Luận văn Investigating the relationships among these four variables in the ESL classroom in Ly Thai To school

mportant 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.