Tài liệu Cơ hội học tập ngoại ngữ được tạo ra qua sự tương tác trong lớp học bởi giáo viên mới và giáo viên nhiều kinh nghiệm chỉ có phần mở rộng tạo ra cơ hội học tập

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHER EDUCATION GRADUATION PAPER L2 LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES IN CLASSROOM INTERACTION CREATED BY NOVICE AND EXPERIENCED TEACHERS: DOES ONLY F MOVE MATTER? Supervisor: Nguyễn Chí Đức, PhD Student: Bùi Quỳnh Trang Course: QH2014.F.1.E2 HÀ NỘI – 2018 ĐẠI HỌC QUỐC GIA HÀ NỘI TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ KHOA SƯ PHẠM TIẾNG ANH KHÓA LUẬN TỐT NGHIỆP CƠ HỘI HỌC TẬP NGOẠI NGỮ ĐƯỢC TẠO RA QUA SỰ TƯƠNG TÁC TRONG LỚP HỌC BỞI GIÁO VIÊN MỚI VÀ GIÁO VIÊN NHIỀU KINH NGHIỆM: CHỈ CÓ PHẦN MỞ RỘNG TẠO RA CƠ HỘI HỌC TẬP? Giáo viên hướng dẫn: Nguyễn Chí Đức, PhD Sinh viên: Bùi Quỳnh Trang Khóa: QH2014.F.1.E2 HÀ NỘI – 2018 I hereby state that I: Bùi Quỳnh Trang, QH2014.F.1.14E2, being a candidate for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (English Language Teacher Education) accept the requirements of the College relating to the retention and use of Bachelor’s Graduation Paper deposited in the library. In terms of these conditions, I agree that the origin of my paper deposited in the library should be accessible for the purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal conditions established by the librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of the paper. Signature Date 03/05/2018 ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS When I decided to conduct this research project, I was eager to prove myself and wished to experience as much as possible in this last project of my undergraduate life. However, reality struck me with hardship since day one, for my research skills were too weak, yet qualitative research was too much of a challenge to a student researcher. It was my supervisor, Dr. Nguyễn Chí Đức, who guided me through every step along the way slowly but firmly and enlightened me with his cool manner and his careful scaffolding when I got stuck. From him I have learned from the most basic concepts of a qualitative study to how to be a real teacher and most importantly, to believe that I am capable. Thanks to his guidance, I have achieved much more than completing this project. Though no words could explain my gratitude towards Mr. Chí Đức, I still want to send him my sincere thanks for everything that he had done to help me thrive and an apology for the difficulties that he had to endure to make my journey easier. I also want to thank all my supportive research participants in the University of Languages and International Studies, who had allowed me to join their classes as an observer despite all the inconvenience I brought. I could never have completed this study without them and I hope that they find my research findings beneficial to their teaching and learning in some ways. Special thanks also go to my Defense Committee, anonymous examiners for their contribution to the completion of this study, to my former research methodology teachers, Ms. Hải Yến and Mr. Hải Hà and my former research partners for giving me a good start with research and making me less diffident along the way. Next, my gratitude is extended to my closest friends, Thao, Duy, Ngan, and Phuong Anh, who never seemed to run out of kind words to cheer me up though they might be in much more challenging situations than I was. Finally, I send my gratitude to my beloved parents, who have been the pillars of support for me and my endless inspiration. This research is a reminder of their support and love for me. iii ABSTRACT This study investigates the interactional patterns of the novice and the experienced teachers in EFL classrooms and uncovers the difference of learning opportunities created from classroom interaction by each group of teachers. Through video taping and observing 10 EFL classes of English majored university students, the researcher examined the teachers’ employment of the IRF sequence (Initiation – Response – Follow-up) in their classroom talk. The study has found that due to the significance difference in the way the teachers used the IRF sequences in their talk, the experienced teachers were able to generate more learning opportunities in terms of cognitive development, lexical acquisition and lesson involvement than their novice counterparts. Moreover, not only teachers but also students were capable of creating learning opportunities for themselves when they are empowered. Also, the research recommended a new way to view the IRF sequence in future studies about classroom interaction. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.......................................................................................... iii ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 1 1. Background and statement of the research problems .......................................... 1 2. Research aims and research questions ................................................................. 2 3. Potential contributions ......................................................................................... 3 4. RESEARCH DESIGN ......................................................................................... 4 4.1. Sampling ........................................................................................................ 4 4.2. Data collection ............................................................................................... 5 4.3. Data analysis .................................................................................................. 5 5. Structure of the paper........................................................................................... 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................... 7 1. Classroom interaction and the IRF sequence ...................................................... 7 2. L2 learning opportunities from classroom interaction ........................................ 8 2.1. Definition of a learning opportunity.............................................................. 8 2.2. Learning opportunities created through the IRF sequence in classroom interaction ............................................................................................................. 9 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ...................................................... 