I think. Yes. You think one is enough. Why? P: No more fighting. T: No more fighting. Then, what other advantages do you think you may have, if you were the only child in the family? P: It’s quieter for my study. The teacher follows up her initial question with two related questions. This enables the pupil to have more chances to speak. Part three: Conclusion and implications for teaching 1 Implication for teaching. The small sample of teachers, pupils and school involved in this study can not generalize for all teachers, pupils and schools in Vietnam. However, a few implications for English teachers and teacher educators are worth discussing. First, both display and referential questions have important functions to perform in language teaching and learning, and will thus always have a place in the ESL classroom. However, the use of different types of teacher questions does not guarantee that the quantity and quality of classroom interaction will be improved. Attention must also be paid to questioning strategies, which this study suggests should be better made use to elicit oral responses from students and develop their grammatical competence. In this connection, Swain (1985) contends that for grammatical competence to develop, it is insufficient for learners to receive comprehensible input only. They must also be encouraged to produce output so that their hypotheses about their second language (L2) can be tested. She suggests that when learners produce output, they will pay attention to grammar or the means of expression. Sufficient output, then, will help learners improve their grammatical knowledge of L2. The question is “How can output be elicited from learners?” This study suggests that one way is through questioning. The analysis presented above demonstrates that referential questions do not necessarily lead to more output from learners, but appropriate questioning strategies, e.g. probing, do. The implication of this is that these questioning strategies should be fully exploited in the classroom to help pupils develop their grammatical competence. Teachers also need to know that in some classrooms, it may not be too helpful to expect a voluntary answer to a general solicit. Students, especially the shy ones, may need to be nominated, at least occasionally. Second, pupils in general seem to be reluctant to give answers voluntarily or enthusiastically. This implies that the traditional question – answer – feedback teaching model should be supplemented by (but not replaced with) an alternative pattern of discourse. One possibility is the use of pair work and group work, where students are given chances to engage in exploratory talk and negotiation of meaning. To conclude, this study demonstrates that pupil attitudes play a very significant role in shaping classroom interaction. One reason why some pupils in our class are reluctant to answer questions in the classroom is that they are afraid of being evaluated negatively by the teacher in front of their peers. To improve this situation, teachers need to know what follow – up moves are most constructive to second language learning and what are most harmful. This can be the subject for another piece of classroom – based research. 2 Limitations and further study. The fisrt limitation of the study comes from the limited population of the subjects. Four teachers in four classes is too small a figure. Besides that, the time of observation is a little short. Four periods is not long enough to collect a sufficient data. In addition, this research just covered only one aspect of teacher talk: teacher questions so this research does not provide an insight from the all – round perspectives. . It is need to do a further research that is concerned with the other aspects of classroom interaction besides the ones involved in this study such as teacher feedback, error treatment, group work, … References 1. Allwright, D. 1983. Classroom-centred research on language teaching teaching and learning: A brief historical overview, TESOL Quarterly, 17,2,191-204 2. Allwright, D. 1981. The importance of interaction in classroom language learning, Applied linguistics 5/2:157-71 3. Allwright, D., and K.M. Bailey. 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 4. Bailey, K.M. Classroom-centered Research on Language Teaching and Learning. In M. Celce-Murcia (de), Beyond Basics, Issues and Research in TESOL. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1985. 5. Brown, H. Douglas H. 1994. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey: Prentice hall. 6. Brock, C.A. 1986. The Efects of Referential Questions on ESL Classroom Discourse. TESOL Quarterly, 20(1) 7. Candlin, C. N. Communicative Language Teaching and the Debt to Pragmatic. In C. Ramch (ed), Greogetown University Roudtable Bulletin, 56 (1976) 8. Cazden, C. 1988. Classroom discourse: The Language Teaching and Learning. Portsmouth: Heinemann. 9. Chaudron, C. 1988. Second language classrooms: research on teaching and learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10. Cook, V. 2001. Second Language & Language Teaching. Second edition. OUP Inc. New York. 11. Costas Gabrielatos. 1992.Teaching Communication and Interaction Strategies. An action reseach project with Greek teenagers at intermediate level. The RSA/ Cambridge Diploma for Overseas Teachers of English. 12. Costas Gabrielatos. 1997. A question of Function. Teacher questions in the EFL classroom. The 18th Annual TESOL Greece Convention. 13. Ellis, R. 1985. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford University Press. 14. Gall, M.D.1970. The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research 40(5) 15. Kam -yin Wu. Classroom Interaction and Teacher Questions Revisited. RELC Journal . 24.(2) 16. Long, M. H. 1981. Input, interaction and second language acquisition in H. Winitz (ed). Native and foreign language acquisition: 159-78. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 17. Long, M. H. 1985. Input and second language acquisition Theory. In S. Gass and C. Madden (eds), Input and second language acquisition. Rowley. Mass.: Newbury House 18. Long, M.H & Sato, C.J. 1983. Classroom foreigner talk discourse: forms & functions of teachers’ questions. Classroom – oriented research in second language acquisition, ed by H.W. Seliger & M.H. Long. Newburry House. 19. Lynch, T.1991. Questioning Roles in the classroom. ELT Journal 45 (3). 20. M.R. Talebinezahd. (2004). Effective Questions . English Teaching Forum 37(2), from language programs/English Teaching Forum/ 21. Nematullah Shomoossi. 2004. The effect of teachers’ questioning behavior on EFL classroom interaction : A classroom research study. The Reading Matrix 4(2). 2004 22. Nunan, D. 1989. Understanding language teaching; making it work. ELT Journal 41(2). 23. Nunan, D. 1990. The questions teachers ask. JALT Journal 12(2). 24. Nunan, D. 1991. Language Teaching Methodology: a textbook for Teachers. Cmabridge: Cmabridge University Press. 25. Pica, T. and C. Doughty. 1985a. Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: Teacher-fronted vs. group activities, In Input in second language acquisition, ed. S. Gass and c. Madden. Rowley, Mass.: Newbury House 26 Pica, T. The Impact of Interaction on Comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 4: (1987). 27. Seliger, H.W & M.H. Long (eds). 1983. Classroom – oriented Research in Second Language Research Acquisition. Rowley. Rowley Mass. Newburry House. 28. Sinclair. J.M.H & Coulthard, R.M.1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford; Oxford University Press. 29. Redfield, D.L & Rousseau, E.W. 1981. A mental – analysis of experimental research on teacher questioning behavior. Review of Educational Research 51(2). 30. Richards, J.C & D. Nunan (eds) 1990. Second Language Teacher Education New York: Cambridge University. 31. Xiao - yan. (2006) . Teacher Talk and EFL in University Classrooms. From 32. White, J. & Lightbown, P. M. 1984. Asking & Answering in ESL Classes. The Canadian Mordern Language Review 40(2). 33. www.edb.utexas.edu/pbl/TIPS/question.html 34.. www.priceless-teaching-strategies.com/