13 1. Research Aims and Research Design ................................................................ 13 2. The research context .......................................................................................... 15 3. Research questions ............................................................................................. 16 4. Participants......................................................................................................... 16 4.1. Novice teachers ........................................................................................... 17 4.2. Experienced teachers ................................................................................... 18 4.3. Students ....................................................................................................... 18 v 5. Data collection instruments ............................................................................... 19 5.1. Video and audio recordings ......................................................................... 19 5.2. Observation ................................................................................................. 19 6. Data collection procedure .................................................................................. 20 6.1. Data collection phase 1................................................................................ 21 6.2. Data collection phase 2................................................................................ 21 7. Data analysis procedure ..................................................................................... 22 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 23 1. Key features in classroom interaction created by the novice and the experienced teachers .................................................................................................................. 23 1.1 Novice teachers ............................................................................................ 23 1.2. Experienced teachers ................................................................................... 27 2. Learning opportunities created through the interactional patterns by the novice and the experienced teachers ................................................................................. 35 CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATION ............................................... 39 CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION AND LIMITATION ............................................... 43 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 45 APPENDIX 1: TRANSCRIPT OF VIDEO DATA .................................................. 47 APPENDIX 2: SAMPLE SIGNED CONSENT FORM........................................... 54 APPENDIX 3: SAMPLE OBSERVATION NOTE ................................................. 55 vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EFL: English as a Foreign Language F: Follow-up I: Initiation L2: Foreign or second language R: Response S1: The first student S2: The second student Ss: Students T: Teacher vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Overview of the learning opportunities in the previous studies ................ 9 Table 2. Two groups of teachers and the number of classes observed in the research project ....................................................................................................................... 16 viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1. Background and statement of the research problems Most of the research in the field of language learning was constructed based on one idea that language development has a close connection with interaction according to Vygotsky (1978) in his Sociocultural Theory. Ellis (2000, as cited in Hall and Walsh, 2002) claimed that “Sociocultural Theory assumes that learning arises not through interaction but in interaction” (p.186). This means that our acquisition of language, thinking and communication skills comes from our daily social interaction (Hall and Walsh, 2002). In this way, if language classrooms are considered small communities where teachers and students interact, language learning stems from the interaction between them, especially in classrooms of a foreign language, where students have limited exposure to the target language outside of their language classrooms. This assumption makes the link between L2 learning and teacher-student interaction worth studying to uncover many language learning opportunities that might be created from this type of interaction. As language acquisition starts with interaction, learning opportunities that can be created within interaction are pivotal to foster L2 development. Within the field of classroom interaction, there has existed a line of research that focuses on investigating the application IRF sequence (Initiation – Response – Follow-up) as units of classroom talk. These investigations, which employed a quantitative approach to looking at learning opportunities created by classroom interaction, shared one similar conclusion that classroom interaction did not often create enough opportunities for students to learn. In a study on teachers’ use of positive feedback in the F move, Wong and Waring (2009) pointed out that the abuse of such a practice prevented learners from scrutinizing their answers and engaging further in discussion. Moreover, in another study that also focused on classroom interaction in an EFL class in China, when the teacher performed the IRF sequence strictly, very little teacher-student interaction happened and there was no room for 1 student-student communication. The teacher talk was found to account for 60 percent of the classroom talk, but the teacher failed to expand the teaching content and generated almost no episodes for negotiation of meaning (Wei and Jiang, 2013), which, in turn, took away many learning opportunities from students. However, some recent research projects that looked into the in-class employment of the IRF sequence proved that teacher’s interaction with learners in the class did facilitate students learning. Using follow-up questions after a student’s response, recasting his/her answers and/or having a longer waiting time prior to the F move all promoted students’ engagement in the lesson and enhance their highlevel thinking skills (Kim, 2010; Sert, 2017). These studies have touched upon a variety of aspects relating to classroom interaction but not yet on other factors such as context or student-student interactions. Besides, it is noted that previous research in this area has often centered on the F move rather than the I and the R move. Nor there has been much research relating to the comparison between novice and experienced teachers in their designation of classroom interaction. Therefore, this study is hoped to fill the gaps above and provide more insight into the areas that were often overlooked by previous studies. 2. Research aims and research questions This study aims at investigating the key patterns that feature the interacting style of novice and experienced teachers in their EFL classrooms and the difference between their interactional patterns. From these features, the learning opportunities created by the novice and experienced teachers will be uncovered and compared to see which group can generate more opportunities and why they are capable of that. These findings will be meaningful to me as a future L2 teacher since I can rely on the results of this study to identify my weaknesses and design suitable strategies to improve my teaching skills. This research is also hoped to help many other novice teachers working in a similar L2 teaching context in Vietnam and provide some 2 implications for teacher training course designers. Therefore, this study will seek answers to the following questions: 1) (a)What are the typical interactional patterns of novice teachers and experienced teachers? (b)What are the differences in these patterns of classroom interaction between the two groups of teachers? 2) (a)What are the learning opportunities generated from the classroom interaction created by the novice teachers and experienced teachers? (b)What are the differences in learning opportunities created by the two groups of teachers? 3. Potential contributions This case study focuses on a pool of teachers working in an English majored environment and teaching learners with a relatively strong language proficiency level. However, the findings of this research will not be restricted to a limited context of language specialized schools only. It is a common belief that learning opportunities are beneficial to students’ acquisition of a language regardless of their majors. Besides, the ability to encourage language learning is essential to all language teachers. Therefore, the results of this study can be transferred to other circumstances of universities where English is taught as a non-majored subject. In addition, this research project can also contribute to the development of pre-service and in-service teacher training programs. The result might raise the awareness of teacher training program developers about the importance of classroom interaction. On the other hand, in-service teacher training also gains certain advantages as the findings might point out some rooms for improvement in teachers’ interaction with students so that these teachers are able to brush up their skills and maximize the effectiveness of their teaching. 3 Regarding contribution to the research field of classroom interaction, this study is expected to bring more insight into the knowledge of teacher-student interaction and student-student interaction. This present study will attempt to view teacher talk with the IRF sequence and consider all three moves and their roles in classroom interaction. The results hopefully can fill in the existing gaps in the literature of this field. 4. RESEARCH DESIGN This research is a contrastive case study between a group of novice teachers and a group of experienced teachers in Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, ULIS. The study will compare the quantity and quality of learning opportunities which each group of teachers creates for their students. Therefore, in order to extract meaningful information from the data, the researcher will keep an open mindset when analyzing the data. 4.1. Sampling The sample chosen for this research is a group of four lecturers (two novice teachers and two experienced teachers) in Faculty of English Language Teacher Education, FELTE, ULIS. More specifically, the two novice teachers, have just graduated from university for one or two years and started their teaching at ULIS after their graduation. Both of them graduated with High distinction degrees and The two experienced teachers have had from five to twenty years of experience teaching in university. These four selected participants are currently working at English 1 Division, Faculty of English Language Teacher Education. The reasons for making teachers the main participants of this study are as follows. First, since teachers play a prominent part in forming classroom activities, for example, facilitators, assessors, or lecturers, their actions and talks in class are rich sources from which learning opportunities can be formed. Besides, due to their responsibility to engender as many opportunities for students to learn as possible, the ability to create such rich environment to nurture students learning is essential to all teachers and therefore worth investigating. 4 In addition, students in the classes taught by the aforementioned teachers will also participate in the study as a distinctive source of information, independent from that of the teachers. This particular group of participants only joins the study to provide evidence for teachers’ interaction with students and the influence of that interaction on the learning process. All the participants will be required to give consent to the use of their information, voices and images for research purpose only. 4.2. Data collection In terms of data collection, the researcher will observe and record three to four classes taught by each lecturer, which equals 10.5 to 14 hours of teaching. The collection of data will be in the form of 10 to 16 videos and about 24 to 32 audio recordings in total. There will be from 10 to 16 English lessons recorded from classes in the same academic year and with similar learning conditions and students’ level. The content of the lessons will not be predefined; instead, various lessons of all four language skills will be recorded and observed. Regarding data collection instruments, the researcher chooses video/audio recording and classroom observation as the three main instruments. The main data are expected to be recorded in form of videos, with all the interactions between teachers and learners during the each 3.5-hour lesson, which served as concrete evidence when analyzing the data. Second source of data is from audio recordings of students talks. These will be used to triangulate the results from video analysis that the learning opportunities found in classroom interaction help student acquire language and skills. Last but not least, classroom observation allows the researchers to subjectively record the progress of the whole lesson and later use these notes in transcribing and examining the data from video and audio recordings to prevent overlooking importance details. 4.3. Data analysis In terms of data analysis, all the data collected will be analyzed using grounded theory approach. First, all the video and audio will be transcribed into texts and closely examined to identify the patterns of any learning opportunities that 5 emerge from the data. These patterns will then be coded and classified into groups, which will be processed by the researcher and another coder to increase reliability, then compare with the literature to sort out the distinctive ones. After discovering the findings, the researcher will make implication and draw conclusion from the analysis results. 5. Structure of the paper This paper consists of six chapters. The first chapter, Introduction, provides an overview of the motivation to this study, research problems, research aims/questions and the potential contributions of the study. Next, I shall go on to state the overview of key concepts and theories relating to the field, define research gaps from a critical review of previous studies in Chapter 2, Literature Review. This chapter will also explain how the present study is expected to fill in these gaps. The next chapter, Methodology, will describe the whole procedure of this research project. The overall research design, research aim, research questions, the profile of the research participants, the methods of data collection and analysis will be explained in detail in this chapter. All the results of the above process will be reported in the Findings Chapter. In the Discussion and Implication chapter, the results will be further discussed and compared/contrasted with the findings of previous studies to explain how they fill in the aforementioned research gaps. New and unexpected results will also be analyzed if any in this chapter. Some implications for teacher training as well as recommendations for future studies will be highlighted in this chapter. Last but not least, the Conclusion will summarize the major research findings and also state some limitations of the study. 6 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, I will first provide definitions of key concepts in the present study before reviewing previous studies about different language learning opportunities created by classroom interaction and finally uncovering research gaps that this research project is expected to fill. 1. Classroom interaction and the IRF sequence Classroom interaction has been considered a fruitful field of research, as many researchers have explored in order to shed lights on this area. The most common framework that most research used might be the IRF sequence proposed by Sinclair (1982). He suggested that all classroom interactions follow the three basic moves, which are teacher’s initiation (I), student’s response ( R ) and followup (F). In the I move, the teacher introduces a task or poses a question to set off a discussion, which is followed by students’ response. The F move is where the teacher gives feedback and expands the conversation purposefully. Together they form an exchange, a unit of classroom discourse. In this discourse, teachers and students play the main roles of contributors. The teacher, to Sinclair’s belief, owns the I move entirely. The teachers are always in charge of giving instruction, asking questions and students respond to what is expected from the questions. The teachers then evaluate students’ answers by providing short, immediate feedback, or prolong the exchanges with more questions. It is the teachers who facilitate tasks, assign speakership and decide how much students can contribute to the lesson. The IRF sequence has been found prevalent in many language classroom discourses around the world. Previous studies have pointed out that, in most of the classrooms surveyed and observed, teachers always exert their control on the three moves of the IRF. When studying 14 English classes for university students in China, Jiang and Wei (2013), for example, found that teachers controlled at least 60 percent of the classroom talk. They lectured, explained tasks and asked questions, 7 thus giving students very little amount of time to answer to the point and they took the floor back either for evaluation or follow-up. This obstructed learners from contributing to the lessons and demotivated them from engaging in the lessons, as can be seen from the observation, most of the students did not make effort to involve in the lesson progress. 2. L2 learning opportunities from classroom interaction 2.1. Definition of a learning opportunity Learning opportunities created through classroom interaction have been defined in many different perspectives (Waring, 2008). According to Crabbe (2003, as cited in Xie, 2011), learning opportunities can be considered as “access to any activity that is likely to lead to an increase in language knowledge or skill” (p.241). Zhu (2016) defined learning opportunities through the lens of teacher-student interaction as “an opportunity that teachers and students can grasp, discover, create and maintain cooperatively in social activity, which may lead to learning”. Waring (2008) provided a more systematic review of learning opportunities in L2 learning in two categories which were the cognitive approach and the sociocultural approach. The cognitive approach (Long, 1996, as cited in Waring, 2008) considered learning opportunities as a process in which learners received input from the social interaction, processed information and produced output. The most typical example is the negotiation of meaning, when students get the opportunities to constantly process input and produce output in order to solve a problem. Next, Waring (2008) also defined learning opportunities in the light of sociocultural approach, based on Sociocultural Theory by Vygotsky (1978). Accordingly, a learning opportunity happened when learners participated in social interaction and performed certain roles either as initiators or the receivers of information. Therefore, less controlled conversations create better opportunities for students since they have more rooms for creativity. From the mentioned approaches, it can be observed that there are some similarities in the definitions. First, learning opportunities have a strong 8 connection to social interaction. Next, learners need to take the initiatives to perform an activity that promotes learning. Hence, it can be concluded that learning opportunities are incidents that students gain when they actively participate in interaction with others. Based on the nature of this study on classroom interaction, this definition based on sociocultural approach was adopted for the further investigation in the later part of the this research. 2.2. Learning opportunities created through the IRF sequence in classroom interaction There has been a myriad of research focusing on the learning opportunities generated from these three moves in a classroom of different cultures. In language learning, it is essential that teachers can create as many opportunities for their learners to expose themselves to the target language as possible. Learning opportunities Details (overview) Students Teacher’s questions (Kim, 2010), turn taking (Xie, 2011), participation limited wait time (Yaqubi & Rokni, 2012), positive feedback (Wong & Waring, 2009), teacher - students echo, willing to speak up Language Planned/incidental focus on form and focus on forms, knowledge Acquisition of new vocabulary (Dolson, 2014) Language use Negotiation of meaning Verbal and nonverbal interactions between students and teachers Thinking Teacher’s questions (Kim, 2010; Ong, Hart & Chen, 2016; Zhu, skills 2016) Self-reflection and self evaluation Table 1: Overview of the learning opportunities from the previous studies 9 Among many studies about classroom interactions and learning the second language, there are several learning opportunities that can be created by teachers or sometimes by students themselves in the F move to help students get familiar with the target language. Dolson (2014) studied teacher’s speech in a semester of a grammar and writing course for university students to see what kind of vocabulary students could have learned from their teacher’s speech. He stated that repetition of a language item, such as a word or a grammar point, could enforce students’ recognition of the form and meaning of the item. Later, when the student encountered the item again, there would be high chance that they were able to use the item correctly. Zhu (2016) argued that teachers’ questions “urged students’ negotiation of meaning and involvement in language use” (p.217). By answering teachers’ questions, the students gradually discover the meaning and form of language that they confused previously. Answering also involves using the target language with a purpose. Besides, Miri and Quassemi (2015) observed video tapes filming more than nice instructors of English for academic purpose classes and used stimulated recall to reveal how teacher’s language foster language learning opportunities. They also found that when teacher relied on translation to the first language, it created a negative habit in the learners who tend to depend on L1 and limit their own chance to expose to the target language. The teachers’ prompts were also believed to do wonder for students’ cognitive ability. Teachers’ clarification of ideas was able to force students to reconsider their answers, thereby improving their responses and also engage students in a deeper thinking process (Ong, Hart & Chen, 2016). They also claimed that when teachers required students’ elaboration of their initial answers, they also motivated students to examine their issues and perform a series of high-level thinking activities such as explaining and self-evaluating, which was beneficial in the development of critical thinking. The findings were well supported by other research that teacher’s questions to students were also considered promoting learners’ understanding of the subject knowledge (Kim, 2010). 10 In addition, teachers’ extended F move can improve students’ participation. Kim (2010) investigated two teachers’ questioning techniques and how their students’ participation and language use were influenced by teachers’ instructional practice. According to Kim (2010), teachers’ questions were able to engage learners in class sharing and positively affected student participation. Another factor that was believed to affect students’ engagement in classroom discussion was teacher’s wait time. Rokni and Yaqubi (2012) videotaped and observed ten English teachers in order to examine their wait time and its effect on students’ participation. They stated in their study that teacher’s limited wait time could reduce the amount of time student needed to produce quality answers or to contribute ideas fully. Longer wait time allowed students to arrange and elaborate on their answer and take and hold longer turns to participate in the discussion. The aforementioned studies have proved that the researchers of this field agreed that teachers’ F move could foster students language competence and cognitive thinking and strengthen their engagement in the lesson. Although there has been a diverse range of studies on the benefits of the F move in generating learning opportunities for L2 students, research that investigated the role of the teacher’s initiation and students’ responses or, in other words, the I and the R move remains relatively limited. Meanwhile, studies relating to classroom management of novice and experienced teachers were diverse. The scope of these studies was large, covering many aspects of teaching such as decision making, classroom management or lesson planning. In her study, Tsui (2003) concluded that experienced teachers had quick information processing, more efficient lesson planning and their responses to unexpected events in class were more flexible. Regarding classroom interaction, it has been mentioned that there has not existed any study comparing learning opportunities generated by each group of teachers for learners in the L2 classroom; therefore, the quality of the learning opportunities they created need more investigating. However, the amount of research that zoomed in the novice and experienced teachers in the area of classroom interaction was again rather limited. 11